MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION Annual Report to Congress 1998 Marine Mammal Commission 4340 East-West Highway, Room 905 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 31 January 1999 io . *, >, wire Foy) ity ig a eae } Shy yl ie ge « + f YG: a r } eine aD art Wh $ 3 ‘A ais vir ‘) / A y awe ‘ ‘ ie ’ ¥ d . f } 3 . iy he # ‘ t \ ¢ Yi i ) \ t 4 | \ i” Vv ¥ , ¥ - ‘tom yh / 1 Lay ‘Te teuct! ort nw x ae ihe ui in oy, VAG at } ‘ ; vy bea stoy gto ae hE YEA koa h , Les ia Batis ; Muy" : : ve ; 4 pp? » { t t ager i , / ah: , pee - : i" ' = A , x \ if & : Yn re ‘ ag ‘ *, # ta ; thy M0) ALT ne i aN ¥ ars thes WON UN LQ N NL 0 0301 0098281 5 MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION Annual Report to Congress 1998 Marine Mammal Commission 4340 East-West Highway, Room 905 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 31 January 1999 ‘on it hee a ue Ais up wh ARTY hi we avanel Ve 2 - oo oe ap ae iota « iy “" oe ~~ ~~ ere + ie, 5 4 ae > Rha ‘ j Seatano.d of Pingom ¥ ag wt Sy 0 . - . ¢ p> ¥ f: d . ‘ ! 7 i Fi ‘ ty p alte Pr | ee - 4 a). f ‘3 r - * DY han elidel ae ihe Se ’ ’ = » a i é ml ' i! Fo Aa i Re fPivh F y 4 ‘ | VSutt ip ite 7 ; 4 : 14 vi. (4 , i 7 5 me) » ht Aa h ” pe [ q f hg a ¥ “4 ‘ @ « hi di , _ A j Righgs oe De Pe A Ee A ae ; Tr Sat fre wa | ‘ bi a? 2 ee } 7 Y 4a ho i re # Ss 7 a ce. My : ‘ th ry 2 7 ¢ ih we viel a ' . 4. A. H : ; * » . af ae tf Se vl , ¥ % F ql v rie * Sie ; os : A > “Fear. ae pl 9) 4 Nad Fs » nlf tt \ - ‘i ys i Pe Piha, o 3 | | " an 7 y 7: aN telat » lapel ; Bie ays Detar e 2 Bh2 Ge Ay Gates HA wat oe 7 s* Ph 7 y oe aga taba bli : ¥ Uk a > bee + 7 i Sy { y is i a | "fed arte a ae Pr ae ‘ t ry =. Table of Contents Mist’ GF Tabplesuttitd Rot fos SE chee eterna ce. cue cys eters a) eye are er armies #6 iii Hist Gf PIBUTES fo ee eee © ene oe wits fe els eels oe 86 iv Executive Summary ........ 2c eee eer eee reece reenter eeeeeees Vv AnthGGUCHUMA Ss ee ee ee ere ke crete cores twice rie cee) asne ce ove ses @ as 1 Pevsornineli, 4 c:to-' 2 dette eet hee cole cse cme Ma es es ee 1 Burd yd eo ck ene Gk eee et ge rowtels he ee ie ns oie 6 a gas 1 Species of Special Concern... 2... eee eee eet eee ee eee ee eee ees 3 Northem Right: Whaler?) tvcc.s. « step isthe - | Gtk Sasi tate se oe 3 BowheadiWhate. avait 25.05 hd SPN ns cn ee a ke es 24 Gram Wialee ee, ete sc ners, scott eee ee eae eae as «Fe 27 GookInlet Belaga- Whale... os ree, sees wena a ea a eae “ooo 33 Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy Harbor Porpoise ..........------- 35 Botilerose Dolphin: 1.24, 144.2100, ) See a ee ges ees oe ae 45 Hawarian. Monk Seal : tot.) > 5 5 fd. meet enema tener. eh aie 0 47 Stellen Sear ion’ 2-5 see tt ee Cn Re come eo eee otal, 5 oe 56 Neimern eit Seal SNe Sees 2. fe esrerc teers, eerie aber oa), ote 66 Paci Wald) scx Si. Aish d,s a Ao poe mciee) seca ee ee eit 69 PalariBeagecst fxitctuicent Sut Sod See Cee eer eee ae teers. 76 Sear@tens 5.85 68 5 5 4 ct 5 ee ee meer ame eer es cain n= 85 PloridayManatees) iis iie.. 2 ene ee ee Ste tes eee RED ee ss O1 III. Marine Mammal-Fisheries Interactions .........-.eeeeeeeeeeeeeee 105 Incidental-Take Regime for Commercial Fishing .............---: 105 The Wuna-Molenin Issues. sees CAINE aon tetera aeeate te es 113 Pinniped-Fisheries Interactions .........-.---- see eee cece 123 International Aspects of Marine Mammal Protection and Conservation ... . 129 The Compendium of Treaties and International Agreements ......... 129 International Whaling Commission .......--- 2. +++ eee trees 130 Conservation Issues in the Southern Ocean .........-----50555 135 Conservation Issues in the Arctic .. 2.6.25. .W ee te ee eee eee 148 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species oi. Wi ilar baila ame Oba ors. d cou fees eh a etna Mota Gy selene Ps ae a 153 N. Marine Mammal Strandings and Die-Offs ............ cece eeccces Unusual Mortality Eventsian: 1998 «oo irs, fa ss cies we eee Response:'to Unusual: Mortality Events... . i .0 ss eG wore eee National Marine: Mammal Tissue Bank... .°5 20. :.c)es sone see meee 2 The National ContingdaeyiPlag 1.91061. 6640.8 bd on ee ee ee Development of Release (Criteria)... ws. 5 35s )1s acai poe ae VI. Effects of Pollution on Marine Mammals ...........0cccccecevees Effects of Chemical Contaminants: . oi... a. « « @ i 008 ss eee Birects OF INGIsG) 96° 6 si.6 Gita to xcéc kt ce ae Seale ee sc hs 2 anal VII. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Exploration and Development ..... ; Beaufort Sea/Northstar: Project. 4 0.025 0-4) Gm 0s Baspipent «ce Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting ...............00. VIII. Research and Studies Program 20... 6600s. « +: mpeunaeh Suds Ser ec 8 Survey of Federally Funded Marine Mammal Research............ Marine Mammal Workshops and Planning Meetings.............. Commission-Sponsored Research and Study Projects ............. IX. Permits and Authorizations to Take Marine Mammals .............0. Permit-Relsted RECOIAMONS 0.5.5 |. + sss», apbytsefogl initaiuabiasel costa eros Permit Application REVIEW .. 4... |. ++ + « Jao sept weltwepskhs os a ube Recreational Interactions with Marine Mammals in the Wild......... Sitiall-Take Authorizations os. .0s «ck » Pee aeT wetasbeil «0 ee X. Marine Mammals in Captivity . 1... 000050 600 0.0.0 qendleynin@ sev cee c Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Care-and Mamitenatce’Standards yo. .-5)6 6. 5 sm ss gaat gaR os es ce Swim-with-the-Dolphin Regulations . 2... .ssesshef soiiierslld se ee ee Exports of Marine Mammals to Foreign Facilities ............... Release of Captive Marine Mammals to the Wild ............... Marine Mammal Commission Recommendations in 1998 ......... Reports of Commission-Sponsored Activities Available from the National Technical Information Service ...........00e008 Selected Literature Published Elsewhere Resulting from Commission-Sponsored Activities ...... 0... cece rene eeceee Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. List of Tables Marine mammal species and populations listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act and depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection -Act; as of 31 -Decemiber*f998" 8.1 TUG Pep eum. IWC quotas and numbers of bowhead whales taken by Alaska Natives, 197351998) se Geis AE TER RET DIE FA UR ME ENOL, Estimates of harbor porpoise bycatch in sink gillnet fisheries in the Bay of Fundy (Canada), Gulf of Maine (U.S.), and off the U.S. mid-Aflantié states) 199021998) 2294 S008) RR PROP eG Counts of adult and juvenile Steller sea lions observed at rookery and haul-out trend sites in seven Alaska subareas during June and July aerial. surveys; 19VG51998% MYO POUBWAOG 2 20 QONI20 A GRRE Subsistence harvest levels of northern fur seals in the Pribilof Islands, 1985-19988) B27 23 CH, COT, OR EA STM 1) SO EIR SI et Estimated catches of Pacific walruses in Alaska and total reported catch of walsusesiin Russias 1980-19974 aitea... . aeeoie Dy. tec, VeSman. Numbers of polar bears tagged during Alaska Native harvests, 1988-1998 . California sea otter population counts by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, 1984-1998 ......... Known manatee mortality in the southeastern United States (excluding Puerto Rico) reported through the manatee salvage and necropsy program, LOTS319098s andl stéid wala.» Aas ssc. CR. RR PRR © 0 Estimated incidental kill of dolphins in the tuna purse seine fishery in the! eastern trapical.Pacific\Ocean; 1972-1998); Dek OUT BAe. 5 ill Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. List of Figures Right whale found entangled in lobster fishing gear in Cape’ Cod*Bay’on- 14 September 1998. oe fe ee ee es a Unidentified fishing gear being removed from a right whale found entangled in Cape Cod Bay on 24 July 1998 ................ 17 Management zones under the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise take reduction plan and other related management plans ..............-. 40 The HawatiaarArchipelago Vnis. 3 Azyacyd aelerstew woriead Yo weigisids << Ee 49 Adult male Hawaiian monk seal found entangled in derelict trawl net on weaysan island, 23' July 1998." *.) 0. ts ee ee ee a3 A Steller sea lion rookery on Ugamak Island in the Aleutians illustrates the decline of the population over a 17-year period .......... 59 Fishery management areas and catcher vessel operation area in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska regions .......... 61 Range and breeding islands of the northern fur seal. ...........-.-.. 67 atigetor the Pacific waltts ..ca20.) 6) sa 5 ag ew Arete ees < 70 Ranges of the Beaufort Sea stock and Bering—Chukchi Seas stockvof polasibeata, - (7-9): 4 kis Saistiiaies Vale ssa-diwhi{a> - - 3s 77 Manatee with healed propeller wounds .......... 0022 eet e ences 95 Florida manatees in a thermal outfall at a power plant in Riviera peaen, Plana. oe oes sa ee tk ks BREN ea at 97 Crabeater seals, the most abundant marine mammal in the world, rest ‘om Antarctic ice fides?) CCE .ns 400. oh dectee arottees ei nt. ss 142 Mass stranding of long-finned pilot whales on Cape Cod in 1990 ....... 159 Process by which permit applications to take Marine Hamas are TEVIEWEO «sk 6 cole We he ee. we bees wee 187 Illegal and risky feeding of wild bottlenose dolphin off Florida......... 189 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the 26th Annual Report of the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals. The Commission was established under Title II of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to provide an independent source of policy and program guidance to Congress and the Executive Branch on domestic and international issues affecting marine mammal conservation. The purpose of this report is to provide timely information on management-related issues and events to Congress, federal and state agencies, public interest groups, the academic community, private citizens, and the international community. When combined with previous annual reports, it provides a record of the nation’s progress in developing policies and programs to conserve marine mammals and their habitats. To ensure factual accuracy, drafts of the report were provided to involved federal and state agencies and individuals for comment. The following highlights certain issues addressed by the Commission in 1998. Introduction (Chapter I) The Commission consists of three members required by statute to be knowledgeable in marine ecology and resource management. They are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The nine-member Committee of Scientific Advisors, required to be expert in marine ecology and marine mammal affairs, is appointed by the Chairman of the Commission in consultation with the other two Commissioners. Members of the Commission, the Committee, and the staff are listed in Chapter I, as is information on recent funding levels. For fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the Commission was appropriated $1,185,000 and $1,240,000, respectively. Species of Special Concern (Chapter II) In 1998 the Commission devoted special attention to the conservation needs of several marine mammal species and populations. Among those discussed in Chapter II are northern right whales, Gulf of Maine harbor porpoises, Hawaiian monk seals, and Florida manatees. Northern Right Whales — The northern right whale is the most endangered marine mammal in U.S. waters and the most endangered large whale in the world. Its largest population, about 300 animals, occurs off the east coasts of the United States and Canada. Half of the known mortality is caused by human activity, principally collisions with ships and entanglement in fishing gear. At the recommendation of the Marine Mammal Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service developed a northern right whale recovery plan, which was adopted in 1991. Since 1996 the Service and cooperating federal and state agencies have intensified their protection efforts, guided in part by the Commission’s 1996 and 1998 reviews of right whale recovery efforts. To reduce ship collision risks, multi-agency efforts were continued in 1998 to warn ships of right whale locations. Further, the U.S. Coast Guard, acting on behalf of the United States, put forward within the International Maritime Organization a mandatory reporting system proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with Commission assistance for ships transiting the population’s calving and feeding grounds. Expected to go into effect in July 1999, this will require large commercial ships transiting these areas to contact shore stations for information on right whale protection measures. To reduce entanglement risks, the Service adopted a take reduction plan in 1998 that includes measures to (1) deploy a team to free any right whales seen entangled, (2) design fishing gear less likely to entangle whales, and (3) regulate fishing in right whale critical habitats. In 1998 one entangled right whale was rescued, and research on fishing gear identified some promising design changes that might reduce entanglement risks. Although regulations were adopted to manage gillnet and lobster fishing at times and in areas in which right whales are most likely to occur, the potential effectiveness of the regulations seems limited. Funding for right whale recovery work has been inadequate. Even with substantial increases in support by the National Marine Fisheries Service and other federal agencies, many essential recovery tasks have been unfunded or underfunded. Therefore, in 1996 the Commission suggested that a right whale trust fund be established to help increase support. Recognizing the limited funding available for conservation work on large whales, Senator Judd Gregg asked the Commission for drafting assistance with a bill to establish a National Whale Conservation Fund within the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to encourage and direct funding from private and industry sources for conservation efforts. The Commission helped, and a bill entitled the National Whale Conservation Fund Act of 1998 was introduced by Senator Gregg and Senator Ted Stevens in June 1998. Later passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, the Act directs the Foundation to establish the fund in cooperation with the Marine Mammal Commission and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This is being done. In November 1998 the Commission conducted a review of right whale recovery efforts. Noting the significant progress over the past two years, the Commission commended the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Coast Guard, and the Navy for their many constructive actions. The Commission also recommended that the Service increase its base-level funding request for right whale recovery to at least $1.385 million annually for the foreseeable future to meet ongoing program needs, including the operation of the mandatory ship reporting system, research on fishing gear modifications, efforts to disentangle right whales, annual right whale surveys in critical habitats, maintenance of the right whale photoidentification catalog, and the implementation of a satellite-linked tracking program to better identify essential right whale habitat. The Commission also wrote to the Minister of Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans urging that the department increase support for right whale recovery work in Canada. Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoises — Gulf of Maine harbor porpoises are a discrete harbor porpoise stock found in coastal waters from the Bay of Fundy, Canada, to North vi Carolina. The gillnet fishery-related bycatch of this stock exceeds that of any other cetacean stock in U.S. waters. Estimates are that more than 1,500 porpoises were killed in gillnets off New England and the mid-Atlantic coastal states in 1997. The stock’s potential biological removal level (i.e., the number of animals that can be killed annually, not including natural mortality, while still allowing the stock to increase toward or remain at its optimum sustainable population) is calculated to be 483 porpoises per year. The Marine Mammal Protection Act required the National Marine Fisheries Service to reduce bycatch to below the stock’s potential biological removal level by April 1997, but progress has been slow and relatively ineffective. Although the Service published a proposed take reduction plan for New England fisheries in August 1997, action on the plan was deferred and eventually the matter was raised in a lawsuit in August 1998. In September 1998 the Service proposed a new take reduction plan. For New England, it proposed an expansion of existing time-area management zones in high bycatch areas, seasonal prohibition of gillnet fishing in some zones, and the required use of acoustic deterrent devices, called pingers, in other zones. For the mid-Atlantic area, the plan proposed a time-area fishing closure, limits on the number and length of nets, and certain gear restrictions, such as minimum twine diameters, for nets. Previously, there had been no take reduction measures for this area. Noting that the plan appeared to underestimate past bycatch levels in the mid-Atlantic and to overestimate the likely effectiveness of pingers in New England, the Commission concluded in October 1998 that stronger take reduction measures were needed and recommended requiring the use of pingers in all New England waters where harbor porpoises might be found and perhaps expanding some time-area fishing closures. The Service’s final plan for New England, published on 2 December 1998, did not adopt these recommendations. In November 1998 the Commission reviewed the Service’s harbor porpoise take reduction plans and provided comments thereon on 8 December 1998. Although commending the Service for the steps it was taking to produce bycatch estimates more quickly, train fishermen in the use of pingers, plan a new harbor porpoise population survey for 1999, expand fishery observer - efforts in the mid-Atlantic area, and address enforcement needs, the Commission also noted that information presented at the review confirmed that bycatch levels were higher in the mid- Atlantic area than assumed in the plan, and that using pingers at some times and in some areas has been less effective than assumed by the Service. The Commission therefore continued to recommend stronger take reduction measures to reduce bycatch below the stock’s calculated potential biological removal level, that the Service consult with fishermen to develop an improved pinger design, and that the Service undertake studies to better document the sound characteristics of pingers that are most effective in deterring harbor porpoises. On 22 October 1998 the Service reopened the comment period on a proposal it had first made in 1993 to list the east coast harbor porpoise stock as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Action on the proposal had been deferred pending further take reduction efforts and new information. In its 8 December 1998 letter, the Commission recommended that the Service announce its intent to proceed with the action if the adopted take reduction measures did Vii not reduce bycatch below the potential biological removal level in the coming year. The Service planned to announce a decision on the proposal early in 1999. Hawaiian Monk Seals — Hawaiian monk seals are the most endangered seals in U.S. waters. Limited almost exclusively to the remote Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, they number about 1,300 to 1,400 animals. The species’ abundance declined by about 50 percent between the late 1950s and the late 1970s, and after a brief period of stability, it began declining again in the late 1980s. The largest breeding colony, located on French Frigate Shoals, had declined to about half its size in the late 1980s for reasons that are probably related to limited prey availability, and it has shown no signs of recovery. Threats to the species include entanglement in derelict fishing nets, human disturbance on pupping and haul-out beaches, and depletion of prey resources by commercial fisheries. In 1998 the Commission commented on a U.S. Navy proposal for a missile defense testing program that included consideration of locating missile launching facilities on Tern Island, a small island at French Frigate Shoals. Because of likely impacts to monk seals, the Commission recommended that the site be removed from consideration as a possible launch site, and the Navy subsequently stated that it planned to remove the site from future consideration. The Commission commended the Navy for its decision and for its efforts to develop an alternative that would not require launch facilities in such an important wildlife habitat. Lobsters and other species caught in the commercial lobster fishery in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are components of the monk seal diet. Their relative importance, however, is uncertain. Because of this uncertainty and the decline in monk seal numbers at French Frigate Shoals apparently due to limited prey availability, the Commission has recommended several times in past years that the National Marine Fisheries Service prohibit lobster fishing around French Frigate Shoals until better information on monk seal prey preferences is available. The Service has declined to do so citing, uncertainty about the importance of lobster in monk seal diets. In 1998 the Service altered management provisions for the lobster fishery with the result that fishing effort shifted to French Frigate Shoals and other atolls directly supporting major monk seal colonies. The Commission again recommended that the Service close French Frigate Shoals to lobster fishing and that other atolls directly supporting major monk seal breeding colonies also be closed pending better information on monk seal prey preferences. As of the end of 1998, the Service had not replied. Florida Manatees — The Florida manatee, a subspecies of the West Indian manatee found only in the southeastern United States, is one of the most endangered marine mammals in the United States. Although the current population, numbering about 2,800 animals, is thought to be larger than it was in the mid-1970s, it suffered in 1998 the third highest annual mortality, 243 carcasses recovered, since the mid-1970s when records were first kept. About one-third of the deaths were due to human causes, principally collisions with boats. In 1998 a record 67 vessel-related deaths were reported. Vili The manatee recovery program is led by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and involves cooperative efforts by many other agencies and groups. The Marine Mammal Commission assisted both the Service and the state in developing their programs early in the 1980s. Since then it has continued to provide assistance and advice to both. To reduce vessel-related manatee deaths, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and county governments began developing boat speed regulations for 13 key counties in 1989. Although rulemaking has been slow, rules are now in place in 12 counties. Rule challenges in 1998 continued to delay adoption of rules for the thirteenth county. With regulatory signs now posted in most areas, efforts are needed to ensure compliance with the new rules. In 1997 the Fish and Wildlife Service designated an enforcement coordinator and began directed enforcement efforts in cooperation with local and state enforcement officers, and this was continued in 1998. In 1998 the Coast Guard, in cooperation with the Service, also increased its enforcement efforts. In the past two decades manatee numbers have increased around localized winter warm- water refuges formed by power plant outfalls and natural springs in central Florida north of the species’ historic winter range. Up to 585 animals have been counted at one power plant during a winter cold period. Such large concentrations increase the chance of a large-scale manatee die- off due to red tides, pollution events, or exposure to cold if a power plant outfall were to shut down. The latter concern has increased because of recent interest in deregulating Florida’s electric utilities, which could affect the operation of power plants on which many manatees have come to depend. Early in 1998 the Service advised the Commission that it planned to hold a public forum to help develop a long-term strategy for managing warm-water refuges. The Commission provided advice on planning the forum and suggested that the Service consider the possibility of developing a network of non-industry-dependent artificial refuges within the population’s current core winter range. In August the Service held an interagency meeting to examine possible management strategies and information needs. Based on the results, it decided to convene a workshop on warm-water refuges in the summer of 1999 rather than hold a public forum in 1998. Marine Mammal-Fisheries Interactions (Chapter III) Marine mammals and fisheries interact in ways that can affect both adversely. Marine mammals may become entangled in fishing gear and be killed or injured. Also, marine mammals may compete with fishermen for the same fishery resources and, if entangled, may damage gear or catch. The Marine Mammal Protection Act was amended in 1994 to establish a new regime for governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. This chapter discusses actions taken to implement that regime, including the preparation of assessment reports for each marine mammal stock that occurs in U.S. waters, the annual listing of all U.S. fisheries according to the frequency with which they take marine mammals, and the establishment of take reduction teams composed of scientists, representatives of the affected fisheries, and other interest groups to advise the National Marine Fisheries Service on the development of take reduction plans for strategic stocks. A strategic stock is one listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, designated as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, or for which human-caused mortality and serious injury exceed the potential biological removal level calculated for the stock. Based on the recommendations of the take reduction teams, the Service completes and implements take-reduction plans designed to reduce the levels of take to below the potential biological removal levels within a certain period. The deaths of large numbers of dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean was one of the issues that played a key role in enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972. At that time, about 500,000 dolphins were being killed annually in the tuna purse seine fishery. Since that time, annual mortality has declined considerably and, although a final estimate for 1998 is not yet available, it is expected to be about 1,900 dolphins, a record low number. In 1997, the Marine Mammal Protection Act was amended to recognize international efforts to reduce dolphin mortality through the establishment of the International Dolphin Conservation Program. The 1997 amendments require the National Marine Fisheries Service, in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission, to conduct research on the effects of chasing and encircling dolphins in the course of setting purse seine nets around tuna. Based on whether that research indicates that chase and encirclement are having significant adverse effects on any depleted dolphin stock, the requirements for labeling tuna as "dolphin-safe" may change. The Secretary of Commerce is required to make an initial finding in March 1999 as to whether tuna fishing practices are having significant adverse effects. This chapter discusses the requirements of the 1997 amendments and actions taken by the Service and the Commission with respect to the research program and the establishment of criteria for making the initial determination. Growing populations of seals and sea lions may be affecting the recovery of salmon stocks at certain locations along the west coast of the United States. On the east coast, in the Gulf of Maine, seals may enter fish pens and eat salmon being raised in aquaculture operations. Recognizing the potential conflicts between growing pinniped populations and fisheries, Congress amended the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1994 to allow states to obtain lethal take authority to protect certain depleted salmonid stocks. To date, Washington is the only state that has requested authority to kill sea lions in an effort to prevent further decline of the depleted run of steelhead salmon that passes through the Ballard Locks in Seattle. Because of the apparently successful use of other measures, however, the state has not found it necessary to use its lethal take authorization. In addition, Congress directed the National Marine Fisheries Service to study and submit reports on pinniped-fishery interactions along the west coast and in the Gulf of Maine aquaculture industry. International Aspects of Marine Mammal Protection and Conservation (Chapter IV) The Marine Mammal Protection Act directs the Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, to undertake a continuing review of, and to advise the Secretary of State and other federal officials on, measures necessary to conserve marine mammals and their habitats internationally, as well as domestically. During 1998 the Commission participated in interagency efforts to develop U.S. positions on international conservation regimes, including those concerning whaling and the protection of Antarctic and Arctic resources. In addition, as discussed in Chapter II, the Commission participated in efforts to negotiate a bilateral agreement with Russia to conserve the shared population of polar bears. The International Whaling Commission — The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is the international body responsible for regulating whaling. Because its management program had proven ineffective in conserving whale stocks, the IWC adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling, which has been in effect since 1986. Some types of whaling continue to occur. Norway filed an objection to the moratorium and continues to take minke whales commercially in the North Atlantic. Japan continues to conduct scientific whaling, both in the Southern Ocean and the North Pacific, despite calls from the IWC for it to end its lethal research. In addition, the IWC establishes quotas for certain whale stocks for aboriginal subsistence whaling. Such quotas have been established for bowhead whales and gray whales, which may be taken by Natives in Alaska and Washington, respectively. During 1998 the IWC continued its work on developing a revised management scheme under which commercial whaling might be resumed. Although a revised management procedure, under which allowable catch levels would be established, has been agreed to, the [WC members have yet to agree to other aspects including a system of monitoring and enforcement to ensure compliance with the catch limits and other conservation measures it may adopt. In 1998 the Commission worked with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in developing U.S. positions on issues before the IWC, and representatives of the Commission participated in meetings of the IWC and its Scientific Committee. Conservation of Marine Mammals and Their Habitats in the Southern Ocean — Many species of seals, whales, dolphins, and porpoises inhabit the Southern Ocean (the seas surrounding Antarctica). The Commission conducts a continuing review of activities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean that could affect marine mammals directly or indirectly. This section describes the first meeting of the environmental protection committee established by the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which entered into force on 14 January 1998. It also describes U.S. efforts to implement the Protocol and related matters considered at the 22nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting held in Tromsg, Norway, on 25 May-5 June 1998. It describes ongoing efforts by the Commission and the Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources to control the explosive growth of fisheries for toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides and D. mawsoni) in the Southern Ocean, including U.S. efforts to establish a catch certification scheme. It also describes the research programs being conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the National Science Foundation to obtain information needed to effectively implement the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. xi The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy and the Arctic Council — Marine mammals are important components of the Arctic marine ecosystem. They include polar bears; walruses; ringed, bearded, harp, hooded, ribbon, and spotted seals; narwhals; and bowhead, minke, fin, gray, and beluga whales. A number of these species are important to the cultures and subsistence economies of indigenous people in coastal Alaska and other Arctic areas. The ranges of most marine species and many terrestrial species in the Arctic include areas under the jurisdiction of more than one country. Consequently, effective conservation of these species and their essential habitats requires cooperative efforts by the eight Arctic nations. Recognizing this need, the United States and the other Arctic countries adopted and in 1991 began implementing the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. In September 1996 the eight Arctic countries established the Arctic Council as a high-level forum to oversee and coordinate efforts to protect the Arctic environment and to promote sustainable development and utilization of Arctic resources. This section provides background and describes the establishment of the Arctic Council, including development of rules of procedure for the Council and its subsidiary bodies, and terms of reference for the sustainable development program. It also describes the ongoing efforts of the four working groups established to give effect to the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. It points out recommendations by the Commission and steps being taken by the Department of State to identify and promote priority activities during the next two years while the United States is providing the secretarial support for the Council. Marine Mammal Strandings and Die-Offs (Chapter V) In the past 20 years the number of unusual marine mammal die-offs appears to have increased in the United States and elsewhere. Although some of these events have been linked to naturally occurring biotoxins and diseases, human causes may be contributing factors, as well. For example, pollution may spawn blooms of toxic algae, and contaminants introduced into marine food chains may affect the life spans and reproductive success of marine mammals. In 1998 the largest reported die-off involved the death of more than 1,600 New Zealand, or Hooker’s, sea lion pups in the Auckland Islands concurrent with a bloom of toxic algae. In the United States more than 70 California sea lions died in central California in May coincident with a toxic algal bloom; large numbers of California sea lions, northern fur seals, and other pinnipeds continued to die along the west coast coincident with the unusually strong El Nifio conditions that began in 1997; and 12 separate strandings of beaked whales, a pelagic species that rarely strands, occurred in the southeastern United States between late August and early October. To promote better responses to unusual marine mammal mortality events, a new section on marine mammal health and stranding response was added to the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1992. With regard to these provisions, a die-off contingency plan for Florida manatees, on which the Commission commented extensively in 1997, was completed in 1998 by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Also, further steps were taken by the National Marine Fisheries Service to develop criteria for determining when it is safe to release rehabilitated stranded marine mammals back into the wild; to develop a xii quality assurance and contaminant monitoring program for the National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank; and to catalog marine mammal serum samples for use in evaluating wildlife disease vectors and the development of new pathogens. Effects of Pollution on Marine Mammals (Chapter VI) Marine mammals can be affected directly and indirectly by environmental contaminants. Direct effects include such things as mortality from toxic chemical spills. Indirect effects include such things as decreased survival and productivity due to contaminant-caused decreases in important prey species. This chapter describes efforts by the Commission and others to identify and minimize threats to marine mammals posed by chemical contaminants and noise from various human activities. Effects of Chemical Contaminants — High levels of organochlorine compounds, toxic elements, and other potentially harmful anthropogenic contaminants have been found in marine mammals throughout the world, including those that died from diseases and naturally occurring biotoxins during some of the unusual mortality events described in Chapter V. Recognizing the threats possibly posed by environmental contaminants, the Commission began compiling and in 1996 published a bibliography of published papers and reports on anthropogenic contaminants in the marine environment and their effects on marine mammals. In 1998 the Commission, in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, convened a workshop to review available information and identify critical research needs regarding the effects of contaminants on marine mammals. Participants included scientists from seven countries with expertise in environmental toxicology, environmental chemistry, immunotoxicology, and marine mammal population dynamics, ecology, physiology, and disease. The workshop report, expected to be completed in the spring of 1999, will be used by the Commission to identify and recommend actions that responsible regulatory agencies should take to resolve the critical uncertainties about the effects of contaminants on marine mammals as quickly and as economically as possible. Effects of Noise — Many species of marine mammals use sound to communicate, navigate, and locate prey. Sounds from both natural and human sources may interfere with these vital functions. As noted in the Commission’s previous report, an informal interagency group was established in 1997 to coordinate agency efforts to assess and determine how best to avoid or mitigate the possible adverse effects of sounds from various sources on marine mammals and other marine organisms. This section describes advice provided by the Commission and the interagency coordinating group, and actions taken in 1998 by the U.S. Navy, the Minerals Management Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and others to implement the marine mammal component of the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate Program; identify and determine how best to resolve uncertainties concerning the possible effects on marine mammals and other marine organisms of the Navy’s plans for operational deployment of its low-frequency active sonar and plans for shock testing the SEAWOLF submarine; ensure that high-output acoustic harassment devices being used to try to keep pinnipeds away from aquaculture facilities do not cause serious injury; determine how high-energy seismic surveys and other activities xiii associated with offshore oil and gas exploration and development may affect marine mammals; identify and seek expert advice on how best to resolve uncertainties concerning effects and to structure guidelines to prevent the possible adverse effects of different types of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals and other marine organisms; and assess the possible use of active sonar to reduce right whale mortalities from ship strikes. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (Chapter VII) Marine mammals may be affected adversely by oil spills, waste water discharges, and noise from seismic profiling, drilling, and other activities associated with offshore oil and gas exploration and development. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Minerals Management Service has lead responsibility for ensuring that such activities in U.S. waters beyond the jurisdiction of coastal states do not adversely affect marine mammals and their habitats. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has related responsibilities when development projects require permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As discussed in this chapter, the Commission commented to the Corps in 1998 on a proposed project that required Clean Water Act permits to construct an artificial island and a buried pipeline to enable recovery of oil from the Northstar site in the southern Beaufort Sea. Also in 1998, a Commission representative participated in a Minerals Management Service review of information concerning marine mammals in the northern Gulf of Mexico and the effects on marine mammals of seismic surveys and the use of explosives to remove drilling platforms. In partial response to the review, the Service is planning to hold a workshop in June 1999 to assess and determine how best to resolve related uncertainties. Research and Studies Program (Chapter VIII) The Marine Mammal Protection Act directs the Commission to conduct a continuing review of marine mammal research supported by federal agencies to help identify and avoid duplicative research. It also directs the Commission to facilitate or support such other activities as it deems necessary to further the purposes of the Act. To meet these directives in 1998 the Commission conducted its annual survey of federally funded marine mammal research. The results are being summarized in a report to be completed early in 1999. The Commission also organized or participated in numerous meetings and workshops bearing on the conservation of marine mammals domestically (e.g., recovery programs for Hawaiian monk seals, Florida manatees, and northern right whales) and internationally (e.g., programs for the conservation of Arctic and Antarctic resources and the regulation of whaling). Studies undertaken as part of the Commission’s research program during 1998 included preparations for the contaminants workshop cited above and projects to identify and assess management needs related to the dependence of Florida manatees on thermal power plant outfalls, human interactions with wild bottlenose dolphins, the National Large Whale Conservation Fund, the introduction of diseases to Antarctic wildlife, and the conservation of Arctic ecosystems. XiV Funds available to the Commission to conduct its research remained at an unacceptably low level in 1998. As a result, the Commission was unable to address many of the issues that it considered important and appropriate for focused study. Permits and Authorizations to Take Marine Mammals (Chapter IX) The Marine Mammal Protection Act established a moratorium on the taking of marine mammals. Taking is broadly defined to include harassing and capturing, as well as hunting and killing animals. To allow certain activities that would or could involve such taking while ensuring that they do not adversely affect marine mammals or marine mammal stocks, the Act provides for the issuance of permits (e.g., for scientific research, public display, and enhancing species recovery), letters of authorization (e.g., for activities related to offshore oil and gas exploration and development and certain military activities), and general authorizations for research involving only taking by harassment. Depending on the species involved, the Act requires decisions on authorizing such activities to be made by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission. This chapter discusses the process by which permits and letters of authorization are issued. During 1998 the Commission reviewed and made recommendations on 27 permit applications and 43 requests to modify existing permits. The National Marine Fisheries Service is considering revising its regulations governing permits for scientific research, public display, species enhancement, and educational and commercial photography. A proposed rule may be published for public review in 1999. The Fish and Wildlife Service has deferred plans to revise its marine mammal permit regulations until the National Marine Fisheries Service does so. To streamline the process for authorizing certain types of marine mammal research, the Marine Mammal Protection Act was amended in 1994 to establish a general authorization for research activities that have the potential to disturb, but not injure marine mammals (é.g., aerial surveys and photoidentification studies). This provision appears to have expedited authorization for many research activities not involving threatened or endangered species. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Act directs the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior to develop regulations to authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to activities other than commercial fishing if the take is unintentional, involves small numbers of marine mammals, has a negligible impact on the affected stocks, and has no unmitigable adverse effects on the availability of the species for taking by Alaska Natives. Such authorizations may be issued for up to five years. To streamline this process, the Act was amended in 1994 to allow authorization of such activities by the Secretaries without developing regulations if only taking by harassment is involved. These authorizations may be issued for up to one year. In 1998 the Commission reviewed and commented on regulations and requests for letters of authorization for a variety of activities under these provisions. The activities included those related to offshore oil and gas exploration and development (e.g., seismic surveys, drilling, platform XV removal, and related activities), certain military activities (e.g., rocket launches near seal haul- outs and ship shock testing), and various shoreline development projects. Certain recreational activities not authorized under the Act that pose safety risks for both people and wild marine mammals have become an increasing source of concern in recent years. These include people feeding and swimming with wild dolphins, and approaching hauled-out pinnipeds along the California coast. In 1998, the Commission contracted for studies to help assess feeding and swimming interactions with dolphins and provided assistance and advice concerning actions for managing interactions between people and elephant seals. Marine Mammals in Captivity (Chapter X) Marine mammals are maintained in captivity for purposes of public display, scientific research, and enhancement of the survival of various species or stocks. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in the Department of Agriculture has regulatory responsibility for the care and transportation of such animals under the Animal Welfare Act. In the early 1990s the Commission recommended that the Service update its regulatory standards for the care of captive marine mammals, which were last amended in 1984. Progress in revising the standards has been slow, in part because negotiated rulemaking procedures were used to try to resolve contentious issues. The Service has advised the Commission that it plans to issue proposed rules in two parts during 1999 — one part will address provisions agreed to by the negotiated rulemaking committee and the second wili address provisions on which that committee did not reach agreement. Other long-standing issues concerning captive marine mammals have included (1) the safety of dolphins and humans involved in programs that allow the public to swim with captive dolphins, (2) ensuring that foreign facilities seeking to import marine mammals from the United States meet standards comparable with those of U.S. facilities, and (3) whether it is appropriate and safe to return long-term captive marine mammals back to the wild. In 1998 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service issued regulations setting forth standards for swim-with-the- dolphin programs. Commission recommendations that the Service require foreign facilities seeking marine mammals from the United States to be inspected as part of the review process have not been adopted. Appendices Appendix A lists recommendations made by the Marine Mammal Commission in 1998. Appendix B lists Commission-sponsored reports published by the National Technical Information Service and the Commission. Appendix C lists citations of other papers and reports resulting from Commission-sponsored work that have been published elsewhere. Xvi Chapter I INTRODUCTION This is the 26th Annual Report of the Marine Mammal Commission, covering the period | January through 31 December 1998. It is being submitted to Congress pursuant to section 204 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Established under Title II of the Act, the Marine Mammal Commission is an independent agency of the Executive Branch. It is charged with maintaining an overview of and making recommendations on domes- tic and international actions and policies of all federal agencies with respect to marine mammal protection and conservation and with carrying out a research pro- gram. Personnel The Commission consists of three part-time Com- missioners nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Marine Mammal Protection Act requires that Commissioners be knowledgeable in marine ecology and resource management. At the end of 1998 the Commissioners were John E. Reynolds, Ill, Ph.D. (Chairman), Eckerd College, St. Peters- burg, Florida; Paul K. Dayton, Ph.D., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California; and Vera Alexander, Ph.D., University of Alaska, Fair- banks. The Commission’s full-time staff includes John R. Twiss, Jr., Executive Director; Robert J. Hofman, Ph.D., Scientific Program Director; David W. Laist, Policy and Program Analyst; Michael L. Gosliner, General Counsel; Robert H. Mattlin, Ph.D., Assistant Scientific Program Director; Alison Kirk Long, Permit Officer; Nancy L. Shaw, Administrative Offi- cer; Jacqueline L. Murphy, Staff Assistant in charge of publications; and Darel E. Jordan, Staff Assistant. The Commission Chairman, with the concurrence of other Commissioners, appoints persons to the nine- member Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals. The Marine Mammal Protection Act requires that committee members be scientists who are knowledgeable in marine ecology and marine mammal affairs. At the end of 1998 the committee members were Lloyd F. Lowry (Chairman), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks; Daryl J. Boness, Ph.D., Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.; Robert L. Brownell, Jr., Ph.D., National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, California; Joseph R. Geraci, V.M.D., Ph.D., National Aquarium in Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland; Steven K. Katona, Ph.D., College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, Maine; Bruce R. Mate, Ph.D., Oregon State University, Newport; Barbara L. Taylor, Ph.D., National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, California; Jeanette A. Thomas, Ph.D., Western Illinois University, Moline; and Douglas Wartzok, Ph.D., University of Missouri, St. Louis. During 1998 Mr. Caleb Pungowiyi, Executive Director of the Eskimo Walrus Commission, former president of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, and resident of Nome and Kotzebue, Alaska, served as Special Advisor to the Marine Mammal Commission on Native Affairs. Funding Appropriations to the Marine Mammal Commis- sion in the past five fiscal years have been: FY 1994, $1,290,000; FY 1995, $1,384,000; FY 1996, $1,190,000; FY 1997, $1,189,000; and FY 1998, $1,185,000. The Commission’s appropriation for the current fiscal year, FY 1999, is $1,240,000. marvel, ard rejasrd acthrade aks sgatD: é.#.. thoket Winches oar i@ea) beni aie evel 5 ; ‘ting + foorélye éevelonmecn PR - in recresGonal ec7 “onrsc9 cf tly whe suiftty claka for Sati f i cir! vt | Tay re War mime beV eC : eta u w MIT af co ven LP | recess ‘ : i nce mo footing i ewhnming with wild dolphins, ead Biipmden dont ona) MRC si) ite” self ihc A> eer a ca er a ~ WAAR nk napa Se ees Bled esety of Aniphins wind lun ias hon aD, AB mya esRUeAT Re RUONA shee ST a dolphin, (2). ensuring thet f fv » ype shinogbe hogs ot wemofee Inuit inna. \yaoognnt, §3l4),.9M, | pI or vesndthc nsamsseaam aches re Y9 200904, abioayatc Sadat lured ested es wa ¥ MG concP ein ge oomalis MAO 40 ACIS = ‘ ic Fog ace ee ener te AE es Appenee’ . gniban't A nflot ir green ent é soieeimme Lert SaFiahyr deh Oy BAER dage Ao oe vies Set ‘en . peed Tell vee! ere eset evit tang se AP HIE! 6! edo Ae ge ‘6a DOOM 2y7O0GO-8E, [Re OR. YA OOO OOF, (a i er mn whe ; BOOT ere) OBE LZ . TRE WAL 000, 08 dR co~ ged SN enontiat! nenceild. wurgon9 SW anbisizqo ye 2’nviecinweo adT 000,281.)2 iO sviteuelaiaibA wad? 1 yonsVi ox DOO.00E 12 af COOL YT 00 Insel tostrim. squads eth mere Th A 1 menaiee?, Theat wialnol Ht teChh Chapter II SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN Section 202 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act directs the Marine Mammal Commission, in consulta- tion with its Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals, to make recommendations to the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, and other agencies on actions needed to conserve marine mammals. To meet this charge, the Commission devotes special attention to individual species and populations that are particularly vulnerable to various human impacts. Such species may include marine mammals listed as endangered or threatened under the Endan- gered Species Act or depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Table 1), as well as other species or populations facing special conservation challenges. During 1998 special attention was directed to a number of endangered, threatened, or depleted species or populations. As discussed below, these include northern right whales, bowhead whales, Hawaiian monk seals, Steller sea lions, northern fur seals, southern sea otters, and West Indian manatees. Other species not so listed, but that received special attention include eastern North Pacific gray whales, Gulf of Maine harbor porpoises, bottlenose dolphins, beluga whales, Pacific walruses, polar bears, and sea otters in Alaska. Northern Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) The northern right whale is the world’s most endangered large whale. Its largest known popula- tion, about 300 animals, occurs in the western North Atlantic Ocean along the east coasts of the United States and Canada. A second population of unknown size occurs in the western North Pacific Ocean in the Okhotsk Sea. Right whale sightings from that area are too infrequent to develop a reliable abundance estimate, but the Okhotsk Sea population could number in the low hundreds of animals. Although northern right whale populations also occurred histori- cally in the eastern North Atlantic and eastern North Pacific Oceans, recent sightings are so rare that it is doubtful that viable populations remain in those areas. All northern right whale populations were severely depleted by commercial whaling and were commer- cially extinct by the end of the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, as whalers seeking other more abundant species chanced upon right whales, they were taken and by the 1930s surviving populations were reduced to the brink of biological extinction. Action to protect the species was first taken in 1935 when a ban on hunting right whales was adopted by international treaty. Despite the ban (since carried forward by the International Whaling Commission under the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whal- ing), northern right whales continued to be killed. Some were hunted by whalers whose national govern- ments were slow to sign the treaty; others were taken under provisions authorizing scientific research; and still others were killed by illegal whaling until at least the mid-1960s. Gradually, however, compliance with the ban improved, and currently whaling is not considered a direct threat to the species. However, the remaining populations now are so small that other human-related impacts, particularly collisions with ships and entanglement in fishing gear, threaten their recovery. The western North Atlantic population is the only northern right whale population for which there is sufficient information on distribution, demography, and human interactions to develop protective mea- MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 ee ee ee ee Table 1. Marine mammal species and populations listed as endangered (E) or threatened (T) under the Endangered Species Act and depleted (D) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as of 31 December 1998' Common Name Manatees and Dugongs West Indian manatee Amazonian manatee West African manatee Dugong Otters Marine otter Southern sea otter Seals and Sea Lions Hawaiian monk seal Caribbean monk seal Mediterranean monk seal Guadalupe fur seal Northern fur seal Western North Pacific Steller sea lion Eastern North Pacific Steller sea lion Saimaa seal Scientific Name Trichechus manatus Trichechus inunguis Trichechus senegalensis Dugong dugon Lutra felina Enhydra lutris nereis Monachus schauinslandi Monachus tropicalis Monachus monachus Arctocephalus townsendi Callorhinus ursinus Eumetopias jubatus Eumetopias jubatus Phoca hispida saimensis Whales, Porpoises, and Dolphins Baiji Indus river dolphin Vaquita Northeastern offshore spotted dolphin Eastern spinner dolphin Mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin Northern right whale Southern right whale Bowhead whale Humpback whale Blue whale Finback or fin whale Western North Pacific gray whale Sei whale Sperm whale Lipotes vexillifer Platanista minor Phocoena sinus Stenella attenuata Stenella longirostris orientalis Tursiops truncatus Eubalaena glacialis Eubalaena australis Balaena mysticetus Megaptera novaeangliae Balaenoptera musculus Balaenoptera physalus Eschrichtius robustus Balaenoptera borealis Physeter macrocephalus Status E/D D E/D E/D E/D E/D E/D E/D E/D E/D E/D Range Caribbean Sea and North Atlantic from southeastern United States to Brazil; and Greater Antilles Islands Amazon River basin of South America West Africa coasts and rivers; Senegal to Angola Northern Indian Ocean from Madagascar to Indo- nesia; Philippines; Australia; southern China; Palau Western South America; Peru to southern Chile Central California coast Hawaiian Archipelago Caribbean Sea and Bahamas (probably extinct) Mediterranean Sea; northwest African coast Baja California, Mexico, to southern California North Pacific Rim from California to Japan North Pacific Rim from Japan to Prince William Sound, Alaska (east of 144°W longitude) North Pacific Rim from Prince William Sound, Alaska, to California (east of 144°W longitude) Lake Saimaa, Finland Changjiang (Yangtze) River, China Indus River and tributaries, Pakistan Northern Gulf of California, Mexico Eastern tropical Pacific Ocean Eastern tropical Pacific Ocean Atlantic coastal waters from New York to Florida North Atlantic, North Pacific Oceans; Bering Sea South Atlantic, South Pacific, Indian, and Southern Oceans Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas Oceanic, all oceans Oceanic, all oceans Oceanic, all oceans Western North Pacific Ocean Oceanic, all oceans Oceanic, all oceans 1 From Fish and Wildlife Service Regulations at 50 C.F.R. §17.11 and National Marine Fisheries Service Regulations at 50 C.F.R. §216.15. a 4 sures. Even for this population, however, major information gaps exist. The only areas known to be used regularly in winter by more than a few whales are Cape Cod Bay and the population’s only calving grounds in coastal waters off the east coasts of Florida and Georgia. The former area is used by at least a few tens of animals, mostly adults, and the latter area is used by females about to give birth or those with new calves and by some juveniles, which constitute perhaps 10 to 20 percent of the total population. It is not known where the remainder of the population can be found in winter. During non-winter months, most right whale sightings occur in coastal waters off New England and southeastern Canada (i.e., New Bruns- wick and Nova Scotia), where four principal feeding areas have been identified: Cape Cod Bay and the Great South Channel off Massachusetts, the Bay of Fundy just north of the U.S.-Canada border, and the Roseway Basin off southern Nova Scotia. At any one time, the proportion of the population using these areas may be small, and it is not clear whether or where other non-winter feeding areas occur. Over the past 20 years the number of calves born annually has averaged fewer than 12 and has shown no sign of increasing. Between 1993 and 1997 annual calf counts were 6, 9, 7, 22, and 20. Preliminary data suggest that only 6 calves were born in 1998, one of which was found dead. Data for the past 10 years also suggest that the calving interval for mature females has increased from less than four years to nearly six years, implying that reproduction rates are declining. These data and trends raise grave doubts about the survival of this population. Any increase in mortality beyond natural levels, even the death of a few additional animals, may be the difference between recovery and decline toward a point where recovery is impossible. There are two principal causes of human-related right whale death and injury in the western North Atlantic: collisions with ships and entanglement in commercial fishing gear. From 1970 through 1998, 43 dead right whales have been confirmed by direct observation along the east coasts of the United States and Canada. Of these, 13 were killed by ships, 2 by entanglement in fishing gear, and 2 others were entangled in fishing gear when struck and killed by ships. Thus, at least 40 percent (17 of 43 carcasses) Chapter II — Species of Special Concern of all confirmed deaths since 1970 are attributable to human factors. As suggested in previous annual reports, perhaps two-thirds of all right whale deaths are never observed. If the proportion of deaths due to human causes is the same for both observed and unobserved deaths, human factors would be responsi- ble for nearly doubling right whale mortality. Such an increase could explain why the western North Atlantic right whale population has shown little evidence of recovery. The National Marine Fisheries Service has lead responsibility for the recovery of northern right whales under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. At the recommendation of the Marine Mammal Commission, the Service developed a northern right whale recovery plan that was adopted in 1991. The plan lists research and management actions needed to promote the recovery of right whale populations in U.S. waters. Because right whale sightings in the eastern North Pacific are so sparse (about 30 sightings of one or two animals each scattered between Alaska, California, and Hawaii in the 20 years before plan development), it was determined that research and management tasks for the eastern North Pacific population were impractical. The plan therefore focused available resources on recovery of the western North Atlantic population. One of the first steps taken by the National Marine Fisheries Service to implement a recovery program for the western North Atlantic population was to form two regional implementation teams: one along the southeastern U.S. coast and the other for the north- eastern U.S. coastal waters. The southeastern team was established in 1993 to help oversee protection of right whales using the calving area off Florida and Georgia, and the northeastern team, which also helps coordinate recovery of humpback whales, was estab- lished in 1994 to coordinate right whale protection in feeding areas off New England. Each team includes representatives of regional offices of federal agencies, state agencies, relevant industry groups, environmen- tal organizations, and research organizations involved in funding or carrying out right whale recovery work. Federal and state agencies participating on one or both teams include the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, the Marine Mammal Commission, the MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 National Marine Fisheries Service, the Navy, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the Massa- chusetts Division of Fisheries, and the Massachusetts Port Authority. Non-governmental participants include the Center for Coastal Studies, the New England Aquarium, the Humane Society of the United States, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Massachusetts Environmental Trust, the University of Georgia, and the University of Rhode Island. Offi- cials from Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans also participate regularly to help ensure that related programs in Canada are coordinated as effec- tively as possible. Between July 1995 and March 1996 eight dead right whales were found, including five in the first three months of 1996, on the species’ calving grounds. This focused intense attention on the need to strengthen recovery efforts. To help identify priority needs, the Commission reviewed the right whale recovery program during its annual meeting on 12-14 November 1996. Recovery efforts increased substantially between 1996 and 1998 and, in view of that progress and new information, the Commission held another review of the right whale recovery program during its 1998 annual meeting held in Portland, Maine, on 10-12 November. Recent developments and results of the Commission’s 1998 review are described below. Right Whale Mortalities and Injuries in 1998 During 1998 two dead right whales were observed. The first was a female calf found floating off St. Simons Island, Georgia, on 10 January by a right whale aerial survey team. Within a few hours the Coast Guard had a vessel on site to tow the animal ashore. Necropsy results indicate that the calf died of natural causes during or shortly after birth. Without the Coast Guard’s rapid response, it would not have been possible to retrieve the animal and assess the cause of death, and on 23 February 1998 the Commis- sion wrote to the Coast Guard to commend its staff for the prompt response. The second dead animal, an adult male, washed ashore near the Virginia—North Carolina border. Already badly decomposed when found on 7 October 1998, it had several fractured vertebrae, possibly caused by a ship collision. At the end of 1998 laboratory tests to determine if the bone fractures occurred before or after death had not been completed and the cause of death was uncertain. Two other right whales were entangled in fishing gear in 1998. One, a seven-year-old male, became entangled on three separate occasions. It had previ- ously been seen entangled in August 1997 in the Bay of Fundy with fishing gear wrapped around its tail stock. At that time, the entanglement did not appear serious and no attempt was made to disentangle it. In July 1998, however, the animal was resighted in Cape Cod Bay still entangled and with deep gashes cut into its tail flukes by the attached rope. A disentanglement team from the Center for Coastal Studies successfully removed the ropes on 24 July, but the animal became entangled two more times in Cape Cod Bay. On 12 September it was found entangled with rope and line from a lobster pot in its mouth. The Center’s disen- tanglement team removed the material. Two days later, the animal was found immobilized by a string of 15 lobster pots and barely able to keep its head above water (see Figure 1). The Center’s disentanglement team again freed the animal. The second entangled whale was seen by a re- searcher in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada, on 15 August. It was followed for several hours, during which time it was able to free itself. In addition to these entanglements, two right whales became trapped simultaneously in a fishing weir in the Bay of Fundy, Canada, on 13 July. Both were released unharmed by fishermen. In addition to the two entanglements, a one-year- old animal was sighted in January 1998 off the southeastern U.S. coast with half of its tail fluke severed by a ship’s propeller. Although it is not known when or where the animal was struck, it previously had been seen with no injury in the Bay of Fundy in September 1997. It was subsequently resighted in Cape Cod Bay in February and March 1998 and again in August and September 1998 in the Bay of Fundy. While it appeared to be in satisfactory condition, the injury may compromise its swimming ability and reduce its long-term chances for survival. Information on right whale deaths and injuries indi- cates that calves and juveniles are far more likely than ye _ oo - Y re. . Sf 4 Py ns e ‘2 ™ r 7 o — ——— ~ [oe oo Chapter II — Species of Special Concern Figure 1. Right whale found entangled in lobster fishing gear in Cape Cod Bay on 14 September 1998. (Photograph courtesy of Center for Coastal Studies, Provincetown, Massachusetts) adults to become entangled or to be struck by ships. Preliminary results of a study sponsored by the Commission in 1998 (see Chapter VIII) report evi- dence of at least 50 serious injuries (including 17 confirmed deaths) caused by ship collisions or entan- glement between 1970 and 1998. Of these, 27 (54 percent) were calves or juveniles, 6 (12 percent) were adults, and 17 (34 percent) were of unknown age. The results suggest that reducing ship collisions and entanglements in areas frequented by juveniles and females with calves merits special attention. Collisions between Right Whales and Ships Since 1970 nearly 90 percent (15 of 17) of all human-related right whale deaths confirmed by direct observation have been attributed to ship collisions. Massive propeller slashes, severed tail stocks, and crushed skulls indicate that large, rather than small, vessels were responsible. The proportion of ship strikes among total observed mortality (15 of 43 deaths) is much higher than that observed among other stranded whales, suggesting that right whales may be more vulnerable to ship strikes than other large whales. This may be due to common right whale behavior, such as logging (resting quietly at the surface), skim feeding, nursing, and mating that occur at the surface, and the species’ preference for coastal waters where vessel traffic is greatest. When engaged in such behavior, right whales often appear oblivious to approaching ships. In addition, right whale calves have limited diving ability and spend most of their time at or near the surface. Actions to reduce the likelihood of ship strikes therefore have received particular attention. For several reasons, this has proven to be a difficult management challenge. First, given vessel traffic through right whale habitat and the small number of right whales, collisions with right whales are rare from a mariner’s perspective. Second, such events are unintentional. They appear to involve whales that MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 either were not seen in front of a ship or were not seen in time to avoid the collision. In this regard, large vessels under way have a limited ability to change course or speed within distances of a few thousand yards. Third, it is often impossible to see whales beyond a few hundred yards (e.g., in fog, at night, or when whales are submerged). To meet this challenge, efforts have been focused on the following approaches: (1) modifying operating procedures for government vessels that frequently transit key right whale habitats; (2) establishing early warning systems to advise vessel operators of the location of whales on a real-time basis and on the need for special caution; (3) preparing educational materials for mariners on the need and ways to avoid hitting right whales with ships; (4) developing manda- tory ship reporting systems in key right whale habi- tats; and (5) conducting research to better understand and mitigate collision risks. Vessel Operating Procedures — The U.S. Navy, the Coast Guard, and the Army Corps of Engineers routinely operate vessels in waters where right whales occur. The Navy has several major installations, including the Kings Bay Submarine Base and the Mayport Naval Station, adjacent to the right whale calving grounds off Florida and Georgia; the Coast Guard carries out enforcement and search and rescue missions throughout the right whale’s range along the U.S. Atlantic coast; and the Corps of Engineers oversees the operation of dredges in ship channels extending into the right whale calving grounds. Each of these agencies, in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, has developed vessel operating directives to reduce the risk of hitting right whales while continuing to meet their respective missions. In so doing, these agencies have helped to define new standards of prudent seamanship with regard to operating large vessels in essential right whale habitats. The Corps of Engineers was the first agency to establish special measures to protect right whales. Some dredges transporting dredged spoil to offshore disposal sites are capable of speeds approaching 15 knots. Since 1989 the Corps has required that dredg- es operating in the right whale calving area during the calving season (December through March) post a lookout trained in detecting right whales. If a right whale is seen, the dredge must slow to 5 knots. This speed also is to be maintained when a right whale has been reported within 15 miles (24 km) of a dredge’s transit corridor during the previous 24 hours and when transiting at night or during other periods of limited visibility (e.g., fog). Special operating directives to protect right whales were issued for Navy and Coast Guard vessels in 1996. As with Corps dredges, the Navy has directed that its vessels operating in the right whale calving area during the calving season must post a lookout trained in identifying right whales. Ifa right whale is seen from the ship or reported within 5 miles (8 km) of a ship’s position during the previous 12 hours, the vessel is to slow to a speed below normal safe operat- ing speeds (e.g., less than 15 knots) and, if necessary, to slow to the minimum speed needed to control the vessel’s course. To ensure that its vessel operators are aware of recent right whale sighting reports, all Navy ships entering the area’s designated right whale critical habitat plus a buffer area 5 nautical miles (nmi) wide around the critical habitat, must contact the Navy’s Fleet Activities Control and Surveillance Facility before doing so. The facility, which serves as a clearinghouse for the regional right whale early warning system (see below), relays whale sighting locations as they are received and, based on these sightings, may issue special whale protection recom- mendations to Navy ships in the area. In addition, the Navy has issued other directives applicable to its ships during the calving season. These include prohibiting north-south transits of the calving area to minimize travel distance through areas where right whales are most abundant; avoiding vessel approaches closer than 500 yards (457 m) to right whales; to the extent possible, limiting night transits through the calving area; moving gunnery and bomb- ing ranges farther offshore and away from the desig- nated critical habitat and the associated buffer area; requiring that gunnery and bombing exercises use inert ordnance; and limiting vessel exercises within the critical habitat and the buffer area to those that can be conducted at very slow speed. To reduce the chances that its vessels might hit a right whale, the Coast Guard has directed its cutters Chapter II — Species of Special Concern and boats to use extreme caution when transiting right whale critical habitat, migratory routes, or high-use areas. Unless engaged in disentangling a whale, the Coast Guard also directed its vessels to avoid ap- proaches closer than 500 yards (457 m) to rights whales and 100 yards (91 m) to all other whales. In non-emergency situations, Coast Guard vessels are to reduce speed as appropriate in these areas and to consider additional speed reductions when a whale is sighted from the vessel or known to be within five nautical miles of a ship’s position. To date, other than promulgating a rule prohibiting approaches closer than 500 yards to right whales, little has been done to encourage similar operating proce- dures by commercial vessels. Therefore, on 12 December 1996 the Commission wrote to the National Marine Fisheries Service recommending that it under- take a project to work with major shipping companies operating in ports adjacent to key right whale habitats. In part, it recommended that the Service develop cooperative agreements with key shipping companies to identify and implement voluntary measures to reduce the risk of hitting right whales by doing such things as posting lookouts to watch for right whales and providing extra time so that vessels can use slower speeds when transiting areas in which right whales are most likely to occur. To provide extra transit time, the Commission suggested exploring options to adjust travel schedules or slightly increase speed on voyage legs through waters where right whales are not likely to occur. The recommendation was endorsed by both implementation teams and the Commission offered to provide partial funding for the project. The Service attempted to obtain partial funding from the Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans to include ports in Canada, but the Depart- ment was unable to do so and the Service deferred the project late in 1998. At the end of 1998, it was the Commission’s understanding that the Service would provide support for the effort in 1999. Early Warning Systems — In ocean areas where right whales and ships are most likely to interact, cooperating agencies and research groups have orga- nized early warning systems to alert transiting ships of the presence of right whales and the need for special precautions. Two such systems have been established along the U.S. Atlantic coast: one for the popula- tion’s calving grounds off Florida and Georgia and the other for right whale feeding areas off Massachusetts. Both systems rely on reports of whale locations from aerial survey teams and opportunistic vessel-based observations. The sighting locations are relayed to area ships as quickly as possible through a regional sightings clearinghouse. The southeastern early warning system, begun in 1994, is a cooperative, multi-agency effort that has been strengthened steadily over the past four years. Its core is an aerial survey program conducted under contract with the New England Aquarium and jointly funded by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and the Navy. The surveys are flown daily (weather permitting) over a core area in the northern half of the calving grounds from 1 December to 1 April. They follow 22 tracklines spaced 3 nmi apart and extending perpendicular to about 17 nmi offshore from about St. Augustine, Florida, to 10 miles north of Brunswick, Georgia. Supplemental surveys funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service are flown one or more times a week north, south, and seaward of the core area by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and the Florida Department of Environ- mental Protection. In addition, the Navy has support- ed surveys of offshore waters. As noted above, the Navy’s Fleet Activities Con- trol and Surveillance Facility serves as the regional clearinghouse for all sightings by survey teams as well as by other sources, such as vessel operators and the public. It immediately relays confirmed sighting locations to the Coast Guard, port pilots, and Corps of Engineers dredges, as well as to Navy vessels. The Coast Guard, in turn, broadcasts sighting loca- tions to commercial vessels via a radio teletype communication system (NAVTEX) and voice radio (Broadcast Notice to Mariners). Through close coordi- nation, the time between most initial sightings and the broadcast of advisories to ships has been reduced to about 5 to 15 minutes. The role of the Navy’s Fleet Activities Control and Surveillance Facility in dissemi- nating sighting reports has been particularly important in improving the efficiency of the regional early warning system. The voluntary acceptance of this task and the diligent work by its involved staff have made the Facility a much appreciated and indispens- able component of the regional effort to protect right MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 whales. In recognition of these efforts, the Commis- sion wrote to the Navy on 26 May 1997 commending the Facility’s staff members responsible for establish- ing and operating the regional right whale sightings clearinghouse. During the winter of 1997-1998, the core survey program completed surveys on 69 percent of the days, about 48 percent of which were conducted in good survey conditions (i.e., Beaufort sea state 3 or less). Fewer whales were sighted compared with previous years. There were 44 sightings of 26 individual whales plus five mother-calf pairs. The northeastern early warning system, begun in 1996, focuses on right whale feeding areas in Cape Cod Bay in late winter and spring and the Great South Channel in spring. It too is a cooperative multi- agency effort. Funding has been provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Coast Guard, the Massachusetts Department of Wildlife and Envi- ronmental Law Enforcement, and the Massachusetts Environmental Trust. Most of the survey effort in Cape Cod Bay has been made by researchers with the Center for Coastal Studies and the National Marine Fisheries Service; most survey effort in the Great South Channel has been that of Service researchers. Sightings from survey teams as well as other reliable sources (e.g., whale-watching boats and Coast Guard vessels and aircraft) are reported to a central clearing- house maintained by the National Marine Fisheries Service. These reports are then relayed to Coast Guard communications operators, the Army Corps of Engineers Cape Cod Canal vessel traffic control system, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather radio for broadcast to vessel operators. The northeastern program differs from the south- eastern program in several ways. The northeastern survey area is substantially larger (350 track miles in Cape Cod Bay and 4,300 track miles in the Great South Channel), it includes waters much farther offshore, and sighting conditions are often worse. For these and other reasons, surveys are usually flown no more than twice a week. The surveys also pro- duce more sightings. To manage the number of broadcast alerts, to account for whale movements after a sighting is made, and to avoid direct approaches by 10 curious vessel operators, the whale advisories broad- cast in the northeast have cited the coordinates of a rectangle whose size varies depending on the number and density of concurrent whale sightings. Late in 1998 this was changed to describe a circle around a single point with the radius length varying depending on the number and distribution of concurrent sight- ings. In the first six months of 1998, more than 100 sighting reports of one or more right whales were made by the survey teams. Also, because right whale sightings occur year-round in the area, opportunistic sighting reports are tracked and broadcast throughout the year. Observer teams in the northeastern early warning system also surveyed other areas to confirm opportu- nistic sighting reports. This effort verified reports of a large concentration of right whales (at least 26 animals) in April in the ship channel off Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. The observations may have been a unique occurrence or, alternatively, they may reflect a spring feeding area whose importance has not previously been recognized. Education and Awareness Materials — Initial efforts to inform mariners of right whale protection needs were made by the recovery plan implementation teams discussed above. Among other things, they developed flyers, brochures, and videos, and held meetings with shipping agents and port officials. Over the past two years the International Fund for Animal Welfare, in consultation with the Commission, the Service, regional implementation teams, and representatives of the maritime community, expanded these education and outreach efforts by developing material on right whales to be added to regional navigation charts and United States Coast Pilots published by the National Ocean Service. The charts and Coast Pilots are basic references designed to inform mariners of environmental conditions, naviga- tion features, and general knowledge required to navigate safely within the geographic area covered. The additions to nautical charts cite relevant regulations prohibiting approaches to right whales closer than 500 yards and mark the boundaries of designated critical habitats. Additions to the regional Coast Pilots provide information on the status of right whales, how to identify them, and where they are Chapter II — Species of Special Concern likely to occur. They also provide excerpts from relevant regulations and advice on how to avoid hitting whales. Among other points, they note that vessel operators should not assume that whales will avoid ships, but should keep a sharp watch for right whales, listen for whale advisory broadcasts, remain at least 500 yards from right whales, and be aware that reduced speeds will likely reduce the chance of hitting right whales as well as other whales. The Commission helped draft the new material, and on 30 September 1998 the National Marine Fisheries Service wrote to the Commission advising that the National Ocean Service had published new editions of Coast Pilots 1 and 2 for the northeastern U.S. coast in May 1998 and that new editions of Coast Pilots 3 and 4 for the mid-Atlantic and south- eastern coast would be published in 1999. They also noted that 27 nautical charts would need to be changed and that, as they are reissued over the next several years, references to right whale rules and the boundaries of critical habitats would be shown on each chart. In addition, the International Fund for Animal Welfare has developed a brochure, placard, and short film for distribution to mariners. The brochure and placard, initially intended for use in New England, were completed in 1997 and include information similar to that being added to the charts and Coast Pilots. They were subsequently modified to apply to both New England and the southeastern U.S. coast, and in 1998 the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Coast Guard, and the Massachusetts Port Authori- ty jointly provided funds for printing and distribution. Also in 1998 the International Fund for Animal Welfare began development of a short film on right whale protection needs intended for distribution to operators of large vessels calling at east coast ports. The film, jointly funded by the agencies cited above plus the Navy, Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Massachusetts Environmental Trust, and the Gulf of Maine Council, is expected to be distribut- ed in 1999. Also in 1999 the Coast Guard expects to revise its examination for maritime licenses, which are required for professional mariners, to include ques- tions on right whale protection needs. 11 Mandatory Ship Reporting System — As noted above, the Navy has directed that its vessels transiting the right whale calving grounds contact its Fleet Activities Control and Surveillance Facility before entering the area to obtain recent whale sighting reports and related recommendations. The measure helps ensure that its vessel operators are reminded of the need for special vigilance and caution regarding right whales. The Navy also restricts north-south travel through the calving grounds to the extent possible to minimize travel distances through areas where right whales are most likely to occur. Similar measures have not been established for commercial ships operating in the same area, although the need to do so has been recognized. In this regard, the International Maritime Organiza- tion (IMO), a specialized agency of the United Na- tions, provides a forum for countries to address management needs related to international shipping. The U.S. Coast Guard has lead responsibility for representing the United States at IMO meetings. As discussed below, in December 1998 the IMO unani- mously approved a mandatory ship reporting system to provide mariners with information to help reduce the risk of hitting right whales. Given the relevance of IMO responsibilities for international shipping, the Marine Mammal Commis- sion determined that the IMO should be advised of the conservation issues involving collisions between ships and right whales and the possible need for action. Therefore, the Commission, in consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, drafted an information paper for submission to the IMO. The draft paper described the effects of ship traffic on right whales, the steps being taken by the United States to address the problem, and the possible need to apply IMO measures, such as those for ship routing and mandatory ship reporting, to help mitigate vessel-related impacts on right whales. The draft paper was transmitted jointly to the Coast Guard by the two agencies and, after further revision, it was submitted for consideration at the 40th session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee on 18-25 September 1997. To ensure that vessel operators are aware of right whale protection needs, related advice in Coast Pilots, MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 and broadcasts of right whale sightings, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined that immediate steps should be taken to develop a mandatory ship reporting system for the right whale calving grounds off the southeastern U.S. coast and key feeding areas off Massachusetts. Therefore, in 1997 the Service began developing a proposal and action paper to the IMO for a mandatory ship report- ing system covering the key shipping corridors in both areas. Its efforts were undertaken in consultation with the Commission, the Coast Guard, and the regional implementation teams, and with technical assistance from the International Fund for Animal Welfare. The system proposed by the Service would require all commercial ships greater than 300 gross tons to contact a shore station for information on right whales as the vessel enters defined areas around the calving grounds off Florida and Georgia and feeding areas off Massachusetts. | These areas encompass critical habitats and adjacent waters where right whales are likely to occur and also include major shipping lanes. Because about 90 percent of all commercial vessels greater than 300 gross tons carry equipment for INMARSAT communications — a satellite communi- cations system that transmits telex messages to ships around the world — it was decided to develop an automated reporting system using the INMARSAT communications system. The system would work as follows. When enter- ing either of the two designated areas, the ship would be required to contact a shore station via INMARSAT and provide its call sign, position, course, speed, and destination. This information will be used to help evaluate ship strike risks. Upon contact, the shore station would automatically send a response noting the importance of the area for right whales, the need for special caution to avoid hitting right whales, the availability of related advice in Coast Pilots, current information on right whale sighting locations, and the need to monitor NAVTEX and other broadcasts for any new right whale advisories. The few large vessels without INMARSAT communication equip- ment would be required to report via voice radio to receive the same message. To date, fewer than 10 ship reporting systems have been approved by the IMO worldwide. In each case 12 the purpose has been to enhance navigational safety or to increase protection of the marine environment from pollution. Using the measure to protect an individual endangered species was therefore a novel application that raised concern that other countries might propose similar systems to protect less endangered species and thereby cause a proliferation of ship reporting systems that would infringe on navigational freedom. The National Security Council and the Council on Envi- ronmental Quality examined this possibility closely. To address this concern, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s proposal was revised to explain the particularly unusual and urgent needs that prompted its action. In doing so, it set forth the high standards considered necessary to proceed with a mandatory ship reporting system to protect the highly endangered northern right whale. With this clarifica- tion, and strong support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Marine Mammal Commission, and certain other agencies, President Clinton on 23 April 1998 instructed U.S. representa- tives to the IMO to seek approval of the proposed mandatory ship reporting system. IMO approval of ship reporting systems is a two- step process. Proposals first must be approved by the IMO Subcommittee on Safety of Navigation and then by the Maritime Safety Committee. As directed by the President, the Coast Guard submitted an action paper drafted by the National Oceanic and Atmospher- ic Administration, in consultation with other agencies, including the Marine Mammal Commission, for the 44th session of the Subcommittee on Safety of Navi- gation held on 20-24 July 1998. An information paper based on the initial draft prepared by the Marine Mammal Commission for the 1997 meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee also was submitted to provide background. Delegations of some countries expressed concern about the possible proliferation of reporting systems to protect individual species. However, the U.S. delegation, led by the Coast Guard and including a representative of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, succeeded in securing the approval. A discussion of the unusual circumstances necessitating use of the measure to protect northern right whales was included in the subcommittee’s report and the proposal was referred to the 70th session of the Maritime Safety Committee scheduled for 7-11 December 1998. Chapter II — Species of Special Concern On 3 December 1998 the Marine Mammal Com- mission wrote to commend the Coast Guard for its efforts to secure approval of the proposal by the IMO subcommittee and to recommend that it place a high priority on obtaining approval by the Maritime Safety Committee. Coast Guard and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officials attending the meeting did so and, on 7 December 1998, the com- mittee adopted the proposal unanimously. The committee’s meeting report called for implementing the reporting system by 1 July 1999 and conducting a review of its effectiveness within three to five years. Recognizing concerns about the possible proliferation of ship reporting systems to protect individual species, the report expressed the committee’s view that such systems may be warranted to protect individual species when there is clear evidence of direct physical impacts from ships on that species, the impacts constitute the species’ greatest known threat, the species is in imminent danger of extinction, and the affected area is essential habitat through which major shipping routes pass. To clarify domestic authority for the mandatory ship reporting system, the U.S. Congress also amend- ed section 11 of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. The amendment, included in the Coast Guard Authori- zation Act of 1998 passed in December, provides the Coast Guard with explicit authority to implement and enforce the mandatory ship reporting system in cooperation with the IMO. At the end of 1998 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Coast Guard were developing arrangements to implement the ship reporting system by 1 July 1999. Ship Collision-Related Research — Early in 1998 the Marine Mammal Commission learned that a high- speed catamaran had been purchased to replace a conventional ferry that ran between Bar Harbor, Maine, and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. The new ferry, scheduled to begin operating in June 1998, was to run at speeds of up to 42 knots (48 miles per hour) across the Gulf of Maine through waters used by right whales to reach preferred feeding and nursery areas in the Bay of Fundy. Some right whales also occasional- ly feed in waters along the ferry route. Given the vessel’s speed and its operation during periods of poor 13 visibility (e.g., in fog or at night), concern was raised in both the United States and Canada that it would not always be possible to avoid whales. Concern also was raised about the vessel’s engine noise and its effect on whale distribution and movements. Neither U.S. nor Canadian vessel certification requirements involve an assessment of environmental impacts associated with routine vessel operation. However, given plans for the new ferry and similar plans to introduce other high-speed vessels off New England, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Northeast Implementation Team, the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the New England Aquarium jointly convened a workshop on 11 May 1998 to review plans for new high-speed vessels, their possible effects on whales, and related research needs. In response to concerns about possible effects on whales, the Canadian company operating the Bar Harbor-Yarmouth ferry voluntarily contracted for research and monitoring studies to help assess the risk of interactions between whales and the new ferry. The studies included placing a trained whale observer aboard the vessel to assess the crew’s ability to detect and avoid whales, and a study to assess noise levels produced by the ferry. On 6 July 1998 the Commission commented to the ferry operator’s contractor on its research efforts. The letter commended the constructive efforts being taken by the ferry operator and the contractor to examine the issue and suggested that they consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service and other agencies to design and carry out certain complementa- ry studies to improve the ability to evaluate the research results. The letter also suggested establishing a protocol of steps to be followed in the event a whale is known or thought to have been struck (e.g., report- ing the accident to officials and making efforts to verify the species and condition of the animal). The letter also expressed serious doubt that the ferry operator would be able to detect and avoid any right whales when traveling at the high speeds at which the ferry would operate, particularly given the frequency of dense fog and severe weather along the route. The Commission also wrote to the National Marine Fisheries Service on 10 July sending a copy of its comments to the contractor and offering related MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 recommendations. In its letter to the Service, the Commission recommended that it consult with the vessel operator to develop a protocol on steps to be taken if a whale is struck. The Commission also noted that the potential for hitting whales was not unique to the new ferry, and that if the risk is related to vessel speed, which seems likely, then the potential for hitting whales could increase as the number of high-speed vessels increases. The Commission therefore concluded that there was an urgent need to assess factors related to the likelihood of whales being hit by high-speed as well as conventional vessels. In this regard, the Commission noted that whales could be vulnerable to ship strikes for one of three reasons: (1) they are unable to detect approaching ships when they are at the surface in front of an ap- proaching vessel; (2) they are able to detect ships but fail to recognize the danger and take no action to avoid them; or (3) they are able to detect ships and recognize the danger, but they cannot react in time to avoid being hit. These alternative hypotheses would be a useful point from which to begin investigating factors related to ship strikes, and the Commission recommended that the Service consult with the ferry operator and its contractor, as well as the Coast Guard and the Navy, to design and cooperatively fund studies to determine sound levels likely to reach whales in front of various classes of commercial and military ships, and the responses of different whale species to those sounds. The National Marine Fisheries Service replied by letter of 3 October 1998 noting that it was working with the ferry operator’s contractor to evaluate the ability of onboard observers to detect whales, to examine data on the occurrence of whales along the ferry’s route, and to develop a protocol for reporting and searching for whales that may be hit by the ferry. The Service also noted that, within funding con- straints, it would consider support for the recommend- ed studies to examine noise levels and whale behavior in front of different types of ships. Another fundamental research need is to improve the detection of right whales in order to warn ships of their presence. As noted above, early warning systems established for this purpose currently rely on aerial observers. Given the length of time whales are 14 submerged, aerial observers can detect only about 50 percent of the whales present along a survey track, even under the best of conditions. The frequency of poor sighting conditions, the size of areas where right whales may occur, and bad weather further restrict detection by aerial surveys. Recognizing these limits and the importance of finding a better means to detect whales, the Navy took the initiative to examine the use of fixed and towed hydrophone arrays to detect whales by triangulating the position of vocalizing whales. Although the results of research conducted in 1996 in the calving grounds demonstrated an ability to locate some animals, whales did not vocalize frequent- ly enough for the approach to be useful. On 10 July 1997 the Commission wrote to com- mend the Navy for its past efforts and initiative. Because of the limited success of passive acoustic technology, the Commission asked the Navy to consider support for studies to assess the use of active sonar to detect whales. In this regard, the Commis- sion suggested studying the feasibility of placing active sonar units along a ship channel to detect the presence of whales. The Navy expressed a willing- ness to consider this request and, to help determine the merits and scope of such research, the Commis- sion wrote to the Navy on 12 November 1997 sug- gesting that a workshop be held to define what, if any, research might be warranted. The Navy sought further advice on organizing such a workshop from an interagency coordinating committee on ocean noise that includes representatives from the Navy, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Commission, the Minerals Management Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. A workshop, scheduled for early October 1998, had to be canceled for procedural reasons and, as of the end of 1998, it was the Com- mission’s understanding that the Navy planned to schedule a new meeting early in 1999. As a related matter, scientists with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center participated in a study in 1998 that demonstrat- ed an ability to detect whales with active sonar. Entanglement of Right Whales in Fishing Gear The second principal source of human-related right whale mortality and injury is entanglement in com- Chapter II — Species of Special Concern mercial fishing gear. Although only two of 43 con- firmed deaths since 1970 have been attributed solely to entanglement and only two other entangled whales were struck and killed by a ship, the low number of confirmed entanglement deaths is believed to under- represent the threat that commercial fishing gear poses to right whales in the western North Atlantic Ocean. An analysis of scars seen on photographs of individual right whales indicates that more than 60 percent of the population has been entangled at some time in fishing gear. In addition, eight whales were last seen with potentially fatal entanglements or related injuries and may have died, and 14 other whales have been photographed with serious, although non-fatal, injuries caused by entanglements. Based on gear removed from entangled animals, most interactions appear to involve gillnets and lines associated with lobster traps. To address entanglement threats, the National Marine Fisheries Service formed the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team on 6 August 1996. Established pursuant to the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the team was charged with developing and subsequently reviewing the effectiveness of take reduction plans to reduce incidental take levels for right whales, as well as humpback, fin, and minke whales along the U.S. east coast. Measures set forth in the plan are required to reduce incidental take levels below a potential biologi- cal removal level calculated separately for each affected whale population. The team includes repre- sentatives of involved fisheries, environmental groups, state and federal agencies (including the Marine Mammal Commission), and the academic community. The fisheries of concern to the team are the east coast lobster fishery, the New England sink gillnet fishery, the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery, and the southeastern U.S. shark gillnet fishery. The potential biological removal level is calculated using a formula intended to estimate the maximum number of animals that can be removed from a stock (not including natural mortality) and still ensure that it remains at or increases toward its optimum sustain- able population level. For right whales in the western North Atlantic Ocean, the Service has calculated this number to be 0.4 whales per year. Given the critical status of the right whale population and the fact that it is the only large whale population along the east 15 coast whose entanglement rate exceeds the calculated potential biological removal level, the team devoted virtually all of its attention to right whales. To reduce the incidental take of right whales to less than one whale per year, the team considered mea- sures in three areas: (1) fishing restrictions in key habitats where right whales and gear are most likely to occur; (2) the identification and use of fishing gear designs thought to be less likely to entangle whales (e.g., gear with breakaway links or light line from which whales might break free); and (3) efforts to detect entangled whales and remove the attached gear. Although the team was required to develop a plan within six months that all members could support, it was unable to agree on a set of measures to meet the required objective. The most contentious issues involved the extent of seasonal time-area fishing closures and requirements for gear thought to be less likely to entangle whales. Therefore, on 3 February 1997 the team submitted a report to the National Marine Fisheries Service identifying those areas of agreement and of disagreement. After considering the team’s report, the Service developed a proposed take reduction plan incorporat- ing measures in each of the three areas considered by the team. The proposed plan, published in the Feder- al Register on 7 April 1997, included gear design requirements that would have required most New England lobster fishermen to purchase new line or buoy systems intended to reduce entanglement risks. The measures, however, elicited strong opposition from affected fishermen because of the cost and the questionable likelihood that whales would encounter fishing gear in all areas. In the Marine Mammal Commission’s 5 June 1997 comments on the proposed plan, it noted that gear design requirements were largely untested and based on questionable assump- tions. It therefore recommended that most gear design restrictions be deferred pending further re- search. To achieve some of the risk reduction that had been anticipated from the gear design require- ments, it recommended strengthening time-area fishing closures within right whale critical habitats. On 22 July 1997 the Service published an interim final take reduction plan that eliminated most of the proposed gear design requirements pending further MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 studies. It also called for increased efforts to detect and disentangle whales. It did not strengthen the time-area fishing closures for designated critical habitats beyond those in its April proposal. A more detailed description of these developments is included in the Commission’s annual report for 1997. At the end of 1998, the Service was preparing a final rule to implement its take reduction plan and a meeting of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team was scheduled to review recent Service actions. Some of the actions taken in 1998 are briefly described below. Research on Fishing Gear Designs — To identify and develop fishing gear less likely to entangle whales, the Service formed a gear advisory group in 1997. Based on its recommendations the Service provided approximately $130,000 for a series of studies in 1998. Most studies were directed toward designing gillnets and lobster gear from which whales might break free and thereby avoid injuries and deaths associated with lengthy periods of entanglement. They included studies to identify the components of fishing gear most likely to entangle whales, the parts of a whale’s anatomy most likely to become entangled and how this occurs, the profiles of line and other gear components in the water, the breaking strength of various gear components currently in use, the mini- mum breaking strength necessary for those compo- nents to function effectively in different fishing situations, the forces that whales of different sizes might exert against those gear components if they became entangled, and possible designs and applica- tions for weak links that would allow gear to function properly while also increasing the ability of whales to escape unentangled. Other approaches being consid- ered include the use of degradable line and designs for remote acoustical release buoy systems that would keep gear marking buoys at the bottom until the gear is ready to be retrieved. As of the end of 1998 some promising approaches had been identified for further field testing. Disentanglement Efforts — Using techniques developed in Canada to disentangle humpback whales, a team of scientists with the Center for Coastal Studies in Provincetown, Massachusetts, began attempts to disentangle right whales early in the 1990s. To date the team has disentangled four right whales, one of which, as noted above, was disentan- gled three times during 1998 (see Figure 2). To expand such capabilities to areas other than southern New England, the Service’s take reduction plan called for purchasing additional disentanglement equipment, training other entanglement response teams, and holding a series of outreach workshops for fishermen. For these purposes, the Service provided approxi- mately $145,000 in 1998. The outreach workshops conducted in 1998 were held principally in Maine. They sought commitments from fishermen to promptly report observations of entangled whales and, if possible, to remain with the animals until a disentan- glement team arrived. The workshops were well attended, and plans are being made to hold additional workshops in other east coast states. Disentanglement equipment is being purchased for placement at strate- gic locations and arrangements have been made with the Coast Guard to transport disentanglement teams at a moment’s notice to rescue any right whale reported as entangled. Time-Area Fishery Management Measures — As noted above, the Service’s interim final take reduction plan includes time-area fishing restrictions for each of the three critical habitats designated for right whales along the U.S. east coast. These areas include Cape Cod Bay and the Great South Channel off Massachu- setts and the calving grounds off Florida and Georgia. Regulations for the Cape Cod Bay critical habitat close the entire area to gillnet fishing from 1 January through 31 May. This period includes the peak period of right whale occurrence in the bay. Lobster fishing during this period is permitted subject to certain gear design requirements, such as stringing at least four traps to each buoy and using a weak link between the buoy and buoy line that would detach when pulled with a force of 1,100 pounds or greater. For the Great South Channel, the entire critical habitat is closed to lobster fishing from 1 April to 30 June, which is the peak period of right whale occur- rence in that area. Géillnet fishing also is prohibited during this period in most of the critical habitat; however, the principal gillnet fishing area within the critical habitat — an area along its western boundary — is open to fishing provided that gillnets meet Chapter II — Species of Special Concern Figure 2. Unidentified fishing gear being removed from a right whale found entangled in Cape Cod Bay on 14 July 1998. (Photograph courtesy of Center for Coastal Studies, Provincetown, Massachusetts) certain gear design requirements. For the calving area off Florida and Georgia, fishing with drift gillnets is prohibited from 1 November through 31 March. This is the only time right whales are present in those waters. In most cases, the fishing closures apply during times when almost no fishing traditionally occurs. For example, in Cape Cod Bay the January-May gillnet fishing closure applies to a period when virtually no gillnet fishing takes place. Similarly, closure of the lobster fishery in the Great South Channel coincides with a period when no lobster fishing has occurred in that area. Conversely, when low levels of fishing effort in critical habitats have coincided with periods of peak whale occurrence, the regulations typically allow fishing to continue or increase subject to certain gear requirements that incorporate design features already in common use. Thus, with the possible exception of the calving area, it seems doubtful that the plan’s time-area manage- 17 ment measures will substantially alter existing fishing gear or fishing practices in ways that would reduce entanglement risks to right whales. Establishing a National Whale Conservation Fund In November 1996 the Marine Mammal Commis- sion reviewed both the northern right whale and manatee recovery programs. The manatee recovery program, long considered one the best marine mam- mal conservation programs in the United States, has been a success because it can carry out a broad range of research and management activities thanks to strong financial support provided by the State of Florida through a dedicated Manatee Trust Fund. The trust fund, established by the state legislature in the late 1980s and supported largely by a share of state boat registration fees, the sale of state manatee license plates and stickers, and voluntary donations, has MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 contributed more than $2 million per year to manatee recovery work. This is in addition to federally appropriated money. In comparing the manatee and right whale recovery programs, it became apparent that chronic underfunding was severely hampering right whale recovery work and that new sources of support were needed. On 12 December 1996 the Commission recom- mended to the National Marine Fisheries Service that it try to establish a conservation fund for northern right whales to supplement normal appropriations. In particular, the letter suggested soliciting contributions from interested members of the public and industries, such as shipping companies or whale-watching opera- tors, whose activities either affected or benefitted from right whales. The Service’s 16 October 1997 response expressed interest in the idea and a willing- ness to work with the Commission in exploring such an approach. During the summer of 1997 Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, believing the idea to be potentially beneficial, asked the Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, to help draft a bill to establish a whale conservation fund to be administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The fund was to provide supplemental support for research and man- agement activities to conserve whale populations of the United States, with priority attention to endan- gered species, such as the northern right whale. The fund also was to rely on voluntary contributions from private, industry, and government sources, with no direct congressional appropriations. In response to the request, the Commission pre- pared a draft bill that was subsequently revised and introduced on 16 June 1998 by Senators Gregg and Ted Stevens of Alaska. To expedite action on S. 2172, the “National Whale Conservation Fund Act of 1998,” it was offered as an amendment to the appro- priations bill for State, Commerce, Justice, and related agencies, which was passed by Congress on 19 October 1998. The National Whale Conservation Fund Act of 1998 amends the National Fish and Wildlife Founda- tion Establishment Act. It notes the inadequacy of 18 available funds for the conservation and recovery of whale populations in U.S. waters and the need to raise money from non-federal sources to carry out such work. It authorizes the Foundation, in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission and the Na- tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to establish a separate interest-bearing account called the National Whale Conservation Fund to support re- search, management, and educational programs contributing to the protection, conservation, or recov- ery of whale populations in U.S. waters. It directs that priority be given to the conservation needs of whale populations that are most endangered, including the northern right whale. To generate income for the fund, the Foundation may accept gifts and bequests from any sources and enter into agreements for the design, production, copyright, and marketing of logos, seals, decals, stamps, and other items. For example, fund adminis- trators could enter into voluntary agreements with whale-watching operators to authorize use of a Fund logo for advertising purposes in return for a commit- ment to donate a nominal non-taxable amount from ticket sales (e.g., $1 per ticket). With perhaps one million participants annually on whale-watching trips in New England alone, involvement by whale-watch- ing operators throughout the United States could generate substantial money for the fund. In addition, the Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to transfer to the fund any civil penalties it receives pursuant to violations of section 105(a)(1) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. At the end of 1998 the Commission was working closely with the office of Senator Gregg, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to complete plans for the fund. Marine Mammal Commission Northern Right Whale Review Between July 1995 and March 1996 eight right whale carcasses were found along the east coasts of the United States and Canada. These deaths alone equaled nearly 3 percent of the western North Atlantic Ocean right whale population. Considering the possibility that other deaths occurred unobserved during this period, the eight confirmed deaths under- scored the urgency of strengthening recovery efforts for the population. The Marine Mammal Commission therefore held a review of the right whale recovery program during its 12-14 November 1996 annual meeting. Based on that review, the Commission concluded that at least $3 million a year would be needed to carry out an adequate right whale recovery program. Funding by the Service and other federal and state agencies participating in the right whale recovery program fell far short of this level. To meet additional funding needs, the Commission wrote to the Service on 12 December 1996 recommending that it increase funding for its recovery efforts and, as noted above, that it explore alternative ways of encouraging and directing supplemental funding for right whale work from private and industry sources. With regard to the Service’s program, the Com- mission’s December 1996 letter recommended that the Service increase support for its right whale recovery activities to at least $1.25 million per year. Specifi- cally it recommended that those funds be used to hire a right whale recovery program coordinator; initiate or expand surveys in key right whale feeding areas in the northern part of the population’s range; develop fishing gear less likely to entangle whales; identify and implement steps to reduce ship strikes by com- mercial vessels; initiate a long-term telemetry program to better identify right whale habitat-use patterns; develop a geographic information system to improve and speed analyses of data on right whales and right whale habitats; and develop a population model based on available life history data. Recognizing that, even at this level, support would not be adequate to accom- plish all that should be done, the Commission recom- mended that the Service seek greater support from relevant private and industry sources, such as shipping companies whose actions pose such a substantial threat to right whales but that have contributed little to address the problem, by exploring steps to establish a right whale conservation fund. As discussed above, the Service, in cooperation with other agencies and groups significantly strength- ened right whale recovery efforts in 1997 and 1998. At the same time, however, new information and analyses on right whales in the western North Atlantic 19 Chapter II — Species of Special Concern Ocean indicated that the population’s status was even more critical than previously recognized. The Marine Mammal Commission therefore held another review of the right whale recovery program during its 1998 annual meeting on 10-12 November in Portland, Maine. Its purpose was to reexamine the recovery program in light of new developments and progress since 1996 to ensure that everything possible was being done to encourage the population’s recovery. Based on its review, the Commission wrote to the National Marine Fisheries Service on 21 December 1998 providing further comments and recommenda- tions. It was apparent that many of the priority needs identified during the Commission’s 1996 review either had been or were being addressed and that impressive progress had been made. Among other things the Service had increased funding for its right whale recovery activities to more than $1 million in 1998, it had taken steps to develop a three-year funding plan, most of the work it had supported either complement- ed or supplemented essential tasks also receiving support from other agencies and groups in both the United States and Canada, and available funding appeared to be directed to good effect toward neces- sary, constructive tasks. The Commission commend- ed the Service for the steps it had taken to build on and coordinate cooperative partnerships with various state agencies, the Coast Guard, the Navy, and non- governmental research groups. Based on information presented during the review, however, it was apparent that certain vital recovery tasks either were not being addressed at all or were not being adequately funded, that some fundamental tasks still depended on unpredictable private funding sources, and that steps to ensure a stable, long-term funding base for ongoing activities were not being taken. For example, the Service’s fiscal year 1999 budget request included only $200,000 for right whale recovery work. Although Congress appropriated $350,000 for this purpose in 1999 — an increase over the requested level that reflects Congressional concern for the species — the Service will still need to allocate more than $700,000 from other sources in order to maintain funding at the 1998 level. Even this level of funding, however, is not sufficient to undertake all essential tasks. Because the Service did not include necessary ongoing costs in its base-level funding MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 request for the program, the Commission was con- cerned that continued support for fundamental recov- ery tasks remained uncertain, long-term planning efforts were being gravely compromised, and the Service’s long-term commitment to leading coopera- tive recovery efforts appeared uncertain. To redress this situation, the Marine Mammal Commission’s 21 December 1998 letter recommended that the Service increase its annual base-level funding request for the right whale recovery program to at least $1.385 million for the foreseeable future. The Commission based this recommendation on the need to ensure continued support for the following funda- mental ongoing tasks: archiving and analyzing photo catalog data ($100,000); providing an appropriate share of costs for annual right whale surveys off Florida and Georgia ($250,000), off Massachusetts ($160,000), and in the Bay of Fundy ($25,000); providing an appropriate share of costs for operating a mandatory ship reporting system in the species’ calving grounds and key feeding areas ($125,000); continuing efforts to disentangle right whales and develop fishing gear less likely to entangle whales ($325,000); developing and maintaining a right whale geographic information system ($50,000); implement- ing a satellite telemetry program ($150,000); and providing reasonable flexibility to address other short- term projects, studies, emergencies, or needs on an annual basis ($200,000). As noted above, the Service’s fiscal year 1999 budget included no funding for certain important tasks, including some recommended by the Commis- sion in 1996. For example, there were no plans to help support right whale surveys in the Bay of Fundy, to initiate a telemetry program to track whales using satellite-linked radio tags, to conduct surveys of right whales off the Chesapeake Bay, to help support efforts to investigate the use of active sonar to detect whales, or to study noise levels and the behavior of whales in front of approaching vessels. To address these tasks during the coming year without affecting other high- priority work already planned, the Commission recommended that the Service, in consultation with the Commission, develop a supplemental budget request. 20 Finally, as noted above, the Commission’s 21 December 1998 letter to the Service noted that the National Whale Conservation Fund Act of 1998 provided a valuable mechanism to encourage and direct financial contributions from private and corpo- rate entities to whale conservation programs, including the right whale program. To meet this goal, an initial infusion of funds is needed to pay start-up costs, such as hiring a fund director. To initiate fund operations, the Commission therefore recommended that the Service ask the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide $250,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for deposit in the National Whale Conservation Fund. The Commission noted that this one-time expenditure would produce many times that amount to help carry out essential recovery work for right whales and other large whales. As indicated above, the Coast Guard has become an essential partner in many recovery activities. In particular, it has contributed aircraft and substantial funding to help carry out early warning system surveys to alert mariners of the presence of whales in the calving grounds and key feeding areas, broadcast whale advisories to mariners over its NAVTEX and voice radio systems, helped develop the proposal for a mandatory ship reporting system in key right whale habitats, and sought approval for the system from the International Maritime Organization. It also has provided vessel and air support to retrieve floating right whale carcasses and deploy whale disentangle- ment teams, helped fund the production of educational materials on right whales for mariners and distributed those materials, enforced related fishery and whale protection regulations, and participated in meetings of the regional right whale implementation teams. From presentations at the Commission’s 1998 review, it was clear that the Coast Guard was giving a high level of attention to all these areas. On 3 December 1998 the Commission wrote to the Coast Guard noting the importance of these contributions to the right whale recovery program and commending the Coast Guard for its constructive, well-placed support. The Commission noted the Coast Guard’s important role in securing approval of the proposed regional mandatory ship reporting system by the IMO’s Subcommittee on Safety of Navigation. The organization’s approval of the proposed system was to be decided at a meeting of its Maritime Safety Com- mittee on 7-11 December 1998. Given the Coast Guard’s lead role in representing the United States at this meeting, the Commission’s 3 December letter recommended that Coast Guard officials participating in the meeting seek the committee’s approval of the proposal as a matter of highest priority. As noted above, this was done and the committee unanimously approved the proposal on 7 December 1998. As a related matter, the Commission wrote to the Coast Guard on 23 December 1997 about the need to improve the Coast Guard’s NAVTEX broadcasting system in the northern portion of the right whale calving grounds off Florida and Georgia. Existing NAVTEX facilities for this area have been unable to provide complete or dependable coverage and, be- cause of reliance on the system to transmit regional right whale advisories, as well as other navigational safety advisories, the Commission recommended that the Coast Guard take steps to fill the regional gap in NAVTEX broadcast coverage by installing an addi- tional transmitter. During the Commission’s review, a representative of the Coast Guard advised the Commission that the Coast Guard had obtained funding for a new NAVTEX< transmitter scheduled to be installed in mid-1999. In its 3 December letter to the Coast Guard, the Commission noted the added importance of this new facility given efforts to devel- op a regional mandatory ship reporting system, and it extended the Commission’s sincere thanks to the Coast Guard for its efforts to address this need. The Navy, which operates several major facilities adjacent to the right whale calving grounds, also has been an essential partner in the right whale recovery program. Among other things, it has modified its vessel operations and exercises in the calving grounds to improve protection of right whales, provided staff and expertise to coordinate the immediate dissemina- tion of right whale sighting reports filed by right whale survey teams and other sources along the coasts of Florida and Georgia, contributed substantial fund- ing to support regional early warning system surveys and complementary surveys in and around the right whale calving area, helped fund a radio tracking study of right whales, undertaken studies to assess the ability of acoustic technology to locate whales and 21 Chapter II — Species of Special Concern helped gather and correlate environmental data with right whale sighting data to assess factors affecting right whale distribution and movements. These activities, as well as Navy involvement in other pressing marine mammal conservation issues, make it apparent that the Navy is strongly committed, not only to the principle of operating in an environ- mentally responsible manner, but also to making the extra effort wherever possible to apply its expertise and resources to help others address urgent conserva- tion problems. Therefore, by letter of 10 December 1998, the Commission wrote to commend the Navy for its constructive and important contributions to the right whale recovery program, as well as to certain other pressing marine mammal conservation issues. Feeding habitats essential to the western North Atlantic population of right whales also occur in Canada, where lead responsibility for right whale recovery rests with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The department has implemented a right whale recovery program and concerted efforts have been made by the staff of the department and the National Marine Fisheries Service to coordinate related efforts. Among other things, the two agencies have jointly funded various research and management projects and adopted similar approaches to identify essential habitats and mitigate impacts associated with ship traffic and commercial fishing. A representative of the department participated in the Commission’s 1998 meeting. Based on presentations at the meeting, it was apparent that there is broad agreement among officials in Canada and the United States on the needs to be addressed and that the efforts to coordinate action on right whale recovery had the potential to become a model for international collaboration on pressing living marine resource conservation issues. As in the United States, however, funding for right whale recovery efforts have been far below what is needed. Therefore, based on information presented during the Commission’s review, the Commission wrote to Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans on 8 December 1998. Because of the high level of interia- tional concern for right whales and the fact that its recovery would depend on both countries’ ability to increase funding for essential recovery tasks, the MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Commission noted steps that had been taken to increase funding in the United States and it requested that the department also do all that it could to increase funding for Canada’s right whale recovery program. Northern Right Whales in the Eastern North Pacific Ocean Historical whaling records indicate that a popula- tion of right whales occurred in the eastern North Pacific in waters south of Unimak Pass and Kodiak Island, Alaska, during summer. Intensive whaling in the mid- to late 1800s severely depleted the popula- tion. There is little information on the population’s status through the early 1900s. Although about two dozen right whales may have been killed during the first third of this century, the population may have been recovering during that period. By the late 1950s and early 1960s it is estimated that several hundred animals occurred in this population. However, previously classified data concerning illegal whaling by the former Soviet Union indicates that several hundred right whales were taken from this population during the mid-1960s. Fewer than 30 right whale sightings, most involving one or two animals, have been recorded in the eastern North Pacific between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s, and the survival of this population seems uncertain at this time. In the summer of 1996, and again in the summer of 1997, however, one or more small groups of right whales were sighted in the eastern Bering Sea. In 1996 one sighting was made of at least four animals. In 1997 a group of five to nine animals was seen. To determine the status of right whales in the southeast- ern Bering Sea, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Coast Guard made arrangements for a cooper- ative survey during the summer of 1998. The Service scheduled an aerial survey and the Coast Guard was to make available a ship for sea-based observers. Shortly before the survey was to begin, however, the Coast Guard had to divert its vessel to another mis- sion and thus, only the aerial portion of the survey was conducted. During the survey a group of six whales was sighted in the eastern Bering Sea in the same area as the sightings made in 1996 and 1997. All of the animals were adults with the exception of a probable calf or juvenile seen in the 1996 sighting. 22 During the Commission’s 10-12 November 1998 annual meeting, it was noted that the Service was considering plans to organize another joint survey with the Coast Guard for the summer of 1999. Therefore, in the 3 December 1998 letter to the Coast Guard noted above, the Commission urged the Coast Guard to make a vessel available for right whale surveys in the Bering Sea in 1999 if the National Marine Fisheries Service asked it to do so. Right Whale Litigation Litigation alleging various violations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other laws has been important in shaping actions by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Coast Guard, and others to protect northern right whales. The national campaign director of GreenWorld has filed several lawsuits related to right whales. Action in the following cases was taken in 1998. Strahan v. Linnon — This case began in June 1994, when the plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Whaling Convention Act by the Coast Guard, whose vessels had struck and killed two right whales. The plaintiff contended that these incidents constituted illegal takings and, unless enjoined, were likely to continue. An initial ruling in this case in May 1995 directed the Coast Guard to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, apply for an incidental take authorization under the Marine Mammal Protec- tion Act, and prepare an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in June 1996 raising several new claims and adding officials of the Department of Commerce as defendants. The plaintiff contended that the biological opinion prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service for Coast Guard activities, and the biological assessment upon which it was based, were deficient. He also sought to compel the National Marine Fisheries Service to take other actions designed to conserve right whales. As discussed in the previous annual report, the court issued a ruling in favor of the federal defendants on 20 May 1997. The court noted that the govern- ment’s actions to establish a take reduction team and develop a take reduction plan to address right whale- fishery interactions, classify the lobster fishery as a category I fishery (see Chapter III), and issue ap- proach regulations had rendered many of the plaintiff's claims moot. As to the other claims, the court ruled that the National Marine Fisheries Service had adequately analyzed the cumulative impact of Coast Guard operations and had used the best avail- able scientific and commercial data in preparing its biological opinion. The court also agreed with the government that the Endangered Species Act does not set time limits for implementing recovery plans or specify their content. Nevertheless, it appeared to the court that the Service was taking adequate steps to implement its right whale recovery plan. On 3 November 1997 the plaintiff appealed the district court’s ruling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an unpublished decision in the case on 16 July 1998 affirming the lower court ruling. Coates -v. Strahan — This lawsuit was filed in April 1995 alleging four separate violations of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act by Massachusetts officials. Although federal statutes were at issue, no federal agencies were parties to that litigation. As discussed in previous annual reports, the district court ruled in 1996 that the plaintiff had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood that endangered whales are periodically taken through entanglement with gillnets and lobster gear in waters regulated by the state and that no permit authorizing such incidental taking had been issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The court found that the state’s continued licensing of these fishing operations was likely to continue to cause harm to endangered whales and violated the Endangered Species Act. In the court’s view, it was irrelevant that the permitting of fishing gear by Massachusetts was only an indirect cause of whale entanglement. Consistent with these rulings, the court ordered the defendants to apply to the National Marine Fisheries Service for an incidental take permit for right whales under the Endangered Species Act. The court also 23 Chapter II — Species of Special Concern ordered the state to develop and submit a proposal to restrict, modify, or eliminate the use of fixed fishing gear in coastal waters of Massachusetts listed as right whale critical habitat. The defendants appealed the ruling, claiming that (1) state licensure of gillnet and lobster pot fishing does not constitute a taking under the Endangered Species Act, (2) Massachusetts should not be required to restrict the use of this gear when it was allowed by the National Marine Fisheries Service outside of state waters, (3) it should be left to the National Marine Fisheries Service, through its rulemaking authority, to determine whether certain fishing activities should be banned in critical habitat areas, and (4) the court order violates the Constitutional division of authority between federal and state governments. The plaintiff also appealed the district court ruling, claiming that it did not go far enough to protect right whales. In a 9 October 1997 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling with one exception. It vacated the ruling that required Massachusetts to apply for an incidental take authorization under the Marine Mam- mal Protection Act. The appellate court reasoned that, because the district court had no jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's claims under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it was not proper for the court to require compliance with the Act’s provisions. On 6 March 1998 Massachusetts petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appellate court ruling. The state asked the Supreme Court to consid- er three issues: (1) whether state officials commit a taking under the Endangered Species Act when they issue regulations that do not eliminate all risk that state-licensed fishermen might violate the Act; (2) whether the Endangered Species Act violates the Tenth Amendment if its taking prohibition applies to the licensing of fishing operations in state waters that might take listed species, and (3) whether the state action of licensing fishermen is the proximate cause of impermissible takings that might occur. As noted above, the federal government was never a party to this lawsuit. Nevertheless, because of its interest in the matter, the Supreme Court invited federal officials to file a brief expressing the views of MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 the United States. The Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, submitted a brief in October 1998. It noted that, since the original ruling in this case, actions taken by the National Marine Fisheries Service to establish a take reduction team and to regulate New England fisheries had significantly altered the factual underpinnings of the case. The federal government therefore recommended that the Supreme Court either (a) review the case, vacate the appellate court ruling, and remand the case to the district court to reconsider the case in light of the Service’s regulations, or (b) decline to review the case. The Supreme Court chose not to review the case. Humpback Whale v. Hurst - Following an incident on 20 July 1997 when a Coast Guard vessel struck a whale, Richard Max Strahan, on behalf of the hump- back whale, the right whale, and himself, filed suit against Coast Guard officials on 16 April 1998 seeking to enjoin activities that pose a risk to six species of whales and three species of sea turtles. The plaintiff contended that Coast Guard operations are "a clear and present danger to the safety of listed spe- cies..." that, unless enjoined, will result in additional, unauthorized takings. The plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment from the court that current Coast Guard operations violate the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act and an order directing the Coast Guard either to cease its operations or to alter them by decreasing the frequency of non- emergency operations and by imposing speed limita- tions. Among other things, the plaintiff asked the court to order the Coast Guard to restrict vessel speed to 5 knots during daylight hours and to cease opera- tions entirely at night or in bad weather in areas designated as right whale critical habitat and within the boundaries of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on 19 June 1998. No other action was taken in this case during 1998. Dead Humpback Whale v. Schmitten — Subsequent to striking a whale on 20 July 1997, the Coast Guard reinitiated consultation on its operations with the National Marine Fisheries Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Strahan, on behalf 24 of five endangered species of whales and himself, filed suit on 2 July 1998 alleging that the Service has failed to complete that consultation within the required time period. He also alleged that the Service imper- missibly refused to allow him to offer information or otherwise to participate in the consultation. In a brief opposing the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order in this case, the defendant noted that, contrary to allegations in the complaint, the consultation on Coast Guard operations had been concluded with the issuance of a new biological opinion on 8 June 1998. The government therefore argued that the case was moot. On this basis, the government filed a motion on 1 September 1998 to dismiss this case. The government also argued that the dead whales, named by Mr. Strahan as plaintiffs, lacked standing to sue and requested that they be dismissed from the action. As of the end of 1998 no further action had been taken in this matter. Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) Bowhead whales occur exclusively in Arctic and sub-Arctic waters. There are several discrete stocks. All were severely depleted by commercial whaling by the early 1900s. Since the mid-1900s they have been classified as protected stocks by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). In the United States, the species has been listed as endangered since 1970 when the Endangered Species Conservation Act, the predecessor to the Endangered Species Act, was enacted. Despite this protection, the Bering—Chukchi- Beaufort Seas stock, perhaps the least exploited of the stocks, is the only one that has shown any signs of recovery. The other stocks in the Okhotsk Sea off eastern Russia, in the Davis Strait and Hudson Bay in northeastern Canada, and in the eastern Arctic off eastern Greenland, Norway, and northwestern Russia all number in the hundreds or fewer and show no signs of recovery. The Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock numbers about 8,200 animals and includes about 90 percent of all bowhead whales worldwide. Whales in this stock migrate seasonally with the advance and retreat of sea ice, wintering in the open water and polynyas of the Bering Sea and summering in more northern feeding areas, principally in the eastern Beaufort Sea and, to a lesser extent, in the Chukchi Sea. During the spring and fall migrations along the northern and eastern coasts of Alaska, bowhead whales are hunted by Alaska Natives from 10 coastal villages. The hunts, part of a centuries-old subsis- tence whaling tradition, are major cultural events and an important source of food for these villages. Recognizing the cultural and subsistence importance of such hunts, the IWC has adopted an aboriginal whaling regime under which it has established recom- mended quotas for subsistence hunting, including quotas for bowhead whales hunted by Alaska Natives. Native Subsistence Whaling in Alaska and Eastern Russia Recommended quotas for aboriginal subsistence whaling are established by the IWC at the request of member nations. Quotas for protected stocks are set at a level that will allow the stocks to recover while meeting the documented needs of the affected Native communities. Member nations are responsible for implementing the recommended quotas. In the United States, bowhead whale quotas are implemented under a cooperative agreement between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Alaska Es- kimo Whaling Commission — a Native organization established to represent and oversee whaling by Alaska Native whalers. Among other things, the Eskimo Whaling Commission allocates quotas among whaling villages in Alaska and works to improve the safety and efficiency of Native subsistence whaling. As noted in the Marine Mammal Commission’s previous annual report, the IWC at its annual meeting in October 1997 set a five-year block quota of 280 bowhead whales for the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock. The quota was adopted in response to a joint proposal from the United States and the Russian Federation. It applies from 1998 through 2002 and reflects a decision by the Russian Federation to allow Chukotka Natives in eastern Russia to resume the take of small numbers of bowhead whales for subsistence 25 Chapter II — Species of Special Concern purposes — a practice that was stopped by the former Soviet Union in the early 1970s. Under the five-year block quota, Natives in Alaska and Chukotka may land 280 bowhead whales over the five-year period. No more than 67 animals may be struck each year, except that up to 15 unused strikes in any year may be carried forward to the next year. In June 1998 representatives of the United States and the Russian Federation signed an agreement specifying steps that will be taken to ensure that the quotas are not exceeded. Under the agreement, Russian Natives were allocated up to 7 strikes in 1998, and Alaska Natives were allocated up to 75. Early in 1999 representatives of the two countries are to confer to decide on allocations for 1999, including any strikes that may be carried forward from 1998. Similar meetings will be held in subsequent years to allocate the quotas. The annual numbers of strikes and landings by Alaska Natives since 1973 are shown in Table 2. In 1998 Chukotka Natives reported taking only one bowhead off Sireniki. Native Subsistence Whaling in Canada As noted in previous annual reports, Natives in Canada took four bowhead whales between 1991 and 1996. Two were taken from the Bering-Chukchi- Beaufort Seas stock (one in 1991 and one in 1996), and two were taken from the highly endangered Davis Strait and Hudson Bay stocks (one in 1994 and the other in 1996). Three of the whales were taken under licenses issued by the Canadian government and one was taken without authorization. The Canadian government also issued several other licenses that lapsed without any whales being taken. Canada withdrew from the IWC in 1982 and, since then, has neither sought nor obtained recommended quotas from the IWC before licensing its Natives to hunt bowhead whales. These actions diminish the effectiveness of the IWC as the international body responsible for regulating hunting and conserving whale stocks worldwide. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Table 2. IWC quotas! and number of bowhead whales taken by Alaska Natives, 1973-1998 Quotas? Struck % Struck (Landed/ No. but not Total and Year Struck) Landed Landed Struck Landed 1973 -- 39 20 59 66 1974 -- 20 34 55 36 1975 -- 15 28 43 35 1976 -- 48 43 91 53 1977 -- 29 82 111 26 1978 14/20 12 6 18 67 1979 ~=18/27 12 15 27 44 1980 18/26 16 28 44 36 1981 17/27 17 11 28 61 1982 17/27 8 11 19 42 1983 17/27 9 9 18 50 1984 —/43 12 13 25 48 1985 —/26 11 6 17 65 1986 —/26 20 8 28 71 1987 —/32 22 9 31 Zl 1988 —/35 23 6 29 79 1989 41/44 18 8 26 69 1990 41/47 30 14 44 68 1991 41/44 28 19 47 60 1992 41/54 38 12 50 76 1993 41/54 41 11 52 79 1994 41/52 34 12 46 74 1995 —/68 43 14 57 75 1996 —/77 39 5 44 89 1997 —/76 48 18 66 73 1998 —/82 41 13 54 716 : Cited quotas established by the International Whaling Com- mission; data on numbers of whales landed, struck but not landed, and total struck are from R. S. Suydam, R. P. Angliss, J. C. George, S. R. Braund, and D. P. DeMaster. 1995. Revised data on the subsistence harvest of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) by Alaska Eskimos, 1973-1993. Forty-fifth report of the International Whaling Commission 45:335-338. Information for the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 was provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Whaling is to cease whenever the number of whales landed or the number of strikes made reaches the specified number, whichever comes first. n Under the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman’s Protective Act, the Secretary of Commerce is required to formally notify the President of actions by a nation that diminish the effectiveness of any international fishery conservation program. The President is autho- rized, but is not required, to restrict the importation of fish or any other products from nations so certified. He is required to notify Congress within 60 days of actions taken in response to certification. The IWC’s conservation program is considered a fishery conservation program for purposes of the Pelly Amendment. As noted in previous annual reports, the Marine Mammal Commission recommended in 1991 that the Secretary of Commerce certify to the Presi- dent that Canada’s authorization to take bowhead whales without consultation with and concurrence by the IWC was diminishing the effectiveness of the IWC’s conservation program. The Secretary of Commerce refrained from certifying Canada in 1991 because the Canadian ambassador indicated that a review was under way to decide whether Canada should rejoin the IWC. Canada subsequently decided not to rejoin the IWC, but continued to issue licenses allowing its Natives to take bowhead whales. At its June 1996 meeting, the IWC adopted a resolution calling on Canada to rejoin the IWC or to refrain from issuing licenses authorizing its Natives to take bowhead whales without obtaining IWC concurrence. Despite the IWC’s stated concerns, Canada issued two licenses in 1996 under which two bowhead whales were taken: one from the Bering-Chukchi- Beaufort Seas stock and the other from the highly en- dangered eastern Canadian stock. As noted in previ- ous Commission reports, the Secretary of Commerce certified to the President on 12 December 1996 that Canada’s actions were diminishing the effectiveness of the IWC’s conservation program. On 10 February 1997 the President advised Congress that actions against Canada were warranted to bring about compli- ance with the IWC’s conservation program. Toward this end, he instructed the Department of State to oppose Canadian efforts to address issues on the hunting and trade of marine mammals within the Arctic Council (see Chapter IV). The President also advised Congress that he had instructed the Secretary of Commerce to withhold consideration of any Cana- dian request for waiver of the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s moratorium on importing seals or seal products into the United States. These actions Chapter II — Species of Special Concern ee ——————————————— were intended to counter Canadian efforts to move whaling issues to forums other than the IWC and to promote the take of marine mammals in ways that are inconsistent with sound conservation practices. In 1997 Canadian Natives neither requested licenses nor took any bowhead whales. However, in 1998 Canada issued a license and on 20 July Native whalers took a bowhead whale from the highly endangered eastern Canadian stock. After learning of the take, the Department of State conveyed to the Canadian government its continuing belief that these actions diminished the effectiveness of the IWC’s conserva- tion program. The State Department urged Canada to rejoin the IWC or to refrain from allowing its Natives to hunt bowhead whales without review of their subsistence needs and recommended quotas by the IWC. It also advised Canada that the United States would continue to oppose Canadian efforts to address marine mammal trade and other issues within the Arctic Council until Canada either rejoins or complies with the IWC’s aboriginal whaling regime. IWC Stock Assessment During its 1998 meeting, the IWC’s Scientific Committee conducted a comprehensive assessment of the status of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas bow- head stock. During the assessment, it was noted that bowhead whales, particularly males, may live for more than 100 years. Evidence for this includes the recovery of six harpoon points (four of stone) of types not known to have been used for more than 100 years from whales taken in recent years by Alaska Natives. The assessment concluded that the stock is near its maximum sustainable yield level and likely would continue to grow with catch levels up to 108 animals per year. Consequently, the currently authorized quotas are appropriately conservative. Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Gray whales occur only in the North Pacific Ocean, where they inhabit primarily coastal waters. They once occurred in the eastern and western North Atlantic Ocean. The eastern North Atlantic popula- | tion apparently survived into the 1700s. However, it became extinct at about that time, probably due, at least in part, to whaling. There are two extant gray whale stocks: the eastern North Pacific (California) stock and the western North Pacific (Korean) stock. The eastern North Pacific stock migrates along the coast between winter calving and breeding areas off Baja California, Mexico, and summer feeding areas as far north as the Bering and Chukchi Seas. The western North Pacific stock migrates between summer feeding grounds in the Okhotsk Sea and winter breeding areas thought to be along the coast of China. Pacific gray whales were severely depleted as a result of commercial whaling in the mid-1800s and again in the early 1900s. In the eastern North Pacific, the species was probably reduced to no more than a few thousand individuals. It first received interna- tional protection in the 1930s when the League of Nations banned commercial whaling for gray whales. This ban has since been carried forward by the IWC under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling of 1946. In 1970 additional protection was provided by the United States when the species was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, the predecessor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Protection from commercial whaling has enabled the eastern North Pacific gray whale stock to recover, and its current population is estimated at about 23,000 individuals. This stock is believed to be at or near pre-exploitation levels, and in June 1994 it was re- moved from the U.S. list of endangered and threat- ened wildlife. In contrast, the western North Pacific gray whale stock remains severely depleted and has shown no signs of recovery. This stock, believed to contain only a few hundred animals, is one of the world’s most endangered populations of baleen whales. It remains listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Because gray whales use nearshore waters and bays for migrating, feeding, calving, and breeding, they remain vulnerable to the effects of various human activities. Gray whales are entangled occasionally in gillnets and also may be affected by offshore oil and MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 gas development, coastal development, commercial shipping, recreational boating, whale watching, military activities, and industrial activities. In addi- tion, under aboriginal subsistence whaling quotas set by the IWC, gray whales are taken by Natives in Russia and, in the past, by Alaska Natives. Between 1966 and 1991 an average of 177 gray whales per year was taken for subsistence, primarily in Russia. Reports submitted by Russia to the IWC indicate that 42, 85, 43, and 79 gray whales were taken for subsis- tence purposes in Russia in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, respectively. In 1997 the IWC adopted a new, five-year gray whale quota of 620 whales with the further require- ment that no more than 140 whales be taken in any one year. As discussed below, the United States has negotiating an agreement with the Makah Indian Tribe in Washington state whereby an average of four gray whales per year may be taken under this quota, with the remainder of the quota being allocated for subsis- tence in Russia. Russia reported that during 1998 its nationals landed 122 gray whales. The Makah Tribe did not take any gray whales in 1998. Five-Year Research and Monitoring Plan As noted above, the eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales was removed from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife in June 1994. During the delisting process undertaken by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Marine Mammal Commission commented to the Service on the proposal, noting among other things that habitat degradation was a significant threat to the stock’s survival. The Com- mission recommended that a more appropriate action would be to downlist the stock to threatened status rather than removing it from the list. However, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service jointly amended the list by removing the eastern North Pacific gray whale stock. The Endangered Species Act requires that, if a species is delisted, a program must be implemented to monitor its status for at least five years. The National Marine Fisheries Service prepared a draft five-year plan of research and monitoring of the eastern North Pacific gray whale stock and forwarded the draft to the Commission for review. The Commission provid- 28 ed comments to the Service in July 1994 recommend- ing, among other things, that the plan be revised to provide for the identification and assessment of human activities that could affect the principal wintering lagoons in Baja California and feeding grounds in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. The Commission followed up with a letter in July 1995, requesting an update on the status of the five- year plan. In particular, the Commission asked what the Service was doing or intended to do to identify and prevent activities that may pose threats to essential gray whale habitats. In particular, the Commission noted the potentially adverse effects of a proposal to construct a commercial salt operation in San Ignacio Lagoon, Baja California, one of the few gray whale calving and breeding sites. The Commission again recommended that, within its gray whale research program, the Service give highest priority to identify- ing and determining how to prevent or mitigate threats to essential gray whale habitats, particularly the calving and breeding lagoons of Baja California. Although the Service did not finalize its research and monitoring plan for the eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales, it has continued to monitor the population in accordance with the draft plan. Each year, the Service has conducted counts of gray whales as they migrate past the California coast. In addition to yielding abundance estimates, these surveys have provided estimates of annual calf production for the population. In June 1999 it will have been five years since the delisting of the eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales. As such, the National Marine Fisheries Service has scheduled a workshop for March 1999 to review the status of the stock based on the results of its monitoring program and an assessment of threats currently faced by the population. Potential Threats to Gray Whale Breeding Lagoons As discussed in previous annual reports, gray whales are exposed to a variety of human activities because much of their lives is spent in nearshore waters, including the shallow, warm-water lagoons Chapter II — Species of Special Concern along the west coast of Baja California, Mexico. A variety of development activities being proposed at the lagoons may adversely affect the whales and their wintering habitat. For several years, the Marine Mammal Commission has continued to track these activities and has endeavored to identify ways to prevent adverse effects. One of the greatest potential threats is construction of a new solar salt-processing facility proposed for San Ignacio Lagoon. The plan calls for the construc- tion of a 1.25-mile-long (2 km) deepwater pier with conveyor belts for loading salt onto freighters, and the development of approximately 8 square miles (20 km’) of evaporation ponds along the northern shore of the lagoon. This construction would substantially alter the character of the lagoon shoreline. The facility would be situated within the buffer zone of the El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve, part of the United Nations Environment Programme’s international biosphere reserve network, and could compromise efforts to maintain the reserve. A permit for the project was denied by the Mexican government in February 1995 on the grounds that an environmental impact assessment of the project did not identify or adequately address possible environ- mental consequences. Although the salt production company appealed the decision, it later withdrew the appeal, indicating that it intended to submit a new study that more appropriately considered the environ- mental issues and identified steps to conserve the natural resources of the biosphere reserve. It is the Marine Mammal Commission’s under- standing that, although work continued on drafting the revised environmental impact assessment during 1998, the assessment had not been completed by the end of the year. When a revised assessment is submitted to Mexico’s Ministry for the Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries, it will be forwarded to a seven-member international scientific advisory com- mittee, established by the ministry, for review. Subsistence Take of Gray Whales The IWC is the international organization responsi- ble for setting catch limits for both commercial and aboriginal subsistence whaling (see Chapter IV). In 29 May 1995 the Makah Tribal Council of Washington state wrote to the Departments of Commerce and State indicating that the council intended to ask the agencies formally to seek IWC approval of an annual ceremo- nial and subsistence harvest of up to five gray whales. The council indicated that whaling has been a tradi- tional part of the tribe’s way of life for 1,500 years. It further contended that there were no legal impedi- ments to the tribe’s rights to take whales because the eastern North Pacific gray whale stock had been removed from the Endangered Species Act’s list of endangered and threatened wildlife and because the enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act had not abrogated the tribe’s whaling rights recognized under the 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay. As discussed in previous annual reports, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Department of State, and the Department of the Interior reviewed the tribe’s proposal and related information and decided to seek a quota from the IWC on behalf of the Makah. However, at the 1996 IWC meeting, the United States announced that, after consultations with the Makah representatives, it was asking the IWC to defer consideration of the proposal until 1997. This deferral gave the tribe an opportunity to provide additional background on its proposal, including information on the nutritional value of subsistence foods and the health benefits to be derived from including whales in the diet of the tribe and on the steps it was taking to develop a safe, effective, and humane method of killing gray whales. The revised proposal indicated that the tribe intended to hunt whales from traditional cedar canoes and was consid- ering using a specially modified rifle to kill the whales. The deferral of the Makah proposal also gave the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration the opportunity to prepare an environmental assessment of the proposal under the National Environmental Policy Act before seeking a gray whale quota from the IWC. On 22 August 1997 the National Marine Fisheries Service published a draft environmental assessment on the annual harvest of up to five gray whales by the Makah Tribe for cultural and subsistence uses. The draft environmental assessment preliminarily conclud- ed that landing up to five gray whales, or striking up to ten gray whales, per year would have no impact on MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 the status of the eastern Pacific stock and no measur- able effect on seabirds or other marine organisms in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, where the whaling would occur. The Commission’s comments on the draft assess- ment are discussed fully in the previous annual report. In general, the Commission believed that the assess- ment did a good job of discussing several possible effects of resumption of whaling by the Makah Tribe. It noted, however, that the assessment suffered from incomplete analyses of some key issues, such as whether Makah treaty rights to take whales had been abrogated since the treaty was signed in 1855 and whether other tribes might be encouraged to resume whaling if Makah whaling were sanctioned by the IWC. The National Marine Fisheries Service issued a final environmental assessment on 17 October 1997. The assessment concluded that U.S. support for the taking of gray whales by the Makah would not signifi- cantly affect the quality of the human environment, provided that the whaling is conducted in accordance with the IWC Schedule, applicable regulations, and a cooperative agreement entered into between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Makah Tribal Council. As discussed in the previous annual report, the IWC considered the U.S. request for a gray whale quota for the Makah Tribe at its 1997 annual meeting. The IWC approved a joint proposal submitted by the United States and Russia for a five-year quota of 620 gray whales beginning in 1998, with no more than 140 whales available in any one year. The U.S.-Rus- sian proposal, adopted by consensus, included a statement that the “meat and products of such whales are to be used exclusively for local consumption by the aborigines whose traditional subsistence and cultural needs have been recognized.” The United States interpreted the resolution as an acceptance by the IWC that the Makah’s cultural and subsistence needs are consistent with those historically recognized by the IWC and indicated its intent to authorize the taking of up to five gray whales per year, with an average of four per year, subject to the development of an acceptable management plan. Some delegations at the meeting, however, questioned whether the IWC 30 had acted to recognize the subsistence and cultural needs of the Makah and contended that the tribe was not entitled to take gray whales. Despite this differ- ence of views, no resolution opposing the U.S. interpretation that the quota applied to the Makah Tribe was introduced at the IWC’s 1998 meeting. On 17 October 1997 a lawsuit challenging the Department of Commerce’s actions to promote and authorize whaling by the Makah was filed by Rep. Jack Metcalf of Washington state, several environ- mental organizations, and others opposed to whaling (Metcalf v. Daley). The action alleged that the defendants, who had yet to issue a final environmental assessment, had failed to meet their obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws. On the same day that lawsuit was filed, howev- er, the National Marine Fisheries Service published a final environmental assessment of the harvest of up to five gray whales per year by the Makah Tribe. On 26 November 1997, after the IWC had taken action on the U.S.-Russian gray whale proposal, the plaintiffs in this case filed an amended complaint to reflect the changed circumstances. The complaint alleged that the agency had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by (1) failing to conduct an environmental review of its decision to enter into cooperative agreements with the Makah Tribal Coun- cil with respect to whaling by the tribe, (2) failing to consider all relevant issues in the environmental assessment, (3) deciding not to prepare an environ- mental impact statement, and (4) deciding to seek a gray whale quota from the IWC before completion of the environmental review process. Plaintiffs also alleged that the National Marine Fisheries Service had violated the Marine Sanctuaries Act by failing to consult on the impacts to resources within the Olym- pic Coast National Marine Sanctuary before deciding to authorize and promote whaling by the Makah. In addition, the complaint alleged that defendants had violated the Whaling Convention Act by declaring that the Makah may engage in subsistence whaling despite no definitive ruling from the IWC that the tribe qualifies for such whaling. Further, the plaintiffs claimed that the agency’s actions in authorizing and promoting Makah whaling were arbitrary and capri- cious in that they contravened the purposes of the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protec- Chapter II — Species of Special Concern tion Act, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. In light of the Makah Tribe’s interest in the matter, the tribe filed a motion on 13 November 1997 seeking authority to intervene in the case. The tribe also filed a motion seeking to have the case transferred from the U.S. district court in the District of Columbia, where the case was filed, to the district court for the Western District of Washington, where the tribe and most of the plaintiffs reside. Both motions were granted. The district court for the Western District of Washington issued its ruling in the case on 21 Sep- tember 1998, granting the federal defendants’ motion for summary judgment, thereby clearing the way for whaling by the Makah to begin. The court believed the question of the timing for preparing the environ- mental assessment to be a close one. The judge noted that an environmental assessment is supposed to be a tool to aid in the decision-making process and not simply provide a justification as to why a choice that has already been made is permissible. Nevertheless, the court thought that, because of the special trust relationship between the federal government and the tribe, it was equally arguable that the defendants had no realistic choice but to explore the possibility of Makah whaling first and to consider alternatives only when determining whether to allow whaling by the tribe after a quota had been approved by the IWC. The court also examined the adequacy of the environmental assessment prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The key question consid- ered by the court was whether the Service had ade- quately considered the impact of whaling by the Makah on “summer residents,” those gray whales that reside during the summer in waters near the Olympic Peninsula, rather than migrating past on their way to or from the wintering grounds in Mexico. The court found that, although the discussion of this issue in the environmental assessment was somewhat conclusory in nature, sufficient evidence had been considered to indicate that the likely effect on whales in the area was insignificant because, even if some resident whales are taken, new whales are likely to take their place in subsequent seasons. 31 The court ruled that preparation of an environmen- tal impact statement, which is required if the proposed action will significantly affect the environment, was not required in this instance. The court, although somewhat concerned that whaling by the Makah may have a significant effect by setting a precedent under which other tribes in the Pacific Northwest would seek authority to hunt whales, ultimately found the number of tribes situated to take advantage of any such precedent to be small. Citing the finding of the IWC’s Scientific Committee that up to 407 gray whales can be taken annually on a sustainable basis, the court found that the defendants were not unreason- able in concluding that, even if other tribes are encouraged by the Makah example to resume whaling, the effect on the stock is likely to be minimal. As discussed above, the gray whale quota adopted by the IWC in 1997 is, by its terms, applicable only to “aborigines whose traditional subsistence and cultural needs have been recognized.” The plaintiffs contended that the Makah Tribe is not covered by the quota because its cultural or subsistence need for whales was not recognized by the IWC. In consider- ing this question, the court turned first to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s regulations that implement the Whaling Convention Act (50 C.F.R. Part 230). The court disagreed with the plaintiffs that those regulations limited whaling to “aboriginal groups ‘previously recognized’ by the IWC as having a cultural or subsistence need for whaling.” The court also considered the language of the gray whale quota in the context of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and action at the IWC’s 1997 meeting that led to the quota’s adoption. The court observed that under the Convention, the IWC is not authorized to allocate quotas for specific aboriginal groups or countries. In addition, the ruling noted that the IWC had specifically disapproved an amendment that would have limited aboriginal subsistence whaling of gray whales to groups whose traditional subsistence and cultural needs “have been recognized by the International Whaling Commission.” Inasmuch as the court believed that there was an adequate basis for finding that the Makah Tribe has a cultural and subsistence need for whaling, it could not see that the approval of the quota by the Secretary of Commerce violates the International Convention for the Regula- MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 tion of Whaling, the Whaling Convention Act, or applicable regulations. The court found no violations of the Marine Sanctuaries Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In the case of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the court explained that, under section 102(a)(2) of the Act, the moratorium on taking marine mam- mals does not apply to takings provided for by pre- existing international treaties, conventions, or agree- ments, such as the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. To govern whaling in 1998 and subsequent seasons, the Makah Whaling Commission developed, and the Makah Tribal Council adopted, the “Management Plan for Makah Treaty Gray Whale Hunting for the Years 1998-2002.” The plan establishes procedures for issuing whaling permits, specifies hunting methods to be used, and, except for the creation and domestic sale of traditional handicrafts fashioned from non- edible parts, limits the use of landed whales to non- commercial, local consumption and ceremonial purposes. The plan also indicates that the tribe intends to develop ceremonial and subsistence whale hunts gradually over the five-year period covered by the IWC authorization to allow for the development of tribal management capabilities, refinement of hunting methods, and further assessment of the tribe’s cultural and subsistence needs. One provision of the management plan specifies that “[wJhaling permits shall be issued with the intent of targeting migrating whales.” In a 6 March 1998 letter to the chairman of the Makah Tribal Council, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration noted that the gray whale migration extends from approximately 1 November through 30 June. As such, it is likely that any whales in the vicinity of Neah Bay between 1 July and 31 October are non-migratory. The Administrator therefore interpreted the provision of the management plan as a statement that the tribe did not intend to issue whaling permits for the period before 1 Novem- ber or after 30 June unless the tribe, in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, deter- mines that there is reason to believe that the gray whale migration is ongoing at other times. Under this interpretation, Makah whaling could have begun any 32 time after 1 November 1998 without first consulting with the Service. Nevertheless, no attempts were made to hunt gray whales during 1998. Western North Pacific Population As noted above, a small population of gray whales occurs in the western North Pacific Ocean. This population, which once may have numbered between 10,000 and 15,000 individuals, was subject to heavy whaling pressure during the past three centuries. By the time whaling on this stock ended in the mid- 1960s, the population had been reduced to a very low level. The current size of the population is estimated to be about 250 animals; however, no quantitative data exist to confirm this estimate. This population of gray whales occurs in the Okhotsk Sea during the summer and migrates to breeding grounds believed to be somewhere along the southern coast of China. During the spring and winter, small numbers of gray whales may be found off Korea and Japan, migrating to or from the Ok- hotsk Sea. The Scientific Committee of the IWC reviewed the status of the western North Pacific population of gray whales at its 1997 meeting. The Scientific Committee noted several threats to this population, including habitat degradation along its migratory corridor and the effects of climate change. However, the most immediate and pressing concern identified by the Scientific Committee was planned oil and gas develop- ment in the Okhotsk Sea. Not only does such devel- opment expose whales to the risk of oil spills, but the noise associated with seismic surveys, ship traffic, aircraft, and exploratory drilling has the potential to disturb whales in this important feeding area. The Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, a joint venture formed by several major oil companies, has exploration and development activities under way in the area off the northeast coast of Sakhalin Island. It is estimated that these two fields contain about one billion barrels of oil and 408 billion cubic meters (14 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas. Oil production from the first phase of this operation will begin in the summer of 1999. Chapter II — Species of Special Concern In light of the planned oil and gas development in the Okhotsk Sea, the IWC Scientific Committee has recommended that high priority be given to research and environmental monitoring programs concerning this population of gray whales. Without such pro- grams, it will not be possible to develop a mitigation plan to reduce the effects of oil and gas development on these whales. A long-term joint U.S.-Russian research and monitoring program of these gray whales was initiated in1997 by Sakhalin Energy Investment Company and Exxon Neftegas. Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) Beluga whales are found seasonally in ice-covered waters throughout the Arctic and sub-Arctic. During winter, beluga whales migrate offshore, where they are closely associated with open leads and polynyas in the pack ice. In spring, they move into warmer coastal areas to molt and calve. For management purposes, five stocks are recognized in U.S. waters. This distinction is based on the species’ discontinuous summer distribution and on mitochondrial DNA analyses that indicate clear genetic differences among stocks in the summering areas. The five stocks are the Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, eastern Bering Sea, eastern Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea stocks. The Cook Inlet stock has been the subject of particular concern for several reasons. Separated from the other four summer concentration areas by the Alaska Peninsula and nearly 1,000 miles (1,610 km) by sea, the Cook Inlet stock is the most isolated population of beluga whales in U.S. waters. Because of their proximity to Anchorage, beluga whales in Cook Inlet are exposed to the largest urban coastal area in Alaska. They also have been subject to intensive harvesting by Alaska Natives. Since 1994 the National Marine Fisheries Service has carried out aerial surveys of beluga whales in Cook Inlet every June or July to help assess the stock’s distribution and abundance. An analysis of beluga whale sightings in Cook Inlet indicates that the stock’s summer range has contracted in recent years. 33 In contrast to the 1970s and 1980s, animals now are rarely seen in offshore waters or the lower reaches of the inlet. During mid-summer, most of these beluga whales now concentrate in a few groups in the upper reaches of the inlet around river mouths and disburse as winter approaches. The draft 1998 stock assessment report on Cook Inlet beluga whales prepared by the Service estimated a population size of 834 whales, including calves, with a minimum population estimate of 712 animals. Based on these estimates, the draft assessment calcu- lated the potential biological removal level for this population at 14 animals per year, utilizing a recovery factor of 1.0. The potential biological removal is the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while providing reasonable assurance that the stock will recover to or remain within its optimum sustainable population level. The Alaska Regional Scientific Review Group is a scientific committee appointed by the Service that, among other things, provides scientific advice on the status of Alaska marine mammal stocks. At its meeting of 18-20 November 1998 the group consid- ered new information on the population status of the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock. Reanalysis by the National Marine Fisheries Service of survey data from 1994 through 1998 incorporating video analysis of surfacing behavior indicate a decline in the Cook Inlet population from an estimated 653 individuals in 1994 to 347 in 1998, or about a 47 percent reduction in numbers. Based on these analyses, the group recom- mended that the Service use the 1998 population size point estimate of 347 animals and a recovery factor of 0.5 when calculating the potential biological removal level for the 1999 Cook Inlet beluga whale stock assessment. These changes would result in a substan- tial decrease in the estimated number of beluga that could safely be removed from the stock, from 14 to about 3 animals annually. Native Subsistence Harvest Provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act allow Alaska Natives to take marine mammals for subsistence or handicraft purposes provided the take MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 is not accomplished in a wasteful manner. The Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, made up of Alaska Native beluga whale hunters and biologists, was established to help conserve beluga whales and manage beluga whale hunts. Based on information from a variety of sources, the committee reported an average subsistence harvest of Cook Inlet beluga whales of about 15 animals per year between 1990 and 1994. However, this is almost certainly an underestimate because it does not take into account animals that were struck and lost; neither does it include beluga whales taken by Natives who hunt in Cook Inlet but live outside the region. The Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, in consultation with beluga hunters from Cook Inlet, estimated that more than 30 beluga whales were taken by subsistence hunters annually through 1994. The most thorough survey of beluga whale subsis- tence harvests in Cook Inlet was undertaken in 1995 and 1996 by the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council. The council reported through the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee that 72 beluga whales were taken in 1995, including 22 that were struck and lost. Be- tween 98 and 147 were reportedly taken in 1996, including 49 to 98 that were struck and lost. To further compound the problem of high harvests, beluga whale muktuk is being regularly sold to Alaska Natives in Anchorage under section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which allows edible portions of marine mammals taken by Alaska Natives to be sold in Native villages and towns. Muktuk, the skin and blubber from the whale, is a highly valued Native food. As a result, beluga whales hunted near Anchorage have a substantial cash value, and some hunters reportedly are taking them in large numbers. Clearly, the number of beluga whales being taken by Native hunters far exceeds the potential biological removal level of 14 whales per year calculated in the Service’s 1998 draft Cook Inlet beluga whale stock assessment or the 3 whales per year that could be taken safely if procedures recommended by the Alaska Regional Scientific Review Group were adopted. As of the end of 1998 there was no effective mechanism in place to limit the Native subsistence harvest of Cook Inlet beluga whales. The National 34 Marine Fisheries Service, in consultation with Alaska Natives, has been exploring the possible use of the co- management process provided for in section 119 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to better manage the Native beluga whale harvest. Both the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee and the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council are working closely with the Service to rectify this problem. To this end, these groups will host a workshop in spring 1999 to discuss Cook Inlet beluga whale issues and a co-management approach to reducing harvests. However, a number of contrib- uting factors have made this a particularly difficult issue to address through the co-management process. Cook Inlet is a large area that includes many commu- nities. Its Alaska Native population includes residents of local villages as well as those who have moved into the region from elsewhere in Alaska. Beluga hunters who have moved into the area may not be members of local tribes, the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, or other tribal groups. Consequently, they may not be bound by any cooperative agreements between the Service and these entities. In addition, Cook Inlet beluga whales may be hunted legally by Alaska Natives living in other parts of the state, and some beluga whales are taken by visiting Native hunters. Ultimately, the greatest difficulty lies in enforcing provisions agreed upon through the co-management process. Although amendments to the Marine Mam- mal Protection Act provide for co-management agreements, as currently interpreted by the National Marine Fisheries Service, they do not convey any additional authority to enforce such agreements. Thus, despite agreement by the Service, the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, and the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council that commercial sale of beluga whale parts should be disallowed and hunting cur- tailed, it appears that, to accomplish this, the Service will need to designate the stock as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act or list it as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and promulgate accompanying regulations using formal rulemaking procedures. Status Review of Cook Inlet Beluga Whales Concern over the decreasing population of beluga whales in Cook Inlet and the apparent overharvest of these animals prompted the Service to publish a notice in the 19 November 1998 Federal Register that it intends to conduct a status review of Cook Inlet beluga whales. The notice further requested that interested parties submit pertinent information and comments regarding these whales to the Service by 19 January 1999. The review will consider the current status of the Cook Inlet stock, including its distribu- tion, abundance, population dynamics, food habits, health, the effects of the Native subsistence harvests, and potential effects of other anthropogenic impacts. At the end of 1998 the Commission, in consulta- tion with its Commissioners and Committee of Scien- tific Advisors, was developing comments to the Service in response to the notice. Among other things, the Commission expected to emphasize the need for a cooperative approach to the sustainable harvest issue, in which the Native community and the Service share responsibility for conserving the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock. It also expected to recom- mend that the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock be listed as endangered or threatened under the emergency listing provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The Commission also was considering recommendations on various approaches that the Service might take to reduce the harvest of beluga whales from Cook Inlet to a number that the population can sustain. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Harbor porpoises are one of the smallest and shortest lived of all cetaceans. Less than two meters long when fully grown, they reach sexual maturity at about the age of three and have an average life span of only 10 years. Harbor porpoises are distributed among relatively discrete coastal stocks and occur only in the Northern Hemisphere at temperate and boreal latitudes. Harbor porpoises are vulnerable to becoming entangled and drowned in gillnets. Because they feed on small schooling fish, such as herring, capelin, and silver hake that are either sought by gill- netters or eaten by other fish sought by gillnetters, harbor porpoises are caught in significant numbers in some areas and many regional stocks have declined substantially. 35 Chapter II — Species of Special Concern One such stock experiencing a high level of by- catch occurs along the east coasts of the United States and Canada. Known as the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy harbor porpoise stock (hereafter called the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise stock), its range extends from the Bay of Fundy, Canada, to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The fishery-related bycatch from this stock exceeds that of any other cetacean stock in U.S. waters. Gulf of Maine harbor porpoises probably have been taken in Canada since at least the 1960s, when gillnet fisheries for groundfish (e.g., cod, flounder, and haddock) began in the Bay of Fundy, and in New England since the early 1970s, when a similar fishery began in the Gulf of Maine. It is not known when this bycatch reached levels that could adversely affect the stock’s abundance. Most of the harbor porpoise bycatch has been taken from these areas in summer and fall. During sum- mer, when most of the stock is concentrated near the northern end of its range, most of the catch has been in the Bay of Fundy region. Between fall and spring the stock disperses throughout its range, and harbor porpoises are caught incidentally in gillnet fisheries for dogfish, monkfish, herring, and shad, as well as groundfish. During spring and fall, most bycatch has been taken between New Hampshire and New Jersey. In January and February, harbor porpoises are taken as far south as Maryland and by spring, as far south as North Carolina. The size of the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise stock has been estimated from three population surveys conducted during the summers of 1991, 1992, and 1995. Estimates from these three surveys were 37,500 porpoises (95 percent confidence interval 26,700 to 86,000), 67,500 porpoises (95 percent confidence interval 32,900 to 104,600), and 74,000 porpoises (95 percent confidence interval 40,900 to 109,100), respectively. Because harbor porpoises spend little time at the surface and because their distribution may vary from year to year depending on environmental conditions, they are difficult to survey and resulting abundance estimates have wide, overlap- ping confidence intervals that cannot be used to assess population trends during the five years. However, vy pooling and weighting data from the three surveys, a best estimate of population size has been developed — MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 54,300 porpoises (95 percent confidence interval 41,300 to 71,400). A direct measure of population trends is not possible because no regionwide harbor porpoise surveys have been conducted before 1991 or since 1995 (another survey is scheduled for the summer of 1999). However, using information on harbor por- poise life history, population size, and incidental take levels, the National Marine Fisheries Service conclud- ed early in the 1990s that the number of harbor porpoises being caught in gillnets was probably exceeding sustainable levels for the stock. Reliable estimates of harbor porpoise bycatch levels were not available in the 1980s. Because of growing concern about the possible effects on the regional harbor porpoise stock, the National Marine Fisheries Service began a program in 1989 to place observers aboard a representative sample of gillnet boats fishing in coastal waters of the Gulf of Maine to assess incidental take rates. By expanding the ob- served bycatch rates with a measure of total gillnet fishing effort for the Gulf of Maine, the Service was able to estimate bycatch levels for the area. A similar observer program began in Canada in the Bay of Fundy in 1994. As information on gillnet fishing and the resulting incidental take of harbor porpoises became available for other areas off New England and along U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal states, observer efforts were initiated and bycatch estimates were developed for those areas as well (Table 3). Most gillnet fishing involving the incidental take of Gulf of Maine harbor porpoises in U.S. and Canadian waters is now sampled by observers. However, there are no bycatch estimates for fishing in the Bay of Fundy before 1993 and no estimates for the mid- Atlantic region before 1995. Thus, for recent years, the sum of the three regional bycatch estimates provides a relatively complete reflection of overall bycatch from the stock, but earlier estimates omit substantial amounts of bycatch. As shown in Table 3, bycatch estimates for the Gulf of Maine and the Bay of Fundy appear to have declined substantially since 1993, including a decline of about 50 percent between 1994 and 1997. This is due, at least in part, to management actions designed 36 to reduce gillnet fishing effort and protect harbor porpoises. The decline since 1993 includes a sharp drop in bycatch levels in Canada, which appears to be due to a substantial decrease in overall fishing effort. However, the establishment of time-area fishing closures and the use of pingers in Canadian waters also may have contributed partially to the reduced catch in this area. Bycatch data for U.S. waters also indicate that, in areas where past bycatch levels have been high and extensive time-area fishing closures established (e.g., coastal waters between northeastern Massachusetts and southern Maine), bycatch levels have declined substantially. These decreases, howev- er, have been offset by increases in bycatch in other areas, such as inshore waters south of Cape Cod and offshore waters in the southern Gulf of Maine, where fishing effort has expanded and time-area management efforts have been absent or limited in scope. The recent increase in bycatch estimates off U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal states, from about 100 in 1995 to about 570 in 1997, also is a significant factor in why the total bycatch estimates for all areas have declined little. The increase in this area could correspond to expansion in the mid-Atlantic area observer program, increased fishing effort, or both. For the most part, the increase in bycatch estimates for this area proba- bly reflects a more complete and accurate regional estimate, rather than an actual fivefold increase in the incidental take levels. Management Actions before 1998 In October 1992 the National Marine Fisheries Service asked the New England Fisheries Management Council to amend the northeast multi-species fishery management plan under which the New England sink gillnet fisheries for groundfish are managed. Specifi- cally, it asked the Council to include an objective in the plan for reducing harbor porpoise bycatch. Pursuant to this request, the Council began recom- mending management measures to reduce harbor por- poise bycatch off New England. The first of these, implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 1994, established seasonal time-area fishing clo- sures in areas of high bycatch. They proved to be too brief and too narrowly drawn to be effective and, since then, the time period, size, and number of closures have gradually been increased. Chapter II — Species of Special Concern Table 3. Estimates of harbor porpoise bycatch in sink gillnet fisheries in the Bay of Fundy (Canada), Gulf of Maine (U.S.), and off the U.S. mid-Atlantic states, 1990-1998' Year Gulf of Maine’ 1990 2,900 (1,500-5,500) 1991 2,000 (1,000-3,800) 1992 1,200 (800-1,700) 1993 1,400 (1,000-2,000) 1994 2,100 €1,400-2,900) 1995 1,400 (900-2,500) 1996 1,200 (800-1,400) 1997 1,000 (500-1 ,600) 1998 (not yet available) Bay of Fundy* 424 (200-648) 101 (80-122) U.S. Mid-Atlantic* 87 103 (11-254) 20 310 (162-567) 43 572 (300-1,100) 10 (not yet available) Numbers in parentheses are ranges of the 95 percent confidence interval where available. 2D. Palka. 1997. Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise By-catch. Prepared for the Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team Meeting, December 16-17, 1997. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Estimate for 1997 provided by National Marine Fisheries Service as unpublished data. E. A. Trippel. 1998. Harbour Porpoise By-Catch in the Lower Bay of Fundy Gillnet Fishery. DFO Maritime Regional Fisheries Status Report 98/7E. Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. See) balka. 1997. Mid-Atlantic Harbor Porpoise By-Catch and Gear Characteristics. Prepared for the Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team Meeting, December 16-17, 1997. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Estimate for 1997 provided by National Marine Fisheries Service as unpublished data. In addition, the Service has encouraged New England gillnetters to use acoustic deterrent devices called pingers. Attached to gillnets at intervals along their length, pingers emit periodic sound pulses intended to keep harbor porpoises away from nets. Experiments indicate that, in at least some areas, pingers can reduce harbor porpoise bycatch rates by 90 percent or more when properly deployed and maintained. It is not clear whether these devices annoy and repel porpoises or simply alert them to the presence of nets. Nor is it clear precisely what sound characteristics elicit the avoidance response. Time- area management zones to prohibit gillnet fishing or require that nets be equipped with pingers have been the principal approaches to date for reducing harbor porpoise bycatch off New England. Measures to reduce bycatch off mid-Atlantic states, first adopted by the Service late in 1998, will go into effect during the winter and spring 1999 fishing seasons. Thus, their effectiveness is currently 37 unknown. As discussed below, initial bycatch reduc- tion measures for this area involve time-area fishing closures, net design requirements, and limits on the amount of gear that can be fished. There are no provisions for using pingers in the mid-Atlantic area. Recent actions to reduce harbor porpoise bycatch have been guided by the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act that established a new regime for managing marine mammal-fishery interac- tions. In part, the approach requires the Service to calculate a potential biological removal level for each marine mammal stock in U.S. waters. The potential biological removal level is an estimate of the number of animals that can be removed from a marine mam- mal stock annually (not including natural mortality), while ensuring that the stock will increase toward or remain at its optimum sustainable population level. For Gulf of Maine harbor porpoises, the Service has calculated the potential biological removal level to be 483 harbor porpoises per year. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 As indicated in Table 3, past incidental take levels in commercial fisheries have been several times higher than the calculated potential biological removal level. In such cases, the Service is required to develop and implement an incidental take reduction plan. In part, these plans must set forth measures to reduce bycatch below the potential biological removal level within six months. Given particular concern for the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise stock, the 1994 amendments specifically required that the Service implement a take reduction plan no later than 1 April 1997. The 1994 amendments also required the Service to establish take reduction teams to help develop and review take reduction plans. Each team is to focus on a marine mammal stock or group of stocks affected by a particular fishery or related group of fisheries. Teams are to be composed of representatives of relevant fisheries, environmental groups, federal and state agencies, and academia. Within six months of being established, a team is to submit a recommended take reduction plan to the Service that is agreeable to all team members. Thereafter, teams are to meet periodically and recommend needed improvements until the goals of the take reduction plan are met. The Service established two take reduction teams for Gulf of Maine harbor porpoises: a Gulf of Maine team established on 12 February 1996 to address New England gillnet fisheries and a mid-Atlantic team established on 25 February 1997 for gillnet fisheries between New York and North Carolina. Two teams, rather than one, were established because, when the Gulf of Maine team was formed, information was not yet sufficient to develop bycatch estimates or take reduction measures for the mid-Atlantic region. Also, because of regional differences in target species, gillnet fishing methods, participants, and the status of efforts to address the problem, the Service determined that it would be more efficient for separate teams to develop take reduction measures for each area. As discussed in previous annual reports, the Gulf of Maine team provided the Service a recommended take reduction plan reflecting a consensus of its members on 7 August 1996. It recommended a series of time-area management zones in which gillnet fishing would either be prohibited entirely or permit- ted only if gillnets were equipped with pingers. It 38 also recommended related research and management actions for training fishermen in the use of pingers, collecting and analyzing observer data, studying the effects and effectiveness of pingers, and undertaking certain other related tasks. Through these measures, the team projected that the bycatch level in New England would be reduced to 382 porpoises. At about the same time that the Gulf of Maine team submitted its plan, the New England Fishery Management Council proposed modifying the system of time-area management zones for gillnet fishing in New England. The changes, which were adopted by the Service, made its system of time-area management zones similar to that which the team recommended. Although the Service is required to circulate and implement a team’s plan (with any changes the Service deems appropriate) within six months of receiving a plan, the Service apparently decided that immediate action on the plan was unnecessary, given its action on the Council’s recommendation. Howev- er, on 13 August 1997 the Service published a pro- posed take reduction plan in the Federal Register that was slightly less restrictive than the one recommended by the team in August 1996. The mid-Atlantic team submitted its recommenda- tions to the Service on 25 August 1997. Observer data reviewed by the team suggested that bycatch rates among New England gillnetters fishing in the mid- Atlantic region in winter were substantially higher than bycatch rates of local fishermen. This appeared to be due to combinations of different gear charac- teristics, such as twine diameter, mesh size, and the number and length of nets. Therefore, to reduce harbor porpoise bycatch off the mid-Atlantic states, the team recommended a combination of fishery closures, gear requirements (e.g., the use of nets with certain twine diameters), and restrictions on the number and length of nets. During the final four months of 1997 new infor- mation indicated that the bycatch reduction measures adopted in 1996 were ineffective, and the Service extended the comment period on its August proposal and sought further advice from the Gulf of Maine team. In its 14 October 1997 comments to the Service on the proposed plan, the Commission noted that, given new information indicating a significant level of bycatch in the mid-Atlantic region and re- quirements to reduce the total bycatch throughout the stock’s range to below the potential biological removal level within six months, it was highly unlikely that measures proposed more than a year earlier for the Gulf of Maine would be sufficient. Therefore the Commission recommended that the Service immedi- ately reexamine its proposed plan in light of new bycatch data and either (1) develop a separate emer- gency rule to implement bycatch reduction measures for the 1998 winter-spring gillnetting fishing season in the mid-Atlantic region concurrent with implementing new measures for the New England area, or (2) modify the proposed take reduction measures for New England to further reduce bycatch off New England by an amount that would compensate for expected bycatch levels in the mid-Atlantic region. The Gulf of Maine take reduction team, which includes a representative of the Marine Mammal Commission, met on 16-17 December 1997 to consid- er new information on the bycatch of harbor porpoises and further take reduction measures. As of the end of 1997, the team had not yet forwarded the results of its meeting and the Service had taken no further steps to implement its proposed take reduction plan for New England waters or to act on recommendations by the mid-Atlantic team for take reduction measures off the mid-Atlantic states. Developments in 1998 On 14 January 1998 a report on the Gulf of Maine team’s December 1997 meeting was sent to the Service. Because many fishermen were unable to attend, the report did not reflect a consensus of its members. However, those present concluded that information on bycatch levels made available since its previous meeting in mid-1996 indicated that take reduction goals were not being met and that the team’s August 1996 recommended plan as modified by the Service in August 1997 was unlikely to reduce bycatch levels below the potential biological removal level. An alternative system of time-area management zones was discussed, but, in the absence of several representatives of the fishing industry, no recommen- dations were put forward. 39 Chapter II — Species of Special Concern Based on the comments received and further deliberation, the Service developed a new harbor por- poise take reduction plan proposal. In the interim, no action was taken to implement any harbor porpoise take reduction measures for the mid-Atlantic region or to modify the New England system of time-area management zones for harbor porpoises last amended in 1996. Asa related matter, however, the National Marine Fisheries Service, at the recommendation of the New England Fishery Management Council, adopted additional time-area fishery closures off New England to prevent overfishing on a collapsing cod stock in the Gulf of Maine. The new closures were published in the Federal Register on 31 March 1998 and became effective on 1 May 1998. They include some areas where harbor porpoise bycatch rates have been high and, as a result, were expected to coinci- dentally reduce harbor porpoise bycatch. On 11 September 1998 the Service published a new proposed harbor porpoise take reduction plan in the Federal Register replacing its August 1997 propos- al. The new plan proposed take reduction measures for both New England and the mid-Atlantic region. For the New England area, the new plan pro- posed a complex system of expanded time-area management zones that overlaid other time-area closures previously adopted to conserve fish stocks and to reduce entanglement of right whales. The new time-area management zones for harbor porpoise substantially expanded the areas in which fishing with pingers would be required. Given the closures and assuming that pingers would reduce porpoise bycatch by 80 percent compared to fishing without pingers, the Service predicted that bycatch levels in New England would be reduced from an average of 1,883 porpoises per year between 1990 and 1995 to 309 harbor porpoises per year. For the mid-Atlantic area, the Service proposed the closures and gear requirements recommended by the mid-Atlantic take reduction team in its August 1997 report. These measures included a complex set of restrictions that varied depending on the location of the fishing activity and whether the mesh size is greater or less than seven inches. The restrictions set limits on the number and length of nets and the MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Figure 3. ia 70° 68° Cod a Cc ia \ Great South Channel Critical Habitat Closure Area 1] - Jine 30 Closed 50 tm Nantucket Lightship Closed Area Management zones under the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise take reduction plan and other related management plans. Management zones in black and gray shading with italic type are established to protect harbor porpoises under the harbor porpoise take reduction plan. Management zones delineated by diagonal lines with italics are established to protect right whales under the Atlantic large whale take reduction plan. Areas delineated by bold, linear outlines and regular type are fishing closures established to protect groundfish under the northeast multispecies fishery management plan. 40 minimum diameter of twine used for net webbing. They also include requirements for tie-downs (i.e., tying floatlines and leadlines together to minimize the vertical height of the net) and affixing identification tags to nets. With these measures, the Service pro- jected that bycatch levels in the mid-Atlantic area would be reduced by 79 percent. Based on an aver- age annual bycatch estimate of 207 for 1995 and 1996, it projected that bycatch in the mid-Atlantic area would be reduced to 50 per year. The proposed plan also included several non- regulatory provisions. These include a mandatory training program on the use and maintenance of pingers; efforts to randomly check pingers for their functional reliability; the development of hydrophones for enforcement officers to help ensure that deployed nets are equipped with functioning pingers; studies to assess the possibility that porpoises may habituate to pinger sound (thereby reducing the effectiveness of pingers); studies of the effects of pinger sounds on other ecosystem components; efforts to make bycatch estimates available in a more timely manner; and an expanded observer program for the mid-Atlantic area. The Commission provided comments on the proposed plan to the Service on 13 October 1998. In its letter, the Commission noted that the new proposal incorporated important new features, such as take reduction measures for the mid-Atlantic area, mea- sures to expand the use of pingers off New England, and the implementation of relevant rules under provi- sions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act rather than fishery management plans. The Commission concluded that the rules should contribute substantially to reducing the harbor porpoise bycatch. The Commission also noted, however, that some assumptions used by the Service to predict expected bycatch levels under the proposed plan were overly optimistic. For example, it noted that available pingers require a level of maintenance difficult to provide in commercial operations and that experience to date with their use in commercial operations suggests that porpoise bycatch would be reduced 50 percent or less in some times and areas. Thus, it did not seem reasonable to expect that pingers, at least in the initial year of broadscale use, would achieve an 80 percent reduction in bycatch in all areas. In addition, 41 Chapter II — Species of Special Concern the Commission noted that time-area restrictions have often displaced fishing effort and associated bycatch to surrounding areas and times. The plan did not account for such shifts in predicting future bycatch estimates. Further, the Commission noted that bycatch estimates for the mid-Atlantic area were based on questionable assumptions that almost certainly underestimated bycatch in that area. Thus, the Service was underestimating bycatch reduction needs for the mid-Atlantic area. Therefore, the Commission recommended that the Service use a more conservative estimate of the likely effectiveness of pingers and reexamine the accuracy of the mid-Atlantic area bycatch estimates used as the basis for developing its plan. Noting the need to offset higher bycatch levels given its reduced expecta- tions for the initial effectiveness of pingers, the Commission recommended that the Service replace its complex system of time-area management zones for pingers with a blanket provision requiring that pingers be used on all gillnets in all times and areas off New England except Massachusetts Bay and south of Cape Cod in summer when harbor porpoises are unlikely to occur in those areas. Doing so, the Commission noted, would increase the level of bycatch reduction realized by using pingers, simplify the regulations, and facilitate enforcement. With regard to enforce- ment, the Commission noted that, by requiring all gillnets to be equipped at all times with functioning pingers, it would be possible to check for properly functioning pingers in port as well as on fishing grounds. If a blanket requirement for using pingers still was insufficient to reduce projected bycatch below the potential biological removal level, the Commission recommended that the Service reconsider a provision recommended by the Gulf of Maine team, but not adopted by the Service, to close an area between northeastern Massachusetts and southern Maine to all gillnet fishing during March. On 2 December 1998 the Service published final tules in the Federal Register to implement the regula- tory portions of its harbor porpoise take reduction plan. Although the final rule included some changes, they did not differ significantly from the proposed measures. For the New England area, the Service retained its approach of overlaying new time-area management zones (i.e., for fishing closures and MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 fishing only with pingers) on the existing system of gillnet fishing closures to protect groundfish and right whales (see Figure 3). The time period for one man- agement zone was shortened, it was extended for another, and it was shifted for a third. For the mid- Atlantic area, the Service adopted its proposed mea- sures with one change. It eliminated application of the rules to gillnets with small mesh (less than 5-inch mesh) used to catch bluefish, weakfish, croaker, baitfish, and other species. The exemption was based on a very low estimate of bycatch levels in the small- mesh gillnet fishery. Regarding the Commission’s recommendations, the Service noted that if bycatch levels are not re- duced below the potential biological removal level, further bycatch reduction measures, including those recommended by the Commission and others, would be reconsidered. Marine Mammal Commission Harbor Porpoise Review To help determine if all necessary and possible steps were being taken to assess and monitor the status of the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoises and to reduce porpoise bycatch levels, the Commission held a review of the harbor porpoise research and manage- ment program during its 10-12 November 1998 annual meeting in Portland, Maine. At the meeting the Service reviewed its ongoing and planned activities to implement the above-noted take reduction plan. With regard to research activities, representatives of the Service noted that another harbor porpoise population survey is planned for the summer of 1999. The results are expected to provide a basis for assess- ing recent population trends. They also noted that the Service and the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans plan to jointly sponsor a study in 1999 to assess the effectiveness of “reflective” net designs to reduce harbor porpoise bycatch. Reflective nets are made of materials that harbor porpoises might detect and thereby avoid more readily. With regard to research on pingers, it was noted that an initial study had been supported during 1998 to determine if harbor porpoises habituate to pinger 42 sounds over time, thereby lessening the devices’ effectiveness as a deterrent. Preliminary results suggest some evidence of habituation, but there were no strong indications in this regard. Further studies of habituation and studies of the effects of pinger sound on other marine species are being planned. The Commission also was advised that a 1997 study on the effectiveness of pingers in reducing bycatch also tested the ability of different sound characteristics (e.g., frequencies) to deter harbor porpoises. Al- though the results indicate that different frequencies and frequency sweeps are effective, no plans for re- search to further define effective sound characteristics were identified. Representatives of the Service also reviewed steps being taken to resolve a number of management issues. They noted that bycatch estimates would be developed and made available in a more timely manner. In the past, availability of these estimates has lagged one or two years behind the end of a fishing season. In the future, the Service stated that bycatch estimates would be developed quarterly and be made available three to four months after a fishing season. It also noted that some gillnetters have thwarted Service efforts to place observers aboard their vessels to monitor bycatch, even though they are required to take observers when asked. It was noted that efforts to enforce this requirement would be strengthened in the future. For fishing boats too small to carry an observer, observations would be made from a separate boat. Representatives of the Service also noted that steps were being taken to ensure that gillnetters meet the requirements for using pingers. They noted that a series of regional workshops for gillnetters on the deployment and maintenance of pingers had already been initiated. Gillnetters fishing with pingers will be required to have a certificate attesting to their partici- pation in one of these workshops. The Commission also was advised that the Service was exploring means of defraying the cost of purchasing pingers, estimated at perhaps $3,000 to $6,000 per vessel depending on the number of nets carried. It also was noted that work was being done to develop and provide enforce- ment officials with hydrophones for checking whether deployed gillnets are equipped with functioning pingers in times and areas where they are required. Based on its review, the Commission wrote to the Service on 8 December 1998 to provide further comments and recommendations on implementing the harbor porpoise take reduction plan. In its letter, the Commission noted that it was clear that the Service was devoting a high level of attention to the issue and the Commission commended the Service for the steps it was taking to implement the plan. The Commission remained concerned, however, that the plan was based on low bycatch estimates for the mid-Atlantic area and overly optimistic expecta- tions for bycatch reduction measures. For example, the Service provided a new 1997 estimate of bycatch for the mid-Atlantic region of 572 porpoises, which was more than twice the estimate used to develop the take reduction plan (i.e., an average of 207 for 1995 and 1996). As noted above, the 1997 estimate, based on improved observer data, is likely more accurate. If the Service’s assumed bycatch reduction of 79 percent under the plan’s measures is applied to the 1997 figure, then the predicted bycatch level for the mid-Atlantic region would be more than twice that projected by the Service (i.e., 120 porpoises rather than 50 porpoises). In addition, for some times and areas, information provided by the Service indicated that bycatch rate reductions during commercial fishing operations using pingers have been substantially less than the 80 percent level assumed in the Service’s plan. Therefore, in the Commission’s 8 December letter it restated its belief that take reduction measures should be strengthened and it referenced recommenda- tions in this regard that were set forth in its 13 October 1998 letter. In addition, because of the increasing reliance on pingers to reduce bycatch, the Commission recom- mended that the Service undertake additional research on pingers to improve understanding of the factors, such as the frequencies, frequency variations, and harmonics, that serve to prevent harbor porpoises from being caught. It also recommended that the Service determine how pinger sound characteristics and associated bycatch rates change over time as battery power declines. Also, to speed progress in designing pingers that are easier to use and require less maintenance, the Commission recommended that the Service (1) consult with fishermen and scientists experienced in using pingers to identify ways of 43 Chapter II — Species of Special Concern making pingers more reliable and easier to use, and (2) as warranted, contract with a qualified engineer to design an improved prototype pinger incorporating desired features. Proposal To List Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise as Threatened In September 1991 the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, on behalf of 13 environmental organizations, petitioned the National Marine Fisheries Service to list the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise stock as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Shortly thereafter, the Service published a Federal Register notice announcing receipt of the petition and requesting comments and related information on the action. In considering the petition and available information, the Service determined that bycatch in the gillnet fisheries was exceeding sustainable levels and that the popula- tion was likely to become endangered in the foresee- able future if bycatch levels were not reduced. At the time no measures were in place to reduce porpoise bycatch levels. Therefore, on 7 January 1993 the Service published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to list the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise as threatened. Shortly thereafter, the New England Fishery Management Council began developing measures to reduce harbor porpoise bycatch, and in 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act set in motion steps to develop take reduction plans. In light of these efforts, the Service deferred final action on its proposal. As noted above, initial actions proved insufficient and steps were taken to strengthen them. Although incidental take levels remained high and the Endan- gered Species Act requires action to be taken on a petitioned listing within one year, the Service contin- ued to defer action on its proposed rule. As noted below, a lawsuit was filed on 21 August 1998 by the Center for Marine Conservation, the Humane Society of the United States, and the International Wildlife Coalition alleging a number of violations by the National Marine Fisheries Service with regard to its efforts to reduce harbor porpoise bycatch. The Service’s failure to take final action on the petition to list harbor porpoises as threatened was among the violations cited. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 To help resolve action on the petition and pro- posed rule and in light of the elapsed time since the previous comment period, the Service published a Federal Register notice on 22 October 1998 reviewing new information and developments bearing on the proposed action since 1993 and reopening the com- ment period. In this regard, the Commission’s 8 December 1998 letter to the Service noted that by- catch levels have remained several times higher than the potential biological removal level since 1993 and, in the Commission’s view, it seemed doubtful that actions currently proposed would reduce bycatch below that level. Even if the Service’s plan is suc- cessful in reducing bycatch to levels below the poten- tial biological removal level, the Commission noted that it could take several years of successful manage- ment for the stock to recover from past decades of unsustainable bycatch levels. Therefore, the Commis- sion recommended that the Service announce an intent to proceed with listing the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise stock as threatened unless measures adopted under the take reduction plan successfully reduce bycatch levels to less than the potential biological removal level. The Commission also recommended that the Service keep the population’s status under close review and continue to improve information on the stock’s abundance and trends by (1) completing the planned population survey scheduled for the summer of 1999; (2) developing a correction factor to account for ship avoidance behavior by harbor porpoises during population surveys; (3) conducting a retrospec- tive analysis of past bycatch levels to account for harbor porpoise bycatch in areas, such as the mid- Atlantic region and the area south of Cape Cod, that were not previously considered because of limited data on local bycatch rates; (4) developing a harbor por- poise population model using the best available information on key biological parameters to assess population status and trends; and (5) conducting a population viability analysis based on the analysis of population size and trends to determine the probability of extinction. At the end of 1998 the Service expected to announce a decision regarding its listing proposal in early January 1999. 44 Litigation After efforts to persuade the National Marine Fisheries Service to adopt additional protective mea- sures for harbor porpoises proved unsuccessful, the Center for Marine Conservation, the Humane Society of the United States, and the International Wildlife Coalition filed suit in U.S. district court on 21 August 1998 to compel the Service to implement such mea- sures (Center for Marine Conservation v. Daley). The plaintiffs alleged that the Service had violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to take final action on its proposed rule to list harbor porpoises as threat- ened within the prescribed timeframe. They also claimed that the Service had violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act by failing to publish a take reduction plan by 1 April 1997 that would reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of harbor porpoises to below the stock’s potential biological removal level within six months. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judg- ment on 29 September 1998, but before the case could be argued, the parties worked out a settlement. Under the settlement agreement, approved by the court on 2 November 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service committed to issuing a final take reduction plan for the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise population by 1 December 1998. The Service agreed that, if pingers are required to be deployed off New England during December under the plan, they would be required immediately in coastal waters off northeast- ern Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and southern Maine, within 7 days in offshore waters of the Gulf of Maine, and within 15 days in all other New England fishing areas. All other elements of the plan were to take effect by 1 January 1999. The parties also agreed to a schedule for complet- ing the listing process under the Endangered Species Act. The Service committed to issue a final determi- nation on the listing proposal by 4 January 1999. In the event that the Service does not list the harbor porpoise, it will undertake and, by 31 March 2000, complete a 90-day review of the status of the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise stock. The defendants also agreed to provide information on harbor porpoise incidental take levels for 1998 and the first four months of 1999 to the plaintiffs by 31 July 1999. Thereafter, the Service will provide the plaintiffs and the public with quarterly updates of harbor porpoise take levels. The Service also pledged to provide the plaintiffs by 30 June 1999 information on the status and scope of a research program to investigate the effects of pingers on the marine eco- system and the potential for harbor porpoise habitua- tion to or displacement by pingers. Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Bottlenose dolphins occur throughout the world both inshore and offshore in temperate and tropical waters. It is the most common cetacean in the coastal waters of the southeastern United States and is the marine mammal species most likely to be affected by fisheries, oil and gas exploration and development, and other human activities in those waters. The bottlenose dolphin also is the cetacean species main- tained most frequently in captivity for public display and scientific research. Between June 1987 and March 1988 more than 700 bottlenose dolphins were found dead along the Atlantic coast between New Jersey and Florida (see Chapter V for information on this and subsequent marine mammal unusual mortality events). The National Marine Fisheries Service estimated that this mass mortality may have reduced the mid-Atlantic coastal migratory population of bottlenose dolphins by as much as 60 percent. On 11 November 1988 the Center for Marine Conservation petitioned the Service to list that population as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Subsequently, the Service proposed and on 6 April 1993 listed the population as depleted. As noted in its 1993 annual report, the Commis- sion recommended on three separate occasions that the Service not list the population as depleted without simultaneously describing the steps that would be taken to decide when it had recovered. Toward this end, the Commission recommended that the Service develop and implement a conservation plan for the affected population. On 6 April 1993, the date that it 45 Chapter II — Species of Special Concern published notification of the depletion listing, the Service advised the Commission that it planned to prepare a conservation plan that would address the means for determining when the population had recovered. There also have been several unusual mortality events involving bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico. As noted in previous Commission reports, morbillivirus was determined or suspected to be the cause of several of these events. Because of uncer- tainty concerning the effects of the events on popula- tion size and productivity, the National Marine Fisheries Service requested in August 1990 that organizations holding permits to collect bottlenose dolphins for public display refrain from doing so unless absolutely necessary to maintain a display. Permit holders agreed and, since that time, no bottlenose dolphins have been taken from U.S. waters for public display. Instead, facilities are maintaining displays by breeding previously captured animals. Although live captures and removals are no longer a concern, there is growing evidence that incidental take in fisheries may be adversely affecting some bottlenose dolphin populations. In some areas, the estimated incidental take in fisheries is greater than the calculated potential biological removal level for the affected populations. As noted in Chapter IX, boaters feeding and otherwise interacting with wild dolphins also are a growing concern. As noted in Chapters VI and VII, it also is not clear whether offshore oil and gas exploration and development or other activities in the northern Gulf of Mexico may be affecting bottlenose dolphins. Although there is no evidence that any bottlenose dolphin population in U.S. waters currently is declin- ing, there are several reasons for concern: e it is uncertain whether the concentrations of bottlenose dolphins in different geographic areas constitute discrete population units and, if so, the boundaries, sizes, and productivity of those units; the species is long-lived (males can live more than 40 years and females more than 50) and occupies coastal waters affected by a variety of human activities, including pollution; MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 ¢ indications in at least one local area — Sarasota Bay — that contaminants may be causing immu- nosuppression and affecting the life span of dolphins; first-born calves survive poorly, possibly because of accumulation of fat-soluble contaminants in the blubber of pre-reproductive females and their transfer in milk during nursing; high levels of persistent organic contaminants were found in the tissues of many of the dolphins that died during the unusual mortality events along both the mid-Atlantic and Gulf coasts; and apparently large, but still undocumented, numbers of bottlenose dolphins are being killed incidental- ly in commercial and recreational fisheries along the mid-Atlantic and Gulf coasts. These and other factors were considered during a December 1996 review of the marine mammal re- search program at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center in Miami, Florida. This Center is responsible for providing the information needed by the National Marine Fisheries Service to conserve bottlenose dolphin populations in the coastal waters of the mid- Atlantic and Gulf states. During the program review, the participants were advised that the Service’s region- al office in St. Petersburg, Florida, had drafted a bottlenose dolphin conservation plan but, because of other more pressing issues, it did not expect to complete the plan in the foreseeable future. The reviewers identified a broad range of actions that should be included in the conservation plan. Representatives of the Marine Mammal Commis- sion participated in the 1996 review. On 31 Decem- ber 1996 the Commission forwarded to the National Marine Fisheries Service its recommendations for staffing and improving the marine mammal research program at the Southeast Center. The Commission also provided an outline illustrating how the various actions identified by the reviewers could be incorpo- rated into a conservation plan. Many of the actions recommended by the reviewers and the Commission subsequently were undertaken. During the Marine Mammal Commission’s annual meeting in Portland, Maine, on 10-12 November 1998, representatives of the Service presented infor- mation on ongoing efforts to determine the discrete- 46 ness, size, and productivity of bottlenose dolphin populations in the coastal waters of the mid-Atlantic and Gulf states, and the threats to them. The infor- mation indicated that, although funding has been limited, programs have been initiated to delineate stock structure and to document sources and levels of human-caused mortality and injury, particularly along the Atlantic coast. With regard to the latter point, it was noted that more than 200 bottlenose dolphin deaths in the southeastern United States in the past year were linked to human activities, mostly entangle- ment in fishing gear. The Commission was advised that the Service had contracted with three scientists familiar with bottlenose dolphins and related conserva- tion issues to prepare a conservation plan for bottle- nose dolphins in the northern Gulf of Mexico and along the eastern coast of the United States. On 18 December 1998 the Commission wrote to commend the Service for the actions it had taken. The Commission noted that it continued to believe that a conservation plan is needed and that the individuals retained by the Service to draft the plan are well qualified to do so. The letter suggested that the outline developed by the Commission following the December 1996 program review might be useful in this regard. The Commission also noted that much potentially useful research was being done by volun- teer organizations, students, and non-government researchers. Because of the limited funding available to the Service, the Commission recommended that the conservation plan indicate how volunteers, students, and non-government researchers could be used to help meet the program objectives. The Commission pointed out that available infor- mation suggests that there may be at least four reason- ably discrete types of bottlenose dolphin populations in U.S. Gulf and Atlantic waters: (1) a nearshore east coast population that migrates annually between summering areas north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and wintering areas off Georgia and north- ern Florida; (2) year-round resident populations in places such as Sarasota Bay and surrounding areas; (3) populations that occur in deep waters off both the Atlantic and Gulf states; and (4) intermixing resident and migratory populations that overlap seasonally in places such as the Indian and Banana Rivers in east- central Florida. In this regard, the Commission noted Chapter II — Species of Special Concern that long-term mark/resighting and/or radio-tagging programs were required to verify this presumption and that program development plans prepared by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center in the late 1970s and early 1980s had called for establishing long-term mark/resighting programs in Sarasota Bay, Mississippi Sound, and the Indian River/Banana River complex. Pilot studies were initiated in each of these areas, but have been continued only in the Sarasota area. Participants in the December 1996 program review recommended that the Service identify and initiate long-term longitudinal studies in additional areas thought to be representative of the different types of bottlenose dolphin populations that may occur along the southern Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The Commission reiterated this recommendation in its 18 December 1998 letter. The Commission also recom- mended that the Service consult with the Environmen- tal Protection Agency, the Minerals Management Service, and relevant coastal state agencies to deter- mine whether everything necessary is being done to assess the sources, levels, and effects of anthropogenic contaminants present in bottlenose dolphins along the coasts of the southeastern and Gulf states. At the end of 1998 it was the Commission’s understanding that a draft conservation plan would be completed and circulated for comment by the Service in the first half of 1999. The Commission believes that the plan should be both aggressive and proactive (i.e., be designed to identify and deal with problems before they have substantial biological, ecological, or socioeconomic impacts). Further, the Commission believes that the plan should identify the personnel, financial, and other resources needed to address priority research and management issues most cost- effectively. The Commission will work with the Service in 1999 to develop and promote implementa- tion of a conservation plan that meets these objectives. Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi) The Hawaiian monk seal is the most endangered pinniped in U.S. waters and is second only to the northern right whale as the nation’s most endangered 47 marine mammal. The Hawaiian monk seal population currently is estimated to number about 1,300 to 1,400 seals, which appears to be less than half its abundance in the late 1950s. The species breeds only in the Hawaiian Archipelago, with most monk seals inhabit- ing the remote, largely uninhabited atolls and sur- rounding waters of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Figure 4). More than 90 percent of all pups are born at six major breeding colonies located at French Frigate Shoals, Laysan Island, Pearl and Hermes Reef, Lisianski Island, Kure Atoll, and Midway Atoll. A few births also occur annually at Necker Island, Nihoa, Niihau, and the main Hawaiian Islands. Although monk seals occasionally move between islands, females generally return to their natal colony to pup. Contributing to the species’ decline over the past four decades have been human disturbance, entanglement in derelict fishing gear, reduced prey availability, shark predation, natural environmental perturbations, attacks by aggressive adult male monk seals on females and immature seals of both sexes (called “mobbing”), and possibly disease. Ensuring monk seal recovery continues to be a daunting task. The National Marine Fisheries Service has lead responsibility for Hawaiian monk seals under both the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. To meet its responsibilities, the Service, at the recommendation of the Marine Mammal Commission, established the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team in 1980. In recent years, the team has met annually to review and provide advice on recovery needs. The Service also has provided recommendations on activities that could affect monk seals pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, established regulations to reduce interactions with commercial fisheries, and initiated programs to monitor the status of monk seals throughout their range, remove entangling debris from monk seals and their habitat, reduce male mobbing, and characterize monk seal foraging ecology and diet. Because all of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands except Kure Atoll are within either the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge or the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Service also has major responsibilities regarding the recovery of monk seals. Among other things, the Fish and Wildlife Service assists with monk seal MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 research and monitoring and factors monk seal protec- tion needs into management decisions related to public use of refuge areas. Other key agencies and groups whose activities, programs, or responsibilities bear on monk seal recovery include the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, the Navy, the State of Hawaii, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, the University of Hawaii and the University of Hawaii’s Sea Grant Program, the Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, and the Center for Marine Conservation. As discussed in past annual reports, the Marine Mammal Commission was instrumental in initiating the monk seal recovery program late in the 1970s and has since continued to provide advice and assistance to the National Marine Fisheries Service and other agencies on monk seal recovery needs. Important issues in 1998 are discussed below. Population Trends and Survival Little is known about Hawaiian monk seals or their population status before the 1950s. It generally is acknowledged that the species was heavily exploited in the 1800s during a short-lived sealing venture. What is thought to be the last Hawaiian monk seal taken by commercial sealers was killed in 1824 by the crew of the brig Aiona. Some seals were killed for food by shipwreck victims and other transient visitors to the islands. The first attempt at estimating Hawaiian monk seal numbers was made in 1958, when a total of 1,206 seals was counted. Between then and the mid-1970s, the overall population size declined by about 50 percent. During this period, colonies at the western end of the archipelago between Kure Atoll and Laysan Island declined by at least 60 percent, and the colony at Midway Island all but disappeared. Most human activity was concentrated at the westernmost atolls of the chain during this period, suggesting that human disturbance contributed to the decline. The Navy undertook a major expansion of its air facility on Midway Atoll during the 1950s, and in 1960 the Coast Guard established a LORAN station at Kure Atoll that was occupied year-round. As described in the previous annual report, ownership of Midway Atoll was transferred from the Navy to the U.S. Fish 48 and Wildlife Service in 1996, and the atoll is now managed as the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. The Coast Guard closed the LORAN station at Kure Atoll in 1992 and removed most of the man- made structures by 1993. The decline in monk seal numbers seemed to have slowed by the early 1980s, due primarily to a seven- fold increase in monk seal counts at French Frigate Shoals between the 1960s and mid-1980s. However, the overall population again began to decline in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The downward trend was driven primarily by the colony at French Frigate Shoals, which has been declining significantly since 1989. In the mid-1990s total monk seal numbers appear to have stabilized at about 1,300 to 1,400 individuals. However, the poor juvenile survival experienced in recent years, especially at French Frigate Shoals, is expected to initiate a renewed population decline because fewer females will be entering the breeding population. The poor juvenile survival rate at French Frigate Shoals does not appear to be due to direct human disturbance. Rather, evidence indicates that limited prey availability may be a factor. The small size of pups at weaning, the absence of apparent disease- related deaths, the low female reproductive rate, and the delayed age of first reproduction at this location support this hypothesis. Aggressive behavior or mobbing of females and immature seals by adult males also is a source of mortality. This can be a direct result of injuries inflicted by the aggressive males or as a result of later shark attacks on wounded seals or pups chased into the water by aggressive males. During the 1997 field season at French Frigate Shoals, 14 incidents of adult male aggression toward pups were documented, and eight pups subsequently died. Two adult males were identified as being responsible for most of these injuries. After similar behavior by the same animals was observed again in 1998, the two offending males were translocated to Johnston Atoll, located about 1,125 km (700 miles) south of French Frigate Shoals, on 8 June 1998. At the end of 1998 neither animal had been resighted at French Frigate Shoals, and the incidence of injury or death caused by aggressive behavior had declined dramatically at this site. ag (Mioway 1. qniblaowaleRg seein ee lbaD teri yan: 10g! alvad Ualippegsa inal eG adineteg> ot pe soxr. wiolgitesnad has YMaotten ofT St nt wigued omeced goidryie Mt yeah gnlant, bruh gurl give ach ugtficiiamge ts » bate gored) DEPOD: ahs | bine aoray, hewit va ae Outage gatge: Pains h 20iteh bee ao olaysb ek hagdesdl sacs Witers onthe Momos a ered a hnotarephvma deel (960s, fand @round the wring was weed aS ape' nk! bare yecater ychyealy ore, % Maa ceoth ger dorecoacrcye: Ue ether cared. neta ogee dtiaution: @ dicnyirsh enpswi gays toll) puWan Mase to webs oti, g001a -rallutoni veh, BED ys beeen cu gueey Shier a alngsizo!7s “nti | cu tami 7) emer lawn ibLovereiy hy ME tab beaver ez0iweb au) \wilidiezor orf) otngiteovni of maged taimaid sift 60s ai Yo sghevnd’ uneia MID ong ONNgiR Ame 6 PRB Cp. ATNETUNE inser caae cade wey one, splat) nazeig 84008 57 OE aE. @igmavey, oe Ad SIN AstEe!9 C101 “INRRNG Imi) (onan wit. Unispi niietene, Me PRIA WHI Ow tae SeRbh ay haat belie wai lon: AR Girelubes BR? seer artuemse lease D v0! 6 as Witter rimatee habituc. che a 0 TRUTH Ret: Appa Entei REE ways pars are nb mth wore ot, MEIRD: va A oily» oniian am, uwea ad sp), WOMELD Otanly Seger OA hows accmpi dermagd0# 025 paired Ee area eatin: X “a0 mi wareghyne launng TOG; Heap boven, Pheer Blige \ Sd Wedewran airy RO. BAG wes i baynperay 610 oun) sili ogn lnutoewad> iat} gniziy TOC! redinigsd A mo aid ai angisabr, bop Thy eae sl e.geciepaenia Wiha etal dgia! yr) beROg co sigh 2410 ee -haqatoved PU MME: A RE RTADOOL cargbind. the serilalio: seape dn Springs wes one of the@itben! gonmud yichmaging) spe iigs in Poagrhhe Navigw the | x rexurt 4 MHBY (6; AGMERNgO Aviewme® O9 JeeaH oe i fal, Devers apapiPiC carte ON, al deaipiberrigp VET i 18 2 Se SalI ER. (4y 09 2>\veb.9rem PORE, Me Fo be eal Aerie iMaah Meo) Je lane certs RL map Sete GAM yedenwmepoeiidaer quia bolalst basweivetmds 20 chege aati hebben, sawuvempiabedd Oe. oR olen mir bas eee wus Calg ono yTneod il —_— wivvad oc? iat Grbiign heaton oy 2 eMdom te Umeroental ¢ j 3 espandiiye ihe 4 - : we run. ft noted that pleg ” Seared gniangenege aligiob 290 & Aitia ci stride ia) wtort viteluotieg on “ouvniS Io insets shiv sdp) 2 TOTES ub TOE ehaely; SU 2A UO! Se oahecespratk mquecittag: 2 nth -mere @atpiz roth 09 te dviztL ve yal Reh ig@ See sin Toda new ptonedt qeibe re Ye witness mi dom amy 2 lyme itt Ladineensty tate ert asadto taee the Seg ee OVS cro Loss ike aoe forrest met ldap ep aaa} moProrieg rem ti) 7 oF * dt “yp 7° ite ~~ 5 rats yreton, AVS yng AO reat hee nasi teed ieerrg st ee ane tO Gaya ctenaly asin cts 1O SSiaagoioth ym eyiown ot cee sd ; VOPDBROP Lanes flee 2095 @e wivise ad} Boer vedinsvoK cl “Un! cle oHite genteu nasty lenAert to: ; Lived od homing: atenoon wonay (de Oeneeetee voles amg. lati nel T coequpied oT wyeky OFF atl) ei hevieseno ws 4) Coy Joe enoiaivens a evn Jieb eepones Lh Aan NY hit Deppoiousrts,” atirgy ay: “i: UTA OOEO FOR ignac rand ot) HORE Deadaname Sod WES gIvlexe goinawlg & gei gn Monee ed hinoda orth iqepere reps Whose expertise and betp age: ploat ss i bes Hon Quick Sie-olfn - 7 lo sonuoa teegunl ods .zadisiiios iseeov CS Doon gra dota mt mrccqurutts er gritetae code sgl, voller w dosumyaon to oF bas elupes riarerirne —_— ? P et et Tie pt ’ f}- saan OR Coad ieee 50 OU ice yeacnss Ven een. peneutcunte ctedi deta totiish ad ~ Chapter III MARINE MAMMAL-FISHERIES INTERACTIONS Marine mammals may be disturbed, harassed, injured, or killed either accidentally or deliberately during fishing operations. They, in turn, may take or damage bait and fish caught on lines, in traps, and in nets, damage or destroy fishing gear, or injure fisher- men trying to remove them from fishing gear. Marine mammals and fishermen also may compete for the same fish and shellfish resources. In 1994 the Marine Mammal Protection Act was amended to establish a new regime to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. As in the past, however, the incidental take of dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery continues to be regulated under separate provisions of the Act. Implementation of the 1994 fisheries regime is discussed in this chapter. Also discussed are amendments to the Marine Mam- mal Protection Act enacted in 1997 pertaining to the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery and actions being taken to implement those amendments. In addition, this chapter provides information on efforts to address interactions between various species of pinnipeds and certain fish stocks. Fishery interactions affecting specific species, including Hawaiian monk seals, Steller sea lions, sea otters, harbor porpoises, and right whales, are discussed in Chapter II. Implementation of the Incidental-Take Regime for Commercial Fisheries Since its enactment in 1972 the Marine Mammal Protection Act has contained provisions for authoriz- ing the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. The 1987 ruling in a lawsuit challenging an incidental-take permit issued to Japanese salmon fishermen operating in U.S. waters 105 (Kokechik Fishermen’s Association v. Secretary of Commerce), however, threw into question whether such permits could continue to be issued under then- existing provisions to many other fisheries known to take marine mammals. In response, Congress passed a five-year interim exemption to govern incidental taking, during which time a new long-term incidental- take regime was to be developed. As discussed in previous annual reports, the Marine Mammal Protection Act was amended in 1994 to establish a new regime to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. Three new sections were added to the Act to address interactions between commercial fisheries and marine mammals. Section 117 requires the preparation of marine mammal stock assessments to provide a scientific basis for the new incidental-take regime. In part, the assessments are intended to identify strategic stocks for which take reduction plans must be prepared. Section 118 sets forth the requirements of the 1994 incidental-take regime. It directs the National Marine Fisheries Service to publish a list of commercial fisheries classified according to the frequency with which they kill or seriously injure marine mammals. Certain requirements (e.g., a registration requirement and a requirement to carry observers) are applicable, depending on a fishery’s classification. The amend- ments focus resources on the most pressing problems — those involving strategic stocks. A take reduction plan is to be developed for each strategic stock subject to frequent or occasional mortality or serious injury. Section 120 addresses interactions between pinni- peds and fishery resources. It provides a mechanism for states to apply to the National Marine Fisheries Service to obtain authorization to lethally take pinni- MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 peds in certain instances. Section 120 also directs the Service to investigate the impacts of growing sea lion and harbor seal populations on the recovery of sal- monid stocks and on coastal ecosystems in Washing- ton, Oregon, and California, and to establish a task force to examine problems involving pinnipeds and aquaculture projects in the Gulf of Maine. The new regime includes a mechanism for autho- rizing a limited incidental take of marine mammals listed as endangered or threatened under the Endan- gered Species Act, something the original statute and the interim exemption did not provide. Such authori- zations may be issued under section 101(a)(5)(E), provided the National Marine Fisheries Service (or the Fish and Wildlife Service for manatees and southern sea otters) determines that (1) the incidental mortality and serious injury will have a negligible impact on the species or stock, (2) a recovery plan has been or is being developed under the Endangered Species Act, and (3) if required, a monitoring program for relevant fisheries has been established under section 118. Actions involving the preparation of stock assess- ments and take reduction plans are discussed in this section and, as they relate to specific marine mammal stocks, in Chapter II. Implementation of the other requirements of section 118 and provisions applicable to endangered and threatened species and deterring marine mammals from damaging fishing gear or catch are also discussed in this section. Actions taken under section 120 are discussed in the section on pinniped- fisheries interactions later in this chapter. Stock Assessments Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act requires the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior to prepare and periodically update stock assessment reports for each marine mammal stock that occurs in U.S. waters. This provision also requires that three regional scientific review groups be established to assist in the development of these reports. These groups were established in 1994 for Alaska, the Pacific coast, including Hawaii, and the Atlantic coast, including the Gulf of Mexico. They include experts in marine mammal biology, commercial fishing technology and practices, and, in the case of Alaska, Native subsistence uses. Among other things, 106 scientific review groups are to advise the Secretaries on (1) the estimated size, status, and trends of marine mammal stocks, (2) uncertainties and research needs regarding stock separation, abundance, and trends, (3) research on modifications in fishing gear and practices to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals, and (4) potential impacts of habitat destruction on marine mammals and, for strategic stocks, conservation measures to reduce such impacts. Based on the advice of the regional groups and public comment on draft stock assessments, the Secretaries are to publish a final assessment report for each stock. The Act directs that each assessment describe the geographic range of the stock; provide a minimum population estimate, the stock’s current and maximum net productivity rates, and current population trend, including the basis for those findings; estimate the annual human-caused mortality and serious injury, by source, and, for stocks deter- mined to be strategic stocks, describe other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding recov- ery; describe the commercial fisheries that interact with the stock, including estimates of fishery-specific mortality and serious injury levels and rates, a de- scription of seasonal or area differences in inciden- tal take, and an analysis of whether incidental-take levels are approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate; assess whether the level of human-caused mortality and serious injury would cause the stock to be reduced below its optimum sustainable population or, alternatively, whether the stock should be categorized as a strategic stock; and estimate the potential biological removal level for the stock. As defined in the Act, a stock’s potential biological removal level is the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortality, that can be removed from the stock while allowing the stock to reach or remain at its optimum sustainable population level. The potential biological removal level is calculated by multiplying three variables — the minimum population estimate for the stock, one-half of the theoretical or estimated maximum net productivity rate of the stock at a small population size, and a recovery factor of between 0.1 and 1.0. Strategic stocks are those that (a) have a level of direct human-caused mortality exceeding the calculated potential biological removal level, (b) are designated as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, (c) are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, or (d) are likely to be listed as endangered or threatened in the foreseeable future. National Marine Fisheries Service — As dis- cussed in previous annual reports, the National Marine Fisheries Service published a Federal Register notice in August 1995 announcing the availability of its original stock assessments. The Service also pub- lished a separate report describing the guidelines used to identify stocks, determine minimum population sizes, estimate maximum net productivity rates, and select appropriate recovery factors. Of 145 stocks for which the Service originally prepared assessments, 47 were determined to be strategic stocks. The Service also designated as strategic 33 localized stocks of the bottlenose dolphin that inhabit bays, sounds, and estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico after concluding that the minimum abundance estimates were so low that the take of a single animal from most of these stocks would exceed the calculated potential biological removal level. Assessments for strategic stocks are to be reviewed at least annually. For other stocks, assessments must be reviewed at least once every three years. The National Marine Fisheries Service began the process of revising its stock assessments in 1996. Final versions of these revised stock assessment reports were published by the Service at the end of 1997. The revised reports noted a changed status for seven marine mammal stocks. The stocks of Baird’s beaked whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, and pygmy sperm whales that occur in waters off California, Oregon, and Washington, identified as strategic in the original stock assessments, were found to be non-strategic. The stock of minke whales inhabiting waters off California, Oregon, and Washington was reclassified as strategic as a result of a single observed fishery- related mortality. Three stocks of cetaceans that occur off the east coast of the United States, the western North Atlantic stock of white-sided dolphins, the western North Atlantic stock of bottlenose dol- 107 Chapter II] — Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions phins, and the western North Atlantic stock of long- finned pilot whales, were reclassified from strategic to non-strategic in the revised assessments. The National Marine Fisheries Service published a Federal Register notice on 24 July 1998 announcing the availability of draft stock assessment reports for 1998. For stocks that occur in Alaska, the Service proposed revisions to 15 of 33 assessment reports, including all 10 strategic stocks. Although the revised reports included new information on marine mammal abundance and estimated mortality, no changes in the status of these stocks were proposed. Two status changes were proposed for the 50 stocks that occur along the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. In light of revised abundance estimates resulting from a 1996 ship-based survey, the Service believed that the California- Oregon-Washington stocks of minke whales and mesoplodont beaked whales (Mesoplodon spp.) should be classified as non-strategic. Draft assessments for two stocks of harbor seals, two stocks of harbor porpoises, and the San Miguel stock of fur seals were also revised to reflect new information. None of the proposed changes, however, would change the status of these stocks from non-strategic. Of the 57 stock assessments that had been prepared for marine mammals occurring in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, the Service proposed revisions to- 26. Based on new estimates of fishery-related inci- dental mortality, the Service proposed changing the status of the western North Atlantic stock of white- sided dolphins from non-strategic to strategic. The draft revised stock assessment for the western North Atlantic stock of pygmy sperm whales indicated that this stock should be reclassified as non-strategic because no fishery-related mortalities or serious injuries had been observed between 1992 and 1996. The Marine Mammal Commission provided comments on the draft 1998 stock assessment reports by letter of 21 October 1998. In general, the Com- mission believed that the draft reports provided thorough descriptions and assessments of marine mammals stocks occurring in U.S. waters and infor- mation on the levels of human-caused mortality and serious injury affecting the stocks. The Commission MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 suggested that, given the extreme condition of the Hawaiian monk seal population and the continuing decline of this species at French Frigate Shoals, an updated assessment of this species was warranted even in the absence of dramatic new information. Similar- ly, the Commission believed that a revised assessment should be prepared for the western North Atlantic coastal stock of bottlenose dolphins. Specific com- ments on individual assessments were also provided. The National Marine Fisheries Service expects to publish final revised stock assessments early in 1999. Fish and Wildlife Service — The Fish and Wild- life Service published initial assessment reports for the eight stocks of marine mammals under its jurisdiction on 4 October 1995. Three stocks, the Florida and Antillean stocks of the endangered West Indian manatee and the threatened California stock of sea otters, were determined to be strategic stocks. As discussed in the previous annual report, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued draft revised stock assessments for southern sea otters in California, northern sea otters in Washington, and the Florida and Antillean stocks of West Indian manatees in April 1997. Although the draft revisions incorporated information not available when the original assessment reports were prepared, no changes in the status of these stocks were proposed. The Fish and Wildlife Service published a notice announcing the availability of draft revised stock assessment reports for the other marine mammal species under its jurisdiction, those occurring in Alaska, on 5 March 1998. The proposed revisions did not indicate that any of these polar bear, sea otter, or walrus stocks should be reclassified as strategic. The only significant change from the initial reports was the proposal to split Alaska sea otters, previously considered to be a single stock, into three separate stocks based on genetic studies and other information. On 14 September 1998 the Service announced the availability of final assessment reports for the Alaska stock of the Pacific walrus and the two stocks of polar bears that occur in Alaska. All three stocks remain classified as non-strategic. Final stock assessments for Alaska sea otters, however, have yet to be issued. 108 A provision of section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act requires that, if requested by an Alaska Native subsistence hunter, a proceeding on the record must be held before a final stock assessment can be published for any marine mammal stock taken in Alaska for subsistence or handicraft purposes. The Alaska Sea Otter Commission, which represents Alaska Natives who hunt sea otters, submitted com- ments taking issue with the proposed division of Alaska sea otters into three stocks. The Sea Otter Commission did not believe that the Service’s propos- al was based on the best available scientific informa- tion or supported by substantial evidence. The Sea Otter Commission therefore requested that, if the Service adhered to the proposed placement of Alaska sea otters into three stocks, a proceeding on the record be conducted. It was the Commission’s understanding that at the end of 1998 the Fish and Wildlife Service was consulting with the Alaska Sea Otter Commission in an effort to resolve the issue of stock structure without resorting to a formal hearing. The Incidental-Take Regime Section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act sets forth the regime governing the take of marine mammals incidental to most commercial fishing operations. It requires the classification of fisheries according to the frequency with which marine mam- mals are taken, registration by fishermen participating in fisheries that frequently or occasionally take marine mammals, monitoring and reporting of incidental taking, and attainment of the goal of reducing inciden- tal mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in commercial fisheries to insignificant levels approach- ing zero within seven years. The section also requires preparation of a take reduction plan for each strategic stock subject to frequent or occasional mortality or serious injury in fishing operations. Each plan is to include recommended regulatory or voluntary mea- sures to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury and recommend dates for achieving specific objec- tives. The immediate goal of the plans is to reduce, within six months, incidental mortality and serious injury to levels less than the potential biological removal level calculated in the stock assessment. The long-term goal of the plans is to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury to insignificant levels approaching a zero rate within five years, taking into Chapter III — Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions account the economics of the fishery, existing technol- ogy, and applicable state or regional fishery manage- ment plans. Implementing Regulations — As discussed in previous annual reports, the National Marine Fisheries Service published regulations implementing section 118 on 30 August 1995. Among other things, the regulations include procedures for vessel owners to register for an authorization certificate, observer and reporting requirements, and criteria for classifying fisheries. Although the Service had proposed a definition to be used to determine when the zero mortality and serious injury rate goal of the Act had been achieved, it did not include that element in the final regulations. As such, this issue remains unre- solved. The 1994 amendments require that commercial fisheries reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate by April 2001. Toward this end, the amendments require the National Marine Fisheries Service to review the progress of commercial fisheries in meeting this goal and to report its findings to Congress. The report was to have been submitted by 30 April 1998. As of the end of 1998, however, it was the Commission’s understanding that completion of the report was awaiting a determination by the Service as how best to quantify the phrase “approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate.” The Service expects to resolve this issue and complete the report during the first half of 1999. Shortly after transmitting the report to Congress, the Service intends to publish proposed regulations that will govern when the zero mortality and serious injury rate goal has been met. Several provisions of the incidental-take regime for commercial fisheries are geared toward reducing marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries to certain levels. As such, it is important that there is some mechanism for determining which injuries are to be considered serious. Regulations promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 1995 define serious injury as any injury that will likely result in mortality. However, it is not always apparent at the time a marine mammal is released from fishing gear whether its injuries are life-threatening. To address 109 this issue, the National Marine Fisheries Service convened a workshop in April 1997 to consider ways to differentiate between serious and non-serious injuries. Representatives of the Marine Mammal Commission participated in the workshop. The workshop report was published by the Service in January 1998. In noted that workshop participants had considered the different ways in which marine mammals may be injured by a variety of types of fishing gear and assessed the likelihood that different types of marine mammals would survive interactions with fishing gear. The report also recognized that some marine mammals may succumb from the physio- logical effects of stress associated with entanglement in fishing gear. In addition, it summarized views as to the types of information that should be collected by observers to enable the Service to determine which injuries should be considered serious. The workshop report noted that general guidelines had been developed for different types of marine mammals. Participants generally agreed that, for large whales, any entanglement that resulted in the animal trailing gear such that its mobility or ability to feed was impeded should be considered a serious injury. For small cetaceans, animals that ingest hooks, that are trailing gear when released, or that swim away abnormally after being released should be considered seriously injured. For pinnipeds, animals should be considered seriously injured if they are trailing gear or are hooked in the mouth. The Service intends to draw on the findings of the workshop to develop guidelines for determining what constitutes a serious injury. A draft version of the guidelines has been prepared and will be made available for public review and comment once agency review is complete. Take of Endangered and Threatened Species — As noted above, the incidental-take regime enacted in 1994 includes a provision for authorizing the inciden- tal taking of species listed as endangered or threat- ened, provided certain findings are made. In 1996 three-year, permits were issued to participants in Alaska fisheries, authorizing the incidental taking of North Pacific humpback whales and Steller sea lions from both the eastern and western stocks. Those authorizations were to expire on 31 December 1998. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 On 30 December 1998 the National Marine Fisher- ies Service published a Federal Register notice extend- ing those permits through 30 June 1999. Rather than reissue the permits for a three-year period, the Service chose to extend them for six months while it reviewed its criteria for determining whether authorized taking will have a negligible impact on listed marine mam- mal stocks. Under existing criteria, the Service generally considers annual mortalities and serious injuries to be insignificant at the population level if they do not exceed 10 percent of the potential biologi- cal removal level calculated for a stock. The Service requested comment on other formulations, such as basing the determination on the recovery rate of the stock or tying the criteria to achievement of the zero mortality and serious injury rate goal. The Service also solicited comments on whether the permits should cover taking other than those involving mortalities or serious injuries and, if so, whether permits authoriz- ing these less serious types of taking alone should be issued. The Commission expects to comment on these issues early in 1999. List of Fisheries — A key feature of the inciden- tal-take regime is annual publication of a list of fisheries placing each U.S. fishery into one of three categories based on the frequency with which marine mammals are killed or seriously injured. Vessel owners participating in category I or category II fisheries must register and are subject to certain other requirements. Those participating in category III fisheries need not register for an incidental-take authorization, but are required to report any marine mammal mortality or injury that occurs incidental to their operations. Under regulations published by the National Marine Fisheries Service, a category I fishery is one in which annual mortality and serious injury of any marine mammal stock is equal to or greater than 50 percent of the stock’s potential biological removal level. A category II fishery is one in which annual mortality and serious injury is between 1 and 50 percent of the stock’s potential biological removal level, provided that the total mortality and serious injury of the stock from all fisheries combined is greater than 10 percent of its potential biological removal level. All other fisheries (i.e., those which, combined with other fisheries, do not take more than 110 10 percent of a stock’s potential biological removal level or that individually take less than 1 percent of any stock’s potential biological removal level) are placed in category III. The Service published its final list of fisheries for 1998 on 4 February 1998. Although the Service examined new data for several fisheries, the 1998 list included no changes in the classification of fisheries from the 1997 list. The Service noted that data on stranded bottlenose dolphins placed the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery on the borderline between category I and category II, but stated that it wanted to conduct a more thorough analysis of the data before proposing listing the fishery in category I. The Service considered including a new drift gillnet fishery for yellowfin and albacore tuna on the list of fisheries, but on further examination, included this fishery with the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery in category II. The Service also noted the existence of an offshore Atlantic herring trawl fishery. By analogy with the trawl fishery for squid, mackerel, and butterfish, and the potential of this fishery to interact with harbor porpoises, the Service believed that this fishery should be listed as a category II fishery. However, the Service deferred including the offshore trawl fishery for herring on the list of fisheries until the public had been given an opportunity to review and comment on the issue. The National Marine Fisheries Service published the proposed list of fisheries for 1999 on 11 August 1998. The proposed list reflected the new estimates of incidental mortality and serious injury contained in the 1996 stock assessment reports and the 1998 draft stock assessment reports. As expected, the Service proposed listing the offshore component of the mid- water trawl fishery for Atlantic herring as a category II fishery. Rather than list this fishery separately, however, the Service proposed combining it with the mid-Atlantic coastal herring trawl fishery, which previously was listed as a category III fishery. The Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine fishery was Classified as a category III fishery on the 1998 list of fisheries. Estimated mortalities of bottlenose dolphins observed between 1992 and 1995 suggest that this fishery may warrant listing in category I. The Service, however, chose to propose placing this fishery in category II, pending a revised analysis of the stock structure for bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, the Service proposed name changes for the northeast multi-species sink gillnet fishery and the North Carolina haul seine fishery to reflect target species and geographical boundaries more accurately. The Service also invited comment on certain fisheries for which no changes in classification were proposed. The Atlantic Scientific Review Group, established under section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, recommended that the Service consid- er reclassifying the Atlantic squid, mackerel, and butterfish trawl fishery as a category I fishery because estimated mortalities and serious injuries exceed the potential biological removal level for pilot whales and common dolphins. The Service, however, declined to adopt this recommendation, noting that there was substantial uncertainty with respect to those estimates. The Service indicated its intention to reevaluate the estimates of marine mammal mortality that occurs incidental to this fishery based on data from the 1997 season before proposing any listing change. In April 1998 the Pacific Scientific Review Group recommended that the National Marine Fisheries Service reclassify the category III Hawaii swordfish, tuna, billfish, mahimahi, wahoo, and oceanic sharks longline-set line fishery as a category II fishery. This recommendation was based on the observed mortality and serious injury of several species of cetaceans. In declining to adopt the review group’s recommenda- tion, the Service noted that it had been unable to calculate the potential biological removal level for most of these stocks because their abundance in Hawaiian waters was unknown. The Service also noted that most of the marine mammals taken in this fishery had been released alive, albeit with injuries. The Service therefore believed that it was premature to include this fishery in category II until it had published guidelines for determining what constitutes a serious injury. The Service also indicated that it was not proposing a change in the listing of the category III Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico blue crab trap/pot fishery despite evidence that bottlenose dolphins and manatees 111 Chapter III — Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions are incidentally entangled in this gear. The Service explained that most manatees are disentangled and released alive. As for bottlenose dolphins taken in this fishery, the Service believed that the required analyses could not be done until the stock structure of this species is better understood. In addition to proposing revisions to the list of fisheries for 1999, the 11 August 1998 Federal Register notice proposed several technical modifica- tions to the regulations implementing section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Take Reduction Plans — As noted above, section 118 requires the National Marine Fisheries Service to develop a take reduction plan for each strategic stock that interacts with a fishery that frequently or occa- sionally kills or seriously injures marine mammals (i.e., a category I or category II fishery). It directs the Service to establish take reduction teams to take the lead in developing take reduction plans. These teams are to include members representing federal agencies, affected coastal states, appropriate fishery management councils, interstate fishery commissions, academic and scientific organizations, environmental groups, the commercial and recreational fishermen that incidentally take the species or stock, and any affected Alaska Native or Indian tribal organizations. Where human-caused mortality and serious injury of a stock are believed to be equal to or greater than - the stock’s potential biological removal level, a take reduction team is to prepare and submit to the Service a draft take reduction plan within six months of the team’s establishment. For other strategic stocks, draft take reduction plans are to be submitted within 11 months of the team’s establishment. Within 60 days of receiving a draft take reduction plan, the Service is to publish the plan in the Federal Register, along with any proposed changes and proposed regulations to implement the plan, for public review and comment. After a public comment period of no more than 90 days, the Service has 60 days in which to publish a final take reduction plan and implementing regula- tions. After publication of the final plan, take reduc- tion teams are to continue to meet to monitor the plan’s implementation. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 As discussed in previous annual reports, the National Marine Fisheries Service has established five take reduction teams, the Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team, the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team, the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team, and the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Gillnet Take Reduction Team. A representa- tive of the Commission participated as a member of the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise and Atlantic large whale teams. Activities of the Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team and the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Gillnet Take Reduction Team are discussed in the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise section of Chapter II. Actions to adopt and implement the draft take reduc- tion plan developed by the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team to address the bycatch of northern right whales and humpback whales in coastal gillnet and lobster pot fisheries are discussed in the northern right whale section of Chapter II. The Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team was constituted to address the incidental take of several species of beaked whales, short-finned pilot whales, pygmy sperm whales, sperm whales, and humpback whales in the category I drift gillnet fishery targeting thresher shark and swordfish in waters off California and Oregon. The team submitted its draft take reduction plan to the National Marine Fisheries Service in 1996. This plan formed the basis for implementing regulations published by the Service on 3 October 1997. The regulations require that the top of the nets be set a minimum of 36 feet (11 m) below the water surface because the majority of cetaceans incidentally taken in the drift gillnet fishery are taken in the upper one-third of the net. The regulations also require the use of low-intensity acoustic deterrent devices (pingers) on nets used in this fishery. The regulations further require operators in the fishery to attend a skipper education workshop before each fishing season. The notice indicated that the Service intended to reconvene the take reduction team annual- ly until the long-term take reduction goals of the Act have been achieved. The Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team met on 1-2 June 1998 to review the effective- 112 ness of the regulations in reducing marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries. During the 1997-1998 fishing season, overall mortalities were down approximately 65 percent and were below the potential biological removal level for all strategic stocks. Because of the effectiveness of setting nets deeper and using pingers in reducing mortalities, the team members recommended that the plan be main- tained without modification during the 1998-1999 fishing season. The Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team was established in 1996 to address the take of several species of cetaceans, including right whales, humpback whales, sperm whales, beaked whales, long-finned and short-finned pilot whales, and com- mon, spotted, and bottlenose dolphins, incidental to operation of the Atlantic pair trawl, longline, and drift gillnet fisheries for swordfish and other species. The team submitted a draft take reduction plan to the National Marine Fisheries Service in November 1996. Recognizing the threat that drift gillnets pose to right whales and the large numbers of other marine mam- mals taken as bycatch in these nets south of the New York Bight in winter and spring, the team recom- mended that drift gillnet fisheries for swordfish, tuna, and sharks south of the Hudson Canyon be closed seasonally from 1 December to 31 May. The plan also recommended that all drift gillnet vessels be required to carry marine mammal observers, that new entrants into the fishery be limited, and that the fishery catch limits be allocated to avoid the derby nature under which fishing now occurs. As discussed in the right whale section of the Commission’s previous annual report, the take reduc- tion team’s recommendations and the results of consultations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act prompted the Service to implement closures of the offshore swordfish fishery for much of 1997. Action was also taken in late 1997 to close the mid-Atlantic and northeast segments of the offshore drift gillnet fisheries for tuna and sharks during the first half of 1998. On 20 October 1998 the National Marine Fisheries Service published a proposed rule to prohibit the use of driftnets in the Atlantic swordfish fishery on a permanent basis. In making this proposal, the Service noted that the measures recommended by the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team did not provide sufficient guarantees that marine mammal takes would be reduced to allowable levels and did not adequately address concerns about the bycatch of sea turtles in this fishery. The Service also noted that the cost of implementing the take reduction team’s recom- mendations would exceed the net value of the sword- fish that are landed. The comment period on the proposed rule closed on 14 December 1998 and it is expected that a final rule will be issued in early 1999. Because of changes in circumstances that will occur if the swordfish fishery is closed permanently to driftnets, it is likely that the Service will reconstitute the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team to recommend additional actions to reduce marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries in the off- shore fisheries for swordfish, tuna, and sharks. Intentional Taking — Unlike the interim exemp- tion that governed incidental taking between 1988 and 1995, the regime established under section 118 prohibits intentional lethal taking of marine mammals in commercial fishing operations. The only exception is if lethal taking is “imminently necessary in self- defense or to save the life of another person in imme- diate danger.” Although intentional lethal take is not allowed, fishermen and others may take marine mammals by non-lethal means to deter them from damaging gear, catch, or other property under certain circumstances. Section 101(a)(4) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act directs the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to publish a list of guidelines to govern measures to be used in safely deterring marine mammals. In the case of marine mammals listed as endangered or threatened, the Services are to recommend specific measures that can be used to deter the animals non-lethally. The use of certain types of deterrence measures that have a significant adverse effect on marine mammals may be prohibited. The National Marine Fisheries Service published proposed deterrence regulations on 5 May 1995. The Service offered guidance on passive, preventive, and reactive measures that could be taken to deter marine 3 Chapter III — Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions mammals. The Service set forth four general princi- ples regarding acceptable deterrence measures. In addition to a statutory directive that such measures not result in the death or serious injury of the animal, the measures should not (1) result in the separation of a female marine mammal from its unweaned offspring, (2) break the skin of a marine mammal, (3) be direct- ed at a marine mammal’s head or eyes, or (4) be used to deter pinnipeds hauled out on unimproved private property. The Service also proposed to prohibit the use of any firearm or other device to propel an object that could injure a marine mammal, the use of any explosive device to deter cetaceans or the use of explosives more powerful than seal bombs to deter seals or sea lions, translocation of any marine mam- mal, or the use of tainted food or bait or any other substance intended for consumption by the marine mammal. Deterrence of marine mammals listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act would not be authorized under the pro- posed regulations. Rather, measures for safely deterring listed species would be subject to a separate rulemaking. The Commission’s comments on the proposed regulations are discussed in the 1995 annual report. As of the end of 1998 final deterrence regulations had yet to be published by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service had not published any guidelines or proposed regulations with respect to deterrence of those species of marine mammals under its jurisdiction. The Tuna-Dolphin Issue For reasons not fully understood, schools of large yellowfin tuna (those greater than 25 kg or 55 pounds) tend to associate with dolphin schools in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. This area covers more than 5 million square miles (18.1 million km”) stretching from southern California to Chile and westward to Hawaii. Late in the 1950s U.S. fishermen began to exploit this association by deploying large purse seine nets around dolphin schools to catch the tuna swim- ming below. Despite efforts by the fishermen to re- lease the encircled dolphins unharmed, some animals become trapped in the nets and are killed or injured. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Efforts to reduce the incidental mortality of dolphins in this fishery have been a primary focus of the Marine Mammal Protection Act since it was enacted in 1972. Background The eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery was domi- nated by U.S. vessels during the 1960s and early 1970s. In the late 1970s and early 1980s the U.S. fleet declined and the number of foreign vessels participating in the fishery grew. Along with these shifts in the fishery came changes in the associated dolphin mortality. As reflected by mortality data presented in Table 10, progress made by the United States to reduce dolphin mortality under the Marine Mammal Protection Act was offset by increased mortality from growing foreign operations. This prompted Congress to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1984 and again in 1988 to establish comparability requirements for nations seeking to export tuna to the United States. Imports of yellowfin tuna caught in the eastern tropical Pacific were banned from countries that failed to adopt a tuna-dolphin program comparable to that of the United States or whose fleet exceeded the incidental-take rate of the U.S. fleet by a certain amount. In addition, imports of yellowfin tuna from intermediary nations that imported tuna from nations subject to a primary embargo were made subject to a secondary embargo. In an effort to reduce dolphin mortality further, additional requirements also were placed on U.S. tuna fishermen. The requirements enacted in 1988 and the threat of tuna embargoes resulted in substantially reduced dolphin mortality by foreign fleets. Another factor contributing to the drop in dolphin mortality was the La Jolla Agreement, an agreement entered into voluntarily by the tuna-fishing nations in 1992, which, among other things, established vessel-specific mortal- ity limits. Under these requirements, dolphin mortali- ty declined by more than 95 percent between 1988 and 1993. Although part of this decline is attributable to a smaller number of sets being made on dolphins, the primary factor in reducing incidental dolphin mortality has been a marked reduction in the average number of dolphins killed per set. Table 10. Estimated incidental kill of dolphins in the tuna purse seine fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, 1972-1998! Year U.S. Vessels Non-U.S. Vessels 1972 368,600 55,078 1973 206,697 58,276 1974 147,437 27,245 1975 166,645 27,812 1976 108,740 19,482 1977 25,452 25,901 1978 19,366 11,147 1979 17,938 3,488 1980 15,305 16,665 1981 18,780 17,199 1982 23,267 5,837 1983 8,513 4,980 1984 17,732 22,980 1985 19,205 39,642 1986 20,692 112,482 1987 13,992 85,185 1988 19,712 61,881 1989 12,643 84,403 1990 5,083 47,448 1991 1,002 26,290 1992 439 15;1T1 1993 115 3,601 1994 105 4,095 1995 0 3,274 1996 0 2,547 1997 0 3,005 1998 0 = 1,900? 1 These estimates, based on kill per set and fishing effort data, are provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. They include some, but not all, seriously injured animals released alive. 2 Preliminary estimate. Preliminary data suggest that dolphin mortality incidental to the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery in 1998 declined to a record low level. Although the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission is still collecting and analyzing data from 1998, it expects that incidental dolphin mortality for the year will be approximately 1,900 individuals, despite the fact that more dolphin sets were made in 1998 than in 1997. Subsequent to enactment of the 1988 amendments, some environmental organizations began to push for a consumer boycott of tuna caught by encircling dolphins. In response, the three largest U.S. tuna canners announced in 1990 that they would no longer purchase tuna caught in association with dolphins. This announcement led to further shifts in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery as more U.S. vessels relocated to the western Pacific. It also prompted Congress to pass the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, which set standards for labeling tuna as being “dolphin-safe.” Although the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s tuna embargo provisions appeared to be an effective means of compelling other nations to reduce dolphin mortality, they came under fire as possibly being inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Mexico challenged an embargo of its tuna before a GATT panel in 1990. A second challenge was brought by the European Community and the Netherlands in 1992, claiming that the intermediary nation embargoes were not GATT-consistent. As discussed in previous annual reports, the dispute resolution panels in those cases found the unilaterally imposed U.S. embargo provisions to be inconsistent with the GATT. The panels suggested, however, that such trade sanctions may be permissible if designed to ensure compliance with a multi-lateral agreement. The panels’ decisions were never formally adopted by the GATT Council and do not have the force of final decisions. The Marine Mammal Protection Act’s tuna-dolphin provisions were amended further by the International Dolphin Conservation Act of 1992. The amendments were, in part, designed to address GATT concerns and focused on ways to eliminate, rather than merely reduce, incidental dolphin mortality. The amendments established a framework for a global moratorium on the practice of setting on dolphins to catch tuna. Although no fishing nation agreed to the moratorium and, as a result, certain provisions of the Act never became effective, other provisions were not contingent on a moratorium. Changes included (1) revising the quotas applicable to the U.S. fleet, (2) modifying the 115 Chapter III — Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions U.S. permit to proscribe setting on eastern spinner and coastal spotted dolphins, and (3) prohibiting, as of 1 June 1994, the sale, purchase, transport, or ship- ment in the United States of any tuna that is not dolphin-safe. The 1992 La Jolla Agreement Rather than agreeing to the global moratorium on setting on dolphins called for by the International Dolphin Conservation Act of 1992, the governments of all nations participating in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery opted for a different course. At a special meeting of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission held in 1992 they adopted a resolution to establish a multi-lateral program to reduce incidental dolphin mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific. This non-binding agreement, called the La Jolla Agreement after the site of the meeting, established the Interna- tional Dolphin Conservation Program under the auspices of the Tuna Commission. The agreement established a goal of reducing dolphin mortality to levels approaching zero and set annual limits on total incidental dolphin mortality as a means of achieving that goal. Under the agreement, dolphin mortality was capped at 19,500 in 1993, 15,500 in 1994, 12,000 in 1995, 9,000 in 1996, 7,500 in 1997, 6,500 in 1998, and less than 5,000 in 1999. Other aspects of the program adopted under the resolution were continuation of the requirement to place observers on board all large purse seiners, with the additional. requirement that at least 50 percent of the observers be deployed under the Tuna Commission’s observer program; establishment of a panel to monitor compli- ance by the international fleet with the annual dolphin mortality limits; expansion of existing research and educational programs, including increased efforts to find methods of catching large yellowfin tuna that do not involve encircling dolphins; and establishment of a scientific advisory board to assist the Tuna Commis- sion in coordinating, facilitating, and guiding research directed at reducing dolphin mortality. The parties subsequently agreed to a system where- by each vessel participating in the fishery would be given an individual dolphin mortality limit. Once that limit was reached, the vessel would have to stop setting on dolphins for the remainder of the year. Under that agreement, any vessel that leaves the MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 fishery or that does not use any of its quota by 1 June forfeits its quota for the remainder of the year. Un- used quotas may be allocated to other vessels for the second half of the year. Any vessel that exceeds its dolphin limit will have the amount of the excess deducted from its quota for the following year. As discussed in previous annual reports, once a vessel’s fate was tied directly to its own performance under the La Jolla Agreement, dolphin mortality declined dramatically. In 1993, the first year under the new international program, dolphin mortality dropped below the level set for 1999. This prompted parties to the agreement to adopt resolutions to reduce the overall dolphin mortality limits for 1994 and 1995 to 9,300. In subsequent years, the mortality caps established under the agreement were not reduced. Despite the success of the international tuna fleet in reducing incidental dolphin mortality, under the comparability requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act imports of yellowfin tuna caught in the eastern tropical Pacific from countries whose vessels continue to set on dolphins have been precluded since 1994. At the 1995 meeting of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, six parties to the La Jolla Agreement — Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela — issued a joint statement urging the United States to lift the embar- goes then in effect. In their view, catching tuna in compliance with the International Dolphin Conser- vation Program was environmentally sound and should not be the basis for an embargo. They contended that increased use of dolphin-safe fishing methods would harm biodiversity by increasing the discard of juvenile tuna and the bycatch of non-target species other than dolphins. The nations therefore endorsed fishing for tuna by setting on dolphins as the most effective method for protecting the tuna stocks and other resources of the eastern tropical Pacific. The six nations believed that U.S. embargoes of all but dolphin-safe tuna were contrary to international law, lacked a scientific basis, were counterproductive to broader conservation goals, and were incompatible with the United States having signed the La Jolla Agreement. Concerned that the current situation was endangering their continued participation in the program established under the La Jolla Agreement, the tuna-fishing nations called on the United States to 116 allow importation of tuna caught in association with dolphins and to redefine the term dolphin-safe to include all tuna caught in compliance with the regula- tory measures adopted under the La Jolla Agreement. In response to the possibility that at least some fishing nations would abandon the program established under the La Jolla Agreement, Congress in mid-1995 began to consider whether changes were needed to the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s tuna-dolphin provi- sions, particularly those on the tuna embargoes. The Declaration of Panama Concerned that an opportunity to consolidate the gains in dolphin conservation made under the La Jolla Agreement was slipping away, five environmental groups began discussions with representatives of Mexico in September 1995 to explore the possibility of a multi-lateral agreement among tuna-fishing nations to formalize and strengthen the International Dolphin Conservation Program and lift U.S. tuna embargoes. These discussions led to a compromise supported by the tuna-fishing nations, some environ- mental groups, and the U.S. Administration. This compromise ultimately formed the basis for the Declaration of Panama, an agreement signed by representatives of 12 nations on 4 October 1995. Signatories to the declaration included Belize, Colom- bia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, the United States, Vanuatu, and Venezuela. These nations reaffirmed their commit- ment to reducing dolphin mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery to levels approaching zero through the setting of annual mortality limits, with the goal of eliminating dolphin mortality by seeking a means of capturing large yellowfin tuna not in associ- ation with dolphins. Moreover, the nations declared their intention, contingent on the enactment of changes in U.S. law, to formalize by 31 January 1996 the La Jolla Agreement as a binding Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission resolution or other binding legal instrument. The envisioned changes to U.S. law included (1) lifting the primary and secondary embar- goes for tuna caught in compliance with the La Jolla Agreement, as it would be modified under the Decla- ration of Panama, (2) allowing access to the U.S. market for all tuna, whether dolphin-safe or not, caught in compliance with the agreement by nations that are members of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission or that have initiated steps to become members, and (3) redefining the term dolphin-safe to include any tuna caught in the eastern tropical Pacific by a purse seine vessel in a set in which no dolphin mortality was observed. The signatories to the Declaration of Panama specified several provisions that would be included in the binding international instrument once the requisite changes to U.S. law had been enacted. These includ- ed commitments to (1) adopt conservation and man- agement measures that ensure the long-term sustain- ability of tuna stocks and other living marine resourc- es in the eastern tropical Pacific, (2) assess the catch and bycatch of juvenile yellowfin tuna and other living marine resources of the eastern tropical Pacific and adopt measures to reduce or eliminate such bycatch, (3) implement the international agreement through enactment of domestic legislation and/or adoption of regulations, (4) enhance existing mechanisms for reviewing compliance with the international program, (5) establish annual stock-specific quotas on dolphin mortality based on minimum population estimates, (6) limit overall dolphin mortality to no more than 5,000 per year, (7) establish a system that provides incen- tives to vessel captains to continue to reduce dolphin mortality, and (8) establish or strengthen national scientific advisory committees to advise their respec- tive governments on research needs. As provided for in the Declaration of Panama, until the year 2001, an annual quota for each stock would be set at between 0.1 and 0.2 percent of the minimum population estimate for the stock. Begin- ning in the year 2001, the annual per-stock quota would be set at 0.1 percent of the stock’s minimum population estimate. If the annual quota for any stock were exceeded, all sets on that stock and any mixed schools containing individuals from that stock would cease for the remainder of the year. In addition, should the annual mortality for the eastern spinner or the northeastern offshore spotted dolphin exceed 0.1 percent of the minimum population estimate, the governments would conduct a scientific review to consider whether further action to reduce mortality was needed. 117 Chapter III — Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions The International Dolphin Conservation Program Act Efforts to amend U.S. law as called for by the Declaration of Panama culminated in enactment of the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act on 15 August 1997. The new law made several changes to the U.S. tuna-dolphin program. Amendments to section 304 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act direct the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission and the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission, to conduct a study of the effects of chase and encirclement on dolphins and dolphin stocks taken in the course of purse seine fishing for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific. The amendments direct that the study commence on 1 October 1997 and consist of abun- dance surveys and stress studies designed to determine whether chase and encirclement are having a “signifi- cant adverse impact on any depleted dolphin stock in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.” Specifically, the amendments require the National Marine Fisheries Service to survey the abundance of depleted dolphin stocks (northeastern offshore spotted dolphins and eastern spinner dolphins) during calendar years 1998, 1999, and 2000. The stress studies are to include (1) a review of relevant stress-related research and a three-year series of necropsy samples from dolphins obtained by commercial vessels, (2) a one-year review of relevant historical demographic and biological data related to dolphins and dolphin stocks, and (3) an experiment involving the repeated chasing and captur- ing of dolphins by means of intentional encirclement. The Service is to make an initial finding in March 1999, based on the preliminary results of the research program and any other relevant information, as to whether the intentional encirclement of dolphins is having a significant adverse effect on any depleted dolphin stock. A final finding is to be made between 1 July 2001 and 31 December 2002 and a report of that finding submitted to Congress. Unless the Service determines that chase and encirclement are having a significant adverse effect on a depleted dolphin stock, the definition of dolphin-safe tuna will be changed to include all tuna harvested in sets in which no dolphin mortality was observed. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 The amendments authorize the following appropria- tions to carry out the research program: $4 million in fiscal year 1998, $3 million in fiscal year 1999, $4 million in fiscal year 2000, and $1 million in fiscal year 2001. An additional $3 million is authorized for each of these four fiscal years to carry out research related to the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery. Presumably, such appropriations could be used for the abundance surveys and stress studies or to conduct other research to further the goals of the International Dolphin Conservation Program, as discussed below. Before the amendments take effect, two things must occur — (1) the Secretary of State must certify that a binding resolution of the Inter-American Tropi- cal Tuna Commission (or some other legally binding international instrument) establishing the International Dolphin Conservation Program has been adopted and is in force and (2) the Secretary of Commerce must certify that sufficient funding is available to complete the first year of the abundance surveys and the stress studies and that the studies have begun. The amendments also direct the National Marine Fisheries Service to engage in other research to further the goals of the International Dolphin Conser- vation Program. The Service, in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission and with the coopera- tion of the nations participating in the International Dolphin Conservation Program and the Inter-Ameri- can Tropical Tuna Commission, is to conduct such research, which may include projects to (1) devise cost-effective fishing methods and gear designed to reduce or eliminate incidental mortality and serious injury of dolphins; (2) develop cost-effective methods for catching mature yellowfin tuna that do not require setting on dolphins; (3) carry out assessments of dolphin stocks taken in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery; and (4) determine the extent to which the incidental taking of non-target species, including juvenile tuna, occurs in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery and assess the impact of such taking. Although it will remain subject to the dolphin-safe labeling requirements, all tuna caught in the eastern tropical Pacific after the effective date of the amend- ments may be imported into the United States, provid- ed it was caught in accordance with the requirements of the International Dolphin Conservation Program. 118 The amendments further require that the total dolphin mortality limits and the per-stock limits for nations importing tuna to the United States progressively decline from 1997 levels. Once the amendments become effective, the zero quota and stock-specific restrictions that have prevented U.S. fishermen from setting on dolphins will be lifted. They will be able to apply for a permit allowing them to take dolphins in accordance with the provisions of the International Dolphin Conservation Program. Unlike the multi- year, general permits issued to the American Tunaboat Association in the past, individual vessels will be required to obtain annual permits. As of the end of 1998 most provisions of the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act were not yet in effect. On 27 July 1998 the Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, certified that sufficient funding was available to complete the first year of the study on the effects of chase and encirclement on dolphins. However, although the parties to the Declaration of Panama signed the required binding international agreement, the Agreement on the Inter- national Dolphin Conservation Program, on 21 May 1998, it does not enter into force until it has been ratified by four parties. At the end of 1998 only the United States and Panama had ratified the agreement. Implementation of the 1997 Amendments As noted above, the International Dolphin Conser- vation Program Act requires the National Marine Fisheries Service to consult with the Marine Mammal Commission regarding implementation of mandated research into the effects of chase and encirclement on dolphins. Other research in furtherance of the goals of the International Dolphin Conservation Program required under the Act is also to be conducted in consultation with the Commission. In addition, the Service is required to consult with the Commission in developing regulations to implement the new provi- sions governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery. The Commission established the groundwork for these consultations in a 9 September 1997 letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service in which it solicited the Service’s ideas on how best to structure the consultations and requested the Service to provide it with any proposals or draft plans that may have been developed. The Commission also sought information on the Service’s plans for undertaking or supporting research to further the goals of the International Dolphin Conservation Program and for promulgating implementing regulations. As discussed in the Commission’s previous annual report, the Service responded by letter of 22 October 1997, summarizing its plans for, and describing progress it had made toward, implementing the amendments. The Service also indicated that it would be drafting regulations to implement the 1997 amend- ments in stages. Because development of the regula- tions would be dependent, in part, on the terms of the international agreement then being negotiated by the signatories to the Declaration of Panama, no firm schedule could be provided. The Commission wrote to the Service on 27 March 1998 seeking additional information on the Service’s plans for carrying out the research mandated by the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act. The Commission expressed concern that plans were being made and work proceeding without the required consultation with the Commission. The Commission noted, for example, that a Commission representative had participated in a 17-18 December 1997 meeting to consider the design of the 1998 dolphin abundance survey, but had received no further information on the Service’s plans for this project. The Commission had been advised that work was under way on the review of stress-related literature, but had not been provided with terms of reference or consulted on the scope of the review. Similarly, the Commission noted that it had yet to be consulted on two other studies, the necropsy sampling project and the analyses of histori- cal biological and demographic information, that, presumably, were scheduled to begin soon. The Commission also commented on the proposed schedule for the planned field experiment in which dolphins will be repeatedly chased and captured to assess the immediate and cumulative effects of chase and encirclement. The Service had indicated that the study would be undertaken in calendar year 2000. The Commission agreed with the Service that thor- ough planning of the project was essential, but ques- 119 Chapter III — Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions tioned the decision to delay the experiment until the third year of the research program. On 15 May 1998 the Marine Mammal Commission received a draft research plan from the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Southwest Fisheries Science Center covering the various projects being proposed to satisfy the requirements of the Interna- tional Dolphin Conservation Program Act. The Service requested the Commission’s comments before release of the plan to the public. The Commission provided comments on the draft research plan by letter of 29 May 1998. The Com- mission noted that preparation of the draft plan was a positive step toward meeting the consultative and other requirements of the Act, but believed that, because most of plans for the proposed research were still being developed, the draft lacked sufficient detail to allow for a meaningful review. The Commission therefore voiced its expectation that, as comprehensive research plans are developed, the Commission would be given an opportunity to review and comment on them before work begins. The Commission believed that, to be reviewable, the plan for a particular research project should provide (1) a statement of its goals or objectives; (2) a description of the methodol- ogy to be used (e.g., what will be sampled or mea- sured and how, how many measurements will be made or samples collected, what analyses will be done, etc.); (3) a proposed schedule; (4) the proposed budget; and (5) as needed, an analysis showing the statistical power of the project to meet its objectives. The Commission stressed the need to complete plans for and to begin certain research projects expeditiously so that the Service could collect suffi- cient information to make its initial finding in March 1999 as to whether chase and encirclement are having a significant adverse impact on any depleted dolphin stock. The Commission believed that the Service should make a concerted effort to obtain at least preliminary results not only from the dolphin abun- dance survey, but from the literature review and the necropsy study, in time to factor them into the initial determination. Further in this regard, the Commis- sion expressed concern that, unless the necropsy program were initiated soon, the Service may not be able to collect and analyze a three-year series of MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 necropsy samples before making the final determina- tion, as required by the 1997 amendments. One study of particular interest to the Commission was the capture rate estimation study proposed by the Service in its draft research plan. The Commission requested additional information on this study, noting that it may be possible to design a study that would enable the Service to correlate the frequency of encirclement with unobserved dolphin mortality rates. If this could be done, it would provide an important means for supplementing the abundance surveys as a way of detecting possible population level effects of chase and encirclement. The Commission also noted that the results of the required research are likely to be controversial and advised the Service that it would be useful at the outset to describe (1) what would be considered to be evidence of stress-related effects on the recovery of depleted dolphin stocks and/or (2) what steps, if any, need to be taken to establish generally agreed upon criteria that will be used to decide what would consti- tute evidence that chase and encirclement of dolphins is or is not impeding recovery of depleted stocks. The Commission also believed that, if the Service were to establish decision-making criteria at the outset, the Commission and other reviewers would be better able to comment on whether the proposed studies were likely to provide adequate information. The Commission also inquired as to which dolphin stocks would be factored into the Service’s findings on the effects of chase and encirclement on depleted stocks. Although the Commission agreed that the Service needed to look at the effects on northeastern offshore spotted dolphins and eastern spinner dol- phins, the two stocks designated as depleted under section 115 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Commission questioned whether the effects on coastal spotted dolphins also needed to be considered. This stock, although not formally designated as depleted under section 115 of the Act, was determined to be below its optimum sustainable population level in the last tuna-dolphin permit proceeding, held in 1980. Along with the eastern spinner dolphin, it has been treated in subsequent legislation as though it were depleted. 120 Other points raised by the Commission included the need for the Service to (1) estimate the magnitude of the changes in dolphin populations that would have had to occur in order to be detected within acceptable levels of statistical confidence by the planned surveys, (2) explain more clearly how planned ecological studies would be factored into determining whether the recovery of depleted dolphin stocks is being impaired by chase and encirclement, and (3) include studies on stress in humans as part of the review of stress-related literature. The National Marine Fisheries Service responded by letter of 5 August 1998. The Service indicated that planning and implementing the various research projects was an ongoing effort and pledged to keep the Commission apprised of and involved in the process. The Service agreed that developing decis- ion-making criteria for the March 1999 finding was desirable and noted that, because the initial determina- tion would depend primarily on the results of the 1998 abundance survey, it was focusing on developing criteria related to these data. The Service recognized that the criteria would necessarily be based both on science and on policy. Asa first step, the survey data would be compared statistically with expected results to identify any difference that may be attributable to chase and encirclement. The second step would be to determine whether any such difference is significant. The Service characterized the necropsy sampling program as “a complicated endeavor” requiring exten- sive cooperation with other governments and with non-U.S. fishing vessels. Despite efforts to arrange for the placement of technicians on those vessels to collect materials, the Service did not believe that sampling would begin during fiscal year 1998. This being the case, the Service indicated its intent to increase sampling effort during subsequent years and to extend the program beyond fiscal year 2000. The Service also indicated that it was developing a com- prehensive research plan for the necropsy study that would describe the research objectives, necropsy procedures, sampling and analytical design, and processing protocols. With respect to the literature review, the Service stated that its primary utility would be to provide a context for the findings of other research projects by Chapter III — Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions describing what is known about physiological and behavioral stress and relating it to the chase and encirclement of dolphins. It was not expected that the results of the review would factor directly into making the initial finding on the effects of chase and encircle- ment. The Service also indicated that, although some relevant literature on humans would be included in the review, its focus was on investigations of marine mammals and non-human terrestrial mammals. The Service noted that it intended to concentrate its efforts on determining the effects of chase and encir- clement on northeastern offshore spotted dolphins and eastern spinner dolphins, the two stocks most fre- quently set on by tuna vessels. Nevertheless, the planned abundance surveys would provide some data on the abundance of coastal stocks, such as the coastal spotted dolphin. The Service did not, however, specifically address the question of whether it believed the coastal spotted dolphin to be depleted or whether this stock would factor into the initial finding on the effects of chase and encirclement. The Service responded to the Commission noting that the ecological studies should contribute signifi- cantly to resolving what may be causing a lack of recovery of depleted dolphin stocks if the abundance surveys indicate that these stocks are not recovering as expected. To the extent that impeded dolphin recoy- ery is not mirrored by changes in the physical envi- ronment or by reductions in other organisms, it is more likely that cryptic mortality or reduced produc- tivity related to chase and encirclement is the cause. The Service’s letter also responded to other issues that had been raised by the Commission. The Service provided a summary of its $3.8 million budget for the dolphin studies for fiscal year 1998. The Service also noted that it was in the process of calculating the power of the surveys to detect changes in dolphin abundance and determining whether existing tagging technology and sampling methodology were such that the proposed capture rate estimation study would be worth pursuing. The Service indicated that it would keep the Commission informed as to the progress of these and other activities. The Service wrote again on 27 August 1998, advising the Commission that it was planning to 121 contract for the development of a framework for determining whether chase and encirclement in the purse seine tuna fishery are having a significant adverse impact on eastern tropical Pacific dolphin populations. The Service invited the Commission to comment on the lines of evidence that would be factored into the decision analysis framework. The Commission sent a follow-up letter on 17 September 1998 providing additional comments on the Service’s plans for conducting the research mandated by the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act and commenting on the decision analysis frame- work. The Commission noted that the Service’s 5 August letter had been helpful in clarifying aspects of the proposed research, but that additional description and explanation were needed for some projects. The Commission reiterated the importance of establishing at the outset of the research program the criteria that will be used to determine if chase and encirclement of dolphins are having significant ad- verse effects on any depleted dolphin stock. Toward this end, the Commission expressed support for the Service’s decision to contract for the development of Statistically based decision-making criteria. The Commission stressed the need for the Service to adopt such criteria before the 1998 abundance survey was completed so as to avoid potential claims that selection of the criteria was influenced by the survey results. Noting its earlier comments on the need to begin the necropsy sampling as soon as possible, the Com- mission expressed concern that more than three months had passed and, not only had the sampling not begun, but the necessary agreements with the fishing nations to place technicians on board fishing vessels had yet to be concluded. The Commission noted the difficulty that the Service had had in obtaining permits from some of the tuna-fishing nations to conduct dolphin surveys in their waters and questioned wheth- er necropsy sampling had also been delayed by a lack of cooperation of those nations with the Service’s research efforts. The Commission speculated that some nations may be operating on the misguided belief that deferring the research is somehow to their advantage (i.e., that the labeling requirements for dolphin-safe tuna will automatically change in March MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 1999 absent information indicating that chase and encirclement adversely affect dolphins). In the Commission’s view, the 1997 amendments are premised on the National Marine Fisheries Service developing a sufficient information base to enable it to make the required findings by carrying out the full research program on schedule. The Commission therefore recommended that a senior official within the Department of Commerce contact officials in Mexico and other nations whose vessels purse seine for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific to inform them that failure to cooperate with U.S. researchers and technicians in a timely manner will be viewed as a sign of bad faith and may result in the Secretary declining to make a finding under the Dolphin Protec- tion Consumer Information Act or deferring the effective date of any change in the definition of dolphin-safe tuna. The 17 September letter also reiterated the need for the Service to clarify whether coastal spotted dolphins would be factored into the findings on the effects of chase and encirclement on depleted stocks. The Commission explained that the Service will be vulner- able to challenge unless it either articulates sufficient justification for determining that the coastal spotted dolphin is not depleted or collects adequate informa- tion for determining whether chase and encirclement are having a significant adverse effect on this stock. The Commission therefore again asked the Service provide its views on the current status of this stock. The Commission also provided additional com- ments on the review of stress-related literature being prepared by the Service. Noting that the Service seemed to believe that the literature review would be useful primarily for planning the experiment involving the repeated chase and capture of dolphins, the Commission indicated that, by comparing how other taxa respond to similar stimuli, the review could also be used to infer possible stress-related impacts of chase and encirclement on dolphins. The Commission therefore recommended that the Service give further consideration to the possible ways in which the results of the literature review might be used in making the initial finding. The Commission also commented that more relevant studies probably have been done to investigate the effects of physiological and psychologi- 122 cal stress in humans than in other animals and again recommended that the review include all potentially relevant literature on stress in humans. The National Marine Fisheries Service convened a meeting on 16-17 December 1998 in La Jolla, Cali- fornia, to review its progress in planning and conduct- ing the research required under the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act and to seek views concerning the decision-making rules and criteria that would be used to make the initial finding on the effects of chase and encirclement in March 1999. Representatives of the Commission attended the meeting. Although the Service had hoped to satisfy, in part, the consultative requirements of the Act through the Commission’s attendance, the representa- tives explained at the outset of the meeting that, because the Marine Mammal Protection Act requires the Commission to consult with its Committee of Scientific Advisors in formulating its recommenda- tions, this was not possible. The Service’s scientists provided the meeting participants with an overview of each element of its dolphin research program. They noted that the first abundance survey had just been completed and that preliminary results would be available in mid-January 1999. They also noted that the Service, at least preliminarily, had decided to treat the coastal spotted dolphin as a depleted stock for purposes of making the initial finding. They noted, however, that this may present problems because the surveys conducted in the late 1980s and early 1990s had not provided abun- dance estimates for this stock. Thus, there was no baseline against which to compare the 1998 estimate. The Commission representatives suggested that it might be possible to avoid this problem by looking qualitatively at the information regarding the frequen- cy with which coastal stocks are chased and encircled. It may be that sets on these stocks are so infrequent that the Service might be able to conclude that, even if those dolphins that are chased and encircled are adversely affected, these effects are unlikely to be significant at the population level. The Service noted that the review of stress-related literature was nearly complete and would be provided shortly to the Commission and others for review. As for the necropsy study, the Service stated that it had reached agreement with Mexico for the placement of technicians to collect samples. The Service plans to train 10 observers from the Mexican and international observer program to serve as technicians. The Service indicated that a protocol for the necropsy study had yet to be completed, but work was under way on designing a pilot study to assess the feasibility of undertaking the full study envisioned by Congress. The focus of the meeting was on the framework being developed for making the initial finding in March 1999. In general terms, the decision analysis represents an attempt to define what would constitute a significant adverse impact by quantifying the risk that chase and encirclement may prevent or retard recovery of a depleted dolphin stock. At the end of 1998 the Commission was drafting a letter to the Service commenting on several issues raised at the La Jolla meeting. The Commission anticipates that it will recommend a process for consulting on the Service’s proposed decision-making criteria, recommend that the decision-making criteria be published as a regulation or agency policy state- ment before March 1999, review the legislative intent as to what would constitute a significant adverse impact on a dolphin stock, and recommend that the National Marine Fisheries Service advise Congress of the status of its research program and what results will be available on which to base the March 1999 initial finding on the effect of chase and encirclement. As noted above, the International Dolphin Conser- vation Program Act does not take effect until a binding international agreement to formalize the provisions of the Declaration of Panama is in place. The text of the required agreement was concluded at a negotiating session held in La Jolla, California, on 2-6 February 1998. Appended to the agreement are 10 annexes that, among other things, set forth (1) observer requirements, (2) the methodology for establishing annual stock-specific dolphin mortality limits, (3) procedures for allocating dolphin mortality limits, (4) operational requirements for vessels partici- pating in the International Dolphin Conservation Program, and (5) the elements of an international program for tracking the origin of tuna caught in the eastern tropical Pacific. 123 Chapter III — Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions The Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program was signed by the United States, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and Venezuela on 21 May 1998. The Agreement remains open to signature by 10 other countries and the European Union. As of the end of 1998, two additional countries, Honduras and Vanu- atu, had signed the Agreement. The Agreement will enter into force once it has been ratified by four parties. As of the end of 1998, only the United States and Panama had deposited instruments of ratification. Pinniped-Fisheries Interactions The 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act added a new section (section 120) to address interactions between pinnipeds and fishery re- sources. Under section 120, states may apply to the Secretary of Commerce for authorization to lethally remove individual pinnipeds known to be affecting certain salmonid stocks without obtaining a waiver of the Act’s moratorium on taking, provided certain conditions are met. Section 120(f) directed the Secretary of Commerce to investigate and report to Congress by 1 October 1995 on the extent to which California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals are having a significant negative impact on the recovery of endangered or threatened salmonid fishery stocks or other components of the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California. Under section. 120(h), the Secretary also was directed to establish a pinniped-fishery interaction task force to provide advice on possible measures to minimize interactions between pinnipeds and aquaculture operations in the Gulf of Maine. A summary of past events and a discussion of actions taken by the Commission and others during 1998 on these provisions are provided below. Authorizations to Remove Pinnipeds As noted above, section 120 of the Marine Mam- mal Protection Act allows states to request authority to lethally take individually identifiable pinnipeds that “are having a significant negative impact on the decline or recovery” of certain salmonid stocks. To MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 date, only the state of Washington has requested authority to remove pinnipeds under this provision. Oregon is also monitoring an interaction problem, but is trying to address it using non-lethal means. Ballard Locks — The number of winter-run steelhead salmon returning through the Chittenden, or Ballard, Locks in Seattle to spawn in streams empty- ing into Lake Washington declined from nearly 3,000 in the early 1980s to fewer than 100 in 1994. During that time, there was a substantial increase in the number of California sea lions congregating near the locks and preying on steelhead. Efforts by the State of Washington and the National Marine Fisheries Service to reduce sea lion predation (e.g., capturing and moving sea lions to distant sites and using acous- tic harassment devices) were largely unsuccessful. Pursuant to section 120 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, in 1994 the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife sought authority from the Service to lethally take individually identifiable California sea lions preying upon winter-run steelhead migrating through the Ballard Locks. The state also asked that a pinniped-fishery interaction task force be established as required under section 120(c). The Ballard Locks Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force was established in September 1994 and on 22 November 1994 it forwarded its recommendations to the Service. As discussed in previous annual reports, it recommended, among other things, that sea lions preying on steelhead in the vicinity of the Ballard Locks be removed, preferably by non-lethal means. It also recommended that lethal removal be authorized if facilities were not available to hold depredating sea lions and if predation exceeded 10 percent of the returning steelhead in any consecutive seven-day period. Based on the task force recommendations and comments received from the Marine Mammal Com- mission and others, the Service on 4 January 1995 authorized the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to lethally remove individual California sea lions observed preying on winter-run steelhead migrat- ing through the Lake Washington ship canal in the vicinity of the locks. 124 The authorization, valid until 30 June 1997, also specified that the state must submit a report on its authorized activities by 1 September each year. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife submit- ted its first report to the National Marine Fisheries Service on 31 August 1995 describing actions taken during the 1994-1995 winter steelhead run. The report noted that no sea lions were killed during the run; however, three animals seen eating steelhead were captured, held in captivity until the end of the run, and then transported to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and released. One of the captured sea lions was held for more than four months before being released. The Ballard Locks Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force met to review the state’s 1995 report and concluded that its 1994 assessment of the situation re- mained valid (i.e., that “Lake Washington wild steel- head are near extinction for a number of reasons, one of which is their vulnerability to predation by sea lions at the Ballard Locks”). To avoid a “significant negative impact” on the steelhead population, the task force recommended that any individually identifiable sea lion observed killing salmon or steelhead in 1995 or previous years should be removed at the earliest opportunity if resighted in the Puget Sound area between Everett and Shilshole Bay. The task force recommended that such animals be permanently removed, either to captivity or by lethal means. The task force further recommended that animals observed preying upon steelhead for the first time after 1 October 1995 should be taken into captivity for the remainder of the run or be lethally removed if funding for captive maintenance were not available. The task force recommended that animals seen merely foraging in the area on three or more days should be removed to captivity but not killed. Subsequently, the Service revised its letter of authorization to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to redefine the term “predatory” as applied to sea lions, thus eliminating the predation rate “trigger” that had been included in the original letter of authorization. Under the new definition, a predatory sea lion is one that (1) is an identified animal bearing a brand, tag, or distinguishable natural mark; (2) has been observed by biologists preying on returning steelhead in the inner bay area of the Lake Washington Ship Canal; (3) has penetrated the acous- tic barrier and has been seen foraging in the enson- ified zone during the steelhead run after 1 January 1994; and (4) was or is observed foraging in the inner bay area during the steelhead run between 1 January and 31 May 1996. The revisions also removed the requirement for captive holding of predatory sea lions. No sea lions were lethally removed from the Ballard Locks area during the 1996 winter steelhead run; however, three animals thought to be the primary cause of the predation were captured and removed to permanent captivity at Sea World in Orlando, Florida. The Ballard Locks task force next met in Sep- tember 1996 to review information on the 1996 winter steelhead run and evaluate the effectiveness of permit- ted intentional lethal taking of individually identified sea lions. The task force concluded that, although no lethal takes had occurred, because of the long-term nature of fish stock recovery, it saw no reason to change its previous recommendations. The task force recommended, among other things, that, if requested, the Service should extend the authorization to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to lethally take sea lions at the Ballard Locks. Further, the task force concluded that it saw little need for further deliberation until substantive new information and analyses are available. As noted above, the State of Washington’s authori- zation for lethal removal of sea lions at the Ballard Locks was to expire on 30 June 1997. By Federal Register notice of 19 June 1997 the National Marine Fisheries Service solicited comments on a request by the state to extend the authorization to 30 June 2005. An eight-year extension was sought to encompass two complete steelhead life cycles, thus giving the state time to determine whether efforts to promote recovery of the steelhead population had been successful. In its notice, the Service stated that (1) no sea lions had been removed, either temporarily or permanently, from the Ballard Locks area during the authorized period (1 January to 30 May) in 1997; (2) it proposed to extend the state’s letter of authorization for a period of four to eight years; and (3) pending a final decision on an extension, it had issued an interim extension of the current authorization through 30 September 1997. 125 Chapter III — Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions On 29 September 1997 the Service announced in the Federal Register that, based on recommendations by a majority of the Ballard Locks task force, it was extending the State of Washington’s letter of authori- zation for the lethal removal of sea lions for four years, until 30 June 2001. No other changes were made to the terms and conditions of the authorization. During 1998 no incidents involving sea lion predation on steelhead were observed in the Ballard Locks area although one untagged animal was seen foraging on coho salmon. Steelhead salmon escape- ment has increased from 70 in 1994, to 126 in 1995, 234 in 1996, 620 in 1997, and 584 in 1998. This last number is significant because the run is the progeny of the 1994 year class. Pending new developments, the Ballard Locks task force has been suspended, and no further action is planned. The National Marine Fisheries Service continues to monitor the situation. Willamette River — In recent years, California sea lions have been observed in the lower Willamette River in Oregon during the winter/spring months coinciding with the migration of chinook and steelhead salmon. In addition, observers from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife have documented sea lions foraging on salmon near fishway entrances at Willamette Falls during the peak salmon runs. During this period, the river’s spring chinook and winter steelhead populations — the only native sal- monid populations above the falls — have declined, raising concern about the potential effects of sea lion predation on those stocks. By Federal Register notice of 13 March 1997 the National Marine Fisheries Service requested com- ments on a draft environmental assessment concerning interactions between California sea lions and salmon at the Willamette Falls fish passage facility. The draft assessment addressed the potential consequences of a proposal by the Service and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for the non-lethal removal of sea lions at the Willamette Falls site. The joint proposal also included plans for a monitoring program to document the extent of predation and efforts to identify additional sea lion deterrence measures. On 2 January 1998 the Service published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 an environmental assessment and finding of no signifi- cant impact on its proposal to take non-lethal mea- sures to prevent sea lion predation on salmonid stocks at Willamette Falls. During 1998 the Service and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife continued a joint monitoring program to document sea lion preda- tion at the site. Installation of a barrier at an area referred to as the “cul-de-sac,” previously the site of sea lion predation, appears to have alleviated the problem in that area. Subsequently, sea lions have been observed foraging for salmon in an area of the falls that is difficult to monitor and inaccessible for purposes of capture or harassment. It appears, however, that only one or two sea lions are present in the area at any one time, and three to five individuals are involved in the foraging behavior. Efforts to capture individual animals using a trap similar to one used at the Ballard Locks have not been successful. Investigation of Possible Pinniped Impacts on Endangered West Coast Salmonid Stocks As noted above, section 120(f) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act directed the Secretary of Commerce to investigate whether California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals are having significant nega- tive impacts on the recovery of salmonid stocks that are either listed or are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the Secretary is to determine whether these pinnipeds are having broad or adverse impacts on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California. A report on the results of the investigation was to be completed by 1 October 1995. As a first step, the Service constituted a working group to compile and evaluate existing information on the status and trends of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, and the seven species of salmonids found in Washington, Oregon, and California. Based on the results of the review, the working group prepared a report setting forth its findings and recommendations. The report and discussions with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission on behalf of the states of Washington, Oregon, and California formed the basis for the Service’s draft report to Congress addressing the impacts of sea lions and harbor seals on salmonids and west coast ecosystems. 126 A copy of the draft report, along with the working group’s report, was forwarded to the Marine Mammal Commission and others for comment on 3 April 1997. Both reports noted that pinniped predation was not a significant cause of the decline of salmonid stocks. However, because of the depressed condition of those stocks and the documented sea lion predation at the Ballard Locks, the working group report concluded that available information clearly demonstrates that the combination of depressed fish stocks and high preda- tor abundance in restricted areas where salmon are concentrated during migrations can result in signifi- cant negative impacts on local salmonid populations. Expanding on this conclusion, the draft report stated that there are a number of places in addition to the Ballard Locks where such conflicts exist. The Service therefore proposed to recommend that the Marine Mammal Protection Act be amended to authorize state and federal officials to kill California sea lions and harbor seals seen eating salmonids from stocks listed as endangered or threatened or from other depressed salmon stocks if non-lethal deterrence methods have been determined to be ineffective or impractical. The Commission, in consultation with its Commit- tee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed the draft report and provided comments to the Service on 9 July 1997. The Commission noted that the Service’s draft report did not consider all relevant information and did not reflect the full range of views regarding the killing of pinnipeds to conserve salmon stocks or to reduce interactions with human activities. In addition, the Commission noted that, although it was reasonable to conclude that pinniped predation could be having a significant effect on some depressed salmon stocks, information provided in the working group report and in the draft report to Congress provided no evidence that such predation is actually affecting the recovery of any depressed salmonid stocks, other than the winter run of steelhead salmon that migrates through the Ballard Locks, where high predation appears to be due to a combination of specific factors including fish passage through a restricted area. The Commission further noted that, although both reports indicated that the declines in west coast salmonid stocks were caused by factors other than pinniped predation (e.g., habitat degradation and overfishing), they did not identify what has been or is being done to address the causes of the declines. Consequently, it was not possible, except for the problem at the Ballard Locks, to judge the extent to which reduction in pinniped predation might promote recovery of depressed west coast salmonid stocks. Based on that analysis, the Commission recom- mended that the report to Congress be expanded to indicate what had been and was being done to address the cause of the depletion (i.e., to stop overfishing and habitat degradation) and the extent to which failure to reduce pinniped predation would prevent or impede recovery of the salmonid stocks of concern. The Commission pointed out that, although pinniped predation may be slowing or preventing recovery, reducing pinniped predation will not result in recovery if overfishing, habitat degradation, or other factors responsible for the decline have not been addressed adequately. Consequently, pinniped predation should be viewed and addressed within the context of a recovery plan designed to address all of the factors preventing or slowing recovery of depleted salmonid stocks. The Commission therefore recommended that the Service request that Congress authorize such steps as may be needed to reduce pinniped predation when (1) the proposed action is part of a comprehensive plan to restore one or more specific salmonid stocks, (2) the plan has been made available for public review and has been approved by the Service, and (3) there is an adequate monitoring program to verify that the management actions are contributing as expected to the recovery of the salmonid stocks. The Marine Mammal Commission also recom- mended that the Service either (a) expand its report to explain the rationale for the criteria that would be used to identify problem pinnipeds and decide when non-lethal deterrents are ineffective, or (b) defer its proposal for authorizing fishermen and government officials to kill pinnipeds until it can be shown with greater certainty that pinniped predation cannot be addressed effectively by practical, non-lethal means. As of the end of 1998 the Service had not yet submitted its report to Congress. 127 Chapter III — Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions Gulf of Maine Task Force on Aquaculture-Pinniped Interactions As recognized by the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, marine mammals may have adverse effects on aquaculture operations. One area of particular concern is the northeastern United States, where both the salmon aquaculture industry and local populations of harbor seals and gray seals have increased in recent years. Operators of aquaculture facilities in the area have complained that there has been a corresponding increase in pinniped predation on penned fish. In response, Congress added section 120(h) to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It directed the Secretary of Com- merce to establish a task force to examine situations in which “pinnipeds interact in a dangerous or damag- ing manner with aquaculture resources in the Gulf of Maine.” As noted above, the Secretary was directed to report to Congress no later than 30 April 1996 recommending measures to mitigate such interactions. After consulting the Marine Mammal Commission and others, the National Marine Fisheries Service established a seven-member task force, including representatives of industry, state government, the scientific community, and conservation organizations. After a series of meetings and public hearings in 1995, the task force submitted a report of its findings to the Service on 7 February 1996. The report included recommendations for mitigating predation of pen-raised salmon by pinnipeds in New England. With regard to the lethal taking of predatory seals, the task force did not endorse culling (i.e., large-scale lethal removal of animals) as a means of reducing potential interactions between seals and aquaculture. There was general agreement among task force mem- bers that three criteria must be met to justify the lethal taking of individual seals: (1) the consequences of the depredation must be severe and demonstrable; (2) the lethal measures being considered must have been proven to be an effective means of solving the prob- lem; and (3) no non-lethal alternatives are available. However, the task force did not reach consensus as to whether the current situation met these criteria. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Recommendations in the task force report ad- dressed regulatory, technological, and financial issues relative to pinniped-fishery interactions in the Gulf of Maine. The report noted that in some cases federal and state regulations may be restricting efforts to reduce interactions by stifling the development of innovative approaches. It recommended that the Service and the Maine Department of Marine Re- sources review regulations and revisit those measures that may be limiting the ability of aquaculture opera- tors to control seal predation by non-lethal means. With respect to technological mitigation alterna- tives, the task force recommended that the State of Maine survey pen and predator net designs currently in use and compare salmon loss rates for various designs. It further recommended that the Service and the Maine Department of Marine Resources study new materials and net designs and, as appropriate, develop measures or netting to obscure or camouflage penned fish. The report also called on the Service to under- take research on the effects of acoustic deterrence devices, and to sponsor workshops to review the best available information on such devices and to foster communication between the industry and experts in acoustics and animal behavior. By Federal Register notice of 17 March 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service announced the availability of a draft report to Congress on pinniped- aquaculture interactions in the Gulf of Maine. The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed the draft and provided comments to the Service on 21 April 1997. The Commission noted that both the Federal Register notice and draft report implied that the Service had concluded that it would be either impossible or impracticable to construct seal-proof aquaculture facilities. The Commission noted that such a conclu- sion did not appear justified. The Commission further noted that the 17 March Federal Register notice had indicated that the Service was considering recommending that Congress reexam- ine the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s prohibition on intentional lethal taking of pinnipeds so that the Service could authorize intentional lethal methods on a case-by-case basis, including the killing of pinnipeds found inside net-pens. In its letter, the Commission 128 concluded that such lethal taking would be justified provided that (1) it is in fact impossible or impractica- ble to construct aquaculture facilities that are seal- proof; (2) the use of high-output acoustic harassment devices have been shown to be ineffective, impracti- cal, or harmful to target or non-target species; and (3) the necessary “taking” authority cannot be obtained through a waiver of the Act’s moratorium con taking. The Commission recommended that the report to Congress be expanded to address each of these issues. On 1 August 1997 the Secretary of Commerce submitted to Congress the Service’s report on interac- tions between pinnipeds and salmon aquaculture resources in the Gulf of Maine. The report conclud- ed, among other things, that (1) the salmon aquacul- ture industry in the Gulf of Maine should collect data on the extent of the impacts experienced by seal attacks on net-pens; (2) primary responsibility for preventing and mitigating the effects of seal attacks on aquaculture resources should rest with the industry itself; and (3) in the rare event that a seal enters a net- pen, a grower may be placed in an intolerable situa- tion with no legal means of resolution; in such a case, lethal methods may be needed to resolve the situation. At the Commission’s annual meeting in Portland, Maine, on 10-12 November 1998, representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the state of Maine addressed issues related to interactions between harbor seals and aquaculture operations. As noted, the August 1997 report prepared by the Service placed considerable responsibility for alleviating the problem on the aquaculture industry. It was apparent from the discussions in Portland, however, that the industry has taken little initiative to date. Thus, there remains a need to obtain information on the extent of the problem and its impact on aquaculture. To do so, Service officials indicated that they would contract with a consultant who has worked with the industry to compile existing data on the extent of seal predation and measures being used to prevent such predation. The task force report recommended that growers be authorized to kill seals that enter a net-pen when there are no other means of resolving the problem. It is possible that this recommendation will be addressed during reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protec- tion Act in 1999. Chapter IV INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION Section 108 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act directs the Departments of Commerce, the Interior, and State, in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission, to take such actions as may be appropri- ate or necessary to protect and conserve marine mammals under existing international agreements. It also directs them to negotiate additional agreements required to achieve the purposes of the Act. In addition, section 202 of the Act directs that the Marine Mammal Commission recommend to the Secretary of State and other federal officials appropri- ate policies regarding international arrangements for protecting and conserving marine mammals. During 1998 the Commission continued efforts to update the compendium of international treaties and agreements bearing on the conservation of marine wildlife. The Commission also continued to devote attention to providing advice on the International Whaling Commission, conservation of marine mam- mals and marine ecosystems in the Arctic and the Southern Ocean, and regulation of international trade in marine mammals under the Convention on Interna- tional Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. These activities are discussed below. The Compendium of Treaties and International Agreements In 1994 the Marine Mammal Commission pub- lished The Marine Mammal Commission Compendium of Selected Treaties, International Agreements, and Other Relevant Documents on Marine Resources, Wildlife, and the Environment. The three-volume, 3,500-page Compendium, current through 1992, contains the complete texts of more than 400 interna- tional agreements, including more than 100 multi- 129 lateral and 90 bilateral treaties, agreements, accords, and memoranda of understanding. Also included are numerous amendments and protocols to these docu- ments, several non-binding international documents, and a number of significant documents to which the United States is not a party. The Compendium is divided into two sections comprising multi-lateral and bilateral documents, many of which are available for the first time. Subject areas include Antarctica, environment and natural resources, fisheries, marine mammals, marine pollution, marine science and exploration, and others. The Compendium also contains background informa- tion for each document, including primary source citations, the depositary nation or organization, the city in which the document was concluded, the date it was concluded, and, where applicable, the date it entered into force. In 1998 the Commission published an update to the Compendium, which added documents that were concluded between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 1995, as well as a number of older documents not included in the original Compendium. The revised edition contains more than 25 additiona! multi-lateral and 50 additional bilateral documents in the above subject areas, many of which are available publicly for the first time. The updated edition was published by the U.S. Government Printing Office and is available from the Superintendent of Documents. Also in 1998 the Commission began work on a second update, which will include documents conclud- ed between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 1998. The volume is currently in production and is expected to be published by the U.S. Government Printing Office late in 1999. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 International Whaling Commission The failure of the International Whaling Commis- sion (IWC) to regulate commercial whaling effectively prior to the 1970s allowed many whale stocks to be reduced to levels approaching biological extinction. This was one of the factors that led to passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and establishment of the Marine Mammal Commission. Since it was estab- lished, the Marine Mammal Commission, in consul- tation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, has continued to provide advice to the Department of Commerce and the Department of State on measures necessary to restore depleted whale stocks and to en- sure that commercial and aboriginal subsistence whaling does not cause any whale stock to be reduced or maintained below its optimum sustainable level. Activities related to the 1998 annual meeting of the IWC are described below. Preparations for the 1998 IWC Meeting Among the principal issues facing the IWC and its Scientific Committee at their 1998 meetings were the following: © commercial whaling being conducted by Norway without IWC authorization; development of a Revised Management Scheme, particularly with respect to surveillance and control measures that are needed before commercial whaling might resume; a request by Japan for a catch authorization of 50 North Pacific minke whales to be taken by coastal community-based whalers; the future of the IWC; development of a new management regime for aboriginal subsistence whaling; the continued killing of minke whales by Japan in the Southern Ocean and the North Pacific Ocean for purposes of scientific research; comprehensive assessments of stocks of right whales, humpback whales, minke whales, Bryde’s whales, and sperm whales; the effects of climate change on whale stocks; and the relationship between the IWC and other inter- national organizations. 130 The Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere currently serves as the U.S. Commission- er to the IWC. The commissioner has lead responsi- bility for developing and pursuing U.S. positions on all matters related to the IWC. To assist in formulat- ing policies that are both scientifically sound and supported by the American public, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration holds a series of public/interagency meetings each year to seek the views of government agencies, non-gov- ernmental organizations, and members of the public. Meetings of the public/interagency committee were held on 23 January, 6 March, and 1 May 1998 to review U.S. positions for the 1998 meeting of the IWC. In addition, a meeting of the committee was held on 4 December 1998 to review preparations for the 1999 meeting. A representative of the Marine Mammal Commission attended these meetings as part of the Commission’s efforts to work with officials of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of State, and the Department of the Interior to develop agreed positions. Intersessional Meetings — Although formal action by the IWC is generally confined to annual meetings, work goes on throughout the year to prepare for those meetings. In 1998 two intersessional meetings took place. Representatives of the United States participat- ed in both meetings. Commissioners from 17 member nations met in Antigua on 3-5 February 1998 to discuss an Irish proposal concerning the future of the IWC. As discussed below, Ireland introduced an initiative at the 1997 meeting to allow some whaling to resume in coastal areas, while prohibiting whaling in most other areas as a possible way of breaking an impasse that has developed between pro- and anti-whaling nations. Although the commissioners made little progress toward resolving differences over the Irish proposal, they agreed to continue discussing the issue at the IWC’s 1998 meeting in Oman. The IWC’s Scientific Committee convened a special meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, on 19-25 March 1998 to prepare a comprehensive assess- ment of right whales worldwide. Meeting participants noted that right whale populations off Argentina, Australia, and South Africa are increasing at annual rates of about 7 to 8 percent and now total about 7,000 animals. In contrast, right whale populations in the Northern Hemisphere remain severely depleted. The western North Atlantic population, consisting of about 300 individuals, may have been increasing at about 2.5 percent per year during the 1980s. Howev- er, the meeting participants were unable to conclude whether, since that time, the stock has increased, decreased, or remained at the same size. Less is known about the right whale stocks that occur in the North Pacific. Scientists from Japan presented sighting data from research cruises conduct- ed in the Okhotsk Sea, suggesting that the western North Pacific stock numbers about 900 individuals. However, the confidence interval around that estimate is quite large, and it may be that the size of the population is actually much smaller. Meeting partici- pants recommended that additional surveys be under- taken and urged the Russian Federation to allow researchers to survey waters within 12 nautical miles of its coast. Information on the eastern North Pacific stock of right whales consists of only sporadic sight- ings of small groups of whales. (See the northern right whale section of Chapter II for further informa- tion on this stock.) Meeting participants made several recommenda- tions concerning research and management needs for right whales. They recommended that comparative studies be undertaken in an effort to determine the factors that may explain the differences in reproduc- tive parameters between Northern and Southern Hemisphere right whales. The participants believed that high priority should be given to the continuation of demographic photoidentification studies and surveys designed to improve knowledge of right whale abun- dance and trends. They also identified an urgent need for research to identify measures for reducing mortali- ty from ship strikes and fishing gear entanglements and to examine factors such as food limitation and pollution that may be contributing to low fecundity and high mortality rates. Genetic studies to delineate populations more accurately and to determine whether low genetic diversity is retarding recovery in some populations were also recommended. 131 Chapter IV — International With specific reference to the western North Atlantic stock, meeting participants expressed the view that any human-related mortality will be detrimental to the long-term survival of the population. They therefore concluded that, if the chances of this stock recovering are to be maximized, efforts to reduce human-induced mortality are urgently needed. The 1998 Meetings of the IWC and Its Scientific Committee The 50th annual meeting of the IWC was held in Oman on 16-20 May 1998. The IWC’s Scientific Committee met in Oman before the annual meeting. The principal issues considered are described below. The Moratorium on Commercial Whaling — In 1982 the IWC adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling that entered into effect during the 1985 pelagic and 1986 coastal whaling seasons. Although several nations filed formal objections to the morato- rium, only Norway and Russia continue to maintain their objections. Under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, nations that file objections within a specified period after a measure is approved are not obligated to comply with the mea- sure. As discussed below, the IWC is developing a Revised Management Scheme, which if adopted would provide a framework for lifting the moratorium. As it has each year for the past decade, Japan submitted a proposal to the IWC requesting a quota of 50 minke whales for its small-type coastal whaling communities. Japan believes that whaling at this level would have no adverse impact on the stock and is needed to alleviate economic distress in these commu- nities resulting from the moratorium on commercial whaling. Opponents point to the commercial aspects of the proposal and contend that the integrity of the moratorium should be sustained unless and until the Revised Management Scheme is adopted and the moratorium lifted. As with similar proposals put forth by Japan at past IWC meetings, the 1998 request for a minke whale quota was not adopted. As noted in past reports, Norway resumed com- mercial whaling for minke whales in the eastern North Atlantic in 1993 under its objection to the whaling MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 moratorium. The quota adopted unilaterally by Norway for 1998 was 671 minke whales. Of these 624 were taken. In November 1998 Norway estab- lished a quota for 1999 of 753 minke whales, which included 140 unharvested whales carried over from previous years. As it has at the previous three meetings, the IWC adopted a resolution at the 1998 meeting calling on Norway to refrain from further whaling unless authorized by the IWC. The Revised Management Scheme — Prior to adoption of the moratorium on commercial whaling, excessive catch quotas authorized by the IWC contrib- uted to the overexploitation and depletion of whale stocks. At its 1986 meeting the IWC asked its Scien- tific Committee to develop a scientifically based method for determining commercial whaling catch quotas that would have a low probability of adversely affecting harvested whale stocks. The committee subsequently did so, and the recom- mended revised management procedure was accepted in principle at the 1994 IWC meeting as part of a Revised Management Scheme to regulate commercial whaling. Determining catch limits with a low proba- bility of adversely affecting exploited stocks, howev- er, is only a part of an effective management pro- gram. Work is ongoing to develop other essential management components, including mechanisms for compliance monitoring and enforcement and require- ments for conducting whale surveys and data analyses. Before the 1998 IWC meeting, the Working Group on the Revised Management Scheme held a one-day meeting to discuss issues related to possible observer and inspection requirements. Some countries believe that DNA testing of whale meat and maintaining records of landings and transshipments are integral parts of an adequate monitoring and enforcement program. Other members argue that such matters relate to trade and are outside the competence of the IWC. Working group participants also discussed whether international observers are needed on all vessels engaged in whaling operations, but they did not reach a consensus. There were also divergent views as to whether the costs of an international observer program should be borne by the IWC or by the countries engaging in whaling. 132 The IWC at its meeting adopted one resolution pertaining to the Revised Management Scheme. The United States and nine other members proposed that catch limits established under the revised management procedure be reduced to account for other human- induced mortalities, such as those resulting from entanglement in fishing gear or ship strikes. This measure was adopted by a vote of 21 to 10. The Future of the IWC — At the 1997 IWC meeting Ireland expressed the view that, unless progress was made to complete the Revised Manage- ment Scheme, there was a risk that the IWC could break up, with the result being that commercial whaling would take place outside its control. Noting that the revised management procedure had been adopted and that work was proceeding on the inspec- tion and control schemes, Ireland offered a proposal to break the impasse that has developed between those nations that support a resumption of commercial whaling and those that oppose it. Under the Irish proposal, the IWC would complete and adopt the Revised Management Scheme and issue quotas for certain coastal whaling activities, such as those conducted by Norway and proposed by Japan. All other waters would be declared a global whale sanctu- ary. Products from the authorized whaling could be used only for local consumption, with no international trade allowed. In addition, lethal scientific research whaling would be phased out. Discussions of the Irish proposal continued at the 1998 meeting, but with little progress. Although reaching consensus on this compromise measure is proving very difficult, several delegations expressed interest in continuing discussions and keeping this item on the agenda for the next IWC meeting. Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling — The IWC Schedule of Regulations includes catch limits for aboriginal subsistence whaling. At its 1997 meeting the IWC adopted new quotas for subsistence whaling by Natives in the United States, Russia, and Green- land. Subsistence taking by U.S. and Russian Natives under these quotas is discussed in the sections on bowhead whales and gray whales in Chapter II. The IWC took no action at its 1998 meeting to revise any of the existing catch limits for aboriginal subsistence whaling. The IWC did, however, take note of the results of an assessment by the Scientific Committee that indicated that the stock of bowhead whales hunted by Alaska Natives is near its maximum sustainable yield level and would probably continue to increase even if catch levels were increased to 108 whales per year. The Scientific Committee also reported on efforts, begun in 1995, to develop a new aboriginal subsis- tence whaling management scheme. Although there was general agreement that it was preferable to use a single algorithm for setting catch limits, given the diversity of situations, it was unlikely that a single, generic process could be developed. The Scientific Committee is expected to continue its work on the subsistence whaling scheme and report on its progress at the IWC’s 1999 meeting. As discussed in the bowhead whale section of Chapter II, the government of Canada, as it had in previous years, authorized the take of bowhead whales from two stocks, including the highly endangered Davis Strait/Hudson Bay stock(s). This prompted the IWC to adopt a resolution at its 1998 meeting calling on Canada to refrain from issuing licenses for whaling not conducted in accordance with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and inviting Canada to rejoin the IWC. A similar resolution was adopted at the 1997 meeting. Research Whaling — The International Conven- tion for the Regulation of Whaling allows member nations to issue permits to its citizens to kill whales for scientific research purposes, provided that research plans are submitted to the IWC’s Scientific Committee for review and comment before the permits are issued. Since 1988 Japan has issued permits for research whaling. The value of this research has been much debated, and the IWC has adopted a series of non-binding resolutions calling on Japan to refrain from issuing permits authorizing lethal research. During its 1998 meeting the IWC again considered Japan’s proposals to continue two research programs involving the killing of whales. One involves the catch of up to 440 minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere and the other involves the catch of 100 minke whales in the western North Pacific. As in 133 Chapter IV — International past years, the IWC adopted a resolution noting that the proposed research does not address critically important research needs and calling on Japan to refrain from issuing permits authorizing the lethal research. The resolution also directed the Scientific Committee to continue to identify non-lethal alterna- tives for meeting Japan’s research objectives. The IWC also expressed concern that whale meat resulting from Japan’s research program was being sold in commercial markets despite the moratorium on commercial whaling. Assessments of Whale Stocks — As part of the comprehensive assessment of whale stocks called for under the moratorium on commercial whaling, the IWC’s Scientific Committee has for the past several years focused attention on assessing the status of various stocks. As discussed above, the Scientific Committee conducted a comprehensive assessment of right whales in 1998. The Scientific Committee also took actions during 1998 with respect to assessing the stocks of humpback whales, minke whales, Bryde’s whales, and sperm whales. Before the IWC’s 1999 annual meeting the Scien- tific Committee plans to focus its efforts on reviewing (1) Japanese research data on Southern Hemisphere minke whales, (2) abundance estimates for Southern Hemisphere blue whales and methods used to differen- tiate blue whale subspecies, (3) recent population trends of the western North Atlantic stock of right - whales, and (4) intersessional work on a preliminary assessment of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales. Environmental Effects — For more than a decade, the IWC has expressed concern about the potential effects of habitat degradation on whales. At its 1992 meeting the IWC asked its Scientific Committee to consider the impact of environmental changes on whale stocks on a regular basis. Since then, the IWC has sponsored workshops to examine the effects of chemical pollution and climate change on cetaceans. At its meeting in Oman, the IWC adopted a further resolution directing the Scientific Committee to give high priority to implementing research planned to investigate climate/environmental change, ozone depletion and UV-B radiation, chemical pollution, MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 impacts of noise, physical and biological habitat degradation, effects of fisheries, Arctic issues, and disease and mortality events. The IWC also resolved to establish “environmental concerns” as a regular agenda item at its meetings under which the Scientific Committee would report annually on its progress in non-lethal research in this area. It is expected that a proposal to establish an environmental research fund will be considered by the IWC at its 1999 meeting. Small Cetaceans — An ongoing debate within the IWC is whether the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling confers jurisdiction over small cetaceans as well as large whales. Although this issue has never been resolved, the parties have been willing to take limited actions concerning small cetaceans. At its 1998 meeting the Scientific Committee conducted a review of small cetaceans in the Indian Ocean and Red Sea, with special reference to the Middle East. The Scientific Committee intends to focus on review- ing the status of freshwater cetaceans at its 1999 meeting and thereafter to examine the status of small cetaceans in the Caribbean region. At its 1998 meeting the IWC adopted one resolu- tion dealing with small cetaceans. That resolution expressed concern that some directed takes of beluga whales might not be sustainable. Of particular con- cern was the harvest of beluga whales from the west Greenland population. The IWC encouraged the Scientific Committee to review the status of beluga whales and narwhals at the 1999 meeting. Southern Ocean Sanctuary — In 1994 the IWC established a whale sanctuary in the Southern Ocean. As discussed in previous annual reports, Japan filed an objection to this provision and continues to conduct scientific whaling in sanctuary waters. As in past years, Japan questioned the legal and scientific basis for the sanctuary at the IWC’s 1998 meeting. The IWC as a whole, however, adopted a resolu- tion reiterating its commitment to the sanctuary. The resolution affirms the objectives of the sanctuary as providing for the recovery of whale stocks, allowing an assessment of the effects of the moratorium on commercial whaling, and enabling research on the effects of environmental change to be undertaken. The IWC’s Scientific Committee is working with 134 other international organizations to develop a major cooperative research program in the Southern Ocean sanctuary during 2000 and 2001. Humane Killing Methods — For many years, the IWC has sought to develop improved methods for killing whales, with the goal that death should be as quick and painless as possible. It was agreed that a workshop of specialists would be convened in 1999 to examine these issues. There was, however, consider- able disagreement over whether the workshop should reference humaneness or simply refer to killing methods. In this regard, some members argued that the issue of humaneness is outside the competence of the IWC. A decision was made to defer naming the working group until the 1999 meeting. Cooperation with Other Organizations — As discussed later in this chapter, the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) considered proposals at their 1997 meeting to downlist four stocks of minke whales, the eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales, and the western North Pacific stock of Bryde’s whales from Appendix I to Appendix II. Doing so could open commercial trade in whale meat internationally. In response to these proposals, the CITES parties affirmed an earlier resolution to consult with the IWC concerning proposals to amend the listing of whales on the CITES appendices. This debate carried over to the 1997 IWC meeting and has prompted the IWC to examine its relation- ships with other international organizations. At its 1998 meeting the IWC adopted a resolution expressing appreciation for the decision by CITES to uphold prior actions to promote cooperation between the two organizations. The IWC reaffirmed the importance of continued cooperation and requested that the CITES Secretariat continue to consult with it concerning proposals to amend the listing of whales on the CITES appendices. The resolution also called on IWC members to observe fully past resolutions on trade in whale products. New Scientific Journal — The IWC approved the establishment of a new scientific publication, the Journal on Cetacean Research and Management. Publication is expected to begin in April 1999. Chapter IV — International Future Meetings — The 51st meeting of the IWC is scheduled to be held on 24-28 May 1999 in Grena- da. Australia has offered to host the IWC meeting in the year 2000. Conservation Issues in the Southern Ocean Many species of seals, whales, dolphins, and porpoises occur in the Southern Ocean (the seas sur- rounding Antarctica). The Marine Mammal Commis- sion, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, conducts a continuing review of activities in Antarctica and surrounding waters that could affect marine mammals directly or indirectly. As noted in previous reports, the Commission has provided numerous recommendations to the Department of State, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Science Foundation regarding research and international agreements needed to effectively regulate sealing, whaling, fishery and mineral development, and other activities that could affect marine mammals and their habitats in the Southern Ocean. Commission representatives participate in inter- agency meetings to develop U.S. policies regarding activities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Commission representatives have served on U.S. delegations to most regular and special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings in the last 20 years, and to most meetings of the Commission and Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Information concerning activities carried out in 1998 are described below. The Antarctic Treaty Seven countries — Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United King- dom — claim sovereignty to parts of Antarctica and, in some cases, to surrounding waters. Other countries, including the United States, do not recog- nize these claims. The Parties to the Antarctic Treaty, which was concluded in 1959 and entered into force in 1961, have agreed that no acts or activities taking place while the Treaty is in force shall consti- 135 tute a basis for asserting, supporting, or denying territorial claims in Antarctica. The Treaty provides the international framework for governing activities in Antarctica. It applies to the lands and ice shelves south of 60°S latitude. Its principal objectives are to provide freedom for scien- tific research and to ensure that Antarctica is used for peaceful purposes only and does not become the scene or object of international discord. Currently, 43 countries are Parties to the Treaty. Of these, 27 are Consultative Parties (countries that have established and maintained research programs in Antarctica and are entitled to participate in the taking of decisions under the Treaty) and 16 are Non-Consul- tative Parties (countries that have. acceded to the Treaty but have not established or maintained research programs in Antarctica and are not entitled to partici- pate in decision-making). The Treaty requires that representatives of the Consultative Parties meet periodically to consider and recommend to their governments measures necessary to give effect to the Treaty, including measures necessary to conserve living resources in the Treaty Area. Since the Treaty came into effect in 1961, there have been 22 regular Consultative Meetings and 11 special Consultative Meetings. Special Consultative Meetings have been held to consider information submitted by countries seeking consultative party status and to conclude separate agreements, such as the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarc- tic Marine Living Resources, the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities, and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (described below). The Antarctic Treaty and the related measures and independent agreements adopted by the Treaty Parties are known collectively as the Antarctic Treaty System. Previous Commission reports provide more com- plete descriptions of the purposes, background, and provisions of the Antarctic Treaty System. [Each of the Antarctic Treaty Parties has designated a national contact point where information concerning the Treaty System can be obtained. The U.S. contact MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 point is the Director, Office of Ocean Affairs, Room 5805, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C. 20520-7818. The contact points for the other Treaty Parties are listed in the reports of recent Treaty meetings. A current list can be obtained from the U.S. national contact.] Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty The Antarctic Treaty contains no provisions for governing exploitation of either living or non-living resources in the Treaty Area. As noted in previous Commission reports, the possibility that commercial sealing might be resumed led the Consultative Parties to negotiate and adopt the 1972 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals. As discussed below, concern regarding the possible effects of developing fisheries on both target and non-target species led the Consultative Parties to adopt the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. After adopting the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources in 1981, the Consultative Parties initiated negotiation of a regime to govern possible mineral resource activities in Antarctica. The Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities was concluded in June 1988. It will not enter into force unless ratified by all 26 countries that were Consultative Parties when negotiations were concluded in 1988. At the Consultative Meeting in 1989 several parties indicated that they were opposed to any mineral exploration or development in Antarctica and would not ratify the Convention. They proposed instead that consideration be given to the development of a regime to prohibit mineral exploration and development, and to afford added protection to the unique features and values of Antarctica. Recognizing that the minerals convention would not enter into force, the Consulta- tive Parties agreed that a special Consultative Meeting should be held in 1990 to consider various proposals for protection of the Antarctic environment. This, the 11th Special Consultative Meeting, led to conclusion of the Protocol on Environmental Protection in October 1991. The Protocol entered into force in January 1998 following ratification by each of the 26 136 parties that had consultative status at the time it was concluded in October 1991. The basic intent of the Protocol is to improve the effectiveness of the Antarc- tic Treaty as a mechanism for protecting the Antarctic environment and for ensuring that Antarctica does not become the scene or object of international discord. It prohibits any activity, other than scientific research, relating to mineral resources in Antarctica. When concluded in October 1991 the Protocol included four annexes. Those annexes specify obliga- tions regarding (1) assessment in the planning stages of the possible environmental impacts of both govern- ment and non-government activities to be conducted in the Antarctic Treaty Area, (2) conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora, (3) waste disposal and management, and (4) prevention of marine pollution. A fifth annex, specifying obligations for protection and management of areas of particular historic, scientific, or environmental value, was adopted at the regular Consultative Meeting later in October 1991. Article 11 of the Protocol provides for the establish- ment of a group of scientific and technical experts — the Committee for Environmental Protection — to provide advice to the Treaty Parties on measures necessary to effectively implement the various provi- sions of the Protocol and its annexes. The United States Implementing Legislation — The Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-227) provides the statutory authority necessary for the United States to implement the Protocol. Among other things, the Act requires that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Coast Guard, and the National Science Foundation promulgate regulations to implement certain provi- sions of the Act. The Environmental Protection Agency is responsi- ble for promulgating regulations to provide for the environmental impact assessment of non-governmental activities, including tourism, for which the United States is required to give advance notice under para- graph 5 of Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty; and co- ordination of the review of information regarding environmental impact assessments received from other Parties under the Protocol. In 1996 the Environmental Protection Agency established an interagency working group to help identify legal, policy, and practical matters meriting consideration in the development of the regulations. This group also reviewed and provided comments to the agency on environmental impact assessments for non-governmental activities planned to be carried out in the Treaty Area during the 1997-1998 and 1998- 1999 austral summers. A member of the Marine Mammal Commission’s staff represented the Commis- sion on this interagency working group. Recognizing that final regulations could not be promulgated before the 1997-1998 Antarctic field season, the Environmental Protection Agency pub- lished interim final regulations in the Federal Register on 30 April 1997. The final regulations were expect- ed to be completed by October 1998. However, representatives of the Antarctic tourist industry and non-governmental environmental organizations with related interests requested that promulgation of the final rule be delayed for at least one year to assess and determine how the interim rule should be revised to best meet the intent of the Protocol and the U.S. implementing legislation. The agency, in consultation with the other involved federal agencies, determined that the requested delay would be beneficial. On 15 April 1998 the agency published in the Federal Register an amendment extending the interim regula- tions through the 2000-2001 austral summer. Pursuant to the regulations, non-governmental organizations planning activities in Antarctica during the 1998-1999 austral summer prepared and provided environmental assessments to the agency. The assess- ments addressed the following activities: e ship-based tours planned to be conducted in the Antarctic Peninsula, South Orkney, and South Shetland Islands between November 1998 and March 1999 (submitted jointly by Ambercrombie & Kent/Explorer Shipping, Oak Brook, Illinois; Clipper Cruise Lines, St. Louis, Missouri; Moun- tain Travel-Sobek, El Cerreto, California; Quark Expeditions, Darien, Connecticut; Society Expedi- tions, Seattle, Washington; Special Expeditions, Seattle, Washington; and Zegrahm Expeditions, Seattle, Washington); Chapter IV — International e the 1998-1999 Antarctic cruise programs for the Russian icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov (submitted by Quark Expeditions) and the M/V Marco Polo (submitted by Orient Lines, Fort Lauderdale, Florida); and e research planned to be carried out in 1998-1999 to continue characterizing and monitoring selected tourist sites in the Antarctic Peninsula (submitted by Oceanites, Inc., Washington, D.C.). In 1999 the Commission will continue to work with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of State, the National Science Foundation, other federal agencies, and affected non-governmental organizations to facilitate implementation of the provisions of the Protocol and the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act regarding prior assessment of the possible environmental impacts of activities in Antarctica. The First Meeting of the Committee for Envi- ronmental Protection — As noted earlier, the Proto- col on Environmental Protection provides for the establishment of a group of scientific and technical experts — the Committee for Environmental Protec- tion — to provide advice to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties on measures necessary to effec- tively implement the Protocol and its annexes. The first meeting of the Committee was held in conjunc- tion with the 22nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Tromsg, Norway, on 25 May-5 June 1998 (see the next section for information regarding the Consultative Meeting). As its first order of business, the Committee established rules of procedure and elected a chair and two vice chairs. The Committee provided advice to the Treaty Parties on a variety of issues, including submission of documents for consideration, development of manage- ment plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas, the protected areas system, development of a State of the Antarctic Environment Report, and future opera- tion of the Committee. With respect to documents, the Committee agreed that papers to be considered at meetings should be forwarded to the host country at least 75 days before the meeting and be translated and circulated by the host country at least 60 days before the meeting. It also agreed that papers should be sent to the Committee Chairman at that time. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 With respect to the protected area system, the Committee noted that all of the Consultative Parties had not yet approved Recommendation XVI-10 (Protocol Annex V regarding area protection and management) and that management plans have not been proposed or updated for many of the Specially Protected Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest designated under the system that will be replaced by Annex V. The Committee recommended that the Treaty Parties call upon those that have not approved the recommendation to do so as soon as possible and to request that those parties who proposed Specially Protected Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest designated under the previous system develop or update management plans for those areas as called for in Annex V and to provide a timetable for doing so at the Consultative Meeting in Lima, Peru, in 1999. The Committee also reviewed and recommended approval of management plans for several historic sites as described below. Immediately before the Committee meeting, a workshop was held to review and determine steps that could be taken to improve the Antarctic Protected Areas System. The results of the workshop were reported to the Committee. Among other things, the workshop participants noted the following: e there currently is no framework strategy or guide- lines for identifying and affording special protec- tion to areas representing the range of values set forth in Article 3 of Annex V; and there is a pressing need to develop or update management plans for existing Specially Protected Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest in accordance with Article 5 of Annex V. The Committee considered the workshop findings and, as noted earlier, provided advice to the Consulta- tive Parties on measures needed to effectively imple- ment Protocol Annex V. The Committee also recom- mended that a second workshop be held immediately before the 1999 Treaty Meeting in Peru to develop guidelines for identifying additional areas meriting special protection in accordance with Article 3 of Protocol Annex V. The Committee also finalized and recommended that the Treaty Parties endorse and make their nationals aware of the availability of the 138 Guide to the Preparation of Management Plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. At the prior Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 1997 the New Zealand delegation noted that Article 12 of the Proto- col on Environmental Protection calls upon the Committee for Environmental Protection to provide advice on the state of the Antarctic environment. To provide the basis for that advice, the New Zealand Delegation proposed that the Treaty Parties coopera- tively support development of a status report on the Antarctic environment. The United States and others questioned whether the usefulness of such a report would justify the time, personnel, and financial investment that would be required to produce it. It was agreed that, during the intersessional period before the Consultative Meeting in 1998, New Zea- land would organize and chair an open-ended corre- spondence group to prepare a “concept” paper that could be considered at the 1998 Consultative Meeting. The concept paper developed by New Zealand during the intersessional period was tabled at the meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protec- tion. It failed to address the range of questions that had been raised during the Consultative Meeting in New Zealand in 1997. Further, it did not clearly reflect points that had been raised by the United States during the intersessional correspondence. In this regard, the U.S. delegation pointed out that site- specific monitoring programs, such as those being developed to document the environmental impacts of U.S. stations in Antarctica, very well could be more useful and more cost-effective than a general state of the environment report. It was agreed that an open- ended correspondence group, chaired by Sweden, would consider the matter further and report back to the Committee in 1999. The Committee also established an open-ended correspondence group to work during the interses- sional period to develop guidelines for meeting the requirements of Protocol Annex I regarding environ- mental impact assessment. This group, chaired by Argentina, is to report to the Committee at its meeting in 1999. The Environmental Officer at the National Science Foundation’s Office of Polar Programs provides U.S. input to both correspondence groups. Chapter IV — International The most contentious issue at the meeting was the role of the Committee in providing advice on draft comprehensive environmental evaluations. The issue was precipitated by a draft environmental impact statement concerning modernization of the U.S. South Pole station forwarded by the State Department through diplomatic channels to the Treaty Parties on 23 January 1998. During the meeting, it became apparent that many individuals and organizations with related interests and responsibilities in the various countries had not received the document, or had received it after the deadline for comments had passed. Many also did not receive the accompanying diplomatic note indicating that the document was a draft comprehensive environmental evaluation being circulated for comment in accordance with articles 3(3) and 3(4) of Protocol Annex I. Several delegations expressed the view that the Protocol requires the Committee to consider and provide advice on all such drafts and that providing the draft to Parties did not satisfy the requirement that it be forwarded to the Committee at the same time it was provided to Parties. The U.S. representatives noted that the Committee did not exist when the draft was circulated for comment. They also pointed out that the Committee is composed of representatives of Parties and that it is reasonable to assume that, when such documents are provided to the Parties, the Parties will ensure that copies are provided to their Committee representatives and others with related interests and responsibilities. Most delegations believed that the Protocol re- quires the Committee to consider and provide advice on all draft comprehensive environmental evaluations and that the activity for which the evaluation is done should not be undertaken unless the Committee reviews and advises the Treaty Parties of the merits of both the activity and the environmental evaluation. The United States pointed out that the purpose of the environmental assessment is to ensure that the possible environmental impacts of activities are identified during the planning stages and that judgments con- cerning the acceptability of possible environmental impacts, and the decision whether or not to proceed with a particular activity, are to be made by the Party or Parties planning the activity, not by the Committee or collectively by the Consultative Parties. 139 During the negotiation of the Protocol, several of the Treaty Parties and non-governmental organizations advocated the creation of a scientific/technical body that would decide whether the potential environmental impacts of planned activities were acceptable. The United States and most other Consultative Parties believed it important to ensure that potential environ- mental impacts are identified and considered in the planning stages of activities that could have significant environmental impacts, but that the decision whether or not to proceed had to remain with the Party or Parties responsible for the activity. This approach tracks the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and, in the view of the Commission and other U.S. government agencies, is what the Protocol requires. It appears, however, that some Parties continue to believe that the Committee for Environ- mental Protection and/or the Antarctic Treaty Parties, collectively, should have a role in deciding what activities can be carried out in Antarctica. As noted in previous Commission reports, some Parties also appear to believe that liability for damage to the Antarctic environment should be linked to the envi- ronmental impact assessment process. If the consensus of all Antarctic Treaty Consulta- tive Parties is required before any Party or non- governmental organization can undertake activities in Antarctica, any Party or group of Parties would be able to block consensus and prohibit scientific or other activities, even if those activities would not have environmental impacts inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Environmental Protocol. Such a possibility would be inconsistent with the freedom of access guaranteed by the Antarctic Treaty. The Commission will continue to work with the Depart- ment of State, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, other government agencies, the Polar Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, and potentially affected private sector organizations to ensure that provisions of the Environmental Protocol on environmental impact assessment are not used to block legitimate science or other activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area. Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings The 22nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting took place in Tromsg, Norway, from 25 May to 5 MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 June 1998. The 23rd Consultative Meeting will be held in Lima, Peru, from 24 May to 4 June 1999. A member of the Marine Mammal Commission’s staff was a member of the U.S. delegation to the 1997 Consultative Meeting, including the meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection and the Workshop on Specially Protected Areas described above. If requested by the Department of State, the Commission will continue to serve on U.S. delega- tions to the 1999 Treaty meeting and the meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection. A broad range of issues was considered at the 1998 Consultative Meeting, including the consequences of entry into force of the Environmental Protocol; the advice on related matters provided by the Committee for Environmental Protection; continuing efforts to develop an annex or annexes to the Environmental Protocol establishing procedures for determining damage and liability for damage to the Antarctic environment; ongoing efforts to assess and determine how best to minimize the possible adverse effects of tourism and other non-governmental activities on the Antarctic environment and other activities in Antarcti- ca; and operation of the Antarctic Treaty System. Consequences of Entry into Force of the Envi- ronmental Protocol — As noted earlier, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty entered into force on 14 January 1998. As of that date, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties were obligated to implement the provisions of the Protocol, including those in the first four annexes (i.e., the annexes On environmental impact assessment, conser- vation of Antarctic fauna and flora, waste disposal and management, and prevention of marine pollution). As also noted earlier, the Committee for Environ- mental Protection considered a variety of matters related to environmental impact assessment during its first meeting. The Committee established an open- ended correspondence group, chaired by Argentina, to develop possible guidelines for environmental impact assessment to be considered at the meeting in 1999. Further, the Committee included environmental impact assessment on its agenda for priority consider- ation during its 1999 meeting in Lima, Peru. The Consultative Meeting endorsed these actions. 140 During the discussion of issues related to Antarctic fauna and flora, Australia advised the Committee and the Consultative Meeting that it would host a work- shop in Hobart, Tasmania, on 25-28 August 1998 to consider threats posed by the possible introduction of exotic diseases to Antarctic fauna and flora, and means whereby such threats might be minimized. As noted in Chapter VIII, a member of the Commission’s Committee of Scientific Advisors attended this work- shop and presented a paper summarizing what is known about unusual marine mammal mortality events worldwide. The report from the workshop is expect- ed to be provided for consideration at the 1999 meetings of the Committee and Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties. With regard to waste disposal and management (Annex III), the United States tabled a paper describ- ing the pollution prevention measures and investment in pollution abatement carried out by the National Science Foundation at McMurdo Station since 1987. Among other things, the paper noted that the National Science Foundation has banned open burning, cleaned up and closed the waste dump, and developed and implemented programs to prevent and contain fuel spills at McMurdo Station. The paper illustrates actions other Treaty Parties can take to clean up and reduce the production of environmental contaminants at their stations in Antarctica. Discussion regarding prevention of marine pollu- tion (Annex IV) focused on contingency planning and emergency response. A resolution was adopted recommending that the Consultative Parties adopt guidelines developed by the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) and its Standing Committee on Antarctic Logistics and Operations (SCALOP) regarding fuel oil handling at stations and bases in Antarctica; prevention and containment of fuel oil spills at stations and bases; oil spill contingency planning; and reporting of oil spill incidents in Antarctica. The Council and Standing Committee were requested to undertake an assessment of the risks of environmental emergencies arising from activities in Antarctica and to identify measures that should be taken to prevent and respond to inci- dents other than oil spills that could impact the Antarctic environment. Parties that had not already Chapter IV — International done so were reminded of their obligation to develop contingency plans for environmental emergencies. Although Annex V concerning protected areas has not yet come into force, the Consultative Meeting considered and, based on the advice of the Committee for Environmental Protection, adopted a measure recommending that historic sites at Cape Royds, Hut Point, and Cape Adare be designated Specially Pro- tected Areas 27, 28, and 29 and that the proposed management plans for these areas be approved. The Parties also adopted a measure recommending to their governments that the part of Mensa Bay on the southwest coast of Elephant Island, where the remains of a wooden sailing ship have been found, be added to the list of historic monuments pending determina- tion of the origin of the wreckage. The Consultative Parties welcomed the Guide to the Preparation of Management Plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas forwarded by the Committee for Environmental Protection. They adopted a resolu- tion recommending that the guide be used by those preparing or revising management plans for protected areas in accordance with Annex V of the Protocol. The guide is included as an attachment to the report of the Consultative Meeting. The Treaty Parties also endorsed the Committee’s recommendation that a workshop be held immediately before the 1999 Consultative Meeting in Lima, Peru, to develop guidelines for identifying areas meriting special protection as outlined in Article 3 of Annex V. Liability for Damage to the Antarctic Environ- ment — Article 16 of the Environmental Protocol calls upon the Parties to elaborate rules and proce- dures relating to liability for environmental damage arising from activities taking place in the Antarctic Treaty Area and covered by the Protocol. As noted in previous Commission reports, a series of meetings of legal experts has been held to discuss and attempt to reach consensus on (1) what should be viewed as damage to the Antarctic environment and to dependent or associated ecosystems; (2) the types of damage for which Parties should be liable; (3) whether there should be any defenses or limits to liability; and (4) the mechanisms that might be used to determine damage and liability for damage. 141 As noted in the Commission’s previous report, the group of experts met in Cape Town, South Africa, on 17-22 November 1997. The report of the meeting was considered at the Consultative Meeting in Trom- so. It was agreed that the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators, and the Committee for Environmental Protection should be asked to provide input to the 1999 Consultative Meeting on practical aspects of the liability issue. In this context, it was pointed out that any rules and regulations on liability should be consistent with the objective of the Environ- mental Protocol designating Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science, and that the liability regime should not undermine legitimate scientific and other activities in Antarctica. It was agreed that further negotiation of an annex or annexes on liability should be undertaken by a working group that meets during the Consultative Meetings with simultaneous interpretation in the four official treaty languages (English, Spanish, French, and Russian). Tourism and Other Non-Governmental Activities — Until 1966 nearly all travel to Antarctica was for scientific purposes and was either organized or sponsored by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties. Regular commercial tourist expeditions began in 1966. Since then, there has been a steady increase in tourism and other non-governmental activities (e.g., yachting and mountain climbing). In recent years, the number of tourists and adven- turers visiting Antarctica has increased substantially. At the 1998 Consultative Meeting, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators advised the Treaty Parties that more than 9,000 people traveled to Antarctica on 14 commercial tour vessels from November 1997 to March 1998. All but one of these tour vessels were operated by members of the associ- ation. Six of the 14 vessels were of Russian registry. Ninety-eight of 108 voyages were to sites in the Antarctic Peninsula, the most accessible and biologi- cally diverse region in Antarctica (Figure 13). The association estimated that, during the 1998-1999 austral summer, more than 11,000 tourists will visit Antarctica aboard tour ships. As noted earlier, U.S.- based tour operators have prepared and provided to the Environmental Protection Agency assessments of MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Figure 13. Crabeater seals, the most abundant marine mammal species in the world, rest on an Antarctic ice floes. (Photograph courtesty of Ron Naveen, Oceanites, Inc.) the possible environmental impacts of their activities in 1998-1999 in accordance with regulations promul- gated by the agency. As noted in previous reports, the Antarctic Treaty Parties have adopted guidelines for visitors to Antarc- tica and for those individuals and companies organiz- ing and conducting tours and other non-governmental activities in the Antarctic. If the tour industry and individual visitors comply with these guidelines, tourism is unlikely to have adverse impacts on marine mammals or other components of the Antarctic environment, at least in the short term. However, over time, repeated visits could possibly have adverse cumulative effects on the physical features and biota of some areas. Recognizing this, the Commission, in cooperation with the Department of State, contracted in 1994 for a study to determine whether the Antarctic tour industry was aware of, and complying with, the guidelines adopted by the Treaty Parties. In addition, the National Science Foundation provided funding in 1994 for a study to characterize the physical and biological features of representative sites in the Antarctic typically visited by shipborne tourists and to 142 determine whether periodic visits by trained observers aboard tour ships can be used to detect possible cumulative effects of tourism. Subsequently, logistic support, funding, and other assistance were provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, Argentina, Chile, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The study results have been published in part in two documents: (1) Compendium of Antarctic Visitor Sites: A Report to the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom; and (2) The Oceanites Site Guide to the Antarctic Peninsula. The compen- dium includes descriptions, data on fauna and flora, orientation maps, and photographs of representative sites in the Antarctic Peninsula being visited by tourists. The site guide provides a summary of this information for use by tourists, tour operators, and expedition staff. The compendium makes a number of recommendations for actions to help meet the impact assessment and monitoring requirements of the Environmental Protocol. [The compendium can be obtained from the U.S. State Department, Office of Oceans and Polar Affairs, and the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Polar Region Section. The site guide can be obtained from Oceanites, Inc., P.O. Box 15259, Chevy Chase, MD 20825.] At the Consultative Meeting in Tromsg, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Federal Republic of Germany presented a joint paper describing the results of the site inventory project. The International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators noted that its efforts to meet obligations under the Environmental Protocol have been assisted by data and information compiled and made available by the project personnel. Australia informed the meeting that it was undertaking a similar site inventory in eastern Antarctica. As noted in previous Commission reports, the Treaty Parties developed and in 1996 agreed to use standard forms for advance notification and post- season reporting of Antarctic tourist operations for a one-year trial period. These forms were revised at the 1997 Consultative Meeting, based on experience gained during the 1996-1997 tourist season. At the 1998 meeting the International Association of Antarc- tica Tour Operators proposed changes in the form to produce more reliable information on the level of tourist activity at various sites. The Treaty Parties agreed to the proposed changes. They also requested that the association include in future reports informa- tion on the flag state of tourist vessels and information on the number of tourists that visit the various sites each season. Operational Issues — Antarctic Treaty Consulta- tive Meetings are organized and hosted by the Consul- tative Parties on a rotating basis. Information con- cerning member states’ activities in Antarctica is shared through an annual information exchange. The number of Treaty Parties and the level of international interest in Antarctica have both increased substantially since the Treaty was concluded in 1959. In recent years, there has been growing awareness that organi- zation of Consultative Meetings, exchange of informa- tion, and implementation of the Protocol on Environ- mental Protection could be enhanced by establishment of a small, permanent secretariat. Agreement in principle was reached at the 17th Consultative Meet- ing in 1992 on the need for and the general functions of a small secretariat. Argentina subsequently pro- 143 Chapter IV — International posed that the secretariat be located in Buenos Aires. The United Kingdom opposed this proposal, and at the 1998 Consultative Meeting continued to do so. Several possible alternative sites have been offered, but no consensus has been reached. On a related matter, the United States submitted a paper at the meeting in Troms@ suggesting ways that the annual exchange of information required by the Antarctic Treaty might be improved. The paper noted the additional information exchange requirements set forth in the Environmental Protocol and similar requirements that have been established by the Scien- tific Committee on Antarctic Research and the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs. It suggested that the information exchange might be made more useful by developing standard formats and transmitting the information by electronic means. Many Parties shared the views expressed in the paper. The topic was placed on the agenda for further discussion at the 1999 Consultative Meeting. Preparation for the 23rd Consultative Meeting — The next Consultative Meeting will be held in Lima, Peru, from 24 May to 4 June 1999. The Committee for Environmental Protection will meet during the first week of the meeting. Immediately prior to the meeting, a workshop will be held to develop a framework or guidelines for identifying areas meriting special protection to maintain the outstanding environmental, scientific, historic, aesthet- - ic, and wilderness values of Antarctica. The Marine Mammal Commission will work with the Department of State, the National Science Founda- tion, the Environmental Protection Agency, other federal agencies, and the private sector to prepare for these meetings. Activities Related to Marine Living Resources Fisheries for Antarctic krill (Euphasia superba) and a variety of finfish began to develop in the Southern Ocean in the 1960s. Concern that these fisheries, particularly the fishery for krill — a key component in the diets of many whale, seal, bird, and fish species — could adversely affect many non-target species as well as target species led the Antarctic Treaty Consul- tative Parties to negotiate and adopt the Convention on MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resourc- es (CCAMLR). The Convention was concluded in May 1980 and entered into force in April 1982. Its objectives are to ensure that harvesting and activities associated with harvesting of marine living resources in the Convention Area — the marine areas south of the Antarctic Convergence — are carried out so as to (1) prevent harvested populations from being reduced or maintained below their maximum net productivity level; (2) maintain the ecological relationships among harvested, dependent, and related populations; and (3) minimize the risks of changes in the Antarctic marine ecosystem that are not potentially reversible in two or three decades (i.e., to maintain the fullest possible range of management options for future generations). The Convention established the Commission and Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. These bodies meet annual- ly to identify and take such actions as are necessary to meet the Convention objectives. The Marine Mammal Commission’s involvement in negotiating the Conven- tion and the first 16 meetings of the Commission and Scientific Committee are described in previous annual reports. The 17th annual meetings of the Commission and Scientific Committee were held in Hobart, Tasma- nia, Australia, from 26 October to 6 November 1998. The principal results are described below. [Meeting reports and other information concerning the Commission and Scientific Committee for the Conser- vation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources can be obtained from the Commission Secretariat, Post Office Box 213, North Hobart, Tasmania 7002, Australia.] The Krill Fishery — The total reported catch of krill in the Convention Area during the 1997-1998 fishing season (1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998) was 80,802 metric tons (mt), down slightly from the 82,508 mt reported caught in the 1996-1997 fishing season. The catch was taken principally in the South Atlantic sector by vessels from Japan, Poland, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom. Finfish Fisheries — The total reported catch of finfish in the Convention Area in 1997-1998 was 11,419 mt, up slightly from the reported catch of 10,562 mt in 1996-1997. Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) accounted for nearly 98 144 percent of the catch and was taken in the southwest Atlantic sector by vessels from Chile, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, and in the South Pacific and Indian Ocean sectors by vessels from Australia, France, South Africa, and the Ukraine. Small quanti- ties of Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) were taken in the southwest Pacific sector by vessels from New Zealand. Small quantities of mackerel icefish (Champsocephalus gunnari) were taken in the southwest Atlantic and western Indian Ocean sectors by vessels from Chile and Australia, respectively. Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing — As the name implies, Patagonian toothfish occur and are harvested on the Patagonian Shelf (off Argentina and Chile) and in other Southern Hemisphere shelf areas, aS well as in the Convention Area. The fish has high market value and is being targeted both in and outside the Convention Area. As noted in the Marine Mammal Commission’s previous report, the total reported catch of Patagonian toothfish in 1996-1997 was 32,991 mt. Data derived from reports of landings in southern Africa and Mauritius suggested that there was an additional unreported catch of 74,000 to 82,200 mt. The total catch inside the Convention Area was estimated to be five or six times greater than the reported catch. The unreported catch is by vessels from countries that are not parties to the Convention and by member-country vessels fishing illegally in the Convention Area. Recognizing that the stocks in the Convention Area probably can not sustain the estimated level of take, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources adopted a number of mea- sures at its 1997 meeting to address the problem. Among other things, the Commission called on members to identify where Dissostichus spp. are being landed, transhipped, and imported, and under what product names they are being marketed. After the Living Resources Commission meeting in 1997 the National Marine Fisheries Service initiated a study, working with the Customs Service and the Foreign Trade Division of the Census Bureau, to determine the quantities of Dissostichus spp. being imported into the United States and under what names the fish are being marketed. The study found that Chapter IV — International these are being imported and marketed in the United States as sea bass and Chilean sea bass and that imports increased in the mid- and late 1990s concur- rent with the development of the toothfish fishery in the Convention Area. The countries of origin includ- ed Argentina, Australia, Chile, and South Africa, which are Parties to the Convention, and Belize, Mauritius, Namibia, and Panama, which are not Parties to the Convention. During the 1997-1998 fishing season, there were 45 reported sightings of vessels from non-contracting parties fishing in the Convention Area. The unreport- ed catch of toothfish was estimated to be more than 22,000 mt during the 1997-1998 fishing season. Market information indicated that at least 60,000 mt of toothfish were traded, most of which was exported to the United States and Japan. Less than half of this trade could be attributed to fisheries operating legally within the Convention Area and in adjacent areas under national jurisdiction. The illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing for toothfish in the Convention Area is of great concern. To try to address the problem, the Living Resources Commission at its meeting in 1997 adopted measures that (1) require Parties to the Convention to prohibit fishing by their flag vessels in the Convention Area except in accordance with a license or permit that specifies when and where fishing is allowed, the gear that can be used, reporting requirements, etc.; (2) establish precautionary catch limits for all areas in the Convention Area where fishing for toothfish is known to be occurring; (3) require all Party vessels fishing for toothfish in the Convention Area to carry observ- ers designated in accordance with the CCAMLR System of Observation and Inspection; (4) call upon Parties to inspect and prohibit landings of toothfish in their ports by vessels from non-contracting parties sighted fishing in the Convention Area; and (5) urge Parties to use automated, satellite-based systems to monitor the locations of their flag vessels licensed to fish in the Convention Area. These measures were continued and, in the last case, strengthened by the Commission in 1998. In particular, the conservation measure regarding use of automated vessel-monitoring systems was changed to require that by 31 December 2000 each contracting party must establish and use an automated satellite-linked vessel monitoring system to 145 monitor the positions of its fishing vessels licensed to harvest marine living resources in the Convention Area and for which catch limits, fishing seasons, or area restrictions have been set by the Commission. In addition, the Commission adopted a measure requiring that all contracting parties ensure that their vessels licensed to fish in the Convention Area are marked in such a way that they can be readily identified. The United States proposed establishment of a catch certification system for toothfish. The proposed system would require that toothfish landed in the ports of contracting parties, transhipped to their vessels or through their ports, or imported into their territories be documented so as to determine where and by whom they were caught. Most but not all Living Resources Commission members supported the U.S. proposal. It was agreed that some type of catch certification system is a necessary element in the range of measures required to solve the problem of illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing for toothfish. It also was agreed that the Parties should meet during the intersessional period to try to draft a measure that can be adopted by the Commission at its meeting in 1999. The European Union offered to host the intersessional meeting in Brussels in April 1999. Avoidance of Incidental Mortality — Many species of marine mammals, seabirds, turtles, and non-target fish species are caught and killed incidental to commercial fisheries throughout the world. Many also are caught and killed in lost and discarded fishing gear or die from eating plastics and other non-digest- ible items discarded at sea. As noted in previous reports, the Commission and Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources have recognized this prob- lem and, since the early 1980s, have taken a number of steps to assess and prevent such fishery-related mortality in the Convention Area. Operators of fishing vessels are required to report lost fishing gear and incidental catches of marine mammals, seabirds, and other non-target species. Placards and informa- tion brochures have been developed and provided to vessel operators to ensure that they are aware of hazards posed by lost and discarded fishing gear and other potentially hazardous materials, and to advise them of what they can do to prevent such materials MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 from being lost and discarded at sea. To prevent seabirds from being attracted to and caught on baited hooks, the Commission, acting on the advice of its Scientific Committee, has adopted measures requiring that longlines be set only at night, that the use of lights be kept to a minimum when setting and retriev- ing longlines, that streamers be towed above longlines as they are set to discourage birds from attempting to take bait, and that the offal from fish processing be discarded from the opposite side of vessels from which longlines are being set or retrieved. In 1997 the Scientific Committee recommended that the start of the 1998 longline fishing season be delayed until 1 May to minimize longline fishing during the seabird breeding season in the Convention Area. Some members of the Commission believed that such a delay would adversely affect the fisheries. As a compromise, it was agreed to delay the start of the longline fisheries only to 1 April and to consider the matter further in 1998. Data provided to and analyzed by the Scientific Committee in 1998 indicated a substantial reduction in the bycatch of seabirds, mostly white-chinned petrels and black-browed albatrosses, in longline fisheries around the Antarctic Peninsula (640 birds observed killed during the 1997-1998 fishing season, compared with 5,755 birds in the 1996-1997 season). There also was a reduction in the observed seabird bycatch in the western Indian Ocean (498 seabirds killed in 1997-1998 compared with 834 in 1996-1997). Overall, there was a reduction in the observed seabird mortality in the regulated fisheries in the Convention Area in 1997-1998. This was due in part to the delay of the beginning of the longline fishing season until 1 April. The Scientific Committee again advised that the level of bycatch of some seabird species is not sustainable and could be reduced by delaying the start of the longline fishing season to 1 May as recommended in 1997. The European Union and several other contracting parties noted that delay- ing the start of the fishing season until 1 May would limit the legal fishing season to four winter months and require that vessels fishing legally take the catch quotas in 20 percent less time and fish in poor weath- er conditions. They also noted that the presence of vessels fishing legally provided the only means for sighting and estimating catches of vessels fishing 146 illegally. After reviewing the relative costs and benefits, the Commission agreed to delay until 15 April the start of the 1999 longline fishing season in areas where seabirds are most likely to be present. Between 50,000 to 89,000 seabirds were estimated to have been killed incidental to unregulated fishing in the Convention Area in 1998. Similar numbers were estimated to have been killed in the unregulated fisheries in 1997. These levels are more than an order of magnitude greater than those in the regulated fisheries and are due to lack of compliance with the mitigation measures adopted by the Living Resources Commission. In this regard, the Commission noted, and called on members to support, the efforts of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to develop an international plan of action on the reduction of incidental catch of seabirds in long- line fisheries. This plan reflects the types of measures that have been instituted in the Southern Ocean and would lead to the reduction of Antarctic seabird bycatch in adjacent areas. The U.S. Antarctic Marine Living Resources Research Program The Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984 provides the domestic legislative authority necessary for the United States to implement the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Among other things, the Act directs the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and appropriate officials of other federal agencies, such as the Marine Mammal Commission, to prepare, implement, and annually update a plan for directed research necessary to effectively implement the Convention. The Secretary of Commerce has delegated responsibility for this program to the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Service in turn has assigned program responsibili- ty to the Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla, California. [Information concerning this program and related matters can be obtained from the Chief, Antarctic Ecosystem Research Group, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, P.O. Box 271, La Jolla, California 92038.] Chapter IV — International The principal elements of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s directed research program are (1) shipboard studies to document and monitor changes in krill distribution, abundance, and age structure, and related oceanographic conditions in the South Shetland Islands area (Elephant, King George, and Livingston Islands); (2) bottom trawl surveys to assess and monitor the distribution and abundance of bottom fish in the area; and (3) land-based studies of penguins and pinnipeds that could be affected indirectly by krill harvesting. Additional land-based studies of penguins are carried out cooperatively with National Science Foundation grantees on Torgersen Island, adjacent to Palmer Station on Anvers Island. As in 1996 and 1997 the ship-based studies were conducted in 1998 aboard the Russian research vessel R/V Yuzhmorgeologiya, chartered by the Service. The studies were done between early January and early April. Krill density estimates in the Elephant Island area have been derived from the survey data for the 1992-1998 austral summers, excluding 1993. This time series suggests a six-year periodicity in krill density around Elephant Island and indicates rapid declines in density in 1992 and 1998 and gradual increases from 1994 through 1997. The krill popula- tion reached a seven-year low in 1994 and a seven- year high in 1997. Additional data will be required to corroborate the apparent cycle. Forty-five fish species were caught and processed in 1998 from 74 bottom trawls. The trawls were done at stations around Elephant Island and the lower South Shetland Islands. Species caught in substantial numbers included Gobinotothen gibberifrons, Champ- socephalus gunnari, Notothenia coriiceps, Chaenoce- phalus aceratus, Chionodraco rastrospinosus, Lepido- notothen squamifrons, Gymnoscopelus _ nicholsi, Lepidonotothen larseni, Lepidonotothen nudifrons, and Electrona antarctica. The land-based studies of penguins and pinnipeds were done in 1998 at Cape Shirreff on Livingston Island. Previously, the program included land-based studies at Seal Island, a small island off the northwest coast of Elephant Island. Except for short-term site visits, research at Seal Island was discontinued in 1997 because of the possibility of landslides destroy- ing the support facilities. 147 Studies of penguins and pinnipeds were conducted at Cape Shirreff from 28 November 1997 to 28 February 1998. This was the first full season of penguin research at the Cape and comparisons with prior years thus are not possible. Based on mean breeding success at Admiralty Bay, approximately 140 km (87 miles) northeast on King George Island, the chinstrap penguin population at Cape Shirreff had average breeding success and the gentoo penguin population above average breeding success during the 1997-1998 breeding season. Both chinstrap and gentoo penguins ate primarily krill 31-45 mm in length. Fish were noted in about one-third of all chinstrap penguins and nearly all gentoo penguin stomach samples. Chinstrap penguin foraging trip durations were bimodals with 8- to 10-hour trips alternating with 20- to 24-hour trips. A total of 7,748 Antarctic fur seal pups was born at Cape Shirreff and the adjacent San Telmo Islands during the 1997-1998 breeding season. This was a 14.1 percent decrease from the 9,015 counted in 1996-1997. At-sea foraging trips of lactating female fur seals averaged 4.6 days. The mean distance traveled was 98 km (61 miles) (s.d. = 24.9 km [15.5 miles]). A total of 53 scat and enema samples was collected from fur seals for diet studies: 42 of these samples contained identifiable hard parts (fish bone, krill chitin, or squid beaks). Fish, krill, and squid composed 61.9 percent, 57.2 percent, and 14.3 percent of the samples, respectively. Milk samples were collected from 68 lactating females for fatty-acid signature analysis to infer diet. Two fur seals tagged at other sites were observed during the season at Cape Shirreff; both were females tagged at Seal Island. Studies of Adelie penguins were conducted at Torgersen Island, near Palmer Station, from 1 Octo- ber 1997 through 4 April 1998. The number of breeding pairs was essentially the same as the number in 1996-1997. Breeding success was up slightly, with an average of 1.58 chicks creched per pair, compared with 1.47 in 1996-1997. Conversely, there was a slight decrease in the proportion of two-chick broods. The average fledgling weight of chicks was unchanged from the previous year. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Basic Marine Research in the Antarctic The Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984 directs the National Science Foundation to continue to support basic marine research in the Antarctic. It also directs the Secretary of Commerce to design and implement a directed research program to support implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. As noted earlier, the National Science Foundation and the National Marine Fisheries Service have coopera- tively supported several long-term research programs. Also, some logistic resources are shared through a memorandum of agreement between the two agencies. The complementary research being supported by the National Science Foundation includes (1) the multi-disciplinary, long-term ecological research program focused in the area around Palmer Station on Anvers Island; and (2) individual research projects in diverse subject areas including population biology, community ecology, and adaptation of seals, pen- guins, and other marine species. The long-term ecological research program focuses on the inter- annual variation in the extent of sea ice formation as a physical determinant of spatial and temporal changes in the structure and dynamics of key components of the Antarctic marine food web, including microbes, phytoplankton, krill, and Adelie penguins. The sixth annual oceanographic cruise in support of the long-term ecological research program was conducted in January 1998 in a grid extending from Palmer Station south to Rothera Station. Studies conducted between 1993 and 1997 showed that the age and size at which krill reach maturity are highly variable. The percentage of mature females that reproduce in any year varies from about 10 percent to more than 95 percent, with the highest percentage reproducing the summer after springs with above- average sea ice extent. The study results suggest that reproduction in the relatively long-lived Antarctic krill is flexible, with possible delays of one to several years in the age of first reproduction and the potential for skipping a year if environmental conditions are not favorable. Studies of krill growth rates show correla- tion with food quantity and quality, with diatoms being preferred over other types of phytoplankton. Data on both physical and biological oceanographic 148 parameters are being collected and made available to other researchers, including those involved in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Antarctic Marine Living Resources Research Program. Individual research projects providing complemen- tary data include studies of the buoyancy and mor- phology of Antarctic notothenoid fishes, the metabo- lism of Antarctic fur seals, and the paleontology of abandoned Adelie penguin rookeries. [Information concerning these programs can be obtained from the Manager, Antarctic Biology and Medicine Program, National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.] Conservation Issues in the Arctic Many species of marine mammals live seasonally or year-round in the Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas and coastal areas. They include polar bears; walrus- es; ringed, bearded, harp, hooded, ribbon, and spotted seals; narwhals; and bowhead, minke, fin, gray, and beluga whales. The ranges of most of these species include international waters and the territorial waters of more than one country. Consequently, effective conservation of these species and their habitats re- quires cooperation among the Arctic nations. Some species of marine mammals are important components of the cultures and diets of Alaska Na- tives and other Arctic residents. Congress recognized the importance of marine mammals to Alaska Natives when it enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Section 101(b) of the Act exempts Alaska Natives from the Act’s moratorium on the taking of marine mammals as long as the taking is not wasteful and is done for subsistence purposes or to create and sell authentic articles of Native handicraft or clothing. In 1994 Congress added section 119 to the Act, explicitly authorizing and encouraging the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior to develop agreements with Alaska Native groups to cooperatively manage species and populations of marine mammals that are important to Native subsistence and cultures. Chapter IV — International Some species of marine mammals that occur in the Arctic, such as polar bears, walruses, harp seals, and bowhead whales, have been hunted commercially as well as for subsistence. Commercial hunting was poorly regulated and resulted in overexploitation and depletion of many stocks. Other human activities, such as coastal: and off- shore oil and gas development, also may have adverse effects on marine mammals and their habitats. In addition, marine mammals and other components of Arctic food webs, including people who rely on fish and wildlife for subsistence purposes, may be affected by human activities outside the Arctic. For example, recent studies indicate that persistent organic com- pounds and other pollutants originating from human activities in the middle latitudes are being transported by air and water currents to the Arctic. These may be adversely affecting humans, marine mammals, and other components of Arctic ecosystems. This section provides background information and describes the Commission’s efforts in 1998 to facili- tate the work of the Arctic Council, established by the Arctic countries in 1996 as a successor to the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy adopted by those countries in 1991. The Arctic Council In September 1989 representatives of the eight Arctic countries — Canada, Denmark (for Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Soviet Union, Sweden, and the United States — met in Rovaniemi, Finland, to discuss cooperative measures to protect the Arctic environment. The principal impetus for this meeting was the Chernobyl nuclear accident and pollution from Russian mining activities near the Finnish border, both of which created a desire to help the Soviet Union (later the Russian Federation) address a number of environmental problems that had become evident in the glasnost era. In June 1991 ministers from the eight Arctic countries signed the Declaration on the Protection of the Arctic Environment. At the same time, they adopted the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. The goals of the strategy were to preserve environ- mental quality and natural resources of the Arctic, 149 monitor and reduce pollution affecting the Arctic environment, and accommodate traditional and cultur- al needs and practices of indigenous people insofar as these relate to the environment and natural resources of the Arctic. The strategy called for cooperation in four program areas: assessment and monitoring of environmental pollutants; conservation of Arctic flora and fauna; emergency prevention, preparedness, and response; and protection of the Arctic marine environment. Working groups were established to plan and oversee cooperative activities in these four program areas. In 1994 a task force was established to address issues of sustainable development and utilization of Arctic natural resources. Senior government officials from the eight Arctic countries have met periodically to review the work being done by the working groups and to identify additional cooperative efforts necessary to effectively implement the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. Ministerial-level meetings were held in 1993, 1996, and 1997 to receive reports from the working groups and the senior Arctic officials and to provide direction to these groups. As noted in previous Commission reports, some of the Arctic countries believed that a more formal intergovernmental organization was needed to effec- tively implement the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy and to provide a forum for addressing other issues of regional concern, such as health, education, and economic development. In March 1995 Canada proposed establishing an intergovernmental Arctic Council. The other Arctic countries agreed that a high-level intergovernmental forum would help to implement the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy and to address other issues of mutual interest, but there was not consensus that a formal intergovern- mental organization was necessary. Representatives of the Arctic countries met in 1995 and 1996 to draft a declaration establishing the council, as has been described in previous Commis- sion reports. The Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council was concluded and signed in September 1996. The declaration states that the Arctic Council is established as a high-level forum to MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 (a) provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination, and interaction among the Arctic states, with the involvement of Arctic indigenous people and other Arctic residents on Arctic issues of common interest and concern, in particular issues related to environmental protection and sustainable development in the Arctic; (b) oversee and coordinate the programs established under the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy; (c) adopt terms of reference for and oversee and coordinate a sustainable development program; and (d) disseminate information, encourage education, and promote interest in Arctic-related issues. Among other things, the declaration specifies that: e the council should normally meet biennially, with meetings of senior officials taking place more frequently to provide for liaison and coordination; responsibility for hosting meetings of the Arctic Council, including provision of secretarial support, should rotate sequentially among the Arctic coun- tries; as its first order of business, the council should adopt rules of procedure for its meetings and those of its working groups; and the decisions of the council are to be made by consensus of its members (i.e., the eight Arctic countries). Three organizations representing Arctic indigenous people were afforded permanent participant status under the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy and were entitled to send representatives to all minis- terial, senior official, and working group meetings. They are given the same status by the Arctic Council declaration. These organizations are the Inuit Cir- cumpolar Conference, the Saami Council, and the Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East of the Russian Federation. The council also provides for other organizations to be granted the same status, and at the first ministerial meeting of the council, held in Canada in September 1998, the council adopted a U.S. proposal to recog- nize the Aleut International Association as a perma- nent participant. The 1998 Arctic Council Meeting The first ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council was held in Iqaluit, Northwest Territories, Canada, on 150 18-19 September 1998. Preparations for that meeting began in 1996 under the chairmanship of Canada. At Iqaluit, the United States became chair of the Arctic Council for the following two-year period. The ministers at the Iqaluit meeting adopted new mandates for working groups of the Arctic Council (formerly working groups under the Arctic Environ- mental Protection Strategy), established a new sustain- able development working group, and adopted rules of procedure for the Arctic Council and terms of refer- ence for a sustainable development program. On the pivotal issue of observers, the rules of procedure provide that there must be consensus among the eight Arctic nations to grant observer status and that this status shall continue “for such time as consensus exists at the Ministerial meeting.” The terms of reference take a procedural approach to consideration of projects related to sustainable development, specifying issues that must be consid- ered before the Arctic Council approves a sustainable development project. Thus, proposals for sustainable development projects must clearly outline issues to be addressed and any anticipated financial needs and implications, suggest ways of dealing with those needs and implications, and describe the benefits to be realized from the project. Meetings of senior Arctic officials were held in Canada in February and May, in London in August, and again in Canada in September 1998, immediately before the Arctic Council meeting. The Marine Mammal Commission worked with the Department of State, other federal agencies, and the Alaska Govern- or’s office to develop U.S. positions for these meet- ings. The Commission contracted with an indepen- dent scientist familiar with the work of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy and the Arctic Council to represent the Commission on the U.S. delegations to the May and September meetings of the senior Arctic officials as well as the Arctic Council meeting itself. The contractor’s reports (see Hunting- ton 1998a,b,c,d in Appendix B) noted that the Arctic Council is in its formative stages and that several matters related to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Arctic Council’s work will take time to resolve. The ministerial declaration signed by the Arctic Council in Iqaluit, among other things, ¢ called for the four working groups established under the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy to continue their work and provided additional direction to each group; adopted rules of procedure for the Arctic Council and terms of reference for the sustainable develop- ment program; approved for further work four projects under the sustainable development program, including one on telemedicine proposed by the United States, one on children and youth of the Arctic proposed by Canada, and two on fisheries proposed by the Saami Council; established a sustainable development working group to develop a range of other proposals by Arctic nations and permanent participants; welcomed the creation of the University of the Arctic as a means of linking educational institu- tions and opportunities throughout the region; and accepted the U.S. offer to host the Arctic Council meeting in 2000 and to provide secretarial support through the conclusion of that meeting. As host of the Arctic Council in the next two years the United States has an opportunity to make its activities more productive while adhering to the more rigorous procedures called for in the rules of proce- dure. The United States also has an opportunity to strengthen its contributions to work undertaken within the Arctic Council and its working groups. To this end, the U.S. senior Arctic official sent a letter on 30 November 1998 to his counterparts in the other Arctic countries outlining U.S. plans. The letter was pre- pared with extensive interagency review and input and describes three main areas of activity. First, in the sustainable development program, the United States will emphasize public health issues, including humani- tarian aid to northern Russia. Second, the United States remains committed to the environmental protec- tion work of the Arctic Council and will work to improve coordination among the four working groups in this area. Third, the United States will consider a public affairs strategy to improve education and awareness about the Arctic Council and its activities and areas of concern. 151 Chapter IV — International The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program Working Group under the Arctic Council is charged with reporting on sources, levels, and effects of environmental pollutants in the Arctic. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has lead responsibility for U.S. participation in the working group. In 1997 the working group delivered a report on Arctic pollution issues to the ministers of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy at their meeting in Alta, Norway. This was a non-technical report describing what is currently known about a wide range of pollutants and their effects on the environ- ment and on human health. The full scientific report, which provides referenced substantiation for the non- technical report, was delivered to the Arctic Council in Iqaluit in September 1998. This report, The AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues, is a comprehensive summary of available knowledge through 1997 about pollution issues in the Arctic. In response to recommendations contained in the published reports, the working group was instructed by the Arctic Council to produce assessments on a variety of specific subjects. The assessments will update information on topics covered in the initial reports and will also address emerging topics, such as the anti-fouling paint additive tributyltin, that were not covered in the initial reports. To plan for these assessments and to develop its overall strategic plan for the next five-year period, the working group met twice in 1998. The first meeting was held in April in Girdwood, Alaska, and served as preparation for the Arctic Council meeting in Iqaluit. The second meet- ing, held in Helsinki, Finland, in December, allowed working group members to focus on the direction provided by the Arctic Council. The Marine Mammal Commission contractor noted earlier attended both of these meetings. The contrac- tor’s final report on the Helsinki meeting will be available early in 1999. Both reports noted that coordination among the working groups under the Arctic Council remains problematic and that United MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 States participation in future work under this program appears likely to be a substantial improvement over its participation in the production of the initial reports. The work and findings of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program Working Group are of interest and concern to the Commission because pollutant levels in several marine mammal species found in the Arctic are high and may be affecting both the animals and the Alaska Natives who rely on them for subsistence purposes. This subject is discussed in greater detail in Chapter VI. Another topic of great concern to the Commission is climate change and its possible effects on the Arctic environment. Alaska Natives have expressed con- cerns about observed changes in sea ice cover and structure and in the condition of marine mammals. The Arctic Council expects the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program Working Group to work with the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group to assess the effects of climate change on Arctic ecosystems. Coordination between the two groups was discussed at several meetings in 1998 and, at its meeting in Helsinki, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program Working Group proposed a mechanism for the joint production of assessments of climate change and of ultraviolet radiation and their impacts in the Arctic. The Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group is expected to agree to the proposed approach. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna The Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group provides a distinct forum for scien- tists, indigenous people, and conservation managers to exchange data and information on issues such as shared species and habitats and to collaborate, as appropriate, for more effective research, sustainable utilization, and conservation. The Alaska Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service has lead responsibility for U.S. participation in the working group. As noted in previous Commission reports, the working group has made significant progress in a number of areas. Although the working group did not meet in 1998, the Arctic Council in its Iqaluit Decla- ration endorsed the “Strategic Plan for the Conserva- 152 tion of Arctic Biological Diversity” prepared by the group and provided to the Arctic Council for consid- eration. The plan is intended to implement the “Cooperative Strategy for the Conservation of Biolog- ical Diversity in the Arctic Region” presented to and adopted in concept by the ministers of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy at their meeting in Alta, Norway, in June 1997. The plan emphasizes five objectives: enhancing efforts to monitor Arctic biodiversity; conservation of Arctic genetic resources, species, and their habitats; establishing protected areas as needed; managing activities outside protected areas; and providing conservation information to those making socioeconomic decisions. The working group intends to use the plan to develop a more focused approach to its work. To this end, the Arctic Council in Iqaluit asked the working group to prepare a report on the status and trends of Arctic biodiversity. The report will highlight key issues and provide background information to be used in identifying conservation needs and formulating and assessing the effectiveness of conservation measures. Plans for producing the report are expected to be discussed in detail at the working group meeting in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada, in April 1999. As noted in the Commission’s report in 1997, the efforts of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group to date have focused largely on the terrestrial environment. On 23 December 1997 the Commission wrote to the National Marine Fisheries Service recommending that it consider asking the working group to develop a plan for assessing and monitoring the status and trends of ringed and bearded seals throughout the Arctic. In its reply of 26 January 1998 the Service acknowledged the importance of ice seals to the indigenous people of the Arctic and indicated its intent to commence discussions within the Service, and with Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna and Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Pro- gram representatives to develop such a plan. Coordination with other programs of the Arctic Council will be a significant challenge for the Conser- vation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group over the next few years. As noted above, the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna and Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program Working Groups are both charged by the council to examine climate change and ultraviolet radiation and their impacts, and plans are under way to establish a mechanism for cooperation on these topics. The Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group also will need to consider its relation- ship with the sustainable development program, and in particular to avoid consideration of economic and other policy-related issues that should be taken up by the senior Arctic officials or the Arctic Council itself. As the Commission noted in its previous report, differences of opinion among the eight Arctic nations on whether and how the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group should address such topics related to sustainable development led to disagree- ments concerning the working group’s responsibilities, if any, with regard to sustainable development. Coordinating U.S. Involvement in Arctic Activities In the United States, the Department of State has lead responsibility for developing and overseeing implementation of U.S. policy regarding the Arctic. To help meet this responsibility, the positions of the United States regarding policy-related matters to be considered at working group, senior official, and ministerial meetings are developed through a federal interagency Arctic Policy Group chaired by the Department of State. This group includes representa- tives of the Marine Mammal Commission, the Arctic Research Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, the Interior, and Transportation. Representatives of the state of Alaska, Alaska Native organizations, industry, and public interest groups are consulted to help develop policies regarding issues that affect them. As noted in the Commission’s previous report, the Department of State undertook in 1997 to develop a statement of U.S. goals for the Arctic Council. This was initiated following a recommendation made by the Commission in a letter dated 3 June 1997. In 1998 the Department of State circulated a draft goals statement to solicit comments from federal agencies 153 Chapter IV — International and others. These comments were incorporated into a final draft agreed to by the agencies and is being used by the State Department as a working document. Domestic coordination on Arctic Council matters appears to be improving through more focused discus- sions in the Arctic Policy Group and through addition- al meetings between the U.S. senior Arctic official and the U.S. lead representatives to each working group. To this end, the Department of State’s Under- secretary for Global Affairs convened a high-level interagency meeting on 5 November 1998, in which Commission representatives took part, to discuss U.S. responsibilities and agency commitments for hosting the Arctic Council through 2000. It appears that agency interest in contributing to the work of the council has increased, in large part because of the in- creased visibility achieved by United States’ hosting the council. The Commission will continue to take part in domestic discussions of Arctic Council issues, to send representatives to appropriate meetings, and to make recommendations as appropriate concerning the organization and content of work by the Arctic Council and its subsidiary bodies. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora The Convention on International Trade in Endan- gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides an international framework for regulating trade in animals and plants that are or may become threatened with extinction. The Convention entered into force in 1975 and at the beginning of 1998 had been signed by 143 parties. During 1998 Mauritania became a signatory, and Azerbaijan acceded to the Convention on 23 November 1998 with an effective date of 21 February 1999. This will bring the number of CITES members to 145. Within the United States, the Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead agency for federal actions under the Convention. The Convention provides for three levels of trade control. Depending on the extent to which a species MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 is endangered, it may be included in one of three appendices to the Convention. Appendix I includes those species considered to be threatened with extinc- tion and that are or may be affected by trade. Appen- dix II includes species that are not necessarily threat- ened with extinction but could become so unless trade in them is strictly controlled. Species may also be in- cluded on Appendix II if they are so similar in appear- ance to a protected species that the two could be confused. Appendix III includes species that any Party identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or re- stricting exploitation and for which the Party needs the cooperation of other Parties to control trade. Additions and deletions of species listed on Appendi- ces I and II require concurrence by two-thirds of the Parties voting on a listing proposal. Species may be placed on Appendix III unilaterally by any Party. Parties to the Convention meet every two and a half years to consider, among other things, additions and deletions to the appendices. The 10th and most recent meeting of the Conference of Parties took place in June 1997 in Zimbabwe. The 11th Conference of Parties had been scheduled for November 1999 in Indonesia, but the economic crisis in that country compelled it to withdraw its invitation. The meeting, to be hosted by the CITES Secretariat, has been rescheduled for 10-20 April 2000 at the United Nations Environment Programme headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. Proposed Changes to the Appendices Prior to a meeting of the CITES Parties, any Party may propose adding or deleting species to the appen- dices or transferring species from one appendix to another. As discussed in the previous annual report, before the 1997 CITES meeting, Japan and Norway submitted proposals to downlist certain stocks of minke whales, gray whales, and Bryde’s whales from Appendix I to Appendix II. Such a move, if ap- proved, could be significant in that it would open the door for commercial import of these species, provided that the necessary permits have been obtained. CITES members considered the five downlisting proposals at the 1997 meeting, and, by secret ballot, rejected four proposals involving minke and gray 154 whales. After this defeat, Japan withdrew its fifth proposal to downlist Bryde’s whales. With the postponement of the 11th Conference of Parties, CITES members now have until 12 November 1999 to propose amendments to the appendices. It is expected that Japan will resubmit its proposals to downlist the eastern Pacific stock of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), the Okhotsk Sea/west Pacific and Southern Hemisphere stocks of minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), and the western North Pacific stock of Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera edeni). Norway also has indicated that it will resubmit a proposal to downlist the northeast Atlantic and North Atlantic central stocks of minke whales. It is the opinion of the United States and several other nations that all species and stocks of whales covered by the IWC’s moratorium on commercial whaling should be included on Appendix I of CITES and should remain there until the IWC sets commer- cial quotas for these whales. Consolidation of CITES Resolutions As part of a general streamlining of procedures, the CITES Parties at the eighth meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in 1992 agreed to a process of consolidating resolutions on a single subject into a single document in order to provide a more “user-friendly” product. At the 10th CITES meeting in Zimbabwe, Parties considered a draft consolidated resolution on ceta- ceans. At the request of Japan, it was agreed that the draft would be circulated to all Parties for comment and possible revision. On 17 December 1998 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote to the CITES Secretariat commenting on the draft consolidated resolution. In its letter, the Service noted that the United States supports the continuing effort to consolidate resolutions, provided that the resulting product does not impinge on the validity of resolutions that are still sound. In this regard, the Service noted that Resolution Conf. 2.9, “Trade in Certain Species and Stocks of Whales Protected by the International Whaling Commission from Commercial Whaling,” was overwhelmingly reaffirmed by the 10th meeting of CITES Parties. The Service urged that any consolidated resolution Chapter IV — International include the full retention of Resolution Conf. 2.9 without modification or amendment. The Service also noted that, subsequent to the action taken at the 10th CITES meeting, the IWC passed a resolution expressing its appreciation for the reaffirmation of the link between the two organiza- tions. The Service requested that the IWC resolution be circulated to the CITES Parties, particularly if the draft consolidation goes forward for consideration at the April 2000 meeting. The matter will be taken up by the CITES Standing Committee when it meets in February 1999, and a revised consolidated resolution is expected to be considered at the next Conference of Parties in April 2000. CITES Relationship to the IWC During consideration of the proposals by Norway and Japan to downlist whale stocks at the June 1997 CITES meeting, lengthy debate focused on the rela- tionship between CITES and the IWC. Many CITES Parties stated their opposition to changing appendix designations for whales before the ITWC’s Revised Management Scheme has been completed. Other Parties saw a need for independent action under CITES using the Convention’s own criteria when listing species on the appendices. A similar discussion ensued following the submis- sion by Japan of a draft resolution intended to rede- fine the relationship between CITES and the IWC. The resolution called for repealing a resolution adopted in 1979 that recommends that Parties not issue permits for harvest or trade for primarily commercial purposes of any species or stock protected from commercial whaling by the IWC. Japan argued that the CITES decision to list certain whale stocks on Appendix I had been taken in response to the IWC moratorium, but that the moratorium itself had been established without adequate scientific grounds. The Japanese delegation therefore suggested that the CITES Parties repeal the pertinent resolution and instead rely on their own listing criteria. Following 155 a lengthy debate, the draft resolution was defeated by a vote of 51 to 27. The discussion, however, resulted in a Clarification from the CITES Secretariat stating that, although consultation was essential under CITES and other conventions such as that implementing the IWC, this did not mean that it was obligatory for there to be strict adherence in one convention to decisions made within another. Illegal Trade in Whale Meat Since 1979 CITES Parties have cooperated with the IWC to prevent trade in whale meat from any species or stock protected from commercial whaling by the IWC. As discussed in previous annual reports, in 1994 CITES Parties adopted a resolution recognizing the need for the IWC and the CITES Secretariat to cooperate and exchange information on international trade in whale products. The resolution urged coun- tries to report any incidents of illegal trade in whale products to the CITES Secretariat. Despite the cooperation that has resulted from the resolutions adopted by both CITES Parties and the IWC, illegal trade in meat from Appendix I whale species remains a significant problem. At the June 1997 CITES meeting, a consensus document was adopted as a formal decision addressing cooperation in monitoring illegal trade in whale meat. The decision encourages CITES Parties to inventory frozen whale products possessed in commercial quantities and to collect samples for DNA identification from all inventoried stocks, as well as from baleen whales taken in indirect harvests and, where practicable, from aboriginal and incidental takes. It further invites all concerned countries to cooperate in determining sources of whale meat in cases of smuggling, or unknown identity, and to make relevant information available to the CITES Secretariat for dissemination to interested Parties. It is anticipated that the subject will be reviewed at the next CITES meeting in April 2000. Visor 2 oe ee ee ee ee a Meant) \ pe nae, ie chatao’ aby icoititoene Maat yppeqaty qi Ute boakrere ovownd (oc Mee ATE 9 Tart JE ia noid griee tad seinen? BALD eafly mod novel 2A Tassie. elasena ane nonesabeice fast dil, 16/) of) Qiltnsers 'qaql tol edonte Eni igapentio vit) tr. sereeoiny! |e hea dee BID eith OW af aek vnc Ando ad Cen abeatie 0% ori: cluded on ADoewdl rede shan SAH \agh aly 8 erie ne coos ea yg tes -" einetiatinapien vet Give? seramere, ma? weitere, crea sist) inarre sku Cie sett vi Sb icgatlerien: letwanoo Mort BeiaeNC Aor Aligittoges: iavrtnai pect emgeel bekeudibeck QU QS celtilesree beigeen iT ZITO, oe) Opcatmunund ZT. ah, hee QV sttbered bee: i hincithesiti-po fou tinelt aggesars Gra ua, ~ gq neti vlwee) ibaleitintade:barivyien | ¥ cpanetonD em BLY wird wal @oc of cainke OOODAE Sor ’ peeve aes ° (hat 2] ruil ye ancteie ‘ets 10 mit’, cell dre toobe whites amiey HO podinat areca. ¢ dighaiy, fl THD seul). QMAT adpbeta 2071 ies 60¢ OE ae x noqne geipnadd oi soleoqgo bosives? «IW of ais 3 nt whO betekynos mosd amt emadsd ret acon welaegsbnirediiieag if ‘Mad ho.ao re‘ solnrighdDe 0? ngregdcibragge se shai ibiact Into 6.6 daaieab qniviniiol Desmas noteehh abot o) beboti! esituient: gimd 2: a omit bas @i1T BD asked: retrié TN r eolivhoes: & gajleequr sn) bdlissangites ap esitvs taal ebanterm iors beter ORO Ke yisaptien act echrm, xo iavitd 10) hatviiong Soo 10 aelosde Ym to 2600qn bevtwe migets OW sired yestady mob ecigiw anita WiC doteh IW est) ade —— — SS ee — ith), Lieae Lamp. 2) voy A heb i ha MPRA Yo bap, wd seatetah oynyl wena hen esr hip felt cau JR) bt aig fare, ‘sliliad Lab whet) ys ¢ «ees 16,2 ol spe WEG ator mpg We que gui, miteln he Weyl itn ps BQ 2% UT IMAMS A, BLP larno tas wet psi 4 Oh as Amey avi) lo Bhi vig Pe) eas vou: i-Giialie veebena, sad, tinlas 4, Mulder WY TP Dri oh ott vege Oh rartics cy ack cagianta 46) uno) boxes mye a : . Sa, ted, bos mapel yay aig . ; eG tne pidisaog of bluow 4b bevel ‘a rt Teague 20 vemeriata ot » ‘eT Oe pibry y With Pagne iin Nem vORbe OF elma ’ WE Dad Deion o) aneee bie Rei espe al See tos BM aM) B Miaine by aay & ohayaves ibaerne.4 cay LY AP) DS a baal ele rh HT UIE Gt Asorth. cagwas yu) Sm) Vi i Ws tae j ony 4 Move adarestey 4) oillliw od t O01. Opebity Yeseocne: orlt ay, sae: Pm) eh nj ffecis of Lnereestng Aandi Fey) tT. RRP ty h Ad Ww WW @atliegan o> ation, ARPS PCO, Aino | Bek 7 | disobger PR! fh «wa yeiie eld: Re ale, ) Molsinadlat bsiveflog aad ti BiBSY tote _ eo 18, 8 iad gt ~ ; odove, More eypcure io Rae dra! « _ 4 Peabne ! EVnroponenk i eas t ' [ie otis ' J 74 6 j Arh ¢} oa | | ihe Navy ’ “4 : ’ nt 1906. di eropenvet 4 - nic Won We WAL peti af A hs rf acy iter otics TOU O4 ix canh Na ~ erry of in o mhi'® Gibed in die Cin ie { , ¢ 3 0 CUAFaOIe ined dal Tetley Wan Codslgegrad toy‘ ged fiffeeced avour rvet ti mw HWE esting Aoeted by eden ies pall 1 ane Heetgrntad Keprukenenives of ' } } Fave) mo, tw ce Nasi! Mayiu cormtvating the ¢fiegs on Mar agi tt Serv io ‘ : » nt & hor arom chime attender! he pabetinn ; ‘ Hertied t untl bo lowe kehy iy ie adyi Sb Re rit I , wre awl) Te ad > lia wt erties thet would ewe Ayam WW Re cacipesl } ; : n 1 eV aa OA Klee gy OF pag i fetes Siu « jsop ~« ‘ Lon ‘ a ea) eee el | ry wisy Saul) tnt be rig ’ if ' (ii) oeve a ni oe WE Ruger Ath ~~ 7 7 a i.) << mi vae calnel thé. Indeyrideale with « 7 oh Oop whetpes Geo Jkevbs br anal ) Stal win’ wplling y oan : 4 i Wied wm. dificres yore of the crit Glen « Mini 2 @¢ id , for -or thew focmics, As p' nw 4.) Fill Fie «a Ww Oh lafornation 18 \aesigt ¥ : OF Chips thay traiat, ae) Mg SoG Py wives trent fo durdver test the i WHA Arty thkciy to t —— a ~eiana Ghplowrmeeat of te cyl law afi pitecdtice ve lo minwna walle efits dn'ed fhe? awiihe nadine, an The : Sill ‘ Em, ‘ Naveoar 20 May Te — ‘ uly (Ved Oe Oouwnetiog whee oa apie! (9 Oreaniy «a laye teves of Oe Naw wxkiny ‘fmt. he hove, 1. Nigeenion opis , * rertigac fet ie he Comsiiaion owl rp niration af ihn workshes , er . Chapter VII OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT Exploration and development of coastal and off- shore oil, gas, and hard mineral resources may ad- versely affect marine mammals and their habitat. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service is responsible for assessing, detecting, and preventing or mitigating the adverse effects of these activities in offshore waters beyond state jurisdiction. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Fisher- ies Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service are responsible for reviewing proposed actions and advising the Minerals Management Service and other agencies on measures needed to ensure that those actions will not have adverse effects on marine mammals or endangered or threatened species. The Army Corps of Engineers also has related regulatory authority over oil and gas development projects that require certain permits under the Clean Water Act. The Marine Mammal Commission reviews relevant policies and activities of these agencies and recom- mends actions that appear necessary to protect marine mammals and their habitats. The Commission’s activities in this regard in 1998 are discussed below. The Marine Mammal Protection Act directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to authorize, in certain instances, the unintentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens inci- dental to activities other than commercial fishing operations. Such authorizations related to offshore oil and gas activities are discussed in Chapter IX. Beaufort Sea/Northstar Project As discussed in previous annual reports, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. is undertaking oil and gas 175 development and production in an area of the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska known as the Northstar Unit. The project includes construction of an artificial island, subsea pipelines, and associated ice roads connecting the island to existing infrastructure in Prudhoe Bay. Among other things, these facilities require a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As a related matter, requests by BP for authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals incidental to seismic testing in the Northstar area have been dis- cussed in previous reports. BP’s request for a small- take authorization relative to construction of the offshore structure and related activities is discussed in Chapter IX of this report. On 1 June 1998 the Army Corps of Engineers issued a draft environmental impact statement for the issuance of a section 404 permit for construction of an artificial island and buried pipeline as part of the Beaufort Sea/Northstar Project. The Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed the draft statement and on 30 June 1998 provided comments to the Corps. In its letter, the Commission noted that the draft statement provided a succinct summary of the environ- mental and socioeconomic impacts of the proposed development and the potential effects of construction and daily operation of the Northstar Unit on marine mammals and other biota. The Commission com- mended the preparers of the draft statement for the extensive consideration given the endangered bowhead whale. However, less consideration had been given other marine mammal species that could be affected by the proposed construction. For instance, the Commission noted that the project could adversely affect polar bears and ringed seals and recommended that these species be given greater consideration. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 The Commission further noted that the proposed Northstar Unit is to be constructed in an area where there currently are 76 active leases for offshore oil and gas activities. In the Commission’s opinion, available information is insufficient to be confident that development of the Northstar Unit, by itself and in combination with other ongoing and future activi- ties in the southern Beaufort Sea, will not adversely affect any marine mammal species or stock. There- fore, it recommended that the final environmental impact statement be expanded to describe the research and short- and long-term monitoring activities that are planned to ensure that oil production does not have significant adverse impacts on any marine mammal species or population or any unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for taking by Alaska Natives for subsistence uses. The final environmental impact statement is expected to be completed early in 1999. Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting As noted in its previous annual report, the Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with its Com- mittee of Scientific Advisors, on 8 October 1997 provided comments to the Minerals Management Service on a draft environmental impact statement concerning oil and gas lease sales to be held over the next four years in the western Gulf of Mexico. The Commission pointed out that the draft statement provided a thorough and well-documented summary of information on marine mammals in the western Gulf and a well-documented assessment of the ways that marine mammals in general could be affected by seismic surveys, drilling, waste discharges, oil spills, etc. However, the draft statement provided little information on the distribution patterns or abundance of the individual marine mammal species and popula- tions that inhabit the northwestern Gulf or how they likely would be affected. With regard to the last point, the Commission noted that the Minerals Management Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service had cooperatively funded a research program, known as the GulfCet Program, that was providing much new information 176 concerning the distribution, abundance, habitat-use patterns, and possible essential habitats of the marine mammal species found most commonly in the north- ern Gulf. The Commission suggested expanding the final environmental impact statement to indicate specific areas where seismic surveys, drilling, helicop- ter and vessel support activities, etc., might overlap with important marine mammal feeding, breeding, calving, nursing, or migratory areas. Further, the Commission noted that, if available data are insuffi- cient to determine how individual species and popula- tions could be affected by the proposed action, the final environmental impact statement should describe the uncertainties and the research or monitoring programs needed to resolve them. The final environmental impact statement was published by the Minerals Management Service in May 1998. It referenced and, in most cases, ad- dressed the Commission’s comments on the draft. Among other things, it noted that the Minerals Man- agement Service concurred with the Commission regarding the need for post-sale monitoring and that the Service planned to hold a workshop within the next two years to identify the critical uncertainties and how they might best be resolved. On 8-10 December 1998 the Minerals Management Service held a meeting in New Orleans to review information on oil and gas exploration and develop- ment in the northern Gulf and its socioeconomic and environmental impacts. The meeting was attended by scientists who have conducted or are conducting related research, representatives of the oil and gas industry, and officials with the Minerals Management Service and other involved federal and state agencies. A representative of the Commission participated in the meeting. The meeting included reviews of the GulfCet Program and information on the effects of seismic surveys and the removal of drilling rigs on marine mammals and sea turtles in the northern Gulf. Information presented indicated the following: the GulfCet Program field work has been complet- ed and the final report is expected to be submitted to the Minerals Management Service early in 1999; the program has been very productive and is one Chapter VII — OCS Development of the few marine mammal programs that has attempted to identify distribution patterns and environmental factors affecting distribution and behavior of marine mammals as well as the species present and their abundance; the program has documented that there is both high species diversity and large numbers of marine mammals in the northern Gulf, particularly in offshore pelagic areas; the distribution of most species, including endan- gered sperm whales, appears to be associated with cold water rings that produce upwellings and have high primary and secondary productivity; and the cold water rings can be tracked by satellite, which will allow future marine mammal surveys to be designed so that shiptime and other costs can be minimized. During the review of information regarding the effects of seismic surveys and explosive removal of drilling platforms, it was pointed out that the Service’s environmental impact statement indicates that current- ly an average of three or four seismic surveys are conducted in the northern Gulf every day and that 17/7! more than 100 exploration and development wells are drilled every year. In addition, an average of more than 1,000 boat trips and 2,000 helicopter trips are being made every day to transport personnel and otherwise service drilling rigs. It also was pointed out that, based on observations of similar activities in Alaska and California, it is likely that such activities have had, and may be having, at least short-term effects on the distribution and behavior of some marine mammal species. It also is possible that some or all of the potentially affected species have become accustomed to the activities and no longer are affected by them. However, nothing has been done since the Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed in 1972 to document whether oil and gas exploration and devel- opment in the northern Gulf have had any long-term effects on the resident marine mammal species. As noted in Chapter VI, the Minerals Management Service is planning to hold a workshop in June 1999 to better determine what can be done to resolve these uncertainties. The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, will offer its assistance to help ensure the success of the workshop. (hat qo BNC a hiiok ieee Sk aiigWnin iS Sitemeter ON! put) yeu mot.io 2e¢etn ee yneilithenls way gre o!iu) aginc igo nie O0D:S Deda agiet md OOO, + a1 obas lemorog.aenqenet) ol gabowasy= ster cal oun oamiod eeepoeienal: epieaiittisy civisa oe rio Un: Grivbot anid Momemivansts oo Loe! jiu eviwitomtions tad geld eeu) palrwlaic’? be: if mrs rete. Geet -teiignited Shy vert dew ocr wind ‘Some coated vidbegenetediat) 24) 0 ol) ‘enpeied) iGizsagebveled! :ianisege lemme oc ice mune? svedt-eoiieqe Poe iabisto, ofr ic: ite v0 uber ota ove cageo) om bnew@oltiy hag sls, a8 be venir: eb Taticsen qua. ogous — 7 (pCR beaqemead nellpwionT deni wi! acl rhewes pee troheteiees amy ns un ede: enh b bey wits bafowed Wow) orartinon OM red dncatrep oi aatlemuntin orhaee frobien 2!) a a rv gine 4 Serer s +6 ‘ Cpomaeuait GaniM or LY sages ni bow «7 QOki sew ai qoreow & blow al yetinnnig 2: 954vi152 seals svidast 7 Snob ot neo derid eyiinsted rood oe nodadlaes our my raiasiglmoy ort ae ita PA oRingae? te gery 2ESIOUE WE FUMBLED WYlosl {ob S4I\aieiees Aa noted ia ite prev tag forme mM Maruial Comrnistion, i aig TS pee tT AES Ble eit 1) aitice of Solent Ategwee oiuviied covtamevy 1% Se Bory ' Service of « Ure ewiempeies: 0. concoriiag off tnd geo lit ale %) Or @ Real er yeare tii Ue Wired j Commintye' pointed op Ger . =— prewkled 2 : MOLAR awit ST 5:8 MM godanegetl €¢ RO Fenige A pS al ony but core Obs.aod yah ots TA ORR 27] RA Ge, a teak) Sit. toes? TREO MIOROMT wah ro ud ¢ uve ; roialugog ri 3 Wrotice#) of stige maT vicwed "6 trqueet gpd noovatedl ' wien | CaN Service in : _ oy. vu re i ¢ ter / . ; in? ys Liles Ape potty Yee — — ae wet snd tiw dal ui Ave WP Sica a” d m : ads ) tap feroval nf the: tO age Wille wed ‘ t Ged) not a t OTK io a) @ 6 ott i ier of Pahl = . — ‘s wr ded) e provicie,) the Tone: Quand a hedednte . mee wore’ o he pre Ce fay og Gad ewe WOU ae Ge if he tire | E2t4 Coeur (ap, © dee itera af the ve haga Goose, 1 ie o- weideem the ew mroven ~~ ae irene nes Ge ihe Serve epeare thet | 1) “ aS COfTUias tO gil fw a oo veg j We on . Son, Ge (2) & NefCaeee puma» vr yas it ’ 7 the Ate Dowie hadi fh 6 card fo veri’) de cw : A. t “wa 4 j re Se Duties of paste be iadsame Awe « > onli ty be wf fact wiggle urle, : we year that tbe tay: Natics of aout? al | bey, ger y rr t amet for ats’ n ER Wis publidhed by ~ “er, fy 4 Tarbox Gewbs dotvras 1998 ‘The Saw Chm sles ; Meee vo Nichi Dehand —- Qonlea iochlens “erevio, “ ik P Poherie Gy © be ccorgieter| bh 2 sing cust i ae nll 1 Oe Westlontiar aul rig ween, Pw Mie i> . et ions | mitluorizeay on hu uli tw afile - @ai ‘i 1s Fs 1 vet hatin 2 eMental to Ge 4 o é f he affected om 2XoMined £ . -« fae wl i an 1ciumk wy he oO oon. The Counnissto urs ati & { wu Puget Sew, deteririnadon: ; : a with ‘ ree bas Request for Authorizesten © Hered fed Mie MEP perdi yl ‘ent han bert @f Marius Massmals lacidental ta if Yate er Pei atii ; z augbere of f Testing Ect Al er Sar we ret . n41 7 4 t a she , igentind Ps ; Iuly i9SE ihe Mathes Mertac here Joete he b rmaod in January iG TOOPVed ah epplictitun (on foe Adr for LP oy o)On nen capired befone tii: rem Te:t Comer gin Ais Forme Hges tm pup Set eee; me Foro Grad teracdstnatad iin {> taraga A Pala’ a] of fata on vy A whe Potted delpiving, j DoesIhy other Cetaueone (pad Vr s weit reviewed! the 20 O« Zi th ceodive Hyljia of char ci “ cUpe clearance ’ : pee aotic af, ny letter of yes ) warure off Egihy Alt Porous Uy Nott: » o fi, @h\ mb’ tho Service thar some of il 204 ® Chapter X MARINE MAMMALS IN CAPTIVITY Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, permits to take marine mammals may be issued by the Secre- tary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior, depending on the species of marine mammal involved, for several purposes, including public display, scien- tific research, or enhancing the survival or recovery of a species or stock. Such permits may, among other things, authorize the maintenance of marine mammals in captivity. Since its inception, the Marine Mammal Commission has worked with responsible regulatory agencies to ensure the safety and well-being of marine mammals in captivity. Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act enacted in 1994 greatly diminished the authority of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service over marine mammals once they are removed from the wild and brought into captivity. Although no corresponding amendments to the Animal Welfare Act were enacted, the practical effect was to increase the role of the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in matters concerning the care and maintenance of captive marine mammals. Among other things, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service assumed sole responsibility for regulating programs that allow humans to interact with marine mammals, such as swim-with-the-dolphin programs. Care and Maintenance Standards The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service regulates the humane handling, housing, care, treat- ment, and transportation of marine mammals and other warm-blooded animals under the Animal Wel- fare Act. The Service originally adopted standards applicable to marine mammals in 1979 and incorporat- ed amendments in 1984. The standards have not been updated since then to reflect advances in animal husbandry and marine mammal science. 201 As discussed in previous annual reports, in 1990 the Marine Mammal Commission invited represen- tatives of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service to meet to discuss the need to revise the standards. At that time, all four agencies agreed that a joint review of the standards was desirable. As a first step, in July 1991 the Com- mission provided the Animal and Plant Health Inspec- tion Service with a comprehensive discussion paper. The Commission’s paper identified shortcomings in the current standards and raised questions that the Commission thought needed to be addressed in reviewing those standards. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service subsequently indicated its intention to use negotiated rulemaking to review and revise the marine mammal standards and guidelines. A negotiated rulemaking committee composed of representatives of the public display and animal welfare communities and govern- ment agencies was formed by the Service. The Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service participated as non- voting observers. The negotiated rulemaking advisory committee met three times between September 1995 and December 1996 and developed consensus language on most sections of a proposed rule to be published by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The committee reached agreement on the following sec- tions: feeding; sanitation; employees/attendants, transportation; veterinary care; facilities general; paragraph (a) of space requirements; and separation. Consensus was not reached on the sections that address the most contentious and potentially costly issues, including special considerations regarding compliance and/or variances; indoor facilities (which includes provisions concerning ambient temperatures, ventilation, and lighting); outdoor facilities (which MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 includes temperature and shelter requirements); space; and water quality. Voting members of the rulemaking committee are not allowed to comment negatively or in opposition to any of the consensus language at the proposed rule stage. Observers such as the Marine Mammal Commission, however, are not similarly constrained in how they may comment. After considering projected costs for additional negotiating sessions and the likelihood of the commit- tee reaching consensus on the remaining issues, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service decided to hold no more negotiating meetings and to develop remaining sections of the proposed rules itself. By letter of 23 December 1997 the Commission advised the Service that it remained concerned about the status of the proposed rule. Noting that consensus had been reached on several sections of the proposed rule and that a proposed rule was to have been pub- lished some time during the first half of 1997, the Commission asked the Service to advise it as to what work remained to be done and what clearances needed to be obtained before publication. The Service responded that proposed regulations reflecting the consensus language agreed to by the negotiated rulemaking committee had been drafted and should be ready for departmental review in February 1998. The Service further noted that it had decided to bifurcate the rulemaking process. Those portions of the proposed regulations that will not be based on consensus language developed by the negotiated rulemaking committee will be published separately. The Service indicated that it was currently developing proposed regulations for those sections. The Service anticipates that it will publish the second portion of the proposed rule during fiscal year 1999. The portion of the proposed regulations based on the consensus language was submitted on 19 Novem- ber 1998 to the Office of Management and Budget for its review before publication. The Service expects that clearance to publish this portion of the regulations will be forthcoming during the first quarter of 1999. Once the proposed rule based on the consensus language is published, the Service expects to focus on completing the second portion of the proposed rule. 202 Swim-with-the-Dolphin Regulations In a separate rulemaking initiated in 1995, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service proposed to regulate swim-with-the-dolphin programs, which prior to the 1994 Marine Mammal Protection Act amendments had been regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service. As discussed in previous annual reports, the Commission commented on 17 March 1995 recommending, among other things, that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service conduct on-site inspections of current and proposed facilities; clarify its authority to suspend a swim program’s authorization if the facility is found to be deficient or is not adhering to the applicable regula- tions; and clarify what constitutes adequate training for dolphins in swim programs. On 4 September 1998 the Service published a final rule in the Federal Register that amended the Animal Welfare Act regula- tions to establish standards for swim-with-the-dolphin programs. The rule, effective as of 5 October 1998, included standards for the humane handling, care, and treatment of cetaceans used in swim programs. It also established requirements pertaining to the size of enclosures in which swim programs can be conducted, veterinary care programs, personnel qualifications, handling the animals, and record-keeping. The Service considered the Commission’s comments, but the recommendations noted above were not accepted. Through its definition of “swim programs,” the Service included “wading programs” as being covered by the regulations. Wading programs are defined as programs in which human participants interact with dolphins by remaining stationary and non-buoyant. In response to complaints from facilities that were subject to the regulations solely because they offered wading programs, the Service on 14 October 1998 published a Federal Register notice announcing that, until further notice, it would not apply those provi- sions of the swim regulations pertaining to partici- pant/attendant ratio and space requirements for the interactive areas to these facilities. In the meantime, the Service intended to examine separately the issue of interactive space requirements and human partici- pant/attendant ratios for wading programs in which contact between humans and cetaceans is limited and controlled, and in which movement of humans within the enclosure is negligible. The Service intends to publish a notice in the Federal Register early in 1999 requesting public comment concerning such programs. Exports of Marine Mammals to Foreign Facilities Section 102(a)(4) of the Marine Mammal Protec- tion Act, as amended in 1994, prohibits the export of marine mammals taken in violation of the Act or for any purposes other than public display, scientific research, or species enhancement. Marine mammals may be exported from U.S. facilities or U.S. waters as long as the receiving facility meets requirements comparable with those applicable to U.S. facilities. Before it may obtain marine mammals from the United States for public display, a foreign facility must provide the National Marine Fisheries Service documentation demonstrating that it meets comparable standards with respect to education or conservation programs and public accessibility. The facility must also provide documentation to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service demonstrating that it meets standards for care and maintenance of the marine mammals comparable with those applicable to U.S. facilities. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service evaluates the documentation and provides the results to the National Marine Fisheries Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service, as appropriate. Because foreign facilities are not subject to licensing or regis- tration requirements under the Animal Welfare Act, it is only through the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s comparability requirement that adequate care of marine mammals transferred to foreign facilities can be assured. Should a foreign facility not meet the comparability requirements, the National Marine Fisheries Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service can block the export. Some disagreement exists among the responsible agencies and the public display industry as to how such comparability findings are to be made and for what period the facility must remain comparable. The National Marine Fisheries Service believes that its responsibilities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and those of the receiving facility, do not end 203 Chapter X — Marine Mammals in Captivity once an animal has been exported. It therefore requires the foreign government with jurisdiction over the facility to certify the accuracy of information submitted by the facility and to afford comity to actions the Service may take (i.e., agree to recognize and facilitate enforcement of Service actions concern- ing the animals) to enforce the comparability provi- sions of the Act once animals are exported. The public display industry believes that there is no continuing U.S. jurisdiction after an animal is export- ed (i.e., comparability requirements apply only at the time of export and a comity statement is not required). As discussed in previous annual reports, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in 1994 requested the Commission’s comments on a document outlining the information required to be submitted by a foreign facility to enable the Service to determine that comparable standards have been met. The Commission responded by letter of 8 September 1994, noting that the only reliable way to ascertain whether a foreign facility meets requirements comparable with those applicable to U.S. facilities is to conduct an on- site inspection, as is done for U.S. facilities. During 1995 the National Marine Fisheries Service requested the Commission’s comments on four appli- cations from foreign facilities requesting authorization to export unreleasable stranded marine mammals from the United States for purposes of public display. The Commission reiterated comments from its 8 Septem- ber 1994 letter that an on-site inspection by a qualified individual (e.g., an Animal and Plant Health Inspec- tion Service inspector or an independent inspector approved by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and who is familiar with marine mammals) is the only reliable way to ensure that a facility meets comparable U.S. standards. The Commission noted that, although the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service does not have authority under the Animal Welfare Act to compel a foreign facility to consent to an inspection, it is within the authority of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to require a foreign facility to allow and pay for the cost of such an inspection as a condition of obtaining animals from the United States. Thus, inspection could be made mandatory. The Commission further noted that it would not be difficult to imagine circumstances in which an animal MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 would be better off being euthanized than being transferred to a foreign facility that was ill-equipped to maintain animals in captivity. After its November 1996 annual meeting, the Commission again wrote to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service about the export of marine mammals from the United States. In its 18 December 1996 letter, the Commission noted that the Service was continuing to base comparability determinations solely on written submissions and it reiterated the views expressed in its 8 September 1994 letter that a foreign facility could and should be required to accept and pay for an inspection as a condition of obtaining marine mammals from the United States. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service responded to the Commission on 8 January 1997. The Service stated that, although it does not have authority under the Animal Welfare Act to inspect facilities outside the United States and its territories officially, it would be willing to consider sending inspectors to foreign facilities for purposes of deter- mining comparability with Animal Welfare Act standards if it is invited to do so by the foreign government and if the expenses associated with the inspection are covered. The Service noted that if a deficiency is found, it does not have authority to compel correction. The Service also questioned the need for on-site inspections of foreign facilities because it is unaware of any problems associated with the care of marine mammals exported in the past. The Commission also wrote to the National Marine Fisheries Service on 18 December 1996 about the export of marine mammals. The Commission noted that, because of the current requirements of section 104 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Service has little choice but to require a comity statement or to implement some other mechanism to ensure continuing jurisdiction over foreign facilities that receive marine mammals from the United States. Nevertheless, the Commission noted that, given existing funding, it is unrealistic to assume that the National Marine Fisheries Service will be able to adequately monitor compliance by foreign facilities or take remedial actions if problems are detected. The Commission therefore suggested that it might make sense if the Marine Mammal Protection Act were 204 amended to eliminate continuing jurisdiction over marine mammals once they are exported but to strengthen the mechanisms for ensuring comparability before authorizing an export. The National Marine Fisheries Service responded to the Commission on 19 August 1997. The Service provided strong support for requiring on-site inspec- tions of foreign facilities and agreed that the issue might best be addressed through amendment of the Animal Welfare Act or the Marine Mammal Protec- tion Act. Until this occurs, however, the Service noted that requiring a comity statement and a certifica- tion of accuracy from the foreign government, com- bined with a comparability recommendation from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, remained reasonable requirements consistent with the export provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The Service is working to draft a proposed rule regarding public display permits, including trans- fer/transport requirements. These will cover both foreign and domestic facilities. The Service intends to publish the proposed rule in 1999. Release of Captive Marine Mammals to the Wild Over the past few years, there has been increased debate over the return of long-term captive marine mammals to the wild. Whether such releases are in the best interests of the animal is questionable, and the procedures for preparing animals for release are still experimental. It is generally thought that release of long-term captive animals should be pursued only with adequate monitoring and in accordance with an appro- priate research protocol, pursuant to a scientific research permit. The Commission on 30 November 1994 wrote to the National Marine Fisheries Service, recommending that the Service refrain from considering any permit application seeking authority to release marine mam- mals to the wild until objective, generally accepted criteria had been developed for judging when release is appropriate. The Commission reiterated this recommendation in a letter to the Service on 6 De- cember 1996. The Commission further recommended that the Service publish an unequivocal policy state- ment or, if necessary, regulations specifying that the release of captive marine mammals to the wild with- out proper authorization has the potential to injure marine mammals and is considered an illegal taking. The Commission further recommended that, if the Service does not believe it has sufficient authority to prevent unauthorized releases, it seek amendment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to obtain such authority (e.g., by specifically prohibiting unautho- rized releases, allowing recovery of costs for recap- ture efforts, and giving the Service clearer authority to obtain an injunction against those intending to release animals or otherwise violate the Act). As discussed in the previous annual report, one effort to release long-term captive marine mammals involved bottlenose dolphins held at a facility in Florida. The facility, which acquired the dolphins in 1994 under a public display permit, intended to seek a scientific research permit under which preparation for release, release, and post-release monitoring would occur. Before submitting a permit application, however, the facility operators took matters into their own hands. On 23 May 1996, despite warnings from the National Marine Fisheries Service that such action would constitute a violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, two of the dolphins were transported to open waters off Key West and released without authorization. The facility contended that this was not a violation of the Act. Without sufficient preparation for the release, one of the dolphins appeared in a Key West marina with lacerations, begging for food. The second dolphin had sustained deep lacerations and was emaciated. The animals likely would have died, had they not been rescued by the National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice. As demonstrated by this experience, releasing marine mammals before they are properly prepared clearly has the potential to injure the released animals. It also exposes the released and wild marine mammals to potential risks of contracting diseases. Therefore, the Commission believes the unauthorized release of captive marine mammals constitutes a form of taking as defined under the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 205 Chapter X — Marine Mammals in Captivity The National Marine Fisheries Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service have both pursued enforcement actions against the facility. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service suspended the facility’s Animal Welfare Act license, which provided a partial basis for the National Marine Fisheries Service to seize a third dolphin maintained at the facility. The Animal and Plant Health Inspec- tion Service concluded its enforcement action in 1996 by imposing a $10,000 fine. The fine was suspended, however, when the licensee agreed to surrender its license voluntarily and cease participating in regulated activities. By the end of 1998 the National Marine Fisheries Service had filed charges against four individuals involved in the unauthorized release. All four were charged with an illegal take by harassment and illegal transportation of each dolphin. The case is expected to be heard by an administrative law judge in February 1999. On 6 December 1996 the Commission also wrote the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service regarding the issue of release. The Commission noted that Animal Welfare Act regulations require that facilities maintaining marine mammals be structurally sound and in good repair to protect and constrain the animals and to restrict entry of unwanted animals. The Commission noted that despite the clear require- ment that marine mammals be contained in an enclo- sure, some facilities have been allowed to permit animals to venture outside the primary enclosure. Although this may be appropriate in certain situations (e.g., open-water training of marine mammals by the Navy), such exceptions should be authorized only if necessary and only if safeguards are in place to ensure that the animals will be returned to their primary enclosure. The Commission further recommended that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service work with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to review their respec- tive authorities and consider the need for more deci- sive enforcement of existing statutory provisions and regulations, issuance of policy statements, and regula- tory amendments. If the agencies determine that they have authority to respond to, but not prevent, unau- thorized releases, the Commission recommended that the agencies seek statutory authority to do so. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Another marine mammal that was being considered for possible release to the wild is Keiko, the male killer whale featured in the movie Free Willy. Keiko, captured in Icelandic waters in 1979 at the age of two, lived in an Icelandic aquarium for three years before being moved to a facility in Ontario, Canada. In 1985 the animal was sold to a facility in Mexico City. In 1996 he was moved to the Oregon Coast Aquarium where the Free Willy/Keiko Foundation assumed responsibility for him. The foundation took steps to improve the health of the animal and developed a plan to return Keiko to Iceland for further rehabilitation and possible release to the wild. Before the whale was exported, a panel of experts assessed his health and in January 1998 submitted a report stating that, although Keiko was not ill at the time of the review, given the animal’s history of poor health, it “need[ed] to be studied for a much longer period of time.” As plans were being made to return Keiko to Iceland, the Commission on 11 August 1998 wrote the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service recommending that, before the move was authorized, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service should be satisfied that the whale is in good health and will be able to withstand the stress and rigors involved with the transport. In this regard, the Commission sug- gested that, because seven months had elapsed since the meeting of the review panel, the Service may find it useful to convene another panel of independent experts to evaluate the health of the animal. The Service responded by letter of 17 August 1998 stating, among other things, that the original panel, which was 206 established at the request of the Free Willy/Keiko Foundation, was uncomfortable with the idea of reconvening and that requiring the formation of such a panel was beyond the Service’s authority under the Animal Welfare Act. The Free Willy/Keiko Foundation sought concur- rence from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that export of Keiko to Iceland for purposes of public display was allowable under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. On 17 August 1998 the National Marine Fisheries Service advised the foundation’s director that the foundation had satisfied the necessary requirements for both the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. To minimize the transport time, the founda- tion contracted with the U.S. Air Force to airlift Keiko to Iceland in a military cargo plane on 9 September 1998. Both before and after Keiko’s export, the National Marine Fisheries Service made it clear to the Free Willy/Keiko Foundation that it must apply for a scientific research permit if release of Keiko to the wild is deemed a desirable option. In this regard, the Service has advised the foundation and the Icelandic government of the need to develop a sound, scientific approach to any release that may eventually be consid- ered, comparable with what would be required for a scientific research permit under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. To date, the foundation has chosen to hold Keiko for public display purposes only, while continuing to evaluate him for possible future release. APPENDIX A MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS IN 1998 6 January 9 January 14 January 15 January 15 January 15 January 20 January 20 January 29 January 29 January 29 January 30 January 6 February 12 February Interior, commenting to the Fish and Wildlife Service on the decline of California sea otters; recommending that the Service undertake or contract for an observer program to determine whether, and to what extent, California sea otters are being taken incidental to the developing trap fishery. Commerce, scientific research permit, Brendan P. Kelly. Agriculture, commenting to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on revisions of the marine mammal care and maintenance standards; noting the Service’s progress in developing the standards; and requesting a summary report of the data on existing pool sizes and related information. Interior, commenting to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and recommending approval of a request by Monterey Bay Aquarium for incidental public display of sea otters during rehabilitation. Agriculture, commenting to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on its authority to regulate traveling cetacean exhibits, and requesting additional justification for its belief that it is without legal authority to issue a general rule precluding it from licensing a facility with a traveling cetacean exhibit. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Interior, public display permit, WyoBraska Natural History Museum. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Christopher W. Clark. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, James T. Harvey, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Robin W. Baird. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Deborah A. Glockner-Ferrari and Mark J. Ferrari. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Norihisa Baba. Commerce, scientific research permit, Robert L. Brownell, Jr. Commerce, scientific research permit, Douglas P. DeMaster, National Marine Mammal Laboratory. 207 MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 12 February 13 February 19 February 19 February 20 February 26 February 27 February 27 February 2 March 4 March 4 March 4 March 6 March 10 March 10 March 10 March 13 March 20 March Commerce, scientific research permit, Robert L. Brownell, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. State of Florida, commenting to the Bureau of Protected Species Management on the Proposed Amendments to General Provisions Sections of the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act; noting concern that the proposed rules will weaken the protection of endangered Florida manatees. Interior, scientific research permit, Gordon B. Bauer, New College of the University of South Florida. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Daniel P. Costa, J. Burney Le Boeuf, Charles L. Ortiz. Commerce, scientific research permit, Bruce R. Mate. Commerce, scientific research permit, Salvatore Cerchio. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Robin W. Baird. Commerce, scientific research permit, Michael Castellini, Alaska SeaLife Center. Interior, scientific research permit, David Liberles, University of Florida. Commerce, amendment of general authorization for scientific research, Bernd Wursig. Interior, scientific research permit, Kumar Mahadevan, Mote Marine Laboratory. Commerce, scientific research permit, University of Alaska Museum. Transportation, commenting to the U.S. Coast Guard in support of a draft National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration action paper to establish mandatory reporting systems for commercial ships more than 300 gross tons operating off the northeastern and southeastern U.S. coast. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Lloyd F. Lowry, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Commerce, scientific research permit, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Mammal Laboratory. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, National Marine Mammal Laboratory. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on the need to investigate instances of ship strikes in which whales become caught on the bow of 208 Appendix A — Commission Recommendations 24 March 24 March 25 March 27 March 1 April 7 April 8 April 13 April 20 April 20 April 22 April 22 April ships so as to gather information on factors contributing to ship strikes; recommend- ing that the Service, in consultation with the Coast Guard, regional stranding program coordinators, and other appropriate groups, take steps to ensure prompt, coordinated efforts to investigate such events. Interior, scientific research permit, Jennifer M. Burns, University of California, Institute of Marine Sciences. Interior, amendment of scientific research permit, James A. Estes. Commerce, amendment of general authorization for scientific research, Michael V. deGruy. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on the implementa- tion of the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act; noting the preliminary plans for abundance surveys and stress studies; and requesting additional information on a schedule for consultation with the Commission. Interior, commenting to the Fish and Wildlife Service on the proposed rule to amend polar bear import regulations to allow imports of sport-hunted polar bear trophies taken in Canada from the Lancaster Sound and Norwegian Bay management areas; recommending that the Service closely track the implementation of the new system to ensure that it works as expected and that the quotas established continue to meet the statutory requirements; further recommending that the discussion accompanying the final rule provide a clear explanation of the Service’s rationale for concluding that past take levels have been sustainable; and recommending that the final rule explain the rationale for allowing the import of polar bear trophies between the date of the 1994 amendments and the effective date of the rule. State, providing general and specific comments to the Office of Oceans and Polar Affairs on the draft Strategic Plan for the Conservation of Arctic Biological Diversi- ty. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, D. Ann Pabst. Interior, commenting to the Fish and Wildlife Service on a permit request to take Alaskan sea otters by lethal means for research purposes, urging the Service to prepare an environmental assessment of the value of the data that might be obtained and the potential to obtain the data by non-lethal means. Commerce, enhancement permit, Bruce Carlson, Waikiki Aquarium. Commerce, scientific research permit, Shannon Atkinson, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Commerce, scientific research permit, Douglas P. DeMaster. Interior, amendment of scientific research permit, Robert O. Turner. 209 MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 28 April 28 April 29 April 4 May 4 May 5 May 14 May 15 May 26 May 26 May 26 May 26 May 27 May 3 June 8 June State, commenting to the Office of Oceans and Polar Affairs on four proposals for Arctic sustainable development projects developed by the State of Alaska, noting that the proposals are of direct relevance to the well-being of people living in rural Alaska and elsewhere in the Arctic; recommending that the proposals be expanded to provide clearer indications of (1) what the U.S. and other Arctic countries are being asked to do; (2) what the financial implications would be; and (3) how residents of the various Arctic states could be expected to benefit from the proposed cooperative activities. State, commenting to the Deputy Secretary of State on draft “US Goals for the Arctic Council” and the advisability of the United States serving as the chair of the Arctic Council; noting that it would be desirable and appropriate for the United States to do so; further noting that the projected cost estimate for the government to host the meeting seemed unrealistic. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, J. M. Brady , Glacier Bay National Park. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, D. Ann Pabst. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, William G. Gilmartin, Hawaii Wildlife Fund. Commerce, scientific research permit, Rachel Cartwright. Commerce, amendment of general authorization for scientific research, Paul H. Forestell. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, R. Michael Laurs, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Interior, amendment of scientific research permit, Chadwick V. Jay. Interior, general authorization for scientific research, Adam Ravetch, National Geographic. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Mason Weinrich, Cetacean Research Unit. Interior, public display and enhancement permit, Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific. Interior, public display and enhancement permit, Victor C. Aderholt, Alaska SeaLife Center. Commerce, scientific research permit, Douglas P. DeMaster, National Marine Mammal Laboratory. 210 8 June 8 June 8 June 10 June 19 June 23 June 26 June 26 June 26 June 26 June 26 June 1 July Appendix A — Commission Recommendations Commerce, providing general and specific comments to the National Marine Fisher- ies Service on the “Draft Release of Stranded Marine Mammals to the Wild: Background, Preparation, and Release Criteria;”. Commerce, scientific research permit, Carole Conway. Commerce, scientific research permit, Fred A. Sharpe, Simon Fraser University. Commerce, scientific research permit, George Paka Nishimura, Sea Life Park. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on a request by Western Geophysical/Western Atlas International of Houston Texas for authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment incidental to seismic surveys to be conducted in State and Federal waters in the south-central Beaufort Sea between 1 July and 20 October 1998; referring to Commission recommendations on a similar request by British Petroleum Exploration (Alaska); and further recommending that the Service carefully consider possible cumulative impacts of the proposed activities, particularly the possibility that the surveys could affect migrating bowhead whales and the availability of whales to Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Peter Worcester, Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate Project. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Douglas P. DeMaster, National Marine Mammal Laboratory. Interior, scientific research permit, James A. Estes, USGS, Biological Resources Division. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Interior, scientific research permit, Randall S. Wells, Mote Marine Laboratory. Commerce, amendment of general authorization for scientific research, Moana Productions, Inc. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on a request from the U.S. Coast Guard for authorization to take by harassment small numbers of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, and Steller sea lions incidental to the removal of three underground and two above-ground storage tanks at the Cape Flattery Light Station on Tatoosh Island; recommending that the Service ensure that (1) a sufficient number of qualified observers are used to verify that no more than the authorized number of animals are harassed and that the effects are negligible, and (2) the work is conducted as scheduled to avoid the pupping and molting seasons; and recommending that the Service advise the applicant that any activities that result in the taking of species listed under the Endangered Species Act requires separate authorization under that statute. 211 MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 2 July 10 July 15 July 17 July 29 July 30 July Interior, amendment of scientific research permit, James A. Powell, Florida Depart- ment of Environmental Protection. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on a draft report concerning preliminary findings of a study contracted by Bay Ferries Limited to assess the possible effects on whales of the high-speed ferry between Bar Harbor, Maine, and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia; recommending that the National Marine Fisheries Service consult with the Navy, the Coast Guard, Bay Ferries Limited, LGL Limited, and representatives of the commercial shipping industry to design and cooperatively fund a study or studies to determine sound levels likely to reach whales at different distances and depths in front of various classes of commercial and military vessels, and the responses to those sounds of representative species of whales; recommending that the Service consult with the ferry operator, LGL Limited, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and other interested parties to design, and carry out aerial survey and/or radio-tagging program in conjunction with a ship-based observer program currently being conducted by LGL Limited; and recommending that the Service, if it has not already done so, consult with Bay Ferries Limited and the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans to determine and agree on procedures for reporting and subsequently searching for any whales possibly hit by the new ferry. Transportation, requesting that the U.S. Coast Guard apply its Sea Partners Program to (1) engender public awareness and support for restrictions on discharging garbage, including the prohibition on discharging any trash that includes plastic materials, into the marine environment, (2) educate boaters in Florida about the importance of complying with boat speed regulations established by the State of Florida and the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect Florida manatees, and (3) increase awareness of the highly endangered status of northern right whales along the U.S. east coast and the recent regulations adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service restricting approaches to these whales to closer than 500 yards. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on the need for a precautionary approach to the management of lobster fishing at French Frigate Shoals; repeating previous recommendations that the Service immediately prohibit lobster fishing at French Frigate Shoals pending development of information suffi- cient to assess the relative importance of lobsters in the diet of juvenile monk seals, monk seal foraging patterns, and the impact of lobster fishing on the availability of monk seal prey species; and repeating a request for information on the steps and criteria to be used to determine the point at which any lobster fishing at French Frigate Shoals adversely affects Hawaiian monk seals. Commerce, scientific research permit, Donald B. Siniff. Defense, requesting that the Navy provide information on (1) whether the Navy and others have routinely collected information on the characteristics and levels of ambient ocean noise, (2) whether the information is unclassified and, if not, whether it might be made available in some synthesized form, (3) whether the Navy believes it would be possible and useful to analyze that information to document changes and trends in ambient noise in representative ocean areas and marine mammal habitats, 212 30 July 31 July 5 August 7 August 7 August 7 August 10 August 10 August 10 August 10 August 11 August 12 August 13 August 31 August 2 September 2 September 2 September Appendix A — Commission Recommendations and (4) whether the Navy would be willing and able to undertake such a project. Defense, providing general and specific comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas Development/ Northstar Project. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, James T. Harvey, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. Commerce, scientific research permit, Kimberlee Beckmen. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Douglas P. DeMaster, National Marine Mammal Laboratory. Commerce, scientific research permit, John Richardson. Interior, amendment of scientific research permit, Graham A. J. Worthy. Interior, public display permit, Kagoshima City Aquarium. Interior, public display permit, Ishikawa Zoo Foundation. Commerce, scientific research permit, Daniel P. Costa. Interior, public display permit, Suma Aqualife Park. Agriculture, commenting to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on the plans to transfer a killer whale from Newport, Oregon to Vestmannaeyjar, Iceland; recommending that, if the Service has not already done so, it obtain the relevant records from the Free Willy Keiko Foundation and undertake a review to ascertain what they indicate about the long-term health status of the whale and its ability to successfully withstand the stress associated with transport and acclimation to the facility in Iceland. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Robin W. Baird. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Randall W. Davis. State, commenting to the Office of Ocean Affairs on the draft Senior Arctic Officials Report to Ministers, the draft Iqaluit Declaration, and the Outline for Background Papers distributed at the Arctic Policy Group. Commerce, scientific research permit, Jeffrey D. Goodyear. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Bradford E. Brown, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on a proposed rule to authorize the U.S. Air Force to take small numbers of marine mammals incidental 213 MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 2 September 3 September 4 September 4 September 15 September 17 September 18 September to missile and rocket launches, aircraft test flight operations, and helicopter opera- tions at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, for up to five years; recommending that the proposed rule be issued provided (1) continuation of the research program being carried out under Permit No. 859-1373 is made a condition of the rule, (2) the Service is satisfied that the research being conducted under the permit and the site- specific monitoring that will be required by letters of authorization issued in accor- dance with the rule are capable of detecting possible cumulative effects on the hearing of individual seals and on the distribution, size and productivity of the potentially affected populations, and (3) the authorized activities will be suspended, pending review, if there are any indications that the activities covered by the rule are causing injuries or mortality or are affecting the distribution, size, or productivity of the potentially affected populations; further recommending that the Service consult with scientists familiar with the demography and dynamics of harbor seals in and around Vandenberg Air Force Base to ensure that the final rule includes provisions for research and monitoring capable of detecting possible cumulative adverse effects; and recommending that the Service advise the Air Force that, if it has not already done so, it consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that missile and rocket launches and other activities at Vandenberg Air Force Base will not affect sea otters or critical components of their habitat in the Vandenberg area. Interior, scientific research permit, Mote Marine Laboratory. Commerce, scientific research permit, Dan Engelhaupt. Commerce, scientific research permit, A.W. Trites. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Michael Castellini, Alaska SeaLife Center. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Sarah Allen. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on a draft plan for conducting research mandated by section 304 (a) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended by the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act; recom- mending that an appropriately senior official within the Department of Commerce contact his or her counterparts in Mexico and those other nations whose vessels purse seine for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific and whose cooperation is essential for carrying out the research program to inform them that failure to cooperate with U.S. researchers and technicians in a timely manner will be viewed as a sign of bad faith and may result in the Secretary declining to make a finding under subsection (g) of the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act or deferring the effective date of any change in the definition of dolphin safe tuna; recommending that the Service give further consideration to the possible ways in which the results of the stress-related literature review might be used in making the initial finding; and recommending that the Service include in the review all potentially relevant literature on stress in humans. Defense, commenting to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization on a Finding of No Significant Impact and associated Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment 214 24 September 8 October 8 October 8 October 8 October 13 October 19 October 19 October 19 October 21 October Appendix A — Commission Recommendations for the Short Range Air Drop Target System Program; commending the Department of Defense for exploring target missile launch systems that would not require land- based launch platforms and for identifying the need to carry out site-specific analyses regarding their possible biological impacts; and recommending that the Department initiate consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to identify such measures as may be needed to avoid significant adverse impacts on endangered or threatened populations of marine mammals and habitat essential for their survival. Commerce, providing general and specific comments to the National Marine Fisher- ies Service on a draft 1997 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report to Congress. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Louis M. Herman, University of Hawaii. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on an application from the North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation requesting a five-year authoriza- tion to take small numbers of seals incidental to routine operations of the Seabrook Station nuclear power plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire; recommending that the final rule require that appropriate mitigation measures be implemented as soon as possible following submission of the report on possible mitigation measures. Commerce, scientific research permit, Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Commerce, providing comments to the National Marine Fisheries Service on the proposed rule and the accompanying Environmental Assessment prepared by the Service on actions to implement a Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan for gillnet fisheries off New England and Mid-Atlantic coastal states; recommending that the Service (1) use a more conservative estimate of the effectiveness of acoustic deterrent devices to keep porpoises away from nets given the experience to date, (2) reexamine the accuracy of harbor porpoise bycatch estimates for the mid-Atlantic region in light of questionable assumptions and more recent data, (3) consider additional fishery closure areas for the mid-Atlantic and New England areas given what are likely low estimates of past porpoise bycatch levels and overly optimistic expectations regarding the effectiveness of acoustic deterrents, (4) consider the need to modify the gillnet fishery observer program given new management measures, (5) reexamine research plans to detect possible effects of sound from acoustic deterrents on harbor porpoises and other marine species. Commerce, scientific research permit, University of South Mississippi. Interior, public display permit, Oregon Coast Aquarium. Interior, public display permit, Northeastern Nevada Historical Society and Museum. Commerce, providing general and specific comments to the National Marine 215 MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 29 October 4 November 6 November 13 November 13 November 25 November 25 November 1 December Fisheries Service on 48 draft revised marine mammal stock assessment reports for the marine mammal stocks in the Alaska, Pacific, and Atlantic regions. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on proposed regulations to modify restrictions on Atka mackerel fishing areas and seasons in the Aleutian Islands; recommending that the Service adopt the regulations as described in the proposed rule; further recommending that the Service implement vessel monitor- ing system requirements for the Atka mackerel fishery as soon as possible; and recommending that the Service consult with representatives of the commercial fishing industry and other appropriate individuals and agencies to design and implement a program to determine the effect of these proposed regulations on the availability of Atka mackerel to Steller sea lions, and on Steller sea lion recovery. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Commerce, scientific research permit, Dan R. Salden, Hawaii Whale Research Foundation. Interior, public display permit, Dallas World Aquarium. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on a request from the U.S. Air Force for authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment incidental to testing of obstacle and mine clearance systems at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida; suggesting that the Air Force, if it has not already done so, consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to confirm that manatees are unlikely to occur in or near the vicinity of the test site when the tests are scheduled to be conducted. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Robin W. Baird. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on a request from BP Exploration Inc. for authorization to take by harassment small numbers of bowhead whales, gray whales, beluga whales, ringed seals, bearded seals, and spotted seals incidental to construction of an offshore oil platform and subsea pipeline at its Northstar Unit in the Beaufort Sea in Alaska State waters; recommending that the Service grant the requested authorization provided it is satisfied that the proposed marine mammal monitoring program for 1999 is adequate to verify that only small numbers of marine mammals are taken, that the taking is by harassment only, and that the impacts on the affected species and stocks are negligible. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on a proposed authorization for the incidental take by harassment of small numbers of harbor seals during the demolition and reconstruction of the Still Harbor Dock Facility on McNeil Island in Puget Sound, Washington; noting that a small-take exemption should not be granted unless the uncertainties and the details of the monitoring program have been worked out and the Service is able to reasonably conclude that the program is adequate to detect any possible harmful effects on the local harbor seal population. 216 3 December 8 December 8 December 9 December 10 December 18 December 21 December Appendix A — Commission Recommendations Transportation, commenting to the U.S. Coast Guard on its participation in the northern right whale recovery program; commending the Coast Guard on its various efforts to reduce northern right whale mortality; and recommending that the Coast Guard, as a matter of highest priority, seek approval from the International Maritime Organization for a U.S. proposed mandatory ship reporting system. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on the incidental take of harbor porpoise in gillnet fisheries along the east coast; commending the Service for taking measures to reduce bycatch; recommending that it undertake additional research on pingers to improve understanding of factors such as the sound frequencies, frequency variations, and/or the harmonics of acoustic deterrent devices that are most important for deterring harbor porpoise, and how sound characteristics and bycatch rates change over time as battery power declines; recommending that the Service immediately (1) consult with fishermen and scientists experienced with using pingers to identify ways of making pingers more reliable and easier to use, and (2) as warranted, contract with an appropriately qualified engineer to design an improved prototype pinger incorporating the desired features; further recommending that the Service announce that it will proceed with listing the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise stock as threatened under the Endangered Species Act if measures adopted under the take reduction plan do not successfully reduce bycatch levels to less than the calculat- ed potential biological removal level; and recommending that the Service keep the population’s status under close review and continue research to monitor status and trends. Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, commenting to the Canadian Depart- ment of Fisheries and Oceans on joint U.S.- Canadian efforts to aid in the recovery of endangered northern right whales and to reduce the bycatch of harbor porpoise; requesting that the Department seek increased funding for Canada’s right whale recovery program while maintaining support for efforts to assess and minimize the incidental take of harbor porpoise in gillnets. Interior, providing general and specific comments the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Draft Environmental Assessment and the Draft Conceptual Management Plan for the proposed Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. Defense, commending the Navy on its continued effort to create a safer environment for marine mammals and other living marine organisms; specifically commending its efforts to protect right whales, conserve Hawaiian monk seals, and assess the effects of anthropogenic ocean noise on marine mammals. Commerce, scientific research permit, Brad F. Andrews, Sea World. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service; commending the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Coast Guard, and the Navy for a variety of cooperative actions to protect the western North Atlantic Ocean population of northern right whales; recommending that the Service increase its base level funding request for the program from $200,000 requested for 1999 to $1.3 million to reflect ongoing program needs for operating a mandatory ship reporting system, monitoring right whales in critical right whale habitats, developing and maintaining a geographic information system of data on right whales and their habitat, continuing efforts to 217 MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 22 December 22 December 22 December 31 December disentangle right whales and develop fishing gear less likely to entangle whales, and implementing a long term satellite tracking program to better identify right whale distribution and movements; further recommending that the Service ask the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide $250,000 to cover start up costs for the National Whale Conservation Fund and seek supplemental funding to carry out certain urgent unbudgeted research tasks during 1999. Commerce, public display permit, Gabriel J. Kerschner, Wild Things, Inc. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, Deborah A. Glockner-Ferrari. Commerce, amendment of scientific research permit, James Darling. Commerce, commenting to the National Marine Fisheries Service on the status of the Hawaiian monk seal; recommending that the Service (1) reinitiate Section 7 consulta- tions on the possible effects of lobster fishing in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands on Hawaiian monk seals, (2) close French Frigate Shoals to lobster fishing pending availability of further information, (3) prohibit lobster fishing at reefs surrounding Kure Atoll, Pearl and Hermes Reef, and Lisianski Island until such time as there is better information on the importance of lobster and other species taken in the fishery on the diet of Hawaiian monk seals, the status of those stocks at those atolls, and the effect of lobster fishing on the abundance of those stocks, (4) provide funding to expedite development of a comprehensive research program on fatty acid signatures of prey in Hawaiian monk seal blubber, (5) process the backlog of scat samples collected since 1994, (6) continue efforts to consult with other agencies to secure assistance to remove remains and associated debris of the Paradise Queen II, (7) not proceed with the translocation of weaned pups until uncertainties regarding the risk of introducing morbillivirus or other significant disease agents has been thoroughly reviewed by marine mammal veterinarians and epidemiologists, (8) redirect funding for translocation work to a head-start program at French Frigate Shoals, and (9) assess the effectiveness and feasibility of carrying out a program to inoculate Hawai- ian monk seals with a vaccine against morbillivirus. 218 APPENDIX B REPORTS OF COMMISSION-SPONSORED ACTIVITIES AVAILABLE FROM THE MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION’ OR THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS)’ Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, R.P. Henderson, and T.J. Lewis. 1977. Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon Islands, California, 1970-1975. Final report for MMC contract MM4AC002. NTIS PB-274 046. 42 pp. (A03) Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, R.P. Henderson, T.J. Lewis, and S.H. Morrell. 1977. Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon Islands, California, 1975-1976. Final report for MMC contract MMSAC020. NTIS PB-266 249. 32 pp. (A03) Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, S.H. Morrell, and R.R. LeValley. 1978. Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon Islands, California, 1976-1977. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC027. NTIS PB-286 603. 44 pp. (A03) Allen, S.G. 1991. Harbor seal habitat restoration at Straw- berry Spit, San Francisco Bay. Final report for MMC contract MM2910890-9. NTIS PB91-212332. 44 pp. (A03) Allen, S.G., D.G. Ainley, and G.W. Page. 1980. Haul out patterns of harbor seals in Bolinas Lagoon, California. Final report for MMC contract MM8ACO012. NTIS PB80- 176910. 31 pp. (A03) Anderson, D.M., and A.W. White. 1989. Toxic dinoflagel- lates and marine mammal mortality: Proceedings of an expert consultation held at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Final report for MMC contract T6810848-1. NTIS PB90-160755. 71 pp. (A04) Baker, C.S., J.M. Straley, and A. Perry. 1990. Population characteristics of humpback whales in southeastern Alaska: summer and late-season, 1986. Final report for MMC contract MM3309822-5. NTIS PB90-252487. 23 pp. (A03) Balcomb, K.C., J.R. Boran, R.W. Osborne, and N.J. Haenel. 1980. Observations of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in great- er Puget Sound, State of Washington. Final report for MMC contract MM1300731-7. NTIS PB80-224728. 42 pp. (A03) Baur, D.C. 1995. Reconciling the legal mechanisms to pro- tect and manage polar bears under United States laws and the international agreement for the conservation of polar bears. Final report for MMC contract T94071388. NTIS PB95-272092. 103 pp. (A07) Baur, D.C. 1996. Legal ramifications of the GATT panel reports on the United States’ ban on the importation of yellowfin tuna products. Final report for MMC contract 194071375. NTIS PB97-104756. 102 pp. (A06) Bean, M.J. 1984. United States and international authorities applicable to entanglement of marine mammals and other organisms in lost or discarded fishing gear and other debris. Final report for MMC contract MM2629994-7. NTIS PB85-160471. 56 pp. (A04) Beddington, J.R., and H.A. Williams. 1980. The status and management of the harp seal in the north-west Atlantic. A review and evaluation. Final report for MMC contract MM1301062-1. NTIS PB80-206105. 127 pp. (A07) Bengtson, J.L. 1978. Review of information regarding the conservation of living resources of the Antarctic marine ecosystem. Final report for MMC contract MM8AD055. NTIS PB-289 496. 148 pp. (A08) Bishop, J.B. 1985. Summary report of gill and trammel net (set-net) observations in the vicinity of Morro Bay, Califor- nia, 1 November 1983 - 31 August 1984. Final report for MMC contract MM2629900-2. NTIS PB85-150076. 14 pp. (A02) Bockstoce, J. 1978. A preliminary estimate of the reduction of the western Arctic bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) population by the pelagic whaling industry: 1848-1915. Final report for MMC contract MM7AD111. NTIS PB-286 797. 32 pp. (A08) Brownell, R.L., Jr., C. Schonewald, and R.R. Reeves. 1978. Preliminary report on world catches of marine mammals 1966-1975. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC002. NTIS PB-290 713. 353 pp. (A16) Buckland, S.T., and K.L. Cattanach. 1990. Review of cur- rent population abundance estimates of small cetaceans in the Black Sea. Final report for MMC contract T75133135. NTIS PB91-137257. 5 pp. (A02) Carr, T. 1994. The manatees and dolphins of the Miskito Coast Protected Area, Nicaragua. Final report for MMC contract T94070376. NTIS PB94-170354. 19 pp. (A03) Chapman, D.G., L.L. Eberhardt, and J.R. Gilbert. 1977. A review of marine mammal census methods. Final report for MMC contract MM4AC014. NTIS PB-265 547. 55 pp. (A04) Contos, S.M. 1982. Workshop on marine mammal-fisheries interactions. Final report for MMC contract MM207934- 1-0. NTIS PB82-189507. 64 pp. (A04) Cornell, L.H., E.D. Asper, K.N. Osborn, and M.J. White, Jr. 1979. Investigations on cryogenic marking procedures for marine mammals. Final report for MMC contract MM6A- C003. NTIS PB 291 570. 24 pp. (A03) Dayton, P.K., B.D. Keller, and D.A. Ven Tresca. 1980. Studies of a nearshore community inhabited by sea otters. Final report for MMC contracts MM6AC026 and MM13- 00702-9. NTIS PB81-109860. 91 pp. (A06) Single copies of designated reports are available on request from the Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 East-West Highway, Room 905, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone: (301) 504-0087; fax: (301) 504-0099. information can be found at the end of Appendix B. Price codes for reports available from NTIS are shown in parentheses at the end of each citation. The key to the codes and ordering MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 DeBeer, J. 1980. Cooperative dedicated vessel research program on the tuna-porpoise problem: overview and final report. Final report for MMC contract MM8AC006. NTIS PB80-150097. 43 pp. (A03) Dedina, S., and E. Young. 1995. Conservation and develop- ment in the gray whale lagoons of Baja California Sur, Mexico. Final report for MMC contract T10155592. NTIS PB96-113154. 56 pp. (A04) Dohl, T.P. 1981. Remote laser branding of marine mam- mals. Final report for MMC contract MM4AC011. NTIS PB81-213449. 34 pp. (A03) Dowling, T.E., and W.M. Brown. 1992. Population struc- ture of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin as determined by restriction endonuclease analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Final report for MMC contract MM3309818-6. NTIS PB93-128411. 46 pp. (A03) Erickson, A.W. 1978. Population studies of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the Pacific Northwest: a radio-marking and tracking study of killer whales. Final report for MMC contract MM5ACO012. NTIS PB-285 615. 34 pp. (A03) Fay, F.H., H.M. Feder, and S.W. Stoker. 1977. An estima- tion of the impact of the Pacific walrus population on its food resources in the Bering Sea. Final report for MMC contracts MM4AC006 and MMS5AC024. NTIS PB-273 505. 38 pp. (A03) Fay, F.H., B.P. Kelly, and B.A. Fay (eds). 1990. The ecolo- gy and management of walrus populations -- report of an international workshop. Final report for MMC contract T68108850. NTIS PB91-100479. 186 pp. (A09) Forestell, P-H. 1989. Assessment and verification of abun- dance estimates, seasonal trends, and population charac- teristics of the humpback whale in Hawaii. Final report for MMC contract MM2911014-6. NTIS PB90-190273. 66 pp. (A04) Foster, M.A. 1981. Identification of ongoing and planned fisheries in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Final report for MMC contract MM1801069-7. NTIS PB81-207 516. 90 pp. (A0S5) Foster, M.S., C.R. Agegian, R.K. Cowen, R.F. Van Wagenen, D.K. Rose, and A.C. Hurley. 1979. Toward an understanding of the effects of sea otter foraging on kelp forest communities in central California. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC023. NTIS PB-293 891. 60 pp. (A04) Fowler, C.W., W.T. Bunderson, M.B. Cherry, R.J. Ryel, and B.B. Steele. 1980. Comparative population dynamics of large mammals: a search for management criteria. Final report for MMC contract MM7ACO013. NTIS PB80-178 627. 330 pp. (A15) Fowler, C.W., R.J. Ryel, and L.J. Nelson. 1982. Sperm whale population analysis. Final report for MMC contract MM8AC009. NTIS PB82-174335. 35 pp. (A03) Fox, W.W., Jr., et al. 1990. Statement of concerned scien- tists on the reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Con- servation and Management Act. NTIS PB91-127647. 6 pp. (A02) Fraker, M.A. 1994. California sea lions and steelhead trout at the Chittenden Locks, Seattle, Washington. Final report for MMC contract T10156766. NTIS PB94-188059. 42 pp. (A05) Freeman. J., and H. Quintero. 1990. The distribution of West Indian manatees (Trichechus manatus) in Puerto Rico: 1988-1989. Final report for MMC contract T5360348-3. NTIS PB91-137240. 38 pp. (A03) Gaines, S.E., and D. Schmidt. 1978. Laws and treaties of the United States relevant to marine mammal protection policy. Final report for MMC contract MM5AC029. NTIS PB-281 024. 668 pp. (A99) 220 Gard, R. 1978. Aerial census, behavior, and population dynamics study of gray whales in Mexico during the 1974-75 calving and mating season. Final report for MMC contract MM5AC006. NTIS PB-275 295. 18 pp. (A02) Gard, R. 1978. Aerial census and population dynamics study of gray whales in Baja California during the 1976 calving and mating season. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC014. NTIS PB-275 297. 20 pp. (A03) Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin. 1979. Biology of marine mammals: insights through strandings. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC020. NTIS PB-293 890. 343 pp. (A16) Geraci, J.R., S.A. Testaverde, D.J. St. Aubin, and T.H. Loop. 1978. A mass stranding of the Atlantic white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus: a study into pathobiology and life history. Final report for MMC contract MMS5ACO008. NTIS PB-289 361. 141 pp. (A08) Gerrodette, T. 1983. Review of the California sea otter salvage program. Final report for MMC contract MM2629677-5. NTIS PB83-262949. 23 pp. (A03) Gilbert, J.R., V.R. Schurman, and D.T. Richardson. 1979. Grey seals in New England: present status and manage- ment alternatives. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC002. NTIS PB-295 599. 40 pp. (A03) Glockner-Ferrari, D.A., and M.J. Ferrari. 1985. Individual identification, behavior, reproduction, and distribution of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in Hawaii. Final report for MMC contract MM262975-5. NTIS PB85-200772. 36 pp. (A03) Gold, J. 1981. Marine mammals: a selected bibliography. Final report for MMC contract MM1801254-3. NTIS PB 82-104282. 91 pp. (A05) Gonsalves, J.T. 1977. Improved method and device to prevent porpoise mortality: application of polyvinyl panels to purse seine nets. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC007. NTIS PB-274 088. 28 pp. (A03) Goodman, D. 1978. Management implications of the mathe- matical demography of long lived animals. Final report for MMC contract MM8AD008. NTIS PB-289 678. 80 pp. (A05) Green, K.A. 1977. Antarctic marine ecosystem modeling revised Ross Sea model, general Southern Ocean budget, and seal model. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC032. NTIS PB-270 375. 111 pp. (A06) Green-Hammond, K.A. 1980. Fisheries management under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Final report for MMC contract MM1300885-3. NTIS PB80-180 599. 186 pp. (A09) Green-Hammond, K.A. 1981. Requirements for effective implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Final report for MMC contract MM2079173-9. NTIS PB82-123571. 36 pp. (A03) Green-Hammond, K.A. 1982. Environmental aspects of potential petroleum exploration and exploitation in Ant- arctica: forecasting and evaluating risks. Final report for MMC contract MM2079173-9. NTIS PB82-169772. 28 pp. (A03) Green-Hammond, K.A., D.G. Ainley, D.B. Siniff, and N.S. Urquhart. 1983. Selection criteria and monitoring require- ments for indirect indicators of changes in the availability of Antarctic krill applied to some pinniped and seabird information. Final report for MMC contract MM2324753-6. NTIS PB83-263 293. 37 pp. (A03) Hain, J.H.W. 1992. Airships for marine mammal research: evaluation and recommendations. Final report for MMC contract T68108863. NTIS PB92-128271. 37 pp. (A03) Hain, J.H.W., S.L. Ellis, and P.E. Seward. 1994. Character- ization of vessel traffic at the St. Johns and St. Marys channel entrances, northeast Florida, January 1993. Final report for MMC contract T94070460. NTIS PB94-204229. 56 pp. (A04) Hatfield, B.B. 1991. Summary report of observations of coastal gill and trammel net fisheries in central California - October 1, 1984 - March 31, 1985. Final report for MMC contract MM2910891-2. NTIS PB91-191908. 17 pp. (A03) Heneman, B., and Center for Environmental Education. 1988. Persistent marine debris in the North Sea, northwest Atlan- tic Ocean, wider Caribbean area, and the west coast of Baja California. Final report for MMC contract MM3309598-5. NTIS PB89-109938. 161 pp. (A08) Henry, M.E. 1987. Observations of gill and trammel net fishing activity between Pt. Buchon and Pt. Sur, California, June-October 1985. Final report for MMC contract MM3309511-8. NTIS PB87-184024. 30 pp. (A03) Herman, L.M., P.H. Forestell, and R.C. Antinoja. 1980. The 1976/77 migration of humpback whales into Hawaiian waters: composite description. Final report for MMC contracts MM7ACO014 and MM1300907-2. NTIS PB80-162 332. 55 pp. (A04) Hofman, R.J. (ed). 1979. A workshop to identify new re- search that might contribute to the solution of the tuna-porpoise problem. Proceedings of a Marine Mammal Commission-sponsored workshop held on 8-9 December 1975 at the University of California, Santa Cruz. NTIS PB-290 158. 17 pp. (A02) Hofman, R.J. 1982. Identification and assessment of possible alternative methods for catching yellowfin tuna. NTIS PB83-138 993. 243 pp. (All) Hofman, R.J. (ed). 1985. Workshop to assess methods for regulating the distribution and movements of sea otters. Report of a Marine Mammal Commission-sponsored work- shop held 25-26 October 1984 in San Francisco, California. NTIS PB85-229250. 39 pp. (A03) Hoover-Miller, A. 1992. Assessment of the possible use of a cooperative/coordinated geographic information system (GIS) to facilitate access to, and integration and analysis of, data bearing upon the conservation of marine mammals in Alaska. Final report for MMC contract T75136297. NTIS PB93-128429. 59 pp. (A04) Hoover-Miller, A.A. 1994. Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) biology and management in Alaska. Final report for MMC contract T75134749. NTIS PB95-166195. 45 pp. (A03) Hoover-Miller, A. 1995. Report of the workshop on enhanc- ing methods for locating, accessing, and integrating popula- tion and environmental data related to marine resources in Alaska. Final report for MMC contract T10155550. NTIS PB95-199097. 93 pp. (A06) Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, R.J. Boekelheide, R.P. Hender- son, and B. Bainbridge. 1981. Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon Islands, California, 1979-1980. Final report for MMC contract MM1533599-3. NTIS PB81-167082. 51 pp. (A04) Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, S.H. Morrell, R.J. Boekelheide, and R.P. Henderson. 1980. Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon Islands, California, 1978-1979. Final report for MMC contract MM1300888-2. NTIS PB80-178197. 46 pp. (A04) Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, S.H. Morrell, R.R. LeValley, and C.S. Strong. 1979. Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon Islands, California, 1977-1978. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC025. NTIS PB80-111602. 50 pp. (A04) Appendix B — Reports of Commission-Sponsored Activities 221 Hui, C.A. 1978. Reliability of using dentin layers for age determination in Tursiops truncatus. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC021. NTIS PB-288444. 25 pp. (A03) Huntington, H.P. 1997a. The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy and the Arctic Council: A review of United States participation and suggestions for future involvement. Final report for MMC contract T53698333. NTIS PB97-174437. 35 pp. (A04) Huntington, H.P. 1997b. A report of the sixth working group meeting for the program for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF). Final report for MMC contract T53699196. NTIS PB98-114168. 229 pp. (A12) Huntington, H.P. 1998a. A report of the experts meeting and the eleventh working group meeting of the Arctic Monitor- ing and Assessment Program (AMAP). Final report for MMC contract T53700292. Available from the Marine Mammal Commission. Huntington, H.P. 1998b. A report of the meeting of senior Arctic officials under the Arctic Council, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada, May 9-11, 1998. Final report for MMC contract T53700292. Available from the Marine Mammal Commission. Huntington, H.P. 1998c. A report of the conference, “Sus- tainable Development in the Arctic: Lessons Learned and the Way Ahead,” Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada, May 12-14, 1998. Final report for MMC contract T53700- 292. Available from the Marine Mammal Commission. Huntington, H.P. 1998d. A report of the meeting of senior Arctic officials under the Arctic Council and the first minis- terial meeting of the Arctic Council, Iqaluit, Northwest Territories, Canada, September 14-18, 1998. Final report for MMC contract T53700292. Available from the Marine Mammal Commission. Irvine, A.B., M.D. Scott, R.S. Wells, J.H. Kaufmann, and W.E. Evans. 1979. A study of the activities and move- ments of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, including an evaluation of tagging techniques. Final report for MMC contracts MM4AC004 and MMS5ACO18. NTIS PB-298 042. 54 pp. (A04) Jameson, G.L. 1986. Trial systematic salvage of beach-cast sea otter, Enhydra lutris, carcasses in the central and south- ern portion of the sea otter range in California: one year summary of results: October 1983-September 1984. Final report for MMC contract MM2629849-8. NTIS PB87-108288. 60 pp. (A04) Jefferson, T.A., and B.E. Curry. 1994. Review and evalua- tion of potential acoustic methods of reducing or eliminating marine mammal-fishery interactions. Final report for MMC contract T10155628. NTIS PB95-100384. 59 pp. (A05) Jeffries, S.J. 1986. Seasonal movement and population trends of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) in the Columbia River and adjacent waters of Washington and Oregon, 1976-1982. Final report for MMC contract MM2079357-5. NTIS PB86-200243. 41 pp. (A03) Jeffries, S.J., and M.L. Johnson. 1990. Population status and condition of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina richardsi, in the waters of the State of Washington: 1975-1980. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC030. NTIS PB90- 219197. 70 pp. (AOS) Johnson, B.W., and P.A. Johnson. 1978. The Hawaiian monk seal on Laysan Island: 1977. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC009. NTIS PB-285 428. 38 pp. (A03) Johnson, B.W., and P.A. Johnson. 1981. Estimating the Hawaiian monk seal population on Laysan Island. Final report for MMC contract MM1533701-4. NTIS PB82-106 113. 29 pp. (A05) MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Johnson, B.W., and P.A. Johnson. 1981. The Hawaiian monk seal on Laysan Island: 1978. Final report for MMC contract MM8AC008. NTIS PB82-109661. 17 pp. (A02) Johnson, M.L., and S.J. Jeffries. 1977. Population evaluation of the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardi) in the waters of the State of Washington. Final report for MMC contract MMSACO19. NTIS PB-270 376. 27 pp. (A03) Johnson, M.L., and S.J. Jeffries. 1983. Population biology of the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) in the waters of the State of Washington: 1976-1977. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC025. NTIS PB83-159715. 53 pp. (A04) Jones, M.L., and S.L. Swartz. 1986. Demography and phe- nology of gray whales and evaluation of human activities in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico, 1978-1982. Final report for MMC contract MM2324713-8. NTIS PB86-219078. 69 pp. (A05) Jones, M.L., S.L. Swartz, and M.E. Dahlheim. 1994. Cen- sus of gray whale abundance in San Ignacio lagoon: a follow-up study in response to low whale counts recorded during an acoustic playback study of noise-effects on gray whales. Final report for MMC contract MM2911023-0. NTIS PB94-195062. 32 pp. (A03) Kasuya, T., and Y. Izumizawa. 1981. The fishery-dolphin conflict in the Iki Island area of Japan. Final report for MMC contract MM1533791-7. NTIS PB81-171357. 31 pp. (A03) Katona, §.K. 1983. The Gulf of Maine whale sighting net- work: 1976, Final report for MMC contract MM6AC018. NTIS PB83-151290. 32 pp. (A03) Katona, S.K., and S. Kraus. 1979. Photographic identifica- tion of individual humpback whales (Megaptera novae- angliae): evaluation and analysis of the technique. Final report for MMC contract MM7A.CO15. NTIS PB-298 740. 29 pp. (A03) Kenney, R.D. 1994. Anomalous 1992 spring and summer distributions of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and other cetaceans in continental shelf waters off the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Final report for MMC contract T94070648. NTIS PB99-102493. 66 pp. (A05) Kooyman, G.L. 1982. Development and testing of a time-depth recorder for marine mammals. Final report for MMC contract MM6ACO19. NTIS PB82-257932. 10 pp. (A02) Kraus, S.D. 1985. A review of the status of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic with a summary of research and management needs. Final report for MMC contract MM2910905-0. NTIS PB86-154143. 61 pp. (A04) Kraus, S.D., and R.D. Kenney. 1991. Information on right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in three proposed critical habitats in United States waters off the western North At- lantic Ocean. Final report for MMC contracts T75133740 and 75133753. NTIS PB91-194431. 65 pp. (A04) Lefebvre, L.W., and J.A. Powell. 1990. Manatee grazing impacts on seagrasses in Hobe Sound and Jupiter Sound in southeast Florida during the winter of 1988-89. Final report for MMC contracts T62239152, T68108782. NTIS PB90-271883. 36 pp. (A03) Lentfer, J.W. (ed). 1988. Selected marine mammals of Alas- ka: species accounts with research and management recom- mendations. Final report for MMC contract MM2910798-4. NTIS PB88-178462. 275 pp. (A013) Lentfer, J.W. 1990. Workshop on measures to assess and mitigate the adverse effects of arctic oil and gas activities on polar bears. Final report. NTIS PB91-127241. 43 pp. (A03) 222 Loughlin, T. 1978. A telemetric and tagging study of sea otter activities near Monterey, California. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC024. NTIS PB-289 682. 64 pp. (A04) Marine Mammal Commission. 1974. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1973. Report to Congress. NTIS PB-269 709. 14 pp. (A03) Marine Mammal Commission. 1975. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1974. Report to Congress. NTIS PB-269 710. 27 pp. (A04) Marine Mammal Commission. 1976. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1975. Report to Congress. NTIS PB 269-711. 50 pp. (A04) Marine Mammal Commission. 1977. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1976. Report to Congress. NTIS PB-269 713. 71 pp. (A06) Marine Mammal Commission. 1978. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1977. Report to Congress. NTIS PB-281 564. 101 pp. (A06) Marine Mammal Commission. 1979. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1978. Report to Congress. NTIS PB80-106784. 108 pp. (A06) Marine Mammal Commission. 1980. Humpback whales in Glacier Bay National Monument, Alaska. Final report for an interagency review meeting. NTIS PB80-141 559. 44 pp. (A03 Marine Mammal Commission. 1981. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1979. Report to Congress. NTIS PB81-247 892. 100 pp. (A06) Marine Mammal Commission. 1981. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1980. Report to Congress. NTIS PB81-247 884. 114 pp. (A06) Marine Mammal Commission. 1982. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1981. Report to Congress. NTIS PB82-221 425. 102 pp. (A06) Marine Mammal Commission. 1982. Report of a meeting to review on-going and planned research concerning humpback whales in Glacier Bay and surrounding waters in southeast Alaska. Final report of an interagency meeting. NTIS PB82-201039. 20 pp. (A02) Marine Mammal Commission. 1983. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1982. Report to Congress. NTIS PB84-132 216. 106 pp. (A06) Marine Mammal Commission. 1984. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1983. Report to Congress. NTIS PB84-199 389. 118 pp. (A06) Marine Mammal Commission. 1984. Habitat protection needs for the subpopulation of West Indian manatees in the Crys- tal River area of northwest Florida. NTIS PB84-200 250. 46 pp. (A04) Marine Mammal Commission. 1986. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1985. Report to Congress. NTIS PB86-216 249. 180 pp. (A09) Marine Mammal Commission. 1987. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1984. Report to Congress. NTIS PB87-209573. 173 pp. (A09) Marine Mammal Commission. 1987. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1986. Report to Congress. NTIS PB87-154092. 193 pp. (A09) Marine Mammal Commission. 1988. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1987. Report to Congress. NTIS PB88-168984. 209 pp. (A10) Marine Mammal Commission. 1989. Preliminary assessment of habitat protection needs for West Indian manatees on the east coast of Florida and Georgia. Final report for MMC contracts T6223950-5, T6223954-7, T6223970-9, and T6224008-6. NTIS PB89-162 002. 120 pp. (A06) Marine Mammal Commission. 1989. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1988. Report to Congress. NTIS PB89-166 524. 237 pp. (A11) Marine Mammal Commission. 1990. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1989. Report to Congress. NTIS PB90-196361. 239 pp. (A11) Marine Mammal Commission. 1991. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1990. Report to Congress. NTIS PB91-164236. 280 pp. (A13) Marine Mammal Commission. 1992. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1991. Report to Congress. NTIS PB92-139930. 228 pp. (A11) Marine Mammal Commission. 1993. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1992. Report to Congress. NTIS PB93-154995. 241 pp. (A11) Marine Mammal Commission. 1995. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1993. Report to Congress. NTIS PB95-154530. 260 pp. (A11) Marine Mammal Commission. 1995. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1994. Report to Congress. NTIS PB95-173233. 280 pp. (A13) Marine Mammal Commission. 1996. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1995. Report to Congress. NTIS PB96-157482. 235 pp. (A11) Marine Mammal Commission. 1997. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1996. Report to Congress. NTIS PB97-142889. 262 pp. (A13) Marine Mammal Commission. 1998. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1997. Report to Congress. NTIS PB98-124357. 239 pp. (A13) Marmontel, M., T.J. O’Shea, and S.R. Humphrey. 1990. An evaluation of bone growth-layer counts as an age-determi- nation technique in Florida manatees. Final report for MMC contract T6223918-1. NTIS PB91-103564. 94 pp. (A06) Mate, B.R. 1977. Aerial censusing of pinnipeds in the east- ern Pacific for assessment of population numbers, migratory distributions, rookery stability, breeding effort, and recruit- ment. Final report for MMC contract MM5AC001. NTIS PB-265 859. 67 pp. (A04) Mate, B.R. 1980. Workshop on marine mammal-fisheries interactions in the northeastern Pacific. Final report for MMC contract MM8AC003. NTIS PB80-175144. 48 pp. (A04) Mathiesen, O.A. 1980. Methods for the estimation of krill abundance in the Antarctic. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC032. NTIS PB80-175151. 26 pp. (A03) Matkin, C.O., and F.H. Fay. 1980. Marine mammal-fishery interactions on the Copper River and in Prince William Sound, Alaska, 1978. Final report for MMC contract MM8AC013. NTIS PB80-159536. 71 pp. (A05) Matkin, C.O., and E.L. Saulitis. 1994. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) biology and management in Alaska. Final report for MMC contract T75135023. NTIS PB95-166203. 46 pp. (A03 Mayo, C.A. 1982. Observations of cetaceans: Cape Cod Bay and southern Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts 1975-1979. Final report for MMC contract MM1800925-5. NTIS PB82-186263. 68 pp. (A05) Medway, W. 1983. Evaluation of the safety and usefulness of techniques and equipment used to obtain biopsies from free-swimming cetaceans. Final report for MMC contract MM2324809-8. NTIS PB83-263269. 14 pp. (A02) Miller, L.K. 1978. Energetics of the northern fur seal in relation to climate and food resources of the Bering Sea. Final report for MMC contract MM5AC025. NTIS PB-275 296. 27 pp. (A03) Appendix B — Reports of Commission-Sponsored Activities 223 Montgomery, S. 1986. Workshop on measures to address marine mammal/fisheries interactions in California. Final report for MMC contract MM3309746-2. NTIS PB86-219 060. 123 pp. (A07) Montgomery, S. 1987. Report on the 24-27 February 1987 workshop to assess possible systems for tracking large cetaceans. Final report for MMC contract MM4465764-2. NTIS PB87-182135. 61 pp. (A04) Nolan, R.S. 1981. Shark control and the Hawaiian monk seal. Final report for MMC contract MM1801065-5. NTIS PB81-201808. 45 pp. (A03) Norris, K.S., and J.D. Hall. 1979. Development of tech- niques for estimating trophic impact of marine mammals. Final report for MMC contract MM4AC013. NTIS PB-290 399. 16 pp. (A02) Norris, K.S., and R.R. Reeves (eds). 1978. Report ona workshop on problems related to humpback whales (Megap- tera novaeangliae) in Hawaii. Final report for MMC con- tract MM7AC018. NTIS PB-280 794. 90 pp. (A05) Norris, K.S., W.E. Stuntz, and W. Rogers. 1978. The be- havior of porpoises and tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific yellowfin tuna fishery: preliminary studies. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC022. NTIS PB-283 970. 86 pp. (A05) Northridge, S. 1995. Environmental mismanagement on the high seas: a retrospective analysis of the squid and tuna driftnet fisheries of the North Pacific. Final report for MMC contract T75136200. NTIS PB95-238945. 76 pp. AOS Odell, D.K. 1979. A preliminary study of the ecology and population biology of the bottlenose dolphin in southeast Florida. Final report for MMC contract MM4AC003. NTIS PB-294 336. 26 pp. (A03) Odell, D.K., and J.E. Reynolds, II. 1980. Abundance of the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, on the west coast of Florida. Final report for MMC contract MM5AC026. NTIS PB80-197650. 47 pp. (A04) Odell, D.K., D.B. Siniff, and G.H. Waring. 1979. Tursiops truncatus assessment workshop. Final report for MMC contract MM5AC021. NTIS PB-291 161. 141 pp. (A0Q4) Packard, J.M. 1982. Potential methods for influencing the movements and distribution of sea otters: assessment of research needs. Final report for MMC contract MM2079342-3. NTIS PB83-109926. 51 pp. (A04) Payne, R., O. Brazier, E. Dorsey, J. Perkins, V. Rowntree, and A. Titus. 1981. External features in southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) and their use in identifying individuals. Final report for MMC contract MM6ACO17. NTIS PB81-161093. 77 pp. (A05) Pitcher, K.W. 1977. Population productivity and food habits of harbor seals in the Prince William Sound-Copper River Delta area, Alaska. Final report for MMC contract MMSAC011. NTIS PB-266 935. 36 pp. (A03) Pitcher, K.W. 1989. Harbor seal trend count surveys in southern Alaska, 1988. Final report for MMC contract MM4465853-1. NTIS PB90-208828. 17 pp. (A03) Prescott, J.H., and P.M. Fiorelli. 1980. Review of the har- bor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the U.S. northwest Atlantic. Final report for MMC contract MM8ACO016. NTIS PB80-176928. 64 pp. (A04) Prescott, J.H., P. Fiorelli, G. Early, and P.J. Boyle. 1990. Marine mammal strandings: the New England Aquarium Stranding Network. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC015. NTIS PB90-259177. 119 pp. (A07) Prescott, J.H., S.D. Kraus, and J.R. Gilbert. 1980. East Coast/Gulf Coast cetacean and pinniped research workshop. Final report for MMC contract MM1533558-2. NTIS PB80-160 104. 142 pp. (A07) MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Ray, G.C., R.V. Salm, and J.A. Dobbin. 1979. Systems analysis mapping: an approach towards identifying critical habitats of marine mammals. Final report for MMC con- tract MM6AC011. NTIS PB80-111594. 27 pp. (A03) Read, A.J. 1998. Possible applications of new technology to marine mammal research and management. Final report for MMC contract T30919695. NTIS 36 pp. Reeves, R.R. 1977. Exploitation of harp and hooded seals in the western North Atlantic. Final report for MMC contract MM6AD055. NTIS PB-270 186. 57 pp. (A04) Reeves, R.R. 1977. The problem of gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) harassment: at the breeding lagoons and during migration. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC021. NTIS PB-272 506 (Spanish translation PB-291 763). 60 pp. (A04) Reynolds, J.E., Il. 1986. Evaluation of the nature and mag- nitude of interactions between bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and fisheries and other human activities in coastal areas of the southeastern United States. Final report for MMC contract MM2910892-5. NTIS PB86-162203. 38 pp. (A03) Reynolds, J.E., Il, and C.J. Gluckman. 1988. Protection of West Indian manatees (Trichechus manatus) in Florida. Final report for MMC contract MM4465868-3 and MM3309741-7. NTIS PB88-222922. 85 pp. (A06) Ridgway, S.H., and K. Benirschke (eds). 1977. Breeding dolphins: present status, suggestions for the future. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC009. NTIS PB-273 673. 308 pp. (Al4) Ridgway, S.H., and W.F. Flanigan, Jr. 1981. An investiga- tion of a potential method for the humane taking of certain whales and seals used for food. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC030. NTIS PB81-161101. 12 pp. (A02) Risebrough, R.W. 1978. Pollutants in marine mammals: a literature review and recommendations for research. Final report for MMC contract MM7AD035. NTIS PB-290 728. 64 pp. (A04) Risebrough, R.W. 1989. Accumulation patterns of heavy metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons by sea otters, Enhydra lutris, in California. Final report for MMC contract MM2910790-0. NTIS PB89-230551. 51 pp. (A04) Risebrough, R.W., D. Alcorn, S.G. Allen, V.C. Anderlini, L. Booren, R.L. DeLong, L.E. Fancher, R.E. Jones, S.M. McGinnis, and T.T. Schmidt. 1980. Population biology of harbor seals in San Francisco Bay, California. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC006. NTIS PB81-107963. 67 pp. (A04) Rough, V. 1995. Gray seals in Nantucket Sound, Massachu- setts, winter and spring, 1994. Final report for MMC con- tract T10155615. NTIS PB95-191391. 28 pp. (A03) Samuels, A., and L. Bejder. 1998. A pilot study of habitual interaction between humans and wild bottlenose dolphins near Panama City Beach, FL. Final report for MMC con- tract T53700894. 19 pp. Available from the Marine Mam- mal Commission. Sawyer-Steffan, J.E., and V.L. Kirby. 1980. A study of serum steroid hormone levels in captive female bottlenose dolphins, their correlation with reproductive status, and their application to ovulation induction in captivity. Final report for MMC contract MM7ACO016. NTIS PB80-177 199. 21 pp. (A03) Schmidly, D.J., and S.H. Shane. 1978. A biological assess- ment of the cetacean fauna of the Texas coast. Final report for MMC contract MM4AC008. NTIS PB-281 763. 38 pp. (A03) Scott, G.P., and H.E. Winn. 1980. Comparative evaluation of aerial and shipboard sampling techniques for estimating the abundance of humpback whales (Megaptera novae- 224 angliae). Final report for MMC contract MM7AC029. NTIS PB81-109852. 96 pp. (A06) Shallenberger, E.W. 1981. The status of Hawaiian cetaceans. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC028. NTIS PB82-109398. 79 pp. (A05) Shane, S.H., and D.J. Schmidly. 1978. The population biology of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops trun- catus, in the Aransas Pass area of Texas. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC028. NTIS PB-283 393. 130 pp. (A07) Silber, G.K., R.S. Wells, and K.S. Norris. 1990. A prelimi- nary assessment of techniques for catching and radio-tag- ging harbor porpoises. Final report for MMC contract MM33098157. NTIS PB90-239609. 34 pp. (A03) Smith, T.D., and T. Polacheck. 1979. Uncertainty in esti- mating historical abundance of porpoise populations. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC006. NTIS PB-296 476. 59 pp. (A04) Smultea, M.A. 1992. Habitat utilization patterns of hump- back whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) off the island of Hawaii. Final report for MMC contracts T62239259 and T68109257. NTIS PB92-182484. 79 pp. (A0S5) Stoker, S.W. 1977. Report on a subtidal commercial clam fishery proposed for the Bering Sea. Final report for MMC contract MM7AD076. NTIS PB-269 712. 33 pp. (A03) Stuntz, W.E. 1980. Preliminary investigations of the possible relationship between passive behavior by spotted dolphins, Stenella attenuata, and capture stress. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC027. NTIS PB81-111569. 13 pp. (A02) Swartz, S.L. 1986. A review of the status of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) with a summary of research and management needs. Proceedings of a Marine Mammal Commission sponsored workshop held on 16-18 October 1985 in Monterey, California. Final report for MMC contract MM2911098-4. NTIS PB87-125035. 30 pp. (A03) Swartz, S.L., and W.C. Cummings. 1978. Gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja Califor- nia, Mexico. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC008. NTIS PB-276 319 (Spanish translation PB-288 636). 38 pp. (A03) (A04 Spanish) Swartz, S.L., and R.J. Hofman. 1991. Marine mammal and habitat monitoring: requirements; principles; needs; and approaches. NTIS PB91-215046. 18 pp. (A03) Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1978. The evaluation of human activities on gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California, Mexico. Final report for MMC contract MM8AC005. NTIS PB-289 737 (Span- ish translation PB-299 598). 34 pp. (A03) Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1980. Gray whales, Esch- richtius robustus, during the 1977-1978 and 1978-1979 winter seasons in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Final report for MMC contract MM1533497-8. NTIS PB80-202989. 35pp. (A03) Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1981. Demographic studies and habitat assessment of gray whales, Eschrichtius robus- tus, in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Final report for MMC contract MM2079219-4. NTIS PB82-123373. 56 pp. (A04) Swartzman, G.L. 1984. Factors bearing on the present status and future of the eastern Bering Sea fur seal population with special emphasis on the effect of terminating the sub- adult male harvest on St. Paul Island. Final report for MMC contract MM2629737-6. NTIS PB84-172329. 77 pp. (A0S) nS i Swartzman, G., and R. Haar. 1980. Exploring interactions between fur seal populations and fisheries in the Bering Appendix B — Reports of Commission-Sponsored Activities Sea. Final report for MMC contract MM1800969-5. NTIS PB81-133688. 60 pp. (A04) Swartzman, G.L., and R.J. Hofman. 1991. Uncertainties and research needs regarding the Bering Sea and Antarctic marine ecosystems. Final report for MMC contracts 175133669 and T75134820. NTIS PB91-201731. 111 pp. (A06) Taylor, L.R. and G. Naftel. 1978. Preliminary investigations of shark predation on the Hawaiian monk seal at Pearl and Hermes Reef and French Frigate Shoals. Final report for MMC contract MM7ACO11. NTIS PB-285 626. 34 pp. (A03) Testa, J.W. 1997. Importation of polar bear trophies from Canada under the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Final report for MMC contract T53698443. NTIS PB97-167175. 13 pp. (A03) Tinney, R.T., Jr. 1983. Assessment of past, present, and future risks of oil spills in and near the present sea otter range in California. Final report for MMC contract MM2324944-0. NTIS PB83-216069. 208 pp. (A10) Tinney, R.T., Jr. 1984. Some factors affecting the oil spill risk to sea otters in California. Final report for MMC con- tract MM2910765-4. NTIS PB85-174035. 68 pp. (A04) Tinney, R.T., Jr. 1988. Review of information bearing upon the conservation and protection of humpback whales in Hawaii. Final report for MMC contract MM3309689-0. NTIS PB88-195359. 56 pp. (A04) Townsend, R.T. 1991. Conservation and protection of hump- back whales in Hawaii -- an update. Final report for MMC contract T75132495. NTIS PB91-215087. 54 pp. (A04) Treacy, S.D. 1985. Ingestion of salmonids and gastrointes- tinal passage in captive harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Final report for MMC contract MM2079357-5. NTIS PB86-200 235. 35 pp. (A03) Villa Ramirez, B. 1993. Recovery plan for the vaquita, Phocoena sinus. Final report for MMC contract T94070800. NTIS PB93-169415. 40 pp. (A03) Waring, G.H. 1981. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY70-FY79. Final report for MMC contract MM1533588-3. NTIS PB81-174336. 265 pp. (All) Waring, G.H. 1981. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY70-FY80. Final report for MMC contract MM1801196-8. NTIS PB81-242059. 50 pp. (A03) Waring, G.H. 1982. Survey of federally-funded marine mam- mal research and studies FY70-FY81. Final report for MMC contract MM2079243-6. NTIS PB82-227570. 74 pp. (A04) Waring, G.H. 1983. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY70-FY82. Final report for MMC contract MM2324754-9. NTIS PB83-262998. 90 pp. (A05) Waring, G.H. 1984. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY70-FY83. Final report for MMC contract MM2629857-9. NTIS PB84-215086. 92 pp. (A05) Waring, G.H. 1985. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY70-FY84. Final report for MMC contract MM2910918-6. NTIS PB85-225613. 106 pp. (A06) Waring, G.H. 1986. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY70-FY85. Final report for MMC contract MM3309688-7. NTIS PB86-235637. 117 pp. (A06) Waring, G.H. 1987. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY70-FY86. Final report for 225 MMC contract MM4465754-5. NTIS PB87-217386. pp. (A07) Waring, G.H. 1988. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY70-FY87. Final report for MMC contract MM4465836-6. NTIS PB88-212782. 140 pp. (A07) Waring, G.H. 1989. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies, FY70-FY88. Final report for MMC contract MM6223905-5. NTIS PB90-104050. 152 pp. (A08) Waring, G.H. 1990. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY 70-89. Final report for MMC contract T68108504. NTIS PB90-272097. 163 pp. 127 (A08) Waring, G.H. 1991. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY 74-90. Final report for MMC contract T75133766. NTIS PB91-212217. 51 pp. (A04) Waring, G.H. 1992. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY74-FY91. Final report for MMC contract T75136103. NITS PB92-190222. 63 pp. (A04) Waring, G.H. 1993. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY74-FY92. Final report for MMC contract T94070994. NTIS PB93-227189. 73 pp. (A04) Waring, G.H. 1994. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY74-FY93. Final report for MMC contract T10155275. NTIS PB94-195021. 76 pp. (A05) Waring, G.H. 1995. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies, FY74-FY94. Final report for MMC contract T30916452. NTIS PB95-238929. 90 pp. (A05) Waring, G.H. 1996. Survey of federally-funded marine mam- mal research and studies FY74-FY95. Final report for MMC contract T30919035. NTIS PB97-104749. 115 pp. (A02) Wartzok, D., and G.C. Ray. 1980. The hauling-out behavior of the Pacific walrus. Final report for MMC contract MMS5AC028. NTIS PB80-192578. 46 pp. (A04) Weber, M.L., and F. Spivy-Weber. 1995. Proposed elements for international regimes to conserve living marine resourc- es. Final report for MMC contract T30916119. NTIS PB96-119078. 95 pp. (A06) Wells, R.S., B.G. Wiirsig, and K.S. Norris. 1981. A survey of the marine mammals of the upper Gulf of California, Mexico, with an assessment of the status of Phocoena sinus. Final report for MMC contract MM1300958-0. NTIS PB81-168791. 51 pp. (A04) Whitehead, H., K. Chu, P. Harcourt, and A. Alling. 1982. The humpback whales off west Greenland: summer 1981, with notes on other marine mammals and seabirds sighted. Final report MMC contract MM2079259-2. NTIS PB82-243924. 25 pp. (A03) Whitehead, H., and R. Payne. 1981. New techniques for measuring whales from the air. Final report for MMC contract MM6ACO017. NTIS PB81-161143. 36 pp. (A03) Williams, T.D. 1978. Chemical immobilization, baseline hematological parameters and oil contamination in the sea otter. Final report for MMC contract MM7AD094. NTIS PB-283969. 27 pp. (A03) Wilson, S.C. 1978. Social organization and behavior of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina concolor, in Maine. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC013. NTIS PB-280 188. 103 pp. (A06) Winn, H.E. 1984. Development of a right whale sighting network in the southeastern U.S. Final report for MMC MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 contract MM2324805-6. NTIS PB84-240548. 12 pp. (A01) Winn, H.E., E.A. Scott, and R.D. Kenney. 1985. Aerial surveys for right whales in the Great South Channel, spring 1984. Final report for MMC contract MM2910792-6. NTIS PB85-207926. 14 pp. (A02) Woodhouse, C.D., Jr., R.K. Cowen, and L.R. Wilcoxon. 1977. A summary of knowledge of the sea otter Enhydra lutris, L., in California and an appraisal of the complete- ness of the biological understanding of the species. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC008. NTIS PB-270 374. 71 pp. (A04) Woods, C.A. 1987. An investigation of possible sightings of Caribbean monk seals, (Monachus tropicalis), along the north coast of Haiti. Final report for MMC contract MM3309519-2. NTIS PB87-164307. 10 pp. (A02) Wray, P. 1978. The West Indian manatee (Trichechus mana- tus) in Florida: a summary and analysis of biological, ecological, and administrative problems affecting preserva- tion and restoration of the population. Final report for MMC contract MM8AD054. NTIS PB-285 410. 89 pp. (A05) Yellin, M.B., C.R. Agegian, and J.S. Pearse. 1977. Ecologi- cal benchmarks in the Santa Cruz County kelp forests be- fore the re-establishment of sea otters. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC029. NTIS PB-272 813. 125 pp. (A07) 226 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE CURRENT PRICE LIST Price List U.S./Canada/Mexico _ All Other Countries AOl $8.00 $16.00 A02 12.00 24.00 A03 23.00 46.00 A04 25.50 51.00 A05 27.00 54.00 A06 29.50 59.00 A07 33.00 66.00 A08 36.00 72.00 A09 41.00 82.00 Al0 44.00 88.00 All 47.00 94.00 Al2 51.00 102.00 Al3 54.00 108.00 Al4 56.00 112.00 Al5 58.00 116.00 Al6 60.00 120.00 Al17 62.00 124.00 Al8 65.50 131.00 Al19 67.50 135.00 A20 69.50 139.00 A21 71.50 143.00 A22 77.00 154.00 A23 79.00 158.00 A24 81.00 162.00 A25 83.00 166.00 A99 Write to NTIS for price quotation. Reports are also available on microfiche; call or write NTIS for price quotation. All prices include postage and are given in U.S. currency. Documents announced prior to 1996 (i.e., those with a PB-95 designation or earlier) are subject to an out-of-print surcharge. In addition, there is a $5.00 handling charge on domestic orders ($10.00 on foreign orders). When ordering, include the NTIS accession number (e.g., PB98-265- 547). Make checks and money orders payable to the National Technical Information Service. Address: 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, U.S.A. For telephone orders, call 1-800-533-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 or fax (703) 605-6900. You may also place orders by e-mail (or- ders@ntis.fedworld.gov) or through the NTIS Web site at http://www.ntis.gov/ordernow. APPENDIX C SELECTED LITERATURE PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE RESULTING FROM COMMISSION-SPONSORED ACTIVITIES Abbott, S.B., and W.S. Benninghoff. 1990. Orientation of environmental change studies to the conservation of Antarc- tic ecosystems. Pp. 394-403. Jn K.R. Kerry and G. Hempel (eds). Antarctic Ecosystems: Ecological Change and Con- servation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Ainley, D.G., R.P. Henderson, H.R. Huber, R.J. Boekel- heide, S.G. Allen, and T.L. McElroy. 1985. Dynamics of white shark/pinniped interactions in the Gulf of the Faral- lones. Memoirs, Southern California Academy of Sciences 9:109-122. (MMC contracts MM4AC002, MM5AC020, MM6AC027, MM7AC025, and MM1300888-2) Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, and K.M. Bailey. 1982. Popula- tion fluctuations of California sea lions and the Pacific whiting off central California. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 80(2):253-258. (MMC contracts MM4AC002, MM5AC020 MM6AC027, MM7AC025, and MM1300888-2) Ainley, D.G., C.S. Strong, H.R. Huber, T.J. Lewis, and S.H. Morrell. 1981. Predation by sharks on pinnipeds at the Farallon Islands, California. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 78(4):941-945. (MMC contracts MM4AC002, MM5AC020, MM6AC027, MM7AC025, and MM1300888-2) Alexander, L.M., and L.C. Hanson (eds). 1985. Antarctic politics and marine resources: critical choices for the 1980s. Proceedings from the Eighth Annual Conference, June 17-20, 1984, Center for Ocean Management Studies, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. 262 pp. (MMC contract MM2910791-3) Allen, S.G., D.G. Ainley, G.W. Page, and C.A. Ribic. 1984. The effect of disturbance on harbor seal haul out behavior patterns at Bolinas Lagoon, California. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 82(3):493-500. (MMC contract MM8AC012) Allen, S.G., H.R. Huber, C.A. Ribic, and D.G. Ainley. 1989. Population dynamics of harbor seals in the Gulf of the Farallones, California. California Fish and Game 75(4):224- 232. (MMC contracts MM7AD110 and MM8AD059) Alverson, D.L., M.H. Freeberg, S.A. Murawski, and J.G. Pope. 1994. A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 339. Rome, Italy. 233 pp. (MMC contract T10153921) Ashwell-Erickson, S., and R. Elsner. 1981. The energy cost of free existence for Bering Sea harbor and spotted seals. Pp. 869-899. In D.W. Hood and J.A. Calder (eds). The east- ern Bering Sea shelf: oceanography and resources. Vol. II. U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, Washington, D.C. (MMC contracts MMSACO012 and MM7AD011) Bailey, K.M., and D.G. Ainley. 1982. The dynamics of California sea lion predation on Pacific hake. Fisheries Research 1:163-176. (MMC contracts MM4AC002, MMS5AC020, MM6AC027, MM7AC025, and MM1300888-2) Baker, C.S., and L.M. Herman. 1981. Migration and local movement of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) through Hawaiian waters. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59(3):460-469. (MMC contract MM7AC014) Baker, C.S., and L.M. Herman. 1989. Behavioral responses of summering humpback whales to vessel traffic: experi- 227 mental and opportunistic observations. Technical report NPS-NR-TRS-89-01 to the National Park Service. 50 pp. (MMC contract MM7AC014) Baker, C.S., J.M. Straley, and A. Perry. 1992. Population characteristics of individually marked humpback whales in southeastern Alaska: Summer and fall 1986. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 90:429-437. (MMC contract MM3309822-5) Balcomb, K.C., II, and M.A. Bigg. 1986. Population bio- logy of the three resident killer whale pods in Puget Sound and off southern Vancouver Island. Pp. 85-95. In B.C. Kirkevold and J.S. Lockard (eds). Behavioral biology of killer whales. Zoo Biology Monographs, Vol. 1. Alan R. Liss, Inc, New York. (MMC contract MM1300731-7) Balcomb, K.C., I, J.R. Boran, and S.L. Heimlich. 1982. Killer whales in greater Puget Sound. Report of the Inter- national Whaling Commission 32:681-685. (MMC contract MM1300731-7) Barham, E.G., J.C. Sweeney, S. Leatherwood, R.K. Beggs, and C.L. Barham. 1979. Aerial census of the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in a region of the Texas coast. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 77(3):585-595. (MMC contract MM8AC011) Beach, R.J., A.C. Geiger, S.J. Jeffries, and §.D. Treacy. 1981. Marine mammal-fishery interactions on the Colum- bia River and adjacent waters, 1981. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Processed Report 82-04. 186 pp. (MMC contract MM2079357-5) Beach, R.J., A.C. Geiger, S.J. Jeffries, S.D. Treacy, and B.L. Troutman. 1985. Marine mammals and their inter- actions with fisheries of the Columbia River and adjacent - waters, 1980-1982. NOAA, NMFS, NWAFC processed report 85-04, 316 pp. (MMC contracts MM2079221-7 and MM2324788-2) Bean, M.J. 1987. Legal strategies for reducing persistent plastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulle- tin 18:357-360. (MMC contract MM2629994-7) Bengtson, J.L. 1985. Review of Antarctic marine fauna. Pp. 1-226. In Selected papers presented to the Scientific Com- mittee of CCAMLR 1982-1984 (Part I), Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Hobart, Australia. (MMC contract MM2629914-1) Bengtson, J.L. 1985. Monitoring indicators of possible eco- logical changes in the Antarctic marine ecosystem. Pp. 43- 153. Jn Selected papers presented to the Scientific Commit- tee of CCAMLR 1982-1984 (Part If), Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Hobart, Australia. (MMC contract MM2629914-1) Blix, A.S., L.K. Miller, M.C. Keyes, H.J. Grau, and R. Elsner. 1979. Newborn northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) — do they suffer from the cold? American Journal of Physiology, 236(5):R322-327. (MMC contract MMS5SAC025) Bockstoce, J.R. 1980. A preliminary estimate of the reduc- tion of the western Arctic bowhead whale population by the pelagic whaling industry: 1848-1915. Marine Fisheries Review 42(9-10):20-27. (MMC contract MM7AD111) MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Bockstoce, J.R. 1986. Whales, ice and men. The history of whaling in the western Arctic. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 394 pp. (MMC contract MM7AD111) Brager, S., B. Wiirsig, A. Acevedo, and T. Henningsen. 1994. Association patterns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Galveston Bay, Texas. Journal of Mammalogy 75(2):431-437. (MMC contract T75133708) Breiwick, J.M. 1978. Reanalysis of Antarctic sei whale stocks. Report of the International Whaling Commission 28:345-368. (MMC contract MM7AC012) Breiwick, J.M., E.D. Mitchell, and D.G. Chapman. 1981. Estimated initial population size of the Bering Sea stock of bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus: an iterative method. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 78(4):843-853. (MMC contract MM8AC007) Brown, R.F., and B.R. Mate. 1983. Abundance, movements, and feeding habits of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, at Netarts and Tillamook Bays, Oregon. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 91(2):291-301. (MMC contract MM8AC003) Brownell, R.L., P.B. Best, and J.H. Prescott (eds). 1986. Right whales: past and present status. Proceedings of the workshop on the status of right whales, Boston, Massachu- setts, 15-23 June 1983. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 10). 289 pp. (MMC contract MM2911051-5) Brownell, R.L., Jr., L.T. Findley, O. Vidal, A. Robles, and S. Manzanilla N. 1987. External morphology and pigmenta- tion of the vaquita, Phocoena sinus (Cetacea: Mammalia). Marine Mammal Science 3(1):22-30. (MMC contract MM3- 309558-7) Buckland, S.T., T.D. Smith, and K.L. Cattanach. 1992. Status of small cetacean populations in the Black Sea: review of current information and suggestions for future research. Report of the International Whaling Commission 42:513-516. (MMC contract T75133135) Burns, J.J., and F.H. Fay. 1974. New data on taxonomic relationships among North Pacific harbor seals, genus Phoca (sensu stricto). Translation of the 1st International Theriological Congress (Moscow) 1:99. (MMC contract MM4AC005) Burns, J.J., F.H. Fay, and G.A. Fedoseev. 1984. Cranio- logical analysis of harbor and spotted seals of the North Pacific region. Pp. 5-16. Jn F.H. Fay and G.A. Fedoseev (eds). Soviet — American cooperative research on marine mammals. Vol. I-Pinnipeds. NOAA Tech. Report NMFS- 12. (MMC contract MM4AC005) Cetacean Specialist Group. 1994. The Pilot: newsletter of the Marine Mammal Action Plan. Number 9. 16 pp. (MMC contract T94071605) Clapham, P.J., M. Berube, and D.K. Matilla. 1995. Sex ratio of the Gulf of Maine humpback whale population. Marine Mammal Science 11(2):227-231. (MMC contracts T10156- 643 and T30918256) Clapham, P.J., and D.K. Mattila. 1993. Reactions of hump- back whales to skin biopsy sampling in the West Indies. Marine Mammal Science 9(4):382-391. (MMC contract 175136349) Clapham, P.J., and C.A. Mayo. 1987. The attainment of sexual maturity in two female humpback whales. Marine Mammal Science 3(3):279-283. (MMC contract MM1800- 925 -5) Clapham, P.J., and P. J. Palsbell. 1997. Molecular analysis of paternity shows promiscuous mating in female humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae, Borowski). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B246:95-98. (MMC con- tracts T10156643 and T30918256) Clapham, P.J., P.J. Palsboll, and D.K. Mattila. 1993. High- energy behaviors in humpback whales as a source of 228 sloughed skin for molecular analyses. Marine Mammal Science 9:(4)213-220. (MMC contract T75136349) Clark, W.G. 1981. Restricted least-squares estimates of age composition from length composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 38:297-307. (MMC con- tracts MM1533439-2 and MM1801114-6) Clark, W.G. 1982. Early changes in the recruitment rates of Antarctic minke whales inferred from recent age distribu- tions. Report of the International Whaling Commission 32:889-895. (MMC contracts MM1533439-2 and MM1801114-6) Clark, W.G. 1982. Historical rates of recruitment to South- ern Hemisphere fin whale stocks. Report of the Interna- tional Whaling Commission 32:305-324. (MMC contracts MM1533439-2 and MM1801114-6) Clark, W.G. 1983. Apparent inconsistencies among countries in measurements of fin whale lengths. Report of the Inter- national Whaling Commission 33:431-434. (MMC con- tracts MM1533439-2 and MM1801114-6) Clark, W.G. 1984. Analysis of variance of photographic and visual estimates of dolphin school size. Southwest Fisheries Center Administration Report LJ-84-11C. National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, California. 36 pp. (MMC contract MM2324792-1). Clark, W.G. 1984. Recruitment rates of Antarctic fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, inferred from cohort analysis. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 6):411-415. (MMC contract MM1533439-2) Coe, J.M., and W.E. Stuntz. 1980. Passive behavior by the spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata, in tuna purse seine nets. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 78(2):535-537. (MMC contract MM6AC022) Costa, D.P. 1978. The sea otter: its interaction with man. Oceanus 21(2):24-30. (MMC contract MM6AA053) Costa, D.P. 1982. Energy, nitrogen, and electrolyte flux and sea water drinking in the sea otter, Enhydra lutris. Physio- logical Zoology 55(1):35-44. (MMC contract MM6AA053) Cowen, R.K., C.R. Agegian, and M.S. Foster. 1982. The maintenance of community structure in a central California giant kelp forest. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 64:189-201. (MMC contract MM7AC023) Crone, M.J., and S.D. Kraus (eds). 1990. Right whales (Euba- laena glacialis), in the western North Atlantic: a catalog of identified individuals. New England Aquarium, Boston, Massachusetts. 243 pp. (MMC contract T6223913-6) Dayton, P.K. 1984. Processes structuring some marine com- munities: are they general? Pp. 181-197. Jn D.R. Strong, et al. (eds). Ecological communities: conceptual issues and the evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. (MMC contract MM1300702-9) Dayton, P.K., V. Currie, T. Gerrodette, B.D. Keller, R. Rosenthal, and D. Van Tresca.. 1984. Patch dynamics and stability of some California kelp communities. Ecological Monographs 54(3):253-289. (MMC contract MM1300702-9) Dayton, P.K., and M.J. Tegner. 1984. The importance of scale in community ecology: a kelp forest example with terrestrial analogs. Pp. 457-481. Jn P.W. Price, et al. (eds). A new ecology: novel approaches to interactive systems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. (MMC contract MM1300702-9) Dedina, S., and E. Young. 1995 Conservation as communi- cation: Local people and gray whale tourism in Baja Cali- fornia Sur, Mexico. Whalewatcher 29(2)8-13. (MMC contract T10155592) Deiter, R.L. 1990. Recovery and necropsy of marine mam- mal carcasses in and near the Point Reyes National Sea- shore, May 1982 - March 1987. Pp. 123-141. Jn J.E. Appendix C — Selected Literature Reynolds, II, and D.K. Odell (eds). Marine mammal strandings in the United States. Proceedings of the second marine mammal stranding workshop, 3-5 December 1987, Miami, Florida. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- ministration Technical Report No. 98, National Marine Fisheries Service. (MMC contract MM2911030-8) Delaney, J., W. Hale, and R. Stone. 1989. Manatees: an educator’s guide. Second edition (by M. Lamphear). Save the Manatee Club. 34 pp. (MMC contract T5360304-3) DeMaster, D.P., and J.K. Drevenak. 1988. Survivorship patterns in three species of captive cetaceans. Marine Mammal Science 4(4):297-311. Deutsch, C.J., R.K. Bonde, and J.P. Reid. 1998. Radio- tracking manatees from land and space: Tag design, imple- mentation, and lessons learned from long-term study. Marine Technology Society Journal 32(1):18-29. (MMC contract T6810889-2). Dizon, A.E., S.J. Chivers, and W.F. Perrin. 1997. Molecular Genetics of Marine Mammals. Society for Marine Mam- malogy, Special Publication No. 3. (MMC contract T10155673) Domning, D.P. (ed). 1984-Present. Sirenews, Newsletter of the IUCN/Species Survival Commission, Sirenian Specialist Group. Howard University, Washington, D.C. Domning, D.P. 1996. Bibliography and index of the Sirenia and Desmostylia. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobio- logy, Number 80. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washing- ton, D.C. 611 pp. (MMC Contract T10155631) Dowling, T.E., and W.M. Brown. 1993. Population struc- ture of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) as deter- mined by restriction endonuclease analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Marine Mammal Science 9(2):138-155. (MMC contract MM3309818-6) Duignan, P.J., J.R. Geraci, J.A. Raga, and N. Calzada. 1992. Pathology of morbillivirus infection in striped dol- phins (Stenella coeruleoalba) from Valencia and Murcia, Spain. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 56:242- 248. (MMC contract T75133818) Eberhardt, L.L., D.G. Chapman, and J.R. Gilbert. 1979. A review of marine mammal census methods. Wildlife Mono- graphs, No. 63. 46 pp. (MMC contract MM4AC014) Everitt, R.D., and R.J. Beach. 1982. Marine mammal-fish- eries interactions in Oregon and Washington: an overview. Pp. 265-277. Jn Transactions of the 47th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. (MMC contracts MM2079345-2 and MM2079357-5) Fay, F.H. 1982. Ecology and biology of the Pacific walrus, Odobenus rosmarus divergens Illiger. U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service. North American Fauna, No. 74. 279 pp. (MMC contract MM1533576-0) Fay, F.H. 1984. Walrus. Pp. 264-269. In D. Macdonald (ed). Encyclopedia of Mammals. Equinox Ltd., Oxford, England. (MMC contract MM1533576-0) Fay, F.H. 1984. Foods of the Pacific walrus, winter and spring in the Bering Sea. Pp. 81-88. Jn F.H. Fay and G.A. Fedoseev (eds). Soviet-American cooperative research on marine mammals. Vol. I-Pinnipeds. NOAA Technical Report NMFS-12. (MMC contracts MM4AC00S, MM4AC006, MMS5AC024, MM8AC013, and MM1533576-0) Fay, F.H. 1985. Odobenus rosmarus. Mammalian Species 238:1-7. (MMC contract MM1533576-0) Fay, F.H., B.P. Kelly, and J.L. Sease. 1989. Managing the exploitation of Pacific walruses: a tragedy of delayed re- sponse and poor communication. Marine Mammal Science 5(1):1-16. (MMC contracts MM4AC005, MM4AC006, MMSAC024, MM8AC013, and MM1533576-0) 229 Felleman, F.L., J.R. Heimlich-Boran, and R.S. Osborne. 1991. The feeding ecology of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the Pacific Northwest. Jn K. Pryor and K.S. Norris (eds). Dolphin societies: discoveries and puzzles. Univer- sity of California Press, Berkeley. (MMC contract MM1300731-7). Ford, J.K.B., G.M. Ellis, and K.C. Balcomb. 1994. Killer whales. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 102 pp. (MMC contract MM1300731-7) Foster, M. 1982. The regulation of macroalgal associations in kelp forests. Pp. 185-205. Jn L. Srivastava (ed). Syn- thetic and degradative processes in marine macrophytes. W. de Gruyter & Company, Berlin. (MMC contract MM7AC023) Fowler, C.W. 1980. A rationale for modifying effort by catch, using the sperm whale of the North Pacific as an example. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 2):99-102. (MMC contract MM8AC009) Fowler, C.W. 1981. Comparative population dynamics in large mammals. Pp. 437-455. Jn C.W. Fowler and T.D. Smith (eds). Dynamics of large mammal populations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. (MMC contract MM1300730-4) Fowler, C.W. 1981. Density dependence as related to life history strategy. Ecology 62(3):602-610. (MMC contract MM7AC013) Fowler, C.W. 1987. A review of density dependence in populations of large mammals. Pp. 401-441. Jn H.H. Genoways (ed). Current Mammalogy, Vol. I. Plenum Press, New York. (MMC contract MM7AC013) Fox, W.W., Jr. 1990. Statement of concerned scientists on the reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Natural Resources Modeling 4(2):133-142. Gaines, S.E., and D. Schmidt. 1976. Wildlife management under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Pp. 50096-50114. Jn Environmental Law Reporter, Vol. 6. (MMC contract MM5AC029) Gentry, R.L., and G.L. Kooyman. 1986. Fur seals: mater- nal strategies on land and at sea. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 291 pp. (MMC contract MM6AC019) Georgia Conservancy, The. 1986. Report of the southeastern U.S. right whale workshop, 18-20 February 1986, Jekyll Island, Georgia. 41 pp. (MMC contract MM3309690-0) Geraci, J.R. 1978. The enigma of marine mammal strandings. Oceanus 21(2):38-47. (MMC contracts MM5AC008, MM6AD070, MM7AD069, and MM7AC020) Geraci, J.R. 1989. Clinical investigations of the 1987-88 mass mortality of bottlenose dolphins along the U.S. central and south Atlantic coast. Final report to the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Naval Research, and the Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 63 pp. (MMC contracts MM4465826-9, T5360275-6, T5360277-2, and T5360286-6) Geraci, J.R., D.M. Anderson, R.J. Timperi, D.J. St. Aubin, G.A. Early, J.H. Prescott, and C.A. Mayo. 1989. Hump- back whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) fatally poisoned by dinoflagellate toxin. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 46(11):1895-1898. (MMC contract T5306271-4) Geraci, J.R., M.D. Daily, and D.J. St. Aubin. 1978. Parasitic mastitis in the Atlantic white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus, as a probable factor in herd productivity. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35(10):1350-1355. (MMC contract MM5AC008) Geraci, J.R., and V.J. Lounsbury. 1993. Marine mammals ashore: a field guide for strandings. Texas A&M Sea MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Grant Publications, Galveston, Texas. 305 pp. (MMC contract T94071618) Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. Offshore petroleum resource development and marine mammals: a review and research recommendations. Marine Fisheries Review 42(11):1-12. (Requested by the Marine Mammal Commis- sion) Glockner-Ferrari, D.A., and M.J. Ferrari. 1987. Identifica- tion, reproduction, and distribution of humpback whales in Hawaiian waters, 1984 and 1985. Report to National Ma- rine Fisheries Service, National Marine Mammal Laborato- ry, Seattle. 33 pp. (MMC contract MM2629752-5) Goodman, D. 1980. Demographic intervention for closely managed populations. Pp. 171-195. Jn M.E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox (eds). Conservation biology: an evolutionary- ecological perspective. Sinaur Associates, Inc., Sunder- land, Massachusetts. (MMC contract MM8AD-008) Goodman, D. 1981. Life history analysis of large mammals. Pp. 415-436. In C.W. Fowler and T.D. Smith (eds). Dynamics of large mammal populations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. (MMC contract MM8AD-008) Haenel, N.J. 1986. General notes on the behavioral ontogeny of Puget Sound killer whales and the occurrence of alloma- ternal behavior. Pp. 285-300. Jn B.C. Kirkevold and J.S. Lockard (eds). Behavioral biology of killer whales. Zoo Biology Monographs, Vol. 1. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York. (MMC contract MM1300731-7) Hain, J.H.W., G.R. Carter, S.D. Kraus, C.A. Mayo, and H.E. Winn. 1982. Feeding behavior of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the western North Atlantic. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 80(2):259-268. (MMC contract MM1800925-5) Hall, J.D. 1977. A non-lethal lavage device for sampling stomach contents of small marine mammals. Fishery Bulle- tin (NOAA) 75(3):653-656. (MMC contract MM4AC013) Harvey, J.T., R.F. Brown, and B.R. Mate. 1990. Abundance and distribution of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in Oregon, 1975-1983. Northwestern Naturalist 71(3):65-71. (MMC contract MM5AC001) Harvey, J.T., and B.R. Mate. 1984. Dive characteristics and movements of radio-tagged gray whales in San Ignacio Lagoon, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Pp. 561-575. In M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds). The gray whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida. (MMC contract MM1533416-9) Heimlich-Boran, J.R. 1986. Photogrammetric analysis of growth in Puget Sound Orcinus orca. Pp. 97-111. In B.C. Kirkevold and J.S. Lockard (eds). Behavioral biology of killer whales. Zoo Biology Monographs. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York. Vol. 1. (MMC contract MM1300731-7) Heimlich-Boran, J.R. 1986. Fishery correlations with the occurrence of killer whales in greater Puget Sound. Pp. 113-131. In B.C. Kirkevold and J.S. Lockard (eds). Be- havioral biology of killer whales. Zoo Biology Mono- graphs. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York. Vol. 1. (MMC contract MM1300731-7) Heimlich-Boran, $.L. 1986. Cohesive relationships among Puget Sound killer whales. Pp. 251-284. In B.C. Kirke- vold and J.S. Lockard (eds). Behavioral biology of killer whales. Zoo Biology Monographs. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York. Vol. 1. (MMC contract MM1300731-7) Herman, L.M. 1979. Humpback whales in Hawaiian waters: a study in historical ecology. Pacific Science 33(1):1-16. (MMC contract MM7ACO014) Herman, L.M., and R.C. Antinoja. 1977. Humpback whales in the Hawaiian breeding waters: population and pod char- acteristics. Scientific Report of the Whales Research Insti- tute, No. 29:59-85. (MMC contract MM7AC014) 230 Heyning, J.E., and T.D. Lewis. 1990. Entanglements of baleen whales in the fishing gear off southern California. Report of the International Whaling Commission 40:427- 431. (MMC contract T6223923-3) Heyning, J.E., and W.F. Perrin. 1991. Re-examination of two forms of common dolphins (genus Delphinus) from the eastern north Pacific; evidence for two species. National Marine Fisheries Service Administrative Report LJ-91-28. 37 pp. (MMC contract T6223923-3) Heyning, J.E., and W.F. Perrin. 1994. Evidence for two species of common dolphins (Genus Delphinus) from the eastern north Pacific. Contributions in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 442:1-35. (MMC contract T6223923-3) Hoelzel, A.R., and R.W. Osborne. 1986. Killer whale call characteristics: implications for cooperative foraging strate- gies. Pp. 373-403. Jn B.C. Kirkevold and J.S. Lockard (eds). Behavioral biology of killer whales. Zoo Biology Monographs. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York. Vol. 1. (MMC contract MM1300731-7) Hofman, R.J. 1985. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Pp. 113-122. In L.M. Alexander and L.C. Hanson (eds). Antarctic politics and marine resources: critical choices for the 1980s. Center for Ocean Management Studies, University of Rhode Is- land, Kingston, Rhode Island. Hofman, R.J., and W.N. Bonner. 1985. Conservation and protection of marine mammals: past, present and future. Marine Mammal Science 1(2):109-127. Huber, H.R. 1987. Natality and weaning success in relation to age of first reproduction in northern elephant seals. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65(6):1311-1316. (MMC contracts MM4AC002, MMS5AC020, MM6AC027, MM7AC025, MM1300888-2, MM1533599-3) Huber, H.R. 1991. Changes in distribution of California sea lions north of the breeding rookeries during the 1982-83 El Nifio. Pp. 129-137. In F. Trillmich and K.A. Ono (eds). Pinnipeds and El Nifio: responses to environmental stress. Ecological Studies, Vol. 88. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. (MMC contracts MM4AC002, MMSAC020, MM6AC027, MM7AC025, MM1300888-2, MM1533599-3) Huber, H.R., C. Beckham, and J. Nisbet. 1991. Effects of the 1982-83 El Nifio on northern elephant seals on the South Farallon Islands, California. Pp. 219-233. In F. Trillmich and K.A. Ono (eds). Pinnipeds and El Nifio: responses to environmental stress. Ecological Studies, Vol. 88. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. (MMC contracts MM4ACO- 02, MM5AC020, MM6AC027, MM7AC025, MM1300888- 2, MM1533599-3) Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, and S.H. Morrell. 1982. Sight- ings of cetaceans in the Gulf of the Farallones, California, 1971-1979. California Fish and Game 68(3):183-189. (MMC contract MM1300888-2) Huber, H.R., A.C. Rovetta, L.A. Fry, and S. Johnston. 1991. Age-specific natality of northern elephant seals at the South Farallon Islands, California. Journal of Mammalogy 72(3):525-534. Hui, C.A. 1980. Variability of dentin deposits in Tursiops truncatus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37(4):712-716. (MMC contract MM7AC021) Irvine, A.B., M.D. Scott, R.S. Wells, and J.H. Kaufman. 1981. Movements and activities of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, near Sarasota, Florida. Fish- ery Bulletin (NOAA) 79(4):671-688. (MMC contracts MM4AC004 and MMSACO18) Irvine, A.B., R.S. Wells, and M.D. Scott. 1982. An evalua- tion of techniques for tagging small odontocete cetaceans. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 80(1):135-143. (MMC contracts MM4AC004 and MMSAC018) Johnson, P.A., B.W. Johnson, and L.R. Taylor. 1981. Inter- island movement of a young Hawaiian monk seal between Laysan Island and Maro Reef. ’Elepaio, 41(11):113-114. (MMC contracts MM7AC009 and MM8AC008) Jones, M.L. 1985. Evaluation of the potential impact of whale-watching activities on gray whales in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico, 1978 to 1982. Mas- ter’s thesis, Moss Landing Marine Laboratory, San Jose State University, San Jose, California. 73 pp. (MMC contracts MM7AC008, MM8AC005, MM1533497-8, MM2079219-4, MM2324713-8, and MM2911098-4) Jones, M.L. 1990. The reproductive cycle in gray whales based on photographic resightings of females on the breed- ing grounds from 1977-82. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 12):177-182. (MMC contracts MM7AC008, MM8AC005, MM1533497-8, MM2079219-4, MM2324713-8, and MM2911098-4) Jones, M.L., and S.L. Swartz. 1984. Demography and phenol- ogy of breeding gray whales in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico: 1978-1982. Pp. 309-374. In M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds). The gray whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press, Inc., Orlan- do, Florida. 602 pp. (MMC contracts MM7AC008, MM8AC005, MM1533497-8, MM2079219-4, MM2324713-8, and MM2911098-4) Jones, M.L., S.L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds). 1984. The gray whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida. 602 pp. (MMC contracts MM7AC- 008, MM8AC005, MM1533497-8, MM2079219-4, MM2324713-8, MM2911098-4) Kenney, R.D., H.E. Winn, and M.C. Macaulay. 1995. Ceta- ceans in the Great South Channel, 1979-1989: right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Continental Shelf Research 15:385- 414. (MMC contract T94070648) Kirby, V. 1983. Progesterone and estrogens in pregnant and nonpregnant dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and the effects of induced ovulation. Biology of Reproduction 28:897-901. (MMC contract MM7AC016) Kirk, A.G., and K.G. Vanderhye. 1996. Marine Mammal Commission working bibliography on physical and chemical constituents in the marine environment and effects on ma- rine mammals. Available from the Marine Mammal Com- mission, Bethesda, Maryland. 100 pp. Klimley, A.P., and D.G. Ainley (eds). 1996. Great white sharks: The biology of Carcharodon carcharias. Academic Press, San Diego. 517 pp. (MMC contract T94070415) Knowlton, A.R., S.D. Kraus, D.F. Meck, and M.L. Mooney- Seus. 1997. Shipping/Right Whale Workshop. Report 97- 3. New England Aquarium, Boston, Massachusetts. (MMC contract T53696940) Kooyman, G.L., J.O. Billups, and W.D. Farwell. 1983. Two recently developed recorders for monitoring diving activity of marine birds and mammals. Pp. 197-214. In A.G. MacDonald and I.G. Priede (eds). Experimental biology at sea. Academic Press, New York. (MMC contract MM6AC019) Kooyman, G.L., and L.H. Cornell. 1981. Flow properties of expiration and inspiration in a trained bottle-nosed porpoise. Physiological Zoology 54(1):55-61. (MMC contract MM4AC012) Kooyman, G.L., R.L. Gentry, and D.L. Urquhart. 1976. Northern fur seal diving behavior: A new approach to its study. Science 193:411-412. (MMC contract MM6AC019) Kooyman, G.L., K.S. Norris, and R.L. Gentry. 1975. Spout of the gray whale: its physical characteristics. Science 190:908-910. (MMC contract MM4AC012) 231 Appendix C — Selected Literature Kooyman, G.L., and E.E. Sinnett. 1979. Mechanical proper- ties of the harbor porpoise lung, Phocoena phocoena. Respiratory Physiology, 36:287-300. (MMC contract MM4AC012) Kraus, S.D. 1990. Rates and potential causes of mortality in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Marine Mammal Science, 6(4):278-291. (MMC contract MM3309800-5) Kraus, S.D., J.R. Gilbert, and J.H. Prescott. 1983. A com- parison of aerial, shipboard and land-based survey method- ology for the harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena. Fish- ery Bulletin (NOAA) 81:910-913, (MMC contract MM1801023-1) Kraus, S.D., K.E. Moore, C.A. Price, M.J. Crone, W.A. Watkins, H.E. Winn, and J.H. Prescott. 1986. The use of photographs to identify individual North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 10):145-151. (MMC contracts MM2079355-9 and MM3309800-5) Kraus, S.D., J.H. Prescott, and A.R. Knowlton. 1988. Win- tering right whales along the Southeastern United States: a primary calving ground. Pp. 148-157. Jn Proceedings of the third southeastern non-game and endangered wildlife symposium. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, pp. 148-157. (MMC contract MM3309800-5) Kraus, S.D., J.H. Prescott, A.R. Knowlton, and G.S. Stone. 1986. Migration and calving of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 10):139- 144. (MMC contracts MM2079355-9 and MM3309800-5) Laist, D.W. 1987. An overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B):319-326. Laist, D.W. 1996. Entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entan- glement and ingestion records. Pages 99-139 in J.M. Coe and D.R. Rogers (eds). Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts, and Solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York NY. Laist, D.W. 1996. Marine debris entanglement and ghost fishing: A cryptic and significant type of bycatch? Pages 33-39 in Proceedings of the Solving Bycatch Workshop: Considerations for Today and Tomorrow, 25-27 September 1995, Seattle WA. Report No. 96-03. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, Fairbanks AK. Laws, R.M. (ed.) 1994. Antarctic Seals: Research Methods and Techniques. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. 390 pp. (MMC contract T75133672) Leatherwood, S. 1975. Some observations of feeding behav- ior of bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the nort- hern Gulf of Mexico and (Tursiops cf. T. gilli) off Southern California, Baja California, and Nayarit, Mexico. Marine Fisheries Review 37(9):10-16. (MMC contract MM6AC001) Leatherwood, S., J.R. Gilbert, and D.G. Chapman. 1978. An evaluation of some techniques for aerial censuses of bottlenosed dolphins. Journal of Wildlife Management 42(2):239-250. (MMC contract MM6AC001) Leatherwood, J.S., R.A. Johnson, D.K. Ljungblad, and W.E. Evans. 1977. Broadband measurements of underwater acoustic target strengths of panels of tuna nets. Technical Report 126. Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, California. 19 pp. (MMC contract MM6AC020) LeBoeuf, B.J., and R.M. Laws (eds). 1994. Elephant seals: population ecology, behavior and physiology. University of California Press, Berkeley. 414 pp. (MMC contract T7- 5133724) Loughlin, T.R. 1979. Radio telemetric determination of the 24-hour feeding activities of sea otters, Enhydra lutris. Pp. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 717-724. In C.J. Amlaner, Jr., and D.W. McDonald (eds). A handbook on biotelemetry and radio-tracking. Pergamon Press, Oxford and New York. (MMC contracts MM6AC004 and MM6AC024) Loughlin, T.R. 1980. Home range and territoriality of sea otters near Monterey, California. Journal of Wildlife Man- agement 44(3):576-582. (MMC contracts MM6AC004 and MM6AC024) Lowry, L.F., and F.H. Fay. 1984. Seal eating by walruses in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Polar Biology 3:11-18. (MMC contracts MMSAC006 and MMCS5AC024) Lowry, L.F., K.J. Frost, D.G. Calkins, G.L. Swartzman, and S. Hills. 1982. Feeding habits, food requirements, and status of Bering Sea marine mammals. North Pacific Fish- ery Management Council, Anchorage, AK. Doc. Nos. 19 and 19a. 574 pp. (MMC contract MM1533596-4) Lowry, L.F., and K.J. Frost. 1985. Biological interactions between marine mammals and commercial fisheries in the Bering Sea. Pp. 41-61. Jn J.R. Beddington, R.J.L. Bever- ton, and D.M. Lavigne (eds). Marine Mammals and Fish- eries. George Allen and Unwin, London. (MMC contract MM1533596-4) Lowry, L.F., K.J. Frost, R. Davis, D.P. DeMaster, and R.S. Suydam. 1998. Movements and behavior of satellite- tagged spotted seals (Phoca largha) int he Bering and Chukchi Seas. Polar Biology 19:221-230. (MMC contract Mangel, M., L.M. Talbot, G.K. Meffe, M.T. Agardy, D.L. Alverson, J. Barlow, D.B. Botkin, G. Budowski, T. Clark, J. Cooke, R.H. Crozier, P.K. Dayton, D.L. Elder, C.W. Fowler, S. Funtowicz, J. Giske, R.J. Hofman, S.J. Holt, S.R. Kellert, L.A. Kimball, D. Ludwig, K. Magnusson, B.S. Malayang, II, C. Mann, E.A. Norse, S.P. North- ridge, W.F. Perrin, C. Perrings, R.M. Peterman, G.B. Rabb, H.A. Regier, J.E. Reynolds, I, K. Sherman, M.P. Sissenwine, T.D. Smith, A. Starfield, R.J. Taylor, M.F. Tillman, C. Toft, J.R. Twiss, Jr., J. Wilen, and T.P. Young. 1996. Principles for the conservation of wild living resources. Ecological Applications 6(2):338-362. (MMC contract T94071553) Marine Mammal Commission. 1994. The Marine Mammal Commission compendium of selected treaties, international agreements, and other relevant documents on marine re- sources, wildlife, and the environment. Volumes 1-3. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 3,547 pp. (MMC contracts T75135573, T94069358, T94069772, T94070240, T94070978, T94070981, T94071113, T94071- 511, T94071647, T10154111, T10154124, T10154234, T10157257, and T10157639) Marmontel, M. 1993. Age determination and population biology of the Florida manatee, Trichechus manatus latiros- tris. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida. 408 pp. (MMC contract T6223918-1) Marmontel, M., T.J. O’Shea, H.I. Kochman, and S.R. Hum- phrey. 1996. Age determination in manatees using growth- layer-group counts in bone. Marine Mammal Science 12(1):54-88. (MMC contract T6223918-1) Mate, B.R., and J.T. Harvey. 1984. Ocean movements of radio-tagged gray whales. Pp. 577-589. In M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds). The gray whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida. (MMC contract MM1533416-9) Mate, B.R., J.T. Harvey, L. Hobbs, and R. Maiefski. 1983. A new attachment device for radio-tagging large whales. Journal of Wildlife Management 47(3):868-872. (MMC contract MM1533416-9) Mayo, C.A., C.A. Carlson, P.J. Clapham, and D.K. Mattila. 1985. Humpback whales of the southern Gulf of Maine. 232 Shankpainter Press, Provincetown, Massachusetts. (MMC contract MM1800925-5) Mead, J.G. 1977. Records of sei and Bryde’s whales from the Atlantic Coast of the United States, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 1):113-116. (MMC contract MM6AD054) Melteff, B.R., and D.H. Rosenberg (eds). 1984. Proceedings of the workshop on biological interactions among marine mammals and commercial fisheries in the southeastern Bering Sea, October 18-21, 1983, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 300 pp. (MMC contract 7MM232480- 2-7) Merrell, T.R. 1985. Fish nets and other plastic litter on Alaska beaches. Pp. 160-182. Jn R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds). Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris, 27-29 November 1984, Hono- lulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS. (MMC contract MM2910786-1) Mizroch, S.A., D.W. Rice, J.L. Bengtson, and S.W. Larson. 1985. Preliminary atlas of Balaenopterid whale distribution in the southern ocean based on pelagic catch data. Pp. 113-193. Jn Selected papers presented to the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR, 1985, Commission for the Con- servation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Hobart, Australia. (MMC contract MM3309521-5) Morales, V.B., D. Olivera G., and P. Ramirez G. 1996. Conservacién de los manaties en la regién del Caribe de México y Belice. Informe Técnico prepared for El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Number MMO1, Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, N9301-2017. 131 pp. (MMC Con- tract T10155657) Nafziger, J.A.R. 1978. The management of marine mammals after the fishery conservation and management act. Willa- mette Law Journal 14:153-215. (MMC contract MM7AC001) National Research Council. 1981. An evaluation of Antarctic marine ecosystem research. Polar Research Board. Na- tional Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 99 pp. (MMC contract MM1800913-2) National Research Council. 1988. Priorities in arctic marine science. Polar Research Board. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 73 pp. (MMC contracts MM2911056-0 and MM3309821-2) Naveen, R. 1996. Human activity and disturbance: building on Antarctic site inventory. Pages 389-400 in Foundations for Ecological Research West of the Antarctic Peninsula. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. (MMC contract T10155660) Naveen, R. 1997. Compendium of Antarctic Peninsula visitor sites: a report to the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom. U.S. Department of State (Washing- ton) and U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lon- don). 243 pp. (MMC contract T10155660) Naveen, R. 1997. The Oceanites site guide to the Antarctic Peninsula. Oceanites, Inc., Chevy Chase, MD. 128 pp. (MMC contract T10155660) Norris, K.S., R. Goodman, B. Villa-Ramirez, and L. Hobbs. 1977. The behavior of California gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) in Southern Baja California, Mexico. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 75(1):159-172. (MMC contract MMSAC007) Odell, D.K. 1975. Status and aspects of the life history of the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in Florida. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32(7):1055-1058. (MMC contract MM4AC003) Odell, D.K. 1976. Distribution and abundance of marine mammals in south Florida: Preliminary Results. Pp. 203- 212. In A. Thorhaug (ed). Biscayne Bay: Past/Present/Future. Biscayne Bay symposium I, 2-3 April 1976. University of Miami Sea Grant Special Report No. 5. (MMC contract MM4AC003) Odell, D.K. 1979. Distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the waters of the Everglades National Park. Proceedings of the first conference on research in national parks. USDI, NPS, Transactions Proceedings Series No. 5:673-678. (MMC contract MM4AC003) Packard, J.M. 1981. Abundance, distribution, and feeding habits of manatees (Trichechus manatus) wintering between St. Lucie and Palm Beach Inlets, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Contract Report No. 14-16-004-80-105. 139 pp. (MMC contract MM1801025-7). Packard, J.M. 1984. Impact of manatees, Trichechus mana- tus, ON seagrass communities in eastern Florida. Acta Zoological Fennica 172:21-22. (MMC contract MM1801025-7) Packard, J.M. 1984. Proposed research/management plan for Crystal River manatees. Vols. 1-3. Technical Report No. 7. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Prepared for Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 31 pp. 235 pp. 346 pp. (MMC con- tract MM1801024-4) Packard, J.M., R.K. Frohlich, J.E. Reynolds, III, and J.R. Wilcox. 1985. Manatee response to interrupted operation of the Fort Myers power plant, winter 1984/85. Manatee population research report No. 8. Technical Report No. 8-8. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 20 pp. (MMC contract MM3309522-8) Packard, J.M., R.K. Frohlich, J.E. Reynolds, Il, and J.R. Wilcox. 1989. Manatee response to interruption of a thermal effluent. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(3):692-700. (MMC contract MM2324650-8) Packard, J.M., D.B. Siniff, and J.A. Cornell. 1986. Use of replicate counts to improve indices of trends in manatee abundance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:265-275. (MMC contract MM2324650-8) Packard, J.M., and O.F. Wetterquist. 1986. Evaluation of manatee habitat on the northwestern Florida coast. Coastal Zone Management Journal 14(4):279-310. (MMC contract MM1801025-7) Palsbell, P., J. Allen, M. Berube, P. Clapham, T. Feddersen, P. Hammond, R. Hudson, H. Jorgensen, S. Katona, A. Larsen, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D. Matilla, J. Sigurj6nsson, R. Sears, T. Smith, R. Sponer, P. Stevick, and N. Mien. 1997. Genetic tagging of humpback whales. Nature 388:767-769. (MMC contracts T10156643 and T30919556) Payne, R., O. Brazier, E.M. Dorsey, J.S. Perkins, V.J. Rowntree, and A. Titus. 1983. External features in south- ern right whales (Eubalaena australis) and their use in identifying individuals. Pp. 371-445. In R. Payne (ed). Communication and behavior of whales. AAAS Selected Symposium 76. Westview Press, Inc. Boulder, Colorado. (MMC contract MM6AC017) Pearse, J.S., D.P. Costa, M.B. Yellin, and C.R. Agegian. 1977. Localized mass mortality of red sea urchin, Strongy- locentrotus franciscanus, near Santa Cruz, California. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 75(3):645-648. (MMC contract MM6AC029) Perrin, W.F., R.L. Brownell, Jr., and D.P. DeMaster (eds). 1984. Reproduction in whales, dolphins, and porpoises. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 6). 495 pp. (MMC contract MM2079356-2) 233 Appendix C — Selected Literature Perrin, W.F., R.L. Brownell, Jr., Z. Kaiya, and L. Jiankang (eds). 1989. Biology and conservation of the river dol- phins. IUCN Species Survival Commission Occasional Paper No. 3. (MMC contract MM3309828-3) Perrin, W.F., G.P. Donovan, and J. Barlow (eds). 1994. Gillnets and Cetaceans. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 15). 629 pp. (MMC contract T6810860-1) Perrin, W.F., and A.C. Myrick, Jr. (eds). 1980. Age deter- mination of toothed whales and sirenians. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 3). 229 pp. (MMC contract MM8AC004) Perry, A., C.S. Baker, and L.M. Herman. 1990. Population characteristics of individually identified humpback whales in the central and eastern North Pacific: A summary and critique. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 12):307-317. (MMC contract MM7AC014) Pierotti, R.J., D.G. Ainley, T.S. Lewis, and M.C. Coulter. 1977. Birth of a California sea lion on Southeast Farallon Island. California Fish and Game 63(1):64-65. (MMC contract MM4AC002) Pitcher, K.W. 1980. Food of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, in the Gulf of Alaska. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 78(2):544-549. (MMC contract MM5AC011). Pitcher, K.W. 1980. Stomach contents and feces as indicators of harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, foods in the Gulf of Alaska. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 78(3):797-798. (MMC contract MMSACO011) Pitcher, K.W. 1986. Variation in blubber thickness of harbor seals in Southern Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(3):463-466. (MMC contract MM5ACO011) Pitcher, K.W. 1990. Major decline in the number of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, on Tugidak Island, Gulf of Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 6(2):121-134. (MMC contract 175133261) Ralls, K. 1989. A semi-captive breeding program for the Baiji, Lipotes vexillifer: genetic and demographic considerations. Pp. 150-156. In W.F. Perrin, R.L. Brownell, Jr., Z. Kaiya, and L. Jiankang (eds). Biology and conservation of the river dolphins. IUCN Species Survival Commission Occasional Paper No. 3. (MMC contract MM3309828-3) Ralls, K., and J.D. Ballou (eds). 1986. Proceedings of the workshop on the genetic management of captive popula- tions. Zoo Biology 5(2):81-239. (MMC contract MM2910864-0) Ralls, K., and J.D. Ballou. 1986. Captive breeding programs for populations with a small number of founders. Trends Ecology and Evolution 1:19-22. (MMC contract MM2910864-0) Ralston, F. (ed). 1977. A workshop to assess research related to the porpoise/tuna problem, February 28, March 1-2. Southwest Fisheries Center Admin. Report LJ-77-15. Southwest Fisheries Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, California. 119 pp. 6 appendices. (MMC contract MM7AC022). Ray, G.C., J.A. Dobbin, and R.V. Salm. 1978. Strategies for protecting marine mammal habitats. Oceanus 21(2):55-67. (MMC contract MM6ACO011) Reeves, R.R., D. Tuboku-Metzger, and R.A. Kapindi. 1988. Distribution and exploitation of manatees in Sierra Leone. Oryx 22(2):75-84. (MMC contract MM2911037-9) Reeves, R.R., R.J. Hofman, G.K. Silber, and D. Wilkinson. 1996. Acoustic deterrence of harmful marine mammal- fishery interactions: proceedings of a workshop held in Seattle, Washington, 20-22 March 1996. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS- OPR-10. 68 pp. (MMC contract T30919705) MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Reijnders, P., S. Brasseur, J. van der Toorn, P. van der Wolf, I. Boyd, J. Harwood, D. Lavigne, and L. Lowry. 1993. Seals, fur seals, sea lions, and walrus. Status survey and conservation action plan. ['UCN—The World Conservation Union, Species Survival Commission, Seal Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland. 88 pp. (MMC contract T94070651) Reynolds, Ill, J.E., and K.D. Haddad (eds). 1990. Report of the workshop on geographic information system as an aid to managing habitat for West Indian manatees in Florida and Georgia. Rep. No. 49. Florida Marine Research, Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida. 57 pp. (MMC contract T6223916-5) Roffe, T.J., and B.R. Mate. 1984. Abundances and feeding habits of pinnipeds in the Rogue River, Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(4):1262-1274. (MMC contract MM8AC003) Scott, G.P., and H.E. Winn. 1978. Assessment of humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) stocks using vertical pho- tographs. Proceedings PECORA IV symposium, national wildlife science and technology series 3:235-243. (MMC contract MM7AC029) Scott, M.D., R.S. Wells, and A.B. Irvine. 1990. A long- term study of bottlenose dolphins on the west coast of Florida. Pp. 235-244. In S. Leatherwood and R.R. Reeves (eds). The bottlenose dolphin. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California. (MMC contract MM4465739-6) Sergeant, D.E., D.J. St. Aubin, and J.R. Geraci. 1980. Life history and northwest Atlantic status of the Atlantic white- sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus. Cetology 37:1-12. (MMC contract MM5AC008) Shallenberger, E.W. 1977. Humpback whales in Hawaii: population and distribution. Oceans ’77, marine technology society, institute of electrical and electronics engineers, p. Hawaii C-1-7. (MMC contract MM7AC014) Shane, S.H. 1978. Suckerfish attached to a bottlenose dol- phin. Journal of Mammalogy 59(2):4399-440. (MMC con- tract MM6AC028) Shane, S.H. 1980. Occurrence, movements, and distribution of bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in southern Tex- as. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 78(3):593-601. (MMC contract MM6AC028) Shane, S.H. 1990. Comparison of bottlenose dolphin behavior in Texas and Florida, with a critique of methods for study- ing dolphin behavior. Pp. 541-558. Jn J.S. Leatherwood and R.R. Reeves (eds). The bottlenose dolphin. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California. (MMC contract MM6AC028) Shane, S.H., and D. McSweeney. 1990. Using photo-identifi- cation to study pilot whale social organization. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 12):259-263. (MMC contracts MM2629899-3 and MM2910859-8) Shane, S.H., and D.J. Schmidly. 1976. Bryde’s whale (Balae- noptera edeni) from the Louisiana coast. Southwest Natural- ist 21(3):409-410. (MMC contract MM4AC008). Shaughnessy, P.D., and F.H. Fay. 1977. A review of the taxonomy and nomenclature of North Pacific harbour seals. Journal of Zoology, London 182:385-419. (MMC contract MM4AC005) Sherman, K., and L.M. Alexander (eds). 1986. Variability and management of large marine ecosystems. AAAS Selected Symposium 99. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, Colorado. 319 pp. (MM1300736-2) Sherman, K., and L.M. Alexander (eds). 1989. Biomass yields and geography of large marine ecosystems. AAAS Selected Symposium 111. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, Colorado. 493 pp. (MMC contracts MM4465739-6 and T6810861-4) 234 Sherman, K., L.M. Alexander, and B.D. Gold (eds). 1990. Large marine ecosystem: patterns, processes, and yields. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. 242 pp. (MMC contract MM465739-6) Sherman, K., L.M. Alexander, and B.D. Gold (eds). 1991. Food chains, yields, models and management of large marine ecosystems. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, Colo- rado. 320 pp. (MMC contract MM4465739-6). Sherman, K., L.M. Alexander, and B.D. Gold (eds). 1992. Stress, migration, and sustainability of large marine ecosys- tems. American Association for the Advancement of Sci- ence, Washington, D.C. (MMC contract MM4465739-6) Shomura, R.S., and H.O. Yoshida (eds). 1985. Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54. 580 pp. (MMC contract MM2629949-7) Shomura, R.S., and M.L. Godfrey (eds). 1990. Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA-TM-NMFS- SWFSC-154. 1,274 pp. (MMC contract T6224086-6) Silber, G.K., K.A. Waples, and P.A. Nelson. 1994. Response of free-ranging harbor porpoises to potential gillnet modifi- cations. Pages 579-584. Jn W.F. Perrin, G.P. Donovan, and J. Barlow (eds). Gillnets and Cetaceans. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 15). (MMC contracts MM4465854-4 and MM3309815-7) Sirenia Project. 1993. Atlantic coast manatee telemetry 1986- 1993 progress report. Volumes I and II. National Biologi- cal Survey, Gainesville, Florida. (MMC contract T6810889-2) Siniff, D.B., T.D. Williams, A.M. Johnson, and D.L. Garshelis. 1982. Experiments on the response of sea otters (Enhydra lutris) to oil contamination. Biological Conserva- tion 23(4):261-272. (MMC contract MM7AD-094) Smith, T.D. 1981. The adequacy of the scientific basis for the management of sperm whales. Pp. 333-343. Jn Mam- mals in the Seas. FAO Fisheries Series No. 5, Vol. I. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (MMC contract MM6AD047) Smith, T.D., and T. Polacheck. 1979. Analysis of a simple model for estimating historical population sizes. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 76(4):771-779. (MMC contract MM7AC006) Smultea, M.A. 1989. Humpback whales off west Hawaii. Whalewatcher 23(1):11-14. (MMC contract T6810925-7) Smultea, M.A. 1994. Segregation by humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) cows with a calf in coastal habi- tat near the island of Hawaii. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:805-811. (MMC contract T6223925-9) Society for Marine Mammalogy. 1994. Strategies for pursu- ing a career in marine mammal science. Supplement to Marine Mammal Science 10(2). 14 pp. (MMC contract T10157419) Southern, S.O., P.J. Southern, and A.E. Dizon. 1988. Mo- lecular characterization of a cloned dolphin mitochondrial genome. Journal of Molecular Evolution 28:32-42. (MMC contract MM2910998-2) Species Survival Commission. 1994. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises, 1994-1998. (MMC contract T30916627) St. Aubin, D.J., J.R. Geraci, and V.J. Lounsbury. 1996. Rescue, rehabilitation, and release of marine mammals: an analysis of current views and practices. Proceedings of a workshop held in Des Plaines, Illinois, 3-5 December 1991. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-OPR-8. 65 pp. (MMC contract T75136433) Stone, G.S., S.D. Kraus, J.H. Prescott, and K.W. Hazard. 1988. Significant aggregations of the endangered right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, on the continental shelf of Nova Scotia. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(3):471-474. (MMC contract T6223913-6) Straley, J.M. 1994. Seasonal characteristics of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in southeastern Alaska. Master of Science thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 121 pp. (MMC contract MM3309822-5) Straley, J.M., C.M. Gabriele, and C.S. Baker. 1994. Annual reproduction by individually identified humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Alaskan waters. Marine Mammal Science 10(1):87-92. (MMC contract MM3309822-5) Stevick, P., N. Wien, and D. Matilla. 1998. Migrations of a humpback whale between Norway and the West Indies. Marine Mammal Science 14(1):162-166. (MMC contract T30919556) Swartz, S.L. 1981. Cleaning symbiosis between topsmelt, Atherinops affinis, and gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 79(2):360. (MMC contracts MM8AC005 and MM1533497-8) Swartz, S.L. 1986. Gray whale migratory, social and breed- ing behavior. Report of the International Whaling Com- mission (Special Issue 8):207-229. (MMC contracts MM7AC008, MM8AC005, MM1533497-8, MM2079219-4 and MM2324713-8). Swartz, S.L. 1986. Demography, migration, and behavior of gray whales Eschrichtius robustus (Lilljeborg, 1861) in San Ignacio Lagoon, Baja California Sur, Mexico and in their winter range. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Santa Cruz, California. 95 pp. (MMC contracts MM7AC008, MM8AC005, MM1533497-8, MM2079219-4, MM2324713-8, MM2911098-4) Swartz, S.L., and M.K. Bursk. 1979. The gray whales of Laguna San Ignacio after two years. Whalewatcher 13(1):709. (MMC contracts MM7AC008 and MM8AC005) Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1983. Gray whale (Eschrich- tius robustus) calf production and mortality in the winter range. Report of the International Whaling Commission 33:503-507. (MMC contracts MM7AC008, MM1533497-8 and MM2079219-4) Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1984. Gray whale mothers and their calves. Oceans 17(2):47-55. (MMC contracts MM7AC008, MM1533497-8 and MM2079219-4) Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1987. Gray whales at play in San Ignacio Lagoon. National Geographic 171(6):755-771. (MMC contract MM7AC008, MM8AC005, MM1533497-8, MM2079219-4 and MM2324713-8) Swartzman, G.L. 1984. Present and future potential models for examining the effect of fisheries on marine mammal populations in the Eastern Bering Sea. Pp. 157-181. In B. Melteff (ed). Proceedings of the workshop on biological interactions among marine mammals and commercial fisher- ies in the Southeastern Bering Sea. Alaska Sea Grant Report 84-1. (MMC contract MM1800969-5). Swartzman, G.L., and R.T. Haar. 1983. Interactions be- tween fur seal populations and fisheries in the Bering Sea. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 81(1):121-132. (MMC contracts MM1800969-5 and MM2629737-6) Swartzman, G.L., and R.T. Haar. 1985. Interactions be- tween fur seal populations and fisheries in the Bering Sea. Pp. 62-93. In J.R. Beddington, R.J.H. Beverton, and D.M. Lavigne (eds). Marine mammals and fisheries. George Allen and Unwin, London. 354 pp. (MMC con- tracts MM1800969-5 and MM2629737-6) Sydeman, W.J., H.R. Huber, S.D. Emslie, C.A. Ribic, and N. Nur. 1991. Age-specific weaning success of northern elephant seals in relation to previous breeding experience. Ecology 72(6):2204-2217. (MMC contract MM3309858-4) Appendix C — Selected Literature Talbot, L.M. 1996. Living resource conservation: an interna- tional overview. Available from the Marine Mammal Com- mission, Bethesda, Maryland. 56 pp. (MMC contract 194071553) Tillman, M.F., and G.P. Donovan (eds). 1983. Special issue on historical whaling records. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 5). 269 pp. (MMC contract MM7AC017) Tolley, K.A., A.J. Read, R.S. Wells, K.W. Urian, M.D. Scott, A.B. Irvine, and A.A. Hohn. 1995. Sexual dimor- phism in wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from Sarasota, Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 76(4):1190-1198. (MMC contract T75132864) Tricas, T.C., L.R. Taylor, and G. Naftel. 1981. Diel behav- ior of the tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier, at French Frigate Shoals, Hawaiian Islands. Copeia 1981. pp. 904-908. (MMC contract MM7AC011) Van Wagenen, R.F., M.S. Foster, and F. Burns. 1981. Sea otter predation on birds near Monterey, California. Journal of Mammalogy 62(2):433-434. (MMC contract MM7AC023) Villa-R., B. 1976. Report on the status of Phocoena sinus, Norris and McFarland 1958, in the Gulf of California. Anales de la Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Serie Zoologia 47(2):203-207. (MMC contract MM6AD052) Weller, D.W., V.G. Cockcroft, B. Wiirsig, S.K. Lynn, and D. Fertl. 1997. Behavioral responses of bottlenose dol- phins to remote biopsy sampling and observations of surgi- cal biopsy wound healing. Aquatic Mammals 23(1):49-58. (MMC contract T75133708) Wells, R.S. 1991. The role of long-term study in understand- ing the social structure of a bottlenose dolphin community. Pp. 199-225. In K. Pryor and K.S. Norris (eds). Dolphin societies: discoveries and puzzles. University of California Press, Berkeley. (MMC contract MM4465739-6) Wells, R.S., A.B. Irvine, and M.D. Scott. 1980. The social ecology of inshore odontocetes. Pp. 263-317. In L.M. Herman (ed). Cetacean behavior: mechanisms and pro- cesses. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. (MMC contracts MM4AC004 and MM5AC0018) Whitehead, H., K. Chu, J. Perkins, P. Bryant, and G. Nichols. 1983. Population size, stock identity, and distribu- tion of the humpback whales off West Greenland — sum- mer 1981. Report of the International Whaling Commis- sion 33:497-501. (MMC contract MM2079259-2). Williams, T.D., and F.H. Kocher. 1978. Comparison of anaesthetic agents in the sea otter. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 173(9):1127-1130. (MMC contract MM7AD-094) Williams, T.D., and L.T. Pulley. 1983. Hematology and blood chemistry in the sea otter (Enhydra lutris). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 19(1):44-47. (MMC contract MM7AD-094) Williams, T.D., and D.B. Siniff. 1983. Surgical implantation of radiotelemetry devices in the sea otter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 183(11):1290- 1291. (MMC contract MM7AD-094) Williams, T.D., A.L. Williams, and D.B. Siniff. 1981. Fentanyl and azaperone produced neuroleptanalgesia in the sea otter. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 17(3):337-342. (MMC contract MM7AD-094) Wiirsig, B., and B. Tershy. 1989. The baiji: perhaps the most endangered of them all. Whalewatcher 23:3-5. (MMC contract T6223922-0) Wynne, K. 1992. Guide to marine mammals in Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, Fairbanks. 75 pp. (MMC contract T75136394) MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1998 Young, N. (ed). 1993. Examining components of a revised management scheme. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C. 84 pp. (MMC contract T10154344) Zemsky, V.A., A.A. Berzin, Y.A. Mikhalyev, and D.D. Tormosov. 1995. Materials on whaling by Soviet Antarc- tic whaling fleets (1947-1972). Center for Russian Envi- ronmental Policy, Moscow. 320 pp. (In Russian) (MMC contract T10157150) 236 Ree git ava: rag pa ar hate weg Oe Y vy} “Ve WA Wink M ¥ ae ~~ Arenitl bi $queeege = sheeup o ; biden . ‘ : hide jenteweremoes : Young hwo) ou peti of adden ye iced © ia ‘ia i 5 fi | A Lew Waser, © oh) iH, erty, VAL. BA si , vA. hv Tid tevtey > p Ge weuhiag fi. wy Ceara a AUuguy, ed Buen!) sarees, THD Lo) ae. i ” i i i , a ¥ ' { by ) : ip) ! y Al 4 ai) ti 3 i i] I \ J ' 4 nal} i | ee! it er" aan q | a il Ve PY i ( i Piha 4‘ : ! j ; j ob ne | 3 ? ul Hit ® ea), hh ee Gn 8 im } ) ; v j ey a ee Mal. ' | hy ? w A u We eon | Fy) i wb ) 1 At id ; | i 4 ! { F .\ { Ri pie \ ¥ ' i] 1 ‘ Ml ¢ ' Ta er < — nS , are Reagy vs