&5£:37&:u>n v.f

t/i

FINAL

Environmental Impact Statement

Consideration of a
Waiver of the Moratorium
and Return of Management
of Certain Marine Mammals
to the State of Alaska

VOLUME I
Summary and Text

INTERAGENCY TASK GROUP

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Washington, D.C.

FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CONSIDERATION OF A WAIVER OF THE MORATORIUM AND RETURN OF

MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN MARINE MAMMALS TO THE STATE OF ALASKA

VOLUME 1

Summary and Text

Interagency Task Group

U.S. Department of

Commerce
National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries

Service

U.S. Department of
the Interior

Fish and Wildlife
Service

Washington, D.C.
March 1978

0)

o

<:

I

Z

LU

z
o

>
z

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY 1

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 5

A. Background 5

B. The Species of Alaskan marine mammals 14

C. Optimum sustainable population 16

II. THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 20

A. The Marine environment - Waters off Alaska 20

B. The food web in waters off Alaska 23

C. Biology and optimum population estimates of impacted

marine mammals .... 29

D. Ecological relations of marine mammals in waters

off Alaska .- 79

E. The people, the economy, and hunting pressures

in Alaska 89

III. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE .PROPOSED ACTION 96

A. Annual taking for sport, commercial and subsistence

purposes 97

B. Current takings of marine mammals in Alaska not

affected by the requested action ....'. 99

C. Summary of estimated average annual take of marine

mammals 107

D. The impact of the proposed Federal regulations and the

State management program 110

1. Impact on species populations 110

2. Socioeconomic impacts 120

3. Other impacts 123

E. The potential impact of specific State regulations . . 124

1. Regulations on native take 126

2. State of Alaska commercial taking permit

requirements 127

3. Alaska marine mammal seasons and bag limits . . . 127

4. Humane taking provisions 128

IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION 130

A. Continue the moratorium and retain management authority

under the Federal Government (No action) 130

B. Continue the moratorium and transfer management authority

to the State of Alaska 133

C. Waive the moratorium and retain management authority

under the Federal Government 135

D. Waive the moratorium and transfer management authority

of only selected species to the State of Alaska . . 136

E. Waive the moratorium to a greater or lesser extent than

proposed 137

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 140

VI. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT
AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY 140

VII. ANY IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED .... 144

VIII. LITERATURE CITED 145

IX. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 152

APPENDICES (Volume II)

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

1. Schematic of North Pacific surface circulation 22

2. Schematic of the biological cycle in the Arctic

and subarctic 25

3. Distribution of the polar bear 30

4. Distribution of the sea otter 37

5. Distribution of the sea lion 45

6. Distribution of the walrus 49

7. Distribution of the harbor seal and spotted seal 55

8. Distribution of the ringed seal 66

9. Distribution of the ribbon seal 70

10. Distribution of the bearded seal 73

11. Distribution of the beluga whale 77

12. Marine mammal food relationships in the Arctic Ocean .... 81

13. Marine mammal food relationships in the Bering and

Chukchi Seas 82

14. Marine mammal food relationships in the North Pacific

Ocean and Gulf of Alaska. g3

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Synopsis of marine mammal research and

managment in Alaska 7

2. Alaska Department of Fish and Game listing

of marine mammals 15

3. Harvest of marine mammals in Alaska, 1968-72 ... 98

4. Estimated current take and proposed takings

of marine mammals in waters off Alaska ...... 101

5. Estimates of recent takings of marine mammals

in waters off Alaska by foreign nationals 106

6. Incidental catch of northern sea lions by the
Japanese groundfish fishery 108

7. Incidental catch of northern sea lions by the
U.S.S.R. groundfish fishery 109

8. Impact of requested action, if Implemented,

on activities discussed in this report 124

9. Consumption of fish and comparison with
standing stocks in the eastern Bering Sea

and Aleutian areas 143

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CONSIDERATION OF A WAIVER OF THE MORATORIUM AND RETURN OF MANAGEMENT OF
CERTAIN MARINE MAMMALS TO THE STATE OF ALASKA

( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement

Responsible Federal Agency: Office of Fisheries Management

National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA/ Department of Commerce

1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative

2. Description of Action: The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

(86 Stat. 1027; hereinafter, The Act) imposed a moratorium on the taking
and importing of marine mammals and marine mammal products and partially
preempted the authority of States to manage marine mammals within their
jurisdiction effective December 21, 1972.

The State of Alaska has requested the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary
of the Interior to waive the moratorium on nine species of marine mammals in
its jurisdiction and return management to the State. Before such a request
can be granted, the Act requires the appropriate Secretary to take the
following actions with respect to each species or population stock affected:
(1) determine whether or not and to what extent, a waiver of the moratorium
is compatible with the Act; (2) promulgate Federal regulations to ensure
that any taking will not be to the disadvantage of such species or population
stock; and (3) determine that the State's laws and regulations are consistent
with the Act and with any Federal regulations.

3. Summary :

A. Environmental Impacts: Some environmental impact would result from

waiving the moratorium and allowing the State of Alaska to resume management
of marine mammals in waters off Alaska. Up to 80,1^0 animals could be taken
annually within the limitations of the proposed waiver. However, the actual
harvest, based upon the take prior to the Act, probably would not exceed
63,000 animals, including an estimated 23,000 which are now being taken under
provisions of the Act for subsistence, research, public display, and
incidental to domestic commercial fishing operations.

B. Adverse Environmental Effects: No significant adverse environmental
effects are anticipated as a result of the requested action. The harvesting
of marine mammals in Alaska under the State laws and regulations (pre-Act)
at approximately the same levels did not produce any discernible long-term
adverse effect on the well-being of the animal populations or their
environment .

4. Alternatives : For each species involved, five alternatives are being
considered and compared with the requested action.

A. Continue the moratorium and retain management authority under the
Federal Government (no action) ;

B. Continue the moratorium and transfer management authority to the
State of Alaska;

C. Waive the moratorium and retain management authority under the
Federal Government;

D. Waive the moratorium and transfer management authority of only
selected species to the State of Alaska; and

E. Waive the moratorium to a lesser or greater extent than proposed.

5. Comments Solicited on the Draft EIS*:
Federal agencies

Congressional offices

State and local governments

Representative scientists working with marine mammals

Selected list of individuals and organizations

Alaska Native organizations

Marine Mammal Commission

6. Hearings:

A. Administrative hearings on the Secretary of the Interior's determination
to waive the moratorium on walrus and the proposed regulations were
held in Anchorage, Alaska, on March 19-22, 1975, and in Washington, D.C.,
on April 8-9, 1975.

B. Hearings on the remaining species being proposed for State management
were held in 1976 before the Honorable Malcolm P. Littlefield as follows
June 29-July 2 and July 14-20, in Anchorage, Alaska; July 6-9, in Nome,
Alaska; July 12-13, in Bethel, Alaska; and October 19-20, in Washington,
D.C.

A number of related hearings have been held in Alaska and elsewhere at
which testimony was given concerning marine mammals in Alaska. A summary
of these hearings is contained in Appendix B.

^Copies of mailing addresses are contained in Appendix A.

7. Draft Statement to CEQ March 5, 1976

Final Statement to EPA* March 24, 1978

8. Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
The following organizations submitted comments on the draft statement:

a. Department of Agriculture

b. Department of the Interior

c. California Department of Fish and Game

d. State of Alaska: Department of Environmental Conservation

e. State of Oregon

f. Washington Department of Game

g. National Fisheries Institute

h. University of Alaska: Institute of Arctic Biology (Dr. L. Irving)

i. University of Alaska: Institute of Marine Science (Dr. R. Eisner)

j. University of Alaska: Cooperative Extension Service (J.W. Matthews)

k. Alaska Professional Hunters Association

1. Bering Straits Native Corporation

m. Nunam Kitlutsisti

n. Environmental Defense Fund

o. National Parks & Conservation Association

p. Committee for Humane Legislation

q. Society for Animal Protective Legislation

r. National Wildlife Federation

s. Safari Club International: Chicago Chapter

t. Safari Club International

u. The Wildlife Society

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

A. BACKGROUND

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, which became effective on
December 21, 1972, imposed a moratorium on the taking and importing of all
marine mammals and marine mammal products and partially preempted the auth-
ority of the States to manage marine mammals within its jurisdiction. The Act
divided jurisdiction over species of marine mammals between the Secretary of
Commerce for whales, porpoises, seals, and sea lions and the Secretary of the
Interior for all others, including polar bears, sea otters, and walruses.

Section 101(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides that this moratorium can be waived
to allow the taking or importing of any marine mammal, if, on the basis of
the best scientific evidence available and in consultation with the Marine
Mammal Commission (MMC) , the appropriate Secretary determines that to do so
would be compatible with the Act. If a waiver is appropriate, the Secretary
is authorized to adopt regulations pursuant to section 103 of the Act to ensure
that the resultant taking will not be to the disadvantage of any species or
population stock involved.
Section 109 of the Act allows a State to adopt and enforce its laws and
regulations relating to the protection and taking of marine mammals if the
appropriate Secretary determines that State laws and regulations are
consistent with the Act and with any applicable Federal regulations. Before
the Act became effective, some marine mammals (and other wildlife and
fish) were managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) , which
conducted comprehensive programs of research, management, and enforcement.
(Table 1 is a brief historical review of State and Federal activities in

research and management of the nine marine mammal species covered by the State's
request. )

On January 31, 1973, the State of Alaska (hereinafter the State) requested the
Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
to waive the moratorium with respect to northern (Steller) sea lions, harbor
seals (including spotted seals), ringed seals, ribbon seals, bearded seals, and
beluga whales and to approve the State's laws and regulations relating to the
management of these species. The State submitted a similar request to the
Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), with respect to polar bears, sea otters, and walruses. These requests
are contained in appendix C. On April 9, 1976, the Directors of NMFS and FWS
proposed to return management of nine species to the State. (See appendix H.)
The proposed Federal action under consideration in this document is the waiving
of the moratorium, with limitations, on nine species of marine mammals in
waters off Alaska.— Under the waiver, the State would be granted the authority

to regulate takings within State jurisdiction and on the high seas in the

la/
waters off Alaska (1) for sport, commercial, and subsistence purposes — , and

(2) for scientific research within state waters, and (3) for domestic takings

incidental to commercial fishing operations. Persons not holding a valid

license or permit from the State of Alaska, must obtain a Federal permit before

legally taking marine mammals from waters outside State jurisdiction. Permits

for public display and permits for incidental takings by foreign vessels inside

the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone will remain with the Federal Government.

1/ See pages ii and 20 for area defined as "waters off Alaska".

la/ Agencies believe that the State has had authority to regulate the take of
nondepleted species for subsistence and handicraft purposes, but the State has
declined to regulate only one class of takers.

I I 1

lh

I!

3 • . ^ .2 . »

5 t £ J,

2 a |

age q a j

8 & " & " & & ■ & " & I

»s l£ Is § Is US

Isi 151 151

Species of marine mammals other than those nine species requested by the
State will remain under the protection of a moratorium, enforced jointly by
the Federal Government and the State of Alaska.

The proposed Federal action involves three interrelated components. The
first one being the promulgation of Federal regulations pursuant to section
103 of the Act to assure that any taking will not be to the disadvantage of
any of the above species. Draft regulations were published on April 9, 1976
(41 F.R. 15166). These regulations defined the extent of the waiver and
essentially provided that the laws and regulations of the State of Alaska,
once approved, will establish the terms and conditions under which taking
will take place.

The second component of the proposed Federal action is to determine that the
State's laws and regulations are consistent with the Act and with all Federal
regulations, including those adopted pursuant to section 103 of the Act and
those setting forth criteria for Federal review of State laws.

The third component of the proposed action is to waive the moratorium

established by section 101 of the Act to an extent determined by the respective

Secretaries. In briefs filed at the conclusion of the hearing on the record,

the NMFS and FWS believed that the following species or stocks of marine

mammals could be taken in the waters off Alaska to the limitations given:

Beluga whale 360 Ribbon seal 500

Northern sea lion 15,000 Bearded seal 9,000

Harbor seal* 14,000 Polar bear** 250

Largha (spotted) seal* 15,000 Sea otter** 3,000

Ringed seal 20,000 Walrus** 3,000

* Original proposal (41 F.R. 15166) was for a waiver of 6,500 harbor and

20,000 largha seals.
** Retrieved take.

8

Section 103(d) of the Act requires that the proposed regulations,
together with the proposed waiver, be the subject of a formal hearing
on the record before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) . The hearing was
held before the Honorable Malcolm P. Littlefield from June 29, 1976, through
July 20, 1976, in Anchorage, Nome, and Bethel, Alaska; it then reconvened in
Washington, D.C., on October 19-20, 1976. The hearing addressed the
following 17 issues of fact and law pertaining to the waiver, which the ALJ
identified after a prehearing conference held on May 18, 1976, in Arlington,
Virginia. (41 F.R. 21832-32834):

1. The number of separate population stocks, if any, included in each
species;

2. The estimated existing population levels of each species and
population stock;

3. What is the proper meaning for the term "optimum sustainable
population" more specific than is defined in the Act and in
accordance therewith what is the optimum sustainable population
of each such species and population stock?

4. The anticipated effect on the optimum sustainable population of

each species and population stock as well as the health and stability
of the ecosystem in waiving the moratorium to the extent proposed;
also, including the meaning of the term "incidental take" and what
effect, if any, does it have on the optimum sustainable population
of each species and population stock?

5. What constitutes a state regulation for purposes of the instant
proceeding and will Alaska's laws and regulations, if approved,
be enforced as Federal regulations?

6. The humaneness of the methods and means of taking permitted by
Alaska's laws and regulations;

7. What are the components of modern scientific resource management
program for each of the nine species?

8. Who has the burden of proving that a given population stock or
species has diminished below the optimum sustainable population and
does Alaska's management program ensure that the extent of the
waiver will not be exceeded?

9. Whether the State of Alaska's management program is in accordance

with sound principles of resource protection and conservation as
provided within the purposes and policies of the Act?

10. What criteria establishes that a population stock is disadvantaged
under the Act, and in accordance therewith, does the State of
Alaska's management program ensure that any takings will not be to
the disadvantage of any species or population stock?

11. The adequacy of provisions for public participation within the State
of Alaska in the process of implementing the waiver;

12. The adequacy of Federal provisions for monitoring and review of the
State of Alaska's program;

13. If the proposed waiver is granted and the delegation takes place,

can the Federal Government enforce the provisions of these regulations
pursuant to section 105 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and will
the Federal Government as a private landowner be bound by the rules
and regulations issued by the State of Alaska; also, will the State
of Alaska have authority over non-Alaskan citizens on the high seas?

14. Is the definition of "waters of Alaska" as contained in §18.94 and
§216.112 of the proposed regulations consistent with the applicable
Federal Acts, treaties, and laws of the bordering state sovereigns,
including but not limited to the 200-mile limit Act, as well as are
there other treaties governing the subject matter of the instant case
and how do they affect the proposed regulations?

15. whether the proposed waiver, regulations, and delegation abrogates
the rights of the Indian, Aleut, and Eskimo Natives, and if so, is
this abrogation permissible under existing law?

16. What are the other jurisdictions whose activities affect the same
stocks or species as those at issue here, if any, and do sound
principles of resource protection and conservation require that
those effects be integrated into the state management program? and

17. Should the proposed waiver of moratorium be granted?

On June 30, 1977, the ALJ submitted his recommended decision to the Directors
NMFS and FWS . The ALJ determined, on the basis of the hearing record, that
the populations of all nine subject species of marine mammals are within the
range of optimum sustainable population and that a waiver of the moratorium
and the return of management to the State of Alaska, subject to certain
modifications, would be in accord with the requirements of the Marine

10

Mammal Protection Act.

Summarizing, the ALJ made the following findings:

1. The ALJ found that the best scientific evidence available was presented
at the hearings in support of the proposed waiver of the moratorium, thus
complying with one of the basic preconditions for waiving the moratorium.

2. In waiving the moratorium the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior, in
order to protect the stocks in question, must guard against a level of
take which may reduce the stocks below their optimum sustainable popula-
tion (OSP) . The ALJ concluded that OSP constitutes a range of population
sizes, from a point somewhat above the point of maximum productivity up
to the average carrying capacity of the habitat.

3. Notwithstanding the exemption from the moratorium provided for Alaska
Natives under Section 101(b) of the Act, regarding the taking of marine
mammals for subsistence or Native handicraft purposes, the ALJ concluded
that the State may, upon a waiver and return of management, regulate all
hunting of marine mammals by Natives.

4. Consistent with the preliminary findings of NMFS in the preamble of the

April 9, 1976, proposal to waive the moratorium, the ALJ found that

Alaska beluga whales are comprised of two population stocks, one located

in the Cook Inlet-Shelikof f Strait and the other located in the Bering

Sea-Chukchi Sea, and there are two stocks of polar bears, namely a north

and a west stock, but there is only one stock each of land-breeding

harbor seals, ice-breeding harbor seals, (largha or spotted seals),

ribbon seals, bearded seals, ringed seals, sea otters, and sea lions in
Alaska.

5. The ALJ concluded that the proponents of the waiver have satisfied the
burden of proof in establishing that each stock is within the range of
OSP.

6. The ALJ found that Alaska's program is in accord with sound principles of
resource protection and conservation, including research, enforcement,
census, habitat acquisition and improvement, and public participation in
the development of game regulations.

7. The ALJ accepted the following population estimates for each of the
stocks :

(a) Northern sea lions - 214,000

(b) Beluga whale (Cook Inlet stock) - 500

(c) Beluga whale (Bering-Chukchi Sea stock) - 9,000

(d) Land-breeding harbor seals - 270,000

(e) Ice-breeding harbor seals - 200,000-250,000

(f) Ringed seal - 1 million - 1.5 million

(g) Ribbon seal - 90,000-100,000

(h) Pacific bearded seal - 300,000-400,000

(i) Polar bear - 6,100-9,200

(j) Sea otter - 100,000-140,000

11

The ALJ found that the following limits on the annual harvest would
protect the stocks from being disadvantaged under the terms of a waiver
and return of management:

(a) Northern sea lion - The ALJ recommended setting a harvest limit of
6,648 adults annually, providing that two pups could be taken in
lieu of each adult covered by the harvest limit.

(b) Beluga whale (Cook Inlet stock) - The ALJ concluded that 10 belugas
could be taken annually without disadvantage to the stock.

(c) Beluga whale (Bering-Chukchi Sea stock) - The ALJ concluded that up
to 350 belugas could be safely taken from the stock on an annual
basis.

(d) Land-breeding harbor seal - The ALJ found that the total harvest of
land-breeding harbor seal adults should not exceed 8,461. However,
in light of the high natural mortality of pups, he further found
that two pups could be safely taken in lieu of one adult animal. He
added that there should be no taking from the sub-populations in the
Outer Kenai Coast, Management Area 3, where there has been heavy
exploitation in the past.

(e) Ice-breeding harbor seal - The ALJ found that an annual limit of
5,700 animals would be appropriate in order to avoid disadvantage to
the stock.

(f) Ringed seal - The ALJ found that 20,000 ringed seals could be taken
annually without disadvantage to the stock.

(g) Ribbon seal - The ALJ found that 500 ribbon seals could be taken
annually without disadvantage to the stock.

(h) Pacific bearded seal - The ALJ found that an actual take of 4,000
bearded seals by U.S. citizens, could be taken annually without
disadvantage to the stock.

(i) Polar bear - The ALJ found that a take of 170 animals if harvested
at the rate of 1/3 from the northern and 2/3 from the western popu-
lations annually would not disadvantage the stock.

(j) Sea otter - The ALJ found that a take of 3,000 sea otters annually
would not disadvantage the stock but that the take should be
restricted to the Rat, Delarof and Andreanof Islands subpopulations .

The ALJ indicated that before the waiver and a return of management is carried
out, the State of Alaska should develop detailed regulations which incorporate
the following points:

L2

1. "Subsistence takers" should be given preference over sport or commercial
hunters, and "subsistence takers" should be defined on the basis of bona-
fide dependence on marine mammals by coastal residents.

2. The State should exercise extreme caution and prudence, allowing margins
for safety, in calculating proposed harvest levels.

3. To prevent the Federal waiver limit from becoming a target, lower figures
should be published within the State as harvest quotas, and quotas should
be set not only for the total area of the State, but also for each region
or village.

4. Persons who conduct commercial harvests should be required to submit jaw
and reproductive tract specimens for analysis and research.

5. The State regulations should include specific language corresponding to
that in the Act using the standard of OSP .

6. A working arrangement for enforcement of the marine mammal laws should be
negotiated between the State of Alaska and the U.S. Coast Guard.

7. A cooperative agreement concerning marine mammal enforcement, monitoring,
and review should be negotiated between FWS and NMFS.

8. A working partnership should be established between the Native communi-
ties. The ALJ strongly urged that the State provide translations of its
proposals so affected Native communities can be fully informed.

9. Proposed changes in laws, regulations, policies, and permits by the State
of Akaska should be published in the Federal Register to allow non-
Alaskan participation.

10. Whenever seals are to be taken by clubbing, clubbers should be trained,
stickers and a backup staff should be used, and seals should be grouped
together.

11. The State method for selecting hearing officers in civil prosecution
should not be employed for civil prosecutions under Alaska's approved
marine mammal regulations. Rather, U.S. Administrative Law Judges
should be retained and assigned through the U.S. Civil Service Commission
on a case basis with reimbursement being made to the United States
Government.

12. Even after a return of management, programs for continuing research and
analysis should be pursued to improve the management effort.

13. The ALJ noted that several witnesses had testified that the State system
made it difficult for Natives to serve as guides; therefore, most of the
profit went to non-Native brokers in Anchorage. This problem should be
resolved through appropriate means.

13

14. Regulations should provide for the furnishing of necessary data and
other information from the State of Alaska to the Marine Mammal
Commission.

After taking into consideration the recommendations of the Marine Mammal

Commission, the Administrative Law Judge, and a careful review of the hearing

record, the Secretaries of the Department of the Interior and the Department

of Commerce will make their decision whether it would be appropriate to waive

the moratorium and return managementfor nine species (or subspecies) to the

State of Alaska. The actual return of management to the State would be subject

to State compliance before implementation. Full details would be published in

the Federal Register if the Directors decide to waive, which would be followed

by State action to comply.

If a waiver is granted, certain requirements would have to be met by the State

before management could be returned to the State. For example,

° State laws and regulations must be determined to be consistent
with the provisions of the Act, and the terms of the waiver.

o The State would be required to adopt the management principle of OSP
and change its definition of subsistence take to meet the requirements
of the Act.

o The State must prove that it is capable of enforcing quotas, monitor-
ing the catch and assuring quotas will not be exceeded.

° Subsistence takers must be given preference when assessing harvest
levels .

B. THE SPECIES OF ALASKAN MARINE MAMMALS

2/
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1973b)— listed 28 species occurring in

waters off Alaska (Table 2); however, the marine mammal status reports compiled

by NMFS (1974) include an additional species, the Pacific whitesided dolphin

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) .

2/ The citation for Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1973) will be abbreviated
in the remainder of the text to ADF&G (1973) . Because there are two references
by ADF&G, the letters a and b will be used to identify the particular documents

14

Table 2 - Alaska Department of Fish and Game listing of marine mammals.

Taken from "Animal Reference List", page IX, Alaska Wildlife and Habitat.
(ADF&G, 1973b)

Seals

Bearded Seal

Elephant Seal

Harbor Seal

Northern Fur Seal

Ribbon Seal

Ringed Seal
Whales

Baird's Beaked Whale

Beluga Whale

Blue Whale

Bowhead Whale

Cuvier's Whale

Finback Whale

Gray Whale

Humpback Whale

Killer Whale

Minke Whale

Narwhal

North Pacific Right Whale

Pacific Blackfish (Pacific
Pilot Whale)

Sei Whale

Stejneger's Beaked Whale

Sperm Whale
Porpoises

Dall Porpoise

Harbor Porpoise
Other Marine Mammals

Steller Sea Lion 4/

Polar Bear

Sea Otter

Pacific Walrus

Erignathus barbatus
Mirounga leonina
Phoca vitulina
Callorhinus ursinus
Phoca f asciata
Phoca hispida—

Berardius balrdi
Delphinapterus leucas
Balaenoptera musculus
Balaena mysticetus
Ziphius cavirostris
Balaenoptera physalus
Eschrichtius gibbosus-
Megaptera novaeangliae
Orcinus orca
Balaenoptera acutorost

Eubalaena glacialis

Globicephala melaena—
Balaenoptera borealis
Mesoplodon stejnegeri
Physeter catodon

Phocoenoides dalli
Phocoena phocoena

Eumetopias jubata
Ursus maritimus
Enhydra lutris
Odobenus rosmarus

The genus name Pusa is used by NMFS (1974) and by Rice and Scheffer (1968).
However, John Burns, principal marine mammal scientist for ADF&G prefers
Phoca (personal communication) .

NMFS uses the specific name robustus; Rice and Scheffer (1968) used gibbosus.
This genus and the species within it have undergone extensive revision in the
past twenty years. NMFS scientists are using the species name macrorhyncha
for the Pacific form. (At the April 197A meeting of the small cetaceans
subcommittee of IWC, the name macrorhynchus , was used.
ADF&G prefers Steller, NMFS uses Northern.

15

The general biology, distribution, migration, and population levels of the
nine requested species have been supplied principally by the State and are
given in Appendix D. A summary of this information on the population levels
and distribution is given as a part of the environmental setting.

The order of listing in subsequent sections of the environmental statement
follows the phylogenetic order of precedence and the scientific names given
in Rice and Scheffer (1968), the phylogenetic order being: polar bears, sea
otters, sea lions, walruses, phocid seals, and toothed whales.

C. OPTIMUM SUSTAINABLE POPULATION

Prerequisites to waiving the moratorium are a determination of optimum
sustainable population levels for the stocks of marine mammals involved
and an indication that management will maintain the stocks at or above
these levels. As with most wild stocks of animals, it will be necessary
to deal with a range of maximum or minimum values rather than with precise
data point estimates.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 gives a statutory definition of
"optimum sustainable population" (OSP) , relating it to productivity,
carrying capacity, and ecosystem health. This is a new concept which has
not had common usage among scientists, and an explicit operational
definition will evolve only with increased analysis and experience.

Since publication of the draft environmental impact statement, the
National Marine Fisheries Service proposed and later adopted a definition
of OSP. This definition reads as follows:

16

"Optimum sustainable population is a population size
which falls within a range from the population level
of a given species or stock which is the largest sup-
portable within the ecosystem to the population level
that results in maximum net productivity. Maximum
net productivity is the greatest net annual increment
in population numbers or biomass resulting from
additions to the population due to reproduction and/
or growth less losses due to natural mortality."
(41 F.R. 55536, December 21, 1976).

It should be understood, however, that levels of maximum productivity are

not permanently fixed points in natural populations, but will vary over time

owing to fundamental changes in environmental conditions and other factors

independent of man. Also it is extremely difficult to determine either exact

population levels of marine mammals in the wild or the vital statistics of

these populations. The degree of confidence surrounding such estimates
varies with the amount and precision of the available knowledge about any

population, the stability of the population and the environment, and other

factors.

In this document, we will concern ourselves with the lower level of the range
within which OSP is more likely to be a critical factor. Since the level of
maximum net productivity is difficult to determine accurately, a prudent
margin of safety must be applied to protect a stock from declining below its
maximum net productivity before such a decline is discovered. Therefore, for
each population we will assume that this lower level of population range will
be defined by the estimated level of maximum productivity — taking into account
a reasonable margin of safety commensurate with the degree of existing
scientific knowledge, resiliency of the species, and other factors.

17

Although OSP levels are often thought of in terms of absolute numbers
of animals, certain indirect indicators are usually more accessible
to scientists and may be a more sensitive indicator of the health and
vitality of a population than total numbers considered alone. Commonly
used indicators relate to such things as extent of distribution in
suitable or unsuitable habitat, stability or trends in numbers or
relative density in index areas, mortality rates, reproductive rates,
and age composition within populations.

18

19

II. THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT— WATERS OFF ALASKA

The nine species of marine mammals under consideration in this proposal are
distributed throughout the waters off Alaska, which for the purposes of this
document, are considered to be the eastern North Pacific Ocean and Gulf of
Alaska north of lat. 50 N. and east of long. 170 E.; the eastern Bering Sea
east of long. 170° E.; east of the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Convention line of 1867 near
the Bering Strait; the Chukchi Sea east of long. 169 W. ; and the Arctic Ocean
and Beaufort Sea south of lat. 75°N. and between long. 169°W. and 140°W.
(see frontispiece) . The physical characteristics of this area which have the
greatest influence on the distribution and population size of Alaskan marine
mammals are the extensive continental shelf, the oceanic current systems, and
the extensive ice pack and its north-south movement.

The most conspicuous bathymetric feature of the Alaskan marine environment is
the continental shelf. This area includes the Queen Charlotte Sound, south-
eastern Alaska (Alexander) Archipelago, Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and
the eastern Bering Sea, where the shelf reaches a width of over 500 km. The
continental shelf of the eastern Pacific Ocean and eastern Bering Sea is an
important component in the production of fish and consequently, to marine
mammals .

Gulland (1971) , in an adaption from Alverson and others (1964) , reported
the following approximate areas of continental shelf in the North Pacific:

20

2
Area (km ) of shelf at

Locale depth of 0-300 fathoms

British Columbia- 103,700

southeast Alaska

Gulf of Alaska 125,700

Alaska Peninsula 97,200

Southeast Bering Sea 322,500

Northeast Bering Sea 400,000

1,049,100

The continental shelf continues on into the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.

Ocean currents are driven primarily through the action of local wind stress
on the sea surface. The Subarctic Current System is the major transpacific
eastward flow in the northeastern Pacific Ocean and forms a southern boundary
to the waters off Alaska (Fig. 1). The divergence of this current off the
coasts of British Columbia and southeastern Alaska is the main influence on
environmental conditions in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. The northward
extension of this flow along the Alaska Current System and through the
Aleutian-Commander Island arc has a modifying effect on conditions in the
western Pacific Ocean and eastern Bering Sea. The southward flow forms the
California Current.

In the northern Bering Sea, ice usually forms in October and spreads rapidly
southward, usually attaining its maximum extent in February. During the
winter, ice is present throughout the northern half of the Bering Sea and
covers the entire Okhotsk Sea. By July, it is found only in the Gulf of
Anadyr and in the Bering Strait. In July and August, all ice disappears in
these areas, and open water is present northward of Bering Strait.

Ice conditions in the Chukchi Sea not only depend on the season but may vary
greatly from year to year. Ice covers the Chukchi Sea for most of the year,
except for August and September when the southern parts become completely free

21

u

JJ

n3

<+-

3

S-

*rt

rs

.£

i/i

0

'E

-*

o
a.

U

JJ

0

0

o

<

u

»^

O

4-

o

c

u

w-

E

u

L.

<rs

3

0)

o

□_

O

00

^

j^

4J

13

0)

*^

S-

o

-;:

4-

o

t/»

o

-u

c

+3

»/i

o

rj

"D

ci:

C

—

GJ

0

»/>

_c:

"D

U

l/>

<1>

c

to

T3

o

c

C

1

0

0

I/)

r-^

'Z

E

C

3

_0>

E
o

la
3

3

d>

<

u

*

._r>

O)

0)

U_

—1

0

-Q

w

22

of ice. Winter ice, less than 1 year in age, and polar pack ice from the
Arctic Ocean are prevalent in all but the extreme southern portions of the
Chukchi Sea throughout the year. The northerly setting current in the
Bering Strait usually keeps the Alaskan coast of the Chukchi Sea ice free
throughout September as far north as Cape Lisburne. Ice formation and growth
proceed rapidly in October, and ship movement is usually not feasible north
of the Bering Strait after the middle of October.

The waters of the Beaufort Sea are also dominated most of the year by winter
ice (less than 1 year old) and polar pack ice which includes heavy drift ice
from the Arctic Ocean. The inshore areas of the Beaufort Sea are generally
free of ice during summer months, but the condition of the waterway is
strongly dependent upon favorable winds. Heavy pack ice begins to close in
by the middle of September, and by mid-October the Beaufort Sea waterway
has frozen over.

B. THE FOOD WEB IN WATERS OFF ALASKA

The eastern Bering Sea is useful as an illustration of the productivity of
waters in this area because (1) stocks of pinnipeds are large, (2) extremely
heavy fishing occurs there, and (3) data exist for making estimates on
productivity through the food web.

A brief summary is presented here of the food chain in the eastern Bering Sea.
The more detailed information from which this has been extracted was discussed
by Takenouti and others (1972).

The food web is complex in the eastern Bering Sea. Although much of the primary
productivity of phytoplankton takes place in the water column, blooms of algae

23

in and beneath the sea ice in late winter (McRay and others, 1972) and epi-
benthic algae growing on mud flats in summer contribute to the overall primary -
production of the area. Many animals, including fishes and pinnipeds, feed on
both benthic and pelagic organisms, and it is difficult to assess the relative
importance of each. Although some progress has been made in understanding the
amount of primary production in the water column (McRoy and others, 1972) —
which can be used as a basis to estimate overall productivity — the relation-
ships between pelagic, in-ice, and benthic biospheres are not understood.

Feedback mechanisms involving microbial action operate to recycle organic
matter back to phytoplankton. In some instances, animals may prey on other
animals that are above or below them in the food chain (Sanger, 1974) . For
example, in a gammarid amphipod- juvenile pollock-baleen whale chain, the
gammarids being both omnivore and scavenger, will not only be consumed by the
pollock and whale, but will itself feed upon the dead whale carcass. Figure 2,
adapted by Sanger (1974) from Dunbar (1953) , illustrates this principle of
feedback and recycling mechanisms and existence of multiple feeding levels;
it also demonstrates the aptness of the term "food web" to describe the inter-
connecting predator-prey structure that exists in most oceanic ecosystems.

The assumption of a simple food chain provides an expedient, but rough means of
deriving production estimates to arrive at estimated biological production in
a system. Recently Sanger (1972a) estimated biological productivity and fishery
potentials in the subarctic Pacific region. Although the method is as yet
untested, the resultant estimates have not been inconsistent with harvest data,
and they may have provided a framework for decision concerning harvest quotas
and research strategies.

24

// ///■>////

/ / /-SUNLIGHT / / /
//////////

Fig, 2 The biological cycle in the arctic and subarctic marine zones, somewhat simplified.
The prey-predator system illustrated in the right-hand three-quarters of the figure ends
finally in che production of organic detritus, which is decomposed by the bacterial action
mainly on the soa-floor in moderate depths. The resulting supply of inorganic plant
nutrients (nitrates, phosphates) is returned to the surface by vertical water exchange in
the autumn and winter, and is thus available for the regeneration of the phyroplankton
population in the springtime conditions of increasing sunlight.

Modified after Dunbar (1953).

25

The term "trophic level" has been applied to the concept of various food
organisms of a certain link of the food chain that provides the food energy
to the next higher link. Energy bound in the organism (measured by means of
the amount of carbon involved) is passed on to higher levels. This trophic
level concept simplifies the food chain system by lumping organisms with similar
food habits regardless of size. In his recent study, Sanger (1974) used the
term "transfer coefficient," defined as the portion (percent) of the production
at one particular trophic level that is produced at the next higher trophic
level .

"Production" is the net weight, or biomass, produced per unit of time.
Data for several years from Ocean Station Papa (McAllister 1969, 1972) averaged
about 26 percent production of herbivorous zooplankton from phytoplankton.
We will follow Sanger's example (1974) and use 26 percent for the first two
trophic levels, and 10 percent for the higher levels as has been used by
various authors. One of the problems involved in food chain studies and
productivity is the uncertainty about the number of trophic levels in any
community. Sanger stated that in reality there is an infinite number of
trophic levels, and what is used in calculations as a trophic level may be
thought of as representing the average production over a range of organisms.

In order to complete the food chain to include marine mammals , a biomass
estimate is needed of the three vertebrate groups that together comprise the
second through the fourth degree carnivores. These are marine finfish, sea
birds, and marine .mammals . (Although larger squid are top carnivores, they
are ignored here.)

2 6

Marine finfish.— Sanger (1972a) estimated fish production in the subarctic
Pacific region to be 52 million tons per year by assuming that two-thirds
of the secondary carnivores are fish.

Assuming that approximately half of these fish are produced in the eastern
half of the region, the combined eastern North Pacific-Bering Sea production
of fish would be 26 million tons per year. Alverson and others (1964)
estimated the standing crop of demersal fish for the continental shelf area of
the eastern North Pacific-Bering Sea by utilizing exploratory trawl catch
rates. Estimates of total standing crop of all species of demersal fish
calculated for coastal regions on depth intervals are shown below:

Estimated weights of standing crops (all demersal species

combined) in metric tons by region (modified from

Alverson and others, 1964, table 98)

Region Metric tons Metric tons

British Columbia — southeastern Alaska 1,556,000 ~ 7?„ nnf)

Alaska Peninsula 1,217,000 ^>//J,UUU

Gulf of Alaska 691,000

Eastern Bering Sea 6,485,000

Total 9,949,000

The estimates of potential catches from the northwest Pacific (southeast Alaska,
Gulf of Alaska, and Bering Sea) made by Gulland (1971) total over 4,110,000
metric tons of fish and other organisms, excluding crustaceans. However,
present-day harvests are in the range of 2,300,000 metric tons per year. These
estimates are shown in the table below with the general area indicated for each.

27

Estimates of fish production and
harvestable stocks of fish

Estimator

Sanger (1972a)
(1974)

Alverson and others
(1964)

Gulland (1971)

Quantity in thousand tons

52,000 (production)
26,000 (production)

9,045 (standing crop,
demersal)

4,110 (harvestable
demersal and pelagic)

Area Covered

N. Pacific-Bering Sea
E.N. Pacific-E. Bering Sea

E.N. Pacific-E. Bering Sea
(out to 300 fathoms)

E.N. Pacific-E. Bering Sea

Sea birds and marine mammals. — Gross numbers and biomass of pelagic
sea birds in the subarctic Pacific region were estimated by Sanger (1972b) .
He obtained observation data from cruises of research vessels from which
he calculated numbers and weights of birds. His resulting estimates are
summarized below:

Estimated biomass, in metric tons, of pelagic sea birds
in the subarctic Pacific region (from Sanger, 1972b)
Domain Season Average

Coastal

Bering Sea Coastal

Central Subarctic

Summer

6,510.8
6.510.8
9,150.8

Winter

856.8
1,265.0

3,683.8
3,255.4
5,207.9

Estimates of the quantities of food consumed by pinnipeds show a total
food comsumption by fur seals, hair seals, and sea lions of 4,133,000 metric
tons annually on the Bering Sea shelf (NMFS, 1975). Of this, an estimated
2,090,000 metric tons were finfish (NMFS, 1975).

28

C. BIOLOGY AND OPTIMUM SUSTAINABLE POPULATION ESTIMATES OF IMPACTED
MARINE MAMMALS

Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus)
Distribution

Polar bears occur only in the Northern Hemisphere, nearly always in associ-
ation with Arctic sea ice. Centers for six geographically isolated polar
bear populations which have been identified in the main polar basin are
Wrangel Island-western Alaska, northern Alaska, northern Canada, Greenland,
Spitsbergen-Franz Josef Land, and central Siberia. Separate populations
also occur further south in Hudson Bay in Canada. Bears are most abundant
near the southern edge of the sea ice but do occur throughout most of the
polar basin and have been recorded as far north as lat. 88 N. They make
extensive north-south movements related to the seasonal position of the
southern edge of the ice. In winter, bears off Alaska commonly occur as
far south as the Bering Strait and occasionally reach St. Lawrence Island
and even St. Matthew Island in the Bering Sea. In the summer, bears
commonly occur along the edge of the ice pack north of Alaska, between lat.
71 and 72 N. Pregnant females concentrate for winter denning and bearing
young on certain large offshore islands in the U.S.S.R., Canada, and
Spitsbergen, but they also den on the pack ice adjacent to and along Alaska's
Arctic coast (ADF&G, 1973a) . Distribution of the polar bear in Alaska is
shown in figure 3.

Populations

Total world population estimates, which range from a low of 10,000 by the
Soviets to a high of 20,000 by the Norwegians, are based on broad assumptions
and should be considered as very general. Abundance of bears off the Alaska

29

30

cgast and the magnitude of sustained long-term harvests suggest that the
20,000 figure may be too low.

Brooks (1970) estimated the numbers of polar bears in Alaskan waters
to be 4,900; however, this figure did not encompass all population stocks.
Lentfer (1973) concluded that bears west of Alaska and bears north of
Alaska form essentially discrete populations (population stocks as defined
in the Act). He based this on recovery of tagged animals , body and size
differences, and differences in mercury accumulation in bears from the two
areas. Lentfer' s testimony at the 1976 ALJ hearings, as reported in the
ALJ's recommended decision (1977)*, suggests that the polar bear population
stock of the Chukchi Sea (Wrangell Island to western Alaska) numbers about
7,000 (ALJ, 1977, p. 78); the stock to the north of Alaska- (Beaufort Sea
to Banks Island), about 2,500 (ALJ, 1977, p. 79). Chapman, of the Marine
Mammal Commission (testimony, 1976), suggested that the total population
ranges from 5,500 to 5,700 (ALJ, 1977, p. 80),

Carrying Capacity

Polar bear population stocks appear to be at high levels and may be near
the carrying capacity of the habitat. This is indicated by the relative
number of polar bears seen each year, their geographical distribution,
and other population characteristics.

Extensive capture and tagging studies by FWS and ADF&G investigators show
that bears are well distributed throughout their historical range off

^Testimony presented during the ALJ hearings, as reported in his recommended
decision issued on June 30, 1977, will be cited throughout this document by
the named source of the information, followed by "testimony, 1976" in
parentheses. The ALJ's recommended decision will be cited as (ALJ, 1977).

31

Alaska (Lentfer, testimony, 1976). The number of bears reported per hour
of flying by Alaska hunting guides did not show a trend during 1956-59.

Sex composition of bears taken from 1961-72, when 87 percent were taken
with the use of aircraft, was 70-80 percent males. Selective hunting with
use of aircraft reduced the percentage of mature males in the population.
A high percentage of females with young in the-.population indicated a
healthy rate of reproduction. The age composition of bears harvested west
of Alaska during the aircraft hunting era did not show a trend. Age
composition of bears harvested north of Alaska declined in 1970 and 1971
and then increased in 1972 (ADF&G, 1973a). This reflected the high
harvest level during 1966-67 followed by hunting restrictions after 1967.

Productivity

On the basis of tagging results for 631 animals, Lentfer (1972) found
that females with young make up 19 percent of the population. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (1974) stated that a litter of two is common;
one, less common; and three, rare. Females breed again at about the time
they separate from their young, so normally they can produce litters
every third year. Females can first breed at ages 3 or 4 and males at 4,
but some animals are older at first breeding. Most bears do not live
beyond 25 years.

The estimated composition for northern and western populations, based on
data for 901 polar bears tagged off Alaska between 1967 and 1976, is given
below (Lentfer, exhibit FWS 19, cited in ALJ, 1977, p. 79).

>2

Estimated composition of north area Alaska polar bear population,
based on University of Colorado simulation computer modeling
using data from 901 animals captured for mark and recovery, 1967-76

Age

Both

Class

Males

Females

sexes

1

211

227

438

2

181

178

359

3

128

167

295

4

80

142

222

5

68

120

188

6

56

100

156

7

47

84

131

8

44

79

123

9

37

65

102

10

31

55

86

11

26

48

74

12

22

40

62

13

21

38

59

14

20

35

55

15

16

29

45

16

11

21

32

17

7

11

18

18

6

8

14

19

4

6

10

20+

3

4

7

1,019 1,457 2,476

Estimated composition of west area Alaska polar bear population,

based on University of Colorado simulation computer modeling

using data from 901 animals captured for mark and recovery, 1976-76

Age

Both

Class

Males

Females

sexes

1

573

616

1,189

2

491

483

974

3

347

453

800

4

218

387

605

5

185

326

511

6

151

272

423

7

128

228

356

8

121

215

336

9

100

175

275

10

85

150

235

33

Age

Both

Class

Males

Females

sexes

11

72

130

202

12

60

108

168

13

58

103

161

14

53

94

1^7

15

43

78

121

16

31

56

87

17

18

29

47

18

17

23

40

19

11

16

27

20+

11

9

20

2,773

3,951

6,724

Food Habits

Polar bears feed primarily on ringed seals and also on bearded seals, harp
seals, and hooded seals. They frequently eat carrion, including whale,
walrus, and seal carcasses, and small mammals, birds, eggs, and vegetation
when other food is not available (FWS, 1974).

Optimum Sustainable Population

The population stocks off Alaska are exhibiting several characteristics which

indicate that they are at relatively high levels.

Between 1961 and 1972, an average of 260 bears per year where harvested; 70 to
80 percent of this harvest were old-age males, but since one male may mate
with several females in a single season, it is estimated that sufficient males
remained to breed all available females, and the impact of this level of harvest
on population numbers has been slight (ADF&G, 1973a).

The number of bears seen per hour of flying by Alaskan hunting guides has not
indicated a change in population size since 1956 (Lentfer, 1972).

The Soviets believe that polar bear populations in the Soviet Arctic, which
includes the Wrangell Island-western Alaska population stock, declined during

34

the first half of this century but have now recovered and stabilized (ADF&G,
1973a).

Extensive capture and tagging studies by FWS and ADF&G investigators show
that bears are well distributed throughout their historical range in waters
off Alaska. More bears are now being observed in areas near the coast, and
a significant number of maternity dens are again being found on mainland
Alaska. It is not certain that this wholly represents an increase in the
number of bears in the populations. The lack of disturbance by low flying
small aircraft since the ban on use of aircraft for hunting and since
cessation of sport hunting by the Act might also be a factor in this
distribution pattern.

These biological characteristics are indicators that these population stocks
are at relatively high levels. ADF&G (written communication, June 25, 1975)
estimated both of the population stocks to be within the range of OSP.
Lentfer (testimony, 1976) believed that the bears of both populations are
near carrying capacity and well within the range of OSP (ALJ, 1977, p. 81).

Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris)

World Distribution

Sea otters once occupied the coastal waters of the North Pacific rim from the
vicinity of Moro Hermoso on the Pacific side of Baja California northward to
Prince William Sound, Alaska; then westward through the Aleutian, Pribilof ,
and Commander Islands; and southward along the southern Kamchatka Peninsula
and the Kurile Islands to the north side of Hokkaido Island, Japan. Between
1742 and 1911, commercial fur hunters reduced sea otters to an extremely low

35

population level. The present populations grew out of small nuclei remaining
in California, Prince William Sound, Afognak Island, the Alaska Peninsula,
Sanak Island, Sandman Reefs, Bristol Bay, the Andreanof Islands, Rat Islands,
Medney Island, and the Kurile Islands (ADF&G, 1973a).
Alaska Distribution

Small transplanted populations exist in several parts of southeast Alaska,
between Dixon Entrance and Yakutat Bay. From Cape St. Elias west, sea otters
now occupy almost all of their former range, although the populations are
still sparse in some areas. Major concentrations exist in Prince William
Sound, along the Kenai Peninsula, Afognak Island, Kamishak Bay, the Shumagin
Islands, Sanak Island, Sandman Reefs, and southern Bristol Bay.

In the Aleutian Islands, small numbers are scattered throughout the Fox
Islands; few or none are in the Islands of Four Mountains; large populations
are found throughout the Andreanof, Delarof, and Rat Islands; and smaller
numbers exist in the Near Islands. A small transplanted population is in the
Pribilof Islands. Distribution of the sea otter in Alaskan waters is shown
in figure 4.

In the waters of the Soviet Union, otters are found in most parts of their
former range, which includes the Commander Islands, along the southern tip
of the Kamchatka Peninsula, and in the Kurile Islands (ADF&G, 1973a).

.Population

In 1956, on the basis of aerial surveys the Alaska sea otter population was
estimated at about 25,000 animals and was considered to be increasing
at about 4 to 5 percent per year; the world population was estimated at
32,000 to 35,000 animals (Kenyon, 1969). In 1970 after additional

!6

c

03

U

O

37

surveys, the Alaska population estimate was 50,000 (FWS, 1974). In 1972,
on the basis of refined techniques and additional surveys the Alaska
population was estimated at 100,000 to 125,000 animals and still increasing
(Schneider, 1973).

The sea otter has received a high measure of protection by both
Federal and State laws since 1911 and is not presently subject
to any aboriginal hunting. Prior to 1741, a large coastal native
population had exploited the sea otter for some thousands of
years. The sea otter today, where it has repopulated habitat
left vacant by 18th and 19th century exploitation, is probably
more abundant than it has been for centuries (Laughlin, 1970,
and Laughlin and Reeder, 1962).

Otters from Amchitka Island and Prince William Sound were trans-
planted to the following locations: southeastern Alaska in 1965,
1966, 1968, and 1969 (total 413); British Columbia in 1969, 1970, and
1972 (total 89); Washington in 1969 and 1970 (total 59); Oregon
in 1970 and 1971 (total 93); and the Pribilof Islands in 1959
and 1968 (total 64). Among transplanted -M otters, young have
been observed in southeastern Alaska (J. S. Vania, written communication,
1973); British Columbia (M. J. Bigg, cited in R. A. Rausch, written
communication, December 4, 1973); and Oregon (Jamison, 1973).

3/ All transplant figures from J. S. Vania are contained in un-
published reports of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
annual reports of the Marine Mammal Committee of the American
Society of Mammalogists , 1965-73.

38

The pattern of repopulation of sea otter habitat (Kenyon, 1969)

indicates that the entire North American population could

reasonably be considered to be a single genetic stock. For management

purposes, sea otters inhabiting waters off Alaska can be grouped

into the following population stocks (Schneider, exhibit FWS 15, cited in

ALJ, 1977, p. 86).

Population stocks

Near Islands

Rat Islands-Delarof Islands

Andreanof Islands

Islands of Four Mountains

Fox and Krenitzin Islands

North of Unimak Island and the
Alaska Peninsula

Pribilof Islands

Sanak Island and Sandman Reefs

Shumagin Islands

Sutwick-Kujulik

Kamishak Bay-Katmai

Population estimates

500

23,000-32,000

32,000-40,000

Few

600-1,200

5,000-10,000

Less than 25

6,000-10,000

8,000-10,000

8,000-10,000

1,000

Kodiak Archipelago

Kenai Peninsula

Prince William Sound -
Kayak Island

Southeastern Alaska

4,000-6,000
1,500-2,500
4,000-6,000

600-800

39

Carrying Capacity

The only practical method of estimating the carrying capacity of a sea otter
habitat is to estimate the densities that are found in areas where the
population appears to have stabilized. Carrying capacity may change with
time as the result of factors including the impact of the sea otters on the
ecosystem. There are, however, problems with estimating sea otter numbers
over large areas, and there is no good way to compare sea otter habitats
(Schneider, testimony, 1976) .

The most recent information, collected at Amchitka Island, indicates that
sea otters may attain densities of 70 otters per square mile of habitat,
which is defined as all waters less than 30 fathoms deep. Densities may be
even higher in localized areas. Some expanding populations may contain
higher densities for a short time, but these are above carrying capacity
(Schneider, testimony, 1976).

At the present time, only those population stocks in the Rat Islands-
Delarof Islands and Andreanof Islands are considered to be at carrying
capacity, and the number of sea otters there now probably approximate the
long-term carrying capacity of the area. Other areas throughout the State,
such as Montague Island, may be supporting carrying capacity populations,
but it would be safer to allow more time for sea otter numbers to
stabilize over large areas before any conclusions are drawn (Schneider,
testimony, 1976).

Productivity

Several estimates of the productivity (numbers of animals added to the

population yearly) of sea otter populations have been made. Barabash-

40

Nikiforov (1947) estimated the rate at 7-10 percent in the Commander Islands;
however, Markov (1965) felt the rate of increase for the same population was
30 percent. Estimates by U.S. scientists have been intermediate: 19 percent
by Lensink (1962) and 14-15 percent by Kenyon (1969) .

A number of aspects of sea otter reproduction are well documented. About
half the females 4 years old and older bear a pup each year. The sex ratio
is imbalanced in favor of females, probably by a ratio of 40 males to 60
females. If only two-thirds of the females are sexually mature, the annual
rate of reproduction would be 20 percent. Field counts have generally
ranged between 10 and 25 pups per 100 adults and subadults, except in
several transplanted populations where 30 pups per 100 adults and subadults
have been observed (ADF&G,1975) .

Once a population reaches a density at which food becomes limiting, large
numbers of subadults, 9 to 12 months old, begin to die from disease and
malnutrition, particularly in late winter. Adult survival usually remains
high, and many otters attain ages of 15 to 20 years (Kenyon, 1969).

Food Habits

The primary foods of sea otters are clams, mussels, snails, abalone, sea
urchins, crabs, octopus, and (in areas where invertebrate populations have
been reduced) slow-moving bottom fish. A sea otter eats 20 to 25 percent
of its weight in solid food, excluding shells and viscera, each day. For
adults, this amounts to 8 to 15 pounds of fresh food per otter per day, or
over 180 tons of food per square mile containing 100 sea otters each year
(ADF&G, 1973b). The abundance of food is the primary factor limiting most
sea otter populations. Anything influencing this abundance will affect

4]

sea otter numbers (AGF&G, 1973a).

Predation by sea otters influences certain invertebrate populations; thus,
the ecology of areas now unoccupied by sea otters will be altered substantially
if sea otters become abundant in them. Such changes have not been studied
in great detail, but one major effect is a reduction of the age structure
of sea urchin populations. This, in turn, reduces grazing by Urchins on
kelp and allows greater formation of kelp beds (Estes and Palmisano, 1974).

Optimum Sustainable Population

Sea otters in the Rat Islands-Delarof Islands and in the Andreanof Islands

subpopulations are exhibiting several characteristics which indicate that

those populations are at or near the carrying capacity of their habitat.

(See Schneider, exhibit FWS 15, cited in ALJ, 1977, p. 86).

The rate of productivity in a healthy expanding population has been estimated
to range between 10 and 30 percent. Recently the rate has shown a decline.
On Amchitka Island, otter productivity is now about 2-5 percent. In the
Delarof Islands, it is 4-5 percent annually (Kenyon, 1969). Between 1936
and 1965, the number of animals per square mile has decreased from 30 to 15
on Rat Island and from 42 to 19 on Amchitka Island, and the Andreanof Island
subpopulation has shown a similar pattern. The habitat of these groups of
islands is now completely occupied, and these populations are no longer
contributing to expansion into other areas. Mortality has been found to be
high, particularly among the young and the older age classes (Kenyon, 1969).

The population level at which maximum productivity occurred in these sub-
populations is not precisely known; however, analysis of Kenyon ' s

42

investigations of the sea otters at Amchitka indicates that it occurred
there when the population was at about 3,000 animals. The maximum population
at Amchitka Island has been variously estimated between 10,000 and 12,000
animals. Maximum productivity for the entire Rat Island-Delarof Island
population stock is not known. However, ADF&G (1975) estimated that both
of these subpopulations are at the upper range of their OSP.

Northern (Steller) Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) '

Distribution

Northern sea lions are found along the west coast of North America
from southern California to the Aleutian Islands and in the Bering Sea.
They also occur along the Kamchatka Peninsula in the U*. S.S.R. and southward
to the northern islands of Japan. In Alaska, they are most abundant along
the Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, and Kodiak Island. They are
abundant along the Kenai Peninsula, Prince William Sound, and southeast
Alaska (ADF&G, 1973a).

4/The ADF&G prefers the common name "Steller" whereas the NHFS
uses the common name "Northern."

43

Northern sea lions are normally found In association with land; however,
in recent years large numbers of the animals have been wintering along
the edge of the sea ice in the Bering Sea (ADF&G, 1973b). Distribution
of sea lions in Alaskan waters is shown in figure 5.

Population

On the basis of aerial surveys, Kenyon and Rice (1961) estimated the world
population of northern sea lions to be 240,000-300,000 in 1961. In
Alaska itself, there are 202 known rookeries and hauling grounds, and
estimates of the numbers occupying these — obtained from aerial photographs-
indicated a population size exceeding 200,000 (ADF&G, 1973b). The
ADF&G (1973a) has grouped together rookeries in the following geographic

areas for management purposes:

Estimated
Rookeries* Geographic area population

1 through 135
140 through 168

Aleutian Islands-west area
Aleutian Islands-east area

63,987
46,663

200,201,295,196,297,298 Bristol Bay area (includes north

side of Alaska Peninsula)

285 through 291

172 to 192 (exclude
200-201)205 to 241

245 to 268
320 to 329

335 to 390

395 to 441
Total

Pribilof Island area 9,050

Alaska Peninsula south side 25,944

Kodiak Island 36,885

Kenai-Prince William Sound area 20,480

Southeast 8,660

214,369

These are catalog numbers assigned by ADF&G to known sea lion
rookeries in Alaska. Note that the numbering is not continuous.

44

"5 CA

^
3

Z

CO

o

—J

o

2

LD

LU

X

c

o

C/5

03

I

s,

C

03

o

03

ex

^ 2

<

\

D

•- .£

*\ CO

z

50 co -

45

It should be noted that the above estimates for 1973 indicate the highest
number of sea lions observed at a location at the time of the census.
They do not account for those at sea during the census period (ADF&G,
1973a) and, therefore, must be considered to be minimum estimates of
population numbers.

Carrying Capacity

The sea lion has an affinity for specific, well-defined locations used
as breeding and pupping rookeries and hauling areas along the coasts
of Alaska. The availability of suitable land areas for these purposes
may be a significant factor in determining the carrying capacity of the
habitat for sea lions in waters off Alaska. During the 1973 population
surveys, all except five of the known rookery areas were being utilized,
and some of the latter five may have been abandoned, owing to changes
wrought by the 1964 earthquake (Calkins, Pitcher, and Schneider, 1975).
Moreover, personal observations by ADF&G personnel (Vania, Calkins,
Pitcher) indicate that adult densities at key rookeries (Akutan, Ugamak,
Marmot Island, Sugarloaf Island) have not changed since the late 1950' s,
suggesting that, in these areas at least, the suitable breeding
habitat for sea lions has been fully utilized for some time.

Productivity

Natality in sea lions is estimated to be 31 percent of the total population

(ADF&G, 1975). This annual rate is calculated using the premises that

65 percent of the total population is mature, 65 percent of mature sea lions

are female, and 75 percent of adult females give birth yearly (approximately

66,000 pups).

46

Food Habits

Sea lions are known to eat a wide variety of fishes, including lamprey,
salmon, smelt, sand lance, rock fish, greenling, sculpins, halibut, and
black cod. Invertebrates, such as shrimp, clams, squid, and octopus, also
make up a part of the sea lions' diet (Fiscus and Baines, 1966; Mathisen and
others, 1962) . The kinds of food change with the season and the location
of the sea lions. Many sea lions leave the breeding and pupping rookeries
in favor of more protected waters during the winter and follow predictable
feeding patterns, such as concentrating on herring spawning schools in the
spring (Vania, written communication to L. Croxton, May 1975).

Optimum Sustainable Population

The northern sea lion population exhibits several characteristics which
suggest that it is at or near the carrying capacity of its habitat.
Wintering on sea ice is not typical behavior and suggests that the species
is spilling over into less suitable areas of its habitat. At least in
major rookeries, sea lions are apparently fully utilizing the available
breeding habitat, and adult densities have remained stable for several
decades.

Additionally, on the basis of observations of ADF&G personnel (Vania,
J.S. written communication to J. Blum, December 1973), juvenile mortality
has increased in the sea lion population. More than half the new pups
die in their first year. Drowning, abandonment, malnutrition, and pre-
dation are major causes of death (ADF&G, 1973b). Mortality in yearlings
and subadults has not been precisely measured but is also thought to be
high (ADF&G, 1975). This is verified by contrasting counts of yearlings

on key rookeries (Akutan, Ugamak, Sugar loaf Island, Marmot Island) from
the 1960's with those made recently — 1973 and 1975: fewer juveniles
were seen in the 1970 's than in the 1960 's.

47

Finally, no significant exploitation of the population has occurred in
any area for the past 40 years (ADF&G, 1973a). Recent harvests
(appendix D, p. 33) also appear to be insignificant (3 percent
of the total population or less) , particularly if one accounts for the
fact that available population estimate is a minimum.

Thus, these lines of evidence suggest that in all areas the sea lion
population is currently at or very near its pre-exploitation level, which
would be considerably in excess of the lower level of the range of OSP.

Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus)
Distribution

The entire population winters in the seasonal ice pack of the Bering Sea,
mainly south of lat. 64°N. , the greatest concentration (mostly females and
young) being 10 to 150 miles southwest of St. Lawrence Island. With
recession of the ice in April- June, the majority moves northward to summer
in the Chukchi Sea, mostly west of the International Date Line. About
8,000-10,000 males remain behind in the Bering Sea, hauling out on
islands in the Gulf of Anadyr and in Bristol Bay throughout the summer.
Southward movement of the main population segment from the Chukchi to
the Bering Sea takes place in October-December, with large numbers
hauling out on the Russian coast and at Ratmanov (Big Diomede) , the
Punuk Islands, and Amak Island (ADF&G, 1973a). Distribution of walrus
in Alaskan waters is shown in figure 6.

Population

Before large-scale exploitation, which began about 1868 (Allen,

1880, p. 185), the Pacific walrus was estimated to number

48

'*mmw

49

about 200,000 animals (Fay, 1957). Fay estimated that the population
may have fallen to a low of 40,000 to 50,000 animals during the period
1950-65. Beginning in 1960, aerial surveys of walruses were undertaken.
From data obtained on the five surveys — two in 1960, one each in 1961,
1968, and 1972 — total estimates were computed by projecting the number
of animals observed in 1-mile flight tracks to the estimated area
occupied by walruses. From the 1960 surveys, the total population was
estimated to range from 73,000 to 117,000 (Kenyon, 1960). The 1972
surveys provided a median estimate of 135,000 walruses and a range from
93,000 to 178,000 (Kenyon, 1972). J. J. Burns has gathered much basic
biological information from walrus taken by Eskimos. From this, his
estimate of the walrus population approximates the computed mean of the
1972 aerial survey (Burns, cited in R. A. Rausch, written communication,
December 4, 1973). He maintained that the similar results obtained by
the very different methods confirmed a population of approximately
140,000 walruses in 1972 and 1973 (a range of 85,000 to 162,000). This
material, in comparison to the 1960 and 1972 surveys, indicates that the
population is still increasing. Burns recently stated (testimony, 1975)*
that he considers the 1975 population to be approximately 160,000 to
170,000. Also in 1975, Fay concluded that on the basis of rate of
increase the current population could be 175,000 to 195,000 animals
(testimony, 1975), whereas Johnson estimated a range between 150,000 and
200,000 animals (testimony, 1975). Burns' estimate of 170,000 will be
used as the present population level.

*At a hearing on a separate, earlier proceeding to waive the moratorium
only for the Pacific walrus, conducted in Anchorage, Alaska, by Adminis-
trative Law Judge Joseph B. Kennedy on March 18-22, 1975 (Docket No.
Wash 75-1). Other references relating to the walrus in this document
and citing "testimony, 1975" were also presented at this hearing.

50

Fay also testified (testimony, 1975) that the Bering-Chukchi Sea walrus
population is a single population stock. He also concluded that a historical
level estimated at 200,000 animals probably constitutes a population

maximum.

Carrying Capacity

The present population is exhibiting several characteristics which indicate
that the population is at or near the carrying capacity of its habitat. It
has reestablished itself in approximately the same geographic range previously
inhabited, the birth rate is declining, pup mortality is high, and there is
a large proportion of older adults in the population (Fay, testimony, 1975) .

Productivity

The Pacific walrus is one of the largest pinnipeds in the world,
second in size only to the elephant seals. Males weigh up to 1,600 kg
and females up to 1,000 kg; calves at birth are about 60 kg.
Most females ovulate for the first time when 6 or 7 years old,
and males become fertile 1 to 3 years later. Ovulation occurs
biennially or less often and takes place mainly in February-
March. The animals are polygamous, with a midseason sex ratio
of five cows to one bull in the main breeding area southwest of
St. Lawrence Island. The gestation period, including a 3- to 3.5-month
delay of implantation, is about 15 months. Birth is mostly in May,
during spring migration northward. Each female bears a single
calf and nurses it usually for about 2 years. Females and young
are highly gregarious; males are gregarious outside the breeding
season. Hundreds may haul out together on a single ice floe or a
small island.

51

Burns (testimony, 1975) noted calf per cow ratios among harvested animals
of 1:1 in 1958-66, 92:100 in 62-66, 84:100 in 1967-70, and 70:10 in 1971
through 1973. In 1974 it had dropped to 39:100. Burns stated that this
indicated a decrease in productivity and is further evidence that the
population is above maximum productivity level.

Fay (testimony, 1975) assumed that the population growth rate indicated by
the 1960-72 census estimates averages about 7 percent per year. He also
estimated a decline in net productivity: 6.9 percent in 1970, 6.0 in 1971,
5.6 in 1972, 5.2 in 1973, and 4.6 in 1974. Natality (births) in those years
declined from 14.4 to 11.9 percent.

Food Habits

Fay (testimony, 1975) stated that walruses feed principally on
benthic invertebrates and occasionally eat fishes or other
marine mammals. Some 65 different species of marine organisms,
representing 10 phyla, have been identified from the stomach
contents and feces. Nearly all of these reside on or in the
surface sediments and are probably obtained simply by grazing;
those residing deeper in the sediments are apparently "rooted
out," pig-fashion, by means of the snout. More than 3,000
of these organisms may be taken in a single meal by 1 walrus.

The quality of the diet probably varies seasonally, geographically,
and in relation to sex and age of the walrus. Nearly all of the
data is from spring and summer in the Bering Strait and the

52

Chukchi Sea; very little is known of the diet in autumn and winter
in the Bering Sea. Walruses reared in captivity apparently consume
about 5 percent of their body weight per day. At this rate, Fay
(1957) calculated that a 1-ton walrus will eat about 18 tons of
benthos per year; the entire population, at least 1.5 to 2
million tons per year.

Information available to Fay suggests that mollusks, especially
snails and clams, make up the greatest part of the spring-summer
diet, though other items such as tunicates and crustaceans may
be of equal or greater importance in winter. In times of
shortage of such foods, fishes and seals may be eaten. The
walrus competes most with the bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) ,
whose diet seems to be similar in the spring-summer period,
Walruses also eat some of the same kinds of organisms
taken by the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina (e.g. pandalid shrimps)
and by the gray whale ; Eschrichtius robustus (e.g. gammarids,
small mollusks) .

Optimum Sustainable Population

Fay (testimony, 1975) placed the unexploited population level of
walrus at 200,000 animals. He further estimated that maximum
productivity occurred in the mid 1960's.

An examination of Fay's population model shows that walrus attained maximum
birth rate in 1964, when the population numbered 86,783 animals. The
biological characteristics described under "carrying capacity" and
"productivity" are indicators that the population stock is at a high level
and is, therefore, above the level defined for the range of OSP.

53

The above information on walrus populations was drawn from data in the
environmental assessment prepared in 1975 in connection with the proceeding
entitled "In Re: Waiver of moratorium on walrus..., Docket No. MMPA WASH
75-1." The evidence that was introduced in the 1976 hearing on the present
action to waive the moratorium for nine species indicates that the waiver
for walrus and return of its management to the State remains consistent with
the mandates of the Act. The ALJ, therefore, recommended (1977, p. 92)
that the waiver for walrus be continued.

Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina richardii)

Distribution

Land-breeding harbor seals occur along the entire coastline of Alaska
from Dixon Entrance to Kuskokwim Bay, including all of the Aleutian Islands
and the Pribilof Islands. They are sympatric with the ice-breeding
spotted seal in a broad area from Bristol Bay to Kuskokwim Bay and in
the vicinity of the Pribilof Islands. These seals are common in the near-
shore marine environment, frequently ascending rivers during the spawning
runs of anadromous fishes. They frequently concentrate in the numerous
glacial fiords of southeast Alaska, on the isolated islands in the northern
Gulf of Alaska, along the Alaska Peninsula, and on many islands of the
Aleutian Chain. Low densities occur in upper Cook Inlet, probably because
of poor habitat in this area (Burns, 1973).

Harbor seals are abundant on the south side of the Kenai Peninsula
around to Kachemak Bay. Large concentrations occur in Whidbey
Bay, Aialik Bay, Harris Bay, and Nuka Bay. They are also abundant

54

c

03

o

O

o

1=

<

55

throughout most of the Kodiak Island-Afognak Island complex. Major
concentrations occur at Tugidak Island off the southern tip of Kodiak and
Alitak Bay, on Ugak Island, and around Afognak Island (ADF&G, 1973a) .

The Alaska Peninsula and adjacent islands and the Aleutian Islands extend
over 1,000 miles from east to west, contain thousands of square miles of
good seal habitat, and support large populations.

Major concentrations occur on the north side of the Alaskan Peninsula, the
two most important of which are the Port Heiden and Port Moller areas
(ADF&G, 1973a).

Seals occur in scattered high-density clusters from the south shore of
Bristol Bay, through Kvichak Bay, Nushagak Bay, and along the Pacific shore
of Nushagak Peninsula, in Kulukak Bay and Togiak Bay, around the Walrus
Islands and Hagemeister Island, and skipping to the south shore of Kuskokwim
Bay (ADF&G, 1973a). Distribution of harbor seals is shown in figure 7.

Populations

Overall, the world population of harbor seals appear to be large and stable,
except in areas of dense human populations and development. About 525,000
are present in the North Pacific area and about 150,000 in the European
North Atlantic region (Burns, 1973). There are two subspecies in waters
off Alaska: the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) and the largha
seal CP. v. largha) . The latter will be discussed separately.

Although the entire land-breeding harbor seal population in Alaskan- waters
probably has a single gene pool, evidence to decide whether this is a single
stock or several distinct stocks is not conclusive.

56

Evidence presented at the hearing (ALJ, 1977) tended to support the belief
that there is but one population stock of the land-breeding harbor seal. A
blood protein analysis on various isolated harbor seal groups indicate that
they are a common genetic population (Pitcher, testimony, 1976). The harbor
seal may migrate and interbreed over a wide area and may be capable of
repopulating localized areas of intense exploitation such as occurred in the
mid-19601 s.

The secretive nature of these animals and the broad expanse of habitat in
which they are found makes direct population estimates difficult. However,
from past harvest records and aerial surveys in selected areas, particularly
Kodiak Island and the north side of the Alaska Peninsula, ADF&G estimated
that the total population numbers 270,000 seals, distributed as follows:
(ADF&G, 1973a):

Area Approximate

number Geographic description abundance

1 Dixon Entrance to Cape Fairweather 30,000
(southeastern Alaska) (GMU 1-4)*

2 Cape Fairweather to Prince William 70,000
Sound and Kenai Peninsula (GMU 5-7)

3 Cook Inlet, Kodiak Archipelage, 55,000
Shelikof Strait, and south side of

Alaska Peninsula (GMU 8, 9 (s) ,15,16)

4 Aleutian Islands (GMU 10) 85,000

5 North side of Alaska Peninsula, 30,000
Bristol Bay, and Pribilofs

(GMU 9(n), 17)

Total 270,000

* GMU: Game Management Unit

57

Productivity

Sexual maturity is attained by female harbor seals at 3 to 5 years and by
males at 5 to 6 (Bigg, 1969, and Bishop, 1967). They are relatively long
lived, some living more than 30 years. Pupping occurs from late May to
mid-July, the majority taking place during the first 3 weeks in June.

Females ovulate and breed 3 to 4 weeks after giving birth to the pup.
Delayed implantation occurs, and embryonic development is retarded for
about 2 months. The period of active fetal development is about 9 months.
No significant amount of twinning is known to occur (ADF&G, 1975) .

Natality of the land— breeding harbor seal in Alaska is variable according to
area, ranging from 21 percent to 35 percent. ADF&G data indicate that in
the Aleutian Islands natality is lowest at about 21 percent; in the areas of
Prince William Sound and Kodiak Island, it may be as high as 35 percent
(Vania, J. S., written communication to L. Croxton, May 1975). The net
productivity is unknown but probably is low in some areas since certain
populations are thought to be at or near the carrying capacity of their
habitat (ADF&G, 1975).

Food Habits

Harbor seals are mainly fish eaters and are usually found near shore in
water less than 30 fathoms deep. They feed on a wide variety of species
including herring, gadids, flounders, smelt, rockfish, sculpins, salmon,
and greenling. Octopus, squid, and shrimp have also been found in large
quantities in harbor seal stomachs (Spalding, 1964).

58

Optimum Sustainable Population

Before 1963, only small harvests (6,000-10,000 per year) were taken from the
population for subsistence and bounties. Owing to favorable prices for
pelts on the world market during the mid-1960's, harvests then increased,
peaking at 50,000 seals in 1965. This short period of intensive exploitation
was localized, however, to only a few accessible areas in southeastern
Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the Kodiak Archipelago. Harvests later
declined as prices fell, reaching a low level of 9,000-11,000 in 1970-72
(Pitcher, testimony, 1976). On the basis of field observations, ADF&G estimates
that the annual incidental take from the population has probably been under
1,000 seals since 1972 (Pitcher, testimony, 1976) . Owing to its localized
nature, the above exploitation history probably had little direct effect upon
most of the harbor seal population; e.g., a commercial harvest did not occur
in the Aleutian Islands, which currently support over 30 percent of the
population (ADF&G, 1973a). Although the effect of harvests must have been
substantial in some localities of southeastern Alaska, Prince William Sound,
and the Kodiak Archipelago, adjacent unexploited areas may have served to
repopulate them, as happened in the. Copper River after a predator control
program, designed to reduce fisherman-harbor seal conflicts, ceased in 1962.

Although harvests in these three areas declined substantially after 1967,
little evidence is available to indicate the degree of recovery, if any, in
these three stocks in subsequent years. Personal field observations by
ADF&G personnel (Pitcher, Vania, Burns) suggests that harbor seals in these
areas are more numerous now than in the late 1960's and, as a whole, are

59

well above the point of maximum productivity (Pitcher, testimony, 1976).
Pitcher (testimony, 1976) believes two areas, Kodiak Island and the Kenai
Peninsula, remain areas of concern.

In an unpublished ADF&G analysis (Burns, J.J., written communication to J.
Blum, December 1973) , circumstantial evidence suggests that the age of sexual
maturity in southeastern Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the Kodiak Arch-
ipelago is 1 to 2 years later than that found in the heavily exploited
population of Vancouver Island (Bigg, 1969), and that levels of abundance in
Glacier Bay at first increased and then remained stable following the
cessation of hunting in 1972.

A stable level of abundance and an increased age at sexual maturity, as
suggested above, indicate that the recovery process in these areas is slow-
ing down. This would be the case if a population were increasing beyond its
level of maximum productivity. Given this implication and accounting for
the localized nature of exploitation in the mid-1960' s, the ADF&G believes
that the harbor seal population is probably above the lower level of the
range of OSP.

In area 4 (Aleutian Islands) , harbor seals were mainly hunted for subsistence
purposes, and harvests thus were never significant (ADF&G, 1973a). Moreover,
compared to those in other areas, this stock still contains a rather large
proportion of large, old seals, which is indicative of its having been at or
near its carrying capacity for some time (ADF&G, 1975). Thus, the stock in
area 4 is likely at its pre-exploitation level, which is considerably above
the lower level of the range of OSP.

60

In the area north of the peninsula (area 5), the stock's response to removals
of 2,500-4,500 seals since 1965 has been monitored closely through extensive
aerial surveys. Apparently, these harvests have been sustained by the stock
with no measurable change in numbers (ADF&G, 1973a), and it remains at or
near its pre-exploitation (pre-1965) level, which should be well above the
lower level of the range of OSP.

Ice-Breeding Spotted Seal (Phoca vitulina largha) , or Largha Seal
Distribution

Both ice-breeding and land-breeding populations of harbor or spotted
seals occur in the Bering Sea. The land-breeding seals occur primarily
along the north coast of the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands, whereas
the ice-breeding form occupies a wide range, depending upon season,
throughout the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas.

The two types of harbor seals can be easily identified on the basis of
morphological differences. Largha seals are seasonally dependent upon
sea ice for the birth and nurture of their pups. During winter and early
spring, the entire population is concentrated along the southern edge of
the seasonal pack ice, usually in the central Bering Sea. These seals
move northward and toward the coasts as the seasonal retreat and dis-
integration of sea ice progresses. During the ice-free summer and early
fall, they occur along the entire coast of northern Alaska. The largha
seal is the dominant near-shore seal during ice-free seasons of the year
and is replaced by the ringed seal when ice is present (ADF&G, 1973a).

Distribution of the largha seal is shown on the map (figure 7) as a
northern extension of the range of harbor seal, the dividing point occurring
essentially at Cape Newenham, the southern end of Kuskokwim Bay.

61

Population

Two population stocks of largha seals are recognized, only one of which
mainly occurs in Alaskan waters. A Karaginskii Bay stock exists primarily
in waters of the Soviet Union, and a Bering Sea stock occupies and breeds
on the ice-front zone from Cape Olyutorskiy in the north to Bristol Bay in
the south.

Three ship expeditions (1968, 1971, and 1972) in the Bering Sea revealed
that during the pupping and breeding seasons, from late March to mid-April,
adults and pups are evenly distributed throughout the ice-front zone in
groups composed of an adult male, adult female, and her pup. These groups
(triads) rarely occur closer than 0.25 kilometer to each other. Non-
breeding and subadult seals also occupy the same area but seldom haul out
on the ice at this time of the year.

Indices of abundance (triads per square mile) have been formulated by
Burns on the basis of these ship observations (1973, unpublished notes).
These indices indicate that the population apparently has remained stable
during the years surveyed. Burns also estimated population size from
an estimate of the number of triads in the ice-front zone (area of zone
times index of abundance), given that two adults occur per triad and that
adult (breeding) seals make up 64 percent of the total population. Utilizing
the most conservative index of abundance and the minimum estimate of area
in the ice-front zone gave a minimum population size of 200,000-250,000
for the Bering and Chukchi Seas. The Soviets estimate the total (Bering,
Chukchi, and Okhotsk Seas) largha population at 450,000 (ADF&G, 1975).

h2

Spotted seals presently occur throughout all of their previously known
range in western and northern Alaska. They commonly enter embayments and
streams in conjunction with concentrations of spawning fishes (ADF&G, 1975).
Nothing is actually known of historical population levels of the largha
seals. However, all indications are that present levels are probably not
much different than during the 18th and 19th centuries. On the basis of
distribution, magnitude, and level of hunting effort, fewer seals are taken
annually by Alaskan residents at the present time than during the last
several hundred years.

Productivity

Adult seals pair up in March for the duration of the breeding season. A
white-coated pup, about 84 cm long and weighing between 9.5 and 11.8 kg
is born on the ice to each pair from late March to mid-April. The pup
is suckled for about 4 weeks, in which time its weight is tripled.
Males become sexually mature at 4 to 5 years of age; females, at 3 or 4
years. Breeding is annual, and the gestation period (including delayed
implantation) is about 10.5 months. Maximum longevity is at least 35
years. Although isolated in pairs during the breeding season, adults
are gregarious at other times (ADF&G, 1973a).

Natural mortality of largha seals during the first year of life is high
and, based on indirect evidence, may approach 35 to 50 percent. The
presence of weaned, starving pups on shore during the summer months is an
annual occurrence (ADF&G, 1975).

63

Food Habits

These seals are primarily fisheaters during summer and fall and take
advantage of spawning concentrations of salmon, herring, capelin, smelt,
and whitefish, which occur along the coast and in the numerous bays and
river mouths. In winter, when these seals are at sea among the ice floes,
they continue to utilize fishes where they are available. They also feed
on shrimp, small crabs, and cephalopods (ADF&G, 1973b).

Optimum Sustainable Population

Harvests by both Americans and Soviets averaged 7,000 per year during the
late 1960's and 1970's (ADF&G, 1975; unpublished data exchanged by U.S.-U.S.S.R.
Marine Mammal Subgroup). In earlier years, harvests of a similar magnitude
were recorded (ADF&G, 1973a). Such a take would appear to be insignificant,
3 percent or less of the stock, particularly if it is noted that the avail-
able estimate of stock size is a minimum. Moreover, as previously noted,
indices from recent ship surveys have remained constant despite this slight
harvesting pressure. Consequently, the largha population is likely at or
only slightly less than its pre-exploitation level, which would be consider-
ably above the lower level of the range of OSP.

Ringed Seal (Pusa hispida)
Distribution

The ringed seal generally has a wide range throughout the areas of seasonal
ice cover in the Bering and Chukchi Seas and north into the permanent ice
of the Polar Basin. In the Bering and Chukchi Seas and along the Arctic
coast, the majority of ringed seals occupy those regions covered by exten-
sive land-fast ice in winter. However, nonbreeding adults and juveniles

^4

may occur anywhere in the ice covered areas. The association of ringed
seals with sea ice results in marked seasonal migrations of animals
wintering in the Bering and Chukchi Seas and relatively little movement of
those seals residing in more northerly areas . The ringed seal is the
dominant near-shore seal during months when sea ice is present and is
replaced by the spotted seal during ice-free months. A small portion of the
population, mainly juveniles, may remain in ice-free areas during summer.
Distribution of the ringed seal in Alaskan waters is shown in figure 8.

Population

An aerial census in 1970 of ringed seals on land-fast ice along the northern
coast of Alaska indicated a variation in numbers from 5.36 per square mile
in the Chukchi Sea between Point Lay and Wainwright, to 1.06 per square
mile in the Beaufort Sea between Oliktok and Flaxman Island (Burns and
Harbo, 1972).

To estimate population size, Burns (1973, unpublished notes) chose conservative
indices of abundance from each survey area and multiplied by the minimal
estimate of the area of land-fast ice in each. Then, to account for unobserved
seals under the ice, this figure was multiplied by a factor of two as
suggested by Smith (1973) . Finally, the Siberian component of the population
was estimated to be equivalent to the Alaskan component, leading to a
total estimate of 250,000 ringed seals in the land-fast ice of the Bering,
Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas (ADF&G, 1973a). Burns indicated that this should
be considered a minimum estimate since recent ship and helicopter surveys

65

V-YL

* ov 7 cv *- V = * C * •AS*

>- — * <* " A •« l«L' i

hi,

found a considerable number of ringed seals in the pack ice, as well as in
land-fast ice of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. More recently, Burns,
testimony, 1976) estimated a total population of 1 million to 1.5 million
ringed seals in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas.

Soviet estimates of the population size are difficult to evaluate since
they recognize three subspecies whose ranges overlap and none coincides
with the Bering-Chukchi Seas population recognized by ADF&G scientists.
The Soviet recognized populations are:

Arctic Ocean (includes Chukchi Sea) 5 million-6 million
Western Bering Sea 12,000

Okhotsk Sea 800,000-1 million

Productivity

Maximum longevity of ringed seals exceeds 25 years , and the species is
probably monogamous. Males become sexually mature at 6 to 8 years of age;
females, at 5 to 7 years. The ringed seal breeds annually and has a 10.5
month gestation period (including delayed implantation) . The pups are born
with white coats from March to early April in a birth lair within an ice
pressure ridge or under drifted snow.

Food Habits

In relatively shallow areas, ringed seals feed on many bottom-dwelling
invertebrates such as shrimp, amphipods, and crabs. However, the major
food items are fishes, including sculpins, Arctic cod, and saffron cod.
During fall and winter months, fish usually make up more than 90 percent
of a seal's diet. During spring, invertebrates are the major food items.
Little is known about the summer feeding habits of ringed seals .

Ringed seals also occur in areas of the Arctic Ocean where water depth is too
great for bottom feeding. In these areas, they eat primarily invertebrates
from the upper water layers, including euphausiids, amphipods, and larval
forms of other groups. This type of feeding is accomplished by straining
water through their extensively serrated teeth (ADF&G, 1973b).

Optimum Sustainable Population

Since the late 1960's, the combined Soviet and American harvest has been
9,000-16,000 ringed seals per year (ADF&G, 1975; unpublished data exchanged
by U.S.-U. S. S.R. Marine Mammal Subgroup). Such a take, comprising 4-6 percent
of the U.S. estimate of the land-fast population, would appear to have a
small impact on the population size, particularly in view of the large Soviet
estimates of population size. Even a take on the order of 20,000 per year,
such as occurred during 1964-66 in response to favorable pelt prices,
probably would not have affected this population severely. Therefore, although
the ringed seal population may have been reduced below its pre-exploitation
level slightly, it would still be very near the upper limit of the range of OSP,

Ribbon Seal (Histriophoca fasciata)
Distribution

Based on geographic considerations, ribbon seals are separable into two
groups, the Okhotsk and the Bering-Chukchi populations. Nothing is known
about exchange between these groups. However, based on the lack of physical
barriers and the apparent continuity of suitable habitat, it is probable
that exchange does occur. In the latter group, the center of abundance is
the central Bering Sea. Ribbon seals are seasonally dependent upon the sea-
ice platform for the birth and nursing of their pups. During winter and

hK

early spring, the entire population is concentrated along the southern edge
of the seasonal ice. Concentrations of ribbon seals can be located in the
ice -front zone from March through early June. In most years, by the
time the ice edge recedes north through the Bering Strait, there are only
a small number of ribbon seals associated with the ice. All evidence to
date indicates that ribbon seals are pelagic, mainly in the Bering Sea,
during ice-free seasons. Distribution of the ribbon seal in Alaskan waters
is shown in figure 9,

Population

Ship surveys conducted in the Bering Sea in 1968, 1970, and 1971 provided
indices of abundance (pups per square mile) for ribbon seals occurring
along the front ice. To estimate population size, Burns (1973, unpublished
notes) first estimated pup abundance by multiplying a conservative index
value times the minimum estimate of area within the zone of front ice. By
assuming that the number of pups and females were equivalent and that the
ratio of males to females was unity, the estimated pup abundance was
expanded to include the number of adults (ages 4 and older) , Account-
ing for the 20 percent of the population which is immature (ages 1-3) then
gave the estimated total population size of at least 100,000 ribbon seals in
the Bering-Chukchi Seas.

Soviet estimates for the same population indicated 80,000-90,000 ribbon
seals in 1965, the midpoint of the period of heavy Soviet exploitation
of this species (ADF&G, 1975). Comparing the two estimates would seem
to indicate that recovery of the population has occurred following
Soviet implementation in 1968 of major reductions in their commercial
harvest.

69

c
o

o

<

70

Productivity

Pups are born with white coats during March to mid-April. Nursing lasts
about 4 weeks, in which time their weight is tripled. Males become sexually
mature between 3 and 5 years of age; females, between 2 and 4. Breeding is
annual, and the gestation period (including delayed implantation) is probably
around 10.5 months. Maximum longevity is 22 to 26 years (ADF&G, 1973a).

Food Habits

The diet of these seals during the late winter and early spring (in the ice-
edge zone) is similar to that of the spotted seal, including primarily
pelagic and demersal fishes, cephalopods, and small crustaceans (ADF&G, 1973a).

Optimum Sustainable Population

The American harvest of ribbon seals has been insignificant (ADF&G, 1973a) .
During 1962-67, the Soviet harvest was considerable, averaging 13,000 per year
(unpublished data exchanged by U.S.-U.S.S.R. Marine Mammal Subgroup). This
harvest noticeably reduced the population below its pre-exploitation level
(ADF&G, 1973a).

Some evidence suggests, however, that the population may have recovered
following stringent reductions of the Soviet harvest in 1968. A comparison
of Soviet counts obtained from vessel surveys of the Bering Sea front ice
indicates an apparent 20 percent increase in population size between 1972
and 1974 (ADF&G, 1975). Since 1968, an increase in the population size
should have occurred despite a continuing Soviet harvest of about 3,000
seals per year (unpublished data exchanged by U.S.-U.S.S.R. Marine Mammal
Subgroup) , which would constitute about 3 percent of the current population
estimate.

71

Evidence now indicates that the ribbon seal stock has recovered to 75
percent of the Soviet estimate of pre-exploitation size of 100,000 to
114,000 animals (Burns, testimony, 1976). Finally, field observations of
the relative densities of ice seals during early phases of exploitation
suggest that the number of ribbon seals in the eastern Bering Sea has
always been low, even at the population's pre-exploitation level (Burns,
testimony, 1976). Consequently, the weight of evidence is that although
the ribbon seal population was heavily exploited, it has since recovered
to a level above the lower level defined for the range of OSP.

Pacific Bearded Seal (Erignathus barbatus)

Distribution

The bearded seal is found in the North Pacific region in the Bering,
Okhotsk, and northern Japan Sea and is circumpolar in the Arctic Ocean.
In winter and spring, it is found from the southern edge of the seasonal
ice pack north to permanent ice, wherever areas of broken, moving ice
exist. During summer and autumn, it occurs along the edge of the permanent
polar ice of the Arctic Ocean. Marked seasonal migrations are associated
with the advance and retreat of the seasonal ice. The bearded seal is
usually solitary, although very loose aggregations are sometimes observed
during the breeding season. It does not normally come ashore (NMFS, 1974).
In the waters off Alaska, it occurs throughout the wide area of seasonal ice
cover in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas (Burns, 1973). Distribution
of the bearded seal in Alaskan waters is shown in figure 10.

72

f\

Sp*

f

_J

4_>

is;;;

,:w::

Ciiiiiiiiii
q ::::::::2

njW- uBt5»"V,tM

•r»*y

•&> ±g*

— — ■«

O ::::::::::

Ofjjjjljp

♦j; : : : : : IX

)

•;!I!;i

i:::::J j*ZT.\v r*J \l

::gj^:::

y. , \ ^ /t : :

m

53!!!!

::::;::::::

-ill

5|l:::::i

i^jj

:::»:::T^
:::H::::::

:::«::::::

iHHiii

«•

•*•

iH:ii::"S£

•* 5

* 3

73

Population

Based upon shipboard surveys conducted in the Bering Sea in 1968, 1971, and
1972, Burns (1973, unpublished data) formulated indices of abundance (numbers
per square mile) for this widely distributed inhabitant of the drift ice.
These indices indicate that, at least in the Bering Sea, the population has
remained stable during the survey period. Burns also estimated population
size by multiplying conservative indices of abundance times the minimum
estimates of the area of drift ice in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. This
procedure yielded a minimum size of 300,000 for the Bering and Chukchi
Seas, the population which migrates seasonally into the east Siberian and
Beaufort Seas (NMFS, 1974). The Soviets estimated the population level of
Pacific bearded seals (those occurring in the east Siberian, Chukchi,
Bering, Okhotsk, and Japan Seas) to be 450,000 (ADF&G, 1973a).

Productivity

The female bears a single pup, usually during late April or early May,
which weighs about 31 kg and is 132 cm long. The pup's weight is tripled
within 12 to 18 days. Most adult females breed within 2 weeks of weaning
their pup. The period of pregnancy is 10.5 months, including 2.5 months
of delayed implantation. Some females ovulate at an age of 3 years, but
reproductive maturity is not attained until they are 5 or 6 years old.
The males become sexually mature at 6 or 7 years of age (Burns, 1973).

Food Habits

The bearded seal consumes several species of invertebrates, principally crabs,
shrimp, clams, and amphipods, in addition to some demersal fishes. They
utilize some species presently harvested by man. Most notable of these

74

are the pandalid and crangonid shrimps and lithodid crabs. These

seals do not directly compete for commercially important fish species and

pose no threat from the standpoint of damage to fishing gear (Burns, 1973)

Optimum Sustainable Population

The combined American and Soviet harvest of this species ranged as high
as 8,000-10,000 per year during the mid-1960 's but during the 1970' s
declined to 3,000 per year (ADF&G, 1975; unpublished data exchanged by
U.S.-U.S.S.R. Marine Mammal Subgroup), of which native hunters take
1,500-2,000. Moreover, harvests prior to the 1960fs were of the same
low order of magnitude (ADF&G, 1973a). Such a take would not seem to
be significant, being in the range of 3 percent or less of the current
minimum population estimates; as also noted, indices from recent ship
surveys have remained stable despite this low level of exploitation.
Consequently, the bearded seal population is probably at or only slightly
below its p re-exploitation level, which would be considerably above the
lower level of the range of OSP.

Beluga (Delphinap terus leucas) or Belukha

Distribution

The beluga whale inhabits the Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas, including
the Okhotsk and Bering Seas, Cook Inlet, Hudson Bay, and Gulf of St.
Lawrence. Three subspecies are recognized: dorofeevi from the Okhotsk Sea;
marisalbi in the Barents and White Seas; and leucas in the rest of the
range (Rice and Scheffer, 1968). In the Pacific, beluga whales are common
along the Alaska coast as far south as Bristol Bay, and an apparently

75

separate population is found in Cook Inlet. Belugas are gregarious and
travel in groups of two or three up to hundreds (ADF&B, 1973a) .

Belugas often ascend rivers. In shallower rivers, such as the Kvichak, their
movements are strongly influenced by tides. They often travel as much as
30 to 40 miles upstream on very high tides. In deeper rivers, such as the
Yukon, they may travel far upstream beyond the tidal influence. Belugas
are occasionally sighted at Nulato, 450 miles upstream on the Yukon River.
Distribution of the beluga in Alaskan waters is shown in figure 11.

Population

The world population of beluga whales is estimated to be between 32,000
and 58,000. In Alaska, they appear to be separated into two population
stocks (NMFS, 1974).

The Cook Inlet population stock is considered a distinct and separate stock
based on the low potential for genetic interchange (ALJ, 1977). Based on
aerial surveys, the Cook Inlet population is estimated at 500 animals and is
not expected to change significantly in the near future (ADF&G, 1973a).

Belugas in Bristol Bay and the Bering and Beaufort Seas are considered to
be one stock (ADF&G, 1975). Brooks (1952) estimated that the Bristol Bay
component comprises 1,500 animals, whereas Burns has determined from
unpublished personal observations and miscellaneous aerial and vessel
sighting reports that the Bering and Beaufort Seas component must comprise
at least 8,000 individuals. Summing these components gives a total
population of at least 9,500.

76

C/3

:*:*>::>>::::::>>:">S^*tt*:

lilllillltl

lllllitil
liipif

mmwm,

wmM

77

Carrying Capacity

Belugas in Alaska have never been subjected to heavy rates of exploitation.
Traditionally they have been used as a source of meat, muktuk, and oil for
both humans and dogs by the residents of villages on the Bering Sea and Arctic
Ocean coasts and along rivers that belugas periodically ascend. The decreased
use of the sled dog ( as a result of the introduction of the snow machine), the
availability of alternate commercial food sources through the development of
a cash economy, and welfare measures such as food stamps, may have reduced the
demand for beluga products in some villages — particularly in the southern
portion of the beluga's range. Some native spokesmen, however, maintain that
the need is increasing (see comments, Chapter IX, by D. Friday, Nunam
Kitlutsisti) . From Norton Sound north, belugas are still taken regularly in
some communities (ADF&G, 1973a) .

The present estimated number of animals in the two population stocks are
considered to be at the carrying capacity of those habitats (ADF&G, 1973a) .

Productivity

Females reach sexual maturity at about 5 years of age and give birth every
2 or 3 years. Calves are born in the spring, the peak oalving occurring
near mid- June. Gestation lasts 14 months and lactation about 20 months.
Production has been estimated at 14.3 percent of the total herd per annum
(Sergeant, 1973).

Food Habits

Belugas feed on both fishes and invertebrates. Fishes found in beluga
stomachs include capelin, char, salmon, cod, sand lance, and sculp ins.
Invertebrates include a variety of shrimp, clams, annelid worms, squid,
and crabs (ADF&G, 1975).

78

Optimum Sustainable Population

Except for a total of about 100 animals taken during the 1930' s, exploitation
of the Cook Inlet stock has been virtually nil (ADF&G, 1973a). Consequently,
this stock should presently be at its pre-exploitation level, which would be
considerably above the. lower level of the range of OSP.

The subsistence harvest of the Bering and Beaufort Seas stock of beluga has
never been substantial and, furthermore, has declined during the past two
decades (ADF&G, 1973a) . The recent average annual harvest of 150-300
animals is small, particularly if it is noted that the available estimate
of stock size is a minimum, although there is some additional loss of

animals killed but not recovered. Consequently, this stock should not be
greatly reduced below its pre-exploitation level and should be greater
than the lower level of the range of OSP.

D. ECOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS OF MARINE MAMMALS IN WATERS OFF ALASKA

General

Ecological relationships of marine mammals in Alaska are largely determined
by such factors as: the bodies of water they inhabit; their preference, if
any, for ice or land; whether they congregate into dense herds or pods or are
solitary; and whether they feed principally on bottom or pelagic organisms.
Seasonal migration and seasonal movement of ice tend to change the feeding
and social interactions.

79

Distribution

Distribution is dependent to a large extent upon affinities for land
or ice. Walrus, spotted seal, ribbon seal, ringed seal, and bearded
seal utilize ice for pupping and for hauling out. Sea lions, harbor
seals, and sea otters utilize land platforms for pupping and hauling
out. Polar bears den on ice or land. Belugas and other whales do
not require ice or land, although during some seasons they may be
found closely associated with these features.

Feeding

For convenience, nine general categories of food for marine mammals
(except polar bears) can be addressed. These are: pelagic finfish,
pelagic crustacea, pelagic molluscs, cephalopods, euphausiids,
benthic and demersal fish, benthic crustacea, benthic molluscs, and
other benthic invertebrates. Polar bears feed mainly on seals.
Figures 12, 13, and 14 show the feeding relationships as a general-
ized scheme.

Placement of animals (in the diagram) in more than one location
generally indicates seasonal migrations of these marine mammals.
Not enough is known about which species of each prey category would
form the major part of the diet of each marine mammal species or
population stock, especially when the mammals move considerable
distances seasonally. It is known, for example, that fur seals in
the eastern Bering Sea at times feed heavily on Alaska pollock, that
species having formed up to 70 percent of the stomach contents. At
other times, squid form up to 80 percent of the stomach contents. The
heavy consumption of salmon smolts by beluga whales in the mouths

30

ARCTIC OCEAN

Figure 12: Marine Mammal Food Relationships in the Arctic Ocean

'Benthic fish includes demersal species
'Beluga whale includes other toothed species

* * * Bowhead whale includes other baleen species
****Cephalopods includes squid and octopus

81

Figure 13: Marine Mammal Food Relationships in the Bering and Chukchi Seas

' Benthic fish includes demersal species ** * Bowhead whale includes other baleen species

'Beluga whale includes other toothed species ****Cephalopods includes squid and octopus

82

Figure 14: Marine Mammal Food Relationships in the North Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Alaska

*Benthic fish includes demersal species * * * Bowliead whale includes other baleen species

'Beluga whale includes other toothed species ****Cephalopods includes squid and octopus

83

of salmon streams is well documented. In these and other cases, it
is virtually impossible to show direct competition for these food
items between the fur seal, on the one hand, and other pinnipeds
eating benthic or demersal fish, or between beluga whales eating
salmon smolts and some other whale or pinniped eating these same or
similar fish. Very little direct competition between marine mammals
is known at present; however, there may be strong secondary relation-
ships (i.e., a target species of fish or shellfish, having been reduced
by heavy predation, may be replaced in its niche by another species
of fish or shellfish, or if two species of mammals were eating
different fish that occupy similar habitats, then this predation
might open the way for a third species of fish to dominate the habitat) .

Relationships in the Beaufort Sea-Chukchi Sea

Ice seals, walrus, polar bear, beluga, and bow-head whales show no
evidence of overcrowding. Ice seals tend to be solitary, aggregating
at most into small groups; thus competition for space on the ice
appears to be minimal. Even though no competition is evident, it
has not been determined whether this distribution is or is not a
limiting factor. The availability of ice seals as food for polar
bear appears to be adequate for the population of bears, and the two
groups may be "in balance" at this time (i.e., over 800,000 ice seals
in north Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas and up to 9,000 polar bears

in the same area) .

Ice seals and walrus are in partial competition insofar as bottom-
dwelling (benthic) molluscs and Crustacea are concerned. Ice seals
compete among themselves to a limited extent for benthic and pelagic

84

organisms. However, only the ringed seal feeds to any extent on euphausiids,
placing them in direct competition with bowhead whales (and probably other
baleen whales) .

The beluga whales (and possibly other toothed whales) probably compete directly
with most of the ice seals for food but not for space. Except for those
periods when belugas are found nearshore and in mouths of salmon streams, their
whereabouts and habits are unknown; however, recently large numbers of belugas
were seen near the edge of the pack ice in the Chukchi Sea during the summer
months (Burns, oral communication to L. Croxton, May 1975).

Relationships in the Bering Sea

Walrus, ice seals, and beluga whales show no evidence of overcrowding at
present. Sea lions, and harbor seals are near the carrying capacity of the
environment and may in places be -exceeding it (ADF&G, 1975) . Except for ice
seals during most of the year, all of the above animals have strong social
instincts and form some type of social grouping for a large part or all of the
year. Thus, there is some competition for haul-out and pupping grounds,
especially among the harem social systems. Large concentrations of animals,
all utilizing the same food species, may tend to reduce the populations of
food species locally, causing the predators to increase their foraging range.
When other forces (such as intensive fishing) have partially depleted the food
supply, the foraging sorties are increased, thereby providing direct evidence
of how behavior of the predator animals can be influenced through their food
supply (for example, the fur seal on the Pribilof Islands; NMFS , 1972).

85

Among the marine mammals in the Bering Sea, there is no direct predation
by one species on another, except occasional capture of fur seal pups
by adult sea lions or predation by killer whales (ignoring the short
intrusion of polar bears through the Bering Strait). On hauimts
and rookeries such as St. Paul and St. George Islands, fur seals and
sea lions have not been observed to display any aggressiveness toward
each other.

Feeding competition, reflected by predation on the major prey groupings,
appears to be widespread between all of the species throughout the
Bering Sea. However, considering the movement of ice seals and walrus
north and south with the ice pack, the migration of a majority of fur
seals southward for upwards of 6 months, and the unknown movements
of whales, it becomes apparent that physical dispersion of the
predator animals themselves tends to limit this competition. Fay
(testimony, 1975) stated that the walrus competes most with the
bearded seal, whose diet seems to be similar during the spring
and summer period. Almost nothing is known of the walrus diet in
autumn and winter in the Bering Sea. The walrus also eats some of
the same kinds of organisms taken by the harbor seal and by the
gray whale, but these organisms are not taken in the same localities
or in the same seasons.

Relationships in the Aleutian Chain and Gulf of Alaska

The ice seals, polar bear, and walrus are absent from the Aleutians

and the Gulf of Alaska. Fur seals are temporary inhabitants; they

either move through on their long migration southward and return, or they

seasonally forage in the area. As stated in previous sections, sea lions

86

and harbor seals appear to be at full population levels and may be
utilizing all of the hauling out and rookery areas available. Some
population stocks of sea otter have reached the full carrying capacity
of the habitat; other population stocks are still growing.

In spite of the large populations of each species, little or no
competition for space has been observed between species. Spaulding
(1964) found little or no direct competition between fur seals, sea
lions, and harbor seals in British Columbia. However, John Vania
reported (written communication to L. Croxton, May 1975) that recently
sea lions are increasing in some areas formerly predominantly occupied
by harbor seals and that they appear to be in direct competition in
these limited areas for food.

Each species of pinnipeds in this area competes with several other
species for the major prey groups. Belugas and probably other
toothed whales compete with several pinniped species. However, the
baleen whales appear to be noncompetitive, feeding on organisms not
generally eaten by the pinnipeds of the Gulf of Alaska. Studies of
food habits of all marine mammals in the Gulf and along the Aleutian
Chain are insufficient to determine whether competition for categories of
prey is in fact competition for the same prey species.

Relationships to the Ecosystem

Bartonek and others (1974, page 24) discussed productivity in the

Bering Sea and stated in part:

87

"Most of the 25 species of Bering Sea marine mammals are
part-time residents (Fay, 1974). Walrus and several kinds
of seals and whales move down into the region in winter
with the advancing sea ice from the north, whereas others
move into the region from the south in the ice-free
summer. Prorating their occurrence in terms of full-
time residence in the Bering Sea, the marine mammalian
fauna is equivalent to 1.5 million full-time residents
having a biomass (standing crop) of about 450,000 metric
tons. They consume some 9 to 10 million tons of nekton
and benthos annually (four times the commercial fisheries
catch) , converting at least 10 percent of that into new
flesh and redistributing as feces more than one million
tons of nutrients. These estimates are rough but con-
servative, and better data are needed for more realistic
assessments.

Birds and mammals are an important system for transporting,
both vertically and horizontally, energy and nutrients with-
in the Bering Sea. For example, the tiny crested auklet (230
g) has been reported to dive to 120 meters to catch prey,
and murres take their catch to young that are more than 88
km (40 miles) away at the nesting colony. Birds defecate
in the water during feeding and also on the nesting cliffs.
Guano defecated by these birds may exceed 100,000 metric
tons per year; however, guano accumulation in colonies is
negligible because precipitation erodes the deposits — there-
by carrying most nutrients back to the sea."

Fay (testimony, 1975) stated that the Pacific walrus, by its grazing and
rooting activities while in search of food, probably turns over or tills,
several million tons of bottom sediments in the Bering and Chukchi Seas
each year. This tilling releases nutrients that might otherwise by
trapped indefinitely in those sediments. These released nutrients could
then contribute to the high productivity of the waters in this area.

88

E. THE PEOPLE, THE ECONOMY, AND HUNTING PRESSURES IN ALASKA

Nearly half of the Alaskan population lives along the "Railbelt," a
strip 50 miles wide that follows the route of the Alaska Railroad from the
seaport at Seward north through Anchorage to its terminus at Fairbanks.
Other population centers include the southeastern panhandle, Kodiak, Nome,
and some 250 scattered, small villages.

1. The Census and Current Population Estimates

Alaska's official population in 1970 was 302,173 (ADL, 1970) —up from

226,167 in 1960. In 1972 it was estimated to be 324,281 (ADL, ND) . In

recent years, pipeline construction has attracted a large number of

immigrants. However, civilian migration to Alaska, although a large

factor in population increase, must be compared to the natural increase

lest it be overemphasized. From 1950 to 1960, when Alaska's

population increased by nearly 100,000 persons, natural increase accounted

for over 60 percent of the gain. Net civilian migration accounted for
over 25 percent, and military personnel constituted the balance. Between
1960 and 1970, 81 percent of the 76,000-person increase was due to natural
increase. Only 72 percent of the 1970-71 increase was attributed to
natural increase, considerably less than the rate of the previous decade.
Increases in military population were significant in Alaska's growth up
to 1960, after which it has remained fairly stable at about 33,000
persons. From 500 persons in 1940, the military population increased to
over 150,000 during World War II, then decreased to about 20,000 in the
1950 census. It rose again to about 50,000 during the Korean War. In
1970, the military population comprised 10.4 percent of Alaska's total,
while in 1971 the military component further declined to 9.6 percent
(ADED.V 1972) .

Population growth has continued, although the rate of increase may be slowing.
In the table below, the estimates of population for several years since the
census, including a projection for 1976, are compared with the 1970 census:
Year Estimated population Source

1970
1972
1973
1974
1976

300,382 (census)

324,281

328,670

337,000

404,000

ADED, 1972

ADL, ND

ADL, ND

Bur Census, 1974

ADF&G, ND

The bulk of the population resides in two cities, Anchorage and Fairbanks.
In the two coastal districts which border on the Bering and Chukchi Seas, where
the subsistence hunting of marine mammals occurs, the Eskimo and. Aleut
populations totaled 24,416 in 1972 (ADL, ND) .

Although the population as a whole in Alaska has increased at a very rapid rate.
Native populations have not increased at a comparable rate. The comparative
rates of growth for the population as a whole between 1880 and 1972, Native
and non-Native, are given below:
Year

1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1972

Native

Non-Native
430

Total

32,996

33.426

25,354

4,298

32,052

29,542

30,450

63,592

25,331

36,400

64,356

26,558

28,478

55,036

29,983

29,295

59,278

32,458

40,066

72,524

33,863

94,780

128,643

43,081

183,086

226,167

50,554

251,619

302,173

53,187

271,094

324,281

(Source of data page 12, ADED, 1972, and ADL, ND)

<)(>

2. Regional Distribution, Natives and Non-Natives

The 1972 population estimates of the five regions have been broken out for

racial and ethnic groups by the Employment Security Division of the Alaska

Department of Labor (ADL, ND) . Alaska Department of Fish and Game has made

regional estimates for 1976 but has not identified Native and non-Native.

These regional estimates for 1972 and 1976 are shown in the table below:

1976
•1972 Population Estimate Population

Region Indians Eskimos and Aleuts Non-Natives Totally estimate

Southeast 7,563 689

- Southcentral 3,449 6,740

Southwest 1,098 13,468

Interior 3,681 4,571

Northwest 980 10,948

3. The Alaskan Native Economy

In describing the economic circumstances of the Alaska Native population,

the Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska (FitzGerald,

1968) stated that a great contrast exists between the generally high

income and moderate standard of living and the Natives' appallingly

low income and standard of living and the virtual absence of opportunity

for most Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts of Alaska. This segment

of the population springs from cultures very different from those of

other Alaskans or other Americans. Most of them live in widely

36,520

44,772

55,800

L72,765

182,954

233,300

8,376

22,942

28,300

50,551

58,803

69,600

2,882

14,810

17,400

5/ Total also includes white, black, oriental, and others,

91

scattered settlements across the half-million square miles of Alaska.
In an economy based importantly in a pattern of life of subsistence
fishing and hunting, the large majority of these native Alaskans are
unemployed or only seasonally employed. Although some families have
annual incomes of $5,000 or more, most of them live in poverty.

Economic development in Alaska is concentrated along the narrow coastal
belt from southeastern Alaska to Kodiak and Bristol Bay and inland
along the so-called railbelt area. The vast expanse of land north
and west of the railbelt area has undergone little development. Most
of the existing development is the remnants of the early mining and
trading days, plus a few new military installations.

Reliance upon hunting and food-gathering activities for subsistence is a
distinctive characteristic of an Alaskan village, but it is only one
feature of the Native economy. Jobs in the villages are few; permanent
full-time jobs at highest rates of pay are typically held by non-Natives.
Seasonal or other temporary jobs, usually low paying, are often held
by Natives; unemployment and underemployment rates among Natives are
probably higher than among any other ethnic group in the Nation.
Self-employment for cash in villages is usually part-time. Principal
pursuits are fishing and trapping, arts and crafts production, and
operation of small cafes, stores, recreation halls, or movie houses.
Cash payments to some 1,200 Eskimo Scouts of the Alaska National Guard
for drills total about $800,000 annually. Most of this goes to the

92

economies of the 65 villages in western Alaska. Unemployment benefits
and social security are important to the village economy, particularly
for the cash they provide in the winter. Also important for the same
reason are welfare checks going to the old, the blind, the disabled,
the needy having dependent children, and to the temporarily needy.
Prices are high in Alaskan villages, and for Natives, income is low.
By any measure, most of Alaska's villagers are living in poverty
(FitzGerald, 1968).

Heller and Scott, as cited by J. H. FitzGerald (1968) , stated that
the desire for purchasable goods is the primary motive prompting
increasing numbers of Natives to seek seasonal wage work. This results
in a continuing modification of many of the seasonal food-gathering
activities, especially those normally occurring from late spring to
about mid-fall. In years when work for wages is not generally avail-
able, there may be an increase in local hunting and fishing activities,
but in most villages there is a continuing decrease in the number of
families who follow traditional food-quest patterns.

Villagers also gather local resources in order to obtain the cash
needed for imported products upon which they are increasingly dependent.
Walrus ivory and whale baleen usually are sold as art or craft objects,
but raw ivory finds buyers among carvers who are not walrus hunters.

4. Hunting Pressures

Some indication of the hunting pressures on game and marine mammals

that result from the increased population can be realized from records

93

of sale of hunting licenses. For the years 1959 through 1974, the
hunting license sales (ADF&G, 1975) for resident, nonresident, and
subsistence are given below.

License

Calendar year

$7.00 resident hunting

1959

27,517

1960

30,376

1961

34,519

1962

34,609

1963

36,453

1964*

37,183

1965

37,667

1966

36,086

1967

35,182

1968

39,977

1969

43,713

1970

50,096

1971

52,160

1972

52,811

1973

60,214

1974

59,441

4,842

4,946

6,288

6,795

7,717

9,199

10,560

12,519

11,525

11,669

8,728

8,340

3,005
2,925
4,728
5,882
5,048
4,664
4,354
4,919
5,085
5,359
5,595
5,936
6,658
6,256

* Fiscal year. Calendar year not available.

The Federal Field Committee stated in 1968 (FitzGerald, 1968)
that most village Alaskans subsist in some measure by hunting, fishing,
and trapping; by gathering berries and greens; by using animal skins in
garment making; and by gathering driftwood, timber, or willows for fuel.
There is generally greater dependence upon food gathering in western
and northern Alaska than in other regions.

The increased demand, if any, for marine mammals generated by increasing
human populations is not known. New residents of the State of Alaska,
if they do hunt, are expected to favor such big-game animals as moose,
caribou, deer, sheep, and goats.

94

Native subsistence dependency has decreased since the white man began to
colonize Alaska. The granting cf 40 million acres in fee title land and
nearly $1 billion to the Natives under provisions of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) should accelerate this trend. It has been said that
ANOSA will have as great an impact upon the Alaska Native's traditional way
of life as did their early encounter with white man's culture. (For a
differing viewpoint, however, see comments by David Friday, Chivak chairman,
in Chapter IX of this document) .

The increase in population related to timber development is centered in
southeastern Alaska. It should generate very little increase in demand for
the marine mammals.

Much of the human population increase related to oil development and
extraction is located away from the coast but may generate some additional
sport hunting for polar bear, walrus, and harbor seal.

95

III. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

With passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act on October 21, 1972, and
its implementation on December 21, 1972, the legal taking of marine mammals in
Alaska — other than by Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts — ceased, except by specific
Federal permits for scientific research, public display, or incidental to
commercial fishing operations. The taking of marine mammals by Alaska Natives
has been liberalized for most of the nine species as a result of the Act. As
the State interpreted the Act, its regulations were no longer applicable, and
areas in which seasons were restricted or closed, or in which bag limits
applied, were now open to hunting by Natives. For example, State of Alaska
regulations on walrus, in effect before enactment of the Act, placed a limit
of five adult cows or subadults (of either sex) upon walrus subsistence hunters.
Walrus hunting was not allowed in Game Management Units 9 and 17 (the Alaska
Peninsula and Bristol Bay). Additionally, the Walrus Islands, in northwestern
Bristol Bay, were designated as a State game sanctuary. When the Act was passed
and the Native exemption became effective, the State suspended enforcement
against Native subsistence hunting in all areas and restrictions ceased on the
number of cows or subadults that may be taken.* The State also had maintained
a continual closed season on sea otters except on an experimental basis. How-
ever, the Act allowed the unrestricted harvest of sea otters for Native sub-
sistence and cottage industries. State regulations had prohibited the taking
of polar bear cubs and females accompanied by cubs, and they had allowed the
taking of no more than two polar bears (except cubs and sows with cubs)
for subsistence purposes. The Act placed no restrictions upon the taking

* On April 5, 1976, the Director, FWS, implemented a waiver of the moratorium
on the taking of Pacific Walrus and returned management to the State of Alaska
for that species, and State regulations were reinstated for all citizens of the
State.

96

of polar bears for Native subsistence or cottage industries. The takings
proposed under Federal and State regulations must be viewed in the perspective
of takings which are currently allowed under the Act as well as takings which
are beyond the scope of the Act. These current takings are detailed in
section B. below.

A. ANNUAL TAKING FOR SPORT, COMMERCIAL, AND SUBSISTENCE PURPOSES

Marine mammals are taken by hunters for three general purposes: sport,
commercial value, and subsistence.

Sport harvest constitutes only a small portion of the number of most species
of marine mammals taken by hunters. In the past, only the sport harvest of
polar bears has exceeded the harvest for other purposes. Under the moratorium
imposed by the Act, polar bears can be taken only by Natives for subsistence
or for creating and selling authentic articles of handicraft and clothing.

The requested waiver and proposed regulations by the State of Alaska would
allow an estimated 250 polar bears to be taken annually for both subsistence
and sport purposes. The ALJ recommended that the take be limited to 170
animals (ALJ, 1977, p. 86).

About 1,650 walruses had been harvested annually by the Natives for subsistence
purposes and for their cottage industries prior to the Act. Since the
imposition of the moratorium, however » the Native take has increased somewhat.
The first year of the existing waiver saw a take of over 2,900 animals.
Consequently, on May 20, 1977, FWS approved the State's amended regulations,
which established limits by game units and localities to reduce the annual
retrieved take to or below the State's intended maximum of 2,300 animals
(42 F.R. 25924).

97

The majority of the sea lions and land-breeding harbor seals previously
taken by hunters were harvested for the commercial value of their pelts. The
harvest of sea lions was almost totally confined to pups. The harvest of
harbor seals consisted of both pups and adult animals. The numbers of
marine mammals harvested in Alaska from 1968 to 1972 are shown in table 3.

Table 3. Harvests of marine mammals in Alaska, 1968-72, These
harvests include only species on which there was a
commercial or sport hunt, but the data include subsistence
take whenever that occurred 1/

5-year

Sport hunted species- 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 average

Polar bear 2/ 351 298 316 203 265 287

Walrus 2/ 1,436 882 1,422 1,915 1,325 1,396

Commercially hunted species:

Sea lion V 4_/ 4,118 5,208 6,075 3,314 6,924 5,128

Harbor seal 2/ S/ 8,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 12,000 10,000
(land-breeding)

Experimentally harvested species:

Sea otter 6/ 1,016 251 1,088 183 57 519

1/ Data supplied by ADF&G.

2_/ Includes some subsistence take; see table 4.

3/ Almost totally pups.

4_/ Estimated harvest.

5/ Includes both pups and adults.

6/ Includes sea otters transplanted, harvested by ADF&G, and accidental
mortalities. The 1971 figure does not include an estimated 1,000 to
1,350 otters killed at Amchitka Island bv nuclear test "Cannikin."

L)H

B. CURRENT TAKINGS OF MARINE MAMMALS IN ALASKA NOT AFFECTED BY THE
REQUESTED ACTION

Certain takings (or mortalities in some instances) were either (1) allowed to
take place under provisions of the Act and the Federal Regulations or (2) are
in general outside the jurisdiction of the Act (e.g., foreign incidental take),
Although some specifics will be given in the sections that follow, these two
categories enumerated above are not expected to be changed materially by
promulgation of regulations, waiver of the moratorium, and transfer of
authority to the State.

1. Takings Allowed Under Provisions of the Act and the Federal Regulations

The language of the Act and the regulations thereunder (39 F.R. 1854 and
39 F.R. 7262) provide for special and general exceptions to the moratorium.

Special Exceptions
Section 18.31 and section 216.31 provide for special exceptions to the
moratorium under either scientific research permits or public display permits.

a. Scientific Research Permits

The largest requirements for specimens pf Alaskan marine mammals for research
are those of the ADF&G. For the most part, it is anticipated that the ADF&G
would provide material needed for conducting research by cooperating
organizations. Examples of such collaborative efforts include: blood samples
for population identification-University of Alaska, Institute of Arctic
Biology; tissue samples for pesticide and heavy metals analysis — State of
Alaska Department of Health and Welfare and University of Alaska; parasite
studies — State of Alaska and Arctic Health Research Center; investigations of

99

tissue enzymes-^University of Alaska and Arctic Health Research Center; and
taxonomy and systematics— State of, Alaska and Arctic Health Research Center.

Separate applications for taking marine mammals for research purposes were
received from several individual scientists, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and from the National Marine Fisheries Service. Examination of the
requests for scientific research permits in 1974 and part of 1975 has provided
data for anticipated requests for this activity in the immediate future.
These are summarized in table 4.

b. Public Display Permits

There have been relatively few requests since passage of the Act for permits
to capture animals in Alaskan waters for display purposes. Alaskan species
whose ranges extend southward have generally been taken as far south as
possible to minimize the difficulties of operating conditions and transportation
distances. Thus, the 1973-74 applications included requests for 4 killer
whales, to be captured in the waters off Mexico, Washington, and Alaska; 4
belugas to be taken in Hudson Bay or Alaska; 16 harbor seals to be captured
in the Bering Sea; and 12 walrus pups to be taken in Alaska in 1973 and 8 in
1974.

Fourteen of these animals were taken in waters off Alaska. One additional
request was received in 1973 to collect four ringed, two bearded, and two
ribbon seals.

Since 1973, no additional public display permits have been issued authorizing
taking in Alaska. However, there are a number of species of marine mammals
now on display for which replacement requests can be anticipated in the future.

100

o

C cfl
•H <U
&, (0

3|

^

o <^
-* oo

S)

£)

o

iH q) q;

C

•H -H J-i

cd

<w M J3

4-1

X

.-1 (1)

<D

O l-i 4-1

• (-1 O

CD

•-v 4-1 4-1

-C

CO C O i-H

S O C CO

E CJ 3

00

w w <u

c

13 -H C

•H

C C <1)

4-1

Cfl O X ^

CO

O

CD

•H

C

•H

•H

4J

^

CO

to

C

CD

s

0)

■H

CD

CO

s

r-i

X.

^

-o

•H

CD

e

4-1

CO
CO

4J

CD
CO

o

<-\

CO

CO

o

CO

o

<

•H

Cl

O

O

,£S

O

1-1

.c

4-1

4-J

•H

4J

l-i

4-1

4-J

C

o

4-i

a.

c

•H

CD

CO

4J

o

S

CJ

c

l-i

CO

QJ

CJ

1-1

CD

CD

43

CO

(1)

a

Q.

6

■u

4J

p-

O

CD

c

CO

CD

4-1

M

o

CD

O

•c

60 -H

CD

•H

3

vD

CO

e

13

4-J

XT

•H

•H

-a

C

CO

CD

O

fc

X

-a

3

r-H

l-i

4-1

CO

cfl

O

13

•H

CD

D-<r

O

CD

c

M

1-1

r~-

lO

4-1

o

CO

CD

■H

CJ

c

4-1

4-1

m

XI

C

•H

c

r~-

<D

P

cO

ON

4-1

CO

CO

CO

>•>

01

CO

C

CD

e

rd

e

O

e

00 -H

o

■H

o

c

4-1

13

-a

CD

■u

co

•H

CO

CD

^

•H

00

0)

13

o

CO

13

,c

CO

4-1

4J

13

4-1

l-i

c

>

CO

•H

CD

CO

O

.H

5=

>

U

CO

CO

CO

CD

a.

4J

4-1

O

CO

13

c

C

4-1

e

3

CD

a)

CD

CD

CO

o

.H

Vj

13

-a

4J

CD U CJ CD *H -H cfl
3 M-i CJ S CJ CJ E

n|

c

C

13

o "*-»■

CD

o

CD

l-i ^>

>i

60 -H

o.

O CO

CD CO

C 4-1

CO

c

•H .-1

> -H

•H CO

B

^i o

.H CX

•H CO

43 1-1

•H

CD -H

,o co

4-1 ,£1

CO CD

J-i

13 4-J

3 -H

cfl 3

•h a<

CO

X CJ

Pm -3

!3 to

Pn O

W

3 n)

4-1 O 4J CO C CD

rH Cfl C Cfl 60 60

CO B B C -H CD

3 -H CO -H -H CD 4-1

4J 4-1 CD 4-1 J*i 1-1 Cfl

CJ CO O CO CO O 4-1

< W O W 4J fn co

h I c»* I <ro I ~cr I m|vr>|

101

Additionally, other Alaskan species not now commonly displayed can be expected
in requests of the future as handling techniques improve, more persons
become proficient in the art, and as transportation problems (long distance)
are solved (see Sea World report 6/) . Numbers of animals in public display
permits are summarized in table 4.

General Exceptions
The language of the Act and the regulations thereof (39 F.R, 1854 and
39 F.R. 7262) under "General Exceptions" exclude certain activities under
international treaties and also provide for several classes of takings as
exceptions to the moratorium, especially Sections "18.21 and 216,21 Actions
permitted by international treaty, convention, or agreement", "18.23 and
216.23 Native exceptions", and "18.24 and 216.24 Taking incidental to
commercial fishing operations." These are discussed below under the
headings (a) Hunting by Alaska Natives, and (b) Mortality due to Domestic
Fishing Operations.

a. Hunting by Alaska Natives

Sections 18.23 and 216.23 of the regulations state: "(a) ... any Indian,
Aleut, or Eskimo who resides on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the
Arctic Ocean may take any marine mammal without permit if such taking is:

(1) By Alaskan Natives who reside in Alaska for subsistence, or

(2) For purposes of creating and selling authentic Native articles of
handicraft and clothing, and in each case, not accomplished in a
wasteful manner."

6/ Letter from Sea World to Mr. Robert W. Schoning, dated January 15, 1974,
reporting on acquisition of animals under Letter of Exemption as required
under section 101 (c) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

102

Almost the entire harvest of ice-inhabiting seals and walruses, and all of
the harvest of beluga whales , is by Eskimo hunters. With respect to northern
(Steller) sea lions, the ADF&G stated that although these animals were once
extensively used by coastal dwelling Natives for subsistence purposes, today
there is little subsistence use of this resource (ADF&G, 1973a).

The ice-inhabiting seals have a long history of use by coastal residents.
These seals are a dependable and basic source of food and articles of local
use, and they provide several commodities which create a cash income. In the
5-year period 1968-72, the Native harvest of ice seals averaged 15,248 animals
annually. The ADF&G anticipated a future average of 15,000 per year (ADF&G,
1973a); however, they reported an estimated subsistence harvest of less than
8,000 annually in 1973 and 1974 (Grauvogel, 1974). Should the take increase
as predicted by the ADF&G, the State would be required to limit the harvest
of each species to the extent of the waiver. In Bristol Bay, only a few
belugas are taken; the estimated annual harvest for the Bering Sea- Arctic Ocean
coasts is 150 to 300, and the projected average annual harvest is 180 whales.
ADF&G would limit future take to 10 from the Cook Inlet, and 350 from the
Bristol Bay-Bering Sea stock. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game reports
that there is no significant harvest of porpoises and dolphins in the area,
and the hunting of other whales is mostly confined to grays and bowheads by
Alaskan Natives.

b- Mortality due to Domestic Fishing Operations

In the U.S. fisheries, the principal conflicts with marine mammals (other than
porpoise in the tuna fishery) involve seals and sea lions along the conterminous
U.S. west coast and in Alaska. The marine mammal populations affected are

103

large, and the majority of the involvements are the result of direct and
sometimes intense competition between fishermen and marine mammals for the
available stocks of fish. No data are available on numbers of sea lions
killed by salmon fishermen to protect their gear or catch or in retaliation
for losses of gear and fish. Also, no data have been collected on the
number of sea lions killed by crab fishermen in order to protect their gear
or in retaliation for lost gear. Neither do authorities have data on the
actual number of seals killed by fishermen.

Belugas, unlike sea lions, prey only on free-swimming fish. It is believed
that fishermen in Cook Inlet and Bristol Bay kill very few whales in the
course of commercial fishing operations, and only on rare occasions does a
whale become entangled in a gill net and drown. The number of belugas killed
in all fishing operations is unknown but is believed to be small.

On March 14, 1977, the United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) were granted a renewal
by NMFS for three general permits (stationary gear; encircling gear, and other
gear) for their members to take marine mammals incidental to their fishing
in Alaskan and other Pacific coast waters. One requirement for obtaining the
permits is submission of estimates of numbers and kinds of marine mammals
which might be taken under such permits. On the basis of experience gained
over several fishing seasons, UFA was able to give more accurate estimates than
had been possible in previous years. The largest estimated incidental take is
2,380. sea lions, 2,880 harbor seals, 20 belugas, and 5 sea otters. However,
it is not known how many of these animals are killed or die subsequent to
release since the fishermen do not report their take levels individually
at the close of each fishing season.

104

2. Takings Beyond the Jurisdiction of the Act and Federal Regulations

Although the Act prescribes that protected marine mammals or their products
may not be imported into the United States, hunting by Soviet nationals in
Siberian or international waters and whaling by foreign fleets in international
waters is outside the jurisdiction of the Act. However, because of the 1976
amendments to the Act, takings by foreign nationals and vessels within the U.S.
Fishery Conservation Zone (the outer limit of which is in most instances,
200 miles from the U.S. coastline) are forbidden without a permit issued
under the Act.

a. Takings by Soviet Hunters

Renewed interest by the U.S.S.R. in commercial exploitation of ice seals in
the Pacific sector of the Arctic in the early 1960's and subsequent Soviet
harvests of these mammals had caused a decline in the population of ribbon
seals. The U.S.S.R. constructed a fleet of modern sealing vessels, some of
which now operate in the Pacific Arctic. Pinnipeds new being exploited include
harbor, ringed, bearded, and ribbon seals, and northern sea lions. The
skinned carcasses of seals have been seen on the ice, and Soviet sealers have
been observed in the vicinity of St. Lawrence, King, and Little Diomede
Islands. Crude estimates made in 1971 of the total annual kill of marine
mammals by Soviets and Alaskans include 50,000 to 75,000 animals. The United
States and the U.S.S.R. held informal meetings in 1970 and 1972 to exchange
information on ice seals. Subsequently, the U.S.S.R. has supplied data on
the harvest of each species of phocid seals and walruses in the Bering and
Chukchi Seas for the period 1966-72. Table 5 shows 1972 Soviet harvest figures
for 6 years. The harvests of seals has averaged 13,000 per year during that
period; that of walruses, 1,400.

105

Table 5. — Estimates of recent takings of marine mammals in waters off Alaska
by Soviet hunters.

Walrus

1,5181/

Largha seal

4,8552/

Ribbon seal

2,815

Ringed seal

4,095

Bearded seal

1,428

Total

14,711

1/ Does not include an estimated 40 to 50 percent of kill not retrieved,

2/ Currently 3,000-4,000 seals, of which 1,000-1,500 belong to the
Alaskan stock.

106

b. Mortality Incidental to Foreign Fishing Operations

Since the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the NMFS has sought
and obtained data on incidental takings by foreign fleets, which were derived
principally from observations by NMFS enforcement agents and from scientific
observers with foreign fleets. Upon passage of the Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801), the United States was given authority
and implemented the placing of observers aboard all foreign fishing vessels
which were fishing within the U.S. fishery conservation zone under a Governing
International Fishery Agreement.

Although actual numbers on mortality levels will not be available until this
new observer program is fully operational, the NMFS(NWFC) estimates that the
incidental sea lion mortality from both domestic and foreign fishing operations

is about 6,500 animals in the Bering Sea and Northeast Pacific Ocean. The
foreign take is currently estimated to be about 4,125 animals of which an
estimated 1,152 are killed.* Tables 6 and 7, intoduced during the 1976
hearing, summarize the information recently obtained from both observers and
discussions with foreign fishermen on the incidental take of sea lions. The
incidental take of other species affected by the waiver is insignificant as
these species usually do not come into contact with the foreign fleets,

C. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS

A summary of estimated average annual take of marine mammals in Alaska under a

State management program, based upon the average takings prior to the Act, is

shown in table 4. It should be noted that these summary figures include only

the number of animals which would be taken in a manner which would remove them
* A general permit allowing foreign fishermen to take marine mammals during
commercial fishing operations within the U.S. fishery conservation zone was
issued allowing a take of 4,901 seals and sea lions during 1977.

107

•H U

J= QJ

3 3

4-1
CO

HA

CJ

o

XI
CD
4J

C^

o,

cO

csf

e

4-1 CO

CD X)

rrj C

> CD

0 O

•H co

.H cO

J2

ca tu

CO u

to

•H -H

c

4J CD

LM M

o

4= t-J

*J

•H

00

^H ill

3 X)

n) g

co C

4-1 "-^

rd

0 nj

O

OJ

H

CO

ft M

3
X) 4-1

cfl ft

CO 3 C

CO IM -H

o

DO

O

4-1

C

•H

0

>

C

•H

CD

o

-a

CO

u

ex

0)

CD

e

co

CO

o

CO

^

-D

CM

H->

<*

cu

m

T)

S-j

CO

CO

ID

<u

QJ

-a

>,

4J

CD

CO

CD

J=

E

u

4-1

■H

cu

4-1

3

0)

CO

co

CD

CN

4-1

CO 3 ^

CO

M

g O 00

0

o

•H -H 3

H
4-1

14-1

4J > CO
CO CI) o

CO

CO

a; )-j

CD

■U

ft 00

CO

en c

o

4-1

13

3 < -H
O QJ

U

•H ,0

ID

CD

> •

CD

>

Q) >> 6

CO

M

U iH O

3

CD

ft CO S-i

o

CO

•H ^3

4-1

rQ

XJ CO

CD

CD

en iH

>

o

5-4

QJ CO

■H

CO

M >

CD

3 CO

CO

M

00

CO

aj

•H 4-1

-a

4J

<+-4 O

CD

C

CO

c

CO

CD

B

QJ

CO

a

■H

CO 0)

OJ

M

4J

QJ H

CD

CO

J3 QJ

CD

(X

CD

H 3

M

31 £l

108

^

=1

=&

-i

«N|

^

■u en

60 CD

03 C

3 H

o o

cd

4J

a Ti

,e

C

co a

CO cd

•H -H

C

>4-l ^

O CD

4-1

•rl >

i-l Q)

H -H

Cd s

rH

4J ■— '

cd rt

O

a)

H

CO

H

109

from the population. For example, in a request for a scientific research
permit, if the intent were for animals to be tranquilized, tagged,
measured, and then released, these animals would not be included in this
summary total. Shown separately are estimates of takings incidental to
domestic fishing operations.

D. THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND THE STATE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM

1. Impact on Species Populations

Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus)
The effect of the proposed regulations would be to allow up to 250 bears to be
taken annually for sport and subsistence purposes.

No aircraft or large motorized vessels would be allowed to be used, and the
actual harvest probably would be significantly lower than the ceiling of 250
animals. Harvests greater than this were sustained for 13 years prior to the
Act with no measurable effect upon population size (ADF&G, 1973a) . Harvests
of this magnitude would therefore not be expected to diminish the population
stocks below their optimum sustainable levels (ADF&G, 1975).

The ALJ (1977, p. 86) recommended a harvest not exceeding 170 animals, which
he found would result in no significant effect on the optimum level of the
population.

State regulations would permit the taking of polar bear in defense of life or
property; however, game thus taken is the property of the State and must be
surrendered to the State immediately. Surrender of the animal carcass is
designed to prevent abuse of this exemption for sport or commercial purposes.

110

Proposed State regulations would allow licensed residents to take one polar
bear per year for food without a permit; however, such bears could not be
taken, transported from the point of taking, or imported with the aid of
aircraft. Geographical distances from non-Native residents, seasonable
availability, and dispersal of the bears have acted to prevent use of this
exemption for commercial exploitation, Increased human activity attendant to
industrial development will lead to increased encounters between humans and bear
populations. In the Alaskan Arctic, such problems will be minimal because
onshore denning is not concentrated, nor do large numbers of bears travel
overland. The potential impact of increased human activity is not assessable.

Sea Otter (Entry dr a lutris)
Under State regulations, no subsistence takings or hunting of sea otters would
be allowed (appendix G) . The anticipated annual harvest of sea otters under
the requested action would be about 1,020 animals for transplants, reintro-
duction to formally occupied range, scientific research, and controlled harvests
by the State.

The State proposes to take sea otters only from population stocks which have
occupied all of their former range and are presently at or above OSP, and which
are not contributing to the reestablishment of animals in adjacent areas.

The State has estimated that the take of sea otters would be about 1,020
animals annually; the State further maintains that in no event would the take
be allowed to exceed 3,000 animals in any 1 year (ADF&G, 1975). The impacts of
these levels of harvest on the two population stocks which are considered to
be at or near carrying capacity are given below:

111

Percentage of Percentage of

Population Population population at population at

stock estimate a take of 1,020 a take of 3,000

Rat Islands and

Delarof Islands 27,500 3.7 10.9

Andreanof Islands 36,000 2.8 8.3

The State would conduct these harvests or contract them out while retaining
absolute control. Hunting by the public would be prohibited. In addition,
the State would retain strict control over the distribution and possession of
sea otter pelts. All pelts would be sealed and accounted for individually.
The only way an individual could possess a sea otter pelt would be to purchase
one legally sold by the State. ADF&G (1975) estimated that under the management
plan all populations would either be maintained at high levels approaching their

maximum or would continue to increase with subsequent range expansion.

The ALJ (1977, p. 90) recommended that the extent of the waiver of the
moratorium be limited to no more than 3,000 animals and that the harvest be
distributed among the subpopulations at the Rat, Delarof, and Andreanof Islands.

Northern (Steller) Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus)
An estimated 6,500 sea lions are taken annually from the Alaskan population
incidental to commercial fishing operations. About 2,380 of these are taken
by domestic fishermen and an estimated 4,125 by the foreign high seas fisheries,
of which an estimated 1,152 are killed. These takings will probably continue.

The State anticipated the commercial take for the determinable future at a level
of about 6,000 sea lions annually. Prior to the Act, harvests of this magnitude

112

had been sustained for several years with the population remaining stable at a
high level (ADF&G, 1973a). Under the proposed action, a limit of 15,000
animals for all purposes would be set. This would be approximately 7 percent
of the estimated population of 214,000.

Under the proposed State regulations, the commercial taking of sea lions would
be allowed only under conditions of a permit issued by the Commissioner. Under
a State permit system for commercial harvests, the State Fish and Game author-
ities would control, as needed, who will do the taking, when and where such
taking will occur, and how many of the species are to be taken, thus protecting
the population stock of sea lions from overexploitation. ADF&G (1975) estimated
that its management program would maintain maximum population levels through-
out most of the species' range but would decrease the population in some parts
of southeastern, south-central, and southwestern Alaska. The anticipated
decreases in population are not expected to affect the sea lion stock adversely.

The ALJ (1977, p. 95) recommended limiting the extent of the waiver to 7,800
animals, less 1,152 taken incidentally during foreign fishing operations, except
that 2 pups may safely be taken in lieu of 1 adult. Therefore, under the ALJ's
recommendation, up to 6,648 adult sea lions could be taken from the population.
If the harvest is restricted to pups, as in the past, this would permit the
taking of up to 13,296 pups.

Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus)
The pre-Act harvest of walrus by Alaskan Natives and others and the take allowed
for scientific research and public display approximated 1,670 retrieved animals
a year. Since the imposition of the moratorium, Native take has increased. Under
State management, returned in 1976, a quota of 3,000 animals per year has been

113

imposed; it is, however, the State's intent to limit the total retrieved
annual take to 2,300. The State program would allow a sport harvest which
is expected to be about 50 animals per year. These would be taken from a
population estimated at 170,000 (Burns, testimony, 1975). The probable
retrieved harvest by Alaska-Abased hunters amounts to 1.0 percent of the
estimated population, although the sport harvest alone would only take
approximately 0.02 percent of the population. The combined retrieved harvest
by Soviet and Alaska Natives is an estimated 3,018 animals or 1.77 percent of
the population. Harvests of this magnitude and greater have prevailed during
the past two decades, during which time the walrus herds have increased mark-
edly (Burns, testimony, 1975; Fay, testimony, 1975). Total kill in Alaska only
which includes retrieved harvest plus estimated hunting loss, would amount to
3.55 percent of the population and is not expected to have an adverse impact
on the population (Burns, testimony, 1975),

In those areas of Alaska where walruses are not an important source of food to
local inhabitants, prior to 1972 they have been accorded protection from
hunting. Under the waiver implemented on April 5, 1976 (41 F.R. 14372),
State regulations have allowed any licensed resident of the State who is
dependent on walruses for food to take up to five adult cows or subadults of
either sex and an unlimited number of adult bulls each year. In addition,
orphaned calves could be taken for food without contributing to the bag limit.
Any other licensed hunter with a valid permit is allowed one adult bull per
year. Revised hunting regulations, approved by the Director of FWS on May 20,
1977 (42 F.R. 25924), established more restrictive quotas which will be
monitored by State enforcement agents, by specific geographic areas within the
most heavily hunted game management units. The ALJ (1977, p. 92) recommended
that the waiver implemented on April 5,1976, be continued.

114

Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina richardii)
Alaskan Natives are presently taking approximately 500 land-breeding harbor seals
under the Native exemption section of the Act. In addition, about 178 animals
are taken annually under scientific research and public display permits. The
United Fishermen's Association estimates that up to 2,880 harbor seals would be
taken incidental to fishing operations with an unknown number of mortalities.

Under the proposed waiver, the maximum total annual take for all purposes would
be limited to 14,000. This would amount to 5.2 percent of the Alaska population
estimated at more than 270,000 animals. Pitcher (testimony, 1976) considered
an annual take of 8 percent to be a conservative estimate of the number of
animals that could be safely harvested without reducing the population; however,
the Marine Mammal Commission (testimony, 1976) recommended a more conservative
take of 4 percent as the maximum allowable harvest until sufficient information
is obtained to adequately evaluate harvest limits. Proposed State regulations
would allow for a general open season with no bag limit.

The State believes that an additional 5,822 animals could be taken annually by
a regulated commercial harvest. Because the Alaskan population of harbor seals
had been increasing despite pre-1972 annual harvests of 10,000 to 60,000
animals, ADF&G anticipated no adverse impact on the harbor seal population at
the proposed harvest level (ADF&G, 1973a) .

Recent information indicates, however, that two areas of the State, the
Kodiak Archipelago and the Kenai coast, may have depressed populations (Pitcher,
testimony, 1976). Therefore, under the proposed action the commercial harvest
would be restricted to areas 4 and 5, and no single unit would be subjected to
a greater than 5 percent harvest level. The State proposes that approximately
one-fourth of the proposed commercial harvest will be pups taken before the

115

period of highest natural mortality.

The ALJ (1977, p. 106) recommended that the total harvest of harbor seals,
including incidental take, should not exceed 8,461 animals. The ALJ also
stipulated that in those areas where pups are to be harvested, that two pups
could be taken in lieu of one adult. In the recent past, the harbor seal harvest
has averaged 10,000 animals-about one-third of which have been pups. A similar
harvest, with the same proportion of pups, would be consistent with the ALJ's
recommendation.

Largha Seal (Phoca vitulina largha)
The population level is believed to be high and stable (ADF&G, 1973a) and well
above the level of maximum productivity (Burns, testimony, 1976). An estimated
historical annual take from the Bering-Chukchi Seas of 2,800 (1.1 percent)
by Alaskan Natives would be continued with no anticipated adverse impact on
the population level of 250,000. About 3,000 to 4,000 ice-breeding harbor
seals are harvested annually by the Soviets (Burns, testimony, 1976), of which
1,000 to 1,500 are estimated to come from the Alaskan stock. The take under
the proposed waiver would be limited to 15,000 animals, which constitutes 7.2
to 7.6 percent of the population. Chapman (testimony, 1976) believed that the
harvest level proposed is not supported by the available evidence and, therefore,
a more appropriate and conservative take of 7,000 animals (3.5 percent) for
both the Soviets and the United States should be established. The State
(ADF&G, 1975) believed that a take as high as 8-10 percent would allow the
population to remain at a high level.

The ALJ (1977, p. 109) recommended that the waiver should not exceed 5,700
animals or 3.5 percent of the minimum estimate of the population. This, he
contended, would satisfy the required subsistence needs for approximately

116

2,800 animals per year and still remain within OSP,

Since hunting of spotted seals is effectively controlled by regional climatic
conditions and seasonal availability of seals, the ADF&G (1973a) saw no need to
propose bag limits for this species at this time.

Ringed Seal (Pusa hispida)
Of all species of ice-breeding seals, the ringed seal is the one subject to
the heaviest harvesting pressure. Almost totally a subsistence species, an
estimated 10,522 animals are taken annually from an estimated population of
250,000 landfast sea-ice animals — part of a total Arctic population of between
1 million and 1.5 million animals.

Under the proposed waiver, the harvest would be restricted to subsistence
users and would be limited to 20,000 animals. Because the population level
is estimated to be high and stable , (ADF&G, 1973a), a take of the level
proposed — 8 percent of the landfast group or 2 percent of the total — is below
a level whifch would safely maintain the stocks within the range of OSP
(ALJ, 1977, p. 112).

Alaska's regulations would permit the taking of ringed seals without bag
limit or personal restrictions north of Bristol Bay as hunting would be
effectively controlled by regional climatic conditions and seasonal
availability of seals (ADF&G, 1973a).

Ribbon Seal (Histriophoca fasciata)
Ribbon seals are taken in small numbers in Alaska. The average annual
removal by U.S. nationals is estimated to be less than 272. The estimate of
the population is 100,000 animals. The table below shows the relative
percentage of the U.S., Soviet, and total harvest:

117

Average Percent of

harvest population

U.S. (1966-72) 250 0.25

Soviet (1969-72) 3,115 3.1

Total 3,365 3.4

The average annual harvest of 250 animals by U,S. Natives represents 0.25
percent of the population. As a conservation measure, the Soviet harvest has
been reduced from a 1962-67 average of 13,550 animals to a 1969-72 average of
3,115 ribbon seals. The harvesting of this species in Alaska has been almost
entirely by Native subsistence hunters and would continue under the proposed
waiver. The waiver would limit the take to 500 animals annually, which is
0.5 percent of the population estimated to number 100,000. The total permissible
U.S. take, combined with the Soviet take, would constitute 3.6 percent of the
population. These levels of take, would have no adverse impact on the population.

State regulations would allow hunting of ribbon seals along the coast north of
the north shore of Bristol Bay with no restrictions of season or bag limit.
Hunting would actually be controlled by regional climatic conditions and
seasonal availability of seals. At most coastal locations these seals are
available mainly during spring and fall migrations (ADF&G, 1973a).

The ALJ (1977, p. 115) found that the proposed waiver allowing a take of 500
ribbon seals annually will have no adverse impact on the population and will
maintain OSP.

Bearded Seal (Erignathus barbatus)
An estimated 1,524 bearded seals are harvested by U.S. nationals from a
population estimated to be 300,000 animals (ADF&G, 1973a). The U.S., Soviet,

118

and total harvest are shown below as percentages of both the U.S, and Soviet
estimates of population.

Percent of Population

U.S. estimate

Soviet estimate

300,000

450,000

0.5

0.33

0.5

0.32

1.0

0.65

Harvest

U.S. (1964-72) 1,500

Soviet (1964-72) 1,428

Total 2,928

This level of harvest has been sustained for many years with no detectable
change in the population. Native hunting accounted for almost all of the
Alaska harvest and probably would continue regardless of the action taken on
the proposal. Under the proposed waiver, the harvest would be limited to
9,000 animals, which includes both retrieved and non-retrieved take. A take
of this level, which is 3 percent of the population, would maintain the pop-
ulation above OSP (Burns, testimony, 1976).

The ALJ (1977, p, 119) was uncertain whether take levels proposed by NMFS include
both retrieved and unretrieved take. He determined that if the retrieval rate
is 1 in 3, then 6,000 animals could be brought ashore as take. As the Soviets
take 2,000 animals, 4,000 should be the maximum U.S. harvest returned to shore
which represents a total of 12,000 animals when unretrieved take is included.

State regulations would allow the subsistence taking of bearded seals without
limit or season along the coast north of the north shore of Bristol Bay.
Hunting would be controlled by regional climatic conditions and seasonal
availability of seals— mainly during their spring and fall migrations and
during the summer months in northern Alaska. These conditions have generally

119

acted to limit the annual harvest to usually less than 3,000 animals,
entirely or almost entirely by Natives (ADF&G, 1973a).

Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas)
The population of beluga whales in Alaska occurs in two population stocks
(Cook Inlet and Bristol Bay-Bering Sea) and is estimated to be 10,000 (Brooks,
1957; Burns, unpublished notes) to 16,000 animals (ADF&G, 1975), The
anticipated annual take, almost all of which would come from the Bristol Bay-
Bering Sea stock and would be taken mostly for subsistence purposes, would be
about 180 animals. This would represent 1,1-1.8 percent of the total population.
It is the proposed policy of the State that in no event should the take be
allowed to exceed 520 animals (ADF&G, 1975). This would represent 3.2-5.2
percent of the total population. However, on the basis of the lower population
estimate, NMFS proposes to limit the waiver to 360 animals. This would
represent 2.2-3.6 percent of the total population. Harvests exceeding these
numbers have been taken for many years with no measurable impact on the stocks
(ADF&G, 1973a), and the State of Alaska estimated that the management program
would maintain a maximum population level of the Cook Inlet stock and a high
population level of the Bristol Bay-Bering Sea stock (ADF&G, 1975).

The ALJ (1977, p. 99) found that an annual take of 350 beluga whales from the
Bering Sea population and 10 from Cook Inlet stock would not have any adverse
impact on these populations and will maintain OSP.

2. Socioeconomic Impacts.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act, with certain exceptions, restricts the taking
of marine mammals to Alaskan Natives. The requested action, if implemented
would allow all citizens to take certain marine mammals— except sea otters—

120

under prescribed regulations. Nonr»Natives who would participate in such taking
may consider such action as favorable.

When the Act was passed in October 1972, it appeared that up to 50,000 Eskimos,
Aleuts, and Indians in Alaska would receive a windfall because the Act allowed
these groups to harvest marine mammals for subsistence, barter, and handicraft
usage but restricted any takings by non-Natives. The immediate effect,
however, was to depress the economy in some Native regions, especially north of
Bristol Bay. The Act also created a severe economic stress for some commercial
hunters and traders. Passage of the Act eliminated the opportunity for non-
Natives to harvest or for non-Natives and Natives alike to sell raw skins, which

halted the supply for European market outlets that formerly bought 8,000 to

7/
10,000 seal skins and 4,000 to 6,000 sea lion hides (Burns, 1973).

In its present form, the Act allows an unlimited harvest for subsistence and
Native processing of handicraft articles. Seals are the primary resource base
for the economy in many Eskimo regions. The meat serves as a food staple, and
the hides are sewn into various articles of clothing or are bartered. Formerly
the raw skins were sold for the outside market. In some Eskimo villages, it
is estimated that income derived from the sale of raw seal skins constituted
as much as 10 to 15 percent of their annual earned income. -

It may be argued that furs or skins tanned and manufactured into Native handi-
crafts would bolster the regional economy because of the value added to the
original product. Apparently this has not been the case in the short run,
because commercially tanned furs are a much superior raw material for Native

f_l This section is based on an analysis prepared by the Regional Economist,
Alaska Region, NMFS.

121

handicrafts, and there were no provisions in the original regulations for
local agents to ship hides to outside tanneries or for commercial tanneries to
process hides. Thus two important segments, transportation and processing
were virtually eliminated from the economy. The effect of this is apparent in
the fact that only 6,000 seals (ice-breeding) were harvested in 1973, which
was 62 percent below the 1968-72 annual average of 14,300 ice seals (R«A,
Rausch, oral communication, 1975).

Assuming a strong demand for Native products crafted from marine mammal fur,
skins, or hides, the market could greatly strengthen in the future. Five
tanneries have been certified by the NMFS to tan marine mammal hides harvested
by Natives, and a system of establishing agents to ship hides for tanning has
been initiated. An Anchorage entrepreneur has taken advantage of the general
definition of Native handicraft and is now manufacturing garments of fur or
hide utilizing Alaska Native labor, labelled "native handicraft". Thus a
manufacturing monopoly may have been established. This situation could
benefit the Alaska Native people but could also be detrimental to the resource,
because the Alaska Natives are essentially allowed an unlimited harvest of
marine mammals for subsistence or handicraft use. Also, monopolistic control
may be a detriment to the consumer.

A 1958 study of the Point Hope economy revealed that 20 percent of the annual
village gross income was derived from the sale of the products and services
associated with marine mammals (James Omnik, unpublished manuscript) . How
much of this income was derived from the sale of raw furs and ivory is not
known, but this figure would vary from year to year depending upon the world
demand for fur products. Seal hide (raw and tanned) prices have fluctuated
from $8.00 to $40.00 per pelt over the last 5 years. If seal hide prices were

122

assigned the average value of $16.00 per adult pelt for all species, a potential
income of $112,000 was lost to the Alaska Native population in 1973. It is not
known at this time what the total cutback in production of Native handicrafts
will be for 1973^74, but this amount is probably significant in the larger
communities of Bethel, Kotzebue, Teller, and Barrow,

Other cash sources of income have been greatly reduced. Sale of a polar bear
hide, for instance, had once brought $3,000 to $5,000 to the successful non-
Native hunter. A guided polar bear hunt earned at least half as much. An
estimated total loss of income derived from polar bear hunting is above $150,000

In summary, it is estimated that the Alaska Native economy lost more than
$250,000 in revenue in 1973. This is a significant loss of income for a coastal
population of approximately 50,000 individuals, considering that more than 60
percent of the families residing in the northern Arctic regions exist on an
income less than the $3,870 8/level defining poverty in the "lower 48" (Rogers,
1973). A family earning $2,000 to $3,000. annually that loses the opportunity
to earn an additional $500.00 is severely affected. Such a family may lose the
opportunity for a down payment on a snow machine or to purchase gasoline,
additional sled dogs, or other commodities. Seasonal employment is available
outside the region, and welfare aid is also available, but labor mobility is
not always the desirable answer and increasing dependency on welfare payment
is the most repugnant (to the Native) alternative of all.

3. Other Impacts.

In this section, we examine whether or not the promulgation of Federal

regulations, waiving the moratorium, and transferring management to the State

8y Farm family of four, Department of Labor, 1974. Non-farm family of four,
$4,550.

123

would affect certain activities under which takings occur, pursuant to the Act.
They also include activities which we have determined to be outside the Act
but which, nevertheless, affect marine mammals in waters off Alaska. These
activities, under which current or potential takings have been identified in
previous sections, are shown in table 8 with an indication of the probable
impact of the requested action — Federal regulations and State management.

Table 8. — Impact of requested action, if implemented, on
activities discussed in this report

Activity
Scientific research

Public display

Sport and commercial hunting

Subsistence hunting

Domestic fishing operations

Probable results of State management

a. State would continue full-scale
research.

b. Non-Alaskan researchers would continue
to obtain Federal permits under a joint
State-Federal permit program.

a. No change anticipated at present level
of requests, which will continue under
Federal Government administration.

a. Waiver will permit resumption of sport
and commercial harvesting of marine
mammals .

b. State to regulate harvest subject to
quotas imposed and as long as populations
remain within the range of OSP.

a. Some restrictions in take such as
limits on polar bear and walrus.

b. Removal of some restrictions on sale
of skins.

a. No change anticipated under Federal
Government administration.

E. THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF SPECIFIC STATE REGULATIONS
The State of Alaska has provided historical data on harvests
and anticipated levels of future harvests. Comparing these
harvest levels to population or stock size is a relatively direct

124

means of assessing impact on populations. Examination of proposed
marine mammal regulations of the State (appendix G) provides a means
of determining how the State agency intends to reach the specific
harvest levels and how the population will be protected against over-
harvest. The Alaska State Constitution requires that all replenishable
resources within the State be managed on the "sustained yield" principle.
Several comments at the public hearings questioned whether "sustained
yield" management by the State could be compatible with the MMPA concept
of OSP. Two points are worth making here: (1) If there is a waiver and
return of management to Alaska, Federal ceilings will be set on the
annual kill for each stock which will be allowable under the waiver with
the objective of maintaining OSP. The Federal authorization for the
State to manage the resource in such an instance will be conditional
upon whether Alaska can control the harvest within the Federal ceilings.
If the limits are exceeded, the Federal Government can resume control
and reimpose complete protection. (2) The ADF&G's chief spokemen at
the hearings, John Burns and Game Director Robert Rausch, emphasized
that OSP requirements could be accommodated under the State Constitution.
This is because the State views "sustained yield" as a flexible standard,
depending on the context. While sustained yield in terms of consumption
may be stressed in the case of animals important for human sustenance,
other populations like sea otter stocks may be managed with an eye to
sustained yield of recreational opportunity or esthetic quality.

In the following sections, we will examine specific regulations of the
State which would appear to have a potential impact on the species
populations. These are: methods and means, special permits, season
and bag limits, and humane means of taking.

125

1. Regulation on Native Take

The Constitution and State laws of Alaska prescribe equal treatment
to Natives and non-Natives. However, the ADF&G has recognized the
historical need of Alaska Natives for a subsistence harvest just as
the Act has done. Therefore, many regulations have been drawn in a
manner that allows Natives and a small number of non-Natives a sub-
sistence take but generally precludes non-Natives from capitalizing
on these regulations. In southeast Alaska, where non-Natives predomi-
nate, there are some open seasons on seals and sea lions, but bag
limits are small, thereby allowing some subsistence taking but precluding
large-scale commercial taking which must be done by special permit.
Along the northern coast, where relatively few non-Natives live,
there are year-round open seasons on seals with no bag limit. Because
the ice seals tend to be available in quantity during the severest
weather, only local residents are able to harvest. In less severe
weather, the ice seals are either absent or present in small numbers
and scattered, again precluding a commercial take.

The regulations on the two marine mammal species with sport hunting
potential are geared to the benefit of Natives in a different way.
Regulations on walrus and polar bear allow residents to take a small
number for food but under restricted conditions. The effect again
is to allow Natives to harvest for subsistence and to limit sport
hunting to one animal per year per hunter.

126

In this manner, the regulations refer to residents as required by the State
Constitution and laws, but geographical and seasonal climatic considerations
separate Natives from non-Natives in their ability to take under the
regulations.

2. State of Alaska Commercial Taking Permit Requirements

It is anticipated that commercial taking requests will be considered only for
sea lions and harbor seals in areas 4 and 5. Anyone wishing to harvest
these species commercially must specify the following facts in writing:
(1) numbers that thdy wish to harvest; (2) the specific location where they
will be taken; (3) the manner in which they will be taken; (4) the period
during which they will be taken; (5) the name, number, and registry of the
vessel that will be used; and (6) any additional information that the
Commissioner deems appropriate.

Sea otters, if harvested at all, will be taken by the State only. Before
any sea otters are harvested, the Commissioner will first consider whether
or not it would be more desirable to transplant a number of them to a
location not then inhabited by the species but one that was previously so
inhabited. All harvests will be restricted to those populations that have
completely recovered from the exploitation which occurred prior to 1911, that
are within the range of OSP, that are experiencing high rates of natural
mortality and low recruitment rates, and that are not contributing to the
repopulation of adjacent areas.

3. Alaska Marine Mammal Seasons and Bag Limits.

There are two general ways to control the numbers of animals to be taken:

127

(a) quotas and (b) seasons and bag limits. The State has estimated
the future take under State management and has set an upper limit or quota
for each species. The ALJ (1977) has recommended that some of these quotas be
reduced (e.g., polar bear).

Seasons and bag limits are used to provide the regulatory protection, in
addition to such natural regulatory mechanisms as geographical remoteness,
seasonal availability, and, sometimes, the dispersion of the animals.

4. Humane Taking Provisions

The proposed regulations of the State of Alaska contain humane safeguards
through prohibition of certain methods of taking. For marine mammals, the
only legal means for taking are:

(1) with a hand-held rifle using a centerfire cartridge, except rifles
capable of fully automatic fire;

(2) with the aid of spears and harpoons that are hand held or thrown;

(3) with the aid or use of surface transportation only;

(4) with the aid of unleashed or unharnessed dogs, for polar bear only;*
and

(5) with nets, shotguns, and weapons using rimfire cartridges, or clubs,
only as specifically authorized by permit.

Under the proposed State regulations, the following methods would be specifically

* The ALJ, however, recommended- (1977, p. 136) that dogs not be used to hunt
polar bears. Also, revised State regulations, approved on October 13, 1976
(41 F.R. 44875), restrict hunting of walrus to rifles of caliber .264 (6.5 mm)
or larger (except 30-30 caliber) .

128

prohibited:

(1) the use of poison;

(2) the use of helicopters or rotorcraft in any manner;

(3) the use of a motorized vehicle for the purpose of driving, herding,
or molesting marine mammals;

(4) the use of a machinegun or set gun;

(5) the aid of fire, explosives, bombs, smoke, or chemicals;

(6) sea otter may not be taken by use of a dog, trap, snare, net, or
fish trap;

(7) aircraft may not be used in any manner for taking polar bear; and

(8) polar bear may not be taken by use of traps, snares, or barbed
arrows .

129

IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION

The proposed Federal action is to waive the moratorium and transfer management
authority for the requested nine species (polar bears, sea otters, sea lions,
walrus, harbor and spotted seals, ribbon seals, ringed seals, bearded seals,
and beluga whales) to the State within waters off its coasts and to establish
a cooperative management program between the State and the Federal Government
in waters beyond 3 miles.

The alternatives to the proposed actions are as follows:

(A) Continue the moratorium and retain management authority under the
Federal Government (no action) ;

(B) Continue the moratorium and transfer management authority to the
State of Alaska;

(C) Waive the moratorium and retain management authority under the
Federal Government;

(D) Waive the moratorium and transfer management authority of only
selected species to the State of Alaska; and

(E) Waive the moratorium to a greater or lesser extent than proposed
for each species.

These alternatives and the consequences of each are discussed below and are
compared to the proposed action.

A. CONTINUE THE MORATORIUM AND RETAIN MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT (NO ACTION)
1. Biological consequences:

(a) An unharvested population stock is capable of reaching the

optimum carrying capacity of its habitat and even surpassing

130

it. This is especially true for those species that feed on fish
or crustaceans subject to strong harvesting pressures.

Continuing the moratorium will allow population stocks to regulate
their own numbers by unmanaged fluctuations. Maximum productivity
may not be achievable under this management alternative.

Kenyon (1969) detailed the effects of severe fluctuations and a
population crash of sea otters at Amchitka Island. When the era
of sea otter exploitation ceased in 1911, only about 100 otters
remained at Amchitka Island. Under total protection, the pop-
ulation increased to an estimated 4,000 animals by 1940. By
1949, the population had over-utilized its available food supply
and declined to less than one-third of its 1940-43 maximum. It
now fluctuates annually near a population level about one-half of
the maximum.

Evidence, given previously, indicates that the sea lion and
beluga populations in most of their Alaskan range have reached
the carrying capacity of their habitat. Harbor seals are reported
to be more numerous in most of their range than they have been
for several years (ADF&G, 1973a) . The ice seals are at or near
maximum population levels and stable, and polar bears appear to be
approaching maximum (ADF&G, 1975) .
(b) Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos would continue to harvest marine

mammals without restrictions other than those imposed by section
101 of the Act. Unless populations or population stocks are
found to have been depleted, polar bear sows and cubs will

131

continue to be legally taken, and sea otters, sea lions, seals,
and beluga whales could be harvested without restriction. The
Act also allows subsistence hunting in areas that have previously
been restricted or closed.

2. Socioeconomic consequences:

(a) Commercial and sport harvest of various species of marine
mammals in Alaska would not be resumed. The economic benefits
of the harvest of polar bears, sea otters, sea lions, and seals
would be lost to the Alaskan resident guides and to the processors
and retailers of the marketable products from these animals.
Natives might continue to waste parts of marine mammals of no use

to themselves or other Natives because they cannot sell unprocessed
marine mammal parts except to other Natives. Jobs and income
from retailing marine mammal products and parts nationwide for
other than Native handicraft uses would be lost if the moratorium
is continued.

(b) Conflicts and competition between fishermen and certain stocks of
marine mammals, such as sea lions and some seals, will continue
and probably increase as marine mammal stocks increase under a
moratorium. The marine mammal populations are large, and the
majority of the involvements are the result of direct and some-
times intense competition between fishermen and marine mammals for
the available stocks of fish, sometimes resulting in gear damage
or loss to the fishermen and mortality to marine mammals.

132

3. Administrative consequences:

(a) Maintaining that it has no management authority and therefore no
need for the information, the State of Alaska would probably drastic-
ally reduce or eliminate all research and monitoring of marine
mammal populations.

(b) Federal agencies would require increased staffing and funding to
adequately manage and monitor the status of the population stocks,

(c) Information on stocks of marine mammals will continue to be
unavailable or will be reduced. Data collection from harvested
animals has been reduced with the moratorium, and permits for
scientific research have not included taking on as large a scale

as harvests. Examination of large numbers of specimens is necessary
for the study of certain aspects of population monitoring, such as
reproductive history and biology, food habits, and incidence of disease

B. CONTINUE THE MORATORIUM AND TRANSFER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY TO THE STATE OF
ALASKA.
1. Biological consequences:

(a) If a population stock is not managed but is allowed to increase as
rapidly and as far as it can, it may reach a level that is
beyond the optimum carrying capacity of its habitat. This is
especially true of those species that feed on fish or crustaceans
subject to strong population pressures by harvesting.

(b) Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos would continue to harvest marine
mammals without restrictions except those imposed by the Act.

133

2. Socioeconomic consequences:

(a) Commercial and sport harvest of various species of marine mammals
in Alaska by non-Natives would not be resumed. The economic
benefits of the harvest of polar bears, sea otters, sea lions,
and seals would be lost for the non-Native hunters, guides, and
processors and retailers of the marketable products from these
animals. Natives will continue to waste parts of marine mammals
of no use to themselves or to other Natives because they cannot
sell raw parts of marine mammals except to other Natives.

(b) Conflicts between fishermen and certain stocks of marine mammals,
such as sea lions, will continue and probably increase as marine
mammal population stocks increase under a moratorium.

3. Administrative consequences:

(a) The State has indicated an unwillingness to accept "management"
responsibility if its role will simply be to enforce the mora-
torium. Even if the State were to accept such a return, its
enforcement can be expected to be less than enthusiastic and
would not really alter the present status quo. The State with-
out a return of management, shares enforcement responsibility
with the Federal agencies in carrying out the moratorium.

(b) Information on stocks of marine mammals will be reduced. Data

collections from harvested animals has been reduced with the

moratorium and permits for scientific research have not included

taking on as large a scale as harvests. Examination of large

numbers of speciments as necessary for study of certain aspects

of population monitoring, such as reproductive history and

biology, food habits, and incidence of disease.
134

4. Other consequences:

(a) This action would benefit individuals and groups that oppose the
taking of any marine mammal as an unwise use of this resource.

C. WAIVE THE MORATORIUM AND RETAIN MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT

1. Biological consequences:

(a) Regulated harvesting of selected marine mammal species by non-
Natives could be allowed. This action could result in a managed
level of population stocks, which could assist in holding the
population levels within the carrying capacity of the habitat,
taking into account changes in the ecosystem; such a managed
level of population stocks would be similar to the proposed
action.

(b) The Native exemption section of the Act would still be in effect,
allowing the largely unrestricted taking of seals, sea lions, and
belugas. The take of polar bear sows and cubs would continue,
and sea otters could be taken for subsistence and cottage
industries.

2. Socioeconomic consequences:

(a) Allowing non-Natives to participate in the harvest of selected
species of marine mammals would result in an economic gain to
guides, processors, and retailers of the marketable products
from these animals.

135

(b) The Native exemption section of the Act (sections 101(b)(1), (2)
and (3)) now restricts the market that the Natives have for the
parts of marine mammals of no use to themselves or to other Natives,
Native take for other than subsistence and handicraft purposes
would be regulated by the Federal Government instead of the State
as in the proposed action.

(c) Conflicts between fishermen and certain stocks of marine mammals,
such as sea lions, could be decreased by a regulated harvest,
resulting in an economic benefit to the fishermen.

3. Administrative consequences:

(a) Federal agencies would require increased staffing and funding to
adequately manage and monitor the status of the population stocks.

(b) The State of Alaska would probably drastically reduce or eliminate
its research efforts, having no management needs for that informa-
tion.

(c) Information on stocks of marine mammals would be increased by the
availability of large collections of biological specimens from the
increased harvest.

D. WAIVE THE MORATORIUM AND TRANSFER MANAGEMENT OF ONLY SELECTED SPECIES

TO THE STATE OF ALASKA
The consequences of withholding one or more of the nine requested species
from State management could only be discussed on a species-by-species basis.
The consequences detailed under alternative (C) would be applicable to the
species withheld.

136

E. WAIVE THE MORATORIUM TO A GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT THAN PROPOSED ON EACH

SPECIES

1. Biological consequences ;

The proposed action to waive the moratorium is limited on each species
because of the need for a determination that populations are at or
above optimum sustainable population levels and that the waiver will
allow maintenance of optimum sustainable populations.

A final determination to waive to a greater or lesser extent will be
based upon the hearing record. If a population could not be determined
to be within the range of OSP, then a waiver might be limited in
extent until such time as that species is determined to be within the
range of OSP in that area.

If the extent of the waiver is reduced on certain species, the impacts
are expected to be the same as those of the proposed action.
Populations would most likely be maintained at levels above the lower
range of optimum sustainable populations. There is a possibility
that maximum productivity would not occur at higher population levels.
If the extent of the waiver was greater than proposed on individual
species, the ability of the populations to maintain optimum sustainable
levels must be determined. The depth and precision of scientific
knowledge available upon which to base OSP is not adequate to make
precise determinations. Until such time as better data are available
and OSP can be better defined, conservative limits on the waiver seem
justified.

The impact of a waiver greater than that proposed cannot be accurately

137

gauged with available information. In particular, it cannot be
determined that OSP would be maintained or that the health and
stability of the ecosystem would be unimpaired.

2. Socioeconomic consequences:

Impacts different than those discussed for the proposed action cannot
be identified at this time.

3. Administrative consequences:

The administrative consequences of waiving to a greater or lesser
degree is expected to be the same as those of the proposed action.

THE PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action, consequences of it, and method of implementing,
are outlined below for comparison with the above alternatives.

A. WAIVE THE MORATORIUM, TRANSFER MANAGEMENT TO THE STATE WITHIN WATERS
UNDER ITS JURISDICTION, AND JOINT FEDERAL-STATE MANAGEMENT IN WATERS
BEYOND 3 MILES (PROPOSED ACTION)

1. Biological consequences :
(a) Regulated harvesting of selected species of marine mammals

for sport and commercial purposes would result in a managed
level of population stocks and could assist in holding
population levels within the carrying capacity of the
habitat, taking into account changes in the ecosystem.

2. Socioeconomic consequences:
(a) Natives would no longer be required to convert all parts

of marine mammals into authentic articles of Native
handicraft or clothing before sale of them to non-Natives.

138

Their market for such items as seal skins and polar bear hides
would be greatly expanded, resulting in an increase in economic
returns from such items .

(b) Commercial and sport harvest of various species of marine mammals
could be resumed, resulting in an economic benefit to both
Native and non-Native guides and to processors and retailers of
the marketable products of those marine mammals.

(c) Conflicts between fishermen and certain stocks of marine mammals,
such as sea lions, could be reduced by regulated harvest, resulting
in an economic benefit to the fishermen.

3. Administrative consequences ;

(a) The State could exercise authority over all its citizens, Native
and non-Native alike.

(b) The administrative burden on the State would be increased;

however, Alaska had an active management and research program on

polar bears, sea otters, sea lions, walruses, seals, and beluga

whales since 1959, and it has the trained personnel and existing

organizational structure to adequately carry out this responsi-
bility within its jurisdiction.

(c) Information on stocks of marine mammals would be increased by the
availability of larger collections of biological specimens from
the allowable increased harvest.

(d) Section 109(a)(2) of the Act allows a State, under certain
circumstances and conditions, to adopt laws and regulations
relating to the protection and taking of marine mammals only

139

within its jurisdiction. Since the animals under consideration
inhabit the marine environment that extends beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the State, a cooperative management program
between the State and the Federal Governments would provide for
consistent management practices to be exercised over the various
populations in their entire range.

The Administrative burden would be split, with the State under a
Federal/State management program.

V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No unavoidable adverse environmental impact on marine mammal populations would
be anticipated from the proposed action of the waiver of the moratorium and
subsequent resumption of management authority by the State of Alaska. The
management program proposed by the State is designed to maintain the species
populations within their ranges of OSP, thus insuring that they will remain
a significant functioning element of the ecosystem.

VI. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The short-term use of the resource by regulated taking of marine mammals,
within the range of their optimum sustainable populations, would have no effect
upon the long-term productivity of the environment. Some insight into this
relationship can be gained by reviewing exploitations of three species of marine
mammals in Alaska, exploitations wholly unregulated and at a rate exceeding
that which would be allowed under any action consistent with the Act. The sea
otter, walrus, and fur seal populations were at one time exploited at levels
beyond which the population could be maintained at relatively high levels.

140

The populations of all three species were drastically reduced. When harvesting
ceased (sea otters) or was closely regulated (walruses and fur seals) , all
three species responded by a rapid increase in population levels. The
question of long-term effects on the environment can only be partially
answered. The observed fact is that the environment maintained its capacity
to support these species at relatively high levels.

Long-term productivity of a species population is (or may be) enhanced by a
regulated taking which maintains a population level at its optimum sustainable
population, a level that is assured to be at or above maximum productivity
and at which the population or population stocks of the species will continue
to be a significant functioning element of the ecosystem and one that the
habitat can support. If a marine mammal population is allowed to increase as
rapidly and as far as it can, it may reach a level that is beyond the carrying
capacity of its habitat. Kenyon (1969) examined the effect of a population
decline of sea otters at Amchitka Island, Alaska, and measured the present
carrying capacity of that habitat as about one-half of its original. The
effects of such over-utilization of its habitat by a species of marine mammal
involves a complex chain of events and consequences which have received little
investigation and are therefore poorly understood. Insight into the effects
of over-utilization on the productivity of the environment can be gained by
studies of sea otter/sea urchin interrelationships. The appearance of large
numbers of sea otters in an area may reduce the numbers of mature green sea
urchins in waters less than 60 feet deep. In many areas, the extent of kelp beds
is restricted by grazing of mature sea urchins (Estes and Palmisano, 1974).
Reductions of the numbers of adult sea urchins may permit expansion of kelp
beds, which will cause a change in the species composition and distribution of

141

the invertebrate population of that environment. Such a change could be of a
long-term nature (ADF&G, 1973b).

Commercially important fish stocks that occupy the same ecosystem as the
marine mammals in Alaska are being exploited at a rate which is believed to be
above the sustainable level for some fishes that are important to some of the
marine mammals (INPFC, 1974). In effect, the carrying capacity of the system
may have been reduced for some of the marine mammals. Any such change in the
environment could have a long-term effect upon the capability of the environ-
ment to support large populations of marine mammals. Allowing the unregulated
expansion of a population in the face of a deteriorating environment will only
shorten the time before the environment will no longer be capable of supporting
large numbers of certain species of marine mammals and will hasten the further
reduction of fish stocks.

At some future date, it is reasonable to assume that requirements for protein
to feed an increasing human population of the world will cause resource
managers (State, Federal, and international) and the public to make difficult
decisions as to the extent to which they will allow competition by marine
mammals for the increasingly smaller quantities of harvestable fishes. In
Table 9, the estimated exploitation rates for fishes by pinnipeds and by
fishermen in the eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian areas are compared with
estimated stocks of fish. This consumption rate, conservatively estimated, is
already more than one-third of the estimated stocks, and the estimated
consumption by pinnipeds is nearly one and one-half times greater than that
of the U.S. and foreign catch. Thus, to maintain a healthy and stable eco-
system, there may be little room for expansion of fishing and marine mammal
stocks simultaneously.

142

Table 9 - Consumption of fish and comparison with standing stocks in
the eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian areasV

Thousands of
metric tons

Estimated finfish consumed by fur seals , 480

Estimated finfish consumed by other pinnipeds—7 2,960

Estimated finfish consumed by sea birds 50

Estimated vertebrate predation 3,490

Estimated 1972 catch of foreign fleets^ 2,250

Reported 1972 catch by U.S. fishermen!/ 60

Estimated total catch 2,310

Estimated total catch plus vertebrate predation 5,800

Estimated stock of all finfish^ 17,000

Percent standing stock annually taken by

commercial fisheries and pinnipeds (Approximate) 34

Percent taken by pinnipeds (Approximate) 20

Percent taken by commercial fisheries 14

(Approximate)

1/

2/
3/

Adapted from table prepared by Marine Mammal Division, Northwest
Fisheries Center, Seattle (see table 5, DEIS - Renegotiation of
Interim Convention on Conservat-.on of North Pacific Fur Seals,-
NMFS, DOC, January 1975).

Sea lions and hair seals.

INPFC Documents 1680 and 1663, and Pruter, 1973.

143

VII. ANY IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED

Implementation of the proposed action, allowing the regulated taking
of polar bears, sea otters, sea lions, seals, walruses, and beluga
whales under a program based upon principles of renewable
resource management, would result in no irreversible or irretrievable
commitments of the populations of these animals.

144

VIII. LITERATURE CITED

Administrative Law Judge, 1977 . Recommended decision in the matter of the
request by the State of Alaska to waive the moratorium on nine species
of marine mammals and allow the State to resume management. Department
of the Interior. 150 p.

Alaska Department of Economic Development. 1972. (ADED) . Alaska statistical
review, 1972. Juneau, Division of Economic Enterprise.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1973(a). Alaska marine mammal regula-
tions, status reports, and management policies. (Appendix G) .

Alaska Department of Labor. 1970. (ADL) . Alaska Native population, 1970

census. Employment Security Division and Research and Analysis Division.
Mimeo; August 1970.

Alaska Department of Labor. (N.D.). Statistical tables on "Population and

Work Force Data by Race, Ethnic Group and Sex — State of Alaska." Mimeo.

Allen, J. A., 1880. History of the North American pinnipeds, a monograph of
the walruses, sea lions, sea bears, and seals of North America., U.S.
Geological and Geographical Survey, Misc. Pub. No. 12, 785 p.

Alverson, D. L. , A. T. Pruter, and L. L. Ronholt, 1964. A study of demersal
fishes and fisheries of the northeast Pacific Ocean. H. R. Macmillan
Lectures in Fisheries. Vancouver, Univ. of British Columbia, 190 p.

Barabash-Nikiforov, I. I., 1947. Kalan. (The Sea Otter, pp. 1-174) Soviet
Ministrov RSFSR. Glavnoe upravlenie po zapovednikam. (In Russian,)

145

(Translated from Russian by Dr. A. Birron and Z. S. Cole. Published for
the National Science Foundation by the Israel Program for Scientific
Translations, Jerusalem, 1962. 227 p., Illus.)

Bartonek, J. C. , R. Eisner, and F. H. Fay. 1974. Mammals and birds. In

D. W. Hood, Convener Probes: A prospectus on processes and resources of
the Bering Sea shelf 1975-85. National Science Foundation, Office of
Polar Programs. March 1974.

Bishop, R. H., 1967. Reproduction, age determination, and behavior of the

harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, in the Gulf of Alaska, MS thesis. College,
Alaska, University of Alaska, 121 p.

Bigg, M. A., 1969. The harbor seal in British Columbia. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.
Bull. 172.

Brooks, J. W. , 1957. Beluga investigations in Bristol Bay. Annual Report,
Alaska Department Fisheries 9:57-58.

Brooks, J. W. , 1970. Infra-red scanning for polar bear. Bears - their
biology and management IUCN News Series No. 23:138-141.

Burns, J. J., 1973. Alaska marine mammal report, v. Dili, Project Progress
Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, Juneau.

Burns, J. J., and S. H. Harbo, Jr., 1972. An aerial census of ringed seals,
northern coast of Alaska. Arctic 25:279-290.

146

Calkins, D. G., K. W. Pitcher, and K. Schneider. 1975. Distribution and

abundance of marine mammals in the Gulf of Alaska. Unpublished report
prepared by ADF&G, under contract with U.S. Dept. Comm. NQjAA. 39 p.

Dodimead, A. J., Felix Favorite, and T. Hirano. 1962. Review of oceanography
of the subarctic Pacific region. In Salmon of the North Pacific Ocean
Part II. INPFC Bulletin No. 13. Vancouver, B. C. 195 p.

Dunbar, M. J., 1953. Arctic and subarctic marine ecology, Arctic 6(2):75-90.

Estes, J. A., and J. F. Palmisano, 1974. Sea otters: Their role in struc-
turing nearshore communities. Science 185:1058-1060.

Favorite, Felix, and others. A report to the INPFC on the oceanography of the
North Pacific Ocean. (manuscript in preparation) .

Fay, F. H. , 1957. History and present status of the Pacific walrus population,
Trans. No. Amer. Wildl. Conf . 22:431-445.

Fiscus, C. H. , and G. A. Baines, 1966. Food and feeding behavior of Steller
and California sea lions. J. Mammal. 47:195-200.

FitzGerald, J. H. (chairman), 1968. Alaska Natives and the land. Federal

Field Committee for Development and Planning in Alaska (FFCDPA) , A report
to the United States Senate, Committee on the Interior and Insular
Affairs, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 565 p.

Grauvogel, Carl, 1974. Seal survey-inventory progress report-1973. Game
Management Units 17-26 — coastal waters.

Gulland, J. A., 1971. (Compiler and Editor) and the fish resources of the
ocean. FAO, Via della Terme di Caracalla, Rome, Fishing News (Books),

Ltd. Surrey, England.

14 7

Heller and Scott (no date). Cited in FFCDPA, 1968.

INPFC. Minutes of the annual meeting, 1974.

Jamison, R. J., 1973. An evaluation of attempts to re-establish the sea otter
on the Oregon coast. Unpubl. Prog. Report. Coop. Wild. Res. Unit, OSU,
Corvallis, Ore., March, 197 3.

Kenyon, K. W. , 1960. Aerial survey of walruses in northern Bering Sea,

February 23 to March 2, 1960. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Branch of Wildlife Res., i & 23 p., 3 charts, 10 figures.

Kenyon, K. W. , 1969. The sea otter in the eastern Pacific Ocean. N. Amer.
Fauna: 6S, 352 p.

Kenyon, K. W. , 1972. Pacific walrus, In Alice Seld compiler. Seals, sea
lions, walruses in eastern North Pacific and Arctic waters. Seattle,
Pacific Search Books p. 32-38.

Kenyon, K. W. , and D. W. Rice, 1961. Abundance and distribution of the
Steller sea lion. J. Mammal. 42:223-234.

Laughlin, W. S., 1970. Aleutian ecosystems, AAAS Symposium, Dec. 26-27, 1970,
Chicago. Science 169:1107-1108.

Laughlin, W. S., and W. G. Reeder, 1962. Revision of Aleutian prehistory.
Science 137:856-857.

Lentfer, J. W. , 1972. Statement on polar bears in relation to House Joint
Resolution 1179 for House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mimeo.

Lentfer, J. W. , 1973. Polar Bear Report. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game,
Juneau, Federal Aid Progress Report, v. 14 p. i-24.

148

Lensink, C. J., 1962. The history and status of sea otters in Alaska. Thesis
submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Unpublished,
copy in Fish and Wildlife Service files. (Cited in Schneider, 1975.)

Marine Mammal Division 1974. Marine mammal-food chain relationships in the
eastern Bering Sea. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest
Fisheries Center, Seattle (manuscript).

Markov, S. V., 1965. The present status of the Komandorski population of
Enhydra lutris and the prospects for its practical usage. In
Pavlovskii, E. N. , B. A. Zenkovich, and others (eds.). Marine mammals,
p. 212-220. Translated by Nancy McRoy, April 1966. (Cited in Schneider,
1975.)

Mathesin, 0.., R. T. Baade, and R. J. Lopp, 1962. Breeding habitats, growth
and stomach contents of the Stellar sea lion in Alaska. J. Mammal
43:469-477.

McAllister, D. D. , 1969. Aspects of estimating zooplankton production from
phytoplankton production. Jour. Fish. Res. Bd . Can. 26:199-220.

McAllister, D. D. , 1972. Estimates of the transfer of primary production to

secondary production at Ocean Station P. In Takenouti, A. Y. , and others.
Biological oceanography of the northern North Pacific Ocean. Tokyo,
Idemitsu Shoten, 626 p.

McRoy, C. P., J. J. Georing, and W. E. Shiels 1972. Studies on primary pro-
duction in the eastern Bering Sea Takenouti, A. Y., (chief ed . ) Biologi-
cal oceanography of the Northern North Pacific Ocean. Tokyo, Idemitsu

Shoten p. 199-216.

149

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1972. St. George Island Research Reserve.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington, Sept. 6, 1972.
Processed.

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1974. Administration of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972, June 22, 1973 to April 30, 1974. Federal
Register, v. 9, No. 122, June 24, 1974, p. 23896-23922.

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1975. DEIS — Renegotiation of Interim Con-
vention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals. DOC. January 1975.

Omnik, J. 1960. Writings on Point Hope, Part 1 Economic Base, Unpublished
manuscript. Lawrence, Kansas.

Pruter, A. J., 1973. Development and present status of -bottom fish resources
in the Bering Sea. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 30(12) :2372-2385.

Rice, D. W. , and V. B. Scheffer, 1968. A list of the marine mammals of the
world. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Spec. Sci. Rept., Fisheries:
No. 579.

Rogers, G. , 1973. A study of the social-economic impact of changes in the
harvesting labor force on the Alaska salmon fishery. Institute of
Social Economic & Government Research, NMFS, State/Federal Contract
1.36704, University of Alaska, College, Alaska.

Sanger, G. A., 1972a. Fishery potentials and estimated biological producti-
vity of the subarctic Pacific region. In Takenouti, A. Y., and others.
Biological oceanography of the northern Pacific Ocean. Tokyo, Idemitsu
Shoten. p. 589-611.

15 0

Thorsteinson, F. V., R. W. Nelson, and D. F. Hall, 1961. Experimental harvest
of the Steller sea lion in Alaskan waters. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv.,
Spec. Sci. Report: Fisheries: No. 371

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1966. Economic development of Alaska, (EDA). A

report to the President. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C,

U.S. Department of Interior, 1966. Natural resources of Alaska. U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1974. Marine mammals. Administrative and
status report. Federal Register, v. 39, No. 150, Aug. 2, 1974,
p. 27922-27930.

151

IX. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

A. Letters for which no comments are required.

B. Letters with responses.

A. Letters without responses.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20250

April 13, 1976

Honorable Sidney R. Galler
Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Environmental Affairs
Department of Commerce
Washington, DC 20230

Dear Mr. Galler:

The Department of Agriculture has reviewed the DEIS concerning
the "Consideration of a Waiver of the Moratorium and Return of
Management of Certain Marine Mammals to the State of Alaska."

It would appear that the Department of Agriculture has no admin-
istrative authority in any laws or regulations that the proposed
actions would affect and, therefore, does not object to the pro-
posal. The DEIS is well written and presumably adequate.

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely J

John M. Damgard

Deputy Assistant Secretary

Enclosure

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

In Reply Refer to:

FWS/ES

ER 76/277

MAY 12 1976

Dear Mr. Schoning:

This is in regard to your request of March 1976 for the Department
of the Interior's review and comments on the draft environmental
statement for Consideration of a Waiver of the Moratorium and
Return of Management of Certain Marine Mammals to the State of
Alaska.

This is to inform you that the Department has no comments to
offer.

Sincerely yours

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior

Mr. Robert W. Schoning
Director, National Marine

Fisheries Service
Department of Commerce
Washington, D. C. , 20230

CONSERVE
iAM ERICA'S
ENERGY

Mar"mol ar_d

Save Energy and You Serve America!

STATE OF CAKFORNIA— RESOURCES AGENCY*

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Go

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

(916) U45-3531

March 29, 1976

Mr. Robert W. Scheming, Director

national Marine Fisheries Service

national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

3300 Whitehaven Parkway

Washington, D. C. 202*10

Dear Boh:

The Governor has referred Mr. Sidney R. Caller's recent letter re-
garding the draft Environmental Impact Statement (prepared jointly
by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife
Service) on the State of Alaska's request for a waiver of the mora-
torium and return of management for certain marine mammals, to this
office for comments*

We believe the action requested by the State of Alaska is in con-
formance with the intent of the Marine Mammals Protection Act of
1972 and proposes no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of
marine mammal resources or other living marine resources.

We further believe it is essential that certain populations of mar-
ine mwmnalB be managed to allow the proper utilization of all liv-
ing marine resources which provide food, employment, and recrea-
tional enjoyment for a large number of citizens of the country.

The action requested by the State of Alaska is, therefore, in our
opinion, in the best interest of the nation and should be approved
and implemented without delay.

Sincerely,

QiU

Director

cc Governor Brown

^r

CJRRESPONDENCE .'Ji.f.Ol UNIT

AH rue . 19/6

IDE PARTMENT
OF1 GAME

600 North Capitol Way / Olympia, Washington 98504

Claude Betms, Seattle. Chairman
Glenn Galbratth. Vt'ellpinit
frank L. Cassidy. Jr.. Vancouver
ArthurS Coffin. Yakima
Elizabeth W. Meadoucrofl. Taco
Archie U. Milts. Wenatchee

«pR 1 r.WS

I Carl N. Crouse
Directors / Ralph W. Larson
Jack S. Wayland

April 12, 1976

Mr. Sidney R. Galler
Deputy Assistant Secretary
For Environmental Affairs
Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Mr. Galler:

Your draft environmental impact statement — Consideration of
a Waiver of the Moratorium and Return of Management of Certain
Marine Mammals to the State of Alaska — was reviewed by our
Game Management Division. Comments follow.

We found your draft to be rather unique in approach. The
analysis concentrates on species and socio-economic issues
rather than the impact which this proposed administrative
action would have on the total physical environment. We
feel this type of approach is appropriate in this case.

Your proposed waiver of moratorium and return of management
of certain marine mammals to the State of Alaska is supported
by our department.

Thank you for sending your draft,
helpful.

We hope our comments will be

Sincerely ,

THE DEPARTMENT OF.-GAME

/ 5. tzim^

Eugene S. Dziedzic, Asst. Chief
Environmental Management Division

ESD:cv

cc: Reade Brown
Agencies

NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE, INC.

1730 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. ■ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 ■ (202) 785-0500

May

Mr. Jack Gehringer
National Marine Fisheries Service
3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

1976

.:ay . ;

Dear Mr. Gehringer

The National Fisheries Institute would like to comment
on the proposed waiver of moratorium on the taking and importing
of marine mammals and marine mammal products, as announced in the
Federal Register on April 9, 1976.

Specifically, the Institute favors the establishment of a
cooperative state-federal government management system for
marine mammal resources, as described in the proposal as subpart
H, 50 CFR, Part 216.

While moratoria may have been necessary in the past in
order to preserve certain of our marine mammal resources, the
stocks in question have grown to the extent that the moratorium
is no longer necessary.

In addition, interest and capabilities in marine mammal
resource management among the States has increased very noticeably
in recent years. The Institute is pleased to observe that the
federal government is allowing the individual States a larger role
in resource conservation decision making and policy implementation
in acknowledgement of this trend.

While the Institute views the proposed waiver as an
indication of an increase in flexibility on the part of the
federal government, the Institute still maintains that all
parties involved should place more emphasis on insuring that the
fundamental needs of world societies are considered.

-2-

That is, management of a marine mammal population at the level of
its optimum sustainable population, whatever that may be, should
not mean that we should allocate inordinate portions of fishery
resources, or allow destruction of fishery resources in order to
provide that population with food. The world wide human food needs
must have first priority.

Si nee rely

Lee/J. Weddig
Executive 'Director

INSTITUTE OF ARCTIC BIOLOGY

March 25, 1976

University of Alaska

fairbanks. alaska 99701

Dr. Sidney R. Galler
Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Environmental Affairs
Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Sid:

I have read with interest the draft environmental irapact statement
of the directors, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of
the Interior.

For some time I have been professionally acquainted with affairs of
the above mentioned federal services and have enjoyed occasional collabora-
tion with them.

I have had rather close association with the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game, its Commissioner and his able staff. It has been a pleasure to
communicate with these men, to have joined some of them in research upon
marine mammals and to record their valuable contributions to scientific
knowledge and higher education. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game com-
prises individuals with long and varied experience with the animals of
Alaska in the diverse environments of the State.

I am particularly impressed by the knowledge that I have found in the
Department of the marine mammals of Alaskan coasts and waters. This know-
ledge shows clearly in the evaluations of status of species of marine mammals,
the management of which is proposed to delegate to the State of Alaska.

I believe that the proposal to delegate authority is in the public
interest. It will assure the studious attention for the public benefits
that can be derived from the attention of these men of high scientific
repute in the State's service which has been maintained at a high profes-
sional level. They will continue their close personal and service relations
with their federal colleagues. In addition, through associations that are
mutually beneficial, the State's Department will have close association with
scientists of the University of Alaska, and through them with scientists in
national and international institutions concerned with marine mammals.

In these several respects the worthy purposes of the Marine Mammals Act
will be carried forward for science, education and increasing enjoyment

PLEASE REPLY BY AIRMAIL

University of Alaska

Dr. Sidney R. Galler -2- March 25, 1976

of our citizens in the mammals of the sea, which are among the most inter-
esting and instructive of natural objects.

With my best wishes after a long period of non-acquaintance.

Sincerely,

LAURENCE IRVING

Advisory Scientific Director

& Professor of Zoophysiology

Ll/bm

PLEASE REPLY BY AIRMAIL

APR 2 0 i976

JJMJ,

University of Alaska

FAIRBANKS. ALASKA 99701

Institute of Marine Science
8 April, 1976

Dr. Sidney R. Galler

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs

The Assistant Secretary of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Dr. Galler:

I am writing to you to state my comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, CONSIDERATION OF A WAIVER OF THE MORATORIUM AND
RETURN OF MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN MARINE MAMMALS TO THE STATE OF ALASKA,
as requested in your letter of 8 March, 1976. I wish to record my
endorsement of the proposition for waiving the moratorium and the transfer
of management authority of selected species to the State of Alaska as
indicated in the DEIS.

The substantial experience and excellent record of the Alaska Department
of Fish antt Game in the conservation and management of marine mammals
since statehood is an outstanding example of professional and competent
wildlife management. Alaska stands in a unique position among the states
with regard to the economic importance and magnitude of its marine
mammal resources. The Department of Fish and Game, together with other
agency and institutional capabilities, have provided the foundation for
one of the leading regional endeavors of the world in the field of marine
mammal biology. Rational and wise management and conservation of that
resource depends upon continued and improved research and analysis of
marine mammal biology and of its interactions with other components of the
northern marine ecosystem. Such studies are currently underway and involve
close cooperation and collaboration among state, federal and university
staff in Alaska. International joint enterprises have also recently been
initiated with Soviet and Japanese scientists and managers. The very important
Bering Sea fishery (approximately 4 % of the total world catch) in which
those nations play a major role demands attention and our best efforts at
understanding and regulating possible conflicts between commercial fishermen
and marine mammals. Native subsistence hunting is yet another of the vital
and complex parts of the marine mammal situation in Alaska which needs
attention.

I am firmly convinced, based upon the history of marine mammal work in*
Alaska since 1959, that the extremely important goals stated can be best
achieved in the foreseeable future by return of authority to the State of
Alaska and by further expansion of the well developed collaborations
within the sfcfcte, nation and among the foreign countries involved. We
can not afford to ignore the fundamental importance of these considerations
for Alaska, the nation and the world.

/iv— 1-

Robfcd-t Eisner ,^PhD. v {.*•*

Professor of Marine SciencVASE REPLY BY A,RMAIL APKZ^J^/0

p

APR 2 0 1976

Alaska Professional Hunters Association, Inc.

P. O. BOX 4-1932, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99509
PHONE 907-279-7837

OFFICERS

PRESIDENT - STAN FROST - ANCHORAGE
VICE PRESIDENT - LYNN CASTLE - FAIRBANKS
SECRETARY - GEORGE PALMER - PALMER
TREASURER - IRISH MC GUIRL - ANCHORAGE

\AiO^V%\r>cv\<>^' ^>.C. -Z02.LO

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

KEN FANNING - FAIRBANKS
CHARLES GRAY - FAIRBANKS
CLARK ENGLE - ANCHORAGE
DARRELL FARMEN - ANCHORAGE

LXc*4ke
fcp«A\ Vb>\<Wk>

b*v< %VC5 ,

\v^ oo WVvoVC o£ ^Vn*. AA^W. ?co&**c>*va\ VWW>

J- C^mr» uirv
ttWe, co^«te ^ ^ 'propose cWQ* «Wfl^*W\

poUW\ C^aVv^cN concern ,eV<^ ^WA^M Sv,cVo froV^W-W

Lvj rv<^ M A^W€

PLEDGED FAIR CHASE

/^?vw^k

/U^ «^-

APR^2j9/6

National Wildlife Federation

1412 16TH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

Phone: 202—797-6800
£0? 0 7 '975
April 19, 1976

Sidney R. Galler

Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Environmental Affairs
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Mr. Galler:

Reference is made to your 8 March 1976 letter with its enclosed Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) entitled: "Consideration of a
Waiver of the Moratorium and Return of Management of Certain Marine
Mammals to the State of Alaska."

It seems clear to us that the Congress, in developing the legislation
which eventually became the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of
1972, was keenly sensitive to the states traditional role in managing
resident species of wildlife. Also, the Congress was, and is, aware
that the states have a much greater capability than the Federal
Government, personnel and funding wise, to manage such resources.

It is not surprising, then, that the language contained in the MMPA
and its legislative history makes it evident the Congress never in-
tended that the moratorium on the taking of marine mammals be invoked
any longer than is required to ensure that the welfare of each species
is adequately safeguarded. Further, the MMPA provides for the Federal
Government to transfer management authority back to any state whose
laws and regulations are determined to be consistent with the purposes
of the Act.

The best statistical data available now indicate that population levels
of all nine species of marine mammals are satisfactory and that the
State of Alaska is in a position to manage these species under the
provisions of Federally-reviewed regulations and laws which are consis-
tent with the spirit and intent of the Act.

29A

976

National Wildlife Federation

Sidney G. Galler

April 19 , 1976

This is to advise you, therefore, that the National Wildlife Federation
(NWF) supports the proposal to waive the moratorium and return manage-
ment authority to the State of Alaska on the nine species of marine
mammals described in the DEIS.

Sincerely yours,

Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee

Chairman, House Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee
Chairman, CEQ
Director, FWS
Director, NMFS

Director, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game
NWF Directory and Staff

Urban C. Nelson, Executive Dir. , Alaska Wildlife Fed.
Sportsmen's Council

OFFICERS

PALMER A. "KIT" CARSON

BERTRAM A. WEBER
Vice President
WILLIAM N. LANE, in
Secretary
JOSEPH C.

Safari Club International

RICHARD H. BEGALKA r>1~.:*,~.„^ /"» U.„ .. .4.^.„

OR BARRY O BEGUESSE ChlCSgO Chapter

PALMER A. "KIT" CARSON 14214 INDIANA AVENUE • CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60627 . (312) 568-2688

DR. ANTHONY F. CASTROGIOVANNI

THOMAS C. DECKER

HYLAND B. ERICKSON

JOSEPH C. FERRARA

HERBERT C. GWINN

ROMAN HUPALOWSKI

WILLIAM N. LANE. ITT

NED PAYNE

ROBERT E. ROSS

JOHN UHLARIK

BERTRAM A. WEBER

ROBERT S. ZIEMEK

Mr. Raymond C. Hubley, Jr., Chief

Marine Mammals and Endangered Species Division

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Mr. Hubley:

I have recently been sent a copy of the U.S. Department of Commerce
and the U.S. Department of the Interior Interagency Task Group's
Draft Environmental Impact Statement germane to "Consideration of
A Waiver of the Moratorium and Return of Management of Certain Marine
Mammals to the State of Alaska".

I have read andanalyzed this Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
I am in full accord with proposed action to waive the moratorium, with
limitations, on nine species of marine mammals, in waters off Alaska,
and grant to that State authority under the waiver to regulate taking
within State jurisdiction and on the high seas outside State jurisdic-
tion in waters off Alaska (1) for sport, commercial, and subsistence
purposes, and (2) takings for scientific research and takings incidenta'
to commercial fishing operations.

I, therefore, endorse your professional and courageous actions.

Very truly yours

Anthony F. Cas trog i ovanni
AFC/ms

If

OFFICERS

c j Mcelroy

Chairman ol the Board

HYLANDB. ERICKSON

President

JAMES SCHMALZ

Vice President

H. NORDEN VAN HORNE

Vice President

CHARLES BECKER, JR.

Secretary

KYLE DeFOOR

Treasurer

DIRECTORS

COL. THOMAS E BASS

President-Nat'l Capitol Chapter

JACKBEAL

President-Florida Chapter

WILSON H BROWN

President-Dallas Chapter

PALMER A '•KIT" CARSON

President-Chicago Chapter

DR JIMCONKLIN

President-Pittsburgh Chapter

COTTON GORDON

FRANK E GREEN

President-Houston Chapter

WILLIAM D. HART

President-Rocky Mountain Chapter

GEORGE ISAACS

President-Hawaii Chapter

LEEE JURRAS

President-Indiana Chapter

HAROLD A KEATS

JACK LEEDS

President-Minnesota Chapter

SEYMOUR H. LEVY

c.j. Mcelroy

President-Arizona Chapter

DOUGLAS E MILLER

President-Denver Chapter

SAMUEL MORSE

President-Mississippi Chapter

ANDYOLDFIELD

President-Los Angeles Chapter

D GENERUBECK

MARION VAN SLOOTEN

President-Michigan Chapter

CHARLES BECKER, JR

KYLE DeFOOR

HYLANDB. ERICKSON

JAMES SCHMALZ

H, NORDEN VAN HORNE

Safari Club International

April 3, 1976

IA NEVADA CORPORATION)

Please Reply To: 4615 N. Camino Nuestro
Tucson, Arizona 85705

Mr. Raymond C. Hubley, Jr., Chief

Marine Mammals and Endangered Species Division

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Mr. Hubley:

The SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL is a democratic organization consisting
of 22 chapters located throughout the United States. In addition,
there are about a dozen affiliated autonomous groups as well as thou-
sands of individual associate members. All subscribe to the thesis —
"Conservation of Wildlife and Protection of the Hunter".

We have recently been sent a copy of the U.S. Department of Commerce
and the U.S. Department of the Interior Interagency Task Group's
Draft Environmental Impact Statement germane to "Consideration of a
Waiver of the Moratorium and Return of Management of Certain Marine
ils to the State of Alaska".

We have read and analyzed this Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL is in full accord with proposed action
to waive the moratorium, with limitations, on nine species of marine
mammals, in waters off Alaska, and grant to that State authority
under the waiver to regulate takings within State jurisdiction and
on the high seas outside State jurisdiction in waters off Alaska
(1) for sport, commercial, and subsistence purposes, and (2) takings
for scientific research and takings incidental to commercial fishing
operations. This waiver would allow the taking, for the above listed
purposes, of not more than:

Beluga Whales - 360
Northern Sea Lion - 15,000
Spotted Seal - 20,000
Ribbon Seal - 500
Harbor Seal - 6,500

Ringed Seal - 20,000
Bearded Seal - 9,000
Polar Bear - 250
Sea Otter - 3,000
Walrus - 3,000

Data included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates
that this limited harvest of these nine species of marine mammals is

A NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION • DEDICATED TO CONSERVING WILDLIFE AND PRESERVING HUNTING

Mr. Raymond C. Hubley, Jr.

April 3, 1976

well within their ability to sustain with no adverse effects upon
their individual populations.

We, therefore, endorse your professional and courageous actions.

Very truly yours,

SAFARI /OLUB INTERNATIC

<4#my /c^v *****

Seym/ir H. Levy, Chairmai

National Legislative Action Committee

SHL:hml

m%

kAV

-fcA

km

THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

Suite S176

3900 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20016

May 11, 1976

FRED G. EVENDEN

Executive Director

JOHN L. SPINKS, JR.

Field Director

PHONE: ui K3-uu

'MAY 1 7 197S

Sidney R. Galler

Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Environmental Affairs
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, DC 20230

Dear Mr. Galler:

This letter is in response to your March 8, 1976 letter with its enclosed
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) entitled: "Consideration of a
Waiver of the Moratorium and Return of Management of Certain Marine Mammals
to the State of Alaska."

In studying the history of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) it
would appear to us that Congress was acutely aware of the state's traditional
role in managing resident species of wildlife. It would also appear that Congress
realizes the greater capability of the state, as opposed to the Federal Government,
to manage their resident wildlife resource. This has been especially true in
recent years with the decreased personnel and funding levels available at the
Federal level for the management of wildlife resources.

Present population levels of all 9 species of marine mammals under consideration
are satisfactory, according to the best statistical data available. Based upon these
data and the language contained in the MMPA indicating that Congress never intended
that the moratorium on the taking of marine mammals be invoked any longer than
necessary to insure the adequate safeguarding of each species, The Wildlife Society
supports the proposal to waive the moratorium and return management authority to
the State of Alaska for the 9 species of mammals described in the DEIS.

Sincerely,

MichaeMD^agata
Field Director

Ph.D.

MDZ/ly

:c: Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee

Chairman, House Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee

Chairman, CEQ

Director, FWS

Director, NMFS

Director, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game

NRCA Members

Council, TWS

R. Sparrowe

Alaska Chapter Presidents, -[^Official Publications

JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT • WILDLIFE MONOGRAPHS .

WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN

B. Letters with responses

SUM IF M

DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

April 15, 1976

Mrs.,

Pouch 0

Juneau, Alaska 99811

Sidney R. Galler
Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Environmental Affairs
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington D.C. 20230

Dear Mr. Galler:

APK i 1 til*

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIS concerning
a waiver of the moratorium and return of certain marine mammals to the State
of Alaska.

This Department strongly supports the concept of returning the management of
marine mammals to the State of Alaska.

The present program governed by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
limits the taking of animals except for subsistence and scientific purposes.
This policy has permitted certain species to increase above the optimum
carrying capacity. If populations continue to increase, a number of impacts
will be felt, including: increased competition for space, food and breeding
habitat; greater susceptibility to disease; displacement; dietary shift;
high infant mortality and lower pregnancy rates. These indices have been
observed for several species regulated by existing management plan.

The State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, is in a better position to
effectively manage Alaskan marine mammals to an "optimum sustainable population"
level.

Page Specific Comments

Pg. 8 - The quotas listed for the 10 species appear confusing in comparison
with those shown in Table 4, page 99. It is assumed that the quotas take into
account the 50 - 60% unretrieved loss of walrus and seals due to sinking. It
also appears the quotas are far above the estimated annual take under the
proposed action,

Pg, 105 - The 40 - 50% unretrieved loss of walrus perhaps should be given
greater consideration and discussion. If the harvesting of these animals under
the State's management program will continue to yeild a 50% non -retrieval, this
should be included in the establishment of harvest quotas.

.OV-UTIO/v ,

'1776-/\ TRIBUTE FROM OUR STATE TO OUR AMT/OAM976"

'^e-1916

Sidney R. Galler

Page 2

April 15, 1976

Pg. 114 - There is a need to identify the criteria for determining an orphaned
walrus calf as opposed to an abandoned calf, a non-orphaned calf, or a juvenile.
Although it may not be large, a harvest loophole appears to exist and may cause
regulatory problems.

Pg. 128 - Statement (1) notes that Marine mammals may be taken legally only
"with a hand-held rifle using a centerfire cartridge, except rifles capable
of fully automatic fire" is ambiguous. The statement should simply identify
the minimum caliber weapon and ammunition acceptable.

I hope these brief comments will permit an expeditious review of this
proposal and hasten the return of management to the State of Alaska.

Sincerely

•^

EM:GC:sg

State of Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation

Comment:

Pg. 8 - The quotas listed for the 10 species appear confusing in comparison
with those shown in Table 4, page 99. It is assumed that the quotas take
into account the 50 - 60% unretrieved loss of walrus and seals due to sinking,
It also appears the quotas are far above the estimated annual take under the
proposed action.

Response:

The extent of the waiver is based upon the optimum sustainable population of
each species and not upon the State's estimate of current take and its pro-
jected near-term needs. The NMFS quotas include both retrieved and
nonretrieved harvests, whereas the FWS quotas include only retrieved take.

Comment:

The 40 - 50% unretrieved loss of walrus perhaps should be given greater con-
sideration and discussion. If the harvesting of these animals under the
State's management program will continue to yield a 50% non-retrieval, this
should be included in the establishment of harvest quotas.

Response:

The unretrieved loss of animals was included in the waiver consideration.

Comment:

Pg. 114 - There is a need to identify the criteria for determining an
orphaned walrus calf as opposed to an abandoned calf, a non-orphaned calf, or
a juvenile. Although it may not be large, a harvest loophole appears to
exist and may cause regulatory problems.

Response:

These terms will be defined in State regulations, should it become necessary.
Comment:

Pg. 128 - Statement (1) notes that Marine mammals may be taken legally only
"with a hand-held rifle using a centerfire cartridge, except rifles capable
of fully automatic fire" is ambiguous. The state should imply identify the
minimum caliber weapon and ammunition acceptable.

Response:

The Fish and Wildlife Service approved in October 1976 revised State regula-
tions on minimum caliber weapons that may be used for hunting walrus. In
June 1977, the ALJ did not recommend minimum calibers for the other species,
but minimum calibers may be set in final or revised regulations.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DIVISION

240 COTTAGE STREET S.E.

SALEM, OREGON 97310

ROBERT W. STRAUB

GOVERNOR

April 14, 1976

APR Z I l976

Sidney Galler

Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Environmental Affairs
The Assistant Secretary of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Mr. Galler:

Re: Consideration of a Waiver
of the Moratorium & Return
of Mgmt. of Certain Marine
Animals to Alaska
PNRS #7603 4 630

Thank you for submitting your draft Environmental
Impact Statement for State of Oregon review and comment.

Your draft was referred to the appropriate state
agencies. Department of Fish and Wildlife offered the
enclosed comments which should be addressed in prepara-
tion of your final Environmental Impact Statement.

We will expect to receive copies of the final
statement as required by Council of Environmental Quality
Guidelines.

Sincerely,

//.jA^

William H. Young
Administrator

WHY :1m
Enclosure

OREGON PROJECT NOTIFBCATSON AND REVIEW SYSTEM

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE

Intergovernmental Relations Division

240 Cottage Street S.E., Salem, Oregon 97310

Ph: 378-3732

APR 13 1976

P N R S STATE

E V I E W

Project #: 7kQ3 h b30

Return Date:

4s±3k

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES

1. A response is required to all notices requesting environmental review.

2. OMB A-95 (Revised) provides for a 30-day extension of time, if
necessary. If you cannot respond by the above return date, please
call the State Clearinghouse to arrange for an extension.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT

( ) This project does not have significant environmental impact.

( ) The environmental impact is adequately described.

(X) We suggest that the following points be considered in the prepara-
tion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding this pro-
ject.

( ) No comment.

REMARKS

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife supports the State of Alaska's
proposed waiver of the marine mammal moratorium. This subject was addressed
and approved as a resolution at a recent meeting of the Pacitic Marine Fisher-
ies Commission with this department's support.
Other comments are:

Page 9, Vol. I. Monitoring state laws, management and regulations should
be a state responsibility with minimum federal control.

Federal review of state regulations should have a time limit, such as
"The federal review will be accomplished within 120 days." Should
comments not be made within that period, the regulations are approved as
submitted.

Page 53, Vol. I. The concept of single populations must be accepted for
harbor seals; hence, the moratorium waiver for that species cannot be
questioned.

REv. fci VED

MAR 1 9 1976

FISH & WILOI "«=E

/y V ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION^/9/ 76

State of Oregon

Executive Department - Intergovernmental Relations Division

Comment:

Page 9, vol. I. Monitoring state laws, management and regulations should be
a state responsibility with minimum federal control.

Federal review of state regulations should have a time limit, such as "The
federal review will be accomplished within 120 days." Should comments not
be made within that period, the regulations are approved as submitted.

Response:

50 CFR Section 216.106(f) subpart H and Section 18.56(f) subpart F, state:
"As soon as practicable . . .the Director . . . shall determine whether or
not to finally disapprove the State laws and regulations. The Director's
determination shall be made within 90 days after publication of the notice
described in section 216.106(e) [section 18.56(e)] unless a hearing is held..

Comment:

Page 53, vol. I. The concept of single populations must be accepted for
harbor seals; hence, the moratorium waiver for that species cannot be
questioned.

Response:

The hearing record and the administrative law judge's recommended decision
support a finding that there is a single population of land-breeding harbor
seals.

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA BOX 35151

\^.^J9V7-^/ FAIRBANKS ALASKA 99701

April 16, 1976

Sidney R. Gal ler

Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Environmental Affairs
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Mr. Gal ler:

In response to your letter of March 15, 1976, please find
enclosed the comments concerning the draft environmental
impact statement "Consideration of a Waiver of the
Moratorium and REturn of Management of Certain Marine
Mammals to the State of Alaska: (Vols. I and ll). These
comments were made by one of our marine advisory agents.

Sincerely,

James W. Matthews
Di rector

JWM/ba

Enclosure

cc: Raymond C. Hubley, Jr.

APR 2 8 1976

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA. AND U S DEPARTME NT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

university dfalaska Marine Advisory Proqrams

Fairbanks Alaska 99701 3211 Providence Avenue

Anchorage, Alaska 99504
(907) 278-4911

April 9, 1976

Dr. James Matthews, Director

Cooperative Extension Service _t) , ^ ,.-,--

University of Alaska, Box 95151 Kfr'K * t O/tJ

Fairbanks, AK 99701

Dear Jim:

I have read over the draft Environmental Impact Statement "Consideration of a
Waiver of the Moratorium and Return of Management of Certain Marine Mammals to the
State of Alaska: (Vols. I and II).

In general, I find no fault with the DEIS, with the exception of several small
points which could stand clarification. Examples: in several places, "beluga
whales" is stated to include other species of toothed whales (77-79, Vol. I),
and similarly a status report on beluga and whales, dolphins and porpoises
(p. 145, Vol. II). Does this indicate the State is opting for the management
of all whale species? On page 10, Vol. I, last paragraph, baleen whales should
be included in the phylogenetic listing.

On page 14, Vol. I, the first three criteria for assessing marine mammal popula-
tion above optimum levels may be very difficult to deal with for pelagic species.

The table on page 8, Vol. I, is difficult to interpret as presented. Do the
numbers indicate the number/species taken? If so, do they include, or are they
limited to, those animals taken by native subsistence hunting?

Page 29, Vol. I, states that the "population data for polar bears has not been
sufficiently analyzed ... to construct a reliable population model for this
species." Perhaps such a population model should be developed before sport hunt-
ing is reopened for this species (or, for that matter, before allowing further
subsistence hunting as currently permitted by the Marine Mammal Act) .

These are largely picky criticisms of a generally fine DEIS. Thank you for the
opportunity to read and review it.

Sincerely,

Richard S. Lee
Assistant Professor
Marine Science Education

RSL/dmr
Enclosure

UNIVERSITY CFALASKA, AND U.S.DEPA

University of Alaska; Cooperative Extension Service

Comment:

In general, I find no fault with the DEIS, with the exception of several small
points which could stand clarification. Examples: in several places, beluga
whales" is stated to include other species of toothed whales (p. 77-79, vol.
I), and similarly a status report on beluga and whales, dolphins and porpoises
(p. 145, vol.11). Does this indicate the State is opting for the management
of all whale species?

Response:

To mention species other than those proposed for a waiver in such areas as
food web diagrams (p. 77-79) and in State-supplied biological data (p. 145,
vol.11) in no way connotes that "the State is opting for management of all
whale species." The proposed action described is the return of management
for nine species of marine mammals, which includes only one cetacean species,
the beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas).

Comment:

On page 10, vol.1, last paragraph, baleen whales should be included in the
phylogenetic listing.

Response:

Baleen whales are not a part of the proposed action and therefore are not
discussed in detail in the impact statement.

Comment:

On page 14, vol.1, the first three criteria for assessing marine mammal
populations above optimum levels may be yery difficult to deal with for
pelagic species.

Response:

Except for beluga whales, all of the nine species haul out on ice or land
at least to breed. Therefore the first four indicators should apply.
Dietary components are determined from stomach content analyses.

Comment:

The table on page 8, vol.1, is difficult to interpret as presented.

Response:

This table has been retained and appears at page 8 of vol . I, of the FEIS.
Notwithstanding the above comment, the table is considered to be a useful
means for graphically depicting the extent of the waiver.

Comment:

Page 29, vol. I, states that the "population data for polar bears has not
been sufficiently analyzed. . .to construct a reliable population model for
this species." Perhaps such a population model should be developed before
sport hunting is reopened for this species (or, for that matter, before
allowing further subsistence hunting as currently permitted by the Marine
Mammal Act).

Response:

The results of the polar bear population modeling were presented at the 1976,
ALJ public hearing and have also been incorporated in the FEIS.

BERING STRAITS NATIVE CORPORATION

P.O. BOX HOOS- NOME .ALASKA 99762 '(907) 443-5252

APR 2 1 1976

April 12, 1976

Mr. Sidney R. Galler
Deputy Ass't Secretary for

Environmental Affairs
The Assistant Secretary of Commerce
Washington D. C. 20230

Dear Mr. Galler:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
of the Consideration of a Waiver of the Moratorium and Return
of Management of Certain Marine Mammals to the State of Alaska
and make the following comments on the statement:

I. Administrative Hearings

We strongly urge that any administrative hear-
ings include Nome as one of the location to solicit
input from the people that would be directly impact-
ed by the waiver of the moratorium. Further that
announcement of hearings will also include press
releases and letters to Native Organizations involved,
as the Federal Register is circulated only to limit-
ed number of readers and in most cases received
one month after the date of publication due to it's
3rd or 4th class mail rating.

II. The People, the Economy and Hunting
Pressures in Alaska

Contrary to the statement made on page 93,
Volume I, quote, "Native subsistency dependency
has decreased since white' man began the colonization
of Alaska. The granting of 40 million acres in fee
title land and nearly a billion dollars to the Na-
tives under provisions of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) should accelerate this trend.
It has been said that ANCSA will have as great an
impact upon the Alaska Native's traditional way of
life as did their early encounter with white man's

Mr. Galler
Page Two
April 12, 1976

culture." End quote. The impact of ANCSA on vil-
lage life style has been very little. The individual
stockholders of regional and village corporations
have had very little direct benefits or income from
the ANCSA. The following are the individual resident
stockholder share from the ANCSA distribution checks:

1973 - $182.00

1974 _ 92.23

1975 - 78.41

We don't foresee any major change in the life-
style and subsistence dependence of the Alaskan
Native Village Residents on marine mammals in the
near future.

III. Current Takings of Marine Mammals

in Alaska not Affected by

the Requested Action

Page 97 & Page 101

A. Hunting by Alaska Natives: This section
of the Environmental Impact Statement implies that
taking of marine mammals by Alaska Natives would
not be affected by the transfer of management to
the State of Alaska. Appendix "H", Alaska Adminis-
tration Code Titles - Regulations Pertaining to
Marine Mammals with Proposed Amendments, hardly re-
flects this. Section 5 AAc 81.350 Marine Mammal
Hunting establishes seasons and bag limits for hunt-
ing units in all of the State of Alaska.

Unit

>en Season

Bag Limit

(1) Seal & Beluga

(a) Sea Lion

Units 1-26

No Closed
Season

10 Sea Lions*

* The taking of sea lions in excess of 10 is per-
mitted only under the terms of a permit which may be
issued by the Commissioner.

Mr. Galler
Page Three
April 12, 1976

(b) Beluga

Units 1-8 and
in waters South
of Aleutian Is-
land Chain

Units 9-26

No Open Season

No Closed
Season

2 Belugas*

* The taking of belugas in excess of 2 is permitted
under the terms of a permit which may be issued by
the Commissioner.

(2) Seal

Harbor or

Spotted
Units 1-26

No Closed
Season

4 Seals*

* Provided that taking of harbor or spotted seals
in excess of 4 is permitted only under the terms
of a permit which may be issued by the Commissioner,
No such permit shall be issued for commercial take
of harbor seals south of the Aleutian Peninsula.

(b) Ringed, Bearded
and Ribbon.
Unit 9 , North
of the Aleutian
Island & 10, 17- No Closed
26 Season

10 Seals3

* Provided that the taking of ringed, bearded or
ribbon seals in excess of 10 is permitted only under
the terms of a -permit which may be issued by the
Commissioner.

The bag limits provided in these regulations
severely limits the number of marine mammals that
would be taken by Alaska Natives with the exception
of walrus. Also on pages 114, 115, 116, 117, 118
and 125, the Environmental Impact Statement makes
references to unlimited bag limits for subsistence

Mr. Galler
Page Four
April 12, 1976

take by Alaska Natives and hunting units north of
Bristol Bay. The proposed bag limits under Section
5 AAC 81.350 applies to all units and makes no spe-
cial reference to subsistence take by Alaska Natives
who depend upon and utilize marine mammals for food.
Also the State Regulations groups the species of
seals, ie., (a) harbor or spotted seal, (b) ringed,
bearded and ribbon, and establishes bag limits for
each group. These regulations as presently drafted
would seriously limit the take of Alaska Natives for
subsistence purposes. On page 125, there is references
made that ADF & G recognizes the historical need of
Alaska Natives for subsistence harvest, that the
regulations have been drawn in a manner that allows
natives subsistence take and that there is a year
open season on seals with no bag limits. This is
not so, the case, according to the Proposed State
Regulations .

IV. Appendix I - Proposed Federal Regulations
A. Section 216.103/18.53
Review of State Laws
and Regulations - General

"Part (b)", states, "Section 109 of the Act
provides that on or after December 21, 1972, no
state may adopt any law or regulations, or enforce
any existing law or regulation, which relates to the
taking of marine mammals or which in effect nulli-
fies an exemption or exceptions created by the Act,
unless such law or regulations have been previously
reviewed by the Director and determined by him to be
consistent with the provisions of the Act and the
regulations in this part. Emphasis supplied.

We feel that the proposed state hunting regula-
tions does not meet the conditions of this part, as
currently written, as they do not provide for sub-
sistence take of Alaska Natives. -or make any special
references to subsistence taking except for polar
bear and walrus.

Mr. Galler
Page Five
April 12, 1976

B. Section 216.105/18.55

Approval of State Laws

And Regulations - Criteria

The criteria established for approval of State
Laws and Regulations completely by-passes the sub-
sistence needs of the Alaska Natives and yet makes
references to recreational use, part (g), part (11).
We feel that subsistence needs of the Alaska Natives
should have precedence over recreational use or
incidental catch of marine mammal.

V. Appendix P - Alaska Game
Management Policies

Polar Bear Policy, page F-4 states "Recreation
is the most important use of polar bears. Recreation-
al uses include: sport hunting in it's various forms,
observations and wilderness experiences etc." Page
P-5 states, "The Department recognizes recreational
hunting as the dominant use of polar bears in the
state. Page P-5 states "The Department does not
consider the harvest of polar bears primarily for
food, a proper use, nor does it consider the sale
or barter of hides, meat or other parts, a proper
use and will oppose these uses. "

It is evident from the above statements that the
State of Alaska does not consider subsistence use of
polar bear a proper use and could possibly prohibit
such use in the future.

VI. The State Fish and Game Regulations are
confusing and leaves one wondering which section of
the regulations have precedence over the other.

Section 5 AAC 81.320
Big Game Hunting

Units

Open Season Bag Limits

(3)

Bear, polar
22, 23 & 26

10/15 - 5/31

One bear every
four regulatory
years, by permit
only.

r£r V

+^^L nHrMikjn & ISjte\iSii

Mr. Galler
Page Six
April 12, 1976

Section 5 AAC 90.020
Definitions

(2) "Bag limit" means the greatest number of
game species permitted to be taken by any one person
in the unit or portion of a unit in which the taking
occurs: however, additional numbers of species may
be taken in another designated open unit or portion
of a unit where a greater limit on such species is
prescribed: in no case may the total or cumulative
bag for one person exceed the limit set for the unit
or portion of a unit in which the additional game was
taken:

VII. (D) The Impact of the Proposed
Federal Regulations and the State
Management Program
Page 110 of Volume I EIS

1. Impact on Species Population - Polar Bear

The following statement is made "Proposed state
regulations would allow licensed residents to take one
polar bear per year for food without a permit: this
statement is not in agreement with Section 5 AAC
81. 050 of the proposed state hunting regulations".

2. Socio-Economic Impacts - Page 119

Statement on page 122 says - "Other cash sources
of income have been greatly reduced. Sale of polar
bear hides, for instance, had once brought $3,000 to
$5,000 to the successful non-native hunter. A guided
polar bear hunt earned at least half as much. An
estimated of 20 to 30 polar bears are annually har-
vested by Eskimos and because of current restrictions
on sale of hides, the estimated total loss of income
derived from polar bear hunting is above $150,000.
Page 124, Table 6 - Impact of requested action, if
implemented, on activities discussed in this report.

Activity Probable Results of State

Management

Subsistence Hunters a. Some restrictions in take
such as limits on polar bear.

Mr. Galler
Page Seven
April 12, 1976

b. Removal of restriction on
sale of skins.

The proposed state regulations state under Article
5, Use of Game - Section 5 AAC 81.20, purchase and
Sale. The purchase, sale or barter of game or parts
of game is permitted with the following exceptions:

(5) Polar bear or parts of polar bear taken
under terms of a permit issued by the commis-
sioner.

I suppose that the lack of mention on sale of
barter of polar bear or parts of polar bear taken for
food indicate that such use in allowable without
restrictions. Based on the Alaska Game Management
Policy Statements, it is evident that they do not
support such use and even states that they would
oppose such use.

VIII. General Comments

A. Again, we emphasize that Administrative Hearings be
held in Nome to get as much input as possible from the Alaska
Natives in Northwest Alaska who would be directly affected by
the transfer to State Management.

B. We strongly oppose the proposed state regulations

as currently written (appendix H) as they are too restrictive;
they do not make special reference to taking of seals for
food; the language is confusing and in most cases, are not in
agreement with various statements made in the Environmental
Impact Statement.

C. We realize that the moratorium and game management
is primarily designed for the conservation of marine mammals
and for balanced ecosystem. We do, however, feel strongly
that the Alaska Native Needs were not emphasized enoughs ,
particularly in the proposed federal regulations and the

state regulations. If all taking was terminated on any species
of seals or walrus, the effect would be to bring to point of
starvation to these small Alaskan Native Villages that depend
primarily on sea mammals for food. We ask that other forms
of taking of marine mammals be terminated first before you force
the Alaska Natives to the point of breaking the law.

Mr. Galler
Page Eight
April 12, 1976

We are not opposed to the waiver of the moratorium but
we'll oppose the transfer of management to the State of Alaska
under the current proposed state regulations.

We hope that every consideration will be given to our
concerns and that favorable results will occur. Further con-
cerns and comments will be made during the administrative
hearings .

Sincerely,

BERING STRAITS NATIVE CORPORATION

Jerome Trigg, President
JT/sw

Senator Ted Stevens

Senator Mike Gravel

Representative Don Young

12 Regional Native Corporations

Bering Straits Region Village Corporations

Governor Hammond

James M. Brooks

John R. Twiss, Jr.

Representative Robert L. Legett

Representative Leonor K. Sullivan

Bud Walsh

Gary Longley, Chairman for Nome Fish & Game

Advisory Committee
Carl Grauvogel
Frank Ferguson
Larry Davis
Nels Anderson

Bering Straits Native Corporation

Comment:

Contrary to the Statement made on Page 93, Volume I, quote, "Native subsis-
tency dependency has decreased since white man began the colonization of
Alaska. The granting of 40 million acres in fee title land and nearly a
billion dollars to the Natives under provisions of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANSCA) should accelerate this trend. It has been said that
ANCSA will have as great an impact upon the Alaska Native's traditional way
of life as did their early encounter with white man's culture." End quote.
The impact of ANCSA on village life style has been very little. The
individual stockholders of regional and village corporations have had very
little direct benefits or income from the ANCSA. The following are the
individual resident stockholder share from the ANCSA distribution checks:
1973-$182.00; 1974-$92.23; 1975-$78.41. We don't forsee any major change
in the life-style and subsistence dependence of the Alaskan Native Village
Residents on marine mammals in the near future.

Response:

Although the economic situation varies between villages and councils
dependent upon contact and proximity to non-Native areas of habitation,
the statement, albeit general, is considered valid.

Comment:

Hunting by Alaska Natives: .. .These regulations as presently drafted would
seriously limit the take of Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes. On page
125, there is a reference made to that ADF&G recognizes the historical need
of Alaska Natives for subsistence harvest, that the regulations have been
drawn in a manner that allows Native subsistence take and that there is a
year open season on seals with no bag limits. This is not so, the case,
according to the Proposed State Regulations.

Response:

The regulations discussed in the comment above were modifications drafted by
the NMFS and FWS of State regulations then in effect, (appendix H of the DEIS).
These regulations are no longer a part of the proposed action and have been
removed from the FEIS. The regulations proposed by the State to be effective
if the waiver is approved are located in appendix G.

Response cannot be made to the remaining concerns addressed in the letter as
they relate to the issues of fact discussed at the hearing and are the subject
of the waiver. All comments however have been noted and will be given due
consideration before any action is taken. When and if the waiver is imple-
mented, State laws, regulations, and policy statements may have to be
changed to be in compliance with the stipulations and intent of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972. All noted discrepancies such as those
related to the polar bear will thereby be eliminated.

Nunam Kitlutsisti
Box 26?

Bethel, Alaska 99559
April 14, 1976

H. William Newman, Chairman ^0^™*™**%

Joint FVS/NMFS /& n i 6 6 I V *t>

Marine Mammal Task Force IT Ap^ £ \ \%"\% *]

Fish and Wildlife Service U* ^V

Washington, D.G. 20240 W w , ,.,*,*&#'

Dear Mr. Newman,

We have just finished reading the draft environmental impact statement "Consideration
of a Waiver of the Moratorium and Return of Management of Certain Marine Mammals to the
State of Alaska. " In that the 1972 Marine Mammal Moratorium responded in part t6 the
distinct and inseparable relationship between native Alaskan subsistence hunters and
marine mammals through the "native exclusion," our region Of ice-seal and walrus hunters
are quite concerned by' the State's efforts to regain management control. Our experience
with the State as a manager of game resources has been unpleasant, and our villages
have established our region's position as one of opposition to the return of management
to the State of Alaska of both walrus and the remaining species of marine mammals.

The lower Yukon and Kuskokw m river drainages is the site of i of all native
villages in the State of Alaska. There is no regional government, and the Association
of Village Council Presidents, an ad-hoc government of the elected municipal and
traditional council leaders of our 56 member villages, represents the collective village
interets . Nunam Kitlutsisti is the environmental advisor for AVCP, and during the
past two years, N.K. has attempted to explain the complicated issue of marine mammals,
the State's request for first walrus return, and then the State's request for return of
the remaining species of marine mammals to State management. Our villages point to
two basic facts concerning the State's management plans«l)that the State has failed to
meet its obligation to manage its resources in regard to beneficial users, and has failed
to adaquately provide the funds for support of subsistence communities dependent upon
renewable resources; and ?)the State of Alaska has little regard for the future consequences
of massive Federal development plans in the Bering Sea that will make all assumptions
concerning existing ecological conditions in the Bering Sea null, and a drastic revision
In human population influences on Bering Sea marine mammal populations as a secondary
consequence of federal OCS off-shore and on-shore pipeline development.

In 1974, the villages of our region filled out a subsistence calendar each day in each
of their subsistence households. (Table l) Our region compiled a food inventory of 14.2
million pounds of food. Marine mammals are the staple part of our coastal villages
diet, and the oil from the seal serves as the main liquid component of our dried fish/game
diet among all our villages. Unlike other regions of the State, our region's renewable
environment is rather bleak. There are no massive migrations of game into our region,

Page 2

and harvest Up a daily task. Our leaders continue to point out that we are at our level" of
maximum sustained yield for our region. In 190C, when early invertigators explored our
region, these men calculated our population, then rich in walrus" and caribou: , at
15,000; in 19?6, we are without the walrus and the caribou, and face intrusions by
high seas fishing fleets on our salmon, and our population is again at 15,000. Our
villagers continue to report that they must monitor their harvest strictly, for if they
interfere with the ecological balance of their hunting areas, there is no place else to
go, for the villages surrounding their territory are already harvesting the available
surplus. Our villages do not waste, and yet our people know we are in trouble, and in
need of professional game management help to plan for the future when massive federal
development program shall open up our region. We have asked the State for this
assistance, and have been met with a de af ear.

Oar region has carefully researched the expenditure of State funds, particularly
the allocation of Pittman-Robertson funds for game management, and we note that the
Bethel and the Yukon Delta have the lowest per capita expenditure of any region in
the State. Contrary to published statements within the DEIS, the State has no information
of any validity about our region's marine mammal harvest, nor has the State invested
either time or manpower in our region to determine population. We are a region that
depends on its marine mammals; the mammals are the only food many of our coastal
villagers have for most of the year, yet the State continues to spend its game management
funds on sport and recreational hunting areas. Our villages are convinced that a return
of marine mammal management to the State will not produce a change in the state's allocation
of its supposed marine mammal professional manpower, but will merely produce an opening
for the State to start up sport hunting of marine mammals again. Our villages believe
that the sport hunting of marine mammals for Alaska's urban population is the State's only
interest in having the marine mammals returned to State jurisdiction. Our villages also
fear that a return to the State will eliminate the federal funds currently being spent
on marine mammals through 0GS related efforts, and federal and state combined funding
for research and management in our region will be completely negAted.

The "native exclusion", while harming natives in their limited market places for the
sale of surplus hides and by-products, has placed the issue of user classes out of the
State's continuing constitutional crisis amongst user classes. The State continues to
tell its citizens that all are equal, yet when the issue of funding is examined, native
Alaskans dependent upon the resource for their very livelihood learn that their regions
recieve the least attention unless recreational hunting objectives of the State are also
satisfied so as to warrant State expenditures. Recreational users clearly outweigh
native subsistence uses. (Table 2)

Our region does not wish to see the "native exclusion" be replaced with the State's

definition of proper ma agement, particularly in light of the Federal Government's intent
to lease in the Bering Sea and set aside large parts of the western Alaskan land mass for
future highways, pipelines, and ports. Our summation of the DEIS is that its factual basis
of information up to 1973 is inadaquate to allow so critical a decision as return of
management to take place. We find that the information concerning our lives in the villages
is a set of assumptions, and little time has been taken to adaquately review the existing

social, economic, and subsistence conditions within our villages. Section E, "The
Economy, and Hunting Pressures in Alaska" is useless, and Section 3 "Ahe Alaskan
Native Economy" displays a freightening ignorence of economic conditions in our villages
today, the effects of technology, and future consequences of growth.

Our villages did not know poverty until a technological culture found them. Through
technology, the gun and the machine, game populations were eliminated (the baluga, caribou)
and new area was opened up for recreational hunters(the AVGP region to airplane hunters
from Alaska's urban areas). Now, many of our people face poverty of spirit and hunger
for their land game is. gone. Our coastal villages have not faced this problem yet, because
sport hunting populations do not live on the Bering Sea. On-shore development in
relation to OCS will have drastic changes in the demography of Western Alaska. The
statement on page 92 is most illuminating: "New residents of the State of Alaska, if they do
hunt, are expected to favor such big game animals as moose, caribou, deer, sheep, and
goats." When these populations of new Alaskans settle on the Bering Sea coast, our
villagers expect two things to happen: a) an increase in the sport effort on marine mammal
in that land mammals populations are severely depressed in our region now; b) enactment
of special sport bunts by the State to legitimize the recreational hunters on our coasts
regardless of its impact on native subsistence needs. Page 125 explains that the State
generally regulates seasons to benefit subsistence take , and because ice-seals "tend to
be available in quantity during the severest weather, only local residents are able to
harvest." This statement does not consider the near future when resident populations
along the Bering Sea coast will contain sport hunters who demand "equal -use" under the
State's consitution. The State refuses to discuss the issue of preference among beneficial
hunters, and our villages reason this is their objection to State management.

Environmental degradation of the Bering Sea biota is the larger question facing our
subsistence culture. Oil spills and a degradation of the Bering Sea biomass, a natural
by=product of frontier exploration and development are extremely sensitive issues to
our region. The State is unable to assume the task of pre-planning and monitoring these
crises, and our villages believe that the Federal Government is also unwilling to examine
the consequencesof its policies on native subsistence culture as a direct consequence of
off-shore and on-shore OCS induced changes . N.K. notes .that the OCS program is completely
overlooked, and that the DEIS fails to take into consideration the funding and monitoring
required of the State to protect its management. of marine mammals. On page I38, the

proposed action which would involve waiving the moratorium and transfering management to

the State lists as an administrative consequence an added burden on the State, but somehow

the DEIS concludes that the State Department of Fish and Game, which is strapped for

funds, and under tremendous pressure from diverse interests, will somehow reverse its

present characteristic of spot checking subsistence areas and concentrating on active

recreational hunting zones to satisfy no doubt the wishes of the Federal managers of

marine mammals. It is clear that the Federal government is clearly aborgating the

intention of Congress by glossing over the severe consequences of OCS in the Bering Sea

while refusing to ask the State of Alaska to scrutinize its management policies in

order to have marine mammals controls returned to the State. It is the understanding

of our villages that the Marine Mammal Moratorium was not a stop- gap, an interlude

of "punishing states" for a short period of time before automatically returning control

upon request, but that the Congress had ordered a thorough review of all past efforts,

and that the Congress had given special recognition to native alaskan as primary beneficial

users of the marine mammal populations.

AVCP recommends that new sections be added to adaquately examine OCS and native

preferential harvest. AVCP further recommends that individuals writ ing the report

visit native alaskan villages dependent upon marine mammals and familiar with the

State of Alaska's management policies to gather pertinent information on the issues listed

above prior to writting the final EIS.

Sincerely vours,

VcLcn c1 ?>-* dcjA,
David Friday, CheVak
Chairman

NtJNAM KITLUTSISTI
Protector cf the Land

BOX 2S7

BETHEL, ALASKA 99559

August 10, 1975

REPORT ON SUBSISTENCE HARVEST III THE

LO./ER YUKON AliU KUSKCK./II.I RIVERS AND

THE BERING- SEA COASTLINE BET .VEEN ™E"™°"M*!Z*LP*?.V™\

CAPE NE.fEIiHAM ALID PAST01 BAY, 1974

OF THE ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE "*
COUNCIL PRESIDENTS

In March, 1973, the unorganized borough government of the lower Yukon-
Kuskokwin River valley's, the Association of Village Council presidents,
recognized that enactment of the Alaska hative Claims Settlement Act of 1971
changed the concepts of open land in rural Alaska. Subsistence villages
traditionally have wandered over tne land seeking food. The only boundaries
were establish through concent of villages. rfitn aNCSA, rural Alaska's
lands would be divided into townsnips, with definite ownership.

The 56 villages of AVCP, representing an area the size of tne State of
Washington, formalized their support for tne continuation of access for
subsistence. All villages subscribed to a subsistence document in which
all subsistence hunters within AVCP were granted access to native village
corporation lands selected under ANCSA,. for the purpose of subsistence harvest .

AVCP's council leaders feared Section 2(c)'s intent, to review all
existing programs under pederal sponsorsnip, and the federal and State
reserved lands established unaer ANCSA. Of particular concern to AVCP
were Section 17(b)(3) which empowers the Secretary of Interior to situate
easements where the Secretary desires them, including native land selections,
and Sections 17(d) 1 and 2, which create up to 120 million acres of previously
unreserved Pederal lands for inclusion into National Porests, parks, ,/ildlife
Refuges, and .Vild and Scenic Rivers, and "public interest" lands reserved
for mineral development.

Without firm guarantees from ttie Pederal and State governments to continue
subsistence and access on these new federal holdings and State selections,
AVCP concluded accurate information must be obtained from its villages
to display the realities of subsistence and the necessity to continue harvest
and right to access for the subsistence hunter within AVCP's new land
reservations.

AVCP requested Nunam Kitlutsisti to obtain this information. On the
following page are the results of tne 1974 "Subsistence Calendar." Nunam
Kitlutsisti surveyed each village to determine tne kinds of food it harvester
each two week period. Nine major calendar forms were developed, one for
each of AVCP's identifiable subsistence sub-regions. Each nead of the
household was mailed a calendar in December, 1974, a total of 2160 calendars.
Forty one of AVCP's villages took part in the survey. These villages
reported back a total of 12.8 million pounds of food harvested in 1974.

Nunam Kitlutsisti 's Board will attempt to obtain more specific information
in 1976 through anotner calendar, for. the Board pointed out that tue figures
obtained were low. The per capita average of 6,465 pounds per household
does not reflect the poor King salmon (Chinook) run of 1974, and the lack of
berries. The Board of iiunam Kitlutsisti, believes that a second calendar
would pick up the large amounts of fish and vegetation not reported during
1974 's baseyear, and that a larger number of completed calenuars would be
collected.

The 1974 Subsistence Calendar Summary -is designed to alert pederal,
State, Regional Corporation, and local officials of the extent, volume, and
economic dependence of AVCP's villages on tae foods harvested from the land.

5

oooi/'oooooxoo ooooocioooooooocsuaow

Mfiifi<M»ucn-4Ho •a-o, H

2

"C iOOON^WMOIldO (nN«lNN-.ieK»10lr)n(VlJIM,<l>)''>)On»rf»«lT»lD»IK.)| wj -;

fw

O O T> CON •'-. <J CO ,(.-) id »M.) IX ' 1 CM .- Ot —

ro r - n i -i r- i-. oi o ii ir-Io! n i-. ■_> r.- <.-- cm -r o co co c-io, ig HJ>
r-, r~ r- CO o in ul r~ in ro .. .- • i

u

-o — oi -r mr<1 — "srm — mvouitf

•J

a.

r~.r-.on>

in co el .n ••' c$ i o in i>joisi3>to

io .-cirxr-io^ a nr.l-

CO sf rn <:> o> .■) rx r- ro — Karl- '* LLt

,— ^j — ..5 -^ i.i ri r. o w c ui -sr .nip.

t-. co ro co

"^ ""i "^i ^i lN].c i ,l>i,Ni"i"lcl'H'"i<"!,

M"owi,K-.'inUN--"oo r.7 rnlcri

wnmc

<Ti-NW cJcI co ct irt r-- inwini-

— >

— — C-l

r-)u>— cm' a— CM CM CM |lv. voia-l

2

r

F

"vO

wo:

i

.

|

'

£1"

i — IDOCQ CV7

MONWin<tioO

OOMOtTIO-rt^C

•m

»■*

to — co — in co cn — o co Jc

UJ r— INI CM CO rO -J" VO CM CO •— rx |0

1".

' m — ' w

— a^- ro — — ca ni-|cvJiOf-r.Tii"ivDOninn r^colm

r=

*■"

r~ •—

,

■~ *~ *~ 1

Fj;

in o o <o

o o «* m c

O O O O O O O

id co o o -a

— o o o in in ,r—

roild

COLIN

i/j cj ■ o ro in in o

o cm in in!r-

co cm o i-~. r~ ro |co

roico

ID 00 CM CO TO CO .«-»• 1 MVP}

NMOr- -a- a*

10 to in* o c

O :-.

— CM CO

— |c

Vr.

— < o

1 !

=

«*■

1

•

>-

! Lt

•* O CO co

?£ — S g

en cm — cm ono

in no: id m

CM O •— ID CM t— ,OI 1 2

cm io •* cm en io |oo . " "J

CD

mo <r> en

— CM — O OCO CM

co u»v —la

i/-T

><re

— cm in

V ' * lev

•— CMCM 10|C\

a^ co' dm* I-- ! -.M

fc

•— •""

I

*~ T I

1

Q

H

o o o o

cn m ;-c

O CO o o

l„

NiTooooiomoaj oo.o

1

S"c§'
cmIcT

-a

."M CO O -3-

mioo o

^- r>rsiDOU10r-NNCOOO|r-

s

i/-> K

o in io co

** °1 i"8

<rivco •»

o.

g O

ioooi«

— — CO «D

IXr— COlOlOr— CNJinCMa— CM»— .CM

- -

,. co r-- cm

'2

lOt vdco nwcvi^r- cn o |cn

•"Igj

o

1

1

1

1 !

ri

<

r». co co in

CM-* CO CJ

OONf-r-rvJCJlOr- OCO.CO

!SJ

o

U1M

°! "i ^ "!

SS |S

i— ro en O

|cn

CMOP^ocncn^-»5rcD»i3- Ocol*4-

; Vcj

en co ro cm

J^H ^loviflo-jnonci •— •— |cvj

l«!

1 '

<

ro cm o cm

1

m co cn in cmV

O CM CM CO CO CO O

tifOMn<»>j'*ouiN|''inoooMinooo\rs Oct .'in

1 •

CO'CO ■

•a- «s- o o -s-, c

OCTtOO'— r-.ioorom C7»«J- co
rxcnroininoa-j-coinio enco ■ co

■*

OTO

J*l*.«i^

■*"; cvicitn.cx2rr

cm cm n^inioi

WCTN<MOlM>JMO>Jh

sAs

_• C

roocoi-.

DI3ICN oJcs

oioMs-oorxcicocoiol-x:

— io<finmMOr.oci co—' o

r-|co

o

^WMin

O CM U

".p:

o

1

rocM,--co CVJ'=1-|g;

r

^Jfl-OCl

co in en cn e'er

o cm cocm en CM o

ooino cocooioi-ocmS

or.o'-tiocnnNcis coen.— ; iio

O ,<o co to in

ro o c cn cvjo.

— o ooi-ninoMncj/
^-co coen nNMncANln

rvror-inrocirNCftr-r. «3-ct[in | ■**

o IS"" tin r^ to i-^

c-j •a- n r-u;

«* —cm 10m ro

o r^ o n i t io ci in ro — colro ■. "»

o'_i ,—

-- | t 1

<

.

Lnon

in o o f, Jj_

oroinmcninoiot

7\ — mNO<rrx>T<Jir.in|c:

inoioocMLnooco co tor-, i-s

i i — ci M in w M n n i — in rvmrai

bsl

i «^- cjii.nl Q^ocnODinw^o con.r- iRJ";

o .m — cm —

i-o cm cm cn .=rrnl

o — cn o — co — ro r~ d — — in — in — «-j- — Wr-*

MnOOMOr-COSr- CM,— 'o 1

OIOn 1

in !o-> uo cn io

co io co — i-=-r| — ro ro cm — cm coa-rco- cm — — — |tc
Iroj Kf"

CO CO IO CM CO CM CO

|Ot j

•a-r— — lOcocoencM- cm om|io

1 i

E

x

«-i- in co coen coioqo enco enco enrx cicninin^o
*" 1
|

mo Nto io m i-iio io r- ctt> r-

k

1
1

!

1
1

•*r co in o1^" *& COr— o Ct «e*r o^***

1

c=

rU liCNOO

o<\jicn unW

'.IMrociraiOnf-M- — rM o •=? cn o O CI m r=-f

M*

— — cr. vr cn,o

uicoocnor.a-atc'rj cnin o .ooicm

nOr-CIvJCOCONDtM r~-- V— WvO

2"o jin io uo co

OM1c3NO(Mr-tO>JUOtJlinr-l')^^Oin

in

** r»» n> — a—

— — CO--TCM- CMro cOM-cn — CMCM — — — |ro

aj-in u— — eomCM^

■*i°\

•-J

' *~

I**

|m'

CO

^S

ff

■

1

1

io

I

•o

^Ca

1

.

1

— cm in in enro

r4l^

■=r|o 7J

Lo

l£i CM v.0 ro

Niooorvlc

nNC'fl'jcOcyfOrocACOiDCOro'DLOlNifir.c

CO CO. CO ROWOO-MDOlt

M,^

^r in rx o cc, — .
or.o-jr-1 ccU

'.-' iJj-C •=rcoa-rcoo — morolc

5P

ooooiciiooi

. rx io| a';r— ro'in omcnomoi

ocKriti

.l-ro|i-~
I

I

— Ul o

— •a-IO,--

cJ3AIcJ noxriA

S39\/T1IA |

H3AIcJ i!i/;.io"risna |

.— o <■■
cjA a.\ in

I

isvo'j V3S 0!:ia3a

Itemization of Federal Aid Funds (Pittman-Robertson) by Geopgraphic Location

Election District

Total Cost

Federal Funds

Population

Per/capit
by licens

1. Ketchikan

$ 37,980

$28,485

13,823

2.06

2. Petersburg

63,290

47,467

4,913

9.66

3. Sitka

41,180

30,885

6,109

5.05

4. Juneau

623,470

467,603

13,556

34.49

5. Haines-Yakutat

25,320

18,990

3,661

5.19

6. Glennallen-Cordova

82,280

61,710

4,955

12.45

7. Palmer

60,130

45,097

6,509

6.93

8. Anchorage

889,300

666,970

124,542

5.35

9 . Seward

12,660

9.495

2,336

4.06

10. Homer

53,800

40,350

14,250

2.83

11. Kodiak

56,970

42,723

9,409

4,54

12. Aleutian Islands

41,140

30,855

8,057

3.83

13. Naknek-King Salmon

66,460

49,845

4,632

10.76

* 14. Bethel

12,660

9,495

7,579

1,25

15. McGrath

69,620

52,215

2,306

22.64

16. Fairbanks , -Tok

791,200

593,400

50,043

11.86

17. Barrow Kotzebue

113,930

85,442

6,797

12.57

18. Nome-Teller

117,100

87,825

5,749

15.28

* 19. Yukon-Delta

6,330

4,748

3,917

1.21

AVCP has learned that the State's expenditures during the year above were for
assessment of the Nunivak Island range for the sport hunt of muskoxen in the
fall of 1975 and the spring of 1976. No Federal monies were spent by the State
on programs benefitting subsistence residents who do not have the funds to engage
in sport hunts, or the interest in this type of wasteful harvest.

Federal Aid Funds :Pittman-Robertson (Game only)

Bethel

and Delta = 6% of total

program cost

No. of

Licenses License Area
and Holders

Bristol Bay

Population

% of population that is
licensed

1245

4765

26.1%

1402

Bering Straits

5840

24 . 0%

236

Arctic

3258

7.2%

18,121

Doyon

36,434

49.7%

64,955

Cook Inlet

137,382

47.3%

912

Athna

1182

77 . 2%

1929

Koniag

5697

33.9%

19,837

SeaAlaska

36,257

54.7%

580

NANA

4154

14.0%

372*

Aleutian

4669

8.0%

112,286

1229

Calista (899)

12,355

9.9%

113,515

256,709

Calista Region: 1% of the total licenses in the State of Alaska in an area

where the majority of the people principally exist by harvesting

over 80% of their food from the land ancj have tcadttidaalip-ndit
purchased licenses

.Calista region is approximately 5% of the State's population
:Calista Region receives .6% of Federal Aid Funds/ while other

regions whjg^ support sport hunting obtain Pittman-

Robinson funding.

s

o a) -q
u a.

ry\ to • «
\XIH x

Of MO) <4-

u. o Q) a

•H <u tH

rt +j >

7r, e

o -H
CJ3 -^

O <->

> o

w

Q 4->

0! .14

c o

s ^

AS

o •« c

•X c ■
3 o

•• 3

t/> >- I

U -— '

<u < w

(/i

W +J o o u

o ^ uo

C- a! p. ••

o a. u s

Oi O O J

a- a u ca

Nunam Kitlutsisti
Response:

Responding to the principal issues raised in this letter, the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 enables a State to propose
wildlife projects which, if they meet Fish and Wildlife Service standards
of substantiality, may be funded by reimbursement to that State of up to
75 percent of the cost. The Act was intended to assist States in carrying
out their self-identified wildlife management responsibilities. However,
the Service cannot force a State to conduct specific management programs
or require a State to allocate the funds for specific species. Therefore,
the comments regarding the allocation of these funds by the State of Alaska
are not relevant to our consideration in this statement. Because alloca-
tions must be the purview of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, only
the State can provide redress on the conditions to which Mr. Friday objected.

The concerns about the reliability of available harvest data emphasize the
need for the types of data that are now able to be gathered for walrus
under the waiver implemented for that species in 1976. In addition to
assembling more precise and reliable information on population numbers and
seasonal migration during 1976, the State reported, for example, that the
subsistence take in the Yukon-Kuskokwim area comprised 21 animal s--less
than 1 percent of the total harvest throughout the State. Because numbers
of walrus in the Bering Sea are at or near an all-time high--and the carrying
capacity of the environment, we assume that adequate numbers were available
to subsistence takers; because there were effectively no restrictions on
the size of the subsistence take, we assume further that the subsistence
takers took the numbers they needed. The Yukon-Kuskokwim

subsistence take in 1976 was only 16 less than the total number of animals
taken statewide by sport hunters. Thus, rather than the walrus resource
being depressed and subsistence hunters having to compete disadvantageously
with sport hunters, the resource is healthy in terms of population size,
and subsistence takers statewide harvested almost 99 percent of the total
1976 walrus take. If management for the other eight marine mammal species
is returned to State control, we expect that harvest-data reliability for
them too will improve.

The foremost issue raised in this letter, subsistence use, was lightly
addressed in the above response and requires elaboration. The 1976
nine-species waiver-related public hearings in Bethel and Nome primarily
addressed the subsistence needs of Natives and other subsistence users.
This testimony was thoroughly considered by the administrative law judge
before he issued his recommendations, which are discussed for each subject
species in this FEIS in sections II. C ("Biology and optimum sustainable
population estimates of impacted marine mammals") and III.D ("The impact
of the proposed Federal regulations and the State management program").
The preferential subsistence needs are also clearly reflected in the
composition of proposed annual harvest limits cited in table 4 of the FEIS.

Responding to the final issue of oil spills and attendant environmental
damage, we cannot now anticipate the location, probability, severity, or
recurrence interval of future oil spills or accidents because we do not
presently know which, when, or where specific tracts of those nominated
in the Bering Sea will be leased for development. Federal agencies are,
however, assessing marine mammal populations in Alaska and elsewhere in

the context of potential danger to them due to oiling, and these authorities
are preparing appropriate objections to some nominations in Bering Sea
waters.

If accidents should occur in leased areas, existing or forthcoming State,
Federal, or joint State/Federal oil -spill contingency plans will be
implemented to protect or assist any animals that might be affected.
Because there is no way to realistically assess the effectiveness of these
plans now, it is impractical to address this issue in greater detail than
it is in the FEIS.

ENVIRONMENTAL

DEFENSE

FUND

00

1525 18th STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036/202 833-1485

Mr. Lynn A. Greenwalt

Director

Fish & Wildlife Service

U.S. Dept. of the Interior

Washington, D. C. 20240

Mr. Robert W. Schoning

Director

National Marine Fisheries Service

3300 Whitehaven, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20235

NATIONAL u*~",r r::-:i'_

SEkYiCE

TIES

APR 2 0 1976

L UNIT

CORRESPONDS^ WNWO

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT — WAIVER OF MORATORIUM

AND RETURN OF MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN
MARINE MAMMALS TO THE STATE OF ALASKA

These comments on the above referenced draft environmental
impact statement (DEIS) , which considers the proposal that the
moratorium on the taking of marine mammals imposed by the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (hereinafter, MMPA) be waived and
management authority be delegated by the federal government to
the State of Alaska, are submitted jointly by the Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF) and by the groups participating in the Monitor
Consortium which are noted in the addendum to this document.

As noted in Volume II, Appendix A of the DEIS, the comments
of both EDF and of Monitor were sought. Both groups have an

OFFICES IN: EAST SETAUKET. NY (MAIN OFFICE);

YORK CITY (PROGRAM SUPPORT OFFICE); WASHINGTON, DC; BERKELEY, CALIF.; DENVER, COL.
Printed on 100% Recycled Paper

-2-

interest in the subject DEIS and the subsequent outcome of the
consideration of the proposed waiver because of the precedent
being set by this matter and because of the possible conse-
quences of a waiver for the species considered. Although a
similar proposed waiver of the moratorium has already been
considered with regard to the Pacific Walrus, new rules governing
these proceedings have been promulgated since the close of the
Walrus hearings , and these new regulations will govern future
proceedings when other states request similar waivers. Conse-
quently, the groups believe that because they represent many
individuals in the United States who are concerned with the
welfare of marine mammals, they can and should have input into
the DEIS and the final decision on the matter. Such participa-
tion is consistent with the intent of Congress, evident through-
out the MMPA, that the public have input into such decisions.

It also should be noted that both of these groups have par-
ticipated in other proceedings governed by the provisions of
the Act — the authority for these proceedings. Both groups
participated in the proceedings entitled "In Re Waiver of Mora-
torium on Walrus," wherein the question of a waiver of the mora-
torium under the Act was considered for the Pacific Walrus.
Additionally, both groups are participating Lp. the cases in-
volving the taking of porpoise incidental to tuna fishing, which
is presently before the United States District Court for the

-3-

District of Columbia on a motion for summary judgment. Some
or all of these groups have been involved in recent efforts to
win endangered status for all species of sea turtles under the
Endangered Species Act. As a result of these activities, the
staff of both groups have developed expertise which should be
helpful in these proceedings.

As a general matter, it is obvious that the procedures
which are adhered to during this process and the final decisions
made will have far-reaching consequences for similar actions
when other states make requests under the Act for management
authority. Consequently, persons who participate in this matter
have a substantial burden to carry. It is particularly important
in this proceeding that decisions not be made without due consider-
ation of their import, or before a full record has been developed
through the hearing process on the questions presented. While we
believe that the DEIS is deficient in the respects noted below,
we do not mean to be limited in the future to the areas discussed
in this document. Other factors may come to our attention after
these comments have been submitted, and we believe that the impor-
tance of this matter necessitates that we be permitted to explore
them at the hearing, certainly before forming any final opinion on
the ultimate scientific merit of Alaska's petition.

Procedure and Process

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (hereinafter,
NEPA) , requires that a detailed environmental impact statement be
prepared by federal officials prior to any undertaking of certain
actions. The draft statement under consideration here is the
first step in the process of meeting that requirement, and it must
meet the conditions set forth in NEPA. The detailed statement
must include the factors set forth in Section 102(2) (C) of NEPA:
1) the environmental impact of the proposed action, 2) any adverse
environmental effects, 3) alternatives, 4) the relationship between
short-term uses and long-term productivity, and 5) irreversible and
irretrievable resource commitments. In addition, these factors
must be considered in the light of the findings of Congress noted
in Section 101(a) of NEPA. One of these findings is that man's
activities, including resource exploitation, have had a profound
impact on the natural environment. Also, the statement must be
made with due consideration of the six goals set forth in Section
101(b). For reasons set forth in the pages which follow, we be-
lieve that this DEIS does not meet the requirements of NEPA.

Additionally, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 re-
quires the Secretaries of Commerce and of Interior to make certain
findings and to follow certain procedures before either can waive
the moratorium imposed by the Act on the "taking" of marine mammals.
Although other sections of the Act must be considered in such a

-5-

decision, Section 109(2) is the primary authority for such a
waiver. Under that Section, each Secretary must determine that
the laws and regulations of the state requesting the waiver are
consistent with the provisions of the Act and with the regulations
promulgated under Section 103 of the Act. In any event, the
waiver can extend only to the limits of the jurisdiction of the
state. Finally, each Secretary may limit the extent of the waiver
insofar as each does not waive all of the provisions of Section
101 of the Act.

It should also be noted that the state requesting a waiver
has the burden of showing that its regulations , laws , and manage-
ment program will be consistent with the requirements of the Act.
While such a requirement is implicit in the Act, it is made ex-
plicit in the regulations setting the hearing procedures for such
waivers, noted in 50 CFR Part 18, Subpart G. The DEIS under con-
sideration here does not show that the State of Alaska has met
that burden of proof at this point in time. While specific short-
comings will be dealt with below, as a general matter the DEIS does
not establish that all of the species and population stocks for
which a waiver is sought are at the optimum sustainable population.
It has not been established that Alaska will require that takings
be accomplished in a humane and non-wasteful manner. Finally, the
DEIS does not show that a waiver will be consistent with the goal
set out in Section 2(6) of the Act that marine mammals "should be
protected and encouraged to develop to the greatest extent

feasible commensurate with sound policies of resource management
and that the primary objective of their management should be to
maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem."

Two final points must be made with regard to process and pro-
cedure. While consideration must be given to the interrelationship
of each of the nine species to the remaining species, the process
itself must be undertaken in an orderly fashion. Thus, each species
must be given full and separate consideration in the DEIS and at
the hearing, as was the Pacific Walrus last year during the hearings
for the proposed waiver for that species. Additionally, proposed
federal regulations which appear in Appendix I and subsequently at
41 F.R. 15166 (April 9, 1976) provide standards and criteria for
approving state laws and regulations and for monitoring state
activities after a waiver has been granted. These regulations
should be considered during the hearing on the waiver, and final
approval of each should await the outcome of the hearing. This
would mean that reconsideration of Part 18, Subpart G of 50 CFR,
which became effective March 8, 1976, should be undertaken after
the hearings.

It appears at this juncture that these regulations are de-
ficient in various respects. Comments on them are due May 9, and
will be filed on or before that date. We hereby incorporate our
comments on them by reference here as an addendum to these com-
ments, and will provide a copy for the record at the same time as

we respond to the Federal Register notice requesting public
comments on them.

Merits

In the DEIS there appears at page 12 a statement indicating
that it was assumed for purposes of the DEIS that the term "maxi-
mum productivity," which is part of the definition of optimum sus-
tainable population (hereinafter, OSP) contained in the MMPA, is
attained "when a marine mammal population exhibits the greatest
annual increase in numbers of individual animals...." This assump-
tion appears to be invalid because it violates one of the criteria
set forth on pages 14 and 15 , which the DEIS cites as factors to
be considered in determining whether a species is at OSP. The
specific factor referred to is the last one, which is to the
effect that high pregnancy rates suggest that a population is
below OSP. At the very least, this apparent inconsistency renders
suspect the assumption noted, and necessitates a discussion of the
factors considered in reaching that assumption.

It also appears from the discussion in the DEIS of OSP and
maximum productivity that insufficient consideration was given to
the additional requirement in the definition in the Act that the
health of the ecosystem must be maintained. Indeed, the assumption
that greatest annual increase in numbers of animals is equated
with maximum productivity seems contrary to the requirement of a
healthy ecosystem. Because the animal population is a part of the

ecosystem, and because high pregnancy rates suggest that the
population is under stress and, thus, not "healthy," the assump-
tion seems to violate this concept.

In addition, it is not clear from the DEIS what factors
were considered when the conclusion was reached that any given
population is at OSP. For example, it does not appear that
taking incidental to fishing operations, or by natives, or by
all foreign countries (Canadian taking seems to have been totally
ignored) was considered for each species. It also is not clear
that sufficient consideration was given, in each instance, to how
many animals would be wounded and their survival rates, and how
many others would not be retrieved after being mortally wounded.
As we read the Act, factors such as these must be considered for
each animal population before a conclusion may be reached that
the population is at OSP and that a proposed level of taking will
not put the population below OSP. The only way that this require-
ment can be shown to have been met is by a systematic discussion
of each such factor for each population. If it is believed that
certain factors do not affect the particular population, that
hypothesis must be noted and supported. Proceeding in any other
fashion will not establish that the requirements of the MMPA have
been met and there will be danger that present take will be under-
estimated, with the result that future permitted take may be too
high to maintain the population at OSP.

-9-

We also would recommend that consideration be given to each
of the factors listed on pages 14 and 15 of the DEIS. The DEIS
recognizes that these are the factors which indicate whether or
not a population is at OSP and each must be considered. If little
or nothing is known about certain of the factors for any given
population, that, too, should be noted so that consideration can
be given to the level of knowledge available on any given species.
Such a systematic approach will enable the decision-maker to
address the Congressional finding noted in Section 2(3) of the
Act, that "there is inadequate knowledge of the ecology and
population dynamics of such marine mammals and of the factors
which bear upon their ability to reproduce themselves successfully."

It also appears that the term "take" has been used in a more
restrictive sense in the DEIS than it is in the Act. In the Act
the term includes the concept of harassment, attempted hunting,
and capturing as well as killing of animals. Yet the DEIS does
not seem to consider such actions when making an assessment of
the health of the population, or of the factors affecting the
ability of a population to attain and remain at OSP. The primary,
if not the only, factor which appears to have been considered is
retrieved takings, i.e. , kills.

For at least two of the populations, it would appear that
a discussion of the -accessibility of adult males to breeding
females would be a valuable undertaking. Because of the low

-10-

numbers of Beluga Whale and Polar Bear relative to the extent
of the range over which they are distributed, a discussion of
this factor would seem warranted prior to making a determination
that their populations are at OSP and to waive the moratorium
for these species.

Other considerations do not seem to support a change in
the status of the Polar Bear, at least with regard to renewed
hunting. The intense international effort underway to census
and protect Polar Bears, their scarcity, the fact that many
nations have a closed season on the bears, and the intense
hunting pressure that is likely to develop for this most univer-
sally prized hunting trophy should the season be opened, as
well as the potential for poachers if a market is established,
require a far greater showing than Alaska has made to date to
justify any waiver of the moratorium on this animal.
Further, the U. S. has signed the Nov. 15, 1973 Agreement on
Conservation of Polar Bears which does not expressly provide for
sport hunting by non-natives (at least with snowmobiles) ; ratifi-
cation of this international agreement currently is before the
Senate.

Another factor which has great potential for affecting most
of the species under consideration, but which was only mentioned
in the DEIS, is the possibility that catastrophic oil spills
will adversely affect these populations. Although mention was

-11-

made that this is a possibility, it was suggested that the
primary effect would relate to the food sources of the species.
No mention was made of the possibility for, or the conceivable
extent of, adverse effects for animals actually caught in such
a spill. Neither was any attempt made at suggesting the extent
of the effects of such spills on any particular population, nor
was any attempt made to assess the cumulative effect such a
spill might have on species which depend on the same, or closely
related, food chains. While it is recognized that at this
time such exercises can only be engaged in through speculation
and that they are difficult to undertake, we believe that they
warrant greater consideration than was given them. Finally,
no suggestion was offered as to what contingency plans have
been considered and adopted by the State of Alaska with regard
to marine mammals in the event that such spills do occur. The
issue is a very real one since tankers carrying oil from the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline and off-shore coastal drilling for oil in
the Gulf of Alaska will become realities in the near future.

Because the waiver, if one is granted, will be in effect
to the limits of the State's jurisdiction, consideration should
have been given to what effect, if any, will result from a
change in the jurisdictional limit of the United States as
envisioned in legislation now under consideration in both houses
of Congress extending U. S. territorial waters to the 200-mile
limit.

-12-

While it is not clear that it was so treated in the DEIS,
it is our position, supported by the language of the Act, that
exploitation of marine mammals by Indians and Eskimos is a
consideration distinctly secondary to the welfare of the various
species. The Act also recognizes that there is a considerable
difference between subsistence takings and takings for materials
for cottage industries by natives on the one hand, and commercial
exploitation on the other, the latter activity having far
greater potential for resulting in adverse consequences for
population levels. Consequently, while economic considerations
for both natives and (to an even lesser extent) non-natives are
germane under both NEPA and the MMPA, the primary objective
under the MMPA is the health and stability of the marine eco-
system and preservation of viable stocks of the animals.

Several additional points should be made with regard to
natives. First, there is sufficient authority under the Act
for federal authorities to deal with certain of the situations
cited in the DEIS to show inequities and inconsistencies under
the Act. One such situation is that noted in the DEIS regarding
a group of natives being brought together in what appears to be
a commercial setting to "mass" produce products in the nature of
cottage industries products (p. 121) . From the information
given, this activity does not appear to be in keeping with the
provisions of the MMPA, and should be amenable to rectification

-13-

under federal regulations. Another such situation is that cited
on page 131 of the DEIS, where it is suggested that wasteful
practices of natives could be dealt with better through state
management. Again, the situation related should be remediable
through federal regulation aimed at preventing such wasteful
practices. It also should be noted that any loss of income
experienced by natives or Indians as a result of the provisions
of the Act can be dealt with through alternative means, and
should not, and cannot, under the MMPA be permitted to take
precedence over consideration of the welfare of marine mammals
and the marine ecosystem. In summary, the DEIS is not persuasive
on the points that the native exemption currently in effect under
the Act has or will lead to excessive take so long as the
commercial market is strictly limited, or that the state will be
able to enforce restrictions on subsistence takings by natives
under any circumstances more effectively than is now done.

There are other concerns which we have with the proposed
action which were not dealt with in the DEIS. The first of
these is our concern over the vulnerability of the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game to political pressure from hunters
and commercial guides and fishermen in the state. This potential
hazard is illustrated by the recent efforts of the state to
eradicate wolves in certain areas, based on fears of hunters
that moose numbers were being reduced by wolves to the detriment
of the hunters. Such efforts were undertaken in spite of the

-14-

evidence that wolves keep moose populations balanced, and that
it was weather and hunting that lowered the moose population
in the first instance. The point is further illustrated by the
posture taken in the DEIS at pages 143-4 that marine mammals are
endangering potential for increased catches of fish because of
the amount of fish it is estimated that they consume, tables we
believe scientifically questionable to say the least. Similarly,
as noted on page 132 and elsewhere, there is considerable concern
over the loss that fishermen experience when marine mammals
interfere with fishing gear, and we are not convinced the ADF&G
can resist "control" pressures even if it wished to do so.

A very closely related concern of ours is that the funding
level for the state program for protection of marine mammals may
not be adequate and we believe that information should be pro-
vided on this point. Even if the level of funding is adequate,
the source of the funds may present a potential conflict which
will be detrimental to marine mammals. If these funds come
entirely or largely from hunting and commercial harvesting
activities, the state program may be subject and responsive to
pressures which are not in the best interests of the marine mammal
and which may result in actions which conflict with the Act. In
short, because the protection of the marine ecosystem transcends
the boundaries and economic interests which may be unique to the
particular state, there must be a federal program of surveillance
even in the event of any waiver.

-15-

However, if the DEIS is any indication of the interest of
the federal officials charged with responsibility for enforce-
ment of the Act, we have concerns for such a monitoring program.
We make this statement because it appears from the DEIS that
federal officials are anxious to "rid" themselves of the
responsibility and expense of administering the Act. In con-
sidering each of the alternatives but one (E, p. 138), there
seems to be a tacit premise that a federal program is more
costly and less efficient than a similar state program. While
this may in fact be the case, there is no information in the
DEIS itself from which such a conclusion can be drawn.

As a final matter, we believe that the DEIS should include
a section on how the situation in Alaska has changed since
passage of the MMPA with regard to these marine mammals so as
to warrant the proposed waiver. It is not yet clear that the
populations have changed so much, or the management philosophy
of the state has been altered to the extent that the waiver
under consideration should be approved. In short, much of the
data relied on seems out of date or of unreliable nature.

We also note with great concern the publication in the
Federal Register dated April 5, 1976, at pages 14372 and 14373,
of the final decision on the question of waiver of the moratorium
for Pacific Walrus. The waiver is now in effect, in spite of
the absence of any finding by the Director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service that the laws and regulations of the State of

-16-

Alaska are consistent with the MMPA and the federal regulations
promulgated under the MMPA. Such a finding is required by
Section 109(a) (2) and (3), which the Director recognized in
his earlier publication in the Federal Register regarding this
waiver. In the December 24, 1975, Federal Register at page 59461
appears the following language, "A final notice of waiver will
be published in the Federal Register upon my approval of the
revised state laws and regulations." (Emphasis added.) Yet
all that appeared in the final notice on April 5, 1976, was
a certification that the revised management program of the state
was in compliance, and the finding noted in §18.58, 50 C.F.R.,
that Alaska's laws and regulations had been approved by the
Director. We know of no amendments to Alaska's laws, nor of any
changes in its regulations. No revisions or changes were
referenced in the final notice, either. The final EIS must
deal with these matters, and publication must be made in
the Federal Register of the changes which have occurred since
the December 24, 1975, notice.

In summary, we believe that much information has yet to be
provided and developed through the hearing process and

otherwise before the Draft Statement can be converted into an

V
adequate final statement. Much of the language in the DEIS

V The DEIS admits as much by revealing differences between the
federal and state agencies involved on such basic questions as
population levels (see Belugas (p. 119) and Harbor Seals (p. 115))
We are particularly interested to hear the comments of the
Marine Mammal Commission.

-17-

is conclusory and unsupported by facts anywhere contained in
the document. Other conclusions are based on premises that do
not appear to have been adequately discussed or considered.
Much of the information seems dated and apparently other data
simply has not yet been gathered. Environmental values and
consequences of alternative courses of action have not been
meaningfully dealt with and no attempt has been made at quanti-
fying them so that they can be compared. Economic considerations
of "harvest" and "control" have been overs tressed., Until these
and the other defects noted above are remedied, we do not
believe that a waiver of the moratorium and/or delegation of
management authority to Alaska for any of the species is appropriate

Notwithstanding the above-mentioned inadequacies of the
present statement, we intend to participate in the hearing
process with open minds. However, because of the apparent paucity
of information developed at this juncture on certain species,
and because of the seemingly low numbers of other species, it
appears that if it is possible to take any action on the proposed
waiver, it may be limited to a selective waiver of the moratorium
and a partial transfer of management authority to the state.
Such selective waiver and partial transfer could not be under-
taken, however, until the laws and regulations of the state have
been amended to be consistent with the MMPA and federal regulations.
We make this statement because history has shown that commercial
exploitation has great potential for decimation of species. The
heedless eradication of the now extinct Stellers' Sea Cow from
Alaskan waters should serve as a warning of what could be the

-18-

result of a premature waiver of the prohibition on taking.

Indeed the specter of this type of unthinking action was
unquestionably a moving force which resulted in passage of the
MMPA with which we are all dealing in this process. As was
noted by the MMPA's floor manager and House sponsor, Representa-
tive John Dingell, during the course of debate on the floor
(December 6, 1971, Cong. Rec . H-11847) :

"As a practical matter, the legislation before
the House today will provide a de facto mora-
torium for many years with respect to many of
the animals which the bill covers. This con-
clusion follows the provisions of the bill
requiring adequate information before a permit
can be issued, and the essential lack of hard
data on almost every one of the animals covered
by the bill." (Emphasis added.)

And as the House Report (p. 15) makes clear, the legislative

history of the MMPA reflects a strong concern over depletion

of many species of marine mammals:

"In the teeth of this lack of knowledge of

specific causes, and of the certain knowledge

that these animals are almost all threatened

in some way, it seems elementary common sense

to the Committee that legislation should be

adopted to require that we act conservatively —

that no steps should be taken regarding these

animals that might prove to be adverse or even

irreversible in their effects until more is known." 1/

1/ Report of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries on H.R. 10420, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., Report
No. 92-707. (Emphasis added.)

19-

The Senate Report (pp. 1-2) states that:

". . .man's dealings with marine mammals have
in many areas resulted in over-utilization
of the precious natural resource." 1/

Our participation in the various proceedings leading up

to a decision on the subject matter of this DEIS will be

governed by knowledge of the above strongly expressed Congressional

sentiment, and we trust that yours will be too.

Sincerely,

William A. Butler
Washington Counsel
Environmental Defense Fund

"ack R. Markel
Counsel for Monitor. Inc

April 19, 1976

1/ Report of the Senate Committee on Commerce on S. 2871,
92d Cong. 2d Sess., Report No. 92-868 (hereinafter the
"Senate Report") .

ADDENDUM

The following groups participating in the Monitor Consortium join

in the preceding comments:

The Fund for Animals

Humane Society of the United States

Society for Animal Protective Legislation

American Littoral Society

Chesapeake Chapter— American Littoral Society

Defenders of Wildlife

A supplemental submission noting additional groups which wish to join in

these comments will follow.

Environmental Defense Fund:

Comment:

In the DEIS there appears at page 12 a statement indicating that it was
assumed for purposes of the DEIS that the term "maximum productivity", which
is part of the definition of optimum sustainable population (hereinafter,
OSP) contained in the MMPA, is attained "when a marine mammal population
exhibits the greatest annual increase in numbers of individual animals..."
This assumption appears to be invalid because it violates one of the criteria
in determining whether a species is at OSP. The specific factor referred to
is the last one, which is to the effect that high pregnancy rates suggest
that a population is below OSP. At the wery least, this apparent inconsistency
renders suspect the assumption noted, and necessitates a discussion of the
factors considered in reaching that assumption.

Response:

The maximum productivity is attained when a marine mammal population exhibits
the greatest annual increase in numbers of individuals. Maximum productivity
does not relate directly to the pregnancy rate, but to the number of animals
reproduced annually. For example, a population of three animals (1 male,
2 females) of which both females were pregnant, will have a reproductive rate
of 66 2/3 percent, but will increase the population by only 2 animals whereas
a population with 50 males, and 50 females of which 20 females were pregnant,
would have a reproduction rate of 20 percent but would increase the population
by 20 animals. This demonstrates that even with a low reproductive rate,
maximum productivity is related more to the number of animals in the population
than to the rate of reproduction.

Comment:

It also appears from the discussion in the DEIS of OSP and maximum productivity
that insufficient consideration was given to the additional requirement in the
definition of the Act that the health of the ecosystem must be maintained.
Indeed, the assumption that greatest annual increase in numbers of animals is
equated with maximum productivity seems contrary to the requirement of a
healthy ecosystem. Because the animal population is a part of the ecosystem,
and because high pregnancy rates suggest that the population is under stress
and, thus, not "healthy," the assumption seems to violate this concept.

Response:

"A healthy ecosystem does not necessarily equate to a healthy marine mammal
population. Populations are continually under stress from various factors
including disease, predation, and famine. High pregnancy rates are
indicative of a population recuperating from high levels of mortality either
natural or induced. Once these rates level off or decrease, the population
is assumed to be at the carrying capacity of the environment and would be
a factor is assuring the health of the ecosystem.

Comment:

In addition, it is not clear from the DEIS what factors were considered when
the conclusion was reached that any given population is at OSP. For example,
it does not appear that taking incidental to fishing operations, or by natives,
or by all foreign countries (Canadian taking seems to have been totally ignored)
was considered for each species. It also is not clear that sufficient
consideration was given, in each instance, to how many animals would be
wounded and their survival rates, and how many others would not be retrieved
after being mortally wounded. As we read the Act, factors such as these
must be considered for each animal population before a conclusion may be
reached that the population is at OSP and that a proposed level of taking will
not put the population below OSP. The only way that this requirement can be
shown to have been met is by a systematic discussion of each such factor for
each population. If it is believed that certain factors do not affect the
particular population, that hypothesis must be noted and supported. Proceeding
in any other fashion will not establish that the requirements of the MMPA
have been met and there will be danger that present take will be underestimated
with the result that future permitted take may be too high to maintain the
population at OSP.

Response:

The indices used in determining the OSP for each population were discussed in
section II. C. of the DEIS and FEIS. We believe sufficient discussion of each
species have been given in the EIS as to its OSP level. Mortality levels
incidental to foreign fishing operations were discussed on pages 101-102 and
in table 5. Additional information on Native take is provided in the FEIS as
noted in response to similar concerns raised in the Nunam Kitlutsisti letter.

Comment:

We also would recommend that consideration be given to each of the factors
listed on pages 14 and 15 of the DEIS. The DEIS recognizes that these are the
factors which indicate whether or not a population is at OSP and each must be
considered. If little or nothing is known about certain of the factors for
any given population, that, too, should be noted so that consideration can be
given to the level of knowledge available on any given species. Such a
systematic approach will enable the decision-maker to address the Congressional
finding noted in Section 2(3) of the Act, that "there is inadequate knowledge
of the ecology and population dynamics of such marine mammals and of the
factors which bear upon their ability to reproduce themselves successfully."

Response:

During the hearing process, testimony was given regarding the appropriateness
of the indices listed on pages 14 and 15 of the DEIS. The hearings revealed
that the list was confusing to the average reader, since the applicability of
a particular factor varies considerably depending on the species. Therefore,
the general list has been omitted from the FEIS. In the discussion of the
OSP for each species, in section II. C. of the FEIS, particular indices of
abundance are referred to when appropriate. The FEIS discussion of OSP also
includes pertinent indices relied upon by the ALJ in his recommended decision.

Comment:

It also appears that the term "take" has been used in a more restrictive sense
in the DEIS than it is in the Act. In the Act the term includes the concept
of harassment, attempted hunting, and capturing as well as killing of animals.
Yet the DEIS does not seem to consider such actions when making an assessment
of the health of the population, or of the factors affecting the ability of a
population to attain and remain at OSP. The primary, if not the only, factor
which appears to have been considered is retrieved takings, i.e., kills.

Response:

The term "take" has been used as defined in the Act, the only concept not
incorporated being harassment. The DEIS has considered and incorporated live
capture, scientific display, hunting loss, and incidental take.

Comment:

For at least two of the populations, it would appear that a discussion of the
accessibility of adult males to breeding females would be a valuable under-
taking. Because of the low numbers of Beluga Whale and Polar Bear relative to
the extent of the range over which they are distributed, a discussion of this
factor would seem warranted prior to making a determination that their popula-
tions are at OSP and to waive the moratorium for these species.

Response:

As stated on page 73, volume 1, belugas are gregarious and travel in pods of
several individuals to groups of hundreds. We doubt, therefore, that they
have any trouble locating each other. Animals such as polar bears have,
through inherited characteristics, long since solved the problem of locating
members of the opposite sex during the breeding season. Since 19 percent of
the population is made up of females with young and with delayed implantation
(since females reproduce only every third year), we do not anticipate any
problems with the low rate of take proposed.

Comment:

Other considerations do not seem to support a change in the status of the
Polar Bear, at least with regard to renewed hunting. The intense international
effort underway to census and protect Polar Bears, their scarcity, the fact
that many nations have a closed season on the bears, and the intense hunting
pressure that is likely to develop for this most universally prized hunting
trophy should the season be opened, as well as the potential for poachers if
a market is established, require a far greater showing than Alaska has made
to date to justify any waiver of the moratorium on this animal. Further,
the U.S. has sinned the Nov. 15, 1973 Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears
which does ncrt expressly provide for sport hunting by non-Natives (at least
with snowmobiles); ratification of this international agreement currently is
before the Senate.

Response:

The Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears does not exclude sport hunting
by non-Natives. The drafters of this treaty considered sport hunting and
the use of snowmobiles as traditional means addressed in Article III 1. (d)
and (e). Article IV only prohibits the use of aircraft and large motorized
vessels for the purpose of taking polar bears.

Comment:

Another factor which has great potential for affecting most of the species
under consideration, but which was only mentioned in the DEIS, is the
possibility that catastrophic oil spills will adversely affect these populations.
Although mention was made that this is a possibility, it was suggested that
the primary effect would relate to the food sources of the species. No mention
was made of the possibility for, or the conceivable extent of, adverse effects
for animals actually caught in such a spill. Neither was any attempt made at
suggesting the extent of the effects of such spills on any particular popula-
tion, nor was any attempt made to assess the cumulative effect such a spill
might have on species which depend on the same, or closely related, food
chains. While it is recognized that at this time such exercises can only be
engaged in through speculation and that they are difficult to undertake, we
believe that they warrant greater consideration than was given them. Finally,
no suggestion was offered as to what contingency plans have been considered
and adopted by the State of Alaska with regard to marine mammals in the event
that such spills do occur. The issue is a very real one since tankers carrying
oil from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and off-shore coastal drilling for oil in
the Gulf of Alaska will become realities in the near future.

Response:

The issue of oil spills and attendant environmental damage is discussed in the
response to a similar comment in the Nunam Kitlutsisti letter. In accordance
with the terms of the implemented waiver, if at some time losses were to
occur, then under correct wildlife management practices the State would take
appropriate measures to assure continuation of a viable population stock at
OSP levels.

Comment:

Because the waiver, if one is granted, will be in effect to the limits of the
State's jurisdiction, consideration should have been given to what effect, if
any, will result from a change in the jurisdictional limit of the United States
as envisioned in legislation now under consideration in both houses of Congress
extending U.S. territorial waters to the 200-mile limit.

Response:

The Marine Mammal Protection Act covers citizens of the U.S. whether within or
without the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. except when a U.S. citizen is
within the recognized territorial jurisdiction of another nation. The 1976
amendment to the Act extended its prohibitions to all vessels and persons, of
whatever nationality within the U.S. fishery conservation zone, the outer limit
of which is up to 200 miles from the U.S. coast. Testimony at the formal
administrative hearings on this proposal indicates that this change in the law
will have negligible impact on takings by foreign sealing fleets.

Comment:

Several additional points should be made with regard to natives. First, there
is sufficient authority under the Act for federal authorities to deal with
certain of the situations cited in the DEIS to show inequities and inconsis-
tencies under the Act. One such situation is that noted in the DEIS regarding
a group of natives being brought together in what appears to be a commercial
setting to "mass" produce products in the nature of cottage industries products
(p. 121). From the information given, this activity does not appear to be in
keeping with the provisions of the MMPA, and should be amenable to rectification
under federal regulations. Another such situation is that cited on page 131
of the DEIS, where it is suggested that wasteful practices of natives could be
dealt with better through state management. Again, the situation related should
be remediable through federal regulation aimed at preventing such wasteful
practices. It also should be noted that any loss of income experienced by
natives or Indians as a result of the provisions of the Act can be dealt with
through alternative means, and should not, and cannot, under the MMPA be
permitted to take precedence over consideration of the welfare of marine mammals
and the marine ecosystem. In summary, the DEIS is not persuasive on the points
that the native exemption currently in effect under the Act has or will lead
to excessive take so long as the commercial market is strictly limited, or that
the state will be able to enforce restrictions on subsistence takings by natives
under any circumstances more effectively than is now done.

Response:

The Marine Mammal Protection Act specifically exempted Alaskan Natives if such
taking is for subsistence purposes or is done for creating and selling auth-
entic articles of handicraft and clothing and in each case is not accomplished
in a wasteful manner. Although Federal regulations could control certain waste-
ful practices and other violations of the Act, enforcement of such violations
would be better handled under a State management program because, as explained
in the FEIS, Federal enforcement under the moratorium has not been completely
successful .

Comment:

A very closely related concern of ours is that the funding level for the state
program for protection of marine mammals may not be adequate and we believe that
information should be provided on this point. Even if the level of funding
is adequate, the source of the funds may present a potential conflict which
will be detrimental to marine mammals. If these funds come entirely or largely
from hunting and commercial harvesting activities, the state program may be
subject and responsive to pressures which are not in the best interests

of the marine mammals and which may result in actions which conflict with the
Act. In short, because the protection of the marine ecosystem transcends
the boundaries and economic interests which may be unique to the particular
state, there must be a federal program of surveillance even in the event of
any waiver.

Response:

Both the Federal Government and the State of Alaska have research programs on
the marine mammals of Alaska. The State program was discussed in appendix
D, vol.11. Section 109 of the Act, 50CFR §216.106 and §18.56 provide for
continuing Federal monitoring of the State program after a return of management
and section 109(b) authorizes grants to states which are administering programs
following such a return of management.

Comment:

However, if the DEIS is any indication of the interest of the federal officials
charged with responsibility for enforcement of the Act, we have concerns for
such a monitoring program. We make this statement because it appears from the
DEIS that federal officials are anxious to "rid" themselves of the responsi-
bility and expense of administering the Act. In considering each of the
alternatives but one (E, p. 138), there seems to be a tacit premise that a
federal program is more costly and less efficient than a similar state program.
While this may in fact be the case, there is no information in the DEIS itself
from which such a conclusion can be drawn.

Response:

As discussed at the hearing, although Federal officials are not anxious to
"rid" themselves of the responsibility to administer the Act, enforcement
efforts in the State have been limited by budgetary constraints. It is
contended that the State law enforcement program would be more effective
because of its size and its closeness to the residents of the State. It is
believed that compliance by the residents would be more easily achieved with
a State management program than with a Federal program.

Comment:

As a final matter, we believe that the DEIS should include a section on how
the situation in Alaska has changed since passage of the MMPA with regard to
these marine mammals so as to warrant the proposed waiver. It is not yet
clear that the populations have changed so much, or the management philosophy
of the State has been altered to the extend that the waiver under
consideration should be approved. In short, much of the data relied on seems
out of date or of unreliable nature.

Response:

New information introduced at the 1976 ALJ hearing has been incorporated into
the FEIS.

Comment:

We also note with great concern the publication in the Federal Register dated
April 5, 1976, at pages 14372 and 14373, of the final decision on the question
of waiver of the moratorium for Pacific walrus. The waiver is now in effect,
in spite of the absence of any finding by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service that the laws and regulations~of the State of Alaska are consistent
with the MMPA and the federal regulations promulgated under the MMPA. Such
a finding is required by Section 109(a)(2) and (3), which the Director
recognized in his earlier publication -in the Federal Register regarding this
waiver. In the December 24, 1975, Federal Register at page 59461 appears
the following language, "A final notice of waiver will be published in the
Federal Register upon my approval of the revised state laws and regulations."
(Emphasis added). Yet all that appeared in the final notice on April 5, 1976,
was a certification that the revised management program of the state was in
compliance, and the finding noted in §18.68, 50 C.F.R.. that Alaska's laws
and regulations had been approved by the Director. We know of no amendments
to Alaska's laws, nor of any changes in its regulations. No revisions or
changes were referenced in the final notice, either. The final EIS must
deal with these matters, and publication must be made in the Federal Register
of the changes which have occurred since the December 24, 1975, notice.

Response:

In a decision published in the Federal Register on December 24, 1975 (40 FR
59439), the Director determined that the moratorium should be waived on the
taking of the Pacific walrus. That determination was made contingent upon the
Director's approval of Alaska's management program including its laws and
regulations revised in accordance with the Director's decision and those
portions of the administrative law judge's recommendations that were accepted
by the Director.

On February 23, 1976, the State of Alaska submitted proposed regulations re-
vised in accordance with the Director's decision and on April 5, 1976, the
Director published a notice in the Federal Register (41 FR 14372) of his final
approval of the State management program for Pacific walrus. The notice
certified that the management program complied with the Director's decision.

INH/\

April 19, 1976

Lynn A. Greenwalt

Director

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

U. S. Department of the Interior

Washington, D.C. 20240

Mr. Robert W. Schoning

Director

National Marine Fisheries Service

330 Whitehaven Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. Schoning and Mr. Greenwalt:

The National Parks and Conservation Association, 1701
18th Street, NW , Washington, D.C, has, for over 50 years,
been concerned with the protection of all of the nation's
natural resources, including wildlife. Therefore, we wish
to submit the following comments for the record on the Draft
Environmental Impact statement on the™
Waiver of the Moratorium and Return of
Marine Mammals to the State of Alaska.

on

itic

Consideration of
Management of Certain

The Marine Mammal Protection Act was enacted in 1972 to
restore and stabilize pppulations of marine mammals. The
State of Alaska has stated that the Moratorium should be lifted
because the populations of Northern sea lions, harbor seals,
ringed seals, ribbon seals, bearded seals, and beluga whales
have stabilized. The State of Alaska also feels that the
continuation of the moratorium could hurt this resource due
to lack of research, and could result in a sharp decline in
population when the various species involved reach their
optimum sustainable population.

From a socio-economic standpoint, the State of Alaska
feels that the Alaskan native will suffer economic hardship
if the moratorium continues because they are no longer able
to sell marine mammal products to anyone other than Alaskan
Natives unless made into a native handicraft.

The National Parks and Conservation Association feels
that a lifting of the moratorium would not be in the best
interest of the marine mammals affected by this waiver and
that a continuation of the moratorium would not place any
hardship on Alaskan natives. Furthermore, the DEIS fails to
sufficiently comply with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

National Parks & Conservation Association. 1701 Eighteenth Street. NW, Washington. D.C. 20009
telephone (202) 265-2717 (J^g) C^flf £# <??f printed on recvded paper

Lynn A. Greenwalt
Robert W. Schoning
April 19, 1976
pace two

The former governor of Alaska, William A. Egan, wrote
to the Commerce Department in the beginning of 1973 to ask
for a waiver of the moratorium in the State of Alaska. Included
with this letter were status reports and marine mammal regula-
tions proposed by the State of Alaska. Since that time, very
little new data has been submitted on the status of these
animals and the regulations have not been sufficiently changed
to meet with the requirement set forth in the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. More time, and a great deal more research
is needed before the impacts can be fully understood. The
DEIS has, in fact, stated that research and data collection
has declined since the moratorium began. Appendix D of the
DEIS> reports that no funds were used in FY 1972 for research
and data collection on these mammals. Perhaps this is an
indication of future actions by the State of Alaska. What
funding is proposed by the State of Alaska and where will
these funds be spent? If the moratorium is continued, we
would hope that the Federal Government will see to it that
funds are provided for this important activity and that the
issuance of permits for scientific research is handled in a
more expediant manner.

Research on animals listed under the Endangered Species
Act has not been hindered by the regulations governing
these animals and we hope that research on marine mammals
can be handled in the same manner.

The original regulations proposed by the State of Alaska
for the management of Marine Mammals appears to be indicative
of the attitude of the State of Alaska towards these mammals —
a deep concern for the economic gains resulting from harvest
of these marine mammals rather than a concern for their protection,
For example, the State of Alaska has proposed that in many areas,
there be no bag limit and no closed season on the taking of
the sea lion. In certain units a "no bag limit" was also
listed for harbor, spotted, ringed, bearded and ribbon seals.
In Appendix H, Alaska Administrative Code Title 5, Article
3, 5 AAC 81.100(5) nets are listed as an acceptable means
of taking of marine mammals. Seals were not listed as an
exception to this regulation. Article 5 AAC 81.200 leads
one to believe that there are no restrictions on the purchase
and sale of marine mammals other than the polar bear. Section
5 AAC 81, 350 lists a "no closed season" for the hunting of
Sea lions and beluga and Seal in certain areas. In general,
the proposed regulations leave the issuing of permits up to
the discretion of the commissioner with too much latitude
given for the numbers to be taken and the seasons in which

Lynn A.. Greenwalt
Robert W. Scheming
April 19, 1976
page three

they are allowed to be hunted. These proposed regulations
do not comply with the requirements set forth by the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972.

The DEIS does not show that the species involved in this
waiver have reached their optimum sustainable population
which is the goal of the Act. Maximum productivity does not
necessarily mean that the ecosystem as a whole is in a healthy
state, which is one of the criteria set forth in the Act.
The rate of incidental taking and taking by foreign countries
was not considered in the DEIS and this has an important
bearing on the population size of these animals. Tabulations
for all takings must be considered before a waiver of the
moratorium can be established.

No discussion was given in the DEIS on occurrences other
than actual taking which might affect the populations of marine
mammals. For example , what affects would oil spills have
on these various species? Also, what affect will the proposed
200-mile limit have on the State of Alaska's jurisdiction?

NPCA feels that because of the deficiencies in the DEIS
noted above, the State of Alaska's regulations do not meet
the standards of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and therefore
a waiver of the moratorium should not be granted.

NPCA feels thax pressure from sport nunting and commercial
fishing operations could possibly influence the State of Alaska
on propoer management of marine mammals. With management of
these animals under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government,
the liklihood of this happening is much more improbable.

The socio-economic impact of the moratorium, if given
time would be in the best interest of the Alaskan native.
The Alaskan native, under the moratorium, is allowed to take
marine mammals whereas commerical operations and non-natives
are no longer allowed to hunt these animals. With a waiver
of the moratorium, the catch of the Alaskan native would be
far outweighed by the catch of these non-natives, thus crea-
ting a competition for this resource.

We feel that the "No action" alternative, at present,
seems to be in the best interest of the Alaskan native and

Lynn A. Greenwalt
Robert W. Schoning
April 19, 1976

page four

of the marine mammals involved. In time, when more study
has been given to the effects of the moratorium, perhaps a
waiver would be justified. However, at present, the State
of Alaska has not Bhown sufficient evidence that it is in
a position to resume the management of these species.

Sincerely,

T. Destry Jarv.
Administrative Assistant
Parks and Conservation

TDJ/lc

National Parks and Conservation Association
Comment:

The former governor of Alaska, William A. Egan, wrote to the Commerce Depart-
ment in the beginning of 1973 to ask for a waiver of the moratorium in the
State of Alaska. Included with this letter were status reports and marine
mammal regulations proposed by the State of Alaska. Since that time, very
little new data has been submitted on the status of these animals and the
regulations have not been sufficiently changed to meet with the requirements
set forth in the Marine Mammal Protection Act. More time, and a great deal
more research is needed before the impacts can be fully understood. The DEIS
has, in fact, stated that research and data collection has declined since the
moratorium began. Appendix D of the DEIS reports that no funds were used in
FY 1972 for research and data collection on these mammals. Perhaps this is
an indication of future actions by the State of Alaska. What funding is pro^
posed by the State of Alaska and where will these funds be spent? If the
moratorium is continued, we would hope that the Federal Government will see to
it that funds are provided for this important activity and that the issuance
of permits for scientific research is handled in a more expedient manner.

Response:

Some of the material used in writing the DEIS was submitted by the State in
1973 in compliance with section 109 of the Act. Additional new data were
used as they became available and were so referenced in the DEIS. Still more
data were submitted at the hearing and are included in the FEIS if appro-
priate. The State of Alaska has had a continuous research program on marine
mammals for many years. Although consideration was given to ending the
research program upon enactment of the MMPA, the State instead decided to ask
for a waiver of the moratorium and a return of management and therefore to
continue with its ongoing research. The DEIS, volume II, discusses the fund-
ing of the State research program and is incorporated in the FEIS, vol'. II.

Comment:

The original regulations proposed by the State of Alaska for the management of
Marine Mammals appear to be indicative of the attitude of the State of Alaska
towards these mammals--a deep concern for the economic gains resulting from
harvest of these marine mammals rather than a concern for their protection.
For example, the State of Alaska has proposed that in many areas, there be no
bag limit and no closed season on the taking of the sea lion. In certain
units a "no bag limit" was also listed for harbor, spotted, ringed, bearded
and ribbon seals. In Appendix H. Alaska Administrative Code Title 5,
Article 3, 5 AAC 81.100(5) nets are listed as an acceptable means of taking
marine mammals. Seals were not listed as an exception to this regulation.
Article 5 AAC 81.200 leads one to believe that there are no restrictions on
the purchase and sale of marine mammals other than the polar bear. Section
5 AAC 81.350 lists a "no closed season" for the hunting of sea lions and
beluga and seal in certain areas. In general, the proposed regulations
leave the issuing of permits up to the discretion of the commissioner with
too much latitude given for the numbers to be taken and the seasons in which

they are allowed to be hunted. These proposed regulations do not comply with
the requirements set forth by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.

Response:

The Marine Mammal Protection Act does not address the issues mentioned. Closed
seasons and limited take are management concepts designed to protect populations
during critical periods or to lower hunting pressure. Closed seasons may be
initiated later if necessary; however, during the initial stage hunting pressure
appears to be low and closed seasons are normally unnecessary. Although there
are no bag limits and no closed seasons for certain animals, annual limits on
taking have been established, as discussed in the DEIS and FEIS, which are
designed to keep the population stocks at OSP levels. Nets are not considered
an inhumane method of take.

Comment:

The DEIS does not show that the species involved in this waiver have reached
their optimum sustainable population which is the goal of the Act. Maximum
productivity does not necessarily mean that the ecosystem as a whole is in a
healthy state, which is one of the criteria set forth in the Act. The rate
of incidental taking and taking by foreign countries was not considered in
the DEIS and this has an important bearing on the population size of these
animals. Tabulations for aTJ_ takings must be considered before a waiver of
the moratorium can be established.

Response:

All takings have been considered in determining the extent of the waiver and
have been discussed in the DEIS. Those takings such as foreign incidental take
were subtracted from the total allowable take level before determining the
amount of take that could be returned to the State. The Act does not correlate
maximum productivity with the health of the ecosystem nor is it a criterion
of the Act that "the ecosystem as a whole is in a healthy state." As the Act
reads: "The term 'optimum sustainable population' means with respect to any
population stock, the number of animals which will result in the maximum
productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind (emphasis
ours), the optimum carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the
ecosystem of which they form a constituent element." Maximum productivity
therefore would be a factor if there was an indication that the carrying
capacity of the habitat would be exceeded.

Comment:

No discussion was given in the DEIS on occurrences other than actual taking
which might affect the population of marine mammals. For example, what affect
would oil spills have on these various species? Also, what affect will the
proposed 200-mile limit have on the State of Alaska's jurisdiction? '

Response:

Oil spill impacts were discussed in the DEIS. The 1976 amendment to the MMPA,
which provides MMPA control over taking by foreign persons within the U.S.
fishery conservation zone, will have negligible impact on the proposed action.
The Federal agencies will retain authority to issue or deny permits for the
taking of marine mammals by foreign fishing or sealing vessels.

Committee for Humane Legislation, Inc. 910 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington, B.C. 20006 • (202) 659-178 1

Alice Herrington

Chairman
Bernard Fensterwald, Jr.

Counsel
Jowanda Shelton

Washington Director

Director

National Marine Fisheries Service
3300 Whitehaven Street
Washington, D. C. 20235

May 6, 1976

/?-

Dear Mr. Director:

Pursuant to notice given in the Federal Register on Friday, April 9, 1976
(Vol. 41, No. 70) , the Committee for Humane Legislation and Friends of Animals, Inc.
intend to participate in the proceedings with respect to a proposed Waiver of
Moratorium Takings and Importations, and Proposed Regulations to govern such
taking and importation. We intend to be present at the pre-hearing conference
on May 18, 1976, and will be represented either by Mr. Bernard Fensterwald, Jr.,
counsel to both organizations and/or by Miss Jowanda Shelton, Director of the
Washington office of the Committee for Humane Legislation. All written
communications with respect to this proceeding should be addressed to
Mr. Bernard Fensterwald, Jr., 910 16th Street, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20006.

We request a hearing in the Washington, D. C. area specifically, but, of
course, we have no objection to additional hearings outside the Washington area.

As to issues of fact and law, we shall list as many as are obvious to us at
this point. Our objections in general are similar to those voiced in previous
hearings held in March and April, 1975 on delegation of authority to the State of
Alaska to manage the walrus.

As to Subpart H: Do the proposed regulations meet the requirements of
§ 103 (d) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act? That Section clearly and specifically
requires an "on the record" agency hearing each and every time the moratorium is to
be waived with respect to a particular mammal or a particular stock of a particular
mammal. It requires publication before the agency hearing of detailed statistics
with respect to the mammal or population stock. Under Section 216.104 of these
regulations, final approval of state laws and regulations would appear to take
place without a hearing of any kind. There is no indication that any hearings will
be held with respect to each state application, nor is there any indication
hearings will be held per species of animal or discrete stock of species of animal
to be "managed," nor manner of "taking" those animals.

Although Subpart H is described in the Federal Register notice as "Cooperative
State Federal Management System," the same notice later reads: "the state will
actually manage the resource." What role will be played by the Federal Government?

Section 216.106 will contain a list of all waivers of the moratorium, and of
all States which have approved programs "for public convenience and clarity," but
there is no indication the public will be permitted to comment at public hearings
either on the legality or wisdom of those waivers.

Director, National Marine Fisheries Service
May 6, 1976

page 2

The U. S. owns (as a private landowner rather than as sovereign) over
90 percent of the land in Alaska. Under the new regime, does the United States
abrogate its rights as landowner as well as sovereign? In case of another
incident such as the recent "wolf hunt," would the United States as landowner
be prevented from exerting its rights which might run contrary to the State of
Alaska?

With regard to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, we question the
objectivity of the Departments of Commerce and Interior; this Statement seems to
express few interests, views and opinions other than their own.

Under what Constitutional or Statutory authority would Alaskan officials
have power over non-Alaskan citizens on the high seas?

Under the proposed regime, what is to stop a citizen of California from
going into the Bering Sea, killing a hundred walrus and selling them in Vancouver
or Tokyo?

Which of the nine species of marine mammals are "resident" in Alaska?

Under the proposed system of regulation of marine mammals, what is to prevent
the Department of Commerce from turning over regulation of the taking of porpoise
to the State of California, which contains the home port of the United States
tuna fleet?

Under what Constitutional or Statutory authority are the statutory rights
of Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo natives (provided in 101 (b) of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act) being abrogated.

The "waters off Alaska" appear to extend for several thousand miles under
the proposed regime. Is there any limit as to how far they can proceed? Isn't
much of this same area of high seas equally "off of" the States of Washington and
Oregon?

Do the Alaska regulations as to polar bear comport with the provisions of
the International treaty re polar bear?

Why were the Pribilof seals not included in the nine species?

New Federal-State arrangements cannot be to the "disadvantage" of a species.
Is the taking of 63,000 animals (or 77,610 animals) as compared to 23,000 a clear
"disadvantage" to the animals?

It is stated (page 9 of the DEIS) that there will be no hearings on
regulations applicable to "all States" as opposed to Alaska. Why?

Director, National Marine Fisheries Service

May 6, 1976 page 3

As to Polar Bear, the State of Alaska will grant licenses and permits.
How do these interact?

Do the estimated 250 polar bears include (1) those taken in self defense,
(2) those taken to protect property, or (3) those taken for food? If not, what
is the total estimated kill of polar bear per year? Will oil company/pipe line
employees be given licenses and/or permits? Can hunters use airplanes at all
and if so, for what purposes?

There are many more legal and factual questions that should be put in
issue. But these are the basic foundation decisions. We reserve the right to
raise additional questions at the prehearing conference May 18, 1976.

Sincerely yours,

Bernard Fensterwald, Jr.

Counsel

Friends of Animals, Inc.

Committee for Humane Legislation, Inc.

Committee for Humane Legislation, Inc.
Comment:

Under what Constitutional or Statutory authority would Alaskan officials
have power over non-Alaskan citizens on the high seas?

Response:

Alaskan officials would have authority over Alaskan residents on the high seas,
Those non-Alaskans hunting for marine mammals on the high seas would be in
violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and subject to arrest thereunder
unless takinq in accordance with a Federal permit issued under
50 CFR §18. 95(h) or 50 CFR §216. 113(h). State officials are deputized by
Federal authorities to enforce Federal laws and regulations in the State or
on the high seas.

Comment:

Under the proposed regime, what is to stop a citizen of California from
going into the Bering Sea, killing a hundred walrus and selling them in
Vancouver or Tokyo?

Response:

The Marine Mammal Protection Act and regulations promulgated thereunder would
prevent citizens not holding valid hunting licenses and/or permits issued by
the State of Alaska or Federal agencies from hunting marine mammals.

Comment:

Which of the nine species of marine mammals are "resident" in Alaska?

Response:

All nine species can be considered as resident of the State of Alaska.

Comment:

Under the proposed system of regulation of marine mammals, what is to prevent
the Department of Commerce from turning over regulation of the taking of
porpoise to the State of California, which contains the home port of the
United States tuna fleet?

Response:

The proposed action has nothing to do with the taking of porpoises by the
U.S. tuna fleet. The Commerce Department has no plans to return management
to the State of California regarding the incidental taking of porpoises.

Comment:

Under what Constitutional or Statutory authority are the statutory rights of
Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo natives (provided in 101(b) of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act) being abrogated.

Response:

Native rights are not abrogated. The provisions of the Act do not apply to
Natives taking nondepleted species for subsistence or handicraft purposes.

Comment:

The "waters off Alaska" appear to extend for several thousand miles under the
proposed regime. Is there any limit as to how far they can proceed? Isn't
much of this same area of high seas equally "off of" the States of Washington
and Oregon?

Response:

The limits for the proposed action are discussed on pages ii and 16 of volume
I of the DEIS.

Comment:

Do the Alaska regulations as to polar bear comport with the provisions of the
International treaty re polar bear?

Response:

Yes.

Comment:

Why were the Pribilof seals not included in the nine species?

Response:

The language of the Act and the regulations issued thereunder (39 FR 1854)
exclude certain actions under international treaties. Sections 18.21 and
216.21 of the regulations state in part: "Specifically, the regulations in
subpart B of this part and the provisions of the Act shall not apply to
activities carried out pursuant to the Interim Convention on the Conservation
of North Pacific Fur Seals signed at Washington on February 9, 1957, and the
Fur Seal Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 1151 - 1187."

Comment:

New Federal -State arrangements cannot be to the "disadvantage" of a species.
Is the taking of 63,000 animals I or 77,610 animals) as compared to 23,000 a
clear "disadvantage" to the animals?

Response:

The DEIS and FEIS discuss the impact of the proposed action on each species.

Comment:

It is stated (page 9 of the DEIS) that there will be no hearings on regula-
tions applicable to "all States" as opposed to Alaska. Why?

Response:

The regulations applicable to all States which established a new subpart H
in part 216, and subpart F in part 18, Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations,
provided standards and procedures for approving and monitoring State laws and
regulations implementing waivers of the moratorium. These regulations imple-
ment section 109 of the Act, not section 103 and, as such, do not require a
hearing before implementation. However, before an individual State can
receive a waiver under subpart H or F, there must be an opportunity for a
hearing as required by section 103.

Comment:

As to Polar Bear, the State of Alaska will grant licenses and permits. How
do these interact?

Response:

All residents and non-residents are required to obtain licenses before sport
hunting is permitted. Certain species of animals require permits issued by
the department or the commission before they may be legally taken.

Comment:

Do the estimated 250 polar bears include (1) those taken in self defense
(2) those taken to protect property, or (3) those taken for food? If not,
what is the total estimated kill of polar bear per year? Will oil company/
pipe line employees be given licenses and/or permits? Can hunters use air-
planes at all and if so, for what purposes?

Response:

Extent of the waiver is 250 for alj_ purposes. Polar bears may not be taken
from airDl^nes, and airnlanes mav not he. uspH fnr transportation to drd frnm
the hunting site.

SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION /\pR 2 0 1976

P. 0. Box 3719
Georgetown Station
Washington, D. C. 20007

April 16, 1976

fr. Sidney R. Galler

)eputy Assistant Secretary

for Environmental Affairs
J.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Mr. Galler,

Thank you for sending the draft environmental impact
statement "Consideration of a Waiver of the Moratorium and
Return of Management of Certain Marine Mammals to the State
of Alaska."

In response to your request for comments, the Society
for Animal Protective Legislation considers totally inadequate
the information given in what appears to be a decidedly off-
hand manner concerning humaneness or lack thereof in the
taking of the enormously increased numbers of animals that may
be killed under the Alaskan proposal.

A brief parenthetical note dropped into the revised
regulations C5AAC 81.055 (14)] of the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game is all the state seems to have been able to bring it-
self to do.

"(14) Permits issued under subsection (13) above
shall specify the number of animals authorized to be
taken, the location and manner (determined by the
Commissioner to be humane) in which they may be taken,
the period during which the permit is valid and any
other conditions deemed appropriate."

No criteria of any sort are given. It appears to be
business as usual for the commercial exploiters of marine
mammals who have been unable to provide furs for the European
market since enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

These non-native killers of infant seals and sea lions
kept a very low profile during the lengthy Congressional hear-
ings and debate on the Act. Indeed, they were totally invisible.
Although the slaughter of baby seals in Canada was a major public
issue, probably the one most responsible for focussing the
massive public attention which led to passage of the Act, no
official or individual from Alaska even let the Congress know
that tens of thousands of baby seals were slaughtered each

Alt 'c/.-

APR2£J976

Mr. Galler

year in Alaska, too! Not until the law was in effect did
these commercial interests come forward. They did so to ask
for an economic hardship permit.

It was then, for the first time, that conservation and
humane groups learned about the Alaskan seal and sea lion pup
killings conducted for purely commercial purposes by non-natives.
The requests for economic hardship permits were denied. Now,
however, the commercial demand is reinstated in a full-blown
proposal by the State of Alaska itself, and the federal govern-
ment is proposing to accede to it.

There is far more suffering involved in shooting animals
from a boat than in clubbing them on land (as is done in the
Canadian baby seal kill) for the chances of wounding without
killing are vastly increased. This fact has long been recog-
nized by the United States which is a leader in preventing a
return to pelagic sealing for the fur seals on the Pribilof
Islands. However, the regulations submitted by the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game include the following 5AAC 81.120(4)
"...a motor driven boat underway may be used in taking marine
mammals, sea otter, wolves and coyotes..."

Pages 127 and 128 of the DEIS attempt to cover the matter
of humane taking as required by the Act, but it is stated:
"Marine mammals could be taken by any methods and means not

?rohibited." (Emphasis supplied.) "Trohibited meThods are
isted. A" contradictory sentence then states, "Marine mammals
may be legally taken only: (1) with a hand-held rifle using a
centerfire cartridge, except rifles capable of fully automatic
fire; (2) with the aid of spears and harpoons that are hand
held or thrown; (3) with the aid or use of surface transport
tation only; (4) with the aid of unleashed or unharnessed
dogs, for polar bear only; and (5) with nets, shotguns, weapons
using rim fire cartridges, or clubs, only as specifically
authorized by permit." The contradiction should obviously be
cleared up. However, that is only a very small part of the
problem.

Here are just a few of the questions which need to be
answered: How can shooting at animals from a boat be an
accurate means of producing instant death? What is humane
about harpoons and spears thrown by hand? What would permit
requirements by for using nets and the other listed methods?
What does Alaska propose to do to prevent inhumane taking?
What procedures will it follow to prevent violations if a waiver
of the moratorium is granted?

Mr. Galler

The fact that a greatly increased number of marine
mammals will be killed if the proposal is granted makes the
question of humane taking correspondingly greater. According
to Table 4, page 99, DEIS, 12,892 additional animals would be
taken under the proposed action, but it could be much higher.
For example, sea lions in this chart are listed at 5,940, but
on page 113 we find "the limit imposed by the extent of the
waiver will not exceed 15,000."

As for Largha seals (page 115) "The take under the pro-
posed waiver would be limited to 20,000 animals."

It is not necessary to go through all the figures to
demonstrate the potential for enormously increased taking
under the proposal, and the correspondingly increased potential
for inhumane taking under the vague terms of the regulations
and the DEIS.

The DEIS (p. 121) states "The 1973 harvest of ice-breeding
seals is 62 percent below the 1968-72 annual average..." Page
122 of the Appendix indicates that largha seals (ice-breeding
spotted seal) are monogamous, live to at least the age of 35,
and "will leave a hauling area after only minor harassment."
The likelihood of harm to these seals from pollution is noted.
To subject them to heavy commercial killing would be backward
step, contrary to the spirit of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act.

Repeated emphasis on economic gains to "guides, processors
and retailers of marketable products" in the DEIS make plain
that commercial interests are seeking to reverse the trend
toward reduced taking of marine mammals in Alaska which very
properly followed the first three years under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. A total of 71,360 animals could be taken under
the proposed ceiling. In one year prior to the Act, over 50.000
harbor seals alone were killed to sell the skins (DEIS, p. 99)
so there is no question but that the ceilings may be reached.

It is interesting to note (DEIS, pp. 29-30) that "More
polar bears are now being observed in areas near the coast,
and a significant number of maternity dens are again being
found on mainland Alaska. It is not certain that this wholly
represents an increase in the number of bears in the populations.
The lack of disturbance by low flying small aircraft since the
ban on use of aircraft for hunting and since cessation of sport
hunting by the Act, might also be a factor in this distribution
pattern." Here is a good environmental impact which the first

Mr. Galler

three years of the Marine Mammal Protection Act has had. Given
a chance, animals can return to their natural range when harass-
ment is reduced. This beneficial trend should be continued.
The American public wants it to be continued.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has much narrower
interests, and it has shown itself to be both secretive and
aggressive in protecting them. I have mentioned the fact that
it never alluded to the massive kills of seal and sea lion
pups during the series of hearings on the Marine Mammal Protection
Act. Its stand on wolf extermination exemplifies the way in
which it uses its powers. Radio tagging of wolves seemed to
be intended for collection of scientific data, but it was
turned into a means to track down and destroy the tagged animals
and all their fellow members of the pack.

It is impossible to have confidence in an agency such
as this where administration of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act is concerned. The attached copy of a letter to Mr. Schoning,
May 14, 1973, on the subject of the economic hardship requests
gives additional documentation on the attitudes towards animals
of Departmental spokesmen (for example, Mr. Vania's remark
"otherwise we'd be overrun with killer whales or mice or what
have you."). Nothing has changed so far as can be ascertained
from the DEIS. Unless there is a substantial change in
regulations and directives, the State of Alaska should not be
given control over the nation's magnificent populations of
sea mammals.

The joint Monitor groups/Environmental Defense Fund

letter dated April 19th examines a number of inadequacies in

the DEIS with which the Society for Animal Protective Legislation
also associates itself.

Sincerely, .

£ 6suJ&

c^c^-e

Christine Stevens
Secretary

Enclosure

APR

2 0197&

May lk» 1973

Mr. Robert W. Schoning, Acting Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
3300 Whitehaven
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. Schoning,

The Society for Animal Protective Legislation is opposed to the
granting of economic hardship exemptions from the Marine Mammal Pro-
tection Act to the persons who testified at Kodiak on April 11th. Our
opposition is based on several different points:

1) The hearings are far from being conclusive with regard to the
accuraoy or completeness of disclosures made by those asking to kill
the animals. For example, comments and questions, page $0 and onwards ,
with respect to Mr. Randall's statement that his sole means of liveli-
hood for the past t«n years has been sale of marine mammals raises more
questions than they answer. If his statement is untrue and an economic
hardship exaatption is given him the Marine Mammal Protection Act will
be undermined in its very first year of operation. Full and complete
disclosure is essential before his request could be given even prelimi-
nary consideration. The simple word of any person testifying to eco-
nomic hardship ia unacceptable. At the very least, the person wbauld
supply his income tax statements to the National Marine Fisheries Ser-
vice.

2) Severe economic hardship as we believe it was envisaged by
Congress in approving this provision of the Act is not present in the
cases presented. For example, Mr. aings states that he is gainfully
employed by the. Internal revenue Service and takes leave without pay
to make money from sea mammals. He himself agress that his is not a
case of real hardship.

3) It is clear from the testimony that the economic gain to be
had by killing «any of the animals Is pitifully small. For example,
Mr. Woelkers testified, "I have taken sea lion for the - wostly for
the shrimp boat industry, and the hides were salvaged and used.... The
pups are so small and there i3 no real market value for pups as far as
meat goes. There is no fat on them to speak of....

"The number of seals I've taken is approximatel - that's a hard
question - this year about 200, a little over 200. Sea lion run about
2$ or 30.... The winter before it was a smaller number about 2 or 3
hundred seal and 2$ or 30 sea lion. There never was much of a high
market for sea lions except for that I could personally use.... The
winter before I actually had to work at odd jobs and this and that to
get the equipment to build up the business more or less."

-*u.ng -2- May Ik, 1973

k) The persona testifying state they plan to shoot many of the
animals in the water. Such a practice means that some animals will be
wounded and die a painful lingering death. Mr. Woelkers' claim that
his recovery rate is 97-98$ sounds greatly exaggerated. If he is that
good a shot, sitting in a rocking boat, aiming at a swimming seal which*
according to hira, must be shot in such a way that it will float, he has
talents unheard of among other seal hunters. However, we have only his
own word for his fabulous expertise as a sharpshooter. The others who
testified were yd4sent on their percentage of instant kills.

Shooting at adult seals aAwassvays been the most cruel sealing
method. Dr. Harry Lillie writing of the Canadian seal hunt in 196& said
"Later in the season when the babies have taken to the water at three
weeks to a month, the adult seals gather on the ice to moult. They are
then shot from a distance with rifles, involving great cruelty and waste,
many escaping badly wounded to die under the ice. Losses have been as
high as two lost for every one secured and I have seen as many as five
blood trails leading off one single ice floe with not one seal recovered."
(The complete article is attached, and it is worth noting that the date
of the international protests described coincides with the beginning of
similar activities in Alaska which have, so far, been able to stay out
of the international spotlight. T

There is a strong implication in Mr. Vania's use of the phrase "re-
trieved harvest" that many of the seals swim away wounded. Mr. Vaaia
said the 1965 "retrieved harvest exceeded 50,000 animals." In the courser
of his lengthy testimony, Mr. Vania indicated no interest whatsoever in
humane taking methods. His casual approach is exemplified in the state*
ment, "You don't have to monitor any rookery that he may take these
animals from because that harvest is so insignificant to the sea lion
population as a whole that I wouldn't worry about it at all." Later,
speaking of the thousdnds of animals Woelkers and Randall propose to
kill he added, "It's Just nothing. . . it's a drop in the bucket."

If no monitoring is to be done, how can there be any assurance that
the killing of the animals be done humanely as required under the terms
of the Act?

5) Mr. Vania's disrespectful approach to animals suggests that he
is very poorly qualified to act as an official entrusted with any part
of the administration of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Speaking of
population control he says, "...otherwise we'd be overrun with killer
whales or mice or what have you." The Alaska Department of Pish and
Game opposed the Act in hearings before it was passed. Mr. Vania's views
remain unchanged. "It's really a shame the law has denied these people
this right." to kill thousands of baby seals and sea lions for the
European market. ithforcement of the requirements of the Act should
the economic hardship exemptions be allowed should be carried out by
federal government personnel only.

6) The b^ seal was the symbol of public protest which brought
about enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It would be a bold

.aonlng -3- May Ik, 1973

and outrageous reversal of the will of Congress if, in the first few
months of its existence the Act 3hould be, as it were, repealed through
a back-door maneuver such as this. If the exemptions to Woelkers,
Randall and others in a similar business are granted, the clear intent
of the Act to 1) stop the killing of baby seals and other sea mammals,
2) require humane methods of taking of any animals, 3) require tho-
rough study of effects on species populations and ocean ecosystems of
any taking before it is allowed, will all be grossly violated.

Ihe future of the Marine Mammal Commission will be undermined if
these exemptions are allowed by the National Marine Fisheries Ser$*'ce.
Confidence in the NMF£ itself which, at the present time, is building
up as the result of the scrutiny which has been given to other requests
for exemptions, would be destroyed at one blow. We strongly urge that
this commercial killing by white hunters which was never made an issue
in the lengthy hearings on the legislation and which only now emerges in
an effort to undercut the intent of Congress, be disapproved and that
the proposed contract with the State of Alaska to enforce the Marine
Mammal Protection Act there be rejected.

An amendment to exempt the State of Alaska from the provisions of
the Act was defeated on the floor of the Senate. It should not be
allowed to re-enter administratively.

:iincerely,

Christine Stevens
Secretary

Enclosures
CS/mc

Society for Animal Protective Legislation

Comment:

Pages 127 and 128 of the DEIS attempt to cover the matter of humane taking as
required by the Act, but it is stated: "Marine mammals could be taken by
any methods and means not prohibited." (Emphasis supplied.) Prohibited
methods are listed. A contradictory sentence then states, "Marine mammals
may be legally taken only: (1) with a hand-held rifle using a centerfire
cartridge, except rifles capable of fully automatic fire; (2) with the aid
of spears and harpoons that are hand held or thrown; (3) with the aid or use
of surface transportation only; (4) with the aid of unleashed or unharnessed
dogs, for polar bear only; and (5) with nets, shotguns, weapons using rim
fire cartridges, or clubs, only as specifically authorized by permit."
The contradiction should obviously be cleared up.

Response:

The FEIS has been modified to reflect the comment. See page 127 of the FEIS.

Comment:

How can shooting at animals from a boat be an accurate means of producing
instant death? What is humane about harpoons and spears thrown by hand?
What would permit requirements be for using nets and the other listed methods?
What does Alaska propose to do to prevent inhumane taking? What procedures
will it follow to prevent violations if a waiver of the moratorium is granted?

Response:

1) Seals which are normally shot in the water, swim with only their heads
visible above the water, this means that the shot would either miss its mark
or would hit the head. A high-velocity bullet striking a seal's head will
invariably produce instantaneous death, without pain or suffering.

2) While harpoons are permitted to be used under the regulations, as a
practical matter they are no longer used either for taking seals or beluga
whales. Generally they are used by native hunters to recover animals that
have already been killed with a rifle.

3) The State indicates that permission to use nets, shotguns, rimfire
weapons, or clubs would be granted only under special circumstances. For
example, nets would never be used for taking harbor seals but might be
permitted for beluga in those few instances where a permit applicant has
proven to be skillful at using a net in an efficient and humane way. Since
all permitted methods of take are considered humane, all inhumane take must
be considered as a violation of State law and regulations. If management
were returned, the State has 82 commissioned officers in the Division of
Fish and Game who would enforce the State's fish and game laws. The State's
ability to carry out its law enforcement program is aided by the presence of
other organizations with law enforcement powers. A violation of any State or
Federal statute concerning marine mammals would be prosecuted through due
process of the law similar to any other fish and game violation.

Comment:

The fact that a greatly increased number of marine mammals will be killed if
the proposal is granted makes the question of humane taking correspondingly
greater. According to Table 4, page 99, DEIS, 12,892 additional animals
would be taken under the proposed action, but it could be much higher. For
example, sea lions in this chart are listed at 5,940, but on page 113 we find
"the limit imposed by the extent of the waiver will not exceed 15,000."

Response:

The extent of the waiver was based upon a determination of the optimum
sustainable population, not upon the present day needs of the State. Therefore,
the table on page 99, vol. I, DEIS summarizes the anticipated near- term needs
of the State and would not coincide with the proposed action as summarized on
page 8 of the DEIS, vol.1.

Comment:

The DEIS (p. 121) states "The 1973 harvest of ice-breeding seals is 62 percent
below the 1968-72 annual average..." Page 122 of the Appendix indicates that
largha seals (ice-breeding spotted seal) are monogamous, live to at least age
35, and "will leave a hauling area after only minor harassment." The likelihood
of harm to these seals from pollution is noted. To subject them to heavy
commercial killing would be backward step, contrary to the spirit of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.

Response:

A careful reading of the DEIS will show that the proposed action does not
include a commercial harvest of largha seals. It is anticipated that a take
of 2,750 seals for subsistence purposes and 30 animals for scientific research
will be the extent of the State's needs.

Comment:

Repeated emphasis on economic gains to "guides, processors and retailers of
marketable products" in the DEIS make plain that commercial interests are
seeking to reverse the trend toward reduced taking of marine mammals in Alaska
which very properly followed the first three years under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. A total of 71,360 animals could be taken under the proposed
ceiling. In one year prior to the Act, over 50,000 harbor seals alone were
killed to sell the skins (DEIS, p. 99) so there is no question but that the
ceilings may be reached.

Response:

Prior to passage of the MMPA, the take of harbor seals averaged 8,000 to
12,000 animals with a single year high (1965) of 50,000. Under the proposed
action, 14,000 harbor seals would be permitted to be taken for aJJ_ purposes.
Based on the hearing record and the ALJ decision, a take of this level (i.e.
a take of 14,000 with 25% pups would equate to the ALJ recommendation of 8,461).
would allow the stock to remain within 0SP. (See also page 115 of the FEIS).

i. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

llllllllllllilllllllllll
AQ0Q07DTm2L5

V