Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission : a report to Congress

Jan l 98 F

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION, CALENDAR YEAR 1986

A REPORT TO CONGRESS

¢ IMENT
ih de War |
i 1D aADY

AAA SEA 1s ae
Woods Hole See

Paalifti-;
HWIStHULION

Marine Mammal Commission
1625 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

31 January 1987

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION

CALENDAR YEAR 1986

CONTENTS
Ls INEHOGUCEIONs os.s ia,4.5.04 00mec wees severe) e¥ece b: 4 arevese tele eter eieieie es 1
Background........... ree ee eee oe OR ee ee 1
Personnel............6. ccc ccc eeees 5, aha) eis, a tw S0%ere eo witecars 1
FUNGING «\6.6 ese sea eileinevie wt ieenl eG is Wises 666) areca es ecb ave iia aie
II. Research and Studies Program...... euler lor eaatey odere2@ (ee 6: ter isi a/seios 3
Survey of Federally-Funded Marine Mammal
RESEALCH 6.6 See ws 6G Fees we ete oO Oke Big ww OSs ee ye ere az
Research Program Reviews, Workshops, and
Planning MeGtings:4.5.66 662.05 8 ss sek ee nee ales ao 4
Commission-Sponsored Research and Study
PEOJVSCCS 43s 6c ned k ema e dus TEE eee rere ee eee 4
Special Research Concerns for FY 1987........... 12
III. Statutory Amendments Concerning Marine Mammals....... 15
IV. International Aspects of Marine Mammal Protection
and COnSerVatiOn t6i5 caine ee eee eee Res eee PaO 17
Conservation and Protection of Marine Mammals
in. the Southern. Oceans ss «sce css e ces ewew sees 17
The International Whaling Commission............ 32
Interim Convention on Conservation of
North. Pacific Fur Seales. viseieeds oe disre SS eaee 41

Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Plord. (CLUBS) <icsis/bo 62.0040 b 6-05 eh oe ode e oa 52
Vv. Marine Mammal Management in Alaska..........ceeeeeees 54
Marine Mammal Working Groups
and. Species: Reports. icv dvuvek essen aass 54
Background Information on Transfer
Of Management: < ic 6s tise ee Oe 668 es 0 Se we es 56
Federal Marking and Tagging Regulations......... 58
LP CAGAeL Ons oe 6c 45 eee 1S Se EES ES POS eS 58
VI. Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions..........eeee08. 60
BACKGLOUNG 65 6 ian swe 6 Sete 8 6c oes oe S080 e604 6.4 00 O10
Interactions in California Coastal Waters ss (eens. eye) ce 62
interactions in Areas off Alaskasc<s.ceceuiws Puna 65

VII.

VIII.

IX.

XI.

XII.

Appendix A:

Appendix B:

Appendix C:

Incidental Take of Marine Mammals in the Course

of Commercial Fishing Operations........eseeeeee
The Tuna-Porpoise ISSUC.... ese eeeeeeee Ee easan

The Dall's Porpoise ISSUC......cccereeeeeecees
Entanglement in Marine DebriS......eeeeeeeeecreveess
Background....... 6) Siew. c6.leie eile ee) @.0ie'Ie.6 i656. 016 Sele sie bye
Domestic Activities in 1986 ce cceee cecccee 3.0 ee @
International Activities. 6 Soew Hee ww Oe 06, 6.'6
Species of Special Concern. Sasso ov ales -b wie fo wie ie acer wi ects
West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) ioe eee
Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi)....
Caribbean Monk Seal (Monachus tropicalis).....

The California Sea Otter Population

(Enhydra lutris) .....cececcseees ee ee ae

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Siisgrsgp-e eiauls
Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus)............

Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis).......seeee.
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)....... Saya ei
River Dolphins (Family Platanistidae).........

Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development.....
Proposed OCS Lease Sale #97... cece eee ccccccccs
Canadian Oil Exploration on Georges Bank......

The Minerals Management Service's Regional

Environmental Studies Program.......eeeeee-
Marine Mammals in Captivity..... Tae ew ad eee eee eee

Permit Process..... ee ane sas i's Bye. eee ee ee eee eee a
Application REVIeEWsiccccevedacveses ee ee
Administration of the Permit Process...........
Working Group on the Permit System.............
Permit=Related Litigationes.swsieved oes <aree aa

Commission Recommendations:

Calendar Year 1986.....ccccevsecvvee eerie ee, Sle) ere

Reports on Commission-Sponsored Activities
Available from the National Technical

Information Service...... er aus Gr ¥ eteietisrs wid wraieveies G66

Selected Literature Published Elsewhere
Resulting from Commission-Sponsored

ACCIVICLES « s6.6 6.0% §: Bnei Se-eer oe ew #5, eee ece. Sle ob S20 @ 6

tt

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background

This is the fourteenth Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, covering the period from 1 January through
31 December 1986. It is being submitted to Congress pursuant
to section 204 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.

Established under Title II of the Act, the Marine Mammal
Commission is an independent agency of the Executive Branch.
It is charged with the responsibility for developing, review-
ing, and making recommendations on actions and policies for
all Federal agencies with respect to marine mammal protection
and conservation and for carrying out a research program.

Personnel

The Commission consists of three part-time Commissioners
who are appointed by the President. The Marine Mammal
Protection Act requires that the Commissioners be know-
ledgeable in marine ecology and resource management. At the
beginning of 1986, the Commissioners were: William E. Evans,
Ph.D. (Chairman), San Diego, California; Robert Elsner,
Ph.D., Fairbanks, Alaska; and Karen Pryor, North Bend,
Washington. Effective 21 September 1986, Dr. Evans submitted
his resignation as Chairman of the Commission to assume the
position of Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Dr. Elsner was
subsequently appointed Chairman. At the end of 1986, a
replacement for Dr. Evans had not been named.

The Commission's full-time senior staff members are:
John R. Twiss, Jr., Executive Director; Robert J. Hofman,
Ph.D., Scientific Program Director; David W. Laist, Policy
and Program Analyst; Donald C. Baur, General Counsel;
Sherburne B. Abbott, Assistant Scientific Program Director;
Jeannie K. Drevenak, Staff Assistant in charge of permits;
and Eileen Shoemaker, Staff Assistant in charge of
publications.

The Commission Chairman, with the concurrence of the
other Commissioners, appoints the nine members of the
Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals, a
committee of scientists statutorily mandated to be know-
ledgeable in marine ecology and marine mammal affairs. In
1986, its members were: Robert L. Brownell, Jr., Ph.D., U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; William W. Fox, Jr., Ph.D.,
University of Miami; Joseph R. Geraci, D.V.M., Ph.D.,
University of Guelph; Daniel Goodman, Ph.D., Montana State
University; Murray L. Johnson, M.D. (Chairman), University of
Washington; Jack W. Lentfer, Alaska Environmental Consulting,
Juneau, Alaska; George A. Llano, Ph.D., Naples, Florida; Jane
M. Packard, Ph.D., Texas A&M University; and Forrest G. Wood,
San Diego, California.

In recognition of the importance of marine mammals in
the lives of so many Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts, the
Commission asked Matthew Iya of Nome, Alaska, if he would
accept an appointment as Special Advisor to the Marine Mammal
Commission on Native Affairs. In late October 1986, Mr. Iya
accepted this position.

Funding

The Marine Mammal Commission came into existence during
the second half of Fiscal Year (FY) 1974 and was appropriated
$412,000 for that period. Subsequent appropriations were:

FY 75: $750,000
FY 76: $900,000
FY 77: $1,000,000
FY 78: $900,000
FY 79: $702,000
FY 80: $940,000
FY 81: $734,000
FY 82: $672,000
FY 83: $822,000
FY 84: $929,000
FY 85: $929,000
FY 86: $861, 0001
FY 87: $900,000

1 The original FY 1986 appropriation of $900,000 was
reduced to $861,000 as a result of government-wide reductions
stemming from passage of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (PL99-177).

2

CHAPTER II

RESEARCH AND STUDIES PROGRAM

The Marine Mammal Protection Act requires that the
Commission: maintain a continuing review of research pro-
grams conducted or proposed to be conducted under the
authority of the Act; undertake or cause to be undertaken
such other studies as it deems necessary or desirable in
connection with marine mammal conservation and protection;
and take every step feasible to prevent wasteful, duplicative
research. To accomplish these tasks, the Commission: con-
ducts an annual survey of Federally-funded marine mammal
research; reviews and recommends steps that should be taken
to prevent duplication and improve the marine mammal research
programs conducted or supported by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Minerals Management Service, and other Federal agencies;
convenes meetings and workshops to review, plan, and coor-
dinate marine mammal research; and contracts for studies to
help define and develop solutions to domestic and inter-
national problems affecting marine mammals and their habitats
so as to facilitate and complement other agencies' acti-
vities.

Survey of Federally-Funded Marine Mammal Research

Research directly or indirectly relevant to the conser-
vation and protection of marine mammals and their habitats is
conducted or supported by many Federal departments and agen-
cies. To determine the precise nature of this research, to
examine ways in which it can best be used to facilitate
marine mammal conservation and protection, and to prevent
wasteful duplication, the Commission annually requests and
reviews information on the marine mammal research programs
being conducted, supported, or planned elsewhere in the
Federal Government.

In 1986, the Commission requested information from 20
Federal agencies and departments, at least 16 of which are
known to be conducting or supporting research relevant to the
conservation and protection of marine mammals. Those agen-
cies and departments are the Department of the Air Force, the
Department of Energy, the Department of State, the Minerals
Management Service, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the

National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Park Service,
the National Sea Grant College Program, the National Science
Foundation, the Naval Ocean Systems Center, the Office of
Naval Research, the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, the Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment,
the Smithsonian Institution, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The Minerals Management Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service have had the largest and most diverse marine mammal
research programs.

Information from the 1986 survey is due early in 1987.
After it has been compiled and verified, the Commission, in
consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, will
evaluate the information and make such recommendations as may
be appropriate to better develop, focus, and coordinate
agency programs.

Research Program Reviews, Workshops,
and Planning Meetings

In 1986, the Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed, commented on,
and/or made recommendations concerning: the tuna/porpoise,
harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, Hawaiian monk seal, North
Pacific fur seal, Steller sea lion, right whale, gray whale,
entanglement, and Antarctic marine living resources research
programs being planned, conducted, or supported by the
National Marine Fisheries Service; the research on southern
sea otters, bowhead whales, gray whales, and other marine
mammals being planned and supported by the Minerals Manage-
ment Service; and the manatee, sea otter, walrus, and polar
bear research programs being conducted by the Fish and Wild-
life Service. The Commission also convened, co-sponsored, or
participated in meetings and workshops to: (1) describe
research, education, and other programs necessary to better
assess and resolve problems caused by lost and discarded
fishing gear and other potentially hazardous marine debris;
and (2) better define and decide how best to meet essential
information and management requirements relating to: gray
whales; right whales; porpoise affected by yellowfin purse
seine fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific; marine
mammal/fisheries interactions in California coastal waters;
polar bears, sea otters, walrus, and other marine mammals in
Alaska; river dolphins; and conservation of seals and whales
in the seas surrounding Antarctica.

Commission-Sponsored Research and Study Projects

The Departments of Commerce and the Interior have pri-
mary responsibility under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
for acquiring the biological and ecological data needed to

protect and conserve marine mammals and the ecosystems of
which they are a part. This responsibility has been dele-
gated to the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish
and Wildlife Service, respectively.

As noted earlier, the Commission convenes workshops and
contracts for research and studies to identify and evaluate
threats to marine mammal populations. It also supports
other research necessary to further the purposes and policies
of the Act. Since it was established, the Commission has
contracted for 571 projects, ranging in amounts from several
hundred dollars to $150,000. The average contract has been
for about $7,100. The total amounts of contracts awarded
have been: $258,787 in FY 1974; $446,628 in FY 75; $497,449
in FY 76; $132,068 in the FY 76-77 three-month transition
period; $523,504 in FY 77; $407,678 in FY 78; $219,897 in FY
79; $396,640 in FY 80; $173,652 in FY 81; $107,117 in FY 82;
$211,982 in FY 83; $327,854 in FY 84; $226,160 in FY 85; and
$132,611 in FY 86.

From time to time, the Commission's investment in
research activities is in the form of transfers of funds to
other Federal agencies, particularly the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. When
such funds are transferred, the Commission provides detailed
scopes of work which describe precisely what the agency is to
do or to have done and the requirements for reporting on
progress to the Commission. In many instances, this approach
has made it possible for agencies to start needed research
sooner than might otherwise have been possible and then to
subsequently support the projects on their own for as long as
necessary. The Commission believes that it is valuable to
maintain agency involvement to the greatest extent possible
and that such transfers provide a useful means of doing so.

Projects undertaken by the Marine Mammal Commission in
1986 are summarized below. In those cases in which the
Commission has jointly supported the work with other agen-
cies, it is so noted in the project summary.

Final reports from Commission-sponsored studies com-
pleted in 1986 and earlier are available from the National
Technical Information Service; they are listed in Appendix B
of this Report. Papers resulting from Commission-sponsored
activities and published elsewhere are listed in Appendix C.

Technical Editing and Publication of Alaskan Marine Mammal

Species Accounts
(C. Mecklenburg, Point Stephens Press, Auke Bay, Alaska)

As described in Chapter V, the Commission has organized
and provided funding for groups of experts to prepare reports
explaining the rationale for research and management programs

necessary to effectively protect and conserve ten species of
marine mammals that commonly occur in Alaskan coastal waters.
The contractor is editing the individual species reports to
make them consistent in style and format prior to publi-
cation. At the end of 1986, all but one of the ten species
accounts had been completed and submitted for final technical
editing. The individual reports will be integrated into an
overall program plan expected to be published early in 1987.

Identification of Research/Management Requirements for Walrus

in Alaska
(J. L. Sease, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska)

As a contribution to the species accounts mentioned
above, the contractor, in collaboration with D. G. Chapman,
Ph.D., University of Washington, compiled, synthesized, and
evaluated available information on the biology, ecology,
exploitation, and management of the Pacific walrus popula-
tion. The draft contract report notes that walrus move
between and are hunted in both Soviet and U.S. waters and
that effective conservation of the population will require
cooperative U.S./U.S.S.R. research and monitoring programs.
The report was reviewed during the Commission's meeting in
Anchorage, Alaska, on 28-30 October 1986. Based on comments
received, the report is now is being revised and will be
included in the overall research and management plan for
Alaskan marine mammals described in Chapter V.

Identification of Research/Management Requirements for

Bearded and Spotted Seal Populations in Alaska
(B. P. Kelly and L. T. Quakenbush, Institute of Marine

Science, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska)

As a contribution to the species accounts mentioned
above, the contractors have compiled, synthesized, and evalu-
ated available information on the biology, ecology, exploi-
tation, and management of bearded and spotted seal popula-
tions in Alaskan coastal waters. Draft contract reports
point out the need for better information on population size
and discreteness and for monitoring and collecting data from
the Alaskan subsistence and Soviet commercial harvests. The
reports were reviewed during the Commission's meeting in
Anchorage, Alaska, on 28-30 October 1986. Based on the
comments received, they are being revised and will be
included in the overall research and management plan for
Alaskan marine mammals described in Chapter V.

Completion of a Study of Priorities for Marine Research in
Arctic and Sub-Arctic Seas

(Polar Research Board, National Academy of Sciences)

In 1985, the Commission provided funds to help support
an ad hoc committee established by the Polar Research Board
of the National Academy of Sciences. The committee's task
was to: review past and ongoing marine research programs in
the Arctic and sub-Arctic; identify major information gaps
and priority research needs; and describe research areas that
would require or could best be addressed by new technological
advances and/or a dedicated polar research vessel. Because
additional money was needed for the committee to complete its
report, the Commission provided that money in 1986. The
committee is expected to submit its report to the Polar
Research Board early in 1987. The report will be published
by mid-1987.

Overview of Federal and State Efforts to Protect Manatees and
Their Habitat in Florida
(C. J. Gluckman, Esq., Tallahassee, Florida)

As discussed in Chapter IX, the contractor is reviewing
and evaluating actions taken since 1979 by the Federal
Government, the State of Florida, involved public interest
groups, and others to protect manatees and essential manatee
habitats in Florida. The project is being funded partially
by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Service, as well as
the Commission, reviewed and commented on a draft contract
report submitted in July 1986. The final contract report,
expected early in 1987, will include recommendations for
improving State and Federal land acquisition, habitat protec-
tion, education, enforcement, research, and other programs
required to assure the continued existence of viable manatee
populations in Florida.

Workshop on Measures to Address Marine Mammal/Fisheries

Interactions in California
(Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, California, and
S. Montgomery, Woodstock, Virginia)

The contractors provided logistic support and prepared
the report for the Workshop on Measures to Address Marine
Mammal/Fisheries Interactions in California, held at the Fort
Mason Center, San Francisco, California, on 26-28 March 1986.
The purposes of the workshop, sponsored cooperatively by the
Marine Mammal Commission, the California Department of Fish
and Game, the California Sea Grant Program, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, were to: (a) describe measures that could be taken
to avoid or reduce the adverse effects of marine mammal/
fisheries interactions on affected fisheries and marine

mammal populations in California; and (b) describe the
research and monitoring programs necessary to evaluate the
likely costs and benefits of potential mitigation measures.
The workshop results, described in Chapter VI, will be used
to help develop a cooperative State/Federal program for
minimizing the adverse effects of interactions on both the
affected fisheries and marine mammal populations.

Symposium on Biomass and Geography of Large Marine

Ecosystems
(K. Sherman, Ph.D., Northeast Fisheries Center, National

Marine Fisheries Service)

The contractor is organizing a Symposium on Biomass and
Geography of Large Marine Ecosystems, to be held in Chicago,
Illinois, on 16-17 February 1987, as part of the annual
meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. The symposium is being co-sponsored by the Associa-
tion, the Center for Ocean Management Studies at the Univer-
sity of Rhode Island, the Marine Mammal Commission, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National
Marine Fisheries Service. Symposium participants will
include researchers from Argentina, Australia, China, Den-
mark, Japan, Spain, Thailand, and the United States. The
purpose of the symposium is to provide a forum for examining
the causes of large-scale biomass shifts within large marine
ecosystems against the background of natural variability and
anthropogenically~induced perturbations from over-exploi-
tation and pollution. The results of the symposium should
contribute to determining how to assess and maintain the
health and stability of the marine ecosystems of which marine
mammals are a part.

Field Surveys and Photo-Identification of Right Whales in the

Bay of Fundy
(S. D. Kraus, New England Aquarium, Boston, Massachusetts)

In 1985, the Commission convened two workshops to iden-
tify and describe research and management actions necessary
to protect right whales and their habitat in the northwest
Atlantic Ocean. In 1986, Congress provided a special appro-
priation to the National Marine Fisheries Service to support
needed research. The funding did not become available until
late in the year and, in the interim, the Commission provided
funds for the contractor to continue summer surveys and
photo-identification studies of right whales begun in the
lower Bay of Fundy in 1980. The study is providing valuable
information on right whale calving intervals, growth rates,
and mortality, as well as population size and habitat-use
patterns. Some of the information must be collected each
year to permit meaningful interpretation, and failure to
continue the study in 1986 would have compromised its value.

Humpback Whale Surveys in Stephens Passage, Frederick Sound,

and Seymour Canal, Alaska
(C. S. Baker, Ph.D., Gustavus, Alaska)

Areas in and around Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska,
may be important summer feeding grounds for some of the
humpback whales that winter, calve, and breed in the coastal
waters of Hawaii. The contractor, with support from the
Marine Mammal Commission and the National Marine Fisheries
Service, conducted several summer surveys and photographed
humpback whales in Stephens Passage and Frederick Sound,
Alaska. He also continued a late fall survey begun in 1979
to determine how many humpback whales may remain in Seymour
Canal, Alaska, during the winter. The study results will
help to identify essential feeding areas and other areas of
importance to humpback whales in southeast Alaska, determine
when and what age/sex classes of whales migrate to and from
Hawaii and Alaska, and provide the basis for detecting and
monitoring future population trends.

Dissemination and Collection of Information Concerning
Wildlife Conservation Problems Being Caused by Lost and

Discarded Fishing Gear and Other Marine Debris in
Australasia

(P. K. Dayton, Ph.D., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La
Jolla, California)

As described in Chapter VIII, the Commission has
initiated a number of actions to determine how to prevent or
reduce the impacts of lost and discarded fishing gear and
other potentially hazardous marine debris on marine mammals.
The objectives of this contract were to: (1) make scientists
and others in Australia and New Zealand aware of problems
caused by different types of persistent marine debris and
steps being taken in the United States to resolve the prob-
lems; (2) obtain information on the nature and magnitude of
marine debris problems in Australasian waters; and (3) pre-
pare for a continuing dialogue on the issue. To meet the
contract objectives, the contractor, while at the Australian
Institute of Marine Science in Townsville, Australia, pre-
sented seminars on the problem, distributed written material
concerning U.S. programs, and surveyed a number of marine
ecologists and other scientists in Australia and New Zealand.
In the process, the contractor met with investigators carry-
ing out entanglement and debris-related research in both
countries and thereby established the groundwork for substan-
tially expanded international cooperative efforts now
underway.

Workshop on the Biology and Ecology of River Dolphins
(Species Survival Commission, International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland,
Switzerland)

There are five species of fresh water river dolphins
which occur in several of the major river systems in China,
India, and South America. The biology, ecology, and status
of these species are not well known and all five may be
threatened or endangered due to hunting, incidental take,
habitat degradation, or other human activities. The purposes
of this Workshop, held in Wuhan, China, 26 October-6 November
1986, were to: review available information on the biology
and conservation of river dolphins; identify threats to the
dolphins and their habitat; and determine what can and should
be done to assure survival of the species. A preliminary
workshop report, provided to the Commission in November 1986,
confirms that all species of river dolphins are either
threatened or endangered. As described in Chapter IX, the
Commission subsequently recommended that the National Marine
Fisheries Service take certain steps to encourage and assist
needed protective measures.

Relative Discreteness of Harbor Porpoise Populations in
North-Central California

(K. S. Norris, Ph.D., University of California, Santa Cruz)

Substantial numbers of harbor porpoise are being caught
and killed in set net fisheries for halibut and other finfish
along the north central coast of California. The distri-
bution, size, and discreteness of populations being affected
by the fisheries are not known and therefore it is difficult
to judge the likely effects of the incidental take. Informa-
tion on harbor porpoise distribution and movement patterns
may best be obtained by radio-tagging and tracking a repre-
sentative sample of animals. The objectives of this pilot
project are to: (1) determine when, where, and how harbor
porpoise might most effectively be captured, observed, and
tracked or relocated in or near the areas affected by the
fisheries; and (2) develop safe and effective methods for
capturing, marking, radio-tagging, tracking, and relocating
harbor porpoise in and near the affected areas. The contract
report, due by 30 September 1987, will be reviewed by the
Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, to determine whether the Commission should recom-
mend that the National Marine Fisheries Service initiate a
harbor porpoise radio-tagging/tracking program.

10

Analysis of the Possible Use of Mitochondrial DNA for

Determining Discreteness of Bottlenose Dolphin Populations
(W. M. Brown, Ph.D., and T. E. Dowling, Ph.D., University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan)

In December 1984, the Commission provided support for a
feasibility study to determine whether analysis of mitochon-
drial DNA could be used to identify discrete populations of
marine mammals. The investigators analyzed mitochondrial DNA
in tissue samples collected from bottlenose dolphins in
several coastal areas in the United States. The results were
promising and, in 1986, the Commission provided additional
funds to assist in obtaining and analyzing tissues from a
larger and more representative sample of animals. If
successful, the study will provide a powerful new tool to
help determine whether marine mammals from different
geographic areas are from the same or different breeding
populations.

Review of Information Concerning the Possible Effects of

Salmon and Other Fisheries on Dall's Porpoise Populations in
the North Pacific

(D. G. Chapman, Ph.D., University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, and F. T. Awbrey, Ph.D., San Diego State
University, San Diego, California)

An Administrative Law Judge hearing was held in Seattle,
Washington, on 1-7 December 1986 to review information
related to the Federation of Japan Cooperative Fisheries
Association's application for a permit authorizing the inci-
dental take of Dall's porpoise during fishing operations in
the North Pacific. To help prepare evidence and other docu-
ments for the Administrative Law Judge's review of the permit
application, the contractors and the Committee of Scientific
Advisors on Marine Mammals reviewed and provided advice on
scientific/technical matters contained in background docu-
ments, testimony prepared and submitted by other parties in
advance of the hearing and briefs filed by parties after the
hearing. In addition, Dr. Chapman prepared and presented
expert testimony on behalf of the Commission. In 1987, the
contractors will continue to review and provide advice on
scientific and technical aspects of this matter.

Development of a Computerized System for Storing and

Selectively Retrieving Marine Mammal Literature Citations
(W. A. Watkins, Ph.D., Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts)

While there are thousands of scientific papers, reports,
and other documents bearing upon the conservation and protec-
tion of marine mammals, their usefulness depends, in no small
measure, upon their accessibility. With this in mind, the

11

Commission provided funds for the contractor to obtain,
evaluate, and adapt existing computer software to facilitate
storage and retrieval of marine mammal bibliographic infor-
mation. Funding necessary to develop the computer data base
will be provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service and
other organizations.

Analysis of Elephant Seal Resighting Data from the Farallon
Islands

(H. R. Huber, Visiting Scientist, National Marine Mammal
Laboratory, Seattle, Washington)

Tag/resighting studies of elephant seals have been
carried out on the Farallon Islands since the early 1970s.
However, data produced by these studies have not been comp-
letely analyzed. Recognizing the potential value of such
data, the Commission provided support for the contractor to
analyze the data to determine possible changes in the sur-
vival rates of immature elephant seals on the Farallon
Islands from 1974 to 1986. Juvenile survival rates, which
may have declined as population density increased during this
period, may provide a basis for determining the optimum
sustainable population level. The contract report will be
reviewed by the Commission, in consultation with its Com-
mittee of Scientific Advisors, to determine whether
additional analysis, monitoring, or management actions may be
necessary to ascertain and maintain the optimum sustainable
northern elephant seal population.

Publication of Contract Reports
(National Technical Information Service)

Many of the Commission's contract reports are of
interest to organizations and individuals outside the Commis-
sion and may be of value for many years to come. To assure
that such reports are readily available, the Commission
contracts with the National Technical Information Service,
part of the Department of Commerce, to publish and archive
selected reports. Commission reports available from the
Service are listed in Appendix B of this Report.

Special Research Concerns for FY 1987

As noted in this and previous Annual Reports, substan-
tial additional research is needed to more effectively assess
and determine how best to deal with a number of problems
affecting the conservation and protection of marine mammals
worldwide. As examples, additional research is needed to:

-- determine the cause(s) and possible means for stopping
and reversing the continuing decline of certain northern

12

fur seal, harbor seal, and Steller sea lion populations
in the North Pacific and Bering Sea;

-- identify and evaluate the relative costs and benefits
of possible means for preventing or reducing the at-sea
loss and discarding of fishing gear and other poten-
tially hazardous and persistent marine debris;

=< identify and evaluate the costs and benefits of possible
means for avoiding or reducing the adverse effects of
interactions between marine mammals and fisheries;

== identify and determine how best to protect habitats
essential to the health and stability of marine mammal
populations worldwide; and

-- develop better methods for assessing and monitoring
the status of marine mammal populations and habitats and
the effects of activities such as offshore oil and gas
development on marine mammals.

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, agencies such
as the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wild-
life Service, and the Minerals Management Service have pri-
mary responsibility for assuring that needed research and
studies are done. The Commission is responsible for review-
ing this research and for seeing that other studies it deems
necessary or desirable are done in order to meet the objec-
tives of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. To meet its
responsibilities, the Commission, in FY 1987, will continue
to convene workshops, hold planning meetings, and contract
for studies to help define and develop solutions to critical
problems. In particular, the Commission expects to organize,
convene, or help support workshops, program reviews, and
planning meetings to: (1) help develop and adopt a coopera-
tive State/Federal plan for assessing and minimizing the
adverse effects of marine mammal/fisheries interactions on
both fisheries and marine mammal populations in California;
(2) determine what further actions should be taken to assess
and mitigate problems caused by lost and discarded fishing
gear and other persistent and hazardous marine debris;

(3) determine what additional research is needed to facili-
tate development of safe and effective systems for radio-
tagging and tracking large cetaceans; (4) develop recovery
plans for right whales, humpback whales, and other endangered
whales in U.S. waters; (5) identify directed research and
monitoring programs that should be carried out by the United
States to facilitate implementation of the Convention for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources; and

(6) improve planning and coordination of marine mammal
research and management programs being conducted or supported
by Federal agencies, State agencies, and other organizations.

13

As funding permits, the Commission will also contract
for studies to: determine the types of monitoring programs
that might be useful for detecting and monitoring the
possible effects of offshore oil and gas exploration and
development on marine mammals and the ecosystems of which
they are a part; determine whether and what data management
systems might be used to facilitate storage, retrieval, and
exchange of information concerning whales, seals, and other
components of the Southern Ocean ecosystem; and describe
additional international agreements or programs that may be
useful for protecting marine mammal populations and habitats
that occur in areas outside U.S. jurisdiction.

14

CHAPTER III

STATUTORY AMENDMENTS CONCERNING MARINE MAMMALS

In 1986, Congress passed legislation to clarify legal
requirements for the proposed translocation of southern sea
otters and to provide authorization for the taking of small
numbers of depleted marine mammals incidental to activities
other than commercial fishing. As discussed in the previous
Annual Report, these issues were raised in 1985 during
Congressional deliberations on reauthorization of the
Endangered Species Act. Although the reauthorization bill,
H.R. 1027, was passed by the House of Representatives on
29 July 1985, reauthorization legislation was not passed by
the Senate. However, during 1986, the marine mammal
provisions of H.R. 1027 were considered and passed in
conjunction with other legislation.

The sea otter amendment was passed by Congress on
18 October 1986 as part of the Wetlands Loan Extension Act
and was signed into law on 7 November 1986. The amendment
clarifies the Fish and Wildlife Service's authority to
translocate and manage a second population of sea otters. In
addition, it establishes special decision-making standards
for the proposed translocation. The provisions of this
amendment are discussed in detail in the sea otter section of
Chapter IX of this Report. As noted in that section, the
Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting its decision-making
review of the sea otter translocation proposal, anda
decision on the proposal pursuant to the requirements of the
sea otter amendment is expected early in 1987.

Also on 18 October 1986, Congress passed S. 991,
authorizing appropriations for certain fisheries activities.
This bill included an amendment to section 101(a)(5) of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. Prior to amendment, section
101(a) (5) authorized the Secretaries of the Interior and
Commerce to permit U.S. citizens engaged in activities other
than commercial fishing to incidentally take small numbers of
non-depleted marine mammals. However, the authority did not
coincide with analogous incidental take provisions in the
Endangered Species Act. Therefore, amendment was considered
desirable to make the analogous provisions of the two
statutes consistent.

15

Under the Endangered Species Act, permission may be
granted to incidentally take endangered or threatened species
if it is determined that the activity involved is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of that species or to
result in the destruction or adverse modification of its
critical habitat. Because marine mammals designated as
endangered or threatened are considered to be depleted
species under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, section
101(a) (5) previously had enjoined the issuance of incidental
take authorizations under the Endangered Species Act when
endangered or threatened marine mammals were involved. In
order to conform the Marine Mammal Protection Act to the less
stringent provisions of the Endangered Species Act, section
101(a) (5) was amended to authorize the incidental take of
small numbers of depleted, as well as non-depleted, marine
mammals.

Before issuing the Marine Mammal Protection Act inci-
dental take authorization under section 101(a)(5), the
Secretary is required to determine, after notice and comment
rulemaking, whether the proposed take will have a negligible
impact on the affected species or stock. If the taking would
have more than a negligible impact, the request may not be
granted. Authorization is limited to five consecutive years
and is subject to regulations that prescribe, among other
requirements, the permissible means of taking and the
measures that must be followed to cause the least practicable
adverse impact on the affected species or stock.

The amendment to section 101(a)(5) also changed the
standard for the Secretary's review of the impact of the
proposed take on the availability of marine mammals for
subsistence uses by Alaska Natives. Prior to the amendment,
unless the Secretary determined that the requested take would
have a negligible impact on the availability of the species
for subsistence uses, the incidental take authorization could
not be issued. As a result of the amendment, the "negligible
impact" standard was changed to the requirement that the
incidental take would not have an "unmitigable adverse
impact" on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence
uses. In addition, the amendment added the requirement that
regulations be promulgated on methods of taking that would
have the least practicable impact on the availability of the
affected species or stock for subsistence uses by Alaska
Natives.

During 1987, the National Marine Fisheries Service and
the Fish and Wildlife Service are expected to propose regula-
tions to implement the new requirements of section 101(a) (5).
The Marine Mammal Commission will review the proposed regu-
lations in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors.

16

CHAPTER IV

INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION
AND CONSERVATION

Section 108 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act directs
that the Departments of Commerce, the Interior, and State, in
consultation with the Commission, seek to further the
protection and conservation of marine mammals under existing
international agreements and take such initiatives as may be
necessary to negotiate additional agreements required to
achieve the purposes of the Act. In addition, section 202 of
the Marine Mammal Protection Act directs that the Marine
Mammal Commission recommend to the Secretary of State and
other Federal officials appropriate policies regarding
existing international arrangements for the protection and
conservation of marine mammals.

The Commission's activities in 1986 with respect to
conservation and protection of marine mammals in the Southern
Ocean, the International Whaling Commission, the Interim
Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, and
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora are discussed below.

Conservation and Protection of
Marine Mammals in the Southern Ocean

At least thirteen species of seals and whales inhabit or
are present seasonally in the Southern Ocean, the seas sur-
rounding Antarctica. Two of the seal species, the Antarctic
fur seal (Arctocephalus spp.) and the southern elephant seal
(Mirounga leonina), were driven to near-extinction by unregu-
lated hunting in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Most of the large whale stocks, including humpback, blue,
fin, sei, and sperm whale stocks, have been severely depleted
by poorly regulated commercial whaling which began in the
Antarctic in the early 1900s.

In 1972, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties
concluded an agreement, the Convention for the Conservation
of Antarctic Seals, to regulate commercial sealing, should it
ever begin again in the Antarctic. In 1982, the Interna-
tional Whaling Commission agreed to a moratorium on com-

17

mercial whaling which began in 1986 (see following
discussion). Thus, commercial sealing and whaling presently
do not pose threats to Southern Ocean populations of seals
and whales, both activities could resume. In addition,
serious threats could be posed by developing fisheries,
particularly the fishery for Antarctic krill (Euphausia
superba), and growing interest in possible offshore oil and
gas resources.

As noted in previous Commission reports, Antarctic krill
occupies a central role in the Southern Ocean food web. It
is one of the dominant herbivores and the principal component
in the diets of numerous species including: fin, blue,
humpback, and minke whales; crabeater and Antarctic fur
seals; Adelie, chinstrap, macaroni, and rockhopper penguins;
several other species of sea birds; and several species of
fish and squid. Some of these species are eaten in turn by
sperm whales, killer whales, leopard seals, and other higher
order predators.

Because of the possible direct and indirect effects of
fisheries and offshore oil and gas development on marine
mammals, the Marine Mammal Commission has, since 1974,
undertaken a continuing review of matters that might affect
krill or other important components of the Southern Ocean
ecosystem. It has made recommendations to the National
Science Foundation, the Department of State, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine
Fisheries Service on the need for basic and directed research
and monitoring programs, and for international agreements to
effectively regulate fisheries and offshore oil and gas
exploration and development in the Southern Ocean. Since the
mid-1970s, the Commission has also provided, often through a
representative serving as the lead scientist on the U.S.
delegation, scientific advice during the many negotiating
sessions here and abroad on Antarctic living and non-living
resource regimes. Activities before 1986 have been described
in previous Annual Reports. A summary of these earlier
activities and a description of 1986 activities are provided
below.

Activities Related to Antarctic Seals

The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals,
which entered into force in March 1978, recognizes that
unregulated harvesting could have severe adverse effects on
Antarctic seal stocks and on the marine ecosystem of which
they are a part. The Convention includes an Annex which
specifies permissible catch levels, sealing areas, and
sealing seasons for various species. The Convention requires
that parties to the Convention annually provide information
to the other parties and to the Scientific Committee on

18

Antarctic Research (see page 26) on seals taken for both
research and commercial purposes, and that both the
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and other
contracting parties be notified at least thirty days in
advance of departure of proposed sealing expeditions from
their home ports.

Since the Convention was concluded in 1972, several
hundred seals have been killed each year for research
purposes. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research has
established a Group of Specialists on Seals to facilitate and
coordinate Antarctic seal research and this Group has been
charged with compiling and advising the Scientific Committee
on Antarctic Research on information submitted in response to
the aforementioned requirements of the Seals Convention. The
Soviet Union and Poland have not met the reporting require-
ments, and, at its meeting in San Diego in June 1986
(discussed below), the Scientific Committee on Antarctic
Research urged all of its national committees to take steps
to insure that data on seals killed and captured in the
Antarctic are submitted in the appropriate form and ina
timely fashion to the convenor of the Group of Specialists on
Seals to enable the Scientific Committee on Antarctic
Research to meet its commitments under the Seals Convention.

There has been no commercial hunting of seals in the
Antarctic since 1964 when a private Norwegian expedition
conducted exploratory sealing in the western Atlantic sector
of the Southern Ocean. In October 1986, the Soviet Union
advised the United States and other parties to the Seals
Convention that it was sending two sealing vessels to the
Antarctic on 10 November 1986, to conduct experimental
sealing. The Department of State, following consultation
with the Commission and the National Marine Fisheries
Service, requested information on the purposes and expected
duration of the experimental sealing, the size and operating
characteristics of the two sealing vessels, the planned
operating area or areas, and the species and number of seals
expected to be taken. By the end of 1986, no further infor-
mation had been provided.

Article VI of the Seals Convention provides that any
contracting party may propose a meeting of parties at any
time after commercial sealing has begun to consider con-
stituting a regulatory commission or taking other measures
which may be necessary to effectively meet the Convention
objectives. If subsequent information indicates that the
Soviet Union has begun commercial sealing, the Commission
will recommend that the Department of State propose a meeting
of contracting parties to consider and take necessary action.

19

Activities Related to Other Living Resources

In addition to recognizing the possible adverse effects
of unregulated seal hunting, the parties to the Antarctic
Treaty have recognized the potential adverse effects of the
developing krill fishery and other fisheries on the Antarctic
marine ecosystem. At the IXth Antarctic Treaty Consultative
Meeting held in London in 1977, the Consultative Parties
agreed that a special meeting should be held to elaborate a
regime which would provide for the effective conservation of
all living resources in the Antarctic marine ecosystem.
Negotiations were initiated in February 1978 and the
resulting regime -- the Convention for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources -- was concluded in May
1980 and came into force in April 1982. To implement it, the
Convention establishes a Commission, Scientific Committee,
and Secretariat, all headquartered in Hobart, Tasmania,
Australia.

The Marine Mammal Commission's activities regarding the
negotiations and the first four meetings of the Commission
and Scientific Committee established by the Convention are
described in previous Annual Reports.

Meeting of the Working Group for the Ecosystem
Monitoring Program under the Convention for the Conservation
of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) -- At its third
annual meeting, held in Hobart in September 1984, the
Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources established an ad hoc working group to
formulate and recommend actions for planning, implementing,
and coordinating multi-national research programs necessary
to effectively assess and monitor key components of the
Antarctic marine ecosystem. This group met in Seattle,
Washington, in May 1985 and, following consideration of its
report at the September 1985 meeting of the full Scientific
Committee, the Scientific Committee constituted a formal
Working Group for the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program.
The formal working group met for the first time on 2-7 July
1986 in Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany.

Representatives of the Marine Mammal Commission
participated in both the May 1985 and July 1986 working group
meetings. At its first meeting, the working group identified
six krill predators (crabeater and Antarctic fur seals;
Adelie, chinstrap, and macaroni penguins; and minke whales)
that might be useful indicators of the indirect or second-
order effects of krill harvesting. The group recommended
that these species be monitored at a network of sites
throughout Antarctica and that high priority be placed on the
initiation of integrated ecosystem monitoring programs in

20

three areas -- Prydz Bay, the Bransfield Strait, and the area
around South Georgia Island.

At the Hamburg meeting, the Working Group amplified and
refined the conceptual framework for the ecosystem monitoring
program and began to determine the time, ship support,
special equipment, and associated research that would be
required to satisfactorily meet the program objectives. The
Working Group noted the importance of standardizing methods
and procedures for collecting, reporting, and archiving data.
It agreed that at its next meeting, to be held in Paris in
June 1987, the Working Group would consider: data require-
ments, data acquisition and data handling with regard to
predator, prey, environmental, and fisheries variables;
standardization of monitoring methods; identification and
elaboration of new data collection methods; the potential
role of remote sensing technology; theoretical aspects and
pilot studies as related to monitoring needs and
methodologies; and establishing a schedule for various
program elements.

The 1986 Annual Meetings of the Commission and
Scientific Committee Established by the Convention for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources -- The 1986
annual meetings of the Commission and the Scientific
Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources were held in Hobart on 8-20 September 1986. To
help prepare for these meetings and review the status of the
development plan for a directed research program (described
below), the National Marine Fisheries Service, in consul-
tation with the Marine Mammal Commission, the Department of
State, and the National Science Foundation, convened an ad
hoc group of U.S. scientists and representatives of
interested industry and environmental groups in Washington,
D.C., on 2 May 1986. At that meeting, information and views
were sought and exchanged on scientific and technical issues
on the agenda for the 8-20 September 1986 meetings of the
Antarctic Marine Living Resources Commission and Scientific
Committee and on research and monitoring which the U.S.
should carry out to best facilitate implementation of the
Living Resources Convention. Marine Mammal Commission
representatives helped prepare for and participated in both
the May preparatory meeting and the September meetings of the
Commission and Scientific Committee for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources.

During the September 1986 meetings, the Antarctic Marine
Living Resources Commission and Scientific Committee con-
sidered a wide range of issues including: measures needed to
better assess and conserve exploited fish stocks; evaluation
of possible methods for assessing and monitoring the status
of Antarctic krill stocks; development of a coordinated,

21

multi-national plan for ecosystem monitoring; assessment and
avoidance of accidental and incidental catch of non-target
species; and elaboration of a system of observation and
inspection. The Scientific Committee concluded that several
fish stocks, particularly the Notothenia rossii stock in the
South Georgia area, had been severely depleted by overfishing
and that additional measures should be taken to protect and
permit recovery of the stocks. Most members of the Commis-
sion, including the United States, took the position that
area closures or enforceable catch limits were required to
permit recovery of some depleted stocks. Others, particu-
larly the Soviet Union, took the position that there had not
yet been sufficient time to detect the effects of net
regulations and prohibitions on directed fishing adopted at
the 1985 meeting, and were not convinced that more restric-
tive measures either were necessary or justified. The
Commission, which must make decisions by consensus, continued
existing conservation measures (see the previous Annual
Report), adopted several additional measures including a
prohibition on directed fisheries for N. rossii in the
vicinity of the Antarctic Peninsula, and agreed that at its
next meeting it would consider and, as necessary, fix catch
limits for the South Georgia area to become effective for the
1987/1988 fishing season.

Information provided during the September 1986 meetings
indicate that catches of Antarctic krill, which had declined
from a high of about 528,000 metric tons in the 1981/1982
fishing season to about 128,000 tons in the 1983/1984 fishing
season, have increased in the past two years due at least in
part to improved success in preparing peeled krill products.
Most of the increase, as indicated in the following table,
has been in the reported Soviet catch, which has doubled in
each of the past two years.

Antarctic Krill Catches
(in metric tons)

1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86*

Chile 3752 1649 2598 3264
GDR 0 0 50 0)
Japan 42282 49531 38274 61846
Rep. of Korea 1959 2657 fe) )
Poland 360 0 0 2065
USSR 180290 74381 150538 379270

TOTAL: 228643 128218 191460 446445

*The figures for 1986 are preliminary.

22

Although increasing, it is unlikely that krill catches
have had or are having any adverse effects on krill stocks or
krill predators, except possibly in local areas. Much of the
catch has been from the South Georgia Island and South Orkney
Island areas and it is possible that krill fishing has
reduced krill abundance in the vicinity of these islands, at
least during the fishing season, making it more difficult for
krill-eating birds and seals breeding on the islands to find
food. Recognizing the importance of resolving these uncer-
tainties the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Scientific
Committee has initiated or recommended a range of theoretical
studies, field experiments, and monitoring programs to deter-
mine how best to assess and monitor krill stocks and to
detect the possible effects of fishing on both krill stocks
and krill predators.1

Seals, whales, birds, and other non-target species may
be affected directly, as well as indirectly, by krill and
other fisheries. That is, they may be caught and killed
incidentally during fishing operations or be caught and
killed in lost and discarded fishing gear. The Antarctic
Marine Living Resources Commission has recognized this
potential and has adopted a number of measures to try to
insure that accidental and incidental mortality of marine
living resources does not become a problem in the Convention
Area. In response to proposals made by the United States
delegation, the Commission adopted additional measures during
its September 1986 meeting. These included agreement that
those members that had not already done so would consider and
take steps necessary to ratify and implement Optional Annex V
of the 1978 Protocol Relating to the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and ratify and
implement the Convention for the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. Commission
members also agreed that, when feasible, samples of any lost
or discarded nets, net fragments, strapping bands, or other
potentially hazardous marine debris found incidentally by
their nationals in the Convention Area should be collected
and provided to the Secretariat for archiving along with
information on when, where, and how much debris was found,
the condition of the debris when found, the species, number,
and condition of any fish, birds, marine mammals, or other
organisms entangled in the debris when found, and what was

1 Actions taken by the Commission and the Scientific
Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources are described in the annual meeting reports of the
Commission and Scientific Committee. These and other reports
can be obtained from: The Executive Secretary, Commission
for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources,

25 Old Wharf, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia.

23

done with any parts of the debris not sent to the Secretariat
for archiving.

The Commission also considered and generally agreed on
procedures for authorizing and reporting the results of
experimental fishing, which otherwise would be prohibited by
conservation measures previously adopted, and for elaborating
a system of observation and inspection to give effect to
Article XXIV of the Convention. These matters, as well as
matters concerning stock assessment, identification and
adoption of necessary conservation measures, development and
adoption of a long-range conservation strategy and program of
work, and further elaboration and implementation of needed
research and monitoring programs, will be considered further
at the next meetings of the Antarctic Living Resources
Commission and Scientific Committee scheduled to be held in
Hobart from 26 October to 6 November 1987. To help prepare
for these meetings, the Marine Mammal Commission recommended,
by letter of 23 December 1986, that the National Marine
Fisheries Service organize and hold another meeting of the ad
hoc Scientific Working Group on the Antarctic before May 1987
to seek advice on scientific and technical matters to be
considered during these meetings and on the research program
being developed by the Service as required by the Antarctic
Marine Living Resources Conservation Act of 1984 (see below).

Development of a Directed U.S. Antarctic Marine Living
Resources Research Program -- The Antarctic Marine Living
Resources Conservation Act of 1984 establishes the domestic
authority necessary for the United States to comply with and
implement the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources. Among other things, the Act directs
that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, the Director of the National Science
Foundation, and appropriate officials of other Federal
agencies, such as the Marine Mammal Commission, prepare,
implement, and annually update a plan for conducting directed
research necessary to effectively implement the Convention.

In response to this directive, the National Marine
Fisheries Service has prepared, adopted, and started to
implement a program development plan. The plan was developed
in consultation with the National Science Foundation, the
Marine Mammal Commission, other Federal agencies,
knowledgeable scientists in the U.S. and abroad, and
representatives of the U.S. fishing industry and public
interest groups.

The Service received a $2,000,000 supplement to its
Fiscal Year 1987 budget appropriation to begin implementing
the directed research program outlined in its program
development plan. There are few ships capable of supporting

24

marine research in the Antarctic and they expensive to
operate. Therefore, to try to make the best possible use of
the available funding, the Service made arrangements to
cooperatively carry out three research cruises in 1986-1987
on a cost-sharing basis aboard a Polish research vessel, the
Profesor Siedlecki.

The three research cruises are scheduled to be completed
early in 1987. On 23 December 1986, the Commission wrote the
National Marine Fisheries Service recommending that, follow-
ing completion of the three research cruises, the Service
prepare and make public a progress report and tentative plans
for directed research to be carried out in the 1987-1988 and
the 1988-1989 austral summers. As noted earlier, the
Commission also recommended that the Service organize and
hold another meeting of the ad hoc U.S. scientific working
group on the Antarctic before May 1987 to seek outside advice
on the overall direction of the program and the tentative
implementation plans for the next two field seasons.

The Commission believes that both basic and directed
research are essential to conserving wildlife and protecting
U.S. interests in the Southern Ocean. Therefore, in 1987,
the Commission will continue to work with the Department of
State, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Science
Foundation, and other organizations to help develop both
basic and directed Antarctic research programs.

Activities Related to Non-Living Resources

As noted earlier, there is growing interest in potential
non-living resources in Antarctica, particularly offshore oil
and gas. Activities associated with exploration, develop-
ment, and transport of oil and gas resources and possibly
other non-living resources could have direct and indirect
effects on whales, seals, krill, and other components of the
Antarctic marine ecosystem. The Antarctic Treaty Consul-
tative Parties have recognized this possibility. as they
recognized the possible adverse effects of living resource
exploitation. At the XIth Antarctic Treaty Consultative
Meeting held in Argentina in July 1982, they agreed that a
regime on Antarctic mineral resources should be elaborated
and that the regime should provide means for: (1) assessing
the possible impact of mineral resource activities on the
Antarctic environment in order to provide for informed
decision-making; (2) determining the acceptability of
possible mineral resource activities; and (3) governing those
activities determined to be acceptable. Negotiation of the
regime began at a special Antarctic Treaty Consultative
Meeting in New Zealand in June 1982, and it has continued at
formal and informal sessions in New Zealand (January 1983);

25

the Federal Republic of Germany (July 1983); Washington, D.C.
(January 1984); Japan (May 1984); Brazil (February 1985);
France (September 1985); Australia (April 1986); and Japan
(October/November 1986). Marine Mammal Commission repre-
sentatives have helped prepare for these sessions and have
been members of the U.S. negotiating delegations.

The negotiations initially involved only the Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Parties, which presently include
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, the
Federal Republic of Germany, France, India, Japan, New
Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the
United Kingdom, Uruguay, and the United States. Beginning
with the meeting in Rio de Janeiro in February 1985, the
negotiations have been open to observers from states acceding
to the Antarctic Treaty. As of 1 January 1987, these were:
Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, German
Democratic Republic, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Papua
New Guinea, Peru, Romania, South Korea, Spain, and Sweden.

The next round of negotiations is scheduled to be held
in Uruguay in May 1987. If differences of view concerning a
number of key issues can be resolved at that session, a
diplomatic conference could be held in New Zealand in late
1987 or early 1988 to conclude the regime.

The Marine Mammal Commission believes that an effective
regime for regulating and monitoring possible mineral
resource activities offers the greatest potential for
insuring that any such activities are not to the disadvantage
of whales, seals, and other components of the Antarctic
marine ecosystem. The Commission has provided and will
continue to provide advice and assistance to the Department
of State to insure, insofar as possible, that the regime is
ecologically sound and provides adequate and effective means
for protecting marine mammals and their habitat in the
Southern Ocean.

The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research

The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR)
was established in 1958 to foster international cooperation
and coordinate scientific programs in the Antarctic. It is
one of the Scientific Committees which form the International
Council of Scientific Unions, a body to which the National
Academy of Sciences is the U.S. adhering organization. The
Academy's Polar Research Board functions as the U.S. National
Committee for SCAR. SCAR serves as an unofficial scientific
advisory body to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties,
who have increasingly called upon SCAR for scientific and
technical advice concerning conservation and other issues.

26

At its XIXth meeting, in June 1986, SCAR and several of
its subsidiary bodies considered a number of issues relevant
to the conservation and protection of marine mammals and
their habitat in the Southern Ocean. These included:
facilitation and coordination of ecological research in the
Southern Ocean; establishment of additional categories of
protected areas; environmental monitoring and data manage-
ment; waste disposal practices; and development of a
comprehensive plan for Antarctic conservation.

In 1972, one of the SCAR Working Groups, the Working
Group on Biology, established a Subcommittee on Living
Resources of the Southern Ocean. In 1976, the Subcommittee
was upgraded to become the Group of Specialists on Southern
Ocean Ecosystems and Their Living Resources. Also in 1976,
the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and the
Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) co-sponsored
the First International Conference on Living Resources of the
Southern Ocean. The conference report -- entitled
"Biological Investigations of Marine Antarctic Systems and
Stocks" (BIOMASS) -- outlined a ten-year collaborative
international research program "to gain a deeper under-
standing of the structure and dynamic functioning of the
Antarctic marine ecosystems as a basis for the management of

actual and potential living resources." Implementation of
the BIOMASS program involved two multi-nation research
efforts (the First and Second BIOMASS Experiments -- FIBEX

and SIBEX) during the period 1981-1985. Planning and
coordination of FIBEX and SIBEX were done by a Steering
Committee -- the BIOMASS Executive -- and a BIOMASS Data
Center was established in Cambridge, England, in 1984.

Much of the work begun under the BIOMASS Program is
being continued under the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program
mentioned earlier. In 1985, the SCAR Executive disbanded the
Group of Specialists on Southern Ocean Ecosystems and Their
Living Resources, while providing that the BIOMASS Executive
continue its work until 1989 to complete synthesis and
analysis of data collected during FIBEX and SIBEX.
Recognizing that disbanding the Group of Specialists would
leave no group within the Scientific Committee to act as a
forum for review, discussion, and coordination of biological
research in the Southern Ocean, the Working Group on Biology
proposed, and the SCAR Executive approved, establishing a new
Group of Specialists on Southern Ocean Ecology. The purposes
of this new group are to identify, encourage, and facilitate
interdisciplinary studies on Antarctic marine ecosystems and
to respond through SCAR to requests for scientific advice and
information. Such requests may be from the Antarctic Treaty
Consultative Parties, the Commission and Scientific Committee
for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources,
and other international organizations with interest in

27

science, resources, and conservation in the Southern Ocean.
The Commission will work with the U.S. Polar Research Board
to try to assure effective communication and coordination
between the Group of Specialists on Southern Ocean Ecology
and relevant intergovernmental bodies such as the Commission
and Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources and the International Whaling
Commission and its Scientific Committee.

The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties recognize that
science-related activities as well as resource-related
activities could have significant adverse effects on the
environment. They have adopted measures providing for
designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and
Specially Protected Areas to help insure that scientific and
logistic activities do not interfere with ongoing science
programs or damage important wildlife habitat. To date, 20
Specially Protected Areas and 21 Sites of Special Scientific
Interest have been designated. In addition, in 1983, the
Consultative Parties requested that SCAR provide advice on
the types of research and logistic activities which might
reasonably be expected to have significant adverse effects on
the Antarctic environment. They also sought advice on the
types of assessment procedures that would be useful for
insuring that possible adverse effects are identified and
considered before initiating activities. In response, SCAR
constituted an ad hoc working group to consider and prepare a
report responding to the request.

The Marine Mammal Commission was consulted and provided
information which was included in a draft report reviewed and
endorsed at the XVIIIth meeting of SCAR in autumn 1984. The
report, entitled "Man's Impact on the Antarctic Environment,"
was provided to and considered during the XIIIth Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Meeting in October 1985. The Consulta-
tive Parties were unable to reach consensus on whether and
what type of environmental impact assessment procedure is
necessary to insure that scientific and logistic support
activities do not have significant adverse effects on the
Antarctic environment. The subject will be considered again
during the XIVth Antarctic Consultative Meeting to be held in
Brazil in October 1987.

The Marine Mammal Commission believes that environmental
impact procedures, such as those used to give effect to the
National Environmental Policy Act, would help to minimize
environmental impacts in Antarctica and that such procedures
should be applied as suggested in the SCAR report. The
Commission will work with the Department of State and other
involved Federal agencies to encourage adoption of
environmental impact assessment procedures by all Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Parties.

28

In addition to seeking SCAR's advice on environmental
impact assessment procedures, the Antarctic Treaty
Consultative Parties requested, in 1985, that SCAR consider
and provide advice on: waste disposal procedures and
standards that would be desirable for coastal and inland
stations and field camps; the possible desirability of
expanding the system of protected areas in Antarctica to
include areas or forms of protection not covered by the
existing system of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and
Specially Protected Areas; and steps that might be taken to
improve the comparability and accessibility of scientific
data on Antarctica. In response to the requests concerning
waste disposal and the possible need for additional
protective arrangements, SCAR, at its meeting in San Diego in
June 1986, established a panel of experts and an ad hoc
working group to consider the matters. Reports will be
produced in time for review and submission to the October
1987 meeting of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties.

In response to the request for advice on steps that could be
taken to improve the comparability and accessibility of
scientific data, SCAR established an ad hoc group to consider
the matter and to provide a report to the next meeting of the
Working Group on Biology in September 1988.

At its 1984 meeting, SCAR constituted a joint working
group with the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) on long-term conservation
in the Antarctic. To facilitate its work, the joint working
group organized and held a symposium in Bonn, Federal
Republic of Germany, in April 1985. The report of the
working group was presented to the IUCN General Assembly
Meeting in May 1986 and to SCAR at its meeting in June 1986.
SCAR welcomed the report and invited delegates to provide
written comments for consideration when discussing further
collaboration between IUCN and SCAR in this effort.

The Marine Mammal Commission believes that the advice of
the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research is essential
to the effective operation of the Antarctic Treaty system.
Through the Polar Research Board, the Commission will
continue to provide whatever assistance possible to
facilitate SCAR's work.

New International Interest in Antarctica

The basic purpose of the Antarctic Treaty, which entered
into force in 1961, is to assure that Antarctica is used
exclusively for peaceful purposes. To this end, military
activities, nuclear explosions, and the disposal of
radioactive waste in Antarctica are prohibited. The Treaty
guarantees freedom of scientific research and provides for
on-site inspection of all stations, installations, and

29

equipment. The Treaty also provides for regular consultative
meetings which are used, among other purposes, to deal with
new issues.

There is growing international interest in Antarctica.
Since the Treaty entered into force, twenty-two additional
nations have acceded to it, bringing the total to thirty-four
parties?. As noted earlier, eighteen of these are now
Consultative Parties with decision-making rights under the
Antarctic Treaty. The remaining non-Consultative Parties can
attend the regular consultative meetings as observers.

The growing international interest in Antarctica
reflects, in part, recognition of the value of scientific
research which remains the primary human activity in
Antarctica. It also reflects speculation about potential
resources, particularly non-renewable mineral and fossil fuel
resources, in Antarctica. This speculation appears to have
been a major factor stimulating an initiative by Malaysia in
1983 to have the United Nations consider the existing
international arrangements concerning Antarctica. Acting on
a Malaysian proposal, the United Nations General Assembly
inscribed an item on Antarctica on the agenda of its
Thirty-eighth Session in 1983. As a result, the General
Assembly adopted a resolution that called upon the Secretary
General to "prepare a comprehensive, factual and objective
study of all aspects of Antarctica."

The Secretary General's study was completed in November
1984. Following further consideration of the matter, the
General Assembly adopted a resolution that: (1) affirmed the
conviction that, "in the interest of all mankind, Antarctica
should continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful
purposes and that it should not become the scene or object of
international discord"; and (2) agreed to inscribe an item
entitled "Question of Antarctica" on the provisional agenda
for the Fortieth Session of the General Assembly in 1985.

Although the question of Antarctica had previously been
treated on a consensus basis in the United Nations, this
pattern was broken during the Fortieth Session of the General
Assembly when Malaysia and its supporters chose to push
through three resolutions by vote. The first resolution
called upon the Secretary General to "update and expand the
study on the question of Antarctica by addressing questions
concerning the availability of information from the Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Parties to the United Nations on their

2 since 1 January 1987, two more countries, Greece and
North Korea, have acceded to the Treaty, bringing the total
to thirty-six.

30

respective activities in, and their deliberations regarding
Antarctica, the involvement of the relevant specialized
agencies and intergovernmental organizations in the Antarctic
Treaty system and the significance of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Southern Ocean."

The second resolution called attention to the ongoing
negotiation of the minerals regime, indicated that any
exploitation of resources in Antarctica should ensure the
international management and equitable sharing of the
benefits of such exploitation, and invited the Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Parties to "inform the Secretary General
of their negotiations to establish a regime regarding
Antarctic minerals." The third resolution noted that South
Africa is a Party to the Antarctic Treaty and urged the
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties to exclude South Africa
from participation in meetings of the Consultative Parties.

In the view of the United States and the other Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Parties, the three resolutions adopted
during the Fortieth Session of the General Assembly
incorporated elements which seek unjustifiably to call into
question the Antarctic Treaty system and to create an
artificial dichotomy between that system and the United
Nations' system. For these reasons, the great majority of
the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties did not participate
in the votes on the three resolutions. In explaining their
position, Australia, speaking before the General Assembly on
behalf of the Consultative Parties, expressed regret that the
consensus tradition had been abandoned and indicated that the
nature of the resolutions and the way in which they had been
adopted would call into question further Consultative Party
participation in the Antarctic agenda until consensus was
restored.

The "Question of Antarctica" was raised again during the
Forty-first Session of the United Nations General Assembly in
December 1986. Again, three resolutions were pushed through
by vote. In brief, these resolutions: (1) requested the
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties "to keep the Secretary
General fully informed on all aspects of the question of
Antarctica so that the United Nations could function as the
central repository of all such information"; (2) called upon
the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties "to impose a
moratorium on the negotiations to establish a minerals regime
until such time as all members of the international community
can participate fully in such negotiations"; (3) appealed to
the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties "to take urgent
measures to exclude the racist apartheid regime of South
Africa from participation in the meetings of the Consultative
Parties"; (4) requested the Secretary General to continue to
follow all aspects of the question of Antarctica and to
provide an updated report thereon at the Forty-second Session

31

of the General Assembly; and (5) included the "Question of
Antarctica" in the provisional agenda for the Forty-second
Session of the General Assembly. Again, the great majority
of the Consultative Parties (all but China, which abstained)
did not participate in the votes on these two resolutions
relating to Antarctica. A number of Consultative Parties
did, however, participate in the vote on the resolution
regarding South Africa.

The Marine Mammal Commission believes that the Antarctic
Treaty and the related agreements that form the Antarctic
Treaty system provide an essential basis for effectively
protecting and conserving marine mammals and their habitat in
the Southern Ocean. In 1987, the Commission will continue
its efforts to strengthen and facilitate effective
implementation of the Antarctic Treaty, the Convention for
the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, the Convention on the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, and the
minerals regime currently being negotiated.

The International Whaling Commission

Representatives of the Marine Mammal Commission con-
sulted with the U.S. Commissioner to the International
Whaling Commission (IWC) and others in preparation for the
Thirty-eighth Annual Meeting of the IWC in Malmo, Sweden.
Commission representatives also attended meetings of the IWC
and its Scientific Committee during 1986. A summary of the
Marine Mammal Commission's activities and related U.S.
activities during 1986 follows.

Pre-Meeting Activities

As noted in the previous Annual Report, John V. Byrne,
Ph.D., submitted his resignation as U.S. Commissioner to the
Iwc late in 1985. Early in 1986, Anthony J. Calio, Ph.D.,
waS appointed as the new U.S. Commissioner. Dr. Calio's
appointment coincided with the onset of a moratorium on
commercial whaling, which had been adopted by the IWC at its
1982 meeting and which took full effect in 1986 (see previous
Annual Reports and discussion below). In light of these
transitions within both the IWC and U.S. leadership in IWC
matters, late in 1985, the Marine Mammal Commission undertook
a review of IWC issues to provide guidance with respect to
future U.S. policy directions and activities. The results of
this review, completed early in 1986, were reflected ina
letter sent to the new IWC Commissioner on 15 January 1986.
Major issues before the IWC were considered carefully and
recommendations for U.S. action during 1986 and beyond were
made. In particular, the Commission recommended that:

32

as a guiding principle, the U.S. take all feasible
steps to insure the long-term future of the Whaling
Convention and improve the effectiveness of the
IWC;

the U.S. continue its support of the moratorium
provision at least until such time as the compre-
hensive assessment is completed and the provisions
governing commercial take are re-examined;

the U.S. make certain that post-comprehensive
assessment management decisions do not neglect
uncertainties in available data and/or population
models that might, if disregarded, allow whale
stocks to be reduced to or maintained at unaccept-
able levels, and that catch limits other than zero
for commercial whaling be supported only if whale
stocks are determined with certainty to be ata
level which could sustain such exploitation;

three or four U.S. scientists be immediately
designated to represent the U.S. at IWC meetings
bearing on the comprehensive assessment and that
this group meet with other appropriate U.S.
scientists by mid-March 1986 to consult on posi-
tions and develop scientific background

papers on: (a) procedures and timetables affecting
the comprehensive assessment, and (b) potential
revision of the IWC's present management proce-
dures;

the U.S. participate in IWC meetings, including
those scheduled for 7-11 April in England on the
comprehensive assessment and for 6 June in Sweden
on socio-economic aspects of IWC whaling decisions;

the U.S. participate in the 2 June 1986 working
group meeting and any other IWC meetings to
consider matters relating to the issuance of
special permits for scientific research;

the U.S. continue to support IWC actions that
reflect legitimate subsistence needs of Alaska
Eskimos;

the U.S. maintain appropriate arrangements with the
Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission to ensure that the
Alaska Eskimo bowhead whale hunt is conducted in a
manner consistent with adopted IWC quotas and
related provisions;

33

-- the National Marine Mammal Laboratory continue its
past practice of convening annual meetings to
review and coordinate bowhead whale research
supported by Federal agencies, State agencies,
Native organizations, and industry groups by
convening such a meeting as early as possible in
1986;

-- money be provided to the National Marine Mammal
Laboratory to sustain efforts to better determine
the net recruitment rate for the Bering Sea bowhead
whale population as recommended by the IWC's
Scientific Committee; and

-- the U.S. continue its support for development and
use of the most humane killing techniques for the
taking of bowhead whales for subsistence purposes.

Following the 1985 meeting of the IWC, the Marine
Research Institute of Reykjavik, Iceland, sent to members of
the IWC Scientific Committee a draft outline and research
budget for a proposed whale research program to be carried
out in 1986-1989. Some of the proposed studies involved an
experimental take of whales in order to extend catch per unit
of effort data. The proposal called for a catch of 80 fin
whales, 40 sei whales, and 80 minke whales during each year
of the research program, a catch equal to about half of
Iceland's commercial catch levels in recent years. Other
proposed studies did not depend on data from the experimental
catch. By letter of 6 December 1985, the U.S. Commissioner
asked the Marine Mammal Commission to review the described
research for scientific merit to assist the U.S. in evaluat-
ing it in light of other policy considerations.

On 7 March 1986, the Commission sent the results of its
review to the U.S. Commissioner. With respect to the
proposed studies involving the experimental catch, the
Commission noted that: collected samples and data would be
similar to those collected during the past decade or more of
commercial whaling; past samples and data had not yet been
completely analyzed; and, from the information provided in
the research outline, it was questionable whether additional
data collected from the proposed experimental catch would
significantly improve understanding of the subject whale
stocks beyond that which should already be possible through
analysis of existing data and samples. The Commission noted
that the proposed research program had been developed without
first analyzing available data to determine precisely what
additional data are needed and how they should be collected,
analyzed, and archived. In short, the plan was not developed
in accordance with generally accepted scientific procedure.

34

Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the proposed
sampling program may be ill-conceived and fundamentally
flawed.

The Commission further noted that the draft research
program proposed studies to: compile and analyze available
catch, sighting, and biological data from fin, sei, minke,
humpback, and blue whales from the North Pacific Ocean; radio
tag and track fin whales and satellite tag and track other
whales; conduct shipboard and aerial surveys of whales
adjacent to Iceland; photographically identify individual
humpback and killer whales; and analyze and improve popula-
tion models for estimating maximum sustainable yield levels.
The draft research outline did not specify the research
protocol to be used in these studies, but it did note that
these studies would be based on recent experience and proven
methodology. The Commission concluded that, although the
information provided in the draft research outline was not
adequate to make an informed judgment, it seemed possible
that such research, if properly designed and carried out,
could provide useful new information for the comprehensive
assessment contemplated by the IWC.

As indicated above, the IWC agreed during its 1985
meeting that a special meeting should be held in 1986 to
consider planning for the comprehensive assessment. That
meeting was held on 7-11 April 1986. Its objective was to
identify specific tasks and priorities and a timetable for
undertaking the comprehensive assessment of whale stocks
required under paragraph 10 (e) of the IWC Schedule of
regulations. Representatives of the Marine Mammal Commission
and the National Marine Fisheries Service attended from the
United States. Meeting participants proposed that the
comprehensive assessment be conducted through an iterative
process whereby individual whale stocks would be reviewed
according to a seven-point work plan outline consisting of
the following steps: an inventory of current knowledge of
whale stocks; a study of methodological problems involved in
determining stock identity and population trends; a parallel
examination of the availability of relevant data; a review of
scientific aspects of alternative management procedures;
preparation of a second-round inventory; an examination of
general aspects of whale population dynamics; and preparation
of a third-round inventory.

Recognizing constraints associated with the iterative
nature of the comprehensive assessment process, the number of
stocks to be reviewed, and the availability of personnel and
financial resources, a timetable was developed with a view to
completing an interim report on the comprehensive assessment,
which would cover at least the major stocks of whales, by
1990. The report of this meeting was considered by the full

35

Scientific Committee during its meeting on 19-31 May 1986 and
the proposed work plan for the comprehensive assessment was
endorsed by the full Committee.

The June 1986 Meeting of the IWC

Membership and Participation -- Representatives of
thirty-two of the Commission's forty-one member nations

participated in the Thirty-eighth Annual Meeting of the IWC,
which was held in Malmo, Sweden, on 6-13 June 1986.

Moratorium on Commercial Whaling -- As discussed in the
Marine Mammal Commission's previous Annual Reports, the IWC
adopted a new provision to its Schedule of regulations in
1982, which provides that catch limits for all commercial
whaling will be set at zero for the 1985/86 pelagic and 1986
coastal whaling seasons and thereafter. The new provision,
Schedule paragraph 10 (e), also provides that, by 1990 at the
latest, the IWC will undertake a comprehensive assessment of
the effect of this decision on whale stocks and consider
modifying this provision and establishing catch limits other
than zero. No action was taken during the 1986 meeting to
amend or modify Schedule paragraph 10 (e) and, therefore,
pursuant to its provisions, catch limits for all stocks of
whales for the 1987 whaling seasons remained at zero for
purposes of commercial whaling. Catch limits for commercial
whaling will remain at zero unless and until a three-quarters
majority of the IWC members vote to modify Schedule paragraph
10 (e).

Three nations (Japan, Norway, and the Soviet Union)
maintain objections to Schedule paragraph 10 (e). Under the
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946,
this action removes the obligation of their respective
governments to comply with the requirements of this prov-
ision. During 1986, all three nations exercised rights under
their objections to take whales commercially. The U.S.
response to these whaling activities is discussed below.
Consistent with the provisions of Schedule paragraph 10 (e),
all other members refrained from commercial whaling in 1986.

Aboriginal/Subsistence Whaling -- At its meeting in
1985, the IWC adopted a three-year block quota for the Bering
Sea stock of bowhead whales of 26 strikes per year for the
years 1985 through 1987. The quota provides that strikes not
used in any one year may be used the following year as long
as no more than 32 whales are struck in any one year. No
action was required or taken during the 1986 meeting to
modify this quota. Similarly, no action was required or
taken to modify the 1986-1987 block quota of up to 220 minke
whales adopted by the IWC for the West Greenland stock during
its 1985 meeting. Aboriginal catch limits for other stocks

36

of whales were set as follows for the 1987 aboriginal whaling
seasons: 12 minke whales from the central Atlantic stock; 10
fin whales from the West Greenland stock; zero humpback
whales from the West Greenland stock; and 179 gray whales
from the eastern Pacific stock.

Comprehensive Assessment -- With respect to the compre-
hensive assessment, the IWC reviewed the report of the
special meeting of the Scientific Committee held on
7-11 April 1986 and the relevant sections of the report of
the Scientific Committee's annual meeting. The IWC accepted
the Scientific Committee's outline proposals for future work
on the comprehensive assessment and its work plan for
1986/1987. The latter includes: conducting an inventory of
data; further encoding of data by the Secretariat and
monitoring studies such as the International Decade of
Cetacean Research surveys in the Antarctic; conducting two
workshops (on the scientific aspects of alternative manage-
ment procedures and catch per unit of effort data); and
carrying out three reviews on (a) cytogenetic and biochemical
techniques for examining stock identity, (b) census tech-
niques, and (c) mark-recapture techniques. The IWC also
agreed that a joint Scientific and Technical Committee
working group meeting on the comprehensive assessment should
be held during the week prior to the 1987 IWC Annual Meeting.

Special Permits for Scientific Research -- Article VII
of the Whaling Convention provides that any member nation may
grant a special permit to its citizens to take whales for
purposes of scientific research and that the whales taken may
be processed and sold in accordance with that party govern-
ment's directions. Party governments, however, must provide
the IWC and its Scientific Committee an opportunity to review
proposed special permits, which must include certain informa-
tion concerning proposed activities. During the 1986
meeting, the IWC considered and adopted a resolution pertain-
ing to the issuance of special permits for scientific
research and reviewed proposed special permits submitted by
the Governments of Iceland and the Republic of Korea.

With respect to the former matter, a working group was
established by the IWC to consider a proposed resolution put
forward by the Government of Sweden to define parameters for
conducting scientific research under special permits and to
establish guidelines for international trade in products
derived from whales taken during research activities. After
considerable discussion, the IWC adopted a revised resolution
which, among other things, calls upon party governments to:
comply with guidelines for research developed by the Scien-
tific Committee; take into account whether research objec-
tives can be achieved through non-lethal research techniques
and whether the resulting information will contribute to the

37

comprehensive assessment; and ensure that, following comple-
tion of scientific treatment of any whales killed, available
meat or other products be utilized "primarily for local
consumption."

As mentioned, the Governments of Iceland and the
Republic of Korea submitted proposals for special permits for
scientific research, and these were reviewed by the IWC
during the 1986 meeting. In both cases, similar proposals
had been submitted for consideration at the 1985 meeting. As
it had at the previous meeting, the Scientific Committee
provided detailed comments on the Icelandic research proposal
but was unable to agree on the extent to which the proposal
satisfied research guidelines developed to review special
permit proposals. With respect to the Korean research
proposal, it was again found that it did not meet IWC
information requirements.

Related Activities

Certification under the Packwood-Magnuson and Pelly
Amendments -- As discussed in previous Annual Reports,
whaling carried out under objections to provisions of the IWC
Schedule may trigger certain actions under two U.S. laws --
the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and the Pelly Amendment to
the Fishermen's Protective Act. The Packwood-Magnuson
Amendment mandates a reduction by at least 50 percent in the
allocation of fish that may be caught within the U.S. Fishery
Conservation Zone by any nation whose nationals are certified
by the Secretary of Commerce for directly or indirectly
conducting fishing operations or engaging in trade or taking
which diminishes the effectiveness of the International
Whaling Convention or its conservation program. Under the
Pelly Amendment, the U.S. may embargo imports of fish
products by any nation so certified.

During 1986, whaling activities conducted by citizens of
the Soviet Union and Norway were certified by the Secretary
of Commerce as diminishing the effectiveness of the IWC. As
noted in the previous Annual Report, the Soviet Union was
certified in April 1985 for taking an excessive number of
minke whales from the Antarctic Ocean during the pelagic
whaling season immediately preceding the first year of the
commercial whaling moratorium. As a result, its allocation
of fishery resources from U.S. waters was reduced by 50
percent. Soviet whalers again took minke whales in the
Antarctic Ocean in 1986. Therefore, during 1986, the entire
U.S. fishery allocation for the Soviet Union was withheld.
Because the Soviet Union did not request a U.S. fishery
allocation in 1986, this sanction had no apparent effect in
preventing the offending whaling practices. However, as

38

noted above, the Soviet Union announced at the opening of the
1985 IWC meeting that it would suspend commercial whaling
activity for technical reasons, beginning in 1988.

In the spring of 1986, the Government of Norway issued
permits to its coastal fishermen to take minke whales in the
northeast Atlantic. In doing so, it exercised rights
preserved by its formal objection to the moratorium on
commercial whaling, which had been adopted by the IWC and
which took effect beginning with the 1986 coastal whaling
season. Early in June 1986, the U.S. learned that Norwegian
whalers had taken minke whales under those permits. There-
fore, pursuant to provisions of the Pelly Amendment, the
Secretary of Commerce certified to the President on 9 June
1986 that Norwegian nationals were conducting fishing
operations in a manner which was diminishing the effective-
ness of the IWC. At the same time, the Secretary recommended
that the Secretary of State advise Norway of the certifi-
cation.

As indicated above, Pelly Amendment sanctions may be
invoked to prohibit the importation of all fish products from
any nation so certified. As recommended by the Secretary of
Commerce, Norway was advised of the U.S. certification
action. Subsequently, on 3 July 1986, the Government of
Norway announced that it would suspend commercial whaling
after the 1987 whaling season and that the total 1987
domestic quota would be less than the total of 400 whales
allowed to be killed in 1986. In making this announcement,
the Government of Norway expressed its intention to phase out
commercial whaling in a manner which parallels the course of
action agreed to by the U.S. and Japan for Japanese whaling
(see discussion below). It differs, however, in that
Norway's announcement lacks a formal commitment to the IWC in
the form of a prospective withdrawal of its objection to the
moratorium provision.

The Pelly Amendment requires that, within 60 days of
receiving a certification finding from the Secretary, the
President must notify Congress of actions taken in response
to the certification, including the reasons for any action
that falls short of a complete prohibition of the importation
of fish products from that country. Accordingly, after
considering Norway's announcement, the President submitted a
report to Congress on 4 August 1986 indicating that he would
impose no sanctions. This decision was made on the premise
that Norway will not allow the resumption of commercial
whaling after 1987 unless the IWC takes affirmative action to
authorize such a resumption. The report also said that the
Secretary of Commerce would continue his certification of
Norway until Norway withdraws its objection to the moratorium
and that the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of

39

State, would carefully monitor Norwegian whaling to determine
if recommended sanctions under the certification become
warranted.

The U.S.-Japanese Agreement -- As noted in the Marine
Mammal Commission's past two Annual Reports, the U.S. and
Japan reached an agreement in November 1984 whereby Japan
would phase out its commercial whaling activity on or before
April 1988 and withdraw its objection to the IWC's moratorium
provision, Schedule paragraph 10 (e). In return, the U.S.
would refrain from certifying Japan under applicable U.S.
laws for certain limited whaling activity that would be
contrary to the established IWC quotas. As part of the
agreement, the Government of Japan indicated it would file a
prospective withdrawal of its objection to the moratorium
provision with the IWC on 1 April 1985, which would take
effect in April 1988. A number of environmental groups
brought suit against the Secretaries of Commerce and State
seeking to prevent the Secretaries from entering into the
agreement with Japan. Among other things, the suit sought a
declaratory judgment that the Secretary of Commerce is
required to certify Japan if Japanese whalers exceed quotas
adopted by the IWC. The U.S. District Court ruled in favor
of the plaintiffs on 5 March 1985 and the U.S. immediately
filed an appeal. In light of the court case, Japan advised
the U.S. in April 1985 that it would delay filing the
prospective withdrawal of its objection to the IWC moratorium
decision, pending final resolution of the court case.

After unsuccessful appeals by the U.S. Government, the
U.S. Supreme Court agreed on 13 January 1986 to review the
matter. On 30 June 1986, the Supreme Court handed down a
final decision on the matter which found for the U.S.
Government and reversed the lower court ruling. Among other
things, the Court held that the Secretary of Commerce is not
automatically directed to certify a nation that fails to
conform to the IWC whaling schedule and that the Secretary's
decision to secure Japan's future compliance with the IWC's
program through the 1984 agreement, rather than by certifica-
tion and imposition of economic sanctions under the Pelly and
Packwood-Magnuson Amendments, is a reasonable exercise of the
discretionary authority under those laws. The Court's
decision was shared by five justices with four justices
joining in a dissenting opinion. By overturning the lower
court's decision, the 1984 U.S.-Japan agreement was allowed
to stand, and, consistent with its provisions, the Government
of Japan filed the prospective withdrawal of its objection to
Schedule paragraph 10 (e) with the Secretary of the IWC on
1 July 1986.

In 1987, major issues facing the IWC are likely to
involve planning for the comprehensive assessment, further

40

quotas for the subsistence take of bowhead whales by Alaska
Eskimos in 1988 and beyond, and matters pertaining to the
special permits for scientific research. The Marine Mammal
Commission expects to continue to consult and cooperate with
other involved agencies and organizations on these and other
Iwc issues during 1987.

Interim Convention on Conservation
of North Pacific Fur Seals

In recent years, the Pribilof Islands fur seal popula-
tion has been declining at a rate of about five to eight
percent per year. The most recent population estimate, about
800,000 animals, is less than half of the estimated popula-
tion size of 2,000,000 animals in the late 1950s. While the
cause or causes of this decline have not been documented,
mortality resulting from entanglement in lost and discarded
fishing gear and other debris appears to be at least a
contributing factor, if not the major contributing factor.
The entanglement issue as it relates to fur seals and other
marine species is discussed in Chapter VIII of this Report.

The ongoing population decline and issues related to the
harvest of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands have raised
difficult research and management questions. Until recently,
North Pacific fur seals were managed pursuant to provisions
of the Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific
Fur Seals. As discussed below, however, the Interim Conven-
tion has not been renewed and, within areas under U.S.
jurisdiction, domestic laws and regulations now provide the
basis for management. Actions taken by the Marine Mammal
Commission and others concerning the Interim Convention and
conservation of the fur seal population in recent years are
summarized below.

The 1984 Protocol to Extend the Interim Convention

The Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific
Fur Seals entered into force in 1957 and included, as
contracting parties, the Governments of Japan, Canada, the
Soviet Union, and the United States. The Convention called
upon party governments to cooperatively undertake research
and management to achieve the maximum sustainable productiv-
ity of fur seal populations in the North Pacific Ocean.
Among other things, the Convention prohibited pelagic sealing
and provided for the sharing of pelts taken from commercial
land-based harvests carried out by the United States on the
Pribilof Islands and by the Soviet Union on the Commander and
Robben Islands.

41

The Convention also established the North Pacific Fur
Seal Commission composed of a representative from each party
government. Between 1958 and 1986, the Commission met
annually to coordinate and review the results of cooperative
research programs and to develop recommendations to party
governments on appropriate research and management measures.
As discussed below, however, the Fur Seal Commission did not
meet in 1986 and it seems unlikely that fur seals will
continue to be managed under the Interim Convention as it
currently exists.

After the Interim Convention entered into force in 1957,
it was extended by a succession of Protocols, the most recent
of which was signed by the four parties on 12 October 1984
and called for extending the Convention through October 1988.
By early 1985, all of the nations which had signed the
Protocol had not yet submitted their instruments of ratifica-
tion. However, in hopes that favorable action by all party
governments would be forthcoming, the Fur Seal Commission met
in April 1985 in Tokyo, Japan, to consider cooperative
research and management recommendations for the 1985 field
season. On 13 June 1985, the U.S. Senate conducted a hearing
to seek public and Administration views on ratification of
the 1984 Protocol, but did not take any final action on the
matter before the scheduled beginning of the 1985 fur seal
harvest on the Pribilof Islands. Therefore, domestic laws
and regulations became the exclusive authority for managing
the Pribilof Islands fur seal population.

As a related matter, the National Marine Fisheries
Service had not been doing everything necessary to determine
and mitigate the cause(s) of the continuing fur seal popula-
tion decline. On 29 November 1985, the Commission, in
consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, wrote
to the Service recommending a number of needed actions,
including several relevant to U.S. participation in the Fur
Seal Commission. Among other things, the Commission recom-
mended that the Service, in cooperation with the Commission,
constitute and convene a working group to develop a long-term
fur seal conservation plan similar in form and content to the
recovery plans required for species listed under the
Endangered Species Act. It also recommended that the Service
propose that a separate working group of the Fur Seal
Commission be established and convened before the 1987 Fur
Seal Commission meeting to develop recommendations for
cooperative actions to address the critical issues.

With respect to its recommendation for jointly con-
stituting a working group to develop a fur seal conservation
plan, the Commission noted that a well-conceived conservation
plan, which sets forth the steps and supporting rationale for
identifying and attacking the causes of the population

42

decline, would provide a substantially improved basis for
identifying, scheduling, and evaluating essential research
and management activities. In addition, the Commission noted
that such a plan would help facilitate agreements on ways to
strengthen and expand cooperative international support of
critical research and management tasks. To help clarify the
scope and intent of the recommended conservation plan, the
Commission sent a preliminary discussion draft outline for a
Pribilof Islands fur seal conservation plan to the Service on
6 December 1985.

By early 1986, the 1984 Protocol to extend the Interim
Convention had been ratified by all parties but the United
States and arrangements were being considered for a meeting
of parties in Ottawa, Canada, in April 1986. The purpose of
the meeting was to discuss the future role of the Interim
Convention, long-term research planning, the entanglement
problem, and the 1985 subsistence harvest on the Pribilof
Islands. In preparation for the meeting, the National Marine
Fisheries Service prepared and distributed a draft issue
paper on 10 February 1986 and scheduled a preparatory meeting
for 19 March 1986 in Seattle, Washington.

The Commission reviewed the issue paper, which proposed
U.S. positions on the four subject areas noted above, and
returned comments to the Service on 14 February 1986. The
Commission noted that it had not received a response from the
Service to its letter of 29 November 1985 and that, based on
the draft issue paper for the Ottawa meeting, it appeared
that needed actions still had not been defined adequately.
Accordingly, the Commission noted that, unless steps were
taken immediately to develop and seek international cooper-
ation in implementing a comprehensive conservation plan, yet
another year would pass with the Service failing to take the
steps necessary to determine and reverse the causes of the
continuing population decline.

On 21 February 1986, the Service responded to the
Commission's 29 November 1985 letter. With respect to the
recommendations that the Service constitute and convene a
domestic working group to prepare a long-term conservation
plan and that it use that plan as a basis for seeking
international cooperation in implementing necessary measures,
the Service noted that: the matter would be discussed during
the course of the Ottawa meeting of party governments; the
Commission's discussion draft outline for a conservation plan
would form the basis of the U.S. contribution; the U.S. would
propose during the meeting that party governments direct
their scientists to jointly develop a long-term research
master plan for fur seals; and, if the U.S. did not ratify
the Protocol extending the Convention, the Service would
consult with the Marine Mammal Commission to consider alter-

43

native mechanisms for seeking international cooperation on
fur seal research.

The Service's letter was not fully responsive to all of
the points that had been raised in its 29 November 1985 and
14 February 1986 letters and the Commission again wrote to
the Service on 12 March 1986. In its follow-up letter, the
Commission advised the Service that little would be accomp-
lished during the upcoming meeting unless the U.S. first
determined precisely what it thought necessary to include in
the proposed conservation plan. The Commission also noted
that its discussion draft outline addressed both research and
management needs, but the Service's response suggested
planning should be limited to research matters. Therefore,
the Commission restated its recommendation that the Service
and the Commission cooperatively convene a group of experts
before the Ottawa meeting to develop and agree on the scope
and desired results of the long-term planning effort which
the U.S. was apparently prepared to propose during the Ottawa
meeting. The Commission also recommended that the meeting of
experts be held in conjunction with the Service's scheduled
preparatory meeting.

The Service's preparatory meeting was held on 19 March
1986 in Seattle, Washington. During the meeting, the Service
announced that Canada had withdrawn its offer to host the
meeting of parties because the U.S. had not ratified the 1984
Protocol and that, unless the Senate acted favorably on the
matter in the next few days, the meeting of parties would
probably be cancelled. The working group to develop a fur
seal conservation plan was not constituted or convened in
conjunction with the preparatory meeting, as had been
recommended by the Commission. However, during the meeting,
Service representatives described research plans for 1986 and
noted that a draft paper on long-term fur seal research needs
had been prepared. The draft paper did not identify research
priorities or management needs. However, it was noted that
sections on these topics were to be developed subsequently as
a first step toward developing the conservation plan recom-
mended by the Commission.

The meeting of parties in Ottawa was cancelled and, by
the end of 1986, the Senate had taken no final action with
respect to the Convention. Although the Service considered
plans for an alternative meeting of party governments in
1986, no meeting was held that year. Late in 1986, arrange-
ments were being made to hold a meeting of fur seal scien-
tists from Canada, Japan, the Soviet Union, and the U.S. in
April 1987 to consider recent research activities.

44

Fur Seal Research and Management Needs

As noted above and in the previous Annual Report, the
Commission wrote to the National Marine Fisheries Service on
29 November 1985 recommending a number of actions which it
believed necessary to effectively identify and mitigate the
cause or causes of the continuing decline of the Pribilof
Islands fur seal population. Among other things, that letter
recommended that the Service promptly convene a North Pacific
fur seal research program review to ensure that the coming
year's research was well-conceived and addressed the most
important research questions.

The Service's 21 February 1986 response to the Commis-
sion's recommendations stated, among other things, that a
research program review was not needed in 1986 because new
research on entanglement and food habits was planned and that
it would be more appropriate to schedule another research
program review in February 1987 when that research had been
completed and the results analyzed. The Service's letter was
not fully responsive to the Commission's recommendations and
a follow-up letter was sent to the Service on 12 March 1986.

With respect to the recommended research program review,
the Commission noted that its recommendation had been
intended to ensure that all research necessary to identify
and determine how to resolve the cause or causes of the fur
seal population decline had been identified and to ensure
that appropriate priorities and funding levels had been
established for those studies. Because the Service had not
advised the Commission of what research it considered
necessary, what priorities it had assigned to those studies,
or what studies would be supported in Fiscal Year 1986, the
Commission asked to be advised as to: (a) what research the
Service considered necessary to identify and mitigate the
cause of the continuing population decline; (b) the level of
funding available for fur seal research in 1986; (c) what
research would be carried out with those funds; and (d) what
necessary research would not be supported due to insufficient
funding.

Some of the requested information was presented during
the course of the aforementioned preparatory meeting convened
by the Service on 19 March 1986 in Seattle, Washington. The
research program review recommended by the Commission was not
convened by the Service in 1986.

In May 1986, the Service requested comments and recom-
mendations from the Commission on two applications for
permits to take fur seals for purposes of scientific
research. The permit applications were for research being
conducted by the Service as part of its North Pacific fur

45

seal research program. This research previously had been
carried out under the authority of the Interim Fur Seal
Convention and, while the Convention was in effect, authori-
zation under the Marine Mammal Protection Act had not been
required.

The first application requested authority to experimen-
tally entangle up to 70 seals, including adult males and
females with pups, to determine how entanglement in rela-
tively small net fragments (200 grams or less) affected
energy expenditure and survival. The second application
requested authority to mark, tag, and otherwise take up to
36,000 seals annually for a five-year period for purposes of
population monitoring and investigating several aspects of
the entanglement problem.

The applications did not provide detailed descriptions
of the planned research and raised questions as to whether
the planned entanglement-related studies would contribute
significantly to determining the probable cause or causes of
the continuing fur seal population decline. Therefore, by
letters of 10 and 19 June 1986, the Commission requested
additional information on the nature, purposes, and expected
value of the research for which authorization was being
sought.

The Commission subsequently received additional infor-
mation from the Service. However, it did not adequately
address all the Commission's questions, particularly those
concerning the expected value of certain aspects of planned
entanglement-related research. On 14 July 1986, the Commis-
sion advised the Service that it remained unable to determine
how proposed studies involving the deliberate entanglement of
fur seals in small net fragments would help to determine
whether net entanglement is causing or contributing to the
continuing decline of fur seal populations on the Pribilof
Islands. On 15 July 1986, the Commission advised the Service
that it also had uncertainties about the nature, purposes,
need for, possible effects, and humaneness of some of the
population and other net-entanglement studies being planned.
Recognizing that certain tagging and other programs were
essential to better assess and monitor population status, the
Commission recommended that authorization to continue certain
essential programs be provided immediately. The Commission
also recommended that authorization be granted, with certain
conditions, to incidentally entangle up to sixty fur seals
during the course of a pilot study to determine the feasi-
bility of possible techniques for assessing the rate of
entanglement of different age/sex classes of fur seals in
different types and sizes of net fragments.

46

Both the Service and the applicant responded to the
Commission's 14 July 1986 letter questioning the practical
value of the planned experiments to determine how entangle-
ment in small net fragments affects the energy requirements
of fur seals. The information provided convinced the
Commission that the planned experiment would provide infor-
mation of scientific interest, but of no practical value with
respect to determining whether entanglement is causing or
contributing to the continued fur seal population decline.
Noting that the Commission and the National Marine Fisheries
Service shared the view that the Pribilof Islands fur seal
population was depleted as defined under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and that the Service's permit regulations
require detailed justification for conducting research on
depleted species or populations, the Commission, by letter of
31 July 1986, recommended that the Service not provide
support for the study as planned. The applicant subsequently
withdrew the permit application.

In response to the Commission's letter of 15 July, the
National Marine Fisheries Service authorized continuation of
essential population studies as recommended by the Commis-
sion. The Service did not authorize the planned pilot study
recommended by the Commission to determine the feasibility of
possible techniques for assessing the probability of dif-
ferent age/sex classes of fur seals being entangled in
different types and sizes of net fragments. Therefore, in
its letter of 31 July 1986, the Commission repeated its
recommendation that the planned pilot study be authorized and
carried out as a matter of priority.

Following consultation with the Commission, the National
Marine Fisheries Service published a Federal Register notice
on 1 August 1986 proposing to modify its fur seal research
permit to authorize the pilot study recommended by the
Commission. Information provided in the Federal Register
notice did not address a number of questions raised in
earlier comments provided by the Humane Society of the United
States and, on 2 September 1986, the Humane Society requested
that a public hearing be held to review the objectives, need
for, and design of the Service's fur seal research program,
particularly those aspects dealing with net entanglement.

The time required to schedule and hold a public hearing
prevented the Service from carrying out the pilot study in
1986 and the proposed permit modification request subse-
quently was withdrawn.

A number of uncertainties concerning the National Marine
Fisheries Service's North Pacific fur seal research program
were raised during the review of the aforementioned permit
applications. For example, the Commission was uncertain as
to the relationship between the research activities described

47

in the permit applications and the development and implemen-
tation of a long-range fur seal conservation plan which the
Commission had recommended in its earlier letters. There-
fore, by letter of 15 July 1986, the Commission advised the
Service that its annual meeting would be held in Anchorage,
Alaska, on 28-30 October 1986 and that one of the agenda
items would be a review of ongoing and planned activities
related to the conservation of the Pribilof Islands fur seal
populations.

To facilitate the review, the Commission requested that
the Service provide: a review of fur seal research carried
out by the Service in 1986; a detailed description and
explanation of the design and objectives of fur seal research
proposed to be carried out in 1987; the Service's proposal
for a long-range conservation plan; and a description of
steps that have been or would have been taken to finalize,
adopt, and seek international cooperation in implementing the
long-range conservation plan.

On 29 September 1986, the Service forwarded a draft
North Pacific Fur Seal Research Plan containing sections on
research needs, priorities, and plans for studies that were
to have been conducted in FY 1986. The Service's cover
letter noted that the plan constituted a first draft of the
Fur Seal Conservation Plan recommended by the Commission. It
further indicated that plans for FY 1987 would not be
available for review at the Commission's meeting, but would
be available for review at a fur seal research program review
scheduled to be held in February 1987.

During the Commission's meeting in Anchorage on
28-30 October 1986, there was a general review of actions
taken by the Service to address research and other issues
bearing upon the conservation of the Pribilof Islands fur
seal population. The review did not address all of the
issues and concerns noted previously and, on 23 December
1986, the Commission wrote to the Service recommending
further action on a number of fur seal issues. Among other
things, the Commission noted that the draft research plan
developed by the Service offered a useful start on a fur seal
conservation plan, but that it had to be expanded to address
management needs and long-term planning before it could be
viewed as a conservation plan. The Commission again recom-
mended that the Service constitute and convene a working
group to prepare and oversee implementation of a long-term
fur seal conservation plan. In addition, the Commission
noted that the Service should convene the planned research
program review as soon as possible so that the results could
be used in planning the 1987 research program and that a
description of long-term program objectives, tentative 1987
research plans, and other relevant materials should be

48

provided to invited participants at least two weeks in
advance of the program review.

The 1986 Subsistence Harvest

As noted above and in the previous Annual Report, the
U.S. had not acted to continue the Interim Fur Seal Conven-
tion prior to the scheduled beginning of the fur seal harvest
in July and August 1985. In the absence of an international
agreement binding upon the U. S., management authority for fur
seals on the Pribilof Islands is derived exclusively from
domestic laws, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
the Fur Seal Act. Under these laws, the taking of fur seals
for commercial purposes is prohibited. A take by Alaska
Natives for subsistence purposes is, however, permitted with
certain conditions. Under authority of these two laws, the
National Marine Fisheries Service published emergency interim
regulations on 8 July 1985 governing the 1985 subsistence
take of fur seals by the Aleut residents of the Pribilof
Islands. Those regulations governed only the 1985 harvest,
and, because of the continued lack of action to ratify or
renegotiate the Fur Seal Convention, permanent regulations
were considered necessary to regulate the harvest in 1986 and
future years.

On 7 August 1985, the Commission, in consultation with
its Committee of Scientific Advisors, recommended that the
National Marine Fisheries Service immediately begin the
process of preparing proposed permanent regulations.
Although the Service indicated in its 8 July 1985 interim
regulations that proposed permanent regulations would be
published by 30 September 1985, no action had been taken by
the end of November 1985. Thus, by letter of 29 November
1985, the Commission repeated its recommendation that the
Service promptly publish proposed regulations. By letter of
21 February 1986, the Service advised the Commission that
proposed regulations would be published early in the spring
of 1986. Concerned about the delay, the Commission re-empha-
sized the importance of implementing permanent regulations
prior to the 1986 subsistence harvest season in its 12 March
1986 follow-up letter to the Service.

The Service published proposed permanent subsistence
harvest regulations on 15 May 1986 and provided a 30-day
period for public comment. The Commission provided comments
to the Service on 16 June 1986 and recommended that the
regulations be adopted subject to modifications concerning:
the need for a procedure to extend the harvest season beyond
8 August of each year; authorization of a full subsistence
harvest on St. George Island; measures that could be taken to
improve research on the fur seal decline; and other matters.

49

Permanent subsistence harvest regulations were published
in the Federal Register on 9 July 1986. They authorize a
subsistence harvest on St. Paul and St. George Islands
between 30 June and 8 August of each year. They also provide
that the harvest season may be extended as late as
30 September if the Service determines that subsistence needs
have not been met by 8 August. The regulations require that
the Service make an annual determination of the expected
range of harvest numbers on both St. Paul and St. George
Islands prior to the harvest each year. For 1986, the
estimated range of fur seals needed for subsistence purposes
was 2,400 to 8,000 animals on St. Paul Island and 800 to
1,800 animals on St. George Island. If the lower limit of
the projected harvest range is reached during any year, the
regulations require that the harvest be suspended pending a
determination by the Service of the need to take additional
seals to meet subsistence requirements. The harvest also may
be terminated before the lower limits are reached if the
Service determines that subsistence needs have been met.

As required by the regulations, the 1986 harvest on both
St. George Island and St. Paul Island ended on 8 August. As
of that date, 119 animals had been taken on St. George Island
and 1,228 had been taken on St. Paul Island. On 12 August,
Alaska Natives on St. George Island requested an extension of
the harvest deadline until 30 September 1986. In doing so,
they explained that an insufficient number of animals had
been taken for storage and consumption later in the year and
that it had been difficult to obtain the services of
experienced sealers during the regular season because most of
them had been working at other jobs. On 21 August 1986, the
Service convened a meeting of interested parties to discuss
the extension request and, on 25 August, the request was
granted.

Shortly after the extension request was granted, there
were reports from St. George Island that about 85 dead fur
seals had been found. Initial reports that these animals may
have been improperly harvested resulted in suspension of the
extension. After an initial investigation, it was determined
that nearly all of the animals had died from unknown natural
causes. The harvest extension was reinstated on 28 August.
However, by the end of September, only five additional seals
had been taken on St. George Island. The subsequent low
number of animals taken reflected, in part, concern that the
seals may be contaminated and unsafe to eat. At year's end,
no definitive laboratory findings had been made available.

On 27 August 1986, the Tribal Government of St. Paul
Island requested an extension of the harvest season to take
up to 359 additional seals. Once again, the Service convened
a meeting of interested parties and, on 23 September, granted

50

the extension request. An additional 71 seals subsequently
were taken on St. Paul Island.

The subsistence harvest regulations require the Service
to publish, by 1 April 1987, a summary of the 1986 harvest
and a discussion of the number of seals expected to be taken
in the 1987 harvest season. After a 30-day public review
period, a final notice of expected harvest levels is to be
published.

Designation of North Pacific Fur Seals as Depleted

In 1984, 1985, and 1986 the Commission recommended that
the National Marine Fisheries Service formally designate the
Pribilof Islands stock of North Pacific fur seals as depleted
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The Service indi-
cated apparent agreement that the Pribilof Islands stock is
depleted in: the February 1985 Environmental Impact State-
ment on the Interim Fur Seal Convention; the 1985 Federal
Register notice announcing that the petition to list fur
seals as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act had
been denied; Federal Register notices published in 1985 and
1986 on subsistence harvest regulations; and the 20 August
1986 Federal Register notice concerning a request submitted
by the Federation of Japan Salmon Fisheries Cooperative
Association to incidentally take Dall's porpoise, fur seals,
and sea lions in salmon fishing operations. In its 9 July
1986 Federal Register notice on the permanent subsistence
harvest regulations, the Service stated that a depletion rule
would be proposed no later than October 1986.

Two petitions to formally designate the fur seal as
depleted were submitted to the Service in October 1986. On
24 October, the Kokechik and Qaluyaat Fishermen's Associ-
ations, representing Yup'ik Eskimo commercial and subsistence
fishermen, requested that this action be taken and, on 30
October, a Similar petition was filed by the Center for
Environmental Education.

During the Commission's 1986 annual meeting held in
Anchorage, Alaska, on 28-30 October, the recently appointed
Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service announced
that the Service had initiated the necessary steps to publish
a proposed depletion designation. The proposed rule was
published in the Federal Register on 30 December 1986.

During the prescribed comment period in 1987, the Commission
will submit comments on the proposed designation.

By the end of 1986, the Service had started to take
action on most of the recommendations which the Commission
had made over the course of the past two years. Under the
leadership of its newly appointed Director, the Service had,

5

among other things: scheduled a fur seal program review
early in 1987; initiated efforts to develop a fur seal
conservation plan; established permanent regulations govern-
ing the subsistence harvest of fur seals; and taken steps to
designate the Pribilof Island fur seal population as depleted
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. As further work on
these and other related matters proceed in 1987, the Commis-
sion will continue to work with the Service and others to
strengthen efforts to identify and eliminate or mitigate the
cause or causes of the ongoing Pribilof Islands fur seal
population decline.

Convention on International Trade

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

The United States is party to the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora. The Convention is designed to control trade in animal
and plant species that are or may become threatened with
extinction. The extent of trade control depends upon the
extent to which the species is endangered, as reflected by
inclusion on one of three appendices to the Convention.

Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction
that are or may be affected by trade. Appendix II includes
species that, although not necessarily currently threatened
with extinction, may become so unless trade in them is
strictly controlled. Appendix II also includes non-
endangered species that must be regulated so that trade in
"look-alike" species that are threatened with extinction may
be brought under effective control. Appendix III includes
species that any Party identifies as being subject to
regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of
preventing or restricting exportation and for which the Party
needs the cooperation of others Parties in controlling trade.
Changes in the species listed in the appendices can be made
by agreement of the Parties and, in the case of Appendix III,
by individual Parties.

Overall responsibility for coordinating the development
of U.S. positions and implementation of the provisions of the
Convention is vested in the Fish and Wildlife Service. As
appropriate, the Service consults with the Commission and
others to address matters concerning the Convention.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is presently engaged in
preparing the U.S. positions for the biennial meeting of
Convention Parties to be held 12-24 July 1987 in Ottawa,
Canada. By the end of 1986, no proposals concerning marine
mammals had been published. On 4 December 1986, the National
Marine Fisheries Service recommended that the northern

52

elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) be proposed for
deletion from Appendix II. This recommendation is under
consideration by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Commis-
sion will consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and others during 1987
concerning this and other matters related to the Convention
and the forthcoming biennial meeting.

53

CHAPTER V

MARINE MAMMAL MANAGEMENT IN ALASKA

Since enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in
1972, issues concerning marine mammals in Alaska have assumed
greater significance and have been the focus of more
attention than those in any other state. A number of states
are confronted with important conservation problems that
involve one or more species of marine mammals. Alaska,
however, by virtue of the large number of marine mammal
species found there, its extensive coastline, the use of
marine mammals for subsistence purposes by Alaska Natives,
and the many other management issues concerning marine
mammals, presents extraordinary conservation challenges.

In recognition of this fact, the Commission has made
marine mammal issues in Alaska a matter of high priority. In
1984 and 1985, for example, the Commission devoted 16 percent
and 28 percent of its research budgets, respectively, to
marine mammal issues in Alaska. In 1986, the Commission
continued its heavy investment in Alaskan work and held its
public annual meeting with its full Committee of Scientific
Advisors in Anchorage in late October.

Marine Mammal Working Groups and Species Reports

The Marine Mammal Protection Act makes provision for
management of marine mammals by the Federal Government and,
under certain conditions described in the next section, by
states. It has been the Commission's view that wherever
management authority resides, such authority must rest upon a
foundation of carefully described research and management
programs. To develop recommendations for such research and
management programs, the Commission established the Alaska
Marine Mammal Working Groups in 1984.

In so doing, the Commission determined that the issue of
who has management authority, while important, could not be
allowed to further thwart the development of sound research
and management programs. This had been happening for many
years following passage of the Act. During that time,
management had been sought by the State of Alaska for a
number of species, granted to the State for walrus, and

54

shortly thereafter returned to the Federal Government. To
focus attention on the species in question and not upon
bureaucratic processes, the Commission stated in 1984 that,
no matter who has the responsibility, certain facts are
clear: (a) the development of research and management plans
will always be heavily dependent upon the existence of
carefully developed and generally agreed-upon species
accounts and problem descriptions as base documents;

(b) research upon which to base conservation and management
of marine mammals can and must be carefully described; (c)
the same holds true for needed management actions; and (d) to
be useful, the species accounts with research and management
recommendations have to have been cooperatively developed by
representatives of all interested groups.

With the foregoing points in mind, the Commission, in
cooperation with representatives of the Eskimo community, the
State, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the academic community, and private
groups, established seven Working Groups composed of
biologists, biometricians, Native and non-Native coastal
residents, representatives of the conservation community, and
representatives of State and Federal agencies. The Groups
were charged with preparing: (1) comprehensive species
accounts that summarize available information on population
status and threats; (2) summaries of research activities that
are either underway or planned; (3) summaries of existing and
proposed management programs; (4) descriptions of recommended
research activities; and (5) descriptions of recommended
management programs. The final reports, which address the
ten species for which the State had at one time planned to
seek management authority, are designed to be of value to
whichever governmental entity, State or Federal, may have
management authority.

For purposes of facilitating and coordinating the
efforts of the Working Groups, the Commission entered into a
contract in 1984 with a marine mammal and resource management
specialist in Juneau, Alaska. Under the contract, which was
amended in 1985 and again in 1986, the contractor has
responsibility for overseeing the development of the Working
Groups' comprehensive reports and their publication. To
further the effort, the Commission entered into additional
contracts in 1985 and 1986 with persons to act as lead
drafters of the reports on different species (see Chapter II
of this Report and the previous Annual Report). Draft
reports containing species accounts and research and manage-
ment recommendations for nine of the ten species have been
prepared, approved, and readied for publication. A report on
the tenth species, the sea otter, will be finished early in
1987.

55

When published in March 1987, the comprehensive reports
on all ten species will serve as basic action plans for near-
term marine mammal management and research efforts in Alaska
whether management authority resides with the Federal
Government, the State of Alaska, or is a responsibility
shared according to species. The reports will also provide
the basis for annually updating research and management
programs.

Background Information on Transfer of Management

To make clear the context within which the Marine Mammal
Commission's actions to constitute and support Working Groups
have taken place, the following background information and
discussion of the transfer of management requirements of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act may be useful.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act sets forth certain
procedures whereby the Secretaries of Commerce and the
Interior may, in response to a properly submitted request,
transfer management authority from the Federal Government to
a state for marine mammals found in that state. In order to
transfer Federal management authority, the Secretary with
jurisdiction over the species in question must determine,
after notice and opportunity for public comment, that the
state has developed and will implement a program that
satisfies the requirements of section 109 of the Act for the
conservation and management of the affected species. In
making this determination, the Secretary must issue a finding
that the state has, among other things, established a process
to determine the optimum sustainable population of each
affected species and the maximum number of animals that may
be taken without reducing the species below that level.

Certain additional points are germane to requests for
transfer of management to the State of Alaska. For example,
the State of Alaska's conservation and management program
must include mechanisms whereby determinations are made as to
the maximum numbers of animals that can be taken for
subsistence while still allowing the species to increase
towards its optimum sustainable population. Furthermore,
Alaska's program must include a State statute and regulations
requiring that subsistence takings shall not be wasteful and
that priority shall be given to subsistence rather than other
consumptive uses of the species.

During 1982 and 1983, the State of Alaska took prelimi-
nary steps to request a transfer of management for ten
species of marine mammals. Early in 1984, however, the State
determined that it would be appropriate to conduct a public
education and comment process prior to making a final

56

decision on whether to proceed with such a request. As a
part of the process, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
conducted forty-nine formally announced public meetings to
provide information on the transfer process requirements, to
explain the likely consequences of a State management
program, and to solicit comments from coastal residents and
other affected parties. These meetings were completed early
in 1985.

The State's review of the transfer of management issue
was made more complex on 22 February 1985 when the Alaska
Supreme Court, in its decision in Madison v. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, invalidated a Board of Fisheries
regulation designed to identify eligibility for subsistence
fishing in the Cook Inlet region. The decision called into
question the sufficiency of the State's subsistence statute
and regulations under the transfer of management requirements
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

On 30 May 1986, the State enacted an amendment to its
subsistence law intended to remove the discrepancies between
State and Federal subsistence requirements. By letter of 18
November 1986, the Department of the Interior's Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks informed the State
that the amendment brought the State law into compliance with
the subsistence requirements of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act. Those requirements are virtually
identical to the subsistence provisions of section 109(f) (1)
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act that must be satisfied
before a transfer of management can be accomplished. Thus,
it appears that the impediment to transfer of management
imposed by the Madison decision has been removed.

At the 28-30 October 1986 meeting of the Commission and
its Committee of Scientific Advisors in Anchorage, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game stated that no decision had been
made on whether to proceed with a request for a transfer of
management. It was further indicated that, after the
November 1986 election, a new Governor would be responsible
for making this decision and that the transfer of management
issue would be identified as an important policy matter in
the Department's transition report. The Department expressed
its support for establishing a cooperative process for
addressing marine mammal issues, regardless of whether the
State or the Federal Government has management authority, and
stated that the final Working Group reports would provide the
best source of information on marine mammals in Alaska.

57

Federal Marking and Tagging Regulations

In 1981, the Marine Mammal Protection Act was amended to
provide the Fish and Wildlife Service with authority to
promulgate regulations requiring the marking, tagging, and
reporting of marine mammals taken by Alaska Natives. Through
these regulations, it should be possible to obtain better
information on the numbers of marine mammals taken for
subsistence and handicraft purposes. On 3 December 1985, the
Fish and Wildlife Service published proposed marking and
tagging regulations to implement the new statutory
requirement. During the comment period, 32 public meetings
were held throughout Alaska to discuss the proposed
regulations and solicit comments from affected individuals
and interested parties.

By letter of 3 March 1986, the Commission, in consul-
tation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, recommended
that the regulations be adopted, subject to certain modifi-
cations. Among other changes, the Commission recommended
that: (a) the data obtained as a result of the regulativns
should be summarized each year in the annual report which the
Fish and Wildlife Service is required to submit to Congress
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act; (b) the penalty
provisions of the regulations should apply to the trans-
portation and export of unregistered marine mammal parts; and
(c) a cost-effective, administratively flexible approach
should be established for designating the villages where
authorized Service representatives would be stationed for
sealing and reporting purposes.

At the end of 1986, final regulations had not been
published. At the Commission's annual meeting held in
Anchorage, Alaska, on 28-30 October 1986, the Regional
Director for the Fish and Wildlife Service stated that the
marking and tagging program would not be implemented until
adequate funds became available.

Litigation

In a lawsuit filed in 1985 (Katelnikoff v. U.S.
Department of the Interior), an Alaska Native challenged the
validity of the Fish and Wildlife Service's regulatory
definition of "authentic Native articles of handicraft and
clothing." That definition requires that, in order to
qualify for the Marine Mammal Protection Act's Native take
exemption, handicraft articles fashioned from marine mammal
parts and products must have been "commonly produced on or
before December 21, 1972." The plaintiff's complaint alleged
that the cut-off date has no basis in the Marine Mammal
Protection Act.

58

The litigation arose as a result of a seizure by Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
enforcement agents of several articles of handicraft made by
the plaintiff out of sea otter skins. The items -- which
included teddy bears, hats and mittens, fur flowers, and
pillows -- were confiscated because there is no record
indicating that such articles were commonly produced by
Alaska Natives before the regulatory cut-off date. The
plaintiff claimed that, by seizing these items, the Federal
Government deprived her of the right to take marine mammals
for handicraft purposes.

On 21 July 1986, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Alaska issued a decision in favor of the Fish and
Wildlife Service. Relying on both the express provisions and
the legislative history of the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
the Court held that it was a reasonable exercise of the
Service's authority to establish a 1972 cut-off date as part
of its regulations. At the end of 1986, the plaintiff was
seeking an expedited appeal of this decision.

59

CHAPTER VI
MARINE MAMMAL/FISHERIES INTERACTIONS

Interactions among marine mammals, finfish, shellfish,
and other components of marine ecosystems present complex and
often difficult problems for those responsible for making
conservation and management decisions. One of the most
widely known examples of such interaction problems -- the
incidental take of porpoises in the yellowfin tuna purse
seine fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (dis-
cussed in Chapter VII) -- was one of the issues that prompted
Congress to pass the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals, has devoted consi-
derable attention and funding to efforts to identify, assess,
and resolve problems caused by marine mammal/fisheries
interactions. Activities prior to 1986 have been reported in
previous Annual Reports. A brief summary of these earlier
efforts and a description of activities in 1986 are provided
below.

Background

Interactions between marine mammals and fisheries can
take various forms and have significant adverse effects on
the involved marine mammal populations, the involved fish-
eries, or both. Marine mammals can be caught and killed or
injured, either accidentally or deliberately, during routine
fishing operations. They can also be caught in lost and
discarded fishing gear. Fishermen, on the other hand, can be
affected when marine mammals take or damage fish caught on
hooks, in traps, and in nets, or when their fishing gear is
damaged or destroyed. Further, marine mammals and fishermen
may compete in some areas for the same fish and shellfish
resources. This can cause or contribute to depletion of the
fish and shellfish resources and result in fundamental
changes in the marine food web as well as have significant
adverse effects on the competing marine mammals and fish-
eries.

Prior to enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
in 1972, regulated and unregulated hunting, bounty programs,

60

and various forms of harrassment were used in a number of
areas to control the distribution, abundance, and behavior of
marine mammals. The purpose was to eliminate or reduce
damage and loss of gear and catch caused by marine mammals.
As a result, in some areas, marine mammal populations were
reduced to and held at very low levels. The Act imposed a
moratorium on such activities and, in the ensuing years,
marine mammals have become more abundant in some areas and/or
less likely to avoid fishing boats and gear.

By the mid-1970s, there were reports of increasing
interactions between marine mammals and fisheries, parti-
cularly in the Pacific Northwest. In December 1977, the
Commission convened a workshop to gather and review available
information on the nature, extent, and impact of interactions
in Oregon, Washington, California, Alaska, and Hawaii.
Workshop participants concluded that the most acute problems
seemed to involve seals, sea lions, and the salmon gill net
fisheries in the Copper River Delta of Alaska and the
Columbia River in Washington and Oregon (for more informa-
tion, see Matkin and Fay, 1980, and Mate, 1980, Appendix B).
Following the workshop, the Commission, among other things,
provided funds to initiate investigation of the interactions
problem in the Copper River Delta and to begin development of
a plan to investigate and, as necessary, resolve the inter-
actions problem in the Columbia River and adjacent areas.

The details and results of these and related studies are
described in the Commission's Annual Reports for Calendar
Years 1978-82.

In 1978-1981, additional studies were initiated by the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, and the States of Alaska, Washington,
Oregon, and California. Their purpose was to better deter-
mine the nature and extent of certain interactions in the
Bering Sea, along the U.S. coast from Washington to Califor-
nia, and off the New England coast. The Commission, con-
cerned that these studies might not be providing either
comparable data or the types and quality of data needed for
decision-making, convened a follow-up workshop in
October 1981 to review and determine what steps should be
taken to improve and coordinate ongoing and planned studies.

The report of that workshop (see Contos, 1982, Appendix
B), published in April 1982, notes that: (1) it is not
possible to make broad generalizations about marine mammal/
fisheries interactions in different areas and each situation
must therefore be considered individually; (2) because of the
potentially complex nature of indirect (trophic) interactions
among marine mammals, fisheries, and fish and shellfish
resources, there is a substantial risk of making bad manage-
ment decisions; (3) to minimize the risk of making bad

61

management decisions, marine mammals and fisheries should be
managed cooperatively in areas where they may be competing
for or otherwise affecting the same fish or shellfish stocks;
(4) because funding is limited and direct interactions are
less complex and therefore easier to assess and to deal with,
higher priority should initially be afforded to research on
direct rather than indirect interactions; (5) ongoing efforts
to determine and document the nature and extent of impacts on
both the involved fisheries and marine mammal populations
should be expanded to identify and evaluate the relative cost
and benefits of possible mitigation measures; and (6) when
remedial measures are determined to be necessary, non-lethal
measures should be considered before considering lethal
measures.

The workshop findings have guided subsequent Commission
activities as described below.

Interactions in California Coastal Waters

Investigations to determine the nature and extent of
marine mammal/fisheries interactions in California coastal
waters have been underway since 1979 as a cooperative project
of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game. As noted in previous Annual
Reports, these investigations indicate that marine mammals
are affecting a number of California fisheries including the
commercial salmon troll fishery, the commercial passenger
fishing vessel fishery, the Pacific herring seine fishery,
the market squid dip net fishery, the drift net fishery for
sharks, and the set net fisheries for halibut, croaker, and
rockfish. They also indicate that substantial numbers of sea
otters, harbor porpoise, sea lions, harbor seals, and other
non-target species are being caught and killed, particularly
in the gill net fisheries.

As noted in Chapter IX of this report and in previous
Annual Reports, the California Department of Fish and Game
and the California State Legislature have taken steps,
beginning in 1982, to prohibit the use of gill nets at
certain times and places so as to prevent or reduce the
incidental take of sea birds, sea otters, gray whales, and
other marine mammals. In addition, the National Marine
Fisheries Service has modified its regulations governing
incidental take to allow the owners and operators of commer-
cial passenger fishing vessels to use seal bombs, cracker
shells, and acoustic harassment devices to prevent California
sea lions and other marine mammals from taking fish caught by
passengers.

62

However, little has been done to identify and evaluate
the relative costs and benefits of measures that might be
taken to avoid or reduce the adverse effects of other
interaction problems. This was noted during the Commission's
meeting in San Diego, California, in October 1985. Following
that meeting, the Commission and the California Department of
Fish and Game agreed to cooperatively sponsor a workshop to
determine and describe such additional measures as may be
necessary to assess, avoid, and reduce impacts on both the
involved fisheries and marine mammals.

The workshop was held at the Fort Mason Center, San
Francisco, California, on 26-28 March 1986. It was planned
and cooperatively supported by the Commission, the California
Department of Fish and Game, the California Sea Grant
Program, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and representatives of these
groups participated in the workshop. Also participating were
representatives of several commercial fisheries, the academic
community, and several public interest groups. Workshop
participants concluded that several fisheries and marine
mammal populations are being affected so severely that
measures may be necessary to reduce or mitigate interactions.
For example, they concluded that the commercial passenger
fishing vessel fishery, the commercial salmon troll fishery,
and set gill net fisheries are being affected substantially
by California sea lions and other marine mammals that take or
damage caught fish. Likewise, they concluded that the
incidental take of sea otters, harbor porpoise, harbor seals,
and some other marine mammal species may be causing or
contributing to population declines.

Participants recognized that prohibiting the use of gill
nets in certain areas is having adverse economic impacts on
some fishermen. They therefore recommended that a feasi-
bility study and, if appropriate, an engineering/assistance
program be carried out to assess the potential utility of
converting small gill net vessels to alternative types of
gear (e.g., Danish seines) to permit resumption of halibut
and other finfish fisheries in areas where set net fisheries
have been prohibited. The purpose of such conversions to
other gear would be to prevent the incidental take of sea
otters and other non-target species. Participants also noted
that studies should be done to identify factors (e.g., the
length of time that nets are left in the water) that may be
causing or contributing to the incidental take of harbor
porpoise, harbor seals, and other marine mammals.

Noting uncertainties about the effects of certain
fisheries on marine mammals, workshop participants concluded
that survey, reporting, and observer programs should be
continued and, in some cases, expanded to provide more

63

reliable information on the species, numbers, ages, and sex
of marine mammals being taken, both deliberately and inci-
dentally, in set net, drift net, troll, and other fisheries.
With respect to the numbers of animals, participants con-
cluded that mark/resighting studies should be done to
determine whether depredation of fish by California sea lions
and harbor seals in the party boat, gill net, and salmon
troll fisheries is being caused by a small number of
"nuisance" animals that have learned that food is easily
found around fishing operations or by a general cross-
section of populations occurring in the fishing areas.

Participants pointed out that it might be possible to
use non-lethal, aversive stimuli to frighten and keep seals
and sea lions away from fishing gear and fishing areas. They
noted that completed studies indicate that loud noises and
other stimuli can keep seals and sea lions away from fishing
gear and fishing areas for some periods but, unless the
stimuli cause substantial pain, the animals eventually cease
to respond. In some cases, animals may learn to associate
the theoretically aversive stimuli with food and be attracted
by them. Noting that it might be possible to avoid or delay
such habituation, participants recommended that further
studies be carried out to determine whether acoustic
cues paired with shooting, loud sounds, or other aversive
stimuli could suppress habituation and effectively condition
California sea lions and harbor seals to avoid fish caught by
salmon trollers or party boat fishermen.

With regard to aversive conditioning, participants also
recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game
carry out planned feasibility trials to determine whether
lithium chloride-injected fish can be used under field
conditions to induce and maintain taste aversion in Cali-
fornia sea lions. Recognizing that the effects of lithium
chloride on sea lions and other marine mammals are not fully
understood, the participants recommended that additional
captive animal studies be carried out to better determine the
physical and physiological as well as psychological responses
to lithium chloride.

Finally, workshop participants noted that additional
studies are needed to better assess the effects of certain
interactions and that long-term monitoring of both the
involved fisheries and marine mammal populations is necessary
to determine the effectiveness of measures taken to avoid or
reduce adverse interactions.

The workshop report, published in June 1986, has been
widely distributed and used by State and Federal agencies,
fishermen, and environmental groups to help determine and
initiate priority actions. In 1987, the Commission plans to

64

organize and convene one or more additional meetings to help
in developing and adopting a cooperative State/Federal
program to address marine mammal/fisheries interactions in
California.

Interactions in Areas Off Alaska

The southeastern Bering Sea and other areas off Alaska
include some of the world's richest fishing grounds and
support a diverse assemblage of marine mammals. The expan-
sion of both domestic and foreign fisheries in these areas
beginning in the mid-1960s has increased the potential for
marine mammal/fisheries interactions and has focused atten-
tion on possible competition between marine mammals and
fishermen for the same fish and shellfish resources.

Steller sea lion/fishery interactions

Because of potential interactions, the Marine Mammal
Commission and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
undertook cooperative efforts in 1980 to develop and imple-
ment an ecosystem approach to the management of marine
mammals and fisheries resources in areas under Council
jurisdiction. As part of this effort, the Commission and the
Council jointly supported a workshop in October 1983 to
review available information concerning biological interac-
tions among marine mammals and commercial fisheries in the
southeastern Bering Sea. Workshop participants also sought
to determine whether existing data, theory, models, manage-
ment techniques, and research/monitoring programs were
sufficient to develop and implement ecosystem-oriented
research and management programs for both marine mammals
and fisheries in the area. In 1983, the Commission also
provided funds to the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council to help support a survey of Steller sea lion colonies
affected by the winter joint venture fishery for pollock in
the Shelikof Strait, Alaska (for details, see the Annual
Reports covering Calendar Years 1983 and 1984).

Comparison of data from Steller sea lion surveys
conducted in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s indicates that there
have been substantial sea lion declines in several areas,
particularly in the eastern Aleutian Islands and the western
Gulf of Alaska. The significance and causes of these
declines are not clear and, on 9-10 December 1986, the
National Marine Mammal Laboratory held a workshop in Seattle,
Washington, to evaluate the present status and trends of the
Steller sea lion population in Alaska and to recommend
research that would identify the cause or causes of the
declines.

65

m “i
“|

“a ' f a oe
Mi rl ) ae "4 a aad
Oo wm 04 i a Wapay ao A apa
Woh } 1 i) "a “ot tl M i2oes Mad tod
O vel ele € rele! A! & et wo i oie "i
Moot hints aw OO fe bh ry ten wad a du at
Ooms Horta O few | 1} a or a apo loeb oO
woo = i tl ne | bed) A ft i) phot hi el
mw ‘ * Wirt we A ' a " al a) ed fey prope
ia rl ddr “ a | W Bord revue Creme eater
owl @ aoa f 'e al te Och bb be bev a ' Wd) Blot
ho What w “ nm oud OM Ma Meet ah oO ki
| ‘a et a | 4} Hy Oi rl ( pee mae
moat et ‘ i) Tn er “oe a proto
“ w ce “4 1) f i) i) ve fe ALL Me pea oO v
movehe aoa f} 1 | wa Oe tap wea a wo Aba red wt]
wd Oo i a | mn won hi rt ‘ moe el fed ‘i a w
“ue faye Odi bbe On thet hooray
oa a \ vet “a hi yh fe Wome a ‘| qt w
een) Cl ft weaayou aoa a “| || sa rol (6 i ih, wlohe
{ wer By) Wt P| Matbet aba Ob} Obes et do atoh ao h “
“ 1} hog te ' | |» “a moda rep On a a:
en ' ) Prt 0) “ Web Pink oom a
omen ' i] id hohe chet a Gomme ua) moa tha ha
wom oe) ' i oad Oot 1) ade! Tc = |
“iw “a etet eb ebb ) apa \ Obi bbe
en | thaw el w io
ota OQevtert beat Oe ' na mapa 8
iow te rf “ ‘ ] 1} i “ NT i “ ‘
How ra Pa re ce er wet) ee eT nt}
ff fe Te en yy ad thet ntl heed ptohe Ae
thea \, a i) {| wa “iow i
eo “ iow | Ac] | we au +)
hort gf A () eed tho it Ooty ay
mb 7) ee et 0) fed by at W Bartel ad O vet
(Ow et “moaory a mot tj wet ial al |
a eo Wy Te ee ley ' i} 0) “ M “wi
mooi rf rl ae) eee tO pay bis
LL 4 “ ii ' woud | le
wo A i rel Hoo a re
ae ooray ool rope WoO te bi bab be
mocbab ty ee ee) ih ay io Wot
kf oma Ore my ab oub by ‘1 a
Morteord we mths wey ‘hae My i om er |
ow ‘you a yaw a mk “ Wh
Whe “ whohped Wop i a at
Orr ry nm io : > you r pha oy
Omri oan " Te et Hoo
oe | ‘ “ wept tte " | ' 7
reid | “4 1 “a ior aba
1] ! a“ wn “i ‘| “ r wy Vit )
eb pert V4 al oct tides ' Mo \
meio > mh Ow “4 | hort Ob fe
vedio aad O Oho od bev hs IH rpheoyh ada \
“ove teal ) tel fe \ aoa oe wow " at Hy et &
thea fl “ i vot hd et ) () ‘el | in) ee ee | aha by
4 ae | | ne ‘ rf fd el 3 ee cra ae gh Bal
tinh mode out | \- q | | id wi hy t | Wok “
ha} oa ry 10 Wy bt mort at ) Pal dear al ay Oo baba
oN le pf Iw) ‘ath Ofte 4 “ ee ee) ee

el] | i) “ia a) " “
uo a 1) fe a) “ “a “i “a oe
iE) By " wal ao a ia) at Me mow
«a wooo i) ‘ au) vel imate) is | wee
ewe hard TU | wo g toon mW thee a al f° Me eon a
Wao hed aot el Be tl el A | clan a at bret a te a ‘moan
ab ay “ avd a ea oO pheed beet Re UF et ment ee Mach by i My we}
ela Hea) ooh oO jeeet a ate " ee | " ode at oaow wd | moeew
moot wba elortort tah Mel adh wa} a Mi eta ioe @ eel et O Ayel
hid fee MD fe bp aw fy Wohi ey ao a ode toh oe ai Mt} he bed bet "a
aoa \ te teed ved Oohia 0 pp | | opt Choe t ab the Oa) fey Dvd rt (hofey
eta aoa ty 2 Meet vet Mt ke eet Ove et A o& Ort apo | DEE eh GD te ki a «
re ShQ Gg mM Oe TU ee meow a th a) oa ‘ i a
chet by yd deed ers re ees rs er oawde net w OM EL eet Got cl be dent
wat Ye Med Ne elet (Mat pt at is hia a WW Owt el | eM a MD bib t Med fay 0
aadow la ou od” del See ao ow tee NCL tort bt be
a hea aed {) ELS eu ae | hi On ee ee © | Moai L tH) jeert be wow
om i} ka aod oO oO wu heat aoa a mora oo amin ao ff WD Wee
ar a MW Oe tert ad O wea ‘ya le ated OO et Dab beet be fy hy O fey
my moa wm tye O vet ht od a thay S| A | Th moh ow )
Ohi ted ede O44 @ Od de we he rod eft maa fet one
ay a ond ou oka Mo to a al ty ia) et hy ta a a pf] det fe be aan
te er " wm ae) wv ube} ab baat a! me ClO +t CF owe | i
Aadadceet a sO NOt eed det © Fae Whe Ow
PO Det O DD ki bt te bi O a Ub Un bb et by bey aeao am = a aw are mou
at Odes a pa On on ad Wb et at Met vet MO Wort ed
fife t OO a mia fy i} fe aed Oo ela cy ha
ee hot MM a au wd Om MM * rt th abba
i a) aw mM Wet og et a Ob) fee ke ed mia} O a te
mou a} - i) ra a Ot Oya Wa peed te (tf faved
voodd MHA Od aa On Ti ere
owls Ae O O OW WD at eetet tha My pds ay ‘
w thet Oop hk wae ema eee te a YO ha
moO UN ads { \* O Ot Ot O met O hi a wa inn
Prado ha Ovtuea a Hawa |
a eh Ub OF GM at at fe hum wa @ coe S|) ee) hd vet Yad os
At dM thet We Own oO Matta Oo a oa tthe @
ooh uw waa relay @ yu bh at adobe Mond verted
Mond ;QM «4 aa @ a tat be me m fo of
Atoet Da a) ae OO. mae aed a a kew A obta
bhoka On Ww ae w fd Owns wat aa ow
yO t rel SM OQ ved ee pee be
w@ O rl OO Wh a am MWowo ' As |
Mut a a oO Wat aw a oOnmn wow woke
a Oyet tp kat ke et Dy A fap stg cy) ow
O60 GW Aheet 2) Ove Detert es a Ooo na a " i]
ud aoa iC] Omg Oe Ww Owl ad a Ort amo
| ma a Ow Met @ Www woa ea hy
ead Geli et O art el Bl et vet moked cl ae)
U 6 Geel a hie OD eA wou ed Ot) fe a ty
oa tc a W rl hod Wet Od OO moa bey
O Ov ww Oa of aaa oo bh el M a
Od Oh Ow “ a el Uyewt @ et tin
rly Ovteet Dee ff = O tnt a bi a a ed Iho Md
wf elt moh @ a eet @ ef bbe Mm Ort moO; a
aoa @ th ods oe oe | JO fey het O Fy eet gd
Moat OW Meet Ok ead oO el DD vet ha Md met Ort oO
Pel beret MO & OO tert O Met bh et @ tia
a 6M at ou fo tayo ono oud am beet wed is ee an
el PS cto @ CEO Ovet Pe O GO OD OD Meet & Gd Meet O ed ot oo mow
et QO dbeet be YW PO wed OO RW OO a am wo fw fe et a Oo mag

(e) developing developing decoys to lure killer whales away
from fishing vessels retrieving longline gear; (f) using
explosives, rubber bullets, electric shock, emetics such as
lithium chloride, or other aversive stimuli to condition
killer whales to avoid fishing gear or fishing areas; or some
combination of these measures. It was also noted that the
same problem has been occurring in the Bering Sea since the
1960s.

During the telephone conference, Commission represen-
tatives pointed out that: there are no obvious solutions to
the problem other than prohibiting longline fisheries at
times and in places where killer whales are present; trial
and error experimentation with explosives or other possible
deterrents could result in habituation and positive rather
than negative reinforcement, making the problem more diffi-
cult to overcome; better understanding of acoustic or other
cues attracting killer whales to vessels retrieving longline
gear might suggest ways for avoiding or reducing interac-
tions; and a workshop involving the affected fishermen,
cetacean biologists, acousticians, and other relevant experts
might be the most effective way to determine how best to
identify and evaluate possible ways to prevent or reduce
interactions.

During the summer and fall of 1986, researchers from the
Alaska Sea Grant Program conducted additional studies to
assess and monitor the killer whales affecting and being
affected by the sablefish fishery in Prince William Sound,
and to determine whether entangling caught fish or other
non-lethal means might be useful for preventing or reducing
killer whale depredation of caught sablefish. In addition,
the National Marine Fisheries Service continued to extract
and analyze data from existing observer reports and asked
observers placed aboard Japanese longline vessels operating
in the eastern Bering Sea to record and report any interac-
tions with killer whales. The results of these and prior
studies were reviewed and discussed during the Commission's
meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, on 28-30 October 1986. During
the meeting, there also was discussion and general agreement
on the desirability of holding a workshop to identify and
describe the types of research that would be necessary or
desirable to evaluate the potential costs and benefits of
alternative approaches to the problem. Representatives of
the Alaska Marine Advisory Program drafted terms of reference
for a possible workshop and sought comments from representa-
tives of the Commission, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and other organizations present at the Commission's
meeting. A final determination on the proposal for a
workshop will be made early in 1987.

68

In 1987, the Commission will continue to work with the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the Alaska Sea Grant
program, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and other
interested parties to identify and implement such measures as
may be necessary and appropriate to prevent or reduce
interactions in both Prince William Sound and the Bering Sea.

69

CHAPTER VII

INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS IN THE COURSE
OF COMMERCIAL FISHING OPERATIONS

The Marine Mammal Protection Act directs the Secretaries
of Commerce and the Interior, in consultation with the
Commission, to develop regulations governing the incidental
taking of marine mammals by persons subject to the juris-
diction of the United States. It also calls upon the
Secretaries, again in consultation with the Commission, to
develop effective international arrangements, through the
Secretary of State, for the purpose of reducing the inci-
dental taking of marine mammals to insignificant levels
approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate.

Although the incidental taking of marine mammals occurs
in the course of several fisheries and involves several
different species of marine mammals, the "tuna-porpoise"
issue involving the incidental mortality and serious injury
of porpoises entrapped in purse seine nets used by commercial
yellowfin tuna fishermen has, over the past years, been the
subject of the most intense concern, attention, and contro-
versy. Of more recent concern has been the incidental taking
of Dall's porpoises in the course of the Japanese salmon gill
net fishery in the North Pacific Ocean, a portion of which
occurs within the United States' 200-mile Fishery Conser-
vation Zone, and the incidental take of southern sea otters
and other marine mammals in gill and trammel nets in
California coastal waters. The Commission's activities
during 1986 related to the tuna-porpoise and Dall's porpoise
issues are discussed below. A discussion on the incidental
take of southern sea otters is included in Chapter IX of this
Report. Interactions between fisheries and other marine
mammals are discussed in Chapter VI.

The Tuna-Porpoise Issue

Discussions of the Commission's past activities and a
historical summary of the efforts to resolve this problem are
presented in the Commission's previous Annual Reports. As
discussed below, the Commission, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the U.S. tuna industry, and others con-
tinued to devote substantial attention to the issue in 1986.
In mid-October 1986, the U.S. tuna fleet reached the inciden-

70

tal kill quota of 20,500 porpoises. Thus, it became neces-
sary to direct even greater attention to the tuna-porpoise
issue.

The 1986 Fishing Season

The National Marine Fisheries Service issued final regu-
lations on 31 October 1980 establishing an annual allowable
take (quota) of 20,500 animals for each of the five years,
1981-1985. On 7 December 1980, a general permit to take
porpoise in compliance with the final regulations and the
quota was issued to the American Tunaboat Association. By
means of the 1984 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, Congress extended the annual quota, as well as the
regulations and the general permit.

Estimates of the annual incidental take of porpoise by
the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet since passage of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act are listed below.

Estimated Kill

Year and Serious Injury
1972 368,600
1973 206,697
1974 147,437
1975 166,645
1976 108,740
1977 25,452
1978 19,366
1979 17,938
1980 15,305
1981 18,780
1982 22,736
1983 9,589
1984 17,732
1985 19,205
1986 (preliminary estimate) 20,692

In 1986, the U.S. tuna fleet reached the allowable take
level of 20,500 and was required to cease setting for tuna on
schools of porpoise. There are several possible reasons wh
the quota was reached. One is that the tuna fleet experi-
enced an increased number of problem sets which resulted in
abnormally high levels of take. Perhaps more important, tuna
fishermen made more sets on porpoise schools during 1986 than
in 1985. This was because tuna found with porpoise tend to
be large and large tuna brought a better price than smaller
ones during the generally depressed 1986 tuna market.

The likelihood that the quota would be reached became

apparent during the spring when porpoise mortality reports
issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service indicated

71

that levels of take were exceeding the rates for comparable
periods in previous years. Concerned about this development,
the Commission wrote to the Service on 12 June 1986 to ask
that special consideration be given to this problem. In
addition, the Commission asked that a meeting be convened to
address questions concerning the methodology for estimating
mortality and enforcement options that could be used when the
quota was reached. This meeting was convened by the National
Marine Fisheries Service on 14 July; it was attended by
representatives of the Service, the Commission, and the tuna
industry. Representatives of concerned environmental groups
were not invited to attend the meeting and, by letter of

18 July 1986 to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
Commission indicated its concern about the procedures that
had been used to convene the 14 July meeting. The Commission
pointed out that when one group of non-governmental parties,
in this case the fishing industry, is invited to attend
meetings of this type, other interested parties should be
extended the same courtesy.

Questions concerning the methodology that should be used
to estimate porpoise mortality in future years continued to
be reviewed after the 14 July meeting and at a follow-up
meeting held 6 December 1986. As a result of the deliber-
ations, it was decided that the same methodology that had
been used previously would be used again in 1987 and that
additional review of alternative approaches would take place.
In addition, the decision was made to provide 100 percent
observer coverage for the first trip of the U.S. tuna fleet
in 1987. This represents a significant increase over the
level of observer coverage provided in 1986. The Service's
actions on these points are consistent with the recommen-
dations included in the Commission's letter of 23 December
1986. In that letter, it was recommended that further
consideration be given to the methodology used to estimate
mortality and that the level of observer coverage be
increased.

As noted previously, by letter of 12 June 1986, the
Commission expressed to the Service its concerns about the
increased level of porpoise mortality and asked to be advised
on the steps the Service intended to take to address the
problem. In anticipation of the quota being reached, on
16 September 1986 the Service published in the Federal
Register emergency interim regulations to enforce the quota.
The regulations imposed a ban on catching, possessing, or
landing yellowfin or bigeye tuna from the eastern tropical
Pacific once the quota had been reached. An exception to the
ban was established for vessels that voluntarily carried a
National Marine Fisheries Service observer to verify compli-
ance with the prohibition on fishing on porpoise. Finally,
the regulations imposed a ban on the importation of tuna
caught in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean unless certain
conditions were met to demonstrate that the tuna were not

72

caught by setting on porpoise. By letter of 3 October 1986,
the Commission supported the regulations and recommended that
permanent regulations including similar requirements be
established for future fishing seasons.

Based on the reports from observers, the Service esti-
mated that the quota would be reached on 21 October 1986. As
required by the Service's tuna-porpoise regulations, a
Federal Register notice was published on 14 October 1986
announcing that the prohibition on further take of porpoise
would become effective on 21 October. As of that date, an
estimated 20,728 porpoise had been killed during the 1986
season. The Service's emergency interim regulations went
into effect on 21 October and no additional takes of porpoise
were reported in 1986. In its 23 December letter to the
Service, the Commission repeated its recommendation that
permanent quota enforcement regulations be established.

At the end of 1986, the Service took the first step
toward establishing regulations that would govern the per-
formance of individual vessels and/or captains in the U.S.
tuna fleet by issuing a position paper on alternative
approaches. These standards, which would be set forth as
regulations, are intended to address the problem that arose
in 1986 when certain vessels and/or captains experienced
exceptionally high kill rates. The standards would be imple-
mented along with increased observer coverage to provide a
more effective method for monitoring the operations of the
U.S. fleet, reducing kill rates, and imposing appropriate
sanctions, such as the revocation of certificates of inclu-
sion, on captains and/or vessels with poor performance
records. During 1987, the Commission will consult with the
Service and other interested parties on this proposal and
other matters concerning the incidental take of porpoise in
the tuna purse seine fishery.

Foreign Nation Compliance Programs

During the 1984 reauthorization hearings on the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, concern was expressed by the Commis-
sion, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the tuna
industry, and the environmental community that progress
realized by the U.S. fleet in reducing incidental porpoise
mortality was being offset by the high kill rates of foreign
fleets. It was felt that, if further progress were to be
made in achieving the Act's goal of reducing incidental
mortality to insignificant levels approaching zero, greater
controls over foreign fleets would be necessary. Asa
result, Congress amended the Act to require that each nation
exporting tuna to this country provide documentary evidence
that it has adopted a program to regulate the incidental take
of marine mammals that is comparable to that of the U.S. and
that the average rate of incidental take by its fleet is

73

comparable to that of the U.S. fleet. Failure to meet these
requirements may result in a ban on the import of tuna and
tuna products from the nation involved.

On 21 July 1984, the Commission wrote the Service urging
that it act promptly to promulgate regulations to implement
the foreign nation certification requirements of the amend-
ments. The Commission noted that prompt action was needed
because the Service's existing foreign nation reporting and
certification requirements were not as stringent as those
included in the 1984 amendments.

By 1986, the Service still had not published proposed
regulations. Concerned about the lack of progress, the
Commission wrote to the Service on 22 May 1986, pointing out
the need for immediate action. The Service responded by
letter of 30 June 1986, stating that it was in the process of
developing the proposed regulations. The Commission wrote to
the Service again on 24 July, asking when the proposed regu-
lations would be published and requesting that a pre-publica-
tion version of the proposed regulations be provided to the
Commission for review.

While the Service was preparing its proposed regula-
tions, it received a request from Mexico that the Marine
Mammal Protection Act embargo imposed on the importation of
its tuna products in 1981 be rescinded. On 21 May 1986, the
Service published a Federal Register notice that a deter-
mination had been made that Mexico was in substantial con-
formance with the U.S. regulations governing the incidental
take of marine mammals and that the importation prohibition
had been rescinded for that country. The decision was made
under the Service's existing foreign nation certification
regulations, which did not conform with the requirements of
the 1984 amendments.

By letter of 25 June 1986, the Commission notified the
Service that it was inappropriate to render this decision
under regulatory standards that are less stringent than those
established by Congress in 1984. It also pointed out that
the Service had not consulted with the Commission on the
Mexican request and that it was not clear how the certifi-
cation decision had been reached. In order to clarify the
record, the Commission sought answers to a series of
questions on the nature and scope of the Mexican tuna-
porpoise program. The Service responded by letter of
4 September 1986, noting that, among other things: Mexico
does not have an incidental take quota; a Mexican observer
program was established in January 1986; and Mexican vessels
are required to use some, but not all, of the porpoise-saving
devices and techniques used by the U.S. fleet.

On 13 August 1986 the Service published in the Federal
Register proposed regulations to implement the foreign nation

74

reporting and certification requirements of the 1984 amend-
ments. The proposed regulations call for a performance-based
approach that requires a showing that the foreign nation's
regulatory program is comparable to that of the U.S. and that
reliable data indicate that the level of take in the foreign
fleet is comparable to that of the U.S. fleet. The proposed
regulations state that a comparable level of take would be
one that is not more than 50 percent higher than the U.S.
level. For each nation that is certified as satisfying U.S.
standards, an annual review would be conducted to assess
whether the program remains in compliance.

By letter of 14 November 1986, the Commission advised
the Service that it supported the adoption of the proposed
regulations, subject to certain modifications. In its
letter, the Commission recommended that the regulations
specify that the only method of monitoring take levels that
would be in compliance with U.S. standards is one that is
based on observer data. The Commission also expressed its
view that a level of take that is 50 percent higher than that
of the U.S. is unacceptably high and does not satisfy the
requirements of the 1984 amendments that the level of take be
comparable to that of the U.S. fleet. Final regulations are
expected to be published early in 1987. In 1987, all nations
exporting tuna to the U.S. will be required to demonstrate
compliance with the U.S. program.

With specific reference to the Mexican tuna fishery, the
Commission recommended that the regulations should be imple-
mented as soon as possible and that Mexico's program should
be reviewed immediately under those standards to assess
compliance with the requirements of the 1984 amendments.

Regulatory Amendments

As noted earlier, in 1984 Congress reauthorized and
amended the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In addition to
making the foreign nation compliance requirements more strin-
gent, Congress extended indefinitely the general permit
issued to the American Tunaboat Association in 1980 to inci-
dentally take marine mammals in the course of purse seine
fishing for tuna. The amendments also authorized the
Secretary of Commerce to make appropriate adjustiients to the
permit terms and conditions that are set forth in the tuna-
porpoise regulations and pertain to fishing gear, fishing
practice requirements, and permit administration. Based on
the legislative history, it is clear that the Congressional
intent was that it would be appropriate for the Secretary to
change a number of regulations and permit requirements to
guidelines, provided that those changes further the goals of
the Act.

On 2 May 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Service
published in the Federal Register proposed amendments to the

75

tuna-porpoise regulations. The purpose of the proposed
amendments was to provide greater flexibility in the appli-
cation of porpoise-saving gear and techniques by either
amending or deleting requirements found to be unnecessary or
unworkable. The Service's proposal and the Commission's
recommendations on this issue are described in the previous
Annual Report.

Final regulations implementing the modifications to the
gear and technique requirements were published in the Federal
Register on 3 January 1986. In addition to making the pro-
posed changes, the Service published a brochure that set
forth guidelines on gear and fishing practices that could be
used to reduce incidental take levels. As recommended by the
Commission in its 7 November 1985 comment letter on the draft
guidelines, the brochure emphasized the importance of the
observer program and emphasized the goal of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act that the incidental mortality of porpoise
should be reduced to insignificant levels approaching zero.
The guidelines were distributed to U.S. fishermen involved in
the tuna purse seine fishery and other interested parties.

Research Activities and Research Planning

As noted in the Commission's previous Annual Report, the
focus of research on porpoise stocks impacted by the yellow-
fin tuna purse seine fishery has changed from assessing the
stocks to monitoring indices of abundance in an attempt to
detect population trends. This focus on monitoring was
mandated by the 1984 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protec-
tion Act. Among other things, the amendment required that a
monitoring program commence by 1 January 1985 and continue
for at least five consecutive years.

During 1984, the Commission and the Service held a
series of meetings to plan the monitoring program. Unfortu-
nately, funding and logistic constraints prevented the start
of the planned research vessel surveys in 1985. In July
1986, the survey program was initiated in accordance with the
1985 plan, with one major exception. The recommended survey
plan called for annual surveys using two vessels and one
helicopter for 120 days each year. Although the vessel
surveys were carried out between July and early December
1986, the Service was unable to deploy a helicopter. With
regard to the survey design, the Commission advised the
Service by letter of 23 December 1986 that it should re-
evaluate the anticipated effectiveness of the planned moni-
toring programs relative to the original goal of detecting
possible trends in porpoise abundance. The Commission looks
forward to receiving the results of these surveys for which
only preliminary results are now available. The Commission
will assist the Service in determining which methods of
analysis will maximize the value of the data obtained.

76

As noted in the previous Annual Report, the ship surveys
were only part of the monitoring program under development by
the Service. The other two aspects consisted of (1) analyses
of data collected by observers aboard tuna purse seiners, and
(2) analyses of biological and behavioral data collected from
both research and fishing vessels.

On 13 November 1985, a meeting was held to address the
use of tuna vessel observer data to index trends of abundance
of eastern tropical Pacific porpoise, and the final report of
that meeting was received by the Commission early in 1986.
The meeting participants, including representatives of the
Commission, set priorities for research topics to be under-
taken, and identified the five most important research needs:
(1) apply appropriate line transect methodology to all avail-
able data; (2) study and apply data-dependent stratification
procedures; (3) compare tuna vessel observer data and
research vessel data for areas where both were collected
simultaneously; (4) explore sampling properties of existing
observer data by sub-sampling; and (5) examine environmental
effects on abundance estimates.

The meeting emphasized the importance of cooperating
with the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and the
industry in carrying out this phase of the monitoring
program. Unfortunately, the Service did not designate a
leader for this program for several months following the
13 November 1985 meeting. To date, there have been no
reports on any of these recommended studies.

As noted above, in October 1986, the U.S. tuna fleet was
required to stop fishing on porpoise schools because it had
already taken the maximum number of porpoise allowed under
the existing quota. This raised issues with respect to the
methodology for calculating the in-season estimates of the
porpoise kill and for extrapolating from these to project the
date on which the quota would be reached. To this end,
Commission representatives met with Service personnel on
14 July and 6 December 1986, as reported above, to provide
advice on the methodology and to recommend research to evalu-
ate possible alternative procedures. Some simulation studies
were carried out in 1986 and further studies are planned for
1987. In addition, as recommended in the Commission's letter
of 23 December 1986, additional research will be conducted to
determine whether and how to refine the mortality estimation
methodology. The Commission will participate in this and
other research activities during 1987.

77

The Dall's Porpoise Issue

Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) become entangled
and die in gill nets used by Japanese salmon fishermen in the
North Pacific Ocean. Pursuant to the International Conven-
tion for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific, the
Japanese are permitted to fish for salmon inside the U.S.
200-mile Fishery Conservation Zone. As noted in previous
Annual Reports, the fishery is subject to provisions of a
Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and
Japan on coordinated research efforts, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, the North Pacific Fisheries Act, and general
permit requirements.

A general permit authorizing the Federation of Japan
Salmon Fisheries Cooperative Association to incidentally take
up to 5,500 Dall's porpoise, 450 northern fur seals, and 25
northern sea lions per year was issued for the 1981-1983
fishing seasons. Through the 1982 amendments to the North
Pacific Fisheries Act, which implements the Convention in the
United States, the general permit was extended until 9 June
1987. The amendments required the Japanese to introduce new
fishing gear and techniques to reduce the incidental take of
porpoise. In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service
is required annually to prepare a detailed action plan con-
cerning monitoring, research, development, and other neces-
sary actions.

Under section 14(a)(2) of the North Pacific Fisheries
Act, Japan is required to have introduced new gear or fishing
techniques into at least 75 percent of its drift gill net
fleet by the 1986 fishing season. The National Marine
Fisheries Service has authority under the Act to determine
what types of fishing gear or techniques offer the most
practical and effective opportunity for reducing porpoise
mortality and to specify which of those must be adopted by
the Japanese fleet. Although it concluded that more research
on gear modifications is required, the Service determined in
1984 that three-strand, air-tube thread should be used in the
gill nets employed by the Japanese catcherboats. It is hoped
that this gear modification will make it easier for porpoise
to detect and avoid gill nets through echolocation. In 1987,
all catcherboats will be required to use modified gear.
Questions have been raised, however, about the effectiveness
of the air-tube thread as a method for reducing Dall's
porpoise mortality, and additional research is needed.

Estimates based on U.S. observer coverage of the
Japanese fishing operations indicate that there has been no
progress in reducing the level of Dall's porpoise mortality
since the permit was issued. Incidental take estimates for
each fishing season under the permit are shown on the
following page:

78

Estimated Incidental Take of Dall's Porpoise

Year Estimated Take
1981 1,850
1982 4,187
1983 2,906
1984 2,443
1985 2,760
1986 (preliminary) 2,352

The estimated take rate within the U.S. Fishery Conservation
Zone is 0.47 porpoise per gill net operation.

As required by section 14(b)(2) of the North Pacific
Fisheries Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued
in 1986 an Action Plan that reviews developments in the
fishery during 1985 and outlines research activities for
1986. The Plan calls for the Service to: (1) monitor the
level of incidental take; (2) collect sighting data for
estimating abundance; (3) collect specimen material for
biological studies; and (4) analyze data collected in 1982-
1985 on the behavioral response of Dall's porpoise to survey
vessels. The Plan also announced the Service's determination
that the permit holder, the Federation of Japan Cooperative
Fisheries Association, complied with all conditions of the
general permit and the North Pacific Fisheries Act in 1985.

The extension of the 1981 general permit under the North
Pacific Fisheries Act will expire on 9 June 1987. [In order
to fish for salmon with gill nets in the U.S. Fishery Conser-
vation Zone beyond that date, it will be necessary for the
Federation to obtain a permit renewal pursuant to the
requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Anticipating the submission of a permit application from
the Federation, the National Marine Fisheries Service pub-
lished in the Federal Register of 22 January 1986 a notice of
intent to prepare an environmental impact statement on the
application. A National Environmental Policy Act scoping
meeting was held on 6 March 1986. By letter of 12 May 1986,
the Commission submitted scoping comments reccmmending, among
other things, that the draft environmental impact statement
address: the data gaps and research needs identified by the
Administrative Law Judge during the 1981 permit proceeding;
the effectiveness of the air-tube gear modifications; prob-
lems with the observer system; the effects of lost and
discarded nets and other debris; ecosystem effects of the
fishery; the status of affected fur seal stocks; and the
impact of the proposed action on subsistence uses of marine
resources. The Commission also expressed the view that all
expenses associated with Dall's porpoise research and
monitoring, including salaries and administrative and
research costs, should be paid by the Japanese.

79

On 21 July 1986, the Federation submitted an application
for a five-year general permit to incidentally take 5,500
Dall's porpoise, 450 northern fur seals, and 25 northern sea
lions. The submission of the application was announced in
the Federal Register on 20 August 1986. In that notice,
proposed regulations to implement the permit were published
and a formal hearing under section 103 of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act was announced. The Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on the permit request was issued on 29 August 1986.

A prehearing conference was convened by the Honorable
Hugh J. Dolan, presiding officer for the formal hearing, on
3 November 1986. The parties to the proceeding represented
at the conference were: the permit applicant, the Federation
of Japan Cooperative Fisheries Association; Greenpeace, on
behalf of several environmental organizations; the Kokechik
and Qaluyaat Fishermen's Associations, representing the
interests of Alaskan Eskimos; the Marine Mammal Commission;
and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

By letter of 24 November 1986, the Commission commented
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Commission
noted that its formal recommendations on the proposed permit
would be made after the formal hearing. The Commission
stated that there continued to be serious research defi-
ciencies and information gaps concerning the status of the
affected stocks and the impacts of the fishery on marine
mammal populations. Due to the significance of these data
gaps, the Commission stated that it would be inappropriate to
issue the permit for more than two years. The suggestion
that Japan be required to pay all research and monitoring
costs was repeated. In addition, the Commission commented
that: (1) an additional alternative for issuing the permit
in a form other than that requested by the applicant should
be considered; (2) possible U.S. responses to the withdrawal
of Japan from the International Convention for the High Seas
Fisheries of the North Pacific if the permit is denied should
be discussed; (3) the potential impacts of the high seas
squid drift net fisheries on Dall's porpoise should be
addressed in greater detail; (4) more reliable information
should be provided on survey coverage; and (5) the ecosystem
impacts of the fishery on salmon stocks and sea birds, as
well as marine mammals, should be taken into account.

The formal hearing on the permit application took place
in Seattle from 1-7 December 1986. Testimony was presented
by expert witnesses for all of the parties. Commission
representatives participated in the hearing.

Initial briefs on the permit application were filed with
the Administrative Law Judge on 29 December 1986. [In its
brief, the Commission recommended that the permit to take
Dall's porpoise be issued for two years, subject to con-
ditions for research and monitoring tne areas of greatest

80

concern. Due to the lack of reliable data on the status of
the affected stocks, the Commission recommended that the
permit not be issued for northern fur seals and northern sea
lions. It also recommended that an ecosystem protection zone
closed to gill net fishing by the Federation be established
around the Aleutian Islands. Issuance of the permit was
opposed by Greenpeace and the Kokechik and Qaluyaat Fisher-
men's Associations. The National Marine Fisheries Service
supported the issuance of a five-year permit to take annually
up to 4,200 Dall's porpoise and 450 fur seals from the
Commander Islands stock.

Following the submission of reply briefs from the
parties early in 1987, the Administrative Law Judge is to
issue a recommended decision. A final decision of the appli-
cation by the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration should be issued in time for the
next fishing season, which is scheduled to begin in June
1987.

81

CHAPTER VIII

ENTANGLEMENT IN MARINE DEBRIS

The tendency of marine mammals and other marine species
to become entangled in net fragments, packing bands, and
other synthetic materials lost and discarded at sea has been
recognized for many years. More recently, problems caused by
the ingestion of plastic bags and plastic objects also have
become apparent. Plastic debris represents a worldwide
pollution problem affecting sea birds, turtles, fish, and
invertebrates, as well as marine mammals. The problem
appears particularly acute in the North Pacific Ocean where
debris-related injuries and mortality may be contributing to
declines in populations of North Pacific fur seals, Hawaiian
monk seals, Steller sea lions, harbor seals, and a number of
other marine species.

Since the early 1980s, the Marine Mammal Commission has
played a major role in focusing domestic and international
efforts to assess the extent and impact of entanglement on
marine mammals and to identify ways to reduce or eliminate
the problem. The Commission's past efforts, discussed in
previous Annual Reports, are summarized briefly below.
Activities of the Commission and others in 1986 are described
in greater detail.

Background

The Nature of the Problem

Over the past 30 years, the use of plastics and other
synthetic materials has developed at a rapid pace. In the
U.S., for example, plastic resin production increased more
than seven-fold between 1960 and 1985 (from 6.3 billion
pounds per year to 47.9 billion pounds per year). As these
materials have been developed, applied, and made available to
more people, there has been a corresponding increase in the
rate and quantity of plastic debris entering the marine
environment. Many of these products degrade very slowly.
Those that float remain suspended at the sea surface for
extended periods of time, and those that sink may remain for
decades on the sea floor.

82

As synthetic materials become more and more common in
the ocean, they pose an increasingly significant threat to
marine mammals, sea birds, turtles, fish, and other marine
organisms. Animals become entangled in loops or openings of
floating or submerged debris and they ingest items such as
plastic bags that resemble natural prey items. Animals that
become entangled may drown, lose their ability to catch food
or avoid predators, or incur wounds from the abrasive,
cutting action of attached debris. Ingested plastics may
block digestive tracts, damage stomach linings, or reduce
feeding drives.

Until recently, the magnitude of these threats was
masked by the size of the ocean areas affected, the decep-
tively simple nature of the threat, the perception that
chance encounters between marine animals and debris would be
unlikely, and an absence of large numbers of marine animals
being found on beaches or at sea strangled, drowned, starved,
or choked by marine debris. It is becoming apparent,
however, that plastic debris may be concentrated through
disposal patterns and ocean currents in coastal areas where
marine mammals and other species are most likely to occur.

In addition, many species actively seek out marine debris
because of the associated prey species attracted by the cover
it provides, because it represents an object of play, or
because the debris itself may resemble its natural prey.
Thus, encounters between certain marine species and marine
debris may be relatively common. Evidence of those interac-
tions may not be readily apparent, however, because animals
killed or incapacitated would likely be scattered widely and
either be consumed by scavengers or decompose rapidly at sea.

Activities Prior to 1986

Beginning in the early 1970s, the Standing Committee of
the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission repeatedly noted its
concern about the increasing number of juvenile seals found
on the breeding islands entangled in lost and discarded
fishing gear. Although nations party to the Fur Seal
Convention -- Canada, Japan, the United States, and the
Soviet Union -- were somewhat responsive to this concern,
efforts to address the problem were limited primarily to
attempts to discourage fishermen from discarding fishing gear
into the ocean and enjoyed questionable success.

By 1982, it was apparent that the rate of fur seal
entanglement had not diminished and that the problem was much
more serious than had been realized. A data analysis carried
out at that time by a National Marine Fisheries Service
scientist indicated that entanglement of fur seals was
possibly the primary cause of the continuing five to eight
percent decline in the North Pacific fur seal population. At

83

about the same time, it became apparent that Hawaiian monk
seals also were becoming entangled in lost and discarded
fishing gear and other debris and that this could be contri-
buting to the monk seal decline. Elsewhere, data were being
compiled that indicated that marine debris was a global
problem affecting many species.

To provide a better basis for assessing the problem in
the fall of 1982, the Commission recommended that the
National Marine Fisheries Service convene a workshop to
review available data and determine what could be done to
address the problem. As noted in its previous Annual
Reports, the Commission also provided the Service with the
terms of reference, suggestions for a steering group, and the
seed money necessary to organize the workshop. To encourage
international participation, representatives of the Commis-
sion and the Service met with representatives of the Govern-
ments of Canada, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the Soviet Union.
At that meeting, the Commission presented terms of reference
for the workshop.

To identify some of the available mechanisms to mitigate
the problem, the Commission contracted for a legal analysis
of applicable domestic and international authorities (see
Bean, 1985 in Appendix B). This is now considered the basic
reference on legal aspects of this issue.

On 27-29 November 1984, the Workshop on the Fate and
Impact of Marine Debris was held in Honolulu, Hawaii, and in
July 1985 the National Marine Fisheries Service published the
Workshop proceedings. The Workshop provided an excellent
review of available information on the problem and, based on
reported findings, Workshop participants identified an urgent
need for: educating vessel operators and others about the
marine debris problem; regulating the deliberate disposal of
synthetic materials; and developing better quantitative data
to assess the impact of debris on marine living resources.

Congress directed that $1,000,000 be appropriated to the
National Marine Fisheries Service in Fiscal Year 1985 to
develop a comprehensive research and management program
addressing the issue. To assist in developing the best
possible program, the Commission convened a planning meeting
in La Jolla, California, on 18-19 March 1985. Represen-
tatives of the Service, the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council, and the environmental community participated in the
meeting and, based on the results, the Commission provided
the Service with an annotated program outline and detailed
scopes of work for projects designed to promote public
education and awareness, develop necessary scientific and
technical information, and reduce the amount of debris
entering the ocean. The Service subsequently adopted the

84

plan as the basis for the first year of its Entanglement
Research Program. Subsequently, Congress appropriated an
additional $750,000 to continue the program in FY 1986.

In related activities during 1985, the Commission also:
worked with the National Marine Pollution Program Office to
incorporate the marine debris issue into the Federal Plan for
Ocean Pollution Research, Development and Monitoring;
provided partial support for projects to compile information
on marine debris in ocean areas outside the North Pacific
Ocean and to facilitate beach clean-up and public awareness;
and cooperated with the U.S. Coast Guard on efforts to
facilitate U.S. ratification of Annex V of the 1978 Protocol
to amend the Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (see below).

Domestic Activities in 1986

With respect to domestic activities, the Commission
continued to work closely with other Federal agencies and
Congress to help identify and implement constructive action
to address the marine debris issue. During 1986, particular
attention was directed towards: the continued development
and implementation of the U.S. Entanglement Research Program
administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service;
assisting the U.S. Congress with the identification and
evaluation of potential Congressional action; and pursuing
efforts to ratify Annex V of the 1978 Protocol Relating to
the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships (MARPOL).

The U.S. Entanglement Research Program

As noted above, Congress appropriated $750,000 to the
National Marine Fisheries Service in Fiscal Year 1986 for
continuing the Entanglement Research Program begun in 1985.
The Congress directed that the Service develop a program plan
for allocating these funds in cooperation with the Commission
and that the final plan receive the Commission‘s review and
approval. In response to these directives, the National
Marine Fisheries Service developed a recommended program plan
that included detailed scopes of work and cost estimates for
23 different tasks ranked in order of priority. The proposed
program plan was provided to the Commission for its review
and approval on 31 December 1985.

Because the estimated cost of the 23 projects exceeded
the available funding level, the Service proposed support for
the 16 tasks which it considered to be of highest priority.
These tasks included: continuing the information and
education program begun in 1985 to advise the public and

85

relevant industries of the marine debris problem; developing
a prototype system for receiving and disposing of vessel-
generated wastes in ports; assessing photodegradation
processes affecting plastics in the marine environment;
assessing the effects of marine debris on benthic and
mid-water species of marine life; continuing research on the
entanglement of northern fur seal and Steller sea lion pups;
collecting and cataloguing marine debris from the North-
western Hawaiian Islands; assessing the dynamics and fate of
lost and discarded gill net fishing gear; initiating a pilot
study on interactions between northern fur seals and large
fragments of fishing gear; assessment of fouling and sinking
rates of lost and discarded net debris; determining the
extent and effect of plastic ingestion by Hawaiian sea birds;
cleaning up marine debris at selected northern fur seal
haul-out sites; continuing efforts to develop standard
methodology for surveying marine debris on beaches in Alaska;
studying entanglement rates and survival of northern fur seal
females; assessing the amounts and distribution of net debris
generated by high-seas squid drift net fisheries in the North
Pacific Ocean; and administrative support for managing the
entanglement research program.

The Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors
reviewed the recommended program plan and provided comments
to the Service by letter of 21 March 1986. The Commission
noted that the proposed plan clearly had been developed with
great care and that it provided a sound basis for considering
and selecting among identified priority tasks. It further
noted that the priorities set forth appeared to be appro-
priate and justified and that the Commission concurred with
the plan as drafted. It recommended that the Service
immediately take steps to begin implementing the priority
tasks. The Commission also noted that several of the tasks
overlapped programmatic responsibilities of various other
Federal agencies and suggested that the Service examine
opportunities for obtaining partial support for certain
projects from other sources.

On 2 April 1986, the Service notified the Commission
that it had authorized $595,000 for support of projects
listed in the program plan. By early June, the Commission
had not been advised as to steps taken to allocate the
remainder of the $750,000 appropriation. Therefore, the
Commission wrote to the Service on 6 June 1986 requesting
information on the status of program funding and the Ser-
vice's plans for identifying priority needs for Fiscal Year
1987. The Service responded on 2 July noting that $32,000
had been lost as a result of the Balanced Budget and Emer-
gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and that the remaining
$123,000 was in the process of being transferred to the field
for allocation among the identified project tasks. The

86

Service also advised the Commission that a meeting to
identify program needs for 1987 would be held in September
1986. Subsequently, Congress appropriated an additional
$750,000 to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration to continue needed research and management measures
in Fiscal Year 1987. It again directed that the Service
develop a program plan with the cooperation and concurrence
of the Marine Mammal Commission.

The Service's Fiscal Year 1987 Entanglement Research
Program planning meeting was held on 24-25 September 1986 in
Seattle, Washington. During the meeting, representatives of
the Commission and the Service reviewed information on the
status and results of tasks undertaken during 1985 and 1986.
They also considered draft scopes of work for 19 proposed
projects which the Service's Entanglement Program Manager had
distributed in advance of the meeting. Among other things,
it was agreed that a second meeting should be held involving
other Federal agencies, industry groups, and environmental
organizations to consider cooperative efforts that might be
undertaken to facilitate development of appropriate mitiga-
tion measures. A Commission representative also participated
in that meeting, which was held on 16-17 December in Seattle.
Based on the results of these planning meetings, the Service
is expected to develop a Fiscal Year 1987 Entanglement
Research Program Plan which it will provide to the Commission
for review and approval early in 1987.

U.S. Efforts to Ratify MARPOL Annex V

In 1978, negotiations were concluded on a Protocol
amending the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). The Protocol includes five
Annexes, each of which addresses a certain type of vessel
pollution. At the conclusion of the negotiations, the
Protocol was opened for ratification by signatory nations.

On 2 July 1980, the U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent
to the Protocol, including Annexes I and II, and, on 22 July
1980, the President signed the instrument of ratification.
The Protocol, including Annex I entered into force on 2
October 1983 and Annex II is scheduled to enter into force on
6 April 1987. The remaining three Annexes require separate
ratification and have not entered into force.

Annex V, which provides for regulations to prevent
pollution from garbage by ships, is of particular relevance
to the problem of plastic pollution. Among other things,
provisions of the Annex would prohibit, subject to certain

exceptions, "...the disposal into the sea of all plastics,
including but not limited to synthetic ropes, synthetic
fishing nets and plastic garbage bags...." The importance of

this Annex was highlighted in the aforementioned Commission

87

funded report on domestic and international authorities
applicable to the problem of entanglement (see Bean, 1985 in
Appendix B). Among other things, the report noted that the
Annex had not been ratified by the U.S. and recommended that
action be taken to do so.

On 21 November 1985, the Commission participated ina
meeting convened by the U.S. Coast Guard to prepare for U.S.
participation in the 22nd Session of the International
Maritime Organization's Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC). This Committee is the international
organization responsible for implementing the MARPOL Conven-
tion. During the preparatory meeting, representatives of the
Commission, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, and the environmental community all urged that the U.S.
take immediate steps to ratify the Convention. In response,
it was agreed that following the 22nd Session of the MEPC,
which took place on 2-6 December 1985, Federal agencies would
meet to consider the appropriate course of action to seek
ratification.

The follow-up meeting of Federal agencies was held on
14 January 1986. Representatives of the Commission, the
Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the
Department of Agriculture participated in the meeting and
reviewed the results of the 22nd MEPC meeting (see below).
With respect to U.S. ratification of Annex V, the Commission
representative reaffirmed support for the action and this
position was shared by the representatives of the other
agencies. It was agreed that a summary position expressing
the agencies! collective support for this action would be
prepared and provided to the Commandant of the Coast Guard
for his approval and that, subject to his approval, a public
meeting of the Shipping Coordinating Committee would be
convened. This Committee is a chartered advisory committee
to the State Department established to solicit views from
non-governmental groups concerned with international issues
related to shipping and maritime activities. The Commandant
of the Coast Guard concurred with the recommended position of
the agency representatives, and a meeting of the Shipping
Coordinating Committee to consider the desirability of
ratifying MARPOL Annex V was scheduled for 2 July 1986.

Prior to the meeting of the Committee and in further
support of Annex V, the Commission wrote to the State
Department on 5 June 1986. In its letter, the Commission
noted that the Annex had not yet been ratified by the U.S.
and that, while several countries already had deposited their
instruments of ratification, all criteria necessary to bring
it into force had not yet been met. The Commission stated
its view that implementation of Annex V would provide a

88

necessary and constructive contribution to worldwide efforts
to mitigate the serious problems being caused by marine
debris, and recommended that the State Department take all
appropriate actions, including prompt ratification of Annex
V, to bring it into force at the earliest possible date. The
State Department responded by letter of 12 June 1986 noting
that efforts would be taken to advance the ratification
process and to highlight the problem in the upcoming MEPC
meeting.

The meeting of the Shipping Coordinating Committee was
convened by the Coast Guard at its headquarters in Wash-
ington, D.C., on 2 July 1986. During the meeting, there was
general agreement that ratification of Annex V was an
appropriate and desirable course of action. The 2 July
meeting was held just before the 23rd Session of the MEPC
held in London, England, on 7-11 July 1986. Considering the
Committee's comments and the views already expressed by the
Commission and other Federal agencies, the head of the U.S.
delegation to the 23rd Session of the MEPC announced that,
upon its return, the U.S. delegation would recommend to the
Secretary of State that actions be taken by the U.S. Govern-
ment to ratify MARPOL Annex V. This was done following the
meeting and, at the end of 1986, it was the Commission's
understanding that the necessary documentation to transmit
Annex V to the Senate for its advice and consent was being
reviewed by the State Department and would be forwarded to
the President early in 1987.

Congressional Activities

Funds appropriated for the U.S. Entanglement Research
Program in Fiscal Years 1985, 1986, and 1987 made it possible
for the nature and extent of the problem to become better
documented. In part because of this improved understanding,
bills designed to address certain aspects of the problem were
introduced in both the Senate and the House. The House also
convened a hearing on plastic pollution in the marine
environment.

Two bills were introduced in the Senate. The first,
S. 2596, was introduced by Senator John H. Chafee and others
on 25 June 1986. The bill, entitled the "Plastic Waste
Reduction Act of 1986," would direct the Environmental
Protection Agency to: conduct a study of adverse effects of
plastic debris discarded into terrestrial, marine, and
freshwater environments; develop recommendations on ways to
reduce or eliminate the problems; and require that, within 18
months of enactment of the bill, materials used for packag-
ing, transporting, or carrying cans, bottles, and other
containers be made of naturally degradable materials. The
second bill, S. 2611, introduced by Senator Ted Stevens, was

89

entitled the "Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment, and
Control Act of 1986." Among other things, this bill proposed
establishing a net bounty system whereby persons who retrieve
and return to port lost, abandoned, or discarded fishing nets
from marine waters would be reimbursed from the Fishery
Vessel and Gear Damage Compensation Fund.

In related actions in the House of Representatives, the
House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Sub-
committee on Coast Guard and Navigation, held a hearing on
the problem of plastic pollution in the marine environment.
Its purpose was to review information on the effects of
marine debris and to receive comments on further actions that
should be taken. The hearing, held on 12 August 1986, was
convened by Congressman Gerry E. Studds, Chairman of the
Subcommittee. Representatives of the Marine Mammal Commis-
sion, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Coast
Guard participated on a panel of involved Federal agencies.

The Commission's testimony identified four general
categories of actions that should be taken: actions to
prevent or reduce the disposal of plastics at sea; alterna-
tive methods for handling and disposing of plastic wastes
produced on board ship; actions to clean up particularly
important areas affected by marine debris; and research to
assess and monitor the extent of marine debris problems and
the effectiveness of mitigating measures. Among the specific
measures identified by the Commission were:

- ratifying and implementing MARPOL Annex V and
encouraging other nations to do likewise;

- continuing and expanding efforts to inform the public
and relevant industries of the problem and the need to
avoid disposal of plastic wastes into the marine
environment;

- clarifying and strengthening laws and associated
enforcement programs to restrict at-sea disposal;

- developing new ways and perhaps requirements for
handling and storing plastic wastes on board ship
(e.g., through devices for incinerating, compacting,
and/or grinding ship-generated garbage) ;

- developing cost-effective and efficient systems and
services for receiving and disposing of ship-generated
garbage returned to port;

- investigating possibilities for recycling used nets;

- developing plastic materials which degrade in the
marine environment;

- encouraging beach clean-up campaigns to promote public
awareness and involvement and to reduce potentially
harmful debris in areas where marine mammals, turtles,
and sea birds are likely to be; and

90

- encouraging fishermen and others who incidentally
recover plastic debris at sea to return that material
to port for disposal on land.

At the time of the hearing, two related bills were
introduced by members of the House. On 11 August, Represen-
tative William J. Hughes introduced H.R. 5380, a bill to
establish the "Plastic Waste Study Act of 1986." The bill
would direct the Environmental Protection Agency and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to undertake
a joint 18-month study of the effects of plastic debris on
the environment, including fish and wildlife, and to develop
recommendations on ways to reduce or eliminate associated
problems. The second bill, H.R. 5422, introduced on 13
August by Representative Leon E. Panetta, was identical to
Senator Chafee's bill, S. 2596, mentioned earlier.

By letters of 15 August 1986 from Representative Walter
B. Jones, Chairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, the Commission was asked to provide comments
to the Committee on the two House bills. While not repre-
senting official Administration position, the Commission, by
letters of 17 October 1986, noted that, with respect to H.R.
5380 (i.e., the bill to establish the Plastic Waste Study
Act), the proposed study of the problem had considerable
merit and that it offered a constructive approach for
identifying and developing appropriate solutions. In
addition, given research on the problem already conducted or
planned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration and the responsibilities of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Commission noted that calling for the
study to be undertaken jointly by the two agencies seemed
particularly appropriate and useful. It expressed support
for the concept and suggested that the two agencies also be
directed to consult with the Coast Guard on efforts to ratify
and implement MARPOL Annex V and with relevant State agencies
regarding their experience in developing and implementing
laws pertaining to the use of degradable plastics, recycling
used plastic containers, and other approaches to address the
problen.

With respect to H.R. 5422 (i.e., the bill to establish
the Plastic Waste Reduction Act), the Commission, again not
representing official Administration position, noted the
proposal for a study of the problem by the Environmental
Protection Agency would be more effective if it were con-
ducted as a joint study with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, as proposed in H.R. 5380. Also,
because the proposed study presumably would examine con-
straints and opportunities in applying degradable plastic
technology, as well as the strengths and weaknesses contained
in relevant state laws requiring the use of degradable

91

plastics, recycling plastic containers, and deposits on
plastic bottles, the Commission suggested that, pending the
results of the proposed study of alternative solutions, it
might be premature to adopt a regulatory program to control
plastic pollution. The Commission therefore concluded that
the approach set forth in H.R. 5380 may be more appropriate
than that of H.R. 5422 at this time.

International Activities

Plastic debris enters the world's oceans from ships and
coastlines of all coastal nations and many of the most
harmful plastic materials float and may be carried hundreds
or thousands of miles from their point of origin by ocean
currents. Therefore, successful resolution of the marine
debris problem will necessitate cooperative action at the
international level. Recognizing this, the Commission, in
cooperation with other Federal agencies, has made a special
effort to bring the problem of plastic debris to the atten-
tion of individuals and organizations of other countries
through international workshops and meetings to review
information on the problem; international bodies with
regulatory authority for controlling the discharge of
plastics into the sea; and international research programs
that would help encourage and coordinate efforts to collect
data on the amounts and effects of marine debris.

Workshops and Meetings

Because of the global significance of the marine debris
problem, it is important to ensure that new information
documenting the problem is available to the international
community. This provides a logical basis from which to
encourage cooperative action. A significant step in this
regard was achieved through the International Workshop on the
Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, held in November 1984 in
Honolulu, Hawaii. At the Workshop, information on all
aspects of the problem was considered collectively for the
first time. The resulting findings and recommendations
marked a turning point in recognition and perception of the
significance of the problem. The Commission's role in
proposing and organizing the Workshop is described in its
past Annual Reports.

Recognizing the need to consider the results of research
and analyses undertaken since the 1984 workshop, the problem
of polluting marine areas with persistent plastics was the
subject of two special sessions of the Sixth International
Ocean Disposal Symposium held in Pacific Grove, California,
on 21-25 April 1986. Partial support for the Symposium was
provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-

92

tion. During the meeting, 12 papers, including a paper
prepared by a member of the Commission staff (see Laist, In
Press in Appendix C), were presented on various aspects of
the plastic pollution issue. To ensure that results of these
two sessions are made available to the international com-
munity, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment is coordinating
efforts to include selected papers in a special edition of
the Marine Pollution Bulletin to be published in 1987.

The results of the Honolulu workshop and, more recently,
the ocean dumping symposium, indicated that significant
progress was being made to assess the problem of marine
debris in the North Pacific Ocean. Considerably less
information, however, was available for other ocean areas.
Therefore, to improve understanding of the problem in other
oceans and to exchange relevant information, the Commission
contracted for two studies to address the problem in the area
of Australasia and the North Atlantic Ocean. In Australasia,
the contractor sought to gather available data on the problem
and, through meetings with scientists and government offi-
Ccials, to share information on ongoing efforts in the United
States. The results indicate that few regional studies of
the problem have been conducted to date. However, as
awareness of the problem increases through exchange of
information with scientists from other countries, further
studies may be undertaken to provide a better basis for
assessing and mitigating impacts.

The North Atlantic study seeks to obtain available
information on the sources, fates, and effects of marine
debris in the Northwest Atlantic, the North Sea, the Gulf of
Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Information on measures that have
been or are being taken to document and mitigate the problem
will be collected. Although the final report is not expected
until 1987, preliminary results indicate that little pub-
lished information is available relevant to the study area.
As an additional effort to focus international attention on
the problem, the Commission also encouraged the Department of
State to have one of its staff members, who had been detailed
to the International Maritime Organization, to devote his
energies to the issue, and this was done with good effect in
1986.

Further efforts to share information on the problem with
the international community were taken when a Commission
representative presented papers and held informal discussions
in New Zealand in November 1986. These took place at the
University of Canterbury, the University of Auckland, the
Fisheries Research Division of the Ministry of Agriculture
and Fisheries, the Ministry of Conservation, and other
government offices.

93

Since the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine
Debris in 1984, there have been substantial efforts in the
U.S. and elsewhere to assess and determine how to address
various aspects of the problem. To assure that the results
of these efforts are known and used to determine continuing
research and management priorities, the Commission wrote to
the National Marine Fisheries Service on 23 December 1986
recommending, among other things, that the Service begin
planning a second international workshop on the marine debris
problem to be held sometime in 1988. Such a workshop would
facilitate information exchange and encourage cooperating
international programs to define and deal with the problem.

Relevant International Conventions

MARPOL Annex V -- As indicated above, entry into force
and effective implementation of Annex V of the 1978 Protocol
relating to the Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships (MARPOL) offers an important opportunity to
establish an international framework for controlling routine
at-sea discharges of potentially harmful plastics and other
debris. In order to enter into force, Annex V must be
ratified by at least 15 nations representing 50 percent of
the world's total commercial shipping tonnage. At the end of
1986, the Annex had been ratified by 26 nations representing
44.6 percent of the world's commercial shipping tonnage.

Once the criteria for entry into force have been met, there
would be a one-year grace period after which signatory
nations would be obligated to have in place domestic regula-
tions and programs that are consistent with the provisions of
Annex V. As noted above, the U.S. has not ratified the
Annex; however, steps have been taken to do so.

In addition, steps have been taken to strengthen the
provisions of Annex V to make them more useful. As noted
above, Annex V would prohibit, with certain exceptions, the
disposal of synthetic fishing nets and other plastic items
from ships. One of the exceptions would allow operators of
fishing vessels to discard synthetic material produced
incidental to the repair of fishing nets. To eliminate this
exception, the U.S. delegation to the 22nd Session of the
MEPC, held in London, England, in December 1985, proposed
that Annex V be amended by deleting this exception. The
proposal was agreed to by the MEPC Working Group on Optional
Annexes, which further agreed that the proposal should be
raised with the full Committee at its 23rd Session. Because
Annex V had not yet entered into force but already had been
ratified by a number of nations, it also was agreed that no
additional changes in the language of Annex V, other than the
proposal put forward by the U.S., should be considered until
after the Annex had entered into force.

94

During the 23rd Session of the MEPC, held in July 1986,
the U.S. raised its proposed amendment of Annex V with the
full Committee and it was agreed that, upon entry into force
of the Annex, the amendment would be considered through the
International Maritime Organization's "tacit acceptance"
process. Under this procedure, the proposed change would
enter into force on a specified date unless a stipulated
number of contracting parties expressly indicated their
objection to the amendment. The tacit acceptance process is
intended to speed adoption of measures that are non-contro-
versial and it is expected that the U.S. proposal will be
adopted easily.

Steps also have been taken to urge other nations to
ratify Annex V. Prior to the 23rd Session of the MEPC, the
U.S. Coast Guard, which serves as the lead U.S. agency on
actions pertaining to the MARPOL Convention, submitted an
information paper developed jointly by the Commission and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The paper
describes the problem and the need for responsive action. In
addition, the head of the U.S. delegation encouraged favor-
able action by other contracting governments by calling
attention to the severity of the marine debris problem, by
announcing U.S. intentions to actively pursue ratification of
Annex V, and by promising to distribute a more detailed paper
on the problem and possible solutions in advance of the 24th
MEPC meeting scheduled for 16-20 February 1987.

Looking forward to the 24th Session of the MEPC and
recognizing U.S. commitments to further address Annex V
matters, the Commission, in consultation with its Committee
of Scientific Advisors, drafted a paper on proposed consider-
ations and actions relating to implementation of Annex V.

The paper was reviewed by prospective members of the U.S.
delegation to the next MEPC meeting and it provided the basis
for a working paper which the U.S. submitted to the MEPC in
November 1986. Among other things, the paper reviews
potential technical and administrative actions which would
help resolve the problem and enhance implementation of Annex
Vv. It also proposes that the MEPC consider developing
recommended guidelines on measures to implement the Annex.

The London Dumping Convention -- The problem of plastic
pollution and marine debris also has been raised during

recent sessions of parties to the London Dumping Convention.
Among other things, the London Dumping Convention (formally
entitled the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollu-
tion by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter) prohibits the
at-sea disposal of persistent plastics which may interfere
with fishing, navigation, or other legitimate uses of the
sea. At the Ninth Session of Convention members in 1985, a
resolution was adopted calling upon member countries to

95

collect information on the problems caused by plastic debris
and to identify appropriate solutions.

At the Tenth Session of Convention members in October
1986, the problem was again raised and a paper summarizing
follow-up actions on international efforts was submitted by
the Secretariat of the International Maritime Organization.
During the meeting, representatives of several nations and
international organizations advised that they either had
taken or were considering actions to address the problem by
gathering relevant data on the problem, undertaking related
public education and information efforts, and/or taking steps
to ratify and comply with the provisions of MARPOL Annex V.

Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources -- As noted in Chapter IV, constructive
action to identify and assess potential marine debris
problems also has been taken within the context of the
Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources. In preparation for the fifth meeting of the
Commission and Committee of Scientific Advisors established
by the Convention, the Marine Mammal Commission helped draft
U.S. information and position papers on the problem. During
the meeting, held on 8-19 September 1986 in Hobart, Tasmania,
relevant information papers submitted by the U.S. and several
other countries were reviewed. Among other things, it was
agreed that: member countries would consider and take
appropriate steps to ratify and implement MARPOL Annex V;
steps would be taken to inform fishermen and others entering
the Convention Area of the problem and the proper way to
handle plastic trash; and, whenever feasible, potentially
hazardous debris that is encountered in the Convention area
would be collected and either returned to port or disposed of
in a manner which would pose no further threat to ships or
marine life.

Coordination of International Research

During 1986, the Marine Mammal Commission was invited to
participate in the Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission's Working Group on the Global
Investigation of Pollution in the Marine Environment (GIPME).
The Working Group acts as a mechanism for coordinating
international efforts to monitor marine pollution. It does
so in a number of ways including: development of manuals on
procedures for collecting, recording, and archiving marine
pollution data; support of training exercises in the use of
those procedures; and conducting inter-calibration exercises
designed to ensure that data collected by one country or
organization is statistically comparable with those collected
by others.

96

To date, the Working Group has focused its attention on
chemical pollutants rather than solid wastes. Therefore, to
help address the issue of plastic pollution, the Marine
Mammal Commission, in consultation with the National Science
Foundation, whose representative served as head of the U.S.
delegation and chairman of the Working Group's Sixth Session,
developed an information paper on the problem and various
techniques used to monitor marine debris. The paper was
distributed to Working Group members during its Sixth
Session, held in Paris, France, from 25 September to
1 October 1986. In response, the Working Group requested its
Group of Experts on the Effects of Pollutants to consider the
desirability of preparing a manual on procedures for moni-
toring the amounts and effects of plastic pollutants.

In anticipation of the Working Group's potential support
for developing such a manual, the Commission wrote to the
National Marine Fisheries Service on 18 September 1986
suggesting that a project to develop a draft procedures
manual be included as part of its Entanglement Research
Program in Fiscal Year 1987. The Commission subsequently
suggested that, if possible, the Service attempt to complete
a draft of the manual in time to provide it to the Working
Group's Group of Experts when it next meets in late 1987. In
addition, the Commission wrote to the Chairman of the Group
of Experts on Effects of Pollutants advising him of available
information on the problem and of the Commission's under-
standing that the Service was planning to prepare a draft
procedures manual on monitoring plastic debris at sea and on
beaches. If a manual can be prepared and distributed to
coastal nations and international research organizations, the
resulting data should provide a much improved basis for
assessing and monitoring the marine debris problem and for
improving the effectiveness of international actions to
reduce or eliminate it.

97

CHAPTER IX

SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN

The Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals, reviews
the status of marine mammal populations and makes recommen-
dations on necessary research and management actions as well
as on designations with respect to the status of species or
populations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act. During 1986, the Commission
continued to concentrate efforts on several species of marine
mammals designated as endangered or threatened, including the
West Indian manatee, the Hawaiian monk seal, the California
sea otter population, the bowhead whale, the right whale, and
the humpback whale. Attention also was focused on the
endangered, and perhaps extinct, Caribbean monk seal, the
harbor porpoise in California, and the five species of river
dolphins. A review of the Commission's activities regarding
these species and populations follows.

West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus)

The West Indian manatee is one of the most endangered
species of marine mammals found in the coastal waters of the
United States. The largest concentration in this country,
and perhaps the world, is found in Florida where the
population is estimated to number something more than 1,200
animals. Although this figure is slightly higher than
previously thought, there is still serious concern for the
long-term survival of the manatee population because of high
mortality levels. Despite continued efforts by Federal and
State agencies and private organizations to reduce this
level, known manatee mortality in the United States over the
past five years has averaged well over 100 animals per a
year. Among the most serious threats to the Florida
population are increasing levels of boat traffic and
associated collisions between manatees and boats, the loss of
large numbers of manatees to thermal stress during periods of
cold weather, and the continuing degradation and destruction
of essential manatee habitat due to coastal and riparian
development and other human activities.

98

The known level of annual manatee mortality in U.S.
waters since 1977 is summarized in the following table. The
figures include the number of manatee carcasses recovered by
year and the number of animals known to have died but which
were not recovered.

Manatee Mortality in the United States, 1977-1986

In Outside Barge/Boat
Year Florida Florida Total Collisions
1977 113 1 114 a
1978 84 0 84 --
1979 77 1 78 24
1980 63 4 67 16
1981 113 3 116 24
1982 117 6 123 21
1983 80 0 80 14
1984 128 3 131 35
1985 120 9 129 35
1986 122 3 125 33

A few years ago an annual mortality of more than 100
animals was considered high. As this table shows, in recent
years such levels have become typical. In light of the small
size of the Florida manatee population, the continued loss of
more than 100 animals per year represents a serious threat to
the survival of the population. Collisions between manatees
and boats is the largest source of human-related mortality
and is increasing. Between 1980 and 1983, boat-related
deaths averaged about 19 animals per year, or about 19
percent of the total known manatee mortality. Between 1984
and 1986, annual boat-related deaths averaged 34 animals, or
about 27 percent of the total known manatee mortality.
Clearly, further efforts are needed to minimize human-related
mortality, particularly that caused by boat and barge
collisions, and to protect essential habitat.

Since 1979, the Commission has devoted considerable time
and funding on efforts to enhance protection and recovery of
the West Indian manatee in Florida. In particular, the
Commission's efforts were designed to assist cooperative
manatee conservation programs being implemented by the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Florida Department of Natural
Resources, the Florida Power and Light Company, and numerous
public and private organizations. These activities have been
described in detail in previous Annual Reports.

As a result of these cooperative efforts, a great deal
has been accomplished since 1979. During the past two years
in particular, the Florida Department of Natural Resources
has strengthened its manatee protection program by securing a

99

dedicated source of State funding for manatee work,
increasing its staff, and assuming responsibility for certain
activities, such as the manatee salvage and necropsy program,
previously carried out by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Similarly, the Fish and Wildlife Service has greatly
intensified its efforts to control the development of new
marinas and other boating facilities in or near essential
manatee habitat by reviewing associated wetlands permit
applications submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
In cooperation with the State, the Service also has
undertaken substantial planning and land acquisition efforts
to add important manatee habitat to existing Federal and
State refuges and reserves.

Despite these accomplishments, it became apparent in
1986 that the extraordinary pace of development associated
with the State's rapid growth in human population was
creating a very difficult management situation and that not
all aspects of manatee protection were progressing as well as
might be hoped. For instance, because of inadequate man-
power, the Florida Department of Natural Resources' Marine
Patrol was unable to adequately enforce the boat speed zones
that the State had established to protect manatees. At the
same time, it was becoming clear that some of the existing
speed zones needed to be expanded and many new zones needed
to be established. It also was apparent that parts of the
Florida State Government with important decision-making
responsibilities were not as well informed as might be wished
about conservation needs for manatees and their habitat and
that important opportunities to improve manatee protection
were thereby being lost. For example, the State's dredge-
and-fill permit program and its submerged lands leasing
program did not appear to be considering potentially harmful
effects of development projects on manatees as effectively as
they could. At the national level, it was clear that,
despite the considerable efforts of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, permits were being approved by the Corps of
Engineers for marinas and other boating facilities in Florida
at a pace and in a manner that precluded effective
consideration of possible impacts, particularly cumulative
impacts, on manatees and their critical habitats. At the
same time, the Service was substantially reducing funding
support for its Sirenian Research Project, which provides a
basic source of information on manatee ecology and demography
that is used in the permit review process. Because of these
facts, the Commission concluded that a thorough review of the
entire manatee protection program was needed.

Accordingly, the Commission, with additional support
from the Fish and Wildlife Service and the concurrence of the
Florida Department of Natural Resources, contracted with a
knowledgeable consultant to review recent progress and

100

current problems related to the West Indian manatee conser-
vation program and to recommend steps that should be taken to
strengthen it. The study is focused primarily on issues
related to: the process followed by Federal and State
agencies in authorizing dredge and fill permits and submerged
lands leases for new marinas and boating facilities in
essential manatee habitat areas; State and Federal efforts to
acquire and protect essential manatee habitat; expanding the
State's system of boat speed regulatory zones and the
adequacy of enforcement efforts therein; and funding for
essential research efforts.

Although a final report is not expected until early in
1987, a draft was available at the end of 1986. It addressed
actions related to the administrative structure of the
manatee program, the management and acquisition of State and
Federal lands of special importance to manatees, modifying
and enforcing the system of boat speed regulatory zones,
public education, wetlands regulatory programs, and manatee
research. To improve overall administration of the manatee
program, the draft report recommends that: the Fish and
Wildlife Service re-establish the Manatee Recovery Team to
update the Recovery Plan and Comprehensive Work Plan
developed in 1980; the Florida Department of Natural
Resources upgrade its manatee protection program by creating
a new Bureau of Marine Mammals; and the State Manatee
Technical Advisory Council continue to serve as a forum for
coordinating Federal, State, and private activities.

With respect to managing Federal and State-owned lands,
including submerged lands, of particular importance to
manatees, the draft recommended that: criteria for
protecting manatees be developed to guide issuance of state
submerged lands leases issued for marinas and other boating
facilities by the Florida Trustees of the Internal Improve-
ment Trust Fund; those lease applications be reviewed on a
semi-annual or quarterly basis to improve consideration of
cumulative impacts and coordinating leasing decisions with
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Department of
Natural Resources; and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
State of Florida increase efforts to plan for and pursue land
acquisition projects, such as the refuge headquarters/visitor
center on Kings Bay, in essential manatee habitat.

To strengthen control over boat speeds in essential
habitat, the draft report recommends that: the Florida
Department of Natural Resources request more field officers
to enforce established boat speed regulatory zones; the
Department, in coordination with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, regularly review the system of boat speed zones to
identify new areas and, as appropriate, to modify boundaries
of existing zones; and the National Park Service establish

101

boat speed zones in areas of the Everglades National Park
where vessel traffic and manatee collisions are most likely
to occur.

The draft report also includes recommendations that:
the Fish and Wildlife Service strengthen public education
efforts by identifying and acquiring sites for strategically
located visitor centers; the Save the Manatee Committee
assume responsibility from the Florida Department of Natural
Resources for conducting public awareness efforts; the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Florida Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund, and the Fish and Wildlife Service
coordinate their efforts to establish specific manatee
protection standards for permit and leasing decisions for
boating facilities in essential manatee habitat areas; the
Fish and Wildlife Service increase funding for its Sirenian
Research Project: the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Florida Department of Natural Resources ensure that funding
for the manatee salvage and necropsy program is continued;
and the Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Department of
Natural Resources develop additional site-specific research
and management plans, such as the one developed for the
Crystal River area, for other areas of Florida.

At the end of 1986, the Commission looked forward to
receiving the final report early in 1987. It is anticipated
that the report will be used by involved Federal and State
agencies and private organizations, as well as the Commission
and its Committee of Scientific Advisors, in deciding what
additional steps should be taken to enhance and coordinate
their respective efforts to protect the Florida population of
West Indian manatees.

As noted in previous Annual Reports, the Marine Mammal
Commission recommended in 1980 that the Fish and Wildlife
Service undertake a pilot project to develop a site-specific
research and management plan for manatees. The recommen-
dation was based on the understanding that local planning and
development patterns, as well as local manatee distribution
and abundance, would determine specific manatee conservation
strategies that should be adopted. The Service agreed with
the recommendation and, with partial funding from the
Commission, undertook a study to develop a proposed research/
management plan for Crystal River manatees. The Plan was
completed and adopted by the Service in 1984 and it has been
provided to relevant State, Federal, and local authorities.
It is currently used by the Service and other agencies in
assessing decisions likely to affect manatees and their
essential habitat in the Crystal River area.

102

In September 1986, the Fish and Wildlife Service updated
its Implementation Schedule for the Crystal River Plan and a
copy was provided to the Commission in October for its
review. The Schedule reviews recent progress in implementing
the Plan and identifies further actions to be taken during
the coming year. Among other things, the Schedule notes
that: the City of Crystal River has requested Service
participation in a comprehensive planning process; pending
development of a manatee protection plan specifying the
number, size, and location of boating facilities in the
Crystal River waterway, the Service will continue to review
permits for area boating facilities on a case-by-case basis;
and steps are continuing to coordinate and complete Federal
and State efforts to acquire important manatee habitat along
Kings Bay and the Homosassa River. At the end of 1986, the
Service's Implementation Schedule was under review and, as
appropriate, the Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors, will provide comments to
the Service early in 1987.

A small population of West Indian manatees, estimated to
number about 100 animals, occurs in the coastal waters of
Puerto Rico. Like the Florida population, the manatee
population in Puerto Rico is designated as endangered under
the Endangered Species Act. Under the Act, the Fish and
Wildlife Service is required to prepare a recovery plan for
the population and, on 22 May 1986, the Service provided the
Commission with copies of its "Technical/Agency Review Draft
Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rico Population of the West
Indian (Antillean) Manatee."

The stated goal of the Plan is to maintain a viable
population of manatees in Puerto Rico so that the species can
be removed from the Endangered Species List. Among other
things, the Draft Recovery Plan: reviews pertinent biologi-
cal information on the Puerto Rican manatee population;
identifies goals and objectives to guide recovery efforts;
and lists and briefly discusses specific tasks for achieving
those goals and objectives. The three objectives identified
in the Plan are to: (1) reduce human-related mortality,
especially that related to incidental entanglement in gill
nets; (2) gather additional biological information so that
specific criteria can be established for reclassifying
manatees; and (3) develop the criteria for reclassifying
manatees. The draft Plan includes an implementation schedule
identifying the priority, duration, estimated cost, and
agency responsibilities for carrying out each specific
recovery task. Among the highest priority tasks identified
by the draft Plan are: (a) expanding and improving the
manatee carcass salvage program in Puerto Rico; (b) reviewing
coastal development projects to identify and resolve possible
impacts on manatees; (c) developing a public information and

103

education program; (da) undertaking replicate aerial surveys
to detect trends in manatee abundance and distribution;

(e) undertaking radio-tagging studies to determine manatee
habitat use and movement patterns; (f) developing manatee
protection plans for areas of specific importance; and

(g) monitoring the condition of important manatee habitats.

The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
Scientific Advisors, reviewed the Draft Recovery Plan and, by
letter of 23 June 1986, forwarded comments and recom-
mendations to the Service. In its letter, the Commission
noted that the Draft Recovery Plan provided a sound basis for
carrying out required conservation actions for manatees in
Puerto Rico and recommended that the Plan be adopted and
implemented. The Commission further noted, however, that the
Plan did not discuss the identified tasks in sufficient
detail to determine precisely what should be done under each
task, thus making it difficult to determine whether indicated
funding levels were appropriate. To ensure that work
performed under the various tasks would be well conceived and
that estimated funding requirements would be sufficient to
cover project costs, the Commission recommended that the
Recovery Plan outline be used as a basis for developing a
comprehensive work plan similar to the one developed in 1980
to facilitate implementation of the Recovery Plan for the
Florida manatee population. As of the end of 1986, the
Commission had not received a copy of the Service's Final
Recovery Plan.

Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi)

The Hawaiian monk seal occurs entirely within United
States waters in a limited area around the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands. It is in serious danger of extinction.
During the 19th century, harassment and over-exploitation by
sealers reduced the species to precariously low levels. A
subsequent cessation of sealing, coupled with the species'
isolated habitat in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, has
enabled the Hawaiian monk seal to survive. However, the
population has declined since the first systematic counts
were made in the 1950s. The number of animals counted in
1983 was roughly half the number counted in 1958. The size
of the current population is estimated to be between 1,200
and 1,500 animals.

Protection and conservation of the Hawaiian monk seal is
the responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service
under provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act. Because the species' range includes
the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, the Fish and

104

Wildlife Service shares responsibility for protecting the
Hawaiian monk seal and its habitat.

The Commission's efforts during the past several years
to promote the protection and recovery of the monk seal have
been described in past Annual Reports. Congressional concern
for survival of the species has been evident from the special
funding and attention it has directed to monk seal issues
since Fiscal Year 1981. For that Fiscal Year, the Commission
received a special $100,000 appropriation to aid in
developing and implementing an effective research and
management plan for the Hawaiian monk seal. In FY 1982,
Congress directed the National Marine Fisheries Service to
invest $400,000 in monk seal work and, in the following year,
the Service was directed to budget $150,000 for that purpose.
Congress also provided the Commission $150,000 for monk seal
efforts in FY 1983, and, after developing a program plan for
accomplishing priority research and management tasks, the
Commission transferred the entire $150,000 to the Service to
carry it out. In FY 1984 and FY 1985, Congress increased the
Service's appropriation for monk seal work to $300,000 and
$350,000, respectively, and, in FY 1986, funding for the
Hawaiian monk seal program was $325,000.

Increased funding in the past several years and the
sustained efforts of dedicated personnel at the Service's
Honolulu Laboratory have enabled the Service to start a
constructive research and management program to enhance
recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal. Among other things, the
program includes: the capture and temporary captive main-
tenance of female pups to improve their chances of survival
and thereby promote the recovery of the population on Kure
Atoll; the recovery of emaciated pups from French Frigate
Shoals and their movement to the temporary captive main-
tenance facility on Kure Atoll for subsequent release at that
location; removal of some male seals from Laysan Island to
other locations to reduce mortality and injury of female monk
seals apparently being caused by a disproportionately large
number of male seals at that Island; removal of lost and
discarded fishing gear and other marine debris potentially
hazardous to monk seals from preferred haul-out beaches ani
adjacent waters; censusing seals at the major breeding
islands to estimate the size and composition of island
populations as well as trends; and tagging pups to determine
pup production, survival, distribution, and movement
patterns.

As described in previous Annual Reports, in 1980, the
National Marine Fisheries Service issued a Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement proposing that certain waters and
beaches in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands be designated as
critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal pursuant to the

105

Endangered Species Act. After review and comment by the
Commission, the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team, and other
concerned parties, the Service took no further action until
December 1984 when it issued a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement proposing that waters and beaches within the
10-fathom isobath surrounding certain islands and atolls in
the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands be designated as critical
habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal.

By letter of 15 February 1985, the Commission provided
comments and recommendations to the Service on the Supple-
mental Environmental Impact Statement. In its letter, the
Commission recommended that the seaward boundary of
designated critical habitat be extended from the 10- to the
20-fathom isobath in order to protect areas believed to be
important to monk seals for feeding purposes. A similar
recommendation was provided to the Service by the Hawaiian
Monk Seal Recovery Team, which in December 1984 reconfirmed
its conclusion that critical habitat should include waters
out to the 20-fathom isobath.

Under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the
National Marine Fisheries Service has one year from the time
of a proposed rulemaking in which to announce a final
decision. As noted above, the Service's Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement proposing to designate
Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat out to the 10-fathom
isobath was issued in December 1984. More than a year later,
final action on the matter had not been taken and, on 20
February 1986, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of two
environmental groups and two individuals in Hawaii seeking
action by the Service to designate critical habitat for the
monk seal out to the 20-fathom isobath. Subsequently, by
Federal Register notice of 30 April 1986, the Service
promulgated a final rule designating critical habitat for the
Hawaiian monk seal. The area designated included beach
areas, lagoon waters, and ocean waters out to a depth of 10
fathoms around certain islands and atolls in the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands. The effective date of the rule was 30 May
1986.

As noted, the Commission and others had recommended that
critical habitat be extended seaward to the 20-fathom
isobath. On 27 June 1986, the Service responded to the
Commission's 15 February 1985 letter recommending designation
of waters out to the 20-fathom isobath. In its response,
received by the Commission on 21 July, the Service set forth
its reasons for limiting critical habitat to waters within
the 10-fathom isobath. Among other things, the Service noted
that it had determined that the decision was consistent with
the definition of critical habitat and that there were no

106

special management considerations relative to the waters
between the 10- and 20-fathom isobaths.

The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
Scientific Advisors, reviewed the Service's letter and
related documents, and, by letter of 26 September 1986,
advised the Service that it considered the proposed 10-fathom
designation inappropriate because: (a) available information
is sufficient to conclude that feeding in areas deeper than
10 fathoms is essential to the continued existence of the
Hawaiian monk seal; (b) the Service appeared to have
misinterpreted the statutory requirement regarding special
management considerations and protection needs; (c) the
Service overlooked a number of special management
considerations and protection needs that already exist or may
arise within the 20-fathom contour; and (d) the Service did
not advise interested parties prior to announcing its final
decision that the selection of the 10-fathom isobath contour
was based on its perception that special management consider-
ations and protection needs did not exist between the 10- and
20-fathom contours.

For the reasons noted, the Commission recommended that
the Service: (a) re-open the critical habitat designation
decision for public comment to consider the need for
extending designated boundaries beyond 10 fathoms; (b) issue
a specific request for public and agency comments on the
special management considerations and protection needs that
may be required within the boundaries of each alternative
designation; and (c) extend the critical habitat designation
out to the 20-fathom contour, as recommended previously by
the Commission, the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team, and
others. By the end of 1986, the Service had not responded
either to the Commission's 26 September letter or to the
lawsuit filed by environmental groups and others. The
Commission, therefore, re-addressed a number of these points
in its letter of 23 December 1986 to the Service (see below).

As has been discussed in previous Annual Reports, the
Fish and Wildlife Service completed a draft Master Plan for
Management of the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge
in 1984. The Commission, in consultation with its Committee
of Scientific Advisors, reviewed the draft Plan and provided
comments to the Service on 3 November 1984. In its letter,
the Commission questioned, among other things, whether the
proposed use of Tern Island as a support site for expanded
fisheries in the area was compatible with other, higher
priority Refuge objectives, such as protecting endangered and
threatened species. In addition, the Commission recommended
that, if it had not already done so, the Service initiate
consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service
under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on its proposed

107

use of Tern Island and its potential effect on monk seals and
endangered sea turtles. Subsequently, section 7 consulta-
tions between the two Services were undertaken. As noted in
the previous Annual Report, the resulting Biological Opinion
recommended, among other things, that Tern Island logistical
support for fishing activities be limited to levels existing
at that time.

On 1 July 1986, the Service forwarded to the Commission
and others the final "Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife
Refuge Master Plan/Environmental Impact Statement." The
Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, reviewed the Plan and sent its comments to the
Service on 1 August 1986. In its letter, the Commission
noted that the final Plan raised, for the first time, the
possibility that the Service might decide at some future date
to discontinue operation of the Refuge field station on Tern
Island. Concerned about the impact that such an action might
have on Hawaiian monk seals, the Commission advised the
Service that it believed abandoning the Tern Island field
station would be ill-advised and that its continued operation
was essential for several reasons, including the fact that
Service personnel on Tern Island provide a presence that
discourages unauthorized use of beaches at French Frigate
Shoals, which already has the highest pup mortality rate of
any atoll within the species' range. In addition, the
Commission noted that field station personnel provide
valuable support for research and other projects necessary
for the recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal and other
endangered species.

In its letter, the Commission expressed hope that the
Service would not find it necessary to consider closing the
Tern Island station. The Commission asked that, if the
results of any future review of station operations lead to
consideration of closing the station, the Service provide the
Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and other
interested parties an opportunity to comment on the results
of that review. Furthermore, the Commission recommended that
the Service not make any final decision on abandoning Tern
Island unless it had first: (a) amended its Refuge Master
Plan so as to describe the modified Refuge management system;
(b) re-initiated a review of the revised system for managing
the Refuge and its effect on endangered Hawaiian monk seals
and sea turtles with the National Marine Fisheries Service
under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and
(c) provided the public with an opportunity to review and
comment on the amended plan.

Because the Service did not respond to the Commission's
1 August letter, the Commission again wrote on 16 December
1986 to the Service expressing its grave concern about

108

potential abandonment of the field station. In its letter,
the Commission noted that irreversible damage could be done
if the field station were closed or if management responsi-
bility were transferred to another agency. The Commission
reiterated the recommendations included in its 1 August 1986
letter and stressed that any consideration of abandoning Tern
Island only be taken after full consultation with all
interested and involved parties, both governmental and non-
governmental, including members of the Hawaiian Monk Seal
Recovery Team.

For the past several years, the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands -- the area inhabited by the Hawaiian monk seal --
has been subjected to growing pressure by developing and
expanding fisheries. In April 1985, the National Marine
Fisheries Service sent to the Commission a Combined Draft
Fishery Management Plan, Environmental Assessment, and
Regulatory Impact Review for the Bottomfish and Seamount
Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Ocean. The
Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, reviewed the draft Plan and, by letters 12 April
and 7 May 1985, sent its comments and recommendations to the
Service. In its letters, the Commission expressed concern
that the bottomfish fishery could affect monk seals ina
number of ways that were not considered in the Environmental
Impact Assessment. It recommended that the Assessment be
expanded to provide information and analyses necessary to
assure that the fishery would not have an adverse impact on
the monk seal population.

On 4 October 1985, the Service sent to the Commission a
revised Combined Draft Fishery Management Plan for the area.
After reviewing the revised Plan, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors, the Commission wrote to the
Service on 31 October 1985, expressing its concern that the
proposed changes could seriously compromise efforts to
control growing fishing pressure and thereby weaken protec-
tion for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal. In its letter,
the Commission recommended a number of additional steps that
should be taken to ensure, insofar as possible, that bottom-
fish fisheries in the western Pacific region do not adversely
affect the Hawaiian monk seal population or its habitat.

On 8 April 1986, the National Marine Fisheries Service
sent the Commission the final combined Fishery Plan and
Assessment for the western Pacific region. The Commission,
in consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors,
reviewed the final Plan and, by letter of 24 July 1986, sent
comments and recommendations to the Service. In its letter,
the Commission noted that many of its earlier comments and
recommendations had been incorporated and that the final Plan
included a number of provisions that should help strengthen

109

protection for Hawaiian monk seals and other endangered
species. The Commission further noted that additional
information on the nature and magnitude of interactions
between endangered species and the fishery must be developed
in order to afford adequate protection and to assure that
fishing activities will be consistent with the intents of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Therefore, the Commission recommended that: (a) the Western
Pacific Bottomfish Fishery Management Plan be amended, or a
supplemental statement be added, to identify the need for a
research and monitoring program on interactions between the
fishery and Hawaiian monk seals and other protected species;
and (b) the Service take steps necessary to design and
implement an experimental fishing program to supplement and
verify data received from fishermen as a result of a
reporting requirement recommended in its Biological Opinion
on the Plan. At the end of 1986, the Commission had not
received a response to its 24 July letter.

The urgent need for continued and additional action to
protect and encourage the recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal
is obvious. As noted above, despite efforts to date, the
monk seal population is in grave danger of extinction. Of
its two congeners, the Caribbean monk seal may already be
extinct and the Mediterranean monk seal, now scattered in
small, isolated groups covering only a fraction of its
historic range, is probably the most endangered pinniped in
the world. Thus, without sustained, vigorous efforts by
responsible Federal and State agencies, the public, and the
fishing industry, one of only two genera of seals whose range
is limited to the tropical environment may soon disappear.

To lose such a species becomes even more inexcusable when one
considers that it occurs entirely within the waters of one
country, the United States, and should therefore be a more
easily protected species than the Mediterranean monk seal,
for example, whose range includes many countries.

While considerable effort has been made over the past
few years to encourage recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal,
the Commission is concerned that a number of critical
management needs are being neglected. As is evident from
preceding discussions, several major issues remain
unresolved. These include: re-activation of the Hawaiian
Monk Seal Recovery Team, which has not met since 1984;
designation of critical habitat in areas essential to the
species' survival; the future of the Fish and Wildlife
Service's field station on Tern Island; and the management of
fisheries in and adjacent to essential Hawaiian monk seal
habitat.

Other problems also have arisen or continue to thwart
recovery of the monk seal population. For example, certain

110

beach activities by Coast Guard personnel stationed at Kure
Atoll to operate a LORAN facility appear to be a continuing
source of disturbance for monk seals on breeding beaches.
The Commission first raised the problem with the Coast Guard
in 1975 and, while some steps have been taken to reduce or
eliminate problems, the situation appears unresolved. In
particular, off-duty personnel walking along potential monk
seal breeding beaches may be discouraging maturing females
brought through the pup capture and release program from
remaining at the Atoll and using favorable pupping habitat.
Needed actions in this regard continue to be the subject of
discussions between the Coast Guard and the National Marine
Fisheries Service.

Some of these problems could possibly have been avoided
or minimized through operation of the Hawaiian Monk Seal
Recovery Team. However, the National Marine Fisheries
Service has not convened a meeting of the Recovery Team since
1984 and this potentially valuable forum for discussion and
resolution of critical issues has therefore been moribund.
Another problem persisting in 1986 was the Service's
continued unwillingness to request adequate funds to support
the monk seal research and management program despite the
species' critically endangered status.

Therefore, by letter of 23 December 1986, the
Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, provided the Service with a number of comments and
recommendations concerning priority issues regarding monk
seals. The Commission noted that, although a number of
critical management issues had arisen in the past few years,
essential parts of the Service's monk seal program appeared
to have received less support and attention than was
appropriate. The Commission recommended that the Service:

-- re-evaluate the designation of critical habitat for
the Hawaiian monk seal so as to include areas
around certain islands and atolls of the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands, including Maro Reef, out to the
20-fathom isobath;

-- reconstitute the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team
and ensure that it meet on a regular basis to
update the Recovery Plan and provide the Service
with appropriate recommendations on critical
research and management issues;

-- ensure that either the Fish and Wildlife Service or
the National Marine Fisheries Service maintain
personnel at the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife
Refuge field station on Tern Island at all times
and that the Fish and Wildlife Service be prevented

111

from taking action to close or temporarily abandon
this station unless and until full public discus-
sion of the issues and section 7 consultations
under the Endangered species Act have been
concluded;

-- undertake research to better document the nature
and likelihood of interactions between monk seals
and bottomfish fisheries;

-- ensure that adequate funding for critical monk seal
research and management actions is sought and
provided pending recovery and removal of the
species from the list of endangered and threatened
species; and

-- advise the U.S. Coast Guard that it should initiate
consultations with the National Marine Fisheries
Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act on the activities of U.S. Coast Guard personnel
on Kure Atoll.

A formal response to the Commission's 23 December letter
had not been received by the end of 1986. However, the newly
appointed Director of the Service informally advised the
Commission that the Service planned to examine both the Coast
Guard activities on Kure Atoll and the Fish and Wildlife
Service plans for abandoning Tern Island and, if
circumstances warrant, to request that consultations under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act be initiated with
both agencies. The Director also indicated a willingness to
reconstitute the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team to evaluate
research needs relative to monk seal habitat use patterns and
to review progress on implementing the Hawaiian Monk Seal
Recovery Plan. Based on the results of its reviews, the
Service will determine if additional management actions are
required to provide adequate protection. The Commission is
encouraged by the positive steps being taken by the Service's
new Director.

Caribbean Monk Seal (Monachus tropicalis)

The Caribbean monk seal's historic range was primarily
the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, and its prehistoric
range may have extended as far north as South Carolina. The
species is thought to have been relatively abundant prior to
the mid-19th century, but over-exploitation and loss of
habitat resulting from human activities subsequently reduced
its numbers to perilously low levels. The last confirmed
sighting of the species in the United States occurred in
1922, and the last verified record of the species was that of

112

a small monk seal colony on Seranilla Bank, between Honduras
and Jamaica, in 1952.

In 1979, the Caribbean monk seal was listed as
endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Although the
species may or may not have been extinct at that time, the
listing was necessary to protect any surviving animals.

During 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Service
reviewed available information on the Caribbean monk seal as
part of its five-year status review pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act. Based on its review, the Service
concluded that the species was extinct and it therefore
considered action to remove the Caribbean monk seal from the
Endangered Species List.

In late 1984 and early 1985, there were a number of
unconfirmed reports of sightings along the north coast of
Haiti of what may have been one or more Caribbean monk seals.
No other species of seal occurs naturally in waters surround-
ing Haiti and thus the reports may provide evidence that the
species is not extinct. Alternatively, the reports could
have been of a seal that had strayed south from northern
waters (a rare sighting of a hooded seal was recently
reported from Florida) or perhaps a trained California sea
lion that had escaped from captivity. Therefore, in an
attempt to assess these unconfirmed reports, the Commission
contracted in 1985 for a survey of fishermen and other resi-
dents of northern Haiti to identify, document, and assess the
reliability of recent and past sightings of the Caribbean
monk seal or other seals. The preliminary results of the
survey, which were provided to the Commission early in 1986,
confirmed at least one recent and reliable sighting of a
seal. From the observer's account, however, it was not
possible to determine whether the animal was a monk seal or
some other species of seal or sea lion.

On 12 February 1986, the Commission wrote to the
National Marine Fisheries Service and provided it with the
study findings. While the results did not provide conclusive
evidence of the species' continued existence, the report of
an unidentified seal from Haitian waters raises the possi-
bility that the species is not yet extinct. Therefore, the
Commission recommended that the Service take no steps to
remove the Caribbean monk seal from the Endangered Species
List. The Service subsequently advised the Commission that,
based on the report and on the Commission's recommendation,
it would take no action to remove the Caribbean monk seal
from the Endangered Species List and that the status of the
species would be re-examined in five years.

113

The Commission will continue to review any new
information on the Caribbean monk seal that may become
available.

The California Sea Otter Population (Enhydra lutris)

Because of its small size and limited distribution, the
remnant sea otter population along the central coast of
California is vulnerable to oil spills and other catastrophic
events. For these reasons, the population was designated as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act in January 1977.
The most effective way to reduce the threat from such events
is to establish one or more sea otter colonies outside the
population's present range. While such an action could
adversely affect commercial and recreational fisheries for
abalone, clams, and other invertebrate species eaten by sea
otters, as well as protect sea otters, it also could reduce
populations of sea urchins and other herbivores that sea
otters eat, and thus enhance the growth of kelp, a product of
commercial significance that also provides habitat for
certain finfish species of recreational and commercial
importance.

To facilitate protection and recovery of the California
sea otter population while minimizing possible adverse
effects on commercial and recreational fisheries, the
Commission, in December 1980, recommended that the Fish and
Wildlife Service adopt and implement a management strategy
recognizing the ultimate need for "zonal" management of sea
otters and the need to establish one or more sea otter
colonies at a site or sites not likely to be affected by an
oil spill in or near the population's present range. The
Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the Commission's
recommendation and incorporated the zonal management concept
into the Southern Sea Otter Recovery Plan, which it adopted
in February 1982.

Past Commission efforts to facilitate development and
implementation of an effective Southern Sea Otter Recovery
Plan are described in previous Annual Reports. The Commis-
sion's activities in this regard in 1986 are summarized
below.

Incidental Take

The incidental take of sea otters was unrecognized when
the California sea otter population was designated as
threatened in 1977. Documentation of the existence and
possible significance of the problem was provided by the
California Department of Fish and Game and others in 1982.

In that year, the Commission provided funds to the California

114

Department of Fish and Game to augment ongoing studies of the
problem and to help coordinate work being supported by
various organizations in order to expedite collection of
needed data. In 1983, the Commission provided funds to
continue and expand observations of gill and trammel net
fisheries in and near Morro Bay and Monterey Bay. The
Commission continued funding for this work during 1984 and
the major portion of 1985. As noted in previous Annual
Reports, the reports submitted by Commission-funded observers
and the studies undertaken by the California Department of
Fish and Game provided the first reasonably good documen-
tation of the magnitude of the incidental take problem. Ina
report issued in 1984 by the California Department of Fish
and Game, it was estimated that between 1973 and 1983 an
average of 105 otters were killed annually through
entanglement in gill and trammel nets. Available information
indicates that most losses due to incidental take occur in
the large-mesh nets that are set for halibut within the 15-
fathom depth curve. A complete breakdown of estimated
incidental take mortality for the period from 1973 through
1983 is shown in the following table prepared by the
California Department of Fish and Game. Data covering the
years 1984-1986 are now being compiled by the Department.

Estimated Mortality of Sea Otters Taken
Incidental to California Gill and Trammel Net Fisheries

Number of Estimated
Year Landings Mortality
1973 457 49
1974 645 69
1975 {no data provided] 69
1976 980 105
1977 663 71
1978 874 93
1979 1449 154
1980 1407 150
1981 1578 168
1982 1057 113
1983 696 74

Thousands of sea birds as well as sea otters and other
marine mammals are caught in gill and trammel nets off the
coast of California. In an effort to address the incidental
take problem, the State of California has imposed area
closures to prohibit gill and trammel net fishing in certain
areas. In 1982, the use of entangling fishing nets within
the 10-fathom isobath in Monterey Bay was prohibited by State
legislation. This closure was intended primarily to reduce

115

the incidental take of sea birds. In the spring of 1984, the
closure was extended to 15 fathoms.

In response to the increasing evidence of the incidental
take of sea otters, the California Department of Fish and
Game imposed a temporary emergency closure prohibiting the
use of entangling fishing nets with mesh sizes larger than
three inches within the 15-fathom isobath from Monterey south
to the Santa Maria River mouth. This closure was made
permanent in May 1985 and was modified to apply to nets with
a mesh size of 3.5 inches or larger.

After these closures were imposed, sea otter mortalities
incidental to gill and trammel net fishing continued to be
reported. In July and August 1985, seven confirmed and three
probable deaths were observed in waters 15 fathoms or deeper.
In response, the California Department of Fish and Game
promulgated another emergency regulation that established a
20-fathom closure for the 17 miles of coastline between Cape
San Martin and Piedras Blancas. This closure was in effect
from August through December 1985. In total, ten confirmed
and three probable entanglement-related mortalities were
observed in 1985.

Between 17 July and 9 September 1986, 20 sea otters were
found dead in the Monterey Bay area. Thirteen of these were
thought to have been killed as a result of entanglement in
set gill nets. In response to public reaction, a California
Department of Fish and Game patrol vessel was assigned to the
area. During its first patrol, enforcement officers aboard
the vessel arrested a fisherman retrieving a net illegally
set in 10 fathoms of water. Since that incident, and the
resulting publicity, sea otter mortality in the area has
decreased.

In September 1986, the State of California enacted
permanent 20-fathom closures in two areas -- the first from
Pico Creek in San Luis Obispo County to Cape San Martin in
Monterey County and the second from Pfeiffer Point to Point
Sur in Monterey County. In the area between these two zones
and in Monterey Bay, the 15-fathom closure remains in effect.
In order to fish with gill or trammel nets between 15 and 20
fathoms in those areas, however, advance notice must be filed
with the California Department of Fish and Game so that
arrangements can be made to monitor the fishing activity. In
addition to these closures, the State Legislature established
a $450,000 low-interest loan program for fishermen impacted
by closures enacted to protect marine mammals and birds.
Loans obtained under this program are to be applied to the
development and purchase of alternative fishing gear.

116

The potential use of alternative gear instead of gill
nets to catch halibut and other fish in the area in and near
the sea otter range was discussed as part of the Commission-
sponsored Workshop on Measures to Address Marine Mammal/
Fisheries Interactions in California, held 26-28 March 1986
in San Francisco. Workshop participants identified a number
of types of alternative gear that could possibly be used,
including Danish seines and pair trawls. Participants
recommended that a feasibility study be undertaken and, if
successful, an engineering/assistance program be carried out
to determine the possible utility of converting small gill
net vessels to alternative types of gear. This Workshop is
discussed in greater detail in Chapter VI of this Report.

Sea Otter Amendment to the Endangered Species Act and the
Translocation Decision-Making Process

In a Federal Register notice published on 27 June 1984,
the Fish and Wildlife Service announced its intention to
prepare an environmental impact statement on a proposal to
translocate a portion of the California sea otter population
to a site within the species' historic range off the Pacific
coast of the United States. This action is called for in the
Southern Sea Otter Recovery Plan and has been recommended by
the Marine Mammal Commission on several occasions. As
described in the Federal Register notice, the proposal would
involve the issuance of experimental population regulations
under the Endangered Species Act, permits under both the
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
and compliance with a number of Federal and State laws.
Details of the Fish and Wildlife Service's translocation
proposal are set forth in previous Annual Reports.

As part of the environmental impact statement prepara-
tion process, the Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a
formal scoping process and held public meetings on 23 and
24 July 1984 in Santa Barbara and Monterey, California,
respectively. In addition, the Service established an
Interagency Project Review Team, as recommended by the
Council on Environmental Quality, to participate in the
scoping process and otherwise assist the Service in preparing
the environmental impact statement. The Review Team was
composed of representatives from the California Department of
Fish and Game, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Marine
Mammal Commission, the Minerals Management Service, and other
interested Federal and State agencies. Public meetings of
the Review Team were held on 4 June, 6 August, and 4 October
1984. Non-governmental participants in these meetings
included representatives of environmental groups, the oil and
gas industry, and sport and commercial fishing organizations.
The meetings were used to discuss a variety of issues related
to translocation, including topics that should be addressed

117

in the environmental impact statement, alternatives to the
proposed action, the time schedule and procedures for draft-
ing the environmental impact statement, U.S. Coast Guard
vessel routing procedures, and oil spill risk analysis
issues.

In order to facilitate public input and provide for the
development of a thorough and balanced decision-making docu-
ment, the Service issued two preliminary draft environmental
impact statements to the Interagency Project Review Team and
interested parties for review and comment. The first pre-
liminary draft was issued early in 1985 and, based on the
comments received and other factors, a revision was prepared
and issued in February 1986. Once again, comments were
obtained from the Review Team and other interested parties.
Included with each preliminary draft environmental impact
statement was the draft proposed experimental population
rulemaking that would implement a final decision to trans-
locate. Comments were also obtained on the draft proposed
rulemaking.

The Fish and Wildlife Service's translocation proposal
was given Congressional consideration during 1985 hearings on
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. These
hearings took place on 14 March 1985 before the Subcommittee
on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of
the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and on
18 April 1985 before the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works. Testimony was presented by interested parties
on the need for one or more translocations and the resource
management conflicts that are likely to be associated with
translocation.

In an effort to achieve consensus on how the trans-
location decision-making process should be carried out and
what some of the legal consequences would be if the trans-
location were successful, the House Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries convened several meetings of involved
agencies and interested parties. In part as a result of
these meetings, the Committee approved H.R. 1027, a bill
reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act. On 27 July 1985,
the House of Representatives passed the bill, Section 5 of
which set forth detailed requirements for establishing a
translocated population of sea otters. On 4 December 1985,
the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works
approved a reauthorization bill that did not include the
House-passed sea otter amendment.

At the end of 1985, Congress enacted legislation to
provide for the continuing appropriations to the Department
of the Interior and other agencies. As part of this measure,
Congress included a requirement that the Fish and Wildlife

118

Service move forward with its decision-making on the proposed
translocation, notwithstanding the fact that the Endangered
Species Act had not been reauthorized.

Complying with the directive to proceed with the
National Environmental Policy Act review of the proposed
action, the Service issued a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on 31 July 1986. This document identifies trans-
location to San Nicolas Islands in the Channel Islands as the
proposed action and sets forth alternatives based on a number
of different legal scenarios, including translocation in
accordance with the requirements of H.R. 1027. Proposed
experimental population regulations were published in the
Federal Register on 15 August 1986. By separate letters
dated 17 November 1986, the Commission commented on both
documents. In its comments, the Commission expressed its
support for the proposed action to translocate up to 250 sea
otters to San Nicolas Island and recommended that imple-
mentation begin in 1987.

In October 1986, the House Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries added the sea otter translocation amendment,
section 5 of H.R. 1027, to H.R. 4531, legislation concerning
extension of the Wetlands Loan Act. This bill passed the
Senate on 18 October and was signed into law by the President
on 7 November 1986. Enacted as section 1 of Public Law 99-
625, the sea otter translocation amendment serves as a free-
standing provision of the Endangered Species Act. This means
that its requirements will continue to apply even if the sea
otter were to be delisted under the Act. The purpose of the
amendment is to encourage the development and implementation
of a plan for the establishment of at least one sea otter
colony outside the present range in California. Within that
context, it resolves resource management conflicts that could
arise as a result of a translocation.

The sea otter translocation amendment requires develop-
ment by regulation of a plan that includes pertinent infor-
mation on the manner in which the translocation will be
carried out. That plan is required to specify a trans-
location zone that would meet the habitat needs of the
translocated animals and provide a buffer from the possible
adverse effects of activities that may occur outside the
zone. Animals found within this zone would be subject to all
applicable protections of the Endangered Species Act and the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. The plan is also required to
specify a management zone. This area is to surround the
translocation zone and represents the area from which otters
are to be excluded. Sea otters found within this zone are to
be removed by feasible, non-lethal means and are provided
with fewer legal protections than those that are found within
the translocation zone. The final significant component of

119

the translocation plan is to be a general description of the
expected relationship between the successful establishment of
a translocated population and the status of the species under
the Endangered Species Act.

In order to remove constraints under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act that sea otters be taken only for research
purposes, the sea otter translocation amendment provides that
actions necessary to effect the relocation or manzgement of
sea otters under the plan shall not be considered violations
of either the Endangered Species Act or the Marine Mammai
Protection Act. In an effort to provide as much certainty as
possible concerning offshore oil and gas development. and
other activities, the sea otter translocation amendment
provides for an early consultation procedure t> i* initiated
and completed prior to the translocation. Only those
activities that had advanced to a stage where, in the judg-
ment of the Secretary, meaningful consultation could take
place would be subject to this requirement. Anticipating
implementation of a translocation plan in 1986, the sea otter
translocation amendment set 1 April 1986 as the deadline for
requests for early consultation.

As a result of enactment of this amendment, the Service
will revise the Environmental Impact Statement to indicate
that, if it is decided to translocate sea otters, action will
be taken in accordance with the requirements of Public Law
99-625. The Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected
to be issued by mid-1987.

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)

Humpback whales, which are found in most of the world's
oceans, have been severely reduced in number as a result of
commercial whaling. Commercial hunting of the species has
been banned by the International Whaling Commission since
1966, and, in 1970, the species was designated as endangered
under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. However, a small
number of humpback whales are still taken in Greenland and
Bequia for subsistence purposes. In these and other areas,
the species' potential recovery also may be threatened by
human activities such as commercial and recreational vessel
activity, offshore oil and gas development, commercial
fisheries, and coastal development.

In view of potential adverse impacts of human activities
on humpback whales and other endangered whales, the Commis-
sion recommended to the National Marine Fisheries Service in
1984 that the Service prepare recovery plans for these
species. In March 1985, the Service advised the Commission
that it had decided to defer preparation of recovery plans

120

for great whales due, in part, to its uncertainty as to
whether or how recovery plans would enhance protection of the
animals.

In 1985, the Commission received the report of a
research project it had supported on humpback whales in
Hawaii (see Appendix B, Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari, 1985).
The results of that project suggested that use of inshore
waters off Maui by humpback whales, particularly by cow/calf
pairs, has decreased substantially over the past several
years, possibly due to increased vessel traffic and other
human activities in the area. In part as a follow-up to that
study, the Commission provided funds for two additional
studies in 1985 aimed at obtaining further information on the
distribution of humpback whales in Hawaii and the possible
effects of human activities on the species and its habitat.
In addition, on 31 December 1985, the Commission wrote to the
National Marine Fisheries Service, formally recommending once
again that the Service develop, adopt, and implement a
recovery plan for endangered humpback whales, as well as
endangered right and bowhead whales, which occur substan-
tially in U.S. waters.

During 1986, the Commission received interim reports on
the two research projects referred to above. Draft final
reports of both studies were submitted to the Commission
prior to the end of 1986. One study, involving aerial
surveys of humpback whales in the inshore waters of Hawaii,
further supported the findings of earlier studies that
humpback whales may no longer be using areas that they
previously had used and which have been subject to increasing
levels of boat traffic. The second report provided an
assessment of various human activities that may adversely
affect the humpback whale population in Hawaii. It
identified several relatively new recreational activities
that are becoming increasingly popular in Hawaiian waters and
which may adversely impact humpback whales. One such
activity is the growing use of jet skis in nearshore waters
off Maui, which are also frequented by humpback whale
cow/calf pairs. Jet skis are small one- or two-person
vessels that are propelled by water jets. They are generally
operated in an erratic fashion at high speeds and produce a
variable high-pitched noise. While there is little
documented information on the effects of jet ski operations
on humpback whales, such activities could cause whales to
avoid certain areas that may be particularly important for
breeding, calving, and calf-rearing. The growing popularity
of jet skis in an area used by whales suggests a potentially
serious problem.

The importance of Hawaii's coastal waters to humpback
whales for calving, nursing, and breeding is clearly

121

recognized. In order to protect the whales from deliberate
or inadvertent harassment, in 1979 the National Marine
Fisheries Service published a "Notice of Interpretation of
Harassment of Humpback Whales in Hawaiian Waters." This
Notice provides guidelines for approaching whales and advises
boaters of proper conduct when in the vicinity of humpback
whales. Among other things, the Notice advises the public
that the following activities may be considered as a source
of harassment for humpback whales in Hawaii: (a) operating
an aircraft closer than 1,000 feet vertical distance and 300
feet horizontal distance to a humpback whale; (b) approaching
(either in a vessel or swimming) within 100 yards of a
humpback whale or closer than 300 yards of a whale ona
designated calving/breeding ground; (c) traveling faster than
a humpback whale, or the slowest whale in a group of whales,
while between 100 and 300 yards of the whale or whales; and
(ad) making multiple changes in vessel speed while between 100
and 300 yards of a humpback whale. These actions are
prohibited under the Notice.

Since the Notice was published in 1979, vessel traffic
in Hawaiian waters has increased substantially. In recent
years, there have been numerous reports of vessels and
aircraft approaching humpback whales closer than the dis-
tances prescribed in the Notice of Interpretation. In order
to more effectively protect humpback whales and to reduce the
level of disturbance of the population, the Service, by
Federal Register notice of 24 November 1986, proposed formal
regulations to replace the 1979 Notice of Interpretation.

The proposed regulations would apply within 200 nautical
miles of the Islands of Hawaii and would prohibit, except
under permit: (a) operating an aircraft within 1,000 feet
vertical distance of a humpback whale; (b) approaching by any
means within 100 yards of a humpback whale; (c) causing a
vessel or other object to approach within 100 yards of a
whale; or (4) disrupting the normal behavior or prior
activity of a whale by any other act or omission.

The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
Scientific Advisors, reviewed the proposed regulations and,
by letter of 23 December 1986, forwarded its comments and
recommendations to the Service. In its letter, the Com-
mission expressed strong support for the Service's efforts to
establish formal regulations governing vessel and aircraft
operations in the vicinity of humpback whales. The Commis-
sion pointed out, however, that the proposed regulations
would provide protection standards that, in some ways, are
less stringent than those in the 1979 Notice of Interpre-
tation. In particular, the proposed regulations would
eliminate the special protection afforded humpback whales on
designated calving and breeding grounds and, as a result, the

122

Commission concluded, may provide insufficient protection for
cow/calf pairs.

Therefore, in its 23 December letter to the Service, the
Commission recommended that: (1) the proposed regulations be
revised to more closely reflect the protection standards
included in the 1979 Notice of Interpretation; (2) areas
traditionally used by cow/calf pairs be identified and
designated as areas where vessel approaches closer than 300
yards are prohibited; (3) consideration be given to pro-
hibiting jet ski and parasailing activity in areas where
cow/calf pairs have commonly been observed; (4) in addition
to the 1,000-foot vertical separation, a horizontal
limitation of at least 300 yards be placed on aircraft
approaches to humpback whales; and (5) the Service identify
and undertake research and monitoring studies to assess the
effectiveness of measures undertaken to protect humpback
whales in Hawaiian waters as well as to identify any other
measures that may be needed.

In addition to proposing formal regulations to govern
vessel and aircraft operations, the National Marine Fisheries
Service informally advised the Commission in October 1985
that it planned to convene a series of meetings to determine
whether and how to go about developing a conservation plan
for the North Pacific humpback whale population. The first
meeting, involving principally National Marine Fisheries
Service personnel, was held in Honolulu on 6-7 November 1986.
Subsequent meetings, expected to be held in 1987, will
involve representatives of other Federal agencies, State and
local governments, potentially affected industries, and
concerned environmental groups.

The Commission believes that recovery plans and recovery
teams are important for identifying and facilitating coopera-
tive Federal, State, and private actions necessary to protect
and encourage recovery of endangered and threatened species.
Therefore, by letter of 23 December 1986 to the National
Marine Fisheries Service, the Commission repeated its recom-
mendation that the Service develop, adopt, and implement
recovery plans for right, humpback, and bowhead whale
populations that occur in U.S. waters. With respect to
humpback whales, the Commission also recommended that the
Service take appropriate action to monitor whale vessel
traffic as well as whale distribution, abundance, and
behavior patterns off the southwest coast of Maui and
wherever else necessary in Hawaii so as to provide the basis
for detecting and mitigating the potential adverse effects of
vessel traffic and other forms of disturbance on the recovery
of the North Pacific humpback whale population.

123

Although it was not possible for the Service to respond
by year's end to the Commission's 23 December letter, the new
Director of the Service informally advised the Commission
that the Service would designate recovery teams and prepare
recovery plans for both humpback whales and right whales
during 1987. The Commission looks forward to working with
the Service in its efforts to further identify and initiate
appropriate actions to ensure the protection and conservation
of humpback whales in U.S. waters.

Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus)

It is thought that at least five or six separate bowhead
whale populations once existed. Over-exploitation by
commercial whalers between 1600 and 1900 reduced these
populations to extremely low levels throughout the species!
range. The largest surviving population is the Bering Sea
population, which occurs in the Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering
Seas off Alaska and Canada. This population is of great
importance to Alaska Eskimos, who continue to hunt bowhead
whales for subsistence and cultural purposes.

Consideration by the International Whaling Commission

As described in the Marine Mammal Commission's previous
Annual Reports, the International Whaling Commission (IWC)
reviews information on the status of the Bering Sea stock of
bowhead whales and establishes quotas on the aboriginal/
subsistence take of whales from this as well as other whale
stocks. In 1977, the IWC adopted a total ban on the take of
bowhead whales by Alaska Eskimos. Later that same year, it
modified its ban in recognition of Eskimo subsistence and
cultural needs. Since 1977, a series of limited quotas have
been adopted by the IWC to meet the needs of Alaska Eskimos
while allowing the bowhead whale stock to increase towards
its maximum sustainable yield level. In 1983, the IWC
adopted a two-year block quota of 43 strikes for the 1984 and
1985 bowhead whaling seasons with a stipulation that no more
than 27 strikes be made in either year. As noted in Chapter
IV of this Report, the IWC again considered aboriginal/
subsistence whaling quotas for bowhead whales during its 1985
meeting.

During the 1985 meeting, the IWC was advised by its
Scientific Committee that, based on improved information
concerning the size of the stock, the best estimate of the
size of the Bering Sea stock of bowhead whales had been
revised upward to 4,417 animals (range 2,613 to 6,221). No
new information, however, was available on the natural
mortality rate or annual net recruitment rate for the
population, and the Scientific Committee therefore

124

recommended to the IWC that any new catch limits be set with
caution. In view of this and other information on the take
of whales by Alaska Eskimos, the IWC adopted a three-year
block quota which modified its previous quota covering the
1985 bowhead whaling season and set new quotas for the 1986
and 1987 seasons. The new block quota provides that 26
whales may be struck in each of the three years and that
strikes not used in any one year may be used during the
following year. No more than 32 strikes, however, are to be
made in any one year.

Eskimo Whaling

In order to provide Alaska Eskimo whalers with
substantial opportunity and responsibility for regulation,
monitoring, and enforcement of the bowhead whale hunt, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission signed a cooperative
agreement in 1981, recognizing each party's responsibility
for bowhead whale management. The agreement recognized the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's primary
responsibility for managing the bowhead whale stock while
also recognizing the responsibility of the Alaska Eskimo
Whaling Commission to allocate a mutually agreed quota among
Alaska's whaling villages and to monitor the hunt for
compliance with the regulations. The quotas set by the IWC
and the results of the Eskimo hunts since 1977 are shown in
the table below.

Quotas and Catch of Bowhead Whales
By Alaska Eskimos, 1977-1987

Quota* Actually Struck Total
Year Landings Strikes Landed But Lost Whales

Struck

1977 (No quota] 26 82 108
1978 14 20 12 6 18
1979 18 27 12 15 27
1980 18 26 16 18 34
1981 17 ll 28
1982 45ee 65** 8 ll 19
1983 9 9 18

1984 43eae 12 13 25
1985 26%kae 1 6 17
1986 26akae 19 9 28
1987 26ekee == mics “arcs

* In general, in establishing quotas on both the number
of whales landed and the number of strikes, the IWC
stipulated that whaling should cease whenever the
number of whales landed or the number of strikes
reached the specified number, whichever came first.

** In 1980, a block quota was set for the three years
1981 to 1983, with a further stipulation that, in any
one year, the number landed should not exceed 17 and
the number of strikes should not exceed 27.

*#** In 1983, a block quota was set on strikes alone for
1984 and 1985, with the further stipulation that the
number of strikes in any year may not exceed 27.

**e* In 1985, a block quota of 26 strikes per year was set for
the three years 1985 to 1987, with the stipulation that
strikes not used in any one year may be used the following
year, provided that no more than 32 strikes occur in any
one year.

125

Seismic profiling, drilling, and other activities
associated with offshore oil and gas exploration and
development may affect the movements and behavior of bowhead
whales. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission is concerned
that this could force subsistence hunters to travel greater
distances during the fall bowhead hunt, increasing the risk
that hunters could be killed or injured. To minimize such
risks, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and components of
the Alaska oil and gas industry entered into a cooperative
agreement on 9 July 1986 which provides that, during the fall
bowhead hunt in the Beaufort Sea, industry vessels conducting
seismic and other operations in the area will establish and
maintain radio communication with Native hunters to minimize
possible interference with subsistence hunters. The
agreement also provides, subject to approval by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that the industry
will: (1) attempt to tow caught whales to a suitable
butchering site to prevent meat from spoiling (if an industry
boat is available near the kill site); (2) cache emergency
supplies (gasoline, food, etc.) at selected areas for use by
subsistence hunters; (3) provide emergency assistance to
subsistence hunters during adverse weather conditions; and
(4) assist in transporting whale meat and muktuk to prevent
spoilage and maximize consumption.

On 1 August 1986, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, approving the
cooperative agreement between the AEWC and the industry for
the fall 1986 bowhead hunt.

Research Planning and Coordination

When the IWC modified its total ban on the subsistence
take of bowhead whales in December 1977, it acted in part on
a pledge by the U.S. Commissioner to the IWC that the United
States would undertake a comprehensive research program on
the species. Responsibility for planning and implementing
the U.S. bowhead whale research program has been delegated to
the National Marine Mammal Laboratory of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. Additional research concerning bowhead
whales has been conducted or supported by the Alaska Eskimo
Whaling Commission, the North Slope Borough, the oil and gas
industry, the State of Alaska, and the Minerals Management
Service. Since 1977, IWC action to adopt subsistence whaling
quotas for bowhead whales has carefully considered and
reflected research results. Likewise, the Minerals
Management Service has used research results to identify and
avoid or mitigate the possible adverse effects of offshore
oil and gas activities on bowhead whales.

126

The role of the Marine Mammal Commission in developing a

comprehensive research plan and initiating efforts to
coordinate related bowhead whale research projects has been
described in its Annual Reports for Calendar Years 1977
through 1979. Acting on a Commission recommendation, the
National Marine Fisheries Service assumed responsibility in
1981 for annually organizing and convening the necessary
coordination meetings involving the agencies listed above.
The Service was unable to organize a program review/coordi-

nation meeting in 1986. The Minerals Management Service,
recognizing the importance of coordinating field studies to
the maximum extent practicable, held a meeting of principal
investigators prior to the beginning of the 1986 summer field
season to discuss and agree on procedures for coordinating
activities during the season.

At its meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, on 28-30 October
1986, the Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors
reviewed research and other matters bearing upon the
conservation and protection of bowhead whales. As part of
the review, representatives of the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Minerals Management Service, the Alaska oil and
gas industry, and the North Slope Borough provided brief
summaries of research and other activities that have been
conducted and are planned by their respective organizations.
Among other things, the National Marine Fisheries Service
indicated that the Service's research effort has focused
since 1985 on photo-identification and photogrammetric
studies to determine the population age structure and annual
recruitment rate of the Bering Sea bowhead whale population.
These studies are scheduled to be completed in 1987 and at
least a preliminary report is expected to be available for
the 1987 meeting of the International Whaling Commission.

Minerals Management Service representatives noted that,
since 1978, the Service had supported a wide range of bowhead
studies including studies to determine: seasonal distri-
bution and abundance in or near areas that could be affected
by offshore exploration and development activities; the
possible effects of oil on baleen filtering efficiency; the
effects of seismic exploration on bowhead movement and
behavior; and the characteristics of potentially important
bowhead feeding areas in the eastern Beaufort Sea. They also
noted that in 1987 the Service planned to continue certain
survey and monitoring programs and to initiate additional
studies to: determine the behavior of a control group of
bowhead whales in the eastern Arctic (Davis Strait) not
exposed to OCS activity; assess the possible effects on
bowheads of sound generated by production platforms and
undersea pipelines; acquire and store bowhead tissues for
contaminant analysis; and investigate the adherence of oil to
the skin of bowhead whales.

127

The industry representative noted that much had been
learned in the past ten years and with several possible
exceptions available information was sufficient to assess and
determine how to avoid the possible adverse effects of
exploration and development activities on bowhead whales.
The principal exception in his view is the lack of data on
the behavior of bowheads during migration near full-scale
drilling operations. The industry believes that drilling
should be permitted with a monitoring program in place to
experimentally determine bowhead response to full-scale
drilling activity. Efforts in this regard were initiated in
1986 and, in the industry's view, should be continued for
several years.

The North Slope Borough has played an active role in
identifying and supporting needed research. In 1987, the
Borough plans to continue supporting: a visual census of
bowheads migrating off Point Barrow in spring; acoustic
listening studies to locate whales migrating beyond the
visual sighting distance from shore-based observers;
attachment of radio-tags to harpoon floats to facilitate
location of whales harpooned by Native subsistence hunters;
and morphological studies to improve knowledge of the basic
biology and health of bowhead whales. The Borough also plans
to hold a fourth Conference on the Biology of the Bowhead
Whale in Anchorage, Alaska, on 4-6 March 1987.

The conferences organized by the North Slope Borough
provide an important opportunity to review research results
and identify critical gaps in knowledge of the biology,
ecology, and management of bowhead whales. Commission
representatives will attend the Conference, consult with
representatives of other Federal and State agencies,
industry, and native groups attending the Conference, and
advise the Commission as to any additional actions necessary
to protect and encourage recovery of the Bering Sea bowhead
whale population.

Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis)

The right whale is the most endangered of the world's
large whales. As a result of commercial whaling in the 19th
and early 20th centuries, only a few small groups of animals
remain. The North Pacific population is thought to number in
the tens of animals, and off the northeast coast of the
United States, the right whale population may number no more
than a few hundred. Although the species has been protected
from commercial whaling since the 1930s, there is no evidence
of substantial population increases. In addition, the
species preference for coastal areas exposes it to

128

environmental pollution and a number of human activities that
pose additional threats both to the whales and their habitat.

Beginning in 1979, the Commission has initiated numerous
actions to enhance protection of the right whale and other
endangered large cetaceans. As examples, the Commission has
supported a number of studies and workshops on various
matters related to conservation and protection of right
whales and their habitat worldwide. These efforts have been
described in previous Annual Reports. More recent activities
are summarized below.

In December 1984, the Commission recommended to the
National Marine Fisheries Service that it prepare, adopt, and
implement recovery plans for endangered great whales, includ-
ing right, humpback, and bowhead whales, which occur sub-
stantially in U.S. waters. In March 1985, the Service
advised the Commission that it was deferring action on
preparation of recovery plans for endangered whales, due in
part to its uncertainty as to whether or how recovery plans
would enhance protection of the animals. By the end of 1985,
there had been no further action by the Service.

To help develop a prototype conservation plan for right
whales and other endangered large whales, the Commission
funded two workshops in 1985 aimed at identifying actions
that should be taken to protect and encourage recovery of the
right whale population in the northwest Atlantic. On
31 December 1985, the Commission sent the Service the final
reports of these workshops. In the accompanying letter, the
Commission repeated its recommendation that the Service
develop, adopt, and implement recovery plans for endangered
large whales. With respect to right whales, the Commission
recommended that the Service: (a) adopt the report of the
workshops as a preliminary recovery plan; (b) convene a
meeting to consider ways to implement priority right whale
research and management tasks; and (c) constitute a recovery
team to oversee implementation of the recovery plan.

Congress has recognized the need for further research on
the northwest Atlantic right whale population. In Fiscal
Year 1986, it provided a special appropriation of $500,000 to
the National Marine Fisheries Service to support the first
year of a planned five-year right whale research project. As
a result of the Deficit Reduction and Balanced Budget Act of
1985 and other factors, this amount was subsequently reduced
to $383,000. This funding initiative was continued in Fiscal
1987 when Congress approved a special appropriation of
$250,000 for right whale research.

In order to determine the best use of these funds, the
Service established a Right Whale Scientific Advisory Group

129

in which the Commission was invited to participate. The
Group met for the first time on 15 May 1986, in Woods Hole,
Massachusetts. Among other things, it was asked to review
research proposals submitted to the Service's Northeast
Fisheries Center and to develop priority rankings for
specific research projects. Since then, the Service has
continued to consult with the Commission on the most
effective use of available funds.

Recently available data indicate that the coastal waters
of Georgia and northern Florida are important winter habitat
for at least part of the small remnant population of right
whales in the western North Atlantic. The area also serves
as an important calving ground for right whales. In light of
these findings, the Georgia Conservancy contacted the
Commission late in 1985 regarding its interest in convening a
workshop of involved scientists, regional resource managers,
and environmental groups to review available biological
information on right whales and to consider its implications
with respect to ongoing and planned coastal development along
the southeastern coast of the United States. The Commission
agreed that such a workshop would be useful and provided
funds to the Conservancy to help organize and convene the
meeting.

Subsequently, the U.S. Right Whale Workshop was held on
19-20 February 1986, at Jekyll Island, Georgia. The
objectives of the Workshop were to: (a) review available
biological information on the status of the northwest
Atlantic right whale population with particular reference to
the abundance, distribution, and habitat use patterns of
those whales which winter off the southeastern U.S. coast;
(b) identify human activities and agency responsibilities
that could affect the calving activity of right whales in the
area; and (c) identify and rank potential measures that might
help ensure that human activities do not adversely affect
right whales or their essential habitat.

Among the potential actions that might be considered to
help protect right whales in the Georgia/north Florida area,
workshop participants identified the following: establishing
a right whale conservation network through the formation of a
recovery team; revitalizing the southeast U.S. right whale
sighting and stranding network; improving communications
among scientists, Federal and State agencies, environmental
groups and others; determining whether areas of the
southeastern U.S. should be designated as critical habitat
under the Endangered Species Act; and clarifying actions
necessary to facilitate enforcement of applicable laws and
regulations, particularly those relating to harassment.

130

As noted above, the Commission remains convinced that
preparation of a recovery plan is of utmost importance for
identifying and coordinating priority research and management
actions for this and other endangered species of large
whales. By mid-December 1986, the Commission had received no
formal response to its letter of 31 December 1985 to the
National Marine Fisheries Service urging development of such
a plan. Nor was the Commission aware of any action on the
part of the Service either to adopt the report as an interim
recovery plan or to constitute a right whale recovery team.
Therefore, on 23 December 1986, the Commission wrote the
National Marine Fisheries Service, briefly reviewed its
previous recommendations that the Service develop recovery
plans for great whales, and again recommended that the
Service: (a) prepare and adopt recovery plans for the right,
humpback, and bowhead whale populations in U.S. waters;

(b) constitute and convene the necessary recovery team(s) to
help develop and oversee implementation of the recovery
plans; and (c) seek the necessary funds to carry forward into
Fiscal Year 1988 and beyond the priority right whale research
and management projects undertaken in Fiscal Year 1986.

As noted earlier in this chapter in the discussion of
humpback whales, the new Director of the National Marine
Fisheries Service informally advised the Commission at year's
end that the Service would designate a recovery team and
prepare a recovery plan for right whales in 1987. The
Commission, greatly encouraged by the commitment of the
Director to address the issue, looks forward to working with
the National Marine Fisheries Service and others to ensure
that all possible steps are taken to further protect and
conserve this highly endangered species.

Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
(Central California Population)

The harbor porpoise is one of the world's smallest
cetaceans. It is found in coastal areas throughout most of
the Northern Hemisphere, including the waters off Europe, the
Far East, and the east and west coasts of North America.
Because it prefers inshore waters, the species is par-
ticularly vulnerable to impacts from human activities, such
as coastal set net fisheries and water pollution.

Over the past few years, expanding gill net fisheries
off central and northern California for halibut, rockfish,
and shark have resulted in the incidental take of harbor
porpoise, as well as sea otters, sea birds, and other non-
target marine species. The California Department of Fish and
Game estimated that incidental take of harbor porpoise in
these gill net fisheries increased from approximately 20

131

animals during the 1980/1981 fishing season to about 300 in
1983. Subsequent monitoring suggests an incidental take of
more than 200 harbor porpoise a year during 1984 and 1985.

Efforts by the Commission and others to focus attention
on the situation have been discussed in previous Annual
Reports. As has been noted, the impact of the incidental
take depends, in part, on the size and age/sex composition of
the population or populations being affected, as well as the
number, age, sex, and reproductive status of the animals
being taken. On the west coast of North America, harbor
porpoise are found in coastal waters from central California
northward to Alaska. However, it is not known whether the
harbor porpoise found in the affected area are part of a
single large population or constitute one or more small,
local populations.

In 1985, the Commission and its Committee of Scientific
Advisors developed a proposed scope of work for a radio-
tagging and tracking project aimed at obtaining information
required to determine whether there are one or more discrete
populations in the area affected by the fisheries. On 6
December 1985, the Commission forwarded the proposed scope of
work to the National Marine Fisheries Service. In its cover
letter, the Commission recommended that the proposed project
be carried out by the Service. To help defray costs, the
Commission offered to transfer funds to the Service to
initiate the first phase of the project during Fiscal Year
1986, with the understanding that the Service would provide
the funding in subsequent years to complete the project.

On 15 January 1986, the Service responded to the
Commission's 6 December letter and proposed scope of work.
In its response the Service noted that, before making commit-
ments for long-term funding, a feasibility study should be
undertaken to determine if harbor porpoise can be effectively
captured, tagged, and tracked so as to generate data useful
for assessing long-range and long-term patterns of movement.
The Service further noted that its Southwest Fisheries Center
had contracted for an investigation of contaminant loads in
stranded harbor porpoise and that, if the results demon-
strated regional patterns in contaminant loads, this might
provide a less expensive means for differentiating possible
movement patterns and stock discreteness of harbor porpoise
populations off the west coast. It further noted that a
preliminary assessment of this method was expected to be
available in March 1986.

On 26-28 March 1986, the Commission, in cooperation with
other Federal and State agencies, convened a "Workshop on
Measures to Address Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions in
California." The findings and recommendations of Workshop

132

participants are discussed in Chapter VI of this Report. As
regards harbor porpoise, Workshop participants concluded that
priority action should be taken to compile and evaluate
available information concerning population discreteness,
abundance, productivity, and incidental take in California
coastal waters, and that this information should be used to
determine what, if any, level of incidental take might be
authorized while ensuring that no potentially discrete harbor
porpoise population is reduced below its maximum net
productivity level. The Workshop participants further
concluded that, if available information appears insufficient
to make these determinations, additional fishery surveys,
demographic studies, and/or taxonomic and genetic studies
should be done, as a matter of priority, to determine whether
the harbor porpoise population or populations in California
have been or are being affected adversely by incidental take
in coastal set net fisheries. The Workshop also identified
ways by which fishermen might be able to reduce the
incidental take of harbor porpoise through use of alternative
fishing practices and/or alternative gear.

Following the Workshop, the Commission reviewed the
results of discussions pertaining to harbor porpoise and the
Service's 15 January response to its proposed radio-tagging
and tracking program for harbor porpoise. Based on its
review, the Commission concluded that radio-tagging and
tracking may provide information necessary to determine the
relative discreteness of harbor porpoise populations in
California. Such information might also be useful in identi-
fying ways in which interactions between harbor porpoise and
fisheries might be avoided. Therefore, the Commission
contracted for a study to assess and, as possible, develop
and test techniques for capturing, marking, radio-tagging,
and tracking harbor porpoise in the waters off central and
northern California. This study is discussed in greater
detail in Chapter II of this Report.

By the end of 1986, there had been little apparent
progress toward determining and mitigating the impact of the
incidental take on the harbor porpoise. Accordingly, on 23
December 1986, the Commission wrote to the National Marine
Fisheries Service again expressing its concerns. In the
letter, the Commission noted that, as of that date, the
Service had not: (1) assessed the status of the affected
population or populations of harbor porpoise; (2) determined
if the incidental take has caused or may be causing any
populations to be reduced or maintained below their level of
maximum net productivity; or (3) issued a general permit
authorizing any incidental take of the species. The
Commission pointed out that, in addition to the biological
impacts on the populations, the lack of a general permit made
all taking of harbor porpoise along the U.S. west coast

133

illegal and the persons catching harbor porpoise subject to
civil and criminal penalties.

In its 23 December letter, the Commission recommended
that the Service: (a) ensure that the ongoing status of
stock assessment for harbor porpoise be completed by January
1987; (b) depending on the result of that review and before
coastal gill net fisheries begin again in May, take the
necessary steps either to authorize a specified level of
incidental take or prohibit further taking; and (3) ensure
that harbor porpoise take under a general permit is reported
promptly, that data and samples necessary to assess the
effects of the take are provided to the Service and/or the
California Department of Fish and Game, and that monitoring
efforts are sufficient to accurately determine the level,
locations, and age/sex composition of any incidental take.

The Service should complete its stock assessment early
in 1987 and, depending on the results of the assessment, take
steps to prohibit or authorize incidental take. The Com-
mission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, will review the status report and the Service's
proposed actions and make recommendations as may be required
to meet the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

River Dolphins (Family Platanistidae)

The Platanistidae family of toothed whales and porpoise
is comprised of five species commonly known as river
dolphins. This family includes the only species of cetaceans
whose natural habitat is limited to fresh-water environments.
The species and their distribution are: Platanista
gangetica, known as the Ganges susu or blind river dolphin
and found in India and Bangladesh; P. minor, the Indus susu,
found in the Indus River system of Pakistan; Inia
geoffrensis, the boutu or Amazon dolphin, found in the Amazon
and Orinoco River basins in South America; Lipotes
vexillifer, the baiji or white flag dolphin, presently found
along the middle and lower Yangtze River in China; and
Pontoporia blainvillei, the franciscana, found in the coastal
waters of the Atlantic from Argentina to Brazil. Pontoporia
is the only member of the family Platanistidae that inhabits
salt water.

The little information available on the population
status and ecology of river dolphins suggests that all five
species may be threatened to varying degrees with extinction
due to subsistence hunting, incidental take during the course
of fishing operations, and/or human-caused destruction and
degradation of their habitat. Construction of dams and other
riparian development in important river dolphin habitat, such

134

as is now being undertaken or planned in Brazil, Nepal, and
China, pose potentially serious threats to the continued
Survival of several of these species. Although none of the
five river dolphin species is currently listed as threatened
or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the
baiji, Ganges susu, and Indus susu are listed on Appendix I
of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Fauna and Flora, and the boutu and franciscana
dolphins are listed on the Convention's Appendix II.

In view of potential threats to the species, the
Commission provided funds during 1986 to help convene an
international Workshop on the Biology and Conservation of the
Platanistoid Dolphins, which was held October 26-November 6,
1986, in Wuhan, China. The Workshop report and recom-
mendations are expected to become available early in 1987.
However, a preliminary report has suggested that, among other
things, international regional working committees should be
established to review problems facing river dolphins in the
Indian subcontinent and South America and to promote regional
planning.

On 23 December 1986, the Commission wrote to the
National Marine Fisheries Service recommending that the
Service: (a) consider establishing a small working group to
evaluate species of river dolphins in light of the five
criteria for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act;
(b) evaluate all available information, including the results
of the Workshop to be published early in 1987 and the
findings of any working group, and take such steps as may be
appropriate to list the separate species of river dolphins as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act;
and (3) encourage and assist other nations in efforts to
protect declining river dolphin populations and habitats
critical to their survival.

During 1987, the Commission expects to review the final
report of the Wuhan Workshop and to work with the National
Marine Fisheries Service and others to identify and, as
possible, assist in implementing measures to protect river
dolphins. In this regard, the newly appointed Director of
the Service had, by year's end, advised the Commission of his
intention to have status reviews done with a view to possible
listing under the Endangered Species Act.

135

CHAPTER X

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

Activities and oil spills associated with exploration
and development of offshore oil and gas resources may
adversely affect marine mammals and the ecosystems of which
they are a part. Under the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Lands Act, the Department of the Interior's Minerals Manage-
ment Service is responsible for predicting, detecting, and
mitigating the adverse effects of OCS exploration and
development. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Fish and Wildlife Service are responsible, under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, for
reviewing proposed actions and advising the Minerals Manage-
ment Service of measures that may be needed to assure that
those actions will not be to the disadvantage of marine
mammals and other wildlife. The Commission reviews relevant
policies and activities of these agencies and recommends
actions that appear necessary to protect marine mammals and
their habitats. The Commission's activities in this regard
in 1986 are discussed below.

Proposed OCS Lease Sale #97
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas

Lease Sale #97, tentatively scheduled for January 1988,
involves up to 3,930 blocks (approximatley 8.6 million acres)
of submerged lands in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off the
North Slope of Alaska. Eight species of marine mammals occur
in the area, including two endangered whale species, the
bowhead whale and the gray whale. The Minerals Management
Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the pro-
posed action, provided to the Commission and others for
review and comment in November 1986, concludes that possible
effects on endangered and non-endangered marine mammals are
likely to be minor. The draft Statement further concludes
that the cumulative effects of offshore oil and gas develop-
ment activities on endangered whales in the area are likely
to be moderate.

The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
Scientific Advisors, reviewed the draft Statement and, at the
end of 1986, was preparing comments for submission to the
Minerals Management Service. Although the draft Statement
considers many of the possible impacts of the proposed

136

action, the Commission believes that there are a number of
unrecognized uncertainties concerning the likelihood and
extent of some potential effects. For example, the DEIS
provides information indicating that oil spills are not
likely to occur and contact large numbers of either
endangered or non-endangered marine mammals and in some cases
concludes or implies that the proposed action therefore would
have negligible or minor impacts. It does not always recog-
nize that the effects of an oil spill are independent of the
probability that a spill will occur and that it therefore is
inappropriate to conclude that the effects will be negligible
or minor because the probability of occurrence is negligible
or minor.

The Commission also believes that some potential impacts
are difficult or impossible to identify or assess from avail-
able information. Therefore, it will recommend that the
Service modify the draft Statement to acknowledge the uncer-
tainties concerning the likely effects of the proposed action
and that the Final Environmental Impact Statement consider:
(a) the possible effects of garbage disposal from platforms
on polar bears; (b) the possibility that oil spills, distur-
bances, etc., will cause walrus, polar bears, ice seals, and
other species to move to adjacent and already occupied areas,
increasing animal densities in those areas to levels that
will damage or deplete food supplies; and (c) the possible
cumulative effects of subsistence harvesting and other
activities, as well as oil and gas exploration and develop-
ment, on bowhead and beluga whales, polar bears, walrus, and
seals. The Commission also will recommend that the Minerals
Management Service consider developing and implementing
monitoring programs aimed at detecting possible unforeseen
impacts before those impacts can reach unacceptable levels.

Canadian Oil Exploration on Georges Bank

Early in 1986, the United States learned of Canadian
industry proposals to carry out exploratory drilling for oil
and gas on the Canadian portion of Georges Bank. Such
activities could affect fishery and other resources on the
U.S. portion of Georges Bank and the United States made
inquiries to determine the nature of the proposals and steps
that had been or would be taken to ensure that the
activities, if permitted, would not have significant adverse
environmental impacts. To help address its concerns, the
United States was given an Environmental Evaluation of the
proposed action.

The Commission staff reviewed the Environmental Evalu-
ation and, by letter of 15 August, provided comments to the
Department of State on those parts of the evaluation relating
to marine mammals. In its comments, the Commission noted
that the environmental evaluation identified the species of

137

cetaceans and pinnipeds that could be affected but did not
provide a complete or comprehensive assessment of the pos-
sible effects of drilling and related activities on those
species. Among other things, the Commission noted that the
evaluation did not address the possibility that oil spills
could indirectly affect marine mammals by affecting their
food supplies and that disturbance from ship and aircraft
operations, seismic profiling, drilling, and other related
activities, as well as oil spills, could have adverse effects
on marine mammals and the ecosystems of which they are a
part.

On 18 December 1986, representatives of the Department
of State, the Minerals Management Service, the Coast Guard,
the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the Commission, and others met to
consider issues that should perhaps be raised with the
Canadian Government. A follow-up meeting is expected to take
place early in January 1987, at which time the group will
attempt to identify and, as possible, agree on the critical
issues raised by the Canadian proposal and how these should
be addressed.

The Minerals Management Service's Regional Environmental
Studies Program

As noted above, the Minerals Management Service is
responsible for assessing and mitigating the possible adverse
effects of offshore oil and gas exploration and development.
To help meet this responsibility, the Service has established
Regional Environmental Studies Programs, which are admin-
istered by its OCS offices in Metairie, Louisiana; Los
Angeles, California; Anchorage, Alaska; and Vienna, Virginia.
The Service also has contracted with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Office of Oceanography and
Marine Assessment to plan and administer the Alaska Outer
Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP).

To help the Service meet its responsibilities with
regard to the conservation and protection of marine mammals,
the Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scien-
tific Advisors: reviews and provides comments on regional
studies plans, environmental impact statements, and requests
for proposals related to marine mammal research developed by
the Service; participates in meetings of Technical Proposal
Evaluation Committees convened by the Service to review
research proposals; and helps plan and participates in
meetings and workshops to review and coordinate relevant
research programs being conducted or planned by the Minerals
Management Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other Federal, State, and
private agencies and organizations.

138

In July 1986, the Commission participated in a meeting
of the Minerals Management Service's Outer Continental Shelf
Advisory Board Scientific Committee and participated ina
workshop on the Service's Marine Mammal and Endangered
Species Studies Program held in conjunction with the meeting.
At the Service's request, the Commission representative
reviewed relevant provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, outlined the organization and responsibilities of the
Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, and reviewed past Commission efforts to assist the
Minerals Management Service in determining, evaluating, and
avoiding the possible adverse effects of offshore exploration
and development on marine mammals and the ecosystems of which
they are a part.

With regard to possible impacts, a Commission repre-
sentative pointed out that marine mammals and other wildlife
could be adversely affected by: (1) disturbance and noise
from ship and aircraft operations; (2) dumping, dredging,
drilling and other activities associated with platforn,
pipeline, support facility, and storage facility construction
and operation; (3) oil from well blow-outs, pipeline breaks,
tanker accidents, and chronic discharges associated with
routine operations; and (4) contaminants in drilling muds and
waste discharge. He reviewed some of the major accomplish-
ments of the Service's environmental studies program and,
among other things, pointed out that studies supported by the
Service have: (1) documented the marine mammal species that
regularly occur in and near areas that could be affected by
offshore oil and gas exploration and development in Alaska,
central and southern California, New England and the mid-
Atlantic states, and the Gulf of Mexico; (2) demonstrated
that physical contact with oil may have significant adverse
effects on species dependent upon fur for insulation (e.g.,
fur seals, sea otters, and polar bears); (3) provided
experimental evidence indicating that physical contact with
oil is not likely to have more than transitory effects on
cetaceans; (4) demonstrated that noise from seismic
profiling, drilling, etc., can effect the movements and
behavior of ring seals, bowhead whales, gray whales and
possibly other cetaceans; and (5) provided the data needed to
serve as baselines for detecting changes and trends in the
distribution, movements, and relative abundance of bowhead
whales and other endangered cetaceans, and to identify
reasonable and prudent alternatives necessary to assure that
endangered and threatened species of marine mammals are not
jeopardized by offshore exploration and development
activities.

Although much has been accomplished, a number of
critical questions have not yet been answered. These relate
primarily to uncertainties concerning: (1) the numerical and
functional relationships between marine mammals and species
lower in the marine food webs of which they are a part; (2)

139

the likely effects of noise, oil, and other contaminants on
primary and secondary marine mammal prey species, and key
species lower in the relevant marine food webs; (3) the
adequacy of existing and possible future means for containing
and cleaning up oil spills under ice, and during high winds
and sea states; (4) the locations and characteristics of any
feeding areas, breeding areas, resting areas, or migratory
routes that are unique and essential for the survival or
welfare of marine mammal species and populations; (5) the
nature and likelihood of the possible cumulative effects of
offshore exploration and development on migratory species
such as the humpback, bowhead, right, and gray whale; and (6)
the types of long-term monitoring programs best suited to
validate conclusions concerning the potential effects of
exploration and development activities, and to detect
possible unforeseen effects on marine mammals and the
ecosystems of which they are a part.

With regard to the last point, the Commission represen-
tative pointed out that it could be prohibitively costly, if
not impossible, to obtain all information necessary to
accurately predict both the direct and indirect effects of
exploration and development activities on marine mammals and
the ecosystems of which they are a part. To avoid costly
programs and delays, while insuring that exploration and
development activities do not have unforeseen and unaccept-
able impacts, he noted that it should be possible to design
long-term monitoring programs which would detect possible
unforeseen effects before they reach unacceptable levels.

In 1987, the Commission will continue to review proposed
OCS exploration and development activities, and advise the
Minerals Management Service and other agencies as to steps
that should be taken to insure that such activities do not
have adverse effects on marine mammals or the ecosystems of
which they are a part.

140

CHAPTER XI

MARINE MAMMALS IN CAPTIVITY

On 20 September 1979, the Department of Agriculture's
Standards and Regulations for the Humane Handling, Care, Treat-
ment, and Transportation of Marine Mammals went into effect.
These Standards were promulgated by the Department of Agri-
culture under the Animal Welfare Act in response to the Commis-
sion's recommendations of 20 October 1974. They were the sub-
ject of lengthy and extensive correspondence, consultation, and
rulemaking, all of which are discussed in the Commission's past
Annual Reports.

The Standards require dealers, exhibitors, operators of
auction sales, carriers, and intermediate handlers to comply
with minimum standards relating to maintenance and transpor-
tation of marine mammals in captivity. The same Standards apply
to research facilities as well. All persons or facilities
maintaining marine mammals in captivity in the United States, be
they for purposes of public display or scientific research, must
obtain a license from the Department of Agriculture's Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service and must maintain those marine
mammals in compliance with the Standards unless a variance has
been obtained to allow a limited time for modification of exist-
ing facilities, construction of new facilities, or other actions
necessary to achieve full compliance.

During succeeding years, representatives of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service consulted with representatives
of the Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the American Association of Zoologi-
cal Parks and Aquaria, and others concerning the practical
effects of application of the Standards and the need for
changes.

On 28 June 1984, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service published amendments to the Standards in the Federal
Register. Significant areas covered by the final amendments
included space requirements for primary enclosures for certain
marine mammals, new procedures for the granting of variances,
construction requirements for housing marine mammals, require-
ments for accompanying pinnipeds during transport, and specifi-
cations for holding areas for marine mammals maintained in
transportation facilities.

141

In recent years, the Commission has worked with the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to assist in
implementation of the care and maintenance standards. In 1985,
for example, the four agencies sponsored a three-day training
seminar for Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
inspectors to provide them with background that is likely to
assist them in performing their duties.

In addition, the Commission occasionally becomes involved
in on-site inspections of marine mammal facilities. On 4
October 1985, representatives of the Committee of Scientific
Advisors and the National Marine Fisheries Service assisted the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in an on-site review
of a public display facility with a history of compliance prob-
lems under the Standards for the Humane Handling, Care, Treat-
ment and Transportation of Marine Mammals. The inter-agency
team's findings were transmitted to the Department of Agri-
culture, Office of General Counsel, for action. On 7 July 1986,
the Department of Agriculture filed a complaint against the
facility seeking a cease and desist order for violations of the
Standards, civil penalties, and suspension or revocation of the
facility's license. The facility answered the complaint on 24
July 1986, denying the actionable allegations. A hearing is
scheduled for early in 1987.

In August 1985, the Commission convened a Working Group to
address the problems that are becoming apparent as a result of
additions to captive populations of marine mammals from captive-
born and beached/rehabilitated stock. Particular emphasis was
placed on behavioral, biological, and legal issues associated
with the release of captive-born marine mammals to the wild.
The Working Group was directed to collect relevant data and
information, identify and address behavioral and biological
issues, analyze related legal questions, and suggest needed
research, as well as desirable statutory, regulatory and admin-
istrative changes. Participants in the Working Group include
members of the Commission's staff and the Committee of Scien-
tific Advisors on Marine Mammals. At the end of 1986, the
Working Group was in the process of refining a draft version of
the report. When completed, this draft will be provided to
other government agencies and interested parties for review.

Also in 1985, the Commission staff, utilizing data obtained
from the National Marine Fisheries Service, began an analysis of
the survival patterns for three species of captive cetaceans.
The purpose of this study is to estimate the average annual
survival rate for each of the three species (bottlenose
dolphins, white whales, and killer whales), to determine whether
survival rates are significantly different in different insti-
tutions, and to compare findings with the literature on the
survival of captive and free-ranging cetaceans. A draft of the
study report was reviewed during 1986. The final report is
expected to be issued early in 1987.

142

On 4 December 1985, the Fish and Wildlife Service published
in the Federal Register proposed regulations governing the
humane and healthful transport of wild animals and birds. These
regulations are intended to satisfy the requirements of the 1981
amendments to the Lacey Act, which governs the importation and
shipment of wild animals and birds in interstate commerce. The
1981 amendments required, among other things, the implementation
of transportation standards for all wild animals and birds.
Separate regulatory requirements have been proposed for the
transport of marine mammals. The Commission commented on the
proposed regulations by letter of 4 February 1986. Several
proposed changes to the standards involving marine mammals were
set forth in the Commission's letter, including the recommen-
dation that the standards be at least as stringent as the
corresponding provisions of the Standards for the Humane
Handling, Care, Treatment and Transportation of Marine Mammals
promulgated under the Animal Welfare Act. By the end of 1986,
final regulations had not been published.

143

CHAPTER XII
PERMIT PROCESS

The Marine Mammal Protection Act places a moratorium,
with certain exceptions, on the taking and importing of
marine mammals and marine mammal products. One exception
is the provision for the issuance of permits by either the
Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior,
depending upon the species of animal involved, for the
taking of marine mammals for purposes of scientific
research or public display. Prior to the issuance of a
permit, an application is reviewed by the Marine Mammal
Commission in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors on Marine Mammals.

Application Review

The permit application and review process involves
three stages: (1) receipt and initial review of the appli-
cation at the Department, publication of a notice of re-
ceipt of the application in the Federal Register, and
transmittal to the Commission; (2) review of the appli-
cation by the Commission, in consultation with its Commit-
tee of Scientific Advisors, and transmittal of its recom-
mendation to the Department; and (3) final processing by
the Department, including consideration of all comments and
recommendations of the Commission and the public, resulting
in the approval or denial of the application. The follow-
ing is a schematic representation of this process.

Applicant

Final Departmental Action

Dept. of
Interior

Application

Dept. of
Commerce

Dept. of Dept. of

Interior Commerce

Complete Application Commission Recommendation
Marine Mammal Commission
eee ee,

Committee of Scientific
Advisors on Marine Mammals

144

The total review time (initial receipt of application
until final Departmental action) depends on many factors,
including: the sufficiency of the information provided by
the applicant; special actions, such as inspection of an
applicant's marine mammal holding facilities, that may be
warranted before a decision can be reached; and the effi-
ciency and thoroughness of those responsible for the agency
review.

During 1986, the Commission made recommendations on 40
applications submitted to the Department of Commerce, in-
cluding three applications that were received in 1985 but
which did not receive final action until 1986, and 17
applications to the Department of the Interior, including
one application that was received in 1985 but which did not
receive final action until 1986. The Commission's average
review time for complete applications was 37 days (median,
34 days). Not included in the preceding statistics are
recommendations on three applications that were awaiting
final action by the Department of Commerce at year's end
and three applications that were under Commission review at
year's end. Also not included are nine applications (seven
from the Department of Commerce and two from the Department
of the Interior) on which review was suspended at year's
end pending receipt of additional information. The Com-
mission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, also made recommendations on 28 requests to
modify permits and other related permit actions during
1986. The average time required for Commission review of
these matters was 20 days.

For the 40 applications processed by the Department of
Commerce during 1986, it took an average of 117 days
(median, 92 days) from the date the application was re-
ceived by the Department until final action was taken. The
17 permit applications submitted to the Department of the
Interior were processed in an average of 90 days (median,
92 days). If calculated from the date of receipt of a
complete application by the Departments, the average pro-
cessing times for the Departments of Commerce and the
Interior were 92 and 65 days, respectively, compared to 89
and 99 days, respectively, in 1985.

Administration of the Permit Process

In certain geographic areas there is growing demand
for permits to take animals from a single stock. This is
the case, for example, with respect to bottlenose dolphins
off the southwest coast of Florida where public display
collectors and researchers conduct activities in the same
area. In the past, the Commission has recommended that the
cumulative effects of these takes be monitored so as to
ensure that the affected stocks would not be adversely

145

impacted. During 1986, it became apparent that this com-
peting demand also was creating the potential for jeopar-
dizing ongoing research activities as a result of research
animals possibly being taken in the course of public
display collections.

In an effort to resolve this potential problem, the
Commission wrote to the National Marine Fisheries Service
on 8 October 1986 and recommended that procedures be estab-
lished as a part of permit application review to identify
these potential conflicts and develop acceptable reso-
lutions. A follow-up meeting between Commission and
Service representatives was held on 24 October and the
matter was discussed on 30 October at the Commission's
Annual Meeting in Anchorage. In both meetings, the Service
indicated that it was giving the Commission's recommen-
dations further consideration. By letter of 23 December
1986, the Commission reiterated its concern about this
matter and requested an additional meeting with the
Service. The Commission expects to resolve concerns about
this potential problem early in 1987.

Working Group on the Permit System

In July 1985, the Commission established a Working
Group composed of members of the Commission staff and the
Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals for
purposes of preparing a report on how the Marine Mammal
Protection Act permit system could be improved. The Work-
ing Group was asked to identify problems that have arisen
with regard to the review of applications and the issuance,
modification, and enforcement of marine mammal permits, as
well as to recommend such statutory, regulatory, and admin-
istrative changes as might be appropriate to address the
problems.

A draft of the Working Group's report was reviewed by
the Committee of Scientific Advisors and considered during
the October 1985 meeting of the Commission and Committee in
San Diego. Informal comments on the draft report were
received from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and several non-governmental
parties.

Based on those comments, the draft report was revised
during 1986 and issued for formal review by interested
parties. Comments received during the formal review have
been addressed and incorporated into a revised draft which
is undergoing final review by the Commission. The report
is expected to be issued early in 1987.

146

Permit-Related Litigation

On 21 October 1986, Greenpeace filed a lawsuit chal-
lenging Permit No. 563 issued by the National Marine
Fisheries Service to take up to 86 killer whales (Orcinus
orca) by harassment for purposes of scientific research.
The research called for obtaining skin biopsies from up to
45 killer whales. The permit was issued on 22 August 1986
and had been approved, subject to recommended conditions,
by the Commission.

In the lawsuit, Greenpeace alleges that the Service
violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing
to: (a) prepare either an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement on the permit application;
(b) develop alternatives to the proposed taking that would
involve less impact on the affected animals; and (c) pro-
vide a reasoned explanation for the decision not to prepare
an environmental impact statement or environmental assess-
ment. The plaintiff also alleges that the Service violated
the Marine Mammal Protection Act by failing to obtain
sufficient evidence to make findings on whether the permit
would be consistent with the purposes and policies of the
Act and that it would advance a bona fide scientific
purpose.

The Department of Justice filed an answer to the

complaint on 18 December 1986. Dispositive motions are
expected to be filed early in 1987.

147

APPENDIX A

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: CALENDAR YEAR 1986

2 January

7 January

8 January

8 January

15 January

23 January

27 January

28 January

Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Oklahoma City Zoological Trust.

Commerce, modification of two scientific
research permits, Southwest Fisheries
Center.

Interior, public display permit applica-
tion, Manitoba Department of Tourism.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Deborah A. Glockner-Ferrari
and Mark J. Ferrari.

Commerce, transmitting to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration an
overview of significant issues concerning
future U.S. policy directions and activi-
ties related to the International Whaling
Commission (IWC) and recommending, among
other things, that the U.S. take all
feasible steps to insure the long-term
future of the International Whaling
Convention and improve the effectiveness
of the IWC.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Cascadia Research Collec-
tive.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on modification
of a scientific research permit and
recommending that the proposed procedure
be considered an experimental one and be
authorized only if certain conditions are
met.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Southwest Fisheries Center.

148

4 February

4 February

10 February

10 February

12 February

14 February

18 February

28 February

Interior, commenting to the Federal
Wildlife Permit Office on a proposed
rulemaking for the "Humane and Healthful
Transport of Wild Animals and Birds to
the United States" and recommending that
the proposed regulations be adopted,
subject to certain modifications.

Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, North Wind Undersea Institute.

Commerce, modification of public display
permit, Connyland.

Commerce, authorization to continue
activities under scientific research
permit, Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on its decision
to remove the Caribbean monk seal from
the List of Endangered Species, noting
that available evidence is not conclusive
that the species is extinct, and recom-
mending that the Service take no steps to
remove the Caribbean monk seal from the
List of Endangered Species.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on actions
needed to promote recovery of the North
Pacific fur seal population; restating
Commission recommendations transmitted to
the Service by letter of 29 November
1985; urging that the Service undertake
certain steps prior to a scheduled April
1986 meeting of concerned governments to
identify and mitigate the cause(s) of the
ongoing fur seal population decline; and
requesting that the Service advise the
Commission by 21 February 1986 of its
steps to adopt and implement the Commis-
sion's earlier recommendations.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Robert Elsner.

Commerce, transmitting to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
the Commission's nominations for members
of the U.S. delegation to the 1986

149

28 February

3 March

4 March

4 March

4 March

5 March

5 March

meetings of the International Whaling
Commission and its Scientific Committee.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Kenneth S. Norris, Randall
S. Wells, and William T. Doyle.

Interior, commenting to the Fish and
Wildlife Service on proposed "Reporting
and Sealing Requirements for Alaskan
Natives"; recommending that the proposed
rules be adopted with certain modifi-
cations; and further recommending that
the Service conduct a public information
program to ensure that Alaskan Natives
are aware of applicable reporting and
sealing requirements and related biologi-
cal concerns.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Lanny H. Cornell and Edward
D. Asper.

Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Susan Kruse and William T.
Doyle.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the develop-
ing conflict between the black cod
fishery and killer whales in Prince
William Sound, Alaska, and recommending
that, if the Service had not already done
so, it: (a) initiate research to
document the nature and extent of the
problem; (b) assure that the affected
fishermen are aware of and are complying
with the pertinent sections of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act; and (c) identify
and evaluate non-lethal measures that
could be used to prevent or reduce
interactions between fishermen and killer
whales.

Commerce, scientific research permit

application, Kenneth S. Norris, Randall
S. Wells, and William T. Doyle.

150

6 March

7 March

12 March

13 March

14 March

19 March

Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, Donald B. Siniff.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on
the draft plan for whale research
prepared by the Marine Research Insti-
tute, Reykjavik, Iceland; noting that
data to be obtained from the proposed
experimental catch of whales may not
significantly increase understanding of
the subject whale stocks beyond that
which should already be possible through
analysis of existing data and samples;
and suggesting that the proposed sampling
program may be ill-conceived and funda-
mentally flawed.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on efforts to
halt the decline of the North Pacific fur
seal population; restating the recommen-
dations made by the Commission in its
letters of 29 November 1985 and 14
February 1986; requesting that the
Service advise the Commission as to:

(a) research tasks considered necessary
to determine and mitigate the cause of
the continuing fur seal population
decline; (b) the level of funding
available for fur seal research in Fiscal
Year 1986; (c) precisely what activities
will be supported with these funds; and
(d) what necessary research cannot be
carried out due to insufficient funding;
and again recommending, among other
things, that the Pribilof Islands
population of North Pacific fur seals be
designated as depleted under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.

Interior, scientific research permit
application, Rio Grande Zoological Park.

Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Alaska Office of Fish and Wild-
life Research.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Jeffrey D. Goodyear.

151

19

19

21

10

March

March

March

April

April

April

April

April

April

Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Robert Elsner.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on an applica-
tion from the Sportfishing Association of
California for a general permit to take
marine mammals by harassment and recom-
mending that the permit be approved,
subject to certain modifications and
restrictions.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on
the Fiscal 1986 Recommended Entanglement
Program Plan; noting, among other things,
that the Plan provides a sound basis for
considering and selecting priority tasks
for funding and that the priorities set
forth in the Plan are appropriate and
justified; urging that the Service
explore opportunities for cooperative
funding from other federal agencies; and
recommending that the Service take
immediate steps to implement the priority
tasks.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Gerald L. Kooyman.

Interior, commenting to the Fish and
Wildlife Service on the draft rulemaking
document entitled "Proposed Establishment
of an Experimental Population of Southern
Sea Otters" and noting that the document
provides a well-reasoned approach to the
regulatory requirements that apply to a
translocation of southern sea otters.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, James H. Hain.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Gerald L. Kooyman.

Interior, scientific research permit
application, Rio Grande Zoological Park.

Interior, scientific research permit
application, Monterey Bay Aquarium.

152

16 April

17 April

30 April

1 May

1 May

5 May

6 May

6 May

6 May

7 May

12 May

16 May

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Douglas Wartzok.

Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, Denver Wildlife Research
Center.

Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center.

Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Blank Park Zoo.

Interior, authorization to continue
activities under scientific research
permit, Donald B. Siniff.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Richard C. Connor.

Commerce, authorization to continue
activities under scientific research
permit, Bruce R. Mate.

Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Jay C. Sweeney.

Commerce, scientific research permit
applications, Bruce R. Mate.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, A. Rus Hoelzel.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on plans to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
concerning the taking of marine mammals
incidental to the Japanese high seas
salmon drift gill net fishery in the
North Pacific Ocean and making certain
recommendations regarding the scope and
content of the proposed EIS.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the request
from the National Ocean Industries
Association to extend until 1991 its
authorization to take small numbers of
marine mammals incidental to offshore oil
exploration in the Beaufort Sea, and
recommending, among other things, that

153

20 May

22 May

22 May

27 May

27 May

5 June

6 June

the Service provide notice and opportu-
nity for public comment on its proposed
findings that such taking will have a
negligible impact on the species and its
habitat and its availability for taking
for subsistence uses, and that the public
comment period for the proposed rule-
making be extended to at least 45 days to
allow interested parties in Alaska ample
time to prepare comments.

Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Loro Parque, S.A.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Southwest Fisheries Center.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the lack of
progress in establishing reporting
requirements for foreign nations export-
ing to the United States yellowfin tuna
harvested with purse seines in the
eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and
requesting that the Service advise the
Commission on the status of these
regulations.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Brendan P. Kelly.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, James R. Gilbert.

State, commenting to the Bureau of Oceans
and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs on the need for
international cooperation to reduce or
eliminate the discharge of plastic
materials into the world's oceans;
recommending that the U.S. take all
appropriate actions to bring into force
Annex V of the Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships,
including ratification of the Annex; and
requesting that the Commission be advised
of steps that will be needed to bring the
matter before the U.S. Senate.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on interactions
between the sablefish longline fishery

154

11

ll

16

20

23

25

25

June

June

June

June

June

June

June

and killer whales in Prince William
Sound, Alaska, and recommending that the
Service work with certain experts and
affected fishermen to determine and test
possible solutions to the problem.

Interior, scientific research permit
application, Janmark, Inc.

Interior, scientific research permit
application, Hubbs Marine Research
Institute.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on proposed
regulations governing the taking of North
Pacific fur seals by Alaskan Natives for
subsistence purposes, and recommending
that the regulations be adopted with
certain modifications.

Interior, scientific research permit
application, Donald B. Siniff.

Interior, commenting to the Fish and
Wildlife Service on the draft recovery
plan for the Puerto Rican population of
the West Indian manatee, and recommending
that: (a) the draft recovery plan be
adopted with certain modifications, and
(b) that the Service develop a comprehen-
sive work plan for accomplishing identi-
fied tasks and further recommending that
the work plan be submitted to the
Commission and other interested parties
for review and comment.

Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Southwest Fisheries
Center.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on its recent
action certifying that Mexico is fishing
in compliance with pertinent provisions
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and
requesting certain information on:

(a) the Service's progress in implement-
ing new regulations pursuant to the 1984
amendments to the Act, and (b) Mexico's
current fishing practices.

155

15

15

17

17

17

23

July

July

July

July

July

July

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center.

Commerce, requesting from the National
Marine Fisheries Service certain infor-
mation on the Service's research plans
regarding the North Pacific fur seal
population for use in the Commission's
review of this subject during its
scheduled meeting in October 1986.

Interior, scientific research permit
application, Robert L. Brownell, Jr.

Interior, scientific research permit
application, Donald B. Siniff.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Loro Parque, S.A.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the Final
"Combined Fishery Management Plan,
Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory
Impact Review for the Bottomfish and
Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the
Western Pacific Region"; noting that the
Plan contained a number of provisions
that should help strengthen protection
for Hawaiian monk seals; further noting,
that the Plan did not provide adequate
assurances that potential interactions
between the fishery and Hawaiian monk
seal will be identified and avoided; and
recommending that: (a) the Western
Pacific Bottomfish Fishery Management
Plan be amended or a supplemental
statement be added to identify the need
for a research and monitoring program on
interactions between the fishery and the
Hawaiian monk seal and other protected
species; and (b) the Service take steps
necessary to design and implement an
experimental fishing program to supple-
ment and verify data received from
fishermen as a result of the reporting
requirement recommended in the Biological
Opinion on the Plan.

156

30

34

31

31

31

31

31

July

July

July

July

July

July

July

August

Commerce, request for additional clarifi-
cation of research plans under scientific
research permits, Southwest Fisheries
Center.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on planned
research to experimentally entangle a
certain number of North Pacific fur
seals; noting that the proposed research
is not likely to yield any useful infor-
mation; recommending that the Service not
support the research; and restating its
recommendation that a pilot study be
conducted to determine how questions
concerning the likelihood of entanglement
might best be addressed.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Steven D. Feldkamp and
Daniel P. Costa.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Pacific Whale Foundation.

Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, John Fletemeyer.

Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Carle Foundation Hospital.

Interior, commenting to the Fish and
Wildlife Service on the final "Hawaiian
Islands National Wildlife Refuge Master
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement";
noting that the Plan raises the possi-
bility that the Service, at some future
date, might decide to abandon the Refuge
field station on Tern Island; further
noting that continued operation of the
Tern Island field station is essential
for the protection and recovery of the
endangered Hawaiian monk seal; and
recommending that the Service not make a
final decision on abandoning the Tern
Island station unless it has first:

(a) amended its Refuge Master Plan so as
to describe the modified Refuge manage-

157

11

13

19

21

22

25

26

29

0

10

August

August

August

August

August

August

August

August

September

September

September

ment system; (b) re-initiated a section 7
review of the revised system for managing
the Refuge and its effect on endangered
Hawaiian monk seals and sea turtles with
the National Marine Fisheries Service;
and (c) provided the Commission, other
Federal agencies, and the public with an
opportunity to review and comment on the
proposed plan.

Commerce, modification of a scientific
research permit, LGL, Limited.

Interior, scientific research permit
application, Hubbs Marine Research
Institute.

Interior, scientific research permit
application, Anthony R. DeGange.

Interior, six public display permit
applications: Kanazawa Aquarium;
Nagasaki Biopark; Kamogawa Sea World;
Okhotsk Aquarium Foundation; Shimoda
Floating Aquarium; and Minamichita
Beachland Aquarium.

Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, California Department of
Fish and Game.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Sidney Lees.

Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Richard H. Lambertsen.

Commerce, authorization to continue
activities under scientific research
permit, Warren M. Zapol and Robert C.
Schneider.

Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, Robert L. Brownell, Jr.

Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Zoo Negara.

Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Lloyd A. Borguss.

158

15 September

18 September

26 September

29 September

29 September

Commerce, commenting to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on
a Fishery Management Study; expressing
its support for certain recommendations
contained therein; and suggesting that
the study be expanded to consider, among
other things, preparation of fisheries
management plans earlier in the fishery
development process and authority for
placing observers on U.S. fishing
vessels.

Commerce, forwarding to the National
Marine Fisheries Service's Marine
Entanglement Research Program a proce-
dures manual for monitoring tar balls and
suggesting that the Service consider
developing a similar manual on plastics
as the U.S. contribution to the Inter-
national Oceanographic Commission's
series of pollution monitoring documents.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on its plan to
designate critical habitat for the
Hawaiian monk seal and recommending that
the Service: (a) re-open the critical
habitat designation decision for public
comment to consider the need to extend
the designation beyond 10 fathoms;

(b) issue a specific request for public
and agency comments on the special
management considerations and protection
needs that may be required within the
boundaries of each of the designation
alternatives; and (c) extend the critical
habitat designation out to the 20-fathom
contour as recommended in the Commis-
sion's 15 February 1985 letter; and
requesting that, if the Service does not
adopt these recommendations, it provide
the Commission with a detailed explana-
tion of the reasons why.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, North Gulf Oceanic Society.

Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Donald B. Siniff.

159

29

29

29

14

14

14

Li

22

22

September

September

September

October

October

October

October

October

October

October

October

October

Commerce, public display permit applica-
tion, Ringling Brothers - Barnum & Bailey
Circus.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, William A. Watkins.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Janice M. Straley.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Kenneth S. Norris, Randall
S. Wells and William T. Doyle.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on its interim
regulations on "Taking and Importing of
Marine Mammals," expressing support for
their promulgation, and recommending that
the Service adopt the interim regulations
as permanent final regulations.

Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Dolphin Research Center.

Interior, public display permit appli-
cation, Vancouver Public Aquarium.

Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Washington Department of
Game.

Interior, public display permit appli-
cation, Nagasaki Aquarium.

U.S. House of Representatives, commenting
to the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries on H.R. 5422, "The Plastic
Waste Reduction Act of 1986," and H.R.
5380, "The Plastic Waste Study Act of
1986"; suggesting that certain provisions
of H.R. 5422 might be premature; and
expressing support for H.R. 5380 with

certain minor modifications.

Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Southwest Fisheries
Center.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Gerald G. Joyce.

160

22

14

17

19

20

20

20

October

November

November

November

November

November

November

November

November

November

November

November

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Kenneth S. Norris, Randall
S. Wells, and William T. Doyle.

Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, Denver Wildlife Research
Center.

Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Alaska Office of Fish and
Wildlife Research.

Interior, scientific research permit
application, Robert L. Brownell, Jr.

Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Dolphins Plus, Inc.

Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Sea World, Inc.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on proposed
"Regulations Governing the Taking and
Importing of Marine Mammals" and recom-
mending that the proposed regulations be
adopted with certain modifications.

Interior, commenting to the Fish and
Wildlife Service on proposed regulations
for the "Proposed Establishment of an
Experimental Population of Southern Sea
Otters" and recommending that the
proposed regulations be adopted with
certain modifications.

Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Sea World, Inc.

Commerce, authorization to continue
activities under scientific research
permit, Warren M. Zapol and Robert C.
Schneider.

Interior, public display permit appli-
cation, Chicago Zoological Society.

Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Mystic Marinelife Aquarium.

161

20

20

20

24

17

18

22

November

November

November

November

December

December

December

December

December

Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Gulf Exhibition Corp.

Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Marine Animal Productions.

Commerce, authorization to continue
activities under scientific research
permit, National Marine Mammal Labora-
tory.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on the
Incidental Take of Dall's Porpoise in the
Japanese Salmon Fishery; noting among
other things, that: based on available
information, there appeared to be criti-
cal uncertainties and data gaps with
respect to the proposed take; the Service
and the permit applicant should act
promptly to complete necessary research
to resolve these uncertainties; it would
be inappropriate to issue a permit for
more than two years; and a formal Commis-
sion recommendation would be set forth at
an appropriate point in the formal
rulemaking procedure.

Commerce, two scientific research permit
applications, Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Louis M. Herman.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Brent S. Stewart.

Commerce, scientific research permit
application, U.S. Navy.

Interior, commenting to the Fish and
Wildlife Service on plans to close the
Refuge field station on Tern Island and
restating recommendations made in its

1 August 1986 letter that the Service
take no final action to do so unless it
had first modified the Master Plan for
the Hawaiian Island National Wildlife
Refuge, conducted section 7 consultations
with the National Marine Fisheries

162

23 December

23 December

Service on the effect of the action on
Hawaiian monk seals, and provided the
Commission and others with an opportunity
to comment on the action.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the "Proposed
Regulations Governing Approaching
Humpback Whales in Hawaiian Waters" and
recommending, among other things, that
the proposed regulations be revised to
more clearly reflect the protection
standard in the 1979 Notice of Inter-
pretation of Harassment of Humpback
Whales in Hawaii; consideration be given
to prohibiting jet skis and parasail
activity in areas where cow/calf pairs
have commonly been observed; and the
Service undertake monitoring studies to
assess the effectiveness of measures
taken to protect humpback whales in
Hawaiian waters.

Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on priority
needs regarding marine mammals and
recommending needed research and manage-
ment activities concerning: Hawaiian
monk seals, endangered whales, North
Pacific fur seals, the problem of marine
debris, incidental take of harbor
porpoise off California, the incidentaal
take of porpoise in the course of
commercial tuna fishing operations,
Antarctic marine living resources, river
dolphins, and marine mammal permit
procedures.

163

APPENDIX B

REPORTS OF COMMISSION-SPONSORED ACTIVITIES
AVAILABLE FROM THE
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS) 1

Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, R.P. Henderson, and T.J. Lewis. 1977.
Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon Islands,
California, 1970-1975. Final report for MMC- contract
MM4ACOO2. NTIS PB-274 046. 42 pp. (A0O3)

Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, R.P. Henderson, T.J. Lewis, and S.H.
Morrell. 1977. Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon
Islands, California, 1975-1976. Final report for MMC
contract MM5AC0O20. NTIS PB-266 249. 32 pp. (A03)

Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, S.H. Morrell, and R.R. LeValley. 1978.
Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon Islands,
California, 1976-1977. Final report for MMC~ contract
MM6ACO27. NTIS PB-286 603. 44 pp. (A03)

Allen, S.G., D.G. Ainley, and G.W. Page. 1980. Haul out patterns
of harbor seals in Bolinas Lagoon, California. Final report
for MMC contract MM8ACO12. NTIS PB80-176 910. 31 = pp.
(A03)

Balcomb, K.C., J.R. Boran, R.W. Osborne, and N.J. Haenel. 1980.
Observations of killer whales (Orcinas orca) in greater Puget
Sound, State of Washington. Final report for MMC contract
MM1300731-7. NTIS PB80-224 728. 42 pp. (A03)

Bean, M.J. 1985. United States and international authorities
applicable to entanglement of marine mammals and other
organisms in lost or discarded fishing gear and other
debris. Final report for MMC contract MM2629994-7. NTIS
PB85-160471. 65 pp. (A04)

nn — ———— eee

Price codes for printed reports (including postage) are shown
in parentheses at the end of each citation. Microfiche
copies of the reports are also available (price code AOl).
The key to the codes and ordering information can be found on
the last page.

164

Beddington, J.R., and H.A. Williams. 1980. The status and
management of the harp seal in the north-west Atlantic. A
review and evaluation. Final report for MMC_ contract
MM1301062-1. NTIS PB80-206 105. 127 pp. (A07)

Bengtson, J.L. 1978. Review of information regarding the
conservation of living resources of the Antarctic marine
ecosystem. Final report for MMC contract MM8AD055. NTIS PB-
289 496. 148 pp. (A08)

Bishop, J.B. 1985. Summary report of gill and trammel net (set-
net) observations in the vicinity of Morro Bay, California, 1
November 1983 - 31 August 1984. Final report for MMC
contract MM2629900-2. NTIS PB85-150076. 18 pp. (A02)

Bockstoce, J. 1978. A preliminary estimate of the reduction of
the western Arctic bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus)
population by the pelagic whaling industry: 1848-1915.
Final report for MMC contract MM7AD111. NTIS PB-286 797.
32 pp. (A08)

Brownell, R.L., Jr., C. Schoenwald, and R.R. Reeves. 1978.
Preliminary report on world catches of marine mammals 1966-
1975. Final report for MMC contract MM6ACO02. NTIS PB-290
713. 353 pp. (A16)

Chapman, D.G., L.L. Eberhardt, and J.R. Gilbert. 1977. A review
of marine mammal census methods. Final report for MMC
contract MM4AC0O14. NTIS PB-265 547. 55 pp. (A04)

Clark, W.G. 1984. Analysis of variance of photographic and
visual estimates of dolphin school size. Southwest Fisheries
Center Admin. Report LJ-84-11C. Final report for MMC
contract MM2324792-l1. 36 pp.2

Committee to Evaluate Antarctic Marine Ecosystem Research,
National Research Council. 1981. An evaluation of Antarctic
marine ecosystem research. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.c. 99 pp.3

Contos, S.M. 1982. Workshop on marine mammal-fisheries
interactions. Final report for MMC contract MM2079341-0.
NTIS PB82-189 507. 64 pp. (A04)

2 Available from Director, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, California 92038.

3 Available from Polar Research Board, National Academy of

Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20418.

165

Cornell, L.H., E.D. Asper, K.N. Osborn, and M.J. White, Jr. 1979.
Investigations on cryogenic marking procedures for marine
mammals. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC0O03. NTIS
PB 291 570. 24 pp. (A03)

Dayton, P.K., B.D. Keller, and D.A. Ven Tresca. 1980. Studies of
a nearshore community inhabited by sea otters. Final report
for MMC contracts MM6AC0O26 and MM1300702-9. NTIS’ PB81-
109 860. 91 pp. (A06)

DeBeer, J. 1980. Cooperative dedicated vessel research program
on the tuna-porpoise problem; overview and final report.
Final report for MMC contract MM8ACO06. NTIS PB80-150 097.
43 pp. (A03)

Dohl, T.P. 1981. Remote laser branding of marine mammals. Final
report for MMC contract MM4ACO11. NTIS PB81-213 449. 34 pp.
(A03)

Erickson, A.W. 1978. Population studies of killer whales
(Orcinus orca) in the Pacific Northwest: A radio-marking and
tracking study of killer whales. Final report for MMC
contract MM5ACO12. NTIS PB-285 615. 34 pp. (A03)

Fay, F.H., H.M. Feder, and S.W. Stoker. 1977. An estimation of
the impact of the Pacific walrus population on its food
resources in the Bering Sea. Final report for MMC contracts
MM4ACO06 and MM5ACO0O24. NTIS PB-273 505. 38 pp. (A03)

Foster, M.A. 1981. Identification of ongoing and_ planned
fisheries in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Final report
for MMC contract MM1801069-7. NTIS PB81-207 516. 90 pp.
(AO5)

Foster, M.S., C.R. Agegian, R.K. Cowen, R.F. Van Wagenen, D.K.
Rose, and A.C. Hurley. 1979. Toward an understanding of the
effects of sea otter foraging on kelp forest communities in
central California. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC023.
NTIS PB-293 891. 60 pp. (A04)

Fowler, C.W., W.T. Bunderson, M.B. Cherry, R.J. Ryel, and B.B.
Steele. 1980. Comparative population dynamics of large
mammals: A search for management criteria. Final report for
MMC contract MM7ACO13. NTIS PB80-178 627. 330 pp. (A15)

Fowler, C.W., R.d. Ryel, and L.J. Nelson. 1982. Sperm whale
population analysis. Final report for MMC contract MM8ACOO9.
NTIS PB82-174 335. 35 pp. (A03)

Gaines, S.E., and D. Schmidt. 1978. Laws and treaties of the
United States relevant to marine mammal protection policy.
Final report for MMC contract MM5AC029. NTIS PB-281 024.
668 pp. (A99)

166

Gard, R. 1978. Aerial census, behavior, and population dynamics
study of gray whales in Mexico during the 1974-75 calving and
mating season. Final report for MMC contract MM5ACO06.
NTIS PB-274 295. 18 pp. (A02)

Gard, R. 1978. Aerial census and population dynamics study of
gray whales in Baja California during the 1976 calving and
mating season. Final report for MMC contract MM6ACO14. NTIS
PB-275 297. 20 pp. (A03)

Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin. 1979. Biology of marine
mammals: Insights through strandings. Final report for MMC
contract MM7AC0O20. NTIS PB-293 890. 343 pp. (A16)

Geraci, J.R., S.A. Testaverde, D.J. St. Aubin, and T.H. Loop.
1978. A mass stranding of the Atlantic whitesided dolphin,
Lagenorhynchus acutus: A study into pathobiology and life
history. Final report for MMC contract MM5ACO08. NTIS PB-
289 361. 141 pp. (A08)

Gerrodette, T. 1983. Review of the California sea otter salvage
program. Final report for MMC contract MM2629677-5. NTIS
PB83-262 949. 23 pp. (A03)

Gilbert, J.R., V.R. Schurman, and D.T. Richardson. 1979. Gray
seals in New’ England; present status and management
alternatives. Final report for MMC contract MM7ACO02. NTIS
PB-295 599. 40 pp. (A03)

Glockner-Ferrari, D.A., and M.J. Ferrari. 1985. Individual iden-
tification, behavior, reproduction, and distribution of
humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in Hawaii. Final
report for MMC contract MM262975-5. NTIS PB85-200772. 41
pp. (A03)

Gold, J. 1981. Marine mammals: A selected bibliography. Final
report for MMC contract MM1801254-3. NTIS PB 82-104 282.
91 pp. (A05)

Gonsalves, J.T. 1977. Improved method and device to prevent
porpoise mortality: Application of polyvinyl panels to purse
seine nets. Final report for MMC contract MM6ACO0O7. NTIS
PB-274 088. 28 pp. (A03)

Goodman, D. 1978. Management implications of the mathematical
demography of long lived animals. Final report for MMC
contract MM8AD008. NTIS PB-289 678. 80 pp. (A0O5)

Green, K.A. 1977. Antarctic marine ecosystem modeling revised
Ross Sea model, general Southern Ocean budget, and seal
model. Final report for MMC’ contract MM6ACO032. NTIS
PB-270 375. 111 pp. (A06)

167

Green-Hammond, K.A. 1980. Fisheries management under the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Final report for MMC
contract MM1300885-3. NTIS PB80-180 599. 186 pp. (A09)

Green-Hammond, K.A. 1981. Requirements for effective
implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Final report for MMC
contract MM2079173-9. NTIS PB82-123 571. 36 pp. (A03)

Green-Hammond, K.A. 1982. Environmental aspects of potential
petroleum exploration and exploitation in Antarctica:
Forecasting and evaluating risks. Final report for MMC
contract MM2079173-9. NTIS PB82-169 772. 28 pp. (A03)

Green-Hammond, K.A., D.G. Ainley, D.B. Siniff, and N.S. Urquhart.
1983. Selection criteria and monitoring requirements for
indirect indicators of changes in the availability of
Antarctic krill applied to some pinniped and_ seabird
information. Final report for MMC contract MM2324753-6.
NTIS PB83-263 293. 37 pp. (A03)

Herman, L.M., P.H. Forestell, and R.C. Antinoja. 1980. The
1976/77 migration of humpback whales into Hawaiian waters:
Composite description. Final report for MMC_ contracts

MM7AC0O14 and MM1300907-2. NTIS PB80-162 332. 55 pp. (A04)

Hofman, R.J. (Editor). 1979. A workshop to identify new
research that might contribute to the solution of a tuna-
porpoise problem. Proceedings of a Marine Mammal Commission-
sponsored workshop held on 8-9 December 1975 at the
University of California, Santa Cruz. NTIS PB-290 158.
17 pp. (A02)

Hofman, R.J. 1982. Identification and assessment of possible
alternative methods for catching yellowfin tuna. NTIS PB83-
138 993. 243 pp. (All)

Hofman, R.J. (Editor). 1985. Workshop to assess methods for
regulating the distribution and movements of sea otters.
Report of a Marine Mammal Commission-sponsored workshop held
25-26 October 1984 in San Francisco, California. NTIS PB85-
229250. 39 pp. (A03)

Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, S.H. Morrell, R.R. LeValley, and C.S.
Strong. 1979. Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon
Islands, California, 1977-1978. Final report for MMC
contract MM7AC0O25. NTIS PB-1ll 602. 50 pp. (A04)

Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, S.H. Morrell, R.J. Boekelheide, and
R.P. Henderson. 1980. Studies of marine mammals at _ the
Farallon Islands, California, 1978-1979. Final report for
MMC contract MM1300888-2. NTIS PB80-178 197. 46 pp. (A04)

168

Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, R.J. Boekelheide, R.P. Henderson, and
B. Bainbridge. 1981. Studies of marine mammals at _ the
Farallon Islands, California, 1979-1980. Final report for
MMC contract MM1533599-3. NTIS PB81-167 082. 51 pp. (A04)

Hui, C.A. 1978. Reliability of using dentin layers for age
determination in Tursiops truncatus. Final report for MMC
contract MM7ACO21. NTIS PB-288 444. 25 pp. (A03)

Irvine, A.B., M.D. Scott, R.S. Wells, J.H. Kaufmann, and W.E.
Evans. 1979. A study of the activities and movements of
the Atlantic bottlenosed dolphin, Tursiops truncatus,
including an evaluation of tagging techniques. Final report
for MMC contracts MM4AC0O04 and MM5ACO18. NTIS PB-298 042.
54 pp. (A04)

Jameson, G.L. 1986. Trial systematic salvage of beach-cast sea
otter, Enhydra lutris, carcasses in the central and southern
portion of the sea otter range in California. Final report
for MMC contract MM2629849-8. NTIS PB87-108 288. 60 pp.
(A04)

Jeffries, S.J. 1986. Seasonal movement and population trends of
harbor seals in the Columbia River and adjacent waters of
Washington and Oregon, 1976-1982. Final report for MMC
contract MM2079357-5. NTIS PB86-200 243. 41 pp. (A03)

Johnson, B.W., and P.A. Johnson. 1978. The Hawaiian monk seal on
Laysan Island: 1977. Final report for MMC contract
MM7ACO0O9. NTIS PB-285 428. 38 pp. (A03)

Johnson, B.W., and P.A. Johnson. 1981. Estimating the Hawaiian
monk seal population on Laysan Island. Final report for MMC
contract MM1533701-4. NTIS PB82-106 113. 29 pp. (A05)

Johnson, B.W., and P.A. Johnson. 1981. The Hawaiian monk seal
on Laysan Island: 1978. Final report for MMC’ contract
MM8ACO0O8. NTIS PB82-109 661. 17 pp. (A02)

Johnson, M.L., and S.J. Jeffries. 1977. Population evaluation of
the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardi) in the waters of
the State of Washington. Final report for MMC contract
MM5ACO19. NTIS PB-270 376. 27 pp. (A03)

Johnson, M.L., and S.J. Jeffries. 1983. Population biology of
the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardi) in the waters of
the State of Washington: 1976-1977. Final report for MMC
contract MM6AC025. NTIS PB83-159 715. 53 pp. (A04)

Kasuya, T., and Y. Izumizawa. 1981. The fishery-dolphin conflict
in the Iki Island area of Japan. Final report for MMC
contract MM1533791-7. NTIS PB81-171 357. 31 pp. (A03)

169

Katona, S.K. 1983. The Gulf of Maine Whale Sighting Network:
1976. Final report for MMC contract MM6ACO18. NTIS PB83-151
290. 32 pp. (A003)

Katona, S.K., and S. Kraus. 1979. Photographic identification of
individual humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae):
Evaluation and analysis of the technique. Final report for
MMC contract MM7ACO15. NTIS PB-298 740. 29 pp. (A03)

Kraus, S.D. 1986. A review of the status of right whales
(Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic with a
summary of research and management needs. Final report for
MMC contract MM2910905-0. NTIS PB86-154 143. 61 pp. (A04)

Kooyman, G.L. 1982. Development and testing of a time-depth
recorder for marine mammals. Final report for MMC contract
MM6ACO19. NTIS PB82-257 932. 10 pp. (A02)

Leatherwood, J.S., R.A. Johnson, D.K. Lijungblad, and W.E. Evans.
1977. Broadband measurements of underwater acoustic target
strengths of panels of tuna nets. Final report for MMC
contract MM6ACO20. Naval Ocean Systems Center Tech. Report
126. 19 pp.4

Loughlin, T. 1978. A telemetric and tagging study of sea otter
activities near Monterey, California. Final report for MMC
contract MM6AC024. NTIS PB-289 682. 64 pp. (A04)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1974. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1973. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB-269 708. 14 pp. (A03)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1975. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1974. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB-269 710. 27 pp. (A04)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1976. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1975. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB 269-711. 50 pp. (A04)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1977. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1976. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB-269 713. 71 pp. (A06)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1978. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1977. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB-281 564. 101 pp. (A06)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1979. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1978. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB-106 784. 108 pp. (A06)
4 Available from the Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego,
California 92152.

170

Marine Mammal Commission. 1980. Humpback whales in Glacier Bay
National Monument, Alaska. Final report for an interagency
review meeting. NTIS PB80-141 449 44 pp. (A03)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1981. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1979. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB81-247 892. 100 pp. (A06)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1981. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1980. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB81-247 884. 114 pp. (A06)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1982. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1981. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB82-221 425. 102 pp. (A06)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1982. Report of a meeting to review
on-going and planned research concerning humpback whales in
Glacier Bay and surrounding waters in southeast Alaska.
Final report of an interagency meeting. NTIS PB82-201 039.
20 pp. (A02)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1983. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1982. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB84-132 216. 106 pp. (A06)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1984. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1983. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB84-199 389. 118 pp. (A06)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1986. Habitat protection needs for the
subpopulation of West Indian manatees in the Crystal River
area of northwest Florida. NTIS PB86-200 250. 46 pp.
(A04)

Marine Mammal Commission. 1986. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1985. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB86-216 249. 180 pp. (A09)

Mate, B.R. 1977. Aerial censusing of pinnipeds in the eastern
Pacific for assessment of population numbers, migratory
distributions, rookery stability, breeding effort, and
recruitment. Final report for MMC contract MM5ACOOl1.
NTIS PB-265 859. 67 pp. (A04)

Mate, B.R. 1980. Workshop on marine mammal-fisheries
interactions in the northeastern Pacific. Final report for
MMC contract MM8ACO03. NTIS PB80-175 144. 48 pp. (A04)

Mathiesen, O.A. 1980. Methods for the estimation of krill

abundance in the Antarctic. Final report for MMC contract
MM7ACO32. NTIS PB80-175 151. 26 pp. (A03)

171

Matkin, €.0;, and F.H. Fay. 1980. Marine mammal-fishery
interactions on the Copper River and in Prince William Sound,
Alaska, 1978. Final report for MMC contract MM8AC0O13. NTIS
PB80-159 536. 71 pp. (A05)

Mayo, C.A. 1982. Observations of cetaceans: Cape Cod Bay and
southern Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts 1975-1979. Final
report for MMC contract MM1800925-5. NTIS PB82-186 263.
68 pp. (A05)

Medway, W. 1983. Evaluation of the safety and usefulness of
techniques and equipment used to obtain biopsies from free-
swimming cetaceans. Final report for MMC contract MM2324809-
8. NTIS PB83-263 269. 14 pp. (A02)

Metleff, B.R., and D.H. Rosenberg. (Editors). 1984. Proceedings
of the Workshop on Biological Interactions Among Marine
Mammals and Commercial Fisheries in the Southeastern Bering
Sea, October 18-21, 1983, Anchorage, Alaska. Final report
for MMC contract MM2324802-7. 300 pp.°

Miller, L.K. 1978. Energetics of the northern fur seal in
relation to climate and food resources of the Bering Sea.
Final report for MMC contract MM5ACO025. NTIS PB-275 296.
27 pp. (A03)

Montgomery, S. 1986. Workshop on measures to address marine
mammal/fisheries interactions in California. Final report
for MMC contract MM3309746-2. NTIS PB86-219 060. 123 pp.
(A07)

Nolan, R.S. 1981. Shark control and the Hawaiian monk seal.
Final report for MMC contract MM1801065-5. NTIS PB81-201
808. 45 pp. (A03)

Norris, K.S., and J.D. Hall. 1979. Development of techniques for
estimating trophic impact of marine mammals. Final report
for MMC contract MM4AC0O13. NTIS PB-290 399. 16 pp. (A02)

Norris, K.S., and R.R. Reeves. (Editors). 1978. Report on a
workshop on problems related to humpback whales (Megaptera
novaeangliae) in Hawaii. Final report for MMC’ contract
MM7ACO18. NTIS PB-280 794. 90 pp. (A05)

Norris, K.S., W.E. Stuntz, and W. Rogers. 1978. The behavior of
porpoises in the eastern tropical Pacific yellowfin tuna
fishery: preliminary studies. Final report for MMC contract
MM6ACO0O22. NTIS PB-283 970. 86 pp. (A05)

5 Available from the Alaska Sea Grant College Program,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701.

172

Odell, D.K. 1979. A preliminary study of the ecology and
population biology of the bottlenose dolphin in southeast
Florida. Final report for MMC contract MM4AC0O03. NTIS PB-
294 336. 26 pp. (A03)

Odell, D.K., and J.E. Reynolds, III. 1980. Abundance of the
bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, on the west coast of
Florida. Final report for MMC contract MM5ACO26. NTIS PB-
80-197 650. 47 pp. (A04)

Odell, D.K., D.B. Siniff, and G.H. Waring. 1979. MTursiops
truncatus assessment workshop. Final report for MMC contract
MM5ACO21. NTIS PB-291 161. 141 pp. (A04)

Packard, J.M. 1982. Potential methods for influencing the
movements and distribution of sea otters: Assessment of
research needs. Final report for MMC contract MM2079342-3.
NTIS PB83-109 926. 51 pp. (A04)

Packard, J.M. 1984. Proposed research/management plan _ for
Crystal River manatees. Vols. 1-3. Tech. Report 7. Florida
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of
Florida, Gainesville. 31 pp.; 235 pp.; 346 pp. Prepared for
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Final report for MMC
contract MM1801024-4.6

Payne, R., O. Brazier, E. Dorsey, J. Perkins, V. Rowntree, and A.
Titus. 1981. External features in southern right whales
(Eubalaena australis) and their use in identifying
individuals. Final report for MMC contract MM6ACO17. NTIS
PB81-161 093. 77 pp. (A05)

Pitcher, K.W. 1977. Population productivity and food habits of
harbor seals in the Prince William Sound-Copper River Delta
area, Alaska. Final report for MMC contract MM5ACOll. NTIS
PB-266 935. 36 pp. (A03)

Prescott, J.H., and P.M. Fiorelli. 1980. Review of the harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the U.S. northwest Atlantic.
Final report for MMC contract MM8ACO16. NTIS PB80-176 928.
64 pp. (A04)

Prescott, J.H., S.D. Kraus, and J.R. Gilbert. 1920. East Coast/
Fin

Gulf Coast cetacean and pinniped workshop. al report for
MMC contract MM1533558-2. NTIS PB80-160 104. 142 pp. (A07)

6 Available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.

173

Ralston, F. (Editor). 1977. A workshop to assess’ research
related to the porpoise/tuna problem, February 28, March 1-2.
Southwest Fisheries Center Admin. Report LJ-77-15. Final
report for MMC contract MM7ACO22. 119 pp. 6 appendices. /?

Ray, G.C., R.V. Salm, and J.A. Dobbin. 1979. Systems analysis
mapping: An approach towards identifying critical habitats
of marine mammals. Final report for MMC contract MM6ACOl11.
NTIS PB80-111 594. 27 pp. (A03)

Reeves, R.R. 1977. Exploitation of harp and hooded seals in the
western North Atlantic. Final report for MMC_ contract
MM6AD055. NTIS PB-270 186. 57 pp. (A04)

Reeves, R.R. 1977. The problem of gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus) harassment: At the breeding lagoons and during
migration. Final report for MMC contract MM6ACO21. NTIS
PB-272 506 (Spanish translation PB-291 763). 60 pp. (A04)

Reynolds, JsEs,; Tike 1986. Evaluation of the nature = and
magnitude of interactions between bottlenose dolphins,
Tursiops truncatus, and fisheries and other human activities
in the coastal areas of the southeastern United States.
Final report for MMC contract MM2910892-5. NTIS PB86-162
203. 38 pp. (A03)

Ridgway, S.H., and kK. Benirschke. (Editors). 1977. Breeding
dolphins: Present status, suggestions for the future. Final
report for MMC contract MM6ACO09. NTIS PB-273 673. 308 pp.
(Al4)

Ridgway, S.H., and W.F. Flanigan, Jr. 1981. An investigation of
a potential method for the humane taking of certain whales
and seals used for food. Final report for MMC contract
MM6ACO30. NTIS PB81-161 101. 12 pp. (A02)

Risebrough, R.W. 1978. Pollutants in marine mammals: A
literature review and recommendations for research. Final
report for MMC contract MM7AD035. NTIS PB-290 728. 64 pp.

(A04)
Risebrough, R.W., D. Alcorn, S.G. Allen, Vic. Anderlini,
Ts Booren, R.L. DeLong, L.E. Fancher, R.E. Jones,

S.M. McGinnis, and T.T. Schmidt. 1980. Population biology
of harbor seals in San Francisco Bay, California. Final
report for MMC contract MM6ACO06. NTIS PB81-107 963. 67 pp.
(A04)

7 Available from Director, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, California 92038.

174

ee eT

Sawyer-Steffan, J.E., and V.L. Kirby. 1980. A study of serum
steroid hormone levels in captive female bottlenose dolphins,
their correlation with reproductive status, and their
application to ovulation induction in captivity. Final
report for MMC contract MM7ACO16. NTIS PB80-177 199. 21 pp.
(A03)

Schmidly, D.J., and S.H. Shane. 1978. A biological assessment of
the cetacean fauna of the Texas coast. Final report for
MMC contract MM4ACO08. NTIS PB-281 763. 38 pp. (A03)

Scott, G.P., and H.E. Winn. 1980. Comparative evaluation of
aerial and shipboard sampling techniques for estimating the
abundance of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Final
report for MMC contract MM7ACO29. NTIS PB81-109 852. 96 pp.
(A06)

Shallenberger, E. 1981. The status of Hawaiian cetaceans. Final
report for MMC contract MM7AC0O28. NTIS PB82-109 398. 79 pp.
(A05)

Shane, S.H., and D.J. Schmidly. 1978. The population biology of
the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in the
Aransas Pass area of Texas. Final report for MMC contract
MM6ACO28. NTIS PB-283 393. 130 pp. (A0O7)

Smith, T.D., and T. Polacheck. 1979. Uncertainty in estimating
historical abundance of porpoise populations. Final report
for MMC contract MM7ACO06. NTIS PB-296 476. 59 pp. (A04)

Stoker, S.W. 1977. Report on a subtidal commercial clam fishery
proposed for the Bering Sea. Final report for MMC contract
MM7AD076. NTIS PB-269 712. 33 pp. (A03)

Stuntz, W.E. 1980. Preliminary investigations of the possible
relationship between passive behavior by spotted dolphins,
Stenella attenuata, and capture stress. Final report for MMC
contract MM7ACO27. NTIS PB81-111 569. 13 pp. (A02)

Swartz, S.L., and W.C. Cummings. 1978. Gray whales, Eschrichtius
robustus, in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California, Mexico.
Final report for MMC contract MM7ACO08. NTIS PB-276 319

(Spanish translation PB-288 636). 38 pp. (A03) (AG4
Spanish)
Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1978. The evaluation of human

activities on gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, in Laguna
San Ignacio, Baja California, Mexico. Final report for MMC
contract MM8ACO0O5. NTIS PB-289 737 (Spanish translation
PB-299 598). 34 pp. (A03)

175

Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1980. Gray whales, Eschrichtius
robustus, during the 1977-1978 and 1978-1979 winter seasons
in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Final
report for MMC contract MM1533497-8. NTIS PB80-202 989. 35
pp- (A03)

Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1981. Demographic studies and
habitat assessment of gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, in
Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Final
report for MMC contract MM2079219-4. NTIS PB82-123 373.
56 pp. (A04)

Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1986. Demography and phenology of
gray whales and evaluation of human activities in Laguna San
Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico, 1978-1982. Final
report for MMC contract MM2324713-8. NTIS PB86-219 078.
69 pp. (A05)

Swartzman, G., and R. Haar. 1980. Exploring interactions between
fur seal populations and fisheries in the Bering Sea. Final
report for MMC contract MM1800969-5. NTIS PB81-133 688.
60 pp. (A04)

Swartzman, G. 1984. Factors bearing on the present status and
future of the Eastern Bering Sea fur seal population with
special emphasis on the effect of terminating the subadult
male harvest on St. Paul Island. Final report for MMC
contract MM2629737-6. NTIS PB84-172 329. 77 pp. (A05)

Taylor, L.R. and G. Naftel. 1978. Preliminary investigations
of shark predation on the Hawaiian monk seal at Pearl and
Hermes Reef and French Frigate Shoals. Final report for MMC
contract MM7ACOll. NTIS PB-285 626. 34 pp. (A03)

Tinney, R.T., Jr. 1983. Assessment of past, present, and future
risks of oil spills in and near the present sea otter range
in California. Final report for MMC contract MM2324944-0.
NTIS PB83-216 069. 208 pp. (A10)

Tinney, R.T. 1984. Some factors affecting the oil spill risk to
sea otters in California. Final report for MMC contract
MM2910765-4. NTIS PB85-174035. 74 pp. (A04)

Treacy, S.D. 1986. Ingestion of salmonids and gastrointestinal
passage in captive harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Final
report for MMC contract MM2079357-5. NTIS PB86-200 235.
35 pp. (A03)

Waring, G.H. 1981. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal
research and studies FY70-FY79. Final report for MMC
contract MM1533588-3. NTIS PB81-174 336. 235 pp. (All)

176

Waring, G.H.
research
contract

Waring, G.H.
research
contract

Waring, G.H.
research
contract

Waring, G.H.
research
contract

Waring, G.H.
research
contract

Waring, G.H.
research
contract

Wartzok, D.,

Pacific walrus.
NTIS PB80-192 578.

Wells, R.S.,

1981. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal
and studies FY70-FY80. Final report for MMC
MM1801196-8. NTIS PB81-242 059. 43 pp. (A03)
1982. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal
and studies FY70-FY81. Final report for MMC
MM2079243-6. NTIS PB82-227 570. 65 pp. (A004)
1983. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal
and studies FY70-FY82. Final report for MMC
MM2324754-9. NTIS PB83-262 998. 83 pp. (A05)
1984. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal
and studies FY70-FY83. Final report for MMC
MM2629857-9. NTIS PB84-215 086. 84 pp. (A05)
1985. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal
and studies FY70-FY84. Final report for MMC
MM2910918-6. NTIS PB85-225613. 106 pp. (A06)
1986. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal
and studies FY70-FY85. Final report for MMC
MM3309688-7. NTIS PB86-235 637. 108 pp. (A06)
and G.C. Ray. 1980. The hauling-out behavior of the
Final report for MMC contract MMS5AC028.
46 pp. (A04)
B.G. Wursig, and K.S. Norris. 1981. A survey of the

marine mammals of the upper Gulf of California, Mexico, with
an assessment of the status of Phocoena sinus. Final report
for MMC contract MM1300958-0. NTIS PB81-168 791. 51 pp.
(A04)

Whitehead, H., and R. Payne. 1981. New techniques for measuring
whales from the air. Final report for MMC contract MM6ACO17.
NTIS PB81-161 143. 36 pp. (A03)

Whitehead, H., kK. Chu, P. Harcourt, and A. Alling. 1982. The
humpback whales off west Greenland: Summer 1981, with notes

on other marine mammals and seabirds sighted.
MMC contract MM2079259-2.

Williams,

otter.

969. 27

Wilson, S.C.
seals,

fee
hematological parameters and oil contamination
Final report for MMC contract MM7AD094.

Phoca vitulina concolor,
MMC contract MM6ACO13.

Final report
NTIS PB82-243 924. 25 pp. (A03)
1978. baseline
in the sea

NTIS PB-283

Chemical immobilization,

pp. (A03)

1978. Social organization and behavior of harbor
in Maine. Final report for

NTIS PB-280 188. 103 pp. (A06)

177

Winn, H.E. 1984. Development of a right whale sighting network
in the southeastern U.S. Final report for MMC contract
MM2324805-6. NTIS PB84-240 548. 12 pp. (AO1l)

Winn, H.E., E.A. Scott, and R.D. Kenney. 1985. Aerial surveys
for right whales in the Great South Channel. Spring 1984.
Final report for MMC contract MM2910792-6. NTIS PB85-
207926. 18 pp. (A002)

Woodhouse, C.D., Jr., R.K. Cowen, and L.R. Wilcoxon. 1977. A
summary of knowledge of the sea otter Enhydra lutris, L., in
California and an appraisal of the completeness of the
biological understanding of the species. Final report for
MMC contract MM6ACO08. NTIS PB-270 374. 71 pp. (A04)

Wray, P. 1978. The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)
in Florida: A summary and analysis of _ biological,
ecological, and administrative problems affecting
preservation and restoration of the population. Final report
for MMC contract MM8AD054. NTIS PB-285 410. 89 pp. (A05)

Yellin, M.B., C.R. Agegian, and J.S. Pearse. 1977. Ecological
benchmarks in the Santa Cruz County kelp forests before the
re-establishment of sea _ otters. Final report for MMC
contract MM6AC0O29. NTIS PB-272 813. 125 pp. (A07)

178

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
CURRENT PRICE LIST8

Domestic Foreign
Price Code U.S., Canada and Mexico All Other Countries
AOl (Microfiche) $ 5.95 $ 11.90
AO02 9.95 19.90
AO3 9.95 19.90
AO04 11.95 23.90
AO5 11.95 23.90
AO06 16.95 33.90
AO7 16.95 33.90
AO8 16.95 33.90
AO 9 16.95 33690
Alo 22.95 45.90
All 22.95 45.90
Al2 22.95 45.90
Al13 22.95 45.90
Al4 28.95 57.90
Al5 28.95 57.90
Al16 28.95 57.90
Al7 28.95 57490
A18 34.95 68.90
Al19 34.95 68.90
A20 34.95 68.90
A21 34.95 68.90
A22 40.95 81.90
A23 40.95 81.90
A24 40.95 81.90
A25 40.95 81.90
A99 (Write to NTIS for price quotation. ]

8

Each report, regardless of length, is available in microfiche
at the base prices listed for code AOl. All prices include
postage and are given in U.S. currency. In addition, there
is a $3.00 handling charge on domestic ($4.00 on foreign)
orders. When ordering, include the NTIS accession number
(e.g., PB-265 547). Make checks and money orders payable to
the National Technical Information Service. Address: 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, U.S.A.

179

APPENDIX C

SELECTED LITERATURE PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE
RESULTING FROM COMMISSION-SPONSORED ACTIVITIES

Ainley, D.G., C.S. Strong, H.R. Huber, 1T.J. Lewis, and S.H.
Morrell. 1980. Predation by Sharks on Pinnipeds at the
Farallon Islands. Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA), 78(4):941-945.
(MMC Contracts MM4AC0O02, MM5AC027, MM6ACO07, MM7ACO25, and
MM1300888-2).

Alexander, L.M., and L.C. Hanson. (Editors). 1985. Antarctic
Politics and Marine Resources: Critical Choices for the
1980s. Proceedings from the Eighth Annual Conference, 17-
20 June 1984, Center for Ocean Management Studies, University
of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. 262 pp. (MMC
Contract MM2910791-3).

Allen, S.G., D.G. Ainley, G.W. Page, and C.A. Ribic. 1984. The
Effect of Disturbance on Harbor Seal Haul Out Patterns at
Bolinas Lagoon, California. Fishery Bulletin, California
Fish and Game, 82(3):6. (MMC Contract MM8ACO12).

Baker, C.S., and L.M. Herman. 1981. Migration and _ Local
Movements of Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)
through Hawaiian Waters. Canadian Journal of Zoology,

59(3):460-469. (MMC Contract MM7ACO14).

Barham, E.G., J.C. Sweeney, S. Leatherwood, R.K. Beggs, and C.L.
Barham. 1980. Aerial Census of the Bottlenose Dolphin,
Tursiops truncatus, in a Region of the Texas Coast. Fishery
Bulletin, (NOAA), 77(3):585-595. (MMC Contract MM8ACOl11).

Bengtson, JsRs 1985. Monitoring Indicators of Possible
Ecological Changes in the Antarctic Marine Ecosystem. In
Selected Papers, 1982-1984 (Part II), Commission for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Hobart,
Australia. (MMC Contract 2629914-1).

Bengtson, J.L. 1985. Review of Antarctic Marine Fauna. In
Selected Papers, 1982-1984 (Part I), Commission for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Hobart,
Australia. (MMC Contract 2629914-1).

180

Blix, A.S., and L.K. Miller. 1979. Newborn Fur Seals

(Callorhinus ursinus) - Do They Suffer from the Cold?
American Journal of Physiology, 236:R322-327. (MMC Contract
MM5ACO25).

Bockstoce, J. 1980. A Preliminary Estimate of the Reduction of
the Western Arctic Bowhead Whale Population by the Pelagic
Whaling Industry: 1848-1915. Marine Fisheries Review, 42(9-
10) :20-27. (MMC Contract MM7AD111).

Breiwick, J.M. 1978. Reanalysis of Antarctic Sei Whale Stocks.
Report to the International Whaling Commission, 28:345-368.
(MMC Contract MM7ACO12).

Breiwick, J.M., E.D. Mitchell, and D.G. Chapman. 1980.
Estimated Initial Population Size of the Bering Sea Stock of
Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus: An Iterative Method.
Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA) , 78(4):843-853. (MMC Contract
MM8ACO07).

Burns, J.J., F.H. Fay, and G.A. Fedoseev. 1984. Craniological
Analysis of Harbor and Spotted Seals of the North Pacific
Region. Pp. 5-16. In F.H. Fay and G.A. Fedoseev (Editors).
Soviet-American Cooperative Research on Marine Mammals. Vol.
I-Pinnipeds. NOAA Tech. Report NMFS-12. (MMC Contract
MM4ACO005).

Clark, W.G. 1981. Restricted Least-squares Estimates of Age
Composition from Length Composition. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 38:297-307. (MMC Contracts
MM1533439-2 and MM1801114-6).

Clark, W.G. 1982. Early Changes in the Recruitment Rates of
Antarctic Minke Whales Inferred from Recent Age
Distributions. Report to the International Whaling
Commission, 32:889-895. (MMC Contracts MM1533439-2 and
MM1801114-6).

Clark, W.G. 1982. Historical Rates of Recruitment to Southern
Hemisphere Fin Whale Stocks. Report to the International
Whaling Commission, 32. SC/33/Ba3:305-324. (MMC Contracts
MM1533439-2 and MM1801114-6).

Clark, W.G. 1983. Apparent Inconsistencies among Countries in
Measurements of Fin Whale Lengths. Report to the
International Whaling Commission, 33:431-434. (MMC Contracts
MM1533439-2 and MM1801114-6).

Clark, W.G. 1984. Recruitment Rates of Antarctic Fin Whales,
Balaenoptera physalus, Inferred from Cohort Analysis. In
W.F. Perrin, R.L. Brownell, Jr., and D.M. DeMaster (Editors).
Reproduction in Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. Special
Issue 6. International Whaling Commission. Cambridge, U.K.
(MMC Contract MM1533439-2).

181

Coe, J.M., and W.E. Stuntz. 1980. Passive Behavior by the
Spotted Dolphin, Stenella attenuata, in Tuna Purse Seine
Nets. Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA) , 78 (2) 3535-537. (MMC
Contract MM6AC022).

Costa, D.P. 1978. The Sea Otter: Its Interaction with Man.
Oceanus, 21(2):24-30. (MMC Contract MM6AA053).

Costa, D.P. 1982. Energy, Nitrogen, and Electrolyte Flux and Sea
Water Drinking in the Sea Otter, Enhydra lutris.

Physiological Zoology, 55(1):35-44. (MMC Contract
MM6AA053).
Cowen, R.Key C.R. Agegian, and M.S. Foster. 1982. The

Maintenance of Community Structure in a Central California
Giant Kelp Forest. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology
and Ecology, 64:189-201. (MMC Contract MM7AC023).

Dayton, PKs 1984. Processes Structuring Some Marine
Communities: Are They General? Pp. 181-197. In _ D.R.
Strong, et al. (Editors). Ecological Communities:

Conceptual Issues and the Evidence. Princeton University
Press. Princeton, N.J. (MMC Contract MM1300702-9).

Dayton, P.K., V. Currie, P. Gerrodette, B.D. Keller, R. Rosenthal,
and D. Van Tresca. 1984. Patch Dynamics and Stability of
Some California Kelp Communities. Ecological Monograph,
54(3):253-289. (MMC Contract MM1300702-9).

Dayton, P.K., and M.J. Tegner. 1984. The Importance of Scale in
Community Ecology: A Kelp Forest Example with Terrestrial
Analogs. Pp. 457-481. In P.W. Price, et al. (Editors). A
New Ecology: Novel Approaches to Interactive Systems. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. (MMC Contract MM1300702-9).

Eberhardt, L.L., D.G. Chapman, and J.R. Gilbert. 1979. A Review
of Marine Mammal Census Methods. Wildlife Monographs, No.
63. 46 pp. (MMC Contract MM4ACO14).

Everitt, R.D., and R.J. Beach. 1982. Marine Mammal-Fisheries
Interactions in Oregon and Washington: An Overview. Pp.
265-277. In Transactions of the 47th North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management
Institute. Washington, D.C. (MMC Contracts MM2079345-2 and
MM2079357-5).

Fay, F.H. 1982. Ecology and Biology of the Pacific Walrus,
Odobenus rosmarus divergens Illigen. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. North American Fauna, No. 74. 279 pp. (Partial
support under MMC Contract MM1533576-0).

182

Fay, F.H., Y.A. Bukhtiyarov, S.W. Stoker, and L.M. Schulz. 1984.
Food of the Pacific Walrus in Winter and Spring in the Bering
Sea. Pp. 81-88. In F.H. Fay, and G.A. Fedoseev (Editors).
Soviet-American Cooperative Research on Marine Mammals. Vol.
1-Pinnipeds. NOAA Tech. Report NMFS-12. (MMC Contracts
MM4ACO06 and MM5ACO024).

Foster, M. 1982. The Regulation of Macroalgal Associations in
Kelp Forests. Pp. 185-205. In L. Srivastava (Edttor).
Synthetic and Degradative Processes in Marine Macrophytes.
W. de Gruyter & Company. Berlin. (MMC Contract MM7ACO023).

Fowler, C.W. 1980. A Rationale for Modifying Effort by Catch,
Using the Sperm Whale of the North Pacific as an Example.
Pp. 99-102. In Report to the International Whaling
Commission, Special Issue 2. (MMC Contract MM8ACO009).

Fowler, C.W. 1981. Comparative Population Dynamics in Large
Mammals. Pp. 437-455. In C.W. Fowler and T.D. Smith
(Edotors). Dynamics of Large Mammal Populations. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. New York. (MMC Contract MM1300730-4).

Fowler, C.W. 1981. Density Dependence as Related to Life History
Strategy. Ecology, 62:602-610. (MMC Contract MM7ACO13).

Gaines, S.E., and D. Schmidt. 1976. Wildlife Management under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Environmental Law
Reporter. pp. 50096-50114. (MMC Contract MM5AC029).

Gentry, R.L., and G.L. Kooyman. 1986. Fur Seals: Maternal
Strategies on Land and at Sea. Princeton University Press.
Princeton, New Jersey. 291 pp. (MMC Contract MM6A019).

Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. Offshore Petroleum
Resource Development and Marine Mammals: A _ Review and
Research Recommendations. Marine Fisheries Review, 42(11):1l-
12. (Requested by the MMC).

Hall, J.D. 1977. A Non-Lethal Lavage Device for Sampling Stomach
Contents of Small Marine Mammals. Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA),
75(3):653-656. (MMC Contract MM4ACO13).

Herman, L.M. 1979. Humpback Whales in Hawaiian Waters: A Study
in Historical Ecology. Pacific Science, 33(1):1-16. (MMC
Contract MM7ACO14).

Herman, L.M., and R.C. Antinoja. 1977. Humpback Whales in the
Hawaiian Breeding Waters: Population and Pod
Characteristics. Scientific Report of the Whales Research
Institute, No. 29:59-85. (MMC Contract MM7ACO14).

183

Hofman, R.J. 1985. The Convention on the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Pp. 113-122. In L.M.
Alexander and L.C. Hanson (Editors). Antarctic Politics and
Marine Resources: Critical Choices for the 1980s.

University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.

Hofman, R.J., and W.N. Bonner. 1985. Conservation and Protection
of Marine Mammals: Past, Present and Future. Marine Mammal
Science, 1(2):109.

Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, and S.H. Morrell. 1982. Sightings of
Cetaceans in the Gulf of the Farallones, California, 1971-
1979. California Fish and Game, 68(3):183-189. (MMC
Contract MM1300888-2).

Hui, C.A. 1980. Variability of Dentin Deposits in Tursiops
truncatus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science, 37(4):712-716. (MMC Contract MM7ACO21).

Irvine, A.B., M.D. Scott, R.S. Wells, and J.H. Kaufman. 1981.
Movements and Activities of the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin,

Tursiops truncatus, Near Sarasota, Florida. Fishery
Bulletin, (NOAA), 79(4):671-688. (MMC Contracts MM4AC004 and
MM5ACO18).

Irvine, A.B., R.S. Wells, and M.D. Scott. 1982. An Evaluation of
Techniques for Tagging Small Odontocete Cetaceans. Fishery
Bulletin, (NOAA), 80(1):135-143. (MMC Contracts MM4ACO004 and
MM5ACO18).

Johnson, P.A., B.W. Johnson, and L.R. Taylor. 1981. Interisland
Movement of a Young Hawaiian Monk Seal between Laysan Island
and Maro Reef. '‘Elepaio, 41(11):113-114. (MMC Contracts
MM7ACO09 and MM8ACO0O8).

Jones, M.L., and S.L. Swartz. 1984. Demography and Phenology of
Whale-Watching Activities in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja
California Sur, Mexico. Pp. 309-374. In M.L. Jones and S.L.
Swartz (Editors). The Gray Whale, Eschrichtius robustus.
Academic Press. New York. (MMC Contract MM8ACO05).

Kooyman, G.L., J9.0O. Billups, and W.D. Farwell. 1983. Two
Recently Developed Recorders for Monitoring Diving Activity
of Marine Birds and Mammals. Pp. 197-214. In: A.G.
MacDonald and I.G. Priede (Editors). Experimental Biology at

Sea. Academic Press. New York. (MMC Contract
MM6ACO19).
Kooyman, G.L., and L.H. Cornell. 1981. Flow Properties of

Expiration and Inspiration in a Trained Bottle-Nosed
Porpoise. Physiological Zoology, 54(1):55-61. (MMC Contract
MM4ACO12).

184

Kooyman, G.L., R.L. Gentry, and D.L. Urquhart. 1976. Northern
Fur Seal Diving Behavior: A New Approach to its Study.
Science, 193:411-412. (MMC Contract MM6ACO19).

Kooyman, G.L., K.S. Norris, and R.L. Gentry. 1975. Spout of the
Gray Whale: Its Physical Characteristics. Science, 190:908-
910. (MMC Contract MM4ACO12).

Kooyman, G.L., and E.E. Sinnett. 1977. Mechanical Properties of
the Harbor Porpoise Lung (Abstract). Proceedings
International Union Physiological Science, July 18-23, Paris.
(MMC Contract MM4ACO12).

Kooyman, G.L., and E.E. Sinnett. 1979. Mechanical Properties of
the Harbor Porpoise Lung. Respiratory Physiology, 36:287-
300. (MMC Contract MM4ACO12).

Krause, S.D., J.R. Gilbert, and J.H. Prescott. 1983. A
Comparison of Aerial, Shipboard and lLand-Based Survey
Methodology for the Harbor Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena.
Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA) , 81:910-912, (MMC Contract

MM1801023-1).

Laist, D.W. In press. An Overview of the Biological Effects of
Lost and Discarded Plastic Debris in the Marine Environment.
Marine Pollution Bulletin.

Leatherwood, S. 1975. Some Observations of Feeding Behavior of
Bottlenosed Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Northern
Gulf of Mexico and (Tursiops cf. T. gilli) off Southern
California, Baja California, and Nayarit, Mexico. Marine
Fisheries Review, 37(9):10-16. (MMC Contract MM6ACOO1).

Leatherwood, S., J.R. Gilbert, and D.G. Chapman. 1978. An
Evaluation of Some Techniques for Aerial Censuses of
Bottlenosed Dolphins. Journal of Wildlife Management,
42(2):239-250. (MMC Contract MM8ACOO1).

Loughlin, T.R. 1979. Radio Telemetric Determination of the 24-
Hour Feeding Activities of Sea Otters, Enhydra lutris. Pp.
717-724. In C.J. Amlaner, Jr., and D.W. McDonald (Editors).

A Handbook on Biotelemetry and Radio-Tracking. Pergamon
Press. Oxford and New York. (MMC Contracts MM6AC0O04 ana

MM6AC024).

Loughlin, T.R. 1980. Home Range and Territoriality of Sea
Otters near Monterey, California. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 44(3):576-582. (MMC Contracts MM6ACO04- and
MM6ACO24).

185

Lowry, L.F. 1982. Documentation and Assessment of Marine Mammal-
Fishery Interactions in the Bering Sea. Pp. 300-311. In
Transactions of the 47th North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute.
Washington, D.C. (MMC Contract MM1533596-4).

Mate, B.R., and J.T. Harvey. 1984. Ocean Movements of Radio-
Tagged Gray Whales. In M.L. Jones and S.L. Swartz (Editors).

The Gray Whale, Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press. New
York. (MMC Contract 1533416-0).

Mead, J.G. 1977. Records of Sei and Bryde's Whales from the
Atlantic Coast of the United States, the Gulf of Mexico and
the Caribbean. Pp. 113-116. In International Whaling
Commission, Special Issue No. 1. Report of the Special
Meeting of the Scientific Committee on Sei and Bryde's
Whales, La Jolla, California. December 1974. (MMC Contract
MM7ACO07).

Miller, L.K. 1978. Energetics of the Northern Fur Seal in
Relation to Climate and Food Resources of the Bering Sea.
(Abstract). Proceedings, Second Conference on the Biology of
Marine Mammals, December 1977. San Diego, California.
(MMC Contract MM5ACO025).

Nafziger, J.A.R. 1978. The Management of Marine Mammals After
the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Willamette Law
Journal, 14:153-215. (MMC Contract MM7ACOO1).

Norris, K.S., R. Goodman, B. Villa-Ramirez, and L. Hobbs. 1977.
Behavior of California Gray Whales (Eschrichtius robustus)
in Southern Baja California, Mexico. Fishery Bulletin,
(NOAA), 75(1):159-172. (MMC Contract MM5ACO07).

Odell, D.K. 1975. Status and Aspects of the Life History of the
Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in Florida. Journal
of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 32(7):1055-1058.
(MMC Contract MM4ACO0O3).

Odell, D.K. 1979. Distribution and Abundance of Marine Mammals
in the Waters of the Everglades National Park. Proceedings
of the First Conference on Research in National Parks.
USDI, NPS, Transactions Proceedings Series No. 5:673-678.
(MMC Contract MM4C003).

Payne, R., O. Brazier, E.M. Dorsey, J.S. Perkins, V.J. Rowntree,
and A. Titus. 1983. External Features in Southern Right
Whales (Eubalaena australis) and Their Use in Identifying
Individuals. Pp. 371-445. In R. Payne (Editor).
Communication and Behavior of Whales. AAAS Selected
Symposium 76. Westview Press, Inc. Boulder, Colorado. (MMC
Contract MM6ACO17).

186

Pearse, J.S., D.P. Costa, M.B. Yellin, and C.R. Agegian. 1977.

Localized Mass Mortality of Red Sea Urchin,
Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, near Santa Cruz,

California. Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA), 75(3):645-648. (MMC
Contract MM6ACO29).

Perrin, W.F., and A.C. Myrick, Jr. (Editors). 1980. Age
Determination of Toothed Whales and Sirenians. International
Whaling Commission, Special Issue No. 3. 229 pp. (MMC
Contract MM8ACO04).

Perrin, W.F., R.L. Brownell, Jr., and D.P. DeMaster (Editors).
1984. Reproduction in Whales, Dolphins, and _ Porpoises.
International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 6. 490 pp.
(MMC Contract MM2079356-2).

Pierotti, R.J., D.G. Ainley, T.S. Lewis, and M.C. Coulter. 1977.
Birth of a California Sea Lion on Southeast Farallon Island.
California Fish and _ Game, 63(1):64-65. (MMC Contract
MM4AC002).

Pitcher, K.W. 1980. Food of the Harbor Seal, Phoca vitulina, in
the Gulf of Alaska. Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA) ,
78(2):544-549. (MMC Contract MM5ACO11).

Pitcher, K.W. 1986. Variation in Blubber Thickness of Harbor
Seals in Southern Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management,
50(3) 2463-466. (MMC Contract MM5ACO11).

Pitcher, K.W. 1980. Stomach Contents and Feces as Indicators of
Harbor Seal, Phoca vitulina, Foods in the Gulf of Alaska.
Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA) , 78(3):797-798. (MMC Contract
MM5ACO11).

Ray, G.C., J.A. Dobbin, and R.V. Salm. 1978. Strategies for
Protecting Marine Mammal Habitats. Oceanus, 21(2):55-67.
(MMC Contract MM6ACO11).

Scott, G.P., and H.E. Winn. 1978. Assessment of Humpback Whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae) Stocks Using Vertical Photographs.
Proceedings PECORA IV Symposium, National Wildlife Science
and Technology Series, 3:235-243. (MMC Contract MM7AC029).

Sergeant, D.E., D.J. St. Aubin, and J.R. Geraci. 1980. Life
History and Northwest Atlantic Status of the Atlantic White-

Sided Dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus. Cetology, 37:1-12.
(MMC Contract MM5ACO08).

Shallenberger, E.W. 1977. Humpback Whales in Hawaii: Population
and Distribution. Oceans '77 (Conference record), Marine
Technology Society, Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, p. Hawaii C-1-C-7. (MMC Contract MM7ACO14).

187

Shane, S.H. 1980. Occurrence, Movements, and Distribution of
Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in Southern Texas.
Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA), 78(3):593-601. (MMC Contract
MM6ACO28).

Shaughnessy, P.D., and F.H. Fay. 1977. A Review of the Taxonomy
and Nomenclature of North Pacific Harbour Seals. Journal of
Zoology, London, 183(3):385-419. (MMC Contract MM4ACO005).

Shomura, R.S., and H.O. Yoshida. 1985. (Editors). Proceedings
of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-
29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54.
580 pp. (MMC Contract MM2629949-7).

Smith, T.D. 1976. The Adequacy of the Scientific Basis for the
Management of Sperm Whales. Advisory Committee on Marine
Resources Research, Scientific Consultation on Marine
Mammals, 121, 31 August - 9 September 1976, Bergen, Norway.
15 pp. (MMC Contract MM6AD047).

Smith, T., and T. Polacheck. 1979. Analysis of a Simple Model
for Estimating Historical Population Sizes. Fishery
Bulletin, (NOAA), 76(4):771-779. (MMC Contract MM7ACO06).

Swartz, S.L. 1981. Cleaning Symbiosis between Topsmelt,
Atherinops affinis, and Gray Whales, Eschrichtius robustus,
in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Fishery
Bulletin, (NOAA), 79(2):360. (MMC Contracts MM8ACO05 and
MM1533497-8).

Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1983. Gray Whale (Eschrichtius
robustus) Calf Production and Mortality in the Winter Range.
International Whaling Commission Report, 33:503-508. (MMC
Contracts MM7ACO09, MM1533497-8 and MM2079219-4).

Swartzman, G.L., and R.T. Haar. 1983. Interactions Between Fur
Seal Populations and Fisheries in the Bering Sea. Fisheries
Bulletin, (NOAA), 8(1):121-132. (MMC Contract MM1800969-5).

Tillman, M.F., and G.P. Donovan (Editors). 1983. Special Issue on

Historical Whaling Records. International Whaling
Commission, Special Issue 5. 269 pp. (MMC Contract
MM7ACO17).

Tricas, T.C., L.R. Taylor, and G. Naftel. 1981. Diel Behavior of
the Tiger Shark, Galeocerdo cuvier, at French Frigate Shoals,
Hawaiian Islands. Copeia, 1981:904-908. (MMC Contract
MM7ACO11).

Van Wagenen, R.F., M.S. Foster, and F. Burns. 1981. Sea Otter

Predation on Birds near Monterey, California. Journal of
Mammalogy, 62(2):433-434. (MMC Contract MM7ACO23).

188

Villa-R., B. 1976. Report on the Status of Phocoena sinus,
Norris and McFarland 1958, in the Gulf of California. An.
Inst. Biol. Univ. Nal. Auton. Mexico, Ser. Zoologia,
47(2):203-208. (MMC Contract MM6AD052).

Whitehead, H., K. Chu, J. Perkins, P. Bryant, and G. Nichols.
1983. Population Size, Stock Identity, and Distribution of
the Humpback Whales off West Greenland -- Summer 1981.
Report to the International Whaling Commission, 33:497-501.
(MMC Contract MM2079259-2).

189

a) meee we ——— ee oe i ———— bel = i ll aE ——— La ae reams ——_- oe a e Sa eee ee Pay a Sw

AG
y