Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

Annual Report 

January I, 1995 to December 3 I, 1995 

Prepared by 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Sewice 

Zffice of Protected Resources 
JUN 1 3 1996 

The Honorable Larry Pressler 

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510-4102 

The Honorable Don Young 

Chairman, Committee of Resources 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515-0201 

Dear Sirs: 

UNITED BTATEB DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Natlonrl -h rrd A- Admlnimtmt&n 

NATIONAL MARS FISHERIES SERVICE 

1335 East-West Highway 

Shmr Spring. MO 2091 0 

THE DIRECTOR 

I am pleased to submit to you the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) Annual Report regarding the administration of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) from January 1, 1995, through 

December 31, 1995, as required by section 103(f) of the MMPA. 

The report addresses the conservation, management and research 

activities conducted by NMFS for the benefit of marine mammals, 

including whales, dolphins and porpoises of the order Cetacea and 

seals and sea lions of the suborder Pinnipedia. 

Sincerely, 

Rolland A. ~chtnitten 

Enclosure 

THE ASSISTANT AOMlNlSTRATOR 

FOR FlSHWES 
. i L ; <,- . 

. ,' Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 -, c,-;2 

Annual Report c a 

January I, 1995 to December 3 I, 1995 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopiasjubatus) bull on Ugamak Island, AK. 

Photo by: Thomas Loughlin, NMFSINMML 

Prepared by 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ]fl , 1 fl I-$ .,, ri-; ', 

: i;i ; National Marine Fisheries Sewice ill ;it 7 1; 1 i 

,; ,-. ;; 1: Office ;I; j of Protected Resources a' ..-. 

i ; Editor: Margot Bohan, FPR2 i - ---- - ! , , < '.:.?- r; ;:: 3.2,". 

-...- *A:- :.*,:---*.----. . 
Table of Contents 

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

Chapter ................... II . New Regime to Govern Interactions Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries 3 

Prohibition on Intentional Lethal Take ........................................................... 3 

Legislative and Regulatory History of the Section 118 Regulations ...................................... 4 

Definitions of Category I. II. and Ill Commercial Fisheries ............................................. 6 

Information Used to Classify Commercial Fisheries ................................................... 7 

Publication of the List of Fisheries .............................................................. 8 

Definitions of U.S. Commercial Fisheries in the List of Fisheries ........................................ 8 

Registration Requirements for Commercial Fishers .................................................. 8 

Reporting Requirements for Commercial Fishers .................................................... 10 

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

Exclusion of the Treaty Tribe Fisheries .......................................................... 10 

Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Rule Implementing Section 118 of the MMPA .................... 10 

Zero Mortality Rate Goal ..................................................................... I2 

The 1996 List of Fisheries .................................................................... 12 

Take Reduction Plans ....................................................................... I3 

Section 101aSE: Interim Permits for the Taking of Threatened and Endangered Marine Mammals ............. 13 

Outreach Program ......................................................................... 15 

Chapter Ill . Section 117: Stock Assessment Program and Reports .............................................. 17 

Overview ................................................................................. I7 

Summary of the 1995 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports ....................................... 18 

Regional Scientific Review Groups .............................................................. 21 

Take Reduction Teams ....................................................................... 21 

Stock Assessment Planning ................................................................... 22 

Chapter ................ IV . Dolphin Interactions With Commercial Tuna Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean 25 

Domestic Fleet ............................................................................. 25 

International Fleet: Yellowfin Tuna Embargoes .................................................... 25 
The La Jolla Agreement ...................................................................... 25 

Dolphin-Safe Research Program ............................................................... 26 

Chapter V . Marine Mammal Interactions with Other Human Activities ......................................... 29 

Small Take Authorizations ................................................................... 29 

California Sea Lion ("Herschel") Conflict with Wild Steelhead ........................................ 29 

Section 120: Pinniped Removal Authority ........................................................ 30 

Small Take Amendment-Incidental Harassment ................................................... 31 

Chapter VI . Conservation and Recovery Programs ........................................................ 35 

Steller Sea Lion. fumetop&s~ubarus ........................................................... 35 

Harbor Seals. Phoca vitulha .................................................................. 41 

Bottlenose Dolphin. Tursiopstruncatus ......................................................... 43 

Northern Fur Seal. Callorhinus ursinus .......................................................... 45 

Northern Right Whale. ~ubalaenaglac~a/~s ...................................................... 47 

Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise. Phocoenaphocoena ................................................ 52 

Hawaiian Monk Seal. Monachusscbauin~landl'. ................................................... 59 

Hump back Whale. Megaprera novaeangliae ...................................................... 63 

Eastern North Pacific Stock of Gray Whales. Escbrichtius robustus .................................... 67 

Chapter VII . Ecosystem Activities ...................................................................... 69 

Bering Sea Ecosystem Study .................................................................. 69 

Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Workshop ............................................................ 69 

Regionwide Pinniped-Fishery Interactions Study .................................................. 70 

lnteractjon of California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals with Salmonid Stocks ......................... 71 

Gulf of Maine Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force .............................................. 71 

Chapter VIII . Alaska Native Take of Marine Mammals ..................................................... 73 

Bowhead Whales ........................................................................... 73 

Steller Sea Lions and Harbor Seals ............................................................. 74 

Northern Fur Seal Subsistence Harvest .......................................................... 76 

Beluga Whales ............................................................................ 77 

Chapter IX . Permit Programs ........................................................................ 79 
Public Display. Scientific Research. and Enhancement Permits ....................................... 79 

Proposed Revisions to Permit Regulations ....................................................... 79 

1994 Amendments to the MMPA Permitting Process ............................................... 79 

Notable Permit and Authorization Requests ...................................................... 83 

Public Interaction with Marine Mammals in the Wild ............................................... 84 

Chapter X ......................................... . Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program 87 

Background .............................................................................. 87 

Stranding Networks ........................................................................ 87 

Unusual Mortality Events .................................................................... 89 . . Mon~tor~ng ............................................................................... 89 

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

Quality Assurance .......................................................................... 95 

Chapter XI International Programs and Activities ........................................................ 97 . 

The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources ............................... 97 

Large-Scale High Seas Driftnet Fishing .......................................................... 99 

International Whaling Commission ............................................................ 102 

U.S..Russia Marine Mammal Project. 02.05.61, under Area V of the Environmental Protection Agreement ...... 104 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) ................. 105 

Chapter XI1 . Litigation ............................................................................. 107 

Ongoing Legal Actions .................................................................... 107 

New Legal Actions ......................................................................... 109 

Chapter XIII . Publications .......................................................................... Ill 

Appendix A: 1995 List of Category 1-11 Fisheries 

(includes fishery description and list of marine mammals incidentally taken in each fishery) 

Appendix B: Summary of Marine Mammal Stock Assessments for Stocks under NMFS Authority 

Appendix C: ETP Dolphin Mortalities Incidental to Tuna Operations 

Appendix D: Public Display. Scientific Research and Enhancement Permit Requests and Authorizations 

Appendix E: Marine Mammal Strandings in 1995 
Chapter I. Introduction 

l-~~~~ i\l~nual Report to Congress regarding the 

dn1inistration of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(~lhll'~\ or Act) has been prepared pursuant to 

\rctiolls I03(0, 104(h)(3)(C), 1 IO(d) and 115(b)(3) 

of thr blh1l'A. 

.lAllc hlbll'il is the principal Federal legislation that 

Kultlc.s nlnrine mammal species protection and 

corlrcn,ation policy. The MMPA vests responsibility 

Jar most marine mammals in the Department of 

('o~~rrncrcc. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Atl~~lirlistrcrtion (NOM), 

N;l(io~l:il blsrine Fisheries 

Scn.icc (NMFS). Under the 

h1,\11'1\. NMFS is responsiI)lc Ii)r tllc management and 

r,ol\\t.n':ttir)n of species of the 

c~rcl1.r ( :ct:~cc:~ (ivhales and 

tlr~ll~l~ict\) and species, other 

tlr.111 \\,:~lrus, of the order 

('.~rnivorc~, suborder 

I'~~iriilwili;~ (seals and sea 

11011\1. 

i mnnagcment is 

.~tl~lrinistcred through 

NX11:S' Ilcgional Offices and 

Protected Resources oversees the administration of 

these activities. 

On April 30, 1994, the Act was reauthorized by the 

MMPAAmendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-238). 

These amendments introduce substantial changes to 

the provisions of the Act., incorporating 

recommendations from commercial fishers, 

conservation groups, public display institutions, 

scientific researchers, NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), MMC, animal protection groups 

and the Alaska Native 

Risso's Dolphin, Grampus grfseus, Gulf of Mexico. 

Photo credft C. Roden, NMFS/SER 

community. 

This report focuses on 

research and 

management activities 

conducted by NMFS in 

1995 relative to these 

amendments and their 

significance to the 

MMPA's goals re: 

resource management 

and marine mammal 

protection, in addition 

to providing an annual 

update on the programs 

I'~\llcrics Science Centers in not revised by the 1994 

~'~~f)t)cr:~rion \vth States, conservation groups, the Amendments. Copies of the MMPA 1995 Annual 

~'~ll~llc', ~thcr Federal agencies, the Marine Mammal Report are available from the Office of Protected 

1 ('rlllllni.;sion (hIILIC), and constituents, including Resources, NMFS, Building SSMC3, 13 15 East-West 

\c'lcntific researchers, the fishing industry, and the Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. ' lltihlic llispliy community. NMFS' Office of 

Page I 
Chapter II. New Regime to Govern Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries [Section 118 and IOIA5EI 

Robyn Angliss and Victoria Cornish 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act was amended by 

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

Tlie amendments replaced the Interim Exemption for 

Commercial Fisheries (section 114 - see chapter I1 of 

the MMPA Annual Report for 1994) with a long-term 

regime for governing interactions between marine 

mammals and commercial fisheries (sections 11 7 and 

1 18). This new program has been named the Marine 

Mammal Assessment Program (MMAP) by NMFS. 

Final regulations implementing this program were 

published in 1995, after considerable public 

involvement. 

The considerable effort required to prepare 

comprehensive regulations implementing Section 1 18 

was spearheaded by the MMPA Task Force, which 

consists of ltey NMFS and NOAA individuals and their 

associates in Regional Offices, Science Centers, and - 

Headquarters line offices, as well as representatives 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Box 

1). The formation of this cross-cutting national team 

allowed for timely submission of information and 

review of draft regulations, and greatly enhanced the 

ability of NMFS to meet the rigorous Congressional 

deadlines set forth in the 1994 amendments to the 

MMPA. 

The following chapter outlines the major tenets of the 

new regime under Section 118: the prohibition on 

intentional lethal take, the new regulations governing 

interactions between marine mammals and commercial 

fisheries, the categorization of commercial fisheries in 

the 1996 List of Fisheries, the marine mammal 

mortality information used to classify the fisheries, and 

the public outreach program. The stoclc assessment 

reports required by section 1 17 and prepared in 1995 

by NMFS staff provide a critical element of the new 

regime and will be addressed in detail in Chapter IV. 

Prohibition on Intentional Lethal Take 

Prior to 1994, fishers were exempt from any marine 

mammal take prohibitions if the talces occurred 

incidental to commercial fishing operations. This 

included actions talcen by fishers to protect their gear 

andlor fish catch from marine mammals. The 1994 

amendments to the MMPA contained a new provision 

to halt the intentional lethal talung of marine mammals 

(Section 118(a)(5)), although section IOl(c) was 

maintained to authorize intentional lethal talung if 

imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life 

of a person in immediate danger. 

NMFS promulgated regulations to implement the 

prohibition on intentional lethal talung on a faster 

schedule than regulations implementing the other 

provisions of Section 118. The proposed rule was 

published on December 8, 1994 (59 FR 63324) and 

the final rule was published on February 1, 1995 (60 

FR 6037). Comments on the proposed rule focused on 

the expansion of pinniped stocks on the east and west 

coast and their impact on salmon runs and aquaculture 

operations, and the lack of sufficient alternative means 

for protecting gear and catch. NMFS responded that 

the statute explicitly prohibits intentional talung of all 

marine mammals, regardless of the status of the stoclc. 

Alternative, non-injurious means for deterring marine 

mammals are being addressed in a separate set of 

guidelines, which NMFS published as proposed later in 

the year (May 5, 1995, 60 FR 22345). Comments on 

the proposed guidelines and the final guidelines were 

still under review by NMFS at the end of 1995. 

Final regulations prohibit the intentional lethal take of 

marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing 

operations. An exception is provided for an intentional 

lethal take imminently necessary in self-defense or to 

save the life of another pcrson in immediate danger. 

'The reg~~lations require that if a marine mammal is 

lcilled in self-defense or to save the life of another 

Page 3 
Chapter II.New Regime to Govern Interactions 

Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries 

person, a report must be made to the appropriate 

Regional Office within 48 hours after the conclusion of 

the fishing trip. The prohibition became effective on 

March 3, 1995. 

Legislative and Regulatory History of the 

Section 118 Regulations 

Prior to the 1988 amendments of the MMPA, 

commercial fishers could receive an exception from the 

MMPA's general prohibition on the talung of marine 

mammals by applying for permits and certificates of 

inclusion. The 1988 amendments added section 114 

to the MMPA, which provided an interim exemption 

for talung marine mammals to those commercial fishers 

who registered their vessels under the Marine Mammal 

Exemption Program (MMEP) and reported certain 

information in fisher's logbooks. The Marine Mammal 

Exemption Program, through observers and fisher selfreporting in logboola, allowed NMFS to collect 

information on fishery-specific levels of marine 

mammal incidental take that could be used to start a 

comprehensive management regime. 

The replacement of section 114 with Section 118 in 

the 1994 MMPA amendments established a new 

management regime for the talung of marine mammals 

incidental to commercial fisheries. Major tenets of this 

section were: to authorize commercial fishers to 

incidentally take marine mammals in the course of 

fishing operations if the fishers comply with 

registration, reporting, and other requirements of 

Section 1 18, to reaffirm that the reduction of mortality 

or serious injury of marine mammals incidental to 

commercial fisheries to insignificant levels approaching 

a zero mortality and serious injury rate is an underlying 

goal of the MMPA, and to prohibit all intentional 

lethal talung of marine mammals. Like section 114, 

Section 1 18 requires NMFS to classify commercial 

fisheries into three categories based on the level of 

serious injury and mortality that occur incidental to 

each commercial fishery. 

BOX 7 

MMPA TASK FORCE 

Office of Protected Northwest Reoron 

Resources Joe Scordno 

Tom Eagle 

Northwest Fishenes Scren 

Northsast Reoron Q&r 

Doug Beach John Stein 

Northeast Frshenes Science Office of the Senror Scienl 

- Center Steve Swam 

Davrd Dow 

Alaska Rearon 

Steve Zimmerman 

Southeast Reaion 

Jeff Brown 

mw 

Conservatron and 

Manaaement 

BIM Chappell 

Kathy Wang Office of Enforcement 

Alan MagerISteve Spmge 

Southeast Fishenes Sctence 

- Center 

Ben Blaylock 

Jeff Horwath 

Southwest Reoron Dale Hall 

Jrm Lecky Tom Olds 

Janet Hohn/Dave 

McGitlivary 

Scrence Center 

Jav Barlow/ 

LI; Edwards 

MMPA TASK FORCE ASSOCIATES 

Office of Protected 

Resources 

Robyn Anglrss 

Vrckr ~ornish 

Ken Hollrngshead 

Paul Wade 

Northeast Reaton 

Dan Moms 

Ktm Thounhurst 

Northeast Fishenes 

Scrence Center 

Gordon Wanng 

Davrd Potter 

Southwest Reoion 

Irma Lagornarsrno 

Alaska Reoron 

Bndget Mansheld 

Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center 

Doug DeMaster 

NOAA General Counsel 

Joel LaBissronrere 

Martin Freeman 

Page 4 
Chapter II. New Regime to Govern Interactions 

Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries 

Before the proposed regulations implementing Section regulations. A final definition is being developed and 

1 1 8 bvere published in the Federal Register, Nh,lFS held will be published in 1996. 

informal worlcing sessions in 1994, in Silver 

Spring, MD, and in Seattle, WA, to discuss the draft ~~fi~iti~~~ of injury and serious lnSu 

t,roposed regulations. Attendees at the worlung 

sessions included Congressional staff, representatives of It,jrcT, Under the old section 4, which was replaced conservation groups, members of several different by Section 18 and its implementing regulations, fishing industries, representatives of state governments, fisheries were classified based on the number of taltes 

a representative of the Alaslca subsistence community, that occurred incidental to commercial fishing and NMFS staff. Discussions and activities. "Talte" was defined broadly recommendations from these and included mortalities, injuries, and. 

sessions, in addition to written in some cases, harassment. Because 

comments received on the draft Section 1 18 focuses on impacts to 

proposed regulations and on the 

proposed changes to the list of 

marine mammal populations, 

fisheries, were very helpful in 

harassment is no longer considered in 

assessing impacts of commercial 

developing the fisheries. 

implementing regulations. 

Under Section 1 18, commercial fishers 

The MMPA Task Force in Category I and I1 must report all 

the proposed rule implementing injuries and mortalities that occur 

Section 1 18 in the Federul Register in 

Decal issued to-vessel owners incidental to commercial fishing. june of 19" (60 FR 666-3 696)' registered in the Marine Mammal NMFS defined "injury" very explicitly 'The proposed List of Fisheries (LOF) Authorization Program in the final regulations (CFR 9 229.2): for 1996, based on the proposed 

fishery classification criteria set forth "Injury means a wound or other physical harrn. Signs 

in the proposed rule, was published simultaneously. of injury to a marine mammal include, but are not 

An Environmental Assessment was prepared to provide limited to, visible blood flow, loss of or damage to an 

the data used to classify fisheries in the proposed LOF appendage or jaw, inability to use one or more 

appendages, asymmetry in the shape of the bodv or and to assess the impacts of the proposed regulations body position, noticeable swelling or hemorrhage. 

on commercial fishers. NMFS held 10 public hearings laceration, puncturc or rupture of eyeball, listless 

to receive comments on the proposed rule and LOF. appearance or inability to defend itself, inability to 

swim or dive upon release from fishing gear, a signs of NMFS received 28 oral comments during the public equilibrium imbalance. Any animal that ingests fishirg hearings and received over 70 written comments on gear, or any animal that is released with fishing gear 

either the proposed rule, the proposed LOF, or both. entangling, trailing, or perforating any part of he body 

will be considered injured regardless of the absence of 

any wound or other evidence of an injury." The final regulations implementing Section 1 18 of the 

MMPA were published I'n the Fe~2e~ul Htglster in August 

of 1995 and were in place when the regulations under 

section I I4 expired on September 1, 1995. The final 

List of Fisheries for 1996 was published in Ileccmber 

of 1996. Due to the large number of comments on the 

definition of the Zero Mortality Rate Goal, a final 

definition was not published in the final implementing 

Serious injuy. Under Section 1 18, NMFS must classify 

commercial fisheries based on the level of serious injury 

and mortality that occurs incidental to commercial 

fishing operations. The dichotomy between what the 

fishers must report ("injury and mortality") and what 

NMFS must base fishery classification on ("serious 

injury and mortality") is Iiltely due to recognition by 

Congress that not all possible injuries to marine 

Page S 
Chapter II.New Regime to Govern Interactions 

Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries 

mammals will be serious, cause the animal to die, and 

impact the population. 

In contrast to the definition of "injury", which was 

defined specifically, "serious injury" was defined 

broadly in the final regulations: 

"Serious inju~ means any injury that will likely result in 

mortality." 

Defining serious injury in this way allows NMFS to 

develop guidelines for which "injuries" may constitute 

a serious injury. Guidelines could either apply 

generally to all marine mammals injured in commercial 

fisheries, or could be species-specific, age-specific, gearspecific, or some combination of the above. 

Definitions of Category I, II, and Ill 

Commercial Fisheries 

NMFS must classify U.S. commercial fisheries into one 

of three categories under both the old section 11 4 and 

the new Section 118 of the MMPA. The MMPA 

indicates that category I, I1 and 111 fisheries are those 

that have frequent, occasional, or a remote lilcelihood 

of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals, respectively. Under the Interim Exemption 

Program (1988 - 1995), NMFS defined "frequent", 

"occasional", and "remote lilcelihood" in terms of the 

rate of marine mammal talten per vessel per 20 days. 

This definition was somewhat arbitrary and relied 

heavily on the collection of fishery effort information, 

as reported by commercial fishers. Because Section 

118 shifted the foc~ts onto impacts of commercial 

fisheries on marine mammal populations, NMFS 

redefined "frequent", "occasional", and "remote 

likelihood" (Category I, 11, and 111 fisheries, 

respectively) in the final regulations implementing 

Section 1 I8 to reflect this nelv focus. 

The new definitions of Category 1, I1 and I11 fisheries 

capitalize on another section of the hlbZPf\ as 

amended in 1994: Section 1 17. In this section, 

Congress mandated that NMFS prepare a Stoclt 

Assessment Report (SAIt) for cach marine rnammal 

stock that occurs in U.S. waters. Each SAR must 

describe the distribution of the stock, the population 

size and trends, the extent of human impact on the 

stock, the fisheries that interact with the stock, and 

the Potential Biological Removal level (PBR) calculated 

for each stock. The PBR is defined as the maximum 

number of animals that can be removed from a 

population while allowing the population to attain its 

Optimum Sustainable Population level. The PBR is 

calculated as the product of the minimum population 

size of the marine mammal stock, one half of the 

maximum rate of increase for that stock, and a recovery 

factor that ranges from 0.1 to 1 .O, depending on the 

status of the stock. 

The definitions of Category I, 11, and 111 fisheries in the 

final regulations implementing Section 1 18 focus on 

the impacts of commercial fisheries to marine mammal 

populations by comparing both the cumulative and 

individual fishery-related annual number of serious 

injuries and mortalities to the l'l3R for each species of 

marine mammal impacted by that fishery. This 

approach aclrnowledges that from a population 

perspective, one mortality of a western North Atlantic 

harbor seal (population is increasing) is not equivalent 

to one mortality of a Northern right whale (population 

is increasing, but species is endangered and consists of 

fewer than 400 animals). Further, this approach 

recognizes that fisheries that impact different stoclcs of 

marine mammals should bc subject to a different level 

of management for the conservation of protected 

species 

The definitions of Category I, 11, and 111 fisheries are 

listed in Box 2. Essentially, thc fishery classification 

criteria consist of a two-ticrccl, stock-specific approach 

that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on 

each marine mammal stoclc and then addresses the 

impact of individual fishcrics on each stock. Tier I 

considers the cumulative fishery mortality and serious 

injury for a particular stock, while Tier 2 considers 

fishely-specific mortality for a f~nrticular stoclc. NMFS 

goes through the following clecision process when 

assessing each fishery for tv1iic.h data are available: 

Page 6 
Chapter 11. New Regime to Govern Interactions 

Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries 

Tier: If the total annual mortality and serious injury 

across all fisheries that interact with a stock is less than 

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

fisheries interacting with this stoclc would be placed 

in Category 111. Otherwise, these fisheries are subject 

to the next tier to determine their classification. 

Crrtrpiy I: Annual mortality and serious injury of a - 7 

in a gwen fishery is greater than or equal to 50 

percent of the PBR level. 

Category 11: Annual mortality and serious injury in a 

given fishery is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 

percent of the PBR level. 

Gittgoy III: Annual mortality and serious injury in a 

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

PBR level. 

Exceptions to this classification scheme can be made if 

the data on which the classification is based are 

scientifically questionable. For example, if the 

coefficient of variation is unreasonably large for either 

the mortality estimates from an observer program, or 

for the population estimate on which the PBR is based, 

NMFS may determine the level of serious injury and 

mortality by evaluating other factors, such as the 

fishing gear type used or whether the fishing season 

occurs during a time of high marine mammal 

abundance. 

Information Used to Classify 

Commercial Fisheries 

NMFS may base its classification of commercial 

fisheries on a variety of different types of information. 

The best source of information on the level of fisheryspecific marine mammal incidental serious injuries and 

mortalities is a fishery observer program. Thus, if data 

BOX 2 -- Definitions of Cataaorv - .. I. II and Ill b 

Fisheries* I 

Category /' a commerc~al fishery w~th frequent Incidental 

mortallty and serlous lnjurles of manne mammals A 

commerccaf fishery that frequently causes mortal~ty and 

serlous Injury of manne mammals IS one that e by itself 

respons~ble for the annual removal of 50 percent or more of 

any stock's PBR. 

Category 11. a commerclal fishery with occas~onal Incidental 

mortal~ty ans serlous injury of marine mammals. A 

commercral fishery that occas~onally causes mortal~ty or 

serlous ~nfury of marlne mammals is one that, collect~ely w~th 

other fisher~es, is respons~blefor the annual removal of more 

than 10 percent of any marme mammal stock's PER and that 

IS by Itself responsible for the annual removal of between 1 

and 50 percent, exclustve, of any stock's PBR. In the absence 

of reliable lnforrnatlon tndlcatlng the frequency of inc~dental 

mortal~ty and sercous ~njury of marlne mammals tn a certaln 

fishery, NMFS will determlne whether there is "occasional" 

taking by evaluating other factors such as fishlng technques, 

gear used, methods used to deter martne mammals, target 

specres, seasons and areas fished, qualitatwe data from 

logbooks or fisher reports, strandlng data, and the specles and 

drstrlbutlon of marine mammals In the area. 

Category I/' a commerclal fishery that has a remote I~kellhood 

of, or no known lnc~dental mortallty and serlous ~n]ury of 

manne mammals A commercral fishery that has a remote 

Ilkellhood of causing lnc~dental mortal~ty and serlous Injury of 

marme mammals in one that coliect~vely w~th other fishenes IS 

respons~ble for the annual removal of 10 percent or less of any 

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

martne mammal stock's PBR, yet that f~shery IS by Itself 

respons~ble for the annual removal of 1 percent or less of that 

stock's PBR In the absence of rellable lnformatlon lndlcatlng 

the frequency of lncldental mortallty and serlous Injury of 

marlne mammals In a certaln fishery, NMFS will determlne 

whether there IS a "remote I~kel~hood of taklng by evaluating 

other factors such as flshlng techn~ques, gear used, methods 

used to deter marlne mammals, target specles, seasons and 

areas ftshed, qualltatlve data from logbooks or fisher reports. 

strandlng data, and the specles and dlstr~but~on of marlne 

mammals In the area 

The regulatory text at CFR 5 229 2 should be consulted for 

the full defin~t~ons for Category I, 11, and 111 fishenes I 
Chapter II.New Regime to Govern Interactions 

Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries 

from an observer program are available, NMFS will use 

this information to classify the fishery. However, 

because only a few commercial fisheries have been 

monitored by observer programs, other information 

may also be used to classify the fisheries. 

If data from fishery observer programs are not 

available, NMFS may also use fishers' reports, 

stranding data, logboolc data, alternative observer 

programs that use platforms such as aircraft and nonfishing vessels, and other sources of information to 

classify fisheries. 

Publication of the List of Fisheries 

Under Section 118, NMFS must publish a list of 

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

year that places all U.S. commercial fisheries into 

Category I, 11, or 111 based on the level of marine 

mammal incidental mortality and serious injury that 

occurs incidental to each fishery. Proposed changes to 

the LOF for the following year are published in the 

spring or early summer. Public comments received 

during the 90-day comment period will be considered 

when developing the final LOF, which is published 

during the late fall or early winter. 

For each fishery, the LOF must include the number of 

vessels or participants in that fishery and which marine 

mammals interact with that fishery. Because the focus 

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

mammals, any marine mammal that has been injured 

or ltilled in a particular commercial fishery is included. 

Definitions of U.S. Commercial Fisheries 

in the List of Fisheries 

The LOF published pursuant to Section 118 includes 

all U.S. commercial fisheries. Fisheries are defined by 

the broad or specific geographic area in which they 

operate, the gear type used, the method used, and the 

target species. NMFS will, whenever possible, define 

fisheries the way they are defined in Federal, regional. 

or state fishery management plans or programs. Using 

this process to define fisheries in the LOF will: 

reduce confusion caused by having multiple names 

for the same fishery; 

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

used by NMFS, fishers, and state and regional 

fishery managers; 

allow NMFS to more easily collect information on 

fishery statistics, such as the number of 

participants, target species landed, length of 

fishing season, etc.; 

help NMFS meet its statutory obligations by 

coordinating registration under the MMPA with 

existing fishery management programs. 

NMFS wrill continue to seek public comment on the 

optimum way to define commercial fisheries, and will 

modify the LOF as necessary to reflect changes in the 

fisheries of the United States. 

Registration Requirements for 

Commercial Fishers 

U.S. commercial fishers who participate in Category I 

or I1 fisheries in the LOF must register under the 

MMPA. Fishers must obtain a registration paclcet from 

NMFS and submit the application and the $25 fee to 

the NMFS Regional Office in which their fishery 

operates. NMFS will send the fisher an Authorization 

Certificate, program decal, and reporting forms within 

60 days of receiving the registration form and 

application fee. 

NMFS has successfully integrated registration under 

the MMPA with state fishery registration in 

Washington and Oregon and is actively pursuing 

integration with state fishery registration in Alaska and 

California. The benefits of integration have included 

an elimination of fees and a reduction in papenvorlc for 

some commercial fishers, and a reduction in paperwork 

that must be completed by NMFS. NhlFS will 

continue to integrate MMAP registration with existing 

state or federal fishery management programs where 

possible. 
Chapter [I. New Regime to Govern Interactions 

Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries 

N~IFS' hlaslca Region (AICR) has met 3 times with the 

/\laska Department of Fish and Game's Commercial 

Fishev Entry Commission (CFEC) since the beginning 

of 19j5 to determine the most feasible course of 

integrating the registration of vessels participating in 

(:ategory I and I1 fisheries under the MkWP with the 

~ommercial vessel licensing and fishery permitting 

svstems operated by the state. The Alaska Region 

currently has 12 Category 11 fisheries that operate in 

state waters, which include approximately 5,000 vessel 

owners and set net permit holders. The scenario 

, envisioned to meet the mandate in the MMPA to 

attempt to integrate existing registration systems and 

relieve the fishermen of additional papenvorlc required 

by the MMAP registration strives also to keep to a 

minimum any potential impact on the CFEC vessel 

licensing and fishery permitting systems. 

The CFEC was not able to accommodate the full 

registration integration for the 1996 fishing season due 

to their own program re-structuring last year, but did 

assist NMFS in providing a mailing list of commercial 

vessel license owners and fishery permit holders for the 

Category I1 fisheries. This list allowed NMFS to 

contact 5,000 fishery permit holders and 25,000 

commercial vessel owners and notify them of the 

ILlMAl' registration requirements. 

It has been determined that if the integration is to go 

fonvard, the CFEC would not be in a position to pass 

on to the fishermen the MMAP registration fee 

currently assessed by NMFS by raising state licensing 

and permitting fees to eventually pass money back to 

NMFS. State commercial vessel licensing and fishery 

permitting fees are set by legislative statute. In order 

to facilitate the integration, NMFS has agreed to drop 

the fee to the fishermen and pass funds directly to the 

state to cover the costs associated with the registration. 

The AICR is requesting the CFEC include in their 

computerized vessel licensing fishery permitting system 

a ~nechanism to allow automatic registration in the 

blMAP. The vessel license or fishery permit would 

contain language that stated that the holder was 

registered in the MMAP for a specific fishery. The 

CFEC would then turn the list of registrants over to 

NMFS, who would send follow-up information on the 

program as well as program decals to the registrants. In 

this way, fishermen in Category I and I1 fisheries would 

not be required to submit separate MMAP registration 

forms to NlMFS o: pay the $25 registration fee. 

The CFEC is currently deciding if they will agree to 

integrate the MMAP registration into their system. In 

order for the integration to be operating for the 1997 

fishing season, the bulk of the computer 

reprogramming must be completed by August 1, 1996, 

to meet CFEC internal schedules. 

Northwest Region's Progress on State-Federal 

Integration of Vessel Registration 

In the Northwest Region (Washington and Oregon), 

State commercial fisheries licensing agencies have 

agreed to assist NMFS with the issuance of Marine 

Mammal Authorizations for Category I and I1 fisheries 

conducted under State issued licenses or permits. In 

each case, this is possible because information collected 

during the State licensing process is adequate to fulfill 

the requirements of the MMPA and individual vessels 

can be identified as participants in the subject fishery. 

Under the agreements, NMFS will provide logistic 

support to the States for issuing Authorization 

materials (such as printed program information, 

certificates and reporting forms). The State licensing 

agencies will distribute the materials at the time of 

fishing license or permit renewal. The registration 

information on fishery participants will then be 

transferred to NMFS for inclusion in the national 

Marine Mammal Authorization Program database. For 

1996, the cost savings associated with the agreements 

resulted in the elimination of Marine Mammal 

Authorization regstration fees for participants in 

Category I and I1 fisheries licensed in Washington and 

Oregon. 

Page 9 
Chapter II. New Regime to Govern Interactions 

Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries 

Reporting Requirements for proposed to be allocated in 1996 for these fisheries. 

The 1994 MMPA Annual Report contains an appendix Commercial Fishers that lists the fisheries observed in 1989-1 994 and their 

Vessel owners or operators in Category I, 11, or III 

fisheries must report all incidental mortality and injury 

of marine mammals during the course of commercial 

fishing operations. Reports will no longer be made in 

logbooks, as was required under the old MMEP 

regulations. Instead, reports of marine mammal 

mortality or injury should be made on postage-paid 

forms provided by NMFS, and these forms should be 

sent to NMFS Headquarters. 

These reporting forms have been designed to be 

scannable by computers. Because a computer will 

electronically "read" the reporting form, data entry will 

be faster and summaries of reports will be more readily 

available. 

Monitoring Programs 

As with the interim exemption program under section 

114, Section 118 specifies that NMFS establish a 

program to monitor incidental mortality and serious 

injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial 

fishing operations. The purpose of fishery observer 

programs is to obtain statistically reliable estimates of 

incidental mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals in commercial fisheries, to determine the 

reliability of fishers' reports, and to identify changes in 

fishing methods or technology that may decrease 

incidental mortality and serious injury. 

Seven fisheries were observed in 1995 for interactions 

with marine mammals: the New England multi-species 

sink gillnet fishery, the Atlantic swordfish drift gillnet 

fishery, the Atlantic tuna pair trawl fishery, the midAtlantic coastal gillnet fishery, the Gulf of Alaslta and 

Bering Sea groundfish trawl fishery, the Washington 

coastal (Makah tribe) set gillnet fishery, and the 

California/Oregon thresher sharltJswordfish drift gillnet 

fishery. In addition, a feasibility survey of sevcral 

Alaska gillnet and purse seine fisheries was completed 

in 1995 to determine liow observer coverage will be 

associated levels of observer coverage, observed 

incidental serious injury and mortality by species, and 

estimated annual removal levels. Compilation and 

analysis of the 1995 data are still in progress. 

Exclusion of the Treaty Tribe Fisheries 

NMFS issued regulations implementing Section 1 18 to 

authorize the taking of marine mammals incidental to 

commercial fishing operations. However, because the 

rights to fish and hunt are provided separately for 

Northwest Indian tribes through treaties with the 

United States, and because the MMPA states that it is 

not meant to alter any part of a treaty, the NMFS has 

determined that the MMPA's mandatory registration 

system does not apply to treaty Indian fishers operating 

in their usual and accustomed fishing areas. Several 

Northwest Indian tribes have developed, or are in the 

process of developing, regulations for the management 

of tribal activities with respect to marine mammals. 

The tribes have agreed to cooperate with NMFS in 

gathering and submitting data on interactions between 

their fisheries and marine mammals so that the health 

of affected marine mammal stoclcs can be monitored. 

Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 

Rule Implementing. Section 118 of the MMPA 

To fulfill NMFS' obligations under NEPA, NMFS 

prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to 

examine the consequences of the proposed regulations 

implementing Section 1 18 on the environment and on 

the public. Because the goal of the MMPA is the 

protection and conservation of marine mammals and 

their habitats, NMFS determined that any regulations 

intended to implement the MMPA would impact 

protected resources in a positive manner. Thus, this 

part of the EA was minimized, and NMFS focused 

instead on the impact that the proposed regulations 

would have on the affected part of the human 

environment: the commercial fisheries. 
Chapter II. New Regime to Govern Interactions 

Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries 

N~~FS described many of the U.S. commercial fisheries 

in the EA. New information was synthesized on the 

scOSraphic range of the fisheries, the seasons during 

\vllicl~ the fisheries operate, what type of gear is used, 

1,utv the gear is fished, the number of participants in 

cc,ch fishery, what species of fish are targeted in each 

fishery, what type of management program exists for 

cllcl~ fishery, etc. This new information was primarily 

pthered by requesting licensing data from individual 

states, by telephone interview of state fishery managers, 

:,nd by reviews of interstate or Regional Fishery 

illanagement Plans and recent amendments to Federal 

Fishery Management Plans. 

The focus of the search for new information was on 

those fisheries for which NMFS had data concerning 

protected species interactions. In most cases, this 

meant that updated descriptions were provided for 

those fisheries placed in Category I or I1 under the 

Interim Exemption Program. However, new 

information was also collected for many fisheries that 

have historically been in Category 111. 

For each fishery described in the EA, NMFS presented 

information on the level of talces of marine mammals. 

Annual mortality levels of marine mammals in each 

fishery were averaged over the number of years for 

~vhich data were available (typically 1989- 1993). 

Observer data were used in the calculations if available. 

If observer data were not available for a particular 

fishery, logbook data, stranding data, fisher's reports, or 

Category I11 reports were included, in that order. 

Because the EA focused on the period after the 

implementation of the Interim Exemption Program and 

because information from 1994 was typically not 

available from the NMFS Science Centers and Regional 

Offices at the time the EA was drafted, only logboolc 

and stranding data collected from 1989 through 1993 

\\,ere used. Because the final Stoclc Assessment Reports 

\\,ere published after the EA was finalized, there are 

some differences between the two documents, and both 

should be consulted if information is being sought on 

marine mammal mortalities in commercial fisheries. 

Overall, the commercial fishery with the highest species 

specific rate of average annual incidental mortality is 

the New England multispecies sink gillnet fishery. 

Reduction of talces in this fishery has been the goal of 

the Harbor Porpoise Worlung Group for several years. 

Two other fisheries that had high occurrences of 

incidental mortalities were the large mesh drift gillnet 

fisheries targeting pelagic species such as tuna, 

swordfish. and sharlcs on both the Atlantic and Pacific 

coasts. These drift gillnet fisheries have large numbers 

of incidental mortalities of delphinid species (especially 

common dolphins), and incidental mortalities of whales 

(humpback and right whales in the Atlantic drift gillnet 

fishery; sperm whales and beaked whales in the Pacific 

drift gillnet fishery). Reduction of marine mammal 

incidental serious injury and mortality in these fisheries 

will be a major goal of the Tale Reduction Teams, 

which will be formed and convened in 1996. 

NMFS also provided information in the EA on the 

level of incidental mortality of seabirds and sea turtles 

in commercial fisheries. Based on observer data, sea 

turtle captures and mortalities were highest in the 

Atlantic large pelagics longline fishery. The data 

indicate, however, that while the number of captures is 

large (46 observed in 1992; 92 observed in 1993; 

extrapolated to 1773 captures in 1992 and 1561 

captures in 1993), the number of observed, confirmed 

mortalities is low (one mortality of a leatherbaclc turtles 

observed in 1992; 2 mortalities of loggerhead turtles 

Page II 
Chapter II.New Regime to Govern interactions 

Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries 

observed in 1993). Based on observer data, sea bird 

mortality occurs in all observed gillnet fisheries. High 

levels (> I000 per year) of total estimated sea bird lull 

have occurred in the New England multispecies sink 

gillnet fishery, the Prince William Sound salmon drift 

gillnet fishery, and the Bering SeaIGulf of Alaslta 

groundfish longline fishery. In addition, if it is 

assumed that the observed takes of sea birds in the 

California angel sharldset gillnet fishery are actually 

observed lulls, the total estimated annual lull of sea 

birds in this fishery would also be over 1,000 per year. 

The proposed definition of the ZMRG tracked NMFS' 

belief that this goal would be met for a marine mammal 

stock when the incidental mortality and serious injury 

from commercial fishing operations reach levels 

significantly below the stock's PBR. Once serious 

injury and mortality levels reach this low annual rate, 

the impact of commercial fisheries would have a 

biologically insignificant effect on the status of the 

affected stock. NMFS will continue to encourage 

commercial fishers to reduce incidental mortalities and 

serious injuries below this level. 

Zero Mortality Rate Goal The 1996 List of Fisheries 

The 1994 amendments to the MMPA requires that 

commercial fisheries reduce incidental mortality and 

serious injury of marine mammals to insignificant levels 

approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate 

within 7 years (by April 30, 2001). NMFS proposed a 

definition of the Zero Mortality Rate Goal (ZMRG) in 

the proposed regulations implementing Section 1 18. 

Because many comments were received on the 

proposed definition, and NMFS wanted to study some 

of the issues raised further, a final definition of the 

ZMRG was not published in the final regulations. 

In the proposed regulations for Section 118, NMFS 

proposed that the definition of the ZMRG be 

essentially the same as the definition of a Category 111 

fishery. Thus, under the proposed definition, those 

fisheries in Category 111 would have met the ZMRG 

and would not be required to further reduce incidental 

mortalities and serious injuries. This proposed 

approach has the following advantages: 1) ZMRG 

would be based on measurable, quantifiable criteria 

(annual level of incidental mortality and serious injury 

relative to the PBR), 2) the criteria would be 

conservative as they would be synonymous with 

Category 111, where there is a "remote liltelihood" of 

incidental takes, and 3) the stock-specific focus of the 

Act would be maintained. 

Public comments on this proposed definition will be 

addressed in the Fcderal ~ciiist; notice that announces 

the final definition of the ZMRG. 

A proposed List of Fisheries for 1996 was published in 

the Federal Register concurrent with the publication of 

the proposed regulations implementing Section 1 18 of 

the MMPA. This proposed LOF was based on the 

proposed fishery classification criteria described above. 

During July of 1995, NMFS held 10 public hearings at 

various locations to receive comments on the proposed 

regulations and the proposed LOF for 1996. Of the 86 

individuals who attend the hearings, 28 submitted oral 

comments on either the proposed regulations, the LOF, 

or both. In addition, NMFS received 23 written letters 

commenting specifically on the proposed LOF. 

The final LOF for 1996 was published on December 

28, 1995, and was in place when the previous LOF 

expired on January 1, 1996. However, in order to 

allow ample time for the registration of commercial 

fishers in the Marine Mammal Authorization Program, 

the previous LOF was extended until 3/1/96. There 

were several changes to the fisheries in Category I and 

I1 in the LOF in 1996 from the LOF published in 

I994/1995. The Alaslca Southeast salmon purse seine 

and the North Carolina haul seine, both previously in 

Category 111 were moved to Category I1 in the 1996 

LOF. Three new fisheries were placed in Category 11: 

the Oregon swordfishiblue shark surface longline 

fishery, the Alaska pair trawl, and the North Carolina 

roe mullet stop net fishery. Some fisheries were also 

moved from Category I1 to Category 111 in the 1'996 

LOF: the AIC southern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, 

Page I2 
Chapter II. New Regime to Govern Interactions 

Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries 

Western Gulf of Alaska sablcfish longlinelset line, 

:~nd the California/Oregon/Washington salmon troll 

fishery. 

Take Reduction Plans 

Pursuant to Section 118 of the 1994 MMPA 

;lmendments, NMFS is required to convene Talce 

I<eduction Teams (TRTs) for each strategic stock that 

interacts with a category I or I1 fishery. Each team's 

primary objective is to develop a plan for reducing the 

incidental mortality and serious injury to each strategic 

stoclc. 

Stoslcs that are determined to have incidental taltes 

that exceed the PBR are to be designated "strategic." 

(Section 117 of the MMPA requires that NMFS 

complete stock assessment reports for all marine 

rn:~nimal stocks within waters under U.S. jurisdiction. 

'fllcse stoclc assessments have to include a calculation 

of PBR.) In addition, stoclts that are declining and are 

liltely to be listed as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), or those that are 

currently listed as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA or are listed as depleted under the MMPA are 

designated "strategic stocks." 

The coordination process to form TRTs was initiated 

in 1995. Each team is to be made up of individuals 

who represent the variety of interested or affected 

partics from the commercial and recreational fishing 

industry, appropriate Regional Fishery Management 

Councils, interstate fisheries commissions, academic 

and scientific organizations, state officials, native 

Alaskans or other Native Americans if appropriate, and 

cnvironmental groups. NMFS contracted a facilitator 

group with expertise in environmental dispute 

resolution in September 1995 to compile the team 

participants. 

The contractor is also responsible for convening six (6) 

'r~lte Reduction Teams (TRTs) and facilitating their 

development of Take Reduction Plans (TRPs) during 

1996, for the following stoclcs of marine mammals, 

listed in order of priority: Gulf of Maine stock 

(population) of harbor porpoise; Atlantic offshore 

cetaceans; Pacific offshore cetaceans; and the Atlantic 

baleen whales (humpback and northern right whales). 

The development of TRTs for three other stocks; the 

Atlantic coastal stoclc of bottlenose dolphins; and the 

eastern and western stoclcs of Steller sea lions, is also 

being considered. 

During November and December, 1995, the facilitator 

was contacting individuals to participate on each of the 

TRTs. The first TRT meetings will convene in lateJanuary or February, 1996. 

Section IOla5E: Interim Permits for the 

Taking of Threatened and Endangered 

Marine Mammals 

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

of marine mammals listed as endangered or threatened 

under ESA incidental to commercial fishing operations, 

if it can be determined that: (I) incidental mortality 

and serious injury will have a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stock, (2) a recovery plan for that 

species or stoclc has been developed or is being 

developed, and (3) where required under Section 118, 

a monitoring program has been established, vessels are 

registered, and a take reduction plan has been 

developed or is being developed. 

In the proposed rule to implement Section 1 18 of the 

MhIPA (60 FR 3 1666, June 16, 1995) and the 

associated proposed list of fisheries (LOF), comments 

were requested that addressed (1) those fisheries that 

interact with species or stocks listed under the ESA and 

(2) information on the magnitude of the talces of such 

species or stoclcs found in the environmental 

assessment (EA) that accompanied the rule. These 

comments and NMFS's responses to the comments are 

included in the final rule to implement Section 118 

published in the Federal Register on August 30, 1995, 

(60 FR 45086). 

In order to determine whether commercial fishing 

activities are having a negligible impact on endangered 

Page 13 
Chapter II.New Regime to Govern Interactions 

Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries 

Fisheries in the 1996 List of Fisheries 

( Pacific Ocean I 

I Cateaow I 

CA angel sharwhalibut and other species large mesh 1 I (> 3 5in) set glllnet 

CNOR thresher sharklswordfish drlft glllnet I 

Cateaow II 

AK Prlnce Wlll~am Sound salmon drlfl gillnet 

AK PenlnsulaIAleut~ans salmon dnfl glllnet 

AK Pen~nsulaIAleut~an Island salmon set glilnet 

Southeast AK salmon drlfl gillnet 

AK Cook Inlet drlfl alllnet 

AK Cook Inlet salmon set glllnet 

AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet 

AK Kod~ak salmon set gillnet 

AK Brtstol Bay drlfl glllnet 

AK Brlstol Bay set glilnet 

AK MetlakatlaIAnnette Island salmon drlft glllnet 

WA Puget Sound Regton salmon dnfl glllnet 

CA anchovy, mackerel, tuna purse selne 

AK Southeast salmon ourse seine 

I AK pair trawl 

OR swordfishlblue shark surface longline 

I Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean I 

Cateaow I 

Atlantlc large pelaglcs palr trawl 

Atlant~c Ocean, Caribbean. Gulf of Mexlco large 

pelaglcs drlft g~llnet 

New England multlspecles sink glllnet 

Atlantlc Ocean. Caribbean, Gulf of Mexlco large 

pelaglcs longl~ne 

Cateaow II 

Mid-Atlantlc coastal glllnet 

Gulf of Malne small pelaglcs surface gtllnet 

Southeastern U S Atlantlc shark glllnet 

Atlantic squtd, mackerel, butterfish trawl 

North Carolina haul selne 1 North Carolina roe mullet stoo net I 

and threatened stoclcs of marine mammals, NMFS 

evaluated the total number of all incidental serious 

injuries and mortalities due to commercial fishing for 

each such stock, based on information included in 

final stock assessment reports and in the EA prepared 

for the implementation of Section 118 of the MMPA. 

Negligible impact, as defined in 50 CFR 228.3, is "an 

impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot 

be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably lilcely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects 

on annual rates of recruitment or survival." Because of 

the qualitative nature of this definition and limitations 

on available information, NMFS determined that the 

application of strict quantitative criteria for malung 

1 negligible impact findings was not appropriate. 

However, as a starting point, NMFS considered a total 

1 annual serious injury and mortality of not more than 

10 percent of a stock's PBR level to be insignificant, 

based on recommendations of a NMFS workshop held 

in June, 1994, to propose guidelines for preparing stock 

assessment reports. 

Such a criterion was not, however, the only factor in 

evaluating whether a particular level of talce was 

considered negligible. The information in the stock 

assessment reports and the EA had valying degrees of 

uncertainty, and factors other than PBR level (e.g., 

population trend) were also considered. Because the 

negligible impact determinations required some 

judgement based upon the available information, each 

finding indicated NMFS' best assessment of whether or 

not the estimated mortality and serious injury of 

endangered and threatened marine mammals incidental 

to co&mercial fishing operations adversely affects the 

species or stoclc through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. 

In order to determine which fisheries would receive 

permits under section 101(a)(5)(E), NMFS classified 

ESA-listed marine mammal stoclcs into three categories 

(60 FR 45399, August 3 1, 1995). These classifications 

and associated stoclcs are listed in Box 4. NMFS issued 

a general interim permit to fisheries in the first 

category (Appendix A), and will issue individual 

Page 14 

Chapter 11. New Regime to Govern Interactions 

Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries 

-AKR staff gave a talk on the MMPA and the 1994 

Amendments to a class on marine mammals at the 

University of Alaska. 

Page 16 
Chapter Ill. Section 117: Stock Assessment 

Program and Reports 

Paul Wade 

Overview 

,fl~e new section 1 17 (as amended in 1994) of the 

12.112.lPA requires NMFS and USFWS to prepare, in 

consultation with regional Scientific Review Groups, 

draft assessment reports for each stock of marine 

that occurs in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. 

.file agcncies are to make these reports available for 

public review and comment and prepare final stock 

:issessment reports based upon public comments and 

continued consultation with the Scientific Review 

Groups. 

'fhc MMPA requires that each stock assessment report 

curxtain several items, including (1) a description of the 

stock, including its geographic range; (2) a minimum 

population estimate, a maximum net productivity rate, 

and a description of current population trend, 

including a description of the information upon which 

these are based; (3) an estimate of the annual humancaused mortality and serious injury of the stock and, 

for a strategic stock, other factors that may be causing 

a decline or impeding recovery of the stock, including 

effects on marine mammal habitat and prey; (4) a 

description of the commercial fisheries that interact 

with the stock, including the estimated level of 

incidental mortality and serious injury of the stock by 

cach fishery on an annual basis; (5) a statement 

categorizing the stock as strategic or not, and why; and 

(6) an estimate of the potential biological removal level 

(PBR) for the stock, describing the information used to 

calculate it. 

The primary goal of the MMPA is to ensure that each 

stoclc of marinc mammal does not become depleted, 

i.e., reduced below its optimum sustainable population 

level. A stock which has a level of human-caused 

mortality that is likely to cause the stock to be reduced 

or kept below its optimum sustainable population 

would be classified as "strategic". A marine mammal 

stock is designated as strategic if (A) its level of direct 

human-caused mortality exceeds the potential 

biological removal level; or (B) it is listed as a 

threatened or endangered species under the ESA, or is 

designated as depleted under the MMPA; or (C) it is 

declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened 

species under the ESA within the foreseeable future. 

The consequences of being designated strategic are 

covered in Section 1 18 of the MMPA, which requires 

the formation of a TRT for each strategic stock which 

interacts with a category I or 11 fishery. These teams 

are required to develbp a take reduction plan for each 

strategic stock, with an immediate goal of reducing the 

incidental mortality and serious injury to levels less 

than the PBR. 

Section 117 also requires the formation of three 

independent regional Scientific Review Croups (SRGs) 

representing Alaska, the Pacific Coast (including 

Hawaii), and the Atlantic Coast (including the Gulf of 

Mexico). The Secretary of Commerce establishes the 

groups after consulting with the Secretary of the 

Interior, the Marine Mammal Commission, Governors 

of affected adjacent coastal States, regional fishery and 

wildlife management authorities, Alaska Native 

organizations, Indian tribes, and fishing industry and 

environmental groups. Members of the groups-must 

have expertise in marine mammal biology and ecology, 

populations dynamics and modeling, commercial 

fishing technology and practices, or marine mammal 

stocks taken under MMPA section IOl(b). These 

groups advise the Secretary on stock assessments, 

uncertainties and research needed on stocks, impacts to 

stocks, and methods to reduce incidental mor~ality in 

fishing operations. 

In 1994, immediately after the amendments were 

signed into law on 30 April, NMFS held a workshop on 

27-29 June at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

in La jolla, CA, to draft guidelines for preparing the 

stock assessment reports (called the PBR guidelines). 

NMFS completed the draft stoclc assessment reports, 

including preliminary consultation with the three 

regional SRGs, and made them available for public 

Page 17 
Chapter Ill. Section 117: Stock 

Assessment Program and Reports 

review and comment on August 9, 1994 (59 FR 

40527). The three SliGs held their first meetings 

jointly on 12-13 October, in Seattle, WA, along with 

NMFS personnel. The primary focus of that first 

meeting was to provide NMFS with comments and 

recommendations regarding the draft PBR guidelines. 

The public comment period on the draft stoclc 

assessments ended on 1 December, and these 

comments were compiled, summarized, and distributed 

to field offices and the SRGs for review in late 

December. 

information. Three of those documents contained the 

final stoclc assessment reports prepared by NMFS in 

each of the three regions covered by Scientific Review 

Groups: Alaslca (including the North Pacific) (Small 

and DeMaster 1995), the Atlantic coast (including the 

Gulf of Mexico) (Blaylock et al. 1995), and the Pacific 

coast (including Hawaii) (Barlow et al. 1995a). The 

fourth document contained the final PBR guidelines, a 

summary of the 1995 stoclc assessments, and the 

reports of the June 1994 PBR worlcshop and the 

October 1994 Joint Scientific Review Group (Barlow et 

al. 1995b). 

The 1995 Stock Assessment Process 

Summary of the 1995 Marine Mammal Stock 

From December, 1994, to February, 1995, NMFS 

consulted extensively with the SRGs to discuss the 

review groups' and public's comments on the PBR 

guidelines and the individual stock reports. The draft 

guidelines and stoclc assessment reports were modified 

in response to comments from the SRGs, the public 

(including non-governmental organizations such as the 

Humane Society of the U.S., the Center for Marine 

Conservation, and several Alaslca native organizations), 

and the Marine Mammal Commission. After 

discussions by NMFS scientists nationally, particularly 

authors of the stoclc assessment reports and members 

of the IMMPA implementation task force, the PBR 

guidelines were finalized near the end of February. 

The revised stoclc assessment reports were submitted to 

NMFS headquarters in March, 1995. These draft final 

reports were reviewed by NMFS headquarters staff 

from April to June, with a particular focus on ensuring 

that the PBR guidelines were consistently applied in all 

the reports. Additionally, the reports were sent to the 

regional SRGs for a final review. Comments resulting 

from these reviews were incorporated into the final 

stoclc Assessment reports, and their availability was 

published in the Fedel-(ll Registti- on 25 August, 1995 

(60 FR 44308). 

From Julv to September, four documents written by 

NMFS were published in the NOM Technical 

Memorandum series to malee available the 1995 

marine mammal stoclc assessnlents and rclated 

Assessment Re~orts 

Stock Definition 

For many species of marine mammals, stocks have 

never been clearly defined in U.S. waters. Therefore, 

the first task of pieparing the stock assessments was to 

define all stocks. Stoclcs of cetaceans were typically 

based on their lolown distribution within one of 5 

major areas of U.S. EEZ: the Atlantic coast of the 

continental U.S., the Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific coast 

of the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. These 

were reasonable stock areas for many species because of 

the different oceanographic habitats found between 

these areas, the large distances between these areas 

(especially in the Pacific), and because of the different 

fisheries that interact with marine mammals within 

these areas. Where additional biological information 

indicated a different stoclc structure was appropriate, 

smaller or larger stoclcs were defined. Such stoclts 

included Pacific humpback whales, beluga whales, 

Pacific killer whales, Pacific harbor porpoise, and both 

Pacific and Atlantic bottlenose dolphins. Pinniped 

stoclcs were typically defined by the area of their haulouts and rookeries. Where biological information - 

indicated it was appropriate, multiple stoclcs were 

defined for species, including the Steller sea lion, the 

northern frlr seal, and the Pacific harbor seal. 

Page 18 
Chapter Ill. Section 117: Stock 

Assessment Program and Reports 

A total of 145 stoclcs were defined for taxa that are 

under the authority of NMFS (see Appendix B), which 

are cetaceans and most pinnipeds (8 additional stoclcs 

of manatees, polar bears, sea otters, and walrus are 

under the authority of the USFWS). There are 60 

marine mammal stocks in the Atlantic and Gulf of 

blexico, 54 along the Pacific coast of the continental 

U.S. and Hawaii, and 31 in Alaslca or the North 

['acific. Further work on the definition of stoclc 

structure of many species was recognized as being 

needed, including Pacific and Atlantic harbor porpoise, 

I'acific killer whales, beluga whales, Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphins, and Pacific harbor seals. It is therefore 

anticipated that the number of stoclcs will change as 

additional information is collected and stock structure 

is revised. 

Stocks Designated Strategic Because of Incidental 

Fisheries Mortality 

Along the Atlantic coast of the continental U.S. there 

are 16 stocks that are strategic because their estimate 

of incidental fisheries mortality exceeds their calculated 

I'BR, out of a total of 34 stocks. Three of those 16 

stoclcs are also strategc because they are endangered or 

depleted. The Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise had 

fisheries mortality estimated to be 4.65 times its PBR, 

primarily in the New England multispecies sink gillnet 

fishery, which was also mainly responsible for the 

strategic designation of Atlantic white-sided dolphins. 

Mortality in the Atlantic drift gillnet fishery for 

swordfish, tuna, and sharlc was primarily responsible 

for the strategic designation of 13 other stoclcs of 

cetaceans. Significant mortality of some of these stoch 

also occurred in the Atlantic pair-trawl fishery and the 

iltlantic longline fishery which also target swordfish, 

tuna, and shark, and it is possible that there was also 

significant mortality in the Atlantic mid-water trawl 

fisheries for mackerel and for squid. Some of these 

stocks may be strategic only because of species 

identification difficulties and under-estimation of 

 bund dance; NMFS has planned additional research to 

:lddress these issues. The U.S. Atlantic coastal gillnet 

fisher), was thought to bc the source of incidental 

njortality estimated from strandings that exceeds the 

PBR of Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins, as well as 

being responsible for additional mortality of harbor 

porpoise. 

None of the 26 stoclcs in the Gulf of Mexico had 

estimates of incidental fisheries mortality greater than 

their PBR. However, the Gulf of Mexico stoclc of 

bottlenose dolphin (in bays, sounds, and estuaries) is 

strategic because it was co~ncluded that in most of the 

bays and sounds the take of a single animal would 

exceed that area's individual PBR, and there is 

documentation of stranded animals with evidence of 

fisheries entanglement in those areas. Additionally, 

Gulf of Mexico short-finned pilot whales are strategic 

because of their low population size and the 

documentation of fishery-related mortality in the 

longline fishery. 

Along the Pacific coast of the continental U.S., 7 

stoclcs out of a total of 34 are strategic because of 

incidental fisheries mortality that exceeds their 

calculated PBRs. Their incidental mortality is nearly 

exclusively from the CalifornialOregoWashington 

drift gillnet fishery for swordfish and shark. Two of 

these stoclcs are also strategic because they are listed as 

endangered under the ESA. 

None of the 20 Hawaii stocks or 3 1 Alaslca stocb have 

incidental fisheries mortality that exceeds their 

calculated PBRs. 

A list of all stocks that are strategic because of 

incidental fisheries mortality is provided in Box 5. 

Stocks Designated Strategic Because of Other 

Human-Caused Mortality 

The stocks of dwarf and pygmy sperm whales in the 

western North Atlantic were both designated strategic 

on the advice of the Atlantic Scientific Review Group 

because of stranding data indicating apparent mortality 

due to the ingestion of plastic bags, and because 

identification difficulties between the two species 

prevented the calculation of a separate PBR for either 

species. Additionally, they may interact with the drift 

Page 19 
Chapter Ill. Section 117: Stock 

Assessment Program and Reports 
Chapter Ill. Section 117: Stock 

Assessment Program and Reports 

gillnet fishery. Similarly, the stoclcs of dwarf and 

pygmy sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico were both 

also designated strategic because of apparent mortality 

due to the ingestion of plastic bags, and because 

identification difficulties between the two species 

pevented the calculation of a separate PBR for either 

Stocks Designated Strategic Because They are 

Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted 

Stocks that are Listed as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA or are designated as depleted under the 

MMPA are automatically designated as strategic. Blue, 

Fin, Sei, Humpback, Right, Bowhead, and Sperm 

whales were all listed as endangered in the 19701s, 

mostly because they were considered severely depleted 

due to commercial whaling harvests. There are 21 

stoclcs from these seven species in U.S. waters, and 

they are all therefore strategic (see Table 1). None of 

these stoclcs are (a) known to be commercially listed as 

depleted under the MMPA; (b) subject to subsistence 

harvests by Alaska Natives but where mortality and 

serious injury incidental to commercial fishing is absent 

or is a relatively minor contribution to total humanrelated mortality and injury; and (c) where indicated in 

the stoclc assessment reports, believed to have a total 

estimated human-related mortality that may not be 

sustainable over the long-term. 

Estimates for PBR and status determinations for such 

stoclcs will be determined from the analysis of scientific 

and other relevant information discussed during the 

Co-management process, and these will maintain the 

intent of best available scientific information and 

reflect the degree of uncertainty associated with the 

information obtained for these stocks. Three stoclc 

assessment reports were affected by these criteria, 

which were harbor seals in the Gulf of Alaslca and 

beluga whales in Cook Inlet and in Norton Sound. 

Regional Scientific Review Groups 

The primary responsibility in 1995 of the three 

regonal SRGs was to review the draft stock assessment 

reports, and this was the main focus of their meetings. 

As discussed above, they worked closely with NMFS 

personnel to revise and finalize the 1995 stock 

assessments. The SRGs held several meetings just 

before and during 1995 (see box 6). Also participating 

in the meetings were NMFS personnel from the field 

offices in each region and from the headquarters office. 

BOX 6 - - Scientific Review Group Meeting 

Schedule 

Dec. 13-1 5, 7994 2nd Pacific SRG meeting, 

La Jolla, CA 

Jan. 4-5, 1995 2nd Atlantic SRG 

meeting, Woods Hole, MA 

Jan. 4-5,11, 1995 2nd Alaska SRG meeting. 

Anchorage, AK 

Feb. 16-17, 1995 3rd Alaska SRG meeting, 

Anchorage, AK 

Apr. 4-6, 1995 3rd Pacific SRG meeting, 

Maul, HI 

Dec. 12-14, 1995 3rd Atlantic SRG meeting, 

Orlando. FL 

The SRGs have also provided specific advice to NMFS 

on what are high priority research activities to improve 

the stoclc assessments. In 1996 and beyond, it is 

anticipated that the SRGs will continue to provide 

advice, assistance, and guidance to NMFS during the 

review and revision process that the stoclc assessment 

reports will undergo. It is also anticipated that they 

will review Talce Reduction Plans for stocks within 

their regions, and contribute to identifying critical 

habitat for strategic stocks. 

Take Reduction Teams 

Talce Reduction Teams (TRTs) are required under 

Section 118 of the MMPA for each strategic stock 

Page 21 
Chapter Ill. Section 117: Stock 

Assessment Program and Reports 

which interacts with a category I or I1 fishery. 

Therefore, in 1995, the process of forming such teams 

was initiated. These teams are required to develop a 

take reduction plan for each strategic stoclc, with an 

immediate goal of reducing the incidental mortality 

and serious injury to levels less than the PBR. 

Six TRTs were proposed for the following 

fisheriedmarine mammal complexes: Gulf of Maine 

harbor porpoise, Atlantic offshore cetaceans, Pacific 

offshore cetaceans, Atlantic baleen whales, Atlantic 

coastal bottlenose dolphins, and Alaslca marine 

mammals. Initial meetings of the Gulf of Maine harbor 

porpoise, Pacific offshore cetacean, and Atlantic 

offshore cetacean teams were planned for FebruaryMarch 1996. Refer to Chapter I1 for further 

information regarding the formation of these teams. 

Stock Assessment Planning 

Review and Revision 

Section 11 7 requires the Secretary to review stoclc 

assessments at least (A) annually for strategc stocks; 

(B) annually for stoclcs with significant new 

information; and (C) once every 3 years for all other , , 

stocks. The stoclc assessment reports are required to be 

revised if the review indicates that the status of the 

stoclc has changed or can be more accurately 

determined. Furthermore, calculations of PBR include 

a minimum population estimate, which is required to 

be based on the best available scientific information on 

abundance, incorporating the precision and variability 

associated with such information; and, provides 

reasonable assurance that the stoclc size is equal to or 

greater than the estimate. As a stock's abundance 

estimate become old and thus out-dated, it will fail to 

meet this requirement of reasonable assurance if no 

information is available about the population trend of 

the stock. Recognizing this, the PBR guidelines 

requirement of providing reasonable assurance about 

the stock's size (see next section). 

NMFS has planned a worlcshop in April, 1996 to 

consider further the guidelines for preparing the marine 

mammal stoclc assessments. During this workshop it is 

anticipated that the details of the stoclc assessment 

review and revision process required under section 1 17 

will be established. 

Long-Term Planning of Marine Mammal Research 

NMFS has developed a preliminary long-term plan for 

marine mammal activities supported with MMPA and 

ESA funds. One important part of this planning 

process is the annual review and revision of a 

recommended three-year spending plan. This part of 

the long-term plan was first implemented in 1995 with 

the development of a recommended spending plan for 

fiscal years 1996-98. Research needs for improving 

stoclc assessments were a primary consideration in the 

development of the three-year plan. 

To aid in planning the frequency with which marine 

mammal surveys will be conducted, NMFS developed 

a suggested rotation schedule for abundance surveys. 

Threatened stocks of species such as the Steller sea lion are 

recommend malting downward adjustments to the automatically considered strategic pursuant to Section 117 of the 

recovery factor when abundance estimates are more MMPA. Photo credit: NMFS 

than five year's old. Therefore, NMFS has made plans 

to repeat abundance surveys periodically to meet this Each marine mammal stoclc was placed in a priority 

category using the following criteria: a high priority 

Page 22 
Chapter Ill. Section 117: Stock 

Assessment Program and Reports 

,V~S assigned if human-caused mortality was greater 

than PBR for a particular stoclc; medium priority was 

:Issigned to surveys for stoclcs with mortality > 10% of 

I'l3R; and low priority was given to surveys with 

n~ortality < 10% of PBK. A target survey interval was 

established for the three different priority categories: 

high (every 3 years), medium (every 4 years), and low 

(every 5 years). In addition to this general 

high priority was also given to 

abundance surveys for some stocks with mortality < 

I'BR, including surveys of endangered stocks, surveys 

of threatened or depleted stoclts where there is laown 

or suspected incidental mortality, surveys of unlisted 

but declining stocks, and surveys of de-listed stoclcs 

required as part of 5-year research and monitoring 

plans (e.g., gray whales). 

The draft survey schedule generated in this manner was 

the starting point for further discussions. Reasons for 

modifying the draft survey schedule included recovery 

plans requiring more frequent monitoring than decided 

upon for high priority stoclcs in general, ship or 

airplane availability in certain years, efficient use of the 

manpower of an individual science center in each year, 

and the desire to coordinate adjacent surveys carried 

out by different science centers. 

The survey rotation schedule was then used to develop 

the three-year plan. Similar prioritization and 

consideration was also given to other research needed 

for stock assessments and for the implementation of 

Take Reduction Plans, including stoclc structure 

studies, fishery observer programs, and by-catch 

reduction studies. The survey rotation schedule and 

three-year plan will be updated annually. In this way, 

NMFS can anticipate and provide new information 

necessary to revising the marine mammal stock 

assessments. 

Page 23 
Chapter IV. Dolphin Interactions With Commercial Tuna 

Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean 

Wanda Cain, Elizabeth Edwards, and Dana Wilkes 

~omestic Fleet International Fleet: Yellowfin Tuna Embargoes 

Five U.S. flag purse seine fishing vessels, each with a 

(arrying capacity of greater than 400 short tons, 

operated in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) in 1995. 

Since June 1994, the MMPA allows only tuna that are 

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

shipped or transported in the United States. Even 

though the U.S. market was restricted under the 

klMl'/\ to only dolphin safe tuna, the General Permit 

issued to the American Tunaboat Association allowed 

U.S. boats an incidental mortality of (lull) 105 

dolphins in 1995. 

U.S. law requires all U.S. purse seine vessels intending 

to fish in association with dolphin in the ETP to 

request a Dolphin Mortality Limit (DML) from the 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 

I\ boat is not required to have a DML if it fishes 

"dolphin safe" and does not target schools of fish found 

beneath dolphins. None of the U.S. vessels requested 

1I1\/ILcs from the IATTC at the beginning of the year 

but the five boats did request and receive DML's for 

the second semester. However, the U.S. fleet did not 

make any sets on dolphins in 1995 and the total 

mortality for 1995 was zero dolphins. 

Under the MMPA, the annual quota cannot exceed the 

number of dolphin mortalities which occurred under 

the permit during the preceding year. The MMPA 

requires that in each subsequent year dolphin 

mortalities must be reduced by statistically significant 

amounts, approaching zero by December 3 1, 1999. 

This means that there is no allowable mortality quota 

available to the U.S. fleet in 1996, regardless of DML's 

issued by the IATTC. 

By the end of 1995, the following five harvesting 

nations with purse seine vessels greater than 400 short 

tons (362.8 metric tons) carrying capacity harvesting 

yellowfin tuna in the ETP remained under primary 

embargo under the MMPA: Colombia, Mexico, 

Panama, Vanuatu and Venezuela. The MMPA 

requires that yellowfin tuna or products from yellowfin 

tuna caught in the ETP by purse seine vessels cannot 

be imported into the United States from any harvesting 

nation unless the Secretary has issued an affirmative 

finding. An affirmative finding is issued if the nation 

demonstrates that it has a marine mammal regulatory 

program and a marine mammal mortality rate 

comparable to that of the United States. Alternatively, 

a harvesting nation may request an affirmative finding 

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

Ecuador currently have affirmative findings as 

harvesting nations whose vessels do not set on 

dolphins. 

Under the MMPA, an intermediary nation is one that 

exports yellowfin tuna to the United States and also 

imports yellowfin tuna or yellowfin tuna products that 

are subject to a ban on direct importation into the 

United States. Three nations, Costa Rica, Italy and 

Japan, are currently subject to "intermediary nation" 

embargo. All yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna 

products are prohibited from importation into the 

United States from a nation under "intermediary 

nation" embargo. 

The La jolla Agreement 

The United States, as a member of the IATTC, 

participates in the Intergovernmental meetings (IGM) 

and the International Review Panel (IRP) meetings. 

The IRP was established by international agreement in 

1992 in La jolla, California, to review the performance 

of each of the vessels of the international fleet that 
Chapter IV. Dolphin Interactions with Commercial 

Tuna Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean 

participates in the yellowfin tuna purse seine fishery 

(La Jolla Agreement). The goal of this multilateral 

agreement is to reduce marine mammal mortalities in 

the fishery while sustaining the yield of tuna. 

Reductions in dolphin mortality in the international 

fishery have been achieved through the International 

Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) by the La Jolla 

Agreement. The overall annual Dolphin Mortality 

Limit (DML) set for the international fleet by the La 

Jolla Agreement through 1999, is allocated annually to 

vessels that meet certain criteria, including observer 

coverage, possession of the equipment required for 

releasing captured dolphins unharmed, agreement to 

adhere to IATTC standards regarding fishing practices, 

training of crew members in dolphin safety techniques, 

and monetary support of the IDCP observer program. 

Every vessel in the fishery is assigned an individual 

vessel quota based on the total number of vessels in the 

fishery for the year divided into the total DML for the 

year. The information collected by the required 100 

percent observer coverage is essential for scientific 

research and for ensuring compliance with the 

agreement. 

The IRP meets about three times annually and is 

charged with reviewing and reporting on the 

compliance of the international fleet with the La Jolla 

Agreement and veriFying the performance of individual 

vessels. The IRP is made up of representatives of 

governments, the fishing industry, and nongovernmental environmental organization. 

On October 4, 1995, the governments of Belize, 

Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, 

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

Vanuatu, and Venezuela met in Panama City to 

reaffirm the following commitments and objectives of 

the La Jolla Agreement: (I) progressively reducing 

dolphin mortality in the ETP to levels approaching 

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

a goal of eliminating dolphin mortality in the fishery, - - 

seeking ecologically sound means of capturing large 

yellorvfin tunas not in association w~th dolphins. 

These nations announced their intention to formalize 

the La Jolla Agreement as a binding legal instrument 

which shall be open to all nations with coastlines 

bordering the ETP or with vessels fishing for tuna in 

this region. This shall be accomplished by adoption of 

a binding resolution or other legally binding 

instrument. The adoption of the IATTC resolution or 

other legally binding instrument, that utilizes to the 

maximum extent possible the existing structure of the 

IATTC is contingent upon the enactment of changes in 

U.S. Law, specifically the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. 

The Panama Declaration would, among other things, 

establish: (I) through the year 2000 a per-stock, peryear cap of between 0.2% of the Minimum Estimated 

Abundance (Nmin) (as calculated by NMFS or 

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

in the year 200 1 a per-stock, per-year cap of 0. I % of 

Nmin; (3) a 5,000 total numerical cap on dolphin 

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

maximum annual DML co-nsistent with the per-year 

mortality caps. 

The countries agreeing to the Panama Declaration 

envisioned several changes to U.S. Law which would 

result in the lifting of current primary and secondary 

embargoes, and a change in the definition of "dolphin 

safe" to describe any tuna caught in the ETP purse 

seine fishery in a set in which no dolphin mortality 

occurred as documented by observers. 

Legslation pending before Congress at the end of 1995 

would implement all or some of the provisions of the 

Panama Declaration. Both the Senate and the House 

have hearings set for early 1996 to discuss the 

proposed legislation. 

Dolphin-Safe Research Program 

During FY95, NMFS's Dolphin-Safe Research Program 

awarded contracts for and oversaw completion of 3 

top-priority projects recommended during the previous 

year's Research Planning Workshop. These projects 

included I) acoustic signal propagation in the eastern 

tropical I'acific (ETP) marine environment, 2) acoustic 

target strength of schools of largr yellow tuna, and 3) 
radar location of tuna in the ETP environment. 

Contract results indicate that acoustic detection of 

large yellowfin tuna unassociated with dolphins in the 

ETP should be feasible with existing sonar systems, and 

that feasible ranges for radar detection of bird flocks 

can probably be doubled using larger antennas, but 

that radar detection of fish-associated surface 

disturbances is probably not feasible for locating 

submerged tuna schools. Optical detection methods 

received less attention during FY95 than in earlier 

Chapter IV. Dolphin Interactions with Commercial 

Tuna Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Ocean 

years, as longer-range detection methodologies were of 

greater current interest. 

Subsequent studies planned for FY96 include potential 

effects of proposed acoustic and optical detection 

devices on tuna and marine mammal physiology (i.e., 

hearing interference from acoustic detection systems 

and eye damage from optical (laser) detection systems), 

acoustic system design, and survey design for 

estimating distribution and abundance of unassociated 

large yellowfin tuna in the ETP. 
Chapter V. Marine Mammal Interactions with Other Human 

Activities 

Ken Hollingshead, Joe Scordino, Brent Norberg 

Small Take Authorizations 

Since 1982, the MMPA has provided a mechanism for 

authorizing, upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, talung of marine mammals by U.S. citizens 

who engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) for periods not to exceed five years 

per authorization. Before issuing regulations that allow 

the takes, NMFS must determine that the talces will 

not have more than a negligible impact on the species 

requested to be taken and will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the species for 

subsistence hunting. The regulations require the 

applicant to monitor the talung of marine mammals 

during the activity and to report the results to NMFS. 

During 1995, four specific activities had authorizations 

to incidentally take marine mammals under this 

provision of the MMPA. The authorized activities 

included (1) the talung of ringed seals incidental to 

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

taking of six species of marine mammals incidental to 

energy exploration in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas; 

(3) the talung of seals and sea lions incidental to the 

launching of Titan IV rockets from Vandenberg Pur 

Force Base, California; and (4) the talting of a number 

of species of marine mammals during ~ai~ ship shoclc 

trials off southern California. However, only the talung 

of ringed seals on the ice in the Beaufort Sea and the 

launching of Titan IV rocltets from Vandenberg were 

active during the year. No new regulated small talces 

applications were received in 1995. 

California Sea Lion ("Herschel") 

Conflict with Wild Steelhead 

Efforts to protect the 1995 season's wild winter-run 

steelhead at the Ballard loclts in Seattle from sen lion 

predation ended in June and are presently being 

evaluated by managers at NMFS. Although the 1995 

returns of wild steelhead are better than 1994, with 

final spawning escapement totaling 126 fish -- an 80% 

increase over the all time low return of 70 in 1994 -- 

the implications for any long-term run improvement 

are less certain. 

From December 5 to June 17, 1995, observers 

monitoring sea lion predation in the Lake Washington 

Ship Canal documented a total of 8 steelhead eaten by 

sea lions. The total estimated take was 11 wild 

steelhead, approximately 8 percent of the total wild 

run, significantly lower than the 50% to 65% predation 

rates observed from 1986 to 1991. This lower rate 

may be either the result of fewer available steelhead, 

which are down from over 1,000 per year prior to 

1992, or the effectiveness of the acoustic devices used 

in deterring sea lions from the prime "feeding" area at 

the entrance to the fish ladder. 

The 1995 predation control program was conducted by 

the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW) in conjunction with NMFS, in accordance 

with a Letter of Authorization issued to WDFW by 

NMFS under the MMPA. NMFS convened a 

Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force and 

conditionally approved the Taslc Force's 

recommendation to have WDFW lethally remove 

individually-identified sea lions. The principal 

condition specified by NMFS in its authorization was 

to place captured sea lions in captivity, allowing lethal 

removal only in cases where captive holding was 

unfeasible. 

A total of three sea lions were captured and held in the 

1995 season; they were later released. Sea lion #17, 

branded in 1989, was captured in Seattle on January 

25th and held in captivity during the 1995 steelhead 

run until June 8th, when it was released into the wild 

in the Channel Islands. A satellite tag applied to the 

animal tracked its movements to the Pacific Northwest. 

At last report, on August 29, the animal had migrated 

north past Oregon and Washington to Barlcley Sound 

on Vancouver Island, B.C. It is anticipated that #I 7 
Chapter V. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Other Human Activities 

will soon return to Puget and malce its way to the 

Ballard Locks. During captivity, # 17 increased in 

weight from 872 pounds when captured to 1,082 

pounds at the time of release. This was the only 

animal placed in captivity, although several others were 

identified as candidates for captivity if captured. One 

of those, #255, which had lulled three steelhead on 

February 8 (the most steelhead observed Idled on any 

single day), was captured on May 24 and, due to the 

lateness in the season, was not placed in captivity but 

rather transported to the Straits of Juan de Fuca and 

released. The same circumstances occurred with sea 

lion #87, the most frequently observed, identifiable sea 

lion at the Loclcs in 1995. Sea lion #87 was captured 

on June 17 and also released in the Straits. Both sea 

lion #87 and #225 were observed at the Locks later in 

June, feasting on downstream migrating smolts. 

Section 120: Pinniped Removal Authority 

The 1994 MMPA Amendments added a new section to 

the MMPA which, in addition to requiring NMFS to 

conduct two studies and report on interactions between 

Pacific Coast harbor seal and California sea lions and 

salmonid fish stocks, sets forth a process for 

authorization of intentional lethal talung of 

individually identifiable pinnipeds that are having a 

significant negative impact on salmonids that are either 

listed, approaching listing under the ESA or migrating 

through the Ballard loclcs in Seattle, Washington. 

In July 1994, NMFS received an application from the 

State of Washington requesting initiation of the 

Section 120 process to consider authorizing the 

intentional lethal taking of Califomia sea lions that are 

depredating a wild run of winter steelhead during their 

migration through the Ballard Locks. In September 

1994 the Ballard Locks Pinniped - Fishery Interaction 

Task Force was convened to review the available data 

and public comments, and to develop their 

recommendations on whether the application for lethal 

removal authority should be approved or denied. The 

Task Force submitted its report and recommendations 

for conditioned approval of the State's application in 

November 1994 and minority views were incorporated 

into the report in December. 

On January 4, 1995, NMFS issued a Letter of 

Authorization (LOA) to Washington State for the 

lethal removal of individually identified California sea 

lions from the Ballard Locks under certain conditions. 

Under the NMFS LOA, lethal removal of "predatory" 

sea lions was authorized provided non-lethal deterrence 

measures, such as an acoustic barrier, were 

implemented first. "Predatory" sea lions were defined 

as individually identified animals that had been 

observed preying on steelhead in the Lake Washington 

Ship Canal. In addition, lethal removal was only 

authorized if it was determined that adequate holding 

facilities were unavailable or if temporary captive 

holding, for the duration of the steelhead run, proved 

infeasible or impractical. Further, lethal removal was 

not to occur until the sea lion predation rate exceeded 

10 percent of the available fish in a seven day period. 

In addition, lethal removal would be suspended if the 

predation rate fell below 10 percent of the available 

fish for 14 consecutive days of fish passage. 

On January 24, 1995, the 10 percent predation rate 

"trigger" was exceeded and the lethal removal 

authorization went into effect. On January 25, 

"predatory" sea lion number 17 was captured and 

placed in a temporary holding facility for the duration 

of the steelhead run. On April 2nd, the lethal removal 

authorization ceased as 14 days of fish passage had 

occurred without any observed predation. Two 

additional "predatory" sea lions (numbers 87 and 225) 

were captured and relocated to the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca in May and June, following the cessation of the 

lethal removal authority. Sea lion number 17 was 

released to the wild on June 8, 1995. Based on 

observations at the Locks, the estimated steelhead 

mortality attributable to sea lion predation was eleven 

fish or approximately eight percent of the total 

reconstructed run size. An estimated 126 adult 

steelhead escaped to spawn in 1995. No Califomia sea 

lions were lethally removed under the 1995 LOA. It is 

noteworthy that sea lion number 17 returned to the 

Locks area in 1995 after spending the summer on the 

Page 30 
Chapter V. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Other Human Activities 

breeding islands off of southern California, and that sea 

lions 57 and 225 also returned following release. 

jn September 1995, the Ballard Loclcs Pinniped - 

Fishery Interaction Taslc Force was reconvened to 

,valuate the effectiveness of the lethal removal 

a~lthorization and alternative measures which were 

implemented as mitigation in the sea lion/steelhead 

conflict. In light of continuing and projected low 

numbers of returning adult steelhead, the Taslc Force 

voted I1 to 8 to recommend modifications to the 

conditions for lethal removal. The Taslc Force, citing 

information from the Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife that returning numbers are now so low 

that individual fish may be critical to the recovery 

process, indicated that no avoidable loss of steelhead 

from predation should be allowed. 

On November 8, 1995 the Taslc Force submitted its 

recommendations, along with minority views, to 

NMFS. The Task Force recommended that, for the 

1995196 steelhead run, a) sea lions which had been 

previously observed lulling steelhead should be 

removed either to permanent captivity or lethally if 

observed in area of central Puget Sound; b) newly 

identified sea lions observed talung salmon or steelhead 

after October I, 1995 should be removed to captivity 

for the duration of the steelhead run (if funding for 

captive holding is available) or be lethally removed; 

and c) sea lions observed foraging near the Locks, but 

not yet observed to have talcen a fish, should be 

removed to temporary captivity or relocated but not 

lethally removed. These recommendations were judged 

to be necessary because the Task Force believes that 

any predation event would have a significant negative 

impact on the steelhead recovery process. At the end 

of 1995, NMFS was still considering the Task Force 

recommendations. 

Small Take Amendment-Incidental 

Harassment 

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

1994 MMPA amendments (Public Law 103-238) to 

establish an expedited process by which citizens of the 

United States can apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by 

harassment. It established specific time limits for 

processing the application, for public notice and 

comment on the application and for issuance or denial 

of the authorization. 

On May 3 1, 199!i, NMFS published a proposed rule to 

amend the small take regulations (60 FR 28379) to 

implement the process for issuing harassment 

authorizations lvithout the need to issue specific 

regulations governing the talung of marine mammals 

for each and every activity. This rule would set forth 

the process for applying for and obtaining an 

authorization; the time limits set by the statute for 

NMFS review, publication, and public notice and 

comment on any applications for authorization that 

would be granted; and the requirements for submission 

of a plan of cooperation and for scientific peer review 

of an applicant's monitoring plans (if that activity may 

affect the availability of a species or stoclc of marine 

mammal for talung for subsistence purposes). The 

proposed changes to the existing regulations were made 

to clarify the requirements for obtaining a small take 

authorization. 

If implemented, this rule would result in a more 

streamlined and cost effective method for obtaining 

small talce by incidental harassment authorizations, 

without lessening the MMPA's protection of species 

and stocks of marine mammals. However, because of 

a request by the U.S. Navy to extend the comment 

period on the proposed rule for 120 days, the comment 

period for this rule did not close until October 20, 

1995. 

Under the new small talce provisions, during 1995, 

NMFS accepted applications from, and issued 

authorizations to, the following activities: (1) McNeil 

Island dock demolition by Washington State 

Department of Corrections; (2) Loclcheed Corporation 

for launches of the Loclcheed family of roclcets from 

Vandenberg Pur Force Base, California; (3) the U.S. Air 

Force for launches of McDonnel Douglas roclcets from 

Vandenberg; and (4) the Exxon Corporation for 
Chapter V. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Other Human Activities 

conducting a 3-D seismic survey in the Santa Barbara 

Channel, California. 

McNeil Island, Washington, Dock Demolition 

On January 20, 1995, NMFS issued a one-year 

Incidental Harassment Authorization to the State of 

Washington Department of Corrections to take small 

numbers of harbor seals by harassment incidental to 

the non-explosive demolition of the Still Harbor Dock 

Facility on McNeil Island in southern Puget Sound. 

NMFS and the State believed that the noise from the 

construction site would cause those harbor seals that 

come ashore at a nearby "haul-out" beach to leave the 

shore for the water. However, as the project was timed 

to avoid the peak pupping season, NMFS anticipated 

that the impact on harbor seals by this activity would 

be negligible under the Authorization which included 

monitoring requirements and mitigation measures. 

For comparison purposes, monitoring of the haul-out 

site was conducted during pre-demolition, demolition 

and post-demolition periods. A total of 363 incidental 

harassment takes were attributed to associated 

activities of the four month demolition project. 

Demolition related disturbances caused by contractor 

activities resulted in decreased numbers of harbor seals 

using the haul-out site when compared to predemolition counts. Following completion of the 

demolition activities, harbor seal numbers returned to 

pre-demolition levels. Due to budgetary constraints, 

the State has not begun construction of the new pier 

facility and, therefore, has not applied for a second 

authorization. 

Lockheed Corporation for Launches of Lockheed 

rockets from Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California 

On Iuly 18, 1995, NMFS issued a small take 

(harassment) authorization to Loclheed Environmental 

Systems and Technologies Company, Las Vegas, 

Nevada, to take small numbers of harbor seals by 

harassment incidental to launches of its family of 3 

space vehicles at Space Launch Complex 6, 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Based upon 

documentation submitted with the request, NMFS 

concurred with Lockheed that the launches will result 

in only negligible impacts to harbor seals located on the 

Vandenberg base and no impacts are likely at the 

pinniped haul-outs on San Miguel Island. To ensure 

that these determinations are correct, Lockheed will 

conduct shore-side pinniped surveys along South 

Vandenberg and will employ time-lapse photographic 

monitoring during the launch when observers are 

denied access to the beach. Acoustic monitoring will 

also be employed along South Vandenberg and on San 

Miguel Island. 

U.S. Air Force for Launches of McDonnell Douglas 

Rockets from Vandenberg 

On September 19, 1995, NMFS issued an incidental 

harassment authorization to the U.S. Air Force for 

harassment takes during launches of NASA/ 

McDonnell/Douglas' Delta I1 rockets from Vandenberg 

AFB, California. This authorization, which is valid for 

1 year, allo\vs the unintentional harassment by launch 

noises on harbor seals, northern elephant seals and 

California sea lions. No sonic boom effects are 

anticipated to harass pinnipeds on the Channel Islands 

since the noise over the islands would be less than 

ambient and therefore undetectable. The Ar Force will 

undertake monitoring and reporting similar to that 

imposed on Loclheed. 

Exxon Corporation for Conducting a 3-D Seismic 

Survey in the Santa Barbara Channel, California 

An Incidental Harassment Authorization was issued on 

October I I, 1995, to the Exxon Company to harass 

small numbers of cetaceans incidental to conducting a 

three-dimensional (3-D) seismic survey in the Santa 

Ynez Unit (SW), located in the western portion of the 

Santa Barbara Channel, California, in Federal waters. 

The authorization expired on December 31, 1995. 

Three-D seismic surveys have been in common use in 

U.S. waters for several years. Based on the best 

Page 32 
Chapter V. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with other Human Activities 

,,v,ilable information, NMFS has concluded that the negligble impact on these cetacean stocks; will not 

,,th~rization to harass small numbers of cetaceans: is have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability 

not lilcely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of these stoclcs for subsistence uses; and would result in 

listed species (as defined under the Endangered Species the least practicable impact on the stoclts. The short- 

,\,t); will not result in more than the incidental term impact from conducting these surveys may result 

tlamssment (as defined by the MMPA) of small in a temporary modification in behavior of certain 

numbers of mysticete cetaceans, sperm whales, and listed and non-listed whale species. 

possibly pygmy sperm whales; would have only a 

Page 33 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

P. Michael Payne 

Major Contributors: B. Ellaylock, D. Potter, L. Hansen, Jim Hain, 

S. Mello, S Mizroch, R. Small 

MMPA authorizes NMFS to initiate management 

,~tions, such as the development of conservation plans, 

for species or stoclts whose survival is in jeopardy. The 

ESA offers similar management authority to NMFS for 

endangered and threatened marine species. This 

chapter summarizes species management activities 

undertaken by NMFS pursuant to the MlMPA and ESA 

In 1995. 

Steller Sea Lion, Eumetopiasjubafus 

Section 7 Consultations 

draft Environmental Impact Statement and formal 

consultation on the project are expected in 1996; 

4. NMFS has consulted with the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) regarding a statewide NPDES 

General Permit for seafood processing waste discharge. 

Through the consultation process, EPA has established 

no-processing buffer zones around Steller sea lion 

rookeries and haulouts; 

5. NMFS has consulted with the Mineral 

Management Service regarding several OCS lease sales 

and exploration activities; 

With regard to proposed Federal actions that may 6, NMFS has begun consultation regarding a affect Steller sea lions, the ESA Section 7 consultation proposed roclcet launch site, which may have 

process continues be an part of the NMFS effects on a nearby Steller sea lion haulout; and 

llecovery Program. 

7. NMFS has been consulting with the US Forest Several important consultations occurred in Alaslca in Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the 1995: Department of Interior Solicitor's Office regarding the 

I. NMFS consulted with the Federal Aviation 

Administration on a proposed NEXRAD (next 

generation radar facility) on Middleton Island 

(consultation resulted in a project design expected to 

result in no adverse effects to sea lions and their use of 

the haulout on the island, and may provide additional 

information on sea lion use of this site). 

2. NMFS reinitiated and completed formal 

consultation on the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries. The new 

consultations summarized and evaluated the most 

recent available data on Steller sea lions and the 

fisheries. No new mitigation measures were 

determined to be necessary. 

3. NMFS has been consulting with the Federal 

Highway Administration regarding a proposed road 

from Juneau that could have serious impacts on a 

Steller sea lion haulout listed as critical habitat. A 

applicability of Section 7 to land transfers from the 

Federal government to the state of Alaslca or Alaslca 

Native Corporations under the Alaslca Native Claims 

Settlement Act and the Alaslca Statehood Act. In the 

past, these Federal agencies had not consulted with 

NMFS during land transfers, and thus, some critical 

habitat sites for Steller sea lions passed out of Federal 

jurisdiction without any consultation with NMFS. 

Proposed Reclassification Under the Endangered 

Species Act 

In an emergency rule issued on April 5, 1990, NMFS 

determined that the Steller sea lion was a threatened 

species under the ESA (55 FR 12645; see also, 55 FR 

13488, April 10, 1990). The final listing became 

effective on December 4, 1990 (55 FR 49294, 

November 26, 1990; see also, 55 FR 50005, December 

4, 1990). The species was listed throughout its range 

because of a precipitous decline in abundance. This 

Page 35 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

decline was concentrated primarily in areas near the 

Gulf of Alaslca and Aleutian Islands. 

Only a "species" may be listed as threatened or I 

Since 1990, NMFS and the Alaslca Department of Fish 

and Game (ADFG) have conducted monitoring surveys 

that indicate that the decline of Steller sea lions has 

continued throughout most of Alaska. Because of this 

continued decline, on November 1, 1993, NMFS 

initiated a formal population status review under the 

ESA to determine whether a change in its listing status 

as a threatened species is warranted (58 FR 583 18, 

November I, 1993). 

NMFS received sixteen comments in response to the 

status review notice. Based on these comments, 

recommendations from the Steller sea lion recovery 

team, and additional data collected by NMFS 

(including a summer 1994 population survey), NMFS 

issued a proposed rule and request for comments on 

October 4, 1995 (60 FR 5 1968). NMFS proposed in 

this rule that the western stock of the species (west of 

144" W longitude) be listed as endangered, while the 

eastern stock (east of 144" W longitude) remain 

classified as threatened. 

Recommendations of the Steller Sea Lion 

Recovery Team 

The Recovery Team was appointed by NMFS in 1990 

to draft a recovery plan for the species and to serve as 

an advisory body to NMFS on Steller sea lion research 

and management issues. On November 29-30, 1994, 

NMFS convened the Recovery Team specifically to 

consider the appropriate ESA listing status for the 

species and to evaluate the adequacy of ongoing 

research and management programs. In the course of 

that meeting, and in subsequent letters to the Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), the Recovery 

Team recommended that NMFS list the Steller sea lion 

as two separate population segments, split to the east 

and west of 144" W long. (a line near Cape Suclding, 

AIC). The Recovery Team recommended that the 

western population segment be listed as endangered 

and that the eastern population segment be listed as 

threatened. 

endangered under the ESA, although this term is 

defined to include any subspecies of fish or wildlife and 

any distinct population segment of any species of fish 

or wildlife that interbreeds when mature. On December 

, 2 1, 1994, NMFS and the USFWS issued a proposed , 

policy to clarify their interpretation of the phrase ~ 

'distinct population segmentv for the purposes of 

listing, delisting, and reclassifying species under the 

ESA (59 FR 65884, December 2 1, 1994). Although 

this policy is only a proposal at this time, it represents 

the best available guidance for interpreting the term 

"distinct population segment." 

NMFS proposed to use the criteria announced in the 

December 2 1, 1994 policy proposal to assess the 

presence of distinct populations of Steller sea lions. 

The proposed policy outlined three elements that 

should be considered in any decision regarding the 

status of a possible distinct population segment: 

discreteness of the population segment in relation 

to the remainder of the species to which it 

belongs; 

significance of the population segment to the 

species to which it belongs; and 

conservation status of the population segment in 

relation to the ESA's standards for listing. 

Under the proposed policy a population segment of a 

vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it is 

either marlcedly separated from other populations of 

the same taxon as a consequence of physical, 

physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors 

(quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 

discontinuity may provide evidence); or delimited by 

international governmental boundaries that are 

significant in light of section 4(a)(l)(D) of the ESA. 

The Former criterion is particularly relevant for Steller 

sea lions. 

Genetic studies provide the strongest evidence that 

distinct populations of Steller sea lions exist. Genetic 

samples from 224 Steller sea lion pups were collected 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

from rookeries in Russia, the Aleutian Islands, the 

,,,estern and central Gulf of Alaska, southeastern 

/uaSk3, and Oregon. Mitochondria1 DNA analyses of 

samples identified a total of 52 haplotypes (sets 

of alleles of closely linked genes that tend to be 

inherited together, uniquely identifying a chromosome) 

that could be further grouped together into eight 

lineages. Biclham et al. found a distinct break in 

haplotype distribution between the four western 

localities and the tcvo eastern localities. Cluster 

indicated that the eight lineages could be 

subdivided into two genetically differentiated 

populations, with the division at about Prince William 

Sound. 

Similar analyses were conducted from samples obtained 

from I I Steller sea lions on Afio Nuevo Island, CA, and 

seven haplotypes were identified. Six of these were 

identical to those identified from southeastern Alaslta 

and Oregon, and one was unique to Mo Nuevo Island. 

'raging and branding studies provide evidence that the 

breeding behavior of Steller sea lions probably reduces 

opportunities for genetic mixing among rookeries 

although Steller sea lions have been documented to 

travel large distances during the non-breeding season. 

The majority of females marked as pups, then later 

resighted as adults, have returned to their rooltery of 

birth to breed. The few resighted females observed 

breeding at roolteries other than their natal site were all 

at roolteries near their birth rookery. This apparent 

natal site fidelity not only reduces genetic mixing 

among rookeries, but it also makes it less lilcely that 

declining roolteries will be bolstered by recruitment 

from other roolteries. 

Population trend data provide further evidence of 

separation among these two population segments. The 

Steller sea lion population east of Cape Suclding (with 

the exception of the portion in southern California) has 

remained stable since the 1970s, whereas the 

population to the west has declined dramatically. 

Futhermore, the only brealt in the distribution of 

Steller sea lions along the Alasltan coast occurs in the 

Yakutat area, near the proposed longitudinal border 

that would delineate the western and eastern 

populations. A phylogeographic approach to discern 

population discreteness in Steller sea lions indicates 

that, based on an evaluation of distribution, population 

response, phenotypic, and genotypic data, Steller sea 

lions should be managed as two discrete populations, 

a western and an eastern population, with the 

separation line at about 144" W. long. 

Status of the Western Steller Sea Lion Population 

Segment 

Population Monitoring Data 

The western Steller sea lion population segment had 

suffered substantial declines prior to the 1990 ESA 

listing. Loughlin et al. (1992) estimate a 70-percent 

decrease in the number of adult and juvenile sea lions 

in this area between the 1960's and 1989. Since the 

1990 listing, Steller sea lion trend counts for the 

western population segment have shown a continued 

decline. The number of adult and juvenile animals 

counted at trend sites during aerial surveys has 

dropped from 30,525 in 1990 to 24,104 in I 994 (a 2 1 - 

percent decrease). 

Regionally Differing Decline Rates 

Counts of eastern and central Gulf of Alaslta (a 38- 

percent and a 36-percent decline, respectively) and the 

central and western Aleutian Islands (a 28-percent and 

a 13-percent decline, respectively) have shown the 

largest declines in adult/juvenile numbers since 1990. 

Counts of the eastern Aleutian Islands area and 

western Gulf of Alaska area have been relatively stable 

since 1990, while the Bering Sea regon has shown an 

increase in adultijuvenile counts since 1990. However, 

the eastern Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea regions 

declined substantially prior to 1990, and populations 

there remain only a fraction of what they were 20 years 

ago. 

Pup production has decreased since the 1990 listing. 

Overall, a decline of about 28-percent has been 

observed between pup counts made in 1989-90 as 

compared to 1993-94 (excluding the western Aleutian 

Page 37 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

Islands and Bering Sea where comparative counts are 100 years from the present, if either the 1985-94 or 

not available). Regional differences in the rate of 1989-94 trend continues into the future. The I<enaichange in pup production are apparent. Pup IGslca regional model predicted a probability of 

production in the central Gulf of Alaslca declined by extinction within 100 years of 100 percent from the 

49-percent between 1989-90 and 1993-94. The central 1985-94 trend data, and a probability of extinction 

and eastern Aleutian Islands also had large decreases in within 100 years of 65 percent if the 1989-94 trend 

pup production (a 19-percent and a 16-percent decline, data are used. 

Steller sea lions in the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea continue to 

decline in 1995. Photo credit: NMFS. 

respectively), while pup production in the eastern and 

western Gulf of Alaslca was relatively stable over the 

time period. 

Population Viability Analysis 

Steller sea lion abundance trends within the decline 

area were modeled to provide an estimate of the 

likelihood of extinction given the available population 

data. Using both the 1985-94 and 1989-94 population 

trends, two models were developed based on a 

stochastic model of exponential growth that required 

only count data and count variance to predict future 

trends. One model (an aggregate ICenai-IGska Island 

(trend sites) model) was based on the trajectory of the 

sum of the rool<ery populations within the area. The 

second model was based on a simulation of the 

population trajectories of individual roolceries in the 

ICenai-ICislca area. 

Both models predicted that the ICenai-ICisIca population 

would be reduced to low levels (<SO0 females) within 

Under all modelling scenarios during the next 20 years, 

assuming that observed rates of decline will continue 

independent of changes in density and that the current 

rate of decline is independent of environmental 

stochasticity, populations on individual roolceries are 

predicted to be reduced to low levels (mean size < 100 

adult females). These results indicate that, if either 

trend persists, the next 20 years will be crucial to the 

survival of the western Alaslca population. 

Conclusions Concerning the Western Population 

An analysis of the conservation status of the western 

population segment of the Steller sea lion in 

relationship to the standards for threatened and 

endangered status indicates that the western stock fits 

the criteria for listing as endangered under the ESA. 

Status of the Eastern Steller Sea Lion 

Population Segment 

Population Monitoring Data 

The 1990 ESA listing of Steller sea lions resulted 

primarily from the declines observed in the western 

population area; in the eastern population, a decline 

has been noted only in the California part of the range. 

Since the 1990 listing, trend counts of the eastern 

population segment show about a 17-percent increase 

overall in adult/juvenile numbers. Similar to the 

western population, regional differences in trends 

within the eastern population are evident. 

California experienced a large decline in Steller sea lion 

numbers prior to 1980; NMFS (1995) estimated a 

greater than 50-percent decline between about 1950 

and 1980. Some of the available data indicate that a 

Page 38 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

northward shift in the Steller sea lion range may be 

which may exacerbate the decline at 

rookeries. Steller sea lion counts in California 

hn\'e been relatively stable since 1980 (1980 count was 

982) although counts declined 19-percent from 1990- 

94 (from 1,123 animals to 915) (NMFS, 1995). The 

reasons for the historical decline in Steller sea lion total 

;,bundance and the current decline at southern 

locations in California is not laown. Causal factors 

under investigation include changes in prey base, 

possible effects of anthropogenic contaminants and 

disease, disturbance, and competition with other 

pinniped populations that are increasing in abundance 

in California, e.g., California sea lions, elephant seals, 

northern fur seals. 

Steller sea lion adultijuvenile counts at Oregon trend 

sites show a relatively large increase from 1990-94 

(from 2,005 to 2,696) but this may be, at least 

partially, due to improved counting techniques 

(NMFS, 1995). Steller sea lion adult/juvenile counts 

in Southeast Alaska increased IS-percent from 1990 to 

1994 (from 7,629 to 9,005), and pup counts increased 

by about 10-percent (from a mean of 2,568 in 1989-90 

to a mean of 3,701 in 1993-94). 

The British Columbia portion of the eastern population 

has also apparently been increasing slowly since the 

1970s. Reports from aerial surveys conducted by the 

Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans indicate 

that adult/juvenile counts at roolceries and haulouts in 

British Columbia increased about 10 percent between 

1992 and 1994 (from 7,376 to 8,091) (Olesiuk, pers. 

comm.). 

Criteria for Threatened Status and Conclusions 

Concerning the Eastern Population 

The overall trend of the eastern population segment of 

Steller sea lions since 1980 is stable to increasing 

although significant declines in the number of Steller 

sea lions occurring within California prior to 1980 have 

been documented. Population modeling to assess the 

viability of the eastern population segment has not 

been specifically conducted by NMFS. Since this 

population's trend has been stable to increasing, 

modelling, such as that conducted for the western 

population, would be expected to predict persistence of 

this population segment for the foreseeable future. 

Prior to the decline, the proportion of the U.S. 

population of Steller sea lions that resided within the 

eastern population area was less than 10 percent 

(NMFS, 1995). Because of the western population's 

decline, the eastern population's numerical significance 

has increased. NMFS (1995) estimates that the total 

U.S. population of Steller sea lions has declined by 73 

percent between the 1960s and 1994 (NMFS, 1995). 

Thus, although for listing purposes the western and 

eastern population segments may be considered 

discrete, the substantial population decline that has 

occurred in the eastern Gulf of Alaska through the 

Aleutian Islands represents a threat to the continued 

existence of the entire species, including the eastern 

population. The vulnerability of the eastern population 

remains a serious concern as long as the cause of the 

decline of the western population remains 

undetermined. These populations, while separate, are 

not isolated, and factors causing the decline in Alaslca 

could move eastward and pose a threat to the 

continued existence of the eastern population. In 

addition, the declining numbers of Steller sea lions in 

California, in the southern extremity of their range, is 

also of concern. 

An analysis of the conservation status of the eastern 

population segment of the Steller sea lion in 

relationship to the standards for threatened status 

indicates that this population remains vulnerable (i.e., 

the above mentioned third criterion of the proposed 

population policy was satisfied), but in a manner and 

to an extent that differs from the vulnerability of the 

western population segment. Likewise, the available 

data and information concerning the status of this 

stoclc indicates that the eastern population should 

continue to be considered threatened. 

NMFS proposed a separate listing for the eastern 

population of the Steller sea lion as a threatened 

species under the ESA. The eastern population 

Page 39 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

segment would consist of Steller sea lions from 

breeding colonies located east of 144" W. long. 

Quotas on Incidental Takings 

On April 30, 1994, the reauthorized and amended 

MMPA established a new regme to govern the take of 

marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing 

operations to replace the interim exemption program 

that was established by the 1988 amendments to the 

MMPA. Under the 1988 Interim Marine Mammal 

Exemption Program, up to 1,350 Steller sea lions were 

authorized to be talcen annually incidental to 

commercial fisheries and emergency regulatory actions 

were required if more than 1,350 animals 'were 

incidentally lulled in any year. The new MMPA 

management regme replaces the previous quota system 

and focuses on reducing the incidental mortality and 

serious injury of marine mammals from strategic stocks, 

i.e., those that are listed as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA, those that are listed as depleted under 

the MMPA, and those for which human-caused 

mortality exceeds the estimated potential biological 

removal (PBR) for the stock. 

Under this new regime, section IOl(a)(5) of the 

MMPA allows NMFS to authorize the take of 

threatened and endangered marine mammals incidental 

to commercial fishing operations only if, among other 

things, that take will have a "negligible impact" on the 

stock. In a separate action, NMFS has adopted the 

following definition of "negligible impact", found at 50 

CFR 228.3, for the purposes of malung this 

determination: when mortality and serious injury rates 

incidental to fishing operations are only a small portion 

(e.g., 10 percent or less) of the PBR, then the fisheries' 

take would be a negligible mortality factor for the 

affected stoclc or population. 

With regard to the western population of Steller sea 

lions, NMFS has estimated that 41 animals per year 

(Small and DeMaster, 1995) are talcen incidental to 

commercial fisheries operations. This estimate of 

commercial fishery annual incidental take from the 

western population is below 10 percent of the 

calculated PBR for this population (77 animals). Based 

on this it would be appropriate to conclude that talung 

incidental to commercial fisheries is having a negligible 

impact on the western population of Steller sea lions. 

With regard to the eastern population of Steller sea 

lions, NMFS has estimated that approximately 4 

animals per year are talcen incidental to commercial 

fisheries operations. This estimate of commercial 

fishery annual incidental take from the eastern 

population is substantially below 10 percent of the 

calculated PBR for this population of 1,059 animals. 

It is, thus, appropriate to conclude that talung 

incidental to commercial fisheries is having a negligible 

impact on the eastern population of Steller sea lions. 

Based on this negligible impact determination, and in 

light of the PBR determination and the overall 

continued declining trend in Steller sea lions, NMFS 

issued an Incidental Talce Statement (on August 25, 

1995) that authorizes, under Section 7(b)(4) of the 

ESA, the incidental mortality and serious injury in 

commercial fisheries of up to 77 Steller sea lions from 

the western population annually (west of 144" W. 

long.) and up to 106 Steller sea lions from the eastern 

population annually (east of 144" W. long.). 

Removals from the Eastern Population Segment 

Accurate data on incidental talces of Steller sea lions in 

other fisheries in Southeast Alaslca, Oregon, and 

California are not available, but estimates from 

available sources are low. Alaslca Native talces of 

Steller sea lions within the eastern population 

(Southeast Alaska) have been estimated at less than 10 

animals annually (Wolfe and Mischler, 1993; 1994). 

The calculated PBR for the eastern population of 

Steller sea lion is 706 animals, well above the current 

level of human-caused mortality. 

Proposed Determinations 

The best available information indicates that Steller sea 

lions should be managed as two discrete population 

segments and NMFS proposes separate listings of the 

Page 40 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

eastern and the western population segments of the 

Stcller sea lion for the purposes of the ESA. 

,\\qilable data on population trends indicate that the 

,vestern population of Steller sea lions is in danger of 

throughout all or a significant part of its 

range. This population had exhibited a precipitous, 

large population decline at the time that the Steller sea 

lion was listed as a threatened species in 1990, and has 

continued to decline since the listing. Although the 

precise cause(s) of the decline have not been 

determined, it is liltely that the current condition is 

(at~sed by a combination of the factors specified under 

section 4(a)(l) of the ESA. An endangered 

cl,~ssification appears appropriate for the western 

population of Steller sea lions. 

'l'he eastern population segment was originally listed as 

a thrcatened species in 1990 when the entire species 

was listed. The eastern population has exhibited a 

stable to increasing population trend for the last 15 

)(cars; however, NMFS believes that the large decline 

within the overall U.S. population threatens the 

continued existence of the entire species. This is 

particularly true since the underlying causes of the 

decline remain unknown, and thus, unpredictable. 

'l'herefore, despite the apparent stability of the eastern 

population segment, NMFS proposes to maintain a 

threatened listing for this portion of the geographic 

range. This proposed determination allows a 

differentiation between the two populations that 

aclcnowledges the different individual population 

trends, but does not lose sight of the overall trend for 

the species. NMFS, in conjunction with the Recovery 

-ream, will develop appropriate delisting criteria for the 

eastern population segment. 

Harbor Seals, Phoca vituliina 

Workshop on Population Assessment of Harbor 

Seals in Alaska 

A workshop was held November 14-16, 1995, in 

Fairbanks, Alaslca to review population assessment 

research on harbor seals in Alaska and to assess their 

current population status. Overviews and input were 

sought from a panel of scientists to address the 

following basic question: What level of population 

change do we wish to detect over which geographic 

areas in how much time and with what level of 

certainty? 

The following recommendations from the worlcshop 

were based on discussions on the following topics: 

stock structure and current status of seals in Alaska, 

survey design and correction factors, trend sites: 

molting vs. pupping, and Alaslcan Native issues. 

The status and trends of harbor seals in Alaska were the focus of a 

population assessment workshop held in 1995. Photo credit: NMFS 

Summary And List of Recommendations 

The general principles of survey design were presented 

and discussed, followed by examples from current 

research, in particular, from Prince William Sound 

(PWS). Overall, the current approach of conducting 

annual surveys with approximately 7 replicates was 

considered appropriate. However, more detailed 

analyses of existing count data outside of PWS are 

needed to determine if this survey design should be 

modified. The application of the Poisson regression 

model has provided insight on how to account for a 

substantial portion of the variance associated with 

trend counts: this statistical techniaue should be 

utilized whenever possible in future analyses. The 

establishment of new trend site surveys was 

recommended, with the Northeast Gulf of Alaslca and 

Page 41 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

the Bering Sea the two areas of highest priority. A 

central database will be established at the NMML and 

data collection protocol will be standardized following 

NMFS and ADF&G formats. Additional correction 

factor estimates are needed, especially from glacial ice 

and rocly substrates in the Gulf of Alaska. Discussion 

with the Alaslcan Native Community on issues related 

to harbor seal population assessment should continue 

through the Alaskan Native Harbor Seal Commission. 

Specific recommendations were as follows: 

I. Examine current survey routes to ensure trend 

sites within each route are stratified by haulout 

substrate and the number of seals at the haulout sites, 

and such that approximately the same percentage of 

seals are counted among the different survey routes. 

Explore the use of statistical models that do not assume 

independence among sites, such that an estimate of 

covariance among sites may be calculated and 

incorporated into the overall estimate of variance. 

2. For the purpose of population assessment, 

discontinue pupping counts unless future analyses of 

existing pupping count data demonstrate they exhibit 

precision and statistical power comparable to molting 

counts. 

3. To determine the quality of trend count data 

relative to the assessment of population trend, analyze 

all existing trend count data to account for variability 

due to environmental factors (e.g., date, tide, time) 

followed by a power analysis. Comparison of trends 

between different substrates, especially rocky vs. glacial 

ice, within the same survey route is needed. The 

completion of such analyses are required to determine 

if the current survey design should be modified, and 

will provide a better understanding of how well 

population trend has been assessed in the different 

geographic areas. 

4. Until the analyses described in #3 are completed, 

trend counts surveys should be conducted annually, 

attempting to achieve 7 replicates, for at least 5 years 

to obtain acceptable levels of statistical power to assess 

population trends. Thereafter, biannual surveys should 

be considered to continue monitoring population trend. 

5. Establish guidelines on how to quantify 

disturbance during aerial counts and incorporate such 

documentation into survey protocol; Kate Wynne will 

provide the draft outline based on her attempts to 

quantify disturbance during ICodialc trend count 

surveys. Such data should then be entered into 

analytical models as an environmental factor to 

determine if counts at some sites are significantly more 

variable due to disturbance. 

6. Range-wide surveys should continue, as they 

provide information on population status outside of 

those areas monitored by trend count surveys. 

7. When the analyses in #3 are completed, 

determine if the current survey design within specific 

geographic areas are providing a satisfactory level of 

statistical power to detect a minimally acceptable level 

of population change. Thereafter, modify survey 

design as appropriate, and then establish new trend 

routes when funding is available. Areas of highest 

priority for new trend routes are the Northeast Gulf of 

Alaslta and the Bering Sea. 

8. Establish a central database for harbor seal 

population assessment research at the National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory (NMML). Dave Withrow 

(NMML) will draft the data collection protocol(s) from 

existing NMFS and ADFG formats. 

9. Pursue new techniques to capture seals on glacial 

ice to develop a correction factor for such substrates. 

Estimate a correction factor for roclcy substrates in the 

Gulf of Alaska. 

10. Compile a continuous, "clean" data set and 

historic chronology for Tugidak Island. Laurie Jemison 

is available to compile this database from field reports, 

intenriexvs with local residents and researchers 

responsible for historic data and projects. 

I I. Continue to discuss issues related to harbor seal 

population assessment with the Alaskan native 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

,on,munity through the Alaslcan Native Harbor Seal 

commission, and pursue cooperative arrangements to 

integrate traditional environmental lmowledge. 

Conservation Plan 

'['he Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission has the 

draft harbor seal conservation plan for review and 

This plan cannot progress without full 

Alnslca Native participation and support. Fortunately, 

preliminary comments suggest that the document is of 

sufficient flexibility for Alaslca Native concerns. 

Itesearch recommendations from the population 

assessment workshop are to be included in the Harbor 

Seal Conservation Plan, as well. The current draft of 

the Conservation Plan was distributed at the abovementioned worlcshop and acknowledged as a 

mechanism for coordinating State and Federal research 

and management activities. 

Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops truncatus 

Assessment Surveys 

Southeast U.S. Coast Aerial Surveys 

The Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) 

conducted aerial surveys in January-March to examine 

the distribution and estimate abundance of bottlenose 

dolphins in coastal waters between Cape Hatteras, 

North Carolina, and approximately Ft. Pierce, Florida. 

Line transects were flown orthogonally to the coastline 

to approximately 9 Icm past the average position of the 

Gulf Stream inner wall. Inclement weather throughout 

the survey area prevented completion of the original 

survey plan; each of the nine survey bloclcs was flown 

only once instead of the three replicate surveys 

originally planned. A total of 134 bottlenose dolphin 

herds were sighted and other species sighted included 

Atlantic spotted dolphins, striped dolphins, right 

whales, and humpback whales. The humpback and 

right whale sightings all occurred close to the shoreline. 

Analysis of the bottlenose dolphin perpendicular 

sighting data will be completed in 1996. 

Caribbean Shipboard Survey 

The SEFSC conducted a cetacean survey in the 

Caribbean Sea and adjacent North Atlantic aboard the 

NOAA Ship ore got^ II during January-February, 1995 

to estimate abundance and examine the distribution of 

cetaceans in the northern Caribbean Sea and adjacent 

Atlantic Ocean. Associated environmental data and 

slun and blubber biopsy samples were also collected. 

Surveys were conducted during daylight hours and 

4,275 transect krn were surveyed during the 44 day 

cruise. 

The maximum number of cetacean groups sighted in 

one day was six and 70 groups were sighted during the 

entire cruise. Cetaceans were encountered throughout 

the area surveyed and nine species were identified. 

Humpback whales, sperm whales, pilot whales, Atlantic 

spotted dolphins, and pantropical spotted dolphins 

were the most commonly sighted species. Group sizes 

for humpback whales and sperm whales averaged 1.8 

and 3.6 whales, respectively. Pilot whale group size 

(probably short-finned pilot whales) ranged from 8-43 

animals. The largest group sighted was a group of 140 

striped dolphins. Pilot whales and humpback whales 

were observed associated on two occasions. A biopsy 

sample was obtained from one individual in each of 

two groups of Atlantic spotted dolphins near Puerto 

Rico. Analysis of the abundance and distribution data 

will be completed in 1996 and the biopsy samples have 

been archived. 

Mid-Atlantic Bight Aerial Surveys 

The SEFSC conducted line transect aerial surveys over 

the coastal waters of the mid-Atlantic bight from Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina, to Sandy Hook, New Jersey, 

during July 11 through August 14, 1995. 

Latitudinally-oriented transects were flown over the 

area from shore to the 25 m isobath to examine the 

distribution and estimate abundance of Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphins. The survey was designed to 

provide sufficient precision for monitoring population 

trends and 205 transects covering approximately 7,600 

lcm were flown during the 34-day survey period. 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

One hundred forty bottlenose dolphin herds, totaling 

2,490 dolphins, were sighted; also sighted were three 

herds of Atlantic spotted dolphins, totaling 93 

dolphins. Preliminary analyses of the perpendicular 

sighting distance data produced an estimated average 

of 1 1,374 bottlenose dolphins in the survey area during 

the survey period (asymptotic 95% confidence interval 

= 7,523 < N < 17,198; coefficient of variation = 

21.3%). The analysis assumed that all dolphin herds 

directly on the transect were observed [g(O) = I]; thus, 

this may represent a negatively-biased estimate of 

average bottlenose do~~hinabundance. The proportion 

of the estimated average abundance represented by the 

Atlantic coastal migratory bottlenose dolphin stock 

(listed as depleted under the MMPA) is unlaown 

because neither the distribution of this stoclc nor that 

of the offshore stoclc is known, but their distributions 

are believed to overlap. It is also impossible to visually 

distinguish between the two stoclcs during aerial 

surveys because the stoclcs overlap in body size. 

Bottlenose Dolphin Health Assessment: Field 

Report on Sampling near Beaufort, 

North Carolina, during July, 1995 

The Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) is 

conducting research to estimate and eventually monitor 

health assessment indices of local bottlenose dolphin 

stoclcs throughout the Southeast Region in order to 

assess the impact of human activities on specific 

bottlenose dolphin stoclcs. These health assessment 

indices will be used to refine estimates of humaninduced mortality and other human-induced impacts, 

and combined with reproductive rate, age structure, 

and stoclc structure information will allow more 

accurate estimation of potential biological removal 

levels for a given population. 

The health assessment studies require sampling of live 

bottlenose dolphins. The SEFSC has conducted live 

capture, sampling, and release exercises in specific areas 

of the coastal Southeast Region where anomalous 

mortalities of bottlenose dolphins have occurred. 

Keference samples collected at an unaffected site 

(Sarasota, FL) have been used, with those collected by 

the SEFSC, to develop and test a quantitative health 

assessment model (Wells, 1994; Sweeney et al., in 

review a and b). This model is still being refined, and 

when used with other information may provide a 

means of estimating the effects of some indirect, 

human-induced impacts, such as environmental 

contaminants, on dolphin stoclcs (e.g., Reif et al., in 

review), and for identifying stocks at relatively higher 

risk of mortality. 

The SEFSC sampling has included bottlenose dolphins 

in an affected site, Matagorda Bay, Texas. Dolphins in 

this estuarine area were sampled during July, 1992, 

because of unusually high numbers of strandings there 

in 1990 and 1992. Bottlenose dolphins of the U.S. 

Atlantic coastal stoclc were classified depleted under the 

MMPA as a result of a mass dieoff during 1987-88. 

The bottlenose dolphins which occur in the estuarine 

system near Beaufort, NC, are believed to belong to 

this depleted stoclc. 

Captures were conducted on 1 1 days during the period 

July 10-2 1, 1995. Dolphins were captured in various 

parts of the estuarine system, with most captures 

occurring in the Newport kver and Bogue Sound. A 

total of 3 1 dolphins, 17 males and 14 females, was 

captured, sampled, and released. Two of these animals 

were recaptured; one was released quicldy and the 

other was held until sampling not completed during the 

first capture was completed. Fourteen additional 

animals were encircled; two escaped, and the others 

were released without sampling. 

Lengths were measured for all 31 animals sampled; 

lengths ranged from 197cm to 278cm. Complete 

morphometrics were obtained for 28 animals. Weights 

were measured for all except one younger animal 

(FB704) that was not removed from the water. 

Weights ranged from 84.6kg to 252.2lg. Blood 

samples were obtained from all 31 animals and 

hematology and blood chemistry analyses were 

conducted by two laboratories which were familiar with 

dolphin blood. A tooth was extracted from 28 animals. 

Skin and blubber biopsies were collected from all 31 

animals. Milk samples were obtained from three 

lactating females. Fecal samples were collected from 28 

animals, and urine samples from 27 animals. Bacterial 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

swab samples were talcen from the blowhole of 29 

animals. Blubber depth measurements (by ultrasound) 

\"ere made on 30 animals. A diagnostic ultrasound 

exam was conducted on 26 animals. Colonic 

temperature measurements were made on 29 animals. 

N1 31 animals were acoustically recorded. Thirty of 

the animals were freeze branded for permanent 

identification. Nine animals were fitted with roto-tag 

mounted VHF radio tags and four additional animals 

were outfitted with Trac-Pacs. The radio tracking and 

Trac-Pac studies are reported in Read et al. (1996, in 

press) and Townsend et al. (1996, in press), 

respectively. A roto-tag was mounted on the trailing 

edge of each of the 31 dolphins, four of the animals 

were outfitted with an additional roto-tag. 

A photo-identification study of bottlenose dolphins has 

been conducted in the Beaufort, NC, area since 1985 

and several hundred animals have been identified 

(Thayer and Rittmaster, 1995). The dolphins we 

captured were compared to the catalogue of identified 

animals, and 10 were dolphins previously observed in 

the study area but none prior to 1989. Seven of these 

had been seen on only one occasion, and three were 

seen two or more times. All of these dolphins were 

previously sighted only during summer months, with 

the exception of one (712), which was sighted only 

during winter months from 1991-1995. All of the 

lcnown dolphins in this area have been considered 

"summer" or "winter" dolphins, with no intermixing 

documented (Thayer and httmaster, 1995). Dolphin 

712 is the first dolphin laown to frequent the 

estuarine area during both winter and summer months. 

A technical memorandum providing a more detailed 

summary information on the 1995 sampling activities 

conducted on these dolphins will be published in 1996. 

Northern Fur Seal. Ca//orhinus ursinus 

mammal stoclcs in U.S. waters. NMFS completed final 

stoclc assessments in August 1995. It concluded that 

northern fur seals in U.S. waters consisted of two 

distinct stocks - an eastern Pacific stoclc composed of 

animals breeding on the Pribilof Islands and Bogoslof 

Island and a San Miguel Island stoclc in southem 

California. The estimated annual maximum recovery 

rate for both stoclcs of fur seals was 8.6 percent. 

Eastern Pacific Stock 

Based on fur seal census data collected in 1994, the 

final stoclc assessment for the eastem Pacific fur seal 

stock estimated its size to be 1,019,192 animals, 

including an estimated 5,173 animals on Bogoslof 

Island. 

San Miguel Island Stock 

The final stock assessment for the San Miguel Island 

stoclc of fur seals estimated its population size in 1994 

to be 10,536 animals. 

Northern Fur Seal Research Activities in 1995 

San Miguel Island 

Studies of the life history parameters of northern fur 

seals were conducted at San Miguel Island throughout 

June, July and August, 1995. The primary objective of 

these long-term studies, conducted in cooperation with 

the Channel Islands National Sanctuary Program and 

the National Park Service is 1) to estimate survival, 

recruitment, and natality of these species as a 

comprehensive assessment of the ecology of pinnipeds 

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

recovery of fur seals throughout the north Pacific ocean 

in accordance with the Fur Seal Conservation Plan. 

Censuses of Adult Males on Pribilof Islands 

Northern Fur Seal Stock Assessments 

In 1994 the MMI'A was amended to provide a new 

approach for managing interactions between marine 

mammals and fisheries. In part, it required that the 

NMFS prepare stoclc assessments for all marine 

Adult male northern fur seals were counted on St Paul 

and St. George Islands during July 1995. The "idle" 

bull counts on St. Paul for 1986 -1988 as compared to 

1990- 1995 shol\red an increase from 1,865-3,201 to 

Page 45 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

7,632-10,940. In 1995, however, there was a decrease 

when compared to both 1994 and 1993 from 9,301- 

10,014 (1993-1994) to 8,459 (1995). Through the 

early 1990s "harem" male counts also increased but 

may have stabilized between 5, 154 (1995) and 6,405 

(1993). Such changes were expected effects of the 

terminated commercial harvest in 1984. On St. Paul, 

at least, this appears to have reached an endpoint. 

Island. Alaska. Photo credit: NMFS~MML, 

Pup Counts 

Population counts are conducted every other year, and 

1995 was a no-census year. however, pup counts were 

conducted on one rookery (South) on St. George in 

1995. The purpose of this census was to assess biases 

associated with the shearing sample pup census 

method. Biases associated with the size of the pups 

sheared, time between shearing and resampling, and 

inter-observer variation were investigated. 

Mortality Studies of Pups on St. Paul lsland 

Pup mortality studies were conducted on St. Paul 

Island from July 9-August 9, 1995. Dead pups were 

collected from several roolceries and necropsies 

performed. 

Counts of Fur Seals on Bogoslof lsland 

The average of two counts on Bogoslof Island on 

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

not counted. The estimated number of live pups was 

lower in 1995 compared to August 18, 1994, when 

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

of the 1995 census. By the end of September, pups are 

highly mobile and readily enter the water for hours at 

a time, malung them difficult to count. 

Counts of Fur Seals on San Miguel lsland 

In July 1995, a fur seal pup census was conducted in 

Adams cove on San Miguel Island. a mean of 1,577 

pups was counted, the highest number of pups counted 

since the colony was estabished in 1968. In August 1, 

1995, a pup census was conducted on Castle Rock at 

San Miguel Island. A mean of 795 pups was counted. 

Condition Indices of Northern Fur Seal Pups on St. 

Paul lsland and St. George lsland 

Length and weight measurements were collected to 

evaluate the physical condition of 1,032 male and 848 

female pups from St. Paul Island on August 25-29; and 

359 male and 293 female pups From St. George Island 

on August 24-28, 1.995. An additional 3 16 pups were 

measured on St. George during pup census activities on 

August 14, 1995. These data will be used as part of a 

long-term study of the trends in condition of pups 

during the first few months of life and relationship of 

trends to natural or anthropogenic changes in their 

environment. 

Evaluation of Entanglement Rates 

Surveys to assess the rate of entanglement of adult and 

juvenile male fur seals in marine debris were conducted 

in cooperation with the Aleut communities on both St. 

Paul and St. George Islands. On St. Paul, surveys were 

conducted from July 6 to August 5, 1995, both in 

conjunction with the subsistence harvest and 

independent of the harvest using roundups. On St. 

George surveys were conducted from June 29 to August 

5, independent of the subsistence harvest. A total of 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

9,969 seals were rounded up independent of harvest of 

st. Paul. Including those counted during harvests, 

26,883 seals were counted on St. Paul, of which 39 

,vcre entangled. On St. George, a total of 15,080 seals 

~vere rounded up independent of harvests, of which 26 

,\,ere entangled. 

During the course of all research activities, debris was 

removed from 93 entangled seals on St. Paul Island, 

and 26 were disentangled on St. George Island. 

Twenty-five of the disentangled males were tagged. 

'Twenty females were disentangled during the course of 

the season, primarily during population censusing. 

Investigate Movement of Pups and Patterns 

of Survival at San Miguel Island 

Northern fur seal pups were double tagged to continue 

long-term studies on survival and reproductive succcess 

of the San Miguel Island population. In Adams Cove, 

300 pups were tagged on October 5. The Northern fur 

seal tagging program on San Miguel Island began in 

1975. Since that time efforts are made every breeding 

season to resight tagged animals to assess long-term 

survival and reproductive success. Since animals do 

not return to San Miguel until they are two or three 

years old, there is a lag time between tagging and first 

resighting of indivivuals. 

Foraging Ecology 

Approxjmately 85 1 scats (63 1 on St. Paul, 220 on St. 

George) were collected from female pupping areas and 

male haulout areas on St. Paul and St. George islands 

during the course of other research. 

~oragn~ cycles were monitored using a Time Wet 

Recorder (TWR) to record foraging cycles of female fur 

seals. On July 27, 3 seals were captured and TWRs 

were attached to their pelage. The 3 seals were then 

recaptured on August 25 -29, 1995. 

Northern Right Whale, Eubalaena g/acia/is 

Southeastern Implementation Team 

On August 26, 1993, NMFS convened a meeting in 

Brunswick, Georga, to discuss a monitoring program 

that needed to be in place to protect northern Atlantic 

right whales on their winter calving ground, prior to 

their arrival. During this meeting, the Southeastern 

U.S. Right Whale Recovery Plan Implementation Team 

was formed. Members of this team recommended that 

the following monitoring efforts be considered to 

protect whales from December through March in the 

Southeastern U.S.: 

1. Daily aerial surveys during the right whale calving 

season. 

2. Monitoring right whale movements, and habitatuse by mothers and calves during the right whale 

calving season. 

3. Restriction of vessel speeds when right whales are 

laown to be in an area. The actual speed reduction 

necessary is defined as the minimum safe speed to 

insure the safety of the vessel. 

4. Dedicated right whale observers that would 

accompany pilots on vessels as they enter and leave 

ports. 

5. An education program for all Federal, state and 

local parties that might adversely affect the species. 

The Southeastern lmplementation Team met on April 

21, 1995, to discuss the previous calving season and 

make recommendations pior to the 1995:1996 season. 

Topics of discussion at this meeting were the low 

number adult females and calves (n = 7 calves) 

reported during the 1994- 1995 season; a description of 

NAVTEX and how this technology is being used as 

part of the Early Warning System (EWS); the sighting 

distribution from the surveys conducted by the Florida 

Department of Environmental protection (it was 

apparent from this data given the limited effort that 

whales are spending considerable time outside and 

Page 47 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

south of the critical habitat zone in Florida waters); the 

199411995 EWS Survey results followed by a 

discussion on how well the EWS is working; a 

Partnering Agreement between members of the 

Implementation Team; and an update on the ANPR 

proposal. 

The Implementation Team discussed a set of 

recommended safe operating procedures for large 

vessels transiting the right whale calving grounds. The 

recommended measures offer non-binding advice on 

posting observers aboard transiting ships, 

communicating information to incoming and outgoing 

ships on right whale sightings, suggested actions for 

ships to take under alternative right whale sighting 

scenarios, and the reporting of right whale sightings by 

transiting ships. The recommended procedures are 

intended for use by port personnel participating under 

a voluntary partnership agreement among team 

members. 

The Implementation Team also met on October 31, 

1995, prior to the 1995-1996 calving season. The 

agenda included a discussion of recommended safe 

operating procedures for large vessels transiting the 

right whale calving area critical habitat, detectability of 

right whales from aircraft and recommendations for a 

monitoring program, and vessel traffic pattern 

information. 

During the October meeting, the Implemention Team 

also discussed a draft letter to the NMFS 

recommending that they proceed with rulemaling to 

restrict the use of gillnets in Federal waters that poses 

a significant entanglement hazard to right whales 

during the calving season. The states of Georgia and 

Florida already prohibit gillnets in State waters 

eliminating potential entanglement threats from 

gillnets in those areas. The final recommendation by 

the Implementation Team was that team members 

pursue the proposal on their own and provide advice 

on the matter directly to the NMFS. 

Early Warning System Surveys, 199411995 

A final report by the New England Aquarium was 

completed on August 24, 1995, that described the 

results of the second year of the EWS aerial survey 

program. There were 92 surveys of the EWS area 

during this season. Thirty-seven right whale sightings 

were made, on 27 different days. These 37 sightings 

were composect of 6 co~vlcalf pairs, and about 9 

unidentified other whales, for a total of 21 different 

animals. 

It was generally agreed that the EWS has dramatically 

increased awareness of the presence of whales 

throughout the region. No mortalities or injuries have 

been observed as occuring within the EWS area during 

the past two seasons. 

The surveys also provide information on the 

distribution and movements of whales in the area. It 

is apparent that the whales begin moving into the EWS 

area during the latter half of December, remain in high 

numbers throughout January and are sighted less 

frequently in February (until the end of February when 

there is an increase in sightings again). It was 

suggested at the meeting that the survey area be 

extended southward and that perhaps Savannah 

(northern end of the EWS) could be dropped since the 

whales are not in the area for any period of time 

(suggested as a transit area rather than a high-density 

calving area). 

During the 1994-1995 calving season, NMFS provided 

funding to the Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources and the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection to survey areas further 

offshore and to assess the sighting efficiency flights of 

the Early Warning System survey program. In 

addition, to improve information on small- scale 

movements of right whales on their calving grounds, 

NMFS contracted with the New England Aquarium, 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to 

satellite-tag and track at least four animals on the 

winter calving grounds. 

Page 48 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

~etectability of Right Whales in Southeastern U.S.A 

preliminary Study 

~{esearch on detectablility of right whales is aimed at 

evaluating and improving the EWS to reduce ship 

During 1995 behavioral data were recorded on 

and videotape using airships as research 

platforms. These sighting data (percent surface time, 

along with mean dive and surface time) were then used 

to calculate preliminary sighting probabilities at various 

distances from the tracldine based on the view-field 

from a small aircraft used in the aerial monitoring 

program, for three categories of right whale sightings. 

The view-field from each side of the aircraft was the 

sector of a circle, with search time greatest at about 1 

nmi from the tracldine. When aircraft view-field 

characteristics were merged with whale behavior data, 

overall detection probabilities were highest for groups 

(94%), intermediate for mother/calf pairs (61%), and 

lowest for single juveniles (57%). These calculated 

values are considered theoretical maxima. 

Results to date suggest that the probability (calculated 

maxima) of the aerial monitoring program sighting 

right whales on any given survey averages 50-60% for 

motherlcalf pairs and single juveniles. The implication 

of this preliminary study is that because single juveniles 

are least likely to be sighted from both the monitoring 

aircraft as well as by transiting ships seeking to avoid 

them, the liltelihood of vessel interaction is Ereatest for - 

this population segment. Secondly, because juveniles 

have lilcely been undersampled, demographic 

dcscriptions may have been skewed. 

Southeast Implementation Team Newsletter 

The Southeast Implementation Team developed a 

quarterly newsletter with the intent of increasing the 

efficiency and effectiveness of recovery efforts for the 

northern right whale. The newsletter is edited by 

members of the team and participation in the 

newsletter is open to anyone actively involved in right 

whale conservation efforts including, to this point in 

time, ship operators, harbor pilots, port authorities, 

fishermen, educators, scientists, managers, policy 

makers, non-governmental organizations and other 

concerned citizens. Relevant information from areas 

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

of Fundy field season summaries) are also included in 

the newsletter. The first newsletter was published in 

August 1994 and subsequent newsletters have been 

published through December 1995. Information or 

questions regarding the newsletter should be forwarded 

to Hans Neuhauser, Georgia Land Trust Service 

Center, 640 Cobb Street, Athens, Georgia. 

New England lmplementation Team 

On January 3, 1994, NMFS received a letter from the 

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House 

of Representatives, requesting that a right whale 

recovery plan implementation team be developed in the 

northeast, comparable to that developed in the 

southeast. The letter cited the success of the southeast 

implementation team and requested that a priortity of 

the northeastern team be the development of a 

monitoring program that monitors the cumulative 

effects of several dredge-disposal and sewer-discharge 

activities in Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay. 

NMFS coordinated a meeting of all interested 

individuals, and representatives from state and Federal 

agencies, to discuss agencies responsibilities and the 

formation of a New England Implementation Team. 

The first meeting of this group was convened in 

Boston, Massachusetts on August 19, 1994. 

The group determined that an implementation team 

should not only focus on the northern right whale, but 

also address issues relative to other protected species 

including the humpbaclc whale. Subgroups were 

established with the following foci: research needs, 

reduction of mortality due to shipstrilces and fishing 

activities, and habitat needs and monitoring. 

The second meeting of this Implementation Team 

occurred on May 10, 1995, at Saugus, Massachusetts. 

Topics of discussion at that meeting included a 

summary of the October 1994 peer reviewed report on 

right whale research and recovery objectives of NMFS 

(the meeting was convened in Woods Hole, and a 

summary provided in the last MMPA Annual Report); 

Page 49 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

a discussion of contracted research with the New 

England Aquarium; an outreach/educational program 

being developed by the Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary Program; a summaly of contaminant 

analysis being conducted on whale tissue samples from 

necropsies of stranded animals; several reports from 

state, Federal and private organizations represented on 

the Implementation Team. 

The Vessel InteractiodGear Conflict Subgroup met on 

April 26, 1995, and following comments from this 

meeting, provided a discussion of their meeting to the 

remainder of the Implementation Team. Topics of 

discussion from this subgroup were education and 

outreach (marinerlwhale safety); a discussion of the 

shippindvessel effects to whales in the regon; and 

fisheries interactions in the northeast region and 

possible recommendations to the New England Fishery 

Management Council regarding the inclusion of right 

whale protection measures in fishery management 

plans. 

The Implementation Team met again on June 8, 1995, 

at the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 

Office, Plymouth, Massachusetts, to review objectives 

of the Implementation Team; to discuss a 

Memorandum of Understanding between NMFS and 

the U.S. Coast Guard; whale watching issues; the 

possibility of an early warning network in areas of high 

density vessel traffic and whale concentrations; and a 

discussion of the Habitat Subgroup. 

Summary of Interagency Collaboration 

with the Coast Guard 

One issue identified by both researchers and the 

Northeast Implementation Team is that of unreported 

events and "lost data," particularly from humanimpacted whales (ship strikes and net entanglements) 

and "floaters" in offshore areas. 

The Coast Guard and NMFS have cooperated 

informally for many years. In late 1994, this 

arrangement began to be formalized through the 

drafting of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). As 

this MOA moves toward final signatures, a pilot effort 

since December 1993 has provided a number of 

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

humpbacks, and 1 right whale). Photo and video 

documentation have provided valuable data. 

The Coast Guard has also on several occasions 

provided logistical support: CG vessels have been 

made available to transport researchers and 

disentanglement teams to event sites, and vessels and 

aircraft have been deployed to photo-document floater 

events. 

This effort also involves NMFS staff providing training 

and materials to Coast Guard vessel and aircraft 

personnel; as well as compilation of data and 

photographs. When fully established, this program will 

provide valuable information on events in the more 

offshore areas. 

Disentanglement Response and Network 

The Recovery Plan calls for the establishment of 

marine mammal disentanglement program. This 

emergency response to marine mammal entanglements 

involves: 

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

monitor, and safely disentangle marine mammals. 

b. development and maintainance of a database for 

entanglements, and provide data access to users, and 

periodic reports. 

c. development of regional protocols and plans, 

including outreach to general public. 

Because of the critical need for life history and humanimpacts data on right whales and other species, and the 

limited opportunities to collect these data, information 

from stranded whales is essential. Networlts and 

standardized protocols have been devloped to help 

insure that there are no "lost data." Likewise, when 

whales become entangled in fishing gear, judgements 

must be made as to the efficacy and merits of 

disentanglement. Experience has shown that 

disentanglement is best undertaken by trained and 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

personnel, with appropriate protocols for 

the procedure as well as the associated data collection. 

~is~ntangiement efforts during 1995 include the 

following: 

1, Throughout 1995, the Center for Coastal Studies 

(CCS) maintained a ready disentanglement team of 

trained staff members, along with equipment and 

vessels needed to respond to entanglements of large 

whales in the waters of the Gulf of Maine. In all, ten 

reports were received (6 right whales, 3 humpbaclts, 

2nd 1 minlce whale). With collaboration from the New 

England Aquarium, the Coast Guard, and fishermen, 

1 right whale, 3 humpbacks, and 1 minlte whale were 

disentangled. One calf appeared to free itself. 

Reporting of, and response to, entangled whales in 

offshore areas presents additional challenges and will 

require additional protocols and efforts. 

2. The New England Aquarium's Right Whale 

Research Project responded to five events during FY95. 

There were three entangled right whales; one was 

disentangled, one was partially disentangled, and the 

third was not resighted and an attempt was not 

possible. In December of 1994, an I I-month old male 

that had swam up into the Delaware River was 

successfully coaxed out into Delaware Bay; i's fate is 

presently unknown. Lastly, a stranded 13-year old 

male was necropsied in Newport, Rhode Island, in July. 

All five individuals were identified through the right 

whale catalog. 

Recent Right Whale Injuries and Mortalities 

On July 17, 1995, a juvenile male born in 1993 washed 

ashore on Second Beach in Middletown, Rhode Island. 

The animal was first seen entangled in 1993 as a calf 

about six months old and was resighted in August 1994 

in Cape Cod Bay, still entangled. During the second 

sighting, an attempt to remove the gear was considered 

but, because human intervention can pose rislts to both 

whales and people, was not attempted. 

On 20 October 1995, a 40-foot long male right whale 

washed ashore on the Bay of Fundy coast in Nova 

Scotia, Canada. Researchers found crushed vertebra 

and, upon a closer laboratory examination, they 

concluded that the animal died as a result of a ship 

collision. 

In March 1995, the Navy reported that a submarine 

leaving Moorhead City, North Carolina, struck a whale 

that was described as small, black without a dorsal fin. 

However, a positive species identification could not be 

made. No carcass was found and there is no further 

information to confirm either the species or the 

outcome of the collision. 

In September, a right whale was observed in Canadian 

waters east of Grand Manan Island towing about 800 

feet of gillnet anchor line. Researchers from the New 

England Aquarium removed about 700 feet of the rope; 

however, a considerable length of line remained 

entangled in the whales mouth. 

Recovery Plan Research Program 

On October 3-7, 1994, the NMFS/Nonheast Science 

Center convened a workshop to review the right whale 

research program in the eastern United States. Its 

purpose was to develop recommendations on future 

research priorities. Based on recommendations from 

this workshop, the research priorities were reviewed. A 

summary of contracted research supported by 

NMFS/Northeast Fisheries Science Center in 1995 

include the following: 

1. Satellite tagging, Year 2: The purpose of this 

study is to determine the location and characteristics of 

unlwown wintering and summering grounds. Tagging 

in Cape Cod area is projected for spring 1996, northern 

GOM fall 1996. 

2. Reduce ship strikes on right whales: This includes 

an assessment of shipping traffic relative to high risk 

areas; education and outreach programs; an evaluation 

of deterrents including sonar; and a follow-on to 

NEA/MIT ship modelling study to include a) shallow 

water, b) other vessel types, and c) the depth 

dimension. 

Page 51 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

3. Genetics: The priority is for worlung off the 

bacldog of approximately 100 samples, DNA extraction 

and analysis. Also, gaps in the genetic database will be 

identified, analytical procedures reviewed, and a 

determination as to whether more robust or recently 

developed techniques may be available. 

4. Stranding and human impacts response: Respond 

to right whale strandings, collaborate with NMFS, 

Coast Guard, and Center for Coastal Studies on 

human-impact events. On-site presence of experienced 

researchers, maximize data collection following 

standard protocols, submit reports including cause of 

death. 

Skim-feeding right whale in Cape Cod Bay, MA. 

Photo credit: H. Devaul 

5. Foraging and habitat Studies in Cape 

CodIMassachusetts Bays: The Center for Coastal 

Studies will undertake surveys of the bays system to 

document the development of conditions favorable to 

right whales. Emphasis will be on near-field conditions 

with detailed profiles of physical and biological 

conditions. Included will be patterns of habitat use by 

right whales. A data integration component will merge 

data from the bays system with that of the Great South 

Channel to develop a more comprehensive model of 

acceptable habitat. 

6. Data compilation and review: hght whales in 

New England waters: Summarize, synthesize and 

update to present a comprehensive picture of right 

whales in Ne~v England waters. This will describe 

distribution and habitat of right whales by area and 

date, with central trends and outliers. Anomalies and 

habitat shifts, if any, will be addressed. Movements 

and connections between sub-areas will be included. 

Demographics and habitat partitioning. Data will be 

made available in GIs form. 

7. Photo-identification catalog and associated data: 

The October 1994 kght Whale Review 

(NEFSCNMFS) identified photo-identification, along 

with the associated mark-recapture techniques as the 

best way to monitor the North Atlantic right whale 

population and its trends. Maintenance of the catalog 

and associated expertise is therefore central to this and 

other management goals. Recommendations for 

directed and prioritized field collection of photo-ID 

and associated data will produce continued ability to 

monitor the population, its trends, and habitat use. 

8. Maintenance of the computer database for the 

right whale in waters of the western North Atlantic, 

and associated analytical expertise: The long-term 

sighting and survey database will be maintained, and 

newly collected information will continue to be added 

on a timely basis. Data products and analyses will be 

provided to collaborating investigators. In 1996, 

emphasis will be on addition of missing data and 

"filling in the holes." 

9. Stoclc Assessment: In August 1995, NMFS issued 

final MMPA stoclc assessments for all marine manunal 

stoclcs in U.S. waters. For the western North Atlantic 

stock, the minimum population estimate was 295 

whales and the PBR level is considered less than one 

whale. 

Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise, 

Phocoena ohocoena 

NMFS proposed to list the Gulf of Maine (GME) 

harbor porpoise population as threatened under the 

ESA on January 7, 1993. The proposal was considered 

necessary because (I) the rate of porpoise bycatch in 

commercial gillnet fisheries in the GME may reduce 

Page 52 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

this population to the point where it would become 

threatened throughout all or a portion of its range, and 

(2) because there were no regulatory measures in place 

at the time of the proposed listing to reduce this 

bycatch. 

Bycatch Estimates for the Gulf of Maine 

Under the 1988 amendments to the MMPA, the Gulf 

of Maine multispecies sink gillnet fishery was classified 

as Category I, a classification which denotes fisheries 

with "frequent incidental talces of marine mammals." 

Accordingly, the sink gillnet fleet has been subject to 

observer coverage since the Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center (NEFSC) Sea Sampling Observer Program was 

initiated in 1989. 

Annual estimates of porpoise bycatch reflect seasonal 

distribution of the species and of sink gillnet fishing 

effort. Estimated annual bycatch for 1990 and 1991 

were as follows: 2,900 in 1990 (CV=0.32); and 2,000 

in 1991 (CV=0.35). The 1992 estimate of bycatch 

decreased from 1990- 199 1 levels to 1,200 (95% CI 

800- 1,700) individuals. The 1993 GME bycatch 

estimate of 1,400 (95% CI 1,000-2,000) was not 

statistically different from the 1992 estimate. Bycatch 

is believed as not to be sustainable over the long term 

given our best estimate of the population size. 

On August 9, 1995, the NMFSDJEC completed a 

preliminary analysis of the 1994 bycatch rates in the 

southern GME -gillnet fishery, and forwarded the 

analysis to the NEFMC. The mortality rate (lcillshaul) 

of porpoise during Winter 1994 (January-May) was not 

significantly different that in earlier years. However, 

the bycatch rate during Fall 1994 (SeptemberDecember) was about three times higher than in 

previo~~s years (0.071 in 1994 vs. 0.022-0.024 in Fall 

199 1 - 1993). The 1994 Fall rate was based on a large 

sample size, and the difference between the 1994 Fall 

rate and those in 199 1 - 1993 was too large to be a 

Statistical artifact. 

if landings and landings patterns during 1994 were 

similar to those in previous years (and if the 

distribution of harbor porpoise was similar to that in 

preceding years), the higher lull rate observed in Fall 

1994 would raise the total annual bycatch in the 1994 

fishery by about 50-60 percent relative to the 1991- 

1993 bycatch levels. The preliminary analysis 

indicated that the harbor porpoise bycatch in the GME 

in 1994 was be greater than in previous years. 

The 1995 Stock Assessment and Minimum 

Abundance Estimate 

The 199 1 - 1992 population abundance estimate was 

47,200 animals (95% CI 39,500 to 70,600). The most 

recent scientific information on marine mammal stock 

assessments (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-363, U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stoclc Assessments) provided a minimum 

population estimate (N,,,) for the Gulf of Maine and 

Bay of Fundy of 40,297 animals, based on abundance 

surveys completed in 199 1 and 1992. (Specifically, 

N,,, is based on the lower 20th percentile of the 199 1 

and 1992 log-normal distribution of the average 199 1 - 

1992 porpoise population estimate.) 

NMFS conducted a third assessment survey in 1995 

and the results are expected in Spring 1996. 

Bycatch Estimates for the Bay of Fundy 

In addition to the harbor porpoise bycatch in the 

GME, recent information from Canada indicates the 

total bycatch estimate for the 1993 summer period was 

424 porpoise in the western Bay of Fundy. The 1994 

estimate was 101 (95%CI=80- 122) animals. The 

estimated bycatch in 1995 is not yet available. 

However, it is expected to be even lower as the pllnet 

fishery was closed from July 21 to September 2, the 

period of greatest bycatch in the Bay of Fundy, for 

reasons relevant to the conservation of groundfish. 

Landings data for 1994 were not available in 1395, 

thercfore an estimate of total lulls in the GME sink 

gillnet fishery could not be made for 1994. However, 

Page 53 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

Bycatch Estimates for the Mid-Atlantic Region of 

the United States 

Previous evidence from stranded animals has possible 

talces in some mid-Atlantic coastal net fisheries. 

Porpoise takes were observed in 1995, but bycatch 

estimates are not yet available. 

Potential Biological Removal 

The proposed PBR for the GME harbor porpoise 

population is the product of the estimated minimum 

population size (N) of 40,297, one-half of the 

manjmum rate of increase (0.5 R-) = (0.02), and a 

recovery factor (F,) = (0.50), or 403 animals, or 

approximately 22% to 24% of the current estimated 

bycatch. Thus, the U.S. bycatch of harbor porpoise in 

commercial fishing operations should be reduced to 

403 animals by April I, 1997. 

Bycatch Reduction Measures Implemented by 

the New England Fishery Management Council 

Amendment 5 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP 

Following a May 1992 harbor porpoise assessment 

worlcshop (NMFS, 1992), NMFS requested that the 

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) 

introduce measures in Amendment 5 to the FMP that 

would reduce porpoise mortality to acceptable levels. 

Amendment 5 to the NEFMC's Northeast Multispecies 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) became effective in 

March, 1994. In addition to implementing 

conservation measures to eliminate the overfished 

condition of several multispecies finfish stocks, one of 

the principal management objectives was to reduce the 

bycatch of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine 

(GME) sink gillnet fishery. The NEFMC agreed to 

develop a management strategy to reduce porpoise 

mortality by integrating a plan with fishery 

management measures. 

The NEFMC initially developed a measure requiring 

removal of all gillnets from GME waters for specified 4- 

day blocks. The final rule implementing Amendment 

5 made these gillnet 4-day out provisions effective on 

April 15, 1994 (59 FR 9872, March 1, 1994). 

Time-Area Closures 

NEFMC supported use of the 4-day time bloclc 

measure as an interim protective measure. However, 

because of the imprecise nature of the 4-day time 

blocl<, NEFMC began developing a timdarea closure 

management plan based on the location and analyses 

of the porpoise bycatch data. 

A framework adjustment mechanism included in 

Amendment 5 allows additional or alternate porpoise 

protective measures to be implemented at any time. 

Results of time-area analyses were first brought before 

the NEFMC on September 14, 1993. 

Framework Adjustment 4 

The first adjustment, implemented through Frameworlc 

4, occurred in 1994, included three 30-day closures 

and were aimed at reducing bycatch 50 percent over 

the next 4 years. The NEFMC program calls for a 20- 

percent reduction in the bycatch in each of 

the first 3 years of plan implementation. For example, 

20 percent of 1,875 (the average annual bycatch 

estimate in the GME during 1990-93) is 375 animals. 

If this level of reduction is achieved and the Year 1 

target is met, not more than 1,500 animals will be 

caught. Year 2 would require an additional 20 percent 

reduction (i.e the bycatch in Year 2 should not exceed 

1,125 animals, in Year 3 the bycatch should not exceed 

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

of the first 3 years, the program will shift that portion 

of the reduction not met to the target for the next year 

(New England Fisheries Management Council, 1994). 

The fourth year target was not specified because of 

anticipated MMPA requirements (the Act was 

reauthorized later in 1994) that would, and 

subsequently have, affected the Council's actions. As 

amended, the MMPA now requires the development, 

review and implementation of Talte Reduction Plans 

Page 54 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

for strategic stoclcs (of which harbor porpoise is one) in 

about 12 months from the present time. 

Through Frameworlc 4, the NEFMC adopted a four 

year phased-in timelarea closure program designed to 

meet the objective of reducing the bycatch to a level 

not to exceed 2% of the population based on estimates 

of abundance and bycatch. This objective assumes a 

maximum bycatch level that should not exceed the 

product of 50 percent of the maximum recruitment rate 

and a conservative estimate of abundance. 

The timelarea closures for Framework 4 were based on 

a Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) analysis 

of harbor porpoise bycatch using the NMFS weighout 

database and sea sampling program, information on the 

distribution of sink gillnet activity and the seasonal and 

spatial distribution of harbor porpoise in the GME. 

The three areas: the Northeast (from Penobscot Bay to 

Eastport, Maine), Mid-coast (from Cape Ann to 

Penobscot Bay) and Massachusetts Bay (from Cape 

Cod to Cape Ann). corresponded to periods when 

porpoise bycatch would most lilcely occur. 

Recommendations of the Harbor Porpoise 

Review Team 

To monitor progress toward its bycatch reduction goals, 

the NEFMC appointed a Harbor Porpoise Review 

Team (HPRT). The team was charged with evaluating 

the effectiveness of the Council's mitigation measures 

and, if necessary, recommending changes at least 

annually, based on the Framework 4 goals. 

The HPRT met on September 8, 1995, to review the 

success of Framework 4 at reducing porpoise bycatch in 

1994. Based on that review, and data from 

NMFS/NEC that indicated that the 1994 bycatch rate 

in the Mid-Coast area increased significantly in 1994 

over previous years, the HPRT offered several 

recommendations that relate to framework now under 

consideration: 

a. The time and area closures, as configured, were 

neither large enough nor long enough to achieve the 

Council's bycatch reduction goals. The group agreed 

that the first year goals were not met and that the 

porpoise bycatch was very liltely higher in 1994 than in 

1993. The HPRT was unable to evaluate the degree of 

effectiveness of the individual closures chiefly due to 

the lack of data on the fine-scale spatial distribution of 

fishing effort. 

b. There is substantial between-year variability in the 

timing of peak bycatch, with less variation in the areas 

in which bycatch occurs. In any given year, the interannual variability could exceed the Council's 20% 

reduction goal. This may partly explain the 1994 

results. The advice of the HPRT, therefore, was to 

expand the timing of the closures to achieve bycatch 

reductions, and secondarily, to expand areas spatially 

to include locations which have historically accounted 

for bycatch, but were not included in the first year 

closures. 

c. For the Mid-coast Area in 1996, the HPRT 

recommended the Council adjust and expand the time 

frame of the closure as indicated by further analyses 

and define an area in which fishing activity would be 

allowed if nets were deployed with pingers. Because 

the Mid-coast accounts for the porpoise bycatch, the 

HPRT suggested pinger use For the Jeffreys LedgeIZBand or other limited areas in which studies could be 

conducted to answer questions about habituation and 

exclusion of animals, but in a manner that would not 

jeopardize the Council's bycatch reduction goals. 

d. For the Mass Bay Area, the HPRT recommended 

the Council adjust the time frame as indicated by more 

refined analyses of the data and allow gillnet vessels to 

fish within the entire closure area if nets are outfitted 

with pingers and deployed according to defined 

protocols. This closure would allow an evaluation of 

operational characteristics of acoustic devices in a 

commercial fisheries environment. This 

recommendation is, in part, based on the low bycatch 

rates for this area (i.e. if pingers do not perform 

according to expectations and more porpoises are 

caught, the impact on total bycatch should be relatively 

small). 

Page 55 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

e. A more detailed analysis of the area south of Cape 

Cod to determine the possible need for a closure. 

Based on the HPRT recommendations, the 

NEFMUMarine Mammal Committee met, and on 

September 1 1, 1995, fonvarded the recommendatioons 

to the NEFMC. The NEFMC proposed 

implementation of a spring closure in the Mid-coast 

Area and establishment of an additional closure area in 

southern New England. This action was considered 

necessary in order to make further progress toward the 

bycatch reduction goals for year two (1995-1996) of 

the program. The target adopted by the NEFMC was 

a 40% reduction in the bycatch or approximately 780 

animals. Because of the increase in bycatch in the 

Mid-coast region, the preliminary estimates for 1994 

indicated that the incidental take of harbor porpoise in 

the Gulf of Maine still exceeded 1,500 animals. 

Framework Adjustment 12 

Frameworlc 12, implemented in November, 1995, 

expanded the size of the Mid-coast Closure Area to 

include the Jeffreys Ledge or "2-band west of 69" 

30'W, but excluded an area defined as Tillies Bank. 

The action also extended the duration of the closure, 

initially November 1-30, through November and 

December, 1995. The area was closed to fishing with 

sink gillnets during that two month period. 

Acoustic Deterrent Devices (Pingers) 

NMFS convened a scientific review panel (Panel) on 

June 9-10, 1994, to review the results of past 

experiments, to assess whether the use of these acoustic 

devices reduced porpoise entanglement rates and to 

recommend, as appropriate, future research to address 

this issue. The Panel believed that there may be some 

potential for acoustic devices to contribute to bycatch 

reduction. The Panel recommended that future studies 

of the effects of acoustic alarms to reduce porpoise 

bycatch should be undertaken in closed areas where 

high porpoise takes occur and confounding factors 

could be controlled. The Panel further recommended 

that these areas should be opened selectively and 

exclusively to vessels agreeing to adhere to a controlled 

and standardized experimental design, and to carry an 

observer-technician to document the fishing efforts and 

to report bycatch. 

As a result of Panel recommendations, NMFS approved 

a large-scale pinger experiment in the GME from midOctober through mid-December 1994 in the Mid-coast 

area. The experiment was designed to determine the 

effectiveness of these "pingers" at reducing bycatch in 

the U.S. gillnet fishery. The survey design 

incorporated recommendations from the Panel and 

other reviewers, including the MMC. Rresults of the 

study were provided to NMFS on April 20, 1995. 

The results were highly significant. Twenty five 

porpoises were talcen;n 42 I-control strings (without 

pingers) and only two porpoises were taken in 423 

active strings (with pingers), indicating that alarms 

were effectice in reducing the entanglement rate of 

harbor porpoises in this area. Largely as a result of this 

study, NMFS has authorized further use of pingers in 

a series of experimental fisheries in the GME. It is 

expected that the Take Reduction Plan for reducing 

harbor porpoise bycatch in the GME sink gillnet 

fishery will, at least in part, be based on the use of 

pinge;s in that fishery. 

Experimental Fishery 

On October 13, 1995, an experimental fishery was 

approved that would allow use of "pingers" in a portion 

of the former "Z-Band during November and 

December 1995, an area otherwise closed due to 

NEFMC frameworlc measures under Amendment 5. 

The New Hampshire Gillnet Fishermans Association 

took a lead role in this experimental fishery. The 

primary objective of the fishery was to test operational 

aspects of pinger use, which had been successfully 

tested during a 1994 experiment in the same area. 

Observers were instructed to perform their normal 

duties and not have anything to do with the 

operational aspects of the pingers. This is in contrast 

to the observer efforts in the Fall 1994 experiment 

where the observers played an active role in handling 

the pingers. This experimental fishery was allowed so 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

as to provide insights on pinger use, their durability 

under commercial fisheries conditions and their 

,-ffectiveness in mitigating bycatch. 

proposed Action Under Framework 14 

The following actions are proposed under the 

framework for rulemalung procedure established by 

Amendment 5 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. 

'This framework adjustment was initiated at the 

December 13, 1995, NEFMC meeting. The final 

meeting is scheduled for January 25, 1996. 

'l'o reduce the bycatch of harbor porpoise in the GME 

sinlc gillnet fishery, the NEFMC recommended 

initiation of a frameworlc adjustment to close the Midcoast and Jeffreys Ledge Areas, west of 69"30' from 

March 25 through April 25 inclusive; the area laown 

as Tillies Bank, described in Frameworlc 12 'to the 

Multispecies FMP, shall be exempt from this closure. 

During this period the area would be closed to fishing 

with sink gillnets. 

For the same purpose, the NEFMC also recommended 

closure of an area to sink gillnets south of Cape Cod 

(referred to from this point as the Southern New 

England Closure Area) from March 1 through March 

30. The boundary extends from the Massachusetts 

shore south along 7Oo30'W, west on 40°40'N and 

north on 7 1 "45'W to the Rhode Island coast. 

The proposed Southern New England Closure was 

based on sea sampling data for 1993 and 1994. While 

it was formerly assumed that talces there were 

infrequent, analyses indicate that bycatch rates are 

somewhat higher than in Massachusetts Bay where a 

closure was implemented in 1995. This became 

apparent during discussions of a preliminary analysis of 

NEC information. The issue also was identified in the 

HPRT's recommendations. The boundaries defined for 

the area enclose most of sampled effort and should 

ensure a significant rcduction in the bycatch. 

The Massachusetts Bay gillnet f~shery accounts for 

approximatelv 4 to 5 percent of the total GbIE 

porpoise bycatch. It is closed from March 1 to hlarch 

30. The pattern and level of bycatch in 1994 was not 

very different from previous years - sporadic during 

February and March and highly variable in January and 

April. The NEC recommended no change to this 

closure. An expansion of time or area would be 

disproportionate in relation to the level of takes 

relative to the other areas. Massachusetts Bay was 

closed initially in 1995 and will be closed during the 

month of March each year. 

These recommendations were based on information, 

views and comments at a meeting of its Marine 

Mammal Committee held in Saugus, Massachusetts on 

November 28, 1995, at an informal meeting between 

NEFMC staff and southern New England gillnet 

fishermen in Tiverton, Rhode Island on December 7, 

1995 and at a full Council meeting held in Danvers, 

Massachusetts on December 13, 1995. A decision on 

whether to finalize this frameworlc adjustment is 

expected the January 1996 NEFMC meeting. 

Amendment 7 to the Multispecies Groundfish 

FMP 

The NEFMC is currently formulating Amendment 7 to 

the Northeast Multispecies FMP (a replacement for 

Amendment 5) to accelerate the goal of reducing 

fisheries mortality for New England groundfish. 

Although it has not yet been finalized, Amendment 7 

to the Multispecies FMP will include a revised 

objective for harbor porpoise that reflects the changes 

required by the reauthorization. At its December, 

1995 meeting, the NEFMC approved the following for 

inclusion in the draft amendment: to reduce 

proportionately, consistent with the Magnuson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act and the MMPA 

guidelines, the incidental mortality and serious injury 

of harbor porpoise in the GME sinlc gillnet fishery to 

the PBR level identified for this stoclc through the 

process described in Section 117 of the MMPA by 

April 1, 1997, the date required for compliance with 

Section 118(f)(5)(A) of the MMPA. 

The MMPA goal for harbor porpoise is very similar to 

the one that has been adopted by the NEFMC, to 

Page 57 
Chapter Vt. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

reduce the bycatch to levels that are less than the PBR species or stock. GME porpoise are taken incidental to 

level specified for the stock. coastal gillnet fisheries under state jurisdiction south 

to, at least, Virginia. 

Bycatch Reduction Measures Being Taken in the 

Bay of Fundy On September 18, 1994, NMFS met with the 

Management and Science Committee, Atlantic States 

A Canadian gillnet fishery in the western Bay of Fundy 

(BOF), Nova Scotia, also takes porpoise from this 

population. Neither Amendment 5 restrictions nor the 

MMPA address this bycatch. On October 7, 1994, 

NMFS received from the Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans-Canada (DFO) a Harbour Porpoise 

Conservation Strategy (HPCS) for the BOF for 

comment. During the 1995 season in the BOF, DFO 

placed observers in the gillnet fishery to monitor 

bycatch. However, during July 2 1 - September 1 (peak 

bvcatch months), the fisherv was closed to Drotect 

sioclts of groundfish effectivel; reducing the byc'atch to 

zero during this critical period. 

Experimentation with acoustic deterrent devices, or 

pingers, was conducted in 1995. In December 1995, 

the Department of Fisheries and Oceans-Canada 

(DFO) completed their HPCS, and in this document, 

issued a mitigation measure to the effect that once an 

estimated 110 porpoise had been killed by Canadian 

gillnet fishers, the fishery would be closed in areas 

deemed most responsible for the incidental take. 

Closure will be implemented on receipt of information 

from the Observer Program indicating high incidental 

catches and will come into force within 24 hours of the 

problem being identified. Only fisheries in the area of 

the problem will be affected. 

The DFO is also talung part in the TRT for this 

species, and is continuing to consider measures to 

f~~rther reduce bycatch in the BOF gillnet fishery. 

The Development of Protected Species Measures 

to Reduce Bycatch in coastal Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Committee (ASMFC), to discuss 

recommendations that state fishery management plans 

that would include a standard that conservation 

programs and management measures should protect, to 

the maximum extent possible, those species protected 

under state and Federal legislation. At that meeting 

the committee recommended that a Protected Species 

Subcommittee be formed and that this subcommittee 

work with NMFS to convene a 2-day worltshop on 

protected species conservation and management issues 

in state waters. 

On July 17-19, ASMFC convened a workshop in 

Richmond, Virginia, on the management of protected 

species in state waters. Recommendations from this 

worlcshop were to be forwarded to the full Commission 

for their consideration at their fall meeting in 

Charleston, South Carolina. Final recommendations 

from this workshop are being reviewed by the 

Management and Science Committee of ASMFC at 

this time. Draft recommendations discussed at the 

worltshop, and those that were forwarded to the 

Commission from the MSC, include the following: 

amend the ISFMP Charter so that protected 

specieslfisheries interactions are addressed in the 

Commissions fisheries management planning process; 

include NMFS and USFWS protected species 

representatives on technical committees and plan 

development and review teams; charge the MSC with 

overall responsibility for coordination of Commission 

activities regarding protected species; and address 

protected species issues on a plan basis, begnning with 

the Shamver herring Interstate Fishery Management 

I'lan as a model. 

The ASMFC meeting toolt place October 29-3 1, 1995, 

Section 1 18 of the MMPA requires NMFS to develop in Charleston, South Carolina. The Management and 

TRTs for any "strategic" stoclc whose members shall Science Committee presented their recommendations 

include, among others, a representative from each to the Commission which were adopted without 

coastal state which has fisheries which interact with the change. 

Page 58 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

The Proposed Listing of the Gulf of Maine Harbor 

porpoise under the ESA 

A final determination on whether or not to list the 

GME harbor porpoise population at threatened under 

the ESA depends on the successful reduction of 

bycatch of that species to sustainable levels as stated 

within the MMPA. Since the proposed listing, several 

mitigative measures have been talcen which should 

result in a significant reduction of bycatch. However, 

it is not lcnown at this time whether these measures 

will be successful at reducing bycatch to below PBR. 

Further evaluations will be needed prior to a final 

determination of the proposed listing. Following a 

review of these measures for reducing bycatch, NMFS 

will further evaluate the proposed listing of GME 

harbor porpoise as threatened under the ESA. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal, Monachus schauinslandi 

Research and Recovery Program Reviews 

In 1993 a three-year Hawaiian Monk Seal Work Plan 

was developed to guide monk seal research and 

recovery efforts conducted by NMFS, Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu Laboratory, 

through 1996. In developing this work plan, 

consideration was given to the priority assigned to 

specific research and recovery taslcs in the Recovery 

Plan for the Hawaiian Monlc Seal, and the 

recommendations of the Hawaiian Monlc Seal Recovery 

Team at its 1992 and 1993 annual meetings. The 

1994- 1996 work plan addressed five major concerns of 

NMFS and the Recovery Team: 1) monitoring of the 

five major breeding populations and Midway; 2) 

resolution of the mobbing problem at Laysan and 

Lisianslci Islands; 3) implLmentation of the research 

and management planfor the French Frigate Shoals 

population; 4) continuing activities to enhance 

recovery of the western island populations; and 5) 

continuing emphasis on data analysis and publication 

of research findings. 

On November 30, 1994, the Marine Mammal 

Commission forwarded their recommendations on 

recovery actions talcen to date to the Assistant 

Administrator. The MMC recommendations to NMFS 

were similar to those recommended to NMFS by the 

Recovery Team following their annual meeting, 

December 6-7, 1994. At the Recovery Team annual 

meeting, research and management priorities for the 

1995 field season were discussed. One of the 

recommendations from that meeting was that the 

Recovery Team develop a three-year recovery action 

plan, 1996-1 998, be prepared. 

Marine Mammal Commission Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Program Review 

On April 1 1-13, 1995, the MMC, in cooperation with 

NMFS/Honolulu Laboratory, covened a panel to review 

the status of efforts to encourage the recovery of the 

monk seal. Panel members reviewed research reports 

and findings presented by NMFS staff at the review, 

and summarized the following major findings: 

1. The panel believed that funding and logistic 

support levels planned by NMFS for FY1995 are 

appropriate to cany out NMFS' role in encouraging the 

recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal, and recommended 

that this level be maintained for at least the next three 

years. 

2. The population assessment and monitoring at 

major breeding colonies be continued and accorded a 

high priority. 

3. Population assessment needs for each island after 

1996 should be re-evaluated. 

4. The panel believed that rehabilitation and release 

efforts at Midway are warranted but that, given the 

high cost of rehabilitation, the low number of seals 

surviving to reproductive age,and the need for stronger 

criteria guiding this work, the panel was concerned that 

the contribution of rehabilitation work to recovery may 

be small. The panel, therefore, agreed that criteria be 

developed to guide future rehabilitation work. 

5. Because of the importance of restoring the 

Midway seal colony to the recovery program, the panel 

Page 59 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

endorses transfer of the Midway Islands to USFWS. 

The MMC and the Recovery Team recommend that 

NMFS worlc closely with the Navy on plans and 

funding proposals to restore Midway's seal colony. 

6. The review panel recommended that NMFS test 

a testosterone-suppressing drug to reduce male 

aggressive behavior on captive monk seals. 

7. The review panel recommended that worlc on prey 

analysis and at-sea tracking be expanded. This 

included the collection of scat samples, the use of 

research techniques to identify isotopic and fatty-acid 

prey species. 

8. The panel recommended that efforts to re-open 

the lobster fishery in the northwestern Hawaiian 

islands exclude French Frigate Shoals unless and until 

information is adequate to assess whether or not 

lobster is important in the diet of young seals. 

The panel recognized the importance of the airfield at 

Tern Island in French Frigate Shoals, and 

recommended that everything possible be done to 

maintain the airfield. 

Long-term field camps were established in 1995 at six of the main 

breeding islands for Hawaiian monk seals to assess survival of 

mother and pups. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal Workplan, 1996-1998 

On September 12, 1995, a second three year research 

and recovery action plan for Hawaiian monk seals 

Page 60 

(1 996-1998) was drafted by the Recovery Team as 

' 

Amendment #I to the Recovery Plan. The tasks 

identified in this plan were again based on priority 

assignments in the Recovery Plan and recent 

recommendations of the Recovery Team, and a 1995 

Marine Mammal Commission review of the monk seal 

program, following evaluations of those items 

completed in the 1994- 1996 worlc plan. Generally, 

these tasks are a continuation or augmentation of high 

priority activities currently being conducted by NMFS. 

The highest priority needs in this amendment to the 

Recovery Plan are I) recover the western populations; 

2) mitigate losses of females due to mobbing; 3) 

mitigate losses due to high juvenile mortality at French 

Frigate Shoals; 4) conduct food habits and foraging 

pattern research; 5) mitigate fishery interactions; and 

6) increase emphasis on data analysis and development 

of models. 

Preliminary Results of the 1995 Hawaiian Monk 

Seal Field Season 

During 1995, long-term field camps were established at 

the six main breeding islands of the Hawaiian monk 

seal--1Cure Atoll, Midway Atoll, Pearl and Hermes Reef, 

Lisianslu Island, Laysan Island, and French Frigate 

Shoals. Primary activities at the camps included 

assessment of population abundance, survival and 

reproduction; tagging of pups; collection, rehabilitation, 

and translocation of undersized or injured seals; 

collection, documentation, and destruction of marine 

debris on the island beaches; disentanglement of 

entangled animals; collection of scats for prey species 

determination; and monitoring for evidence of fisheries 

interactions. The main indicators of the status of these 

populations are the number of pups born and the mean 

beach counts. The mean beach counts for the five 

major breeding sites totaled 383, and the total number 

of births was 175. Brief highlights of field activities are 

provided below. 

Kure Atoll 

A field camp was established at ICure Atoll from May 

14 to July 13, under the supervision of Lucy Keith, 

cooperating scientist, Joint Institute of Marine and 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

Atmospheric Research (JIMAR), University of Hawaii. 

In addition to population assessment, activities - - included release and monitoring of seven yearling seals 

that had been collected as underdeveloped pups in 

1994, and identification and enumeration of the 102 

individuals (assumed to approximate the entire local 

population) by applied bleach marks, tags, and 

distinctive scars. Twelve atoll-wide counts were 

conducted, resulting in a mean (5S.D.) of 42.3 (24.4) 

seals (excluding pups). Eleven pups were born (six 

male, five female). 

Two seals were observed entangled in marine debris: 

a weaned pup was released from a shard of net, and a 

nursing pup which had become entangled in the debris 

freed itself unaided. Potentially hazardous debris items 

totaling 313 pieces were inventoried and destroyed. 

Fifty-seven scat and spew samples were collected. 

Midway Atoll 

Field studies were conducted at Midway Atoll from 

March 31 to April 28 under the direction of Dr. Lee 

Eberhardt, contractor to the Marine Mammal Research 

Program, and from August 4 to August 18 under the 

direction of William Gilmartin, wildlife biologist. 

Activities at Midway focused on tagging of pups and 

other untagged seals and identification of all seals in 

the population. Six pups were born, the highest 

documented total from Midway in nearly four decades. 

All pups were tagged (2 were tagged by USFWS 

personnel), as were an additional 10 seals. A 

preliminary population estimate for the number of 

seals at Midway is approximately 45 individuals. 

In June 1995, thc U.S. Navy provided funding to 

NMFS for monk seal recovery efforts at Midway Atoll. 

The Navy funding was used to obtain hardware 

necessary to monitor survival and haul-out patterns of 

rehabilitated female pups that are relocated to Midway 

Atoll. 

Pearl and Hermes Reef 

Field studies were conducted at Pearl and Hermes Reef 

from July 16 to August 3 1 under the direction of john 

Henderson, fishery biologist. Camps were established 

at Southeast and North Islands, ensuring coverage of 

the entire atoll. Research objectives included 

identifying the entire population by applied bleach 

marks or Inown scar profiles of individual seals. Ten 

censuses of all islets in the atoll were conducted. The 

mean beach count (excluding pups) was 81.7 seals 

(+.S.D. 13. Twenty-seven pups were born (16 male, 11 

female), which is the highest recorded for the past 15 

years. Twenty-three juveniles were newly tagged, and 

tags were replaced on 13 other seals. A preliminary 

population estimate for seals at Pearl and Hermes Reef 

in 1995 is 225, representing an increase of about 50 

animals from the last population estimate in 199 1. 

One seal was disentangled from marine debris, and 

entanglement scars had appeared on two seals since the 

previous field camp in 1993. Bones from two seals 

were found, one of which had been entangled in marine 

debris. Hazardous debris (678 items) was inventoried 

and destroyed. Sixty-four scat and spew samples were 

collected for identification of prey items. 

Lisianski Island 

Field studies of the Hawaiian monk seal at Lisianski 

Island were conducted from April 19 to July 14 under 

the direction of Joy ~eymour, cooperating scientist, 

JIMAR. Research objectives specific to this population 

included identification of all seals. and documentation 

of adult male behavior. Fourteen censuses were 

conducted, and the mean (?S.D.) count (excluding 

pups) was 66.7 (k7.0). 

Because Lisianslu Island was visited for only a single 

day in 1994, beach count and population composition 

data were not obtained for comparison with the current 

year. However, mean beach counts from 1995 were 

similar to mean counts recorded in 1992 and 1993 

(70.5 and 64.0, respectively). A total of 2 18 seals were 

identified. The male-to-female sex ratio was 1.6: 1 .O, 

continuing the dolvnward trend of recent years (2.0:l.O 

in 1992 and 1.7: 1 .O in 1993). Twenty-two pups were 

born (10 females, 10 males, 2 unknown), compared 

with 23 and 17 pups in 1992 and 1993, respectively). 

Two emaciated juvenile seals (males) were found dead, 

Page 61 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

as was a nursing pup that died of unlu~own causes. 

Another emaciated juvenile male died after it was 

injured by a shark, and a small weaned pup 

disappeared. Also, one small weaned pup was in 

deteriorating condition at the end of the field season, 

and probably did not survive. Although mobbing 

events were not observed, one adult female sustained 

a severe mobbing-related injury. Six seals were 

entangled: two adult females escaped by themselves, 

and four pups (three weaned females and a nursing 

male) were released by observers. The remains of a 

subadult seal and two pups that had died of unknown 

causes since the 1994 field season were also found. 

Laysan Island 

Field studies were conducted from April 2 1 to July 18 

under the direction of Brenda Becler, wildlife biologist. 

Research activities were directed at identifying the 

entire population and monitoring behavior of adult 

seals as part of continuing research on the occurrence 

of mobbing. The mean of 13 beach counts (2S.D.) 

was 69.5 (t 10.0), excluding pups, which is similar to 

totals of the past 5 years. The total number of animals 

in the population (excluding pups) was 209, 1 I fewer 

than counted in 1994. This decrease in number was 

largely due to the translocation of 2 1 adult males to the 

main Hawaiian Islands in 1994; none of these males 

were resighted in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

in 1995. The total Laysan population included 68 

adult males and 70 adult females (ca. 1 .O: 1.0). 

Forty-three pups were born (23 female, 18 male, 2 

unltnown), the third highest number of births recorded 

since 1977. The birth rate was 61% for adult-sized 

females. Thirty-seven of the pups were tagged; one was 

still nursing at the end of the season. Five neonate 

pups (two male, two female, one unknown) seals were 

laown to have died of unlcnown causes; two yearling 

females disappeared and are assumed dead, one had 

received injuries from a mobbing event, and the other 

was severely emaciated. 

Two seals were entangled in marine debris; one 

disentangled itself, and the other was released 

uninjured by field staff. All marine debris capablc of 

entangling an animal was inventoried and destroyed. 

Of 1 7 seals that had been oiled from a spill in 1993, 12 

were sighted in 1995. Of the five not sighted, one was 

not seen in 1994, and one (adult male) had been 

translocated to the main Hawaiian Islands from Laysan 

Island in 1994. 

French Frigate Shoals 

Field camps were established from May 8 to September 

3 and from October 25 to November 18 under the 

direction of Mitchell Craig, JIMAR cooperating 

scientist. In addition to population assessment, 

activities included collection of underdeveloped pups 

for rehabilitation at facilities on Oahu and 

instrumentation of seals with satellite transmitters, 

time-depth recorders, and video cameras. Ten atollwide censuses were conducted, resulting in a mean 

spring-summer beach count ('.S.D.) of 123.9 (t 14.3) 

seals, excluding pups, approximately 35 fewer than in 

1994. Seventy-three pups were born, 38 fewer than in 

1994. Seventeen pups died or disappeared before 

weaning. Of the 56 pups that survived to weaning, 55 

were tagged. Tags were replaced on 103 seals which 

had lost or broken tags. Twelve undersized female 

weaned pups were collected for rehabilitation and 

subsequent release. Twenty-four seals were found 

dead, 12 of which were small weaned pups or stillborn 

fetuses. Three male seals were instrumented with both 

satellite and radio transmitters in November and were 

tracked for three weeks to determine the satellite tag 

position error. 

Eight other male seals were instrumented with video 

cameras supplied by the National Geographic Society 

for 2 to 18 days during October and November. These 

"crittercams" were used to assess the seals' foraging 

strategy, and were set to record images and sounds at 

periodic intervals (for example, 3 minutes every 30 

minutes) during the time the instrumented seal was at 

sea. A depth profile of the seal's movements was 

recorded continuously throughout the deployment. 

Preliminary examination of the resulting videotape and 

depth data indicated that the seals foraged at depths 

ranging from I0 to 90 meters but always targeted prey 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

associated with the bottom. Identified prey items 

included reef fish and octopus. Foraging activity 

included opportunistic searching of the shallow bottom 

as the seals moved between haulout sites and periods 

of intense diving and searching of 60- to 90-meter 

habitat on the slopes of the atoll. Some of this deep 

habitat contained numerous roclcs that one seal was 

observed to routinely flip over in search of prey hiding 

underneath. Supplementary information, such as 

aggression between adult and juvenile seals, was also 

observed in the videotapes. 

These preliminary results provide researchers with 

unique insights into the foraging strategies of adult 

monk seals and has distinguished National 

Geographic's crittercam as a valuable tool for studying 

foraging behavior. 

Humpback Whale, Megaptera novaeanglae 

North Pacific 

Review of Research and Management Priorities of the 

Humpback Whale Recovery Plan and Hawaiian Island 

National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan 

On December 1991, NMFS completed the Final 

Recovery Plan for the Humpbaclc Whale (Recovery 

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

Plan were compatible with those of the draft Hawaiian 

Islands Humpbaclc Whale National Marine Sanctuary 

Management Plan and include maintaining and 

enhancing humpbaclc whale habitat(s); reducing 

human-related mortality, injury and disturbance; 

measuring and monitoring ltey population parameters; 

and promoting a state/Federal partnership for 

admi;istration and implementation of the ~ecovery 

Plan. 

The Hawaiian Island Humpbaclc Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary includes: (1) the marine area out to 

the 100-fathom isobath adjoining the islands of Lanai, 

Maui, and Mololtai, including Penguin Bank, but not 

the waters within three nautical miles of Icahoolawe 

Island; (2) the deep water area of Pailolo Channel from 

Cape Halawa, Mololtai, to Nalcalele Point, Maui, and 

southward; and (3) the marine area out to the 100- 

fathom isobath adjacent to the IGlauea National 

Wildlife Refuge on the Island of ICauai. 

The primary objectives of the sanctuary are to protect 

the humpback whales and their habitat in the waters 

around the main Hawaiian Islands, to educate and 

interpret for the public the relationship of the 

humpback whale and the Hawaiian marine 

environment, to manage human uses of the Sanctuary 

consistent with the Act, and to identify other marine 

resources and ecosystems of national significance for 

possible inclusion in the Sanctuary. 

In order to facilitate the development of a Sanctuary 

Management Plan, resource managers from NOAA, 

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), and NMFS, 

convened a worltshop to assess research and other 

needs and opportunities related to humpbaclc whale 

management in the Hawaiian Islands on April 26-28, 

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

representatives of county, state and Federal agencies, 

representatives of non-government agencies and 

organizations, resource managers, and researchers to 

participate in developing research and management 

objectives for the Sanctuary. The workshop was to 

initiate the development of a Management Plan for the 

Sanctuary, and implement those items listed within the 

Recovery Plan considered necessary for the recovery of 

the humpbaclc whale in the North Pacific. 

Worltshop participants were: ( 1 ) to identify 

information and uncertainties that should be 

considered in developing a long-term research plan that 

meets the management and recovery objectives of the 

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

research and long-term monitoring programs that 

would be required to characterize the present 

population status and to detect and monitor trends in 

life-history parameters of the humpbaclc whale 

population in the North Pacific (with focus on the 

Hawaiian Islands); (3) to describe the essential 

components of humpbaclc whale habitat(s) in the 

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

and Federal agencies that would participate in the 

Page 63 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

implementation of Recovery Plan and the Final 

Management Plan for the Sanctuary. 

A worlcshop report providing a summary of the 

information that was contributed to the workshop by 

these participants will be completed in 1996. 

Review of Research and Management Priorities of the 

Humpback Whale Recovery Plan in the North Pacific 

On September 20-2 1, 1995, a small worlting group 

convened a meeting at NMFSIMarine Mammal 

Laboratory in Seattle, to review the Humpback Whale 

Recovery Plan relative to completed tasks identified for 

the North Pacific, to review the discussion from the 

NOWMFS and SRD meeting held in Hawaii the 

previous May, and to develop a draft implementation 

plan for North Pacific humpback whale recovery, for 

FY 96-FY 98 

The working group discussed the overall objective of 

population assessment and monitoring of humpback 

whales in the North Pacific relative to the management 

needs of NMFS. There was general agreement that 

recommendations should focus on information needed 

to evaluate the status and recovery of humpbaclc whale 

populations in the North Pacific. 

The following activities were considered essential to 

evaluating the status and recovery of humpbaclc whales 

in the North Pacific. 

1. Maintain the North Pacific Flulce Collection 

(NPFC): Having a single photo-identification facility 

that curates photographs of individual humpbaclc 

whales from an entire ocean basin facilitates 

communication among researchers and allows quality 

control of data. Maintenance of the collection will 

include incorporating photographs submitted during 

the past four years, cross matching within the 

photographic collection to create a worlung catalog of 

unique individuals and updating the video disc used for 

the matching and archiving of photographs. 

2. Study exchange rates of humpback whales within 

and between geographic regions: Using movement 

patterns of photographically identified individual 

humpbaclc whales to estimate exchange rates between 

putative stocks was considered the primary information 

source for determining stock structure. 

3. Estimate North Pacific basin-wide humpbaclc 

whale abundance: The primary objective of this study 

was to estimate the size of the entire humpback whale 

population in the North Pacific. Independent 

researchers have conducted photo-identification studies 

which now include all known wintering areas and many 

different feeding areas. Using capture-recapture 

analyses, these data may be sufficient to provide a 

more precise estimate of humpback whale abundance 

in the North Pacific than is currently available. 

4. Conduct capture-recapture studies off California. 

Oregon and Washington: The humpbaclc whale 

population which feeds off the coasts of California and 

Oregon was estimated by capture-recapture techniques 

to include approximately 600 (CV = 0.07) individuals 

in 1993. The resumption of intensive photoidentification studies of humpback whales off 

California, Oregon and Washington during 1997 and 

1998 will allow for an update of this estimate and an 

evaluation of trends in population size. 

5. Conduct aerial surveys in Hawaiian waters: Aerial 

surveys of abundance of humpbaclc whales in Hawaiian 

waters have been conducted intermittently for the past 

decade with the most extensive surveys conducted in 

1993 and 1995. Aerial surveys provide an efficient 

means of obtaining abundance and distribution of 

whales at a particular point in time. The aerial surveys 

are being proposed for FY97, following the 

development of an aerial survey correction factor in 

FY96. This will coincide with the first year of a 

proposed capture-recapture study, allowing for a more 

comprehensive, comparative population survey. 

6. Develop a correction factor for aerial survey 

estimates: Aerial survey correction factors need to be 

developed to estimate the proportion of whales not at 

the surface. Age, sex and group size-specific respiration 

and dive data, which have been collected from 

Page 64 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

shore-based observations, need to be analyzed and 

examined for intra- and inter-annual variation. 

7. Conduct capture-recapture surveys in Hawaiian 

waters: Coordinated photo-identification surveys 

throughout the Hawaiian Islands were conducted at 

weekly intervals during the winter season in 1995. The 

objectives of this study were to: 1) estimate the 

abundance of humpback whales which visit Hawaii 

during a single year and 2) provide information on 

residency and the extent of within season inter-island 

movements of individuals. 

8. Summarize existing information and expand 

surveys in Southeastern Alaska to study distribution, 

survivorship and reproductive success: Expanded 

systematic sampling in southeastern Alaska should 

provide information on the distribution of adults 

including mothers with calves, and return of known-age 

animals (i.e., those first photographed as calves), and 

will provide data for capture-recapture estimates of 

abundance. Documenting the return of known-age 

animals to feeding areas will allow the estimation of 

recruitment andlor recovery rates. 

9. Convene second workshop to estimate calf 

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

workshop was convened to begin the process of 

synthesizing data needed to estimate calf mortality of 

humpback whales based on sightings of females with 

calves (and the same females subsequently without 

calves) on the winter and feeding grounds. The second 

workshop has been tentatively scheduled for the 

spring/summer of 1996. Based on the database of 

sightings of females with and without calves, calf 

mortality rates during the first six months of life will be 

estimated. 

10. Convene workshop on adult mortality: At the 

first calf mortality workshop, participants suggested 

that the next life history parameter to measure should 

be adult mortality. This will be based on longitudinal 

studies of several individuals over a number of years. 

I I. Monitor anthropogenic noise on the wintering 

grounds using acoustic tags: Anthropogenic noise poses 

a potential threat to the quality of the habitat used by 

females to nurse dependent calves in Hawaiian waters. 

At this time, the technology to adequately monitor the 

response of humpback whales to anthropogenic noise 

does not exist. However, based on research supported 

by the ATOC program, a satellite linked transmitter 

capable of recording received sound levels, depth of 

dive information, and position should be commercially 

available by FY 98. Therefore, a pilot study is 

recommended to determine the feasibility of attaching 

such transmitters to 2-5 adult females with calves and 

2-5 females without calves on the wintering grounds. 

The information obtained by such an experiment 

would be used to design a study that could test the 

hypothesis as to whether anthropogenic noise could 

potentially degrade habitat critical to the recovery of 

humpback whales. 

12. Develop a GIS database of whale sightings data, 

based on aerial surveys: At present, information on the 

distribution of humpback whales in Hawaiian waters is 

available, but it has not been synthesized into a single 

database. The objective of this activity would be to 

develop a CIS database, which would then be 

combined with information on the physical 

environment, reproductive success and survival of 

humpbacks, and human-related disturbance patterns to 

evaluate whether particular areas are more important 

than others. 

13. Summarize information on physical and biological 

oceanographic factors that affect the distribution of 

humpback whales: More accurate characterization of 

humpback whale habitats and their use will contribute 

to effective management of this stock. Factors to be 

evaluated more precisely include depth, bottom type 

and topography, water temperature, turbidity, acoustic 

characteristics, and current speed and direction. 

Features offering protection from currents or storms 

need to be identified, particularly on the wintering 

grounds. 

14. Summarize information on calf distribution in and 

around the Hawaiian Islands: Anecdotal information 

on distribution of humpback whale mothers and calves 

implies some geographic stratification and certain 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

preferred areas. Systematic data should be collected to 

delineate distribution around the Hawaiian Islands. 

15. Examine prey biomass and oceanographic data 

from fisheries surveys: Data on prey biomass and 

associated data on physical and biological 

oceanographic features (bathymetry, salinity, 

temperature, plankton, etc.) are collected systematically 

in a number of areas throughout the North Pacific as 

part of other survey projects (e.g., fisheries and other 

surveys, etc). A review of existing state and federal 

fisheries data collected in areas of interest in the North 

Pacific was recommended to evaluate whether 

integration of these data sets with whale sightings data 

would help provide information relating to habitat and 

prey studies. Concurrent collection of marine mammal 

sightings and prey and oceanographic data was deemed 

most valuable and the placement of marine mammal 

observers aboard fisheries survey vessels was 

recommended. 

16. Develop quantitative criteria for delisting North 

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

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

review of the species on the Endangered Species List be 

conducted to determine whether any species should be 

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

endangered species to a threatened species, or 3) 

changed in status from a threatened species to an 

endangered species. NMFS completed its first 5-year 

review on the status of endangered whales in 1984. In 

January 1990, NMFS announced that it was 

conducting status reviews on certain listed species 

under its jurisdiction. The status review was completed 

and made available in June 1991 (56 FR 2947 1). 

One of the problems with the current process for 

amending the status of listed species is that there are 

no objective criteria for classifying large whales as 

threatened or endangered. That is, how does one 

quantify what it means for there to be a significant rislc 

that a species will become extinct over a major portion 

of its range? 

In FY95, a contract was let to the University of 

Washington to support a student to initiate the 

development of criteria that are 1) quantifiable and 2) 

applicable to populations of large whales. The initial 

approach was to take advantage of recent worlc by the 

IUCN (see IUCN Red List Categories, 30 November 

1994) in quantifying criteria used to classify stoclts in 

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

extinct in the wild, critically endangered, endangered, 

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

the two classification< under the ESA with specific 

categories of threatened under the IUCN classification 

scheme and then use or revise the quantitative criteria 

for classifying under the IUCN scheme for classifying 

large whales under the ESA. 

Objective listing and delisting criteria for the following 

stoclcs will be developed over the next two years: North 

Pacific humpbaclc whale, North Pacific fin whale, 

North Pacific right whale, and possibly sperm whales 

and bowhead whales. The performance of the 

proposed criteria will be evaluated by simulation trials. 

Population projections will be made using computer 

simulations which incorporate the effects of 

demographic, environmental, and catastrophic 

stochasticity and changes in meta-population 

dynamics. In addition, existing PVA software will be 

used to determine the applicability of such software in 

determining the extinction probability of large whale 

stocks, where data on trends in abundance and 

abundance are either imprecise or unavailable. 

A workshop report providing a summary of the 

information that was contributed to the worlcshop by 

these participants will be completed in early 1996. 

Atlantic Ocean 

Humpback Whale Yonah Program. Since 1992- 1993, 

NMFS has participated in the Years of the North 

Atlantic Humpbaclc (YONAH) project. YONAH is a 

large-scale international effort that uses photographic 

identification and molecular genetics to study 

humpbaclc whales across their entire known North 

Atlantic range. The intention is to obtain as large a 

sample as possible of individual identifications and slcin 

biopsies to provide reliable answers to questions on 

Page 66 
Chapter VI. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

size, structure, and migratory movements, vital rates 

and mating systems of this population. 

During 1995, much of the research effort was 

dedicated to maintaining the humpback whale catalog, 

and YONAH photo-ID and database tasks, through a 

contract with the College of the Atlantic. FY95 funds 

were directed to: 

Task I. Final data quality review and update for 

YONAH catalog and database; 

Much of the analyses have been, and continue to be 

released, through peer-review journals and 

presentations at professional conferences and meetings. 

Task2. Archival of YONAH catalog photographs and 

database. 

Eastern North Pacific Stock of 

Gray Whales, Eschrichtius robustus 

In June 1994, the eastern North Pacific stoclc of gray 

whale was removed from the list of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. The ESA requires that 

stocks/species removed from the list be monitored for 

a minimum period of 5 years and its status reassessed 

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

the delisting process, NMFS developed a 5-year 

monitoring and research plan for eastern gray whales 

and initiated this program in 1994. 

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

migrating gray whales were conducted in January 1995 

and in December 1995 to February 1996 as they 

passed the Granite Canyon research station in central 

California. The project was directed by NMML with 

assistance from the SbVFSC. During the January 1995 

study, an experiment was conducted using 25-power 

binoculars and a thermal sensor to determine the 

onshore-offshore distribution of migrating gray whales. 

In the 199511996 study, the research was directed at 

determining total abundance. The abundance estimate 

of approximately 22,600 animals was based on the 

number of whales observed during the daytime watch 

and a series of correction factors to account for whales 

that were not counted. This estimate of total 

abundance was similar in value to an estimate based on 

data collected during the winter of 199311 994. 

Support for this research was provided by the NMFS 

Office of Protected Resource's Marine Mammal 

Assessment Program. 

During the 1995 meeting of the Scientific Committee 

of the IWC several papers prepared by NMML and 

SWFSC staff regarding gray whales were discussed. A 

paper by Shelden et al. (SC1471AS4) reported a 

substantial increase in the number and proportion of 

calves observed during the southward migration, which 

may possibly be a response to the increase status of 

gray whales relative to their carrying capacity. Shelden 

et a]. further noted that since the mid-1980s and the 

mid-1990s, the median date of the southward 

migration past the counting site in central California 

has been delayed 5 and 9 days, respectively. Penyman 

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

1994 northward migration to enumerate the number of 

gray whale calves in the population. This survey was 

conducted from Piedras Blancas, CA. Total calf 

production was estimated at 1,001 calves (SE 92), 

which represents 4.3% of the best estimate of 

abundance. This survey was done in response to 

concerns raised over a possible reduction in calf 

production and indicates that calf production is 

currently at a reasonable level. 

it was also noted during the 1995 SC meeting that 44 

gray whales from the eastern North Pacific stock were 

harvested by Russian subsistence hunters in 1994. The 

SC noted that this level of take was extremely unlikely 

to adversely affect this population. Catch limits for the 

eastern stock of gray whales in the North Pacific for 

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

140 animals per year, but only when the meat and 

products of such whales are to be used exclusively for 

local consumption by the aborigines. 
Chapter VII. Ecosystem Activities 

Bering Sea Ecosystem Study finalize the study plan, and determine how the research 

would be conducted. The worksho~ was attended bv 

The MMPA 1994 Amendments require NMFS to 

undertake a scientific research program to resolve 

uncertainties concerning the causes of population 

declines in marine mammals, sea birds and other living 

resources of the ecosystem. The amendments also 

require that the study consider the research 

recommendations developed by previous workshops on 

the Bering Sea and that it include research on 

subsistence use of resources and ways to provide for the 

continued use of these resources. An important 

component of the study will be the involvement of 

over 90 participants from NOAA, the above-mentioned 

agencies and organizations, and the general public, and 

was successful in reviewing current research efforts and 

research gaps. Alaslca Native organizations at the 

workshop focused on the role of traditional 

environmental knowledge (TEIC) in the study, but were 

unable to provide specific recommendations on how to 

incorporate TEIC into the research efforts. NMFS will 

continue development of the scientific plan, and will 

incorporate and Alaslca Native input on TEIC once it is 

available. The study plan will be finalized in 1996. 

native Alaskan groups in the work, and the use of 

traditional local knowledge in the conduct of Bering 

Sea research. 

NMFS and numerous other federal and state agencies 

and academic institutions already conduct research in 

the Bering Sea which contributes to an understanding 

of the ecosystem and potential declines in living marine 

resource populations. However, the various research 

efforts are not coordinated from an ecosystem 

perspective. NMFS' objective in undertalang this 

research program is not to duplicate research already 

ongoing, but to coordinate among these programs and 

supplement this work as required. Ribbon Seal, Phoca (=histriophoca)fasciata. Photo credit: NMFS. 

As a first step, NMFS is developing a comprehensive 

ecosystem study plan to define research, monitoring 

and assessment priorities. The plan is being developed 

through a series of steps involving NMFS, other federal 

agencies, the State of Alaslca and Alaska native groups. 

NMFS completed the first draft of the plan in early 

1995. During this phase, recommendations of previous 

Bering Sea worlcshops and symposia were reviewed and 

incorporated into the plan as appropriate. The plan 

was circulated to the MMC, State of Alaska, FWS, 

NBS, Alasla native organizations and others for review 

and comment, and revised. 

In November 1995, NMFS sponsored a workshop in 

Anchorage to review current Bering Sea research 

efforts, determine gaps in current research efforts, 

Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Workshop 

On September 18, 1995, NMFS convened the Gulf of 

Maine Ecosystem Worlcshop at Dartmouth University. 

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

stability of the Gulf of Maine ecosystem; and 2. 

identify research and management options to restore 

and/or maintain the environmental quality of the 

ecosystem. Over 70 participants from state and federal 

government, academic institutions, environmental 

NGOs and fishing groups as well as private citizens 

gathered to discuss the status of the ecosystem. 

Page 69 
Chapter VII. Ecosystem Activities 

The workshop consisted of plenary presentations and 

a public comment forum, followed by focused working 

groups, and synthesis and drafting sessions. Plenary 

subjects included the Gulf of Maine physical 

environment, water column processes, benthic 

environments, fisheries resources, protected species, 

and sources, fates and effects of contaminants. The 

three working groups were anthropogenic impacts, 

fisheries harvesting and protected specieslmarine 

mammals. In each worlung group, the status of 

lmowledge for that topic was surveyed, individual 

ecosystem stressors (direct and indirect) were 

identified, and research and management 

recommendations were then developed for each. 

Habitat, biodiversity, and ecosystem function were 

emphasized as cross-cutting themes in each worlung 

group. 

The following were identified as the major factors 

affecting the health and stability of the system: 

Overfishing, and related impacts, 

Contaminant introduction, 

Physical alteration and loss of critical habitat, 

Impacts of human-activities and development on 

endangeredlthreatened species, 

Factors external to the Gulf which affect 

seasonally resident and indigenous populations 

(global warming, mortality to migratory 

populations while outside the Gulf). 

Based on these priority impacts, the worltshop made 

the following recommendations with regard to research 

and management: 

Research 

Identify critical linlcages between ecosystem 

components and subsystems, and their sensitivity 

to cumulative and individual stressors; 

Implement additional interdisciplinary research 

approaches; 

Evaluate the resilience of the Gulf of Maine 

ecosystem and its components known to be 

affected by stressors; 

Develop criteria to assess sensitivity of coastal 

embayments and estuaries from an 

interdisciplinary perspective of habitat change, 

contaminant introduction, fisheries harvesting 

and physical and biologcal processes. 

Management 

Seek cost-effective solutions through increased 

integration of rigorous scientific assessment of the 

problems and potential management options; 

Develop and implement integrated management 

strategies encompassing the ltey or sensitive 

components of both the Gulf of Maine per se and 

its watersheds; 

Strengthen existing water quality criteria and 

enforcement activities in the Gulf of Maine; 

Adopt a precautionaly approach in the face of 

uncertainty or insufficient information. 

The Executive Summary report of the worltshop, as 

well as a NMFS report including major conclusions and 

recommendations on research, management and 

legislation, was forwarded to Congress on January 23, 

1996. The final worlcshop proceedings will be available 

in early May 1996. 

Regionwide Pinniped-Fishery Interactions 

Study 

NMFS has been given the authority to conduct a study 

on the interaction between pinnipeds and anadromous 

fish in at least three areas within the Northwest Region 

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

in the presence of predators; 2) holding times and 

passage rates of anadromous fish in the presence and 

absence of predation; and 3) whether additional 

facilities exist, or can be modified to improve 

Page 70 
Chapter VII. Ecosystem Activities 

escapement. However, this investigation will not be On February 7, 1996, the task force submitted its final 

conducted until appropriations have been allocated. report to NMFS. Among the recommendations to 

mitigate pinniped-aquaculture interactions were: 

lnteraction of California Sea Lions and 

Pacific Harbor Seals with Salmonid Stocks 

NMFS is to investigate whether California sea lions 

and Pacific harbor seals are having: 1) a significant 

negative impact on the recovery of salmonid fishery 

stocks listed as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA or are approaching endangered or threatened 

status; and 2) broader impacts on coastal ecosystems of 

Washington, Oregon and California. 

To assist in gathering data for the investigation, NMFS 

established a working group comprised of biologsts 

familiar with pinniped and salmonid issues in the 

Pacific Northwest. The worlung group met twice in 

1995, and produced a draft report in October 1995. 

The report is scheduled for completion in May 1996 at 

which time NMFS will enter into consultation with the 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), 

which will act on behalf of the states. NMFS and the 

PSMFC will make joint recommendations to Congress 

on how to mitigate any impacts identified through the 

investigation. 

Gulf of Maine Pinniped-Fishery Interaction 

Task Force 

The 1994 MMPA Amendments require NMFS to 

convene a task force to provide advice on issues or 

problems regarding pinnipeds interacting in a 

dangerous or damaging manner with aquaculture 

resources in the Gulf of Maine. The task force, 

appointed in January 1995, was comprised of salmon 

growers, a state resource manager, representatives of 

environmental organizations, and a pinniped biologist 

from the academic research communitv. Three task 

NMFS should review regulations, permit 

processes and all restrictions on currently held 

permits, and revisit those measures which limit a 

grower's ability to control seal predation through 

non-lethal measures. 

NMFS should increase transboundary cooperation 

with Canadian authorities and work to endure 

that Canadian growers do not have a production 

or marketing advantage due to less restrictive 

regulations. 

NMFS should halt the importation of salmon 

from nations that allow use of lethal measures to 

control predation at salmon pen-sites. 

NMFS, Maine DMR and the Maine Aquaculture 

Innovation Center should investigate innovative 

net pen designs. 

NMFS should support research on the effects of 

acoustic deterrence devices. 

NMFS and Maine DMR should conduct studies 

of seal life history to better understand the causes 

underlying interactions with aquaculture 

operations. 

The salmon aquaculture industry should increase 

efforts to document losses from predator impacts. 

Salmon growers and Maine aquaculture 

associations should work with federal and state 

agencies, academic institutions and NGOs to 

make predation control measures more effective 

and affordable. 

force meetings were held in the Eastport, ME area and 

one was held in Portland, ME. All meetings of the task NMFS should offer subsidized loans and an 

insurance program to assist growers to implement force were open to the public. predation-control measures and to withstand 

losses from predators when they occur. 
Chapter VII. Ecosystem Activities 

NMFS will use the task force report as the basis of a aquaculture interactions. That report is scheduled for 

report to Congress, which will include subrnissioninSepternber1996. 

recommendations on how to mitigate the pinniped- 
Chapter VIII. Alaska Native Take of Marine Mammals 

P. Michael Payne 

Major Contributors: Doug Demaster, Tom Loughlin, R.V. Miller, 

Sue Mello, Ron Morris, David Withrow 

MMPA Section 101 (b) provides an exemption to the 

moratorium against taking marine mammals for 

Alaskan Indians, Aleuts, or Eslumos if the taking is for 

subsistence purposes or for purposes of creating and 

selling authentic native articles of handicrafts and 

clothing. These takes, however, may be limited by 

quota and, in some cases, other regulations. Two of 

the five subsistence tales listed below, bowhead whales 

in the Beaufon and Chulcchi Seas and the northern fur 

seals on the Pribilof Islands, are subject to such 

limitations. The remainder are undergoing harvest 

level assessments. 

Bowhead Whales 

Subsistence Program Management 

NMFS works cooperatively with the Alaslta Eslimo 

Whaling Commission to manage bowhead issues. 

Catch limits for the subsistence talte of bowhead 

whales are established by the International Whaling 

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

year with no more than 41 animals'landed was set by 

the IWC for the years 1992 - 1994. The actual tale of 

bowhead whales in 1993. 1994, and 1995 is presented 

in Box 7. At the 1994 IWC Annual ~eetii~, a new 

4-year quota was established. For the years 1995 - 

1998, the number of bowhead whales landed shall not 

exceed 204, and the number of bowhead whales struck 

shall not exceed 68 in 1995, 67 in 1996, 66 in 1997, 

and 65 in 1998, with the exception that any unused 

portion of the yearly quota may be carried over and 

added to the subsequent year's strilte quota, provided 

that no more than 10 strikes is added to the strilte 

quota for any one year. 

Research on Bowhead Whales 

No field studies were conducted on bowhead whales by 

the staff at NMML in 1995. However, several analyses 

and reports were either undertalcen or completed using 

existing data. For example, three papers were 

completed that related to the development of a regime 

for IWC's management of aboriginal subsistence 

whaling (ASW). The papers will be presented at the 

Scientific Committee meetings of the IWC in 1996. In 

addition, NMML staff collaborated with researchers 

from the University of Washington and LCL Inc. on a 

report on the utility of photoidentification in 

estimating the annual survival rate of adult bowhead 

whales. This paper will also be submitted to the 

Scientific Committee of the IWC for consideration at ' 

its June 1996 meeting. 

Finally, NMML staff in cooperation with other AFSC 

staff continued their studies on the utility of radioisotope aging of bowhead whale ear bones. The initial 

studies have used gray whale earbones, but upon 

completion of the calibration phase, bowhead whale ear 

bones will be aged based on changes in the ratio of lead 

and radium isotopes in the calcium matrix of the bone. 

BOX 7 - - Take of Bowhead Whales in 1993, 

1994and 1995 

Year Landed Lost Strikes 

1993 4 1 11 52 

1994 34 12 46 

To date, researchers have not been able to develop 

reliable methods for determining the age of a bowhead 

whale. It is lilcely that a combination of approaches 

will have to be used to cover the full range of the age 

structure of this species, such as also using carbonisotope ratios and eye lens protein racemerization. 
Chapter VIII. Subsistence Take of Marine Mammals 

Steller Sea Lions and Harbor Seals Steller Sea Lion Subsistence Project 

Alaska Native Subsistence Harvest of Steller Sea In September 1995, NMFS Alaska Region began, 

under contract, a Steller sea lion tissue sampling and Lions education project in 3 Alaslca Native communities that 

Although Steller sea lions and harbor seals have been 

a traditional subsistence resource for Alaslca Natives in 

many areas of the State, information on harvest levels 

prior to the 1990s is limited. Therefore, beginning in 

1992, NMFS provided funds to the Alaslca Department 

of Fish and Game to - gather information on the 

subsistence use of harbor seals (and Steller sea lions) in 

Alaska. From surveys with hunters and Native 

households in coastal villages throughout the State, 

details of the subsistence tale, including an estimate of 

total talte (i.e., landings plus animals struck but lost), 

have been developed for the years 1992 to 1994. 

The estimated total Native subsistence talce of Steller 

sea lions in Alaslca for those years was 549 in 1992 

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

lulled, 139 struck and lost), and 41 6 in 1994 (336 

killed, 80 struck and lost). 

Almost the entire subsistence talce of Steller sea lions 

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

more than three-fourths of that talce occurred on the 

Pribilof and Aleutian Islands. The highest annual talte 

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

was estimate at six animals in 1992. 

In light of concern about the decline of Steller sea lions 

and their importance as a subsistence resource, Native 

residents in the Pribilof and Aleutian lslands 

established an Alaska Native Steller Sea Lion 

Commission (ANSSLC) to develop a system of 

self-regulation and to explore co-management 

arrangements with Federal and State resource 

managers. The ANSSLC membership was discussed 

among Native village representatives, but a meeting 

was not convencd in 1995. 

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

George Island, and Unalaska). Sampling focuses on 

obtaining tissue to determine the age, sex, and genetic 

makeup of harvested animals, as well as their physical 

condition, reproductive history, and exposure to 

anthropogenic contaminants. 

A second major emphasis of the contract is to increase 

awareness of the plight of the Steller sea lion and to 

encourage local management of the subsistence harvest. 

The contractor, in association with NMFS Alaska 

Region, will hold community workshops to discuss 

Steller sea lion recovery efforts and to inform hunters 

of the tissue collection project. In future years, NMFS 

hopes to expand this program to include other Alaska 

Native communities that harvest Steller sea lions, and 

to increase its emphasis on conservation through 

improved hunting practices and local management of 

harvest. The project will be continued in 1996, and a 

first year project report will be available in fall of 1996. 

Subsistence Harvests 

Under section IO(e) of the ESA, prohibitions on the 

talung of threatened and endangered species normally 

do not apply to talungs by native Alaslcans if such 

talung is primarily for subsistence purposes. To date, 

no action has been taken to regulate, or otherwise 

manage, the subsistence harvest of Steller sea lions by 

Alaska native groups. If subsistence takings materially 

and negatively affect the species, regulations or 

restrictions may be imposed only after a hearing and a 

decision is finalized. 

Section 119 of the MMPA allows the Secretary of 

Commerce to enter into cooperative agreements with 

Alaslta Native organizations to conserve marine 

mammals and provide co-management of subsistence 

uses. In 1994, an interim Alaslca Native Steller Sea 

Lion Commission consisting of representatives from 

Alaska communities that talte Steller sea lions for 

Page 74 
Chapter VIII. Subsistence Take of Marine Mammals 

subsistence needs was formed to improve 

communication among indigenous communities that 

use sea lions, to advocate for conservation of Steller sea 

lions, to advocate for protection of customary and 

traditional rights of indigenous peoples with regard to 

access and use of sea lions, and to serve as the focal 

point for development of co-management agreements 

with NMFS. Through co-management agreements 

between NMFS and the Alaska Native Sea Lion 

Commission or tribal entities, self-management and 

regulation of the subsistence harvest by Alaslta Native 

tribes, communities, or the Commission will be 

achieved. NMFS is not considering regulation of the 

subsistence harvest at this time but hopes to work with 

Alaslca Native communities and representatives to 

ensure that subsistence harvest dois not adversely 

affect the Steller sea lion population. 

Alaslca Native subsistence hunters have been estimated 

to talce about 500 Steller sea lions annually in recent 

years; virtually all of the subsistence harvest in Alaslca 

bccurs within the range of the western population 

segment (Wolfe and Mischler, 1993; 1994). These 

removals have an impact on the population although 

the magnitude of estimates in comparison to the 

reported declines indicate that subsistence harvest has 

not been a significant factor in the decline. However, 

should the western population segment continue to 

decline and the subsistence harvest continue at the 

same level, it may become significant. 

Alaska Native Subsistence Harvest 

of Harbor Seals 

The estimated total Native subsistence take of harbor 

seals in Alaslca was 2,888 in 1992 (2,535 retrieved, 353 

struck and lost), 2,736 in 1993 (2,365 retrieved, 371 

struclc and lost) and 2,62 1 in 1994 (2,3 13 retrieved, 

308 struclc and lost). 

In September, 1995, NMFS Alaslca Region contracted 

a harbor seal tissue sampling project to the Alaslca 

Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), Subsistence 

Division. Tissues will be used to further studies of 

genetics, age and growth determination, cranial 

morphometrics, long-term archival and contaminant 

analyses. Areas covered include southeast Alaska, 

Bristol Bay and the Aleutian Islands. Results of 

research analyses will be provided to the Native 

community, particularly for dioxin levels in harbor 

seals near pulp mills in southeast Alaska. 

NMFS also contracted ADFG, Division of Subsistence, 

to estimate the annual take of harbor seals (and Steller 

sea lions) by Alasl<a Natives. The information was 

derived by systematic interviews with hunters and users 

of marine mammals. The most recent technical report 

regarding this contract includes data collected in 1994. 

ADFG reported that 2,621 seals (95% CI 2,110 

-3,457) were harvested in 1994. Of this talce, 308 

(1 1.8%) seals were struck and lost. The estimated 

number of harbor seals harvested in Alaslca by 

subsistence hunters in 1992 and 1993 was 2,888 and 

2,736, respectively. 

Research on Harbor Seals 

In Alaslca, harbor seals range throughout southern 

Alaslta waters, the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands and 

along the north side of the Alaska Peninsula and 

Bristol Bay (to about 59" N). Once, harbor seals were 

considered abundant in all parts of their Alaskan range 

until surveys by ADFG researchers in the 1980's 

indicated declining trends in some areas. The NMML 

has conducted surveys in Alaslca intermittently since 

1976 and yearly since 1991 to obtain a minimum 

population estimate for the state. 

The state of Alaslta was arbitrarily sub-divided into 4 

regions for census purposes. These regions roughly 

follow the estimated stoclc separations, but logistical 

considerations were the primary factor used for this 

delineation. NMML, with funding from the NMFS 

Office of Protected Resource's Marine Mammal 

Assessment Program, has censused each of these 4 

regions over the last 4 years (Loughlin 1992 [Bristol 

Bay, Prince William Sound, and Copper fiver Delta], 

Loughlin 1993 [Gulf of Alaslca and Prince William 

Sound], Loughlin 1994 [Southeastern Alaslca], and 

Withrow and Loughlin 1995 [Aleutian Islands]). 
Chapter VII. Ecosystem Activities 

NMFS will use the task force report as the basis of a aquaculture interactions. That report is scheduled for 

report to Congress, which will include submissioninSeptember1996. 

recommendations on how to mitigate the pinniped- 
Chapter VIII. Alaska Native Take of Marine Mammals 

P. Michael Payne 

Major Contributors: Doug Demaster, Tom Loughlin, R.V. Miller, 

Sue Mello, Ron Morris, David Withrow 

MMPA Section 10 1 (b) provides an exemption to the 

moratorium against talung marine mammals for 

Alaskan Indians, Aleuts, or Eslumos if the talung is for 

subsistence purposes or for purposes of creating and 

selling authentic native articles of handicrafts and 

clothing. These takes, however, may be limited by 

quota and, in some cases, other regulations. Two of 

the five subsistence talces listed below, bowhead whales 

in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and the northern fur 

seals on the Pribilof Islands, are subject to such 

limitations. The remainder are undergoing harvest 

level assessments. 

Bowhead Whales 

Subsistence Program Management 

Research on Bowhead Whales 

No field studies were conducted on bowhead whales by 

the staff at NMML in 1995. However, several analyses 

and reports were either undertaken or completed using 

existing data. For example, three papers were 

completed that related to the development of a regime 

for IWC's management of aboriginal subsistence 

whaling (ASW). The papers will be presented at the 

Scientific Committee meetings of the IWC in 1996. In 

addition, NMML staff collaborated with researchers 

from the University of Washington and LGL Inc. on a 

report on the utility of photoidentification in 

estimating the annual survival rate of adult bowhead 

whales. This paper will also be submitted to the 

Scientific committee of the IWC for consideration at 

its June 1996 meeting. 

NMFS works cooperatively with the Alaslca Eslumo 

Whaling Commission to manage bowhead issues. Finally, NMML staff in cooperation with other AFSC 

Catch limits for the subsistence take of bowhead staff continued their studies on the utility of radiowhales are established by the International Whaling isotope aging of bowhead whale ear bones. The initial 

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

studies have used gray whale earbones, but upon 

year with no more than 41 animals landed was set by completion of the calibration phase, bowhead whale ear 

the IWC for the years 1992 - 1994. The actual take of bones will be aged based on changes in the ratio of lead 

bowhead whales in 1993, 1994, and 1995 is presented and radium isotopes in the calcium matrix of the bone. 

in Box 7. At the 1994 IWC Annual Meetiig, a new 

4-year quota was established. For the years 1995 - 

1998, the number of bowhead whales landed shall not 

exceed 204, and the number of bowhead whales struclc 

shall not exceed 68 in 1995, 67 in 1996, 66 in 1997, 

and 65 in 1998, with the exception that any unused 

portion of the yearly quota may be carried over and 

added to the subsequent year's strilce quota, provided 

that no more than 10 strilces is added to the strike 

quota for any one year. 

BOX 7 - - Take of Bowhead Whales in 1993, 

1994andl995 

Year Landed Lost Strikes 

1993 4 1 11 52 

1994 34 12 46 

To date, researchers have not been able to develop 

reliable methods for determining the age of a bowhead 

whale. It is lilcely that a combination of approaches 

will have to be used to cover the full range of the age 

structure of this species, such as also using carbonisotope ratios and eye lens protein racemerization. 

Page 73 
Chapter VIII. Subsistence Take of Marine Mammals 

Steller Sea Lions and Harbor Seals Steller Sea Lion Subsistence Project 

Alaska Native Subsistence Harvest of Steller Sea In 1995, NMFS Alaska Regi0n began, 

Lions under contract, a Steller sea lion tissue sampling and 

education project in 3 Alaska Native communities that 

Although Steller sea lions and harbor seals have been 

a traditional subsistence resource for Alaslta Natives in 

many areas of the State, information on harvest levels 

prior to the 1990s is limited. Therefore, beginning in 

1992, NMFS provided funds to the Alaslca Department 

of Fish and Game to gather information on the 

subsistence use of harbor seals (and Steller sea lions) in 

Alaslca. From surveys with hunters and Native 

households in coastal villages throughout the State, 

details of the subsistence talce, including an estimate of 

total take (i.e., landings plus animals struclc but lost), 

have been developed for the years 1992 to 1994. 

The estimated total Native subsistence talce of Steller 

sea lions in Alaslca for those years was 549 in 1992 

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

lulled, 139 struclc and lost), and 416 in 1994 (336 

killed, 80 struclc and lost). 

Almost the entire subsistence take of Steller sea lions 

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

more than three-fourths of that take occurred on the 

Pribilof and Aleutian Islands. The highest annual take 

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

was estimate at six animals in 1992. 

In light of concern about the decline of Steller sea lions 

and their importance as a subsistence resource, Native 

residents in the Pribilof and Aleutian Islands 

established an Alaslca Native Steller Sea Lion 

Commission (ANSSLC) to develop a system of 

self-regulation and to explore co-management 

arrangements with Federal and State resource 

managers. The ANSSLC membership was discussed 

among Native village representatives, but a meeting 

was not convened in 1995. 

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

George Island, and Unalaska). Sampling focuses on 

obtaining tissue to determine the age, sex, and genetic 

makeup of harvested animals, as well as their physical 

condition, reproductive history, and exposure to 

anthropogenic contaminants. 

A second major emphasis of the contract is to increase 

awareness of the plight of the Steller sea lion and to 

encourage local management of the subsistence harvest. 

The contractor, in association with NMFS Alaslca 

Region, will hold community workshops to discuss 

Steller sea lion recovery efforts and to inform hunters 

of the tissue collection project. In future years, NMFS 

hopes to expand this program to include other Alaslca 

Native communities that harvest Steller sea lions, and 

to increase its emphasis on conservation through 

improved hunting practices and local management of 

harvest. The project will be continued in 1996, and a 

first year project report will be available in fall of 1996. 

Subsistence Hawests 

Under section lO(e) of the ESA, prohibitions on the 

taking of threatened and endangered species normally 

do not apply to talungs by native Alaslcans if such 

talung is primarily for subsistence purposes. To date, 

no action has been talcen to regulate, or otherwise 

manage, the subsistence harvest of Steller sea lions by 

Alaslca native groups. If subsistence talungs materially 

and negatively affect the species, regulations or 

restrictions may be imposed only after a hearing and a 

decision is finalized. 

Section 119 of the MMPA allows the Secretary of 

Commerce to enter into cooperative agreements with 

hlaslca Native organizations to conserve marine 

mammals and provide co-management of subsistence 

uses. In 1994, an interim Alaska Native Steller Sea 

Lion Commission consisting of representatives from 

Alaslca communitics that take Steller sea lions for 
Chapter VIII. Subsistence Take of Marine Mammals 

subsistence needs was formed to improve 

communication among indigenous communities that 

use sea lions, to advocate for conservation of Steller sea 

lions, to advocate for protection of customary and 

traditional rights of indigenous peoples with regard to 

access and use of sea lions, and to serve as the focal 

point for development of co-management agreements 

with NMFS. Through co-management agreements 

between NMFS and the Alaska Native Sea Lion 

Commission or tribal entities, self-management and 

regulation of the subsistence harvest by Alaslca Native 

tribes, communities, or the Commission will be 

achieved. NMFS is not considering regulation of the 

subsistence harvest at this time but hopes to work with 

Alaska Native communities and representatives to 

ensure that subsistence harvest does not adversely 

affect the Steller sea lion population. 

Alaska Native subsistence hunters have been estimated 

to talce about 500 Steller sea lions annually in recent 

years; virtually all of the subsistence harvest in Alaslca 

bccurs within the range of the western population 

segment (Wolfe and Mischler, 1993; 1994). These 

removals have an impact on the population although 

the magnitude of estimates in-comparison to the 

reported declines indicate that subsistence harvest has 

not been a significant factor in the decline. However, 

should the western population segment continue to 

dccline and the subsistence harvest continue at the 

same level, it may become significant. 

Alaska Native Subsistence Harvest 

of Harbor Seals 

The estimated total Native subsistence talce of harbor 

seals in Alaska was 2,888 in 1992 (2,535 retrieved, 353 

struclc and lost), 2,736 in 1993 (2,365 retrieved, 371 

struck and lost) and 2,62 1 in 1994 (2,313 retrieved, 

308 struclc and lost). 

In September, 1995, NMFS Alaska Region contracted 

a harbor seal tissue sampling project to the Alaslca 

Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), Subsistence 

Division. Tissues will be used to further studies of 

genetics, age and growth determination, cranial 

morphometrics, long-term archival and contaminant 

analyses. Areas covered include southeast Alaska, 

Bristol Bay and the Aleutian Islands. Results of 

research analyses will be provided to the Native 

community, particularly for dioxin levels in harbor 

seals near pulp mills in southeast Alaska. 

NMFS also contracted ADFG, Division of Subsistence, 

to estimate the annual talce of harbor seals (and Steller 

sea lions) by Alaslca Natives. The information was 

derived by systematic interviews with hunters and users 

of marine mammals. The most recent technical report 

regarding this contract includes data collected in 1994. 

ADFG reported that 2,621 seals (95% CI 2,110 

-3,457) were harvested in 1994. Of this talce, 308 

(1 1.8%) seals were struck and lost. The estimated 

number of harbor seals harvested in Alaska by 

subsistence hunters in 1992 and 1993 was 2,888 and 

2,736, respectively. 

Research on Harbor Seals 

In Alaska, harbor seals range throughout southern 

Alaslca waters, the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands and 

along the north side of the Alaska Peninsula and 

Bristol Bay (to about 59" N). Once, harbor seals were 

considered abundant in all parts of their Alaskan range 

until surveys by ADFG researchers in the 1980's 

indicated declining trends in some areas. The NMML 

has conducted surveys in Alaska intermittently since 

1976 and yearly since 1991 to obtain a minimum 

population estimate for the state. 

The state of Alaska was arbitrarily sub-divided into 4 

regions for census purposes. These regions roughly 

follow the estimated stock separations, but logistical 

considerations were the primary factor used for this 

delineation. NMML, with funding from the NMFS 

Office of Protected Resource's Marine Mammal 

Assessment Program, has censused each of these 4 

regions over the last 4 years (Loughlin 1992 [Bristol 

Bay, Prince William Sound, and Copper kver Delta], 

Loughlin 1993 [Gulf of Alaska and Prince William 

Sound], Loughlin 1994 [Southeastern Alaska], and 

Withrow and Loughlin 1995 [Aleutian Islands]). 
Chapter VIII. Subsistence Take of Marine Mammals 

In 1995, the NMML began phase 11, a re-census and 

evaluation of each of the 4 regions in order to provide 

current population figures and estimates of trend, 

especially in areas of decline and neighboring locations. 

Survey areas included the north side of the Alaslca 

Peninsula and Bristol Bay. Although data are still in 

the analysis process, tentative mean estimates for the 

north side of the Alaslca Peninsula are 7783 seals with 

a CV = 4.4%. This reprcscnts a difference of -745 

seals (-9.5%) compared with our 1991 surveys. 

In 1995 NMML also continued a study to determine 

the proportion of animals missed during our molt 

census aerial surveys. These surveys miss an unlcnown 

number of animals that are at sea or that move 

between haulout sites. Also, the number of animals 

hauled out is influenced by tidal state at many 

locations, but tide may not influence haulout patterns 

at others. In 1994 NMML initiated the first phase of 

this study on roclcy substrate in Southeast Alaslca just 

prior to the molt census snrvevs. The mean percent 

number of tazed seals hauled out each day was 57.5%. 

Paul Island during the 1995 season and 260 seals were 

harvested this year on St. George Island. 

By agreement, the Tribal Government of St. Paul 

eliminated the butterfly field butchering cut and all but 

30 animals were talcen as whole carcasses from the 

field. Therefore, the past procedure of sampling and 

weighing seals for percent use determinations was not 

employed this year. Of the 30 animals field dressed as 

butterfly cuts, I I were the result of broken gall 

bladders and potential spoilage of part of the meat by 

bile. The remaining 19 seals were field dressed as 

butterfly cuts for elders who are physically unable to 

butcher whole animals. 

As in the past, all seals harvested on St. George were 

field dressed and talcen from the field as whole animals. 

Through a cooperative effort between NMFS and the 

tribal governments of both islands, a total of 85 seals 

were disentangled from marine debris during the 

harvest period. 

A correction factor of 1.74 was computed with the CV 

of the mean equal to 0.068. In 1995, we worked in 

Prince William Sound on sandy substrate. Twenty-five 

seals (13 males and 12 females) were captured and 

equipped with radio transmitters. Nineteen were 

adults, 5 were sub-adults and 1 was a pup of the year. 

Data for this study are still undergoing analysis and 

results will be reported later. 

Northern Fur Seal Subsistence Harvest 

In 1994 NMFS estimated that the subsistence needs 

for 1994, 1995, and 1996 could be met by annual 

harvests of between 281 and 500 fur seals on St. 

Ice Seals are a major component of the diet of Native Alaskans in 

the Arctic. 

George Island and between 1.615 and 2,000 fur seals 

on St. Paul Island. 

In 1995 the total subsistence harvest was 1,525 fur 

seals, including 260 animals on St. George and 1,265 Beluga Whales 

animals on St. Paul. Subsistence harvesting of fur seals 

was conducted on St. Paul Island on 22 days betwen Subsistence Program 

July 1, 1995 and August 8. 1995, and on St. George 

Island on 13 days betlvcen lune 30, 1995, and August The Alaslca Beluga Committee (ABC) was formed in 

7, 1995. A total of 1,265 seals Itrere harvested on St. 1988. Since that date, the ABC has met annually to 
Chapter VIII. Subsistence Take of Marine Mammals 

provide harvest information on takes by Alaslca 

Natives. Hunters from approximately 50 villages take 

beluga whales in Alaska. Animals are harvested from 

5 stocks that are defined by summering areas. 

In 1994, approximately 2 18 animals were taken in the 

beluga harvest. In 1995, 135 animals were taken in 

the beluga harvest by areas as follows: Coolc Inlet-42, 

Bristol Bay-6, Norton Sound-50, Chulcchi Sea-34 and 

the Beaufort Sea-I. In 1995 the Coolc Inlet Marine 

Mammal Council (CIMMC) representing Cook Inlet 

beluga hunters and cooperating with NMFS prepared 

the harvest report for their area. Based on CIMMC 

verbal accounts, previously reported harvest 

information for the Coolc Inlet stoclc has been under 

reported by at least 50 percent. 

Research on Beluga Whales 

Aerial surveys and dive behavior studies of the beluga 

whales in Coolc Inlet Alaska were conducted in 

July/August 1995 by NMML staff. The aerial surveys 

were flown to determine the distribution of beluga 

groups in the inlet, standardize counts of groups and 

collect aerial video tape of the groups during the 

counts. Dive behavior studies were conducted using a 

VHF radio tag attached to the whales by a suction cup. 

A second study using satellite linked dive recorders wis 

unsuccessful in capturing whales for tag attachment. 

Using the aerial counts and correction factors 

developed from analyzing the dive data and the video 

tape the abundance in the inlet was estimated at 750 

whales; however, methods to determine the variance 

and bias associated with this estimate are still being 

developed. At present, NMFS has followed the 

recommendations of the Alaska Scientific Review 

Group regarding the abundance of beluga whales in 

Coolc Inlet, which is to use an estimate of abundance of 

125 1 (see Small and DeMaster 1995), but is intending 

to work cooperatively with Native organizations in 

establishing a PBR for this stock. As noted above, the 

to monitor trends in the population. The tagging 

studies and aerial surveys have been conducted with 

the cooperation of the Alaslca Region Office in 

Anchorage, the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council 

and the Alaslca Beluga Whale Committee. 

Aerial surveys to determine minimum abundance of 

beluga whales in Norton Sound were flown by 

scientists from the Alaslca Department of Fish and 

Game in cooperation with NMML. While the 

complete area could not be surveyed during the study 

period because of fog over the Yulton Delta, the 

minimum estimate of abundance for this stock was 

approximately 8,000 animals. The PBR for this 

population will likely be approximately 160 animals, 

assuming an FR of 1.0 for this stock, which is greater 

than the average harvest level in Norton Sound over 

the last five years (i.e., 147 animals per year). In 

addition, research on the stock identification of beluga 

whales in Alaslca was undertaken in 1995 by staff from 

the Marine Mammal Division, SWFSC. The results of 

the genetic studies are consistent with the 

recommendation by NMFS to manage beluga whales in 

Alaslca as five separate stocks: Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, 

Norton Sound, Eastern Bering Sea, and Beaufort Sea 

stocks. That is, unique genetic differences were found 

for each of these stoclts, which implies that rates of 

immigration or emigration between-stocks is lilcely to 

be negligible. 

Support for the NMFS portion of these studies was 

provided by the NMFS Office of Protected Resource's 

Marine Mammal Assessment Program. Support for the 

rest of this research was provided for by the Alaska 

Beluga Whale Committee. 

- 

removal level in 1995 associated with native hunting 

was 68 animals, which represents a removal rate of 

approximately 5% of the population. An aerial survey 

of the Cook Inlet belugas is planned for June, 1996 and 

tentatively planned for even numbered years there after 

Page 77 
Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

Gary Barone, Jeannie Drevenak, Ruth Johnson, Trevor Spradlin 

Public Display, Scientific Research, and - - 

Enhancement Permits 

NMFS administers provisions within the permit 

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

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

the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce. Under 

these statutes, permits may be issued for certain 

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

enhancement), to take, import, export, or conduct an 

otherwise prohibited activity involving such protected 

species. The 1994 amendments to the MMPA also 

authorize the issuance of permits for a new category, 

photography. 

Between January 1, 1995 and December 3 1, 1995, 

NMFS reviewed 33 permit applications. Of these, 20 

permits were issued for scientific research and three 

were issued for public display. Four applications were 

November 23, 1988, and to make administration of the 

permit program more efficient, consistent, and 

predictable. The public comment period on the 

proposed rule was extended twice and public hearings 

were held in Washington, D.C., Oaldand, CA, and 

Chicago, IL. 

While the proposed rule was undergoing final 

modifications prior to publication as a final rule, the 

1994 amendments to the MMPA were signed into law. 

The 1994 Amendments made substantial changes to 

sections 102 and 104 of the MMPA governing permits 

for public display, scientific research, and enhancement 

activities of marine mammal species and stocl<s. 

Consequently final regulations incorporating public 

comments as well as provisions of the new amendments 

are expected to be published in early 1996, as well as 

proposed regulations for public display and 

photography permits. 

returned or Gthdrawn,~ and six applications were 

awaiting final action at the end of December 1995. 1994 Amendments to the MMPA Permitting 

Process 

NMFS also processes permit amendments if the 

proposed modifications meet the appropriate 

regulatory standards, and other permit-related 

authorizations. A modification is usually subject to the 

same notice, review and comment procedures as a 

permit application. During the reporting period, 90 

permit modifications/authorizations were processed. 

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

overview of major permit-related activities during the 

reporting period 

Proposed Revisions to 

Permit Regulations 

On October 14, 1993, NMFS published a proposed 

rule in the Fede~al Registn- to amend the regulations for 

permits under the MMl'A, the ESA and the FSA. 

These proposed revisions were intended to update and 

consolidate existing permit regulations, to implement 

amendments to the MMPA that were enacted 

When the MMPA was amended on April 30, 1994, 

substantial changes to the permit process were made, 

including: 

1. NMFS' authority to condition public display 

permits by specifymg methods of supervision, care and 

transport is limited to the initial capture from the wild 

or initial import. 

2. Permits for public display are only required for 

capture and import of marine mammals and may be 

issued to a recipient that meets the following three 

criteria: 

(a) offers a program for education or conservation 

purposes that is based on professionally 

recognized standards of the public display 

community; 

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

U.S.C. 2 13 1 et sea., i.e., from the Animal and 
Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (or, for foreign facilities, meets 

comparable standards); and 

(c) maintains facilities for the public display of 

marine mammals that are open to the public on a 

regularly scheduled basis and to which access is 

not limited or restricted other than by charging of 

an admission fee. 

3. Persons holding marine mammals have the right to 

take, sell, export, or otherwise transfer possession of 

marine mammals, for public display, to any person who 

meets the criteria (cited above) without any additional 

permit or authorization. 

4. 15-days' advance notification of any transportation, 

sale, purchase, or export of a marine mammal for 

public display, scientific research, or enhancement 

purposes is required. 

5. The requirement that scientific research not be 

duplicative was eliminated. 

6. The 30-day comment period in certain "emergency" 

situations may be waived. 

7. A General Authorization for non-injurious scientific 

research (Level B harassment) on marine mammals was 

provided. 

8. A new permit category for photographing marine 

mammals in the wild for educational and commercial 

purposes was established. 

9. NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are 

required to maintain a basic inventory of marine 

mammals held in captivity but limits information to 

specific categories. 

Education Standards 

When the MMPA was amended on April 30, 1994, 

one of the changes with regard to the public displav of 

marine mammals eliminated the requirement for 

NMFS to determine whether education and 

conservation programs are acceptable. The MMPA 

now requires that persons holding marine mammals for 

purposes of public display, or requesting issuance of a 

permit to capture or import marine mammals for 

purposes of public display, must offer a program for 

education or conservation purposes that is based on 

professionally recognized standards of the public 

display community. In order for NMFS to identify 

professionally recognized standards, NMFS contacted 

representatives of the public display community 

requesting that a copy of these standards be developed 

and submitted to NMFS for publication, thus enabling 

persons seelung marine mammals for public display 

purposes to reference these standards rather than 

submitting a list of such standards with each 

application. 

The American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) 

and the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parlcs and Aquaria 

(Alliance), together representing approximately 60% of 

U.S. facilities that currently hold marine mammals, 

have submitted, for reference purposes, the 

professionally accepted standards on which their 

members base their education and conservation 

programs. A Notice of Receipt of these standards was 

published on October 6, 1994. Since AZA and the 

Alliance do not represent the entire public display 

community, NMFS will also consider and publish 

notice of any alternative standards that are submitted 

by other members or representative organizations of 

the public display community, or those that are 

provided as part of a permit application. 

Beached and Stranded Marine Mammals 

Beached or stranded marine mammals takn under the 

authority of section 109(h) of the MMPA may be held 

only for the purpose of rehabilitation until: (1) The 

animal is returned to its natural habitat; (2) NMFS 

concurs with a determination by the attending 

veterinarian that it is not feasible to return the animal 

to its natural habitat and permanent holding is 

authorized by NMFS; or, (3) although the attending 

veterinarian determincs that the animal is releasable, 

NMFS authorizes the permanent retention of the 

Page 80 
Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

animal as a substitute for the capture of one of the 

same species from the wild. 

The permanent retention of a beached or stranded 

marine mammal previously talten for the purpose of 

rehabilitation under section 109(h) of the MMPA must 

be authorized by NMFS before an unreleasable animal 

may be retained by the rehabilitating facility, or 

transported or exported to another facility for public 

display purposes, in accordance with applicable MMPA 

requirements. Additionally, the recipient or retaining 

facility must meet the three public display criteria 

specified in the 1994 Amendments (and cited above). 

A permit is required to retain or obtain rehabilitated 

beached and stranded marine mammals for purposes of 

scientific research or enhancing the survival or recovery 

of marine mammal species or stocl<s or to retain a 

releasable marine mammals for purpose of public 

display in lieu of a capture. Proposed regulations 

implementing these provisions will be ready for 

publication in 1996. 

Exports 

Under the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA, a public 

display permit is no longer required for the receipt of 

captive marine mammals by foreign facilities or persons 

requesting marine mammals from the United States. 

However, NMFS must determine that the recipient 

meets the public display criteria (cited above) 

established by the amendments to receive marine 

mammals for public display. Therefore, in addition to 

the 15-day advance transport notification requirement, 

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

Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service stating that the foreign facility 

meets standards that are comparable to those 

applicable to U.S. licensees and others regstered under 

the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 

Additionally, NMFS must receive a statement from the 

appropriate foreign government agency certifying that: 

1) the information submitted by the foreign facility is 

accurate; 2) the laws of the foreign government enable 

that foreign government to enforce requirements 

equivalent to the requirements of the U.S. MMPA and 

AWA and that the government will enforce such 

requirements; and 3) if it is determined that the foreign 

facility has acted in a manner inconsistent with a 

requirement of the MMPA or the AWA that would be 

applicable to a U.S. facility, the foreign government 

will afford comity to any enforcement decision that 

may be made by NMFS, including seizure of the 

marine mammals exported from the United States and 

the progeny of such marine mammals, and the recovery 

of expenses for such seizure or other disposition. 

The amendments also provide specifically for the 

export of marine mammals for purposes of public 

display without further permit or authorization. 

Although no such specific provision was included for 

scientific research or enhancement activities, a general 

provision was included allowing exports that meet 

comparable standards. 

The following exports of live marine mammals occurred 

in 1995: 

Four (4) Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

huncahcs) from the Chicago Zoological Society to 

the Lisbon Zoo in Portugal (2 females and 2 

males); 

Six (6) California sea lions (Zalophus califomianus) 

from Sea World to Folls Land Alca Amusement & 

Picnic Resort in India (3 females; 3 males); 

Two (2) California sea lions (Zalophus 

cnl$mianus) from Oldahoma City Zoological Parlc 

to Folls Land Aka Amusement & Picnic Resort in 

India (1 female and 1 male); 

One (1) Northern elephant seal (Miroungn 

angustirostris) from the Marine Mammal Care 

Center at Fort MacArthur to Mundo Aquatico in 

Portugal (I female); and 

One (I) Northern elephant seal (Miroungn 

angusfiroshis) from the Marine Mammal Center to 

Marineland Cote D'Azur in France (1 male). 
Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

General Authorization 

The 1994 Amendments required NMFS to issue a 

general authorization and implementing regulations for 

scientific research involving Level B harassment of 

marine mammals in the wild. Level B harassment is 

defined as any act of pursuit, torment or annoyance 

which has the potential to disturb by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 

limited, to migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding or sheltering. Research activities involving 

Level A harassment, which is defined as any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential 

to injure, will require a scientific research permit. If 

the proposed research includes marine mammals listed 

under the ESA, a permit for such activities must be 

issued pursuant to the ESA. The holder of a valid ESA 

permit that authorizes such activities, may conduct 

.. . " 

Island. Alaska. 

Level B harassment on listed marine mammals without 

submission of a separate letter of intent pursuant to the 

MMPA General Authorization. 

An interim final rule which establishes a streamlined 

for the letter of intent. Not later than 30 days after 

submission of a letter of intent, NMFS must issue a 

letter to the applicant either: confirming that the 

General Authorization applies; informing the applicant 

that all or part of the research may result in taking 

other than Level B harassment and that a scientific 

research permit is required; or, informing the applicant 

that the letter of intent lacked sufficient information or 

that the research is not bona jde as defined in the 

MMPA (Pub. L. 103-238, § 216.3). The General 

Authorization includes specific research and 

monitoring conditions and reporting requirements. 

Public comments were received and are being 

considered in the development of the final rule. 

Research activities that are expected to cause no more 

than Level B harassment include photo-identification 

studies, behavioral observations, and vessel and aerial 

population surveys. From November 1994 through - A 

December 31, 1995, NMFS received 27 letters if 

intent to conduct Level B harassment on marine 

mammal species or stocks for scientific research 

purposes; 19 were issued and eight were returned either 

for insufficient information or because they included 

listed species, involved level A harassment, or did not 

meet the bonafide research requirements. 

Photography Permits 

The amendments added a new category of permits to 

allow marine mammals in the wild to be photographed 

for educational and commercial purposes. These 

permits are limited to Level B harassment of nonendangered marine mammals and require that the 

photographic products be made available to the public. 

Two applications were accepted in 1995 as pilot 

applications for the development of implementing 

regulations. 

permitting process was published in the Federal Register 

on October 3, 1994. This rule: establishes a general Captive Swim-With-The-Dolphin 

authorization for bona fide scientific research ~roiects (SWD) Programs A, 

that do not exceed Level B harassment on species or 

stocla not listed under the ESA; describes the research The 1994 Amendments to the MMPA eliminated 

activities most lilcely to be included under the general NMFS to the care of marine 

authorization; and identifies submission requirements mammals held in public display facilities. However, 
Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

NMFS continued to receive inquiries from members of 

the public and the media abo& captive Swim-WithThe-Dolphin (SWTD) programs. In response, NMFS 

provided to interested parties copies of the 1990 Final 

~nvironmental ~m~actktatemen; on SWTD programs 

prepared by NMFS, and the 1994 Final Report of the 

NMFS-sponsored behavioral study of dolphins 

involved in SWTD programs entitled "Quantitative 

Behavioral Study of Bottlenose Dolphins in SwimWith-The-Dolphin Programs." All inquirers were 

informed that Eaptive SWTD programs are now under 

the sole jurisdiction of U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA)/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) to regulate under the AWA. 

The results of the NMFS-sponsored behavioral study 

were subsequently published in October 1995 

(Samuels, A. and T.R. Spradlin. Quantitative 

behavioral study of bottlenose dolphins in Swim-WithDolphin programs in the United States. Marine 

Mammal Science, 11 (4):520-544.) 

Notable Permit and Authorization Requests 

Reintroduction of Dolphins 

In February 1995, the NMFS Permit Division returned 

the application submitted by The Dolphin Alliance to 

release two captive female Atlantic bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truizcatus) to the wild, and requested 

additional information. A revised application had not 

been received as of December 3 1, 1995. 

During 1995, there was an increase in public and 

media interest in releasing captive marine mammals, 

such as "ICeilto" and "Lolita", to the wild and in release 

projects like the Sugarloaf Dolphin Sanctuary and the 

"Bogie and Bacall Project." However, NMFS 

consistently stated, in both press releases and responses 

to letters of inquiry, that the release of captive marine 

mammals into the wild may result in a "tale" as defined 

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

scientific research permit has been issued. Since 

established protocols do not currently exist for 

rehabilitating and releasing captive marine mammals 

back into the wild, it is the intention of NMFS to 

develop scientifically sound protocols through the 

permit process which affords the opportunity for both 

scientific and public review. 

NMFS has repeatedly stated that the purpose of the 

MMPA is to protect individuals, stocks, and 

populations of marine mammals. Congress has 

entrusted NMFS with the authority to implement the 

MMPA by enforcing a moratorium against "taking" 

marine mammals, unless authorized under a permit 

issued for various purposes, including scientific 

research and enhancement, photography, and public 

display. In the case of releasing captive marine 

mammals, both the animals to be released and any 

population of wild marine mammals that could come 

into contact with the released animals could be 

vulnerable to a take. Issues of concern include: disease 

transmission between released animals and wild marine 

mammals; unwanted genetic exchanges between 

introduced and endemic stoclcs/populations; the ability 

of the released dolphins to adequately forage and 

defend themselves from predators; and any behavioral 

patterns developed in captivity which could prove 

detrimental to the social structure of local populations 

as well as the social assimilation of the released animal. 

The sparse history of rehabilitated and released captive 

dolphins has provided limited documentation with 

questionable results. Such concerns, and the need to 

prevent them with respect to potential releases of 

captive marine mammals, was recently aclcnowledged 

by Congress in the Conference report accompanying 

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

included provisions for the transfer of dolphins from 

Navy facilities: 

"nre corferees are i~lfonned tlrar there are no scient$cal@ 

rstablisl~ed or accrplrd protocols for sucl~ releases. Moreover, 

docurnn:ted success of previous atternprs to reintroducr capttve 

marirre rnarnrnnls Iu tlte wild is sparse. According@, tile 

cor~irees beiirvr tlrat ary attempts at relrasing Navy rnarirle 

mamritals to tlrr wild sltould be pzrrsurd cautiously and on art 

e.ypr~me~rta/ basis ii~rtii srirrrtifical~ sound prorocols have beer: 

drveloprd and rrirttroductior~s itavc proven succrss/ul, nrr 

mrferers rrcogriizr tifat tlir Drpartmr~zt ofDefer~se dues ~luthavc 

tirr ~lithuriy W 11Nofi' thr rrtunr oforrcr-captive Navy ~Marirrr 

III~II~III~~ rrrti, tire ~vrid niis autlrori~r, rests wit11 [kc 

Drpnrtfrlrrtt oj C~i~ninrrcr, tltrozipir tlrr NMFS. Accordir~gly, 

tile cu~frrrzs direct tire Nnvv to cuoperatr witlr the Secrrtay, of 

Page 83 
Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

Cuininerce and the Marine ~Marninal Coininissun in develupiitg 

ri~oruus scientific protocolsfor experiinentul releases. Give11 the 

potrntialfor "takes" under the [MMPA] or the Endangered 

Species Act, tltr conirees direct that in no case shall airy release 

be attempted unless authorized by a scientijc rerearc11 pennit 

issued by the Srcretary of Corn~nerce under the appropriate 

statutory authoriy." 

ATOC Off the Coasts of California and Hawaii 

Applications were submitted by Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, for two scientific research 

permits under the MMPA and the ESA to allow 

harassment of several species of marine mammals and 

sea turtles by two low-frequency sound sources (peak 

frequency 75 Hz, 35 Hz bandwidth; 195 dB level (re 1 

uPa at 1 m)), one to be located 14 lun north of ICaihu 

Point, Icauai, HI ( 850 m depth) and the second on 

Pioneer Seamount, CA (980 m depth). This research 

is part of a 2-year Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean 

Climate (ATOC) program designed to test the 

feasibility of a future global ocean climate monitoring 

program and to investigate the possible effects of this 

sound on marine mammals and sea turtles. Notice of 

receipt of these applications was published in the 

Federal Reeister. with the public comment period for the " 

California application opening on May 17, 1995, and 

the Hawaii application opening on May 3 1, 1995. 

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) were 

prepared for both projects which contained the 

analyses constituting the basis for the biological 

assessments required by the Section 7 consultation 

process. The Final EISs were made available to the 

public on May 5, I996 for California and May 26, 

1995 for Hawaii. 

The Advanced Research Projects Agency (AKI'A) 

requested initiation of consultation under Section 7 of 

the ESA with NMFS for both the Hawaii and 

California projects. Section 7 Consultations were 

provided on July 13, 1995 for the California Project 

and on September 28, 1995 for the Hawaiian Project. 

The permits were issued on July 13, 1995 and October 

5, 1995, respectively. 

In November 1995, engineering tests were conducted 

at the Pioneer Seamount site in preparation for the 

Marine Mammal Research Protocol (MMRP) 

operations. Due to some misunderstanding of the 

permit requirements this testing was done without the 

involvement of the MMRP researchers or prior 

notification of the Region. A modification to the 

permit was issued which made explicit that all future 

engineering tests were subject to the same conditions as 

the operational tests and limited the maximum decibel 

level to 195 dB (re I kPa at 1 m). 

Concerns arose because at the time of the engineering 

tests, three dead humpbaclc whales were observed 

proximal to the test area. One washed ashore at 

Stinson Beach, CA, and two others were seen floating 

in the Gulf of the Farallones. The cause of the deaths 

could not be determined conclusively although it 

appears that they were not related to the tests. 

After consultations with the Marine Mammal 

Commission and the MMRP Advisory Board, the 

permit was modified as described above and the 

operational testing was authorized. 

Public Interaction with Marine 

Mammals in the Wild 

The 1994 Amendments to the MMPA eliminated 

NMFS authority over marine mammal care issues in 

cnptivity, including captive SWTD programs. This 

authority now lies solely with USDWHIS. 

However, NMFS has retained the authority to enforce 

against harassment of marine mammals in the wild. 

Based on the current statutory definition of harassment 

(see above) and implementing regulations, people who 

harass marine mammals in the wild can be subject to 

civil or criminal prosecution under the MMPA. 

In recent years, the public has been seelung close 

encounters with wild marine mammals at an alarming 

rate. There is a growing trend amongst eco-tourist 

operators and critics of public display facilities to 

promote human encounters with wild animals (such as 

feeding or s\vim-with activities) as a "better" way to 
Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

experience the animals since they are in their natural 

habitat. However, NMFS and the scientific 

community are concerned about the health and wellbeing of wild marine mammals that become habituated 

to humans. Human activities that injure or harass 

marine mammals are illegal under the MMPA. 

Despite the feeding ban, members of the public 

continue to feed wild marine mammals. Although - 

illegal and dangerous, these practices continue to be 

promoted by commercial operators, recreational boaters 

and fishers, and tourists. Dangers to wild marine 

mammals include injury or death from: development 

of unnatural behaviors such as begging; dependence on 

human provisioning; vessel strikes; intentional human 

abuse; ingestion of harmful items; and exploitation and 

encroachment of critical habitats. In addition, there 

are increasing reports of people being severely injured 

from aggressive encounters with provisioned marine 

mammals. NMFS is particularly concerned about the 

growing public perception that provisioned marine 

mammals are becoming "nuisance animals." The two 

species of marine mammals currently most affected by 

feeding activities are Atlantic bottlenose dolphins 

The 1994 Amendments to the MMPA defined 

harassment (see above) and now clearly prohibit 

individuals from pursuing, annoying, or tormenting 

wild marine mammals. The discovery of marine 

mammal restinghreedindfeeding areas, and the 

increased accessibility of ways to approach the animals 

(jet-skis, Itayaks) has led to marine mammals being 

harassed. 

Harbor seals on sand shoals in Cape Cod. MA. Photo credit: 

NMFSEPR. 

(~ursiois truncatus) in the southeast, and California sea 

lions (Zalophus califarnianus) on the west coast. 

Education Efforts 

Swim-With and Other Recreational Activities 

Public interaction with marine mammals in the wild 

(e.g., swim-with, jet-skiing, kayaling, touching, petting) 

are causing problems similar to those associated with 

feeding. Of primary concern to NMFS are the 

potential negative impacts of exploitation and 

encroachment of critical habitats on the behavior, 

health and well-being of wild marine mammals. NrLlFS 

has received reports of people harassing Hawaiian 

spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris), Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), ltiller whales 

(Orcinus orca) , Humpbaclc whales (Megnptcra 

~lovmaugline), Gray whales (Esclirichtius robustus), 

California sea lions (Zalophus calfomianus), Northern 

elephant seals (Mirounga angz~stirostris), and harbor seals 

(Phoca vitulirla). 

Continuing problems with members of the public 

interacting with marine mammals in the wild resulted 

in the development of an educatiodmedia campaign on 

the illegality of harassing cetaceans and pinnipeds in 

the wild and the harm it causes. A press release was 

distributed to cities in Florida (Panama City, Ft. 

Walton Beach, Sarasota, Destin and the Keys) and 

Texas (Corpus Christi) where there are known 

problems. Staff from NMFS' Office of Protected 

Resources gave presentations at the Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammal and the 

International Marine Animal Trainers Association 

requesting assistance from the scientific and public 

display communities to help educate the public to not 

interact (feed, swim-with, touch) with marine mammals 

in the wild. NMFS had Federal Warning signs printed 

and distributed to its regional enforcement offices for 
Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

posting in locations where problems are laown to NMFS encourages people to appreciate marine 

occur. mammals in the wild by observing them from a safe 

distance. People should not attempt to feed, approach, 

The text of the signs is as follows: or touch marine mammals in the wild. 

I WARNING 

HELP PROTECT OUR WILDLIFE 

DON'T FEED, TOUCH, OR DISTURB 

MARINE MAMMALS 

t-rs HARMFUL AND ILLEGAL 

PERSONS FEEDING, TOUCHING, OR DISTURBING 

MARINE MAMMALS 

IN THE WILD COULD BE SUBJECT TO 

CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PENALTIES UNDER PROVISIONS 

OF 

THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT 

REPORTVtOLATIONS TO THE NMFS ENFORCEMENT 

HOTLINE 1-800-853-1964 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 
Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health and 

Stranding Response Program 

Teri Rowles and Dean Wilkinson 

Background In 1995, Networlt members reported 898 cetacean 

strandings and 1973 pinniped strandings. Table E- 1 in 

In 1992, the United States Congress enacted the 

Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Act 

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

three basic provisions: Marine Mammal Stranding 

Networks, Response to Unusual Mortality Events, and 

the National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank. To 

implement the Act, NMFS has instituted the Marine 

Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program 

(MMHSRP) with the following components: stranding 

networlts, response to unusual mortality events, 

monitoring, the National Marine Mammal Tissue - 

Bank, quality assurance and information management. 

A discussion of the accomplishments in each of these 

areas follows. 

Stranding Networks 

Marine Mammal Stranding Networlts have been 

established in each of NMFS' regions. Most members 

of the Marine Mammal Stranding Networlcs are 

volunteers who respond to both live and dead 

strandings of pinnipeds and cetaceans. The volunteers 

do not receive monetary compensation for their efforts. 

They must satisfy minimum requirements in terms of 

marine mammal experience in order to be issued letters 

of authorization by the appropriate Regional Office to 

respond to strandings. Different levels of authorization 

may apply, depending on the capabilities of the 

members, e.g., response to live stranded animals is 

generally limited to those institutions that have 

medical expertise and the physical facilities to 

rehabilitate animals. Network members are required to 

collect certain basic biological data including species 

name, sex, length, location, and any evidence of human 

interaction. In addition, they are encouraged to collect 

other data and tissues for use in scientific research and 

for educational purposes. 

 end; E provides -detailed information on 

strandings by species and Region. The total number of 

reported strandings was the lowest of any year since 

1990. Among the interesting trends is a continuing 

increase in the number of arctic seals stranding in the 

Northeast Region. As Table E-1 shows, the numbers of 

harbor seal strandings have remained relatively 

constant, but the number of arctic seals--particularly 

harp seals has risen markedly. This increase may 

reflect an expansion of range for some seal species 

previously seen only occasionally in U.S. waters. 

As part of the effort to generate data on mortalities 

caused by human interactions, NMFS has emphasized 

the importance of checlung for human interactions on 

stranded animals. Human interactions include such 

things as entanglements, animals shot, and animals 

struck by vessels. In 1995, Stranding Network 

members reported 78 stranded cetaceans with human 

interactions and 136 stranded pinnipeds with human 

interactions. As part of the effort to enhance the 

capabilities of Stranding Networlt members to detect 

human interactions, NMFS has contracted for a 

detailed manual of human interactions. 

Regional Stranding Networks 

Northeast Region Stranding Network 

In 1995, 144 cetacean and 271 pinniped strandings 

were reported in the Northeast Region. In addition to 

the pinniped data presented in Box 8 and Appendix E, 

the most commonly stranded cetacean species in 1995 

were harbor porpoise (66) and bottlenose dolphins 

(38). Of the harbor porpoise strandings, 8 involved 

confirmed human interactions; and of the bottlenose 

dolphin strandings, 12 involved human interactions. 

Page 87 
Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program 

Southeast Region Stranding Network 

BOX 8 - - Pinniped Strandings in Northeast--1990-1995 

Species 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

There are 30 institutions currently operating in 

cooperation with the Southeast Stranding Network 

under a Letter of Authorization from the Region. In 

addition, there are numerous state and federal 

government agencies or organizations participating in 

the collection of stranding information. Over 250 

individuals from these groups contribute to the 

network's efforts. 

Harbor seal 

Gray seal 

Harp seal 

Hooded seal 

Ringed seal 

Unident. 

pinniped 

In 1995, there were 568 documented marine mammal 

strandings. Bottlenose dolphins comprised 80 percent 

of the total and 20 species comprised the remainder 

including 5 harbor seals and 8 harbor porpoises. A 

total of 51 marine mammals stranded live in the 

Southeast during 1995. Nineteen of these animals 

were talcen to rehabilitation facilities and 12 were 

released to the wild. 

129 237 157 166 148 166 

24 11 19 2 1 17 6 

7 13 19 35 55 78 

10 11 5 15 30 14 

4 3 3 1 

1 5 4 9 6 

A mass stranding of Stenella cbrtrene, a total of 17 

animals with 13 alive, occurred on June 15 in Tarpon 

Springs, FL. Of the thirteen live animals, seven were 

taken to a local rehabilitation facility. The six left at 

the site were stabilized by stranding network members. 

One of the six dolphins died within hours, but thc 

remaining five had normal hematology results and were 

tagged and released offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The six animals taken to the rehabilitation facility died 

within a few days despite medical treatment. 

On August 6, 1995 a mass stranding of 14 short-finned 

pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) occurred on 

the Gulf side of the Florida ICeys. Four of the 14 

animals were alive and transported to a rehabilitation 

facility in the Keys. An adult female and a juvenile 

male survived. The female had titers for cetacean 

morbillivirus, but PCR testing determined the virus was 

not active. Marine mammal veterinarians considered 

the two whales healthy and releaseable. After 

consultation with the Unusual Mortality WorIcing 

Group, NMFS deemed both pilot whales releasable and 

both were tagged and released offshore on October 13, 

1995. 

Texas had a total of six single live strandings, four 

Tursiops hurrcatus, one Stenellaj-ontalis, and one Stenella 

ntterlunta during 1995. All six were talten to 

rehabilitation facilities. One Tursiops and the Stenella 

ntterluntn died, one Tursiops calf was deemed 

unreleaseable, and the remaining three dolphins were 

tagged with satellite transmitters and released. 

Southwest Region Stranding Network 

A total of 110 cetacean strandings and 1557 pinniped 

strandings \\.ere reported to the Southwest Region in 

Page 88 
Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program 

1995. The most commonly reported pinnipeds were 

California sea lions (791), harbor seals (327), and 

northern elephant seals (303). Strandings of depleted, 

threatened, or endangered pinniped species included 

seven Steller sea lions, eight northern fur seals, two 

Guadalupe fur seals, and one Hawaiian monk seal. 

The most commonly stranded species of cetaceans were 

common dolphins, harbor porpoises, and gray whales 

with 35, 16, and 13 reports respectively. Other 

strandings of interest included five northern right 

whale dolphins, a right whale, and six humpback 

whales. 

The right whale stranding was that of a sleull found 

found under a beach wall that had been eroded by 

storms near Crescent City, California. The beach wall 

had been originally constructed in the 1960s. It is 

believed that the whale originally stranded and was 

buried prior to the construction of the beach wall. A 

review of the scientific literature and historical 

stranding records has revealed that this stranding had 

not been previously documented. 

Northwest Region Stranding Network 

The Northwest Region received reports of 18 stranded 

cetaceans (1 minlte whale, I humpback whale, 4 gray 

whales, 1 ltiller whale, 2 Dall's porpoise and 9 harbor 

porpoise) and 107 stranded pinnipeds (2 elephant 

seals, 11 California sea lions, 70 harbor seals and 24 

unidentified seals or sea lions) in 1995. The most 

commonly stranded pinniped species was harbor seal 

with 70 reported. The most commonly stranded 

cetacean species was harbor porpoise with nine reports. 

Alaska Region Stranding Network 

In 1995, the Alaslca Region Stranding Network 

investigated 19 cetacean strandings and 35 pinniped 

strandings. Harbor seals were the most commonly 

reported with 26 reports from the central and 

southeastern coasts. Four of the reports involved live 

animals A gray whale entangled with a buoy off 

ICetchiltan was disentangled by helicopter. A 

humpbaclc whale entangled with a buoy was reported 

from southeast Alaska. An unidentified large whale 

was seen alive on a beach in southeast Alaska. Four 

harbor seal pups, including a male from Dutch Harbor, 

a male from ICenai, a female from Cordova, and a 

female from ICetchilcan, were rehabilitated by the 

Alaslca Region Stranding Network. 

Unusual Mortality Events 

Section 304 of the MMHSRA establishes a Working 

Group on Unusual Marine Mammal Mortality Events. 

It includes individuals from a range of scientific 

disciplines including veterinary medicine, pathology, 

epidemiology, toxicology, and marine mammal science. 

The Worlung Group is consulted when an unusual 

mortality event is suspected, determines whether a 

mortality event is actually occurring and provides 

advice as to specific actions to respond to an event. 

During 1995, no unusual mortality events involving 

marine mammals were observed in the United States. 

The MMHSRA also mandates the development of a 

national contingency plan for response to unusual 

marine mammal mortality events. The contingency 

plan must contain the following: (I) a list of people at 

local, regional, and national levels who can assist in 

responding to and assisting in determining the cause of 

an unusual mortality event; (2) a list of analyses that 

may be necessary to assist in diagnosis of causes; (3) 

mobilization and training procedures; and (4) 

provisions to minimize the deaths of marine mammals. 

The contingency plan was completed in 1995, and will 

be published in 1996. 

Monitoring 

The MMHSRP monitoring program consists of: 1) real 

time evaluation of specimens for contaminants and 

health, 2) method development and validation, and 3) 

research on problem characterization and correlation 

of contaminants and health. One main goal of the 

monitoring component is to provide baseline 

information on contaminant loads and diseases in 

populations of marine mammals. The effort is focussed 
Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program 

on two main areas: contaminant monitoring and 

health monitoring. 

Contaminant Monitoring 

The Environmental Conservation Division of the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) is the 

lead NMFS laboratory in activities associated with the 

monitoring and quality assurance components of the 

MMHSRP and collaborates with the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the archival 

of tissues. The primary purpose of the National Marine 

Mammal Tissue Bank is archiving marine mammal 

samples for future retrospective studies using these 

samples. 

In 1995, over 420 tissue samples (e.g., blubber, liver, 

kidney, brain, heart, muscle, melon, mandible fat, 

blood, milk and stomach contents) from the following 

species were either acquired or analyzed for chlorinated 

hydrocarbons (CHs). These include samples from 

bearded seal (Erignathus barbaas), beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus), California sea lion (Zalophus calijomianus), 

Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena), liller whale (Orcinus orca), Northern fur seal 

(Callorhinus ursinus), pygmy sperm whale (Icogia 

breviceps), ringed seal (Phoca hispida), short- (Delphinus 

delphis) and long-beaked (Delphinus capensis) common 

dolphin, sperm whale (Physeter catodon), spotted 

dolphin (Stenella spp.), and Steller sea lion (Eumetopias 

jubaas). These samples were collected for a variety of 

projects: 1) ongoing monitoring of contaminants in 

samples collected during subsistence hunts (e.g., 

bearded seal, ringed seal), 2) collection of tissues for 

the Tissue Bank (e.g., beluga whale), 3) analysis of 

tissues from cetacean and pinniped species that 

stranded (e.g., pygmy sperm whale), and 4) continued 

investigation of relationships between contaminant 

exposure and neoplasia in California sea lions that have 

neoplasia (i.e., metastatic transitional cell carcinoma) 

and those that died from trauma. 

As part of the monitoring component of the 

MMHSRP, blubber samples provided by the SWFSC 

of short-beaked common dolphins incidentally caught 

in fishery interactions off the northern and southern 

coasts of California and northern coast of Mexico were 

analyzed for chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHs) and for 

the more toxic dioxin-like PCB congeners. In addition, 

blubber samples from common dolphins that stranded 

along the California coast were also analyzed, providing 

an preliminary assessment of CHs between stranded 

and an apparently healthy (i.e., fishery interaction) 

sub- group of dolphins. Initial results showed possible 

regional differences in the body burden of CHs in 

dolphins caught in fishery interactions; relatively high 

concentrations of certain organochlorine pesticides, 

particularly p,p'-DDE, were found in blubber of 

dolphins from southern California and northern 

Mexico. This study will be expanded with a larger 

subset of samples to confirm these apparent regional 

differences and also to account for selected life history 

parameters (i.e., sex, age). Additionally, the initial 

findings will be confirmed using comprehensive 

analyses of selected samples. Comparison of 

concentrations of CHs between the stranded and 

fishery interaction dolphins showed no marked 

differences in the level of bioaccumulation of PCBs or 

DDTs, suggesting that there was no direct 

cause-and-effect connection with this specific stranding 

event. Overall, high concentrations of CHs were found 

in common dolphin that were stranded or caught in 

fishery interactions. The role of significant body burden 

of PCBs and DDTs in cetaceans potentially could be 

having a negative effect on key physiological functions 

which may contribute to decreased health in the 

general dolphin population. 

In collaboration with the Marine Mammal Center in 

Sausilito, California, blubber samples from stranded 

California sea lions were analyzed to assess the 

relationship between contaminant exposure and 

disease. The highest prevalence of neoplasia in a 

pinniped population to date was reported for California 

sea lions. Previous studies have suggested that 

exposure to chemical carcinogens is strongly associated 

with neoplasia in several other marine species. 

Page 90 
Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program 

Exposure to CHs and aromatic compounds (ACs) was 

determined in a sub-group of sea lions diagnosed with 

metastatic carcinoma, as well as in sea lions that had 

died from a traumatic incident. The initial analyses 

showed that sea lions with metastatic carcinoma had 

significantly higher (> 3-fold) mean concentrations of 

both PCBs and DDTs in blubber than did sea lions 

that died from trauma. The increased concentrations of 

DDTs and PCBs in sea lions exhibiting carcinoma were 

partially explained by disease, sex, and condition (as 

assessed by blubber thickness). Exposure to ACs, as 

measured by biliary fluorescent aromatic compounds 

and hepatic DNA adducts, appeared to be minimal in 

both groups of sea lions. The etiology of this 

metastatic carcinoma in California sea lions cannot be 

determined from the current findings. However, the 

relatively high prevalence of the carcinoma in this 

population, the induction of the carcinoma by chemical 

carcinogens in laboratory rodents, and the apparent 

increased concentrations of CHs in diseased sea lions 

warrants further investigation of a possible role of 

environmental contaminants in the induction or 

progression of this neoplastic disease. Additional 

chemical analyses of sea lions with carcinoma are 

currently underway to further investigate a possible 

causal relationship between high tissue concentrations 

of CHs and the etiology of this common neoplasia. 

The condition of tissues (i.e., possible autolysis or 

degradation of tissues) collected for chemical analysis, 

for both the Tissue Bank and monitoring purposes, 

may affect the quality of data determined for certain 

contaminants. To address this issue, the relationships 

among alterations in physical parameters of tissues 

from bottlenose dolphins and the measurements of 

CHs and elements in tissues are being determined by 

repeated sampling of whole animals that are allowed to 

naturally decompose over a period of time on a beach. 

The collection of tissue samples is undenvay along 

with monitoring and recording the environmental 

conditions and physical parameters of the status of the 

carcasses. 13lubber and liver samples will be analyzed 

for CHs and the dry weights of the tissues will be 

determined; liver samples will also be analyzed for 

selected elements. 

In 1995, approximately 200 samples from 9 different 

marine mammal species were analyzed for toxic and 

essential elements. Liver tissues from 20 bowhead 

whales (Balaena mysticetus) from the Chultchi sea were 

analyzed and resulted in expanding our database on 

these animals. Similar to our previous results for pilot 

whales (Globicephala melaena) and bottlenose dolphins, 

the concentrations of mercury and selenium in the 

livers of bowhead whales were strongly correlated. 

However, the concentrations of these elements were 

much lower in the bowhead whales. The concentration 

of hepatic cadmium in bowhead whales was relatively 

high and comparable to our previous results for pilot 

whales. Bowhead whales feed at lower trophic levels 

and, thus, would be expected to contain relatively 

lower concentrations of cadmium. These elevated 

cadmium concentrations warrant further investigation, 

since they approach the levels reported by other 

investigators in northern fur seals from the Pribilof 

Islands and in walrus from the Bering and Chukchi 

seas. 

To advance the ability to assess the impact of 

contaminants on marine mammals, development of 

new analytical methodologies is essential. For example, 

PCBs and DDT are slowly metabolized and certain 

methyl sulfone metabolites that have been linked with 

toxicity can bioaccumulate in mammals. Potentially, 

the methyl sulfones could represent an important class 

of toxic CHs in tissues of marine mammals. Relatively 

little is laown about the presence and effects of these 

compounds in a wide range of marine mammals, in 

part, because of the complex and time-consuming 

analytical techniques currently used. In 1995, NWFSC 

initiated method development for determining methyl 

sulfones in marine mammal tissues. To date, the 

measurement of selected methyl sulfone metabolites in 

marine mammal tissues by GCImass spectrometry 

(MS) is being evaluated. Additionally, the NWFSC 

also initiated projects to improve our current analytical 

method of measuring dioxin-like PCB congeners in 

tissues of marine mammals. Certain CHs, such as the 

dioxins and dioxin-lilce PCBs, are among the most toxic 

and environmentally persistent contaminants. Recent 

results suggest that these dioxin-like PCBs may be the 

Page 91 
Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program 

major contributors to dioxin-like toxicity in marine 

biota. In 1995, substantial progress was made in 

increasing the sensitivity of our rapid technique for 

measuring selected CHs, particularly the highly toxic 

dioxin-like PCBs, through use of a dialysis technique to 

replace our standard cleanup using silica-based column 

chromatography. Initial results indicate that dialysis 

provides a simple and effective means of removing 

much of the interfering lipid components from the 

analytes of interest in the analysis of blubber tissue for 

CHs. 

Aromatic compounds are also widely distributed in the 

marine environment, especially in urban embayments, 

and have been associated with carcinogenesis in 

mammals and marine species. Unlilce the slow 

metabolism of methyl sulfones, ACs are rapidly 

metabolized and do not bioaccumulate in tissues of 

vertebrate species. Many ACs, however, can exert their 

toxicity by reacting with cellular macromolecules, such 

as DNA during metabolism. This interaction with 

cellular macromolecules is believed to be a critical step 

in inducing several toxic responses. NWFSC has 

developed a method to measure AC-DNA adducts in 

tissues of marine mammals. This method is routinely 

used to analyze selected liver samples collected for 

monitoring and the Tissue Bank and, in 1995, a 

number of samples of marine mammals were analyzed 

for levels of DNA adducts. 

Monitoring studies to assess contaminant exposure 

with biopsy tissue samples will increase the current 

database on levels of chemical contaminants in 

apparently healthy animals for comparison to those 

that stranded or died of disease. Our screening method 

for measuring PCBs in biological tissues has now been 

proven effective for analyzing the small tissue sizes 

acquired through biopsy monitoring studies with 

marine mammals. In 1995, analyses for CHs in 

blubber biopsy samples from free-ranging gray \vl~ales 

along the coast of California and luller whales resident 

to Alaslta were completed. For example, the mean 

concentrations of PCB congener 153 and the sum of 

DDTs in the biopsy samples from the luller whales 

were approximately 840 and 5,800 ng/g wet weight, 

respectively. As a means of comparison to other 

cetaceans where there were data in our marine mammal 

database, the mean concentrations of PCB congener 

153 and the sum of DDTs in blubber samples from 

gray whales that stranded in Alaslta were 40 and 170 

nglg wet weight., respectively, 41 and 170 ng/g wet 

weight, respectively, in bowhead whales from Alaslta, 

and 1,600 and 7,000 ng/g wet weight, respectively, in 

pilot whales that stranded on the east coast of the US. 

Health Monitoring 

In 1995, NMFS and the Armed Forces Institute of 

Pathology signed a memorandum of agreement to 

study the diseases of marine mammals using stranded 

and incidentally caught animals. Additional pathology 

support was contracted through the Southeast Region 

with the University of Miami. Examinations included 

histopathology and PCR evaluations of tissues for 

morbillivirus. AFIP examined tissues from 149 animals 

including 35 pinnipeds and 114 cetaceans. Blocks and 

tissues are archived for future examinations. 

Serology testing for disease was contracted through the 

University of Miami and USDA, National Veterinary 

Services Laboratory. Blood tests on two common 

dolphins that stranded live in California showed 

antibodies to morbillivirus. Morbillivirus was 

implicated in cetacean mortality events in the 

Mediterranean, off of the Atlantic coast, and in the 

Gulf of Mexico. This is the first report of this 

pathogen from any cetacean species in the Pacific 

Ocean. 

Blood tests on a free rangng population of harbor seals 

in southern Puget Sound showed positive antibody 

titers to Bmcella sp. Twelve of 62 animals tested 

positive for antibodies using three different techniques. 

No clinical symptoms were observed in animals with 

positive antibodies to the disease. This finding is of 

concern because various species of Bmcelln can cause 

spontaneous abortion in domestic livestoclc and Malta 

fever in humans. Blood samples were sent to the 

Department of Agriculture's National Veterinary 

Services Laboratories to see if the pathogen could be 

Page 92 
Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program 

isolated and identified as to species. The effort was 

unsuccesful. Additional tests will be conducted to 

determine how common antibodies are in northwest 

pinnipeds and to identify the particular species of 

B~ucrlla. 

National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank 

In 1987, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) 

provided funds to NOAA, OAD to establish and 

conduct the Alaslca Marine Mammal Tissue Archival 

Program (AMMTAP) for the collection and long-term 

storage of tissues from Alaslca marine mammals for 

future chemical analyses. In 1994, the administration 

of AMMTAP was transferred from MMS to the U.S. 

National Biological Service (NBS) and the project 

continues to be conducted as a part of the MMHSRP 

National Marine Mammal Tissue bank involving the 

collaboration of NBS, NIST, NMFS and AFIP. In 

addition to archiving the samples the NMMT8 also 

provides some real time analyses of the samples. Table 

4 shows the specimens contained in the NMMTB. In 

addition, the table indicates which analyses have been 

performed on these samples. The program also 

provides training for personnel. 

Training 

Several organizations are collaborating to collect tissue 

samples from marine mammals. Worlcshops are held 

periodically to train individuals or to review and 

update protocols. On April 25, 1995, a lvorltshop on 

sampling and sample handling procedures for the 

AMMTAP and contaminant monitoring component of 

the MMHSRP was held at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Marine Mammal Laboratory, Anchorage, 

Alaslca. The worltshop involved laboratory 

demonstration of sample processing and handling 

procedures using beluga liver and blubber collected the 

previous day from subsistence hunters in Cook Inlet. 

The worltshop was conducted by personnel from NIST, 

NMFS- Western Alaska office, and NMFS- Northwest 

Fishery Science Center, Seattle. The worltshop also 

Sample collections for 1995 

Sample collections for the AMMTAP were coordinated 

by the NMFS, Western Alaslca Field Office. In 

collaboration with the Coolc Inlet Marine Mammal 

Commission and local Alaslca native hunters, 10 beluga 

whales were sampled in Coolc Inlet. In collaboration 

with the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife 

Management, 3 ringed seals were sampled in Barrow 

Alaslta. Collections for subsistence taken walrus were 

provided by the USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska. These 

walrus samples were collected from the St. Lawrence 

Island harvest in the northern Bering Sea. 

Coordination of supplies and sample shipments were 

provided by personnel from NMFS, Western Alaslca 

Field Office. 

Sample Analyses 

During 1995, analyses from 6 pinnipeds (4 ringed seals 

and 2 bearded seals) from Norton Sound and from 13 

Beluga whales from Coolc Inlet were performed by 

NET, Gaithersburg, Md. For the pinnipeds, only the 

total mercury analyses have been completed to date. In 

total, 115 samples have been analyzed for 

contaminants. These include 47 for organics (CHs, 

primarily blubber) and 68 for inorganics (trace 

elements (TE), mostly liver) from pilot whales (2+ 1 I), 

harbor porpoise (2+6), white-sided dolphin (0+4), 

northern fur seals (8+6), ringed seals (lo+ 18), spotted 

seals (01-1). bearded seals (0+3), bowhead whales 

(0+3), and belugas (25+ 16). The following is a brief 

description of the results of the beluga analyses. 

Blubber samples from 13 belugas (7 adult males, 5 

adult females and 1 female fetus) were analyzed for 32 

PCB congeners and 9 pesticides (hexachlorobenzene, ahexachlorocyclohexane, mirex, heptachlor epoxide, 

trans-chlordane, cis-chlordane, trans-nonachlor, cisnonachlor, dieldrin, DDT and DDT metabolites). 

Subsamples of the same tissues were also sent Dr. 

Derek Muir, DFO Canada, for additional analyses for 

chlordane, toxaphene, and other pesticides. 

addressed protocols for sampling and archiving 

specimens from walrus, polar bears, and sea otters. 
Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program 

Table 4. Inventory of Marine Mammal Species Sampled 

CH=chlorinated hydrocarbon; TE=trace elements 

Page 94 

Number of 

animals 

26 

4 

10 

14 

7 

1 

1 

5 

9 

29 

7 6 

2 

7 

2 

1 

15 

3 

1 

1 

5 

7 

Location 

Barrow 

Pt Hope 

Pt Lay 

Cook Inlet 

Maine 

New Hampshire 

Seattle 

Massachusetts 

Massachusetts 

Barrow 

Nome 

Barrow 

Nome 

California 

Nome 

St Paul Is 

Prince Wm Sound 

Cook Inlet 

Cook Inlet 

Nome 

St Lawrence Is. 

Species 

Bowhead Whale 

Beluga Whale 

Harbor Porpoise 

Atlantic White-sided 

Dolph~n 

Pllot whale 

Ringed seal 

Bearded seal 

Calrfornra Sea Llon 

Spotted seal 

Northern fur seal 

Harbor seal 

Steller sea l~on 

Walrus 

- 

L 

Analytical data (n) 

CH(IO);TE(3) 

CH(2);TE(4) 

CH(lO);TE(IO) 

TE(6) 

CH(6); TE(6) 

TE(4) 

CH(7); TE(9) 

CH(2);TE(2) 

CH(2);TE(l2) 

TE(3) 

TE(1) 

CH(2);TE(2) 

Date 

1992-94 

1989 

1990 

1992,94-95 

1990, 91, 92 

1992 

1993 

1993, 1994 

1990, 1991 

88,91,94,95 

89,91,93,94 

1989 

1989,93,94 

1993 

1991 

1987,90 

1990 

1994 

1990 

1993-94 

1995 
Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program 

The concentrations of PCBs and pesticides that are Workshop on Environmental Monitoring of 

being measured in the blubber of the belugas from ~~,,~i~~~~~

species in Cook Inlet are basically the same as what have been 

found in the animals sampled at point Hope and 

somewhat lower than what has been measured in the 

animals from Point Lay. However, the animals 

sampled for Point Hope were younger than those from 

Point Lay and all of them have been females. PCBs 

and chlorinated pesticides tend to accumulate with age 

and females typically have lower levels than males. In 

order to provide an adequate comparison of the Cook 

Inlet animals with other populations of belugas, ages of 

the animals have to be determined. The teeth from 

these animals are currently being evaluated by 

personnel at the NMFS, Western Alaska Field Office, 

knchorage. In addition, the histopathology of the 

ludney and livers of these animals is currently being 

evaluated by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. 

Liver samples from 6 animals (3 adult males, 2 adult 

females, and 1 female fetus) were analyzed for methyl 

mercury by NIST. Other analyses for total mercury, 

cadmium, and other metals are currently underway. 

As is the case for PCBs and chlorinated pesticides, 

methyl mercury tends to accumulate with age in liver 

tissue. Marine mammals have the ability to 

demethylate mercury to less toxic forms and store these 

in the liver. This ability appears not to be present to a 

great extent in young animals, therefore the percentage 

and actual methyl mercury levels in young animals are 

higher relative to the overall concentrations of mercury. 

Methyl mercury concentrations in the liver tissue of the 

adult Cook Inlet belugas ranged from 0.34 to 2.11 ppm 

wet weight, which is comparable to the levels 

determined for the belugas from Point Lay and Point 

Hope (0.37 - 2.01 ppm). The concentration of methyl 

mercuty in the beluga fetus was 0.09 ppm. Total 

mercury concentrations are pending. 

Personnel from NMFS, NIST, and NBS participated in 

worlcshops sponsored by the Alaslca Department of 

Health and social Services. The DHSS is gathering 

published and unpublished contaminant data on 

subsistence food resources and is developing a human 

health risk assessment program to address the issue of - - potential effects to human consumers of anthropogenic 

contaminants in fish and wildlife. The MMHSRP is 

providing data on the contaminant loads of marine 

mammal tissues to the DHSS for human risk 

assessments. 

Quality Assurance 

The Office of Protected Resources initiated the quality 

assurance program (QA) in 1992 in response to a 

legislative mandate to improve the quality and 

comparability of chemical contaminant data on marine 

mammals. The QA program is coordinated by NIST 

with the NWFSC as the designated lead NMFS 

laboratory. The goal is to assess the accuracy, 

precision, level of detection and comparability of 

results among laboratories analyzing marine mammal 

tissues. The program has been developed as a 

performance-based evaluation system. In addition to 

the laboratory intercomparisons, NIST is also 

developing Standard Reference Materjals (SRMs) for 

marine mammal tissues. These SRMs can be used for 

calibration of instrumentation or as controls and are 

certified to contain specific amounts of contaminants 

such as chlorinated hydrocarbons (pesticides, PCBs, 

dioxins and others) and trace elements (elements such 

as lead, mercury, cadmium, zinc and others). To date 

a blubber standard reference material (SRM-1945) has 

been developed, certified for 27 PCB congeners and 15 

chlorinated~pesticides, and is available for use. This 

SKM -1945 can be ordered from NIST, Gaithersburg, 

Md. Approximately 20 samples were distributed in 

1995. Development and certification of a liver 

standard reference material will begin in 1996. 
Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program 

In 1995, NWFSC and NIST began a collaborative 

effort to improve the comparability of results of 

concentrations of CHs in tissues of marine mammals. 

In the 1994 Marine Mammal Intercomparison 

Exercise, differences in CH results done by both 

laboratories were observed in two of the six samples 

analyzed. The analyses of blubber samples are 

particularly complex due to their high lipid content. 

The NWFSC re-analyzed the original sample extracts 

by an additional instrumental method and found that 

lipid compounds. Consequently, the blubber samples 

which contained extremely high concentrations of CHs 

were re-analyzed by both laboratories. Preliminary 

results showed that comparison of the re-analyzed 

samples improved considerably but some differences 

remained. These differences could be attributed to 

variation in each laboratory's methods for instrument 

calibration, suggesting the importance of using a 

standard protocol for calibration of analytical 

equipment in inter-laboratory exercises. 

the differences in the results were not due to interfering 
Chapter XI. International Programs and Activities 

Kevin Chu, Nancy Daves, R.V. Miller, Paul Neimeier, Robin Tuttle 

Tlie Department of Commerce furthers the protection 

and conservation of marine mammals through 

participation in existing international agreements, and, 

when necessary, negotiation of new agreements. This 

chapter describes NMFS involvement in international 

programs and activities during 1995. 

The Commission for the Conservation of 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic 

Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and its Scientific 

Committee were established in 1982. The Commission 

meets annually to consider issues related to Antarctic 

marine living resources. The Scientific Committee 

reviews the status of marine mammal populations, and, 

as necessary, malces recommendations to the 

Commission. The Commission also reviews annual 

reports by member nations concerning population 

assessments and steps talten to avoid incidental 

mortality of Antarctic marine living resources. 

The Commission held its Fourteenth Annual Meeting 

in 1995 and reported and/or took the actions described 

in the sections which follow. 

Antarctic Pack Ice Seal Program 

Recognizing the need for a better understanding of the 

Antarctic paclc ice seals and the role that they play in 

the Antarctic marine ecosystems, the Antarctic Paclt Ice 

Seal Program (MIS) was initiated in 1990. Under the 

guidance of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic 

Research (SCAR) Group of Specialists on Seals, this 

five-year program is intended to provide an intellectual 

and logistic focus for pinniped researchers in the 

Antarctic pack ice zone. By encouraging scientists from 

various national programs to share logistic resources, to 

collaborate on multi-disciplinary projects, and to 

identify and utilize centers of specialized analytical 

expertise, the APlS Program seeks to build a 

only efficient and cost-effective, but when talten as a 

whole, will produce scientific opportunities and results 

that are far greater than the sum of its parts. 

A planning meeting for the APIS program, partially 

funded by CCAMLR this year, was held at the Alaslca 

Fisheries Science Center's National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory, June 7-9. 1995. With the broad aspects of 

science and logistics having been addressed in previous 

meetings, this planning meeting was convened to 

further the process of coordinating the operational 

details of the program, and to ensure the 

commencement of the program's first field season 

during the 199511 996 austral summer. 

A wide variety of research is being planned for the 

Antarctic pack ice seals (crabeater seal, leopard seal, 

Ross seal and Weddell seals). The Chairman of the 

Scientific Committee (CCAMLR) will write to the 

Convener of the SCAR Group of Specialists on Seals 

requesting that the group consider the collection and 

analysis of data relevant to the aims of CCAMLR and 

its Ecosystem Monitoring Program CEMP, in 

particular. Proposed research on crabeater seals, a 

CEMP species selected for monitoring, will address 

topics of direct relevance to CCAMLR. The CCAMLR 

Chairman will also write to SCAR and to the Scientific 

Committee of the International Whaling Commission 

(IWC) to request reports on the status of Antarctic 

seals and whales, respectively, for review at the 1996 

meeting of the Scientific Committee. 

APIS intends to produce recommended standard 

methods for crabeater seal research. The Chairman of 

the Scientific Committee will write to the Convener of 

the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Science (SCAR) 

Group of Specialists on Seals requesting that the group 

consider the collection and analysis of data relevant to 

the aims of CCAMLR and the CEMP program in 

particular. The Scientific Committee will continue 

close liaison with SCAR in planning and implementing 

the MIS Program. 

cooperative, multi-nationayscience effort that is not 

Page 97 
Chapter XI. International Programs and Activities 

Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and 

Management (WG-EMM) 

The Commission congratulated the Scientific 

Committee on the considerable progress it made on 

monitoring methods and data acquisition for the 

CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program (CEMP) 

and endorsed its data requirements. It also endorsed 

the Committee's decision to establish a subgroup on 

the further development of monitoring methods and a 

subgroup on statistics in order to be able to cope with 

the increasing worldoad relating to the development of 

new methods and the potential revision of all methods, 

and to improve analysis, interpretation and 

presentation of CEMP indices. Text for new CEMP 

methods on Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalusgmtlln) will 

be provided to members of the CCAMLR Scientific 

Committee intercessionally for comment. 

The U.S, shore-based operations at the Seal Island 

CEMP site will be discontinued because the location of 

the field station has been considered unsafe due to 

geologic instability. Research on Antarctic fur seals has 

been conducted by the U.S. at this site in each of the 

past 10 years. A new site is being sought in the 

Antarctic Peninsula so that the land-based work can 

in the amount of marine debris in the Convention Area 

and do indicate that fishing vessels are probably still an 

important source of this type of pollution. Members 

were reminded of the importance of complying with 

ANNEX V of MARPOL 73/78 in the prevention of 

pollution by garbage from ships. The Commission 

reminded Members that, consistent with a CCAMLR 

conservation measure, the use on fishing vessels of 

plastic packagir.g bands to secure bait boxes will be 

prohibited after the 1995196 season. 

Antarctic fur seals and Chinstrap penguins at AMLR field camp, 

Seal Island, South Shetland Islands. Antarctica. Ribbon seal, Photo 

credit: Lisa Hiniki. 

continue. 

The Commission noted that reports by the United 

Data have been submitted for the CEMP database by IGngdom on entanglement indicate a trend to 

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Italy, the United continuing reduction in the entanglement of Antarctic 

Kingdom and the United States from CEMP sites. The fur seals at South Georgia. However, the coincidence 

United States informed WG-EMM of long-term data of the higher entanglement rates with the start of local 

from Anvers Island and Admiralty Bay, IGng George longline fisheries also indicated that fishing vessels 

Island. need to exercise greater care in disposal of waste at sea. 

The Scientific Committee reaffirmed its Assessment and Avoidance of Mortality Incidental recommendation that, whenever possible, two scientific 

to Fishery Operations observers should be used to collect data on incidental 

mortality necessary for appropriate assessments by 

Reports on the assessment and avoidance of incidental CCAMLR. The Scientific Committee endorsed the 

mortality in the Convention Area for the 1994195 need for further intercessional analysis of data on 

season were received from seven Member countries, interactions with marine mammals. 

including the United States. Separate reports on 

surveys of beached marine debris were received from 

two members. The Commission noted with concern 

that current survey data do not suggest any reduction 
Chapter XI. International Programs and Activities 

Cooperation with the International Whaling Japan's 1995 driftnet fishery enforcement efforts 

Commission consisted of the deployment in the North Pacific Ocean 

of one dedicated patrol vessel for a total of 47 ship 

CCAMLR is involved in a number of current and days at sea from May through July 1995. 

planned projects with the IWC. These include 

scientific participation in a steering group meeting on 

research related to the conservation of large baleen 

whales in the Southern Ocean; a symposium and 

workshop on the effects of climate change on cetaceans 

to be held in March 1996; and CCAMLR's request for 

information on interactions between cetaceans and 

fisheries, and for updated estimates of whale stoclc 

sizes. A four-week cruise for blue whales will take place 

off Australia, between Fremantle and Hobart and down 

to 45"S, in DecemberIJanuary 1995196, supported 

jointly by IWC and Japan. The major aim is to provide 

scientifically-based criteria for distinguishing "true" 

from "pygmy" blue whales in the field, to allow more 

accurate estimates of "true" blue whale numbers on 

future surveys. Passive acoustics, photo-identification, 

photogrammetry and tissue biopsy will be employed. 

Secondary target species will be the southern right 

whales and humpback whales. 

Large-Scale High Seas Driftnet Fishing 

Current Status of the United Nations Driftnet 

Moratorium, UNGA Resolution 461215 

As of December 3 1, 1995, the United Nations (UN) 

global moratorium on large-scale high seas driftnet 

fishing, pursuant to UN General Assembly (UNGA) 

Resolution 46/2 15, has been in effect for three years. 

International implementation of the moratorium in the 

world's oceans and enclosed and semi-enclosed seas has 

been generally successful. 

North Pacific Ocean 

No unauthorized driftnet fishing activities in the North 

Pacific Ocean by vessels of Japan, Taiwan, the Republic 

of Korea, or the People's Republic of Ch~na (PRC) were 

detected by the United States, or reported by the 

fisheries enforcement authorities of those countries, in 

1995. 

Taiwan's 5-year vessel buy-back program ended in June 

1995. The purpose of the program was twofold: (1) to 

eliminate Taiwan's high seas driftnet fishing fleet in 

compliance with the UN driftnet moratorium and (2) 

to upgrade Taiwan's fishing fleet by scrapping older 

vessels. Over the duration of the program, the 

Kaohsiung Fisheries Administration spent 

approximately $37 million to purchase and dispose of 

635 fishing vessels. These vessels were either destroyed 

or sunk to create artificial reefs. NMFS has no specific 

information on how many of the 635 vessels were high 

seas driftnet vessels. 

North Atlantic Ocean 

The United States did not detect, or receive any 

reports of, large-scale high seas driftnet fishing in the 

North Atlantic Ocean in violation of the UN driftnet 

moratorium in 1995. The European Union (EU) 

played a stronger role in monitoring compliance with 

the driftnet moratorium. The EU Fisheries 

Commission's 1995 driftnet enforcement plans 

included the chartering of a vessel to support France's 

enforcement of EU driftnet regulations in the Bay of 

Biscay albacore tuna fishery beginning in June 1995. 

The vessel was then scheduled to move to the 

Mediterranean Sea to monitor Italian enforcement of 

the summer swordfish driftnet fishery. 

A number of confrontations occurred between French 

and Spanish fishermen in the Northeast Atlantic 

albacore tuna fishery in 1994, when Spanish fishermen 

tried to seize French driftnets they claimed were longer 

than the 2.5 Iulometers allowed under EU regulations. 

Increased enforcement efforts by the French 

Government directed at its driftnet fleet eventually 

resolved the dispute. To prevent a recurrence of the 

1994 Bay of Biscay conflict in 1995, France instituted 

a program to inspect 100 percent of the French tuna 

driftnet fleet upon departure from and return to port, 

to verify driftnet lengths. In addition, vessels were no 

Page 99 
Chapter XI. International Programs and Activities 

longer allowed to carry backup driftnets, i.e., only one 

net per vessel was permitted. 

Mediterranean Sea 

On May 3, 1995, a suit was filed against the Secretary 

of Commerce and the Secretary of State in the U.S. 

Court of International Trade, under the High Seas 

Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, 16 U.S.C. 1826a1826~. Plaintiffs are the Humane Society of the 

United States, the Humane Society International, 

Defenders of Wildlife, the Royal Society for the 

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Whale and 

Dolphin Conservation Society, and Earth Island 

Institute. Plaintiffs seek an order directing the 

Secretary of Commerce to identify Italy as a country 

whose nationals or vessels are conducting large-scale 

driftnet fishing on the high seas, as a result of reports 

of Italian fishing vessels employing large-scale driftnets 

in the Mediterranean swordfish fishery in violation of 

the 1995 United Nations driftnet moratorium. As of 

December 3 1, 1995, the Court had not ruled on the 

case. For further information on this case, see the 

discussion of Humane Society ofthe United States V. Brown 

in chapter XI1 of this report. 

United States Driftnet Actions 

1995 Driftnet Enforcement Efforts 

To monitor compliance with the driftnet moratorium 

in 1995, NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard and Canadian 

Maritime Forces continued to carry out surveillance 

activities in the North Pacific areas that in the past 

were routinely fished by driftnet vessels. U.S. Coast 

Guard cutters logged 93 vessel days at sea and Coast 

Guard aircraft flew 294 hours of surveillance patrols in 

the 1995 driftnet monitoring program. An additional 

2 12 cutter days were available for response to specific 

information. Canadian Pacific Maritime Forces aircraft 

contributed 6 one-week patrols to the effort. A NMFS 

Special Agent accompanied each of these flights. 

All Coast Guard operations were planned and executed 

in cooperation with enforcement officials of Japan, 

Canada, and Kussia. In addition, direct lines of 

communication have been established between the 

Coast Guard and the Russian Border Guard to 

facilitate sharing of sighting information. 

In June 1995, a Canadian Forces CP-140 aircraft on 

surveillance patrol observed one suspected high-seas 

driftnet vessel in transit in the North Pacific. The 

vessel's nationality was concealed and it was not flying 

a flag. However, driftnet retrieval equipment was 

visible on the afterdeck. In July 1995, a second 

suspected high seas driftnet vessel was sighted by a 

Canadian forces aircraft. This vessel had also 

concealed all traces of its identity. Both vessels were 

photographed and the position, course and speed of 

each recorded. Flights and surface patrols on 

subsequent days failed to relocate the vessels. 

On July 10, 1995, in response to information received 

from U.S. albacore fishermen operating northwest of 

Midway Island, U.S. Coast Guard C-130 aircraft 

located and filmed a high seas driftnet vessel with nets 

deployed. The vessel was subsequently tracked by 

Coast Guard aircraft while a Coast Guard high 

endurance cutter was vectored to intercept. Following 

a 5-day chase, in which the vessel refused various Coast 

Guard signals and actions to stop, Coast Guard crews 

successfully fouled the fishing vessel's propeller with 

line. The Coast Guard on July 20, 1995, boarded, 

seized, and began towing the vessel to Guam where it 

was turned over to NMFS Enforcement officials for 

investigation and prosecution under the Federal 

judicial system. Coast Guard operations in this case 

were supported by U.S. Navy aircraft and a Navy oiler. 

The seizure resulted in the vessel master, a Taiwan 

citizen, being charged under the Magnuson Act for 

refusing to allow authorized officers to board his vessel 

for inspection. On September 22, 1995, he was 

sentenced to six months in jail and received an $8,000 

fine. In addition, forfeiture action is pending against 

the vessel. 

Because the vessel master, first mate, and engineer of 

the stateless vessel were Taiwan nationals, Taiwan 

fisheries authorities and Taiwan's Ministry of Justice 

Investigation Burcau have undertalcen an interagency 

investigat~on of the ~ncidcnt. Taiwan authorities have 

Page 100 
Chapter XI. International Programs and Activities 

assured the United States that they intend to prosecute 

the case in order to deter other potential violators of 

Taiwan's ban on large-scale driftnet fishing. As a first 

step, they revolted the working licenses of the three 

officcrs on August 14, 1995. 

PRC Ship Rider Program 

During 1995, the PRC provided three fisheries officers 

to accompany U.S. Coast Guard cutters during highseas driftnet patrols in the North Pacific Ocean. The 

first PRC ship rider accompanied the cutter RUSH and 

the other two riders accompanied the cutter 

HAMILTON. 

Other Reports of Unauthorized Driftnet Fishing 

NMFS has continued to work with the Coast Guard 

and the Departments of Defense and State to monitor 

the Northeastern Atlantic Ocean and the 

Mediterranean Sea for unauthorized high-seas driftnet 

fishing activity. In fact, NMFS provided several 

briefings for U.S. Naval commands in England, Italy, 

and Spain during 1995. These commands deploy to 

the Mediterranean and eastern North Atlantic for 

patrol operations. 

Fisheries Enforcement Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) 

On October 1 1, 1993, the Secretaries of 

Transportation, Commerce, and Defense entered into 

an MOU to more effectively enforce domestic laws and 

international agreements that conserve and manage the 

living marine resources of the United States. The 

MOU, required under Section 202 of Public Law 102- 

582, the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, 

establishes a mechanism for the use of the surveillance 

capabilities of the Department of Defense (DOD) for 

locating and identifying vessels violating U.S. marine 

conservation laws and international agreements, 

including UNGA Resolution 46/2 15. The MOU also 

sets formal procedures for communicating vessel 

locations to the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. 

Coast Guard. A copy of the MOU was attached to the 

1993 Driftnet Report to the Congress. 

The U.S. Coast Guard has used DOD surveillance 

information in previous years' high seas driftnet patrol 

efforts and will continue to do so under the provisions 

of the MOU. NMFS is already worling with the 

Department of the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare 

Systems Command, Undersea Warfare Programs 

Office, on a project to detect any possible large-scale 

driftnet fishing vessels in the North Pacific Ocean using 

the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS). 

A very successful test of IUSS assets in detecting and 

traclung driftnet vessels was conducted in 1992. 

Efforts continued through 1994 to refine the use of this 

system into a primary surveillance tool regarding 

possible driftnet fishing activity in the North Pacific. 

NMFS and the Coast Guard will continue to explore 

other possible uses of DOD surveillance assets for the 

monitoring of driftnet fishing vessels and fishing 

activity. 

UN Driftnet Reports 

Since December 1992, the United States has been 

instrumental in ensuring that implementation of the 

high seas driftnet moratorium remains a priority of the 

UNGA. It has supported UNGA resolutions and 

decisions, including UNGA Resolution 50125 adopted 

on December 5, 1995, requesting that the UN 

Secretary-General submit to the ~eneral Assembly 

annual reports 'on developments relevant to the 

implementation of the UN driftnet moratorium. 

In order to execute the reporting requirements of 

UNGA Decision 49/436, i.e., the call for "all members 

of the international community, intergovernmental - 

organizations, regional economic integration 

organizations, and appropriate non-governmental 

organizations to provide the Secretary-General with 

information relevant to the implementation of 

resolution 46/21S8', the United States submitted to the 

Secretary-General in June 1995 a paper regarding U.S. 

views on large-scale pelagic high seas driftnet fishing 

and UNGA Resolution 46/2 15. The paper describes in 

detail the actions talcen individually and collectively by 

the United States to implement the UNGA global 

driftnet moratorium in 1995. It was integrated into 

the Secretary-General's report entitled "Large-scale 

Page 101 
Chapter XI. International Programs and Activities 

pelagic drift-net fishing and its impact on the living In response to the scientific ambiguity, the Commission 

marine resources of the world's oceans and seas," passed a resolution calling for Norway to halt its 

A/50/553, October 12, 1995. whaling activities immediately and to withdraw its legal 

objection to the moratorium on commercial whaling. 

International Whaling Commission In addition, the Commission agreed to hold two 

intersessional workshops to work on providing 

Preparations for 1995 Annual Meeting 

A Working Group of the International Whaling 

Commission (IWC) met in Reine, Norway, January 9- 

13, to discuss a system of supervision and control of 

commercial whaling operations. The new system, once 

complete, will be part of the Revised Management 

Scheme being developed to manage commercial 

whaling. The meeting identified the key factors which 

countries felt should be part of a system of supervision 

and control, but no progress was made in resolving 

differences on these factors. Most countries felt that 

there should be an international observer on every 

vessel licensed to take whales, and that this program 

should be paid for by the whalers as a cost of doing 

business. These countries also sought increased IWC 

oversight of whaling operations, including the 

establishment of a panel to review observers' reports 

and other relevant material, the establishment of some 

form of DNA testing or real time reporting to the IWC 

by observers, etc. Pro-whaling nations felt that the 

current systems of national enforcement were sufficient 

and that the additional costs imposed by the IWC 

should be borne by all member nations, especially 

those who demanded them. 

1995 Annual Meeting 

The 47th annual meeting of the International Whaling 

Commission (IWC) took place in Dublin, Ireland (8 

May-20 May: Scientific Committee Meeting; 29 May2 June: Commissioner's Meeting). The most notable 

result was the failure of the Scientific Committee 

members to agree on a new abundance estimate for the 

North Atlantic Minlte whale, the stock which is 

currently the subject of Norway's commercial whale 

hunt. An earlier abundance estimate from 1992 was 

considered invalid. 

- 

recommendations on a new estimate of abundance. 

Norway offered to host an intersessional meeting of the 

Scientific Committee to ensure that an estimate of 

abundance would be approved prior to Noway's 1996 

commercial hunt, which is scheduled to start before the 

1996 Annual Meeting of the IWC. 

On a related matter, the Commission agreed that the 

Scientific Committee would not use population 

estimates in the implementation of the RMP unless the 

data were obtained in accordance with the relevant 

guidelines, and called for IWC oversight by foreign 

nationals of surveys conducted by contracting 

governments. 

Other significant events included: 

- the passage of a resolution calling for countries to 

improve mechanisms to prevent illegal trade in 

whale meat: 

- the passage of a resolution calling for contracting 

governments to refrain from issuing special 

permits for lethal research whaling in the 

Southern Ocean Sanctuary; and, 

- the decision to maintain the moratorium on 

commercial whaling. 

The Worlung Group on Supervision and Control met 

for a full day. Little progress was made, however, in 

resolving outstanding differences. 

During the Scientific Committee meeting, additional 

details were presented by scientists from Russia on the 

former Soviet Union's massive under-reporting of post 

World War I1 whale catches in the Southern 

hemisphere. Russia tried to delete all references to 

those data on the basis that its government had never 

officially approved the data submission, and Russia 

Page 102 
Chapter XI. International Programs and Activities 

refused to accept the report of the Scientific 

Committee because it contained references to this 

situation. 

France introduced a resolution to establish an agenda 

item addressing the effects of environmental changes 

and threats upon Arctic whale stocks. The 

Commission agreed to refer this item to the Scientific 

Committee for advice and to consider it at next year's 

meeting. 

The Scientific Committee agreed to have an intensive 

review of japan's lethal research program in the 

Antarctic, a 16-year program of which eight years have 

been completed. It was determined that there should 

be an intersessional meeting on this subject. The 

Scientific Committee proposed that this meeting be 

held in FY 1995196, but it was postponed one year for 

financial reasons. 

The Commission reviewed its criteria for conducting 

lethal research on whales. In 1986 and 1987, the 

Commission adopted recommended criteria for lethal 

whale research programs. This year, the Commission 

updated those criteria by adopting a resolution 

recommending that scientific research to assist the 

comprehensive assessment of whale stocks should be 

done by non-lethal means and that scientific research 

involving the killing of cetaceans should be permitted 

only in exceptional circumstances. 

This year, the Commission again denied Japan's request 

for an "interim relief allocation" of 50 minlce whales for 

four traditional whaling communities. The majority of 

delegations considered the request inconsistent with 

the moratorium on commercial whaling, as the sale of 

meat would still be allowed in some guest houses. The 

IWC did recognize that the proposal submitted by 

Japan contained constructive management elements in 

accordance with IWC regulations. 

The U.S. indicated that the Malcah Indian 'Tribe of 

Washington State had expressed an interest in taking 

up to five gray whales for ceremonial and subsistence 

purposes and that it may wish to submit a formal 

proposal at a future date. 

Russia stated that they would request a quota for five 

bowhead whales in 1996 for subsistence purposes, 

indicating that they would be willing to reduce their 

gray whale quota by five animals accordingly. 

Workshop on Whale Killing Methods 

A Workshop on Whale IGlling Methods met from 23- 

25 May 1995. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission (AEWC) presented information on its 

weapons improvement program and offered data on the 

U.S. bowhead whale hunt. This information was 

welcomed and commended by the Workshop. 

The main focus of the Worlcshop was on the electric 

lance, used by Japan as a method to kill whales that are 

not lulled instantaneously when harpooned. The 

Worlcshop noted that alternative secondary killing 

methods are available, such as using a second harpoon 

or a rifle, but no conclusion was reached regarding 

what the best alternative is. Japan informed the 

Worlcshop that the use of a rifle to lull whales was 

contrary to its domestic laws. IWC agreed to consider 

banning the electric lance next year and urged Japan to 

suspend the use of the electric lance as a method for 

lulling whales in the meantime. 

Events Since the IWC Annual Meeting 

Norway issued itself a quota of 232 minlce whales for 

commercial purposes; 2 15 whales were taken. Norway 

also completed an extensive scientific survey of minke 

whales in the northeastern North Atlantic this summer. 

Several American scientists took part in this survey. 

This summer, Japan took all 100 minke whales under 

its special permit for scientific whaling in the North 

Pacific. The research whaling fleet left Japan in early 

November for the Antarctic, where it is expected to 

take up to 440 minke whales in 1996 for research 

purposes in the southern ocean whale sanctuary. 

As a result of its continuing concern about the 

expansion of research whaling, the Commerce 

Department certified Japan under the Pelly 

Page 103 
Chapter XI. International Programs and Activities 

Amendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 

(22 U.S.C. 1978) on December 11, 1995. 

The certification of the Secretary of Commerce was 

based on the issuance by the Government of Japan of 

permits to its nationals allowing the lulling of North 

Pacific minke whales for research purposes and an 

expansion of the research whaling in the southern 

ocean whale sanctuary. Secretary Brown conveyed his 

concerns not only over the whales that have been lulled 

in this program but also over the possibility of further 

expansion of lethal research, particularly in the 

Southern Hemisphere which, since December 6, 1994, 

has been an IWC whale sanctuary, an area intended to 

be free of whaling, the creation of which was strongly 

supported by the United States. 

The AEWC struclc a total of 57 bowhead whales out of 

a strike limit of 68. Of those 57 whales, 45 were 

landed. This is an efficiency rate of 79 percent, a rate 

above the IWC target for this year. 

U.S.-Russia Marine Mammal Project, 02.05-6\ 

under Area V of the Environmental Protecticn 

Agreement 

The Marine Mammal Project, 02.05-61, is one of eight 

projects in Area V of the US-Russia Agreement on 

Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection. 

The goal of this Project is to conduct cooperative 

research on the biology, ecology and population 

dynamics of marine mammal species shared by both 

countries, leading to the development of methods for 

the rational management and protection of these 

animals. 

During 1995, a total of eleven exchanges involving 27 

American and 29 Russian scientists took place. Joint 

research activities began in April with a U.S. scientist 

traveling to the Laptev, ICara and Barents Seas in the 

western Russian Arctic to work with colleagues on 

capture and satellite tracking of polar bears to obtain 

data on movements, migrations, and distribution 

patterns. That work included a worltshop in Moscow 

with Russian and Norcvegian scientists to develop a 

cooperative program to determine radionuclide levels 

in polar bears throughout their range. Polar bear 

studies continued in July 1995 with 2 Russian 

scientists visiting Alaska to work on analyses of survey 

data and to prepare manuscripts for publication. 

Joint efforts continued in August 1995 with cetacean 

studies that involved 3 NMFS scientists worlung with 

Russian colleagues on surveys and biological studies of 

bowhead and gray whales in the Sea of Olhotsk off 

the east coast of northern Sakhalin Island. Also in 

August, 2 Russian scientists visited the U.S. to work on 

pinnipeds in Alaska. One scientist from ICamchatNIRO 

(the ICamchatka Research Institute for Fisheries and 

Oceanography) spent 3 weeks on the Pribilof Islands 

worlung with NMFS scientists from NMML on 

population studies of northern fur seais and to learn 

new radio taggmg and tracking techniques. The other 

scientist, from the ICamchatka Fisheries Inspection 

Service (I<amchatRybVod) worked with NMML 

researchers on Alaska harbor seal biological studies 

designed to determine appropriate correction factors 

for population assessments. 

In September 1995, three major conferences were held 

in ICamchatka. The first was the Fifth Biennial Sea 

Otter Workshop that included 7 American and 16 

Russian specialists reviewing past work and planning 

future studies on sea otter biology and population 

dynamics. The second conference included 12 

American specialists meeting to review and agree on 

principles for joint conservation and management of 

the Alaska-Chulcotlta polar bear population, and to 

cany out preliminary planning for a joint agreement on 

management of the ~erin~-chukchi wa~rus~~o~ulation. 

The last conference was the 13th Meeting of the 

Marine Mammal Project, and included 6 American 

specialists and over 20 Russian participants. Joint and 

cooperative research activities conducted during the 

previous 20 months were reviewed, and the group 

developed a comprehensive plan for research over the 

next two years. Proposed activities include: 5 joint 

studies on gray, bowhead, and beluga whales; 9 studies 

on \.valrus biology, harvest monitoring, data synthesis 

and analysis, and continuation of work toward a joint 

agreement; 13 cooperative activities on sea otters, 

Page 104 
Chapter XI. International Programs and Activities 

ranging from examination of past harvest records to 

genetic analyses for stoclc determination to benthic 

community studies; and 12 proposed studies on 

pinnipeds,.including 7 on harbor and ice dwelling seals 

involving work on aerial survey methodology, foraging 

ecology Bnalyses of satellite tag data, and reproductive 

ecology and behavior. Finally, there are also 6 proposed 

activities on Steller sea lion biology and assessment to 

take place across almost the entire range of the species, 

from the Gulf of Alaslca to the ICurile Islands and 

ICamchatlca, and 2 studies on northern fur seals to take 

place on the Pribilof Islands. 

Additionally, in November a Russian Academy of 

Sciences researcher visited the U.S. to work with 

American scientists to assess the effects of accumulated 

radiation doses on long-lived mammals of the Russian 

Arctic, and in ~ecember another Russian scientist 

visited Alaslca to work on data analyses of spotted seals 

and develop a multi-agency cooperative study on 

harbor seals in both Alaslca and ICamchatka. Finally, a 

National Biological Service (NBS) scientist visited 

Magadan, Russia to help plan and establish a Pacific 

Walrus International Database with the Institute for 

Study of Biological Problems of the North. 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES) 

NMFS continues to be active in implementation of 

CITES for marine species. 

Significant Trade Reviews 

International trade for commercial purposes is 

prohibited for species listed in Appendix I of the 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered 

Species (CITES), except for countries which have talcen 

reservations under the treaty. Species listed in 

Appendix 11 of CITES may be traded, provided that the 

country of export has granted a permit for the 

shipment. Countries issuing permits must make a 

finding that the export will not be detrimental to the 

survival of the species concerned, and that the 

specimens were legally obtained. Issuance of permits 

must be monitored and if necessary, limited, "in order 

to maintain that species throughout its range at a level 

consistent with its role in the ecosystems in which it 

occurs and well above the level at which that species 

might become eligible for inclusion in Appendix I." 

In order to determine whether such limitation is 

necessary, the Animals Committee of CITES 

undertakes reviews of species for which there are 

significant amounts of international trade. Such a 

study was done this year, with input from range States, 

for narwhal (Monodon monoceros). The Animals 

Committee will make recommendations for the 

conservation of this species during 1996. 

Illegal Trade in Whale Meat 

At the Ninth meeting of the Conference of the CITES 

Parties, in November 1994, a resolution was passed to 

address continuing illegal international trade in whales, 

in spite of their listing in Appendix I of the treaty. The 

resolution recognizes the work of the International 

Whaling Commission (IWC) on the issue and urges 

CITES Parties to investigate illegal trade in whale meat 

and cooperate with the CITES Secretariat in the 

collection of this information. It also encourages the 

sharing of information between the IWC and CITES 

on illegal trade and directs the Secretariat to share with 

the IWC any information it collects regarding illegal 

trade in whale meat. NMFS has met on several 

occasions with Japanese government officials to 

facilitate exchange of information about ways to stop 

illegal trade in whales. 

Withdrawal of Russian Reservations on Whale 

Species 

Under the CITES treaty, Contracting Parties may take 

reservations to any species listed under the 

Convention. The talung of a reservation indicates the 

Parties intention of non-compliance with the treaty. 

During 1995, the government of Russia announced the 

withdrawal of their reservations to species of great 

whales listed in Appendix I of the Convention. The 

Page 105 
Chapter XI. International Programs and Activities 

United States commended this step on behalf of 

worldwide whale conservation. 

Page 106 
Chapter XII. Litigation 

Karl Cleaves 

Ongoing Legal Actions 

American Tunaboat Association v. Brown 

[67 F.3d 1404 (9th Cir. 1995), affe No. 94-0736 

(N.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 1994) (mem. opinion and order 

granting partial summary judgment), dismissed & 

sti~ulation Nov. 6, 19951 The American Tunaboat 

Association (ATA) sought to enjoin the enforcement of 

a notice of closure issued by NMFS to ban purse seine 

tuna fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean 

(ETP). The district court denied the application for 

preliminary injunction and granted partial summary 

judgment in favor of NMFS. ATA appealed and the 

Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed 

the lower court decision. The parties agreed to a joint 

stipulation for dismissal. 

On February 7, 1994, NMFS notified U.S. tuna fishing 

fleet members that all tuna fishing involving the setting 

of purse seine nets on dolphins in the ETP was 

prohibited for the remainder of the year because the 

fleet had reached the annual quota of dolphin 

mortalities specified in section 306(a)(4) of the 

MMPA. On February 25, 1994, ATA filed a complaint 

in the District Court for Southern District of California 

seeking injunctive and declaratory relief from the 

closure notice issued by NMFS. Because of the 

existence of related litigation, Earth Island Institute v. 

Brown, No. C88-1380 (N.D. Cal.), the case was 

transferred to the Northern District of California. 

ATA claimed NMFS improperly determined that the 

U.S. tuna fleet in the ETP had reached its allowable 

quota of dolphins lulled for 1994 and that the closure 

of the fishery therefore violated the MMPA. NMFS 

based its determination on section 306(a)(4) of the 

MMPA, which specifies that the U.S. fleet-caused 

dolphin mortality, for every year after 1992, may not 

exceed the number of mortalities for the preceding 

year. In addition, this section requires total dolphin 

mortalities occurring under the ATA general permit 

continue to decline each year by statistically significant 

amounts. Observer records indicated that there were 

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

1993. During January and the first week of February 

1994, NMFS received reports that an unusually high 

rate of dolphin mortality already had occurred and that 

the fleet would reach and exceed the entire quota of 

114 dolphins for 1994 by the end of the day on 

February 7, 1994. 

The plaintiffs claimed that the correct quota was 800 

dolphins for the period January I, 1993, to February 

28, 1994, under section 306(a)(l) of the MMPA, and 

that the phrase "each year after 1992" used in section 

306(a)(4) should be construed to mean any 

consecutive 12 month period, not a calendar year. 

Finally, ATA alleged that the form of the notice of 

closure was improper because ATA was notified 

directly rather than by publication of a notice in the 

~ederal~e~ister as specifikd in NMFS' regulations. On 

April 15, 1994, the district court denied ATA's motion 

for a temporaly restraining order. On July 6, 1994, the 

court granted partial summary judgment to the 

government on the substantive issue of whether NMFS 

had applied the correct quota in 1994, and denied 

ATA's motion for a preliminary injunction. 

ATA filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit alleging that district court's decision to 

deny the preliminary injunction was an abuse of 

discretion. The circuit court determined that the 

appeal was not moot and affirmed the district court's 

grant of summary judgment, with Judge Rymer 

concurring in part and dissenting in part. The circuit 

court upheld NMFS' interpretation of the annual 

reduction provision and of the terms "year" and 

"preceding year." The court recognized that an agency's 

interpretation of a statute it administers is entitled to 

deference, that Congress, in all likelihood, did not 

anticipate a situation in which dolphin mortality in the 

first few weeks of 1994 threatened to outstrip the 

number of dolphin mortalities in 1993, that Congress 

clearly did not intend for such a situation to occur, and 

that NMFS' interpretation effectuated the underlying 

Page 107 
Chapter XII. Litigation 

purposes of section 306(a)(l) and (4)(A) of the 

MMPA. The circuit court also agreed with the district 

court's denial of ATA's application for a preliminary 

injunction, finding that ATA was lil<ely to prevail on 

the issue of proper notice, but that ATA failed to show 

the liltelihood of irreparable injury. On October 3 1, 

1995, the parties agreed to a joint stipulation for 

dismissal, and on November 6, 1995, the district court 

approved the stipulation and dismissed the case. 

Strahan v. Linnon 

[No. 94-1 1128 (D. Mass. order issued May 2, 1995)) 

In the past four years U.S. Coast Guard vessels struck 

and lulled two northern right whales. On June 7, 1994, 

the plaintiff in this case filed a complaint alleging that 

such takings of right whales were illegal and that the 

Coast Guard violated the MMPA, the ESA, the 

National Environmental Policy Act and the Whaling 

Convention Act. The complaint asserted that the 

Coast Guard violated the ESA by failing to consult 

with NMFS and by failing to ensure that its actions 

were unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

endangered species. The complaint also alleged that 

the Coast Guard did not comply with the National 

Environmental Policv Act because it had not . 

ureuared . an environmental assessment on the effects of its 

operations. The plaintiff claimed that talungs of right 

whales are illegal and sought to enjoin certain Coast 

Guard activities, including the issuance of vessel 

documentation certificates. in addition to other relief, 

Mr. Strahan asked the court to order the Coast Guard 

to prohibit its own vessels and other vessels from 

approaching within 500 yards of a northern right whale 

or within 100 yards of any other species of whale. 

The Coast Guard initiated consultation under section 

7 of the ESA on the effects of its actions on endangered 

whales and sea turtles and reviewed vessel operating 

procedures to identify environmental problems and to 

implement measures that would avoid collisions with 

right whales and other marine species. On February 

10, 1995, the court held a hearing on this case. On 

May 2, 1995, the court issued its order on the 

plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. As a 

preliminary matter, the court ruled that the plaintiff 

only had standing to challenge Coast Guard activities 

in the First Coast Guard District, which includes the 

area between Maine and New Jersey. With respect to 

claims asserted under the ESA, the court ruled that 

Coast Guard lacked discretion over vessel 

documentation and inspection activities and thus, such 

actions were not subject to consultation requirements 

of the Act. However, with respect to the operation of 

Coast Guard vessels in the First District, the court 

found that such operations would not be in full 

compliance with the Act until the section 7 

consultation was completed. Nonetheless, the court 

declined to issue a preliminary injunction noting that 

the Coast Guard had talcen steps to prevent its vessels 

from strilung whales and that liltelihood of such an 

occurrence was in dispute. 

In terms of the MMPA claims, the court noted that a 

small take authorization is required for activities that 

may result in the taking of a marine mammal and, on 

that basis, ordered the Coast Guard to apply for such 

an authorization by May 3 1, 1995. The court also 

found that the Coast Guard had violated the National 

Environmental Policy Act and ordered the preparation 

of a draft environmental assessment. The court 

dismissed claims based upon alleged violations of the 

Whaling Convention Act. 

On June 2, 1995, the Coast Guard applied to NMFS 

for a small take authorization. At the end of the year, 

NMFS was reviewing that application. On September 

15, 1995, NMFS issued its biological opinion on Coast 

Guard activities along the Atlantic Coast. The opinion 

concluded that, given specified mitigation measures, 

such activities were not lil<ely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of threatened or endangered 

species. On October 9, 1995, a Coast Guard vessel 

struclt another whale. The species could not be 

identified with any degree of certainty, but it was 

suspected of being a humpbaclt whale. Under the 

terms of the biological opinion, reinitiation of 

consultation is required if any endangered whale is 

struck. NMFS continues to be engaged in discussions 

with the Coast Guard on this issue. 

Page 108 
Chapter XI!. Litigation 

New Legal Actions 

Strong v. U.S. 

[No. C-95-438 (S.D. Tex. complaint filed Aug. 29, 

1995).] The plaintiffs in this case operated a tour boat 

engaged in the business of feeding dolphins. In 199 1, 

NMFS amended the regulatory definition of the term 

"talte" to include feeding or attempting to feed marine 

mammals in the wild. In prior litigation discussed in 

previous Annual Reports, the plaintiffs challenged the 

regulatory definition. The district court held that 

feeding bottlenose dolphins in the wild did not 

constitute harassment and, therefore, was not a form of 

talung under the MMPA. On appeal, the Circuit Court 

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that feeding wild 

dolphins could disturb their normal behavior, and thus, 

was harassment under the Act, and vacated the 

judgment of the district court. Strone v. U.S., 81 1 F. 

Supp. 246 (S.D. Tex. 1992), vacated per curiam 5 F.3d 

904 (5th Cir. 1993). 

The 1994 Amendments to the MMPA included a 

statutory definition of the term "harassment." This 

term is defined as any act of pursuit, torment or 

annoyance that has the potential to injure or to disturb 

a marine mammal or a marine mammal stock in the 

wild by disrupting behavior patterns, including but not 

limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding or sheltering. In this new litigation plaintiffs, 

Erv and Sonja Strong, claimed that the 1994 statutory 

definition superseded the regulatory definition. The 

Strongs did not ask the court to hold that the feeding 

of dolphins was permitted under the MMPA, but 

rather they requested the court to grant declaratory 

relief in the fo;m of a ruling that feeding dolphins in 

the wild, per se, is not a violation of the Act. Such a 

ruling would require the agency to establish not merely 

that feeding in general could disrupt normal behavior, 

but in the context of a specific enforcement action that 

feeding in that particular case caused harassment. The 

filed a motion to dismiss the case on 

October 27, 1995. The government argued, first, that 

the court lacked jurisdiction to enter a declaratory 

judgment because there was no pending enforcement 

action or other case or controversy appropriate for 

judicial review. Second, it was argued that the same - 

issue was adjudicated in previous litigation, Strong v. 

- U.S., 5 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 1993), and the new 

statutory definition was consistent with that decision. 

On November 21, 1995, the plaintiffs agreed to 

dismiss the case without prejudice. 

Tepley v. NOAA 

[No. '2-95-0844 (N.D. Cal. order issued Nov. 28, 

1995).] On May 10, 1992, Mr. Tepley and a woman 

companion pursued and approached a pod of pilot 

whales in a small boat. Mr. Tepley and his companion 

entered the water with the whales. The companion 

began to touch and pet the whales while Mr. Tepley 

filmed the animals. One of the whales nipped the 

woman and shortly thereafter grabbed her anlde in its 

mouth and dived to a depth of about Forty feet. About 

a minute later the whale brought the woman to the 

surface and released her. The woman was talcen to a 

hospital and received stitches in her leg. 

On November 18, 1992, NOAA issued a notice of 

violation charging Mr. Tepley with the unlawful talung 

by harassment of one or more pilot whales through 

operations of a powerboat and subsequent activities in 

the water. After a hearing before an administrative law 

judge (ALJ), Mr. Tepley was found guilty of harassing 

the whales. The ALJ determined that Tepley chased 

the whales and that it was primarily the chase that 

Page 109 
Chapter XII. Litigation 

constituted a sustained and serious disruption of 

normal marine activity. The ALJ also found that Mr. 

Tepley's camera may have emitted a sound that 

harassed the whales. 

On March 12, 1995, Mr. Tepley filed an action for 

judicial review of the agency's decision. Relying upon 

United States v. Havashi, 22 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1993) 

suoerseding 5 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 1993), a case 

discussed in last year's Annual Report, the U.S. District 

Court for the Nonhern District of California concluded 

that the standard for harassment under the MMPA 

refers to a direct, serious disruption of a marine 

mammal's customary pursuits. Using this standard the 

court concluded that the ALJ erred in finding that the 

actions of Mr. Tepley constituted harassment. Unlilce 

the ALJ, the coun found that there was no substantial 

evidence that the whales were being chased or that 

their behavior was being disrupted under the Havashi 

standard. Likewise, the court found there was no 

substantial evidence that the operation of the camera 

or other underwater activities constituted harassment. 

On November 28, 1995, the court granted Mr. Tepley's 

motion for summary judgment and set aside the 

agency's decision. 

After the events in this case, Congress amended the 

MMPA to include a statutory definition of 

"harassment." The new statutory definition differs 

from the standard enunciated in Havashi and applied 

in TeD]ev. As noted above the definition refers to any 

act of pursuit, torment or annoyance that has the 

potential to injure or to disturb a marine mammal or a 

marine mammal stoclc in the wild by disrupting 

behavior patterns, including but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding or 

sheltering. Given the statutory change, the significance 

and impact of the Havashi and Te~ley cases are 

expected to be limited. 

Humane Society of the United States v. Brown 

Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, 16 U.S.C. 1826a1826c. Plaintiffs are the Humane Society of the 

United States, the Humane Society International, 

Defenders of Wildlife, the Royal Society for the 

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Whale and 

Dolphin Conservation Society, and Earth Island 

Institute. 

Plaintiffs sought an order directing the Secretary of 

Commerce to identify Italy as a country whose 

nationals or vessels are conducting large-scale driftnet 

fishing on the high seas. Such an identification would 

require the State Department to initiate consultations 

with Italy. If those consultations were not satisfactorily 

concluded within 90 days, the United States would be 

required to prohibit importation of fish, fish products, 

and sport fishing equipment from Italy. 

On August 18, 1995, the Court denied plaintiffs' 

motion for a preliminary injunction, because plaintiffs 

had not made a showing of immediate and irreparable 

harm. The Court also dismissed one count of the 

complaint, which was based on the Secretary's failure 

to identify Italy as a driftnetting nation on January 10, 

1993 (the original statutory deadline), because the 

statute of limitations had run. The defendants' motion 

for a protective order was denied, however; defendants 

have since responded to numerous interrogatories and 

requests for production of documents. 

Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on 

October 6, 1995; defendants filed their motion for 

judgment on the Agency record on October 3 1, 1995. 

The Court heard arguments on the suit on December 

19, 1995, in New Yorlc City. However, as of December 

3 1, 1995, the Court had not ruled on the case. 

[No. 95-05-0063 1, U.S. Court of International Trade.] 

On May 3, 1995, a suit was filed against the Secretary 

of Commerce and the Secretary of State in the U.S. 

Court of International Trade, under the High Seas 

Page 110 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Allen, J., Clapham, P., Hammond, P., ICatona, S., 

Larsen, F., Lien, J., Mattila, D., Oien, N., 

Palsboll, J., Sigurjonsson, J., Smith, T. and 

Stevick, P. 1994. Years of the North Atlantic 

Humpbaclc (YONAH) Progress Report. Int. 

Whal. Commn. SC/46/NA9. 2p. 

Armstrong, W.A. and C.W. Oliver. 1995. Recent use 

of fish aggregating devices in the eastern 

tropical Pacific tuna purse-seine fishery: 

1990- 1994. SWFSC Admin. Report LJ-95-14, 

47 p. 

Au, D.W, R.L. Pitman, and L.T. Ballance. (In press). 

Yellowfin tuna associations with seabirds and 

subsurface predators. In: Proceedings of the 

International Workshop in the Ecology and 

Fisheries for Tunas Associated with Floating 

Objects. 

Ballance, L.T. (Submitted). Flight Energetics of FreeRanging Red-Footed Boobies Sula sula. 

Physiological Zoology. 

Ballance, L.T. and R.L. Pitman. 1995. Results of a 

cetacean survey in the western tropical Indian 

Ocean, 1995. Abstract presented for the I 1 th 

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, December 14- 18, 1995, Orlando, 

FL. 

Ballance, L.T., R.L. Pitman, S.B. Reilly, and M.P. 

Force. (In press) Report of a cetacean, seabird, 

and flying fish survey of the western tropical 

Indian Ocean aboard the research vessel 

Malcolnz Baldridge March 21 - July 26, 1995. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum. 

Barlow, J. and J. Calamboludis 1995. Abundance of 

blue and humpback whales in California - A 

comparison of marl-recapture and line-transect 

estimates. Abstract presented for the 1 lth 

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, December 14-1 8, 1995, Orlando, 

FL. 

Barlow, J., R.L. Brownell, Jr., D.P. DeMaster, 1C.A. 

Forney, M.S. Lowry, S. Osmek, T. J. Ragen, 

R.R. Reeves, and R.J. Small. 1995a. U.S. 

Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments. 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-2 19, 162 

PP, 

Barlow, J., S.L. Swartz, T. C. Eagle, and P.R. Wade. 

1995b. U.S. Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments: Guidelines for Preparation, 

Background, and a Summary of the 1995 

Assessments. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-6, 73 p. 

Barlow, J., R.W. Baird, J.E. Heyning, I<. Wynne, A.M. 

Manville, 11, L.F. Lowry, D. Hanan, J. Sease, 

and V.N. Burlcanov. (1994). A review of 

cetacean and pinniped mortality in coastal 

fisheries along the west coast of the U.S. and 

Canada and the east coast of the Russian 

Federation. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn, Special 

Issue 15. 

Barlow, J. and J. Sisson. 1994. The goals of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and their 

implications for estimating potential biological 

removals (PBR). PBRI 1A working paper for 

the PBR (Potential Biological Removal) 

Worltshop, held at the Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, June 27-29, 1994. 

Barlow, J. 1994. Abundance of large whales in 

California coastal waters: A comparison of ship 

surveys in 1979180 and in 1991. Rep. Int. 

Whal. Commn., 43:OO-00. 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Barlow, J. 1995. The Abundance of Cetaceans in 

California Coastal Waters: I. Ship Surveys in 

SummedFall 199 1. Fishery Bulletin 93: 1- 14. 

Barlow, J. and D. Hanan. 1995. An assessment of the 

status of harbor porpoise populations in 

California. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn., Special 

Issue 16: 123-140. 

Barlow, J. and T. Lee. 1994. The estimation of 

perpendicular sighting distance on SWFSC 

research vessel surveys for cetaceans: 1974 to 

199 I. NOAATechnical Memorandum NMFS, 

NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-207. 45p. 

Barlow, and 1C.A. Forney. 1994. An assessment of the 

1994 status of harbor porpoise in California. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS, 

NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-205. 17p. 

Barlow, J. 1994. Recent information on the status of 

large whales in CaIifornia waters. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS, NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-203. 27p. 

Barros, N.B., Ostrom, P. H., and Odell, D. I<. 1995 

Stable isotopes in muscle of east Florida 

bottlenose dolphins: Implications for stock 

differentiation. Abstract, Eleventh Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals. Orlando, December, 1995. 

Becker, P.R., E.A. Mackey, R. Demiralp, R. Suydam, 

G. Early, B.J. Icoster, S.A. Wise. 1995. 

Relationship of silver with selenium and 

mercury in liver of two species of toothed 

whales (Odontocetes). Mar. Poll. Bull. 

30(4):262-27 1. 

Beclter, P.R., E.A. Macley, M.M. Schantz, R. Demialp, 

R.R. Greenberg, B.J. ICoster, S.A. Wise, D.C.G. 

Muir. 1995. Concentrations of chlorinated 

hydrocarbons, heavy metals and other 

elements in tissues banked by the Alaska 

Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 5620, 

115 p. 

Benson, S.R., 1C.A. Forney, and J.T. Harvey. 1995. 

The importance of proper survey design - a 

case study using harbor porpoise aerial survey 

data. Abstract presented for the 11 th Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, December 14-1 8, 1995, Orlando, 

FL. 

Bernard, H.J. and S.B. Reilly. 1995. The pilot whales, 

Globicephnla sp., In: S. Ridgway and R. 

Harrison (eds.), Handbook of Marine 

Mammals, Vol6. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 

Berzin, A.A.; S.A. Blolhin, A.M. Burdin, H. 

Minaltuchi, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1995. 

Status of Olchotsl-Korean gray whales off 

Salchalin Island: New threats from oil and gas 

development.. Abstract presented for the I Ith 

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, December 14-1 8, 1995, Orlando, 

FL. 

Bj~lrge, A., R.L. Brownell Jr., C.P. Donovan, and W.F. 

Perrin. 1994. Significant direct and incidental 

catches of small cetaceans. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Commn., Special Issue 15, pp. 76-126. 

Blayloclt, R.A., J.W. Hain, L.J. Hansen, D.L. Pallta, 

and G.T. Waring. 1995. U.S. Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock 

assessments. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFSSEFSC-363. 2 1 lpp. Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Dr., Miami, 

FL 33149-1003. 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Bravington, M.V. and Bisack, 1C.D. 1995. Estimates 

of harbor porpoise bycatch in the Gulf of 

Maine sink gillnet fishery, 1990- 1993. Rep. 

Int. whal. Commn. IWC/SC/47/SM24. 

Brownell, Jr., R.L. and Donahue, M.A. 1994. Southern 

Hemisphere pelagic whaling for pygmy blue 

whales: review of catch statistics. SC/46/SM6 

Report submitted to the Scientific Committe of 

the International Whaling Commission. 

Brownell, R.L., Jr. (In press) Hourglass dolphin 

Lagenorhynchus cruciger(Quoy and Gaimard, 

1824). 1: Handbook of Marine Mammals, 

Vo1.6 (S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrision, eds.) 

Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 

Brownell, R.L., Jr. (In press). Peale's dolphin 

Lagenorhynchus australis (Peale, 1848). 1: 

Handboolc of Marine Mammals, Vol. 6 (S. H. 

Ridgway and R. Harrison, eds.). Academic 

Press, Orlando, FL. 

Brownell, R.L., Jr. and F. Cipriano. (In press) Duslcy 

dolphin Lagenorhynchus australis (Peale, 1848). 

- In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison, (eds.). 

Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 6. 

Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 

Brownell, Jr., R.L. and M.A. Donahue. 1994. 

Management problems for cetaceans found in 

both California and Mexican waters. PBR15 A 

working paper for the PBR (Potential 

Biological Removal) Workshop, held at the 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center, June 27- 

29, 1994. 

Brownell, R.L., Jr., I<. Ralls, and W.F. Perrin. 1995. 

Marine Mammal Biodiversity: Three diverse 

orders encompass 1 19 species. Oceanus 

38(2):30-33. 

Brownell, R.L., Jr. 1996. Hawaiian monk seals: Past, 

present and future. IBI Reports 6:35-4 1. 

Brownell, R.L., Jr. 1995. Japanese-Soviet exploitation 

of pygmy blue whales. IBI Reports 5:25-29. 

Brownell, R.L., Jr. 1995. Whaling error. Nature 

375:272. 

Brownell, R.L., Jr. (In press) Spectacled porpoise 

Australophocaena dioptrica (Lahille, 19 12). In: 

Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 6 (S.H. 

Ridgway and R. Harrison, eds.). Academic 

Press, Orlando, FL. 

Brownell, R.L., Jr. (In press) Burmeister's porpoise 

Phocoena spinipinnis (Burmeister, 1865). In: 

Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 6 (S.H. 

Ridgway and R. Harrison, eds.). Academic 

Press, Orlando, FL. 

Brownell, R.L., Jr. (In press). The recovery of the 

eastern gray whale: A success story. IBI 

Reports, International Marine Biological 

Research Institute, ICamogawa, Japan 4:O-0. 

Bucldand, S.T., Augustin, N.H., Borchers, D.L., 

Cattanach, 1C.L. Cumbemoth, X.L., Fiedler, 

P.C., Reilly, S.B., and Anganuzzi, A.A. 1994. A 

preliminary model for the spatio-temporal 

distribution of offshore spotted dolphins in the 

eastern tropical Pacific. 

Carretta, J.V. and 1C.A. Fomey. 1995. The abundance 

of California coastal bottlenose dolphins 

estimated from replicate aerial surveys. 

Abstract presented for the 1 lth Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, December 14- 18, 1995, Orlando, 

FL. 

Carretta, J.V., I<.A. Forney, and J. Barlow. 1995. 

Report of 1993-1994 marine mammal aerial 

surveys conducted within the U.S. Navy outer 

sea test range off southern California. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-2 17. 90 p. 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Carretta, J., M.S. Lynn, and C.A. LeDuc. 1994. hght 

Whale (Eubnlnenn glacialis) Sighting off San 

Clemente Island, California. Marine Mammal 

Science 10(1):101-105. 

Chivers, S., and B.L. Taylor. (Submitted) Probabilities 

of population dispersal rates inferred from 

genetic distance data. In A. E. Dizon, S. J. 

Chivers, and W. F. Perrin, eds. Molecular 

Genetics of Marine Mammals. NOAA 

Technical Report. 

Chivers, S.J. and D.P. DeMaster. 1994. Evaluation of 

biological indices for three eastern tropical 

Pacific dolphin species. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 

Clapham, P.J., M. Berube, and D.K. Mattila. 1995. 

Sex ratio of the Gulf of Maine humpback 

whale population. Marine Mammal Science 

1 l(2): 227-230. 

Curry, B.E., and Smith, J. In Press. Phylogeographic 

structure of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus): Stoclc identifcation and 

implications for management. In A. E. Dizon, 

S. J. Chivers, and W. F. Perrin, eds. Molecular 

Genetics of Marine Mammals. NOAA 

Technical Report. 

Curry, B.E., Milinlcovitch, M., Smith, I., and Dizon, 

A.E. 1995. Stock structure of bottlenose 

dolphins, Tursiops truncatus. Abstract, Eleventh 

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals. Orlando, December, 1995. 

Curry, B.E., A.S. Costa, C. Lux, and A.E. Dizon. 1995. 

Phylogeographic structure in bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops tmncatus): Does a global 

nearshore taxon exist? Proceedings of the 

SWFSC Symposium and Worlshop on Marine 

Mammal Genetics, La Jolla,CA. 

Curry, B.E., J.G. Mead, and A.P. Purgue. 1994. The 

occurrence of calculi in nasal diverticula of 

porpoises (Phodoenidae). Marine Mammal 

Science 10(1):81-86. 

Dizon, A.E., W.F. Perrin and P. Alun. (In press). 

Stoclcs of dolphins in the (Stenella spp. and 

Delpki~zus delphis) eastern tropical Pacific: a 

phylogeographic classification. NOAA 

Technical Report. 

Dizon, A,, C. Lux, S. Costa, R. LeDuc, & R.L 

Brownell, Jr. 1995. Phylogenetic relationships 

of the closely related sei and Bryde's whales: A 

possible third species? Abstract presented for 

the 1 I th Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

Marine Mammals, December 14-1 8, 1995, 

Orlando, FL. 

Dizon, A.E., C.A. Lux, R.G. LeDuc, J. Urban Ramirez, 

M. Henshaw, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1995. An 

interim phylogenetic analysis of sei and Bryde's 

whale mitochondria1 dna control region 

sequences. Presented to the 47th Annual 

Meeting of the Scientific Committee of the 

International Whaling Commission-- 

Sci47lNP23. 

Dizon, A.E., P.J. Clapham, W.F. Perrin, and R.L. 

Brownell, Jr. 1995. Whaling dispute 

continues. Nature 377:282. 

Dizon, A.E., C.A. LeDuc, and R.G. LeDuc. 1994. 

Intraspecific structure of the northern right 

whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis): The power 

of an analysis of molecular variation for 

differentiating genetic stocks. CalCOFI 

Reports 35:61-67. 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Dizon, A.E., S.J. Chivers, and W.F. Perrin (eds.). 

(Submitted). Molecular genetics of marine 

mammals. Incorporating the proceedings of a 

worlcshop on the analysis of genetic data to 

address problems of stoclc identity as related to 

management of marine mammals. NOAA 

Technical Report. 

Dizon, A.E., B.L. Taylor, and G.M. O'Corry-Crowe. 

(In press). Why statistical power is necessary 

to link analyses of molecular variation to 

decisions about population structure. In: J.L. 

Nielsen (ed.) Evolution and the Aquatic 

Ecosystem: Defining unique units in 

population conservation. American Fisheries 

Society Symposium Proceedings. 

Donahue, M. A., W.L. Perryman, and J.L. Laalte. 

1995. Measurements of California gray whale 

daylnight migration patterns with infrared 

sensors. Abstract presented for the 11 th 

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, December 14-1 8, 1995, Orlando, 

FL. 

Edwards, E.F. 1995. Summary of U.S. tuna purseseine fleet characteristics as related to dolphin 

mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, 

199 1- 1994. SWFSC Admin. Report LJ-95-04, 

13 PP. 

Edwards, E.F. (In press). Allometry of energetics 

parameters in spotted dolphin, Ste~lella 

attenuata, from the eastern tropical Pacific 

Ocean. Fishery Bulletin. 

Edwards, E.F. and C. Perrin. (In press). Effects 

dolphin group type, percent coverage, and fleet 

size on estimates of dolphin mortality derived 

from tuna-vessel observer data. Fish. Bull. 

9 1 :oo-00. 

Escorza Trevino, S., C.A. Lw and A.S. Costa. Methods 

of extraction from initial tissue preserved to 

storage of purified DNA. Proceedings of the 

SWFSC Symposium and Worlcshop on Marine 

Mammal Genetics, La Jolla,CA. 

Fiedler, P.C. and S.B. Reilly. 1994. Interannual 

variability in dolphin habitats and abundances 

estimated from tuna vessel sightings in the 

eastern tropical Pacific, 1975-1990. Fishery 

Bulletin. 92(2):45 1-563. 

Fiedler, P.C. 1994. Seasonal and interannual 

variability of coastal zone color scanner 

phytoplankton pigments and winds in the 

eastern tropical Pacific. Journal of Geophysical 

Research 99: 18,37 1-18,384. 

Fomey, [<.A, R.L. Brownell, Jr, and P.C. Fiedler. 1995. 

The distribution of marine mammals along the 

Aleutian Islands in 1994 - where have all the 

blue whales gone?Abstract presented for the 

1 l th Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

Marine Mammals, December 14- 18, 1995, 

Orlando, FL. 

Forney, I<. A., J. Barlow, and J.Carretta. 1995. The 

Abundance of Cetaceans in California Coastal 

Waters: Part 11. Aerial Surveys in 

WinterISpring of 1991 and 1992. Fishery 

Bulletin 93: 15-26. 

Forney, 1C.A. 1995. A decline in the abundance of 

harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in 

nearshore waters off California. Fishery 

Bulletin 93:741-748. 

Forney, 1C.A. 1994. Recent information on the status 

of odontocetes in Californian waters. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS, NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-202. 87 p. 

Page 115 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Frazier, J.G., H.L. Fierstine, S.C. Beavers, F. Achaval, 

H. Suganuma, R.L. Pitman, Y. Yamaguchi, and 

C.M. Prigioni. 1994. Impalement of marine 

turtles (Reptilia, Chelonia: Cheloniidae and 

Dermochelyidae) by billfishes (Osteichthyes, 

Perciformes: Istiophoridae and Xlphiidae). 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 31:85-96. 

Friend, M., Toweill, D.E., Brownell, Jr., R.L., Nettles, 

V.F., Davis, D.S., and W.J. Foreyt. 1994. 

Guidelines for proper care and use of wildlife 

in field research. pp96-105 in: T.A. Boold~out 

(ed). Research and Management Techniques 

for Wildlife and Habitats. Wildlife Society, 

Bethesda, MD. 

Frost, IC.J., L.F. Lowry, and J. VerHoef 1995. Habitat 

use, behavior, and monitoring of harbor seals 

in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Annual 

Report for Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration 

Science Study 94044. Alaska Dept. Fish and 

Game, Div. Wildl. Conserv., Fairbanlc;, AK, 88 

P. 

Cannon, Damon. 1995. Foraging ecology of the 

northwest Atlantic pilot whale Globicephala 

melas. Masters Thesis, Bridgewater State 

College, Bridgewater, MA. 

Gerrodette, T. 1994. The ability of IDCR cruises to 

detect changes in blue whale population size. 

(SC/46/SH7) Report to the International 

Whaling Commission 45(27 1-272). 

Gerrodette, T. 1994. Estimate of population size for 

the vaquita, Phocoena sinus. SC/44/0 17 Report 

submitted to the Scientific Committe of the 

International Whaling Commission. 

Gerrodette, T., Fleisher, L. and P6rez-Cortks, H. 1994. 

Distribution of the vaquita, Phocoenn sinus, 

based on recent sightings. SC/46/018 Report 

submitted to the Scientific Committe of the 

International Whaling Commission. 

Gerrodette, T. and P.R. Wade. 1995. Status of 

dolphin stoclc; affected by the tuna purse-Seine 

fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific: A 36- 

year summary. Abstract presented for the I l th 

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, December 14- 18, 1995, Orlando, 

FL. 

Gerrodette, T., M.A. Donahue, S.R. Benson, 1C.F. 

Mangels, T. Lee, and S. ICeagy. 1995. 

Database of cetacean photographs at the 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center. SWFSC 

Admin. Rep. LJ-95-07, 72 p 

Gilmartin, W., T. Johanos, and T. Gerrodette. (In 

press). Estimates of population size for the 

Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi), 

1983- 1988. Marine Mammal Science. 

Gilpatrick, J.W., Jr., W.L. Perryman, and M.S. Lynn. 

1995. Aerial photogrammetry and photoidentification of blue whales (Balaenoptera 

musculus) in the California Channel Islands1994. Abstract for 1 1 th Biennial Conference 

on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Orlando, 

FL, Dec. 14- 18, 1995. 

Gilpatrick, J.W., Jr. and M.S. Lynn. 1994. A test of 

two photogrammetric measuring instruments 

used to determine dolphin lengths from 

vertical aerial photographs. NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-194. 14 p. 

Gilpatrick, J.W., Jr. (In press). Calibration of radar 

altimeter readings used in aerial 

photogrammetry of eastern tropical Pacific 

dolphins - 1992 and 1993. NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-SWFSC. 17 p. 

Gilpin, M. and B.L. Taylor. 1994. Reduced 

dimensional population transition matrices: 

extinction distributions from Marlcovian 

dynamics. Theoretical Population Biology. 

46:121-130. 

Page 116 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Gulland, F.M.D., Trupluewicz, J.G., Spralcer, T., 

Lowenstine, LJ Stein, J.E., Tilbury, IC.L., 

Reichert, W.L. and Hom, T. Metastatic 

carcinoma and exposure to chemical 

contaminants in Califomia sea lions (Zalophus 

Californianus) stranded along the central 

California coast. 1995. Poster presentation at 

the 1 I th Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

Marine ~Mammals, Orlando, FL, December 

1995. 

Hain, J.H.W., S.L. Ellis, R.D. ICenney, P.J. Clapham, 

B.IC. Gray, M.T. Weinrich, and I.G. Babb. 

1995. Apparent bottom feeding by humpbaclc 

whales on Stellwagen bank. Marine Mammal 

Science 1 l (4): 464-479. 

Hain, J. 1995. Progress toward an airship for ocean 

research. Document No. AlAA 95- 1604, 1 1 th 

AIM Lighter-Than-Air Systems Technology 

Conference, May 15-1 8, Clearwater Beach, 

Florida. American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics, Washington, D.C. 

Hamilton, P.I(., M.K. Marx, and S.D. IG-aus. 1995. 

Weaning in North Atlantic right whales. 

Marine Mammal Science 1 l(3): 386-390. 

Hersh, S. L., and Duffield, D. A. 1990. Distinction 

between northwest Atlantic offshore and 

coastal bottlenose dolphins based on 

hemoglobin profile and morphometry. Pages 

129-139 in S. Leatherwood and R. R. Reeves, 

eds. TheBottlenose Dolphin. Academic Press, 

San Diego. 

Heyning, J.E., R.L. Brownell, Jr., and T. Icasuya. 

(Submitted). Extended longevity in male 

beaked whales. Nature. 

Holland, R.C. and Reilly, S.B. 1994. Ice-edge data 

available from the U.S. National Snow and Ice 

Data Center for inclusion in analyses of 

Southern Hemisphere whale distribution. 

SC/46/SH8 Report submitted to the Scientific 

Committe of the International Whaling 

Commission. 

Jefferson, T.A., B.E. Curry, and N.A. Blaclc. 1994. 

Harbor porpoise mortality in the Monterey 

Bay halibut gillnet fishery, 1989. Report of 

the International Whaling Commission 

(Special Issue 15). pp. 445-448. 

Jefferson, T.A. and B.E. Curry. 1994. A review of 

fishery interactions between porpoises 

(Phocoenidae) and gillnets. Biological 

Conservation 67: 167- 183. 

Jefferson, T.A., A.C. Myriclc, Jr., and S.J. Chivers. 

1994. Small cetacean dissection guide and 

sampling: A field guide. NOAA-Technical 

Memorandum-NMFS-SWFSC-198,54 p. 

Julian, A. 1994 Pinniped and cetacean mortality in 

California gillnet fisheries: preliminary 

estimates for 1993. SC/46/0 11 Report 

submitted to the Scientific Committe of the 

International Whaling Commission. 

Julian, F. (In press). Estimates of mammal, turtle, and 

bird mortality for two Califomia gillnet 

fisheries: 1990- 1994. Fishery Bulletin. 

ICenney, R.D., H.E. Winn, and M.C. Macaulay. 1995. 

Cetaceans in the Great South Channel, 1979- 

1989: fight whale (Eubalaena glacialis). 

Continental Shelf Research 15: 385-414. 

ICnowIton, A.R., F.T. ICorsmeyer, J.E. Icenvin, H.Y. 

Wu, and B. Hynes. 1995. The hydrodynamic 

effects of large vessels on right whales. NMFS 

Contract No. 40EANFF400534. Final Report 

to NOAA/NMFS/NEFSC. 81pp. 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

LeDuc, R.G., and F.E. Archer. Converting mtDNA 

sequences into population structure: Some 

options and obstacles. Proceedings of the 

SWFSC Symposium and Worlcshop on Marine 

Mammal Genetics, La JolIa,CA. 

Lee, T. 1994. Report on cetacen aerial survey data 

collected between the years of 1974 and 1982. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS, 

NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-I 95. 62p. 

Lennert, C., S. IGuse, M. Beeson, and J. Barlow. 

(1 994). Estimates of incidental marine 

mammal bicatch in California gillnet fisheries 

for July through December, 1990. Rep. Int. 

Whal. Commn, (Special Issue IS). 

Lerczalc, J.A., R.C. Hobbs, D.P. DeMaster, and B.L. 

Taylor. 1994. Evaluation of a proposed regime 

for calculating PBRs. 

Lowry, M. S., W. L. Perryman, M. S. Lynn, and R. 

Westlalce. (In press). Counts of Northern 

Elephant Seals (Mirounga angustirostris) from 

Large-Format Vertical Aerial Photographs 

Talcen at Roolceries in Southern California 

During the Breeding Season. Fishery Bulletin. 

Lowry, M.S. 1995. Counts of California sea lion 

(Zalophus calijornianus) pups at San Nicolas 

Island, California: comparison of ground 

counts and aerial photograph counts.Islands1994. Abstract for 1 I th Biennial Conference 

on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Orlando, 

FL, Dec. 14-18, 1995. 

Lw, C., A.S. Costa, and A.E. Dizon. Genetic variation 

of Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens). Proceedings of the SWFSC 

Symposium and Worlcshop on Marine 

Mammal Genetics, La Jolla,CA. 

Mackey, E.A., P.R. Beclcer, R. Demiralp, R.R. 

Greenberg, BJ. ICoster, S.A. Wise. 

Bioaccumulation of vanadium and other trace 

elements in livers of Alaslcan cetaceans and 

pinnipeds. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 

(In press). 

Maclcey, E.A., R. Demiralp, P.R. Beclcer, R.R. 

Greenberg, B.J. ICoster, S.A. Wise. Trace 

element concentrations in cetacean liver tissues 

archived in the National Marine Mammal 

Tissue Bank. Sci. Total Environ. (In Press). 

Mangels, I<., T. Gerrodette (In prep.) Report of a 

marine mammal survey off central America 

aboard the research vessels David Starr Tordan 

and McArthur, July 28 - Nov. 2, 1992. 

Mead, J. G., and Potter, C.W. 1990 Natural history 

of bottlenose dolphins along the central 

Atlantic coast of the United States. Pages 

165-1 95 in S.Leathenvood and R. R. Reeves, 

eds. The Bottlenose Dolphin. Academic Press, 

San Diego. 

Mead, J.G., and Potter, C.W. 1995. Recognizing two 

populations of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus) off the Atlantic coast of North 

America; Morphologic and Ecologic 

Considerations. IBI Reports. 5:3 1-44. 

Meador, J.P., Tilbury, IC.L., Ernest, D.W., Robisch, 

P.A., and Varanasi, U. Toxic metals in 

stranded pilot whales (Globicephala melaena) 

and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). 

1995. Poster presentation at the Society of 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

meeting, Vancouver, Canada, November 1995. 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Meador, J.P., Tilbury, ICL., Robisch, P.A., Hohn, A., 

and Stein, J.E. The occurrence of metals in 

beached bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncntus) from Texas and Florida. 1995. 

Poster presentation at the I Ith Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, Orlando, FL, December 1995. 

Mello, S. 1994. Status of the Steller sea lion, 

Eumetopias jubatus, in Alaska. Endangered 

Species Update 1 l(12): 1-6. 

Myrick, A.C., Jr. 1995. Documentation of progress of 

stress research projects for future reference. 

SWFSC Admin. Report LJ-95-01, 14 p. 

Newcomer, M.W., T.A. Jefferson, and R.L. Brownell, 

Jr. (In press). Lissodelphis peronii. Mammalian 

Species No. 000: 1-4. 

NMFS, 1995. Environmental Assessment of Proposed 

Regulations to Govern Interactions between 

Marine Mammals and Commercial Fishing 

Operations, Under Section 1 18 of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. 137p. + appendices. 

NMFS, 1995. Assessment of Fishery Impacts on 

Endangered and Threatened Marine Mammals 

Pursuant to Section 101(a)(S)(E) of the 

MMPA. 21p. 

NMFS, 1995. Threatened Fish and Wildlife; Change 

in Listing Status of Steller Sea Lions Under the 

Endangered Species Act; Proposed Rule; 

Request for comments. 60 FR 5 1968. 

NMFS, 1995. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Commercial Fishing Operation; 

Authorization for Commercial Fisheries; 

Proposed List of Fisheries. Proposed Rule. 60 

FR 3 1666. 

NMFS, 1995. Talung of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Commercial Fishing Operations; 

Authorization for Commercial Fisheries. Final 

Rule. 60 FR 45086. 

NMFS, 1995. Talung of Threatened or Endangered 

Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial 

Fishing Operations; Interim Permit. 60 FR 

45399. 

NMFS, 1995. Final List of Fisheries for 1996. Final 

Rule. 60 FR 67063. 

O'Corry-Crowe, G.M. and L.F. Lowry. (Submitted) 

Genetic ecology and management concerns of 

the beluga whale, Delphinaptems Ieucas (Pallas, 

1776). In: (A.Dizon, S.Chivers, & W. Perrin, 

eds.) Molecular Genetics of Marine Mammals: 

Incorporating the proceedings of a workshop 

on the analysis of genetic data to address 

problems of stock identity as related to 

management of marine mammals. NOAA 

Tech. Rept. 

Oliver, C.W., W.A. Armstrong, and J.A. Young. 1994. 

Development of an airborne LIDAR system to 

detect tunas in the eastern tropical Pacific 

purse-seine fishery. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-204. 67 p. 

O'Shea, T.J. and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1994. 

Organochlorine and metal contaminants in 

baleen whales: A review and evaluation of 

conservation implications. The Science of the 

Total Environment 154: 179-200. 

O'Corry-Crowe, G. M. and L. F. Lowry. Stock 

definition and management concerns of the 

beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas, Pallas, 

1776). Proceedings of the SWFSC Symposium 

and Workshop on Marine Mammal Genetics, 

La Jolla,CA. 

Page 119 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

O'Corry-Crowe, G.M., and R.L. Westlalte. Molecular 

investigation of the relationship between 

spotted seals and harbor seals in areas of 

sympatry in Alaslta. Proceedings of the 

SWFSC Symposium and Worlcshop on Marine 

Mammal Genetics, La Jolla,CA. 

Palacios, D.M., T. Gerrodette, S. BeltrBn, P. 

Rodriguez, and B. Brennan. 1995. Cetacean 

sighting cruises off the Colombian Caribbean 

Sea and Pacific 0cean.Islands-1994. Abstract 

for 1 I th Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

Marine Mammals, Orlando, FL, Dec. 14-18, 

1995. 

Palka, D.L. 1995. Influences on spatial patterns of 

Gulf of Maine harbor porpoises. Pp. 69-75, In, 

Whales, Seals, Fish and Man. Blix, A.S., L. 

Wallde, and 0. Ulltang (eds.). Elsevier Science 

B.V., Amsterdam. 

Palka, D. 1995. Effects of Beaufort Sea State on the 

Sightability of harbor porpoises in the Gulf of 

Maine. Rept. Int. whal. Commn. 

IWUSU47ISM26. 

Palka, D. 1995. Evidence of ship avoidance from 

harbor porpoises during line transect sighting 

surveys in the Gulf of Maine. Rept. Int. Whal. 

Commn. IWC/SC/47/SM27. 

Peltier, I<.M., Chivers, S.J. and Henshaw, M.D. 1994. 

Composition of the incidental lull of 

odontocetes for 1993 in the eastern tropical 

Pacific U.S. tuna fishery and two California 

gillnet fisheries. SCl461SM 2 Report 

submitted to the Scientific Committee of the 

International Whaling Commission. 

Pcltier, I<.M., S.J. Chivers, and W.T. Norman. 1994. 

Composition of the incidental lull of 

odontocetes in the eastern tropical Pacific U.S. 

tuna fishery and two California gillnet fisheries 

for 1992. Rep.1nt.Whal.Commn. 44:353-359. 

Perltins, P.C. and E.F. Edwards. 1994. A mixture 

model for estimating bycatch from data with 

many zero observations: Tuna discards in the 

eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Administrative 

Report LJ-94-07. 

Perluns, P., J. Barlow and M. Beeson. 1994. Report 

on pinniped and cetacean mortality in 

California gillnet fisheries: 1988- 1990. 

SWFSC Administrative Report LJ-94-1 1. 16 p. 

Perluns, P.C. and E.F. Edwards. (In press). A mixture 

model for estimating bycatch from data with 

many zero observations: Tuna discards in the 

eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Fish. Bull. 

94(2):000-000. 

Perluns, P.C. and E.F. Edwards. 1994. A mixture 

model for estimating bycatch from data with 

many zero observations; tuna bycatch in the 

eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. SWFSC 

Admin. Report LJ-94-07. 28 pp. 

Perrin, W.F., W.A. Armstrong, A.N. Baker, J. Barlow, 

et al. 1995. An anomalously pigmented form 

of the short-beaked common dolphin 

(Delphinus delphis) from the southwestern 

Pacific, eastern Pacific, and eastern Atlantic. 

Note in Mar. Mam. Sci. 11(2):240-247. 

Perrin, W.F. and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1994. A brief 

review of stock identity in small marine 

cetaceans in relation to driftnet mortality in 

the North Pacific. Rep.Int.Whal.Comm. 

(Special Issue 15):393-40 I. 

Perrin, W.F., A.V. Yablakov, J. Barlow, and M.V. 

Mina. 1994. Comparison of the resolving 

power of metric and non-metric cranial 

characters in defining geographical populations 

of dolphins. Contr.Sci.Nat.Hist.Mus. L.A. 

County. 447: 1-15. 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Perrin, W.F. and J.W. Gilpatrick, Jr. 1994. Spinner 

dolphin (Stenella longirostris). In: (S.H. 

hdgway and R. Harison, eds.), pp. 99- 128. 

Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 5. 

Academic Press, London. 

Perrin, W.F., G.D. Schnell, D.J. Hough, J.W. 

Gilpatrick, Jr., and J.V. ICashiwada. 1994. Reexamination of geographical variation in 

cranial morphology of the pantropical spotted 

dolphin, Stenella attenuata, in the eastern 

Pacific. Fish.Bul1. 92:324-346. 

Perryman, W.L., M.A. Donahue, and S.B. Reilly. 

1995. Progress report on the 1994 gray whale 

cow-calf survey conducted at Piedras Blancas, 

California. SU47/AS 1 Report submitted to 

the Scientific Committee of the International 

Whaling Commission. 20 pp. 

Perryman, W. L., M.A. Donahue, S.B. Reilly, and P. 

Perkins. 1995. Results of shore-based gray 

whale calf surveys conducted from Point 

Piedras Blancas, California in 1994 and 1995. 

Abstract for I 1 th Biennial Conference on the 

Biology of Marine Mammals, Orlando, FL, 

Dec. 14-18, 1995. 

Perryman, W.L., D.W.K. Au., S. Leatherwood and 

T.A. Jefferson. 1994. Melon-headed whale, 

Peponocephala electra Gray, 1 846. In: hdgway, 

S.R. and R. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of 

Marine Mammals Volume 5: The First Book of 

Dolphins, P. 363-386. Academic Press, NY. 

Perryman, W.L. and Laake, J.L. 1994. Gray whale 

day/night migration rates determined with 

infrared sensor. SU46/AS 1 Report 

submittedto the Scientific Committe of the 

International Whaling Commission. 

Perryman, W. and M. Lynn. 1994. Examination of 

stock and school structure of striped dolphin 

(Ste?iella coe~uleoalba) in the eastern Pacific from 

aerial photgrammetry. Fishery Bulletin 

92:122-131. 

Pitman, R. L., L.B. Spear and M.P. Force. 1995. The 

Birds of Malpelo Island, Colombia. Colonial 

Waterbirds 18: 1 13-1 19. 

Pitman, R.L. and Ballance, L.T. 1994. Incidental 

sightings of cetaceans in the Chilean Fjords 

during March 1994. SU46/0 19 Report 

submitted to the Scientific Committee of the 

International Whaling Commission. 4pp. 

Pitman, R.L. and C. LeDuc. (In review) The masked 

boobies of Clipperton Island: Dramatic 

recovery of a nearly extirpated population and 

evidence for two separate species. Wilson 

Bulletin. 

Pitman, R.L., L.T. Ballance, S.B. Reilly, and M.P. 

Force. (In press). Distribution, movements, 

and population status of Craveri's murrelet: 

Implications for ecology and conservation. 

Condor. 

Ralls, I< and B.L. Taylor. In press. How viable is 

population viability analysis? In: S.T.A. 

Picltett, R.S. Ostfeld, M. Shachalc, and G.E. 

Likens, Eds. Enhancing the Ecological Basis of 

Conservation: Heterogeneity, Ecosystem 

Function, and Biodiversity. Proceedings of the 

Sixth Cary Conference. Chapman and Hall, 

New Yorlt. 

Read, A.J. and A.J. Westgate. 1995. Monitoring 

harbor porpoise movements by satellite 

telemetry. Paper SC/47/SM19 presented to 

the Scientific Committee, Int. Whal. Commn., 

Dublin, Ireland. 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Read, A.J. and Hohn, A.A. 1995. Life in the fast lane: 

The life history of harbour porpoises from the 

Gulf of Maine. Marine Mammal Science 

1 l(4): 423-440. 

Reeves, R.R. and R.L. Brownell, Jr. (In press). World 

harvests of marine mammals, 1976- 1985. 

United Nations Environment Programme, 

Mar. Mamm. Tech. Publ. No.2. 

Reeves, R.R., R.L. Brownell, Jr., C.C. IGnze, C. Smeenk 

and J. Lien. (in press). Whitebealced dolphin 

Lagenorhynchus albirostris (Gray, 1 846). In: S. 

H. Ridgway and R. Harrision, (eds.). 

Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 6 

Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 

Reeves, R.R., R.L. Brownell, Jr., C.C. IGnze, and C. 

Smeenk. (In press). Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris (Gray, 182 8). 

- In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrision, (eds.). 

Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 6 

Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 

Reilly, S.B. and P.C. Fiedler. 1994. Interannual 

variability of dolphin habitat in the eastern 

tropical Pacific. 1986- 1990. Fishery Bulletin 

92(2):197-213. 

Reilly, S.B. and P.C. Fiedler. 1994. Interannual 

variability of dolphin habitats in the eastern 

tropical Pacific. I: Research vessel surveys, 

1986- 1990. Fishery Bulletin 92(2):434-450. 

Robeck, T.R., B.E. Curry, J.F. McBain, and D.C. 

ICraemer. 1995. Reproductive biology of the 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the 

potential application of advanced reproductive 

technologies. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife 

Medicine 25(3):321-336. 

Robertson, 1C.M. and M.D. Henshaw. 1995. Prey of 

the northern right whale dolphin in California 

coastal waters. Abstract for 1 lth Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, Orlando, FL, Dec. 14-1 8, 1995. 

Robertson, ICM., M.D. Henshaw, and S.J. Chivers. 

1995. Composition of the incidental kill of 

odontocetes for 1994 in the eastern tropical 

Pacific U.S. tuna fishery and two California 

gillnet fisheries. Meeting document 

SC/46/SM4 for the Annual Meeting of the 

Scientific Committee, 1nt.Whal.Comm. 

Robertson, 1C.M. and S.J. Chivers. (Submitted). Prey 

occurrence in pantropical spotted dolphins, 

Stenella attenuata, from the eastern tropical 

Pacific. Fish.Bul1. 

Rosel, P.E., M.G. Haygood, and A.E. Dizon. 1995. 

Mitochondria1 control region variability in 

populations of the harbour porpoise, Phocoena 

phocoena, on interoceanic and regional scales. 

Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci. 52:1210-1219. 

Rosel, P., A. Dizon, and J. Heyning. (Submitted). 

Genetic analysis of sympatric morphotypes of 

common dolphin. Marine Biology. 

Samuels, A. and T.R. Spradlin. 1995. Quantitative 

behavioral study of bottlenose dolphin in Swim 

with Dolphin programs in the United States. 

Marine Mammal Science, 1 l(4): 520-544. 

Schantz, M.M., B.J. ICoster, L.M. Oaldey, S.B. Schiller, 

S.A. Wise. 1995. Certification of 

polychlorinated biphenyl congeners and 

chlorinated pesticides in whale blubber 

standard reference material. Analytical 

Chemistry 67(5): 901-910. 

Small, R.J. and D.P. DeMaster. 1995. Alaska Marine 

Mammal Stoclc Assessments. NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-AFSC-57. 93 pp. 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Stein, J.E., Tilbury, I. Meador, J.P., Hom, T., 

ICrone, C.A., and ICrahn, M.M. Chemical 

contaminant monitoring in the NMFS Marine 

Mammal Health and Stranding Response 

Program: investigations of bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus). 1995. 

Taylor B.L., S.J. Chivers. and A.E. Dizon. 1995. 

Power analysis of genetic data to define 

population structure. Abstract for I1 th 

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, Orlando, FL, Dec. 14- 18, 1995. 

Taylor, B.L. 1995. Defining "population" to meet 

management objectives for marine mammals. 

SWFSC Admin. Report LJ-95-03, 22 p. 

Taylor, B.L. 1995. The reliability of using population 

viability analysis for classification of species. 

Conservation Biology 9:55 1-558. 

Taylor, B.L. and J. Barlow. 1995. The step-wise fit: a 

new model for estimating mammalian 

mortality from incomplete data sets, pp. 24-43. 

- In: Ballou, J. D., M. Gilpin, and T. J. Foose. 

(eds.) Population management for survival and 

recovery: analytical methods and strategies in 

small population conservation. Columbia 

University Press, New York. 375 pp. 

Taylor, B.L., T.B. Gage, J. Barlow, P. Mamellta and B. 

Dyke. 1995. Mortality models for numerically 

small populations of mammals, pp. 44-54. In: 

Ballou, J. D., M. Cilpin, and T. J. Foose. (eds.) 

Population management for survival and 

recovery: analytical methods and strategies in 

small population conservation. Columbia 

University Press, New York. 375 pp. 

Taylor, B.L. (as member of Recovery Team, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service). 1994. Draft Spectacled 

Eider recovery plan. Unpublished document. 

Region 7, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senrice, 

Anchorage, ill<. 

Taylor, B.L. and D.P. DeMaster. 1994. Comparison of 

mortality limits of marine mammal 

management regimes. Administrative Report 

LJ-94-20. 

Taylor, B.L., T. Smith, and D. Palka. 1994. Towards 

understanding the performance of the Catch 

Limit Algorithm. Working paper for the 1994 

meeting of the International Whaling 

Commission. 

Taylor, B.L. and A.E. Dizon. (In press). The need to 

estimate power to link genetics and 

demography for conservation. Conservation 

Biology. 

Taylor, B.L., P.R. Wade, R.A. Stehn, and J. F. 

Cochrane. (In press). A Bayesian approach to 

classification criteria for Spectacled Eiders. 

Submitted Ecologcal Applications. 

Taylor, B.L., S.J. Chivers and A.E. Dizon. (Submitted) 

Using statistical power to interpret genetic data 

to define management units for marine 

mammals. In: (A.Dizon, S.Chivers, & W. 

Perrin, eds.) Molecular Genetics of Marine 

Mammals: Incorporating the proceedings of a 

worltshop on the analysis of genetic data to 

address problems of stock identity as related to 

management of marine mammals. NOAA 

Tech. Rept. 

Taylor, B.L., E. Slooten, and D. Fletcher. (Submitted). 

Estimating growth rates with uncertain vital 

rates for Hector's dolphin (Cephalorhynchus 

kectori). submitted Conservation Biology. 

U.S. Marine kfammal Stoclc Assessments: Guidelines 

for Preparation, Background, and a Summary 

of the 1995 Assessments. 1995. Barlow, J., et 

al. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFSOPR-94-6. 

Page I23 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Vidal, O., R.L. Brownell, Jr., and L. T. Findley. In 

press. Vaquita, Phocoena sinus. Norris and 

McFarland, 1958. In: Handbook of Marine 

Mammals, Vol. 6 (S. H. Ridgway and R. 

Harrision, eds.). Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 

Wade, P.R. 1994. Estimates of population parameters 

for the gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus, using 

both Bayesian and maximum likelihood 

methods. SU46/AS 16 Report submitted to 

the Scientific Committe of the International 

Whaling Commission. 

Wade, P.R. 1994. Managing populations under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1994: A 

strategy for selecting values for N,,, the 

minimum abundance estimate, and F,, the 

recovery factor. (PBRS) A working paper for 

the PBR (Potential Biological Removal) 

Workshop, held at the Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, June 27-29, 1994. 

Waring, G.T. 1995. Fishery and ecological 

interactions for selected cetaceans off the 

northeast USA. Ph.D. dissertation, UMASS 

Amherst, MA. 260p. 

Westlake, R.L., G.M. O'Corry-Crowe, B.L. Taylor, and 

A.E. Dizon. 1995. Molecular investigation 

and management of harbor seal populations in 

Alaska. Abstract for I lth Biennial Conference 

on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Orlando, 

FL, Dec. 14-18, 1995. 

Westlake, R.L., W.L. Perryman, and 1C.A. Ono. 

(Submitted). Comparison of vertical aerial 

photographic ground censuses of Steller sea 

lions at At50 Nuevo Island, July 1990-1993. 

Marine Mammal Science. 

Withrow, D.E., and T.R. Loughlin. 1995. Abundance 

and distribution of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina 

richardsi) along the Aleutian Islands during 

1994. Annual report to the MMPA Assessment 

Program, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, NOAA, 1335 East-West Highway, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

Mitalo, G.M., Buzitis, J., IGahn, M.M., Chan, S-L., 

Stein, J.E., Antonelis, G.A., and Spraker, T.R. 

1995. Analyses of northern fur seal 

(Callorhinus ursinus) blubber and milk samples 

for selected chlorobiphenyls (CBs) and DDTs 

by HPLUPDA. Poster presentation at the 

Pacific Northwest Society of Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry meeting, Seattle, 

WA, May 1995. 
Appendix A 
Table A-I -- List of Category 1 8 11 Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean 

* Marine mammal stock is strategic 

+ stock is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or as depleted under the MMPA 

Fishery Description 

Category I: 

List of Abbreviations Used in Table A-I 

AK - Alaska GOA - Gulf of Alaska 

CA - California OR - Oregon 

HI - Hawaii WA - Washington 

Page A-I 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

-: 

CA angel sharklhalibut and 

other species large mesh 

(>3.5in) set gillnet fishery 

CNOR thresher 

sharklswordfish drift gillnet 

fishery 

Category 11: 

Gillnet fisheries 

AK Peninsula1 Aleutian 

Island salmon set gillnet 

80 

150 

- 

Harbor porpoise, central CA 

Common dolphin, short-beaked, CNORNVA 

Common dolphin, long-beaked, 

CA California sea lion, U.S. 

Harbor seal, CA 

Northern elephant seal, CA breeding 

Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.'+ 

Sperm whale, CA to WA*+ 

Dall's porpoise, CNORNVA 

Pacific white sided dolphin, CNORNVA 

Risso's dolphin, CNORNVA 

Bottlenose dolphin, CNORNVA offshore 

Common dolphin, short-beaked, CNORNVA 

Common dolphin, long-beaked, CA 

Northern right whale dolphin, CNORNVA 

Short-finned pilot whale, CNORNVA' 

Baird's beaked whale, CNORNVA 

Mesoplodont beaked whales, CA to WA* 

Cuvier's beaked whale, CNORNVA 

Pygmy sperm whale, CNORNVA* 

California sea lion, U.S. 

Harbor seal, CA 

Northern elephant seal, CA breeding 

Harbor porpoise, ORNVA coastal 

Humpback whale, CNORNVA-Mexico 

120 Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Harbor porpoise, AK 
Appendix A 

Table A-I -- List of Category I & II Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (cont'd) 

Page A-2 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Northern fur seal, Northern Pacific' 

Harbor seal, GOA 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, central North Pacific 

Harbor porpoise, AK 

Dall's porpoise, AK 

Northern fur seal, North Pacific 

Harbor seal, GOA 

Harbor seal, Bering Sea 

Harbor porpoise, AK 

Dall's porpoise, AK 

Northern (Alaska) sea otter, Pacific 

Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.*+ 

Harbor seal, Southeast AK 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, central North Pacific 

Harbor porpoise, AK 

Dall's porpoise, AK 

Humpback whale, central North Pacific*+ 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Harbor seal, GOA 

Harbor porpoise, AK 

Dall's porpoise, AK 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Harbor seal, GOA 

Harbor porpoise, AK 

Beluga, Cook lnlet 

Harbor seal, Southeast AK 

Harbor seal. GOA 

Harbor porpoise, AK 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Northern fur seal, North Pacific* 

Harbor seal, Bering Sea 

Beluga, Bristol Bay 

Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific 

Fishery Description 

AK Prince William Sound 

salmon drift gillnet 

AK Peninsula/Aleutians 

salmon drift gillnet fishery 

Southeast Alaska salmon 

drift gillnet fishery 

AK Cook Inlet drift gillnet 

AK Cook Inlet salmon set 

gillnet 

AK Yakutat salmon set 

gillnet 

AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet 

AK Bristol Bay drift gillnet 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

509 

107 

443 

554 

633 

152 

162 

1,741 
Appendix A 

Table A-1 -- List of Category I & II Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (cont'd) 

Page A-3 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

Harbor seal, Bering Sea 

Beluga. Bristol Bay 

Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific 

None documented 

Harbor porpoise, inland WA 

Dall's porpoise, CAIORNVA 

Harbor seal, WA inland 

Fishery Description 

AK Bristol Bay set gillnet 

AK Metlakatlal Annette 

Island salmon drift gillnet 

WA Puget Sound Region 

salmon drift gillnet fishery 

(includes all inland waters 

south of US-Canada border 

and eastward of the BonillaTatoosh line--Treaty Indian 

fishing is excluded) 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

888 

60 

1,044 

Purse seine fisheries: 

CA anchovy, mackerel, tuna 

purse seine 

AK Southeast salmon purse 

seine 

Trawl fisheries: 

AK pair trawl 

Lonaline fisheries 

OR swordfish/blue shark 

surface longline fishery 

150 

443 

Bottlenose dolphin, CAIORNVA offshore 

California sea lion. U.S. 

Harbor seal, CA 

Humpback whale, central North 

Pacific*+ 

2 

30 

None documented 

None documented 
Appendix A 

Table A-2 -- List of Category I & II Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean 

Page A-4 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled Description of Fishery 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

Cateaorv I 

Pair trawl fisheries: 

U.S. Atlantic large pelagics 

pair trawl 

Gillnet fisheries: 

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 

Gulf of Mexico large 

pelagics drift gillnet 

7 

75 

Risso's dolphin, WNA 

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA* 

Common dolphin, WNA* 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore* 

North Atlantic right whale, WNA*+ 

Humpback whale, WNA'+ 

Sperm whale. WNA'+ 

Dwarf sperm whale, WNA' 

Pygmy sperm whale, WNA' 

Cuvier's beaked whale, WNA* 

True's beaked whale, WNA' 

Gervais' beaked whale, WNA* 

Blainville's beaked whale, WNA* Risso's dolphin, 

WNA 

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA' 

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA* White-sided 

dolphin, WNA' 

Common dolphin, WNA' 

Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA' 

Pantropical spotted dolphin, WNA' 

Striped dolphin, WNA 

Spinner dolphin, WNA 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore* 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF* 
Appendix A 

Table A9 -- List of Category I & II Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Carribean 

(cont'd) 

* Marine mammal stock is strategic 

+ Stock is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or as depleted under the MMPA. 

List of Abbreviations Used in Table 2 

FL - Florida NC - North Carolina 

GA - Georgia SC - South Carolina 

GMEIBF - Gulf of MexicoIBay of Fundy TX - Texas 

GMX - Gulf of Mexico WNA - Western North Atlantic 

Marine mammal species/stocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

North Atlantic right whale. WNA'+ 

Humpback whale, WNA'+ 

Minke whale, Canadian east coast 

Killer whale, WNA 

White-sided dolphin, WNA' 

Striped dolphin, WNA 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF' 

Harbor seal, WNA 

Gray seal, Northwest North Atlantic 

Common dolphin, Fin whale, Spotted dolphin 

False killer whale, Harp seal 

Humpback whale, WNA*+ 

Minke whale, Canadian east coast 

Risso's dolphin, WNA 

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA* 

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA* Common dolphin, 

WN A* 

Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA* 

Pantropical spotted dolphin, WNA 

Striped dolphin, WNA 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore* 

Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Outer Continental Shelf 

Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Continental 

Shelf Edge and Slope 

Atlantic spotted dolphin, Northern GMX 

Pantropical spotted dolphin, Northern GMX 

Risso's dolphin, Northern GMX 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF 

Description of Fishery 

7 

New England multispecies 

sink gillnet (including 

species as defined in the 

Multispecies Fisheries 

Management Plan and 

spiny dogfish and monkfish) 

Lonaline fisheries: 

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 

Gulf of Mexico large 

pelagics longline 

Page A-5 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

341 

361 
Appendix A 

Table A-2 -- List of Category I & II Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Carribean 

(cont'd) 

Page A-6 

Description of Fishery 

Cateaow II: 

Gillnet fisheries: 

U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal 

gillnet fishery 

Gulf of Maine small 

pelagics surface gillnet 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic 

shark gillnet fishery 

Trawl fisheries: 

Atlantic squid, mackerel, 

butterfish trawl 

Haul seine fisheries: 

North Carolina haul seine 

Sto~ net fisheries: 

North Carolina roe mullet 

stop net 

Estimated # 

of vessels/ 

persons 

>655 

133 

10 

620 

unknown 

13 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

Humpback whale, WNA'+ 

Minke whale, Canadian east coast 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore* 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*+ 

Harbor porpoise, GME/BFn 

Humpback whale, WNA'+ 

White-sided dolphin, WNA 

Harbor seal, WNA 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal* 

North Atlantic right whale. WNA'+ 

Common dolphin, WNA* 

Risso's dolphin, WNA* 

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA* 

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA*, White-sided 

dolphin, WNA* 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal' 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF' 

Bottlenose dolphin. WNA coastal* 
Appendix B 
Appendix B 

Table 1. Summary of marine mammal stock assessments for stocks of marine mammals 

that are under NMFS authority. Included for each stock is its estimated minimum population 

size (N,,,), maximum productivity rate (R, ), recovery factor, (F), potential biological 

removal level (PBR), total annual human-caused mortality, annual incidental fisheries 

mortality, and strategic status (yes or no). 

Species 

Steller sea lion 

Steller sea lion 

Northern fur 

seal 

Harbor seal 

Harbor seal 

Harbor seal 

Sponed seal 

Bearded seal 

Ringed seal 

Ribbon seal 

Beluga 

Beluga 

Beluga 

Beluga 

Beluga 

Killer whale 

Killer whale 

Pacific whitesided dolphin 

Harbor porpoise 

Dall's porpoise 

Sperm whale 

Stock area 

Western U.S. 

Eastern 

North Pacific 

Southeast 

Alaska 

Gulf of Alaska 

Bering Sea 

Alaska 

Alaska 

Alaska 

Alaska 

Beaufort Sea 

Eastern 

Chukchi Sea 

Nortonsound 

Bristol Bay 

Cook Inlet 

Alaska and 

Washington Inland 

Waters. Res~dent 

Alaska and 

Washington Inland 

Waters, Transient 

North Pacific 

Alaska 

Alaska 

Alaska 

Region 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

NMFS 

Center 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

N," 

42,536 

23.533 

969,595 

32.745 

N/DZ 

17,243 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

38,194 

3,710 

NID 

1,526 

NID 

759 

245 

486,719 

24.635 

76,874 

NIA 

Total 

annual 

mort. 

Annual 

fish. 

Moli. 

Strategic 

Status 

0.3 

0.75 

0.5 

1 .o 

NID 

1 .o 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

1 .o 

1 .o 

NID 

1 .o 

NID 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

1 .o 

0.1 

766 

1,059 

20,846 

1,965 

NID 

1,035 

N/A 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

764 

74 

NID 

31 

NID 

7.6 

2.4 

4.867 

246 

1,537 

NIA 

555 

8.0 

1,783 

1,643 

868 

334 

N/A 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

160 

65 

147 

22 

NIA 

0.8 

0.8 

1.1 

33 

41 

0.00 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

NID 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

NID 

N 

NID 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

'Logbook records indicate commercial fisheries cause a minimum annual mortality of 6 seals for this stock. NIA means that 

actual estimates are unknown or not available. 

2N/D indicates an estimate was not determined. NMFS will determine these values after considering relevant information 

through the comanagement process with affected Alaska Native organizations. 

Page B-I 
Appendix B 

Table 1. Summary of marine mammal stock assessments (cont'd.). 

Total Annual 

NMFS annual fish. Strategic 

Species Stock area Region Center N,, R,,, F, PBR mort. Mort. Status 

Baird's beaked Alaska AKA AKC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

whale 

Alaska AKA AKC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

Cuvier's beaked 

whale 

Stejnerger's 

beaked whale 

Gray whale 

Humpback 

whale 

Humpback 

whale 

Fin whale 

Minke whale 

Northern right 

whale 

Bowhead whale 

North Atlantic 

right whale 

Humpback 

whale 

Fin whale 

Sei whale 

Minke whale 

Blue whale 

Sperm whale 

Dwarf sperm 

whale 

Pygmy sperm 

whale 

Alaska 

Eastern North 

Pacific 

Western North 

Pacific 

Central North 

Pacific 

N. Pacific 

Alaska 

North Pacific 

Western Arctic 

Stock 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Canadian east 

coast 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NIA 

21.715 

NlA 

1,407 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

7,524 

295 

4,848 

1.704 

NIA 

2,053 

NIA 

226 

NIA 

NIA 

0.5 

1 .o 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.5 

0.1 

0.5 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.5 

0.1 

0.1 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

434 

NIA 

2.8 

NIA 

NIA 

0.00 

7!j3 

0.4 

9.7 

3.4 

NIA 

2 1 

NIA 

0.5 

NIA 

NIA 

0.00 

0.3 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

42 

2.6 

1 .o 

NIA 

0.00 

2.5 

0.00 

1.6 

NIA 

NIA 

0.00 

0.3 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1.6 

1 .o 

0.00 

0.00 

2.5 

0.00 

1.6 

NIA 

NIA 

'The IWC subsisience quota is not affected by the calculation of PBR using the formula specified in the MMPA. 

Page 8-2 
Appendix B 

Table I. Summary of marine mammal stock assessments (cont'd.). 

NMFS 

Total Annual 

annual fish. Strategic 

Species Stock area Region Center N,,, R,,, F, PER mort. Mort. status 

Killer whale Western North ATL NEC NIA 0.04 NIA NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

Atlantic 

Pygmy killer Western North ATL SEC 6 0.04 0.5 0.1 0.00 0.00 N 

whale Atlantic 

Northern Western North ATL NEC NIA 0.04 NIA NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

bottlenose Atlantic 

whale 

Cuvier's beaked Western North ATL NEC NIA 0.04 NIA NIA 34 344 Y 

whale Atlantic 

True's beaked Western North ATL NEC NIA 0.04 NIA NIA 34 34 Y 

whale Atlantic 

Gervais' beaked Western North ATL NEC NIA 0.04 NIA NIA 34 34 Y 

whale Atlantic 

Blainville's Western North ATL NEC NIA 0.04 NIA NIA 34 34 Y 

beaked whale Atlantic 

Sowerby's Western North ATL NEC NIA 0.04 NIA NIA 34 34 Y 

beaked whale Atlantic 

Risso's dolphin Western North ATL NEC 11,140 0.04 0.5 11 1 68 68 N 

Atlantic 

Pilot whale, Western North ATL NEC 3,537 0.04 0.4 28 109 log5 Y 

long-finned Atlantic 

Pilot whale, Western North ATL NEC 457 0.04 0.5 3.7 109 109' Y 

short-finned Atlantic 

Atlanticwhite- WesternNorth ATL NEC 12,538 0.04 0.5 125 127 127 Y 

s~ded dolphin Atlantic 

White-beaked Western North ATL NEC N/A 0.04 NIA NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

dolphin Atlantic 

Common Western North ATL NEC 3,233 0.04 0.5 32 449 449 Y 

dolphin Atlantic 

Atlantic spotted Western North ATL NEC 4,885 0.04 0.1 NIA 31' 31s Y 

dolphin Atlantic 

Pantropical Western North ATL NEC N/A NIA NIA NIA 316 316 Y 

spotted dolphin Atlantic 

'Th~s 1s the average mortality of beaked whales (Mesoplodon sp.) based on 5 years of obsewer data. This annual mortality 

rate may include an unknown number of Cuvier's beaked whales. 

'Mortality data are not separated by species; therefore, species-specific estimates are not available. The mortality estimate 

represents both short- and long-finned pilot whales. 

6This value includes either or both of Stenella frontalis or Stenella attenuata. 

Page 8-3 
Appendix B 

Table 1. Summary of marine mammal stock assessments (cont'd.). 

Total Annual 

NMFS annual fish. Strategic 

Species Stock area Region Center N,,, R,, F, PBR mort. Mort. Status 

Striped dolphin Western North ATL NEC 9.165 0.04 0.4 73 63 63 N 

Atlantic 

Spinner dolphin Western North ATL NEC NIA NIA NIA NIA 1.0 1 .O N 

Atlantic 

Bottlenose Western North ATL NEC 9.195 0.04 0.5 92 128 128 Y 

dolphin Atlantic. 

Offshore 

Bottlenose Western North ATL SEC 2,482 0.04 0.5 25 29 29 Y 

dolphin Atlantic, 

Coastal 

Harbor porpoise Gulf of ATL NEC 40,297 0.04 0.5 403 1,876 1,876 Y 

MaineIBay of 

Fundy 

Harbor seal Western North ATL NEC 28.810 0.12 1.0 1,729 476 476 N 

Atlantic 

Gray seal Northwest ATL NEC 2,035 0.12 1.0 122 4.5 4.5 N 

North Atlantic 

Harp seal Northwest ATL NEC NIA NIA NIA NI 0.00 0.00 N 

North Atlantic 

Hooded seal Northwest ATL NEC NIA NIA NIA NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

North Atlantic 

Sperm whale Northern Gulf ATL SEC 411 0.04 0.1 0.8 0.00 0.00 Y 

of Mexico 

Bryde's whale Northern Gulf ATL SEC 17 0.04 0.5 0.2 0.00 0.00 N 

of Mexico 

Cuvier's beaked Northern Gulf ATL SEC 20 0.04 0.5 0.2 0.00 0.00 N 

whale of Mexico 

Blainville's Northern Gulf ATL SEC NIA N/A N/A NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

beaked whale of Mexico 

Gervais' beaked Northern Gulf ATL SEC NIA NlA NlA NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

whale of Mexico 

Bottlenose Gulf of Mexlco, ATL SEC 43,233 0.04 0.5 432 2.8 2.8' 

Outer Cont~nental 

N 

dolphin Shelf 

Bottlenose Gulf of Mexico. ATL SEC 4,530 0.04 0.5 45 2.8 2.8' N 

Continental Shelf dolphin Edge and Slope 

'This value may include either or both of the Gulf of Mexico. Continental Shelf Edge and Slope and the Outer Continental 

Shelf stocks of bottlenose dolphins. 

Page 8-4 
Appendix B 

Table 1. Summary of marine mammal stock assessments (cont'd.). 

Total Annual - 

NMFS annual fish. Strategic 

Species Stock area Region Center N, R,, F, PBR mort. Mort. Status 

Bottlenose Western Gulf ATL SEC 2,938 0.04 0.5 29 13 1 38,9 N 

dolphin of Mexico 

Coastal 

Bottlenose Northern Gulf ATL SEC 3,518 0.04 0.5 35 10 1 09 N 

dolphin of Mexico 

Coastal 

Bottlenose Eastern Gulf ATL SEC 8,963 0.04 0.5 90 8 N 

dolphin of Mexico 

Coastal 

Bottlenose GUI~ of Mexico ATL SEC 3,934 0.04 0.5 39.7 30 30' Y 

dolphin Ray, Sound, and 

Estuarine'O 

Atlantic spotted 

dolphin 

Pantropical 

spotted dolphin 

Striped dolphin 

Spinner dolphin 

Rough-toothed 

dolphin 

Clymene 

dolphin 

Fraser's dolphin 

Killer whale 

False Killer 

whale 

Pygmy killer 

whale 

Northern Gulf 

of Mexico 

Northern Gulf 

of Mexico 

Northern Gulf 

of Mexico 

Northern Gulf 

of Mexico 

Northern Gulf 

of Mexico 

Northern Gulf 

of Mexico 

Northern Gulf 

of Mexico 

Northern Gulf 

of Mexico 

Northern Gulf 

of Mexico 

Northern Gulf 

of Mexico 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

NEC 

'Low levels of bottlenose dolphin mortaality (0-4 per year) incidental to commercial fisheries have been reported. It is 

unknown to which stock this mortality can be attributed. 

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

stocks. 

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

information on individual stocks. The listed estimates for abundance, PER and mortality are sums across all bays, sounds, 

and estuaries. 

Page 8-5 
Appendix B 

Table I. Summary of marine mammal stock assessments (cont'd.). 

Total Annual 

NMFS annual fish. Strategic 

Species Stock area Region Center N,,, R,,, F, PER mort. Mort. Status 

Dwarf sperm Northern Gulf ATL SEC NIA 0.04 NIA NIA 0.00 0.00 Y 

whale of Mexico 

Pygmy sperm Northern Gulf ATL SEC NIA 0.04 NIA N/A 0.00 0.00 Y 

whale of Mexico 

Melon-headed Northern Gulf ATL SEC 2,888 0.04 0.5 29 0.00 0.00 N 

whale of Mexico 

Risso's dolphin Northern Gulf ATL SEC 2,199 0.04 0.5 22 19 19 N 

of Mexico 

Pilot whale. Northern Gulf ATL SEC 186 0.04 0.5 1.9 0.3 0.3 Y 

short-finned of Mexico 

California sea U.S. PAC SWC 84.195 0.12 1.0 5,052 2,446 2,446 N 

lion 

Harbor seal California PAC SWC 32.798 0.12 1.0 1,968 729 729 N 

Harbor seal Oregon1 PAC AKC 28,322 0.12 1.0 1,699 233 233 N 

Washington 

coast 

Harbor seal Washington PAC AKC 13,053 0.12 1.0 783 29 29 N 

Inland waters 

Northern California PAC SWC 42.000 0.086 1.0 1,743 166 166 N 

elephant seal breeding 

Guadalupe fur Mexico to PAC SWC 3,028 0.137 0.5 104 0.00 0.00 Y 

seal California 

Northern fur San Miguel PAC AKC 10,536 0.086 0.5 227 0.00 0.00 N 

seal Island 

Hawaiian monk Hawaii PAC SWC 1.300 0.06 0.1 3.9" N/A N/A Y 

seal 

Harbor porpoise Central PAC SWC 3,430 0.04 0.5 34 3 1 31 N 

California 

Harbor porpoise Northern PAC SWC 7,640 0.04 0.5 76 0.00 0.00 N 

California 

Harbor porpoise Oregon1 PAC AKC 22,049 0.04 0.5 220 14 14 N 

Washington 

coast 

Harbor porpoise Inland PAC AKC 2,680 0.04 0.5 27 16 16 N 

Washington 

Dall's porpoise California1 PAC SWC 58,902 0.04 0.5 589 36 36 N 

Oregonl 

Washington 

"Although the calculated PER is 3.9, the allowable take is zero due to findings under the ESA. 

Page B-6 
Appendix B 

Table 1. Summary of marine mammal stock assessments (cont'd.). 

p~~ - - 

Total Annual 

NMFS annual fish. Strategic 

Species Stock area Region Center N,,, R,,, F, PBR mort. Mort. Status 

Pacific California1 PAC SWC 82,939 0.04 0.5 829 28 28 N 

white-sided Oregon1 

dolphin Washington 

Risso's dolphin California1 PAC SWC 22,388 0.04 0.5 224 39 39 N 

Oregonl 

Washington 

Bottlenose California PAC SWC 245 0.04 0.5 2.5 0.00 0.00 N 

dolphin coastal 

Bottlenose Cal~fornia/Oregon/ PAC SWC 1,775 0.04 0.5 18 7.7 7.7 

Washington 

N 

dolphin Offshore 

Striped dolphin 

Common 

dolphin, shortbeaked 

Common 

dolphin, 

long-beaked 

Northern right 

whale dolphin 

Killer whale 

Pilot whale, 

short-tinned 

Baird's beaked 

whale 

Mesoplodont 

beaked whales 

Cuvier's beaked 

whale 

Californial 

Oregonl 

Washington 

California1 

Oregonl 

Washington 

California 

California1 

Oregonl 

Washington 

Californial 

Oregonl 

Washington 

California1 

Oregonl 

Washington 

California1 

Oregonl 

Washington 

California1 

Oregonl 

Washington 

Californial 

Oregonl 

Washington 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

136 

1.792 

56 

151 

1.4 

NIA 

0.2 

1.4 

8.9 

- -- 

12Th1s value includes 6 animals that could not be specified as either short- or long-beaked common dolphins. 

'3Mortality for 1991-1993 was zero: two Baird's beaked whales were observed taken in 1994. This exceeds PBR. 

Page B-7 
Appendix B 

Table I. Summary of marine mammal stock assessments (cont'd.). 

Total Annual 

NMFS annual fish. Strategic 

Species Stock area Region Center N,, R,,, F, PBR mort. Mort. Status 

Pygmy sperm California1 PAC SWC 481 0.04 0.5 4.8 5.7 5.7 Y 

whale Oregon1 

Washington 

Dwarf sperm California1 PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

whale Oregon1 

Washington 

Sperm whale California to PAC SWC 512 0.04 0.1 1.0 17 17 Y 

Washington 

Humpback California1 PAC SWC 563 0.04 0.1 0.5 1.16 0.5 Y 

whale Mexico 

Blue whale California1 PAC SWC 1,709 0.04 0.1 1.7 NIA NIA Y 

Mexico 

Fin whale California to PAC SWC 575 0.04 0.1 1.1 <I 0.00 Y 

Washington 

Bryde's whale Eastern PAC SWC 11,163 0.04 0.5 0.5'4 NIA 0.00 N 

Tropical 

Pacific 

Sei whale Eastern North PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.1 NIA NIA 0.00 Y 

Pacific 

Minke whale California1 PAC SWC 265 0.04 0.5 2.6 0.5 0.5 N 

Oregon1 

Washington 

Rough-toothed Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA NIA NIA N 

dolphin 

Risso's dolphin Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA NIA NIA N 

Bottlenose Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

dolphin 

Pantropical Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA NIA NIA N 

spotted dolphin 

Spinner dolphin Hawaii PAC SWC 677 0.04 0.5 6.8 NIA NIA N 

Striped dolphin Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA NIA NIA N 

Melon-headed Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

whale 

Pygmy killer Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA NIA NIA N 

whale 

False killer Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA NIA NIA N 

whale 

Killer whale Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

''This PBR has been adjusted because only 05% of this stock is estimated to be in U.S. waters. 

Page 8-8 
Appendix B 

Table 1. Summary of marine mammal stock assessments (cont'd.). 

Total Annual 

NMFS annual fish. Strategic 

Species Stock area Region Center N,,, R,,, F, PBR mort. Mort. Status 

Pilot whale, Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA NIA NIA N 

short-finned 

Blainville's Hawaii PAC SWC N/A 0.04 0.5 N/A 0.00 0.00 N 

beaked whale 

Cuvier's beaked Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 N/A NIA 0.00 N 

whale 

Pygmy sperm Hawaii PAC SWC N/A 0.04 0.5 NIA N/A NIA N 

whale 

Dwarf sperm Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

whale 

Sperm whale Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.1 N/A N/A 0.00 Y 

Blue whale Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.1 NIA NIA NIA Y 

Fin whale Hawaii PAC SWC N/A 0.04 0.1 NIA 0.00 0.00 Y 

Bryde's whale Hawaii PAC SWC NIA 0.04 0.5 NIA 0.00 0.00 N 

Page 6-9 
Appendix C - 
Appendix C. Estimates of Total Incidental Dolphin Mortality for U.S. and Foreign Purse Seine Vessels in 

the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, 1971-1995 

U.S. Foreign Foreign 

- Year vessels1 

1971 124 

U.S. KillZ 

246,213 

- ~i11~- Total Kill4 

15,715 261,928 

'Data from Inter-Amencan Trop~cal Tuna Comm~sston (IATTC) 

'Dala from Natronal Marme Flsherles Service (NMFS) 

'Der~ved by subtracting U S data from IATTC total mortaltty estimates of sets made on dolph~n dur~ng the perlod 

'Data for 1971-78 from NMFS data afler 1978 from IATC uslng MPS method 

Page C-I 
Appendix D 
Appendix D 

Table D-I 

Summary of Permit Applications 

January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995 

Page D-I 

Scientific 

Research & 

Public 

Display 

0 

0 

Public 

Display 

4 

4 

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS 

SUBMITTED 

No. of Animals Requested (Total) 

Totals 

33 

2,421,280 

Scientific 

Research 

29 

2,421,276 

OF THESE: 

10 

0 

0 

7,145 

0 

0 

4 

2,414,121 

Taken by Killing 

Taken and Kept Alive 

Killed in Captivity 

Taken and Released 

Found Dead 

StrandedIExchanged 

Imports 

Harass 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

38 

10 

0 

0 

7,145 

0 

0 

0 

2,414,121 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

28 

24 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

28 

6 

ACTION TAKEN ON APPLICATIONS: 

No. Forwarded to Marine 

Mammal Commission 

No. Reviewed by Marine 

Mammal Commission 

No. Withdrawn 

No. Referred to Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

No. Referred to States 

No. Referred to Regions 

No. Resolved through 

No. Returned 

No. Denied 

No. Approved 

No. Pending 

3 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

4 

0 

25 

21 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

24 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
Appendix D 

Table D-I (cont'd) 

Summary of Permit Applications 

January 1,1995 to December 31,1995 

Page D-2 

NO. OF ANIMALS APPROVED 

Scientific 

Research & 

Public 

Display 

0 

Scientific 

Research 

2,413,878 

Totals 

2,413,881 

OF THESE: 

Public 

Display 

3 

Taken by Killing 

Taken and Kept Alive 

Killed in Captivity 

Taken and Released 

Found Dead 

StrandedlExchanged 

Imports 

Harass 

10 

0 

0 

4,360 

0 

0 

0 

2,409,508 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10 

0 

0 

4 360 

0 

0 

3 

2,409,508 
Appendix D 

Table D-2 

Number of Cetaceans in Scientific ResearchlPublic Display Permit Requests 

January 1,1995 to December 31,1995 

Page D-3 
Appendix D 

Table D-2 (cont'd) 

Number of Cetaceans in Scientific ResearchlPublic Display Permit Requests 

January 1,1995 to December 31,1995 

Page D-4 

Lagenorhynchine Dolphin 

Long-finned Pilot Whale 

Melon-Headed Whale 

Minke Whale 

Northern Right Whale Dolphin 

Pacific White-sided Dolphin 

Pygmy Killer Whale 

Pygmy Sperm Whale 

Risso's Dolphin, Grampus 

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 

Sei Whale 

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 

Southern Right Whale Dolphin 

Spectacled Porpoise 

Sperm Whale 

Spinner Dolphin 

Stenelline Dolphin 

Striped Dolphin, Streaker 

Chinese River Dolphin 

White Whale, Beluga 

TOTAL 

Taken 

by 

Killing 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10 

Taken 1 

Imported and 

Kept Alive 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

Tagged or 

Taken and 

Released 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

20 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

291 

Found 

Dead 1 

Stranded 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 --- 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Total 

Requested 

0 

0 

0 

0 

~- 

0 - 

20 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 - 

0 

0 - 

302 
Appendix D 

Table D-3 

Number of Pinnipeds in Scientific ResearchlPublic Display Permit Requests 

January 1,1995 to December 31,1995 

Page D-5 

California Sea Lion 

Crabeater Seal 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Kerguelen Fur Seal 

Leopard Seal 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Pacific Harbor Seal 

South American Sea Lion 

Southern Elephant Seal 

Weddell Seal 

TOTAL 

Taken I 

Imported and 

Kept Alive 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

3 

Taken By 

Killing 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tagged or 

Taken and 

Released 

30 

50 

3 5 

2540 

50 

30 

250 

0 

50 

4,000 

7,035 

Found 

Dead1 

Stranded 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Total 

Requested 

30 

50 

35 

2540 

50 

30 

250 

3 

50 

4,000 

7,038 
Appendix D 

Table D-4 

Number of Cetaceans Authorized in Scientific ResearchlPublic Display Permits 

January 1,1995 to December 31,1995 

Page D-6 

Total Requested 

0 

0 

0 

150 

0 

0 

20 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

110 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-. 0 - 

0 

0 

0 

20 

Found 

Dead1 

Stranded 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Atlantic Hump-Backed Dolphin 

Northern Right Whale 

Blue Whale 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Boto, Amazon River Dolphin 

Commerson's Dolphin 

Common Dolphin 

Cuvier's Beaked Whale 

Dall's Porpoise 

Dwarf Sperm Whale 

False Killer Whale 

Finback Whale 

Finless Porpoise 

Fraser's (Sarawak) Dolphin 

Ganges River Dolphin 

Gray Whale 

Harbor Porpoise 

Humpback Whale 

lndus River Dolphin 

lrrawaddy Dolphin 

Killer Whale 

Lagenorhynchine Dolphin 

Melon-Headed Whale 

Minke Whale 

Northern Right Whale Dolphin 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin 

Taken1 

lrnportedand 

Kept Alive 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Takenby 

Killing 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tagged or 

Takenand 

Released 

0 

0 

0 

150 

0 

0 

2 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

20 
Appendix D 

Table D-4 (cont.) 

Number of Cetaceans Authorized in Scientific ResearchlPublic Display Permits 

January 1,1995 to December 31,1995 

Page 0-7 

Total Requested 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 - 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 - 

0 

0 

0 

300 

Tagged or 

Taken and 

Released 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

290 

Taken1 

Imported and 

Kept Alive 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Pygmy Killer Whale 

Risso's Dolphin, Grampus 

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 

Sei Whale 

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 

Southern Right Whale Dolphin 

Spectacled Porpoise 

Sperm Whale 

Spinner Dolphin 

Stenelline Dolphin 

Striped Dolphin, Streaker 

Chinese River Dolphin 

White Whale, Beluga 

TOTAL 

Found 

Dead1 

Stranded 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Taken by 

Killing 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10 
Appendix D 

Table D-5 

Number of Pinnipeds Authorized in Scientific ResearchlPublic Display Permits 

January 1,1995 to December 31,1995 

Page D-8 

Total 

Requested - 

30 

0 

40 

30 

3 

4,000 

0 

4,103 

Found 

Dead1 

Stranded 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

California Sea Lion 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Kerguelen Fur Seal 

Northern Elephant Seal 

South American Sea Lion 

Weddell Seal 

Pacific Harbor Seal 

TOTAL 

Taken1 

Imported 

and Kept 

Alive 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

Taken By 

Killing 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tagged or 

Taken and 

Released 

30 

0 

40 

30 

0 

4,000 

0 

4,103 
Appendix D 

Table D-6 

Summary of All Permits for Permanent Removal of Cetaceans from the Wild 

January 1,1995 to December 31,1995 

Page D-9 

Harbor Porpoise 

TOTAL 

Permits Number of Animals 

Current 

1 

I 

Issued 

1 

1 

Requested 

10 

10 

Expired 

0 

0 

Authorized 

10 

0 

Take 

Remaining 

10 

10 
Appendix E 
Appendix E 

Table E-1 

Marine Mammal Strandings in 1995 

False Killer Whale 

Pygmy Killer Whale 

Melon Headed Whale 

Long-finned Pilot Whale 

Page E-I 

3 

1 
Appendix E 

Table E-I (cont'd) 

Marine Mammal Strandings in 1995 

Short-finned Pilot Whale 

Ifraser's Dolohin 

Atlantic White-sided Dolph 

Pacific White-sided Dolph. 

Northern Right Whale Dolp 

Risso's Dolphin 

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 

Long-snouted Spinner 

Short-snouted Spinner 

Soinner Dolohin 

l~tlantic sootted Dolohin 

l~antrooical sootted Dolohin 

l~ootted Dolohin 

Striped Dolphin 

Unidentified Stenella sp. 

Unidentified Dolphin 

Phocoenidae 

Dall's Porpoise 

Harbor Porpoise 

Unidentified Cetacean 

TOTAL CETACEAN 

Page E-2 
Appendix E 

Table E-I (cont'd) 

Marine Mammal Strandings in 1995 

Page E-3