The Status of Protection Programs for 

Endangered, Threatened, and Depleted 

Marine Mammals in U.S. Waters 

Michael L. Weber 

David W. Laist 

2007

One of a series of reports prepared in response to a directive from Congress to the Marine 

Mammal Commission to examine the biological viability and cost–effectiveness of protection 

programs for the most endangered marine mammals in U.S. waters

iii

CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY.........................................1

II. MAJOR FEDERAL STATUTORY PROTECTION MEASURES ...........3

The Marine Mammal Protection Act...............................................................................3

The Endangered Species Act.............................................................................................4

Other Authorities...............................................................................................................6

III. SPECIES-SPECIFIC PROTECTION PROGRAMS ..................................7

Sirenians..............................................................................................................................7

Florida Manatee ........................................................................................................... 7

Antillean Manatee, Puerto Rico Population............................................................... 19

Sea Otters..........................................................................................................................20

Southern Sea Otter...................................................................................................... 20

Northern Sea Otter, Southwest Alaska Population..................................................... 27

Pinnepeds..........................................................................................................................30

Caribbean Monk Seal ................................................................................................. 30

Hawaiian Monk Seal................................................................................................... 31

Guadalupe Fur Seal.................................................................................................... 39

Northern Fur Seal, Eastern Pacific (Pribilof Islands) Population............................. 40

Steller Sea Lion, Eastern Population.......................................................................... 44

Steller Sea Lion, Western Population ......................................................................... 46

Cetaceans ..........................................................................................................................53

Blue Whale.................................................................................................................. 53

Bowhead Whale, Western Arctic Population.............................................................. 56

Fin Whale.................................................................................................................... 59

Humpback Whale........................................................................................................ 64

North Atlantic Right Whale......................................................................................... 69

North Pacific Right Whale.......................................................................................... 74

Sei Whale .................................................................................................................... 76

Sperm Whale ............................................................................................................... 78

Beluga Whale, Cook Inlet Population ........................................................................ 83

Bottlenose Dolphin, Mid-Atlantic Coastal Population............................................... 87

Killer Whale, Southern Resident Population.............................................................. 90

Killer Whale, AT1 Group............................................................................................ 93

IV. OVERVIEW AND TRENDS........................................................................96

Statutory Protection Provisions......................................................................................96

Population Status .............................................................................................................97

Species Protection Programs ..........................................................................................97

Threats to Marine Mammal Species and Populations..................................................98

Management Framework................................................................................................99

Critical Habitat ..............................................................................................................100

Recovery Plans and Teams ...........................................................................................100

Management Actions .....................................................................................................102

Staffing and Funding .....................................................................................................105
iv

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................... 112

VI. REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 112

VII. APPENDICES ............................................................................................ 121

Appendix A. Major Federal Statutory Protection Measures.................................... 121

Appendix B. Year 2004 Category I, II, and III Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as 

Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted .................................................................. 141

Appendix C. Federal and State Expenditures for Listed Species of Marine 

Mammals ................................................................................................................. 147

Appendix D. Federal and State Expenditures (in $ thousands) for Listed Species of 

Marine Mammals by Year: 1998 – 2004............................................................... 154

Appendix E. National Marine Fisheries Service Line Items Related to Endangered 

Marine Mammal Species: 2001–2005 (in $ thousands) ....................................... 158

Appendix F. Federal Funding of Research on Listed Marine Mammal Species by 

Research Issue: FY1991–FY2000 .......................................................................... 160

Appendix G. Summary of the Status and Protection Programs for Listed Marine 

Mammals ................................................................................................................. 165

List of Tables 

Table 1. Status of four major subpopulations of Florida manatees relative to recovery criteria in the 

2001 recovery plan..................................................................................................................8 

Table 2. Major habitat protection concerns for the four subpopulations of Florida manatees ............10 

Table 3. Criteria for downlisting and delisting Florida manatees under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 ......................................................................................................................................12 

Table 4. Department of the Interior funding allocations (in $ thousands) for West Indian manatee 

research and management activities under the MMPA and ESA as cited in administrative 

reports required by the MMPA: 1980–2000 ........................................................................17 

Table 5. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for recovery of the West Indian manatee, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................18 

Table 6. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for Florida 

manatees during the first five years after adoption of the 2001 Revised Florida Manatee 

Recovery Plan.......................................................................................................................18 

Table 7. Department of the Interior funding allocations (in $ thousands) for southern sea otter 

research and management activities under the MMPA and ESA as cited in administrative 

reports required by the MMPA: 1980–2000.........................................................................26 

Table 8. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of southern sea otters, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................27 

Table 9. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of Hawaiian monk seals, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................38 

Table 10. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for Hawaiian 

monk seals during the first five years after adoption of the 2005 draft revised recovery 

plan........................................................................................................................................38 

Table 11. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of the eastern population of 

Steller sea lions, 1998–2004 .................................................................................................46

Table 12. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of western population of 

Steller sea lions, 1998–2004 .................................................................................................53
v

Table 13. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of blue whales, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................56 

Table 14. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of western Arctic bowhead 

whales, 1998–2004 ...............................................................................................................59 

Table 15. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of fin whales, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................63 

Table 16. Projected funding needs ($ thousands) to implement the draft 2006 fin whale 

recovery plan.........................................................................................................................64 

Table 17. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of humpback whales, 1998–

2004 ......................................................................................................................................69 

Table 18. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of northern right whales, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................74 

Table 19. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for North Atlantic 

right whales during the first five years after adoption of the 2005 North Atlantic Right 

Whale Recovery Plan............................................................................................................74 

Table 20. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of sei whales, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................78 

Table 21. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of sperm whales, 1998–

2004 ......................................................................................................................................82 

Table 22. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for sperm whales 

in the 2006 draft sperm whale recovery plan........................................................................83 

Table 23. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement objective 1 during the first five years 

after adoption of the 2005 draft Cook Inlet beluga whale conservation plan.......................87 

Table 24. Estimates of abundance, bycatch, and potential biological removal for mid-Atlantic coastal 

bottlenose dolphin management units in 2002 .....................................................................88 

Table 25. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement conservation activities for southern 

resident killer whales during the first five years after adopting the draft 2005 southern 

resident killer whale conservation plan ................................................................................93 

Table 26. Status of recovery plans and conservation plans prepared under the Endangered Species Act 

and Marine Mammal Protection Act for endangered, threatened, and depleted marine 

mammals.............................................................................................................................101 

Table 27. Estimated number of full time equivalent staff positions (FTEs) devoted to marine mammal 

protection programs by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in fiscal year 2005 (P. M. Payne and J. Bengtson pers. comm.). ..........................107 

Table 28. Total estimated federal and state expenditures on endangered and threatened species in 

fiscal years 1998–2005 .......................................................................................................109 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Expenditures (in $ thousands) for recovery activities on all taxa listed as endangered or 

threatened by species and by year, 1998–2004......................................................................110 

Figure 2. Expenditures (in $ thousands) for recovery activities on all taxa listed as endangered or 

threatened by agency and by year, 1998–2004. .....................................................................111 

1

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY 

As part of its fiscal year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Congress directed the Marine 

Mammal Commission to “review the biological viability of the most endangered marine 

mammal populations and make recommendations regarding the cost-effectiveness of current 

protection programs.” Pursuant to this directive, the Marine Mammal Commission sought to 

address four basic questions: 

1. What are the most endangered marine mammal populations in U.S. waters? 

2. What is their biological viability? 

3. What is the biological effectiveness of current protection programs?1

4. What is the cost-effectiveness of expenditures to implement those programs? 

This report reviews protection programs for the 22 taxa listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and is intended to complement other 

parts of the Commission’s response to Congress, including— 

• The report of a workshop to examine population viability analyses (PVAs) conducted to date 

on marine mammals in U.S. waters and ways to improve their usefulness for management 

(Marine Mammal Commission 2007). 

• A report to examine systems for classifying marine mammals under the ESA, the MMPA, 

and IUCN–The World Conservation Union’s Red List of Threatened Species, including a 

review of information on the current biological condition of each listed species (Lowry et al. 

2007). 

• A more in-depth review of the cost-effectiveness of recovery efforts for the North Atlantic 

right whale (Reeves et al. 2007). 

These reports provide background information for use by the Commission as it prepares its 

findings and recommendations for submission to Congress. 

This report is divided into three major sections. The first discusses provisions of the MMPA and 

the ESA that form the foundation for most marine mammal protection programs. The second 

profiles protection programs for all 22 listed taxa. Each profile summarizes information on the 

taxon’s status, major threats, management framework, critical habitat, recovery planning, major 

management actions, and staffing and funding levels. The third summarizes overall trends in 

protection programs for the listed species and populations, based on those profiles. Appendices 

include tables and charts with estimates of expenditures for related conservation programs, 

additional details regarding key provisions of the MMPA and the ESA, and information on the 

status of the various taxa. 

With regard to the allocation of funding levels related to recovery, the species profiles present 

cost data from four principal sources. First, they include actual funding spent by various federal 

 

1 For purposes of the study, the terms “protection” and “protection program” encompass all activities undertaken under the 

auspices of federal programs to reverse a population’s decline and restore the population to its former abundance. This definition 

includes, but is not limited to, research and regulatory and other management actions, including enforcement, public outreach, 

and recovery planning.
2

and state agencies as reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its annual reports to 

Congress on federal and state expenditures for listed species, a report required by the ESA. 

Second, the profiles include information on species-specific research and management actions 

reported to the Marine Mammal Commission as part of its annual surveys of federally funded 

marine mammal research. Third, funding levels listed in agency budget documents are identified 

to the extent that line items clearly focus on an individual species. And fourth, the profiles 

present projected annual funding needs set forth in recovery plans at the time of their adoption. 

In almost all cases, funding projections in recovery plans are substantially higher than actual 

allocations. 

Although these were the best available sources of funding data and provide a general picture of 

funding levels provided or believed necessary to foster a species’ recovery, readers also should 

be aware that accounting practices used by the reporting agencies often differ greatly among 

agencies and even within agencies between years. Thus, funding levels reported here from 

different sources are not always consistent, and aggregate funding levels should be considered as 

general approximations at best.
3

II. MAJOR FEDERAL STATUTORY PROTECTION MEASURES 

Provisions of the MMPA and the ESA form the foundation and framework for most marine 

mammal protection activities. Those provisions are summarized briefly below and in greater 

detail in Appendix A. 

THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT

When it was passed in 1972, the MMPA fundamentally changed the management of human 

activities affecting marine mammals and their ecosystems. The Act sets as its primary objective 

“...to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem.” Consistent with this objective, 

it calls for maintaining marine mammals at their “optimum sustainable population keeping in 

mind the carrying capacity of the habitat.” 

The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), has 

primary authority for all cetaceans (i.e., whales and dolphins) and pinnipeds (i.e., seals and sea 

lions) except walruses. The Commerce Secretary also implements the MMPA’s provisions for 

managing incidental take of all marine mammals in commercial fisheries. The Secretary of the 

Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), has authority for managing all 

manatees, dugongs, polar bears, sea and marine otters, and walruses. The Act also established the 

Marine Mammal Commission, whose primary responsibility is to provide an independent source 

of advice and oversight to the Services and other federal agencies on implementation of the Act’s 

provisions. The MMPA preempts state laws or regulations relating to the taking of marine 

mammals unless authorized through a formal process by which management authority can be 

transferred to individual states. However, states are not prevented from cooperating with NMFS 

and FWS in conservation efforts consistent with the Act’s objectives, and in many cases they are 

vital partners in this regard. 

Other important features of the MMPA include the following: 

• Moratorium on taking: The Act imposed a moratorium on taking that includes both 

intentional and unintentional capture, killing, and harassment (including potential injury) of 

marine mammals. Subject to certain limitations or requirements, exemptions and exceptions 

to the moratorium are authorized for the following purposes: 

– Non-wasteful taking by Alaska Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos when the taking is for 

subsistence purposes or for the purpose of creating authentic handicrafts and clothing; 

– Taking for scientific research, public display, enhancement, or commercial or educational 

photography; 

– Taking of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to activities other than 

commercial fishing; 

– Taking of non-depleted marine mammals under the Act’s waiver provisions; 

– Deterring marine mammals from damaging fishing gear and catch or private property; 

– Taking by government officials for the protection and welfare of a marine mammal, the 

protection of public health and welfare, or relocation of nuisance animals; and 

– Taking in defense of one’s self or another person in immediate danger. 
4

• Depleted species: The Act directs the responsible agencies to designate a species as 

“depleted” if its abundance declines below its optimum sustainable population (OSP) level. 

This level is defined as a range between the population size that produces the maximum rate 

of net productivity and the maximum number that can be supported by the ecosystem. For 

species or populations designated as depleted, the Act authorizes the preparation of 

conservation plans to restore them to OSP levels. Species designated as depleted also are 

considered strategic stocks for which take reduction plans are to be prepared if they are taken 

incidentally in a category I or II fishery (see Appendix A for explanation of fishing 

categories). 

• Taking incidental to commercial fishing: The Act calls for reducing mortality and serious 

injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fisheries, first to below a stock’s 

potential biological removal (PBR) level and ultimately to “insignificant levels approaching a 

zero mortality and serious injury rate.” PBR is defined as the number of animals that can be 

removed from a population, not counting natural mortality, while retaining a high degree of 

assurance that the population will remain within the OSP range or, if it is depleted, will 

increase toward its OSP level. As the implementing agency, NMFS must place all U.S. 

commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on their level of incidental taking. 

Depending upon the classification, fishermen must undertake actions to meet the standards of 

the Act. For fisheries that are not meeting those standards, NMFS is required to convene a 

take reduction team to prepare a plan for that purpose. 

THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

In 1973 Congress passed a major revision of two earlier versions of the ESA—the Endangered 

Species Preservation Act (ESPA) of 1966 and the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) 

of 1969. Like the MMPA, the ESA is intended to conserve individual species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The aim of the Act is “to bring any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this [Act] are no longer 

relevant.” As with the MMPA, the Department of Commerce has lead responsibility for 

cetaceans and pinnipeds (other than walruses) listed as endangered or threatened, and the 

Department of the Interior has lead responsibility for the recovery of listed manatees, dugongs, 

and sea and marine otters. 

The Act defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in 

the foreseeable future. The Act identifies five factors that must be considered in evaluating 

whether to list a species under either category: 

• The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range; 

• Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education purposes; 

• Disease or predation; 

• The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

• Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species’ survival. 

The economic impact of a listing may not be considered in listing determinations. 
5

Specific protection provisions in the ESA include the following: 

• Prohibition on taking endangered and threatened species: The ESA makes it unlawful to take 

an endangered or threatened species. Taking includes intentional and unintentional harm or 

harassment, including modification of habitat that significantly impairs essential behavioral 

patterns to the extent that it kills or injures listed species. This prohibition also is generally 

applied to activities affecting threatened species through regulations issued by the two 

Services. Exemptions to this prohibition include the following: 

– Taking by certain Alaska Natives and non-native permanent residents of Alaska Native 

villages primarily for subsistence purposes. Such taking may be regulated if it is found 

that the taking materially and negatively affects the species; 

– Taking for scientific research or enhancement of a population; 

– Taking incidental to an otherwise lawful activity provided there is an acceptable plan and 

funding to mitigate takings and that the takings will not “appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild”; and 

– Taking incidental to federal actions that are subject to section 7 consultation for which a 

“no-jeopardy” biological opinion is issued. 

• Designation of critical habitat: The ESA requires designation of critical habitat for listed 

species, with some exceptions. Critical habitat includes geographical areas “on which are 

found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 

which may require special management considerations or protection.” Unlike listing 

decisions, a decision to designate critical habitat may consider economic impacts. The Act 

requires that federal agencies avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 

• Preparation of recovery plans: The ESA requires the development and implementation of a 

recovery plan for a listed species unless the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 

Commerce finds that a recovery plan will not promote the conservation of a listed species. 

These plans must include objective and measurable criteria for removing the species from the 

list of endangered and threatened species, measures needed to recover the species, and 

estimates of the time and costs required to carry out those measures. 

• Section 7 consultations: Section 7 of the ESA requires that all federal agencies use their 

authorities to further the conservation objectives of the Act and that they consult with the 

Services to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. Consultation may be informal or formal, depending 

on the likely effect of the activity. A formal consultation results in the preparation of a 

written biological opinion by the relevant Service on whether the activity is likely to 

jeopardize the existence of the listed species or modify its habitat. If so, reasonable and 

prudent alternatives to the proposed action must be identified to avoid jeopardy or adverse 

modification. 
6

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Listed marine mammals also are protected by other federal statutes and international agreements 

to which the United States is a party (Appendix A). Among the more important domestic statutes 

are provisions under the National Environmental Policy Act requiring the preparation of 

environmental assessments and impact statements; the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act requiring the preparation of fishery management plans; the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act, which authorizes the establishment of marine sanctuaries; and the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act, which authorizes and regulates the leasing of U.S. outer continental 

shelf areas for purposes of oil, gas, and hard mineral exploration and development. Important 

international agreements include the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and 

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 
7

III. SPECIES-SPECIFIC PROTECTION PROGRAMS 

SIRENIANS

Florida Manatee 

Status: The Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) is a subspecies of the West Indian 

manatee that occurs only in the southeastern United States. The species as a whole occurs from 

the southeastern United States through the Greater Antilles and Central America to northern 

Brazil. It was first listed as endangered under the ESPA in 1967 (FWS 2001), and that listing 

was carried forward under the ESCA and ESA. Florida manatees are not listed separately but are 

considered endangered by virtue of the species’ listing as endangered throughout its range. In 

April 2005 the Service announced plans to begin a five-year review of the Florida manatee to 

determine whether information is sufficient to warrant downlisting or delisting the species (FWS 

2005c). Florida manatees also are protected under the state of Florida’s Manatee Sanctuary Act. 

Although the Florida subspecies ranges as far west as Texas and as far north as Rhode Island, its 

distribution is concentrated in coastal waters and rivers of Florida (Lefebvre et al. 2001). Four 

subpopulations have been identified for management purposes, including two along Florida’s 

Atlantic coast and two on the Gulf of Mexico coast. Forty-seven percent of the total population is 

estimated to be in the Atlantic subpopulation, 4 percent in the St. Johns River subpopulation, 12 

percent in the northwest subpopulation, and 37 percent in the southwest subpopulation (FWS 

2001). 

A reliable method for estimating total abundance has not been developed because of 

shortcomings in survey techniques; however, a minimum population has been estimated based 

on counts of animals at winter refuges (FWS 2001). In the 1980s the total population was 

estimated to number at least 1,200 manatees. More comprehensive surveys involving aerial and 

ground counts were initiated in 1991, and in January 2001 a total of 3,300 manatees were 

counted. The current population is therefore thought to number at least 3,300 (Haubold et al. 

2005). Roughly equal numbers of manatees occur on Florida’s east and west coasts. In the 

absence of a series of reliable total population estimates, trends in abundance have been assessed 

using survival rates from photo-identification, mortality records, and reproduction rates. The 

2001 revision of the Florida manatee recovery plan includes the assessments shown in Table 1 

for each of the four subpopulations. (See also Table 3 for recovery criteria.) 

The most recent stock assessment report for Florida manatees estimates the potential biological 

removal (PBR) level to be between 0 and 3 and notes that human-related manatee mortality far 

exceeds those levels (FWS 2000). The report also concludes that establishing any level for PBR 

would be inappropriate and inconsistent with the Florida manatee recovery plan. 
8

Table 1. Status of four major subpopulations of Florida manatees relative to recovery criteria in 

the 2001 recovery plan (FWS 2001) 

Northwest Southwest Upper St. Johns Atlantic 

Exceeds survival, 

reproduction, and 

population growth 

criteria 

Estimates of survival and 

population growth not yet 

available; reproduction 

criterion has been 

exceeded for group that 

summers in Sarasota Bay 

Meets or exceeds survival, 

reproduction, and 

population growth criteria 

Meets reproduction 

criterion; may meet 

survival and population 

criteria 

Although overall deaths 

are relatively low, 

watercraft-related deaths 

are increasing rapidly 

Overall deaths are high; 

watercraft-related deaths 

are increasing rapidly 

Overall deaths are 

moderate; watercraftrelated deaths increasing 

slowly 

Overall deaths are high; 

watercraft-related deaths 

increasing moderately 

Major Threats: About one-third of all known Florida manatee deaths are directly related to 

human activities, principally collisions with vessels, which constitute the most immediate threat 

to their survival (Rathbun and Wallace 2000, MMC 2005). Overall, the total number of manatee 

deaths has grown steadily since 1976 when mortality records were first compiled. Between the 

1980s and 1990s average annual reported mortality doubled (MMC 2001). Without good 

estimates of population size, it is unclear whether this change reflects an increased mortality rate, 

a relatively stable mortality rate accompanying an increased population size, or some 

combination of the two. In the long term, the major threat to Florida manatees is thought to be 

the potential loss of warm-water habitat necessary to survive cold winter periods. Other threats 

include entrapment in floodgates and navigation locks, incidental take in fishing gear, habitat 

destruction, cold stress, and naturally produced biotoxins associated with red tides (FWS 2001). 

Boat Collisions: Boat collisions are the largest source of human-caused manatee deaths and 

injuries in Florida, accounting for about one-quarter to one-third of all known deaths. Between 

1976 and 2005 watercraft-related deaths of manatees ranged from a low of 15 in 1983 to a high 

of 95 in 2002 with an average of 81 deaths per year between 2001 and 2005 (Laist and Shaw 

2006). Although the total number of deaths has been increasing steadily, the proportion of annual 

mortality caused by boats has remained relatively stable. 

Loss of Warm-Water Refuges: Perhaps the major long-term threat to Florida manatees is the loss 

of warm-water refuges. This is due both to the likely closure of industrial facilities, principally 

power plants, that produce warm-water discharges now used by most Florida manatees in winter, 

and potential declines of warm-water flows at natural springs due to groundwater withdrawal for 

human uses (FWS 2001, Laist and Reynolds 2005a,b). In the past, manatees likely relied on 

warm-water springs in central Florida and passive thermal basins (i.e., persistent pockets of 

warm water) in southernmost Florida to survive the lethal effects of cold winter temperatures. 

Hunting prior to the 1900s apparently drastically reduced manatee use of natural springs and, as 

Florida developed and warm-water outfalls from power plants became available, manatees 

expanded their restricted winter range in southernmost Florida using those discharges as refuges. 

About 60 percent of all Florida manatees currently winter at 10 major power plant outfalls. 

Along the Atlantic coast, 85 percent depend on five power plant outfalls (Laist and Reynolds 

2005b). Of nine warm-water refuges with at least one winter count of more than 200 manatees, 

six are power plants, one is a natural spring, and two are passive thermal basins in southernmost 
9

Florida. Even at power plants, manatees wintering there can be at risk due to plant malfunction 

or maintenance shutdowns or because the plants do not heat water to temperatures warm enough 

for manatees. 

Although some power plants have recently been upgraded to operate for another 20 to 30 years, 

others will likely be shut down, perhaps as soon as the next few years (MMC 2005). Plants built 

before the early 1970s, including those that have been or may be upgraded after 1972, are 

allowed to continue discharging warm water from plant cooling systems under a regulatory 

variance. Power plants built since the early 1970s are not allowed to do so. According to the 

2001 Florida manatee recovery plan, “in the absence of stable, long-term sources of warm water 

and winter habitat, large numbers of manatees may succumb to the cold” (FWS 2001). 

Discrete groups of manatees also depend on discharges from warm-water springs (Laist and 

Reynolds 2005b). Nearly the entire subpopulation of 170 manatees in the upper St. Johns River 

depends on Blue Spring to survive winter cold periods. In recent years, drought and groundwater 

withdrawals for domestic and agricultural uses may have contributed to reduced flow rates. In a 

few other cases, manatee access to warm-water springs is restricted by human modifications. At 

Homosassa Springs on the gulf coast of Florida, a fence has been placed across the spring run to 

confine a few captive manatees near the spring discharge where they serve as an attraction for 

visitors to a state wildlife park. Ironically, this restricts wild manatees to lower portions of the 

spring run where water temperatures in winter are somewhat cooler than the discharges at the 

head of the spring run (MMC 2005). In other cases, dams and locks have blocked access to 

springs once used by manatees. Spring runs made shallow by siltation also limit manatee access 

to some warm-water spring discharges. 

Floodgates and Navigation Locks: The second largest source of human-related manatee mortality 

is crushing and drowning in floodgates and navigation locks. Between 1976 and 2000 these 

structures caused between 3 and 16 deaths per year, representing about 4 percent of total manatee 

mortality (MMC 2005). 

Other Anthropogenic Causes: Other anthropogenic causes of manatee death include entanglement and ingestion of marine debris such as monofilament fishing line, incidental take in shrimp 

nets, vandalism, and entrapment in sewer pipes. Between 1976 and 2000 these sources combined 

to account for approximately 3 percent of all recorded manatee deaths (FWS 2001). 

Other Habitat Degradation: Large portions of habitat upon which manatees rely for food, resting, 

calving, nurturing young, or as travel corridors have been and are being altered by expanding 

development (FWS 2001). Some areas once inaccessible for boating are now heavily used 

navigation routes and open to other human activities. Polluted runoff, boat propellers, and 

dredging have damaged or destroyed grass beds on which manatees feed (MMC 2001). Hydrilla, 

an exotic plant that has supplanted native aquatic species, has become a new food source for 

manatees (FWS 2001). Although eaten by manatees, Hydrilla is managed as a nuisance plant 

(FWS 2001). Table 2 lists some of the habitat-related concerns for each of the four 

subpopulations of Florida manatees (FWS 2001). 
10

Table 2. Major habitat protection concerns for the four subpopulations of Florida manatees 

(FWS 2001) 

Northwest Southwest Upper St. Johns Atlantic

• Spring flow rates 

• Water quality effects 

on submerged 

aquatic vegetation 

(SAV) 

• Storm-related 

salinity fluctuation 

effects on SAV 

• Storm-related effects 

on adult survival 

• Human disturbance 

at springs 

• Conflicts between 

weed control and 

SAV 

• Papilloma virus 

• Manatee dependence 

on power plants as 

thermal refuges 

• Increasing boat traffic 

• Red-tide-related 

deaths 

• Water control 

structure deaths 

• Water quality effects 

on SAV 

• Storm-related salinity 

fluctuation effects on 

SAV 

• Storm-related effects 

on adult survival 

• Human disturbance 

• Spring flow rates 

• Increasing boat traffic 

• Water quality effects 

on SAV 

• Water control 

structure deaths 

• Conflicts between 

weed control and 

SAV 

• Manatee dependence 

on power plants as 

thermal refuges 

• Increasing boat 

traffic 

• Use of Intra-coastal 

Waterway as a 

manatee travel 

corridor 

• Water control 

structure deaths 

• Water quality effects 

on SAV 

• Storm-related 

salinity fluctuation 

effects on SAV 

• Human disturbance 

Natural and Undetermined Causes: About two-thirds of all known manatee deaths between 1976 

and 2000 (FWS 2001, MMC 2005) were caused by natural and undetermined causes. Natural 

causes include disease, parasitism, and reproductive complications. In some years, exposure to 

cold has been a major cause of death. The greatest number of cold-related deaths occurred 

following a winter cold spell in 1989 when at least 46 manatees died. Red tides also cause 

episodes of high manatee mortality. In the spring of 1996 at least 145 manatees died during a 

red-tide event in southwestern Florida. In many cases, causes of death cannot be determined 

because of badly decomposed carcasses or other reasons. Undetermined deaths may be caused by 

either natural or human-related factors. 

Management Framework: At the federal level, FWS has lead responsibility for conservation 

and recovery of Florida manatees (FWS 2001, MMC 2004). Among other things, FWS oversees 

development and implementation of the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (FWS 2001), conducts 

section 7 consultations on federally authorized projects that may affect manatees, enforces 

federal and state manatee protection regulations, and oversees efforts to rescue and rehabilitate 

injured manatees (MMC 2001). The Sirenia Project and the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in 

the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Biological Resources Division have the lead in manatee 

research at the federal level. Among other things, they develop population models, assess life 

history information from photo-identification records, and conduct research on feeding ecology 

and habitat needs. 

The Florida manatee recovery program is unique among marine mammal recovery programs in 

that staff and funding levels provided for recovery work by the state agencies exceed those 

provided by the federal government. At the state level, the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission exercises lead responsibility through its Imperiled Species 

Management Section and the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. The management section 

oversees state regulatory, planning, and public education activities related to manatee protection, 

including the development of boat speed regulations and oversight of manatee protection plans 
11

developed by Florida counties with important manatee habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute oversees the carcass salvage and necropsy program, conducts aerial surveys, assists in 

the rescue of injured manatees, and maintains a geographic information system of data on 

manatees and manatee habitats. 

Other agencies and organizations play important roles as well. The Army Corps of Engineers and 

the South Florida Water Management District have been designing and installing devices to 

prevent manatees from being crushed and drowned in floodgates and navigation locks. The U.S. 

Coast Guard and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Division of Law 

Enforcement enforce boat speed zones. The non-profit Save the Manatee Club has purchased 

equipment, funded research, and lobbied state and federal legislatures for funding and actions to 

support manatee recovery. The Florida Power & Light Company has funded aerial surveys of 

manatee abundance at power plants and produced public education materials. A number of 

marine aquaria and zoological parks have provided facilities and medical treatment to 

rehabilitate injured and distressed manatees for release back into the wild. The Marine Mammal 

Commission provides support for projects and helps in identifying recovery priorities through 

periodic reviews of manatee recovery efforts. 

FWS first established a recovery team for West Indian manatees in 1976. The recovery team, 

which has been restructured and expanded several times, was last restructured in 2002. It now 

includes more than 140 people representing 60 agencies and groups and carries out its work 

through 12 working groups. 

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat for manatees was designated in several areas of Florida in 1976 

(40 Fed. Reg. 58308). It was the first of any listed marine mammal species to have such areas 

designated. The designated areas include most of the species’ Florida range as it was known in 

1976. Since that time, critical habitat has not been revised to reflect new understanding of 

manatee distribution and habitat needs. 

Recovery Plan: FWS first adopted a recovery plan for West Indian manatees in 1980 (FWS 

2001). The initial plan focused principally on the Florida subspecies and, to a lesser extent, on 

Antillean manatees in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. When it first revised the plan, the 

Service developed separate recovery plans for Florida manatees (adopted in 1989) and Puerto 

Rico manatees (adopted in 1986, see below.) Two subsequent plan revisions were adopted for 

the Florida manatee in 1996 and 2001. Steps to prepare a fourth revision are currently underway. 

The goal of the current recovery plan is “to assure the long-term viability of the Florida manatee 

in the wild,” allowing for downlisting to threatened and later to delisting, based in part of criteria 

shown in Table 3 (FWS 2001). 

The recovery plan includes four objectives and dozens of associated tasks. The objectives and 

some of the major tasks include the following (FWS 2001): 

Minimize causes of manatee disturbance, harassment, injury, and mortality

• Continue state and federal review of permitted activities to minimize impacts to manatees 

and their habitats

• Minimize collisions between manatees and watercraft
12

Table 3. Criteria for downlisting and delisting Florida manatees under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (FWS 2001) 

Downlist to Threatened Delist 

1. Reduce threats to manatee habitat or range as well 

as threats from natural and manmade factors by— 

• Identifying minimum spring flows 

• Protecting selected warm-water refuge sites 

• Identifying foraging habitats associated with 

warm-water refuges for protection 

• Identifying other important habitat (e.g., migratory 

corridors, feeding areas, and calving/nursing 

areas) for protection 

• Reducing unauthorized human-caused “take” 

1. Reduce or remove threats to manatee habitat or 

range, as well as threats from natural and manmade 

factors, by enacting and implementing federal, state, or 

local regulations that— 

• Adopt and maintain minimum spring flows 

• Protect a network of warm-water refuge sites 

• Protect foraging habitats associated with the 

network of warm-water refuge sites 

• Protect a network of other important manatee 

habitats 

• Reduce or remove unauthorized human-caused 

“take” 

2. Achieve the following population benchmarks in 

each of the four regions for the most recent 10-year 

period, with 95 percent level of statistical confidence: 

• Average annual rate of adult manatee survival is 

90 percent or greater 

• Average annual percentage of adult female 

manatees with first or second year calves in winter 

is 40 percent or greater 

• Average annual rate of population growth is equal 

to or greater than zero 

2. Achieve the following population benchmarks in 

each of the four regions for an additional 10-year 

period after downlisting to threatened, with 95 percent 

level of statistical confidence: 

• Average annual rate of adult manatee survival is 90 

percent or greater 

• Average annual percentage of adult female 

manatees with first or second year calves in winter 

is 40 percent or greater 

• Average annual rate of population growth is equal 

to or greater than zero 

• Enforce manatee protection regulations 

• Assess and minimize mortality caused by large vessels 

• Eliminate manatee deaths in water-control structures, navigational locks, and drainage 

structures 

• Rescue and rehabilitate distressed manatees and release back into the wild 

• Eliminate or minimize harassment due to other human activities 

Determine and monitor the status of manatee populations

• Conduct a five-year status review 

• Determine life history parameters, population structure, distribution patterns, and population 

trends 

• Evaluate and monitor causes of mortality and injury 

• Define factors that affect health, well-being, physiology, and ecology 

Protect, identify, evaluate, and monitor manatee habitats

• Protect, identify, evaluate, and monitor existing natural and industrial warm-water refuges 

and investigate alternatives 

• Establish, acquire, manage, and monitor regional protected area networks and manatee 

habitat 
13

• Ensure that minimum flows and levels are established for surface waters to protect resources 

of importance to manatees 

• Assess the need for revising critical habitat 

Facilitate manatee recovery through public awareness and education

• Develop, evaluate, and update public education and outreach programs and materials 

• Coordinate development of manatee awareness programs and materials in order to support 

recovery 

• Develop consistent manatee viewing and approach guidelines 

Major Management Actions: Major actions to protect and conserve the Florida manatee 

include the following: 

Boat Collisions: In 1989 the state of Florida initiated major efforts to reduce boat collisions with 

manatees. In conjunction with steps being taken by FWS, the state’s initiative called for a threepronged approach: regulations to limit boat speed and access in 13 key counties and specific 

areas where collision risks are greatest; enforcement of those rules; and restrictions on 

developing boating access facilities in key manatee habitat (MMC 2005). 

Reducing speeds of watercraft may reduce manatee injuries and deaths largely by providing 

manatees more time to detect and avoid oncoming watercraft (Laist and Shaw 2006). It also 

provides vessel operators more time to detect and avoid manatees and reduces the force of 

collisions to levels that manatees might survive. By 2000 the state had established speed zones in 

all 13 key counties, with additional speed zones in parts of 11 other counties. Several types of 

speed zones are used depending on site-specific assessments of manatee habitat, vessel traffic 

patterns, and other factors. The two principal types of speeds zones include one that exempts 

marked channels and another that includes them. Speed limits within zones typically vary from 

idle or slow in non-channel areas and up to 30 mph in marked channels (MMC 2005). A third 

type of zone (i.e., shoreline slow speed zones) limits speeds within certain distances of shore and 

a fourth type (i.e., no entry areas) excludes all watercraft. The Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission has continued efforts to expand and refine speed zones and to 

introduce them in other counties. In addition, FWS has restricted boat speeds in several national 

wildlife refuges and has established 13 manatee refuges in various parts of Florida for purposes 

of strengthening or complementing state boat speed rules to protect manatees. 

Development of boat speed rules is a demanding, iterative effort conducted county-by-county 

and area-by-area. The process involves the collection and analysis of manatee distribution and 

vessel traffic data, interagency meetings, public hearings, sign posting, public education, and 

enforcement operations. Controversy has often surrounded establishment of these zones. In Lee 

County in southwestern Florida—which often has led all Florida counties in annual watercraftrelated manatee deaths—an appellate court invalidated state speed zones in five areas in 2004 

after a particularly contentious rule challenge (MMC 2005). In the absence of those county rules, 

FWS issued emergency rules under the MMPA and the ESA to reinstate measures comparable to 

the annulled state speed zones (70 Fed. Reg. 17863). 
14

Efforts to enforce boat speed restrictions were limited as new rules were adopted in the 1990s 

(MMC 2001). In 1997 the Service began dedicated enforcement operations in selected areas. In 

2000 the Service received a special congressional appropriation that enabled it to establish a parttime enforcement strike team that increased its enforcement efforts fivefold. In 1998 the Coast 

Guard also began increasing its enforcement efforts. In 2000 the Florida Division of Law 

Enforcement, the primary source of enforcement for manatee rules, significantly increased its 

efforts. Boater compliance studies have been conducted periodically in various areas, principally 

by the state, to assess boater compliance and help identify enforcement priorities. 

There has been little evidence of a decline in watercraft-related manatee deaths since the 

establishment of speed zones. Indeed, the total annual number of watercraft-related deaths has 

increased at roughly the same pace as the increase in total mortality. The failure to reduce 

watercraft-related deaths may be due to low compliance, inadequately designed speed zones, 

and/or increasing numbers of boats and manatees. A review of manatee deaths in two connected 

waterways in eastern Florida since 2002 suggested an abrupt decrease in the number of collisionrelated manatee deaths when channels with speed-limit exemptions were removed and all boaters 

were required to go slow both inside and outside the marked channels (Laist and Shaw 2006). 

The removal of speed-exempt channels also may have simplified enforcement and enhanced 

compliance. 

A second approach to reducing watercraft-related deaths has been to limit the development of 

marinas and other watercraft access facilities. Both the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers require permits for new marinas, boat ramps, 

private piers, and docks, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and FWS 

have a formal role in reviewing such permit applications. Restrictions and limitations imposed 

through this process to protect manatees have been controversial. 

To facilitate review and approval of boating facilities, the governor of Florida launched an effort 

in 1989 to encourage the 13 key counties to adopt comprehensive manatee protection plans as 

part of required growth management plans. The manatee protection plans, which are reviewed by 

the Commission and FWS, are to include guidance on locating new watercraft access facilities in 

a manner consistent with the protection of manatees. By the end of 2004, 10 Florida counties had 

adopted state-approved manatee protection plans.2

Floodgates and Navigation Locks: Efforts in the 1980s to reduce manatee deaths in floodgates 

and navigation locks involved simple modifications in the timing of gate closures. Those 

measures appeared to reduce such deaths until the early 1990s when they increased sharply to a 

high of 16 deaths in 1994 (FWS 2001). In response, an interagency task force was established 

early in the 1990s, including representatives of the South Florida Water Management District, 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Wildlife Commission, FWS, and other agencies. 

The task force has overseen efforts to design and install pressure-sensing devices on gates and 

locks implicated in manatee deaths. The sensors trigger mechanisms that reverse closing gates, 

operating much like elevator doors. By 2006 most of the structures responsible for manatee 

deaths prior to the early 1990s (approximately 25 structures) had been modified. Manatee deaths 

 

2 James A. Valade, personal communication. 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive, Room 310, 

Jacksonville, FL 32216. 
15

at retrofitted structures subsequently declined substantially; however, some deaths have 

continued at structures not previously implicated and at retrofitted gates not operating properly. 

Adjustments have been developed for those not operating properly, and plans for retrofitting the 

remaining structures are being developed. The cost for modifying lift gates at flood control 

structures and some navigation lock gates has been about $150,000 per gate, while the cost for 

modifying navigation locks with swinging barn door-style gates has been about $1 million per 

lock. 

Warm-Water Refuges: In 1999 FWS and Florida Power & Light Company convened a workshop 

to evaluate the potential impact of the loss of industrial warm-water refuges in the event that 

power plants are retired. As a result of this workshop, a Warm-Water Task Force was formed 

within the Florida Manatee Recovery Team. The task force is composed of representatives of 

state and federal agencies, power companies, environmental organizations, and the scientific 

community. Its purpose is to develop and implement measures to assure the availability of 

natural warm-water springs as winter refuges for manatees while minimizing mortality 

associated with future power plant closures. 

Research supported by the Florida Power & Light Company, the Marine Mammal Commission, 

and Reliant Energy examined ways of mitigating the potential effect of power plant closures by 

developing solar-heated refuges that could sustain manatees during the winter pending an 

increase in manatee subpopulations dependent on natural springs (Laist and Reynolds 2005a, 

MMC 2005). These findings were incorporated into a draft warm-water refuge action plan by the 

Warm-Water Task Force. Among other things, the plan calls for maintaining a network of warmwater habitats for each of the four Florida manatee subpopulations to maintain their current 

range. 

In 2000 Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

convened a Springs Task Force (not part of the manatee recovery team) to restore, protect, and 

enhance Florida springs. Its charge includes establishing and maintaining minimum spring 

discharge levels for a variety of environmental reasons, including manatee protection. At the 

behest of representatives from the Florida Manatee Recovery Team, the St. Johns Water 

Management District, which has management responsibility for Blue Spring, supported a study 

to identify the minimum spring flow necessary to maintain an optimal population of manatees at 

the spring during the winter. Based on this study, the district proposed minimum spring flows for 

the next 25 years. 

Other Habitat Degradation: Several approaches have been taken to prevent or mitigate 

degradation of important manatee habitat. As noted above, FWS and the state of Florida review 

hundreds of permit applications to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Florida Department of 

Environmental Regulation for construction projects in areas that include important manatee 

habitat (FWS 2001). County manatee protection plans also are expected to include provisions 

incorporated into local growth management plans, including policies on locating boat facilities 

(FWS 2001). 

Both the state of Florida and FWS also have acquired tens of thousands of acres of land, 

particularly in the Crystal and Homosassa Rivers area intended, in part, to protect manatee 
16

habitat (FWS 2001). FWS also has adopted regulations for designating manatee refuges (areas in 

which human activities may be regulated) and manatee sanctuaries (areas in which all 

waterborne activity is prohibited) (44 Fed. Reg. 60962). Manatee sanctuaries have been 

designated primarily to prevent divers from driving animals away from warm-water discharges at 

the Crystal and Homosassa Rivers. Eight small sanctuaries covering a total of about 60 acres 

have been established at those locations. With access by swimmers as well as boats prohibited in 

marked sanctuary boundaries, manatees quickly learned to use those areas to escape unwanted 

human attention. About a dozen manatee refuges covering many thousands of acres also have 

been established by FWS to regulate boat speeds in several areas of Florida where state measures 

were deemed inadequate or have been annulled following legal challenges. 

Manatee Rescue and Rehabilitation Efforts: A recovery team working group led by FWS staff 

coordinates a network of state and local agencies and private organizations that rescues, 

rehabilitates, and releases dozens of injured and distressed manatees annually (FWS 2001). Such 

animals typically include animals hit by boats, entangled in fishing line or marine debris, caught 

in pipes or other structures, or debilitated due to exposure to red tides or cold. Between 1973 and 

2005 more than 375 manatees were captured, treated, and returned to the wild, and many others 

were assisted and released on site (FWS 2001). Although a significant number of animals 

brought into captivity for special treatment died of their injuries or health problems during 

transport or treatment, animals released after successfully completing treatment appear to have a 

high rate of success in readapting to the wild. In 2005, FWS estimated that rehabilitation costs 

exceeded $5 million, with about two-thirds of that provided by oceanariums. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Information on FWS and USGS funding allocations for research and 

management activities on Florida manatees is provided in annual administrative reports required 

by the MMPA (FWS 1981–1996, FWS, FWS and National Biological Service 1996, FWS and 

USGS 1997–2004). Although those reports do not itemize funding for all management activities 

in detail, they indicate that departmental funding levels between 1980 and 2000 ranged from at 

least $373,000 in 1986 to $1.4 million in 2000 (Table 4). In most of those years, funding for 

research accounted for between one-half and two-thirds of all itemized funding for manatees. In 

2000 nearly $500,000 was appropriated specifically for enforcing manatee protection rules, 

principally boat speed rules. 

FWS annual reports on endangered species expenditures by all federal and state agencies (FWS 

2003b-d, 2005d-f, 2006) provide information on the total level of manatee funding by all federal 

and state agencies. Those reports indicate that total federal funding for Florida manatee recovery 

averaged about $3.1 million per year (Table 5, Appendices C.1-7). Unlike all other marine 

mammal recovery programs, state expenditures for recovery have exceeded those of federal 

agencies since 2000. State of Florida funding for Florida manatee activities remained relatively 

steady at nearly $6 million annually between 2000 and 2004. An uncertain amount of additional 

funding is provided by private organizations, such as oceanaria, which help maintain and treat 

injured and distressed manatees, and the Save the Manatee Club, which helps provide funding 

for research and certain equipment needs. Regarding staff, FWS currently estimates that it 

devotes about 11.3 full-time equivalents (FTEs) per year to manatee recovery activities3

; the 

 

3

 James A. Valade, personal communication. 25 June 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive, Room 310, 

Jacksonville, FL 32216. 
17

Table 4. Department of the Interior funding allocations (in $ thousands) for West Indian 

manatee research and management activities under the MMPA and ESA as cited in 

administrative reports required by the MMPA: 1980–2000 (FWS 1981–1996, FWS and 

National Biological Service 1996, FWS and USGS 1997–2004) 

Year Research and 

Development Management † Grants to States ‡ Total 

1980 330 N/A 184 514 

1981 379 320 396 1,095 

1982 333 234 0 567 

1983 320 191 0 511 

1984 262 117 15 399 

1985 379 114 117 610 

1986 248 87 38 373 

1987 310 31 115 456 

1988 310 75 75 460 

1989 325 75 105 505 

1990 344 350 100 799 

1991 625 389 87 1,101 

1992 673 145 70 888 

1993 670 621 90 1,381 

1994 597 N/A 77 674 

1995 468 N/A 76 544 

1996 483 N/A 26 509 

1997 556 N/A 26 582 

1998 648 N/A 26 674 

1999 810 N/A 26 836 

2000 823 551 26 1,400 

† Includes only management costs specifically identified for manatees; does not include support for all enforcement, 

permit, or administrative tasks 

‡ Includes grants under section 6 of ESA to Florida and Georgia 

USGS also supports about 13.3 FTEs who work on manatee research and monitoring studies as 

part of its Sirenia Project. It is not known whether or to what extent staff salaries are included in 

the funding estimates presented here

According to the Marine Mammal Commission survey of federally funded marine mammal 

research (Waring 2002), expenditures for biological and population assessment studies on 

manatees and dugongs in FY1991–FY2000 ranged from $544,000 in FY2000 to $1.3 million in 

FY1995 (see Appendix F). The principal sources of funding were FWS and USGS. 

Projected cost estimates for work during the first five years under the Florida manatee recovery 

plan adopted in 2001 (Table 6) identified annual expenditures of approximately $8.3 million by 

all involved governmental and non-governmental groups (FWS 2001). Those costs include 
18

Table 5. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for recovery of the West Indian 

manatee, 1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal 

Year FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal State 

Total 

State and 

Federal 

1998 927 526 – – 99 1,551 13 1,565 

1999 1,145 526 – 619 117 2,407 1,945 4,351 

2000 2,727 466 – 461 166 3,820 5,923 9,743 

2001 2,363 510 – 480 85 3,438 5,936 9,373 

2002 1,710 523 – 228 182 2,643 5,929 8,571 

2003 2,070 971 – 713 75 3,830 5,969 9,799 

2004 2,432 428 – 831 226 3,917 5,945 9,862 

activities ranked under three priority categories. However, several significant costs—such as 

enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard and state agencies and the installation of gate-reversing 

mechanisms on floodgates and navigation locks by the Army Corps of Engineers and South 

Florida Water Management District—were excluded from those cost estimates. 

Table 6. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for Florida 

manatees during the first five years after adoption of the 2001 Revised Florida Manatee 

Recovery Plan (FWS 2001) 

Objective Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 

Objective 1: Minimize causes of manatee 

disturbance, harassment, injury, and 

mortality 

4,238 4,238 4,238 4,193 4,193 21,100

Objective 2: Determine and monitor the 

status of manatee populations 2,488 2,449 2,506 2,496 2,511 12,450

Objective 3: Protect, identify, evaluate, 

and monitor manatee habitats 1,370 1,333 1,331 1,331 1,343 6,708

Objective 4: Facilitate manatee recovery 

through public awareness and education 288 258 258 258 258 1,320

TOTAL 8,384 8,278 8,333 8,278 8,305 41,578
19

Antillean Manatee, Puerto Rico Population 

Population Status: The Antillean manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus) is a subspecies of the 

West Indian manatee that inhabits the coastal waters of Central America and northern South 

America and the larger Caribbean Islands (USGS 2005a). The species as a whole was first listed 

as endangered under the ESPA in 1967. That listing was carried forward under the ESCA and 

ESA. The Antillean subspecies is not listed separately but is considered endangered by virtue of 

the species’ overall listing. Other than the Florida manatee, the Puerto Rico population of the 

Antillean subspecies is the only other group of manatees under U.S. jurisdiction. This subspecies 

is believed to be a relatively discrete population occurring in rivers and coastal waters of Puerto 

Rico. The extent to which manatees move between Puerto Rico and other parts of the Greater 

Antilles is uncertain. 

Historical accounts of manatees in Puerto Rico include references to their use as food by 

aborigines and Spanish explorers, but information is insufficient to estimate former abundance or 

the extent to which hunting reduced their numbers (Rathbun and Possardt 1986). Aerial surveys 

since the late 1970s and mid-1980s reveal that most manatees in Puerto Rico occur on the eastern 

end of the island and along the southern coast in shallow, protected bays, and in sea grass beds 

along the northwestern shore of Vieques Island, about 10 miles east of Puerto Rico (Rathbun et 

al. 1985). Based on actual counts of animals during surveys conducted in 2005, the Puerto Rico 

population of Antillean manatees numbers at least 121 animals. Considering animals possibly 

not seen during that survey, some researchers suspect there are between 150 and 360 manatees 

and that the population is not declining. The PBR level has been set at zero (FWS 1994a). 

Major Threats: In the 1980s the principal causes of manatee deaths in Puerto Rico were 

identified as poaching for food and unintentional entanglement in gillnets (Rathbun and Possardt 

1986). Over time, poaching has become less frequent although boat collisions have increased. 

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, 43 percent of all known manatee mortalities in Puerto 

Rico were due to boat collisions (FWS 1994a). More recently, however, an assessment by USGS 

suggests that loss of habitat and small population size also are primary threats to this population 

(FWS 2005b). 

Management Framework: The principal agencies involved with research and recovery efforts 

are the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, the U.S. Navy, and 

the U.S. Coast Guard (Rathbun and Possardt 1986, USGS 2005a). The non-profit Caribbean 

Stranding Network has conducted manatee carcass salvage and manatee rescue, rehabilitation, 

and release activities in Puerto Rico over the last 20 years. 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: FWS adopted a recovery plan for Puerto Rico manatees in 1986 (Rathbun and 

Possardt 1986). The lack of information on historical and current abundance prevented the 

development of a quantitative recovery target for this population, and the plan’s goal was 

therefore to establish a population “large enough to maintain sufficient genetic variation to 
20

enable it to evolve and respond to natural habitat changes and stochastic and catastrophic 

events.” The plan’s objectives were defined as follows: 

• Identify, assess, and reduce human-related mortality, especially that related to gillnet 

entanglement; 

• Identify and minimize alteration, degradation, and destruction of habitats important to the 

survival and recovery of the Puerto Rico manatee population; and 

• Develop the criteria and biological information necessary to determine whether to reclassify 

the Puerto Rico population of manatees and, if so, when. 

Among other actions, the plan recommended continuation of aerial surveys, improvements in the 

carcass salvage program, and public education aimed at reducing entanglement in gillnets. 

Major Management Actions: Over the years, aerial surveys have been conducted 

intermittently, and carcass salvage and necropsy efforts have been maintained and improved to 

help monitor population status and trends. Past management efforts have stressed public 

education aimed at preventing poaching and reducing entanglement in gillnets. Boat speed zones 

have been established in some areas, including an identified manatee feeding area located within 

a naval base at Roosevelt Roads on the eastern end of the island. As noted earlier, some injured 

and distressed animals have been rescued, rehabilitated, and released back to the wild. In recent 

years, USGS has carried out a number of research projects to better identify habitat-use patterns 

through radio tracking individual animals and mapping their nearshore benthic habitats (USGS 

2005a). Some management actions also have been taken to prevent disturbance and to restrict 

development in specific areas where manatees feed, rest, and obtain fresh water. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Because West Indian manatees are listed as a species, FWS 

administrative reports under the MMPA and expenditure reports under the ESA do not separate 

funding data for Puerto Rico manatees from Florida manatees. As a result, information on 

funding is uncertain but is believed to be a very small fraction of total funding reported for all 

West Indian manatees (see Florida manatee above and Appendices C.1–7). FWS supported at 

least one FTE to work on manatees in Puerto Rico in 2005 and USGS supported 0.8 FTE.4

SEA OTTERS

Southern Sea Otter 

Status: The southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) is one of three subspecies of sea otters. Its 

historical range is thought to have stretched from southern Canada to central Baja California. All 

three sea otter subspecies were hunted to near-extinction in the 18th and 19th centuries until 

hunting was prohibited in 1911 under the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention (Wilson et al. 

1991). The species as a whole once ranged in coastal waters from Hokkaido, Japan, through the 

Kuril Islands around the North Pacific rim and south to Baja California. The population is 

 

4

 James A. Valade, personal communication. 25 June 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive, Room 310, 

Jacksonville, FL 32216; Cathy Beck, personal communication. 1 November 2006. Sirenia Project, U.S. Geological Survey. 2201 

NW 40th Terrace, Gainesville, FL 32605 
21

thought to have numbered between 150,000 and 300,000 animals before commercial exploitation 

(Rotterman and Simon-Jackson 1988). In 1938 a remnant colony of approximately 50 southern 

sea otters was discovered in central California. In 1977 the southern sea otter was listed as 

threatened under the ESA because of its low abundance, limited distribution, and vulnerability to 

impacts from oil spilled by tankers and offshore oil development. To promote recovery and 

minimize the risk of a single large oil spill affecting the entire population, an attempt was made 

in the 1980s to establish a second southern sea otter population by translocating animals from the 

central California mainland coast to San Nicolas Island off southern California. The San Nicolas 

Island colony has not increased as expected and now numbers about 25 to 30 animals (FWS 

2003b). 

Based on annual surveys conducted since the 1970s, the number of southern sea otters has 

increased slowly, despite two apparent periods of decline. In 1976 the population numbered an 

estimated 1,789 individuals; it then declined to 1,372 animals in 1984 (FWS 2003b). After 1985 

population growth resumed and counts peaked at 2,377 animals in 1995 before beginning a fouryear decline to 2,090 animals in 1999. Recent surveys suggest that population growth has 

resumed. In 2003 and 2004 counts of sea otters during spring surveys rose to 2,505 and 2,825, 

respectively, for a three-year average of 2,490 animals (USGS 2004). However, the overall rate 

of growth (less than 5 percent per year) has remained far below recovery rates of 15 percent or 

more observed in sea otter populations in some areas of Alaska prior to the 1970s and the 20 

percent recovery rate reported for expansion into some unoccupied areas (FWS 2003b). Because 

the legislation authorizing a translocation of southern sea otters included provisions to address 

interactions with fisheries, California sea otters have been exempted from the fishery 

management provisions of the MMPA, and no PBR has been calculated for this population 

(FWS 1995). 

Major Threats: At the time of listing in 1977 the primary threat to southern sea otters was 

thought to be a major oil spill from a tanker (42 Fed. Reg. 2968). Since then, other threats have 

emerged, including mortality incidental to commercial fishing, disease, chemical contaminants, 

naturally occurring biotoxins, and increased exploration and development of oil and gas 

resources off the California coast (FWS 2003b). The slow recovery of sea otters in California 

appears to be due to relatively high mortality among all age classes rather than low reproduction 

rates (MMC 2004). Among the likely explanations for the slow rate of recovery is incidental 

mortality in coastal fishing gear, increases in the rate of infectious disease, and decreases in food 

abundance (FWS 2003b). 

Oil Spills: Sea otters with oiled fur face a high probability of dying due to hypothermia and toxic 

effects. Although the death of oiled otters depends, in part, on the extent to which they are 

covered, the recovery plan estimates that the probability of an oiled otter dying from related 

impacts is likely to be at least 50 percent (FWS 2003b).5

 The plan states, “we do not believe it is 

possible to avoid a catastrophic loss to the sea otter population in the event of a major spill in the 

vicinity of the sea otter’s current range.” The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, which spread over 

an area covering hundreds of miles, underscored the scale of this threat. Spreading more than 

 

5

 It is believed that sea otters may survive with oil on less than 10 percent of their body surface but that levels of coverage greater 

than 25 percent will lead to death (FWS 2002e). 
22

400 miles in 30 days, that spill covered an area equal to the entire central California range of 

southern sea otters. 

Incidental Catch in Commercial Fisheries: Between the late 1960s and early 1980s entanglement 

and drowning in gillnets and trammel nets are estimated to have caused an average of 80 sea 

otter deaths a year (Wendell et al. 1985). This mortality was apparently sufficient to cause a 

decline in the population that was reversed after a series of incremental actions taken by the state 

of California between 1982 and 1990 to restrict the use of gillnets in and around key sea otter 

habitats (Estes 1990). Fishing gear used in coastal pot and set net fisheries also may pose an 

entanglement hazard for southern sea otters; however, the revised recovery plan concludes that 

there is insufficient information to evaluate its possible impact on sea otters (FWS 2003b). 

Disease: Infectious disease is believed to have been an important factor limiting population 

growth (Lafferty and Gerber 2002). Between 1991 and 1995 disease and infections from 

parasites, fungi, and bacteria were responsible for roughly 40 percent of all deaths for which 

causes were determined by the southern sea otter carcass salvage and necropsy program (Thomas 

and Cole 1996). Other causes of death included emaciation (10 percent), miscellaneous 

conditions such as gastrointestinal obstructions (13 percent), shark predation (7 percent), gunshot 

(4 percent), and unknown (18 percent). The most frequent infection was peritonitis induced by 

parasitic acanthocephalan worms in the digestive tract, followed by bacterial infections, 

protozoal encephalitis, and coccidioidomycosis (a systemic infection caused by a fungus) (FWS 

2003b). 

The variety and prevalence of infectious diseases found in necropsied sea otters suggest that 

southern sea otters are far more vulnerable to death by diseases than are other marine mammals 

(Thomas and Cole 1996). This, in turn, suggests that the immune function of southern sea otters 

may be compromised due to congenital, genetic, or environmental factors. The degree to which 

high exposure to pathogens may contribute to the frequency of infection in sea otters is 

unknown. There is evidence from live animals that these infectious agents are particularly 

common near human population centers (O’Shea et al. 1999). 

Other Threats: Food availability and emaciation also may threaten southern sea otters. 

Emaciation, in turn, may compromise immune systems and expose sea otters to infectious 

diseases (Thomas and Creekmore 2005). The movement of male otters south of Point 

Conception may indicate limitations in food availability in the core of their current range. 

Examination of carcasses also suggests that the rate of pre-weaning mortality is higher in central 

California than it is in the large Alaska sea otter populations (FWS 2003b). 

Management Framework: FWS is the lead federal agency for recovery of the southern sea 

otter. The California Department of Fish and Game is the principal state agency involved in 

recovery efforts. Annual fall and spring surveys of sea otters in California began in 1982 and are 

conducted cooperatively by scientists from USGS, the California Department of Fish and Game, 

FWS, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and with experienced volunteers. These organizations, 

together with the California Academy of Sciences, the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural 

History, beach clean-up crews for coastal cities, and others, are the principal members of the 

California Sea Otter Stranding Network. The network is responsible for recovering and 
23

examining carcasses. Since southern sea otters were first listed, FWS has established a sea otter 

recovery team and reconstituted it twice. The team’s principal task has been to develop and 

revise recovery plans. For much of the 1980s recovery efforts focused on developing a 

translocation plan to move otters from the mainland colony to San Nicolas Island, and the 

recovery team did not meet. Instead FWS convened an Interagency (Translocation) Project 

Review Team to help guide and oversee recovery work during that period. 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: A recovery plan for the southern sea otter was first adopted in February 1982 

(FWS 1982). Its goals included the following: 

• Establishing new sea otter colonies outside the existing sea otter range; 

• Reducing vandalism, harassment, and incidental take; 

• Incorporating recovery measures into local coastal development plans; 

• Setting the recovery target as the OSP size; and 

• Establishing a research program to assess and monitor the status of sea otters and their 

habitat. 

In 1989 FWS reconstituted the recovery team to update the 1982 plan. FWS subsequently 

prepared revised draft plans in 1991 and 1996, but neither was adopted. In January 2000 a third 

draft revised recovery plan was circulated for public and agency review and, based on comments 

from the public and the recovery team, FWS adopted a final revised recovery plan in February 

2003 (FWS 2003b). Its goal is “to establish the long-term viability of the southern sea otter 

population sufficiently to allow delisting the species.” The revised plan concludes that a 

genetically viable population would be one with a minimum three-year average count of 1,850 

animals. It therefore identifies that population size as the threshold for reclassifying the southern 

sea otter population as endangered under the ESA. The plan also establishes a three-year average 

count of 3,090 animals as the threshold for evaluating whether to remove southern sea otters 

from the list of threatened and endangered species. If delisted, the population could still be 

considered depleted under the MMPA because the lower limit of the OSP level for southern sea 

otters currently is estimated to be approximately 8,400 animals. 

To develop a recovery strategy for the new plan, FWS reviewed the results of past management 

actions and concluded, in part, that the San Nicolas Island translocation had not been successful 

either in significantly reducing the chances of a large loss of otters due to a single major oil spill 

or other catastrophic event or in creating a separate population that could be used to restock the 

mainland population. The revised recovery plan therefore set forth the following elements for its 

recovery strategy (FWS 2003b): 

• Restriction of range due to management provisions related to the translocation program: 

Evaluate the translocation program in light of changed circumstances and determine whether 

one or more criteria for declaring the translocation a failure have been met. 

• Disease: Collect and analyze tissues for evidence of stress or disease; determine sources of 

disease agents and stress; minimize factors causing stress and disease. 
24

• Incidental take in fishing gear: Evaluate the causes of mortality; monitor incidental take in 

commercial fisheries; evaluate the effectiveness of fishing regulations for preventing 

bycatch; evaluate incidental take in trap/pot fisheries; determine and take possible steps to 

reduce or eliminate mortality incidental to fisheries. 

• Oil spills: Implement and monitor Coast Guard vessel management plans; assess the current 

risk of tanker accidents and other sources of oil spills, including offshore platforms, 

pipelines, and marine terminals; implement an oil spill contingency plan that includes a sea 

otter response plan. 

• Contaminants: Evaluate causes of mortality; analyze tissues for environmental contaminants 

and archive tissues for future analysis; determine sources of environmental contaminants; 

determine contaminant levels in sea otter prey and habitat. 

• Intentional take: Evaluate causes of mortality; minimize intentional take. 

Major Management Actions: Efforts to protect and recover southern sea otters have focused on 

(1) establishing a new sea otter colony by translocating some otters to San Nicolas Island, (2) 

establishing a vessel traffic management system to reduce the chance of an oil tanker spill that 

could affect the sea otter range, and (3) reducing the incidental take of sea otters in commercial 

fisheries. 

Translocation: To mitigate the possible impact of a major oil spill, the 1982 recovery plan 

recommended a translocation of sea otters to establish a new colony far enough removed from 

the mainland colony that it would be unlikely that a single spill would affect both areas (FWS 

2003b). San Nicolas Island off southern California was selected as the appropriate translocation 

site, and in 1986 Congress passed legislation authorizing the creation of an experimental sea 

otter colony at that location by translocating otters from the mainland population (PL 99-625). 

To address concerns about subsequent range expansion into areas where sea otter foraging could 

affect commercial and recreational shellfish fisheries, the legislation also created a management 

zone south of the sea otter’s mainland range. Any sea otters that moved into that management 

area were to be removed by non-lethal means and transported back to their range farther north 

(52 Fed. Reg. 29754). It was expected that the translocated population would stabilize at roughly 

70 sea otters within one or more years and would reach carrying capacity in 10 or more years. 

Between August 1987 and July 1993 more than 180 sea otters were moved from their mainland 

range to San Nicolas Island (FWS 2003b). Most translocated otters quickly disappeared or 

returned to their mainland range, leaving a small number of animals at the island. Since then, 

counts at San Nicolas Island have increased very slowly, and the population numbered about 27 

animals in 2002. At the same time, increasing numbers of animals from the mainland population 

moved into the management zone where the Service had limited success in capturing and 

removing them. In light of these developments, FWS is considering steps to formally declare the 

translocation a failure, discontinue the otter-free management zone in southern California, and 

allow the otters at San Nicolas Island to remain there (FWS 2005a). 

Vessel Traffic Management: Under auspices of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Coast Guard worked 

with stakeholders to develop a plan for managing large vessel traffic in and near the sanctuary 

area to reduce the risk of oil spills, groundings, and collisions (FWS 2003b). The plan called for 
25

transiting vessels to remain minimum distances from shore, instituting an offshore vessel traffic 

separation scheme, monitoring vessel traffic, establishing a response network to assist vessels in 

distress, and implementing a mariner education program. To date, several of these 

recommendations have been implemented. In May 2000 the International Maritime Organization 

approved a U.S. proposal to establish offshore vessel traffic lanes for ships entering and leaving 

ports north and south of the sea otter range. In addition, the California Department of Fish and 

Game’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response has developed contingency plans to protect 

wildlife, including sea otters, from the impacts of oil spills (FWS 2003b). This program also 

sponsors a network of professionally trained volunteers, paid staff, and veterinarians who can 

retrieve and attempt to rehabilitate oiled animals. 

Fisheries Interactions: To reduce the bycatch of sea otters, as well as other marine mammals and 

seabirds in trammel nets and gillnets, the California legislature adopted a series of area closures 

between 1982 and 1990. The first closure adopted in 1982 closed a portion of Monterey Bay out 

to 10 fathoms from shore, but the measure simply displaced fishermen to other parts of the sea 

otter’s range. In 1985 the measure was expanded to include the entire sea otter range out to the 

15-fathom contour. Although this level reduced the incidental take of sea otters, animals 

continued to be taken in deeper waters, and in 1986 and 1990 the state legislature extended the 

closed area to 20 and 30 fathoms, respectively. The 1986 action reduced observed takes to low 

levels and in the late 1980s sea otter counts began to increase. The 1990 action essentially 

eliminated all sea otter bycatch. Since 1990 the closed area has been extended out to the 60-

fathom contour to reduce bycatch of marine mammals other than sea otters and seabirds (FWS 

2003b). In addition, the state has required that traps used to catch nearshore finfish be outfitted 

with a 5-inch ring in the entry funnel to prevent sea otters from getting caught in trap openings. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Funding allocations by FWS and USGS for southern sea otter 

research and management work are identified in annual administrative reports prepared by those 

agencies pursuant to requirements of the MMPA (FWS 1981–1996, FWS and National 

Biological Service 1996, FWS and USGS 1997–2004). Although those reports do not itemize 

funding for all management activities (e.g., funding for enforcement and permit management is 

combined for all marine mammals under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior), they 

indicate that departmental funding for southern sea otter recovery work increased during the 

1980s to a high of $1.3 million in 1990 when steps were being taken to implement the sea otter 

translocation (Table 7, Appendices C.1–7). During the 1990s funding levels declined 

substantially. 

According to FWS reports on expenditures for endangered species by all federal and state 

agencies since 1998 (FWS 2003 b–e, 2005 d–f, 2006), annual federal funding of sea otter 

recovery again increased from $495,000 in 1998 to $1.37 million in 2003 (Table 8, Appendices 

C.1–7). FWS funding during that period ranged between $95,200 in 1999 and $184,100 in 2001. 

Most funding for southern sea otter activities was provided by USGS for research. In 2003, for 

example, USGS reported expenditures of $1,152,986 for southern sea otter activities. State of 

California funding for southern sea otter activities between 1998 and 2004 ranged between 

$35,100 and $156,000 (FWS 2005d) 
26

Table 7. Department of the Interior funding allocations (in $ thousands) for southern sea otter 

research and management activities under the MMPA and ESA as cited in 

administrative reports required by the MMPA: 1980–2000 (FWS 1981–1996, FWS and 

National Biological Service 1996, FWS and USGS 1997–2004) 

Year 

Research/ 

Development Management ∗ Grants to States ^ Total 

1980 405 Not provided 162 567 

1981 353 120 160 553 

1982 318 144 0 462 

1983 320 64 141 525 

1984 244 171 93 508 

1985 289 421 92 802 

1986 362 377 88 827 

1987 362 449 102 913 

1988 310 448 106 864 

1989 756 350 100 1,206 

1990 821 386 100 1,307 

1991 756 399 0 1,155 

1992 605 366 0 971 

1993 498 244 0 742 

1994 403 Not provided 0 403 

1995 429 Not provided 10 439 

1996 398 Not provided 0 398 

1997 389 Not provided 0 389 

1998 389 Not provided 60 389 

1999 233 Not provided 0 456 

2000 290 Not provided 0 290 

∗ Includes only management costs specifically identified for southern sea otters; does not include support for all 

enforcement, permit, or administrative tasks 

^ Includes grants under section 6 of ESA to California

According to the Marine Mammal Commission’s survey of federally funded marine mammal 

research (Waring 2002), federal expenditures for biological and population assessment research 

on sea otters between FY1991 and FY2000 ranged from $463,000 in FY1997 to $1.4 million in 

FY2000 (see Appendix F). The principal sources of funding were FWS and USGS. The 

Commission’s survey also reported funding to investigate fisheries/sea otter interactions. That 

work ranged between $132,000 in FY1996 and FY1997 to $1.3 million in FY2000 with most of 

the funds provided by FWS. 
27

Table 8. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of southern sea otters, 

1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal 

Year 

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal 

State 

Total 

State and 

Federal 

1998 97 389 – – 9 495 – 495 

1999 95 317 – – 47 459 156 615 

2000 174 403 – – 13 589 35 624 

2001 184 868 – – 7 1,059 35 1,094 

2002 170 856 – – 5 1,031 35 1,066 

2003 156 1,154 – – 26 1,336 40 1,376 

2004 134 578 – – 3 714 20 734 

Northern Sea Otter, Southwest Alaska Population 

Status: Sea otters once ranged from the Hokkaido, Japan, through the Kuril Islands around the 

North Pacific rim south to Baja California and numbered between 150,000 and 300,000 animals 

(Rotterman and Simon-Jackson 1988, FWS 2002e). The range of the northern sea otter (Enhydra 

lutris kenyoni), one of three subspecies of sea otters, extends along the coast from the Aleutian 

Islands to the state of Washington (Jameson et al. 1982). FWS considers sea otters west of the 

entrance to Cook Inlet and Kodiak Island and along the Aleutian Islands to be a distinct 

population segment of northern sea otters, referred to as the southwest Alaska population (FWS 

2002e). 

Commercial hunting between the late 1700s and early 1900s reduced all northern sea otter 

populations to a combined total of perhaps 1,000 to 2,000 animals scattered among 13 remnant 

populations. Six of those remnant populations were within the range of the southwest Alaska sea 

otter population. In 1911 commercial hunting of sea otters was banned under the Convention on 

Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals (Rotterman and Simon-Jackson 1988). After cessation 

of hunting, sea otter numbers grew rapidly. By 1976 the southwest Alaska population had 

increased to an estimated 94,050 to 128,650 animals and was thought to be at or above its preexploitation population size (Calkins and Schneider 1985). Since the mid-1980s, however, the 

population has declined precipitously (Doroff et al. 2003). Periodic surveys suggest their number 

has decreased by at least 55 to 67 percent with declines of more than 90 percent in some areas. 

Surveys since 2000 indicate annual rates of decline of 12 percent on the south side of the Alaska 

Peninsula and 29 percent in the western and central Aleutians (70 Fed. Reg. 46366). With the 

exception of the Kodiak area, there is no evidence that the decline has abated. Based on aerial 

surveys in 2000–2004, FWS estimates that the southwest Alaska sea otter population numbers 

41,865 animals (70 Fed. Reg. 46366). Although the Service was petitioned in 2001 to list all sea 

otters in Alaska as depleted, the petition was rejected on grounds that substantial declines were 

limited largely to southwest Alaska and that sea otters in that area constituted a separate 

population. In 2005 FWS designated the southwest Alaska sea otter population of the northern 

sea otter as threatened under the ESA (70 Fed. Reg. 46366). 
28

Major Threats: Despite the sharpness and geographic extent of the southwest Alaska sea otter 

population decline, its cause remains uncertain. In listing the population as threatened, FWS 

evaluated the following possible factors (70 Fed. Reg. 46366): 

Oil Spills: Like the southern sea otter, the northern sea otter is extremely vulnerable to oil spills. 

At this time, oil and gas development occurs only in Cook Inlet, and tanker transport is relatively 

infrequent in the range of the southwest Alaska sea otter population. Although there is no 

evidence to suggest that oil spills caused the decline, the threat of a major oil spill remains a 

matter of concern, given experience with the Exxon Valdez spill, which demonstrated that a large 

oil spill could affect coastlines hundreds of miles from a spill site. 

Hunting: Subsistence hunting of sea otters does not appear to have been a factor in the decline of 

the southwest Alaska sea otter population. In Kodiak, where most sea otter hunting occurs, the 

harvest has ranged between 0.4 and 1.3 percent of the estimated population size. Little or no 

subsistence hunting occurs in areas with the steepest declines in sea otter numbers. 

Habitat Loss: FWS has found no evidence that the loss of habitat has contributed to the sea otter 

decline although it may be an important factor in recovery. 

Competition for Prey: FWS has found no evidence that commercial catch of prey species has 

been a factor in the decline, that sea otters are nutritionally stressed, or that their foraging success 

has declined. 

Predation: Perhaps the most plausible explanation for the decline in southwest Alaska sea otters 

is increased mortality caused by killer whale (Orcinus orca) predation (Estes et al. 1998). FWS 

cites the following evidence in support this hypothesis: 

• An increase in the number of observed attacks by killer whales on sea otters during the 

1990s; 

• A correspondence between the decrease in sea otter numbers and expectations from computer 

models of killer whale energetics; 

• The scarcity of beachcast otter carcasses, which would be expected if disease or starvation 

were the cause of the decline; and 

• Markedly lower mortality rates between sea otters in sheltered lagoons compared to those in 

exposed bays more accessible to killer whales. 

Management Framework: FWS has lead federal responsibility for the management and 

recovery of southwest Alaska sea otters. Some aspects of management are implemented though a 

cooperative agreement with an Alaska Native organization called the Alaska Sea Otter and 

Steller Sea Lion Commission. Collaboration between the United States and Russia also is carried 

out under the auspices of the U.S.-Russia Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Protection of 

the Environment and Natural Resources. Other agencies that support or participate in recovery 

work include USGS and the Alaska SeaLife Center, both of which conduct research. Since 

designating the population as threatened, FWS has convened a recovery team to help develop a 

southwest Alaska sea otter recovery plan (70 Fed. Reg. 46377). 
29

Critical Habitat: When designating southwest Alaska sea otters as threatened, FWS concluded 

that designation of critical habitat for the population segment would be prudent (70 Fed. Reg. 

46377). However, the Service stated that it was unable to identify the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of the population. Given that finding and the lack of 

understanding about the cause for the population’s decline, it therefore deferred critical habitat 

designation. 

Recovery Plan: In 1994 the Service released a conservation plan for all Alaska sea otters in 

response to amendments to the MMPA authorizing such plans (FWS 1994b). The plan proposed 

three goals: (1) maintain the Alaska sea otter population level within its OSP range; (2) maintain 

healthy habitats for sea otters; and (3) allow for a variety of human uses. 

The plan then identified the following objectives to achieve those goals: 

• Identify the OSP range for sea otters, including factors that may influence how such a range 

is defined; 

• Monitor the size, status, and trends of sea otter populations and collect life history data for 

developing population models and establishing removal guidelines; 

• Establish cooperative working relationships with Alaska Natives to help support their 

conservation and management efforts related to Native sea otter harvest and use; 

• Characterize and monitor sea otter habitat, status, and trends; 

• Identify, avoid, and minimize human threats to sea otters and their habitat and, if possible, 

resolve resource conflicts; and 

• Establish cooperative programs to further the conservation and management of sea otters in 

Alaska. 

Accompanying each of the objectives was a list of specific activities with projected funding 

needs for the first five years of implementation. As of the date of this report, initial efforts were 

being taken by the recovery team to develop a draft southwest Alaska sea otter recovery plan. 

Major Management Actions: Since the mid-1990s FWS has entered into an annual cooperative 

agreement with the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission. The commission 

represents a consortium of 60 Alaska tribes and tribal organizations. With FWS, the Commission 

co-manages subsistence uses of sea otters throughout Alaska and facilitates sea otter research by 

tribes and local residents. Through the cooperative agreement, support is provided for skiff 

surveys to determine local sea otter population trends, for collecting samples from harvested 

animals, and for documenting traditional Alaska Native knowledge of sea otters. Other actions 

taken in support of recovery have focused on population monitoring and research planning. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Because southwest Alaska sea otters were not added to the list of 

endangered and threatened species until 2005, funding data does not appear in past FWS 

expenditure surveys and past estimates of funding for research and management are not 

available. FWS estimates that it devoted 2.5 FTEs to southwest Alaska sea otter research and 

management in 2005.6

 In 2005 the FWS Alaska Regional Office allocated approximately 

 

6

 Rosa Meehan, personal communication. 23 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammal Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1011 Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503. 
30

$120,000 to charter a research vessel and administered a $663,000 congressional add-on for 

studies of southwest Alaska sea otters by the Alaska SeaLife Center. Information was not 

available on expenditures by other agencies, such as USGS. 

Funding needs projected for the first five years of conservation work under the Alaska sea otter 

conservation plan (FWS 1994b) suggested that annual expenditures should have ranged from 

$700,000 to $1.04 million per year for a five-year total of $4.36 million. Actual expenditures 

during that period are uncertain. 

PINNEPEDS

Caribbean Monk Seal 

Caribbean monk seals (Monachus tropicalis) once inhabited the Caribbean Sea and parts of the 

Gulf of Mexico from the the Bahamas west to the Yucatan Peninsula and south along the east 

coast of Central America (44 Fed. Reg. 1979). They were listed as endangered throughout their 

range under the ESPA in 1967. That listing was carried forward under the ESCA, but for 

uncertain reasons was omitted from the initial list of endangered and threatened species under 

ESA. By the time the ESA was passed in 1976, some scientists already considered the species to 

be extinct; however, in 1979, it was again listed as endangered at the recommendation of the 

Marine Mammal Commission to afford protection in the event of its rediscovery. Presently, no 

Caribbean monk seals exist in captivity and no populations are known to occur in the wild. The 

last reliable record of the species was at a small colony at Seranilla Bank west of Jamaica in 

1952. The species is now widely considered to be extinct (Kenyon 1977) and in 1994 the IUCN 

listed the species as such on its Red List of Threatened Species (Groombridge 1994). 

Major Threats: Like the Hawaiian monk seal, the Caribbean monk seal appears to have been 

quite approachable and vulnerable to hunting and human disturbance. Organized and 

opportunistic hunts reduced the number of monk seals in the 17th and 18th centuries. 

Management Framework: NMFS has lead responsibility for the species. As no Caribbean 

monk seals have been sighted since passage of the ESA and MMPA, no species-specific 

management teams have been established. In November 2006 the Service announced plans to 

carry out a five-year status review of the Caribbean monk seal under the provisions of the ESA 

to determine whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened 

species or reclassified (71 FR 69100). 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: None drafted or adopted. 

Staff and Funding Levels: NMFS has devoted no staff or funding to Caribbean monk seal 

recovery work. In 1985 the Marine Mammal Commission provided about $1,000 to help 

determine the validity of rumored Caribbean monk seal sightings and to survey remote 

Caribbean fishing villages for evidence of surviving animals. The survey produced no firm 

evidence of the species’ continued existence. Based on FWS surveys of funding for listed 

endangered and threatened species between 1998 and 2004 (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006), a 

combined total of $18,000 was spent on this species over that seven-year period (Appendix C). 
31

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Status: The Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) occurs only in the Hawaiian 

archipelago. It is the most endangered seal in U.S. waters and one of the most endangered seals 

in the world. It was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1976. The population consists of six 

main breeding colonies in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) and a dispersed, but 

growing population in the main Hawaiian Islands (NMFS 2006a). Monk seals apparently did not 

occur in the main Hawaiian Islands when Captain James Cook discovered the islands in the late 

1700s, and it seems likely that earlier Polynesian settlers had eliminated them from that portion 

of their range (Baker and Johanos 2004, MMC 2001). 

The breeding colonies in the NWHI are relatively isolated. Movement of seals between colonies 

is limited, and the individual colonies therefore constitute relatively discrete subpopulations with 

independent trends and recovery issues. For example, between the 1950s and the 1980s the 

colony at French Frigate Shoals grew rapidly to become the species’ largest group, producing 

nearly half of all monk seal pups. During the same period, other colonies declined or remained 

relatively stable. These trends were reversed in the late 1980s when juvenile survival, and 

perhaps reproduction, at the French Frigate Shoals colony began declining sharply, and the 

western colonies began increasing slowly. In 2001 a total of 1,224 seals were observed in the 

NWHI, and 52 were counted in the main Hawaiian Islands, with the total abundance estimate 

about 60 percent less than estimates based on counts in 1958 (NMFS 2006a). It appears that their 

overall numbers declined by 4.2 percent per year until 1993. Since then, the rate of decline has 

been 1.1 percent per year. The current best estimate of abundance is 1,252 animals (NMFS 

2006a). Because of the species’ low abundance and declining trend, a PBR level for the 

Hawaiian monk seal is undetermined. 

Major Threats: Intensive hunting in the 19th century is thought to have significantly reduced 

Hawaiian monk seal abundance in the NWHI (Ragen and Lavigne 1999). After recovering 

somewhat in the early 20th century, most subpopulations declined again in the last half of the 

20th century. The suspected cause of declines between the 1950s and early 1980s was human 

disturbance on pupping and resting beaches as a result of military and Coast Guard activity 

(Kenyon 1972, Ragen and Lavigne 1999, MMC 2002). Perhaps the greatest current threat to 

monk seals in the NWHI is reduction in prey availability due to commercial fishing and/or 

natural environmental change. The small, isolated nature of NWHI atolls makes their populations 

especially vulnerable to human and natural perturbations. Most of the species’ decline since the 

1980s has occurred at French Frigate Shoals where reduced juvenile survival rates characterized 

the decrease. Based on observations of weaned pups in emaciated or underweight condition, 

limited prey availability is believed to have precipitated the decline at that atoll. Similar signs of 

poor juvenile survival have been observed more recently at other atolls. 

Fishery Interactions: Monk seals are known to feed on lobsters as well as other species caught 

incidentally in lobster traps. Intensive fishing for spiny lobsters began in the NWHI in the late 

1970s shortly before the monk seal decline began at French Frigate Shoals. At the peak of the 

NWHI lobster fishery between 1985 and 1990, fishing effort exceeded one million trap nights 

per year, most of which focused on the banks and atolls nearest to French Frigate Shoals. In 1999 

the fishery was closed after spiny lobster abundance declined dramatically. Spiny lobsters have 

shown little sign of recovery since 1999, and parts of their range are now dominated by slipper 
32

lobsters, suggesting a major shift in the ecology of lobster populations in the NWHI. Decadal 

climate cycles also are a possible factor affecting lobster populations and other monk seal prey 

(Polovina 2005), but information is not sufficient to distinguish between the effects of climate 

and fishing operations (MMC 2001). 

Direct interactions between monk seals and the lobster, pelagic longline, and bottomfish fisheries 

also have been documented. At least one monk seal was entangled and drowned in lobster gear, 

and several others are known to have been injured by hooks from longline, bottomfish gear, and 

recreational fishing. Information on monk seal deaths and injuries in fisheries is limited, partly 

because efforts to monitor fishing operations have been inadequate (Ragen and Lavigne 1999, 

NMFS 2006a). 

Entanglement in Marine Debris: Entanglement of monk seals in marine debris, particularly 

derelict fishing nets, also is a significant threat in the NWHI. Seven entanglement deaths and 238 

cases of live entangled seals have been recorded through 2003 (NMFS 2006a). Almost all of 

these entanglements were seen on beaches. In most instances, either the animals were 

disentangled or the entanglements were considered minor ones from which the seals would be 

able to free themselves. Of greater concern is the unknown number of seals that become 

entangled and die unobserved at sea because they are unable to swim to shore. With rare 

exceptions, derelict fishing gear found attached to seals or fouling atoll reefs and beaches are 

from remote fisheries operating outside Hawaiian waters. 

Other Sources of Mortality: Other sources of mortality for NWHI seals include aggressive 

behavior by adult male seals towards pups, juveniles, and females; shark predation; and naturally 

occurring biotoxins. Adult male aggression has caused the death and serious injury of numerous 

pups and females at Laysan and Lisianski Islands. It has been identified as a major impediment 

to the recovery of colonies at both atolls and also has been observed at French Frigate Shoals 

where at least eight pups were killed by aggressive males in 1997 (NMFS 2006a). Shark 

predation has recently become a significant source of mortality at French Frigate Shoals. 

Approximately 25 percent of all pups born at that colony in 1999 were killed by sharks. 

In 1978 ciguatera, a naturally occurring biotoxin, is thought to have killed a few tens of seals 

although no similar die-offs have been recorded since. Disease and contaminants do not appear 

to have been a major source of past mortality for monk seals in the NWHI (Ragen and Lavigne 

1999). However, disease risks are a growing concern due to the possibility of seals becoming 

exposed to new diseases in the main Hawaiian Islands (Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team 

2005, Braun and Yochem 2006). Contaminant risks exist in the NWHI from occasional vessel 

groundings and fuel spills and from discarded equipment and pollution left from earlier Navy 

and Coast Guard activities (Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team 2005). 

Threats in the main Hawaiian Islands. Monk seal pups and adults in the main Hawaiian Islands 

tend to be larger than those in the NWHI, suggesting that prey availability is not a limiting factor 

in the main Hawaiian Islands at this time. Rather, the major threats in this area are disturbance at 

haul-out and pupping sites by beachgoers and dogs, hooking on fishing gear (particularly with 

recreational fishing), collisions with boats, exposure to oil spills, and diseases transmitted from 

other animals. To date, two seals are known to have been killed by fishing gear in the main 
33

Hawaiian Islands, and a number of seals have been found with embedded hooks or entangled in 

gillnets. One seal is thought to have been killed by a boat collision. There is limited evidence that 

disease has been a cause of deaths for monk seals in the past, but currently it is a significant 

concern (Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team 2005). Recent information suggests that since 

2003 one seal may have died as a result of leptospirosis and another from toxoplasmosis, 

representing the first reported cases of each (NMFS 2006a). 

Management Framework: Although NMFS has lead responsibility for recovery of Hawaiian 

monk seals, other agencies play important roles. FWS manages wildlife habitat and human 

activities on lands and waters of the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge and the Midway 

Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (MMC 2002). The Coast Guard assists with enforcement and 

control of pollution. NOAA and FWS, in coordination with the state of Hawaii manage the 

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, which extends out 50 nautical miles (nmi) 

from atolls and submerged banks in the NWHI. The Western Pacific Fishery Management 

Council is responsible for developing fishery management plans for federal waters in the region. 

The Marine Mammal Commission holds periodic reviews of the monk seal recovery program, 

makes recommendations for recovery needs, and provides funding for research and management 

projects on an opportunistic basis. 

The state of Hawaii, which owns Kure Atoll, also has jurisdiction over waters from the refuge 

boundaries out to 3 nmi around all emergent lands in the NWHI with the exception of Midway 

Atoll (MMC 2002). In 2005 the state of Hawaii adopted rules designating all NWHI state waters 

as a marine refuge within which all commercial activity, including almost all fishing, is banned. 

The state government also is an important partner in management efforts in the main Hawaiian 

Islands. 

Critical Habitat: In 1986 NMFS designated all beaches and nearshore waters shallower than 10 

fathoms around all of the NWHI (except Sand Island on the Midway Atoll, which was then used 

as a naval air station) as critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals. In 1988 the seaward boundary 

was extended to the 20-fathom isobath around the NWHI (again excluding Sand Island), partly at 

the recommendation of the Marine Mammal Commission (OPR 2005). 

Recovery Plan: In 1980 NMFS established a Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team composed of 

scientists and agency resource managers (MMC 2002). The team developed a draft plan adopted 

by NMFS in March 1983 (Gilmartin 1983). In 1989 NMFS appointed a new recovery team that 

met annually to review monk seal recovery efforts and provide advice on research and 

management. In 2001 NMFS again reconstituted the recovery team and charged it with updating 

the 1983 recovery plan. A draft revised plan was submitted to NMFS in 2005 and circulated for 

public comment in late 2006 (NMFS 2006e). The goal of the draft plan is “...to assure the long 

term viability of the Hawaiian monk seal in the wild, allowing initially for reclassification to 

threatened status and, ultimately, removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife” 

(NMFS 2006e). To accomplish this goal, four major actions are identified: 

• Improving the survival of females, particularly juvenile females, in subpopulations of the 

NWHI by maintaining and enhancing the species’ habitat and prey base, targeting research to 

better understand factors affecting juvenile survival, intervening when possible to improve 
34

rates of juvenile and adult female survival, protecting females from aggressive groups of 

male seals and shark predation, and continuing to remove marine debris and disentangle 

seals; 

• Maintaining field teams in the NWHI to carry out research and management actions; 

• Ensuring continued natural growth of the monk seal population in the main Hawaiian 

Islands; and 

• Reducing the possibility of inadvertent introduction of infectious diseases. 

The draft plan also describes specific actions to conserve monk seal habitat, reduce interactions 

with commercial fisheries, investigate factors affecting prey limitation, conduct population 

monitoring and research, prevent the spread of infectious diseases, minimize the impact of 

natural biotoxins, reduce aggression by groups of male seals toward females, prevent 

entanglement in marine debris, reduce sources of human disturbance, reduce the impact of vessel 

groundings, minimize risks of shark predation, reduce the impact of contaminants, prepare a 

main Hawaiian Island monk seal management plan, and carry out a public education and 

outreach program. 

The draft plan recommends that reclassification as threatened be considered when the following 

criteria are met: (1) the total number of monk seals in the NWHI exceeds 2,900 seals, (2) at least 

five of the six major breeding colonies have 100 individuals or more and the subpopulation in the 

main Hawaiian Islands exceeds 500 animals, and (3) female survivorship and birth rates in the 

major NWHI and main Hawaiian Islands colonies are high enough to assure that population 

growth rates are not declining 

Major Management Actions: Since publication of the initial monk seal recovery plan in 1983, 

much has been done to address the most direct and obvious causes of the monk seal decline. 

Some of those actions are summarized below. 

Improve survival rates of juvenile females: To address problems related to poor juvenile survival 

and limited prey availability, NMFS has undertaken two types of interventions: (1) a “head start” 

program at Kure Atoll and (2) a capture, rehabilitation, and release program for undersized pups 

from French Frigate Shoals. Both efforts sought to enhance survival of female pups to save their 

reproductive potential. Under the head start program, newly weaned female pups at Kure Atoll 

were captured, placed in pens at the atoll, and fed for several months to improve their chances of 

survival during the first year of life. Under the pup rehabilitation program, female pups at French 

Frigate Shoals judged unlikely to survive because of their small size (girth) at weaning were 

captured, transported to facilities in the main Hawaiian Islands for rehabilitation, and later 

released at Kure Atoll where prey availability did not appear to be limiting survival. These 

programs were successfully carried out between 1981 and 1992 but were suspended in 1993 

when a group of 12 female pups taken into captivity for rehabilitation developed an undiagnosed 

eye disease that blinded most of them. An attempt was made to reinitiate the program with 

releases at Midway Atoll in the mid-1990s, but it was discontinued because of poor survival of 

the released animals. More recently, NMFS developed plans for a “second chance” program at 

French Frigate Shoals. Under that program, juvenile seals (rather than newly weaned pups) 

showing signs of poor nutrition a few months after weaning are to be caught, placed in pens at 

the atoll for feeding, and released on site after fattening. Although steps were taken to implement 
35

the new program in the summer of 2004, no seals deemed eligible for the program were observed 

at that time. The program may be resumed in the future, depending on funding. 

Interactions with Commercial Fisheries: The potential effects of NWHI fisheries on monk seal 

prey resources, as well as direct interactions between monk seals and fishing gear, are considered 

within the context of four fishery management plans developed by the Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council and implemented by NMFS. These include fishery plans for crustaceans 

(i.e., lobster), bottomfish (e.g., snapper and grouper), pelagic species (e.g., tuna and swordfish), 

and precious corals. 

Crustacean Fishery—In the late 1970s and early 1980s a fishery targeting spiny lobsters in the 

NWHI grew rapidly. As the fishery expanded, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 

recommended a fishery management plan adopted by NMFS in 1983. To protect monk seal 

foraging habitat, the plan established no-fishing zones within 20 nmi of Laysan Island and within 

the 10-fathom contour around all other atolls. To prevent monk seals from wedging their heads 

in trap openings, the plan also specified a maximum trap opening size. Initially, the plan allowed 

the take of all the lobsters that could be caught above a minimum size limit. As lobster 

abundance quickly declined, the plan was modified to allow catch levels that were expected to 

maintain lobster population abundances at or above 20 percent of the size thought to occur in the 

absence of fishing. As this and other major amendments to the plan were proposed, NMFS 

conducted formal section 7 consultations pursuant to the ESA. Despite concern expressed by the 

Marine Mammal Commission and others throughout the 1990s that the fishery was reducing 

available monk seal prey, NMFS concluded that lobster fishing had no effect on monk seal prey 

availability (MMC 2004). In early 2000, shortly after a lawsuit challenged the basis for this 

conclusion, NMFS suspended the fishery on grounds that it was uncertain about the status of 

NWHI lobster populations (MMC 2004). Since then, NMFS has kept the NWHI lobster fishing 

quota at zero. 

Bottomfish fishery—The bottomfish fishery is a hook-and-line fishery that targets sizes and 

species of fish not normally eaten by monk seals. Occasionally, monk seals become hooked 

while taking bait or caught fish off of hooks. Monk seals also sometimes remain near fishing 

vessels and feed on discarded bycatch. After passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act in 1976, the number of fishing vessels and landings of 

bottomfish grew until 1987 when they began to decline to a much lower level, around which they 

now fluctuate. Requirements relative to monk seals have been limited primarily to observer and 

reporting requirements. In the NWHI bottomfish fishery, vessels must carry observers when 

requested to do so and must report interactions with monk seals. Most interactions reported by 

fishermen and observers involve seal sightings near fishing vessels and, very rarely, hookings. In 

2002 NMFS prepared a section 7 biological opinion on the bottomfish fishery management plan 

and concluded that the fishery would not jeopardize monk seals or their critical habitat. The state 

of Hawaii also requires logbooks for state waters around the main Hawaiian Islands; however, 

information on interactions with protected species is not required, and the logbooks therefore 

provide no information on interactions with monk seals (NMFS 2006a). 

Pelagic longline fishery—In the early 1990s as a pelagic longline fishery developed for 

swordfish and tunas near the NWHI, several seals were found with embedded longline hooks and 
36

other injuries thought to be associated with this fishery. In response the fishery management 

council recommended, and NMFS adopted, a 50-nmi no-fishing zone for this fishery around the 

NWHI and in corridors between the islands. The measure appears to have nearly eliminated 

hookings in this fishery (NMFS 2006a). 

Precious corals—Although no commercial harvests of precious corals used in the jewelry 

industry have occurred in the NWHI, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council drafted a 

fishery management plan to allow some coral harvesting in the area. The council, however, has 

recommended against harvesting of gold corals because some seals forage in beds of this species 

at depths of 500 meters or greater (NMFS 2006a). NMFS has not adopted the draft plan. 

New fishery restrictions in federal waters around the NWHI—In late 2000 and early 2001 fishery 

management in the NWHI became subject to new management restrictions when President 

Clinton signed two Executive Orders designating the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve 

(MMC 2002). The reliance of Hawaiian monks seals on this regional coral reef ecosystem was 

cited as an important consideration leading to the designation. The Presidential orders directed 

that all landings and fishing permits for commercial fishing within reserve waters be capped at 

levels that existed in the year prior to the 4 December 2000 designation date. As bottomfish were 

the only landings taken from reserve waters during that period, the designation precluded fishing 

for other species. The directive also required the use of precautionary management principles and 

the establishment of 15 “reserve preservation areas” within which no fishing of any kind is 

allowed. The orders also directed that the National Marine Sanctuary Program consider 

designation of the area as a national marine sanctuary. The sanctuary designation process, 

however, was superceded on 15 June 2006 when President Bush signed an Executive Order 

designating the reserve as the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. In doing so, he 

instituted a ban on all commercial fishing except bottomfish fishing, which is to be phased out 

within five years. 

Fishery restrictions in state waters of the NWHI—In 2001 the state of Hawaii proposed 

designating all state waters in the NWHI as a state fishery management area to establish access 

permit requirements that would allow the state to control commercial fishing. Following receipt 

of comments urging the adoption of more restrictive measures, the state modified its proposal 

and, late in 2005, adopted rules designating the area as a state marine refuge within which all 

commercial and recreational fishing is prohibited. 

Entanglement in Marine Debris: For more than 15 years, field teams responsible for monk seal 

research have routinely disentangled seals found entangled in marine debris and removed 

hazardous debris from beaches. Since the late 1990s divers also have removed derelict nets and 

lines from submerged reefs in the NWHI. Between 1996 and 2003 NMFS and cooperating 

organizations removed 470 metric tons of nets and other debris from NWHI coral reefs (NMFS 

2006a). 

Aggression by Groups of Male Seals: To minimize seal deaths and injuries caused by aggressive 

male seals, NMFS has captured adult male seals known or suspected to have displayed 

aggressive behavior and relocated them in other areas. In 1994, 22 adult males were captured at 

Laysan Island for relocation to the main Hawaiian Islands (Ragen and Lavigne 1999, NMFS 
37

2006a). Since then, the number of seals killed by aggressive males at Laysan Island has declined 

dramatically (NMFS 2006a). Similarly, in 1998 two aggressive males responsible for killing 

pups at French Frigate Shoals were relocated to Johnston Atoll, after which injuries to pups at 

French Frigate Shoals declined. 

Shark Predation: NMFS also has taken steps to reduce shark predation on monk seals at French 

Frigate Shoals. Research field teams have attempted to catch and kill those sharks that patrol 

pupping beaches and prey on pups when they enter the water. In 2001 NMFS field teams killed 

five sharks exhibiting predatory behavior at Trig Island. Also in 2001 field teams moved 18 

weaned pups to other islands at the atoll where no sharks exhibited patrolling behavior (MMC 

2002). 

Human Disturbance: To help minimize seal disturbance by people and pets at pupping and haulout sites in the main Hawaiian Islands, NMFS and the State of Hawaii Division of Aquatic 

Resources have launched cooperative efforts with volunteers and local officials to educate the 

public about seal protection needs and to mark off temporary seal safety zones around hauled-out 

animals (MMC 2002). On Kauai, where seals haul out most frequently, a fulltime coordinator 

was hired by the state to work with local authorities and the volunteer Monk Seal Watch 

Program. NMFS also has hired a similar coordinator for the other main islands. To mitigate the 

injury to seals hooked on fishing gear or entangled, procedures have been put in place to 

expedite a response by trained experts and to provide veterinary assistance as needed. In some 

cases where interactions with people pose particular risks for seals or people, seals have been 

captured and relocated. 

Disease and Contaminants: To address disease and contaminant risks, monk seals are 

occasionally captured and moved away from hazardous areas, and efforts are made to monitor 

for the presence of pathogens. Efforts also have been taken to improve monitoring of seals for 

the presence of disease and contaminants. Steps also are currently being taken to investigate the 

feasibility and safety of vaccinating Hawaiian monks seals against phocine morbillivirus, a 

distemper virus that has caused significant mortality in other seal species and may be spread to 

monk seals from other pinnipeds that occasionally visit the Hawaiian Islands (Braun and 

Yochem 2006). 

Staff and Funding Levels: According to the Marine Mammal Commission survey of federally 

funded marine mammal research (Waring 2002), expenditures for biological and population 

assessment research on Hawaiian monk seals between FY1991 and FY2000 ranged from less 

than $500,000 in FY1991 to nearly $1.9 million in FY2000 (see Appendix F). NMFS was the 

principal source of funding. 

Efforts to recover Hawaiian monk seals have received regular appropriations from Congress for 

many years. According to FWS annual reports on endangered species expenditures (FWS 

2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006), NMFS allocated an average of about $2.1 million per year to monk 

seal recovery work between 1998 and 2004 (Table 9, Appendices C.1–7). Although not reported 

in endangered species expenditure reports, FWS also has allocated funding annually for monk 

seal-related activities in its Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge since the 1970s. Recent 

funding levels have been approximately $75,000 per year (FWS and USGS 1997–2004). The 
38

Table 9. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of Hawaiian monk 

seals, 1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal 

Year 

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal 

State Total 

State and 

Federal 

1998 – – 1,504 – 12 1,516 – 1,516 

1999 – – 1,052 48 4 1,104 0.4 1,105 

2000 – – 1,210 – 43 1,253 14 1,267 

2001 – – 2,100 2 5 2,108 14 2,121 

2002 – – 2,100 46 38 2,184 14 2,197 

2003 – – 2,100 – 30 2,130 15 2,145 

2004 – 1 2,164 105 51 2,321 – 2,321 

state of Hawaii, the Marine Mammal Commission, and NOAA’s Hawaii Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary also have contributed modest amounts of funding not reflected in the 

FWS annual expenditure surveys. NMFS budget documents specify budget allocations for 

Hawaiian monk seal activities below those levels reported to FWS for the annual expenditures 

reports. Line items specifically related to monk seals in those documents rose from $798,000 in 

2001 to $816,000 in 2004 (see Appendix E). 

Table 10. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for Hawaiian 

monk seals during the first five years after adoption of the 2005 draft revised recovery 

plan (NMFS 2006e) 

Action Objective Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 

Conserve monk seal habitat 11,362 312 312 112 112 12,210

Reduce interactions with fisheries 1,625 1,625 1,625 1,625 1,625 8,125

Investigate food limitation 940 970 1,020 970 870 4,770

Population research, monitoring 1,550 1,500 1,450 1,450 1,450 7,400

Prevent infectious disease 610 567 567 567 567 2,898

Minimize impacts of biotoxins 425 200 125 75 75 900

Reduce aggression by male seals * * * * * *

Prevent entanglements 1,335 1,325 1,310 1,285 1,270 6,525

Reduce human disturbance 1,249 1,249 1,249 1,249 1,249 6,245

Reduce effects of vessel groundings 487 75 62 62 132 818

Reduce shark predation 350 250 250 250 250 1,350

Reduce impacts of contaminants 65 - - - - 65

Main Hawaiian Islands mgmt. plan 40 10 - - - 50

Public education and outreach 310 150 150 150 150 910

TOTAL 20,368 8,233 8,120 7,795 7,750 52,226

* The cost for this task is included in costs for other tasks. 
39

NMFS estimates that its headquarters and regional offices devoted 1.2 FTEs to monk seal 

management activities in 2005, while its fishery science centers devoted at least 21 FTEs to 

Hawaiian monk seal research activities.7

 Most of those positions are devoted to research and 

conservation efforts (e.g., disentangling seals, capturing and moving aggressive male seals, 

removing sharks, etc.) by field teams visiting the NWHI annually to monitor major breeding 

colonies. As shown in Table 10, the revised draft monk seal recovery plan (NMFS 2006e) 

projects total implementation costs for the first five fiscal years after adoption at $52.3 million 

(including activities ranked from priority 1 through 3). 

Guadalupe Fur Seal 

Population Status: The range of the Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) once 

extended south from Monterey, California, to the Revillagigedo Islands off southern Baja 

California, Mexico. The species’ initial population size has been estimated to have been at least 

20,000 animals and perhaps as many as 100,000 (Fleischer 1987, NMFS 2006a). Commercial 

hunting in the 19th century nearly drove the species to extinction. In 1911, commercial 

harvesting was prohibited under terms of the North Pacific Fur Seal Treaty. 

Following the capture of two adult males at Guadalupe Island off Mexico in 1928, this species 

was not reported again until 1949 (Bartholomew 1950). Since then, its abundance has increased 

at an estimated annual growth rate of 13.7 percent. The current best estimate of abundance, 

which is based on extrapolations from counts of animals on rookeries in 1993, is 7,408 seals. 

Based on that estimate, a PBR of 91 animals was calculated (NMFS 2006a). The species also has 

been expanding into its former range. Guadalupe fur seals are regularly sighted in low numbers 

on San Miguel and San Nicolas Islands off southern California, and in 1997 a pup was born at 

San Miguel Island. 

The species was listed as threatened under the ESCA in 1970, but for unknown reasons it was 

omitted from the list of threatened species carried forward under the ESA. In November 1983 the 

Center for Environmental Education (now The Ocean Conservancy) petitioned NMFS to list the 

species as endangered. In December 1985 NMFS listed the species as threatened. It also is listed 

as threatened under California state law. 

Major Threats: The cessation of commercial hunting in the early 1900s removed the major 

cause of the species’ decline. Other possible threats include incidental mortality and injury in 

commercial fisheries and entanglement in debris. Incidental mortality of Guadalupe fur seals has 

not been documented in any U.S. or Mexican fisheries (NMFS 2006a). However, in the 1990s 

incidental mortalities of unidentified marine mammals that may have included Guadalupe fur 

seals were documented in drift and set gillnet fisheries off southern California and off the Pacific 

coast of Baja California, Mexico. Some fur seals also may be killed as a result of entanglement 

in derelict fishing gear and marine debris. As indicated above, however, such mortality has not 

prevented the species’ abundance from increasing steadily. 

 

7

 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115 
40

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead agency for implementation of the ESA and the 

MMPA regarding Guadalupe fur seals. No recovery teams have been established specifically to 

promote the recovery of this species. 

Critical Habitat: In listing Guadalupe fur seals as threatened under the ESA, NMFS rejected a 

request by the petitioner to designate waters in the Channel Islands off southern California as 

critical habitat (50 Fed. Reg. 51254). NMFS concluded that other management measures would 

provide sufficient protection and noted that the species’ primary breeding grounds are under the 

jurisdiction of Mexico. 

Recovery Plan: No recovery plan has been prepared. When the species was listed as threatened 

in 1985, NMFS identified criteria for initiating a status review to determine whether Guadalupe 

fur seals should be delisted (50 Fed. Reg. 51256): 

• Growth of the population to 30,000 animals (the lower end of estimates of the initial 

population size); 

• Establishment of one or more additional rookeries within the species’ historical range; and 

• Growth in abundance to the level at which maximum net productivity level occurs. 

Major Management Actions: NMFS does not actively manage the conservation of Guadalupe 

fur seals although it has provided some funding for research. 

Staff and Funding Levels: According to FWS annual reports on endangered species 

expenditures for 1998–2004 (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006), federal agencies reported 

expenditures for Guadalupe fur seal activities that ranged between zero in most years to $2,200 

in 2000 (Appendices C.1–7). NMFS budget documents for the period FY2001–FY2005 did not 

identify any funding specifically for Guadalupe fur seals. NMFS estimates that its fishery science 

centers devoted at least 0.2 FTE on Guadalupe fur seal research activities in 2005, but that its 

headquarters and regional offices spent no time on this species that year.8

Northern Fur Seal, Eastern Pacific (Pribilof Islands) Population 

Population Status: Northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) range from southern California 

north to the Bering Sea and west as far as Honshu Island in Japan (Angliss and Lodge 2003d). 

There are five populations on at least six island groups: the Commander Islands (Russia), the 

Kuril Islands (Russia), Robbin Island (Russia), the Pribilof Islands and Bogoslof Island in the 

eastern Bering Sea (United States), and San Miguel Island off southern California (United States) 

(NMFS 1993). In the past, about 75 percent of all northern fur seals worldwide occurred on the 

Pribilof Islands during the breeding season (Angliss and Lodge 2003d). From 1918 until 1984 

fur seals from this population were harvested commercially for their pelts under terms of the 

Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals. The Convention was established to stop 

pelagic sealing practices that had nearly eliminated all populations by the late 1800s. Under its 

 

8

 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 
41

terms, harvests were limited to juvenile male seals that haul out at rookeries in the spring. Pelts 

from the land-based harvest were allocated among the four signatory nations (i.e., the United 

States, the Soviet Union, Japan, and Canada). This harvest practice resulted in a steady increase 

in abundance through the first half of the 1900s. By the 1950s the Pribilof Islands’ fur seal herd 

may have exceeded two million animals—a level thought to be near their pre-exploitation 

population size (NMFS 1993). 

In the late 1950s harvest practices were changed to include a take of adult females. At the time, it 

was thought this would result in a brief decline in population size, followed by an increase in pup 

production, which would increase the number of juveniles available for harvest. The population 

size soon began to decline as expected, but after a take of about 300,000 females over several 

years, pup production failed to increase. As a result, harvests were again limited to juvenile 

males in the late 1960s. It was expected that the decline would reverse within a few years; 

however, the decline continued through the early 1980s, by which time the Pribilof Islands fur 

seal population was less than half its size in the early 1950s. As a result of the decline, harvests 

were steadily reduced, and in 1984 the United States declined to ratify an extension of the 

Convention. Management authority therefore reverted to domestic legislation under the MMPA 

and the Fur Seal Act. Under this authority, commercial harvests are prohibited, and taking is 

limited to subsistence harvests by Alaska Natives at a much-reduced level. 

The reason for the continued decline long after the harvest of females was suspended has not 

been determined. Entanglement of juvenile seals in marine debris was postulated a possible 

cause. Based on a status review done by NMFS in response to a petition to list North Pacific fur 

seals as threatened under the ESA, NMFS designated the Pribilof Island fur seal population as 

depleted under the MMPA in 1988. The action was taken because the population was less than 

50 percent of its size in the 1950s and below 60 percent of its carrying capacity (53 Fed. Reg. 

17888). In the late 1980s and early 1990s the population stabilized at its reduced level, but in the 

mid-1990s it again began to decline for uncertain reasons. Based on a count made in 2004, the 

current best estimate of abundance for the Pribilof Islands fur seal population is 688,028. The 

calculated PBR level is 14,546 animals (NMFS 2005a). 

Major Threats: The following have been identified as known or potential threats to the Pribilof 

Islands fur seal population: 

Prey Availability: In its analysis of population trends at the time fur seals were designated as 

depleted in 1988, NMFS concluded that expansion of groundfish fisheries in the North Pacific 

(i.e., trawl fisheries for pollock, flatfishes, and other demersal finfish) had not reduced the 

carrying capacity for northern fur seals (53 Fed. Reg. 17891). However, in a conservation plan 

for the fur seal population adopted in 1993 (NMFS 1993), NMFS noted that the biomass of 

Pacific herring and walleye pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area had changed 

significantly since the 1960s. Given the importance of pollock as prey for northern fur seals, 

NMFS suggested that expansion of fisheries for those species may have altered the northern fur 

seal’s food supply, but that the causes for the shifts in prey abundance and their impact on 

northern fur seals were largely unknown. In the conservation plan NMFS also drew parallels 

with the decline of the Steller sea lion. 
42

Incidental Catch in Fisheries: In designating Pribilof Islands fur seals as depleted in 1988, NMFS 

evaluated information on the number of fur seals caught incidentally in commercial fisheries. It 

concluded that although some animals were taken in foreign and domestic fisheries, the number 

was insignificant (53 Fed. Reg. 17893). More recently, NMFS estimated that minimum annual 

mortality in commercial fisheries is 15 fur seals per year based on observer data and selfreporting by fishermen (NMFS 2005a). This level of mortality is well below the PBR level for 

this population and is considered insignificant and approaching a zero mortality and serious 

injury rate. 

Entanglement in Marine Debris: Mortality of juvenile seals due to entanglement in marine 

debris, particularly packing bands and derelict trawl nets, has been suggested as a significant 

factor in the decline of the population in the 1970s and early 1980s (Fowler 1982, 1985). Those 

analyses suggested that as many as 50,000 fur seals per year may have been entangled and 

drowned at sea in derelict fishing nets and other marine debris adrift in the North Pacific Ocean. 

Juvenile fur seals, which spend their first two years of life entirely at sea after leaving the 

rookeries, are thought to be particularly susceptible to entanglement because of their smaller 

head size relative to trawl net mesh sizes and their tendency to interact with floating objects. 

Documentation of this hypothesis, however, has proved elusive because of the vast pelagic 

habitat used by fur seals. Entanglement rates observed on rookeries have been on the order of 

three to four per thousand animals observed but may not accurately reflect pelagic entanglement 

rates because they are limited to animals that survive long enough to swim ashore. The rate of 

entanglement among subadult males observed on rookeries, however, appears to have declined 

somewhat since the early 1980s (NMFS 1993, 2005a). 

Habitat Concerns: Recent industrial and other development on the Pribilof Islands may affect fur 

seal rookeries through the discharge of seafood processing waste, oil and contaminant spills, 

increased direct human disturbance, and increased levels of noise and olfactory pollution (NMFS 

2005a). Pup production at two of three rookeries nearest to human settlements and sewer outfalls 

has declined. 

Management Framework: As noted previously, fur seals were managed under the Fur Seal 

Convention until 1984. While the Convention was in force, it was implemented in the United 

States under the Fur Seal Act, which superseded the authority of the MMPA. When the 

Convention expired in October 1984, management authority reverted to the MMPA. NMFS is 

responsible for management actions, some of which are implemented in cooperation with the 

Aleut communities of St. Paul and St. George Islands (Pribilof Islands), which continue to take 

some fur seals for subsistence purposes. There currently is no conservation or recovery team 

specifically for northern fur seals. 

Critical Habitat: Not applicable 

Recovery Plan: Because northern fur seals are not listed as endangered or threatened, no 

recovery plan has been prepared. However, in June 1993 NMFS approved a final conservation 

plan for northern fur seals under authority added to the MMPA in 1988 (NMFS 1993). The plan 

is presently under revision. Its goal is to restore the population of northern fur seals to the point 

where it is no longer considered depleted. The 1993 plan used a population estimate for the 
43

1940s and 1950s of 2.1 million animals as the basis for estimating the population’s OSP level. 

The plan also used the peak production of pups in the same period as a benchmark. The point at 

which the population could be considered not depleted is described as follows: 

The population level at which maximum productivity would occur, and the level 

at which NMFS would reconsider the depleted classification, would occur at a 

sustained population level (total abundance estimate) and/or a sustained level of 

annual pup production which are 60 percent of the peak historical estimates. 

The plan identifies the following two objectives to achieve its goal: 

• Continue and, as necessary, expand research or management programs to monitor population 

trends and detect natural or human-related causes of change in the population and habitats 

essential to its survival and recovery; and 

• Assess and avoid or mitigate possible adverse effects of human-related activities on or near 

the Pribilof Islands and other essential habitat throughout the population’s range. 

Specific recovery actions described in the plan include monitoring the status and trend of the 

population; monitoring health, condition, and vital parameters; assessing causes of mortality; 

minimizing effects of disturbance; investigating feeding ecology and factors affecting energetic 

requirements; investigating relationships between fur seals and fishery resources; assessing 

effects of natural ecosystem changes; and coordinating conservation efforts with other agencies 

and countries. 

Major Management Actions: Upon expiration of the Fur Seal Convention in 1984, 

management authority reverted to the MMPA and the Fur Seal Act. With that shift, the 

commercial harvest was prohibited, and the Service issued regulations to manage subsistence 

taking by residents of the Pribilof Islands. Prior to that time, the Aleut community relied on fur 

seals killed in the commercial harvest for meat. In June 1986 NMFS issued a final rule regulating 

the subsistence take of fur seals (51 Fed. Reg. 24828). Like the past commercial harvest, the 

subsistence harvest is limited to juvenile male seals. Under the harvest regulations, annual 

projections of harvest needs are developed by NMFS based on household surveys of Pribilof 

Island Native hunters. Those projections are used to develop annual harvest level guidelines. 

Since the late 1980s harvest levels have declined gradually. Between 1999 and 2003 they 

declined from 1,193 to 654 (NMFS 2005a). NMFS officials have observed the hunt annually. 

NMFS, in cooperation with Native hunters, also has supported various research projects, 

including efforts to monitor entanglement rates among seals on the rookeries. As noted above, 

NMFS also adopted a conservation plan in 1993. Designation of the northern fur seal as depleted 

in 1988 imposed additional restrictions on taking of the species, as presented in the description of 

the MMPA discussed previously. 

Staff and Funding Levels: NMFS budget documents for the period FY2001–FY2005 do not 

identify specific funding for research or management activities involving Pribilof Island fur 

seals. NMFS estimates that its headquarters and regional offices devoted at least 1.7 FTEs on 

northern fur seal management activities and that its fishery science centers currently devote at 
44

least 8.4 FTEs on research activities for this population during 2005.9

 The Marine Mammal 

Commission’s survey of federally funded marine mammal research (Waring 2002) reports that 

expenditures for biological research and population assessment for northern fur seals in FY1991–

FY2000 ranged from $6,000 in FY1991 to $1.9 million in 2000 (see Appendix F). NMFS was 

the principal source of funding. 

Cost estimates for the first five years of recovery work, developed when the northern fur seal 

conservation plan was adopted in 1991, projected annual funding needs ranging from $1.27 to 

$1.67 million per year for a five-year total of $7.2 million (NMFS 1991). Actual expenditures 

during that period are uncertain but are believed to have been much lower. NMFS administrative 

reports required by the MMPA do not provide information on expenditures for this population, 

and FWS annual reports on expenditures for threatened and endangered species do not include 

data on this species because it is not listed as endangered or threatened. 

Steller Sea Lion, Eastern Population 

Status: The eastern population of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), one of two recognized 

Steller sea lion populations, is distributed east and south of Cape Suckling, Alaska (i.e., a point at 

144° W longitude west of Prince William Sound in the northern Gulf of Alaska) along the west 

coast of North America to southern California (NMFS 2005a). The population was initially listed 

as threatened under the ESA in 1990 when the entire species was listed as such. In 1997 the 

listing was modified to recognize the western population as endangered while retaining the 

threatened status for the eastern population. 

Based on aerial surveys from southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and 

California in 2002, the eastern population numbers an estimated 44,996 animals and is increasing 

(NMFS 2005a). However, between 1980 and 2001 Steller sea lion abundance in central and 

southern California at the southern extreme of the population’s range declined by half to 1,500 to 

2,000 animals older than pups. Elsewhere in California and Oregon, counts of non-pups at trend 

sites have remained relatively stable since the 1980s. Counts of non-pups in southeast Alaska 

increased at about 2 percent annually between 1979 and 2002 to 9,951 while non-pup counts in 

British Columbia increased at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent between 1971 and 1998 

(NMFS 2005a). The status of the population relative to its OSP size is unknown. The PBR level 

was calculated as 1,967 (NMFS 2005a). 

Major Threats: From 1999 to 2003 observers monitored several commercial fisheries believed 

to take Steller sea lions incidentally (NMFS 2005a). The observed fisheries included longline, 

trawl, gillnet, and troll fisheries in Alaska, Oregon, Washington, and California. Combining data 

from observers and reports by fishermen, the average incidental take in U.S. fisheries between 

1999 and 2004 has been estimated to average 3.8 eastern Steller sea lions per year. Incidental 

take in both U.S. and Canadian fisheries is estimated to number at least 4.2 sea lions per year. 

 

9

 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115 
45

Because this total is less than 10 percent of the PBR level, it is considered insignificant and 

approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate. Between 1999 and 2002 an average of about 

45 animals were shot annually because they were preying on salmon in aquaculture pens in 

British Columbia. Such shooting is no longer allowed (NMFS 2005a). 

Mortality from other known human-related sources is also relatively low. Between 2000 and 

2003 subsistence takes by Alaska Natives averaged just four animals per year (NMFS 2005a). 

Before Steller sea lions were listed as threatened in 1990, indiscriminate shootings were thought 

to be a potentially significant source of mortality (NMFS 2005a) despite the fact that it was 

illegal under the MMPA after 1972. Since 1999 two illegal shootings of Steller sea lions were 

documented from stranded animals and were successfully prosecuted. 

Management Framework: The management framework for the eastern population of Steller 

sea lions is described in the recovery plan adopted in 1992. The framework is the same as for the 

western Steller sea lion population and is discussed later. 

Critical Habitat: In 1993 the Service designated waters and lands within 3,000 ft of rookeries 

and major haul-out sites east of 144° W longitude as critical habitat. 

Recovery Plan: A recovery plan for Steller sea lions throughout their U.S. range was approved 

in 1992 (see the western Steller sea lion section). A plan specific to the eastern population has 

not been developed. However, a new plan addressing both the western and eastern populations 

was developed and made available for public review in 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 29919). 

Major Management Actions: Other than steps taken to designate critical habitat, populationspecific management actions to promote recovery of eastern Steller sea lions have been limited 

largely to section 7 consultations concerning activities that could potentially affect the 

population. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Until recently, the cost of recovery activities for eastern Steller sea 

lions has not been reported separately from that of the western population. Before 2003 FWS 

annual expenditure reports for endangered species (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–e) combined funding 

for both eastern and western Steller sea lion populations. In 2003 and 2004 those surveys 

indicate that NMFS spent $4.1 and $9.6 million, respectively, on the eastern population’s 

recovery, while the state of Alaska spent $1.2 million each year (FWS 2005f, 2006) (Table 11, 

Appendix C.6–7, Appendix D). For the most part, those efforts included measuring parameters in 

the relatively healthy eastern population for purposes of comparison with the endangered western 

population to help elucidate causes of the latter’s decline. NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 

6.4 FTEs in staff effort on eastern Steller sea lion recovery work (1.3 FTEs by its regional offices 

and headquarters and 5.1 FTEs by its science centers) during 2005.10

 

10 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115 
46

Table 11. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of the eastern 

population of Steller sea lions, 1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) (Dash 

means no data were provided.) 

Fiscal 

Year 

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal 

State 

Total 

State and 

Federal 

1998 a – – 3,040 – 20 3,060 19 3,079 

1999 a – – 4,879 2,291 56 7,226 8 7,234 

2000 a – – 5,243 7,810 54 13,107 6 13,113 

2001 a – – 33,312 11,067 66 44,445 2,338 46,783 

2002 a – – 29,295 24,172 35 53,502 2,496 55,998 

2003 b – – 4,090 N/A 4 4,094 1,203 5,297 c

2004 b – – 9,605 N/A 3 9,608 1,203 10,811 c

a

 Includes funding for both eastern and western populations 

b

 Includes funding only for eastern population 

c Excludes Coast Guard support for enforcement 

Steller Sea Lion, Western Population 

Status: The western population of Steller sea lions, one of two currently recognized populations, 

occurs along the North Pacific Ocean rim from the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea to Cape 

Suckling, Alaska. Between the 1970s and late 1990s western Steller sea lions declined by 80 

percent in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (NOAA Fisheries 2000). In 

1990 the entire species was listed as threatened throughout its range (NMFS 1992). Subsequent 

research revealed that the species was comprised of two separate populations, and in 1997 

NMFS designated the western population as endangered while continuing to recognize the 

eastern population as threatened. 

The number of Steller sea lions in the western population was estimated to be at least 140,000 

animals in the 1950s and 1960s (NMFS 2005a). Counts in the late 1970s indicated a decline to 

roughly 110,000 animals, and between 1975 and 1985 the population continued to decline at an 

average annual rate of 5.9 percent (National Research Council 2003). The rate of annual decline 

increased dramatically to 15.9 percent between 1985 and 1990 before returning to about 5 

percent through the 1990s. Since 2000 counts of the population have increased slightly. Between 

2002 and 2004 counts at trend sites increased about 5.2 percent per year. The best estimate of 

total population size based on surveys in 2004 is 38,513 sea lions, which is is 32 percent less 

than the count in 1990 and more than 70 percent below counts estimates from the 1950s and 

1960s. The current PBR level is 231 animals (NMFS 2005a). 

Major Threats: The cause of the decline of Steller sea lions has been the subject of great 

controversy and scientific debate because of the potential effect of conservation measures on 

major groundfish fisheries in Alaska (NRC 2003, MMC 2002, NOAA Fisheries 2000). Possible 

causes of the decline include disease, pollution, entanglement in marine debris, commercial and 

subsistence harvest of sea lions, illegal killing, predation by killer whales and sharks, natural 
47

environmental changes in carrying capacity, and interactions with commercial fisheries, 

including both incidental catch and depletion of available prey resources. Most of these factors 

are not thought to have been likely causes of the population decline. 

• Disease, pollution, and entanglement in marine debris are not considered significant sources 

of mortality (MMC 2002). 

• Steller sea lions have not been harvested commercially since the passage of the MMPA in 

1972 (National Research Council 2003). Between 1963 and 1972, 45,178 pups were 

harvested in the eastern Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska (NMFS 1992). Although 

half of the pups on some islands were killed in some years, the effect of this take does not 

explain the long-term decline since the early 1970s. 

• The mean annual subsistence take by hunters in Alaska coastal communities—principally in 

the Pribilof Islands—was 187 sea lions between 2000 and 2003 (NMFS 2005a), a level not 

considered a likely cause of the decline. 

• After the initial listing of Steller sea lions as threatened in 1990, shootings of sea lions by 

fishermen are thought to have become less frequent. In 1998 two such violators were 

successfully prosecuted, but no successful cases were brought between 2000 and 2003 

(NMFS 2005a). 

• The role of predation by killer whales is controversial. Evidence suggests that such predation 

had limited effects during the major part of the decline in the 1970s and 1980s but may now 

be more significant given the species’ much-reduced population size (NMFS 2005a). 

• Analyses of fishery observer data between 1990 and 2003 suggest an average annual take of 

25 sea lions incidental to groundfish trawl, longline, and trap, and salmon gillnet fisheries in 

the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and in the Gulf of Alaska (NMFS 2005a). When selfreporting by fishermen and stranding data are added, the minimum mean annual mortality 

rate increases to 31 sea lions per year. Because this level exceeds 10 percent of the PBR level 

for western Steller sea lions, current levels of incidental take in fisheries are not considered 

insignificant and approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate (NMFS 2005a).11

Although incidental taking in fisheries exceeds this target level for fishery-related mortality, 

the current minimum estimate of all sources of human-caused mortality (218 animals) is 

below the calculated PBR level. 

Much of the debate about causes of the decline of Steller sea lions has centered upon the degree 

to which climate change and fishing have reduced prey and, by extension, the nutritional fitness 

of Steller sea lions (National Research Council 2003, MMC 2002, NMFS 1992). The 

oceanographic regime of the North Pacific undergoes periodic shifts that can have profound 

effects on fisheries and wildlife populations, including sea lion prey species. A significant 

regime shift occurred in the late 1970s, and one hypothesis is that the shift led to a decrease in 

available prey of high nutritional quality, thereby compromising growth and survival of juvenile 

sea lions and reproduction of adult females. Alternatively, intensive fishing by foreign fleets off 

Alaska between the late 1950s and early 1970s may have been a major factor in changing the 

abundance levels of prey populations. 

 

11 In calculating the PBR level for the western population of Steller sea lions, NMFS applied the recovery factor for an 

endangered species of 0.1 (NMFS 2005a). At the same time, NMFS noted that this recovery factor and the entire regime of PBR 

were based on the assumption that direct human-related mortalities would be the primary reason for declines in marine mammal 

abundance—an assumption that may not be warranted for Steller sea lions.
48

Currently operating fisheries also may affect Steller sea lion populations by reducing prey. Both 

fisheries (including those for pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod) and sea lions exploit the 

same species in the same geographic regions during the same seasons (MMC 2002). During the 

course of the sea lion decline, harvests were managed to reduce the biomass of some prey 

species by as much as 65 percent or more. Recent management strategies are attempting to limit 

reductions to 60 percent of their estimated unfished biomass. The extent to which prey species 

can be removed without significant ecological effects on marine predators such as the Steller sea 

lion is not clear and is a subject being addressed in section 7 consultations. The effects of 

removing such a large percentage of available biomass are further confounded by the manner in 

which they are removed. Much of the controversy regarding fishery effects on Steller sea lions 

has focused on where and when the prey are removed because the concentration of fishing effort 

in time and space can exacerbate effects by causing excessive localized depletions. In addition, 

fishing concentrated in areas close to rookeries and haul-out sites can exacerbate general 

reductions in biomass because sea lions must then extend their foraging range and use more 

energy to find the prey needed. All of these effects are considered to be most significant for 

young animals making the transition to independent foraging and for females that must support 

their own nutritional needs plus those of dependent pups and developing fetuses. Evidence 

collected in the 1970s and 1980s indicated that growth, survival, and reproduction all may have 

been compromised during that period, suggesting the animals were subject to nutritional 

limitations. Unfortunately, the effects of oceanic regime shifts and fishing may become 

expressed more or less identically, making discrimination between these potential causes 

difficult. 

A National Academy of Sciences panel reviewed the principal hypotheses for the decline of the 

western population of Steller sea lions and divided them into two trophically based categories: 

bottom-up and top-down categories (National Research Council 2003). The former includes 

effects that alter the carrying capacity of the ecosystem and that could affect the physical 

condition of sea lions (e.g., large-scale fisheries, climate change, pollutants, and disease). The 

latter includes effects that are independent of the system’s carrying capacity but could still cause 

sea lion mortality (e.g., increased predation by killer whales or sharks, incidental taking in 

fishing gear). The panel concluded that there is no definitive evidence to support any particular 

hypothesis for the decline of the western population of Steller sea lions. 

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead federal agency responsible for managing Steller 

sea lions. Implications that fisheries off Alaska have been a major factor in the decline of Steller 

sea lions have received great attention. Fishery management plans for walleye pollock, Pacific 

cod, and Atka mackerel in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands region and the Gulf of Alaska have 

been the subject of numerous formal consultations under section 7 of the ESA and numerous 

directives by the courts and Congress. Between 1998 and 2003 NMFS conducted six different 

section 7 consultations related to Steller sea lions, all but one of which examined groundfish 

fisheries. 

The initial forum within which these fishery management plans are discussed and developed is 

the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Like other regional fishery management 

councils, the North Pacific council has the lead in drafting and recommending measures under 

which the fisheries operate. Those measures must be reviewed by NMFS and meet standards of 
49

the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the ESA, the MMPA, and 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Congress also has played an active role in managing interactions between Alaska groundfish 

trawl fisheries and Steller sea lions. For instance, in its appropriations bill for FY2001, Congress 

modified the reasonable and prudent alternatives in a biological opinion. Congress also required 

that measures aimed at compliance with the ESA be developed consistent with the procedures 

and requirements of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

NMFS administers a coordinated Steller sea lion research program that includes participants 

from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the North Pacific Universities Marine Mammal 

Research Consortium, the Alaska SeaLife Center, and other agencies and organizations. The 

program includes extensive studies to monitor population trends and elucidate possible causes of 

the Steller sea lion decline (NOAA Fisheries 2000). Since Steller sea lions were listed in 1990, 

NMFS has conducted annual subadult/adult and biennial pup counts. Other studies have 

examined sea lion feeding ecology and prey biomass. The University of Alaska Fairbanks and a 

consortium of fishing companies have undertaken research under the aegis of the Pollock 

Conservation Cooperative Research Center. 

NMFS also has taken steps to manage subsistence harvests of Steller sea lions in cooperation 

with Alaska Native hunters. From 1995 to 1997 NMFS sponsored efforts to increase Native 

awareness of the status of Steller sea lions and to encourage local management of the subsistence 

harvest. In 1997 representatives from Alaska Native communities in the Aleutian and Pribilof 

Islands formed a regional marine mammal commission to help manage certain marine mammals, 

including Steller sea lions, taken for subsistence purposes (NOAA Fisheries 2000). In 1999 an 

Alaska Native organization known then as the Alaska Sea Otter Commission added Steller sea 

lions to its responsibilities. Since then NMFS has worked with both the Native commission and 

the tribal government of St. Paul to develop a range-wide conservation program for Steller sea 

lions. 

Critical Habitat: In 1993 NMFS designated critical habitat in three types of areas (58 Fed. Reg. 

45269): 

• Waters within 20 nmi of all rookeries and major haul-out sites west of 144° W longitude; 

• Foraging areas in Shelikof Strait, the southeastern Bering Sea, and Seguam Pass in the 

central Aleutian Island chain; and 

• Waters and lands within 3,000 ft of all rookeries and major haul-out sites east of 144° W 

longitude (i.e., for the eastern Steller sea lion population). 

Recovery Plan: Soon after the 1990 listing of Steller sea lions as threatened throughout their 

range, NMFS convened a Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team, which prepared the first recovery 

plan for the species (NMFS 1992). The plan’s goal was to promote the recovery of Steller sea 

lions “...to a level appropriate to justify removal from the ESA listings.” It also identified criteria 

for reclassifying and delisting the species based on an initial benchmark of 90,000 animals older 

than pups counted at selected trend sites located between the Kenai Peninsula to Kiska Island in 

the Aleutians. The recovery team recommended the following: 
50

• If the counts at designated trend sites in the area fall below 17 percent of the benchmark 

value, the species should be listed as endangered; 

• If the counts are greater than 17 percent but less than 40 percent of the benchmark, the 

species should remain threatened, with the following exception; if the count is greater than 

17 percent but less than 25 percent of the benchmark, the population should be listed as 

endangered if any of the following conditions apply: 

– The count at designated trend sites declines by at least 10 percent over three or more 

consecutive survey years; 

– The overall pup production index at trend sites declines by 10 percent over the count in 

the previous two-year period; or 

– The number of animals declines by at least 10 percent over a three-year period in three 

or more of the six other regions from Russia to California. 

The recovery plan included the following criteria for delisting the Steller sea lion (NMFS 1992): 

(1) the trend count in the area is greater than 40 percent of the benchmark value of 90,000 

animals older than pups, and (2) the number of animals is stable or increasing in at least three of 

the six other regions. NMFS decided not to adopt these criteria, pending further analysis. 

The recovery plan also identifies recovery actions to accomplish the following: 

• Identify habitat requirements and protect areas of special biological significance; 

• Identify management stocks; 

• Monitor status and trends of sea lions; 

• Monitor health, condition, and vital parameters; 

• Assess and minimize causes of mortality; 

• Investigate feeding ecology and factors affecting energetic status; and 

• Implement a recovery plan and coordinate recovery activities. 

In 2001 NMFS convened a new 20-member recovery team to draft a revised recovery plan for 

both the western and eastern Steller sea lions. A revised recovery plan has been developed by the 

team and was made available for public review in 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 29919). 

Major Management Actions: Management actions put into place with the initial listing of 

Steller sea lions in 1990 include the following (MMC 2001): 

• Prohibiting the discharge of firearms within 100 yards of a sea lion; 

• Prohibiting most vessels from transiting within 3 nmi of major rookeries in the Aleutian 

Islands and Gulf of Alaska; and 

• Monitoring incidental mortality and reducing the allowable annual take quota from 1,350 to 

675 sea lions. 

Between 1991 and 1998 NMFS established no-trawl zones within 10 nmi of 37 sea lion 

rookeries in Alaska, with seasonal extensions to 20 nmi around six major rookeries in the eastern 

Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea, and prepared several biological opinions on the effects of 

trawl fisheries on sea lions. Among other things, the opinions led the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council and NMFS to adjust time and area catch allocations to prevent 
51

concentrated fishing effort in foraging areas beyond the no-trawl zones around major haul-out 

sites (MMC 2001). 

1998 Fishery Actions: NMFS issued several biological opinions finding that the pollock fisheries 

in the Bering Sea /Aleutian Islands areas and Gulf of Alaska could jeopardize Steller sea lions 

and their critical habitat. The opinions included reasonable and prudent measures that further 

dispersed fishing effort and limited catches in sea lion foraging areas. The agency also 

recommended studies on the efficacy of no-trawl zones, the foraging range of young-of-the-year 

Steller sea lions, and site-by-site relationships between fishing effort and trends in juvenile 

survival. Partially in response to litigation, NMFS issued additional biological opinions late in 

December 1998 on management plans for all three fisheries. Although one opinion for the 

proposed Atka mackerel fishery concluded that the fishery was not likely to jeopardize Steller 

sea lions or their designated critical habitat, a separate opinion concluded that the proposed plan 

for the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish fishery would do so. Upon 

reaching this conclusion, the opinion proposed a management framework to avoid jeopardy by 

dispersing fisheries adjacent to rookeries and haul-out sites, both temporally and spatially. 

NMFS later incorporated measures developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

into the biological opinion as reasonable and prudent alternatives, allowing the fishery to 

proceed. 

1999 Fishery Actions: Measures developed in the December 1998 biological opinions were 

implemented by regulation in January 1999. In December 1999 NMFS issued a biological 

opinion on the total allowable catch of groundfish recommended by the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council for 2000 (NOAA Fisheries 2000). The opinion concluded no jeopardy or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

2000 Fishery Actions: In November 2000 NMFS issued a biological opinion on new measures 

for Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries (NOAA Fisheries 

2000). The opinion found that the fisheries, as implemented under the fishery management plans, 

would jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions and adversely modify their critical 

habitat. The biological opinion set out the following reasonable and prudent alternatives to be 

phased in, beginning in 2001: 

• Adopting a more precautionary rule for setting overall catch limits; 

• Extending 3-nmi no-fishing zones around rookeries and haul-out areas to sites not already 

protected; 

• Closing areas around some rookeries and haul-out sites out to 20 nmi; 

• Establishing catch limits on a seasonal basis inside critical habitat and two seasonal 

releases of quotas outside of critical habitat; and 

• Establishing a procedure for setting limits on catch levels in critical habitat based on the 

biomass of target species in critical habitat. 

To help address uncertainties about interactions between fisheries and Steller sea lions, Congress 

authorized a significant increase in funding for Steller sea lion research late in 2000. The 

legislation also directed that certain modifications be made in the reasonable and prudent 

alternatives and that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the National Academy 
52

of Sciences undertake an independent review to assess underlying hypotheses regarding 

interactions between Steller sea lions and fisheries and recommend reasonable and prudent 

management measures. 

2001 Fishery Actions: NMFS began phasing in reasonable and prudent alternatives reflective of 

its 2000 biological opinion and congressional directives. A new biological opinion was released 

recommending additional measures to avoid interactions between sea lions and fisheries. A 

National Research Council report concluded that fishing might have negative effects on Steller 

sea lions, but that data are limited and circumstantial (National Research Council 2003). The 

report recommended studies to monitor population trends and investigate temporal and spatial 

scales of sea lion foraging and hypotheses concerning local prey depletion. The report also 

concluded that, on a single-species basis, the fish stocks in the Alaska region were generally well 

managed although long-lived species with low recruitment may require more protective 

management. The review also concluded that there is not a sufficient basis to conclude that the 

existing management strategy is safe on an ecological basis and therefore protective of the 

ecosystem as a whole. 

2002 Fishery Actions: NMFS issued rules making previous measures adopted in 2001 permanent 

(60 Fed. Reg. 956). Ongoing litigation resulted in a court decision recommending that NMFS 

further modify its reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

2004 Fishery Actions: In December 2004 NMFS issued a final rule revising Steller sea lion 

protection measures in the pollock and Pacific cod fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska (69 Fed. Reg. 

75865). The regulations changed fishing closures near four Steller sea lion haul-out sites and 

revised the seasonal quotas for pollock. In doing so, NMFS concluded that the measures would 

be unlikely to affect Steller sea lion populations beyond levels identified in the 2000 biological 

opinion. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Cost projections developed for the first five years of recovery work 

when the Steller sea lion recovery plan was adopted (NMFS 1992) suggested funding needs 

ranging from between $1.18 to $2.83 million per year for a five-year total of $11.4 million. 

Actual expenditures during that period are uncertain; however, according to the Marine Mammal 

Commission’s survey of federally funded marine mammal research (Waring 2002), annual 

expenditures for biological and population assessment research on Steller sea lions (including 

both eastern and western populations) during the 1990s ranged from $4,000 in FY1991 to $1.9 

million in FY1997 (Appendix F). The principal sources of funding were NMFS and the National 

Ocean Service, which funded studies on foraging patterns and competition for prey. 

Prior to 2003 FWS annual reports on endangered species expenditures also combined funding 

data for eastern and western Steller sea lions consistent with their listing as a single species under 

the ESA. According to those reports, federal expenditures for recovery of both populations in 

1998 were about $3.1 million, and state expenditures were $19,000 (FWS 2003d). Federal 

expenditures grew quickly in succeeding years to $7.2 million in 1999, $13.1 million in 2000, 

and $44.4 million in 2001 (Table 12, Appendices C.1–7) (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006). In 

2003 overall federal funding for western Steller sea lions alone reached $48.3 million. Of that 

total, $8.2 million was spent on research by NMFS (largely on contracts with other institutions) 
53

and $39.9 million was spent on enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard (FWS 2005d).12 NMFS 

estimates that it devoted at least 14.4 FTEs in staff effort on eastern Steller sea lion recovery 

work (1.1 by its regional offices and headquarters staff and 13.3 by its science centers) during 

2005.13

NMFS budget documents indicate that budget allocations for Steller sea lions (including both 

eastern and western populations) declined from $35 million in 2001 to $17.7 million in 2004 (see 

Appendix E). 

Table 12. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of western population 

of Steller sea lions, 1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) (Dash means no 

data were provided.) 

Fiscal 

Year 

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal 

State 

Total 

State 

and 

Federal 

1998 a – – 3,040 – 20 3,060 19 3,079 

1999 a – – 4,879 2,291 56 7,226 8 7,234 

2000 a – – 5,243 7,810 54 13,107 6 13,113 

2001 a – – 33,312 11,067 66 44,445 2,338 46,783 

2002 a – – 29,295 24,172 35 53,502 2,496 55,998 

2003b – – 8,180 39,940 194 48,314 1,200 49,514 

2004b – – 9,605 20,856 85 30,546 1,200 31,746 

a

 Includes funding for both eastern and western populations 

b

 Includes funding for western population only 

CETACEANS

Blue Whale 

Population Status: Blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus), the largest animals ever to live on 

earth, are found in all the world oceans. They have been divided into three subspecies: B. m. 

intermedia in Antarctic waters, B. m. musculus in the Northern Hemisphere, and B. m. 

brevicauda in the southern Indian Ocean and southwestern Pacific Ocean. For purposes of 

preparing stock assessment reports required under the MMPA, blue whales in U.S. waters have 

been divided into three populations: western North Atlantic, eastern North Pacific, and western 

North Pacific (NMFS 2006a). Blue whales were listed as endangered as a species throughout 

their range under the ESCA in 1970. That designation was carried forward under the ESA. The 

International Whaling Commission (IWC), the international organization responsible for 

 

12 Coast Guard cost estimates include the cost of vessel operations, including all crew and prorated maintenance costs, during 

periods when the vessel’s primary mission is identified as enforcement of fishery regulations to protect Steller sea lions. 13 P. Michael Payne, personal communication, 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
54

regulating commercial and subsistence whaling, classifies all populations of blue whales 

worldwide as “protection stocks” (i.e., stocks at less than 10 percent of their maximum 

sustainable yield level and for which no commercial whaling is allowed). 

Western North Atlantic Population: In the western North Atlantic, blue whales are most common 

off the east coast of Canada and only occasionally enter U.S. waters (NMFS 2002c). The only 

basis for an estimate of abundance for this population is a count of 308 blue whales made in the 

Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1987. 

Eastern North Pacific Population: Although the IWC considers blue whales throughout the North 

Pacific as a single population, it is now thought that as many as five separate populations occur 

in the North Pacific (NMFS 2005a, Reeves et al. 1998). One of these feeds principally along the 

coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington in summer and winters in calving grounds off 

Mexico and Central America. Based on surveys off California between 1996 and 2002, NMFS 

(2005a) concluded that the best estimate of abundance for this population is 1,744 whales. Based 

on a different analysis of those data by Calambokidis and Barlow (2004), however, the size of 

the population was estimated to be 2,994 whales. In general, their abundance appears to be 

increasing although it is possible that increases in blue whale counts since the mid-1990s simply 

reflect an increasing use of the California feeding grounds. The PBR level calculated for this 

population is 1.4 whales, which is greater than the documented mortality from ship strikes or 

fisheries (NMFS 2006a). 

Western North Pacific Population: The western North Pacific population of blue whales is 

thought to winter in the central North Pacific and summer along the Aleutian Islands. However, 

based on rare sightings and acoustic recordings, blue whales enter the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone off Hawaii at least occasionally (NMFS 2006a). No data are available to estimate 

population size or PBR level. 

Major Threats: All populations of blue whales worldwide, including those in U.S. waters, were 

nearly eliminated by commercial whaling. A prohibition on hunting for blue whales was adopted 

by the IWC in 1966 (NMFS 2006a), but by that time whalers had taken at least 9,500 blue 

whales in the North Pacific and 11,000 in the North Atlantic, leaving populations in each ocean 

estimated to be fewer than 1,000 animals at that time. Current threats include the following: 

Fishery Interactions: Although blue whales may have been incidentally taken in offshore drift 

gillnet fisheries and longline fisheries, there are no confirmed records of such takings off Hawaii, 

California, or the U.S. Atlantic coast (NMFS 2006a,b). 

Vessel Collisions: Blue whales are occasionally injured or killed by collisions with ships (Laist 

2001, NMFS 2006a). In March 1998 a 66-ft male blue whale, likely killed when struck, was 

carried into Rhode Island waters on the bow of a tanker. In the eastern North Pacific, ship strikes 

were implicated in the deaths of at least four blue whales between 1980 and 1993 (Jensen and 

Silber 2003). 

Noise: Rising levels of anthropogenic noise in all the world’s oceans may disrupt long-distance 

communication of blue whales as well as other species of great whales. Whether such effects 

could alter their population abundance and trend is unknown. 
55

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead federal agency responsible for managing blue 

whales. In cooperation with the Department of State, NMFS develops and coordinates scientific 

advice and U.S. positions on related management issues considered at meetings of the IWC. No 

interagency management teams currently exist to assist or oversee management activities 

specifically related to blue whales. 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: In July 1998 the Service adopted a recovery plan for blue whales (Reeves et al. 

1998). Its primary purpose is “...to identify a set of actions that will minimize or eliminate 

effects of human activities that are detrimental to the recovery of blue whale populations.” Its 

immediate objectives “are to identify factors that may be limiting the populations and actions 

necessary to allow the populations to increase.” Key actions highlighted in the plan focus on 

research to improve understanding of blue whale populations. The identified actions involve (1) 

determining population structure, (2) estimating population sizes and trends, (3) identifying and 

protecting essential habitats, (4) minimizing sources of human-caused injury and mortality, (5) 

coordinating federal, state, and international recovery efforts, (6) assessing detrimental effects of 

interactions with vessels, and (7) improving the collection of information from stranded and 

entangled animals. 

Major Management Actions: To address the impact of commercial whaling, the IWC imposed 

a ban on hunting blue whales in the North Atlantic in 1955 and in the North Pacific in 1966 

(Reeves et al. 1998). In 1986–1987 the ban was extended globally when the IWC, with the 

support of the U.S. delegation, adopted a moratorium on all commercial whaling. Other than 

preparing a blue whale recovery plan and blue whale stock assessment reports, NMFS has 

undertaken no management measures designed specifically to protect blue whales in U.S. waters. 

Most management actions related to blue whales involve actions focused on endangered whales 

in general. Although a few directed studies have been undertaken to assess the occurrence and 

movements of blue whales in the population off California, Oregon, and Washington, most 

information on blue whales in U.S. waters has been collected opportunistically (e.g., through 

stranding programs or incidental to studies on other species) or through studies to assess the 

regional composition of fauna. 

Staff and Funding Levels: According to available budget data, NMFS allocated $994,000 in 

FY2003 for the recovery of endangered large whales (e.g., bowhead, blue, fin, sei, and sperm 

whales). The amount devoted specifically to blue whales is uncertain (see Appendix E). NMFS 

estimates that its headquarters, regional offices, and fishery science centers devoted at least 1.6 

FTEs to blue whale recovery activities (0.4 by its headquarters and regional office staff and 1.2 

by its regional science centers) in 2005.14 According to FWS annual expenditure reports on 

endangered species (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006), very little or no funding has been devoted 

explicitly to blue whales by NMFS in recent years (Table 13, Appendices C1–7). Most recent 

funding has involved Coast Guard enforcement activities. 

 

14 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115
56

Table 13. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of blue whales, 1998–

2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal 

Year 

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal 

State 

Total 

State and 

Federal 

1998 – – – – 3 3 1 4 

1999 120 – – – 5 125 – 125 

2000 – – – – 6 6 – 6 

2001 – – – – 1 1 – 1 

2002 – – – 7 1 8 – 8 

2003 – – – 199 4 203 – 203 

2004 – – – 60 4 65 2 67 

Cost projections developed for the first five years of recovery work when the blue whale 

recovery plan was adopted in 1998 (Reeves et al. 1998) suggested funding needs ranging from 

between $138,000 and $673,000 per year between 1999 and 2003 with a five-year total of $1.95 

million. Actual expenditures during that period are uncertain but were clearly below those levels. 

Bowhead Whale, Western Arctic Population 

Population Status: The only population of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) occurring in 

U.S. waters is the western Arctic population. This is the largest of five bowhead whale 

populations found worldwide (NMFS 2005a). The western Arctic population migrates annually 

from winter areas in the northern Bering Sea through the Chukchi Sea to summer grounds in the 

Beaufort Sea. Arctic Native communities have hunted bowhead whales for more than 1,000 

years at levels that are not thought to have had a significant effect on overall abundance. From 

the late 1800s to the early 1900s, however, commercial whaling reduced the western Arctic 

population to fewer than 3,000 bowhead whales, and in 1970 the species was listed as 

endangered throughout its range under the ESCA. That designation was carried forward under 

the ESA. The IWC has classified all populations of bowhead whales as protection stocks for 

which no commercial whaling is allowed. 

Based on a count in 2001, the best abundance estimate for the western Arctic population is 

10,545 whales (NMFS 2005a). Past counts suggest that the population has been increasing 

steadily at an average annual rate of 3.1 percent since 1978. The PBR level is 95 whales. Based 

on an estimated pre-exploitation population size of 12,599 whales, the lower limit of its OSP size 

has been estimated at between 6,500 and 10,500 whales (Shelden et al. 2003a). 

Major Threats: With the cessation of commercial whaling, the principal management issues 

concerning western Arctic bowhead whales have been the subsistence harvest by Alaska Natives, 

the effects of noise and possible oil spills associated with offshore oil and gas development, and, 

more recently, the effects of climate change. Vessel collisions and entanglement in fishing gear 

also pose potential threats. 
57

Subsistence whaling: Under subsistence whaling quotas established by the IWC, the number of 

bowhead whales taken annually by Alaska Natives has been below calculated PBR levels for the 

western Arctic bowhead whale population since such calculations were first made in the mid1990s. The number of whales landed annually between 1999 and 2003 ranged from 35 whales in 

2000 and 2003 to 49 whales in 2001 (NMFS 2006a). As indicated previously, the western Arctic 

bowhead whale population has continued to increase in size steadily over the past 20 years under 

the existing harvest management measures. 

Oil and Gas Development: Because much of the habitat of the western Arctic bowhead whale 

population is within active or potential lease sale areas, oil and gas exploration and development 

off Alaska have increased the species’ risk of exposure to pollutants and noise (Shelden and 

Rugh 1995, NMFS 2005a). Although bowhead whales are sensitive to noise and appear to avoid 

seismic operations, there is little evidence that increased levels of noise associated with activities 

to date have impeded their recovery (NMFS 2005a). Oil spills also pose a potential threat; 

however, to date no major spills are known to have affected bowhead whales within their range. 

Entanglement: Incidents of entanglement by bowhead whales in commercial fishing gear appear 

to be infrequent. Available information on such interactions comes principally from whales 

found entangled in fishing gear by Alaska Natives during the subsistence harvest. It suggests that 

such interactions occur principally in crab pot gear. From 1999 to 2003 the estimated average 

annual rate of entanglement was 0.2 whale per year (NMFS 2005a). 

Climate Change: Although there are insufficient data to make reliable predictions, changes in 

Arctic weather, sea-surface temperatures, ice extent, and prey availability may affect iceassociated animals such as bowhead whales (NMFS 2005a). Both positive and negative effects 

are possible (Shelden et al. 2003a). 

Vessel Collisions: Injury and mortality caused by collision with vessels appear to be infrequent 

although this is probably due largely to the low levels of commercial vessel traffic within the 

species’ Arctic habitat (Laist et al 2001). Three of 236 bowhead whales taken during the 

aboriginal subsistence hunt in the Beaufort Sea showed evidence of vessel injuries, and no 

known mortalities have been recorded (67 Fed. Reg. 55768). Collision risks could increase 

substantially in the future if seasonal pack ice coverage continues to retreat and northern sea 

routes are developed for shipping. 

Management Framework: NMFS and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission have primary 

responsibility for conservation and management of bowhead whales. However, as a member of 

the IWC, the United States follows management recommendations for subsistence whaling 

developed by the IWC (Shelden and Rugh 1995). Subsistence harvests are managed and 

monitored by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission under a cooperative agreement with the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NMFS’s parent agency. The 

Commission is composed of whaling captains and crewmembers and is directed by a board of 10 

commissioners, one from each whaling village. Besides allocating quotas among its member 

villages and providing funds to the North Slope Borough for periodic censuses of the bowhead 

whale population, the Commission has funded research to improve harpoons used in the hunt and 

to reduce the number of whales struck but lost. 
58

Together with the Department of State and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, NMFS and 

other NOAA offices develop policies and quota requests and coordinate scientific advice for 

IWC meetings. 

Critical Habitat: No critical habitat has been designated for western Arctic bowhead whales. In 

February 2000 the Center for Biological Diversity and the Marine Biodiversity Protection Center 

petitioned NMFS for such action, but the petition was rejected (67 Fed. Reg. 55767) for the 

following reasons: 

• The decline in bowhead whale abundance and reason for listing the species was 

overexploitation by commercial whaling; habitat issues were not a factor in the decline; 

• There is no indication that habitat degradation is impeding population growth; 

• The population is abundant and increasing; and 

• Existing laws and practices adequately protect the species and its habitat. 

Recovery Plan: In June 1998 NMFS determined that a recovery plan for bowhead whales was 

not needed due to the population’s abundance and trend and the effectiveness of the agreement 

between NOAA and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission in managing the subsistence hunt 

(67 Fed. Reg. 55769). 

Major Management Actions: Since 1977 the IWC has recommended quotas for the subsistence 

hunt of bowhead whales by Alaska Natives. Those quotas, which have ranged between 14 and 67 

whales per year (not including unused strikes that can be carried forward), have represented 0.1 

to 0.5 percent of the estimated total population size. In recent years, Russian Natives also have 

taken a few whales under these quotas. The most recent IWC quota is a block quota of 280 

whales for the period 2003–2007 with a limit of 67 strikes in any single year. The average annual 

take by Natives in Alaska and Russia has been 52 whales. Since 1996, when NMFS began 

calculating PBR levels, the IWC has set annual strike quotas of 65 to 67 whales, which have 

been below the PBR level. 

NMFS manages potential impacts of noise from oil and gas operations through incidental 

harassment authorizations issued under the MMPA exemption for the small take of marine 

mammals incidental to activities other than fishing. Such authorizations can be issued only if the 

actions they permit are believed to have no more than a negligible impact on the population and 

no immitigable adverse effect on the availability of bowhead whales to subsistence users. NMFS 

also consults with the Minerals Management Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency on the effects of oil and gas exploration and development on 

the outer continental shelf under section 7 of the ESA and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act. Recent opinions have concluded that effects of proposed offshore oil and gas exploration on 

bowhead whales do not jeopardize the population. 

Staff and Funding Levels: According to NMFS budget documents (Appendix E), the agency 

allocated $994,000 in FY2003 for the recovery of endangered large whales (e.g., bowhead, blue, 

fin, sei, and sperm whales). The amount devoted specifically to bowhead whales is uncertain. 

NMFS also has transferred funds appropriated by Congress to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission ranging from $399,000 in FY2001 to $492,000 in FY2003. According to FWS 
59

annual expenditure reports for endangered species (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006), total federal 

funding for work on bowhead whales ranged from zero to $203,000 between 1998 and 2004 (14, 

Appendices C1–7); however, all federal funding for this species (e.g., funding passed to the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission) is not reflected in those numbers. NMFS estimates that it 

devoted at least 4.1 FTEs in staff effort on bowhead whale recovery work (0.6 by its regional 

offices and headquarters and 3.5 by its science centers) during 2005.15 Funding for those salaries 

clearly has not been included in funding levels reported in the FWS annual expenditure reports. 

Table 14. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of western Arctic 

bowhead whales, 1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal 

Year 

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal 

State 

Total 

State and 

Federal 

1998 – – – – – – 1 1 

1999 – – – – – – 3 3 

2000 – – – – – – 3 3 

2001 – – – – – – 25 25 

2002 – – – 7 – 7 – 7 

2003 – – – 199 5 204 – 204 

2004 – – – 60 130 190 – 190 

The Marine Mammal Commission survey of federally funded marine mammal research (Waring 

2002) reports that funding for biological and population assessment research on bowhead whales 

between FY1991 and FY2000 ranged from $280,000 in FY2000 to $1.5 million in 1999 (see 

Appendix F). The principal sources of funding were NMFS and the Minerals Management 

Service. Recent funding levels have been increased to more than $1 million to address research 

questions raised by the IWC Scientific Committee and to help prepare a request to the IWC for a 

new subsistence quota. 

Fin Whale 

Population Status: Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) were listed as endangered throughout 

their range under the ESCA in 1970, and that designation was carried forward under the ESA. 

For purposes of preparing stock assessment reports required by the MMPA, NMFS recognizes 

four fin whale populations in U.S. waters: a western North Atlantic population, a 

California/Oregon/Washington population, a northeast Pacific population, and a Hawaii 

population. The stock structure of fin whale populations, however, is not well known (NMFS 

2006b). It is thought that populations in different oceans may be divided into subpopulations that 

use different feeding grounds. Under the IWC management system, the Nova Scotia stock of fin 

whales (i.e., the western North Atlantic population) and all populations in the North Pacific are 

classified as protection stocks for which no commercial whaling is allowed. 

 

15 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
60

Western North Atlantic Population: Fin whales are one of the most common large whales 

observed along the northeastern U.S. coast. The IWC currently recognizes fin whales off the 

eastern U.S. coast, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland to be a separate stock. Roughly half of all 

individually identified whales observed feeding in Massachusetts Bay have been observed there 

in multiple years, suggesting a degree of site fidelity. The best available abundance estimate for 

fin whales between Georges Bank and the Gulf of St. Lawrence is 2,814 (NMFS 2006b). 

Available information is not sufficient to determine trends in abundance, and the PBR level is 

4.7 whales per year. Because documented human-caused deaths have averaged more than one 

whale per year in recent years, which is greater than 10 percent of the PBR level, the rate of 

human-caused mortality and injury is not considered insignificant and approaching zero. 

California/Oregon/Washington Population: The IWC recognizes two populations of fin whales in 

the North Pacific Ocean: one in the East China Sea and one elsewhere in the North Pacific 

(NMFS 2006a). Although there is little information to determine population structure, some 

genetic studies suggest that fin whales in the Gulf of California are isolated from those elsewhere 

in the North Pacific and represent an “evolutionary unique population” (NMFS 2006a). By 1973 

commercial whaling had reduced North Pacific fin whale abundance from an estimated 42,000 to 

45,000 animals to between 13,620 and 18,680 animals (Ohsumi and Wada 1974). Surveys in 

1996 and 2001 produced an estimate of 3,279 fin whales off California, Oregon, and 

Washington. NMFS calculates the PBR level to be 15 fin whales in this area. Recently 

documented fishery-caused deaths have averaged about 1.0 whale per year, while confirmed 

vessel related-deaths have averaged 0.4 fin whale per year (NMFS 2006a). 

Northeast Pacific Population: This population occurs across the northern North Pacific Ocean 

from British Columbia to Japan and north to the Bering Strait (NMFS 2005a). A combination of 

estimates from surveys between 1999 and 2003 in the central and eastern Bering Sea and along 

the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands suggests the number of fin whales west of the Kenai 

Peninsula is at least 5,703 whales (NMFS 2005a). Information to assess the population’s trend is 

insufficient and PBR for the population is calculated to be 11.4 whales per year. About 0.6 fin 

whale a year is known to have been killed recently in this area, which is less than 10 percent of 

PBR. Thus, the estimated mortality and serious injury rate for the area west of the Kenai is 

considered insignificant and approaching zero. 

Hawaii Population: Fin whales sightings off Hawaii are rare; however, recordings of fin whale 

vocalizations indicate their presence (NMFS 2006a). Based on a ship survey in 2002, an 

abundance of 174 fin whales was estimated for waters within 200 nmi of Hawaii. The calculated 

PBR level for this stock is 0.2. Fishing-related mortality of fin whales in Hawaiian waters has not 

been reported, and incidental take levels, if any take occurs, are considered to be insignificant 

and approaching zero. 

Major Threats: A draft recovery plan for fin and sei whales (Reeves et al. 1998) identified the 

following threats for both species: 

Vessel Interactions: Fin whales are the species of whale most commonly injured or killed by ship 

strikes off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States. Based on recent but limited 

data, NMFS estimates known mortality due to vessel collisions to be at least 1.4 fin whales per 
61

year in the North Atlantic. Limited evidence also suggests that fin whales may alter their 

behavior in response to whale-watching vessels off Atlantic Canada and the northeastern United 

States. Off the U.S. Pacific coast, the most likely sources of vessel disturbance may be industrial, 

military, and fishing vessel traffic. 

Entrapment and Entanglement in Fishing Gear: Fin whales are killed or injured annually by 

inshore fishing gear off Atlantic Canada and the eastern United States, as well as off the Pacific 

coast of the United States and Mexico. During the 1980s the southern California offshore drift 

gillnet fishery killed an estimated 73 rorqual whales per year. Some of those whales may have 

been fin whales, but it is unclear how many. Shark and swordfish driftnet fisheries off Baja 

California, Mexico, also have likely killed fin whales. The frequency of entanglements is 

difficult to estimate because of limited observer coverage for relevant fisheries and because the 

offshore distribution of fin whales makes it unlikely that whale carcasses will strand on land. 

Habitat Degradation: The principal concern regarding habitat degradation is the possible 

depletion of fin whale prey (small schooling fish) by commercial fishing. In addition, highenergy, low-frequency underwater sound transmissions for research and military purposes may 

disturb fin whales or interfere with their vocal communications. 

Hunting: Until the mid-1970s fin whales were hunted intensively in the North Atlantic and North 

Pacific Oceans. Currently, populations occurring in U.S. waters are legally hunted only in 

Greenland for aboriginal subsistence use. Although commercial hunting is currently banned 

under the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling, that measure was adopted as a temporary 

measure that could be removed, thereby opening the possibility for a resumption of commercial 

harvesting by other nations at some point in the future. The government of Iceland, which 

withdrew from the IWC several years ago, has recently announced plans to take a small number 

of fin whales commercially despite IWC provisions against such takes. 

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead federal agency responsible for managing activities 

affecting fin whales. Together with the Department of State, NMFS and other parts of NOAA 

develop scientific advice and U.S. positions for meetings of the IWC. No recovery team or other 

interagency management team has been established to oversee or undertake management 

activities specifically for fin whales. However, take reduction teams have been established to 

address the take of multiple large whale species, including fin whales, in the offshore drift gillnet 

fishery off California and in trap and gillnet fisheries along the Atlantic coast (NMFS 2006a,b). 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: In 1998 NMFS contracted for the preparation of a draft recovery plan 

addressing both fin and sei whales. Although completed in 1998, the draft plan (Reeves et al. 

1998) was never adopted formally by NMFS. In 2006 NMFS released a new draft fin whale 

recovery plan for public review and comment (NMFS 2006c). The immediate and ultimate goals 

of the new draft plan are to recover fin whale populations to the point where they can be 

downlisted to threatened and delisted from the list of endangered species. A two-tier system of 

criteria is proposed in the draft plan for making reclassification and delisting decisions. The first 

tier considers population status and trends and identifies the following standards: 
62

• For reclassifying as threatened, the overall population in each ocean basin (1) must have 

remained stable or increased for at least 1.5 generations (26 years) or (2) must have 

satisfied a risk analysis standard of no more than a 1 percent chance of quasi-extinction in 

100 years. 

• For removing the species from the list, the overall population in each ocean basin (1) must 

have remained stable or increased for at least three generations (51 years) or (2) have less 

than a 10 percent probability of becoming endangered in 20 years. 

The second tier describes standards relative to the five listing factors established by the ESA. 

• Destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or range: For downlisting, 

fishing interactions, vessel interactions, prey reduction, and effects of anthropogenic noise 

must have been assessed and needed management actions must have been initiated. For 

removal from the list, management actions must have been proven effective. 

• Overutilization for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes: For downlisting, 

direct human kills must be managed on a sustainable basis by the IWC, and for removal 

from the list, those management actions must have been proven effective and consistent 

with MMPA standards for maintaining populations at OSP levels. 

• Disease or predation: For both downlisting and removal from the list, assessments must 

have been undertaken showing that these factors are not appreciably affecting recovery. 

• Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms: For both downlisting and removal from the 

list, the IWC must be regulating directed take on a sustainable basis, and applicable 

authorities must be adequately regulating takes due to vessel collisions and fishery 

interactions. 

• Other natural or manmade factors: For both downlisting and removal from the list, 

anthropogenic factors must have been investigated and determined not to be limiting 

recovery. 

To meet these goals and criteria, the draft plan identifies eight actions. These involve tasks to (1) 

maintain an effective program of international whaling regulation, (2) determine population 

discreteness and structure, (3) develop and apply methods to estimate population size and 

monitor trends in abundance, (4) conduct risk analyses for whales in each ocean basin, (5) 

identify and protect habitat essential to recovery, (6) minimize human sources of injury and 

mortality, (7) determine and minimize detrimental effects of anthropogenic noise, and (8) 

develop a plan for monitoring the population after the species is removed from the list. Because 

the whales move across international borders, the draft plan stresses the importance of a 

multinational research and management approach. 

Major Management Actions: With regard to fin whales, management by NMFS over the last 

several decades has focused principally on participation in the IWC. The IWC began managing 

commercial whaling for fin whales in 1969 in the North Pacific and in 1976 in the North Atlantic 

(Reeves et al. 1998). In 1976 it adopted a ban on hunting fin whales in the North Pacific, and in 

1987 it did so for the North Atlantic. Since then, the only authorized take of fin whales likely to 

belong to a population that occurs in U.S. waters has been an annual quota of 10 whales for 

aboriginal subsistence hunters in Greenland. In recent years, however, the IWC has received 
63

proposals from some members to lift the commercial whaling moratorium. Although these have 

been rejected to date, regulated harvests of fin whales could resume at some point in the future. 

Since the late 1990s the incidental take of fin whales in commercial fisheries (principally trap 

and gillnet fisheries) has been addressed through take reduction plans developed for multiple 

species of endangered large whales and through periodic section 7 consultations on fishery 

management plans. Take reduction plans covering fin whales and other large whales have been 

developed for trap and gillnet fisheries along the Atlantic coast and for drift gillnet fisheries 

along the U.S. Pacific coast. Because estimated take levels for fin whales have been below the 

calculated PBR levels, entanglement risks for fin whales generally have not been a central focus 

of protection measures. However, because fin whale habitats overlap those of other large whales 

and because fin whales can be entangled in the same gear types, fin whales are thought to benefit 

from mitigation measures designed largely with other whale species in mind. 

Staff and Funding Levels: NMFS reported no funding specifically for fin whales between 2000 

and 2004 in FWS surveys of expenditures for ESA listed species (FWS 2005d-f). According to 

NMFS budget documents, NMFS allocated $994,000 in FY2004 funding to the recovery of 

endangered large whales (Appendix E), an uncertain portion of which may have included 

research relative to fin whales. NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 0.9 FTE in staff effort on 

fin recovery work (0.6 by its regional offices and headquarters and 0.3 by its science centers) 

during 2005.16

Funding for fin whales reported by other federal agencies and states in FWS annual expenditure 

surveys (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006) ranged between $4,870 in 2000 to $205,900 in 2004 

(Table 15, Appendices C.1–7). Most of this funding was reported by the U.S. Coast Guard for 

enforcement. For example, in 2003, the Coast Guard reported expenditures totaling $198,897. 

Table 15. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of fin whales, 1998–

2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal 

Year 

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal 

State 

Total 

State and 

Federal 

1998 – – – – 4 4 1 5 

1999 – – – 9 4 13 0.3 13 

2000 – – – – 4 4 1 5 

2001 – – – – 22 22 2 24 

2002 – – – 7 5 13 1 13 

2003 – – – 199 6 205 1 206 

2004 0.2 – – 63 6 69 3 72 

 

16 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
64

The draft fin whale recovery plan (NMFS 2006d) projects future funding needs for implementing 

each of the eight major recovery actions identified above, but the plan does not break down those 

costs annually. As shown in Table 16, those funding needs were developed for each of the three 

ocean basins in which fin whales occur and totaled approximately $30.2 million over the next 20 

years for all areas. 

Table 16. Projected funding needs ($ thousands) to implement the draft 2006 fin whale recovery 

plan (NMFS 2006d) 

Ocean 

Basin* 

Action 

1 

Action 

 2 

Action 

3 

Action 

4 

Action 

 5 

Action 

6 

Action 

7 

Action 

8 Total 

N. 

Atlantic 

(2012) 

301 267 2,150 100 225 1,625 787 75 5,530 

N. Pacific 

(2012) 101 366 1,500 100 225 1,625 788 75 4,780 

S. Ocean 

(2026) 523 667 18,000 200 500 – – – 23,140 

* Years in parentheses are the earliest expected date for meeting recovery criteria. 

Humpback Whale 

Population Status: Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) occur in all the world oceans 

except the Arctic Ocean. All populations were severely depleted by commercial whaling in the 

20th century (NMFS 1991b). Humpback whales were listed as endangered throughout their 

worldwide range under the ESCA in 1970, and that designation was carried forward under the 

ESA. In the North Pacific, an estimated 28,000 humpbacks were killed during the period of 

modern commercial whaling, including 2,000 off Oregon and Washington, 3,400 off California, 

and 2,800 off Baja California. By 1966 their numbers throughout the North Pacific were thought 

to have been reduced to as few as 1,000 to 1,200 whales. In the North Atlantic, between 14,000 

and 18,000 humpback whales were killed. The IWC has classified all populations of humpback 

whales worldwide as protection stocks for which no commercial hunting is permitted. 

Since the 1960s populations in both oceans have been recovering. The total number of humpback 

whales in the North Atlantic Ocean is currently estimated at 11,570 whales (NMFS 2006b) and 

more than 6,000 whales are estimated to occur in the North Pacific Ocean (NMFS 2006a). For 

purposes of preparing stock assessment reports under the MMPA (NMFS 2005a, 2006a,b), 

NMFS currently recognizes four populations that occur at least seasonally in U.S. waters: one in 

the North Atlantic (the Gulf of Maine population) and three in the North Pacific (the eastern 

North Pacific population, the central North Pacific population, and the western North Pacific 

population). 

Gulf of Maine Population: Although almost all humpback whales in the North Atlantic share 

winter breeding grounds in the Caribbean, they appear to use at least six summer feeding 

grounds around the rim of the North Atlantic Ocean (NMFS 2006b). A high degree of site 

fidelity to individual feeding grounds apparently is ingrained in newborn calves as they follow 

their mothers to the feeding grounds. As a result, discrete groups or subpopulations of whales 

tend to use different feeding grounds. Humpback whales also occur seasonally in the spring in 
65

coastal waters between the Chesapeake Bay and Cape Hatteras. It is not clear if those individuals 

are part of the subpopulation that uses summer feeding grounds in the Gulf of Maine. The best 

abundance estimate for the Gulf of Maine subpopulation is 902 animals (NMFS 2006b). Gulf of 

Maine humpback whales are thought to be increasing at a rate consistent with the overall 3.2 

percent annual rate of increase observed for humpback whales throughout the North Atlantic 

basin (Stevick et al. 2003). 

The PBR level for the Gulf of Maine subpopulation is 1.3 (NMFS 2006b). Between 1999 and 

2003 recorded fishery-related deaths and serious injures for humpback whales in the Gulf of 

Maine averaged at least 2.8 per year, exceeding the PBR level. About one-half of all humpback 

whales in the Gulf of Maine bear scars caused by entanglement in fishing gear, suggesting that 

the incidence of entanglement is far greater than mortality records indicate. In addition, six other 

human-related deaths and injuries were recorded between 1999 and 2003 off mid- and south 

Atlantic states although it is unclear whether those whales were part of the Gulf of Maine 

subpopulation. Among the documented humpback whale carcasses available for examination, 

human factors, principally collisions with ships, contributed to or caused death in nearly 60 

percent of the cases (Wiley et al. 1995). 

Eastern North Pacific Population: The eastern North Pacific population of humpback whales 

winters in calving grounds off Central America and Mexico and migrates to summer feeding 

grounds along the coast between California and southern British Columbia. The best estimate of 

abundance for the eastern North Pacific population is 1,391 animals (NMFS 2006a). The 

population appears to have been growing steadily, with the exception of a brief period in the late 

1990s when it may have declined. The PBR level for this population is 4.6, but because the 

whales spend half their time outside U.S. waters, the PBR for U.S. waters is estimated at 2.3 

whales per year. The total known mortality in recent years, including 1.2 whales per year from 

entanglement and 0.2 from ship strikes, is less than the PBR level (NMFS 2006a). Because the 

fishery-related takes off California exceed 10 percent of the PBR level, the fishery mortality and 

serious injury rate is not considered to be insignificant and approaching zero. 

Central North Pacific Population: The central North Pacific population spends winter and spring 

off the Hawaiian Islands and migrates to feeding areas off northern British Columbia, southeast 

Alaska, and Prince William Sound west to the Bering Sea (NMFS 2005a). The best estimate of 

abundance is 4,005 whales based on surveys in Hawaii. As in the North Atlantic, humpback 

whales in the central North Pacific population appear to maintain a high degree of site fidelity to 

feeding areas. Minimum estimates of abundance for feeding stocks identified to date include 651 

around Kodiak Island, 410 around the Shumagin Islands, 315 in Prince William Sound, 961 in 

southeast Alaska, and 850 to 1,000 in British Columbia (which may include some animals from 

southeast Alaska) (NMFS 2005a). The PBR level for the entire central North Pacific population 

is 12.9, including 3.0 for southeast Alaska and 9.9 for areas north of southeast Alaska (NMFS 

2006a). Commercial fisheries are thought to cause at least 3.4 humpback whale deaths per year. 

Because this rate is more than 10 percent of the calculated PBR level, the incidental mortality 

and serious injury rate due to fishing is not considered insignificant or approaching zero. 

Although the population as a whole appears to be increasing, its rate of increase is uncertain. 
66

Western North Pacific Population: Humpback whales in the western North Pacific population 

spend winter and spring off Japan and probably migrate to the Bering Sea and the Aleutian 

Islands to feed in summer (NMFS 2005a). Photo-identification studies from winter breeding 

areas have resulted in an abundance estimate of 394 whales. Because of limited study and 

overlap with feeding grounds of humpback whales from the central North Pacific population, 

there are no reliable estimates of abundance on feeding grounds. The PBR level is calculated to 

be 1.3, and the minimum annual mortality due to U.S. commercial fisheries is estimated as 0.5 

whale (NMFS 2005a). Available information suggests that incidental mortality caused by 

fisheries off Japan and Korea averages at least 1.1 to 2.4 whales per year, which would make the 

total human-caused mortality exceed the PBR level. 

Major Threats: Humpback whales are exposed to human activities more than most other great 

whales because they spend much of their time in coastal waters near human population centers 

(NMFS 1991b). Threats to humpback whales include entanglement and entrapment in fishing 

gear, collisions with vessels, competition for prey with commercial fishing, disturbance by 

whale-watching vessels, pollution from coastal development, and displacement and disturbance 

caused by noise and vessel traffic. Although the level of human-caused mortality and serious 

injury is unknown, current information indicates that these threats may be impeding, but not 

preventing, recovery of most populations in U.S. waters. 

Entanglement and Entrapment: As described above, deaths and serious injuries as a result of 

fisheries currently exceed the calculated PBR level for humpback whales in the Gulf of Maine 

subpopulation, and possibly for the western North Pacific population. Data show that whales 

from the central North Pacific population frequently interact with fishing gear, but the level of 

serious injury and mortality appears to be below PBR. Entanglement of eastern North Pacific 

humpback whales in a drift gillnet fishery appears to have been significantly reduced by 

measures adopted under a take reduction plan requiring the use of pingers and buoy line 

extenders to increase the depth at which nets are set (NMFS 2006a). However, some 

entanglements also occur in unidentified fisheries. 

Prey Reduction: Although humpback whales feed on small schooling fish such as herring and 

sardines that are targets for commercial fisheries in some areas, prey removal by fisheries does 

not appear to be limiting the recovery of humpback whale populations in U.S. waters. 

Vessel Collisions: Injuries and deaths due to vessel strikes may be as or more common than 

those from entanglement. Between 1999 and 2003, 15 vessel-related deaths or injuries were 

documented for humpback whales along the Atlantic coast; six involved whales that were killed, 

eight involved cases with insufficient information to determine severity, and one was known to 

have caused a minor, non-lethal injury (NMFS 2006b). For the eastern North Pacific population, 

vessel-related deaths and injuries appear to be less frequent, averaging at least 0.2 per year 

between 1999 and 2003 (NMFS 2006a). At least seven vessel-related deaths and injuries were 

reported for the central North Pacific population between 1999 and 2001, resulting in a minimum 

estimate of 0.8 deaths and serious injuries per year in Alaska (NMFS 2006a). There has been a 

substantial increase in reports of vessel collisions in Hawaii since 2001, and such injuries and 

deaths will likely increase for this population in coming years. No information is available on 

collision records for the western North Pacific population. 
67

Whale-Watching: In New England, southeast Alaska, California, and Hawaii, whale-watching 

activity has increased, raising concerns that disturbance from whale-watching vessels may cause 

humpback whales to abandon or reduce their use of preferred habitats, particularly preferred 

calving grounds in Hawaii (NMFS 2005e, NMFS 1991b). In southeast Alaska, noise and 

disturbance by increased numbers of large tour ships may have caused whales to reduce their use 

of feeding grounds in Glacier Bay during the 1980s (Baker and Herman 1989). 

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead federal agency responsible for managing activities 

affecting humpback whales. Together with the Department of State, NMFS and other NOAA 

offices develop policies and coordinate scientific advice for meetings of the IWC. Humpback 

whales also receive focused attention from managers of several national marine sanctuaries, 

including designated sanctuaries off Massachusetts, California, and Hawaii, and from the 

National Park Service at Glacier Bay National Park and Monument in southeastern Alaska. 

Although a recovery plan was adopted for humpback whales in 1991, no recovery or 

implementation teams have been established for this species. Interactions with fishing gear are 

addressed by take reduction teams established by NMFS to recommend take reduction plans for 

large whale species, including humpback whales. 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: NMFS adopted a recovery plan for humpback whales in 1991. The plan 

identifies three goals: 

• A biological goal for building and maintaining populations to levels large enough to be 

resilient to chance events such as episodic changes in oceanographic conditions, epizootics, 

anthropogenic environmental catastrophes, or inbreeding; 

• A numerical goal for achieving a population size consonant both with the biological goal 

and with continuing human use of the oceans. The long-term goal is to achieve population 

sizes equal to the historical environmental carrying capacity in U.S. waters; and 

• A management goal for changing the classification of particular populations from 

endangered to threatened and removing them from the list of protected species. 

As an interim goal, the plan sought to double the size of humpback whale populations in 20 

years. Major identified objectives included (1) maintaining and enhancing habitat, (2) identifying 

and reducing direct human-related injury and mortality, (3) monitoring population parameters, 

and (4) improving coordination of recovery activities. 

Major Management Actions: The IWC has prohibited commercial exploitation of humpback 

whales worldwide since 1966. However, an aboriginal subsistence quota of two humpback 

whales per year has been authorized by the IWC to the government of St. Vincent and The 

Grenadines in the Caribbean. 

Since adopting a recovery plan for humpback whales, NMFS has supported the maintenance of 

whale photo-identification catalogues to assist in monitoring reproductive rates and other life 

history parameters. NMFS also has undertaken studies to estimate abundance and determine 

genetic relationships. Coordinated international research on humpback whales in the North 

Atlantic was conducted during 1992 and 1993 in an effort known as the Years of the North 
68

Atlantic Humpback (Project YoNAH). A similar effort called Structure of Populations, Levels of 

Abundance and Status of Humpbacks (SPLASH) was initiated for the North Pacific in 2004; data 

collection is expected to be completed in 2006. The SPLASH program involves cooperative 

efforts by NMFS, the National Marine Sanctuaries Program, and various national and foreign 

research organizations to determine the population status, structure, and trends of humpback 

whales throughout the North Pacific Ocean basin. 

Since 1986 NMFS has monitored fishery interactions through fishery reporting requirements, 

observer programs in several large pelagic fisheries off the Atlantic coast, and opportunistic 

sighting reports of entangled animals by aerial survey teams, Coast Guard patrols, and the public 

(NMFS 2006b). Based on information from these sources as well as stranding records, 11 serious 

injuries or deaths related to fisheries were identified in trap fisheries in the 1990s, and in 1997 

the Service elevated the Gulf of Maine and mid-Atlantic lobster pot fishery from a category III 

fishery to a category I. Since 1998 entanglement of humpback whales in this fishery and East 

Coast gillnet fisheries has been addressed by the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team 

and the take reduction plan developed to reduce interactions in both types of fishing gear. Major 

features of that plan have included efforts to disentangle whales, require modification of fishing 

gear to reduce entanglement risks, and restrict fishing in key whale habitats. Although these 

efforts have focused primarily on reducing entanglement risks for North Atlantic right whales, 

the actions, particularly disentanglement efforts, also benefit humpback whales. Experience in 

disentangling humpback whales in the northeastern United States has led to similar efforts in 

Alaska, Hawaii, and California. 

To address disturbance by whale-watching vessels, NMFS has developed recommended 

guidelines for whale-watching activities for several regions and promulgated regulations limiting 

the distances at which vessels can approach whales in waters off both Hawaii in 1995 (50 Fed. 

Reg. 3775) and Alaska in 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 29502), and the National Park Service also has 

restricted vessel speeds and access to Glacier Bay in southeast Alaska to protect feeding 

humpback whales. The National Ocean Service also has implemented education and outreach 

efforts to protect humpback whales using national marine sanctuaries at Stellwagen Bank off 

eastern Massachusetts, the Channel Islands and Farallon Islands off California, and coastal 

waters around the main Hawaiian Islands. In response to increasing reports of collisions between 

humpback whales and vessels off Hawaii, managers of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary have focused particular attention on advising vessel operators as to 

actions they can take to avoid hitting whales. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Cost projections for recovery work during the first five years after 

the Humpback Whale Recovery Plan was adopted in 1991 were estimated to range from $2.69 to 

$8.14 million per year with a five-year total of $20.62 million (NMFS 1991b). Actual 

expenditures during that period are uncertain but are believed to have been much lower. Funding 

for work on humpback whales reported in annual FWS expenditure surveys (FWS 2003b–d, 

2005d–f, 2006) indicate that NMFS funding levels between 2001 and 2004 ranged from $53,000 

in Fiscal Year 2001 to $1.15 million in Fiscal Year 2003 (Table 17, Appendices C.1–7). Most 

funding in 2003 supported the SPLASH program. Recent NMFS budget documents indicate that 

NMFS received $994,000 in FY 2003 funding for the recovery of endangered large whales. The 

amount devoted specifically to humpback whales from this source is uncertain (Appendix E). 
69

Table 17. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of humpback whales, 

1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal 

Year 

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal 

State 

Total 

State 

and 

Federal 

1998 – – 240 – 80 320 41 361

1999 – – 131 277 76 484 8 492

2000 – – 53 349 154 556 11 567

2001 – – 53 324 352 729 11 740

2002 – – 150 280 449 879 11 890

2003 – – 1,150 199 248 1,597 18 1,615

2004 – – – 416 243 659 7 666

NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 7.1 FTEs in staff effort on humpback whale recovery 

work (1.8 by its regional offices and headquarters and 5.3 by its science centers) during 2005.17

The Marine Mammal Commission’s survey of federally funded marine mammal research 

(Waring 2002) reports that between FY1991 and FY2000 funding for research on humpback 

whales ranged from $107,000 in FY1991 to $673,000 in FY1994 (see Appendix F). In 2000, the 

most recent year reported, federal research funding was $342,000. The principal sources of 

funding were NMFS and the Department of Defense’s Strategic Environmental Research and 

Development Program. Recently funding has increased above those levels as a result of support 

from various agencies for the SPLASH program. 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

Population Status: All species and populations of right whales worldwide were severely 

depleted by centuries of commercial whaling that continued into the early 1900s. The IWC has 

classified all right whale populations as protection stocks. In 1970, when right whales were 

initially listed as endangered under the ESCA, right whales in the North Atlantic and North 

Pacific Oceans were considered to be separate populations of a single species called the northern 

right whale. That designation was carried forward under the ESA. Recent genetic analyses, 

however, indicate that North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales are separate species 

(Eubalaena glacialis and E. japonica, respectively). Based on that information, NMFS is taking 

steps to reclassify them separately under the ESA. In the North Atlantic, the only remaining 

population considered viable inhabits the western North Atlantic Ocean off the coasts of the 

United States and Canada. A population that occurred off Europe has been all but eliminated by 

commercial whaling. The North Atlantic species currently is estimated to number at least 299 

animals; its PBR level is set at zero (NMFS 2006b). 

The western North Atlantic population has shown little evidence of increasing since research 

efforts began in the early 1980s. Modeling studies suggest that the population began to decline at 

 

17 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115.
70

about 2 percent per year in the early to mid-1990s (Caswell et al. 1999). The current recovery 

plan, adopted in 2005, concludes that the possibility of biological extinction within the next 

century “is very real” (NMFS 2005b). A series of five consecutive years (2001–2005) in which 

documented calf counts have averaged more than 20 per year, however, has been an encouraging 

prospect for future recovery. 

Major Threats: Deaths due to collisions with ships and entanglement in fishing gear are the 

principal reasons for the species’ failure to recover since the cessation of commercial hunting 

(MMC 1990, Kraus et al. 2005, NMFS 2005b). Most deaths due to ship collisions are caused by 

large vessels (Laist et al. 2001). Most entanglements appear to involve lines from actively fished 

lobster traps and gillnets (NMFS 2005b). Between 1990 and 2005 more than 50 percent of all 

documented right whale deaths were caused by ship collisions (18 deaths) or entanglements (5 

deaths) (MMC 2006). Additional deaths undoubtedly occurred but were not recorded. A recent 

study concluded that only 17 percent of all deaths are observed (Kraus et al. 2005). Between 

2000 and the end of 2005, 25 live right whales were observed entangled in fishing gear, 2 of 

which were later found dead and 7 of which were in poor condition when last sighted (MMC 

2006). For the period 1999–2003 NMFS estimates that human-caused mortality averaged 2.6 

deaths per year in U.S. and Canadian waters (NMFS 2006b), including one vessel-related death 

per year and 1.6 entanglement-related deaths per year. 

Other threats to North Atlantic right whales identified in the revised recovery plan include 

habitat degradation, noise, contaminants, underwater explosives, climate and ecosystem change, 

and commercial exploitation (NMFS 2005b). 

Management Framework: Before the 1980s management of right whales worldwide was 

principally through the IWC, the international organization responsible for the regulation of 

whaling. Under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the management 

authority that eventually led to the formation of the IWC in 1946, commercial hunting for right 

whales has been banned worldwide since the 1930s. A dedicated research program on western 

North Atlantic right whales was not begun until the early 1980s when a small remnant 

population was discovered off the U.S. East Coast. Dedicated management efforts were not 

initiated until 1987 when, at the recommendation of the Marine Mammal Commission, NMFS 

convened a recovery team to develop a draft recovery plan. A final plan was adopted in 1991. 

The team was then disbanded, and NMFS established two regional recovery plan implementation 

teams: one for summer feeding areas off the northeastern United States and the other off the 

southeastern United States where whales calve in winter. The teams, composed of federal, state, 

and non-governmental representatives, are charged with helping the Service implement recovery 

actions. The southeastern team continues to meet, but the northeastern team does not. 

In 1997 NMFS established the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team to provide advice on 

measures to reduce entanglement risks in fishing gear. NMFS also is assisted by the Right Whale 

Consortium, an organization of non-governmental marine mammal scientists working at various 

universities and research institutes. The consortium and its members conduct much of the right 

whale research and monitoring work, manage a right whale photo-identification catalogue and 

associated data, convene annual reviews of research findings, participate on various management 

teams, and carry out most disentanglement work with funding from NMFS. Several state 
71

agencies also assist in recovery work with supplemental funding provided by appropriations 

under the ESA. The U.S. Coast Guard carries out fisheries enforcement, vessel management, and 

other recovery activities in cooperation with NMFS. NMFS also cooperates with Canada’s 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans on related recovery activities. 

Critical Habitat: Early studies of right whales identified five seasonal high-use right whale 

habitats, three of which are in U.S. waters (Kraus and Kenny 1991). These are— 

• coastal Florida and Georgia used as a calving ground in winter; 

• Cape Cod Bay used as a feeding ground in late winter and early spring; 

• the Great South Channel east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, used as a feeding ground in spring 

and early summer; 

• the Bay of Fundy between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada, used as a feeding 

ground in summer and early fall; and 

• the Scotian Shelf, including Browns and Baccaro Banks, Roseway Basin, southeast of Nova 

Scotia, used as a feeding ground principally in the fall. 

In 1994 NMFS designated the three areas in U.S. waters as critical habitat for northern right 

whales. In July 2002 the Ocean Conservancy petitioned NMFS to expand the designated critical 

habitats based on regular sightings of right whales in adjacent waters. NMFS found that the 

petition included information warranting consideration, but in August 2003 it concluded that the 

petition did not provide all the information necessary to justify such an action. It therefore 

deferred action to revise the boundaries, pending analyses of sighting data. No further action has 

been taken. Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans has designated the two areas in 

Canada as whale conservation areas. 

Recovery Plan: The Service adopted an initial recovery plan for right whales in both the North 

Atlantic and North Pacific in 1991. In 2005 a revised recovery plan for North Atlantic right 

whales was adopted (NMFS 2005b). The ultimate goal of the revised plan is to promote recovery 

of North Atlantic right whales to a level sufficient to warrant their removal from the list of 

endangered and threatened species. Its interim goal is to achieve a population level that would 

allow the species to be reclassified as threatened. The plan identifies the following criteria for 

reclassifying the western Atlantic population as threatened: 

• The population ecology (range, distribution, age structure, and gender ratios, etc.) and vital 

rates (age-specific survival, age-specific reproduction, and lifetime reproductive success) of 

right whales are indicative of an increasing population; 

• The population has increased for a period of 35 years at an average rate of increase equal to 

or greater than 2 percent per year; 

• None of the known threats to northern right whales (summarized in the five listing factors) is 

known to limit the population’s growth rate; and 

• Given current and projected threats and environmental conditions, the right whale population 

has no more than a 1 percent chance of quasi-extinction in 100 years. 

The recovery plan does not include criteria for delisting because of the very low abundance and 

the need for decades of population growth to reach abundance levels at which the species could 

be considered for delisting. 
72

To achieve its goals, the revised recovery plan identifies five objectives: (1) significantly reduce 

human-caused mortality, injury, and disturbance; (2) develop demographically based recovery 

criteria; (3) identify, characterize, protect, and monitor important habitats; (4) monitor the status 

and trends of the population; and (5) coordinate federal, state, international, and nongovernmental recovery actions. 

Highest priority under the plan is placed on actions to reduce entanglement in fishing gear and 

ship collisions. 

Major Management Actions: To reduce entanglement, NMFS has relied principally on efforts 

to (1) develop and require the use of fishing gear thought to be less likely to ensnare whales and 

(2) disentangle whales that are observed entangled. To develop fishery management strategies, 

NMFS relies on advice from the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team. The team, 

composed of representatives from involved fisheries, state and regional fishery management 

agencies, conservation groups, federal agencies, and academic organizations, considers 

entanglement risks for several endangered whale species but focuses almost entirely on North 

Atlantic right whales. In 1997 NMFS adopted an Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. Its 

goal was to reduce the mortality and serious injury of right whales to below its PBR level, which, 

because of the species’ depleted status, has been set at zero. Measures adopted to meet this goal 

include (1) actions to disentangle whales found entangled, (2) requirements for modifying gear 

thought by the Service to reduce whale entanglement risks throughout certain fisheries, (3) 

seasonal management areas where additional gear modifications are required, and (4) seasonal 

time/area closures in areas where right whales aggregate seasonally. 

Reducing right whale entanglements has proven to be one of the most difficult and controversial 

challenges of any endangered marine mammal recovery program. Since 1997 the take reduction 

plan has undergone a series of major and minor modifications, none of which has resulted in 

meeting required goals. Measures implemented in 1997 resulted in no observable reductions in 

right whale entanglements, and in 2001 NMFS initiated formal consultations pursuant to section 

7 of the ESA on its own fishery management plans for four lobster and gillnet fisheries along the 

U.S. East Coast. The consultations concluded that the plans were jeopardizing the continued 

existence of North Atlantic right whales and identified reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

Those alternatives included new gear modification requirements, development of a dynamic area 

management process to temporarily close or manage fishing in areas where right whales 

aggregate to feed, and development of new seasonal management areas. In consultation with the 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team, such measures were implemented late in 2001. 

They, too, yielded no observable reduction in right whale entanglement. After the take of a whale 

in gear previously considered safe, NMFS reconvened the take reduction team in 2003 to 

develop another major revision of the take reduction plan. Reinitiation of consultations on 

relevant fishery management plans has not been undertaken as of this writing, and 

implementation of new measures is not expected until 2007. 

Efforts to reduce ship collisions have relied on voluntary actions by vessel operators to avoid 

hitting whales. Major actions identified in the recovery plan include developing educational 

materials to advise mariners as to how to identify and avoid hitting right whales, implementing 

mandatory ship reporting systems in key habitats to advise mariners of collision risks and 
73

encourage voluntary efforts, conducting aerial surveys in key habitats to locate whales and 

advise mariners of their location, and developing a ship strike reduction strategy with speed and 

routing requirements (NMFS 2005). Efforts to develop the latter have been ongoing since the 

late 1990s but have not yet been completed. NMFS requested comments on its strategy in 2004 

(70 Fed. Reg. 36121), and in 2006 it completed a draft environmental impact statement 

evaluating alternative speed and routing restrictions. Accompanying that statement, NMFS 

proposed regulations (71 Fed Reg. 36299) to seasonally limit vessel speeds to 10 knots within 30 

nmi of major East Coast ports and to impose temporary speed restrictions around large 

aggregations of right whales wherever they are detected. Final rules are expected in 2007. NMFS 

also has conducted formal consultations with the Navy and the Coast Guard under section 7 of 

the ESA on the operation of their vessels in areas where right whales are likely to occur. The 

consultations recommended that crews of Coast Guard and Navy vessels watch out for right 

whales and reduce speeds to levels they determine appropriate in key right whale habitats. 

Staff and Funding Levels: The Marine Mammal Commission survey of federally funded marine 

mammal research (Waring 2002) reports that funding for northern right whale biological and 

population assessment by all federal agencies increased from $641,000 in FY1991 to $3.1 

million in FY2000 (Appendix F). Research funding by NMFS grew from $194,000 to $1.8 

million during that period. The next largest source of funding was the Navy whose funding 

declined from $970,000 in FY1997 to $611,000 in FY2000. 

Between 1998 and 2004 funding for North Atlantic right whale conservation increased steadily. 

Since then it has declined substantially. According to annual FWS expenditure reports for work 

on endangered species (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006), appropriated funding for NMFS right 

whale conservation activities increased from $1.5 million in 1998 to $5.2 million in 2001 and 

$11.2 million in 2004 (Table 18, Appendices C.1–7). Although most federal funding 

appropriated specifically for right whales has been allocated to NMFS, Coast Guard expenditures 

for enforcement and assistance in disentanglement efforts grew to $4.4 million in 2004. NMFS 

budget documents indicate that allocations for right whale research and recovery activities 

declined in 2005 (Appendix E). NMFS estimates that it devoted 29.2 FTEs to North Atlantic 

right whale conservation working during 2005, including 20.5 in New England, 5.5 in the 

southeastern United States, and 2.25 at headquarters.18

In 2002 the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation established a National Whale Conservation 

Fund recommended by the Marine Mammal Commission and subsequently mandated by 

Congress. The foundation is a not-for-profit organization established by Congress in 1984 to help 

secure non-governmental donations for wildlife conservation work. Since 2002 NMFS has 

partnered with the foundation to coordinate various grant programs through the fund. The 

foundation has funded more than 20 gear research projects related to right whale conservation at 

levels ranging from about $4,000 to $20,000. It also supported related state agency conservation 

initiatives in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Georgia, and Florida at levels ranging from about $50,000 to $500,000 per year. 

 

18 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 
74

Table 18. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of northern right 

whales, 1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal 

Year 

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal 

State 

Total 

State 

and 

Federal 

1998 2 – 1,100 – 357 1,458 1 1,460 

1999 – – 1,542 892 549 2,983 290 3,273 

2000 – – 4,168 433 143 4,744 127 4,872 

2001 – – 5,270 474 147 5,891 145 6,036 

2002 – – 7,120 857 136 8,113 280 8,393 

2003 – – 10,270 1,098 312 11,679 123 11,802 

2004 0.2 – 11,225 444 197 11,866 504 12,370 

As shown in Table 19, the 2005 revision of the North Atlantic right whale recovery plan projects 

estimated annual recovery program costs for the first five years of recovery work under the plan 

(including activities ranked from priority 1 through 3) to be between $7.69 and $9.96 million 

(NMFS 2005b). 

Table 19. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for North 

Atlantic right whales during the first five years after adoption of the 2005 North 

Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan (* = staff time only) 

Action 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 

1. Significantly reduce sources of 

human-caused death, injury, and 

disturbance 6,060 6,250 5,505 4,675 4,565 27,045

2. Develop demographically based 

recovery criteria * * 0 0 0 0

3. Identify, characterize, protect, and 

monitor important right whale habitats 735 865 880 770 585 3,845

4. Monitor the status and trends of 

abundance and distribution of the 

western North Atlantic right whale 2,365 2,645 2,630 2,360 2,235 12,235

5. Coordinate federal, state, 

international, and private efforts to 

implement the recovery plan 180 200 250 250 300 1,180

TOTAL 9,330 9,960 9,265 8,055 7,695 44,305

North Pacific Right Whale 

The northern right whale was listed as endangered throughout its range under the ESCA in 1970. 

That designation was carried forward under the ESA. At the time of those listing actions, right 

whales in both the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans were considered to be part of same 
75

species. Recent genetic analyses, however, indicate that North Pacific right whales are a separate 

species (Eubalaena japonica), and NMFS is taking steps to reclassify them as such under the 

ESA. Historical whaling records suggest there are two North Pacific populations—one in the 

eastern North Pacific Ocean in U.S. waters and one in the western North Pacific Ocean off 

Russia. Commercial whaling in the late 1800s and early 1900s drastically reduced both 

populations, and the IWC has classified North Pacific right whales as a protection stock. In its 

1991 recovery plan for northern right whales, NMFS suggested that the pre-exploitation 

abundance of right whales throughout the North Pacific might have exceeded 11,000 animals, 

and that its abundance in 1991 probably ranged from 100 to 500 (NMFS 1991). 

Between the 1960s and mid-1990s the eastern North Pacific population was known only from a 

few sightings of individuals and pairs scattered between Mexico, Hawaii, and Alaska. In the 

summer of 1996 four right whales were sighted in the southeastern Bering Sea. Since then, 

sightings of a few individuals have been reported annually in the same area. Photo-identification 

and biopsy studies between 1996 and 2004 indicate that there are at least 23 individual right 

whales in the population, including three cow-calf pairs. The surviving population may number 

only a few tens of animals, making it one of the world’s most endangered mammal populations 

(MMC 2005). In its 2003 stock assessment report, NMFS reported that it was unable to provide a 

reliable estimate of abundance. As a result, a PBR level for the population has not been 

calculated (NMFS 2005a). 

Major Threats: The 1991 recovery plan identified vessel interactions, entrapment and 

entanglement in fishing gear, habitat degradation, and hunting as potential threats, but almost no 

information was available on the level of those threats (NMFS 1991a). The low abundance and 

scattered distribution of eastern North Pacific right whales confound assessments of the scale of 

current threats (NMFS 2005a). 

Management Framework: The Northern Right Whale Recovery Team convened by NMFS in 

1987 considered management needs for North Pacific right whales in developing the draft 

Northern Right Whale Recovery Plan (NMFS 1991a). However, the team was not reconvened 

after the plan was adopted, and no regional team has been established specifically for North 

Pacific right whales. 

Critical Habitat: In February 2002 NMFS rejected a petition by the Center for Biological 

Diversity to designate most of the eastern Bering Sea as right whale critical habitat (MMC 2004). 

NMFS based its decision on a conclusion that essential features of critical habitat could not be 

identified, given available information. It therefore advised that it would continue to analyze the 

situation (68 Fed. Reg. 51758). In June 2005 in response to a lawsuit filed by the Center for 

Biological Diversity in 2004, a federal court in San Francisco found the NMFS decision not to 

designate critical habitat to be arbitrary and capricious, and it directed the Service to proceed 

with a critical habitat proposal. In late July 2006, NMFS published final rules to designating 

critical habitat in an area of about 36,000 sq mi in the southeastern Bering Sea and a small area 

south of Kodiak Island in the Gulf of Alaska (71 Fed Reg. 38277). 

Recovery Plan: The 1991 recovery plan for northern right whales included a separate, although 

brief section on North Pacific right whales (NMFS 1991a). The plan noted that the lack of 

information on where North Pacific right whales occur precluded the identification of site-
76

specific research and management actions. Upon identification of such areas, the recovery plan 

recommended that the following objectives be pursued: 

• Initiate studies to determine the population size and monitor trends in abundance of the 

North Pacific right whale; 

• Identify and protect habitats essential to the survival and recovery of North Pacific right 

whales; 

• Collect and analyze information on the areas and seasons where potential conflicts exist 

between vessel traffic and North Pacific right whales and the types of vessels involved; 

• Vigorously enforce whale protection laws; 

• Continue the international ban on hunting and other directed lethal take; 

• Reduce and eliminate injury and mortality caused by fisheries and fishing gear; and 

• Maximize efforts to acquire scientific information from dead or stranded North Pacific 

right whales. 

Although NMFS has published a revised recovery plan for North Atlantic right whales (NMFS 

2005), it has not done so for North Pacific right whales. 

Major Management Actions: Other than efforts to designate critical habitat, no management 

actions have been taken for North Pacific right whales. As indicated above, since 1996 NMFS 

has supported studies annually to better identify the number and distribution of right whales 

feeding in the southeastern Bering Sea in summer. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Prior to the mid-1990s, no staff or funding was devoted specifically 

to North Pacific right whales by NMFS. Funding specifically for North Pacific right whales is 

not reported in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s summary of federal expenditures on endangered 

species between 1998 and 2004 (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f). Based on information provided to the 

Marine Mammal Commission during its recent annual meetings, however, NMFS has provided 

between $100,000 and $200,000 per year since 1996 for various studies, including aerial and 

shipboard surveys, acoustic detection studies, satellite telemetry, and genetic sampling of right 

whales in Alaska. The Coast Guard has contributed ship time for studies, but its costs for doing 

so are unknown. NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 3.4 FTEs in staff effort on North Pacific 

right whale recovery work (0.6 by its regional offices and headquarters and 2.8 by its science 

centers) during 2005.19

Sei Whale 

Population Status: Sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis) were hunted commercially in the early to 

mid-1900s. The species as a whole was listed as endangered throughout its worldwide range 

under the ESCA in 1970, and that designation was carried forward under the ESA. The IWC 

classifies the Nova Scotia population of sei whales and all populations in the North Atlantic as 

protection stocks for which all commercial catch limits are set at zero. Sei whales in the eastern 

 

19 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
77

North Pacific are also classified as protection stocks. Although the population structure of sei 

whales is not well understood, NMFS recognizes three populations in U.S. waters, based largely 

on historical whaling records: a Nova Scotia population in the western North Atlantic, an eastern 

North Pacific population, and a Hawaii population. 

Nova Scotia Population: The distribution of the Nova Scotia population is centered in Canadian 

waters, but in spring and summer a portion of the population moves south to feed in U.S. waters 

of the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank (NMFS 2006b). Generally, those whales remain offshore 

along the edge of the continental shelf, but occasionally they enter shallower waters, presumably 

in search of prey when food in offshore waters is insufficient. In 1977 the sei whale population in 

Canadian waters was estimated at 1,393 to 2,248 animals. Based on aerial surveys in the late 

1970s and early 1980s, sei whale abundance between Cape Hatteras and Nova Scotia was 

estimated to be 280 whales. There are no more recent estimates, and information is insufficient 

to determine current population size, population trends, or the PBR level (NMFS 2006b). 

Eastern North Pacific Population: The IWC recognizes one population of sei whales in the North 

Pacific (NMFS 2006a). In its stock assessment reports, however, NMFS considers whales off the 

Pacific coast of North America to be a distinct population separate from the population that 

occurs throughout the rest of the North Pacific. Commercial whaling in the North Pacific 

reduced sei whale abundance from an estimated pre-exploitation level of 42,000 whales to 

between 7,260 and 12,620 whales in 1974. Between 1947 and 1987 commercial whalers took 

61,500 sei whales in the North Pacific, of which 410 were taken off central California. Shipboard 

surveys in 1996 and 2001 yielded an estimated abundance of 56 whales off California, Oregon, 

and Washington. Based on that estimate, NMFS calculates a PBR of 0.1. 

Hawaiian Population: Although information on the population structure of sei whales in the 

North Pacific is insufficient to identify individual stocks with confidence, NMFS recently 

decided to prepare a separate stock assessment for sei whales in Hawaiian waters to avoid the 

risk of assuming them to be part of a single panmictic stock. Based on vessel surveys in 2002, 

the abundance of sei whales in U.S. waters around Hawaii was estimated to be 77 whales, with a 

PBR of 0.1. 

Major Threats: Vessel collisions and entanglement in fishing gear are potential threats to sei 

whales. Off the northeastern U.S. coast, a few recent collision-related sei whale deaths have been 

recorded (Laist et al. 2001, NMFS 2006b). There were no documented deaths due to 

entanglement in fishing gear. No recent sei whale deaths or serious injuries have been recorded 

in the eastern North Pacific or Hawaiian waters from collisions or entanglement (NMFS 2006a). 

Management Framework: NMFS has not established a recovery team or other management 

team for sei whales. The agency has limited its management actions to efforts to control 

commercial whaling through the IWC and the development of take reduction plans for large 

whale species along the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts. 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: Although a draft recovery plan for fin and sei whales was completed in 1998 

(Reeves et al. 1998), it was not adopted (see fin whales above). 
78

Major Management Actions: The IWC did not begin regulating commercial hunting for sei 

whales until 1970 (Reeves et al. 1998). Commercial hunting for the species was prohibited in the 

North Pacific in 1976 but continued in the North Atlantic until 1986 when the IWC’s 

moratorium on all commercial whaling went into effect. Other than addressing the impact of 

commercial whaling through the IWC, NMFS management actions regarding sei whales have 

been limited largely to conducting section 7 consultations and the development and 

implementation of take reduction plans that apply to large whales in general. 

Staff and Funding Levels: According to FWS annual expenditure reports (FWS 2003b–d, 

2005d–f, 2006), funding for work on sei whales between 1998 and 2004 ranged from $3,600 in 

2000 to $202,900 in 2003 (Table 20, Appendices C.1–7). Most reported expenditures have been 

by the U.S. Coast Guard for enforcement and reflect an apportionment of expenditures for ship 

time to enforce rules generally applicable to large whales. According to budget documents, 

NMFS allocated $994,000 in FY2003 for the recovery of endangered large whales (e.g., blue, 

bowhead, fin, sei, sperm, and North Pacific right whales, Appendix E). It is not clear how much, 

if any, of that funding was dedicated to sei whales. NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 0.2 

FTE in staff effort on sei whale recovery work (all by its regional offices) during 2005.20

Table 20. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of sei whales, 1998–

2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal 

Year 

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal 

State 

Total 

State 

and 

Federal 

1998 – – – – 4 4 1 5 

1999 – – – – 4 4 – 4 

2000 – – – – 4 4 – 4 

2001 – – – – 12 12 – 12 

2002 – – – – 1 1 – 1 

2003 – – – 199 4 203 – 203 

2004 – – – 60 6 66 – 66 

Sperm Whale 

Population Status: Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) were drastically reduced in 

numbers worldwide by commercial whaling in the 1800s and early 1900s. The species as a 

whole was listed as endangered throughout its range under the ESCA in 1970, and that 

designation was carried forward under the ESA. The IWC has classified sperm whales 

worldwide as protection stocks for which commercial catch limits have been set at zero. 

Information on the population structure of the species is limited. The IWC currently considers 

sperm whales in the North Atlantic to be single population and those in the North Pacific to be 

 

20 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 
79

divided into eastern and western populations. Abundance of sperm whales in the North Atlantic 

is unknown. For the eastern North Pacific Ocean, estimates include 22,700 whales for tropical 

latitudes and 24,000 (based on visual sightings) and 39,200 (based on visual sightings and 

acoustic data) for eastern temperate latitudes, although it is unclear whether whales from this 

area enter U.S. waters (Barlow and Taylor 1998). In contrast to the IWC, NMFS currently 

recognizes five sperm whale population stocks in U.S. waters for purposes of preparing stock 

assessment reports: a North Atlantic population, a northern Gulf of Mexico population, a 

California/Oregon/Washington population, a Hawaii population, and a North Pacific population. 

North Atlantic Population: Sperm whales that occur off the U.S. Atlantic coast are likely part of 

a larger population (NMFS 2006b). Based on surveys carried out in 2004, the best available 

estimate of abundance for sperm whales in U.S. waters off the East Coast is 4,804 whales. The 

PBR level is 7. Data are insufficient to determine population structure or trends. 

Northern Gulf of Mexico Population: Based on strandings, sightings, and historic whaling 

catches, sperm whales in the northern Gulf of Mexico are currently considered a distinct 

population for management purposes (NMFS 2006b). Pooled data from surveys conducted in 

1996–2001 yield a best estimate of abundance of 1,349 whales in the northern Gulf of Mexico, 

and a PBR level of 2.2. Data are insufficient to determine population trends. 

California/Oregon/Washington Population: Recent genetic analyses of sperm whales in the 

eastern North Pacific suggest that the whales along the California coast differ markedly from 

those sampled farther offshore (NMFS 2006a). Although there appear to be large numbers of 

sperm whales west and south of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone off the West Coast, it is not 

clear whether those whales enter U.S waters. The best available abundance estimate, which is 

derived from surveys in 1996 and 2001, is 1,233 sperm whales off California, Oregon, and 

Washington. The PBR level is 1.8. Data are insufficient to determine population trends. 

Hawaii Population: Hawaii was the center of a sperm whale fishery in the 19th century (NMFS 

2006a). Strandings and sound recordings document the continued presence of sperm whales in 

these waters. Preliminary results of genetic studies suggest a significant difference between 

whales sampled off the U.S. mainland coast and those off Hawaii (NMFS 2006a). Based on a 

shipboard survey in 2002, the abundance of sperm whales in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

around the Hawaiian archipelago is 7,082 whales resulting a PBR of 11. Information is 

insufficient to determine population trends. 

North Pacific Population: The range of the North Pacific sperm whale population considered in 

NMFS stock assessment reports extends from British Columbia, Canada, through Alaska, west to 

Russia. Current information is not sufficient to estimate its abundance, trend, or PBR level 

(NMFS 2005a). 

Major Threats: Sperm whales were hunted with varying degrees of intensity until the 

moratorium on commercial whaling went into effect in 1986–1987. Between 1800 and 1987 

commercial whalers took at least 436,000 sperm whales worldwide (NMFS 2006a). The actual 

take may have been as high as one million. Although commercial harvests are currently banned 

worldwide under the IWC’s moratorium on commercial whaling, the moratorium was adopted as 
80

a temporary measure and may be removed in the future, thereby raising the possibility of 

resumption in commercial hunting of sperm whales. Because of their offshore distribution, sperm 

whales have less exposure to many types of human impact than do some coastal species, but they 

are still vulnerable to entanglement in fishing gear, collisions with ships, chemical contaminants, 

and noise pollution (NMFS 2002b). 

Entanglement and Entrapment in Fishing Gear: Although sperm whales are known to become 

entangled in gillnets and longlines, the frequency of such events appears to be very low. In recent 

years, there has been no evidence of entanglements for the northern Gulf of Mexico and Hawaii 

populations. In the North Atlantic, three sperm whale entanglements were documented between 

1993 and 1998, but since then only one entanglement has been documented, suggesting a 

minimum annual rate of mortality and serious injury of 0.2 (NMFS 2006b). Along the Pacific 

coast, an average of one sperm whale per year was killed or seriously injured in offshore drift 

gillnets between 1997 and 2001 (NMFS 2006a). For waters off Alaska, the incidental mortality 

and serious injury rate based on known reports is 0.4 whale per year. These rates are less than 10 

percent of calculated PBR levels and are considered insignificant and approaching zero. 

Ship Strikes: Although there have been several reports of ship strikes involving sperm whales in 

areas such as the Canary Islands and parts of the Mediterranean Sea (Laist et al. 2001, NMFS 

2002b), fewer than five collisions have been recorded between sperm whales and ships in U.S. 

waters (Jenson and Silber 2003). Highest risks appear to occur when sperm whales use habitats 

close to land where ship traffic is greater. 

Contaminants: In some areas, high contaminant loads have been found in sperm whales (Ferber 

2005). In the North Atlantic, levels of mercury and PCBs were low in sperm whales sampled, but 

cadmium levels were high (NMFS 2006b). Whether or how such contaminant levels affect sperm 

whales is not known. 

Noise: Noise associated with oil and gas activities (particularly seismic surveys and drilling), 

military activities (particularly sonars used to detect submarines), and routine ship traffic may 

affect sperm whales (Mate et al. 1994). Such effects have been of particular concern in the Gulf 

of Mexico because of the extent of seismic surveys to locate and delineate oil and gas reserves. 

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead federal agency responsible for managing sperm 

whales. Together with the Department of State, NMFS and other offices in NOAA develop and 

coordinate scientific advice and U.S. positions for meetings of the IWC. NMFS and the Minerals 

Management Service share responsibility for ensuring that noise and other possible impacts 

associated with offshore oil and gas exploration and development do not adversely affect sperm 

whales. No recovery team or other interagency management team has been established to 

oversee or assist management activities specifically related to sperm whales. However, sperm 

whales have been considered in some take reduction plans developed for large whales taken 

incidentally in commercial fisheries. 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 
81

Recovery Plan: A draft recovery plan for sperm whales was circulated for public comment early 

in the summer of 2006 (NMFS 2006d). The immediate and ultimate goals of the draft plan are to 

recover sperm whale populations to the point where they can be downlisted to threatened and 

delisted from the list of endangered species. A two-tier system of criteria is included in the draft 

plan for reclassification and delisting purposes. The first tier addresses population benchmarks 

and identifies the following standards: 

• For reclassifying as threatened, the overall population in each ocean basin (1) must have 

remained stable or increased for at least 1.5 generations (26 years) or (2) must have 

satisfied a risk analysis standard of no more than a 1 percent chance of quasi-extinction in 

100 years. 

• For removing the species from the list, the overall population in each ocean basin (1) must 

have remained stable or increased for at least 3 generations (51 years) or (2) have less than 

a 10 percent probability of becoming endangered in 20 years. 

The second tier describes standards relative to the five listing factors established by the ESA. 

• Destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or range: For downlisting, 

fishing interactions, vessel interactions, prey reduction, and effects of anthropogenic noise 

must have been assessed and needed management actions must have been initiated. For 

removal from the list, management actions must have been proven effective. 

• Overutilization for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes: For downlisting, 

direct human kills must be managed on a sustainable basis by the IWC, and for removal 

from the list, those management actions must have been proven effective and consistent 

with MMPA standards for maintaining populations at OSP levels. 

• Disease or predation: For both downlisting and removal from the list, assessments must 

have been undertaken showing that these factors are not appreciably affecting recovery. 

• Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms: For both downlisting and removal from the 

list, the IWC must be regulating directed take on a sustainable basis, and applicable 

authorities must be adequately regulating takes due to vessel collisions and fishery 

interactions. 

• Other natural or manmade factors: For both downlisting and removal from the list, 

anthropogenic factors must have been investigated and determined not to be limiting 

recovery. 

To meet these goals and criteria, the draft plan identifies nine objectives: (1) coordinate state, 

federal, and international recovery actions, (2) determine population discreteness and structure, 

(3) develop and apply methods to estimate population size and monitor trends in abundance, (4) 

conduct risk analyses for whales in each ocean basin, (5) identify and protect habitat essential to 

recovery, (6) identify and minimize human sources of injury and mortality, (7) determine and 

minimize detrimental effects of anthropogenic noise, (8) maximize efforts to acquire scientific 

information from dead, stranded, and entangled whales, and (9) develop a plan for monitoring 

the population after the species is removed from the list. Because sperm whales move across 

international borders, the draft plan stresses the importance of a multinational research and 

management approach. 
82

Major Management Actions: A ban on pelagic whaling for sperm whales in the North Pacific 

was first adopted by the IWC in 1980. It was extended globally in 1986–1987 when the IWC 

adopted a moratorium on all commercial whaling and set catch quotas for all stocks at zero. 

Section 7 consultations between NMFS and the Minerals Management Service have examined 

the effects of oil and gas exploration and development on sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico 

and have concluded that such activities are not likely to jeopardize their continued existence. 

Research is being undertaken in the Gulf of Mexico to improve information on possible noiserelated effects. Implementation of a take reduction plan for drift gillnets along the 

Oregon/Washington/California coast in 1997 included measures, such as education of skippers 

and the use of pingers, designed to reduce the take of marine mammals, including sperm whales. 

Staff and Funding Levels: According to NMFS budget documents, NMFS allocated $994,000 

in FY2003 funding to the recovery of endangered large whales (Appendix E). It is not clear how 

much of this was devoted to sperm whales. NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 2.2 FTEs in 

staff effort on sperm whale recovery work (0.5 by its regional offices and headquarters and 1.7 

by its science centers) during 2005.21 Annual FWS reports on expenditures for endangered 

species (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006) indicate that total funding related to sperm whale 

research and conservation between 1998 and 2004 ranged from $1,200 in 2002 to $2.27 million 

in 2004 (Table 21, Appendices C.1–7). Almost all the reported funding for 2003 was for U.S. 

Coast Guard enforcement activities. 

Table 21. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of sperm whales, 1998–

2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal 

Year 

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal 

State 

Total 

State 

and 

Federal 

1998 – – – – 4 4 1 5

1999 – – – 6 1 7 – 7

2000 – – – – 3 3 – 3

2001 – – – – 27 27 – 27

2002 – – – – 1 1 – 1

2003 – – – 199 4 203 – 203

2004 6 – – 60 2,203 2,268 2 2,270

In recent years, the Minerals Management Service and partner agencies and organizations have 

been assessing the effects of noise from seismic air guns used to explore for oil and gas reserves 

on sperm whale distribution and abundance in the Gulf of Mexico. Between 2002 and 2007 more 

than $10 million has been allocated or committed in support of this study.22

The draft sperm whale recovery plan projects future funding needs to implement each of the nine 

major management actions identified previously (NMFS 2006d). As shown in Table 22, funding 

 

21 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 22 Ann Jochens, personal communication. 12 June 2006. Texas A&M University, College Station TX 77843; William Lang, 

personal communication. 12 June 2006. Program Director, Division of Ocean Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4301 

Wilson Blvd., Suite 725, Arlington, VA 22230.
83

needs were developed for each of the three ocean basins in which sperm whales occur and total 

$37.14 million over the next 20 years. 

Table 22. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for sperm 

whales in the 2006 draft sperm whale recovery plan (NMFS 2006d) 

Ocean 

Basin* 

Action 

1 

Action 

2 

Action 

3 

Action 

4 

Action 

5 

Action 

6 

Action 

7 

Action 

8 

Action 

9 

Total 

North 

Atlantic 

(2012) 250 500 9,000 100 525 385 520 2,623 75 13,950 

North 

Pacific 

(2012) 220 500 13,500 100 525 385 520 2,650 75 4,780 

Southern 

Ocean 

(2026) 220 250 3,000 200 475 180 410 – 4735 

* Dates in parentheses are estimates of the earliest possible dates for meeting recovery criteria. 

Beluga Whale, Cook Inlet Population 

Population Status: Distinct populations of beluga whales (Delphinapterus lecuas) are found in 

five areas off Alaska: the Beaufort Sea, the eastern Chukchi Sea, the eastern Bering Sea, Bristol 

Bay, and Cook Inlet (NMFS 2005d). Studies indicate that Cook Inlet beluga whales comprise the 

most discrete and isolated population in U.S. waters and that most whales remain in the inlet 

year-round (NMFS 2005d). Before 1994 there were no regular, systematic surveys of beluga 

whales in Cook Inlet; however, based on an aerial survey count of 479 whales in August 1979 

and on a correction factor for unobserved whales, NMFS estimates a population abundance of 

1,300 whales at that time. In 1994 NMFS began comprehensive, systematic aerial surveys of 

beluga whales in Cook Inlet (NMFS 2005d). Between 1994 and 1998 the surveys documented a 

decline of 47 percent, from 653 to 347 animals (NMFS 2005d). Based on the 2003 survey 

results, their abundance was estimated at 357 whales. The most recent NMFS stock assessment 

report uses those results to calculate a PBR of 2 (NMFS 2005a). Beluga whales are an important 

subsistence resource for Alaska Natives, and subsistence hunting levels were severely limited 

beginning in 1999 because of the population’s decline. Although the limited harvest was 

expected to allow the population to recover, the anticipated increase in population size has not 

occurred (Lowry et al. 2006). 

In 1988 NMFS included the Cook Inlet beluga whale population on its list of candidate species 

for listing under the ESA (53 Fed. Reg. 33516). Although inclusion on that list did not, in itself, 

impose restrictions, it signaled that federal agencies should take beluga whales into account in 

their planning. In 1998 NMFS began the process of deciding whether to designate Cook Inlet 

beluga whales as depleted under the MMPA or as threatened or endangered under the ESA (64 

Fed. Reg. 56258). In 1999 NMFS received two petitions to list the Cook Inlet beluga whales as 

endangered under the ESA; both petitions identified unregulated hunting as a major cause for the 

decline of the population. On 31 May 2000 NMFS announced a decision to deny the petitions 

and designated the Cook Inlet population as depleted under the MMPA (65 Fed. Reg. 34590). 
84

Although NMFS denied the two petitions to list the population under the ESA, in 2006 NMFS 

began a reexamination of the merits of such a listing in view of the population’s failure to 

increase since harvest limits were imposed (71 Fed. Reg. 14836). 

Major Threats: In 1999 NMFS concluded that the cause of the decline was high levels of 

mortality from subsistence hunting by Alaska Natives—including whales that were both struck 

and landed and those that were struck but lost and presumed dead (65 Fed. Reg. 38778). 

Although the precise level of mortality due to hunting is uncertain, the estimated average number 

of animals killed annually in subsistence harvests between 1995 and 1997 was 87 whales (NMFS 

2005a). 

Beluga whales in Cook Inlet frequent shallow waters near developed coastal areas around 

Anchorage and ascend freshwater rivers. Because of this, they face a wide range of humanrelated threats in addition to subsistence hunting. These include vessel traffic and habitat 

alteration due to coastal development, as well as natural threats (NMFS 2004d; NMFS 2005a,d). 

Natural Threats

• Stranding Events: Strandings of beluga whales are common on tidal mud flats in Cook Inlet, 

but whales often are able to free themselves on incoming tides. Between 1988 and 2004 

NMFS recorded strandings of 804 beluga whales, including 129 reported mortalities (Vos 

and Shelden 2005). Of those strandings, 91 occurred between 1998 and 2004. Some 

strandings coincided with occurrences of killer whales in the inlet and may be the result of 

attempts to avoid predation. 

• Predation: Cook Inlet beluga whales are preyed upon by killer whales (Shelden et al. 2003b). 

Although little is known about the level of predation, it could be significant, especially in 

light of the severely reduced size of the population. 

• Parasitism and Disease: Little is known about the effects of disease on Cook Inlet beluga 

whales. 

• Habitat Capacity and Environmental Change: Climate change may affect the availability of 

prey for beluga whales, chiefly salmon and eulachon, but to date there is no evidence that 

prey availability is a limiting factor. 

Human-induced Threats

• Subsistence Harvest: Alaska Natives hunt Cook Inlet beluga whales for food and traditional 

handicrafts. Take levels for Cook Inlet beluga whales are now limited to those authorized 

through a co-management agreement with NMFS. Although the decline in Cook Inlet beluga 

whale abundance in the 1990s can be explained largely by the level of Native take, the 

population’s failure to recover in recent years is apparently due to other factors. 

• Commercial Fishing: Beluga whales in Cook Inlet may be taken incidentally in fisheries for 

shellfish, groundfish, herring, and salmon. The only records of beluga whale mortality in 

commercial fisheries are from the early 1980s. Observer coverage of these fisheries is 

limited, but no incidental mortality was reported by observers or in fishery logbooks between 

1990 and 2000 (NMFS 2005a). 
85

• Pollution: Cook Inlet beluga whales are exposed to many kinds of pollutants commonly 

found in urban and industrial areas. Sources include partially treated sewage and runoff, 

discharges from industrial activities, such as petroleum exploration, fish-processing facilities, 

mining and agricultural operations, accidental oil spills, and routine discharges from oil 

exploration and development operations. With the exception of copper, beluga whales in 

Cook Inlet show lower levels of contaminants in their tissues than beluga whale populations 

elsewhere in Alaska (NMFS 2005d). 

• Vessel Traffic: Beluga whales are vulnerable to being struck by vessels, particularly near 

river mouths and other favored habitats that were once relatively isolated but are now 

accessible by boats. 

• Tourism and Whale-Watching: Currently there are no vessel-based commercial whalewatching operations in upper Cook Inlet where beluga whales are most easily observed. 

NMFS has concluded that whale watching is not a substantial threat to Cook Inlet beluga 

whales (NMFS 2005d). 

• Coastal Development: Beluga whales are found primarily in nearshore waters where they 

may come into conflict with development of adjacent lands and shallow waters. The effects 

of coastal development are poorly known, and NMFS is proposing that standards for coastal 

development be prepared, particularly in Knik Arm, an important summer feeding area for 

beluga whales near Anchorage (NMFS 2005d). 

• Noise: Like other toothed whales, beluga whales use sound to communicate, locate prey, and 

navigate. In Cook Inlet, a wide variety of human activities generate noise that may affect 

beluga whales. 

• Oil and Gas: Although oil and gas production in Cook Inlet is past its peak, about 238 wells 

are presently in production and approximately six new wells are drilled each year (NMFS 

2005d). Both state and federal governments continue to offer leases for exploration and 

development. Oil spills could affect beluga whales directly or significantly alter their habitat. 

Management Framework: Lead federal responsibility for managing beluga whales rests with 

NMFS. The management framework established by the MMPA provides an exemption for the 

taking of marine mammals by Alaska Natives for subsistence uses and the production of 

handicrafts. The Act allows limits on subsistence hunting only if a species has been designated as 

depleted. NMFS therefore had no authority to regulate hunting by Alaska Natives when the level 

of hunting increased in the mid-1990s (65 Fed. Reg. 38778). Because of concern about high 

levels of subsistence take, in 1999 the U.S. Congress enacted legislation (PL 106-31, section 

3022, 113 Stat. 57, 100) establishing a moratorium on hunting Cook Inlet beluga whales unless 

authorized through a co-management agreement between Alaska Native organizations and 

NMFS. The moratorium was made permanent by legislation passed in 2000 (PL 106-553), and 

conforming regulations were adopted by NMFS (65 Fed. Reg. 17973). NMFS is currently 

developing a conservation plan under the MMPA to identify and help guide research and 

management work to recover the Cook Inlet beluga whale population (NMFS 2005d). 

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat is not applicable because the Cook Inlet beluga whale 

population currently is not listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. However, the draft 

conservation plan characterizes habitats in Cook Inlet according to their importance to the 

population (NMFS 2005d). 
86

Recovery Plan: Because Cook Inlet beluga whales are not listed under the ESA, a recovery plan 

has not been developed for this population. However, in 2005 NMFS released a draft 

conservation plan for Cook Inlet beluga whales prepared under authority of the MMPA (NMFS 

2005d). Its stated purpose is to recover the Cook Inlet beluga whale population to its OSP level. 

Based on current estimates of carrying capacity, it recommends that NMFS consider removing 

the Cook Inlet population from the list of depleted species when the population reaches 780 

animals. The draft plan sets out three objectives for achieving this goal: 

• Identify and eliminate or mitigate factors that are responsible for the decline of the Cook 

Inlet beluga whales or that may be preventing their recovery; 

• Continue and, as necessary, expand research and management programs to monitor trends 

and detect natural or human-related factors affecting the Cook Inlet population of beluga 

whales and its habitat; and 

• Assess the success of implementing conservation actions and high-priority studies 

identified in the plan. 

Major Management Actions: In May 1999 President Clinton signed legislation establishing a 

moratorium on the taking of Cook Inlet beluga whales by Native subsistence hunters unless 

authorized by a cooperative agreement between NMFS and affected Alaska Native organizations 

(§3022 PL 106-31). That moratorium was to have expired in October 2000, but it was extended 

indefinitely by Public Law 106-553. In 2000 NMFS issued a proposed rule to establish harvest 

limitations under a formal rulemaking process set forth in the MMPA. Based on the 

recommendations of an administrative law judge and the findings of an environmental impact 

statement, NMFS published interim final regulations that set a harvest level of 1.5 whales per 

year for 2001–2004 (MMC 2005). Since 2000 NMFS has entered into cooperative agreements 

with the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council under which limited hunts have been authorized. 

The 2003 agreement calls for maintaining the beluga whale population at “levels that will allow 

for long-term sustainable harvests” (NMFS 2005d). In 2004, as required under a stipulation 

agreed to by the parties to the rulemaking, NMFS and the Council suspended the hunt because of 

the unusually high number of beluga whale deaths (20) recorded the previous year. The parties to 

the rulemaking also agreed that NMFS would develop a long-term harvest regime to govern 

subsistence taking after 2004 (MMC 2005). The long-term harvest plan has not been finalized. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Because Cook Inlet beluga whales are not listed under the ESA, 

funding levels for this population are not reported in annual FWS expenditure reports for 

endangered and threatened species. The Marine Mammal Commission’s survey of federally 

funded marine mammal research (Waring 2002) reports that federal expenditures for research on 

all beluga whale populations between FY1991 and FY2000 ranged from $160,000 in FY1991 to 

$781,000 in FY1995 (see Appendix F). The proportion devoted to Cook Inlet beluga whales is 

unknown. In 2000, the most recent year reported, the funding level was $351,000. The principal 

sources of funding were NMFS, the Navy, and the National Science Foundation. Between 

FY2002 and FY2004 NMFS allocated roughly $150,000 annually for research and management 

activities related to Cook Inlet beluga whales. NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 6.1 FTEs 

in staff effort on Cook Inlet beluga whale recovery work (2.3 by its regional offices and 

headquarters and 3.8 by its science centers) during 2005.23

 

23 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
87

The draft conservation plan (NMFS 2005d) projects cost estimates amounting to a total of $4.7 

million for identified activities (including all activities ranked from priority 1 through 3) during 

the first five years of recovery work after plan adoption (Table 23). The estimates, however, are 

provided only for activities associated with objective 1 (i.e., identify and eliminate or mitigate 

factors responsible for the decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whales or which may be preventing 

their recovery). Costs associated with objectives 2 and 3 are not provided. 

Table 23. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement objective 1 during the first five 

years after adoption of the 2005 draft Cook Inlet beluga whale conservation plan 

(NMFS 2005d) 

Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 

Stranding events 103 164 103 91 108 569

Predation 6 8 10 12 14 50

Subsistence harvest 56 56 45 18 45 220

Commercial fishing 12 22 32 27 32 125

Vessel traffic 0 215 210 28 128 581

Tourism/whale-watching 38 63 41 31 35 208

Noise 20 40 40 20 20 140

Oil and gas activities 90 90 85 70 75 410

Research 72 137 78 118 80 485

Oil spills 60 110 100 75 75 420

Enforcement 70 65 70 63 67 335

Outreach and education 0 0 50 15 15 80

Marine discharges and pollution 10 10 15 15 20 70

Habitat alteration and coastal 

development 15 15 20 20 25 95

Knik Arm development 10 35 40 28 28 141

Legal/administrative support 150 170 140 150 150 760

TOTAL 722 1,200 1,079 781 917 4,699

Bottlenose Dolphin, Mid-Atlantic Coastal Population 

Population Status: Mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are a 

morphologically distinct group of dolphins that generally remains in waters less than 25 meters 

deep along the U.S. Atlantic coast from Long Island, New York, to Florida (NMFS 2002). Based 

on genetic analyses, photo-identification, satellite telemetry, and analyses of stable isotopes, at 

least seven management units have been identified within the population’s range (i.e., northern 

migratory, northern North Carolina, southern North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, northern 

Florida, and central Florida) (NMFS 2006b). 

In 1987–1988 a large die-off of at least 742 dolphins reduced the number of Atlantic coastal 

bottlenose dolphins by what was then thought to be more than half their abundance. As a result, 

NMFS designated the population as depleted under the MMPA in 1993. The proximate cause for 
88

the die-off was determined to be a neurotoxin produced by a red tide dinoflagellate, Ptychodiscus 

brevis. However, the affected dolphins also carried high levels of organochlorines and other 

contaminants that may have predisposed them to effects of the neurotoxin (54 Fed. Reg. 41654). 

Aerial surveys are the primary source of information on distribution and abundance of coastal 

bottlenose dolphins. Surveys since the 1987–1988 die-off suggest that their abundance is 

substantially greater than previously thought (NMFS 2002). Results of surveys, conducted in 

2002, are shown in Table 24 (69 Fed. Reg. 65129). 

Table 24. Estimates of abundance, bycatch, and potential biological removal for mid-Atlantic 

coastal bottlenose dolphin management units in 2002 (NMFS 2006a) 

Management Unit Abundance 

Estimated 

Bycatch 

2001–2002 

Potential 

Biological 

Removal 

SUMMER (May-October) 

Northern migratory 17,466 112 146.2 

Northern North Carolina 7,079 8 40.8 

 Oceanic 6,160 32.6 

 Estuary 919 82.0 

Southern North Carolina 4,787 0 19.9 

 Oceanic 3,646 18.6 

 Estuary 141 1.2 

WINTER (November-April) 

Winter Mixed (Northern migratory, 

northern and southern North Carolina) 16,913 58 135.6 

ALL YEAR 

South Carolina 2,325 19.6 

Georgia 2,195 17.2 

Northern Florida 448 0 N/a 

Central Florida 10,652 6 N/a 

Major Threats: Because they inhabit nearshore waters, mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins 

are exposed to a number of anthropogenic and natural threats caused by interactions with 

commercial fisheries, red tides, contaminants, and focused recreational attention. 

Incidental Catch in Fisheries: Perhaps the principal threat to coastal bottlenose dolphins is 

bycatch in coastal fisheries, primarily large-mesh gillnet fisheries (NMFS 2006a). Analyses 

indicate that bycatch rates are highest within state waters, particularly in North Carolina and 

Virginia, during winter. Among the fisheries of greatest concern are the mid-Atlantic coastal 

gillnet fishery, the Virginia pound net fishery, the mid-Atlantic beach seine fishery, the Atlantic 

blue crab trap fishery, the North Carolina inshore gillnet fishery, the North Carolina roe mullet 

stop net fishery, the North Carolina long-haul seine fishery, the southeast Atlantic gillnet fishery, 

and the southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery (69 Fed. Reg. 65128) (see Appendix B 

and later discussion). Although no bycatch has been documented by observers for the summer 

southern North Carolina management unit, stranding data indicate that dolphins also are taken as 

bycatch in that area and time of year (69 Fed. Reg. 65129). 
89

Red Tides: Neurotoxin poisoning associated with red tides appears to be an infrequent cause of 

major mortality for bottlenose dolphins; however, over the last 15 years at least six die-offs much 

smaller than the 1987–1988 event have been recorded (MMC 2004). Limited understanding 

about the population structure of coastal bottlenose dolphins and their abundance makes it 

impossible to accurately assess the impact of such die-offs. 

Contaminants: Coastal bottlenose dolphins are exposed to a wide range of pollutants from landbased run-off. Like many other marine mammals that inhabit nearshore areas, bottlenose 

dolphins carry high levels of some contaminants. The direct and indirect effects of contaminants 

have not been established but may include impairment of immune function (a possible 

contributing factor in the large 1987–1988 die-off) and reproduction. 

Tourism: Over the past decade, both legal and illegal commercial dolphin-watching ventures 

have encouraged close human interactions (e.g., feeding) with bottlenose dolphins. These 

activities have increased dramatically, particularly in the southeastern United States. A study by 

Samuels et al. (2003) concluded that dolphins are vulnerable to injury and death as a result of 

human contact and that important natural behaviors can be disrupted through such contact. For 

the last several years, NMFS has been considering regulations to govern such operations. 

Management Framework: NMFS has lead federal responsibility for conserving mid-Atlantic 

coastal bottlenose dolphins under the authority of the MMPA. Section 118(f)(1) of the MMPA 

requires the preparation and implementation of take reduction plans for strategic marine mammal 

stocks that interact with category I or category II fisheries. Coastal bottlenose dolphin 

populations in the Atlantic qualify as strategic stocks because fishery-related incidental mortality 

exceeds current estimates of PBR levels for some management units and because the population 

is designated as depleted (NMFS 2006b). In February 1997 NMFS convened a take reduction 

team, but the team determined that information was insufficient to develop management 

measures. After further research and analyses, NMFS convened a new take reduction team in 

October 2001. That team met five times and submitted recommendations to NMFS in May 2002. 

The Service determined that those recommended measures would not meet the statutory 

requirement for reducing incidental mortality and serious injury to below the PBR level. No 

other teams exist specifically for the purpose of managing mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose 

dolphins. The population is now managed according to a complex structure of “management 

units.” 

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat is not applicable because the mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose 

dolphin population is not listed under the ESA. 

Recovery Plan: Provisions for preparing a recovery plan are not applicable because the midAtlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin population is not listed under the ESA. However, when 

NMFS proposed designating the population as depleted under the MMPA in 1991, it advised that 

it would prepare a conservation plan (56 Fed. Reg. 40595). In May 2001 a draft conservation 

plan was provided to the Marine Mammal Commission, which subsequently submitted 

comments to NMFS (MMC 2004). However, a draft plan has not been circulated for public 

review. 
90

Major Management Actions: In November 1988 the Center for Marine Conservation petitioned 

NMFS to designate the coastal bottlenose dolphin population as depleted under the MMPA (54 

Fed. Reg. 41654). Proposed rules to do so were published in August 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 40594) 

and adopted in 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 17789). At the time, it was thought that there was only one 

coastal population distributed along the Atlantic coast. Although this is no longer believed to be 

the case, the stock structure remains uncertain, and the depleted designation remains in effect. 

The principal management focus has been on reducing incidental mortality and serious injury in 

coastal fisheries. In November 2004 NMFS proposed regulations based on recommendations 

prepared by the Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team (69 Fed. Reg. 65127). They called for 

restrictions on fishing areas, gillnet soak times, and amounts of gear, with specific measures 

differing by management unit. Other recommendations were made for education and outreach 

efforts and for research, particularly to improve understanding of population stock structure. 

Final rules implementing those measures were published in 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 24775). 

Staff and Funding Levels: Because mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins are not listed under 

the ESA, estimated expenditures spent on this population are not reported in annual FWS 

expenditure reports required under the ESA. According to the Marine Mammal Commission’s 

survey of federally funded marine mammal research (Waring 2002), expenditures for biological 

and population assessment research on bottlenose dolphins between FY1991 and FY2000 ranged 

from $822,000 in FY1997 to $2.5 million in FY1995 (Appendix F). This funding, however, is 

not restricted explicitly to the mid-Atlantic coastal population. The principal sources of funding 

were NMFS and the Navy. 

NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 15.9 FTEs in staff effort on coastal mid-Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphin conservation (2.1 by its regional offices and headquarters and 13.8 by its 

science centers) during 2005.24 NMFS budget documents indicate that it allocated $748,000 to 

coastal bottlenose dolphins in FY2001, $2 million in FY2002, $1.99 million in FY2003, and 

$3.96 million in FY2004 (Appendix E).

Killer Whale, Southern Resident Population 

Status: The taxonomy of killer whales (Orcinus orca) is poorly known, but new information is 

being developed. Until recently, killer whales were considered to be a single species worldwide 

(69 Fed. Reg. 76674). Based on recent information, this is no longer believed to be the case. 

NMFS currently recognizes several distinct groups of killer whales in the North Pacific Ocean, 

including resident, transient, and offshore populations, each of which differs from the others in 

significant ways. A distinct group of southern resident killer whales occurs in waters straddling 

the U.S.-Canada border between Washington and British Columbia. This group is further divided 

into three pods designated J, K, and L. 

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, 47 killer whales were removed for purposes of research and 

public display, reducing the southern resident population to about 70 animals (MMC 2002). The 

 

24 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 
91

population subsequently increased to a high of 99 whales in 1995 but then declined to 79 whales 

by 2001. The decline seems to have resulted from a decrease in fecundity and an increase in 

mortality of immature and mature females. In 2001 the Center for Biological Diversity and other 

environmental groups petitioned NMFS to list southern resident killer whales as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA (69 Fed. Reg. 76673). Based on findings by a biological review team, 

NMFS denied the petition, concluding that southern resident killer whales did not constitute a 

separate species or a distinct population segment under the Act. In May 2003, however, NMFS 

designated the population as depleted under the MMPA. 

In response to litigation successfully challenging the decision on the initial ESA petition, NMFS 

reexamined the possibility of listing southern resident killer whales under the ESA. A new 

biological review team convened by NMFS concluded that southern resident killer whales meet 

the definition of a distinct population segment (Krahn et al. 2002). NMFS subsequently proposed 

listing the population as threatened (69 Fed. Reg. 76678). In taking this action, NMFS cited new 

results from population modeling studies that suggested, under the most optimistic recovery 

scenario, the population has a 0.1 to 3 percent probability of extinction in 100 years. Under the 

most pessimistic scenario, it was predicted to have a 39 to 67 percent probability of extinction in 

100 years. In support of its proposal to list southern resident killer whales as threatened rather 

than endangered, NMFS cited evidence of a small increase in abundance since 2000 and noted 

that the recruitment of several juvenile male and female whales to breeding age was expected in 

the next few years (69 Fed. Reg. 76679). In 2005 NMFS took final action and decided to list the 

southern resident killer whale population as endangered, rather than threatened, under the ESA 

(70 Fed. Reg. 69903). According to the notice, the listing as endangered instead of threatened 

resulted from information received during the comment period and a reanalysis of threats facing 

the population. The count of southern resident killer whales in 2005 was 84 whales; its PBR 

level is calculated to be 0.8 (NMFS 2006a). 

Major Threats: Although specific causes for the slow growth and periodic declines in 

abundance of southern resident killer whales remain unknown, a number of possible factors were 

identified by the most recent biological review (Krahn et al. 2002). Since the mid-1980s the 

abundance of salmon, a principal prey species for southern resident killer whales, has declined in 

Puget Sound. In addition, the whales have been found to have high levels of organochlorines, 

including PCBs and a chemical flame retardant, that has been associated with compromised 

immune systems and reproductive function in other species. Oil spills and noise and disturbance 

from vessel traffic, including whale-watching ventures, also are considered possible factors in 

the decline. Noise-related impacts associated with the operation of sonar by Navy vessels passing 

through the species’ habitat also have been a source of concern. In support of its listing proposal, 

NMFS also cited concerns about the limited number of reproductive males and the lack of 

reproduction by some sexually mature females. 

Management Framework: At present, no recovery team or other interagency management team 

has been convened specifically to oversee or assist NMFS in implementing recovery efforts for 

southern resident killer whales. In its proposal to list the population as threatened, NMFS 

announced that it would convene a recovery team if designation were to occur. In March 2005 

NMFS released a preliminary draft conservation plan under the MMPA (NMFS 2005c). 
92

Critical Habitat: In listing southern resident killer whales as endangered, NMFS declined to 

propose critical habitat, citing difficulty in identifying critical habitat for a group of animals 

whose foraging areas vary in time and space and which do not use specific breeding, nursing, or 

resting areas. In June 2006, however, NMFS proposed designating more than 2,500 square miles 

of inland waters in Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and around the San Juan Islands as 

critical habitat. Final designation of the area was made in November 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 69054). 

Recovery Plan: In March 2005 NMFS released a preliminary draft conservation plan under the 

MMPA (NMFS 2005c). This preliminary draft plan, structured much like a recovery plan, 

identifies proposed actions to accomplish the following objectives: 

• Monitor the status and trends of the southern resident killer whale population; 

• Protect the population from factors that may contribute to its decline or reduce its ability to 

recover; 

• Protect the population from additional threats that may disturb, injure, or kill the whales or 

affect habitat; 

• Conduct research to facilitate and enhance conservation efforts; 

• Develop public information and education programs; 

• Respond to killer whales found stranded, sick, injured, or isolated, that pose a threat to the 

public, or that exhibit nuisance behaviors; and 

• Promote transboundary and interagency coordination and cooperation. 

Although NMFS has not announced plans to prepare a recovery plan for southern resident killer 

whales, the draft conservation plan presumably would provide a basis for doing so. 

Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans has convened a recovery team for southern 

resident killer whales that includes representatives of the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife and NMFS. The team has begun developing a recovery plan under Canadian authority 

(69 Fed. Reg. 76679). 

Major Management Actions: In announcing its proposal to list the southern resident killer 

whales as threatened, NMFS described initial management needs including public education, 

outreach, and stewardship activities in cooperation with the Seattle Aquarium and the Whale 

Museum. A major focus of outreach efforts would be promoting responsible whale-watching 

behavior and enforcement in cooperation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(69 Fed. Reg. 76679). NMFS also noted that it would evaluate protective regulations available 

under the ESA. As noted above, NMFS designated southern resident killer whales as endangered 

in 2005 and designated critical habitat in November 2006. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Because southern resident whales were not listed under the ESA 

until 2005, funding levels for this population have not been reported in past annual FWS 

expenditure reports for listed endangered and threatened species. However, budget documents 

indicate that NMFS allocated $746,000 in FY2003 and $1.5 million in FY2004 for actions 

related to recovery of southern resident killer whales. NMFS estimates that its headquarters, 

regional offices, and fisheries science centers devoted 7.1 FTEs to research and management 

activities (2.1 by its regional office and headquarters staff and 5 by its science centers) related to 
93

the southern resident killer whale population in 2005.25 Projected funding needs to carry out 

tasks identified in the 2005 southern resident killer whale conservation plan during the first five 

years after adoption of the plan totaled $13.6 million (Table 25). 

Table 25. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement conservation activities for 

southern resident killer whales during the first five years after adopting the draft 2005 

southern resident killer whale conservation plan (NMFS 2005c) 

Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 

MANAGEMENT 

Identify contaminant clean-up sites 30 30 – – – 60

Minimize risks from oil spills 20 – – – – 20

Minimize disturbance from vessels 220 270 290 310 290 1,380

Develop public outreach programs 172 132 142 132 142 720

Respond to distressed/stranded whales N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pursue cooperation with Canada 10 230 200 240 160 840

 

RESEARCH AND MONITORING 

Monitor status and trends 20 100 100 100 100 420

Assess distribution and movements 419 975 1,025 1,025 1,025 4,469

Assess diet 112 190 190 190 190 872

Assess population dynamics 32 130 130 130 130 552

Determine metabolic rates 40 75 75 75 75 340

Assess changes in prey availability – 200 200 200 200 800

Assess effects of noise 150 325 325 325 325 1,450

Assess effects of contaminants/disease 55 210 210 210 210 895

Assess genetic relationships 70 150 150 100 100 570

Improve research technology 50 50 50 50 50 250

TOTAL 1,400 3,067 3,087 3,087 2,997 13,638

Killer Whale, AT1 Group 

Status: The AT1 group of killer whales is a genetically and socially distinct group of transient 

killer whales in the northern Gulf of Alaska. This group has been resighted annually in Prince 

William Sound and the Kenai Fjords area (NMFS 2005a). Like other transient killer whales, the 

AT1 whales are specialized feeders on marine mammals, particularly harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina) and Dall’s porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli). Although their range overlaps with other 

killer whale populations, they have never been observed to associate with whales from other 

groups. 

 

25 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
94

Under the MMPA, AT1 killer whales are considered part of a larger eastern North Pacific 

transient killer whale population (NMFS 2003a). The minimum population estimate for the 

eastern North Pacific population is 346 animals. Although some AT1 killer whales were first 

observed in 1978 in Prince William Sound, the group was not identified as a separate unit until 

1984 (NMFS 2003). At that time, three individuals were identified as juveniles, indicating that 

reproduction had occurred in the previous eight years. In 1987, 9 of the 22 whales counted in the 

group were males. This is considered a very high percentage of males. All 22 whales were 

observed regularly until the Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989. Since that time, the population 

has steadily declined. The most recent abundance estimate is eight whales, including four aging 

females (NMFS 2005a). No new calves have been documented since 1984. 

In November 2002 several conservation organizations submitted a petition to NMFS to designate 

the AT1 group of transient killer whales as depleted under the MMPA (68 Fed. Reg. 3483). In 

response, NMFS convened a status review group that subsequently concluded that AT1 killer 

whales had a distinct vocal dialect and pattern of movement and were genetically distinct from 

other transient killer whales (NMFS 2003). Based on those findings, NMFS concluded that AT1 

killer whales constituted a population stock as defined by the MMPA and that the population of 

nine animals remaining at the time had declined to 41 percent of their presumed carrying 

capacity (i.e., the 22 whales documented in the late 1980s). In June 2004 NMFS issued a final 

rule designating the group as depleted under the MMPA (69 Fed. Reg. 31321). 

Major Threats: Threats identified for AT1 killer whales by NMFS include the following: 

Oil Spills: AT1 killer whales appear to have been harmed by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill 

(NMFS 2003). Eleven members of the group have disappeared since the spill, and at least some 

of those animals are thought to have died because of it. The AB pod of resident killer whales in 

Prince William Sound also was observed swimming through the spill and, within two years, it 

lost 13 of its 36 members. Although steps have been taken to reduce the likelihood of large spills 

occurring in the future, such a threat will continue to exist as long as oil is transported through 

habitats used by these whales. 

Environmental contaminants: Seven members of the AT1 group were found to have significantly 

higher levels of organochlorine concentrations than resident killer whales in the same area 

(NMFS 2003). The high levels are similar to those found in other North Pacific transient killer 

whales and are consistent with a diet that includes other top-level predators. Exposure to 

organochlorines may be contributing to the absence of observed reproduction in this group over 

the past 20 years. 

Prey Availability: The abundance of harbor seals in Prince William Sound—a primary prey item 

for AT1 killer whales—declined 63 percent between 1984 and 1997 after the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill (NMFS 2003). This may have limited the whales’ ability to find adequate food and 

compromised their health and reproduction. 

Fisheries Interactions: Although a number of fisheries operate in the range of AT1 killer whales, 

incidental take and mortality of killer whales has been documented only for the Bering Sea 

groundfish trawl and longline fisheries (NMFS 2003). 
95

Whale-Watching and Vessel Traffic: It appears that AT1 killer whales are not likely to be 

affected by the increase in whale-watching in Alaska (NMFS 2003). Most whale-watching 

activities in Prince William Sound and Kenai Fjords interact with resident killer whales. 

Although other types of vessel traffic also have increased, it is unknown whether or to what 

extent vessel noise might impair the ability of killer whales to navigate, forage, and 

communicate. 

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead agency responsible for conserving killer whales. 

No interagency management teams have been established explicitly to oversee or assist with 

recovery of this group of killer whales. 

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat is not applicable because the AT1 killer whale population is 

not listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. 

Recovery Plan: In designating AT1 killer whales as depleted in June 2004, NMFS announced its 

intent to develop a conservation plan under provisions of the MMPA (69 Fed. Reg. 31322). A 

draft plan had not been circulated for public review as of the compiling of this report. 

Major Management Actions: No specific management actions for AT1 killer whales have been 

taken to date. Recovery work on this group of whales has been limited to research and 

monitoring by NMFS’ National Marine Mammal Laboratory and contracted researchers to 

determine demographic parameters and monitor their abundance (69 Fed. Reg. 31322). 

Staff and Funding Levels: Because AT1 killer whales are not listed under the ESA, funding 

levels for this population are not reported in annual FWS expenditure reports for endangered and 

threatened species. NMFS estimates that it devoted 0.5 FTE in staff effort (0.2 by its regional 

offices and headquarters and 0.3 by its science centers) to the AT1 group of killer whales.26 No 

estimates of funding levels for research activities specific to this group of whales could be 

identified. 

 

26 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
96

IV. OVERVIEW AND TRENDS 

STATUTORY PROTECTION PROVISIONS

The ESA and the MMPA provide the foundation for most marine mammal protection activities. 

For species listed as threatened or endangered, the ESA is generally more important. Among the 

most important provisions of the ESA are (1) a prohibition on the taking of listed species, 

including adverse modification of their critical habitat; (2) requirements for preparing and 

implementing recovery plans that identify necessary recovery actions and associated costs; and 

(3) requirements for all federal agencies to use their respective authorities to protect listed 

species and to consult with either NMFS or FWS if any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out 

are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. In this regard, the Act authorizes the designation of areas as critical habitat if they 

contain biological or physical features essential for a species’ survival. 

The MMPA prohibits intentional as well as unintentional injury, death, or harassment of all 

marine mammals, including those listed as endangered or threatened. This prohibition is subject 

to some exceptions, such as non-wasteful taking by Alaska Natives for subsistence and 

handicraft purposes and for authorized scientific research and enhancement activities. The 

MMPA also provides exemptions for (1) taking small numbers of marine mammals incidental to 

activities other than commercial fishing if the taking is authorized by regulations, and (2) taking 

incidental to commercial fishing, provided that the take does not exceed a PBR level calculated 

specifically for the stock. For fisheries not achieving this standard, NMFS is required to convene 

a take reduction team and prepare a take reduction plan to reduce takes to below the PBR level. 

If a marine mammal stock falls below its OSP level, it also must be listed as “depleted.” Besides 

further limiting the taking from stocks so listed, the Act authorizes the preparation of a 

conservation plan similar to a recovery plan under the ESA. 

Other relevant legislation includes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, which establishes national standards for harvesting fish and authorizes the 

development of fishery management plans. In part, national standards under this Act require that 

fishery management plans prevent overfishing while achieving an optimum yield that takes into 

account interactions with other species, such as marine mammals, and ecosystem elements. The 

Act also requires minimizing bycatch of marine mammals and other non-target species. Most 

fishery management plans, however, have not directly addressed the impact of fisheries on 

marine mammals. 

Other important statutes include the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the 

preparation of environmental impact statements for major federal actions that may affect the 

environment; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which guides the exploration and 

development of oil and gas reserves in federal waters and requires consideration of 

environmental effects on marine mammals and other species; and Title III of the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, which authorizes the designation and management of 

national marine sanctuaries that include marine areas of national significance, some of which are 

particularly important as marine mammal habitats. 
97

The conservation of marine mammals, including listed species, also is subject to provisions of 

several international treaties. For example, the International Convention for the Regulation of 

Whaling established the International Whaling Commission, which recommends limits on 

commercial and subsistence harvests of whales by member countries. The Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora establishes controls on 

international trade in wildlife species by its member countries. 

POPULATION STATUS

The abundance of listed marine mammal populations varies widely. Some are among the world’s 

rarest mammals, such as the AT1 group of killer whales (with eight individuals), eastern North 

Pacific right whales (numbering perhaps a few tens of animals), and North Atlantic right whales 

(numbering about 300 animals). Other populations are far larger but have experienced alarming 

declines in recent decades. For instance, the eastern North Pacific population of northern fur 

seals has declined from more than two million to an estimated 688,028 animals, while western 

Steller sea lions, which numbered more than 150,000, now number about 38,000 animals. 

Excluding Caribbean monk seals—which are widely considered to be extinct—the 21 listed 

marine mammal taxa include 7 with known or probable declining trends, 8 that have shown signs 

of increasing over the past 25 years, and 6 whose population trends are unknown. 

SPECIES PROTECTION PROGRAMS

As of December 2006, 14 marine mammal species and populations occurring regularly in U.S. 

waters were recognized as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and four others were 

listed as threatened (Lowry et al. 2007). By virtue of these listings, all 18 taxa are automatically 

classified as depleted under the MMPA. Four other marine mammal taxa were independently 

listed as depleted. 

Differences in the behavior, distribution, and preferred habitats of these marine mammals present 

a wide variety of recovery challenges. Some large whales annually migrate thousands of miles 

across the jurisdictions of several countries and are exposed to diverse threats including 

entanglement in fishing gear, contamination by pollutants, and collisions with vessels. The 

movements of other marine mammals, such as Florida manatees, Hawaiian monk seals, and 

southern sea otters, are comparatively limited, with animals remaining largely or entirely under 

U.S. jurisdiction. Those taxa tend to be limited to coastal waters where, again, human activities 

can have profound effects on population growth and survival. 

A significant development for marine mammal conservation programs in recent years has been 

an improvement in the understanding of population structure through new genetic studies and 

better data on species distribution and ecology. The implications of this new information have 

yet to be fully reconciled with current assessments of the conservation status and recovery goals 

for the listed marine mammals. For example, although humpback whales are listed as a single 

species and classified as endangered worldwide, at least four separate populations have now been 

identified in U.S. waters alone. Furthermore, there appear to be at least six subpopulations of 

humpback whales whose use of discrete feeding grounds suggests that they would not be readily 

repopulated by whales from different subpopulations if they were to be reduced. Similar 

behavioral patterns appear to isolate groups of killer whales and Florida manatees. To integrate 
98

rapidly advancing understanding of stock structure into recovery programs, management 

agencies are struggling to reassess and revise recovery priorities, goals, and conservation 

strategies to conform to this new understanding. Failure to understand and account for population 

structure can lead to poorly directed management actions, ineffective recovery effort, and the 

loss of ecologically significant species groups. 

THREATS TO MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES AND POPULATIONS

In the 19th and 20th centuries, commercial hunting greatly reduced most of the listed marine 

mammal taxa, and it was thought that cessation of hunting would allow the species to recover 

fully. Because marine mammals tend to be long-lived and to reproduce slowly, their recovery 

from severe depletion is a long process at best and, in some cases, will take more than 100 years 

even after factors limiting population growth have been controlled. Some species and 

populations have shown signs of recovery since directed harvests ended. After decades of 

protection, the eastern Pacific population of gray whales recovered to near-pre-exploitation 

levels, allowing it to be removed from the endangered species list in 1994. Since passage of the 

ESA and MMPA, several other listed species also have shown varying degrees of recovery, 

including some populations of humpback whales, blue whales, sperm whales, and fin whales, 

Guadalupe fur seals, and Florida manatees. In a few cases—particularly for populations that 

were reduced to very low levels—a variety of factors is preventing or slowing recovery, and it 

often is not clear which factors are most influential. 

The most prevalent impediments to the growth of listed marine mammal taxa in U.S. waters 

include incidental entanglement in fishing gear, ship strikes, reduction in prey availability, 

entanglement in marine debris, and the effects of natural biotoxins. Other factors that have been 

important for at least some species are subsistence harvests, coastal development, contaminants, 

oil spills, disturbance and harassment by people, climate change, predation, disease, entrapment 

in physical structures, and loss or degradation of key habitats (see Appendix G). The significance 

of different types of stresses varies by species and population. For example, entanglement in 

marine debris is a serious threat to Hawaiian monk seals but a relatively minor threat to Florida 

manatees and great whales. Entrapment in floodgates and navigation locks poses a threat unique 

to Florida manatees. Ship strikes and collisions with smaller vessels affect a number of species 

but have had their greatest effect on Florida manatees and North Atlantic right whales. MidAtlantic bottlenose dolphins are most affected by fishery interactions, contaminants, and disease. 

Although significant progress has been made in reducing incidental injury and mortality of many 

marine mammals in fisheries, direct (e.g., entanglement in active fishing gear) and indirect (e.g., 

removal of marine mammal prey items) interactions continue to impede the recovery of a 

number of listed marine mammals. 

Examples of significant natural threats to species are male mobbing and shark predation on 

Hawaiian monk seals, cold winter weather and periodic red tides on Florida manatees and 

bottlenose dolphins, and outbreaks of disease on bottlenose dolphins. In some cases, causes of 

decline remain unknown or subject to controversy (e.g., southwest Alaska sea otters, northern fur 

seals, and Steller sea lions) despite directed study. In many cases involving natural threats, 

human-related factors may have subtle underlying influences. For example, red tide-related dieoffs may be indirectly related to effects of contaminants that impair animal immune systems, and 

the frequency or intensity of red tides themselves may be related to pollution from land run-off 
99

or, potentially, changes in ocean temperature and currents secondary to climate change. 

Similarly, cold stress in some manatees may be related to the location and reliability of warmwater outfalls created by power plants and used by manatees during winter. 

MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Although NMFS and FWS exercise lead responsibility for marine mammals under their 

respective jurisdictions, the conservation of many endangered, threatened, and depleted marine 

mammal taxa rely on a much broader group of federal, state, and non-governmental partners. 

The activities of these agencies and groups often are organized through recovery teams, take 

reduction teams, implementation teams, Alaska Native organizations, and other formal and 

informal advisory groups. 

The most elaborate example of this approach is the Florida manatee recovery program. Although 

FWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission carry out most formal 

regulatory aspects of the program and USGS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

undertake most manatee research, the current manatee recovery team includes more than 140 

members from 60 agencies and groups. The team’s activities are coordinated through 12 working 

groups and task forces. The cooperative efforts of these organizations help address many of the 

tasks identified in the recovery plan that the lead agencies could not undertake alone, given 

limited resources. However, the breadth of involvement also presents an enormous 

organizational challenge. 

Cooperative programs with large numbers of partners also exist for North Atlantic right whales 

and Steller sea lions. Somewhat less complex, but no less crucial, partnerships exist for bowhead 

whales, Hawaiian monk seals, and southern sea otters. In some cases, other agencies or 

organizations play key decision-making roles in recovery efforts. For instance, the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council has developed and incorporated measures to reduce fishery 

impacts on western Steller sea lions into its groundfish fishery management plans, and the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission allocates and enforces Native subsistence catch quotas for 

bowhead whales. Congress also has played an important role in many recovery programs by 

directing appropriations to species or projects and, in a few cases, by enacting legislation 

designed to address species-specific management issues. Examples of the latter include statutory 

provisions authorizing the translocation of southern sea otters and legislation prohibiting the 

subsistence hunting of Cook Inlet beluga whales except as provided in co-management 

agreements. 

Conservation programs for many listed species, however, are far less developed. For example, 

blue whales, sperm whales, fin whales, sei whales, and Guadalupe fur seals receive very little 

species-specific management attention from NMFS or other agencies. Because the United States 

is a member of the IWC, NMFS and the Department of State have actively represented U.S. 

interests at IWC meetings to promote protection of whales from commercial exploitation. Also, 

the National Marine Sanctuary Program has supported research and public education regarding 

marine mammals that occur in national marine sanctuaries. 
100

CRITICAL HABITAT

Although the ESA now requires designating critical habitat for species or populations that are 

listed, such areas have not been designated for most listed marine mammals. This is partly 

because this requirement was not in effect when most marine mammals were first listed. In 

addition, data to identify such areas are not available for some species, and both NMFS and FWS 

have been reluctant to dedicate resources to this purpose for species already listed. Where such 

efforts have been made, it has often been in response to litigation to compel such designations. 

Only 7 of the 18 marine mammal taxa currently listed have had critical habitat designated (i.e., 

North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales, southern resident killer whales, Hawaiian monk 

seals, eastern and western Steller sea lions, and Florida manatees). 

RECOVERY PLANS AND TEAMS

Recovery plans or conservation plans have been completed and adopted for 9 of the 18 marine 

mammal taxa listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA and one of the four taxa listed 

only as depleted under the MMPA (Table 26). In a few cases, these plans have been updated 

periodically to reflect new information and issues. For example, the Florida manatee recovery 

plan has been updated three times at roughly five-year intervals, and the recovery plans for 

northern right whales and southern sea otters have both been revised once since initial adoption. 

Recovery plans for Hawaiian monk seals and Steller sea lions and the conservation plan for 

northern fur seals are currently being updated for the first time. Recovery plans for humpback 

whales and Antillean manatees are more than a decade old and have not been updated. Draft 

recovery plans also have been developed or initiated for four other taxa (fin whales, sperm 

whales, sei whales, and southwest Alaska sea otters), but no plans have been developed or 

planned for three taxa (bowhead whales, Guadalupe fur seals, and Caribbean monk seals). With 

regard to the four taxa listed only as depleted under the MMPA, a conservation plan was adopted 

for one (the Pribilof Islands population of northern fur seals) and draft plans are in varying stages 

for the other three. A draft conservation plan for mid-Atlantic bottlenose dolphins was prepared 

several years ago but has not been circulated for pubic review, a draft conservation plan for Cook 

Inlet beluga whales was released in 2005, and an intent to prepare a draft conservation plan for 

AT1 killer whales was announced in 2004. 

The different recovery and conservation plans vary greatly in content. The goals of recovery 

plans developed prior to the mid-1990s were generally qualitative and often called for increasing 

populations to undefined levels that would allow downlisting or delisting with adequate levels of 

protection for the species and its habitats. Recent plans (e.g., for North Atlantic right whales and 

Florida manatees) reflect the 1994 amendments to the ESA that require objective, measurable 

criteria for determining when species have recovered. Those plans generally have far more 

specific goals, such as downlisting or delisting the species after specific quantitative criteria have 

been met. In such cases, however, meeting the quantitative benchmarks merely triggers a 

qualitative analysis of the five listing factors set forth in the ESA and to date, with the exception 

of Florida manatees, no analyses have been undertaken to measure progress against identified 

criteria. 
101

Table 26. Status of recovery plans and conservation plans prepared under the Endangered Species 

Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act for endangered, threatened, and depleted 

marine mammals. 

Common Name Adopted Plans Draft Plans 

Plans Currently 

under 

Development or 

Revision 

Florida Manatee 1980, 1989, 1991, 

1996, 2001 Revision 

Puerto Rican Manatee 1986 

Caribbean Monk Seal 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 1983 2006 

Western Steller Sea Lion 1992 2006 

Blue Whale 1998 2006 

Western Arctic Bowhead Whale 

Fin Whale 1998, 2006 

Humpback Whale 1991 

North Atlantic Right Whale 1991, 2005 

North Pacific Right Whale 1991 

Sei Whale 1998 

Sperm Whale 2006 

Southern Resident Killer Whale 2005 

Southern Sea Otter 1982, 2003 

Southwest Alaska Sea Otter Development 

Guadalupe Fur Seal 

Eastern Steller Sea Lion 1992 Revision 

Eastern North Pacific Northern Fur Seal 1993 Revision 

Cook Inlet Beluga Whale 2005 

Mid-Atlantic Coastal Bottlenose Dolphin Development 

AT1 Killer Whale 

Although causes of population declines and obstacles to recovery are not always apparent, all of 

the recovery and conservation plans provide thorough analyses of known and suspected or 

potential conservation threats as they are understood at the time the plans are written. As most 

plans are developed by teams of stakeholders and scientists and are made available for public 

comment, the plan development process provides an important opportunity for reaching 

agreement on conservation issues and needs and for encouraging and directing involvement by 

concerned agencies and groups. Developed plans also vary in the degree to which they focus on 

reducing the factors contributing to the unfavorable status of listed species. In most cases, initial 

recovery plans have focused more on identifying research priorities to clarify and provide a more 

informed basis for management actions. 

Approved recovery plans typically outline sets of prioritized tasks that provide a basis for 

projecting funding needs over a five-year period. The funding needs invariably exceed levels the 

lead agencies expect to provide but have served to encourage, justify, and guide cooperative 
102

involvement and funding by partner agencies and organizations. Periodic plan revisions have 

provided renewed opportunities for encouraging and guiding partner agencies and groups in light 

of new information and progress. However, because many taxa either do not yet have approved 

recovery or conservation plans or have plans that are more than 10 years old, the benefits of 

provisions for preparing plans under the ESA and MMPA have not been used to their fullest 

extent for all listed taxa. 

The role and composition of recovery teams has varied by species and over time. As noted 

above, the recovery team for Florida manatees has evolved from a small team composed 

principally of scientists to one that now includes more than 150 members representing 

management agencies, industry and environmental groups, academia, and the public. This shift 

reflects a change in focus from research to provide information for decision-making to one of 

coordinating a wide range of research, monitoring, and recovery activities performed by many 

different institutions. Similarly, the recovery teams initially convened by NMFS for Hawaiian 

monk seals were composed principally of scientists, but recent membership changes have 

reduced the number of scientists and increased representation from involved agencies and 

stakeholders. However, because the lead agencies have convened teams for only a few listed 

taxa, the provisions authorizing them to establish teams have been underused. 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

In most cases, recovery program management measures—particularly regulations—have been 

developed through an adaptive management approach. That is, management measures have been 

adopted incrementally and remain in effect until they are determined to be insufficient, at which 

time they are supplemented or replaced with new measures. This approach reflects agency 

desires to minimize the risk of imposing unnecessary measures. However, it also can result in 

management programs that develop too slowly and are ineffective or minimally effective. 

Adaptive management presumes an ability to measure the effectiveness of implemented 

measures. Effectiveness is usually evaluated by one of two methods: (1) monitoring trends in 

overall population abundance or particular population parameters (e.g., rates of mortality) in 

response to a particular measure, and (2) studies to assess the extent to which relevant 

stakeholders use or comply with recommended or required measures. 

The North Atlantic right whale recovery program typifies the adaptive management approach 

although, in this case, one that has been unsuccessful. To reduce entanglement in fishing gear, 

NMFS adopted a take reduction plan in 1997 that relied largely on requirements for modifying 

fishing gear. As observed right whale entanglements continued with little evidence of a decline, 

NMFS has had to make frequent minor and major changes to its plan. However, instead of 

implementing fundamentally different approaches with a higher probability of addressing 

entanglement risks, adopted changes have relied on expanded requirements for the same gear 

modifications, so far resulting in little or no progress. To reduce right whale deaths due to ship 

collisions, NMFS initially relied on public outreach and voluntary actions by vessel operators. 

Initial outreach efforts were supplemented by mandatory ship reporting measures in the late 

1990s to ensure that vessel operators transiting key habitats were aware of available information 

on right whales, collision risks, and avoidance measures. As those measures failed to reduce the 

frequency of collision-related right whale deaths, steps were initiated to develop a fundamentally 

different approach involving new speed and routing requirements. Adaptive management also 
103

has been used incrementally to better effect for expanding the scope of restrictions on fisheries 

interacting with southern sea otters and Steller sea lions and for boat speed limits to protect 

Florida manatees. In the Steller sea lion case, however, the changes in management were driven 

more by litigation than by recognition of and response to inadequate protection measures. 

The scope and scale of recovery programs for listed marine mammals varies greatly depending 

on many factors including the types of threats, the adequacy of information with which to design 

management measures, public interest, and available funding. As indicated in the following 

section on staffing and funding, roughly 95 percent of the funding allocated to the 18 taxa listed 

as endangered or threatened has been devoted to 7 taxa (Florida manatees, California sea otters, 

Hawaiian monk seals, eastern and western Steller sea lions, North Atlantic right whales, and 

humpback whales). For the other 11 listed taxa (Puerto Rico manatees, southwest Alaska sea 

otters, Caribbean monk seals, Guadalupe fur seals, North Pacific right whales, bowhead whales, 

blue whales, fin whales, sei whales, sperm whales, and southern resident killer whales), recovery 

programs involve limited studies to assess population trends and limited management actions. 

Management efforts for large whales generally involve programs that cover multiple taxa 

simultaneously (e.g., take reduction plans addressing several species and participation in the 

IWC management program). Funding levels for the four taxa listed only as depleted under the 

MMPA are moderate to small. In general, no single factor or set of factors explains the disparate 

scope of recovery efforts. 

For many of the taxa receiving the most funding, interactions with commercial fisheries have 

been and may continue to be the major issue (i.e., North Atlantic right whales, mid-Atlantic 

coastal bottlenose dolphins, Steller sea lions, Hawaiian monk seals, and southern sea otters). 

Management measures to address fishery interactions with listed marine mammals have 

frequently involved biological opinions prepared pursuant to section 7 of the ESA and lawsuits 

filed by environmental groups to compel greater protection for listed marine mammals. Adopted 

management actions have focused on the design of fishing gear, voluntary or mandatory use of 

fishing gear modifications, time/area fishing closures, fishery observer programs, 

disentanglement programs, and, in the case of southern sea otters, attempts to exclude animals 

from certain areas. In several cases, NMFS has convened take reduction teams composed of 

fishermen, government agency officials, conservationists, and other interests to recommend take 

reduction plans under the MMPA for reducing incidental injury and mortality. Although work to 

develop plans for non-listed marine mammals appears to have resulted in added protection in 

some cases (e.g., Gulf of Maine harbor porpoises), efforts to develop plans for listed taxa, such 

as North Atlantic right whales and bottlenose dolphins, have been less successful. In the case of 

North Atlantic right whales, entanglement rates have not declined since the take reduction plan 

was first implemented in 1997 despite periodic efforts to reconvene and expand the take 

reduction team and to implement significant plan modifications. In the case of bottlenose 

dolphins, limits on available information have delayed plan adoption. In these cases, it appears 

that MMPA provisions requiring the formation of take reduction teams and the preparation of 

take reduction plans have not been effective and that alternative approaches for identifying 

needed measures may be needed. 

The depletion of prey resources by commercial fisheries also is a significant issue for some listed 

taxa (e.g., Steller sea lions and Hawaiian monk seals). Such indirect fishery interactions are 
104

nominally addressed in fishery management plans under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, but our understanding of such potential impacts and efforts 

to investigate them have been inadequate to date. Following litigation concerning the effects of 

management plans for fisheries that might affect Steller sea lions, the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council and NMFS limited fishing in or near certain sea lion habitats (e.g., 

rookeries and foraging areas), but they have not addressed the large-scale question of whether 

fishing under a maximum sustainable yield-based paradigm is safe for marine ecosystems. With 

regard to possible effects of lobster fishing on Hawaiian monk seals, the Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council and NMFS rejected management recommendations by the Marine 

Mammal Commission for nearly 10 years until litigation and uncertainty as to the status of the 

lobster stock compelled NMFS to close the fishery entirely. Although efforts to address such 

indirect interactions are consistent with directives that fishery management plans establish 

optimal yield levels that take into account ecological factors, such efforts have been inconsistent 

at best and suggest that clearer guidance and direction are needed. 

As a general matter related to both incidental taking in fishing gear and effects on prey 

availability, federal managers appear particularly reluctant to consider creating or modifying 

time/area closure provisions to address interactions with marine mammals. Although such 

actions are invariably controversial, time/area closures are routinely adopted and used to manage 

targeted fish stocks. However, most fishery management councils and NMFS have given little 

consideration to integrating time/area closure systems to benefit both marine mammal 

conservation and fish conservation objectives at the same time. A broader approach in preparing 

fishery management plans to adopt closure systems that attempt to meet conservation benefits for 

both fish stocks and marine mammals would be a positive step toward addressing conservation 

needs for marine mammals. 

In several cases, state agencies have appeared more willing than federal agencies to establish 

fishery closures to protect marine mammals. For example, over the last decade, the state of 

California has excluded trap and net fishing from important sea otter habitats. In 2005 the state 

of Hawaii restricted all types of fishing in state waters of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to 

protect marine life, including Hawaiian monk seals. 

Several listed taxa, particularly large whales and Florida manatees, are affected by vessel 

collisions. To reduce collision risks for whales, federal managers have relied largely on outreach 

and voluntary actions by mariners. The most ambitious efforts in this regard have focused on 

North Atlantic right whales that use calving grounds off Florida and Georgia and feeding 

grounds off New England. Those efforts advise vessel operators on ways to reduce collision risks 

and provide them with real or near-real time reports of whale sighting locations. Because these 

efforts have not reduced observed levels of collision-related right whale deaths, NMFS is 

developing regulatory measures to restrict vessel speeds and routing in key right whale habitats. 

Such rules have already been developed by the state of Florida and FWS to protect Florida 

manatees. Some of those rules have been contentious and subject to legal challenges. FWS and 

the state also have sought to reduce boat collisions with manatees by limiting or conditioning 

permits for marinas and other watercraft facilities in manatee habitat and by encouraging 

comprehensive manatee protection plans as part of county growth management plans. 
105

Other management issues common to many listed marine mammal taxa are entanglement in 

marine debris and harassment by human activities. The taxa most affected by marine debris 

appear to be Hawaiian monk seals and the Pribilof Islands population of northern fur seals. 

Management actions to reduce marine debris impacts have included efforts to disentangle 

individual animals, public education to foster proper disposal practices, and volunteer beach 

clean-ups. Dedicated at-sea clean-up efforts also have been undertaken to remove hazardous 

debris from reefs adjacent to monk seal pupping beaches in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

To date, pleas for voluntary action to properly dispose of trash does not appear to have reduced 

debris levels. Efforts to reduce human disturbance have generally focused on keeping people 

some minimal distance away from animals. For example, NMFS has established a 100-yard 

minimum approach distance for humpback whales in Hawaii and Alaska and a 500-yard 

minimum approach distance for North Atlantic right whales. The agency also has developed nonbinding whale-watching guidelines specific to each of its regions of the county. For Florida 

manatees, FWS has established no-entry manatee sanctuaries at warm-water refuges where 

manatees can avoid attention by swimmers and divers. To minimize disturbance of Hawaiian 

monk seals on beaches in the main Hawaiian Islands, volunteers working with NMFS and the 

state of Hawaii post temporary safety zones around hauled-out animals to keep beachgoers at a 

proper distance. These measure have had varying degrees of success. 

For several listed marine mammal taxa, management programs include or encourage steps to 

purchase land or set aside areas whose development or use could adversely affect marine 

mammals or their habitat. Both the state of Florida and FWS have acquired tens of thousands of 

acres of land adjacent to waterways heavily used by Florida manatees. The importance of the 

Midway Islands as monk seal pupping habitat was a factor prompting the U.S. Navy to transfer 

the area to FWS for use as a national wildlife refuge. In several cases, marine areas have been 

designated as national marine sanctuaries largely or in part because of their importance as habitat 

for listed marine mammals (e.g., the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary, the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the Papahānaumokuākea 

Marine National Monument). 

Another element common to management programs for several listed taxa (e.g., southern sea 

otters, Hawaiian monk seals, and Florida manatees) is direct intervention to improve survival 

rates or reduce risks (e.g., head start programs, translocations, and rescue/rehabilitation 

programs). Because of logistical limitations, direct intervention programs are generally not 

feasible for large whales (with the exception of disentanglement efforts noted previously). In the 

late 1980s FWS implemented a program to relocate southern sea otters outside their existing 

range in California to establish a new colony at an offshore island that would reduce the risk of a 

catastrophic event, such as an oil spill, affecting the entire remaining population. Between 1981 

and 1993 NMFS attempted to increase the survivorship of Hawaiian monk seal pups at French 

Frigate Shoals and Kure Atoll by taking them into captivity for brief periods and then releasing 

them back into the wild. Injured and distressed Florida manatees are routinely brought into 

captivity for rehabilitation and release back into the wild. 

STAFFING AND FUNDING

Staffing and funding are significant factors affecting the scope of recovery programs. Both have 

increased substantially since directed management programs were first required by the MMPA 
106

and ESA in the 1970s. NMFS estimates that it spent 131.4 FTEs in staff time on research and 

management activities for the 18 listed species and populations under its jurisdiction during 

2005. Of this, 32.7 FTEs were by headquarters and regional office staffs for management 

purposes and 98.7 by the staff of fisheries science centers principally for research (Table 27) 

(Payne and Bengtson pers. comm.27). Seventy percent of that staff time was devoted to four taxa: 

North Atlantic right whales, western Steller sea lions, Hawaiian monk seals, and mid-Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphins. Nearly three-quarters of the remaining staff effort was devoted to four other 

taxa: southern resident killer whales, humpback whales, eastern Steller sea lions, and beluga 

whales. FWS and USGS allocated at least 30.9 FTEs in staff effort to the four listed marine 

mammals under jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, most of which was devoted to the 

recovery efforts for Florida manatees. 

Information on funding allocated to listed marine mammals is fraught with limitations. The most 

systematic and useful sources of information were (1) annual administrative reports prepared by 

FWS and USGS pursuant to a requirement of the MMPA (FWS 1981–1996, FWS and National 

Biological Service 1996, FWS and USGS 1997–2004), and (2) annual reports on recovery 

program expenditures for all endangered and threatened species prepared by FWS pursuant to a 

requirement in the ESA (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006). NMFS also prepared annual 

administrative reports pursuant to MMPA requirements through the early 2000s; however, its 

reports did not provide information on species-specific funding allocations. Annual MMPA 

administrative reports by FWS and USGS were more useful, but those also do not summarize 

total costs by species and address only the listed marine mammals under Department of the 

Interior jurisdiction (i.e., manatees and sea otters) and combine budget data for some categories 

for all marine mammals. Requirements for those reports have since been eliminated. Recent 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budget books also provide line-item 

summaries of appropriations that include information for some species, but many relevant lineitems list only receiving organizations, and it is not clear what taxa or what work is being 

addressed. The Marine Mammal Commission’s annual surveys of federally funded marine 

mammal research provide species-specific information on research projects but do not address 

funding for management activities and are organized by agency rather than species. 

Perhaps the single most useful source of funding data are the FWS annual reports of 

expenditures for all endangered and threatened species. Those reports include a species-byspecies summary of all “reasonably identifiable federal expenditures primarily for the 

conservation of endangered and threatened species,” including expenditures by states receiving 

grants under section 6 of the ESA. In part, the reports identify taxa-specific funding levels by 

federal and state agencies for the listed marine mammals that receive the most funding. They do 

not, however, itemize costs for listed marine mammals that receive low levels of funding 

(generally those less than $1 million) or are not listed as endangered or threatened (i.e., species 

listed only as depleted under the MMPA). They also do not necessarily reflect costs that are not 

clearly related to a specific species. In this regard, agencies providing funding data have broad 

latitude in determining how they tabulate their expenditures. As a result, accounting methods 

differ across agencies. For example, budget data for the Coast Guard, whose enforcement and 

 

27 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
107

support activities accounted for half of all reported expenditures on listed marine mammals in 

2003, include all costs for ship operations (e.g., fuel costs, depreciation, and crew salaries) while 

on missions whose primary objective relates to listed species. Other agencies, however, 

apparently may not include such administrative and overhead costs. It also is unclear whether 

and how cost accounting methods by reporting agencies have changed over time, the extent to 

which participating agencies may have changed, or to what degree agency staff salaries are 

reflected. Notwithstanding such limitations, FWS reports provide the most comprehensive source 

of funding data available for listed marine mammals. 

Table 27. Estimated number of full time equivalent staff positions (FTEs) devoted to marine 

mammal protection programs by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service in fiscal year 2005 (P. M. Payne and J. Bengtson pers. comm.). 

Species 

NMFS 

Regional 

Offices & 

Headquarters 

NMFS 

Fisheries 

Science 

Centers 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service 

U.S. 

Geological 

Survey Total 

Florida Manatee – – 11.25 13.36 24.61 

Puerto Rican Manatee – – 1.00 0.75 1.75 

Caribbean Monk Seal 0 0 – – 0 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 1.20 21.00 – – 22.20 

Western Steller Sea Lion 1.10 13.30 – – 14.40 

Blue Whale 0.35 1.18 – – 1.53 

Western Arctic Bowhead Whale 0.60 3.50 – – 4.10 

Fin Whale 0.60 0.28 – – 0.88 

Humpback Whale 1.80 5.30 – – 7.10 

North Atlantic Right Whale 16.00 13.20 – – 29.20 

North Pacific Right Whale 0.60 2.80 – – 3.40 

Sei Whale 0.20 0 – – 0.20 

Sperm Whale 0.53 1.70 – – 2.23 

Southern Resident Killer Whale 2.10 4.95 – – 7.05 

AT1 Killer Whale 0.20 0.25 – – 0.45 

Southern Sea Otter – – 2.00 ? 2.00+ 

Guadalupe Fur Seal 0 0.20 – – 0.20 

Eastern Steller Sea Lion 1.30 5.13 – – 6.43 

Eastern North Pacific Fur Seal 1.70 8.40 – – 10.10 

Cook Inlet Beluga Whale 2.30 3.78 – – 6.08 

Mid-Atlantic Coastal Bottlenose 

Dolphin 

 2.10 13.75 – – 15.85 

Southwest Alaska Sea Otter – – 2.50 ? 2.50+ 

TOTAL FTEs 32.68 98.72 16.75+ 14.11+ 162.16+ 
108

Based on those reports, federal expenditures for ESA-listed marine mammal taxa increased 

steadily from $8.5 million in 1998 to a high of $82.6 million in 2003, and then declined to $71.2 

million in 2004 (Table 28). During that same period, expenditures by states receiving ESA 

section 6 grants increased from $40,100 to $8.9 million. Much of this increase can be attributed 

to funding for Steller sea lions. Excluding funds for that species, reported expenditures for the 

other ESA-listed marine mammals increased from $2.9 million to $17.1 million between 1998 

and 2000 and then increased at a slower rate, reaching $28.6 million in 2004. For most listed 

marine mammals, more than half of all funding has been devoted to research and monitoring. 

The high expenditures on research reflect the fundamental need for demographic and biological 

data. Such data are essential for making and justifying management decisions in environmental 

impact statements, recovery and conservation plans, budget documents, and other decisionmaking records. For several listed marine mammals (e.g., AT1 killer whales, several great 

whales, and Guadalupe fur seals), research and monitoring studies are virtually the only activities 

funded. 

Funding for marine mammal taxa listed under the ESA is heavily weighted toward a few taxa 

(Figure 1). Of the $82.6 million in federal and state expenditures reported during the peak 

funding year of 2003, 91 percent was allocated to four taxa: western and eastern Steller sea lions 

($49.5 million and $5.3 million, respectively), North Atlantic right whales ($11.8 million), and 

Florida manatees ($9.8 million). More than half of the remaining funds were allocated to three 

other taxa: Hawaiian monk seals ($2.1 million), humpback whales ($1.6 million), and southern 

sea otters ($1.4 million). The remaining $1 million was distributed among the other nine ESAlisted taxa and was reported principally by the Coast Guard for enforcement. Overall, more than 

half of all reported expenditures for ESA-listed marine mammals in 2003 ($42.9 million) was 

reported by the Coast Guard for enforcement, principally related to Steller sea lions and North 

Atlantic right whales. Excluding Coast Guard funds from the 2003 total, federal and state 

expenditures totaled $39.6 million, with 88 percent allocated to eastern and western Steller sea 

lions ($14.9 million), North Atlantic right whales ($10.7 million), and Florida manatees ($9.85 

million). An additional 12 percent was allocated to Hawaiian monk seals, southern sea otters and 

humpback whales. Only 0.4 percent of the funding by agencies other than the Coast Guard in 

2003 was spent on the other nine listed taxa. Overall, federal agencies accounted for nearly all 

spending on all listed marine mammal taxa except Florida manatees, where the state of Florida 

has provided more than 60 percent of reported expenditures since the 1990s. 

Funding levels for species listed only as depleted are less clear. Funding for bottlenose dolphins 

has exceeded $2 million in some years, but funding for Cook Inlet beluga whales, AT1 killer 

whales, and the eastern North Pacific fur seal population has rarely, if ever, exceeded about 

$200,000 to $400,000 annually. 

During the period 2001–2004 expenditures reported by NMFS for listed marine mammals 

declined from $40.7 million to $32.6 million; those reported by FWS remained relatively steady 

at between about $2 million to $2.5 million (Figure 2). At the same time, Congress earmarked 

increasing amounts of funding to both agencies for various activities on specific taxa. Most 

notable in this regard were earmarks for Steller sea lions and North Atlantic right whales. A 

significant amount of the congressional earmarks was targeted to non-federal research 

organizations for research and monitoring activities. Although data have not been compiled for 
109

2004 and 2005, congressional appropriations to NMFS and FWS for work on marine mammal 

recovery programs have been further reduced. As a result of recent budget cuts and increasing 

numbers of earmarks, the ability of NMFS and FWS to allocate funds among taxa on a 

discretionary basis is very limited. 

Table 28. Total estimated federal and state expenditures on endangered and threatened species in 

fiscal years 1998–2005. Numbers in parentheses are state funding levels; all amounts are 

in $ thousands.

Species FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 

West Indian Manatee 

(Florida + Puerto Rico taxa) 

1,565 

(13) 

4,351 

(1,945) 

9,743 

(5,923) 

9,373 

(5,936) 

8,571 

(5,929) 

9,799 

(5,969) 

9,862 

(5,945) 

Southern Sea Otter 495 

(0) 

615 

(156) 

624 

(35) 

1,094 

(35) 

1,066 

(35) 

1376 

(40) 

734 

(20) 

Caribbean Monk Seal 10 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

8 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 1,156 

(0) 

1,105 

(0.4) 

1,267 

(14) 

2,121 

(14) 

2,197 

(14) 

2,145 

(15) 

2,321 

(0) 

Steller Sea Lion 

(East + West taxa) 

3,079 

(19) 

7,234 

(8) 

13,113 

(6) 

46,783 

(2,338) 

55,998 

(2,496) – –

Eastern Steller Sea Lion – – – – –

5,297 

(1,203) 

10,811 

(1,203) 

Western Steller Sea Lion – – – – –

49,514 

(1,200) 

31,746 

(1,200) 

Guadalupe Fur Seal 0 

(0) 

2 

(0) 

2 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

0 

(0) 

0 

(1) 

Blue Whale 4 

(1) 

125 

(0) 

6 

(0) 

1 

(0) 

8 

(0) 

203 

(0) 

67 

(2) 

Bowhead Whale 1 

(1) 

(0) 

(3) 

3 

(3) 

25 

(25) 

7 

(0) 

204 

(0) 

190 

(0) 

Fin Whale 5 

(1) 

13 

(0.3) 

5 

(1) 

24 

(2) 

13 

(1) 

206 

(1) 

72 

(3) 

Humpback Whale 361 

(41) 

492 

(8) 

567 

(11) 

740 

(11) 

890 

(11) 

1,615 

(18) 

666 

(7) 

Northern Right Whale 

(N. Pacific + N. Atlantic 

taxa) 

1,460 

(1) 

3,273 

(290) 

4,872 

(127) 

6,036 

(145) 

8,393 

(280) 

11,802 

(123) 

12,370 

(504) 

Sei Whale 5 

(1) 

4 

(0) 

4 

(0) 

12 

(0) 

1 

(0) 

203 

(0) 

66 

(0) 

Sperm whale 5 

(1) 

7 

(0) 

3 

(0) 

27 

(0) 

1 

(0) 

203 

(0) 

2,270 

(2) 

TOTAL 

 (All Marine Mammals) 

$8,505 

(81) 

$17,222 

(2,410) 

$30,207 

(2,410) 

$66,244 

(8,505) 

$77,147 

(8,765) 

$82,567 

(8,570) 

$71,175 

(8,887) 

Percent of funding relative 

to all listed taxa 

2.2% 

(0.5%) 

2.6% 

(4.3%) 

5.8% 

(6.1%) 

10.2% 

(11.1%) 

10.7 

(11.7%) 

12.1% 

(12.6%) 

9% 

(14.5%) 
110

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

In $ thousands

Other

Humpback whale

Hawaiian monk seal

Southern sea otter

Florida manatee

North Atlantic right whale

Steller sea lion

Figure 1. Expenditures for recovery activities on all taxa listed as endangered or threatened by 

species and by year, 1998–2004 

Recent trends in congressional funding for endangered marine mammal programs pose at least 

two major challenges for lead agencies. First, appropriated funding has not been sufficient to 

address all high-priority needs identified in recovery and conservation plans. Second, the 

increasing proportion of funding appropriated as earmarks limits the agencies’ ability to respond 

to new information and issues. Although most earmarks have usefully addressed important 

research and management needs, they have reduced the ability of the lead agencies, particularly 

NMFS, to allocate funds based on its best assessment of greatest need or opportunity. In 

addition, although earmarks often allow the start-up of new programs, they do not provide a 

basis for carrying out long-term research or management work. As a result, modifications to 

existing recovery programs are difficult, and the implementation of new recovery initiatives for 

species and populations that may be equally or even more endangered than those receiving the 

most funding is limited. In addition, for those species that do receive significant funding, it is 

very difficult for the agencies to plan and support multi-year commitments that often are 

essential to achieve program goals. 
111

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

FWS Funding NMFS Funding Coast Guard Funding State Funding

(in $ thousands)

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Figure 2. Expenditures for recovery activities on all taxa listed as endangered or threatened by 

agency and by year, 1998–2004. (Data for NMFS and USCG were not reported 

separately prior to 2001) 

Where resources have been available, recovery efforts for threatened, endangered, and depleted 

marine mammal populations have become increasingly sophisticated. In some cases, improved 

research techniques have better defined factors responsible for population declines or failure to 

recover. In other cases, resolution of such causes has remained elusive. For most taxa, improved 

information, particularly with regard to stock structure, has made it clear that the task of recovery 

is far more complex than previously thought. Managers must consider not just a single, broadly 

distributed species but multiple populations and subpopulations, each of which may be affected 

by different threats and human activities in a variety of ways that are not always apparent. This 

has made scientific and political decisions concerning how to mitigate the impact of human 

activities more difficult. 

Pressures on marine mammal populations, not to mention other marine wildlife, are clearly 

increasing as human demands for food, waste disposal, and economic development continue to 

grow. Although recovery programs for listed marine mammals have made great strides in 

addressing these issues, and some listed species are making good progress toward recovery, 

constraints on funding levels and agency flexibility loom as significant impediments in 

addressing pressing needs for other species. 
112

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the staff of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service for their patience and assistance with innumerable requests for information. In 

particular, we would like to thank P. Michael Payne of the National Marine Fisheries Service and 

Deborah Crouse of the Fish and Wildlife Service for helping to coordinate many of the responses 

made during the preparation of this report. Although many people with both agencies and the 

Marine Mammal Commission reviewed and commented on various sections of this report, we 

express a special thanks to Lloyd Lowry, Suzanne Montgomery, and Timothy Ragen for their 

careful reviews of multiple drafts. Special thanks also go to Wilhelmina Innes for her help in 

preparing the appendices and various tables in the body of the report. 

VI. REFERENCES 

Baker, C. S., and L. M. Herman. 1989. Behavioral responses of summering humpback whales to 

vessel traffic: experimental and opportunistic observations. Technical report NPS-NRTRS-89-01 to the National Park Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, Gustavus, AK. 

50 pp. 

Baker, J. D., and T. C. Johanos. 2004. Abundance of the Hawaiian monk seal in the main 

Hawaiian Islands. Biological Conservation 116:103–110. 

Barlow, J., and B. L. Taylor. Unpubl. Preliminary abundance of sperm whales in the northeastern 

temperate Pacific estimated from a combined visual and acoustic survey. Paper 

SC/50/CAWS20 presented to the International Whaling Commission, June 1998. 

Bartholomew, G. A. 1950. A male Guadalupe fur seal on San Nicolas Island, California. Journal 

of Mammalogy 31:175–180. 

Bean, M. J., and M. J. Rowland. 1997. The Evolution of National Wildlife Law. Praeger 

Publishers, Westport, CT. 

Braun, R. C., and P. K. Yochem. 2006. Workshop to evaluate the potential for use of 

morbillivirus vaccination in Hawaiian monk seals. Final report prepared for the Marine 

Mammal Commission, Bethesda, MD. 35 pp. 

Calambokidis, J., and J. Barlow. 2004. Abundance of blue and humpback whales in the eastern 

North Pacific estimated by capture-recapture and line transect methods. Marine Mammal 

Science 20:65–85. 

Calkins, D. G., and K. B. Schneider. 1985. The sea otter (Enhydra lutris). Pp. 37–45 in J. Burns, 

K. J. Frost, and L. F. Lowry (eds.). Marine mammal species accounts. Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game. Game Technical Bulletin 7. 

Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara, and S. Brault. 1999. Declining survival probability threatens the North 

Atlantic right whale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 96:3308–3313. 

Clark, J. A., J. M. Hoekstra, P. D. Boersman, and P. Kareiva. 2002. Improving U.S. Endangered 

Species Act Recovery Plans: key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery 

plan project. Final report to the FWS, Washington, DC March 2002. Cited in National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Interim Endangered and Threatened Species 

Recovery Planning Guidance. October 2004. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/guidance.htm. 
113

Crouse, D. T., L. A. Mehrhoff, M. J. Parkin, D. R. Elam, and L. Y. Chen. 2002. Endangered 

species recovery and the SCB study: A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service perspective. 

Ecological Applications V. 12, No. 3, pp.719–723. Cited in National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS). 2004. Interim Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Planning 

Guidance. October 2004. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/guidance.htm. 

DeMaster, D., R. Angliss, J. Cochrane, P. Mace, R. Merrick, M. Miller, S. Rumsey, B. Gaylor, 

G. Thompson, and R. Waples. 2004. Recommendations to NOAA Fisheries: ESA Listing 

Criteria by the Quantitative Working Group, 10 June 2004. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-67, 85p. http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/. 

Department of Commerce and Department of the Interior (DOC DOI 1996). 1996. Secretarial 

Order on American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act. Order 513, May 13, 1996. 

Doroff, A. M., J. A. Estes, M. T. Tinker, D. M. Burns, and T. J. Evans. 2003. Sea otter 

population declines in the Aleutian Archipelago. Journal of Mammalogy 84(1):55–64. 

Estes, J. A. 1990. Growth and equilibrium in sea otter populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 

59:385–401. 

Estes, J. A., M. T. Tinker, T. M. Williams, and D. F. Doak. 1998. Killer whale predation linking 

oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science 282:473–476. 

Ferber, D. 2005. Sperm whales bear testimony to worldwide pollution. Science 309:1166. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS and NMFS). 1994a. 

Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Activities. 59 

Fed.Reg. 34270. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS and NMFS). 1994b. 

Interagency Cooperative Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species 

Act. 59 Fed.Reg. 34271. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS and NMFS). 1994c. 

Interagency Cooperative Policy on Recovery Plan Participation and Implementation 

Under the Endangered Species Act. 59 Fed.Reg. 34272. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS and NMFS). 1994d. 

Interagency Cooperative Policy for the Ecosystem Approach to the Endangered Species 

Act. 59 Fed.Reg. 34274. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS and NMFS). 1994e. 

Interagency Cooperative Policy Regarding the Role of State Agencies in Endangered 

Species Act Activities. 59 Fed.Reg. 34275. 

Fleischer, L. A. 1987. Guadalupe fur seal, Arctocephalus townsendi,. Pp 43–48 in J.P. Croxall 

and R.L. Gentry (eds). Status, biology, and ecology of fur seals. Proceedings of an 

international symposium and workshop. Cambridge, England, 23–27 April 1984. U.S. 

NOAA Technical Report NMFS 51. National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department 

of Commerce. 

Fowler, C. M. 1982. Interactions of northern fur seals and commercial fisheries. In Transactions 

of the 47th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife 

Management Institute. Washington, DC. 

Fowler, C. M. 1985. An evaluation of the role of entanglement in the population dynamics of 

northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and 

Impact of Marine Debris, 27–29 November 1984. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA 

Tech Memo, NMFS-NOAA- TM-MNMF-SWFC-54. 
114

Gilmartin, W.G. 1983. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal, Monachus schauinslandi. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region. March 24, 1983. 

Groombridge, B. (ed.). 1994. 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland. 

Haubold, E. M, C. Deutsch, and C. Fonnesbeck. 2005. Preliminary biological status review of 

the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. St. Petersburg, FL. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team. 2005. Draft Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal. 

October 2005. Prepared for the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Silver Spring, MD. 

Hubbs, C. L. 1956. The Guadalupe fur seal still lives! Zoonoz. San Diego Zoological Society 

29(12):6–9. 

Jameson, R. J, K. W. Kenyon, A. Johnson, and H. M. Wight. 1982. History and status of 

translocated sea otter populations in North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10(2):100–

107. 

Jensen, A. S., and G. K. Silber. 2003. Large whale ship strike database. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-OPR-25. Office of Protected Resources. National Marine Fisheries 

Service. U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD. 37 pp. 

Kenyon, K. W. 1972. Man versus the monk seal. Journal of Mammalogy 53(4):687–696. 

Kenyon, K. W. 1977. Caribbean monk seal extinct. Journal of Mammalogy 58(1):97–98. 

Krahn, M. M. et al. 2002. Status review of southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under 

the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-54, 133 pp. 

Kraus, S. D. M. W. Brown, H. Caswell, C. W. Clark, M. Fujiwara, R. D. Kenny, A. R. 

Knowlton, S. Landry, C. A. Mayo, W. A. McLellan, M. J. Moore, D. J. Nowacek, D A. 

Papst, A. J. Read, and R. M. Rolland. 2005. North Atlantic right whales in crisis. Science: 

309: 561–562. 

Lafferty, K. D., and L. R. Gerber. 2002. Good medicine for conservation biology: the 

intersection of epidemiology and conservation theory. Conservation Biology 16:593–604. 

Laist, D. W., and C. Shaw. 2006. Preliminary Evidence that Boat Speed Restrictions Reduce 

Deaths of Florida Manatees. Marine Mammal Science 22(2):472–479. 

Laist, D. W., and J. E. Reynolds. 2005a. Florida Manatees, warm-water refuges, and an uncertain 

future. Coastal Management 33:279–295. 

Laist, D. W., and J. E. Reynolds. 2005b. Influence of power plants and other warm water refuges 

on Florida manatees. Marine Mammal Science 21(4):739–764. 

Laist, D. W., A. R. Knowlton, J. G. Mead, A. S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions 

between ships and whales. Marine Mammal Science 17(1:35–75. 

Lefebvre, L., W. M. Marmontel, J. P. Reid, G. B. Rathbun, and D. P. Domning. 2001. Status and 

biogeography of the West Indian manatee. Chapter 23 in C. Woods (ed.). Patterns of 

West Indian Biogeography. CRC Press. 35 pp + Figs. 

Lowry, L., D. W. Laist, and E. Taylor. 2007. Endangered, Threatened, and Depleted Marine 

Mammals in U.S. Waters: A Review of Species Classification Systems and Listed 

Species. Report to the Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda MD. 79 + viii pp. 

Lowry, L., G. O’Corry-Crowe, and D. Goodman. 2006. Delphinapterus leucas (Cook Inlet 

population). In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 
115

Marine Mammal Commission (MMC). 1991. Marine Mammal Commission Annual Report: 

Calendar Year 1990. Marine Mammal Commission. National Technical Information 

Service. NTIS PB91-164236. 280 pp. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 2001. Annual Report to Congress 2000. Bethesda, MD. 

http://www.mmc.gov. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 2002. Annual Report to Congress 2001. Bethesda, MD. 

http://www.mmc.gov. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 2003. Annual Report to Congress 2002. Bethesda, MD. 

http://www.mmc.gov. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 2004. Annual Report to Congress 2003. Bethesda, MD. 

http://www.mmc.gov. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 2005. Annual Report to Congress 2004. Bethesda, MD. 

http://www.mmc.gov. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 2006. Annual report to Congress 2005. Bethesda MD. 

http://www.mmc.gov. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 2007. Report of the Workshop on Assessing the Population 

Viability of Endangered Marine Mammals in U.S. Waters. Marine Mammal Commission, 

Bethesda, MD. 37 pp. 

Mate, B. R., K. M. Stafford, and D. K. Ljungblad. 1994. A change in sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus) distribution correlated to seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America. 96:3268–3269. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991a. Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis). Prepared by the Right Whale Recovery Team for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991b. Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1992. Final Recovery Plan for Steller Sea Lions (Eumetopias 

jubatus). Prepared by the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team for the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1993. Final Conservation Plan for the Northern Fur Seal 

(Callorhinus ursinus). Prepared by the National Marine Mammal Laboratory/Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, and the Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. Status Review of the AT1 Group of killer whales from 

the Prince William Sound and Kenai Fjords area. 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/killerwhales/at1statreview0703.pdf. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004a. Interim Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery 

Planning Guidance. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/guidance.htm. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004b. Report to Congress: Review of Commercial Fisheries’ 

Progress Toward Reducing Mortality and Serious Injury of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Commercial Fishing Operations. 18 pp + appendix. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004c. Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact 

Review for the Implementation of the Zero Mortality Rate Goal of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. 
116

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004d. Record of Decision for Subsistence Harvest 

Management of Cook Inlet Beluga Whales: Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/cibrod2004.pdf. 

National Marine Fisheries Service 2005a. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2005. 

NOAA Tech. Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-161. A U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, WA. 250 pp. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005b. Recovery plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis). U.S. Department of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Silver Spring, MD. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR3/recovery.html. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005c. Preliminary Draft: Conservation Plan for Southern 

Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). Silver Spring, MD. 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/mmammals/whales/CPPSKW.html. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005d. Draft Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga 

Whale (Delphinapterus leucas). Silver Spring, MD. 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/mmpa/draft/conservationpla

n032005.pdf. 

National Marine Fisheries Service 2006a. U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 2005. 

NOAA Tech. Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-388. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Southwest. Fisheries Science Center. La Jolla, CA. 317 pp. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service 2006b. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal 

stock assessments: 2005. NOAA Tech. Memorandum NMFS-NE-194. U.S. Department 

of Commerce. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Woods Hole, MA. 352 pp. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006c. Draft recovery plan for the fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus). Office of Protected Resources. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. Silver Spring, MD. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006d. Draft recovery plan for the sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus). Office of Protected Resources. National Marine Fisheries Service. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service 2006e. Draft revision of the recovery plan for the Hawaiian 

monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi). Office of Protected Resources, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm

National Ocean Service. 2004. Proposed Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary: Advice and Recommendations on Development of Draft Fishing Regulations 

Under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act Section 304(a: (5). 

http://hawaiireef.noaa.gov/designation/fishing2004.html. 

NOAA Fisheries. 2000. Annual Report: Administration of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972, 1999–2000. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov. 

NOAA Fisheries. 2003. Priorities for the 21st Century: NOAA Fisheries’ Strategic Plan for 

FY2003 – FY2008. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov. 

National Research Council. 2003. The Decline of the Steller Sea Lion in Alaskan Waters: 

Untangling Food Webs and Fishing Nets. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 
117

O’Shea, T. J., R. R. Reeves, and A. K. Long. 1999. Marine mammals and persistent ocean 

contaminants: proceedings of the Marine Mammal Commission Workshop, Keystone, 

Colorado, 12–15 October 1998. Marine Mammal Commission. Bethesda, MD. 150 pp. 

Ohsumi, S., and S. Wada. 1974. Status of whale stocks in the North Pacific, 1972. Report of the 

International Whaling Commission. 25:114–126. 

Polovina, J. J. 2005. Climate variation, regime shifts, and implications for sustainable fisheries. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 76(2):233–244. 

Ragen, T. J., and D. M. Lavigne. 1999. The Hawaiian monk seal: biology of an endangered seal. 

Pp. 224–245 in J.R. Twiss and R.R. Reeves (eds). Conservation and Management of 

Marine Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, DC. 

Rathbun, G. B, N. Carr, T. Carr, and C. A. Woods. 1985. The distribution of manatees and sea 

turtles in Puerto Rico, with emphasis on Roosevelt Rhodes Naval Station. NTIS PB 85-

151847 AS. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA. 83 pp. 

Rathbun, G. B, and E. Possardt. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rico Population of the West 

Indian (Antillean) Manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus L.). U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Atlanta, GA. 

Rathbun, G. B., and R. L. Wallace. 2000. Florida manatee. Pp. 107–111 in R.P. Reading and B. 

Miller (eds). A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues. Greenwood Press. Westport, CT. 

Reeves, R. R., G. Silber, and P. M. Payne. 1998. Draft Recovery Plan for the Fin Whale 

Balaenoptera physalus and Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis. Prepared for the Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Reeves, R. R., P. J. Clapham, R. L. Brownell, Jr., and G. K. Silber. 1998. Recovery Plan for the 

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus). Prepared for the Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Reeves, R. R., A. J. Read, L. Lowry, S. K. Katona, and D. J. Boness 2007. Report of the North 

Atlantic Right Whale Program Review, 13–17 March 2006, Woods Hole, MA. Available 

from the Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda MD. 67 pp. 

Rotterman, M. L., and T. Simon-Jackson. 1988. Sea otter. Pp. 237–275 in J. W. Lentfer (ed.). 

Selected marine mammals of Alaska. Species accounts with research and management 

recommendations. Prepared for the Marine Mammal Commission. PB88-178462. 

National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA. 275 pp. 

Samuels, A., L. Bijder, R. Constantine, and S. Heinrich. 2003. A review of swimming with wild 

cetacean with a special focus on the Southern Hemisphere. In N. J. Gales, M. Hindell, 

and R. Kirkwood (eds.) Marine Mammals and Humans: Towards a Sustainable Balance. 

Melbourne University Press. 

Shelden, K. E. W., D. J. Rugh, D. P. DeMaster, and L. R. Gerber. 2003a. Evaluation of Bowhead 

Whale Status: Reply to Taylor. Conservation Biology 17(3):918–920. 

Shelden, K. E. W., D. J. Rugh, B. A. Mahoney, and M. E. Dahlheim. 2003b. Killer whale 

predation on a beluga whale in Cook Inlet, Alaska: implications for a depleted 

population. Marine Mammal Science 19(3):529–544. 

Shelden, K. E. W., and D. J. Rugh. 1995. The Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus: Its Historic 

and Current Status. Marine Fisheries Review 56(3–4):1–20. 

Stevick, P. N., J. Allen, P. J. Clapham, N. Friday, S. K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D. K. Mattila, 

P. J. Palsboll, J. Sigurjonsson, T. D. Smith, N. Oien, and P. S. Hammond. 2003. North 

Atlantic humpback whale abundance and rate of increase four decades after protection 

from whaling. Marine Ecology Progress Series 258: 263–273. 
118

Thomas, N. J. and L. H. Creekmore. 2005. Southern Sea Otter Health and Mortality: Questions 

Surrounding the Population Decline. http://www.werc.usgs.gov/otters

Thomas, N. J. and R. A. Cole. 1996. The Risk of Disease and Threats to the Wild Population. 

Endangered Species Update 13:12:24. 

U.S. Coast Guard. 2004. 2004 Report: Mission-Programs. 

http://www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#LMR. 

U.S. Congress. 2004. Conference report to accompany H.R. 4818 making appropriations for 

foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2005, and for other purposes. Conference report to accompany H.R. 4818. 

108th Congress, 2d session. House Report 108–792. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.1981–1996. Administration of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972. Annual reports from 1980–1993 (Series). U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Southern sea otter recovery plan. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Unit i. Denver, CO. 66 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a. West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus) 

Antillean stock. Stock Assessment Report prepared by the Jacksonville Field Office. 

Jacksonville, FL. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. Conservation Plan for the Sea Otter in Alaska. Marine 

Mammals Management, Anchorage, AK. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) California stock. 

Stock Assessment Report prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus) 

Florida stock. Stock Assessment Report prepared by the Jacksonville Field Office. 

Jacksonville, FL. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Florida Manatee Recovery Plan: Third Revision. 

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Manatee/manatees.htm#Manatee%20Recovery%20Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Endangered Species Recovery Program: Frequently Asked 

Questions. http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Consultations with Federal Agencies: Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. http://endangered.fws.gov. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002c. Delisting a Species: Section 4 of the Endangered Species 

Act. http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002d. Recovery Report to Congress: Fiscal Years 2001–2002. 

http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002e. Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris) Southwest Alaska Stock, Stock 

Assessment Report. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/individual_sars.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Final Revised Recovery Plan for the Southern Sea Otter 

(Enhydra lutris nereis). FWS, Region 1, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2000. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/expenditures/19982000.html. 
119

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003c. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 1999. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/expenditures/19982000.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003d. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 1998. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/expenditures/19982000.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003e. Three-Year Summary of Federal and State Endangered 

and Threatened Species Expenditures: Fiscal Years 1998–2000. U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Endangered Species Program. Washington, D.C. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/expenditures/19982000.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. ESA Basics: 30 Years of Protecting Endangered Species. 

http://endangered.fws.gov/. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004b. Listing a Species as Threatened or Endangered: Section 4 

of the Endangered Species Act. February 2004. http://endangered.fws.gov. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004c. Partnerships With States: Tools for Helping Communities 

and Landowners Conserve Species Habitat. http://endangered.fws.gov. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a.: Translocation of southern sea otters. draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. Ventura, CA. 242 pp 

+ appendices. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Species Information on Threatened and Endangered 

Animals and Plants. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005c. Service seeks public input for manatee five-year review. 

Press release. April 14, 2005. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005d. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2003. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC.

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pubs/expenditurereports.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005e. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2002. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC.

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pubs/expenditurereports.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005f. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2001. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pubs/expenditurereports.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/expenditures/19982000.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Biological Service. 1996. Administration of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972: January 1 1994 to December 31 1994. U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered 

Species Act Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Section 7 Consultations 

and Conferences. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/consultations/s7hndbk/toc-glos.pdf. 
120

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey. 1997–2004. Administration of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Annual reports from 1995–2000 (Series) U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. California Sea Otter Numbers Climb for Second Consecutive 

Year. Press release: June 16, 2004. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005a. Manatee use patterns and benthic habitat characterization in 

Puerto Rico. Project #2070A7R, Task 15. http://cars.er.usgs.gov/basis/projects. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005b. Manatee Biology, Ecology, and Adaptive Management. Project 

#2070A7R. http://cars.er.usgs.gov/basis/projects. 

Vos, D. J., and K. E. W. Shelden. 2005. Unusual mortality in the Cook Inlet beluga 

(Delphinapterus leucas) population. Northwestern Naturalist 86:59–65. 

Waring, G.H. 2002. Survey of Federally-Funded Marine Mammal Research and Studies, FY74 – 

FY00. Final Report to the Marine Mammal, Bethesda, MD. 

Wendell, F. E, R. A. Hardy, and J. A. Ames. Unpublished. Assessment of the accidental take of 

sea otters, Enhydra lutris, in gill and trammel nets. Marine Research Branch, California 

Department of Fish and Game. 30 pp. 

Western Ecological Research Center. 2004. Sea Otter Studies. http://www.werc.usgs.gov

Wiley, D. N, R. A. Asmutis, T. D. Pitchford, and D. P. Gannon. 1994. Stranding and mortality of 

humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the mid-Atlantic and southeast United 

States, 1985–1992. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 93:196–205. 

Wilson, D. E., M. A. Bogan, R. L. Brownell, Jr., M. Burdin, and M. K. Maminov. 1991. 

Geographic variation in sea otters, Enhydra lutris. Journal of Mammalogy 72(1):22–36.
121

VII. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. MAJOR FEDERAL STATUTORY PROTECTION MEASURES

MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT 

Passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972 marked a dramatic departure 

from previous regimes for managing living marine resources (Bean and Rowland 1997). Rather 

than aiming to manage marine mammals for their maximum sustainable yield, the Act 

established as its primary objective “...to maintain the health and stability of the marine 

ecosystem.” As consistent with this objective, the Act also established a goal “...to obtain an 

OSP keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat.” The Act defines OSP as “the number 

of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, 

keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which 

they form a constituent element.” This definition was further refined by NMFS in regulations as 

“a population size, which falls within a range from [the carrying capacity of the] ecosystem to 

the population level that results in maximum net productivity.” Thus, rather than establishing a 

management regime focused on maximizing economic returns, it sought to assure that marine 

mammals are maintained as vital, functioning parts of a healthy marine environment. 

The Act vested the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior with responsibility for 

implementing its provisions. The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, has primary authority for all species in the order Cetacea (whales and 

porpoises), as well as all species in the order Pinnipedia (seals and sea lions) except walruses. 

The Commerce Secretary also implements the Act’s provisions on incidental take of all marine 

mammals in commercial fisheries. The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, exercises authority for the Act’s application to manatees, dugongs, polar bears, 

sea and marine otters, and walruses. The Act also established the Marine Mammal Commission, 

whose primary responsibility is to provide an independent source of advice and oversight to the 

Services and other federal and state agencies with regard to the Act’s implementation. In 

assigning these responsibilities, the Act pre-empts state laws or regulations relating to the taking 

of marine mammals unless authorized through a process by which management authority can be 

transferred to individual states. 

Moratorium on Taking and Relevant Exceptions 

A central feature of the MMPA is its moratorium on “taking” and importing of marine mammals. 

This moratorium is subject to exceptions, exemptions, and waivers, whose number and breadth 

has grown as Congress has amended the Act (Bean and Rowland 1997). In defining “take,” 

Congress included both intentional and unintentional capture, killing, and harassment of marine 

mammals. Harassment, in turn, has been defined to include actions that have the potential to 

injure or disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild. 

Native Exemption: Section 101(b) of the Act exempts Alaska Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos 

from the Act’s prohibitions on taking when the taking is for subsistence purposes or for purposes 

of creating and selling authentic Native articles of handicrafts and clothing and the taking is not 

accomplished in a wasteful manner. Native takes of depleted species may be limited by 
122

regulation. Section 119 of the Act, adopted in 1994, authorizes the Secretaries of Commerce and 

the Interior to “...enter into cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations to 

conserve marine mammals and provide co-management of subsistence use by Alaska Natives.” 

Permits for Scientific Research, Public Display, Enhancement, and Photography: The 

MMPA authorizes the Services to issue permits for the taking or importation of marine mammals 

for the purposes of scientific research, public display, or enhancing the survival or recovery of a 

species or population. Amendments in 1994 provided additional authorization to grant permits 

for the taking of marine mammals in the course of educational or commercial photography. 

The 1994 amendments to the MMPA also authorized the Services to issue letters of general 

authorization for research that may disturb but not injure a marine mammal or marine mammal 

population (MMC 2005). Such general authorizations are not allowed for activities that involve 

the taking of endangered or threatened species, which remain subject to separate ESA permitting 

requirements. 

Small-Take Authorizations: Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA directs NMFS and FWS to 

authorize the taking of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to activities other than 

commercial fishing (MMC 2005), provided that certain findings are made. In 1986 Congress 

amended the Act to allow the taking of marine mammals from depleted species and populations, 

as well as from non-depleted species and populations (MMC 2005). There are three basic types 

of such small-take authorizations: 

• Authorization for most types of small takes require the promulgation of regulations that 

identify permissible methods of taking and specify reporting and monitoring requirements. 

The Services must determine that the taking will have a negligible impact on the affected 

populations and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such 

populations for subsistence purposes. Authorizations, under section 101(a)(5)(A), may be 

effective for as long as five years. 

• In 1994 Congress added section 101(a)(5)(D) to streamline such authorizations if the taking 

will involve harassment only. Such authorizations do not require the promulgation of 

regulations but are subject to public notice and comment. Such authorizations may be 

issued for no longer than one year at a time. 

• In 2003 Congress revised the small-take provisions as they apply to “military readiness 

activities.” Among other things, it removed the small numbers and geographic specificity 

limitations and required the consideration of several factors such as personal safety and 

practicality in designing mitigation measures. 

The Marine Mammal Commission generally comments on all such applications and associated 

regulations. 

Taking Incidental to Commercial Fishing: In passing the MMPA, Congress set a goal of 

reducing the mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fisheries 

“to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate” (NMFS 2004c). In 

amending the Act in 1994, Congress set a deadline of April 30, 2001, for achieving the goal of 
123

insignificant levels of incidental mortality and serious injury incidental to fisheries. Section 

118(b) includes four elements (NMFS 2004b): 

• Fisheries must reduce incidental mortality and serious injury to insignificant levels 

approaching zero; 

• Fisheries that do reduce their levels of incidental mortality and serious injury to 

insignificant levels shall not be required to make further reductions; 

• NMFS must review the progress of all commercial fisheries in meeting this goal and 

identify fisheries where additional information is required in order to assess the level of 

incidental mortality in a fishery; and 

• If a fishery is not meeting the goal of zero mortality and injury rate, NMFS must use the 

mechanisms in section 118(f), including the convening of take reduction teams and the 

preparation, approval, and implementation of take reduction plans. 

The 1994 amendments also included a mechanism (section 101(a)(5)(E)) for authorizing limited 

incidental take of marine mammals listed under the Endangered Species Act if NMFS or FWS 

determine that: 

• The incidental mortality and serious injury will have a negligible impact on the species or 

stock; 

• A recovery plan has been or is being developed under the ESA; and 

• If required, a monitoring program has been established under section 118. 

The MMPA allows intentional lethal taking of marine mammals in commercial fishery 

operations only if it is “imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of another person 

in immediate danger.” Fishermen may intentionally take marine mammals by nonlethal means to 

deter them from damaging gear, catch, or other property under certain circumstances (MMC 

2002). Section 101(a)(4) requires that the two Services publish guidelines on how to deter 

marine mammals safely (MMC 2002), but neither agency has yet published and finalized such 

guidelines. 

Sections 117 and 118 of the MMPA require NMFS to carry out a comprehensive program to 

reduce interactions between marine mammals and commercial fishing operations (NOAA 

Fisheries 2000). That program includes— 

• the preparation of stock assessment reports, 

• convening of scientific review groups, 

• publishing a list of fisheries, 

• convening take reduction teams to develop take reduction plans, and 

• meeting short- and long-term goals for reducing incidental takes of marine mammals.

Stock Assessment Reports: Section 117 requires marine mammal stock assessment reports to be 

prepared for all marine mammal stocks in U.S. waters. These reports are to be updated 

periodically based on use of the “best scientific information available.” 
124

The MMPA defines a population stock as “a group of marine mammals of the same species or 

smaller taxa in a common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.” NMFS has 

interpreted this to mean “a management unit that identifies a demographically isolated biological 

population” (NMFS 2003b). A stock may be delineated based on its distribution and movements 

or population trends, as well as differences in morphology, genetics, contaminant and natural 

isotope loads, parasites, and oceanographic habitats. Reproductive isolation is proof of 

demographic isolation, according to the Service. (As a policy matter, the Service considers this 

definition to be different from the ESA definition of a distinct population segment, which it 

interprets as requiring that a population not only be distinct but that it represent an important 

component of the evolutionary legacy of the species [i.e., that it constitute an evolutionarily 

significant unit] in order to qualify for listing as endangered or threatened.) 

Stock assessment reports must include a determination of the stock’s potential biological 

removal (PBR) level. PBR is defined as the maximum number of animals—not including natural 

mortalities—that may be removed from a marine mammal population while still allowing that 

population to reach or maintain its OSP level. The stock assessment reports also must identify 

those stocks that are to be considered “strategic stocks.” These include stocks with levels of 

human-caused mortality that exceed PBR, as well as any stock listed as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA, declining and likely to be listed as such in the foreseeable future, or listed as 

depleted under the MMPA (NMFS 2004b). Of the 145 marine mammal stocks assessed in 1995, 

47 were determined to be strategic stocks (MMC 2002). The MMPA requires that assessments of 

strategic stocks be reviewed at least annually and those of other stocks be reviewed at least once 

every three years. 

Under the MMPA, a species is designated as depleted when it falls below its OSP or if it is listed 

as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Once a species is determined to be depleted, a 

conservation plan may be developed to guide research and management actions to restore the 

species. As of June 2005, five marine mammal stocks had been designated as depleted 

independently of listing under the ESA.28 They are the North Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin, 

the eastern spinner dolphin, the North Pacific or northern fur seal, the northeastern offshore 

spotted dolphin, and the Cook Inlet beluga whale.

Of these five depleted populations, NMFS has prepared draft conservation plans for North 

Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins and Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

Scientific Review Groups: Under section 117 of the Act, the Secretary of Commerce established 

three regional scientific review groups—one each for Alaska, the Pacific Coast and Hawaii, and 

the Atlantic coast including the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA Fisheries 2000). Besides reviewing draft 

stock assessments, the review groups advise NMFS on a wide range of issues, including 

population status, trends, stock identity and dynamics, necessary research on marine mammals 

stocks, and methods to reduce incidental mortality and injury. 

 

28 The Hawaiian monk seal and the bowhead whale also were designated depleted under a separate action although both species 

also now qualify by virtue of their endangered status.
125

List of Fisheries: Section 118 requires NMFS to publish annually a list of fisheries that places all 

U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the level of incidental serious 

injury and mortality of marine mammals (69 Fed. Reg. 48407). The list of affected species 

generally is based on observer data, logbook data, stranding reports, and reports of fishermen. 

Since 1996 some fisheries have been classified as category II fisheries by analogy to other gear 

types that are known to injure or kill marine mammals rather than on documented interactions 

(NOAA Fisheries 2000).

Fisheries are classified according to the impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal 

population, then the impact of individual fisheries on each population, measured as a ratio of the 

number of animals killed or injured to the PBR level (69 Fed. Reg. 48408). 

• Category I Fisheries: Annual mortality and serious injury in a given fishery is greater than 

or equal to 50 percent of the PBR level. 

• Category II Fisheries: Annual mortality and serious injury in a given fishery is between 1 

and 50 percent of the PBR level, and the total number of deaths and serious injuries from 

all fisheries is greater than 10 percent of the stock’s PBR level. 

• Category III Fisheries: Annual mortality and serious injury in a given fishery is less than or 

equal to 1 percent of the PBR level or the total annual mortality and serious injury across 

all fisheries is less than or equal to 10 percent of the stock’s PBR level. 

In 2004 NMFS identified 7 category I fisheries, 34 category II fisheries, and 174 category III 

fisheries (69 Fed. Reg. 48407). Of the seven category I fisheries, six were listed as taking 

endangered, threatened, or depleted species (see Appendix B). Another 19 category II fisheries 

and 26 category III fisheries were listed as taking endangered, threatened, or depleted species of 

marine mammals. 

Owners of vessels or gear engaging in a category I or II fishery are required by section 118(c)(3) 

to register with NMFS to engage lawfully in those fisheries or to be authorized to take a marine 

mammal incidental to their fishing operations (69 Fed. Reg. 48409). Participants in category III 

fisheries are not required to register with NMFS. Regardless of the category of a fishery, 

participants are required by law to report to NMFS all incidental injuries and mortalities 

occurring during commercial fishing operations (69 Fed. Reg. 48409). The Service defines injury 

as a wound or other physical harm, as well as the ingestion of or entanglement in fishing gear. 

Participants in category I and II fisheries are required to take on board an observer upon request 

by NMFS. 

Zero Mortality Rate Goal: As mentioned above, the MMPA has always included a goal of 

reducing incidental mortality and serious injury to insignificant levels approaching a zero rate. 

However, Congress did not provide clear guidance in the interpretation of the so-called zero 

mortality rate goal, which includes zero serious injury. In July 2004 NMFS finalized a rule 

defining the threshold below which the rate of mortality or serious injury should be considered 

insignificant (69 Fed. Reg. 43338). Under the final rule, the agency set the threshold at 10 

percent of a marine mammal stock’s PBR level. In cases where the Service has inadequate 

information to determine population abundance or the rate of mortality and serious injury, it 

treats such stocks as experiencing incidental mortality and serious injury above insignificant 
126

levels (NMFS 2004c). Stocks treated in this manner include the northeastern Pacific fin whale, 

the North Pacific sperm whale, and the Hawaiian monk seal. 

Take Reduction Plans: Section 118 of the MMPA requires that NMFS develop and implement a 

take reduction plan where a strategic stock of marine mammals interacts with a category I or II 

fishery and allows for development of take reduction plans for other category I fisheries where 

any stock of marine mammals interacts with a category I fishery that results in a high level of 

mortality and serious injury across a number of marine mammal stocks (NMFS 2004b). 

The immediate goal of a take reduction plan is to reduce, within six months of its 

implementation, the incidental mortality and serious injury rate in a fishery to levels less than the 

PBR level for all affected marine mammal stocks. The overall goal is to reduce this rate to 

insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate within five years of 

implementation. In seeking to achieve the latter goal, NMFS must take into account the 

economics of the fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing fishery 

management plans. 

Where human-caused mortality and serious injury is believed to be equal to or greater than the 

stock’s PBR level, a take reduction team must prepare a take reduction plan within six months of 

the finding (MMC 2004). If NMFS has insufficient funds to prepare and implement all required 

take reduction plans, it gives priority to marine mammal stocks with mortality and serious injury 

rates greater than the stock’s PBR level, stocks with a small population size, and stocks with the 

highest rate of decline (NMFS 2004c). 

Four of the six take reduction teams convened by NMFS concerned fisheries that involved 

marine mammal populations listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include the 

Pacific Offshore Cetacean, Atlantic Offshore Cetacean, Atlantic Large Whale, and Atlantic 

Bottlenose Dolphin teams. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

In 1973 Congress passed a major revision of earlier versions of the endangered species 

legislation passed in 1966 and 1969, which had required the listing of species but provided no 

meaningful protection (FWS 2004). The principal purposes of the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) of 1973 are to conserve “the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species 

depend” and to conserve and recover listed species. The Act placed responsibility for 

implementation in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce, who 

delegated this authority to FWS and NMFS. Unlike the MMPA, the ESA allows states to adopt 

state laws and regulations relating to the taking of listed species, provided that those laws and 

regulations are more restrictive than those applicable under the Act. States may enter into 

cooperative agreements with the Services for carrying out certain recovery and other functions. 

Like the MMPA, the ESA contemplates not only the conservation of individual species but also 

of the ecosystems upon which they depend. The aim of the Act is to employ all methods 

necessary “to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the 
127

measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.” To this end, the Act places a 

positive duty upon federal agencies to conserve endangered and threatened species and to 

promote their recovery (Bean and Rowland 1997). 

In 1978 Congress added a requirement for the preparation of recovery plans29 to aid in achieving 

the Act’s goal of restoring endangered and threatened species so that the protections of the Act 

would no longer be needed (Bean and Rowland 1997). Later amendments provided greater detail 

on the contents and timing of such plans, as discussed later. 

Prohibitions on Taking Endangered and Threatened Species and Exceptions 

The ESA makes it unlawful to “take” an endangered species (FWS 2004). The Act defines take 

as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage 

in any such conduct.” The Services have defined “harm” by regulation as “an act which actually 

kills or injures wildlife” (64 Fed. Reg. 60727). Such an act “may include significant habitat 

modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing 

essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” The Secretary of the 

Interior also defined harass as “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the 

likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal 

behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” NMFS 

has not defined these terms (FWS and NMFS 1998). 

None of the prohibitions described here apply to activities affecting threatened species unless the 

appropriate Service issues regulations to that effect (Bean and Rowland 1997). The Services may 

issue prohibitions applicable to all threatened species or applicable only to individual threatened 

species. 

Like the MMPA, the ESA includes exemptions to the prohibition on taking endangered species, 

which have expanded over time (Bean and Rowland 1997): 

Native Exemption: From the beginning, the ESA provided an exemption to certain Alaska 

Natives and non-native permanent residents of Alaska Native villages to take listed species 

primarily for subsistence purposes and to sell non-edible byproducts when made into authentic 

Native handicrafts (Bean and Rowland 1997). The appropriate Service may regulate the harvest 

of listed species if it finds that the taking “materially and negatively affects” the species. 

Permits for Scientific Research: The ESA authorizes the Services to issue permits allowing 

otherwise prohibited acts for the purposes of scientific research or enhancement of a population. 

Before issuing such permits, the Services must find that the activity will not “operate to the 

disadvantage” of the species. 

Incidental Taking of Listed Species: In 1982 Congress provided authority to permit the taking 

of an endangered species incidental to an otherwise lawful activity (Bean and Rowland 1997). 

 

29 The Fish and Wildlife Service defines recovery as the process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened species is 

arrested or reversed and threats removed or reduced so that the species’ survival in the wild can be assured (FWS 2004). 
128

Such permission may be granted only if there is an acceptable plan and funding to mitigate the 

takings and only if the takings will not “appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and 

recovery of the species in the wild.” 

Incidental taking may also be authorized through a so-called “section 7(b)(4) statement” for 

federal actions that are subject to consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. If the Service 

determines that the “no-jeopardy” standard has been met and the authorized level of incidental 

taking will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, it is to specify the level of 

taking that is allowed and set forth reasonable and prudent measures and related conditions 

designed to minimize the impact. For listed marine mammals, an incidental take statement may 

not be issued unless that taking has also been authorized under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA. 

Listing Categories and Processes 

Fundamental to the structure of the ESA are two classifications of species: endangered and 

threatened (Bean and Rowland 1997). An endangered species is one that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is 

likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. In order to be listed, a species must be 

determined to be endangered or threatened because of any of five factors: 

• The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range; 

• Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 

• Disease or predation; 

• The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 

• Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species’ survival. 

The listing of a species is the result of a rulemaking, which results in placing a species on the 

“List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,” published at 50 C.F.R. § 17.11. 

Once a species is placed on the list as endangered, all protective measures of the Act apply to the 

species and its habitat. Section 9 of the Act prohibits any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States from, among other things, taking, importing, exporting, shipping in commerce in 

the course of a commercial activity, selling, or offering for sale any endangered species. In 1994 

the Services adopted a policy of establishing a procedure at the time of listing that would identify 

activities that would or would not constitute a violation of the prohibitions on taking found in 

section 9 of the Act. 

Prohibitions applicable to threatened species are established through regulations published 

pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act. These “protective regulations” need not, but often do include 

all of the prohibitions applicable to endangered species under section 9. 

All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible for listing. The Act defines 

“species” broadly to include subspecies as well as distinct population segments of vertebrate 

species. The Services adopted a policy in 1996 that interpreted the term “distinct population 

segment” (61 Fed. Reg. 4722). This interpretation includes three elements: 
129

• Discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which 

it belongs; 

• The evolutionary significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs; 

and 

• The population segment’s conservation status in relation to the Act’s standards for listing. 

A population segment may be considered discrete if it is markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon by physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors or is 

delimited by international government boundaries within which differences in management and 

other factors may be significant. Determining whether a population segment is significant may 

be based upon such findings as persistence of the population in an ecological setting unusual or 

unique for the taxon. 

Recovering threatened or endangered species may sometimes benefit from reintroduction of the 

species into areas of its former range. Under section 10(j), the ESA defines such experimental 

populations as a geographically described group of reintroduced plants or animals that is isolated 

from other existing populations of the species (FWS 2002). Regardless of the species’ 

designation elsewhere, an experimental population is considered threatened. 

As of August 2006, 1,879 species were listed, including 1,310 in the United States. Of the 566 

animal species with U.S. distribution, 410 species are listed as endangered and 156 as threatened. 

This includes 16 marine mammal species (see Table A-1). 

Table A-1. Marine mammals in U.S. waters listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA 

Common Name Scientific Name Where Listed 

Endangered 

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus Entire range 

Northern sea otter Enhydra lutris kenyoni Southwest Alaska DPS 

Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus Western population 

Caribbean monk seal Monachus tropicalis Entire range 

Hawaiian monk seal Monachus schauinslandi Entire range 

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Entire range 

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Entire range 

Sei whale Balaenoptera boreali Entire range 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Entire range 

Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus Entire range 

Right whale Eubalaena glacialis Entire range 

Gray whale Eschrichtius robustus Western Pacific Ocean 

Sperm whale Physeter catodon Entire range 

 

Threatened 

Southern sea otter Enhydra lutris nereis California (except experimental population 

at San Nicolas Island) 

Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus Eastern population 

Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus townsendi Entire range 
130

Candidate Lists: Periodically, the Services publish a list of U.S. species that appear to meet the 

definitions for threatened or endangered (FWS 2004). As of June 2005, 44 marine species were 

on the species of concern list, two of which were marine mammals. The Cook Inlet population of 

beluga whales was originally placed on the candidate list in 1988; the southern resident 

population of killer whales was placed on the candidate list in 2001. Because of the large number 

of candidates and limited resources to conduct reviews, in the late 1970s the Services began 

developing systems for setting priorities among candidate species. In 1983 FWS adopted a 

priority system based on three criteria: the degree or magnitude of threat, the immediacy of the 

threat, and the taxonomic distinctiveness of the species (monotypic genus, then species, 

subspecies, variety, or vertebrate population). 

Although the Services may initiate the listing process, individual citizens may also petition to 

have a species considered for listing under section 4(b) of the ESA. Within 90 days of receiving 

a petition, FWS or NMFS must publish a finding as to whether there is “substantial information” 

indicating a listing may be warranted. If the Service finds that a listing may be warranted, it 

must, within one year, make a finding as to whether the listing is or is not warranted. If, after the 

year, the Service finds that a listing is warranted, it may issue a proposed rule to list the species 

or, if other listing activities have a higher priority, it may defer issuing a proposed rule. In these 

latter cases, the Service must annually find whether the listing is warranted and either propose a 

rule to list the species, find that a listing is not warranted, or that it remains precluded by other, 

higher-priority listing actions. 

Downlisting or Delisting Species: Every five years the Services review the status of listed 

species, as required by section 4(c)(2) of the Act. The Services base this review on goals for 

downlisting and delisting identified in recovery plans prepared for listed species. Based on this 

review, the Services may determine that a species may warrant downlisting or delisting (48 Fed. 

Reg. 43103). In considering whether to downlist or delist a species, the Service must follow the 

same process as when considering whether to list a species, including assessment of the status of 

the species and of existing threats and issuance of a proposed rule. To delist a species, the 

Services must determine that the species is not threatened by any of the five factors noted earlier. 

If a species is delisted, the Service must monitor the species for at least five years. 

Designation of Critical Habitat 

The ESA requires designation of critical habitat for listed species, with some exceptions (FWS 

2004). Critical habitat includes geographic areas “on which are found those physical or 

biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special 

management considerations or protection.” Those features include the following: 

• Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; 

• Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; 

• Cover or shelter; 

• Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring, and 

• Generally, habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic 

geographical and ecological distribution of the species. 
131

Designation of critical habitat must take into account possible economic impacts. An area may 

be excluded if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation and if the exclusion 

will not result in the extinction of the species (NMFS 2004). If it is found that designation would 

increase the degree of threat to a species (e.g., by informing would-be collectors of its location) 

or that the designation would not benefit the species, critical habitat does not have to be 

designated. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that federal agencies avoid the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat, whether or not the species currently uses that habitat. 

Preparation of Recovery Plans 

Unless the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce finds that a recovery plan will 

not promote the conservation of a listed species, the ESA requires the development and 

implementation of such a plan. Section 4(f)(1)(B) specifies the contents of a recovery plan as 

follows: 

• a description of such site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve the 

plan’s goal for the conservation and survival of the species; 

• objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination...that the 

species may be removed from the list; and, 

• estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those measures needed to achieve 

the plan’s goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal. 

Although recovery plans do not have the force of regulation, they do serve as the principal tool 

for guiding each species’ recovery process (NMFS 2004). 

The agencies may appoint recovery teams to assist in the development and implementation of 

recovery plans, and those teams may include non-agency participants. As of June 2005 recovery 

plans had been adopted for 8 of the 16 marine mammal populations listed previously in this 

report, with separate plans prepared for Florida and Puerto Rico populations of the West Indian 

manatee and a single plan addressing both the eastern and western Steller sea lion populations. 

In October 2004 NMFS issued interim guidance on recovery planning for listed species (NMFS 

2004). In it, the Service emphasizes an ecosystem approach to recovery planning that 

encompasses the health of a species’ habitat and ecosystem rather than simply the species’ 

abundance and range (NMFS 2004). Similarly, the guidance calls for a shift in focus from simply 

increasing a species’ numbers to alleviating threats that are contributing to the endangered or 

threatened status of a species or are likely to do so in the future. According to the guidance, a 

recovery plan should include an assessment of threats that determines the relative importance of 

each. The first step in the process is preparing a recovery outline based on currently available 

information. The recovery outline includes a preliminary strategy for guiding initial recovery 

actions and for making determinations regarding critical habitat, consultation, and take (NFMS 

2004). The plan also is to identify recovery priorities using guidelines adopted by the Services in 

1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 24296). Using this protocol, species are ranked on a scale from a high of 1 to 

a low of 12 regarding the magnitude of threat, recovery potential, and conflict with development 

projects or other economic activity. The recovery outline must also include a vision statement 

and a brief action plan. 
132

A plan’s recovery strategy should identify key facts and assumptions and specific objectives, 

together with their priority and timing, and recovery criteria—measurable and objective targets 

or values by which progress toward achievement of recovery objectives, especially the reduction 

or elimination of threats, can be measured. In determining priorities for recovery actions, a plan 

must use the following criteria (55 Fed. Reg. 24296): 

• Priority Action 1: Actions that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species 

from declining irreversibly; 

• Priority Action 2: Actions that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in a species’ 

population or habitat quality or in some other significant impact short of extinction; and 

• Priority Action 3: All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species. 

NMFS guidance requires that recovery plans describe actions and identify the length of time to 

complete the action, the responsible parties, and estimates of the costs. Regarding the last 

element, the guidance calls for estimating costs for the first five to ten years and until full 

recovery is achieved. Although citing the Act’s requirement to identify costs, the guidance 

acknowledges the difficulty of estimating costs far into the future. Finally, NMFS guidance 

requires review of recovery plans after the five-year review of a listed species. 

For a species listed as endangered or threatened and as depleted, a recovery plan required by the 

ESA generally serves also as the conservation plan required by the MMPA. Besides the 

components of a recovery plan identified here, a recovery plan should include information 

identified in Senate Report 100-92, according to the Service’s guidance (NMFS 2004): 

• an assessment of the status of the species or population and its essential habitat; 

• a description of the nature, magnitude, and causes of any population declines or loss of 

essential habitat; 

• an assessment of existing and possible threats to the species and its habitat; 

• a discussion of critical information gaps; 

• a description and discussion of research and management that could be undertaken to meet 

the objectives of the plan; and 

• a schedule for implementing the research and management actions. 

The guidance also calls for including goals and criteria for delisting under the ESA as well as 

goals and criteria for attaining OSP levels as required by the MMPA. Recovery plans must also 

include any take reduction plans developed under the MMPA, as well as any plans regarding 

rescue, rehabilitation, and captive breeding. 

Section 7 Consultations and Obligations of Federal Agencies 

Section 7 of the ESA contains several provisions that are designed to protect threatened and 

endangered species and designated critical habitat in the United States, its territorial seas, and the 

high seas. Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs NMFS, FWS, and all other federal agencies to use 

their authorities to promote the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Section 

7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to engage in consultations with NMFS, FWS, or both to insure 

that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat that has been designated for these species. 
133

There are several forms of consultation, but the most common forms are “informal” and 

“formal.” Informal consultations are designed to determine if formal consultation on a federal 

action is required. Federal agencies can, however, work with the Services during an informal 

consultation to modify a particular action to eliminate the likelihood of adversely affecting listed 

resources. As a result, they may avoid having to consult formally on the action. If, however, a 

federal action is likely to adversely affect listed resources, agencies are generally required to 

engage in a formal consultation with the Services. Formal consultations are designed to 

determine if federal actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or 

endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (FWS 

and NMFS 1998). 

Formal consultations generally conclude when the Services provide a federal agency with their 

“biological opinion” on an agency action. Biological opinions, which document the Services’ 

conclusions on an action and the reasons and evidence that led them to their conclusions, can 

conclude that an action is or is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or 

endangered species or is or is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat that has been designated for these species. If the Services conclude that a federal 

action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or 

result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, they are required to work with 

federal agencies and any applicants to develop and recommend “reasonable and prudent 

alternatives” to the original proposal that are not likely to jeopardize the species or result in the 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

When the Services conclude that a federal action is not likely to jeopardize threatened or 

endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, or 

when they can recommend reasonable and prudent alternatives that avoid these outcomes, but the 

action is still likely to “incidentally take” a threatened or endangered species, the Services are 

required to include an “incidental take statement” in their biological opinions. These statements 

exempt “take” associated with an action from the normal prohibitions of the Act. To receive 

these exemptions, federal agencies must (1) comply with reasonable and prudent measures and 

terms and conditions that the Services include in their incidental take statements and (2) for 

listed marine mammals, obtain an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5) of the 

MMPA. 

Most federal agencies that operate in coastal and marine waters of the United States, its territorial 

seas, or the high seas—the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, and 

NOAA, among others—engage in consultations with the Services to insure that their operations 

are not likely to jeopardize threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat designated for these species. NMFS engages in 

consultations on its fishery management plans and other actions related to its oversight of 

fisheries. The Minerals Management Service engages in consultations with the Services on oil 

and gas or mineral leasing, exploration, development, and production on the outer continental 

shelf. The U.S. Navy, National Science Foundation, Minerals Management Service, NOAA, and 

other federal agencies that fund research in the territorial seas of the United States or the high 

seas engage in consultations with the Services. 
134

Before NMFS or FWS issues any permits for scientific research on ESA-listed marine mammals 

—or activities that are taken to enhance the propagation or survival of these species—in the 

United States, its territorial seas, or the high seas, those permits undergo formal section 7 

consultation. 

OTHER AUTHORITIES 

National Environmental Policy Act

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, major federal actions that may have significant 

effects on the environment trigger a requirement for the preparation of an environmental impact 

statement that must describe any unavoidable adverse environmental effects, alternatives to the 

action, and the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity. In recent years, these requirements have played a 

significant role in the evaluation of the impact of major fisheries off Alaska on endangered 

Steller sea lions. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 established a 

regional system for the development and conservation of marine fisheries in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone. Unlike the MMPA, the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not preempt state 

management authority for fisheries that occur primarily in state waters. The Act vested the 

Secretary of Commerce, acting through NMFS, with authority to review, approve, disapprove, 

and implement fishery management plans developed by regional fishery management councils. 

The regional councils include representatives of various sectors of the commercial and 

recreational fishing industry, other interests, state fisheries managers, and several federal 

agencies. 

The Act establishes 10 national standards that fishery management plans must meet. National 

Standard 1 calls for preventing overfishing “while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum 

yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.”30 The optimum yield is a catch 

level that takes into account factors including ecological interactions with other species and 

ecosystem components. National Standard 9 calls for minimizing bycatch, to the extent 

practicable, and where bycatch cannot be avoided, minimizing mortality. Although amendments 

in 1996 changed some provisions to make management more risk-averse and cognizant of 

ecosystems, managers have remained largely focused on production and yield. 

 

30 The term "optimum," with respect to the yield from a fishery, means the amount of fish that— 

(A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational 

opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems; 

(B) is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant 

economic, social, or ecological factor; and 

(C) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable 

yield in such fishery. 
135

Since 1977 regional fishery management councils have developed many fishery management 

plans, which have been reviewed and implemented by the Service. To varying degrees, the 

councils have increasingly taken into account the impact of fisheries on marine mammals. 

However, these considerations remain incompletely addressed in most cases. 

National Marine Sanctuary Program 

The National Marine Sanctuary Program in the National Ocean Service, established under the 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, authorizes the Secretary of 

Commerce to designate and manage areas of the marine environment with special national 

significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, 

archeological, educational, or esthetic qualities. The Act also directs the Secretary to facilitate all 

public and private uses of those resources that are compatible with the primary objective of 

resource protection. The sanctuary program may regulate activities identified at the time a 

sanctuary is designated or during regular revisions of sanctuary management plans. The 

appropriate fishery management council must be given the opportunity to draft any fisheryrelated regulations if the sanctuary managers determine that fishery management measures are 

needed to meet the sanctuary’s goals. 

Of 13 existing sanctuaries, the following are relevant to the conservation of listed species of 

marine mammals: Channel Islands, Monterey Bay, Gulf of the Farallones, and Cordell Bank off 

California, Olympic Coast off Washington, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale, Flower Garden 

Banks off Texas/Louisiana, Florida Keys, Gray’s Reef off Georgia, and Stellwagen Bank off 

Massachusetts. The National Marine Sanctuary Program also is responsible for managing the 

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, which includes lands and waters in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) establishes federal jurisdiction over 

submerged lands seaward of state boundaries. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

grant leases for purposes of oil and gas exploration and development under conditions that 

ensure safe and environmentally sound activities. The Act calls for the development of five-year 

leasing programs, individual lease sales, geological and geophysical exploration, and plans for 

the exploration, development, and production of lease resources. The Act stipulates that 

economic, social, and environmental values of renewable and non-renewable resources are to be 

considered in the management of the outer continental shelf. Lease conditions may stipulate 

measures designed to avoid and monitor possible effects on marine mammals. 

The Minerals Management Service in the Department of the Interior has primary responsibility 

for the OCSLA program. All stages of the exploration and development process are subject to 

environmental review, including section 7 consultations under the ESA and small take provisions 

of the MMPA. In support of these reviews, the department has in the past provided substantial 

funding for research regarding marine mammal populations, behavior, habitats, and other 

relevant matters. 
136

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 

Soon after the end of World War II, the United States led efforts to build on earlier international 

treaties for the management of commercial whaling. These efforts culminated in 1946 when the 

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was concluded (Bean and Rowland 

1997). The convention established the International Whaling Commission (IWC) composed of 

one representative from each signatory nation. The IWC Schedule recommends species and 

stocks of whales to be protected, seasons or closed areas, size and catch limits, and methods of 

whaling. Amendments to the IWC Schedule require support by three-fourths of the members. In 

July 1982 the IWC agreed to a moratorium on commercial whaling, which went into effect in 

1986. Most countries currently abide by the moratorium although some have continued to catch 

whales under a formal exception to the rule or provisions that allow them to catch whales for 

scientific research purposes. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of State’s Bureau of 

Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs are responsible for preparing and 

representing U.S. positions at IWC meetings. 

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

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora was 

concluded in 1973. The Convention has 169 parties, including the United States. It establishes a 

system for listing species on one of three appendices. Appendix I includes species threatened 

with extinction for which commercial trade is prohibited or strictly limited. Appendix II includes 

species for which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their 

survival. Appendix III includes those species that receive special regulatory protection by at least 

one member country. 

In general, Appendix I species may be imported only for other than commercial purposes and if 

the trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the species. Appendix II species may be 

exported for commercial purposes only if the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the 

species. 

FUNDING FOR RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Federal funding for the conservation of listed marine mammal species can be examined from at 

least four independent sources: (1) an annual report on expenditures for species listed under the 

ESA compiled by the Fish and Wildlife Service, (2) congressional appropriation documents, (3) 

individual agency budget documents, and (4) a federal survey of marine mammal funding 

compiled by the Marine Mammal Commission. Determining expenditures by federal and state 

agencies for recovery of listed species of marine mammals is severely confounded by 

inconsistencies in the way cost estimates are reported by different agencies, changes in how costs 

are reported over time, and lumping of funding among various categories that may or may not be 

limited to marine mammals. The most systematically gathered source of information is an annual 

report on endangered species expenditures prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service, but even 
137

this suffers from several flaws described later. Public budget documents vary in their 

organization and detail by agency and by year. Congressional appropriation documents 

frequently include line-item appropriations for specific species or purposes; however, these are 

often pass-through funds for external organizations, have little relevance for determining internal 

agency expenditures, and may or may not be reported consistently from year to year. Agency 

program staffs generally have limited knowledge of all expenditures for individual species. 

ESA Annual Report 

Section 18 of the ESA, adopted in 1988, requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service report 

annually on expenditures for the conservation of threatened and endangered species. The Service 

assembles the report from annual submissions by all involved federal agencies (FWS 2003a). 

The Service has provided little guidance on how agencies are to develop their cost estimates and 

what guidance has been provided has changed somewhat over time. The Service has limited 

capacity to evaluate and verify these reports, and the estimates it receives may factor in varying 

costs and are accepted with little or no checking. 

The most recent report covers FY2003, when agencies reported $1.2 billion in total expenditures, 

$785 million of which was ascribed to individual species and $101 million devoted to related 

land acquisition (FWS 2003a). The balance of expenditures was for activities that benefited a 

number of listed species or supported general implementation of the Act. The median 

expenditure that year for individual species with at least $100 in expenditures was $20,100, with 

95 species receiving more than $1 million. The maximum expenditure for any individual species 

was $49.5 million for the western population of Steller sea lions, $39.9 million of which was 

reported by the Coast Guard for enforcement. Annual expenditures reported for Steller sea lions 

and other individual listed species of marine mammals between 1998 and 2003 are shown in 

Appendices C.1–6. Total expenditures for marine mammals in 2003 reached $83.7 million. The 

second highest total for a marine mammal, and ninth overall for all listed species, was for 

northern right whales at $11.8 million. After western Steller sea lions and right whales, the 

marine mammal species receiving the largest expenditures were West Indian manatees ($9.8 

million), eastern Steller sea lions ($5.3 million), Hawaiian monk seals ($2.1 million), humpback 

whales ($1.6 million), and southern sea otters ($1.3 million). 

Expenditures for other endangered marine mammals (blue whales, bowhead whales, fin whales, 

sei whales, and sperm whales) amounted to a little more than 1 percent of all expenditures 

allocated for the recovery of listed marine mammals. Although federal expenditures account for 

nearly all governmental spending on most listed marine mammals, state funding in 2003 

accounted for more than half of all funding for the recovery of southern sea otters and the West 

Indian manatee in Florida. Expenditures for listed species of marine mammals grew from 2 to 12 

percent of all expenditures for terrestrial and aquatic species of plants and animals. 

Since 2001 it has been much easier to track the reported expenditures of individual agencies by 

species (See Appendices C.4–6). In 2003 the Coast Guard expenditures for enforcement of 

regulations concerning nine listed species (West Indian manatees, Steller sea lions, blue whales, 

bowhead whales, fin whales, humpback whales, right whales, sei whales, and sperm whales) 

amounted to nearly 60 percent ($42.9 of $74 million) of all federal expenditures for listed marine 
138

mammals.31 By comparison, total Coast Guard expenditures in 2001 for marine mammal 

enforcement amounted to $12.3 million, of which $11.1 million was dedicated to Steller sea 

lions. The Coast Guard estimate includes the total cost for operating vessels (e.g., all crew and 

amortized maintenance costs) during periods when marine mammal enforcement is logged as the 

vessel’s primary mission. During the same period (i.e. 2001–2003), expenditures for listed 

marine mammal species reported by NMFS declined from $40.7 million to $25.8 million and 

FWS reported a decline from $2.5 million to $2.2 million. 

The funding for Steller sea lion and North Atlantic right whale conservation illustrates a broader 

feature of federal and state expenditures for listed species—namely disproportionate funding. For 

example, in 2003, about 1.6 percent of all listed species received roughly half of the funding that 

could be reasonably attributed to individual species (FWS 2003a). Those species that received 

separate appropriations from Congress or state legislatures are generally the species that attract 

the greatest public interest and enjoy the support of members of Congress on key committees. 

Congressional Budget Allocations 

In fiscal years 2004 and 2005 Congress made dozens of separate appropriations for individual 

marine mammal species (Table A-2) and, within these appropriations, allocations to specific 

programs or institutions (House of Representatives Report 108-792 [2004]). These included 

allocations for Cook Inlet beluga whale research, the Beluga Whale Committee, bowhead whale 

spatial studies, research on the southern resident population of killer whales, right whale 

activities, state cooperative plans on right whales, Hawaiian monk seals, and Steller sea lions. 

Table A-2. Species-Specific Congressional Appropriations (in $ thousands) for Marine Mammals, 

2001–2005 

Species/Population FY2001 

Enacted 

FY2002 

Enacted 

FY2003 

Enacted 

FY2004 

Enacted 

FY2005 

Request 

Steller sea lions 35,054 32,145 18,233 17,683 13,846 

North Atlantic right whales 4,989 6,850 9,936 12,193 5,850 

Beluga whales 225 375 373 370 375 

Hawaiian monk seals 798 825 820 816 825 

Manatees 0 0 248 248 0 

Bottlenose dolphins 748 2,000 1,987 3,958 0 

North Pacific southern resident killer 

whales 0 0 746 1,458 0 

Endangered large whales 0 0 994 (10) 1,000 

FWS has entered into cooperative agreements with individual states regarding implementation of 

the ESA. In FY2002 the Service awarded roughly $106 million to states under five types of 

endangered species grants (FWS 2002). In 2004 this amount declined to $86.5 million, most of 

which was spend on land acquisition (USFWS 2004c). 

 

31 According to Coast Guard budget documents, operating expenses for living marine resources enforcement amounted to $347 

million in 2003 and was set to rise to $497.9 million in 2005 (USCG 2004). 
139

Agency Budget Documents: Another source of information is agency budget documents. Only 

NMFS budget information was easily available for this study (see Appendix E). Budget 

allocations (in thousands of dollars) for individual listed species for the period 2001–2005 are 

shown on the preceding page. 

Marine Mammal Commission Survey of Federally-Funded Research 

The Marine Mammal Commission carries out a survey of federally funded marine mammal 

research and studies. The most recent report in this series covers the period FY1974–FY2000 

(Waring 2002). Like FWS annual report on endangered species expenditures, this report was 

derived from agency reports, which vary in completeness and accuracy by agency and by year. 

In particular, agencies sometimes encounter difficulties in separating administrative, 

management, enforcement, and research costs. 

 

Like other sources of information presented in this report, this source documents substantial 

increases in funding for several species. Funding for stock assessment and biological research for 

northern right whales grew from $641,000 in FY1991 to $3.1 million in FY2000. Similar 

research on Hawaiian monk seals grew from $493,000 to $1.9 million during the same period, 

while Steller sea lion research funding grew from $4,000 to $4.2 million. Northern fur seal 

research funding grew similarly from $6,000 in FY1991 to $2.0 million in FY2000. 

141

APPENDIX B 

YEAR 2004 CATEGORY I, II, AND III FISHERIES AFFECTING SPECIES LISTED AS ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR DEPLETED

Table B – 1. 2004 Category I Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted 

(Source: 69 FR 48407–48423) 

Gear Area 

Estimated Number of 

Vessels/Persons 

2004/2000 

Endangered Species Threatened Species Depleted Species 

Coastal gillnet Mid-Atlantic >655 Humpback whale Bottlenose dolphin, coastal Sink gillnet Northeast U.S. 341 

North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, fin whale 

Large pelagic longline 

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico 

<200 Humpback whale 

Lobster trap/pot Gulf of Maine, Mid- Atlantic 13,000 North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, fin whale Angel shark/halibut and other species largemesh set gillnet California 58 Southern sea otter Longline/set line for swordfish, tuna, billfish, mahi mahi, wahoo, oceanic sharks 

Hawaii 140 Humpback whale, sperm whale 
142 

Table B – 2. 2004 Category II Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted 

(Source: 69 FR 48407–48423) 

Gear Area 

Estimated Number of 

Vessels/Persons 

2004/2000 

Endangered Species Threatened Species Depleted Species 

Inshore gillnet North Carolina 94 Bottlenose dolphin, coastal Anchored float gillnet Northeast U.S. 133 Humpback whale Gillnet Southeast Atlantic 779 Bottlenose dolphin, coastal Shark gillnet Southeast U.S. Atlantic 6 North Atlantic right whale Bottlenose dolphin, coastal Atlantic blue crab pot Florida >16,000 West Indian manatee Atlantic mixed species pot Atlantic coast Unknown Fin whale, humpback whale Haul seine Mid-Atlantic 25 Bottlenose dolphin, coastal Long-haul seine North Carolina 33 Bottlenose dolphin, coastal Roe mullet stop net North Carolina 13 Bottlenose dolphin, coastal Pound net Virginia 187 Bottlenose dolphin, coastal Salmon drift gillnet Alaska, Bristol Bay 1,903 Steller sea lion Northern fur seal Salmon set gillnet Alaska, Bristol Bay 1,014 Northern fur seal 
143

Table B – 2. 2004 Category II Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted (continued)

Gear Area 

Estimated Number of 

Vessels/Persons 

2004/2000 

Endangered Species Threatened Species Depleted Species 

Salmon drift gillnet Alaska, Cook Inlet 576 Beluga whale Salmon drift gillnet Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands 164 Northern fur seal Salmon set gillnet Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands 116 Steller sea lion, humpback whale Salmon drift gillnet Alaska, Prince William Sound 541 Steller sea lion Northern fur seal Salmon drift gillnet Southeast Alaska 481 Humpback whale Steller sea lion Purse seine Southeast Alaska 416 Humpback whale Thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 

California and Oregon 113 Sperm whale, fin whale, humpback whale Steller sea lion Northern fur seal 
144 

Table B – 3. 2004 Category III Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted (continued) 

(Source: 69 FR 48407–48423) 

Gear Area 

Estimated Number of 

Vessels/Persons 

2004/2000 

Endangered Species Threatened Species Depleted Species 

Gillnet Caribbean >991 West Indian manatee, West Antillean Inshore gillnet Delaware 60 Humpback whale Inshore gillnet New York, Long Island Sound 20 Humpback whale Inshore gillnet 

Rhode Island, southern Massachusetts, New York Bight 

32 Humpback whale 

Shrimp trawl Southeastern Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico >18,000 Bottlenose dolphin, coastal Monkfish trawl Atlantic Unknown Bottlenose dolphin, coastal Menhaden purse seine Mid-Atlantic 22 Humpback whale Tub trawl groundfish bottom longline/hookand-line Gulf of Maine 46 Humpback whale Tuna, shark, swordfish hook-and-line, and harpoon 

Gulf of Maine 26,223 Humpback whale 
145

Table B – 3. 2004 Category III Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted (continued)

Gear Area 

Estimated Number of 

Vessels/Persons 

2004/2000 

Endangered Species Threatened Species Depleted Species 

Herring stop seine/weir Gulf of Maine 50 North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale Haul/beach seine Caribbean 15 West Indian manatee, West Antillean Blue crab trap and pot Gulf of Mexico 4,113 West Indian manatee, Florida Salmon gill net Alaska, Cook Inlet 745 Steller sea lion Miscellaneous finfish set gillnet Alaska 3 Steller sea lion Salmon set gillnet Alaska, Prince William Sound 30 Steller sea lion Salmon troll Alaska 2,335 Steller sea lion Steller sea lion Halibut longline/set line Alaska 3,079 Steller sea lion Atka mackerel trawl Alaska, Aleutian Islands 8 Steller sea lion Flatfish trawl Alaska, Aleutian Islands 26 Steller sea lion 
146 

Table B – 3. 2004 Category III Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted (continued) 

Gear Area 

Estimated Number of 

Vessels/Persons 

2004/2000 

Endangered Species Threatened Species Depleted Species 

Pollock trawl Alaska, Bering Sea 120 Steller sea lion, humpback whale Groundfish trawl California, Oregon, Washington 585 Steller sea lion Northern fur seal Sablefish pot Alaska 6 Humpback whale Lobster, prawn, shrimp, rock crab, fish pot California 608 Southern sea otter Lobster trap Hawaii 15 Hawaiian monk seal Bottomfish hand line and jig Hawaii 434 Hawaiian monk seal Tuna hand line and jig Hawaii 144 Hawaiian monk seal NOTE: Many other species are taken in these fisheries that are not endangered, threatened, or depleted. 
147

APPENDIX C 

FEDERAL AND STATE EXPENDITURES FOR LISTED SPECIES OF MARINE MAMMALS

Appendix C.1. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 1998 

(Source: USFWS 1998) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS 

Other 

Federal 

Total 

Fedeal State 

Total 

State and 

Federal 

% Total 

By 

Species 

West Indian manatee 927 526 – 99 1,551 13 1,565 18.40Southern sea otter 97 389 – 9 495 – 495 5.82Caribbean monk seal – – – 10 10 – 10 0.11Hawaiian monk seal – – 1,504 12 1,516 – 1,516 17.82Guadalupe fur seal – – – – – – – – Steller sea lion (eastern and western populations) – – 3,040 20 3,060 19 3,079 36.20Blue whale – – – 3 3 1 4 0.05Bowhead whale – – – – – 1 1 0.02Fin whale – – – 4 4 1 5 0.06Humpback whale – – 240 80 320 41 361 4.24Northern right whale 2 – 1,100 357 1,458 1 1,460 17.16Sei whale – – – 4 4 1 5 0.06Sperm whale – – – 4 4 1 5 0.06Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species 1,025 915 5,884 602 8,424 81 8,505 100.00Total expenditures for all listed species (marine mammals and others) 

 54,123 5,855 28,151 278,188 366,316 16,338 382,654

Marine mammal expenditures as percentage of expenditures for all listed species 

 1.9% 15.6% 20.9% 0.2% 2.3% 0.5% 2.2%
148 

Appendix C.2. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 1999 

(Source: USFWS 2003c) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal State 

Total 

State 

and 

Federal 

% Total 

By 

Species 

Total 

State 

and 

Federal 

$ Excl. 

USCG 

% 

Total 

By 

Species 

Excl. 

USCG 

West Indian manatee 1,145 526 – 619 117 2,407 1,945 4,351 25.27 3,732 28.53 Southern sea otter 95 317 – – 47 459 156 615 3.57 615 4.70 Caribbean monk seal – – – – – – – – – – – Hawaiian monk seal – – 1,052 48 4 1,104 0.4 1,105 6.42 1,057 8.08 Guadalupe fur seal – – – – 2 2 – 2 0.01 2 0.02 Steller sea lion (eastern and western populations) – – 4,879 2,291 56 7,226 8 7,234 42.00 4,943 37.78 Blue whale 120 – – – 5 125 – 125 0.73 125 1.00 Bowhead whale – – – – – – 3 3 0.01 3 0.02 Fin whale – – – 9 4 13 0.3 13 0.07 4 0.03 Humpback whale – – 131 277 76 484 8 492 2.85 215 1.64 Northern right whale – – 1,542 892 549 2,983 90 3,273 19.00 2,381 18.20 Sei whale – – – – 4 4 – 4 0.02 4 0.03 Sperm whale – – – 6 1 7 – 7 0.04 1 0.01 Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species 1,360 843 7,604 4,142 865 14,813 2,410 17,222 100.00 13,082 100.00 Total expenditures for all listed species 52,749 5,428 36,195 23,740 227,063 345,175 91,907 437,082 Marine mammal expenditures as % of expenditures for all listed species 

2.6% 15.5% 21.0% 17.4% 0.4% 4.3% 2.6% 3.9% 
149

Appendix C.3. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 2000 

(Source: USFWS 2003b) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal State 

Total 

State and 

Federal 

% 

Total 

By 

Species

Total State 

and 

Federal $ 

Excl. 

USCG 

% 

Total 

By 

Species 

Excl. 

USCG 

West Indian manatee 2,727 466 – 461 166 3,820 5,923 9,743 32.25 9,282 43.87 Southern sea otter 174 403 – – 13 589 35 624 2.07 624 2.95 Caribbean monk seal – – – – – – – – – – – Hawaiian monk seal – – 1,210 – 43 1,253 14 1,267 4.19 1,267 5.99 Guadalupe fur seal – – – – 2 2 – 2 0.01 2 0.01 Steller sea lion (eastern and western populations) – – 5,243 7,810 54 13,107 6 13,113 43.41 5,303 25.07 Blue whale – – – – 6 6 – 6 0.02 6 0.03 Bowhead whale – – – – – – 3 3 0.01 3 0.01 Fin whale – – – – 4 4 1 5 0.02 5 0.02 Humpback whale – – 53 349 154 556 11 567 1.88 218 0.01 Northern right whale – – 4,168 433 143 4,744 127 4,872 16.13 4,439 20.98 Sei whale – – – – 4 4 – 4 0.01 4 0.02 Sperm whale – – – – 3 3 – 3 0.01 3 0.01 Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species 2,901 869 10,674 9,053 592 24,088 6,119 30,207 100.00 21,156 100.00 Total expenditures for all listed species 66,536 6,021 53,029 24,589 273,691 423,866 100,311 524,177 Marine mammal expenditures as % of expenditures for all listed species 

4.4% 14.4% 20.1% 36.8% 0.2% 5.7% 6.1% 5.8% 
150 

Appendix C.4. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 2001 

(Source: USFWS 2005f) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal State 

Total 

State and 

Federal 

% 

Total 

By 

Species 

Total State 

and 

Federal $ 

Excl. 

USCG 

% Total 

By 

Species 

Excl. 

USCG 

West Indian manatee 2,363 510 – 480 85 3,438 5,936 9,373 14.15 8,893 16.50Southern sea otter(except experimental population)

 184 868 – – 7 1,059 35 1,094 1.65 1,094 2.03

Caribbean monk seal – – – – 8 8 – 8 0.01 8 0.01Hawaiian monk seal – – 2,100 2 5 2,108 14 2,121 3.20 2,119 3.93Guadalupe fur seal – – – – – – – – – – – Steller sea lion(eastern and western populations)

– – 33,312 11,067 66 44,445 2,338 46,783 70.62 35,716 66.27

Blue whale – – – – 1 1 – 1 0.00 1 0.00Bowhead whale – – – – – – 25 25 0.04 25 0.05Fin whale – – – – 22 22 2 24 0.04 24 0.04Humpback whale – – 53 324 352 729 11 740 1.12 416 0.77Northern right whale – – 5,270 474 147 5,891 145 6,036 9.11 5,562 10.32Sei whale – – – – 12 12 – 12 0.02 12 0.02Sperm whale – – – – 27 27 – 27 0.04 27 0.05Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species 

 2,547 1,378 40,735 12,348 732 57,739 8,505 66,244 100.00 53,897 100.00

Total expenditures for all listed species 50,294 11,241 95,879 28,219 388,314 573,976 76,633 647,580Marine mammal expenditures as % of expenditures for all listed species 

5.1% 12.3% 42.5% 43.8% 0.2% 10.1% 11.1% 10.2%
151

Appendix C.5. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 2002 

(Source: USFWS 2005e) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal State 

Total 

State 

and 

Federal 

% Total 

By 

Species 

Total 

State 

and 

Federal 

$ Excl. 

USCG 

% 

Total 

By 

Species 

Excl. 

USCG 

West Indian manatee 1,710 523 – 228 182 2,643 5,929 8,571 11.11 8,343 16.19 Southern sea otter 170 856 – – 5 1,031 35 1,066 1.38 1,066 2.07 Caribbean monk seal – – – – – – – – – – – Hawaiian monk seal – – 2,100 46 38 2,184 14 2,197 2.85 2,151 4.17 Guadalupe fur seal – – – – – – – – – – – Steller sea lion(eastern and western populations)

– – 29,295 24,172 35 53,502 2,496 55,998 72.59 31,826 61.75 

Blue whale – – – 7 1 8 – 8 0.01 1 0.00 Bowhead whale – – – 7 – 7 – 7 0.01 – 0.00 Fin whale – – – 7 5 13 1 13 0.02 6 0.01 Humpback whale – – 150 280 449 879 11 890 1.15 609 1.18 Northern right whale 

– – 7,120 857 136 8,113 280 8,393 10.88 7,536 14.62 

Sei whale – – – – 1 1 – 1 0.00 1 0.00 Sperm whale – – – – 1 1 – 1 0.00 1 0.00 Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species 

1,880 1,379 8,665 25,606 853 68,382 8,765 77,147 100.00 51,540 100.00 

Total expenditures for all listed species 76,341 11,878 180,735 27,319 348,339 644,611 74,606 719,218 Marine mammal expenditures as % of expenditures for all listed species 

2.5% 11.6% 4.8% 93.7% 0.2% 10.6% 11.7% 10.7% 
152 

Appendix C.6. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 2003 

(Source: USFWS 2005d) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal State 

Total 

State 

and 

Federal 

% 

Total 

By 

Species 

Total 

State 

and 

Federal 

$ Excl. 

USCG 

% 

Total 

By 

Species 

Excl. 

USCG 

West Indian manatee 2,070 971 – 713 75 3,830 5,969 9,799 11.87 9,085 22.93 Southern sea otter(includes experimental population)

 156 1,154 – – 26 1,336 40 1,376 1.67 1,376 3.47 

Caribbean monk seal – – – – – – – – – – – Hawaiian monk seal – – 2,100 – 30 2,130 15 2,145 2.60 2,145 5.41 Guadalupe fur seal – – – – – – – – – – – Steller sea lion(eastern population) – – 4,090 – 4 4,094 1,203 5,297 6.41 5,297 13.37 Steller sea lion(western population) – – 8,180 39,940 194 48,314 1,200 49,514 59.97 9,574 24.16 Blue whale – – – 199 4 203 – 203 0.25 4 0.01 Bowhead whale – – – 199 5 204 – 204 0.25 5 0.01 Fin whale – – – 199 6 205 1 206 0.25 7 0.02 Humpback whale – – 1,150 199 248 1,597 18 1,615 1.96 1,416 3.57 Northern right whale – – 10,270 1,098 312 11,679 123 11,802 14.29 10,705 27.02 Sei whale – – – 199 4 203 – 203 0.25 4 0.01 Sperm whale – – – 199 4 203 – 203 0.25 4 0.01 Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species 

 2,226 2,125 25,790 42,944 912 73,997 8,570 82,567 100.00 39,623 100.00 

Total expenditures for all listed species 92,011 12,167 150,898 47,732 313,875 616,683 68,146 684,829 Marine mammal expenditures as % of expenditures for all listed species 

2.4% 17.5% 17.1% 90.0% 0.3% 12.0% 12.6% 12.1% 
153

Appendix C.7. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 2004 

(Source: USFWS 2006) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal State 

Total 

State 

and 

Federal 

% 

Total 

By 

Species 

Total 

State 

and 

Federal 

$ Excl. 

USCG 

% 

Total 

By 

Species 

Excl. 

USCG 

West Indian manatee 2,432 428 – 831 226 3,917 5,945 9,862 13.86 9,030 18.73 Southern sea otter 134 578 – – 3 714 20 734 1.03 734 1.52 Caribbean monk seal – – – – – – – – – – – Hawaiian monk seal – 1 2,164 105 51 2,321 – 2,321 3.26 2,216 4.60 Guadalupe fur seal – – – – – – 1 1 0.00 1 0.00 Steller sea lion (eastern population) – – 9,605 – 3 9,608 1,203 10,811 15.19 10,811 22.42 Steller sea lion (western population) – – 9,605 20,856 85 30,546 1,200 31,746 44.60 10,890 22.58 Blue whale – – – 60 4 65 2 67 0.09 6 0.01 Bowhead whale – – – 60 13 190 – 190 0.27 130 0.27 Fin whale 0.2 – – 63 6 69 3 72 0.10 9 0.02 Humpback whale – – – 416 243 659 7 666 0.94 250 0.52 Northern right whale 0.2 – 11,225 444 197 11,866 504 12,370 17.38 11,925 24.73 Sei whale – – – 60 6 66 – 66 0.09 6 0.01 Sperm whale 6 – – 60 2,203 2,268 2 2,270 3.19 2,210 4.58 Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species 

 2,571 1,007 32,559 22,956 3,040 62,290 8,887 71,177 100.00 48,221 100.00 

Total expenditures for all listed species 128,534 10,940 151,230 33,091 408,359 732,154 60,965 793,120 Expenditures for listed marine mammal species as % of expenditures for all listed species 

2.0% 9.2% 21.5% 69.4% 0.7% 8.5% 14.6% 9.0% 
154 

APPENDIX D 

FEDERAL AND STATE EXPENDITURES (IN $ THOUSANDS) FOR LISTED SPECIES OF MARINE MAMMALS BY YEAR: 1998 – 2004 

(Source: USFWS 1998, 2003b, 2003c, 2005b, 2005d, 2005f, 2006) 

Fiscal Year FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal State 

Total State and 

Federal 

West Indian Manatee 

1998 927 526 – – 99 1,551 13 1,5651999 1,145 526 – 619 117 2,407 1,945 4,3512000 2,727 466 – 461 166 3,820 5,923 9,7432001 2,363 510 – 480 85 3,438 5,936 9,3732002 1,710 523 – 228 182 2,643 5,929 8,5712003 2,070 971 – 713 75 3,830 5,969 9,7992004 2,432 428 – 831 226 3,917 5,945 9,862

Southern Sea Otter 

1998 97 389 – – 9 495 – 4951999 95 317 – – 47 459 156 6152000 174 403 – – 13 589 35 6242001 184 868 – – 7 1,059 35 1,0942002 170 856 – – 5 1,031 35 1,0662003 156 1,154 – – 26 1,336 40 1,3762004 134 578 – – 3 714 20 734

Caribbean Monk Seal 

1998 – – – – 10 10 – 101999 – – – – – – – – 2000 – – – – – – – – 2001 – – – – 8 8 – 82002 – – – – – – – – 2003 – – – – – – – – 2004 – – – – – – – – 
155

 Federal and State Expenditures (in $ thousands) for Listed Species of Marine Mammals by Year: 1998 – 2004 (continued) 

Fiscal Year FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal State 

Total State 

and Federal 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

1998 – – 1,504 – 12 1,516 – 1,5161999 – – 1,052 48 4 1,104 0.4 1,1052000 – – 1,210 – 43 1,253 14 1,2672001 – – 2,100 2 5 2,108 14 2,1212002 – – 2,100 46 38 2,184 14 2,1972003 – – 2,100 – 30 2,130 15 2,1452004 – 1 2,164 105 51 2,321 – 2,321

Guadalupe Fur Seal 

1998 – – – – – – – – 1999 – – – – 2 2 – 22000 – – – – 2 2 – 22001 – – – – – – – – 2002 – – – – – – – – 2003 – – – – – – – – 2004 – – – – – – 1 1 

Steller Sea Lion (eastern and western populations)

1998 – – 3,040 – 20 3,060 19 3,0791999 – – 4,879 2,291 56 7,226 8 7,2342000 – – 5,243 7,810 54 13,107 6 13,1132001 – – 33,312 11,067 66 44,445 2,338 46,7832002 – – 29,295 24,172 35 53,502 2,496 55,998

2003 

(eastern) – – 4,090 – 4 4,094 1,203 5,297

2003 

(western) – – 8,180 39,940 194 48,314 1,200 49,514

2004 

(eastern) – – 9,605 – 3 9,608 1,203 10,811

2004 

(western) – – 9,605 20,856 85 30,546 1,200 31,746
156 

Federal and State Expenditures (in $ thousands) for Listed Species of Marine Mammals by Year: 1998 – 2004 (continued)

Fiscal Year FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal State 

Total State 

and 

Federal 

Blue Whale 

1998 – – – – 3 3 1 41999 120 – – – 5 125 – 1252000 – – – – 6 6 – 62001 – – – – 1 1 – 12002 – – – 7 1 8 – 82003 – – – 199 4 203 – 2032004 – – – 60 4 65 2 67

Bowhead Whale 

1998 – – – – – – 1 11999 – – – – – – 3 32000 – – – – – – 3 32001 – – – – – – 25 252002 – – – 7 – 7 – 72003 – – – 199 5 204 – 2042004 – – – 60 130 190 – 190

Fin Whale 

1998 – – – – 4 4 1 51999 – – – 9 4 13 0.3 132000 – – – – 4 4 1 52001 – – – – 22 22 2 242002 – – – 7 5 13 1 132003 – – – 199 6 205 1 2062004 0.2 – – 63 6 69 3 72

Humpback Whale 

1998 – – 240 – 80 320 41 3611999 – – 131 277 76 484 8 4922000 – – 53 349 154 556 11 5672001 – – 53 324 352 729 11 7402002 – – 150 280 449 879 11 8902003 – – 1,150 199 248 1,597 18 1,6152004 – – – 416 243 659 7 666
157

Federal and State Expenditures (in $ thousands) for Listed Species of Marine Mammals by Year: 1998 – 2004 (continued) 

Fiscal Year FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal 

Total 

Federal State 

Total State 

and 

Federal 

Northern Right whale 

1998 2 – 1,100 – 357 1,458 1 1,4601999 – – 1,542 892 549 2,983 290 3,2732000 – – 4,168 433 143 4,744 127 4,8722001 – – 5,270 474 147 5,891 145 6,0362002 – – 7,120 857 136 8,113 280 8,3932003 – – 10,270 1,098 312 11,679 123 11,8022004 0.2 – 11,225 444 197 11,866 504 12,370

Sei Whale 

1998 – – – – 4 4 1 51999 – – – – 4 4 – 42000 – – – – 4 4 – 42001 – – – – 12 12 – 122002 – – – – 1 1 – 12003 – – – 199 4 203 – 2032004 – – – 60 6 66 – 66

Sperm Whale 

1998 – – – – 4 4 1 51999 – – – 6 1 7 – 72000 – – – – 3 3 – 32001 – – – – 27 27 – 272002 – – – – 1 1 – 12003 – – – 199 4 203 – 2032004 6 – – 60 2,203 2,268 2 2,270
158 

APPENDIX E 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE LINE ITEMS RELATED TO ENDANGERED MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES: 2001–2005 

(IN $ THOUSANDS)

(Source: NOAA Budget Bluebooks for FY2003 and FY2005) 

Budget Line Item FY2001 Enacted FY2002 Enacted FY2003 Enacted FY2004 Enacted FY2005 Request 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STELLER SEA LIONS Alaska Fisheries Foundation – 500 994 961 – Alaska SeaLife Center 5,967 5,000 4,968 5,912 1,400 Recovery Plan: Base 21,952 16,800 4,968 3,562 9,796 North Pacific Universities MM Consortium 798 3,500 2,484 2,465 800 University of Alaska Gulf Apex Predator 998 1,000 994 989 1,000 Endangered Species Act 848 850 844 841 850 Steller sea lion/pollock research 1,996 2,000 PROTECTED SPECIES MISCELLANEOUS Marine mammals, sea turtles, others 9,517 3,500 3,477 3,433 3,500 Right whale activities 1,592 2,250 4,968 10,322 2,250 Right whale NE Consortium 2,894 1,000 – – – Hawaiian monk seals 798 825 820 816 825 Alaska harbor seal research 898 900 894 3,958 900 Manatee: New College – – 248 248 – Marine mammal strandings 3,991 4,000 3,974 3,694 4,000 Bottlenose dolphin research 748 2,000 1,987 3,958 – North Pacific southern resident killer whales – – 746 1,458 – Recovery of endangered large whales – – 994 (10) 1,000 
159

National Marine Fisheries Service Line Items Related to Endangered Marine Mammal Species: 2001– 2005 (continued) 

(in $ thousands)

Budget Line Item FY2001 Enacted FY2002 Enacted FY2003 Enacted FY2004 Enacted FY2005 Request 

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT MARINE MAMMALS Cook Inlet beluga – 150 149 147 150Right whale activities 503 2,100 4,968 (108) 2,100Right whale cooperative state plans – 1,500 – 1,979 1,500Charleston health and risk assessment – 800 795 396 – Alaska Sealife Center – – 994 989 – Steller sea lion recovery plan: state of Alaska 2,495 2,495 1,987 1,964 – NATIVE ALASKA MARINE MAMMALS Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 399 400 497 492 400 Alaska Eskimo Whaling Comm: Prt of AEV – – – 99 – Alaska harbor seals 150 150 149 147 150 Aleut Pacific Marine Resources Observatory 125 125 124 61 125 Beluga Whale Committee 225 225 224 223 225 Bristol Bay Native Association 50 50 50 50 50 
160 

APPENDIX F 

FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESEARCH ON LISTED MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES BY RESEARCH ISSUE: FY1991–FY2000 

(in $ thousands) 

(Based on Table 6 in Waring 2002)

Issue Funding Agency FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 

International Whaling Commission  Assessment of stocks NMFS 75 184 70 108 393  MMC 8  NSF 49  DOS 8 45 72 112 63 12 14 22 8 18  Subtotal 57 45 80 187 247 12 14 92 116 411 Fisheries/Sea Otter Interactions  FWS 323 205 207 157 157 132 1,181  USGS 132 132  MMC 3 3  Subtotal 323 205 207 157 160 132 132 1,316 Bowhead whale  Assessment of stocks NMFS 

 912 655 499 314 298 315 413 465 400 

 MMS 264 513 549 549 495 482 485 450 450 266  NSF 14  Biology MMS 55 625 376 $ 650  Subtotal 1,231 1,168 1,048 863 793 797 1,523 1,291 1,500 280 
161

Federal Funding of Research on Listed Marine Mammal Species by Research Issue: FY1991–FY2000 (continued) 

(in $ thousands) 

Issue Funding Agency FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 

Humpback whale  Population assessment NMFS 45 250 240 388 208 175 136 121  MMC 8 2 8 10  NPS 21 16 16 20 70 70 60 229  SERDP 265 45 241  NOS 1 2 12 61 2 26  Biology NPS 13 27  NMFS 20  NOS 60  NSGCP 43  MMC 2  Subtotal 107 268 307 673 266 243 257 267 183 342 Northern Right Whale  Population assessment NMFS 194 235 324 510 371 827 379 552 869 1,797  MMC 2 28 20 6 1  MMS 196  USCG 80 285  Navy 970 350 693 611  NSGCP 57 

DOT 217 

 Biology Navy 90 80 197 

NSF 200 

NMFS 45 228 97 51 212 

MMS 4 13 

NOS 25 

USCG 80 140 

 Subtotal 641 276 344 590 689 1,010 1,505 1,042 1,848 3,091 
162 

Federal Funding of Research on Listed Marine Mammal Species by Research Issue: FY1991–FY2000 (continued) 

(in $ thousands) 

Issue Funding Agency FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 

Beluga whale  Population assessment MMS 80 28 75 

MMC 2 

NMFS 25 184 276 173 185 205 405 205 199 186 

 Biology Navy 172 387 115 5 

NSF 55 57 107 209 146 106 90 90 

 Subtotal 160 241 276 452 781 466 544 205 291 351 Bottlenose dolphin  Population assessment MMC 4 5 1 

NMFS 32 105 65 750 845 722 601 443 

EPA 23 10 56 5 

NSGCP 86 83 83 

NASA 9 5 

NPS 10 

 Biology Navy 864 525 677 786 1,504 975 671 634 805 1,398 

DHHS 109 35 

NSF 100 168 18 151 17 160 162 

NMFS 35 250 20 31 

NOS 10 252 

NSGCP 13 13 

 Subtotal 1,140 1,075 843 1,675 2,457 1,028 822 1,424 1,594 2,268 Northern Fur Seal  Population assessment NMFS 6 7 9 95 24 24 24 106 603  Biology NMFS 4 4 74 1,957 

NSF $ 138 

 Subtotal 6 11 13 95 162 24 24 180 603 1,957 
163

Federal Funding of Research on Listed Marine Mammal Species by Research Issue: FY1991–FY2000 (continued) 

(in $ thousands) 

Issue Funding Agency FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 

Hawaiian Monk Seal  Population assessment NMFS 448 731 717 519 1,109 1,450 769 1,152 

Navy 30 9 

 Biology NPS 5 5 

NSGCP 25 14 34 

Army 20 

NMFS 745 

 Subtotal 493 745 751 519 1,139 1,459 774 5 1,897 Steller Sea Lion  Population studies NMFS 191 101 779 1,580 1,407 1,203 2,560 

NOS 1,100 

MMC 3 

NPS 1 2 16 20 20 3 

NSGCP 25 20 

 Biology NMFS 690 713 750 591 895 304 

Navy 15 

NOS 512 

 Subtotal 4 908 834 766 591 1,674 1,904 1,427 1,218 4,175 
164 

Federal Funding of Research on Listed Marine Mammal Species by Research Issue: FY1991–FY2000 (continued) 

(in $ thousands) 

Issue Funding Agency FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 

Manatees and Dugongs  Population studies FWS 23 47 186 1 76  NASA 10 10 24 24 24 26 24 20 25 25  MMC 3 13 3 

USGS 231 232 167 

NPS 11 

Navy 64 

 Biology FWS 437 716 681 594 620 484 152 3 172 32 

USGS 409 234 215 180 

Army 145 282 282 

 MMC 4 6  NASA 8 7 7 7 7 

NSF 50 52 

 Navy 375 330  Subtotal 604 809 783 625 1,308 1,122 632 688 645 544 Sea Otter  Population studies FWS 210 24 15 43 124 45 7 116 73 193 

USGS 329 599 552 353 

NPS 360 360 

MMC 3 

 NOS 9 7 5  Biology MMC 3  NSGCP 150 

FWS 703 690 544 403 409 429 8 71 25 

USGS 105 195 170 483 

NSF 174 122 122 5 

 NPS 68 180 

MMS 7 

USAF 149 

NOS 2 5 5 7 

 Subtotal 1,097 1,196 1,041 595 536 476 463 993 875 1,389 
165

APPENDIX G 

SUMMARY OF THE STATUS AND PROTECTION PROGRAMS FOR LISTED MARINE MAMMALS

Species Legal Status 

Best 

Abund. 

Estimate 

Minimum 

Population 

Estimate 

Potential 

Biological 

Removal 

Minimum 

Annual 

Mortality 

Fisheries 

Meeting 

Zero 

Mortality 

Goal? 

Minimum 

Annual 

Mortality 

Other 

Potential 

Threats 

Recovery/ 

Conservation 

Plan 

Critical Habitat 

West Indian manatee Endangered Yes Florida population 3,300 3,300 3 Undeter. Undeter. ~298 

Boat collisions; loss of warm–water refuges; flood gates/navigation locks; habitat degradation 

2001 

(Update In 

Process) 

1976 

Antillean population 121 121 0 Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. 

Fishery interactions; boat collisions 

1986 

Southern sea otter Threatened 2,735 2735 7 Undeter. Not available Undeter. Oil spills; fishery interactions; disease 2003 None Northern sea otter, SW Alaska 

Threatened 41,865 33,203 830 Undeter. Not available Undeter. 

Oil spills; predation by killer whales; infectious disease 

Draft In 

Process 

Caribbean monk seal Endangered 0 0 None None Hawaiian monk seal Endangered 1,252 1,224 Undeter. Undeter. No Undeter. 

Prey availability; fishery interactions; debris entanglement; shark predation 

1983 

(Update In 

Process) 

1986, 1988 

Guadalupe fur seal Threatened 7,408 3,028 104 Undeter. Yes Undeter. Fishery interactions None Northern fur seal Eastern Pacific Depleted 688,028 676,540 14,546 15 Yes 870 

Prey availability; fishery interactions; debris entanglement; industrial development 

1993 
166 

Summary of the Status and Protection Programs for Listed Marine Mammals (continued) 

Species Legal Status 

Best 

Abund. 

Estimate 

Minimum 

Population 

Estimate 

Potential 

Biological 

Removal 

Minimum 

Annual 

Mortality 

Fisheries 

Meeting 

Zero 

Mortality 

Goal? 

Minimum 

Annual 

Mortality 

Other 

Potential 

Threats 

Recovery/ 

Conservati

on 

Plan 

Critical Habitat 

Steller sea lion 

 1992 

(Update In 

Process) 

 Yes 

Western population Endangered 44,916 38,513 231 30.9 No 187.3 

Prey availability; fishery interactions; predation by killer whales 

1993 

Eastern population Threatened 43,728 43,728 1,967 5.3 Yes 2 

Fishery interactions; subsistence hunting 

 1993 

Blue whale Endangered 1998 None Western North Atlantic Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Ship strikes Pacific Coast 1,774 1,384 1.4 0 Yes 0.2 Ship strikes Hawaii Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Not available Bowhead whale Endangered None None Western Arctic population Endangered 10,545 9,472 95 0.2 Yes 40 

Fishery interaction; oil and gas development; climate change; ship strikes 

Fin whale Endangered Draft (2006) None Western Atlantic 2,814 2,362 4.7 0.4 No 1 

Ship strikes; fishery interactions 

Pacific Coast 3,279 2,541 15 1 Yes 0.4 

Fishery interactions; ship strikes 

Northeast Pacific 5,703 5,703 11.4 0.6 Yes 0.2 

Fishery interactions; ship strikes 

Hawaii 174 191 0.1 0 Undeter. Undeter. Not available 
167

Summary of the Status and Protection Programs for Listed Marine Mammals (continued) 

Species Legal Status 

Best 

Abund. 

Estimate 

Minimum 

Population 

Estimate 

Potential 

Biological 

Removal 

Minimum 

Annual 

Mortality 

Fisheries 

Meeting Zero 

Mortality 

Goal? 

Minimum 

Annual 

Mortality 

Other 

Potential 

Threats 

Recovery/ 

Conservation 

Plan 

Critical Habitat

Humpback whale Endangered 1991 None Gulf of Maine 902 647 1.3 2.8 No 0.4 Fish. interactions; ship strikes Eastern North Pacific 1,391 1,158 2.3 1.2 No 0.2 Fish. interactions; ship strikes Central North Pacific 4,005 3,698 12.9 3.4 No 0.8 Fish. interactions; ship strikes Western North Pacific 394 367 1.3 0.69 No Undeter. Fish. interactions Northern right whale Endangered 1991 Yes North Atlantic 299 299 0 1.6 No 1 Fish. interactions; ship strikes 2005 1994 North Pacific Undeter. 23 Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Fish. interactions; ship strikes (1991) 2006 Sei whale Endangered Draft (1998) None Nova Scotia Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Ship strikes; fish. interactions Eastern North Pacific 56 35 0.01 0 Yes 0 Ship strikes; fish. interactions Hawaii 77 37 0.1 0 Undeter. Undeter. Ship strikes; fish. interactions Sperm whale Endangered Draft (2006) None North Atlantic 4,804 3,539 7 0 Yes 0.4 Fish. interactions; ship strikes Northern Gulf of Mexico 1,349 1,114 2.2 0 Yes 0 Fish. interactions; ship strikes Pacific Coast 1,233 885 1.8 1 No Not available Fish. interactions; ship strikes Hawaii 7,082 5,531 11 0 Undeter. 0 Fish. interactions; ship strikes 
168 

Summary of the Status and Protection Programs for Listed Marine Mammals (continued) 

Species Legal Status 

Best 

Abund. 

Estimate 

Mininum 

Pop. 

Estimate 

Potential 

Biological 

Removal 

Minimum 

Annual 

Mortality 

Fisheries 

Meeting 

Zero 

Mortality 

Goal? 

Minimum 

Annual 

Mortality 

Other Potential Threats 

Recov/ 

Cons. 

Plan 

Critical Habitat 

Sperm whale Endangered Draft (2006) None North Pacific Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Fishery interaction; ship strikes Cook Inlet beluga whale Depleted 357 366 2 0 Yes 1 

Subsistence harvest; fishing interactions; vessel traffic; coastal development 

Draft 

(2005) None 

Mid–Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin 

Depleted Draft (2001) None 

Northern Migratory 17,466 14,621 146.2 11 No Undeter. Fishery interactions; contaminants Northern North Carolina 7,079 4,083 40.8 8 No Undeter. Fishery interactions; contaminants Southern North Carolina 4,787 1,987 19.9 Undeter. Yes Undeter. Fishery interactions; contaminants Winter Mixed 16,913 13,558 135.6 58 No Undeter. Fishery interactions; contaminants South Carolina 2,325 1,963 19.6 Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Contaminants Georgia 2,195 1,716 17.2 Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Northern Florida 448 328 Undeter. 0 Yes Undeter. Central Florida 10,652 7,377 Undeter. 6 Yes Undeter. Contaminants 

Southern 

resident killer 

whale 

population 

Depleted 84 84 0.8 0 Yes 0 

Prey availability; contaminants; oil spills 

In 

Process Proposed 

AT1 Group, killer whale Depleted 9 9 0 0 Yes 0 

Oil spills; contaminants; prey availability; fishery interactions; vessel traffic 

 None