Marine Mammal Commission annual report to Congress : 1987

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION, CALENDAR YEAR 1987

A REPORT TO CONGRESS

Marine Mammal Commission

1625 1 Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

31 January 1988

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION

CALENDAR YEAR 1987

I. Introduction ....................................... 1
Background .................................... 1
Personnel ..................................... 1
Funding ....................................... 2
The Report .................................... 2

Ii. Species of Special Concern ......................... 6
West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) ......6
Palau Dugong (Dugong dugon) ................... 18
Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi) ... 19
North Pacific Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus)..24
Northern Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) ........ 37
The California Sea Otter Population
(Enhydra lutris) ......................... 38
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) ....... 49
Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) ............. 53
Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) ............ 56
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) .....* ..... 59
Gulf of California Harbor Porpoise
(Phocoena sinus) ......................... 62
Hector's Dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori) .... 63
River Dolphins (Superfamily Platanistoidea) ... 64

III. Die-Off of Bottlenose Dolphins ..................... 67

IV. Marine Mammal Management in Alaska ................. 71
Marine Mammal Working Groups and
Species Reports ............................. 71
Background Information on Transfer of
Management .................................. 72
Report of the Special Advisor on Native
Affairs ..................................... 74
Pacific Walrus Memorandum of Agreement ........ 75
Meeting of the Alaska Federation of Natives ... 75
Federal Marking and Tagging Regulations ....... 76
Litigation ..................................... 77

V. International Aspects of Marine Mammal
Protection and Conservation .......... 78
Conservation and Protection of Marine
Mammals in the Southern Ocean ............... 78
International Whaling Commission (IWC) ........ 95
Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) ............................... 104
Cartagena Convention .......................... 106

V1. Impacts of Marine Debris ........................... 109
Background .................................... 109
Domestic Activities in 1987 ................... 111
natinnpl ................. 118
Wt eparunujj@
NOAA coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Ilc'looo:a Avenue
Charlestonp SC 20405-2413 _j

VII. Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions ............... 126
Background .................................... 127
Interactions in California Coastal Waters ..... 128
Interactions in Areas off Alaska .............. 130
Proposed Fishery-Related Amendments to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act ................ 135

VIII. Incidental Take of Marine Mammals in the Course
of Commercial Fishing operations ................ 136
The Tuna-Porpoise Issue ....................... 136
The Dall's Porpoise Issue ..................... 143

IX. Research and Studies Program ....................... 150
Survey of Federally-Funded Marine Mammal
Research .................................... 150
Research Program Reviews, Workshops, and
Planning Meetings ........................... 151
Commission-sponsored Research and Study
Projects .................................... 152
Special Research Concerns for FY 1988 ......... 161

X. outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development .... 163
Proposed OCS Lease Sale #97 (Beaufort Sea) .... 163
Proposed OCS Lease Sale #109 (Chukchi Sea) .... 164
Potential OCS Lease Sale #95 (Offshore
Southern California) ........................ 165
Proposed Opening of the Coastal Plain of
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to
oil and Gas Development ..................... 166
The Minerals Management Service's
Environmental Studies Program ............... 168

XI. Marine Mammals in Captivity ........................ 172
Animal Welfare Act Amendments ................. 174

XII. Permit Process ..... o.o ... o... __o ............ o ... 176
Application Review.. ............... o .......... 176
Working Group on the Permit System ............ 177
Conflicts between Public Display and
Research Takings... ......................... 178
Issues Concerning Lethal Take for Public
Display.... o ................................ 179
Permit-Related Litigation ..................... 179

Appendix A: commission Recommendations:
Calendar Year 1987.. .................... o ..... 181

Appendix B: Reports on Commission-Sponsored Activities
Available from the National Technical
Information Service ........................... 197

Appendix C: Selected Literature Published Elsewhere
Resulting from Commission-sponsored
Activities ....... ... 204

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background

This is the fifteenth Annual Report of the Marine Mammal
Commission, covering the period from 1 January through
31 December 1987. 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 Protec-
tion Act requires that the Commissioners be knowledgeable in
marine ecology and resource management. At the beginning of
1987, the Commissioners were Robert Elsner, Ph.D. (Chairman),
Fairbanks, Alaska, and Karen W. Pryor, North Bend, Washington.
The third Commissioner's position was vacant. On 20 November
1987, the Senate confirmed the nominations of William W. Fox,
Jr., Ph.D., Miami, Florida, to replace Ms. Pryor and Francis
H. Fay, Ph.D., Fairbanks, Alaska, to fill the vacancy.

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; Sherburne B. Abbott, Assistant Scientific
Program Director; Michael L. Gosliner, General Counsel; Marian
Graham, Administrative Officer; Jeannie X. Drevenak, Staff
Assistant in charge of permits; and Eileen C. Shoemaker, Staff
Assistant in charge of publications. Effective 15 May 1987,
the Commission accepted, with regret, the resignation of
Donald C. Baur, former General Counsel, who left to enter
private practice.

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 scien-
tists statutorily mandated to be knowledgeable in marine ecology
and marine mammal affairs. At the end of 1987, its members

were: Robert L. Brownell, Jr., Ph.D., U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; Douglas G. Chapman, Ph.D., University of Washington;
Joseph R. Geraci,- V.M.D., 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.
On 12 April 1987, Dr. Chapman was appointed to the Committee
to replace William W. Fox, Jr.

In recognition of the importance of marine mammals in the
lives of many Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts, the Commission,
in 1986, asked Matthew Iya of Nome, Alaska, to serve as Special
Advisor to the Marine mammal commission on Native Affairs.
Mr. Iya continued to serve in that capacity throughout 1987.

Funding

The Marine Mammal Commission started operations 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: $861,000
FY 87: $900,000
FY 88: $953,000

The Report

The Annual Report of the Marine Mammal Commission is a
comprehensive review of domestic and international activities
affecting marine mammals. Its purpose is to provide timely
information to Congress, private citizens, public interest
groups, government agencies, and the international community
on events of the past year. To ensure factual accuracy, drafts
of the report are circulated for review amongst agencies and
others involved in each described activity.

Every year, the Marine Mammal Commission devotes special
attention to certain species or populations that are of par-
ticular concern. Among the thirteen species addressed in
Chapter II of this Report are the West Indian manatee, the
Hawaiian monk seal, the right whale, the humpback whale, the
North Pacific fur seal, and the California sea otter. All
have been the subject of particularly intensive work by the
commission for a number of years.

The West Indian manatee population in the southeastern
United States and the Hawaiian monk seal are found only within
United States waters. One can say, therefore, that their
survival is entirely in the hands of those in this country.
Both populations are in jeopardy because of human encroachment
into sensitive areas, habitat degradation and destruction,
and a variety of other threats. It is not alarmist to foresee
possible extinction. For these reasons, the commission has .
devoted and continues to devote substantial effort to protecting
and encouraging the recovery of these species. Efforts are
described in Chapter II.

Like the manatee and monk seal, right and humpback whales
are also endangered, and activities of the Commission and
others to establish recovery teams, develop recovery plans,
and start work to implement recovery plans are discussed in
Chapter II. In many cases, action has come about because of
the Commission's persistence in forcing issues. In some cases,
like the North Pacific fur seali species occur only partly or
seasonally in U.S. waters and continuing efforts to develop
and implement cooperative international conservation programs
are still needed. Other species, like the river dolphins,
Hector's dolphin, and the Gulf of California harbor porpoise,
are not found in U.S. waters, but are discussed here because
they have become the focus of much-needed international atten-
tion. As possible, the Commission is pleased to help support
measures for the protection of such species.

The most perplexing problem encountered in 1987 was the
continuing die-off of bottlenose dolphins along the Atlantic
coast of the United States. By the end of the year, about
500 dead animals had been recovered and extensive examinations
had been made of specimen material at laboratories throughout
the United States and Canada. At year's end, there was no
satisfactory explanation for the deaths. A summary of
activities undertaken and underway at the end of 1987 is pro-
vided in Chapter III.

Conservation of marine mammals in Alaska has been a bio-
logically and politically difficult matter for years. Many
problems may have arisen because of an unhealthy focus on
bureaucratic processes rather than on the welfare of the species
or populations in question. To help provide a commonly agreed

basis from which groups of differing perspectives could con-
structively discuss Alaskan marine mammal issues, the Commission
organized and supported the preparation of species reports with
research and management recommendations for ten species. The
reports, the cooperative effort of many informed contributors
of widely varying interests, are discussed in Chapter IV, as
are a variety of other issues affecting the Native community,
government agencies, and marine mammals in Alaska.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act mandates the Marine
Mammal Commission's substantive involvement in international
activities affecting marine mammals and their habitats. Most
species and populations with which the Commission is concerned
are wide-ranging and their conservation requires cooperative
international efforts. While some issues of international
concern are discussed in Chapter II, "Species of Special con-
cern," those involving formal international agreements are
reviewed in Chapter V.

One such issue is the Antarctic. Since its inception, the
marine mammal Commission has been deeply involved in issues
that could affect marine mammals in the Antarctic. It was
instrumental in developing U.S. positions during negotiations
of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources and continues to play a significant role
with regard to the ongoing negotiation of a regime to govern
mineral activities in the Antarctic. These actions are dis-
cussed in Chapter V.

Since the Marine Mammal Commission became operational in
1974, its representatives have participated in activities of
the International whaling Commission and its Scientific Commit-
tee. As discussed in Chapter V, activities of particular
importance this past year were efforts to determine what should
be included in the comprehensive assessment of whale stocks to
be undertaken by 1990, and efforts by certain countries to
conduct whaling for scientific purposes in an apparent attempt
to circumvent the moratorium on commercial whaling which began
in 1986. Also discussed in Chapter V are activities related
to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora and the Cartagena Convention.

The Marine Mammal Commission called attention to entangle-
ment of marine mammals in marine debris and plastic pollution
as major environmental issues within the United States in the
early 1980s. As part of its effort, the Commission recommended
that an international workshop on the fate and impact of marine
debris be held and provided the seed money and terms of refer-
ence for that workshop. Since that workshop in 1984, the
Commission has continued to focus attention on this problem,
both domestically and internationally. This past year was
particularly important because of progress made by the National

Oceanographic and Atmospheric-Administration to implement its
marine debris program and because of the Coast Guard's achieve-
ments in bringing about ratification of Annex V of the Inter-
national Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships. In Chapter VI, the full range of domestic and inter-
national activities relating to debris and plastic pollution
are discussed.

Marine mammal/fishery interactions concern fishermen,
environmentalists, and the scientific community. When the
Marine Mammal Protection Act was enacted in 1972, a major
cause was the death of more than 350,000 porpoises in one
year incidental to the commercial yellowfin tuna fishery (see
Chapter VIII). As time has passed, some marine mammal popu-
lations have grown in response to the protection provided by
the Act, and additional problems have become apparent. Chapter
VII provides a brief historical overview and descriptions of
marine mammal/fishery interactions in California and Alaska
waters, and amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act
proposed by fisheries groups to afford greater protection to
fisheries. Chapter VIII describes actions regarding the inci-
dental take of porpoise in the yellowfin tuna purse seine
fishery, and the adverse impact of the Japanese high seas
gill net fisheries upon marine mammals, particularly Dall's
porpoise.

The Marine Mammal Commission is directed by statute to
carry out a research program. That program is described in
Chapter IX of this Report. Other research-related activities
of the Commission, such as its annual survey of Federally-funded
marine mammal research programs and the convening of a number
of research program reviews and workshops are also discussed.

Since activities related to the exploration for and exploi-
tation of offshore oil and gas resources can affect marine
mammals and their habitats, the Commission has conducted a
continuing review of proposed activities and has provided advice
to the Minerals Management Service and other agencies on actions
needed to ensure that such activities do not have significant
adverse effects on marine mammals or the ecosystems of which
they are a part. These efforts are described in Chapter X.
Chapters XI and XII describe issues related'to the permit
process and regulations to govern the care and maintenance of
marine mammals in captivity. Both are of considerable impor-
tance and have been the subject of much attention by the
Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

It is the Marine Mammal Commission's hope that this Report
will serve as a useful and reliable reference document for
interested individuals and groups in the United States and
abroad.

CHAPTER II

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 1987, the Commission continued
to concentrate 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 humpback whale, the right whale, and the bowhead whale.
Given the serious condition of several other marine mammal
species or populations, the Commission also focused on the North
Pacific fur seal, the northern sea lion, harbor porpoise in
California, the Gulf of California harbor porpoise, Hector's
dolphin, the five species of river dolphins, and dugongs in
Palau. 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 mammal in the nearshore coastal waters of
the United States. The largest concentration in this country,
and perhaps the world, is the population in,Florida. It is
estimated to number more than 1,200 animals. Despite nearly
a decade of concerted effort by Federal and State agencies
and private organizations to protect manatees and their habi-
tat in Florida, long-term survival of the population remains
in doubt. This uncertainty is based, in large part, on the
small size of the Florida manatee population, the increasing
pace at which its habitat is being altered and destroyed due
to coastal development, and the population's continued high
mortality rate. Over the past four years, known manatee mor-
tality in the United States has averaged 126 animals per year.

In the years 1977, 1981, 1984, and 1985, large numbers
of manatees died as a result of thermal stress during periods
of extreme cold. However, a more constant and growing threat
to the survival of manatees in Florida is linked to the rapid
growth of the State's human population, 90 percent of which
live within 10 miles of the coast. With a population increasing
at a rate of 800 residents a day, Florida recently became the
fourth most populous state in the nation. By the year 2000,
it is expected to rank third.

Manatee Mortality in the United States, 1977-1987*

In outside Boat/Barge
Year Florida Florida Total Collisions

1977 113 1 114
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 15
1984 128 3 131 35
1985 120 9 129 35
1986 122 3 125 33
1987 113 4 117 39

Figures include the number of manatee carcasses
recovered by year and the number of animals known
to have died but which were not recovered.

Accompanying the population boom has been a corresponding
increase in the number of registered boats in the State.
While there were only 100,000 registered boats in Florida in
the early 1960s, there are now more than 650,000 and an addi-
tional 300,000 transient boats enter each year from out of
State. By the year 2000, these numbers are projected to
double. As the above table shows, 1987 saw a record number
of manatees killed as a result of collisions with boats and
barges. This number can be expected to rise along with in-
creased boat traffic unless additional steps are taken
promptly to reduce the risk of boat strikes. Probably more
serious in the long term are the habitat losses resulting
from increased coastal development and environmental pollution
that will further degrade critical manatee habitat.

If the survival and recovery of manatees are to become a
reality, substantially increased effort must be devoted to
protecting essential habitat and to reducing the.number of
collisions with boats.

Manatee Program Review

As discussed in previous Annual Reports, the Marine Mammal
commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors on Marine Mammals, undertook a thorough review of
Federal and State manatee conservation programs in 1979-1980.
In recognition of the importance of that review, Congress
made a special Fiscal Year 1980 appropriation of $100,000 to
the Commission fof work on manatees. To determine how best

to use those funds, the Commission and its Committee of
Scientific Advisors met with representatives of involved
Federal agencies, State agencies, and private organizations
in February 1980. Consensus was reached among the participants
on the future direction of the manatee recovery program.

Based on those intensive planning efforts, the Commission
allocated the special appropriation among such urgently needed
projects as: the salary for a person (subsequently called
the Manatee Recovery Activities Coordinator) to coordinate
all efforts; development of a site-specific research and manage-
ment plan for Crystal River manatees; support for a Manatee
Technical Advisory Council to advise the Director of the Florida
Department of Natural Resources on critical manatee issues; a
study of food sources and feeding habits in Hobe Sound; a
training program for Florida Marine Patrol officers and others
on manatee biology and the enforcement of manatee protection
laws; and increased information and education activities.
While these activities were getting underway, the Fish and
Wildlife Service completed its West Indian Manatee Recovery
Plan in 1980 and its implementation plan (the Comprehensive
Work Plan) in 1982.

Significant benefits resulted from the actions taken in
the early 1980s. For instance, new information on manatee
biology and ecology had been collected, a refined under-
standing of threats to manatee recovery had been developed,
public awareness and concern for manatees had been increased,
accumulating management experience was providing new insights
into what could and should be done to assure the species'
survival, and other agencies and organizations, particularly
the Florida Department of Natural Resources, were assuming
increasingly prominent roles in the manatee recovery program.
At the same time, however, some of the most critical problems
(l.q., record numbers of boat kills and increasing loss and
degradation of essential habitat) had not been resolved and
prospects were that these situations would worsen. Thus,
despite the efforts of Federal, State, and private groups,
the long-term survival of the West Indian manatee in the
United States remained tenuous.

By late 1986, it was clear that the time had come for
another comprehensive review of the entire situation. There-
fore, the Commission decided to devote its 1987 Annual Meeting
primarily to discussions of the West Indian manatee. The
meeting was held in Florida on 10-12 December 1987. This was
to provide representatives of the principal Federal and State
agencies and private organizations cooperating in the manatee
conservation program an opportunity to cooperatively review and
re-examine priority needs and agree on future actions.

To prepare for the review, the Commission's Executive
Director went to Florida earlier in the year to meet with
involved Federal and State officials as well as representatives
of the scientific community, industry, and environmental
groups. During the course of the trip, additional information
on research and management activities was collected, critical
problems confronting the manatee program were reviewed, per-
ceived needs of different groups were explored, and a general
framework was developed for the December review of research and
management needs.

Based on information collected during that visit and on
,fhat was already known about the situation, the Commission,
in consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors,
wrote to the Fish and Wildlife Service on 19 November 1987.
In its letter, the Commission outlined its views of the critical
management issues and the steps needed to strengthen the manatee
recovery program. Specifically, it recommended that the
Service, in cooperation with other involved parties, take prompt
action to: (1) update the West Indian Manatee Recovery Plan
and the accompanying Comprehensive Work Plan; (2) reconstitute
and reconvene the West Indian Manatee Recovery Team; (3) com-
plete land acquisition projects in the area of the Crystal
and Homosassa Rivers on Florida's west coast; (4) improve the
effectiveness of regulations and law enforcement pertaining to
recreational boaters and divers in essential manatee habitat;
(5) control the development of marinas and other boating
facilities in essential manatee habitats; (6) identify and
undertake priority manatee research; and (7) coordinate
Federal/State/private public education and information
programs. In addition, the Commission asked that represen-
tatives of the Service address the various recommendations
during the December meeting so that all concerned could agree
on appropriate approaches to critical issues.

Many Federal and State agencies and private organizations
have important roles in the manatee recovery program. Among
these are the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, the Florida Power and Light Company,
and the Save the Manatee Club. Accordingly, representatives
of these groups and organizations were invited to participate
in the program review during the commission's meeting. The
results of that review, including follow-up actions taken as
of the end of 1987, are discussed below.

The West Indian Manatee Recovery Plan and Comprehensive
Work Plan -- The Fish and Wildlife Service adopted the Recovery
Plan for West Indian manatees in April 1980 and the Comprehen-
sive Work Plan in February 1982. Unfortunately, neither the
Recovery Plan nor the Work Plan has been updated since adopt-
ion, and they are badly out of date. As a result, program

budget needs beyond 1984 were never fully elaborated and
changes to reflect progress on listed research and management
tasks have not been incorporated since 1982.

Therefore, in its 19 November 1987 letter to the Service,
the commission recommended that the Recovery Plan and Comprehen-
sive Work Plan be updated as soon as possible. The Service
concurred and, during the December meeting, advised the Commis-
sion and other participants that it had begun efforts to revise
and integrate the two Plans. The Service also presented a
schedule for developing the new Plan with a projected approval
date of spring 1989.

To help the Fish and Wildlife Service identify and evaluate
critical issues and actions for inclusion in a revised Recovery
Plan, the Commission contracted in 1986 for an analysis of
the status of the Florida manatee recovery program with recom-
mendations for its improvement. The Commission provided a draft
report to the Service and the Florida Department of Natural
Resources in July 1987. A review suggested that the report,
while useful, needed further work, particularly in such areas
as the analysis of research priorities. To supplement the
draft, the Commission contracted with a scientist familiar
with manatee research efforts in Florida and the recovery
program to co-author the report. During the Commission's
December 1987 meeting, a revised report outline was agreed
upon, and a final report is expected in early 1988. The Commis-
sion will promptly provide the report to Federal and State
agencies and other involved parties to provide help in planning
future manatee research and management activities.

The West Indian Manatee Recovery Team -- The West Indian
Manatee Recovery Team was established in the mid-1970s. Among
other things, the Team helped the Fish and Wildlife Service
identify research and management priorities and develop the
Recovery Plan. Since 1980, however, the Team has not met.
In view of the critical problems and the need for obtaining
the best possible advice and assistance in identifying effective
research and management solutions, updating the Recovery Plan,
and undertaking appropriate recovery activities, the Commission
recommended in its 19 November letter to the Service that the
Recovery Team be re-activated. The Service concurred and,
during the Commission's December meeting, announced that invi-
tations to prospective Recovery Team members would be sent
early in 1988. One of the Team's first tasks will be to review
and comment on the draft Recovery Plan now being prepared by
the Service.

In 1980, with financial assistance from the Commission,
the Executive Director of the Florida Department of Natural
Resources established a Manatee Technical Advisory Council to
advise him on matters bearing on manatee conservation and

protection. The Council has met periodically since that
time. In many respects, its meetings have partially fulfilled
important functions previously addressed by the Recovery
Team. For example, representatives of the Service and other
interested parties participate regularly in Council meetings,
affording all concerned a valuable opportunity to review and
coordinate ongoing Federal, State, and private recovery
activities.

By 1987, the importance of regular Council meetings had
been well established. Unfortunately, the money provided by
the Commission for its operation had been exhausted. Therefore,
the Commission offered to continue to support the Council's
operation. On 18 December 1987, the Commission's offer was
accepted by the Director of the Department of Natural Resources,
and the Commission will provide the Department with funds in
early 1988.

Manatee-Related Land Acauisition -- To help encourage
and guide efforts to protect manatee habitat in Florida, the
commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, completed a report in 1984 entitled "Habitat Protec-
tion Needs for the Subpopulation. of West Indian Manatees in
the Crystal River Area of Northwest Florida." On 31 October
1984, the Commission transmitted its Report to the Fish and
Wildlife Service and recommended that prompt action be taken
to acquire certain wetlands and uplands along the Crystal and
lower Suwannee Rivers. It also recommended that steps be taken
to coordinate these efforts with regional land acquisition
plans of State and private groups. In response, the Service
convened a meeting with representatives of the State of Florida
and the Commission in March 1985. During the meeting, land
acquisition needs and plans related to Crystal River manatees
were reviewed, and agreement was reached on the need to pursue
several regional land acquisition projects important for pro-
tecting essential manatee habitat.

During the Commission's December meeting, activities of
the State of Florida and the Fish and Wildlife Service in
land acquisition in the Crystal River area were reviewed. It
was apparent that substantial progress had been made. Among
other things, the Commission learned that the State soon expects
to complete acquisition projects involving 150 acres of land
surrounding the warm-water spring at the head of the Homosassa
River and some 2,000 acres of wetland and upland between the
Crystal and Homosassa Rivers. In addition, the Service said
that it had received a $650,000 appropriation for Fiscal Year
1988 to acquire a site on Kings Bay to serve as the headquarters
and visitor center for the Crystal River National Wildlife
Refuge , During the March 1985 meeting, such a site had been
recognized as being urgently needed to improve visitor
education and enforcement of manatee protection. Given the

pace of land development in Crystal River, both agencies com-
mitted themselves.to pursue vigorously regional manatee
habitat acquisition projects.

At the end of 1987, the Commission had made tentative
plans to work with the Service and the State on intensified
habitat protection efforts in 1988. In recognition of the
importance of such activities for manatees elsewhere in Florida,
the Commission had made known its interest in supporting a
study-, similar to the study on Crystal River manatees completed
in 1984, on habitat protection needs for manatees along
Florida's east coast.

Regglations and Law Enforcement Pertaining to Recreational
Boaters and Divers -- Two activities that will affect recovery
of manatees in Florida are boating and recreational diving.
In addition to the prevalence of boat kills and injuries noted
earlier, manatee harassment by divers at warm-water refuges
during winter months could force animals to abandon the areas
and thereby expose themselves to thermal stress and perhaps
death. Both activities are increasing as human population
grows.

To help protect manatees, 21 local boat speed regulatory
zones have been established by the State, and similar areas have
been established by the Fish and Wildlife Service in certain
National Wildlife Refuges. Within these zones, boats must
travel at slow or idle speeds to allow manatees time to avoid
collisions. The Service has also established small manatee
sanctuaries in Kings Bay into which entry of boats and divers
is prohibited so that manatees can escape human disturbance.
Enforcement in these and other areas is provided cooperatively
by the Florida Marine Patrol, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, and the U.S.
Coast Guard.

Despite these efforts, 1987 was a record year for boat-
related manatee deaths, and virtually all manatees in Florida
bear scars from non-lethal encounters with boat propellers.
In addition, diver harassment increased as the number of people
swimming with manatees in certain refuges grew. While the
failure to satisfactorily address these problems is discourag-
ing, it does not mean that the regulatory and enforcement
efforts undertaken to date have been misdirected. Rather, it
appears that the level of effort has been insufficient to
keep pace with the increasing numbers of boaters and divers.

Therefore, in its 19 November letter to the Service, the
Commission recommended that regulatory and enforcement
approaches be re-evaluated to determine how existing efforts
might be modified or expanded to make them more effective.
one such approach suggested in the Commission's letter is

establishing "channel-exempt" boat speed restrictions in broad
areas. This approach, which applies to waters outside desig-
nated channels, would afford greater protection adjacent to
channels in the shallow areas often used by manatees for feeding
and resting. Also, since shallow waters may prevent manatees
from diving beneath oncoming boats, such an approach may
decrease the number of collisions with boats. The Commission
believes that the "channel-exempt" approach to boat speed
regulation merits further examination. Therefore, it was
pleased to learn at its December meeting that the Florida
Department of Natural Resources was making such an effort
along part of the Caloosahatchee River in southwest Florida
and also was considering applying the approach elsewhere in
the State.

Development of Marinas and other Boating Facilities in
Manatee Habitat -- Development of new marinas, boat ramps,
docks, and other boating facilities in or adjacent to essential
manatee habitats increases the likelihood of collisions between
manatees and boats and could alter critical habitat components
such as sea grass beds and water quality. The Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Florida Department of Natural Resources review
Federal and State applications for permits to build such facili-
ties in navigable waters to ensure that adverse effects on
manatees and manatee habitat are avoided. However, the number
of permit applications exceeds the ability of agencies to
review them.

During the Commission's December 1987 meeting, represen-
tatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Depart-
ment of Natural Resources discussed two approaches being con-
sidered to improve the review process for permits for boating
facilities in manatee habitat. First, under the Florida Growth
Management Act of 1985, counties and municipalities in Florida
are required to develop local growth management plans which
incorporate measures to control new boating facilities and
protect wildlife. The Florida Department of Natural Resources
and the Fish and Wildlife Service are providing local govern-
ments with relevant information and advice on planning provi-
sions for protecting manatees, including guidance on the
development of new marinas. It is hoped that these planning
requirements, when fully implemented, will reduce the number
of boating facility proposals that pose threats to manatees
and their habitat.

The second approach to strengthening the review of permit
applications is development of a computer-based geographic
information system. Such a system would facilitate review by
integrating, mapping, and making readily available information
on a local geographic area. Such a system might include data
on: manatee distribution and habitat use patterns; the loca-
tions and numbers of boat-related manatee mortalities; vessel

densities and use patterns; the location of boat speed regu-
latory zones; existing boating facilities and trends in their
development; zoning requirements; and the results of similar
permit reviews in the same geographic area.

During the Commission's December meeting, information on
both approaches was examined. There was general agreement
that both approaches merit further work.

Manatee Research -- In recent years, the Florida Department
of Natural Resources, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida
Power and Light Company, the Save the Manatee Club, and others
have assumed increasing roles in supporting and/or doing manatee
research. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service, through
the Sirenia Project of its National Ecology Research Center,
has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that necessary infor-
mation on the biology and ecology of manatees is available for
making well-reasoned management decisions. In this regard,
the Service's manatee research program has provided essential
information for decisions on land acquisition, permits for
boating facilities, boat speed regulatory zones, and other
critical management actions.

During the Commission's December 1987 meeting, service
representatives described recent research activities, plans
for the coming year, and funding projections for Fiscal Year
1988. It was clear that there is an urgent need to provide
substantially increased support if an improved understanding
of both manatee habitat use patterns and factors affecting
essential habitat, including sea grass beds, is to be developed.
This conclusion was reached after careful review of two multi-
year research projects to: (1) continue and expand radio-
tracking studies, including satellite-linked tracking, which
had been pioneered by scientists in the Service's manatee
research program; and (2) study factors affecting sea grass
beds in Hobe Sound. In both cases, available support was
inadequate.

In light of information provided at the meeting, the
Commission wrote the Fish and Wildlife Service on 29 December
1987. In its letter, the Commission: described the urgent
need for data on habitat use patterns for each of the more or
less discrete manatee subpopulations in Florida; noted that
data collection would require radio-tagging and tracking a
representative age and sex sample of animals from each group
for at least two to four years; stated that a modest, but
critically needed program, would involve capturing, tagging,
and tracking 20 to 25 manatees annually for five years; and
recommended to the Service that it increase the Fiscal Year
1988 budget for the Sirenia Project by at least $120,000 and
preferably $150,000. To carry these studies forward, the Com-
mission recommended that the Sirenia Project budget be main-

tained at the recommended Fiscal Year 1988 level for five
years thereafter.. With respect to the Hobe Sound sea grass
bed studies, the Commission recommended that at least $57,000
be made available by the Service in Fiscal Year 1988 and that
$65,000 be provided in each of the succeeding four years to
carry that project through to completion.

Information and Education Programs -- Because manatees
interact extensively with boaters, divers, and other Florida
residents and visitors, effective public awareness programs
are essential. Among other things, this means developing
messages that emphasize different points to different audiences
(g.q., boaters, divers, school children, etc.). The manatee
conservation program in Florida is exceedingly fortunate in
that several cooperating agencies and private organizations
have responded to this need with outstanding contributions
and long-term commitments. Among the many groups deserving
special recognition are the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Florida Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Power
and Light Company, and the Save the Manatee Club. During the
commission's meeting, representatives of these groups pro-
vided information on relevant programs and the materials being
prepared and distributed. As noted above, the Commission was
advised, among other things, that the Service had received a
special Fiscal Year 1988 appropriation of $650,000 for purchase
of a headquarters and visitor center site on Kings Bay for
the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge.

In addition, representatives of the Florida Department
of Natural Resources noted that, given the rapid growth of
Florida's human population and its close association with
manatees, it was essential that future generations of Floridians
understand the critical issues involved in protecting manatees
and the marine ecosystem as a whole. An identified approach
for instilling a broader, more thorough awareness of these
issues was through improved curricula for different elementary
and secondary school levels. This point had been discussed
earlier in the year with the Commission, and the Commission
has responded by offering to provide funds to the Florida
Department of Natural Resources to hire an education consult-
ant. On 18 December 1987, the Director of the Department of
Natural Resources accepted the offer. In early 1988, negoti-
ations will be completed to transfer funds in support of devel-
oping curriculums for public schools on matters pertaining to
the protection of West Indian manatees and coastal ecosystems
in general.

Manatees of the Greater Caribbean and South America --
During its Annual Meeting, the Commission reviewed available
information on the status of West Indian manatee populations
in areas outside Florida. According to information provided
by Fish and Wildlife Service representatives and others,

manatees appear to be declining throughout the species' range
and are becoming increasingly scattered into small, isolated
pockets of animals. While subsistence hunting has posed the
greatest threat to these other populations in the past, it
now appears that incidental take in gill net fisheries is the
greatest threat outside Florida. Virtually all nations within
the species' range now prohibit the taking of manatees, but
enforcement is not adequate.

Service representatives noted that Sirenia Project staff
are responding to increasing numbers of requests for information
and technical assistance from nations throughout the Caribbean.
In view of this growing interest in manatee protection, it
was generally agreed that further effort should be devoted to
developing an international conservation program for manatees
through the Cartagena Convention (see Chapter V).

Habitat Protection

As indicated above, the long-term survival and recovery
of manatees in Florida will depend on how successfully essential
habitat is protected. Given increasing numbers of boating
facilities and other types of shoreline development which render
remaining habitat less suitable and less safe for manatees, the
species probably cannot survive without a strategically inte-
grated network of protected areas which contain all essential
habitat components. Habitat protection and land acquisition
are identified as being of the highest priority in the West
Indian Manatee Recovery Plan, and if anything, these matters
have assumed even greater importance in the intervening years.
The Commission has worked closely with both the Florida Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
other groups-to encourage appropriate actions in these areas.

In 1979, the Florida Legislature created a State Conser-
vation and Recreation Lands Program and Trust Fund to acquire
lands that are environmentally sensitive or suitable for public
recreation. The Program and Trust Fund are administered by
the State Lands Selection Committee and the Florida Governor
and Cabinet. Since the Program's inception, more than 100,000
acres of land have been acquired throughout the State, including
certain areas along the Crystal River and elsewhere important
to manatees.

In May 1987, the Commission learned that a group of local
land owners in the Crystal River area was interested in selling
about 13,000 acres of undeveloped wetland and upland between
the Crystal and Homosassa Rivers at below-market value for
purposes of wildlife protection. The area contains a signifi-
cant portion of the habitat known to be important to the Crystal
River manatee population. The Commission also learned that
the land owners planned to request that the lands be added to

the list of recommended projects eligible for purchase under
the State's Conservation and Recreation Lands Program.

Therefore, on 20 May 1987, the Commission, in consultation
with its Committee of scientific Advisors, wrote to the
Directors of the Department of Natural Resources and the Florida
Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, both of whom are members
of the State Lands Selection Committee. In its letters, the
Commission commended the State Committee for its accomplishments
in pursuing an integrated regional network of State and Federal
protected areas in northwest Florida and called attention to
the importance of the proposal developed by the group of Crystal
River residents for the regional manatee population. The
Commission also noted that, if these lands could be incorporated
into the evolving regional system of refuges and reserves, it
would represent an important contribution to joint State and
Federal efforts to ensure the long-term survival of this
endangered species. Therefore, the Commission urged the Com-
mittee to act favorably on the proposal.

On 29 May 1987, the State Lands Selection Committee met
to consider, among other things, the proposed land acquisition,
which was named the St. Martine River Project. During its
meeting, the Commission's letter and other letters of support,
including one from the Manatee Technical Advisory Council,
were reviewed. The Committee gave tentative approval for
adding the proposed project to its recommended acquisition
list. in so doing, the Committee asked that the Florida
Division of State Lands prepare a detailed project design
identifying boundaries, land ownership, property values, etc.,
for the St. Martins River acquisition project. upon completion
of the project design in early 1988, it will be reviewed by
the Committee and a final listing decision made. At that
time, assuming final approval is granted, the St. Martins
River Project will be ranked against other listed projects to
determine its priority on the recommended acquisition list.

Conclusion

The population of West Indian manatees in Florida, which
may be the largest concentration of animals anywhere in the
species' range, is one of the most endangered marine mammals
in nearshore waters of the United States. Continued survival
of the population is in serious doubt, primarily because of
the continuing loss of essential habitat, the increasing number
of animals being killed and injured by collisions with boats,
and other pressures related to the rapidly growing human popula-
tion in Florida. The Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida
Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Power and Light
Company, the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, and
other cooperating agencies and private organizations have
made great progress in their efforts to deal with these prob-

Isms. Unfortunately, the pressures resulting from human popu-
lation growth are such that more must be done if the species'
continued existence and recovery are to be secured. During
1988, the Commission will continue to assist in the cooperative
efforts to address the complex and difficult issues on which
the welfare of this species rests.

Palau Dugona (Dugong dugon)

The dugong, the single surviving species of the family
Dugongidae, occurs throughout the shallow coastal waters of
the Indo-Pacific region in scattered populations. Due to
uncontrolled exploitation, the species has been severely de-
pleted or extirpated in many parts of its former range. For
example, local extinctions are documented around the Mascarenef
Laccadive, and Maldive Islands. The Red Data Book, maintained
by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources, lists the species as vulnerable; it is
designated as an endangered species under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act.

An isolated dugong population still occurs in waters
under U.S. jurisdiction around the Republic of Palau, about 850
km north of Papua New Guinea and 850 km east of the Philip-
pines. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted aerial
surveys of the Belau population in 1977, 1978, and 1983. The
general distribution of dugongs appeared to change little
between these surveys. Maximum counts in 1978 and 1983 were
37 and 38 animals, respectively. However, the sensitivity of
the surveys probably was not great enough to detect any changes
in the size of the population.

Data gathered from local fishermen indicate that dugong
are being taken illegally in greater numbers than the existing
population can possibly sustain. In addition, the possible
construction of U.S. military installations in the area could
lead to loss of dugong habitat that would greatly decrease
the population's chance for survival. Unless steps are taken
to ensure protection of the animals and their habitat, this
isolated population will.likely become extinct in the near
future.

The Marine Mammal Commission believes that steps must be
taken immediately if this unique and highly vulnerable dugong
population is to be preserved. Needed actions include long-
term monitoring of both dugong habitat and population levels;
implementation of a public education program; and reduction
in the level of human exploitation. During 1988, the Commission
intends to work with appropriate U.S., Palauan, and interna-
tional agencies to take necessary steps to protect and preserve
the threatened dugong population in Palauan waters.

Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi)

The Hawaiian monk seal occurs on beaches and in waters
surrounding the chain of small remote islands, atolls, and reefs
that extend 1,500 miles northwest of the main Hawaiian Islands.
Harassment and over-exploitation by sealers during the 19th
century reduced the species to precariously low numbers close
to extinction. The first systematic counts of animals were
made in the 1950s and, although the population was thought to
be increasing at that time, numbers in most areas have since
declined. 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
and the species is listed as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act.

The National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible for
protection of Hawaiian monk seals and their habitat under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Because most of the species' terrestrial habitat is within
the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, the Fish and
Wildlife Service also has important responsibilities for
protecting monk seals and their habitat. As discussed in
previous Annual Reports, issues critical to the species' con-
tinued survival and recovery include: disturbance of seals on
pupping and haul-out beaches; interactions between monk seals
and commercial fisheries; entanglement in lost and discarded
fishing gear and other marine debris; designation of critical
habitat under the Endangered Species Act; management of the
Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge; and identification
of and continued support for priority research and management
tasks.

Congressional concern for survival of the species has
been expressed, in part, through special appropriations for
monk seal-related activities. In Fiscal Year 1981, Congress
provided the Commission $100,000 to develop and initiate an
expanded research and management program for monk seals. The
Commission's efforts to develop and begin implementing a
directed research and management program are discussed in its
previous Annual Reports.* To carry that program forward,
Congress directed that the National Marine Fisheries Service
invest $400,000 in monk seal work in Fiscal Year 1982 and
$150,000 in Fiscal Year 1983. Congress also provided $150,000
to the Commission for monk seal work in Fiscal Year 1983 and,
after developing a detailed program plan for allocating those
funds among priority research and management tasks, the entire
$150,000 was transferred to the Service to carry out the
specified activities. For Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985, Congress
provided $300,000 and $350,000, respectively, to the Service
to continue critically needed monk seal work. For Fiscal

Years 1986 through 1988, $325,000 a year has been appropri-
ated.

As noted in previous Annual Reports, since the late
1970s, the Commission has made numerous recommendations to
the National Marine Fisheries service and the Fish and Wildlife
Service to further the protection of Hawaiian monk seals and
their habitat. Although some of those recommendations have been
adopted, others have been addressed only partially or not at
all. -Therefore, as noted in its previous Annual Report, the
Commission wrote to the National Marine Fisheries Service on
23 December 1986 recommending further steps to ensure the
species' continued survival and recovery. Among other things,
the Commission recommended that the Service: re-evaluate and
extend designated critical habitat for monk seals from the
10-fathom to the 20-fathom, isobath around certain Northwest
Hawaiian Islands and Maro Reef; reconstitute the Hawaiian
Monk Seal Recovery Team to update the Recovery Plan and help
identify and address priority research and management needs;
pursue efforts to eliminate the disturbance of seals by Coast
Guard personnel stationed on Kure Atoll; in consultation with
the Fish and Wildlife Service, ensure that the Hawaiian Islands
National Wildlife Refuge Field Station on Tern Island remains
open and occupied by personnel year-round to protect and
monitor seals; undertake studies to better document inter-
actions between monk seals and commercial fisheries; and
ensure that adequate funds are sought and provided each year
to carry forward urgent research and management needs.

By letter of 5 February 1987, the Service provided an
initial response to the Commission's December 1986 letter. In
its letter, the Service advised the Commission that: it planned
to carry out further research to assess critical foraging
habitat for monk seals and, based on the research results,
further rulemaking would be considered for extending designated
critical habitat around the Northwest Hawaiian Islands out to
the 20-fathom isobath; ways to continue operation of the Tern
Island field station were being explored with the Fish and
Wildlife Service and, if temporary closure of the station
became necessary, the possible effects of the decision on monk
seals would be reviewed pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act; similar discussions were underway with the Coast
Guard on ways to eliminate disturbance of seals by personnel
located at the Kure Island LORAN station; and the Service had
not allocated any funds for a study to better document inter-
actions between monk seals and commercial fisheries in 1987.

Tern Island Field Station

As noted in its previous Annual Report, the Commission
wrote to the Fish and Wildlife Service on 1 August and 22
December 1986 concerning potential removal of Service per-

sonnel from the Tern Island field station in the Hawaiian
Islands National Wildlife Refuge. As many as 170 seals have
been observed hauled out on that Island at one time and, as
noted in the letters, the presence of Service personnel on the
Island provides, among other things, an important deterrent
against unauthorized landings by fishermen or other individuals
who might disturb seals and cause them to abandon the area.

The Fish and Wildlife Service responded to the Commission's
letters on 11 February 1987. It noted that it was continuing
to explore options to maintain an operational station on Tern
Island while reducing costs to meet budget constraints. Its
preferred option was to establish a 10-month field camp on
the Island and remove personnel during December and January.
The Service noted that consultations with the National Marine
Fisheries Service were underway to assess the possible effects
of this option on monk seals. Congress subsequently provided
a special appropriation to the Fish and Wildlife Service to
maintain the Tern Island field station in 1987, thus avoiding
the need to make a decision on closing or restricting operation
of the facility. The issue could, however, be raised again
in 1988.

Critical Habitat

As noted in the previous Annual Report, on 30 April
1986, the National Marine Fisheries Service designated all
beaches, lagoons, and ocean waters out to a depth of 10 fathoms
around most Northwest Hawaiian Islands as critical habitat
for monk seals. The Service's action was not fully consistent
with the advice of either the Commission or the Hawaiian Monk
Seal Recovery Team, both of which had recommended that waters
out to the 20-fathom isobath be designated critical habitat.
Both the Commission and the Recovery Team had noted that
waters beyond the 10-fathom isobath provided essential feeding
habitat for monk seals. After reviewing the rationale for
the Service's decision, the Commission wrote to the Service
on 26 September 1986 recommending that the matter be re-opened
for public comment to receive information on special management
considerations that apparently had not been considered in
reaching the decision, and that the Service extend the desig-
nated critical habitat out to 20 fathoms. As noted above,
these recommendations were repeated in the Commission's 23
December 1986 letter.

On 15 July 1987, the National Marine Fisheries Service
published a Federal Register notice requesting comments on
whether-the area between 10 and 20 fathoms around the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands might require special management considerations
or protection needs for monk seals which would justify its
designation as critical habitat. By letter of 14 August
1987, the Commission, in consultation with its Committee of

Scientific Advisors, responded to the Service's request.
Among other things, the Commission repeated its conclusion
that available data clearly indicate that essential feeding
activity occurs out to and beyond the 20-fathom isobath and
that the waters between 10 and 20 fathoms, as well as waters
less than 10 fathoms, should be considered critical for survival
and recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal.

With respect to possible special management needs beyond
the 10-fathom isobath, the Commission noted that: (a) waters
beyond 10 fathoms are subject to commercial bottomfish and
lobster fishing and interactions between these fisheries and
monk seals are known to occur; (b) special efforts are needed
within essential feeding areas, including waters between 10
and 20 fathoms, to avoid loss and encourage recovery of fishing
gear and other debris that might entangle seals; (c) increasing
ship traffic associated with expanding fisheries, potential
offshore mining, and other activities poses risks of vessel
groundings and spills of cargo and fuel; (d) proposals for
deep seabed mining off the Northwest Hawaiian Islands could
pose threats to seals by disrupting behavior patterns, altering
habitat essential for prey species, or introducing contaminants
that might affect seals or their prey; and (e) the 20-fathom
isobath more clearly delineates the shelf break around the
islands and therefore represents a more readily recognizable
boundary that would facilitate compliance with existing and
future conservation measures. The Commission repeated its
recommendation that areas out to the 20-fathom contour around
the Northwest Hawaiian islands and Maro Reef be designated as
critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals.

At the end of 1987, the Service was considering comments
by the Commission and others on the matter, and it was the
Commission's understanding that, early in 1988, the Service
planned to formally propose extending designated critical
habitat for monk seals out to the 20-fathom isobath and adding
Maro Reef.

Scientific Research Permits

During 1987, the Commission reviewed and commented on
two research permit applications involving work on Hawaiian
monk seals. The first application requested authority to attach
depth of dive recorders and radio transmitters on up to 80
seals at French Frigate Shoals to identify foraging areas and
habitat use patterns. The second requested authority to mark
and observe female seals and pups at the same atoll, for a
period of three years, to improve information on nursing
behavior and pup rearing strategies. During the review of
both applications, questions were raised by the Commission
and its Committee of Scientific Advisors as to whether the
practical benefits of the proposed activities justified the

possible risk of disturbing, injuring, or otherwise affecting
monk seals.

Additional information bearing on these questions was
requested and received. Following further review of each
application, the Commission wrote to the National Marine
Fisheries Service on 30 March and 6 May 1987, respectively,
recommending that the permits be approved subject to certain
conditions. The recommended conditions were to minimize
risks to the individuals and populations involved, and to
ensure that potential unforeseen adverse impacts are detected
and resolved as soon as possible. Both permits were subse-
quently approved by the Service, subject to the conditions
recommended by the Commission.

URdating the Recovery Plan

The questions raised during the permit review process
highlighted the urgent need for periodic, thorough reviews of
all research and management activities proposed under the
monk seal recovery program. In particular, reviews are needed
to ensure that proposed activities address the most critical
issues, that activities are well conceived, and that any
potential risks to individuals and the population are clearly
outweighed by the anticipated benefits.

Therefore, in the previously mentioned 26 December 1986
letter, the Commission recommended to the National Marine
Fisheries Service that the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team,
which had not met since 1984, be reconstituted and convened
to help update the March 1983 Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery
Plan and provide expert advice on critical research and manage-
ment needs. During 1987, the Service issued invitations to
individuals, including representatives of the Marine Mammal
Commission, to serve as members of the Hawaiian Monk Seal
Recovery Team. The Service also established terms of reference
which call upon the Team to assist the Service in identifying
priority research and management actions, reviewing the status
of the species and recovery actions, identifying necessary
changes in the Recovery Plan, and providing technical assistance
on matters such as scientific research and section 7 consul-
tation. The first meeting of the Recovery Team was tentatively
scheduled for 27-29 October 1987. However, it was subsequently
cancelled due to funding constraints.

In view of the need to review and update the Recovery
Plan, the commission, in consultation with its Committee of
Scientific Advisors, convened a Hawaiian monk seal program
review during the course of its Annual Meeting in Miami on
10-12 December 1987. Representatives of the National Marine
Fisheries Service as well as members of the Commission and
its Committee of Scientific Advisors attended the review.

With respect to research, the participants reviewed and provided
comments on plans-to: monitor components of the monk seal
population, particularly pups and females; conduct further
depth-of-dive studies to better assess habitat use patterns;
analyze data on trends in population parameters; use captive
animals and field experiments to evaluate possible ways to
reduce or control aberrant male reproductive behavior which
has caused the death of several female seals at Laysan Island;
and evaluate permit requirements for future research activities.

With respect to management, participants considered and
provided comments on plans for: continuing the pup capture
and release program to help rebuild the population at Kure
Atoll; continuing the removal and rehabilitation of emaciated
pups from French Frigate Shoals to increase their chances of
survival; instituting a monk seal die-off response plan so as
to be prepared to respond promptly in the event of a large
scale die-off like that which occurred at Laysan Island in
1978; continuing to monitor and remove marine debris from
beaches when it might entangle and kill monk seal pups; con-
tinuing consultations with the Coast Guard on ways to reduce
disturbance of seals on Kure Atoll; consulting further with
the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure continued operation
of the field station on Tern Island; designating critical
habitat; convening the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team; and
updating the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Plan.

At the end of 1987, the Commission and its Committee of
Scientific Advisors were considering the results of the program
review to identify any additional measures that should be
taken to ensure that planned research and management programs
are properly oriented. In 1988, the Commission will continue
to work with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and such other organizations as may be
appropriate to update and expedite implementation of the
Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Plan.

North Pacific Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus)

North Pacific fur seals occur seasonally in waters through-
out the rim of the North Pacific Ocean. Most pupping and
breeding occurs on Robben Island in the Okhotsk Sea, the
Kuril Islands in the western North Pacific, the Commander
Islands in the western Bering Sea, and the Pribilof Islands
in the eastern Bering sea. New pupping and breeding colonies
established themselves on San Miguel Island off southern
California in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and, more
recently, on Bogoslof Island in the Aleutian chain.

Commercial exploitation of the North Pacific fur seal
dates back to the 1700s when the species' pupping and breeding

sites were first discovered. Prior to the purchase of Alaska
from Russia in 1867,, the harvest of fur seals on the breeding
islands was conducted and regulated by companies chartered by
the Russian czar. Excessive harvesting prior to 1805 caused
a substantial population decline and the harvest was halted
in 1806-1807 to allow the population to rebuild. In subsequent
years, quotas and other measures to protect the breeding
stock were implemented. In 1847, the harvest of females was
prohibited. This ban lasted until 1956 when an experimental
harvest of female fur seals was begun on the Pribilof Islands.

In 1870, following its purchase of Alaska, the United
States granted a U.S. company, the Alaska Commercial Company,
exclusive sealing rights on the Pribilofs. About the same
time, nationals from several countries began a pelagic harvest
of fur seals on a commercial scale. Harvesting was carried
out both on land and at sea until 1911, when pelagic harvesting
was prohibited under terms of the Fur Seal Treaty. During
the preceding four decades, the pelagic take, which included
both sexes and all age classes, equaled or exceeded the on-land
take and this resulted in a substantial population decline.

The prohibition on pelagic sealing instituted by the Fur
Seal Treaty of 1911, combined with careful regulation of the
on-land harvest, resulted in rapid growth and recovery of the
North Pacific fur seal herd in the early 1900s. Japan believed
that the increased fur seal herd was adversely affecting its
fisheries and, in 1926 and again in 1936, it proposed modifying
the 1911 Treaty to permit resumption of pelagic sealing. In
1940, Japan notified the other members that it was withdrawing
from the Treaty and, in 1941, the Treaty expired.

From 1941 to 1957, fur seal harvests on the Pribilof
Islands were governed by a provisional agreement between the
United States and Canada. In 1957, the Governments of Canada,
Japan, the Soviet Union, and the United States concluded an
Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals.
The purposes of the Convention were to determine and bring
North Pacific fur seal herd to the level that would provide
the greatest annual yield. The agreement prohibited pelagic
sealing, established a Commission to formulate and coordinate
research programs and other actions necessary to achieve
Convention objectives, and provided that Canada and Japan
would each receive 15 percent of the seal skins taken by the
Soviet Union and the United States on islands under their
jurisdiction.

The effective period of the Interim Convention was extended
by a series of Protocols adopted in 1963, 1969, 1976, and
1981. In October 1984, representatives of the four countries
signed a Protocol to extend the Convention through October
1988. The Governments of Canada, Japan, and the Soviet Union

subsequently ratified the Protocol; however, the United States
did not and the Convention therefore expired. (Additional
information on exploitation and efforts to conserve the North
Pacific fur seal can be found in Scheffer, V.B., C.H. Fiscus,
and E.I. Todd. 1967. History of Scientific Study and Manage-
ment of the Alaskan Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus), 1786-1964;
and in the Department of Commerce's Final Environmental Impact
Statement on the Interim convention on Conservation of North
Pacific Fur Seals, February 1985.)

Population Status

Before commercial exploitation began in the 1700s, the
Pribilof Islands fur seal population is estimated to have
numbered between 2 and 2.5 million animals, of which 1.6-2.0
million animals (about 80 percent) were on St. Paul Island.
By 1912, combined pelagic and on-land harvesting had reduced
the Pribilof Islands population to about 300,000 animals.
Under protection provided by the Fur Seal Treaty of 1911, the
population recovered and, by the early 1950s, probably was at
or near its pre-exploitation level. In the late 1950s, it
was concluded, on theoretical grounds, that the population
was too large to produce the maximum yield of skins. Therefore,
from 1956 through 1962, a number of females, as well as males,
were harvested to reduce the population and increase pupping
rates. Between 1963 and 1968, an effort was made to stabilize
the population by harvesting only females believed to be in
excess of the number needed to maintain a stable population.

As a result of the female harvest, the St. Paul Island
fur seal population decreased from about 1.8 million in the
early 1950s to about 930,000 in 1970. The commercial harvest
of females was halted in 1968 and by 1975 the St. Paul Island
population had increased to about 1.1 million. However, the
population subsequently declined and by 1,979 numbered about
990,000 animals. The breeding-colonies on St. George Island
also declined during this period even though commercial har-
vesting there was stopped in 1973 in an experimental effort
to assess the effects of harvesting on population growth and
age/sex structure. The Pribilof population continued to decline
through at least the mid-1980s and, at present, the combined
St. Paul and St. George I'slands populations are estimated at
800,000 animals.

The Pribilof Islands fur seal population is currently
about 40 percent of the estimated population size prior to
exploitation and after recovery in the early 1950s, and the
decline may be continuing. Thus, in 1984, 1985, and 1986,
the Marine Mammal 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 (see the Commission's previous

reports for details of these recommendations). No action was
taken on these recommendations until 30 December 1986 when
the Service published and requested comments on a proposed
rule designating the Pribilof Islands fur seal population as
depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. A public
meeting was held in Anchorage, Alaska, on 21 January 1987 to
obtain comments on the proposal. The comment period, initially
scheduled to end on 6 February, was subsequently extended to
30 March 1987 to accommodate rural Alaskans.

The Commission reviewed and, by letter of 6 March 1987,
provided comments on the proposed rulemaking to the National
Marine Fisheries Service. The Commission concurred with the
Service's determinations that: the population was below 50
percent of its observed level in the 1940s and early 1950s;
there is no evidence suggesting that the North Pacific ecosystem
cannot still support a fur seal population as high as that
observed in the 1940s and 1950s; and the Pribilof Islands fur
seal population consequently is below its maximum net produc-
tivity level, which is the lower limit of its optimum sus-
tainable population range. In its comments, the Commission
noted that, while the population had declined, the average body
sizes of both male and female fur seals had increased and the
length of time fur seals spend at sea feeding had decreased,
suggesting that the population was not being limited by
decreased food supplies.

On 4 August 1987, the Service requested comments from
the Commission and others on a draft final rule designating
the Pribilof Islands fur seal population as depleted under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. On 1 September 1987, the National
marine Fisheries Service received a petition from the St. Paul
Aleut community and the Pribilof Aleut Sealing Commission
requesting reconsideration of the proposed rulemaking. The
Service determined that no useful purpose would be served by
delaying the depletion designation and, on 28 September 1987,
it denied the Aleuts' request.

During consideration of the draft final rule, the Service's
Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center questioned the Service's
determination that the fur seal carrying capacity of the
Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean had not changed significantly
since the peak in population size in the early 1950s. In
response to the Center's questions, the Service, on 31 December
1987, suspended action on the proposed rulemaking and reopened
the comment period on the proposed rule. In anticipation of
this action, the Humane Society of the United States filed
suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
on 17 December 1987, claiming that any further delay in desig-
nating the Pribilof Islands fur seal population as depleted was
unjustified and contrary to provisions of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. At the end of 1987, the National Marine

Fisheries Service had not responded to the Humane Society's
complaint.

Early in 1988, the Commission will review the questions
raised by the Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center and provide
comments and recommendations as appropriate to the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries.

Development and Implementation of a Long-Range Conservation
Plan - I
The cause or causes of the fur seal population decline
since the mid-1970s has not been determined. Mortality due
to entanglement in lost and discarded fishing gear is no doubt
a contributing factor and may be the primary cause of the
decline (see Chapter VI for a thorough discussion of issues
regarding entanglement). other possibilities include: inci-
dental take during fishing operations; over-fishing of pollock
or other species important in the fur seals' diet; past and
ongoing fur seal harvest practices; disease; environmental
pollution in one or more parts of the fur seals' range; preda-
tion; and natural variation or long-term changes in the marine
ecosystem of which fur seals are a part.

Because of the continuing fur seal population decline
and uncertainties concerning the cause or causes of that
decline, the Commission recommended in November 1985 that the
National Marine Fisheries Service: promptly convene a North
Pacific Fur Seal Research Program review and schedule subsequent
reviews annually until*such time as the population decline
has been reversed; constitute a group of experts to write and
help implement a fur seal conservation plan similar in scope
and format to an endangered species recovery plan; and seek
the cooperation of other countries in efforts to implement
the conservation plan. In December 1985, the Commission
provided the Service a draft outline of a conservation plan
for the Pribilof Islands fur seal population.

In its 21 February 1986 response to the commission's
recommendations, the National Marine Fisheries Service
questioned the need to convene a fur seal research program
review before February 1987 and noted that the need for a
long-term research plan would be addressedat a meeting of
the former parties to the Interim Fur Seal Convention, proposed
to be held in Ottawa, Canada, in April 1986. The Service
indicated that the draft outline of the Pribilof Islands Fur
Seal Conservation Plan provided by the Commission would be
used to form the basis of the U.S. contribution to plan develop-
ment. The meeting in Ottawa was cancelled, but subsequently
was rescheduled and held in Washington, D.C. in September
1987 (see discussion below).

A number of uncertainties concerning the National Marine
Fisheries Service's North Pacific Fur Seal Research Program
were raised during the review of permit applications submitted
by the National Marine Mammal Laboratory in 1986. As noted
in the Commission's previous Annual Report, a brief review of
ongoing and planned activities related to the conservation of
the Pribilof Islands fur seal population was held during the
Commission's 28-30 October 1986 meeting in Anchorage, Alaska.
In preparation for that review, the Service provided a draft
research plan containing sections on research needs, priorities,
and plans for studies that were to have been conducted in
Fiscal Year 1986. It noted that the draft plan constituted a
first draft of the Fur Seal Conservation Plan recommended by
the Commission and that the National Marine Mammal Laboratory
was planning to hold a fur seal research program review in
February 1987.

Information provided by the Service during the Commission's
October 1986 meeting in Anchorage did not resolve all of the
Commission's concerns. The Commission was advised, for example,
that the program review, initially scheduled to be held in
February 1987, had been delayed until March 1987 and that the
Service had not yet constituted a group of experts to facilitate
development of a long-range conservation plan. The Commission
therefore wrote to the Service on 23 December 1986, recommending
(a) that the planned program review be held as soon as possible
so that the results could be used in planning the 1987 research
program and (b) that a working group be constituted and convened
to prepare and oversee implementation of the long-range conser-
vation plan as recommended by the Commission in 1985.

commission representatives participated in the fur seal
program review at the Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center,
Seattle, Washington, on 10-11 March 1987. During the review,
participants were given copies of the Service's "Draft Fur Seal
Research Plans: Needs, Alternatives and Priorities with a
List of Proposed Studies for FY 1987." The commission, in
consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, subse-
quently reviewed the draft research plan and other information
presented during the program review and, on 27 April 1987,
provided comments and recommendations to the Service.

In its letter, the Commission again called a ttention to
the need for a long-range conservation plan and expressed its
belief that highest priority should be devoted to assessing
and monitoring population status and to identifying the cause
or causes of the continuing fur seal population decline.
With respect to population monitoring, the commission recom-
mended that efforts be continued or initiated to: (a) better
estimate the number of pups born each year on the Pribilof
Islands; (b) tag a large cohort of pups each year for the
next three to five years to develop better data on age-specific

mortality and reproduction; (c) complete analysis of existing
population data; and (d) develop a fur seal population model
to assist in evaluating trend data and identifying critical
information needs.

With respect to documenting the cause or causes of the
population decline, the Commission recommended that the Service:
(a) conduct a pilot study to evaluate possible methods for
testing the hypothesis that fur seals, particularly pups and
juveniles, are attracted to and become entangled in large
fragments of net debris at sea; (b) contract with an appropriate
individual or organization, or convene a workshop, to assess
the technological and economic feasibility of using existing
or developing new tagging and tracking technology to determine
when, where, and how fur seals, particularly pups, die at sea;
(c) expand observer and other monitoring programs to better
determine the number of fur seals being taken incidentally in
the North Pacific ocean high sea squid fishery; and (d) review
existing information and conduct additional studies as necessary
to determine whether hook worm or emaciation syndrome may be
causing or contributing to the population decline.

Following consideration of the Commission's comments and
recommendations and those of a panel of experts constituted
to facilitate the program review, the Service revised its
1987 research plans. In April 1987, the Service's National
Marine Mammal Laboratory applied for a permit to conduct a
broad range of fur seal research over the next five years.
The Commission reviewed the application and, by letter of 18
June 1987, recommended authorizing tagging and observation
studies to better document trends in population size and
productivity. The Commission questioned the rationale of
several proposed studies to assess the effects of entanglement
in small net fragments and recommended that authorization for
these studies be denied. The Commission further noted that
the Laboratory was requesting authorization for a number of
research activities not included in the accompanying project
descriptions. It recommended that authorization of these
activities, to be conducted in the latter four years of the
permit period, be deferred pending development and review of
a comprehensive fur seal conservation plan.

By letter of 22 June 1987, the Service advised the Com-
mission that, in recognition of the Commission's position on
evaluating the role of entanglement in the northern fur seal
population decline, the Service had revised its approach and
that $55,000 from the Service's Marine Entanglement Research
Program (see Chapter VI) had been provided to the National
Marine Mammal Laboratory to: (1) organize and hold a workshop
to better determine and agree on research necessary to document
the role of entanglement in the fur seal population decline;
(2) develop and use a population model to assist in assessing

the effects of entanglement on northern fur seals; and (3) con-
duct a pilot study to evaluate the Service's capability for
deploying, tracking, and recovering large fragments of trawl
web as a means for assessing the nature and extent of fur
seal entanglement in such debris. By letter of I July 1987,
the Service further advised the Commission that it proposed
to hold a workshop to assess entanglement-related research
needs in 1987 and to defer the technology workshop recommended
by the Commission until results of the fur seal entanglement
workshop were available. In its letter, the Service also
noted that it had been successful in arranging for cooperative
squid drift net fishery research with Japan and the Republic
of Korea, and that a preliminary draft conservation plan for
fur seals was being developed and would be forwarded to the
Commission for review and comment in the near future.

As noted in Chapter VI, commitment of funds from the
Marine Entanglement Program requires Commission concurrence.
By letter of 7 July 1987, the Commission advised the Service
that it concurred conceptually with the proposed expenditure
of $55,000 to support the workshop, modeling study, and pilot
study described in the research plan forwarded with the Ser-
vice's letter of 22 June 1987. The Commission recommended
support of the workshop and modeling study with the under-
standing that: (1) a tentative workshop agenda, a list of
prospective workshop participants, and a tentative list of
documents to be distributed in advance of the workshop would
be provided to the Commission for review and concurrence
before funds were committed; and (2) the Commission would be
given an opportunity to comment on a draft request for pro-
posals for the modeling study and to review and comment on
proposals submitted in response to the request. The Commission
questioned the rationale for and the lack of detail in the
plan for the proposed pilot study and recommended that funding
of that project be deferred pending submission and approval
of a proposal containing a detailed description of the proposed
research protocol, the underlying rationale for it, and a
detailed budget justification.

On 31 August 1987, the Service sent the Commission its
Preliminary Draft Conservation Plan for Pribilof.Islands Fur
Seals for review and comment. This draft plan was used in
developing U.S. positions and initiatives for discussion of
fur seal research needs during informal consultations with
the former parties to the Interim Fur Seal Convention, held
on 22-23 September 1987 (see below). The draft plan was
reviewed by the Commission, in consultation with its Committee
of Scientific Advisors, during the Commission's Annual Meeting
in Miami, Florida, on 10-12 December 1987. At the end of the
year, the Service was revising the draft plan to take account
of comments provided by scientists and program administrators

within the Service, and anticipated making a revised draft
available for public review early in 1988.

The Entanglement WorkshoR

By letter of 16 October 1987, the National Marine Mammal
Laboratory sent the Commission a draft agenda and related
material for the Northern Fur Seal Entanglement Workshop,
which was scheduled to be held at the Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center on 17-19 November 1987. The letter advised
the Commission that, because of timing problems, funds for
the workshop had been committed without first obtaining Commis-
sion concurrence as specified in the Commission's letter of
7 July 1987. On 5 November 1987, the Commission received a
formal announcement of the workshop from the organization
contracted by the Service to make the workshop arrangements.

From the information provided, it was not clear that the
workshop had been structured so as to most effectively identify
and address key issues or that the persons able to attend the
workshop on such short notice would have the range of expertise
necessary to address the issues. Because of these uncertain-
ties, the Commission, by letter of 9 November 1987, recommended
that the workshop be postponed until the latter part of February
1988 so as to provide time for consultations with the Commission
and others.

The Service concurred with the Commission's recommendation
that the workshop be postponed and rescheduled it for 28-30
January 1988. By letter of 25 November 1987, the Service
sent the Commission a revised workshop agenda and related
materials for review and comment. The Commission, in consul-
tation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed
these documents during its meeting in Miami, Florida, on
10-12 December 1987 and, by letter of 29 December 1987, for-
warded its preliminary comments on the revised workshop plans.

The Commission will work with the Service in early 1988
to finalize plans for the workshop.

The 1987 Subsistence Harvest

As noted earlier, the Interim Convention on conservation
of North Pacific Fur Seals expired in October 1984. In the
absence of an international agreement binding upon the United
States, 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 of
1966. Under these laws, the taking of fur seals for commercial
purposes is prohibited. A take by Alaska Natives for subsis-
tence purposes, however, is authorized under certain conditions.
Under the authority of these two laws, the National Marine

Fisheries Service published emergency interim regulations on
8 July 1985 to govern the 1985 subsistence take of fur seals
by Aleut residents of the Pribilof Islands.

Permanent subsistence harvest regulations were issued by
the Service on 9 July 1986. The regulations set a subsistence
harvest season from 30 June to 8 August of each year. The
closing date was established to minimize the risk of taking
females. After early August there is an influx of sub-adult
female seals and a breakdown of the rookery structure. The
regulations also provide for extension of the harvest period
to as late as 30 September if the Service determines that
subsistence needs have not been met by 8 August. If the
harvest is extended, however, there are special provisions to
limit the number of female seals that may accidentally be
taken. In addition, the regulations require that the Service
make a determination of the expected maximum and minimum
number of seals needed for subsistence purposes on both St.
Paul and St. George Islands prior to the start of the harvest
each year. 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
that additional seals are required to meet subsistence needs.
The harvest may also be terminated before the lower estimate
is reached if it is determined that the residents' subsistence
needs have been met.

For 1987, the Service estimated that 1,600 to 3,000 fur
seals were needed for subsistence on St. Paul and that 530 to
1#000 seals were required on St. George. These estimates
were somewhat lower than those for 1986 and were based, in
part, on the 1986 take. The harvest on St. Paul Island was
suspended on 7 August 1987 after 1,600 seals (the lower bound
of the estimated subsistence need) were taken. On 7 August,
St. Paul residents, through their Native corporation, requested
an extension of the harvest through 30 September to take an
unspecified number of additional seals. A public meeting was
held on 17 August to discuss the extension and subsequently
the Natives agreed to limit their request to two additional
harvest days and 300 additional seals. The Commission, by
letter of 27 August 19871 supported the extension, but recom-
mended that it be limited to 211 seals, the additional number
needed to meet subsistence requirements as indicated by a
survey of the Natives at the close of the season. Based on
experience from the 1986 extension when 12 female seals were
taken accidentally on one day, the Commission questioned the
ability of anyone, including the Pribilof Natives, to distin-
guish between sub-adult male and female seals under harvest
conditions. The Commission recommended that the harvest be
monitored closely to ensure that the unauthorized take of
females that occurred during the 1986 extended harvest was
not repeated.

0n 28 August, the Service determined that subsistence
needs of the St. Paul Natives had not been satisfied and
authorized a two-day,extension of the harvest season to allow
211 seals to be taken. Seals were harvested on 2 September
and only 110 additional seals were taken before the limit of
five female seals was reached and the harvest was terminated.
Because of the high female take during the 1986 and 1987
extensions of the harvest, the Service has indicated that it
will review the advisability of allowing seals to be taken
after the first week of August and will consider deleting the
extension provisions from its regulations.

In 1986, a few St. Paul residents collected small numbers
of seal pelts during the subsistence harvest and indicated
that they intended to use them in the creation of Native
handicrafts. In contrast, during 1987, the St. Paul Native
corporation processed pelts from 1,600 of the 1,710 seals
taken. The skins will be held pending resolution of the
Natives' view that the Marine Mammal Protection Act should be
amended to allow for the commercial sale of such subsistence
by-products.

Seals were harvested on St. George Island on only two
days during the 1987 season. A total of 92 seals were taken.

International Cooperation

North Pacific fur seals occur not only in U.S. waters
but also seasonally in international waters and waters under
the jurisdiction of other countries. Thus, conservation of
the North Pacific fur seal and the ecosystem of which it is a
part requires multinational cooperation.

As noted earlier, between 1957 and 1984, northern fur
seals were managed according to the terms of the Interim
Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals. This
expired at the end of 1984 when the United States failed to
ratify the protocol to extend the Convention until 1988. As
noted in the Commission's previous Annual Report, the Government
of Canada subsequently cancelled a meeting of parties that was
to have been held in Ottawa in April 1986 to discuss the
future role of the Interim Convention and related issues.

Recognizing the importance of international cooperation
to protect and permit recovery of the Pribilof Islands fur
seal population, and the difficulty of securing that cooper-
ation in the absence of an international agreement, the National
marine Fisheries Service and the Department of State invited
representatives of the former parties to the Interim Convention
to an informal meeting in Washington, D.C., to explore the
possibility of a new agreement. The meeting, initially proposed

to be held in May 1987, was held in Washington, D.C., on 22-23
September 1987. -

The National Marine Fisheries Service convened a meeting
of State, Federal, Native, and public interest group represen-
tatives on 7 May 1987 to discuss what it hoped to accomplish
at the meeting. Commission representatives attended the
meeting and, on 22 May 1987, the Commission wrote to the
Service, expressing its support for the proposed meeting even
if only one or two of the other former parties to the Interim
Convention agreed to participate. In its letter, the Commission
noted that a conservation plan, as described earlier, would
provide a structured, rational context within which to discuss
cooperative international efforts to address fur seal conser-
vation and management issues. It therefore recommended that
a draft conservation plan be developed and distributed to all
appropriate governmental and non-governmental groups for review
and that it be used in developing U.S. positions for the
forthcoming multilateral meetings. The Commission also pointed
out that any international fur seal agreement involving the
United States must be consistent with the purposes, policies,
and requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Several of the former convention parties did not accept
the U.S. invitation to meet in May 1987. However, all parties
did accept a subsequent invitation to meet on 22-23 September.
To facilitate preparations for the meeting, the National
Marine Fisheries Service prepared and, by letter of 19 August
1987, sent the Commission a draft discussion paper outlining
proposed U.S. positions on issues expected to be addressed at
the meeting. The discussion paper subsequently was revised
to take account of comments provided by the Commission and
others and was provided to the representatives of the other
parties during the September meeting.

The purposes of the September meeting were to re-establish
the international dialogue on fur seal issues, explain why
the United States did not ratify the 1984 protocol to extend
the Interim Convention, and explore the possibility of a new
agreement. During the meeting, the need for cooperative
efforts to conserve North Pacific fur seals was generally
recognized. However, there were differing views as to the
need for a new agreement, what should be included in it, and
what form it might take. The Canadian delegation indicated
that Canada could support a new agreement if its provisions
were substantially equivalent to those of the Interim Conven-
tion, including provision for a commercial harvest. The
delegation noted that, if the primary objective was to coor-
dinate fur seal research, a forma-1 agreement may be unnecessary.
The Canadian delegation questioned the quality of the data that
had been used by the United States to conclude that the Pribilof
Islands fur seal population was' depleted under the Marine

Mammal Protection Act, particularly the accuracy of population
estimates from the 1940s and 1950s.

The Japanese delegation expressed preference for con-
tinuing the Interim convention concluded in 1957 and questioned
the rationale for the United States' failure to ratify the
1984 Protocol to extend the Convention. The Japanese delegation
noted that the United States was permitting a subsistence
harvest by Alaska Natives even though the Pribilof Islands
fur seal population was in the process of being declared
depleted and that such a designation would prohibit the inci-
dental take of fur seals in fisheries, which would have no
more effect on the population than the Native subsistence
take. The delegation also noted that analysis of pelagic
survey data collected by Japanese scientistsindicated that
the Pribilof fur seal population was larger than U.S. scientists
estimated.

The Soviet delegation supported negotiation of a new
agreement and adoption of temporary management measures pending
negotiation of the agreement. The delegation suggested for-
mation of an ad hoc working group to expedite identification
and implementation of needed research and conservation measures.
The Soviet delegation also provided information indicating
that the Robben Island fur seal population had declined sub-
stantially since 1984, due apparently to a substantial decline
in recruitment to the breeding population, as appears to be
happening in the Pribilofs.

Although there were differing views as to the type of
agreement needed, the need for multinational efforts to protect
and conserve North Pacific fur seals and their habitat was
generally recognized. The United States therefore proposed to
recommend initiation of formal talks to negotiate a new inter-
national agreement on fur seal research and conservation.

The Marine Mammal Commission supports the view that
multinational efforts are necessary to effectively protect
and conserve fur seals and the ecosystem of which they are a
part. The Commission also believes, as noted earlier, that a
comprehensive conservation plan should be developed by the
National marine Fisheries service, and that the Plan should
be used as the basis for determining provisions that should
be included in a new international fur seal agreement. In
1988, the Commission will continue to work with the National
marine Fisheries Service, the Department of State, and others
to identify and negotiate an appropriate agreement.

Northern Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus)

Northern or Steller sea lions occur in coastal areas
throughout the rim of the North Pacific Ocean from northern
Hokkaido, Japan, through the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea,
the Aleutian Islands and central Bering Sea, the southern
coast of Alaska, and the coasts of British Columbia, Washington,
and Oregon, south to the California Channel Islands. Numbers
are greatest and the largest pupping colonies occur in the
Gulf of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands.

Available information indicates that northern sea lion
populations have been declining since the late 1970s in the
Kuril, Commander, Aleutian, and Pribilof Islands, in Bristol
Bay and the central and western Gulf of Alaska, and in Cali-
fornia. The cause or causes of the decline have not been
documented. On 9-10 December 1986, the National Marine Mammal
Laboratory convened a workshop to review available information
and identify research necessary to determine the cause and to
better document the nature and extent of the decline.

The workshop report, published in March 1987, indicates
that the number of adult and juvenile northern sea lions on
haul-out sites in the central Gulf of Alaska through the central
Aleutian Islands declined 52 percent, from 140,000 animals in
1956-1960 to about 68,000 animals in 1985. The greatest
declines have been in the eastern Aleutian Islands, where
estimated numbers in 1985 were 79 percent less than in
1956-1960. The workshop concluded that the decline was con-
tinuing and likely was due to reduction in juvenile and adult
female survival rates. The workshop also noted that declines
in northern fur seals, harbor seals, and fish-eating birds
apparently have occurred in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering
Sea in recent years as well.

Possible causes of the observed sea lion decline include:
incidental take in fisheries; deliberate shooting by fishermen;
reduction of important sea lion prey species due to fishery
development; entanglement in lost and discarded fishing gear
and other marine debris; disease; environmental pollution;
and natural changes in the marine ecosystem of which northern
sea lions are a part. The workshop concluded that available
information was insufficient to assess reliably the likely
significance of any of the possible causes and recommended
that steps be taken to: obtain more reliable information on
the numbers of sea lions, by age and sex, being killed inci-
dentally and deliberately during domestic and foreign fishing
operations offshore Alaska; complete the analysis of data
from disease studies conducted in 1985-1986 and initiate
additional studies as may be needed; salvage and do necropsies
on animals found dead on beaches in selected rookery areas
Marmot Island, Alaska) to determine the nature, extent,

and causes of on-land mortality; assess possible methods for
better determining and monitoring survival and pregnancy rates;
and continue periodic surveys of selected rookeries to monitor
distribution, abundance, and vital population parameters.

Given the workshop findings, the National Marine Fisheries
Service announced in the EsAe-tal Register on 24 April 1987
that it was undertaking a status review to determine whether
the northern sea lion should be designated as depleted under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act and/or endangered or threatened
under the Endangered Species Act. The results of the review,
expected to be completed by 30 October 1987, were not available
at the end of 1987.

Based on the information above, it seems likely that the
status review will indicate that one or more local or regional
populations of northern sea lions should be designated as
depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and possibly
as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
The Commission, in consultatio*n with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, will consider the status review when it is available
and will provide comments and recommendations to the National
Marine Fisheries Service as appropriate.

The California Sea Otter PORulation (Enhydra lutris)

Commercial hunting of sea otters for fur began in the
mid-1700s and continued intermittently until 1911 when the
species was protected.by the North Pacific Fur Seal Treaty,
signed by the United States, Great Britain, Russia, and Japan.
Prior to commercial exploitation, sea otters inhabited the
coastal waters of the North Pacific Ocean, south along the
west coast of North America to central Baja California and, in
the eastern Pacific, as far south as the islands of northern
Japan. By 1911, sea otters were extinct throughout most of
their historic range.

Small groups of sea otters survived in remote areas in
Russia, Alaska, and central California. The remnant population
in California occupied a-few miles of the rocky Point Sur
coast and may have numbered fewer than 50 animals in 1911.
Under the protection of the Fur Seal Treaty and subsequent
State of California protection measures, the population grew
slowly and, by the mid-1970s, occupied about 160 miles of
habitat along the central California coast. The population
was estimated at fewer than 1,800 animals. At the same time,
the risk of oil spills in and near the California sea otter
range was increasing as a result'of increased tanker traffic,
due primarily to transport of oil from the recently completed
Alaska pipeline.

Because of its small size and limited distribution, and
the increasing risk of oil spills and other catastrophic
events, the California sea otter population was designated as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act in January 1977.
The most effective way to insure that the population is not
threatened by oil spills is to establish one or more sea
otter colonies outside the population's present range. However,
such an action could adversely affect commercial and recre-
ational fisheries for abalone, clams, and other invertebrates
eaten'by sea otters. It also could reduce populations of sea
urchins and other species that consume kelp, and thus benefit
the kelp industry and both recreational and commercial fisheries
for finfish that inhabit kelp beds.

The Commission recognized the need to minimize possible
adverse effects on commercial and recreational fisheries as
well as to protect the California sea otter population.
Accordingly, in December 1980, it 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 current 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, adopted in February 1982.

Past commission efforts to help with development and
implementation of an effective Southern Sea Otter Recovery
Plan are described in previous Annual Reports. The Commission's
activities in this regard in 1987 are summarized below.

Incidental Take

When the California sea otter population was listed as
threatened in January 1977, it was assumed that the population
was increasing and would continue to increase at about five
percent per year for the foreseeable future. However, as noted
in previous Commission reports, subsequent studies indicated
that substantial numbers of sea otters were being caught and
killed incidentally in coastal gill and trammel net fisheries
and that this incidental take may have been sufficient to
stop and reverse the population increase. From June 1982 to
January 1985, 29 sea otters were observed drowned or were
otherwise known to have drowned in commercial fishing nets.
Only a small fraction of fishing nets set in or near the sea
otter range were observed, and in a report issued in 1984, the
California Department of Fish and Game estimated that an
average of 105 otters were caught and killed in fishing nets
each year between 1973 and 1983. Estimates of the fishing
effort and sea otter mortality.are shown in the following
table, prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game.

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

Number of Estimated
Year Landings Mortalitv

1973 457 49
1974 645 69
1975 (no data] 69
1976 980 105
1977 663 71
1978 874 93
1979 1,449 154
1980 1,407 150
1981 1,578 168
1982 1,057 113
1983 696 74

Thousands of sea birds and non-target fish species, as
well as sea otters and other marine mammals, are caught in
gill and trammel nets. The State of California recognized
problems being caused by this indiscriminate bycatch and, in
1982, prohibited the use of gill and trammel nets in waters
less than 10 fathoms deep in Monterey Bay to reduce the inci-
dental take of sea birds. In the spring of 1984, the closure
was extended to 15 fathoms. To protect sea otters, in 1984,
the California Department of Fish and Game also imposed a
temporary emergency closure, prohibiting the use of entangling
fishing nets with mesh larger than three inches in waters
less than 15 fathoms deep 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 mesh size of 3.5
inches or larger.

The closures did not eliminate the incidental take of
sea otters and, in the fall of 1985, the California Department
of Fish and Game promulgated an emergency regulation prohibiting
the use of entangling nets in waters less than 20 fathoms
deep along 17 miles of coastline between Cape San Martin and
Piedras Blancas. In September 1986, the State of California
enacted legislation extending the earlier 15-fathom closure
to 20 fathoms 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.

Prohibitions on the use of entangling nets in waters
commonly inhabited by sea otters 'have no doubt substantially
reduced the incidental take of sea otters. Although it is
too early to be certain, the results of sea otter surveys, as
shown in the following table, suggest that the population may
be beginning to increase.

Sea Otter Population Counts
by the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Cglifornia Department of Fish and Game 1982-1987

Independent
Otters EMI Total

1982 Spring 1124 222 1346
Fall 1194 144 1338

1983 Spring 1131 120 1251
Fall 1062 164 1226

1984 Spring 1181 123 1304

1985 Spring 1124 236 1360
Fall 1066 155 1221

1986 Spring 1345 225 1570
Fall 1088 113 1201

1987 Spring 1430 220 1650
Fall 1263 104 1367

Surveys conducted since implementation of State bans
on use of entanglement nets beginning in January 1985.

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

To promote protection and recovery of the California sea
otter population while minimizing adverse effects on commercial
and recreational fisheries, the Commission, as noted earlier,
recommended in December 1980 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 current range. The Service concurred with
the Commission's recommendation and, as described.in previous
Commission Reports, initiated a study in 1981 to identify and
evaluate possible translocation sites in California, Oregon,
and Washington. The project was completed in May 1984. In
June 1984, the 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.

As part of the preparation.process,, the Service held public
meetings on 23 and 24 July 1984 in Santa Barbara and Monterey,

California, to obtain the views of the public on issues that
should be considered in the environmental impact statement.
In addition, the Service established an Interagency Project
Review Team, as recommended by the Council on Environmental
Quality, to assist in the scoping process and the preparation
of the environmental impact statement. The review team included
representatives of the California Department of Fish and
Game, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Marine Mammal Commis-
sion, the Minerals Management Service, and other interested
Federal and state agencies. Meetings of the Review Team were
open to the public and were attended by representatives of
environmental groups, the oil and gas industry, and sport and
commercial fishing organizations.

To further facilitate public input and provide for the
development of a thorough and balanced decision-making document
the Service issued two preliminary Draft Environmental Impact
Statements to the Interagency Project Review Team and interested
parties for review and comment. The first was issued early
in 1985 and, based upon the comments received, a revision was
prepared and issued in February 1986.

Questions concerning the legal authority for and other
aspects of the Fish and Wildlife Service's translocation
proposal were raised and considered during Congressional
hearings on reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act in
the spring of 1985. In response, specific sea otter translo-
cation provisions were included in H.R. 1027, the House of
Representatives proposed legislation to reauthorize the
Endangered Species Act. other issues concerning reauthori-
zation of the Act, however, could not be resolved and H.R.
1027 was not passed. Instead, at the end of 1985, Congress
enacted legislation to provide for continuing appropriations
to the Department of the Interior and other agencies responsible
for implementing the Act. As part of this legislation, Congress
required that the Fish and Wildlife Service move forward with
its decision-making on the proposed sea otter translocation,
notwithstanding the fact that the Endangered Species Act had
not been reauthorized.

Complying with the Congressional directive,.the Fish and
Wildlife Service issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on 31 July 1986. This document identified translocation of
sea otters to San Nicolas Island in the California Channel
Islands as the preferred action. On 15 August 1986, the Service
published proposed experimental population regulations in the
Federal Register.

Still seeing a need to clarify the authority for the
translocation, in October 1986, the House Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries incorporated the sea otter translocation
amendment from the unpassed Endangered Species Act reauthori-

zation bill (section 5 of H.R. 1027) into H.R. 4531, the
legislation extending the Wetlands Loan Act. This bill was
passed by the House on 14 October and by the Senate on
18 October and was signed into law (P.L. 99-625) by the Presi-
dent on 7 November 1986. The sea otter translocation amendment
serves as a free-standing provision, independent of the
Endangered Species Act. Thus, its requirements would continue
to apply even if the sea otter were to be delisted under the
Act. The purpose of the amendment was to encourage the develop-
ment and implementation of a plan to establish at least one sea
otter colony outside the present sea otter range in Califor-
nia. It required, among other things, that the translocation
plan specify a translocation zone that would meet the habitat
needs of the translocated animals and provide a buffer against
possible adverse activities that may occur outside that zone.
It also requires that the area surrounding the translocation
zone be designated a management zone from which sea otters
are to be excluded by non-lethal means. The amendment provides
that actions necessary to affect the translocation and manage-
ment of sea otters under the plan shall not be considered
violations of either the Endangered Species Act or the Marine
Mammal Protection Act. It authorizes (1) establishment of a
sea otter colony outside the existing California sea otter
range, and (2) use of non-lethal means to protect fishery
resources by prohibiting expansion of the mainland sea otter
population south of Point Concepcion.

The Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal to translocate
up to 250 sea otters to San Nicolas Island was designed to
fulfill research as well as management objectives and therefore
required a scientific research permit as provided for in the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. It also constituted a major
Federal action under the Coastal Zone Managment Act and required
a determination of consistency with the California Coastal
Management Plan. In addition, to satisfy conditions related
to the Endangered Species Act, it required the concurrence of
the California Fish and Game Commission and consultations
within the Fish and Wildlife Service, pursuant to section 7
of the Act. Formal consultation pursuant to section 7 was
initiated in December 1985. On 6 March 1987, the Director of
the Service's Region 1 Office in Portland, Oregon, issued a
Biological Opinion which concluded that the proposed translo-
cation of sea otters to San Nicolas Island was not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the California sea
otter population. The Biological Opinion also recommended
steps that should be taken to minimize the possible adverse
effects of the translocation on the affected otters and to
facilitate evaluation of possible alternative means for regu-
lating the San Nicolas colony when it reaches carrying capacity.

In accordance with the provisions of the Coastal Zone
Management Act and related regulations, the Fish and Wildlife

Service prepared and, on 17 March 1987, submitted a Coastal
Zone Consistency *Determination on the proposed translocation
to the California Coastal Commission for its review and
concurrence. The Service also sought authorization of the
proposed translocation by the California Fish and Game Commis-
sion, which is responsible for approving state permits for
taking of wildlife from state lands and waters. The Service
issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
translocation in May 1987.

By separate letters of 15 May 1987, the Marine Mammal
Commission wrote to the California Coastal Commission and the
California Fish and Game Commission providing the rationale
for its support of the translocation as proposed by the Fish
and Wildlife Service. In its letters, the Commission expressed
its belief that the proposed translocation of sea otters to San
Nicolas Island in conjunction with the establishment of a
"no-otter zone" south of Point Concepcion was in the best
interest of both the sea otter and the long-term management
of California's other valuable coastal resources. The Commis-
sion pointed out that, if the plan were approved and imple-
mented and the translocation were successful, the following
positive results would be realized:

the significance of the possible impacts of an oil
spill on the California sea otter population would be
reduced;
much of the information necessary to make judgments
concerning the optimum sustainable level of the
California sea otter population, as required by the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, would be obtained;
progress would be made toward recovering and delist-
ing the population under the Endangered Species Act and
reaching the optimum sustainable population level under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act; @ I
zonal management would be implemented so as to limit
sea otter distribution in southern California to the
immediate vicinity of San Nicolas Island, thereby provid-
ing much better protection to both sea otters and fisheries
within their respective zones; and
the effectiveness of possible non-lethal methods for
controlling sea otter distribution would be evaluated.

The California Fish and Game Commission considered the
translocation proposal at a special public meeting held in
Sacramento, California, on 24 June 1987. During the meeting,
it was questioned whether the Fish and Game Commission had
complied with a California Environmental Quality Act regulation
requiring at least 45 days advance notice of the Commission's
intent to base its decision on the Federal Environmental
Impact Statement. The Commission therefore scheduled another
hearing on the proposal for 7 August 1987 and, on IS August

1987, concurred with the proposed translocation. The California
Coastal Commission considered the Fish and Wildlife Service's
Coastal Zone Consistency Determination at a public hearing on
7 July 1987 and, following the hearing, voted to concur with
the Service's determination.

In accordance with the California Fish and Game commission
determination on 18 August,, the California Department of Fish
and Game and the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded a Memoran-
dum of Understanding concerning their respective roles in
implementing the translocation. Among other things, the
Memorandum specified that:

the Fish and Wildlife Service would be responsible for
providing funds and personnel necessary to implement,
enforce, and carry out the translocation program;
if verified sightings of sea otters were made at any
location within the designated management zone ("no-
otter zone"), the Fish and Wildlife Service would under-
take recapture efforts, as soon as weather and sea condi-
tions permit, and return those otters either to the
mainland sea otter range or to the translocation zone;
the Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with
the California Department of Fish and Game, would evaluate
the safety, effectiveness, and cost of possible alternative
techniques for limiting population growth, including but
not limited to reduction of.fecundity and, as part of a
long-term management plan, the appropriateness of selec-
tive culling, recognizing that studies involving taking
or that would jeopardize the continued existence of the
California sea otter population could not involve the
use of California sea otters;
the California Department of Fish and Game would be respon-
sible for designing and carrying out a research program,
using funds provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service,
to evaluate the feasibility of humane, non-lethal methods
to experimentally maintain the southern boundary of the
mainland sea otter range in an area between Point Arguello
and Point Concepcion; and
the California Department of Fish and Game would initiate
and/or support State' legislation to implement appropriate
restrictions on the use of gill and trammel nets in the
translocation zone.

The Memorandum also stipulated that it would not take
effect unless and until the Federal Wildlife Permit Office
issued a research permit authorizing the studies needed to
evaluate the feasibility of non-lethal methods for estab-
lishing and maintaining the southern boundary of the mainland
California sea otter population at Point Concepcion.

With regard to the preceding point, the California Depart-
ment of Fish and Game, in consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service, had prepared and, on 11 June 1987, submitted
an application to the Federal Wildlife Permit Office for a
permit to conduct a series of studies over a three-year period
beginning in January 1988 to assess the feasibility of several
non-lethal methods to experimentally prevent the establishment
of sea otters south of Point Arguello. The Marine Mammal
commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, reviewed the permit application and, by letter of
28 July 1987 to the Fish and Wildlife Service, recommended
that the application be approved, provided certain conditions
were met. The Service concurred with the commission's recom-
mendation and the permit was issued on 12 August 1987.

As noted earlier, the proposed translocation was designed
to accomplish both research and management objectives and
required a scientific research permit under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. The permit application was forwarded to the
commission for review on 10 April 1987. The commission, in
consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed
the application and, by letter of 18 May 1987 to the Fish and
Wildlife Service, recommended that the proposed translocation
be authorized provided certain conditions were met. Among
other things, the Commission recommended that authorization
to continue activities during the second and subsequent years
of the permit be subject to review and approval by the Service,
in consultation with the Commission, of a report on the previous
year's activities, including information on the number of
animals translocated,.a review of any problems encountered,
and the results of any postmortem examinations done on animals
that died as a result of the research. The service concurred
with the Commission's recommendations and a permit authorizing
proposed translocation-related research was issued on 12 August
1987.

Following or pending the aforementioned decisions by the
California Coastal Commission, the California Fish and Game
Commission, and the Federal Wildlife Permit Office, the Fish
and Wildlife Service issued a final rule and record of decision
on 11 August 1987 regarding the translocation of-sea otters
to San Nicolas Island and the establishment of a sea otter
management zone outside the translocation zone, including all
coastal areas south of Point Concepcion. As described in the
next section, efforts to capture and translocate sea otters
were initiated on 24 August 1987.
on 28 August 1987, a group representing several fishing
interests filed suit in California State Court seeking a
temporary restraining order to stop the translocation from
proceeding. The plaintiffs alleged that several State laws
had been violated in issuing the State permit to the Fish and

Wildlife Service. The California Superior Court denied the
request for a temporary restraining order, concluding that
the action against the Fish and Wildlife Service should have
been brought in Federal court. On 11 September, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in the Federal District Court
adding allegations of violations of the National Environmental
Policy Act and P.L. 99-625. The Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for a preliminary injunction on 29 September, ruling
that the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of
its claims. Both the Federal and State defendants filed
dispositive motions on 28 December 1987. California moved to
have the claims against it dismissed on the basis of the
Eleventh Amendment, which gives States immunity from suits in
Federal court. Federal defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, seeking to have the case decided on the merits. A
hearing on the matter is expected in March 1988.

In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding signed
by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department
of Fish and Game in August 1987, the State of California on
18 September 1987 enacted legislation prohibiting the use of
entangling fishing nets in all waters less than 20 fathoms
deep around San Nicolas Island and banning the discharge of
firearms within the designated translocation zone.

Summary of 1987 Translocation Activities

Capture of sea otters for translocation to San Nicolas
Island was initiated on 24 August 1987 in the southern third
of the mainland California sea otter range (Point Buchon
north to Lopes Point) by teams of biologists from the Fish
and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish
and Game. From 24 August to 30 October 1987 when capture
operations were concluded, 108 sea otters (48 males and 60
females) were captured. Sixty-four of these were transported
to the Monterey Bay Aquarium for examination, tagging, and
holding pending transfer to San Nicolas Island or return to
the original capture site. Three otters died while at the
Aquarium and one was returned to its capture site. Sixty
otters were transported to the island (13 males and 47 females)
in eight groups. Three otters are known to have.died soon
after release at San Nicolas Island. Two more were found
dead on the mainland (on 11 and 22 October) and three live
animals, plus a newborn pup, were sighted in a kelp bed near
the Los Angeles/Ventura County line on 8 December 1987. In
addition, there have been reports that three otters were
caught and killed, two in lobster pots and one in a gill net,
in the Management Zone.

Containment

Between 1 September and 18 December 1987, there were 16
reports of sea otters in the designated Management Zone.
Half of the reports provided sufficient information to conclude
that sea otters, not harbor seals or objects mistaken for sea
otters, had actually been sighted. Three of the reported
sightings subsequently were verified. In the first case, a
single otter was seen off Port Hueneme on 9 October 1987.
From the color of its tag, it seems likely that the otter was
from the mainland population, not San Nicolas Island. The
animal could not be found after the initial observation and
there have been no further reports of otters in this area.

A second verified report was by California Department of
Fish and Game biologists who sighted two sea otters on 18
November 1987, just south of the northern limit of the Manage-
ment Zone at Point Concepcion. Subsequently, one otter was seen
north of Point Concepcion. Plans to capture the otter south
of Point Concepcion were postponed due to bad weather, and
subsequent searches failed to locate an otter in that part of
the Management Zone.

The third verification occurred on 9 December 1987,
following up on a report by a local fisherman of two otters
in a kelp bed near the Los Angeles/Ventura County line.
Responding to the report, Fish and Wildlife Service biologists
found three adult sea otters with tags confirming that they
were from San Nicolas Island, and one recently born pup. The
female and pup were captured by Department of Fish and Game
and Fish and Wildlife Service researchers.and returned to the
mainland location where the female had originally been captured.
A winter storm precluded further capture efforts in 1987 and,
at the end of the year, the remaining two animals had not
been caught and removed from the Management Zone.

The containment program is operational and is expected
to be successful in preventing the establishment of resident
groups of sea otters in the Management Zone. There may be a
need, however, to develop more efficient means for reporting
and verifying sightings and to develop criteria to help deter-
mine when efforts should be initiated to capture and remove
otters found in the Management Zone.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is evaluating th e results
of the 1987 translocation and containment program and, by
mid-1988, should modify the approved translocation plan as
necessary to facilitate establishment and containment of sea
otters in the San Nicolas Island translocation zone. The
Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, will review any proposed modifications and provide
comments and recommendations tothe Service as appropriate.
4i

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 exploitation 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, as noted in
Chapter V of this Report, a small number of humpback whales
are still taken in St. Vincent and the Grenadines for subsis-
tence purposes. In this and other areas, the species' recovery
is threatened by human activities such as commercial vessel
traffic, recreational boating, offshore oil and gas development,
commercial fisheries, and coastal development.

As discussed in previous Annual Reports, the Commission
believes that recovery plans, as required under the Endangered
Species Act, should be prepared for humpback whales and other
endangered whales in U.S. waters. The Commission recommended
to the National Marine Fisheries Service in late 1984 that
this step be taken and, in March 1985, the Service advised
the Commission that it had decided to defer preparation of
recovery plans for great whales due, in part, to its uncertainty
as to whether or how recovery plans would enhance protection
of the species. By letter of 23 December 1986, the Commis-
sion again raised the matter and recommended that recovery
plans be developed and implemented for populations of right,
humpback, and bowhead whales in U.S. waters. Late in 1986,
the Service informally advised the Commission that in 1987 it
planned to proceed with preparation of recovery plans and
designation of recovery teams for both humpback whales and
right whales. on 15 July 1987, the Service invited scientists
and resource managers with broad knowledge of humpback whales
and associated management problems to serve as members of the
humpback whale recovery team. By letter of 23 September
1987, the Service provided team members with the terms of
reference for team activities and a schedule for developing a
humpback whale Recovery Plan.

Among other things, the Recovery Team will be respon-
sible for providing the Service with recommendations on re-
search, recovery activities, and other actions necessary to
assist in the humpback whale recovery effort. The Team will
also review the status of the species and recovery efforts
and advise the Service on technical and scientific matters, such
as scientific research permits and consultations under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act. Staff members of the National
Marine Fisheries Service have been given the responsibility
for preparing a draft Recovery Plan. During its Annual Meeting
on 10-12 December 1987, the Marine Mammal Commission was advised
that a draft Plan was nearing completion; that it would address
populations of humpback whales off both the east and west

coasts of the United States; and that it would be provided to
the Recovery Team-early in 1988 for review and comment.

A matter of general concern regarding humpback whales
and certain other endangered whales in U.S. waters (g._q.,
right and gray whales) is disturbance by whale-watching boats
and other vessels. The problem has been a matter of particular
concern in Hawaiian waters as well as waters off southeast
Alaska, New England, and California. As illustrated below,
past efforts to address these problems have been made on a
regional or local basis. As similar problems requiring similar
solutions have arisen in different geographic areas, however,
the National Marine Fisheries Service has begun to examine
possible advantages and disadvantages of promulgating general
regulations that would provide a more consistent approach to
establishing and applying whale-watching standards. At the
commission's Annual Meeting in Miami on 10-12 December 1987,
the Service advised the Commission that, during 1988, it
expects to consider such an approach within the context of
efforts to prepare a Recovery Plan for humpback whales.

Humpback Whales in Hawaii

The importance of Hawaii's coastal waters to humpback
whales for calving, nursing, and breeding is well documented.
In order to protect whales from deliberate or inadvertent
harassment, the National Marine Fisheries Service published a
"Notice of Interpretation of Harassment of Humpback Whales in
Hawaiian Waters" in 1979. This notice provided guidelines
for approaching whales and advised boat and aircraft operators
of proper conduct when in the vicinity of humpback whales.
In recent years, there has been a substantial increase in
boat and aircraft traffic in Hawaiian waters and a corres-
ponding increase in the number of reported incidents of aircraft
and vessel operators violating the guidelines outlined in the
Service's Notice of Interpretation. However, because guidelines
do not have the legal force of regulations, the Service has
had difficulty in prosecuting violators. To overcome this
problem, the Service, on 24 November 1986, proposed formal
regulations to replace the 1979 Notice of Interpretation.
The proposed regulations would apply within 200 nautical
miles of the Hawaiian Islands and would prohibit, except
under permit: (a) operating an aircraft at altitudes lower
than 1,000 feet above a humpback whale; (b) approaching by
boat or other means closer than 100 yards from a whale;
(c) causing a vessel or other object to approach closer than
100 yards of a whale; or (4) disrupting the normal behavior or
activity of a whale by any other act or omission.

As discussed in its previous Report, the Commission, in
consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed
and, by letter of 23 December 1986, provided comments on the

propos ed regulations. In its letter, the,Commission pointed
out, among other things, that the proposed regulations would
eliminate the special protection that had been afforded cow/calf
pairs in the 1979 Notice of Interpretation. The Commission
recommended that traditional calving/breeding areas be iden-
tified and designated as areas where vessel approaches closer
than 300 yards are prohibited.

On 23 November 1987, the National Marine Fisheries Service
issued an interim rule aimed at reducing disturbance of humpback
whales by vessel and aircraft operations. The interim rule
took effect on 23 December 1987. It prohibits aircraft from
approaching closer than 1,000 feet and vessels or swimmers from
approaching closer than 100 yards of humpback whales. As
recommended by the Marine Mammal Commission, additional protec-
tion is provided in certain cow/calf areas by prohibiting
vessels and swimmers from approaching closer than 300 yards.
Because the latter restriction was not included in the regu-
lations as proposed in November 1986, the Service provided an
additional 60-day comment period on this provision of the
interim regulations. The comment period is scheduled to
expire on 22 January 1988. At that time, it is expected that
the Service will incorporate the provision providing additional
protection in cow/calf areas into the interim regulations and
adopt them as final regulations.

Humpback Whales in Alaska

Glacier Bay and surrounding waters in southeast Alaska
provide summer habitat for a portion of the North Pacific
population of humpback whales. In the late 1970s, it became
apparent that fewer whales were using the Bay than had done
so previously, and it was believed that increased vessel traffic
in the area could have been a contributing cause. In responsel
in 1979, the National Park Service initiated steps to restrict
vessel traffic in the Bay during the period when whales are
present.

As discussed in previous Annual Reports, the Commission
assisted in efforts to assess the situation and identify
appropriate research andmanagementactions by, among other
things, convening research reviews and planning meetings in
October 1979 and December 1981. Both meetings were organized
and held in consultation with the National Park Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service. In addition, the
National Park Service initiated consultations with the National
Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act to ensure that permitted vessel access into the
Bay would not adversely jeopardize the humpback whale or its
critical habitat.

Based on the results of the meetings and consultations,
the National Park-Service initiated a multiyear research
program in 1980 to assess factors possibly affecting the
distribution of humpback whales in Glacier Bay and surrounding
waters. It also promulgated temporary regulations which,
among other things, limited the number of large commercial
tour ships and smaller recreational vessels which could enter
the Bay to 1976 levels (j.g., the level of use during the
year before the marked decline in whale numbers was observed
in the Bay). The temporary regulations also established a
mechanism for designating temporary "whale waters" in which
certain vessel operating.restrictions were to apply. In
subsequent years, these regulations were modified and reissued
annually until 1985, when the National Park Service published
permanent regulations for the protection of humpback whales
in the Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. These regula-
tions establish a permit system for vessel entries, prohibit
the harvest of certain humpback whale prey species in the Bay,
and provide for designating "whale waters."

Since the early 1980s, th e National Park Service has
gradually allowed more vessels to enter the Bay during the
summer whale season. Its decisions in this regard were based
on results of relevant research, periodic consultations with
the National Marine Fisheries Service, and other relevant
information. During this period, the use of the Bay by humpback
whales has increased and, between June and September 1987, 33
individual humpback whales were identified in Glacier Bay.
This is the largest recorded number since systematic surveys
of the area began in the early 1970s. on 4 September, the
Service announced plans to further increase allowable vessel
entries by an additional seven percent in 1988. This level
would represent a 20 percent increase over 1976 levels.
Following a 30-day comment period, the Service's plans for
increasing permitted vessel entries in 1988 were finalized.

Humpback Whales in New England

In late November 1987, humpback whales began dying and
washing up on beaches of Cape Cod Bay. By the end of the
year, at least 13 humpback whales,, two minke whales, and a fin
whale had died in the area. These mortalities were particularly
alarming due to the endangered status of humpback and fin
whales and the continuing die-off of bottlenose dolphins
along the U.S. east coast (see Chapter III of this report).
An investigation of the humpback die-off was initiated by the
National marine Fisheries service, in consultation with the
Commission. It was directed by a member of the'Commission's
Committee of Scientific Advisors and involved researchers
from the New England Aquarium, the Service's Gloucester Labora-
tory, Woods Hole oceanographic Institution, and the Massachu-
setts Department of Public Health. Tests of Atlantic mackerel

collected from the stomach of one whale and from the area
where the affected animals had been feeding revealed the
presence of the toxins which cause paralytic shellfish poison-
ing (PSP). Subsequent tests confirmed the presence of PSP
toxins in liver and other tissues from the dead whales, pro-
viding conclusive evidence that the die-off was caused by a
"red tide" in the area.

HumDback Whales in the Caribbean

The North Atlantic population of humpback whales breeds
and calves during the winter months in the area of Silver,
Navidad, and Mouchoir Banks in the Caribbean. Of these whales,
about 85 percent winter in the vicinity of Silver Bank, which
is located primarily in waters of the Dominican Republic,
about 80 miles north of the island.

In 1985, the Center for Environmental Education initiated
a public education program in the Dominican Republic to promote
efforts to protect the region's humpback whales. In addition,
the Center provided support to the Center for Marine Biological
Research at the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo for a
biological inventory of marine resources in the Dominican
Republic. A major goal of these efforts, which focused on
the Silver Bank region, were to encourage the establishment
of a protected area in Dominican waters for humpback whales
and to help document the biological justification for doing
80.

A report on the inventory was completed in October 1986
and, on 14 October 1996, the President of the Dominican Republic
designated Silver Bank as a humpback whale sanctuary. The
Presidential decree creating the sanctuary prohibits all
hunting, capturing, or injuring of any marine mammal within
the sanctuary boundaries. Also banned is the dumping of
"contaminated, explosive or electrical materials" and the
dredging, drilling, or alteration of the sea bottom. The
Silver Bank sanctuary should contribute significantly to the
protection and recovery of the northwest Atlantic humpback
whale population and could serve as a model for creating
sanctuaries elsewhere.

Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis)

The right whale is the world's most endangered large
whale. Remnant populations remain in the North Atlantic,
North Pacific, South Atlantic, and South Pacific/Indian oceans.
Although available information is insufficient to make reliable
estimates of pre-exploitation stock sizes, it is apparent
that commercial whaling in the 19th and early 20th centuries
resulted in the near-extinction of all right whale populations.

For example, the current population off the west coast of
North America is thought to number a few tens of individuals
and may be too small to recover. The population off the east
coast of the United States and Canada may number no more than
a few hundred animals. The largest populations are those in
the South Atlantic Ocean off Argentina and South Africa, each
of which is believed to include at least 400 to 600 animals.
Although the species has been protected from commercial whaling
since the 1930s, there is no evidence of substantial population
increases in the Northern Hemisphere. The species occurs
primarily in coastal waters exposing it to environmental pol-
lution and human activities that may adversely affect both
the whales and their habitat.

As noted in its previous Annual Reports, the Marine Mammal
Commission has taken a number of steps to assess and improve
prospects for the recovery of right whale populations worldwide.
Among other things, the Commission: helped support a June
1983 workshop convened in response to a request by the Inter-
national Whaling Commission to assess the extent to which
protection from commercial whaling had resulted in recovery
of right whales; funded two workshops in 1985 to develop a
report on the status of the right whale population off the
east coast of the United States and actions needed to protect
and encourage its recovery; helped support a 1986 workshop to
assess new information and potential protection needs related
to the apparent occurrence of right whale calving areas off
the southeastern U.S. coast during winter months; and provided
the National Marine Fisheries service with recommendations
and advice for preparing a recovery plan and convening a
recovery team for right whales in U.S. waters.

Congress also has recognized the need for further efforts
to protect right whales in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. For
Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987, Congress appropriated $500,000
and $250,000, respectively, to the National marine Fisheries
Service to support the first two years of a five-year right
whale research program proposed by a consortium of non-govern-
mental organizations concerned about recovery of the northwest
Atlantic population. Due to the Deficit Reduction and Balanced
Budget Act of 1985 and other factors, actual funds allocated
by the Service for right whale research were somewhat lower
than the appropriated amounts. For Fiscal Year 1988, Congress
appropriated $250,000 for the third year of the program.
To help determine the best use of these funds, the Service
established a Right Whale Scientific Advisory Group. This
Group, which includes a Marine Mammal Commission representativel
first met on 15 May 1986 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to
identify and rank priority right whale research needs. Based
on results of the meeting, a Cooperative Agreement was estab-
lished in October 1986 with the consortium of whale research

organizations. Work to be carried out under the Agreement
includes: conducting aerial surveys of right whales off the
southeast U.S. coast and shipboard surveys in the Bay of Fundy
and Cape Cod Bay; developing a computerized right whale sighting
data base; assembling a photographic catalogue of individual
right whales; developing a computer-based image analysis system
to aid in identifying individual whales from photographs;
developing a data management system; and recording and analyzing
relevant data.

On 28-29 April 1987, a second meeting of the Scientific
Advisory Group was held at Woods Hole to review the results
and status of work under the Cooperative Agreement and to
identify priority needs for future studies. With respect to
future research priorities, the Group concluded that further
work should be directed towards: identifying right whale
habitat use patterns in the Great South Channel east of Cape
Cod and on Brown's Bank off southern Nova Scotia; conducting
preliminary surveys of other possible summering grounds; evalu-
ating the capability of vessel surveys to collect information
simultaneously for individual identification and abundance
estimates; continuing development of the right whale photo-
graphic catalog and a computer-based image analysis system;
developing analytical techniques to develop an index of popu-
lation size using individual whale identification data; and
adding historical sighting data to the right whale sighting
data base.

As indicated above, the Commission has recommended on
several occasions that the National Marine Fisheries Service
develop a recovery plan and convene a recovery team for right
whale populations in U.S. waters. In late 1986, the Commission
was advised by the Director of the National Marine Fisheries
Service that steps would be taken in 1987 to act on these
recommendations. During 1987, steps were taken by the Service
to address both needs. By letters of 15 July 1987, the Service
invited scientists and resource managers with knowledge of
issues and data regarding right whales, including a Marine
Mammal Commission representative, to be members of the Right
Whale Recovery Team. By letter of 23 September 1987, the
Service provided Team members with terms of reference governing
team activities and a schedule for developing a Right Whale
Recovery Plan.

Among other things, the Recovery Team will be responsible
for providing the Service with recommendations, advice, and
assistance on: developing and implementing the Right Whale
Recovery Plan; reviewing the status of the species and recovery
efforts; and technical and scientific matters such as scientific
research permits and section 7 consultations. Staff members
of the National Marine Fisheries Service have been given the
responsibility for preparing a draft Recovery Plan and, during

its Annual Meeting on 10-12 December 1987, the Commission was
advised that a draft was nearing completion and would be pro-
vided to the Recovery Team early in 1988 for review and comment.

The Commission looks forward to working with the Service,
the Recovery Team, and other concerned parties during 1988 to
develop and improve the evolving right whale recovery program.

Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus)

Prior to commercial exploitation, bowhead whales were
circumpolar in distribution and made up at least five or six
separate populations. Over-exploitation by commercial whalers
between 1600 and 1900 reduced all populations to extremely
low levels, and one population, the Spitsbergen population
north of Scandinavia, may be extinct. The largest surviving
population is the Bering Sea (western Arctic) population.
This population migrates seasonally between Bering Sea and
the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The population is important
to Alaska Eskimos who continue to hunt bowhead whales for
subsistence and cultural purposes.

Consigsr,Ation by the International Whaling Commission

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) reviews infor-
mation on the status of the Bering Sea stock of bowhead whales
and establishes quotas for aboriginal subsistence whaling.
Since 1977, a series of quotas have been adopted by the IWC
to satisfy the needs of Alaska Eskimos while allowing the
bowhead whale stock to recover. As noted in previous Annual
Reports, the IWC Scientific Committee reviewed information on
the status of bowhead whales during its meeting in 1985.
Based on information available at that time, the Committee
accepted an estimate of 4,417 animals (range, 2,613 to 6,221)
as the best estimate of the current size of the Bering Sea
stock of bowhead whales. Considering this estimate and the
advice of the Committee, the IWC adopted a three-year block
quota of 26 strikes per year for bowhead whales for the years
1985 through 1987. The quota provided that strikes not used
in any one year could beused the following year so long as
no more than 32 strikes were made in any single year.

As noted in Chapter V, the IWC again considered aboriginal
subsistence needs for bowhead whales during its 1987 meeting.
During the Scientific Committee deliberations prior to that
meeting, results of further research on the Bering Sea stock
of bowhead whales were considered. Based on that information,
the Committee accepted a new population estimate of 7,200
animals (standard error, 2,400 animals) as the best estimate
of stock size. In view of this estimate, the IWC modified

the 1987 quota adopted in 1985 to allow 32 rather than 26
strikes and established a 1988 quota of 35 strikes.

Eskimo Whaling

In 1981, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission signed a
cooperative agreement setting forth shared responsibilities
for regulating, monitoring, and enforcing the Alaska Eskimo
bowhead whale hunt. Under terms of the agreement, quotas are
negotiated annually between the two parties. The Alaska Eskimo
Whaling Commission then allocates the quota among Alaska whaling
villages and monitors the hunt for compliance with the regu-
lations. The quotas negotiated under the agreement have been
consistent with those set by the IWC. The following table
shows the quotas set by the IWC and the results of the Eskimo
hunts since 1977.

Quotas and Catches of Bowhead Whales, 1977-1987
IWC Quotas* Catch by Alaska Eskimos
Actually Struck Total
Year Landings Strikes Landed But Lost Struck

1977 [No Quota] 26 82 108
1978 14 20 12 6 18
1979 is 27 12 15 27
1980 18 26 16 18 34
19 17 11 28
1988211 45** 65** 8 11 19
1983 9 9 18
19841 43*** 12 13 25
1985) 26+ 11 6 17
1986 26+ 19 9 28
1987 32++ 22 9 31
1988 35

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 a further stipulation that the number of strikes
in any one year should not exceed 27.
+ In 1985, a block quota of 26 strikes per year was set for the
three years 1985-1987, with the stipulation that strikes not
used in any one year could be used the following year as long
a: no more than 32 strikes were taken in any single year.
++ 1 1987, the IWC modified the quota for 1987 as adopted in
1985 to allow 32 strikes.

Seismic surveys and other activities associated with
offshore oil and gas exploration and development may affect
the movement and behavior of bowhead whales, thereby forcing
Alaska Eskimo whalers to travel greater distances during the
fall hunt. This in turn may increase the risk that those
engaged in the hunt may be injured or killed or be unable to
return portions of the catch to their villages. Therefore,
in 1986, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and certain
companies engaged in oil and gas activities on Alaska's North
Slope.entered into a cooperative agreement for the fall 1986
hunt whereby the industry participants agreed to: (1) attempt
to tow caught whales to a suitable butchering site to prevent
meat from spoiling (if an industry vessel was available near
the kill site); (2) cache emergency supplies (gasoline, food,
etc.) at selected sites for use by subsistence hunters; (3)
provide emergency assistance to hunters during adverse weather
conditions; and (4) assist in transporting whale meat and
muktuk to prevent spoilage and maximize utilization of the
catch.

The agreement was approved by the National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration in 1986. On 24 August 1987, it was
extended to cover the 1987 hunting seasons. In addition, the
agreement was expanded to include an additional industry par-
ticipant.

Research Planning and Coordinatign

In December'1977, the IWC lifted the total ban on subsis-
tence taking of bowhead whales that had been adopted the pre-
ceding June. This action was taken, 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.
The National Marine Fisheries Service was responsible for
planning and implementing this program. Relevant research
also has been conducted or supported within the context of
this program by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, the
North Slope Borough, the Minerals Management Service, the oil
and gas industry, and the State of Alaska. As discussed in
its Annual Reports for 1977, 1978, and 1979, the Marine Mammal
Commission played a major role in developing the research
plan and initiating efforts to coordinate related bowhead
whale research projects.

During 1987, representatives of the Commission participated
in two meetings to review research results and plans related
to bowhead whales. The first was the Fourth Conference on
the Biology of Bowhead Whales, convened by the North Slope
Borough on 4-6 March 1987 in Anchorage, Alaska. During the
Conference, participants reviewed recent research results and
future research strategies for censusing bowhead whales, assess-
ing bowhead whale feeding habits and the importance of certain

feeding areas, and determining how bowhead behavior is affected
by noise and disturbance associated with industrial activities.
In addition, on 17-19 November 1987, a representative of the
commission participated in an Alaska OCS Information Transfer
Meeting convened in Anchorage, Alaska, by the Minerals Manage-
ment Service. The purpose of the meeting was to review results
of recent research, including several studies of bowhead whales
and other endangered whales supported by the Service's Alaska
OCS Office Environmental Studies Program. During the meeting,
additional research needs, including those concerning bowhead
whales, were considered. Results of the meeting will be used
by the Service to help identify and rank studies possibly
meriting future support under its Environmental Studies Program.

Harbor PorRoise (Phocoena Phocoena)
(Central CalifgMia PORulation)

The harbor porpoise, one of the smallest cetaceans, is
found in coastal areas throughout most of the Northern Hemi-
sphere, including the waters off Europe, the Far East, and
the east and west coasts of North America. The species' pre-
ference for inshore waters makes it particularly vulnerable
to impacts from human activities, such as coastal set net
fisheries and environmental pollution.

In the waters off north-central California, harbor porpoise
and other marine species are killed incidentally in the set
net fisheries for halibut and other finfish. Based on con-
tinuing fishery surveys carried out by the California Depart-
ment of Fish and Game' it is estimated that approximately
200-300 harbor porpoise are taken annually in these fisheries.
However, little is known about the number, size, and discrete-
ness of harbor porpoise populations along the west coast, and
it therefore is difficult to judge whether the level of take
has caused or is causing one or more populations to be reduced
below their maximum net productivity level.

As noted in the previous Annual Report, the best way to
obtain information on harbor porpoise distribution and movement
patterns, and thus on the relative discreteness of harbor
porpoise populations in different geographic areas, may be by
radio-tagging and tracking a representative sample of animals.
In 1986, the Commission provided funds to the University of
California at Santa Cruz for a pilot project to determine
whether harbor porpoise could be safely and effectively caught,
radio-tagged, and tracked in the Monterey Bay area. Results
of the study indicated that harbor porpoise are,able to detect
and avoid live-capture weirs constructed with weighted poly-
propylene lines suspended at one-meter intervals and that
such weirs would be of little or no use for capturing animals
for tagging. However, further observation of harbor porpoise

responses to different types of net structure and lines may
suggest ways for reducing incidental mortality of the species
in set net fisheries. Therefore, in 1987, the Commission
provided additional funds to the University of California to
support experiments using net structures of different types
to better determine possible variables affecting the ability
of harbor porpoise to detect and avoid fishing nets. Field
work is scheduled to be conducted during summer and fall of
1988.

it may also be possible to detect discrete populations
by identifying differences in patterns of contaminant loads
in animals from different regions. As discussed in previous
Annual Reports, the National Marine Fisheries Service's South-
west Fisheries Center contracted in 1985 for an investigation
to test for regional patterns in the concentration of contami-
nants and their ratios in harbor porpoise and to evaluate the
feasibility of using contaminants to obtain information about
the degree of intermixing of harbor porpoise along the west
coast of North America. Results of that study were made avail-
able at the end of 1986. The study found strong regional
patterns in both the concentrations of DDE (dichlorodiphenyl-
dichloroethylene) and the ratios of various contaminants.
Thus, the use of contaminant ratios to gain information on
geographic interchange of harbor porpoise appears promising,
especially in areas like California where the presence of
pollutants in the marine environment varies widely from location
to location.

As discussed elsewhere in this Chapter, the State of
California enacted legislation in 1986 to reduce the incidental
take of sea birds, marine mammals and non-target fish species
in gill and trammel set net fisheries by means of selected
fishing area closures. Also in 1986, in order to bring the
fisheries into compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
the California Department of Fish and Game proposed to amend
the State regulations by banning use of set nets inside 20
fathoms between Franklin Point, San Mateo County, to the Men-
docino-Sonoma County line. On 3 December 1986, the National
Marine Fisheries Service wrote to the California Department
of Fish and Game, noting that the proposed modification,
designed primarily to protect sea birds, would relocate the
fishing effort into deeper waters and thus would likely increase
the incidental kill of harbor porpoise. The Service recom-
mended that the State amend its proposed prohibition on set
nets to include a prohibition on use of trammel nets north of
Point Reyes, where more than 60 percent of the harbor porpoise
mortality occurred in 1984 and 1985.

Subsequently, representative s of the Service, the Cali-
fornia Department of Fish and Game, the Marine Mammal Commis-
sion, environmental groups, and affected fisheries met and

reached agreement on modifications to the State regulations
on gill and trammel nets. Among other things, the regulations
impose a year-round prohibition on gill netting north of Point
Reyes and in waters less than 40 fathoms deep in selected
areas from Point Reyes south to Waddell Creek in San Mateo
County.

At the end of 1986, the Commission was concerned that
little apparent progress was being made toward determining
and mitigating the impact of incidental take on the harbor
porpoise. On 23 December 1986, the Commission wrote to the
National Marine Fisheries service, noting 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 had 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 illegal.

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 began 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 be reported promptly,
that data and samples necessary to assess the effects of the
take be provided to the Service and/or the California Depart-
ment of Fish and Game, and that monitoring efforts be suffi-
cient to accurately determine the level, locations, and age/sex
composition of any incidental take.

On 16 January 1987, the National Marine Fisheries Service
convened a meeting to review a preliminary report on the status
of the harbor porpoise in California. Representatives of the
Commission participated in that meeting. The status report,
published in final form in April 1987, concluded that, using
the central estimate of abundance of 1,854 animals (April
1985) and assuming no net emigration of animals from the north,
harbor porpoise abundance in central California is between 29
to 81 percent of that in 1969. If abundance were at carrying
capacityin 1969, harbor porpoise in central California are
currently near or below the level defined as depleted in the
Marine Mammal Protection Act.

At the end of 1987, the National Marine Fisheries Service
had not made a formal determination as to the status of the
harbor porpoise population affected by coastal set net fisheries

in Ca lifornia. Consequently, the Service cannot authorize
any incidental take and any fisherman who may take harbor
porpoise incidentally during fishing operations in central
California may be subject to prosecution under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act. However, the legislation enacted by
the State of California may be sufficient to avoid or substan-
tially reduce incidental take in the future. The Commission
looks forward in 1988 to further consultations with the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game to determine if additional conservation measures
may be required.

Gulf of California Harbor PorRoise (Phocoena sinus)

The Gulf of California harbor porpoise is one of the
smallest and rarest cetacean species. There have been few
confirmed sightings of live animals, and most of what is known
about the species has been obtained from examination of car-
casses washed up on beaches or taken incidentally in gill
nets in the upper Gulf of California, Baja California, Mexico.
Sighting and stranding data suggest that the species' range
is limited to the northern third of the Gulf. Data are insuf-
ficient to estimate population size. However, given the few
sightings, it seems unlikely that there are more than several
hundred animals.

The major threat to the species appears to be incidental
take in the gill net fishery for totoaba (Cynoscion macdonaldi).
This fishery operated in the Gulf of California from the late
1940s to 1975 when it was closed due to depletion of the fish
stocks. In 1985, experimental fishing was conducted to assess
the status of the totoaba stocks and, during the fishing operat-
ion, at least 13 harbor porpoise were caught and killed. The
fishery remains closed, but the closure is difficult to enforce
and some illegal fishing and incidental take of harbor porpoise
continue to occur.

Habitat degradation and destruction also may be affecting
the Gulf of California harbor porpoise. Dams and water projects
on the Colorado River inthe southwestern United States have
reduced its outflow into the Gulf of California. This may
have reduced nutrient input and biological productivity in
the Gulf, including reduction of species eaten by harbor por-
poise. Also, exploratory drilling for oil and gas has begun
in the northern Gulf, raising the possibility of future develop-
ment, disturbance, oil spills, and other types of environmental
contamination. In addition, run-off from farms,and roads in
the northern Gulf of California drainage system may be intro-
ducing significant quantities of pesticides and other contami-
nants.

Because of its limited distribution, small numbers, and
vulnerability to gill net fisheries and other human activi-
ties, in January 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Service
designated the Gulf of California harbor porpoise as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act. As noted in previous Annual
Reports and in Chapter IX of this Report, the Commission has
provided funds to obtain carcasses of harbor porpoises taken
incidentally in the totoaba fishery, to train students in
methods of small cetacean identification, collection, and
museum preparation, and to determine the types and levels of
organic pollutants present in specimens.

During 1988, the Commission will work with the National
Marine Fisheries Service, the Department of State, and other
agencies and organizations to identify measures that might be
undertaken to enhance the protection and recovery of this
species and its habitat and to encourage their implementation.

Hector's DolRhin (CeRhalorhynchus hectori)

Hector's dolphin is one of four species of the genus
Cephalorhynchus and is among the smallest of the cetaceans.
Sexually mature adults are no more than 145 cm in length.
Hector's dolphins are found only in the coastal waters of New
Zealand and are most abundant along the east and west coasts
of the South Island. Surveys carried out during 1984-1985
indicate a total population on the order of 3,000 to 4,000
animals.

All four Cephalorhynchus species are taken incidentally
in commercial and recreational gill net fisheries, and two
congeners, Commerson's dolphin (9. commersonii) and the black
dolphin (_Q. eutrORia), are also taken directly for bait.
Although Hector's dolphin is not subject to a directed catch,
its seasonal movements into inshore waters to calve coincide
with periods of intense fishing. Thus, the incidental take
in one area may be as high as 10 to 15 percent of the local
population of that area.

The species' preference for close inshore habitat also
makes Hector's dolphin vulnerable to pollutants such as heavy
metals and pesticide residues. Although the biological effects
of the pollutants are poorly known, contaminant levels in the
limited number of dolphins examined may suggest some cause
for concern.

Long-term studies of the species indicate that females
become sexually mature at seven to nine years of age and pro-
duce, at most, one calf every two years. The actual recruitment
rate of the population is under study in the Banks Peninsula
area of the South Island. However, considering the extremely

low reproductive rate of Hector's dolphin, it seems unlikely
that the small population will be able to sustain the continued
take in gill nets in addition to natural mortality.

During 1988, the Marine Mammal Commission plans to con-
tribute to the continued support of ongoing research and, as
requested, otherwise cooperate in efforts to help determine
steps that might be taken to ensure the protection of the
Hector's dolphin population.

River Dolphins (Superfamily Platanistoidea)

The Platanistoidea superfamily of toothed whales and
porpoise comprises five species commonly known as river dol-
phins. It includes the only cetaceans whose natural habitat
is limited to fresh-water environments. The species and their
distribution are: Platanista gangetica, known as the Ganges
or blind river dolphin, found in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal;
P. minor, the Indus river dolphin, found in the Indus River
system of Pakistan; Inia geoffrensis, the boto or Amazon river
dolphin, found in the Amazon and Orinoco River basins in South
America; Livotes vexillifer, the baiji or Yangtze river dolphin,
presently found along the middle and lower Yangtze River in
China; and Pontoporia blainvillei, the franciscana, found in
the South Atlantic coastal waters off Argentina, Uruguay, and
Brazil. Pontoporia is the only member of the group that in-
habits salt water.

Although there is little information available on the
population status and ecology of river dolphins, there is
reason to believe that all five species may be threatened to
varying degrees with extinction due to subsistence hunting,
incidental take by fisheries, and/or human-caused destruction
and degradation of habitat. Construction of dams and other
development in important river dolphin habitat pose potentially
serious threats to the continued survival of several of the
species. The baiji, Ganges river dolphin, and Indus river
dolphin are listed on Appendix I of the Convention on Inter-
national Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora, and
the boto and franciscana-are listed on Appendix II.

On 23 December 1986, the Commission wrote to the National
Marine Fisheries Service recommending, among other things,
that steps be taken to list the separate species of river
dolphins as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act. By Federal Register notice of 17 February 1987,
the Service announced that it had reviewed a petition to desig-
nate the baiji as endangered and had determined that, based
on available information, the proposed listing may be warranted.
On 17 April 1987, the Service announced its intention to review
the status of the other four river dolphins to determine whether

any of these species should be listed as endangered or
threatened. In both instances, the Service asked for comments
and information on the status of these species. At the end of
1987, no further action had been taken by the Service.

Also in 1986, the Commission provided funds to help convene
an international Workshop on the Biology and Conservation of
the Platanistoid Dolphins. The Workshop was held 26 October -
6 November 1986, in Wuhan, China. The final report of the
Workshop was completed early in 1987 and is being published,
along with contributed papers, by the Species Survival Commis-
sion of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources.

One of the Workshop's recommendations was to initiate
research to obtain information on numbers, movement patterns,
reproductive biology, feeding habits, and social organization
of the baiji. In response to the recommendation, in 1987,
the Marine Mammal Commission contributed funds to send a U.S.
scientist to the People's Republic of China to assist in devel-
oping a long-range conservation plan for the baiji (see also
Chapter IX). In 1988, the contractor will report to the Com-
mission on plans to protect and conserve the baiji, including
any steps that possibly could be taken by the Commission or
other U.S. agencies to encourage or facilitate needed research
and management actions.

on 12 January 1987, the Commission was asked by the
National Marine Fisheries Service to comment on a draft paper
summarizing national laws and international agreements affecting
river dolphins. By letter of 19 February, the Commission
provided comments. In the letter, the Commission recommended
that the paper be revised to expand the discussion of U.S.
laws, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the En-
dangered Species Act, that apply to activities in foreign
countries. The Commission also suggested that it might be
useful and reasonable to pursue multilateral agreements with
the appropriate nations rather than attempting to use the
Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act
as models to enact laws in the other countries.

In November 1987, the Commission received a pre-publication
py of the "Action Plan for the Conservation of Dolphins,
Porpoises and Whales, 1988-1992,11 prepared by the Cetacean
co

Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission. The
Plan focuses on problems of stock assessment and conservation
of small cetaceans, especially the riverine and coastal species
and populations most vulnerable to habitat destruction and
degradation. The final draft Plan, including a list of 45
recommended actions and projects, will be presented to the
next General Assembly of the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in Costa Rica

early in 1988. Among the actions designated as having highest
priority are several concerning river dolphins. These include:
reversing the decline of the Indus river dolphin in Punjab;
expanding research on the Indus river dolphin in Sind, Pakistan;
reducing the kill of baiji in the Yangtze River; completing
baseline studies of the baiji preserve in Shi Shou, China;
continuing monitoring the baiji population; and determining
movements and population structure of the baiji.

The survival of one or more of these species may well
depend on actions taken in the near future to protect critical
habitat. Therefore, the Commission looks forward in 1988 to
working with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Depart-
ment of State, and private groups to determine and initiate
measures needed to protect and conserve river dolphins and
the ecosystems of which they are a part.

CHAPTER III

DIE-OFF OF BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS (TURSIOPS TRUNCATUS)

The bottlenose dolphin is the cetacean species most com-
monly seen in the coastal waters of the eastern United States.
Data compiled by the Smithsonian Institution indicate that, in
an average year, about 12 dead bottlenose dolphins will be found
washed up on beaches from New Jersey to Cape Hatteras. In
June 1987, unprecedented numbers of animals began to wash up
on New Jersey beaches. By the end of October 1987, at least
370 dolphins had washed ashore in New Jersey, Delaware, Mary-
land, and Virginia. By the end of the year, more than 100
additional animals had washed up on beaches in North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, and northern Florida.

The Marine Mammal Commission was advised of the die-off
in late July 1987 when unusually high numbers of bottlenose
dolphins began washing up on beaches in Virginia. The Commis-
sion immediately consulted the National marine Fisheries Service
and a number of persons expert in bottlenose dolphin biology
and disease. The Commission asked Joseph R. Geraci, V.M.D.,
Ph.D., a member of its Committee of Scientific Advisors and a
person expert in marine mammal husbandry and disease, to organ-
ize and lead an investigation to try to determine the cause
or causes of the die-off.

To help in the investigation, the Commission asked the
Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service to conduct the range of bacterial and viral isolation
studies and other analyses necessary to determine whether
pathogenic organisms, environmental contaminants, or biological
toxins were causing or possibly contributing to the die-off.
The commission also made arrangements with the Smithsonian
Institution to continue collecting basic data from the stranded
animals and with the U.S. Navy to provide facilities at the
Little Creek Amphibious Base for detailed postmortem exami-
nations of dolphins recovered in the Virginia Beach area. in
consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
commission arranged for the Service's laboratory in Charleston,
South Carolina, to perform toxicological analyses. In addi-
tion, the Commission sought the assistance of the Environmental
Protection Agency in obtaining information on offshore dump
sites, possible illegal dumping, phytoplankton blooms, water
movement patterns, and other environmental factors that might
provide a clue to the cause of the die-off.

The response team, with funding and administrative support
provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, began its
investigations in the Virginia Beach area early in August.

From 9 August through 2 September, 83 bottlenose dolphin car-
casses were recovered from beaches in the area. Gross necrop-
sies were performed on most of the animals and tissue samples
from the freshest animals were collected and sent to the
National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, for
isolation of bacteria, chlamydia, mycoplasma, fungi, and viruses
and assessment of the presence and levels of a wide range of
pollutants including heavy metals and organic compounds.
Selected tissues were sent to the Diagnostic Virology Laboratory
at the Eastern Virginia Medical School and to the National
Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, to assist in
identification of human viruses that might be present in the
dolphins, to the Virginia Beach General Hospital to do basic
blood analyses and type Vibrio organisms that might be isolated,
and to the Charleston, South Carolina, laboratory of the
National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct tests for three
classes of biotoxins and several possible environmental
contaminants.

No live animals were found on beaches in the Virginia Beach
area. Therefore, to provide an opportunity to examine and
obtain blood samples from live animals, the Commission made
arrangements with Sea World Inc., Orlando, Florida, for a
team of people experienced in the capture of bottlenose dolphins
to assist in capturing live dolphins in the Virginia Beach
area. The U.S. Navy transported a net and other equipment
from Orlando to Norfolk and provided a boat and crew to assist
in the capture operation. Four live dolphins were caught, ex-
amined, and released on 16 August. All four had skin lesions
(see below) similar to those found on dead animals. Blood
samples were taken from three of the animals and all had ele-
vated white blood cell counts indicative of infection. The
sample size was inadequate and an additional 19 animals were
captured in the Virginia Beach area from 6-9 October 1987.
Blood samples from these animals were an.alyzed for cell types
and characteristics, and serum constituents including electro-
lytes, metabolites, enzymes, proteins, thyroid and adreno-
cortical hormones, and viral antibodies.

Data from population studies done in the late 1970s and
early 1980s suggest that-there could be two more or less dis-
crete stocks of bottlenose dolphins along the U.S. east coast
-- a nearshore stock that moves north to the New Jersey/New
York Bight area in the spring and south to the Georgia/Florida
area in the fall and an offshore stock that occurs primarily
along the 100-fathom depth contour between Georges Bank in
the north and Cape Hatteras in the south. These data were
insufficient to judge when, where, and how many animals might
be affected by the die-off. Therefore, in mid-August the
National Marine Fisheries Service initiated a series of coastal
and offshore aerial surveys to better determine the distribu-
tion, number, sizes, composition, and movements of dolphin pods

along the mid-Atlantic coast and to determine and monitor the
number of dead animals floating at sea and washed up on beaches
in selected index areas. Also, on 25-28 August and 30 August
-3 September, members of the response team were placed aboard
the Environmental Protection Agency's survey vessel, O.S.V.
Anderson, to look for dead and dying dolphins as the ship
conducted preplanned oceanographic surveys in and near the
area where the die-off appeared to be centered. At the same
time, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
began synthesizing and comparing historic and recent data on
weather conditions, sea surface temperatures, current patterns,
and other variables to identify factors that could be correlated
with and contributing to the die-off.

The number of dead animals on beaches in the New Jersey
and Virginia Beach areas began declining in early and late
August, respectively. At the same time, however, animals
began to appear on beaches to the south. By late November
1987, dead animals had been found on beaches as far south as
northern Florida, suggesting that whatever was killing the
animals was spreading or, alternatively, that animals were
continuing to die as they migrated south to their winter range.

The results of the continuing investigations were reviewed
during the Commission's meeting in Miami, Florida, on 10-12
December 1987. During the review, it was reported that:

in the early stages of the die-off, greater numbers of
larger older) animals may have been affected; in
later stages, animals of all age and sex classes appear
to have been affected, possibly in proportion to their
abundance in the population;

animals examined have had a range of internal and external
lesions. Animals that came ashore in August and early
September commonly had small blisters and craters on the
skin -- suggestive of a pox-like viral disease -- particu-
larly around the lips and snout. Many also had large
areas of sloughing skin, fluid-filled body cavities, and
other evidence of severe systemic bacterial infections;

gross post-mortem examinations suggested that some animals
died within a few hours after being invaded by bacteria,
while others had protracted illnesses which ended in
pneumonia, cerebral hemorrhage, vascular collapse, or
shock;

bacterial isolation studies done by the Department of
Agriculture's National veterinary Services Laboratory in
Ames, Iowa, and by the Virginia Beach General Hospital
have documented the presence of bacteria from a wide
variety of genera including: Edwardsiella, Streptococcus,

Vibrio, Pseudomonas, Klebsiella, Acinetobactera, Baci llus,
and StaRhylococcus;

viral isolation studies done by the veterinary Services
Laboratory and the Diagnostic Virology Laboratory of the
Eastern Virginia Medical School have detected herpes-like
particles and papova viruses in tissue cultures inoculated
with extracts from lesions and internal organs;

viral assessment studies done by the National Cancer
institute of the National Institutes of Health have shown
no evidence of Human Immuno-Deficiency Viruses (HIV), which
causes Autoimmune Deficiency syndrome (AIDS) in humans;

gas chromatograph analysis of liver and other tissue
samples done by the National Veterinary Services Labora-
tory have revealed possible toxic levels of chlorinated
hydrocarbons in some but not all animals sampled;

there is no evidence of any unusual die-offs of any other
species, suggesting that only bottlenose dolphins are
vulnerable to whatever is causing the die-off;

although bacterial infections have been the ultimate
cause of death, it is questionable whether the animals
would have been vulnerable to such infections unless
they had been weakened by stress, disease, toxins, or
other factors which weaken the immune system; and

further studies are required to determine whether one or
more viral agents, environmental pollutants, or natural
environmental fluctuations have been the primary cause
or a factor contributing to the continuing die-off.

Following the program review, the Commission consulted with
the National Marine Fisheries Service and others to determine
what more might be done to expedite the investigation. These
discussions will be continued in early 1988 when the Commission,
the National Marine Fisheries Service, and other agencies will
meet to review progress, the direction of the investigation,
and ways in which to meet the continuing need for financial
support of the work.

CHAPTER IV

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
thanthose in any other state. A number of states are con-
fronted 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, interactions with commercial
fisheries, and 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.

Marine Mammal Working GrOuRs 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, whether manage-
ment authority resides with the State, the Federal Government,
or a cooperating group of interests, such authority must rest
upon a foundation of carefully described and generally accepted
research and management programs. To develop such programs,
the Commission established, in 1984, Alaska Marine Mammal
Working Groups to oversee development of species reports for
ten species of marine mammals in Alaska: walrus (Odobenus
rosmarus), polar bear (Ursus Maritimus), ringed seal (Phoca
hisRida), bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus), ribbon seal
(Phoca fasciata), spotted seal (Phoca laraha), harbor seal
(Phoca vituling), northern sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus),
beluga whale (Delphinanterus leucas), and sea otter (Enhydra
lutris).

The Commission adopted the working group approach as a
way of further focusing attention on the species in question,
not upon bureaucratic processes, and in the*belief that:
(a) research and management plans should be developed in a
non-political environment with benefit of carefully developed
and generally agreed-upon species accounts and problem descrip-
tions as base documents; (b) research upon which to base an
effective marine mammal conservation program must be derived
from, among other things, careful consideration of both research
and management issues; and (c) to be useful, species reports
should be cooperatively developed by groups of people with

broadly representative marine mammal interests and experience.

The ten Working Groups involved biologists, biometricians,
Native subsistence users, conservationists, and State and
Federal wildlife resource managers. The Groups were asked:
(1) to prepare comprehensive summaries of available information
on biological, ecological, and other factors affecting
conservation; (2) to describe the research and management
activities which they believed should be undertaken; and (3) to
provide estimates of costs and priorities for the identified
research and management tasks.

Recognizing the need to coordinate the Working Groups'
efforts, the Marine Mammal Commission asked Jack W. Lentfer,
a marine mammal and resource management specialist in Alaska,
to oversee the effort. Since drafting the species accounts
required considerable effort, the Commission contracted with
a number of people to act as lead authors. Completed drafts
of each paper were circulated among members of the appropriate
Working Group for review and comment. The consultative process
among lead author, Working Group members, other interested
persons, and the Commission continued until there was general
agreement on each paper's content. The papers' strengths
come, in no small measure, from the fact that they represent
a broadly agreed-upon body of factual information and recom-
mendations.

The Marine Mammal Commission believes that these ten
species reports, to be published in early 1988, will help to
provide the needed basis for developing and implementing marine
mammal conservation plans in Alaska. The documents should be
of equal value whether management authority ultimately rests
with the Federal Government, with the State of Alaska, or
with a cooperating group of interests.

Background Information on Transfer of Management

The Marine Mammal Protection Act sets forth certain proce-
dures whereby the Secretaries of Commerce and/or the Interior
may, in response to a properly submitted request, transfer
authority for marine mammal management from the Federal Govern-
ment to a State Government. In order to transfer Federal
management authority, the Secretary with jurisdiction over
the species in question must determine, after notice and oppor-
tunity 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 of'the affected
species. In making this determination, the Secretary must
issue a finding that the state has, among other things, estab-
lished a process to determinethe 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,
in the case of depleted species, the State of Alaska's conser-
vation and management program must include mechanisms to deter-
mine the maximum numbers of animals that can be taken by sub-
sistence users 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 not be wasteful and that
priority use be given to subsistence rather than other consump-
tive uses of the species.

As discussed in previous Annual Reports, in 1976 the
State of Alaska sought and received authority to manage walruses
and, in 1979, the State relinquished that authority to the
Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1982, the State of Alaska again
took preliminary steps to request a transfer of management
for ten species of marine mammals -- the same species, listed
above, for which species reports have been prepared. Early
in 1984, the State solicited public comments to help it make
a final decision on whether to proceed with such a request.
As a part of this process, the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game conducted 49 public meetings to provide information on
the transfer process requirements, to explain the likely con-
sequences of a State management program, and to solicit comments
from coastal residents and other affected parties. The meetings
were completed early in 1985.

On 22 February 1 985, however, the Alaska Supreme Court,
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 consistency of the State's subsistence
requirements with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, thereby complicating the State's decision to request
return of management authority for marine mammals.

on 30 May 1986, the.State amended its subsistence law to
remove the discrepancies between State and Federal subsis-
tence requirements. By letter of 18 November 1986, the Depart-
ment of the Interior's Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife
and Parks informed the State that the amendment brought State
law into compliance with the subsistence requirements of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Those require-
ments are virtually identical to the subsistence provisions
of section 109(f)(1) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Thus, it appears that the impediment to transfer of management
imposed by the Madison decision has been removed.

On 21 December 1987, the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game wrote to the Commission advising it that another series
of 17 public meetings had been completed on polar bear, walrus,
and sea otter, three species being considered as the possible
focus of a more limited request for management authority.
Twelve other meetings with various agencies, organizations,
and interest groups were also held to discuss what was under
consideration, to identify major concerns about management of
marine mammals in Alaska, and to exchange views with Alaskans
interested in the issue. At year's end, the State was compiling
and evaluating the information obtained through this process
and, in early 1988, the Department will make a recommendation
to the Governor of Alaska as to whether an application for
return of management should be submitted.

Revort of the Sr)ecial Advisor on Native Affairs

The Marine Mammal Protection Act recognizes that marine
mammals play an important role in the cultural and Bubsis-
tence needs of Alaska Natives. Further, it calls on the Marine
Mammal Commission to take such steps "as it deems necessary
or desirable to further the policies of this Act, including
provisions for the protection of the Indians, Eskimos, and
Aleuts whose livelihood may be adversely affected by actions
taken pursuant to this Act."

Following a series of meetings with interested persons
in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Nome, the Commission, on
30 September 1987, asked Mr. Matthew Iya, Special Advisor to
the Marine Mammal Commission on Native Affairs, to prepare a
report describing: the number of Alaska Natives and Native
communities that are to some extent dependent on marine mammals
to meet subsistence needs; the numbers of marine mammals needed
to meet the subsistence needs of Natives; traditional subsis-
tence uses of marine mammals by Alaska Natives in terms of
type and quantity; factors that may prevent Natives from taking
the species and numbers of marine mammals that they consider
necessary to meet their subsistence and related needs (j._q.,
regulations, offshore oil and gas development, coastal develop-
ment); terms for either cooperative programs or changes in
State or Federal laws or regulations that would better ensure
that Native subsistence and related needs are met, while safe-
guarding the well-being of affected marine mammal populations;
and such legislative language and supporting rationale as the
Native communities consider appropriate for amendments, if
any, to the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Recognizing that the consultations necessary to do such
a report would require extensive travel, the Commission also
made money available to support the travel of the Special
Advisor to meet with informed persons throughout the State.

A draft of the report was presented at the Commission's Annual
Meeting in December 1987, and the final report is expected in
March 1988.

Pacific Walrus, Memorandum of Agreement

On 21 May 1987, the Eskimo Walrus Commission, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game.entered into an agreement to improve coordination and
cooperation amongst themselves with other nations. Under the
Agreement's terms, they are to cooperate on a variety of
research and management activities in ways that are consistent
with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. For example, the agree-
ment addresses: development of conservation and management
plans; retaining the Alaska Native exemption in the Act and
implementing regulations; cooperative research on population.
dynamics, the presence and effects of pollutants, habitat pro-
tection, the impacts-of harassment and other activities, and
methods of reducing the loss rate in taking; the value of input
from the Eskimo community in decision-making; the use of Native
monitors in management activities; public education on walrus
programs; agreements with other nations on walrus conservation;
compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and the value
of traditional Native knowledge in biological and other studies.

Meeting of the Alaska Federation of Natives

In October 1987, the Alaska Federation of Natives, the
Eskimo Walrus Commission, and the Rural Alaska Resources
Association held a one-day workshop on marine mammals in
Anchorage. The Marine Mammal Commission was one of several
organizations asked to present a paper at the meeting. The
commission's paper touched'briefly on: return of management
to states; previous amendments to the Act designed to facilitate
return of management; statutory and regulatory requirements
which must be met if management is to be returned; subsistence
provisions under State and Federal management; possible points
to be discussed in reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protec-
tion Act; and the species reports being prepared by the Com-
mission-sponsored Working Groups.

As a result of marine mammal discussions at the workshop
and further deliberations at the Alaska Federation of Natives
Convention the following day, a number of resolutions pertaining
to marine mammals and the pending reauthorization of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act were passed. Among other-things, the
resolutions endorsed actions to: protect "the Native subsis-
tence hunting exemption in the Marine Mammal Protection Act
as an AFN priority"; amend the Act to allow commercial use of
by-products of North Pacific fur seals and other marine mammals,

except sea otters, taken for subsistence purposes; oppose
proposed regulatory authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service
over Native take of marine mammals; amend the Act to allow
Native people to alter the skins and other parts of tradition-
ally harvested marine mammals for uses "which more nearly
represent the best and most economical use of such mammals"
nowadays; oppose the current definition of "depleted species"
and instead develop a more comprehensive data base using bio-
logical and user-group knowledge to determine when a species
is depleted; and support village regulation of sea otter taking
until such time as a sea otter commission is established. At
year's end, leaders of the Native community were considering
these resolutions and other information as they prepared to
develop, in early 1988, positions on reauthorization of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Federal Marking and Tagging Regglations

In 1981, the Marine Mammal Protection Act was amended to
provide the Fish and Wildlife Service with authority to promul-
gate regulations requiring the marking, tagging, and reporting
of marine mammals taken by Alaska Natives. The purpose of
the amendment was to make it possible to obtain better infor-
mation 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 regu-
lations to implement the new statutory requirement. During
the comment period, 32 public meetings were held throughout
Alaska to discuss the.proposed regulations and to solicit
comments from affected individuals and interested parties.

By letter of 3 March 1986, the Commission, in consultation
with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, recommended that
the regulations be adopted, subject to certain modifications.
Among other changes, the commission recommended that: (a) the
data obtained as a result of the regulations should be sum-
marized each year in the annual report which the Fish and
Wildlife Service submits to Congress under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act; (b) the penalty provisions of the regulations
should apply to the transport 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 marking, tagging, and reporting purposes.

While final regulations had not been published by the
end of 1987, the Fish and Wildlife Service had made known on
various occasions during the,yeak its intention to publish
final regulations in 1988.

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
havebeen "commonly produced on or before December 21, 1972.11
The plaintiff's complaint a'lleged that the cutoff date has no
basis in the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The litigation arose as a result of a seizure by Fish and
Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service enforce-
ment 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 cutoff date. The plaintiff claimed that, by seizing
these items, the Federal Government deprived her of the right
to take marine mammals for handicraft purposes. A second
plaintiff, whose sea otter handicrafts had also been seized
by Fish and Wildlife Service agents, intervened in the proceed-
ing, adopting the legal arguments of the original plaintiff.

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 legis-
lative history of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Court
held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Service's author-
ity to establish a 1972 cutoff date as part of its regulations.
The question of whether the seized handicrafts of the original
plaintiff were commonly produced by Alaska Natives prior to
the regulatory cutoff date is expected to be reviewed in an
administrative proceeding.

The intervenor, on 13 October 1987, raised a new challenge
to the validity of the regulatory definition of "authentic
Native articles of handicrafts and clothing," claiming that
the regulation is unconstitutionally vague because it is unclear
what handicrafts were produced prior to 21 December 1972. At
the end of 1987, the court had not ruled on whether it would
hear the new argument.

CHAPTER V

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 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 1987 with respect to conser-
vation and protection of marine mammals in the Southern ocean,
the International whaling Commission, the Convention on Inter-
national Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,
and the Convention for the Protection and Development of the
Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region 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 and the southern elephant seal were driven to near-
extinction by unregulated hunting in the late 18th and early
19th centuries. Most of the populations of large whales,
including Antarctic populations of humpback, blue, fin, sei,
and sperm whales, have been severely depleted by poorly regu-
lated commercial whaling, which began in the Antarctic in the
early 1900s.

In 1972, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties con-
cluded the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals
to regulate commercial sealing, should it ever begin again in
the Antarctic. In 1982, the International whaling Commission
agreed to a moratorium on commercial whaling, which took effect
in 1986 (see the following section of this Chapter). Thus,
commercial sealing and whaling presently do not pose threats
to Southern Ocean populations of seals and whales. However,
both commercial sealing and commercial whaling could be resumed
in the future. In addition, developing fisheries, particularly

the fishery for Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba), and growing
interest in possible mineral exploration and development pose
threats to seals,' whales, and other components of the Antarctic
marine ecosystem.

Antarctic krill is a keystone of 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
perm whales, killer whales, leopard seals, and other higher-
order predators.
S

Because of the possible direct and indirect effects of
fisheries, mineral development, and related activities on
marine mammals, the Marine Mammal Commission has, since 1974,
undertaken a continuing review of matters that might affect
marine mammals, krill, or other components of the Southern
Ocean ecosystem upon which marine mammals may depend. It has
made recommendations to the National Science Foundation, the
Department of State, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the National Marine Fisheries service on
the need for basic and directed research and monitoring pro-
grams and for international agreements to effectively regulate
sealing, whaling, fisheries, mineral exploration and develop-
ment, and related activities in the Southern Ocean. In addi-
tion, since the mid-1970s, Commission representatives have
served as scientific advisors on most U.S. delegations to
regular Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings, special con-
sultative meetings held to negotiate the marine living resources
and minerals regimes, and the Annual Meetings of the Commission
and Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources.

Background information and a description of 1987 activities
are provided in the following sections.

The 14th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting

The Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 and entered into
force in 1961. The purpose of the Treaty is to insure that
the Antarctic does not become the scene or object of interna-
tional discord. Among other things, the Treaty: prohibits
military activity, nuclear testing, and disposal of nuclear
waste in the Treaty Area (lands and ice shelves south of 60
degrees south latitude); provides for on-site inspection of
all stations and field camps to insure compliance with Treaty
provisions; and promotes cooperative scientific investigations
and free exchange of scientific information. The Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Parties -- the 12 countries that partici-

pated in the 1957-1958 International Geophysical Year (IGY)
research program.in the Antarctic and the subsequent negotiation
of the Antarctic Treaty, and countries that since established
and maintained research programs in the Antarctic -- meet
periodically to review and facilitate operation of the Treaty.
Since the 12th Consultative Meeting held in Canberra, Australia,
in September 1983, contracting parties which do not carry out
research programs necessary to achieve consultative status
have been invited to attend the regular Consultative Meetings
and the special meeting (see below) charged with developing a
regime to govern possible mineral exploration and development
in the Antarctic.

The 14th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting was held
in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 5-16 October 1987. Represen-
tatives of the 20 Consultative Partiesi and most of the 17
non-Consultative Parties2 attended the meeting. In addition,
representatives of several international organizations -- the
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, the Commission on
the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the
World Meteorological organization, and the International Union
for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources -- were
invited and attended the meeting. Environmental issues con-
sidered by the 14th Consultative Meeting included environ-
mental impact assessment procedures, waste disposal, protected
areas, data management, and safeguards for scientific drilling.

Environmental Impact Assessment: Scientific research
and related logistic support activities, like fisheries and
mineral exploration and development, can have adverse effects
on the Antarctic environment. in recognition of this fact,
the 12th Consultative Meeting, 13-27 September 1983, adopted
general guidelines and requested that the Scientific Committee
on Antarctic Research (SCAR), described below, provide advice
on procedures that should be used to evaluate the possible
environmental impacts of scientific and logistic support activi-
ties in Antarctica. The subsequent SCAR report -- "Man's

As of 31 December 1987, the Consultative Parties were:
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, the People's
Republic of China, France, the German Democratic' Republic,
the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New
Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, the United States,
and Uruguay.
2 As of 31 December 1987, the non-Consultative Parties
were: Austria, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark,
Ecuador, Finland, Greece, Hungary, the Democratic People's
Republic-of Korea, the Republic of Korea, The Netherlands,
Papua New Guinea, Peru, Romania, Spain, and Sweden.

Impact on the Antarctic Environment: A Procedure for Evaluating
Impacts from Scientific and Logistic Activities" -- was con-
sidered by the 13th Consultative Meeting in Brussels, Belgium,
in 1985. The meeting was unable to reach agreement on adoption
of standard guidelines or procedures for environmental impact
assessment, but did agree that the matter should be considered
further at the 14th Consultative Meeting.

At the 14th Consultative Meeting, it was agreed that, in
the process of planning Antarctic scientific and logistic
support activities, the national organizations responsible
for planning should evaluate the possible impacts of the activi-
ties using guidelines set forth in the agreed recommendation.
The guidelines are an amalgamation of those proposed in the
previously mentioned SCAR report and in the "Goals and Prin-
ciples on Environmental Impact Assessment" adopted by the
Governing Council of the United Nations Environmental Program
in June 1987. They are also consistent with the environmental
impact assessment procedures established by the U.S. Council
on Environmental Quality to help implement the U.S. National
Environmental Policy Act. If applied as recommended, the
guidelines will help to minimize the impact of human activities
on the Antarctic environment.

Waste management: The 8th Antarctic Treaty Consultative
Meeting, held in 1975, developed and recommended adoption of
a Code of Conduct for Antarctic Expedition and Station Activi-
ties, including recommended procedures for waste disposal. In
1985, the 13th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting requested
that SCAR undertake a comprehensive review of waste disposal
practices and provide advice on standards that would be desir-
able to achieve at coastal and inland stations and field camps
and ways that the standards can be met. SCAR was unable to
complete its review before the 14th Consultative Meeting, due
in part to incomplete responses from national program operators
to requests for information concerning waste disposal practices
at existing Antarctic stations and field camps. Recognizing
the importance of identifying and using the best available
technology and practices, the 14th Consultative Meeting urged
national operating agencies to respond promptly and fully to
the request for information concerning national practices.
Pending receipt of SCAR's advice on the matter, the Meeting
urged all parties to consider: (1) the clean-up of existing
waste disposal sites; (2) minimizing the amount of waste gene-
rated; (3) reuse or recycling of waste materials; and (4)
removal of all waste from the Treaty area that cannot otherwise
be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

The United States should lead the way in developing and
implementing environmentally sound waste disposal practices
in the Antarctic and, in 1988, the Commission will work with
the National Science Foundation, the National Marine Fisheries

Service, and the Department of.State to identify and evaluate
ways in which waste disposal practices at U.S. stations and
field camps in Antarctica can and should be improved.

Protected Areas: Recommendations adopted by the 7th and
Sth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (1972 and 1975)
established procedures for designating Sites of Special Scien-
tific Interest and Specially Protected Areas. Since then, 28
Sites of Special Scientific Interest and 17 Specially Protected
Areas-have been so designated. The types and sizes of areas
protected have been limited.and the 13th Consultative Meeting
adopted a recommendation requesting that SCAR review and provide
advice on the adequacy of the existing system of protected
areas, including the possible need for an additional category
under a different form of protection. SCAR's response to
this request, provided in a report entitled "The Protected
Areas System in the Antarctic," pointed out a number of de-
ficiencies in and questions concerning the existing system.
It recommended that: (1) existing Specially Protected Areas,
Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and historic monuments
be visited periodically to determine whether the objectives
for which they were designated are being met; (2) the results
of site visits carried out during the next two years be made
available for consideration during the preparatory meeting
for the 15th Consultative Meeting in 1989; (3) management
plans be developed for Specially Protected Areas, as well as
Sites of Special Scientific Interest; (4) measures be taken
to encourage submission of proposals for additional protected
areas to provide protection for geographically distributed,
representative examples of all Antarctic terrestrial, inland
water, and marine ecosystems; and (5) an additional multi-
purpose category of protected area be added to the existing
system.

In response to the first two recommendations, the 14th
Consultative Meeting urged that Parties undertake visits to
as many Specially Protected Areas, Sites of Special Scientific
Interest, and historic monuments as possible during the next
two years and that reports of these visits be provided for
consideration at the preparatory meeting for the 15th Consul-
tative Meeting. With regard to the third recommendation, the
meeting acknowledged the desirability of management plans for
Specially Protected Areas as well as for Sites of Special Scien-
tific Interest. There were differing views, however, as to
whether management plans could be required without amending
the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Flora
and Fauna, adopted at the 8th Consultative Meeting in 1975.
It was agreed that examples of management plans,for Specially
Protected Areas should be developed and the matter should be
considered further at the 15th Consultative Meeting. With
regard to the recommendation that steps be taken to expand
the number and types of areas protected under the existing

system, the meeting urged parties to conduct surveys and take
other feasible steps to identify possible candidate areas
and, when deemed"appropriate, to draft and submit proposals
for additional Sites of Special Scientific Interest and
Specially Protected Areas.
The fifth SCAR recommendation -- that a new multi-purpose
category of protected area be established -- was the subject
of much debate. The utility of zoning and other multiple-use
management practices was generally recognized. However, most
delegations, including the U.S. delegation, believed that
further study and experience are required to determine how
best to implement such practices. To facilitate further con-
sideration by the 15th Consultative Meeting, it was suggested
that Parties identify and prepare draft management plans for
areas that might be considered for designation under the pro-
posed, multiple-use category of protected area.

During the discussions, there were differing views as to
whether Specially Protected Areas could be designated to provide
protection to areas for other than biological purposes. To
overcome the problem, the United States proposed establishing
a new category of protected area, tentatively called "Special
Reserves," to provide unambiguous authority for protecting
areas of outstanding geological, recreational, scenic, or
wilderness value. Time was insufficient to act on this pro-
posal, and it will be taken up again at the 15th Consultative
Meeting.

The'area around the U.S. Palmer Station on Anvers Island
is one of the areas that might benefit by establishment of a
zoning plan envisioned as part of the new multiple-use category
of protected area. Tourism, as well as a variety of scientific
studies, occur in the area and create substantial potential
for interference and environmental damage. Therefore, the
commission will work with the National Science Foundation and
the Department of State in 1988 and 1989 to prepare a draft
management plan for possible consideration at the 15th Consul-
tative Meeting. The Commission also will assist, as appro-
priate, in developing and seeking agreement on a proposal to
establish a new single-use category of protected area to protect
areas of outstanding geological, recreational, scenic, and
wilderness value.

Data Management: Much of the data being compiled by
national Antarctic programs may be useful for assessing the
possible environmental effects of scientific research programs,
fisheries, mineral exploration and development,,and related
logistic support activities in the Antarctic. The utility of
the data will depend, in part, upon their accessibility and
comparability. Therefore, in response to a U.S. initiative,
the 13th Antarctic Consultative Meeting requested that SCAR

provide advice on the comparability and accessibility of Ant-
arctic scientific'data to facilitate planning and management
of activities in Antarctica. Because of the complexity of
the task, SCAR will be unable to respond to the request until
after its meeting in September 1988. Recognizing the importance
of the task, the 14th Consultative Meeting called upon national
contact points to assist in gathering needed information. It
noted that two important beginning steps are to: (1) identify
the specific types of data likely to be most useful for
planning, managing, and evaluating activities in Antarctica,
and (2) develop a directory which lists where and in what
format such data exist and how they can be accessed.

SCAR has constituted an ad hoc group on Environmental
Data Management to respond to the Consultative Parties' request
for advice on this matter. The chairman of this group has
requested that the Marine Mammal Commission and other U.S.
agencies assist in identifying and cataloging relevant data.
The Commission has provided the requested assistance and will
continue to do so in 1988.

Safegmards for Scientific Drilling: In some areas of
Antarctica, drilling into the earth's crust could strike oil
or gas deposits and result in oil leaks that would damage the
Antarctic environment. In response to a National Science
Foundation initiative, the 14th Antarctic Treaty Consultative
Meeting adopted "Guidelines for Scientific Drilling in the
Antarctic Treaty Area." The Guidelines recommend that, before
conducting scientific drilling in areas where hydrocarbons
might be encountered, a geophysical,survey of the proposed
drill site be conducted to identify potential hazards, the
survey data be provided to appropriate experts to evaluate
and determine how to avoid potential environmental impacts,
drilling be done off potential hydrocarbon-bearing structures
to reduce the possibility of encountering hydrocarbons, contin-
gency plans be developed to deal with any problems that may
develop during drilling, and drilling operations be contin-
uously monitored to detect and promptly respond to any problems
that might arise.

If applied properly.by the national operating agencies,
the guidelines should substantially eliminate the possibility
of environmental damage from scientific drilling.

Activities Related to Antarctic Seals

In 1964, a private Norwegian expedition cond ucted explora-
tory sealing in the western Atlantic section of,the Southern
ocean to determine whether crabeater seals could be profitably
exploited. At about the same time, Canadian scientists recom-
mended that the Canadian and Norwegian long-distance sealing
fleets be diverted to the Antarctic to reduce exploitation

pressure on depleted harp seal stocks in the western North
Atlantic. Recognizing the need to provide a mechanism for
regulating a commercial sealing industry, should it develop,
the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties developed and, in
1972, concluded the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic
Seals. The Convention entered into force in March 1978 and,
to date, has been ratified by Argentina, Australia, Belgium,
Brazil, Chile, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Japan,
Norway, Poland, South Africa, the Union of Soviet socialist
Republics, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Con-
vention prohibits commercial harvesting of fur seals, elephant
seals, and Ross seals. Permissible catch levels, sealing
areas, and sealing seasons for crabeater, leopard, and Weddell
seals are specified in an Annex. The Convention provides for
the establishment of a regulatory body and scientific advisory
committee, when and if commercial sealing is resumed, and
requires that Convention Parties annually provide information
on seals taken for either scientific or commercial purposes
to the other parties and to the Scientific Committee on An-
tarctic Research. It also provides that the Scientific Com-
mittee on Antarctic Research and the other contracting parties
must be notified at least 30 days in advance of departure
from their home ports of proposed sealing expeditions and
that the parties shall meet at least every five years to review
the operation of the Convention.

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. This group has been charged with
compiling information and advising SCAR on measures needed to
improve information exchange and to facilitate stock assess-
ment and scientific research. Several parties to the Convention
have not met the reporting requirements And, at its meeting
in San Diego in June 1986, SCAR urged all of its national
committees to insure that data on seals killed or captured in
the Antarctic are submitted in the appropriate form and in a
timely fashion to the convener of the Group of Specialists to
enable SCAR to meet its commitments under the Seals Convention.
This problem was called to the attention of the Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Parties during their meeting in Rio de
Janeiro in October 1987.

As noted in the Commission's previous Report, the Union
of Soviet socialist Republics advised the United States and
other parties to the Seals Convention in October 1986 that it
was sending two sealing vessels to the Antarctic on 10 November
1986 to conduct experimental sealing. In a diplomatic note
dated 4 November 1987, the Soviet Union advised the United
States and other Convention parties that the two sealing vessels
had conducted experimental sealing in the Balleny Island area

from 9 December 1986 to 2 February 1987 and that, during this
period, they had.taken 4,014 crabeater seals, 649 leopard
seals, 107 Weddell seals, 30 Ross seals, and 2 elephant seals.

In 1988, the Seals Convention will have been in effect for
ten years and, pursuant to the previously mentioned review
provision, the United Kingdom, as depository government, will
convene a review conference in London. During the conference,
to be held 12-16 September 1988, the Parties to the Convention
will-consider ways to improve operation of the Convention,
including the possible need to constitute a regulatory body
and scientific advisory body. The Marine Mammal Commission,
in consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors,
will work with the Department of State and other involved
U.S. agencies to develop U.S. Positions on matters to be con-
sidered at this review conference.

Activities Relqted to Other Living Resources

Experimental harvesting of Antarctic krill was begun by
the Soviet Union and Japan in the early 1960s. Commercial
harvesting of finfish was begun by the Soviet Union in the
late 1960s. As noted in previous commission Reports, concern
that the developing fisheries, particularly the krill fishery,
could adversely affect dependent and associated species, as
well as the species being exploited, led the Scientific Com-
mittee on Antarctic Research to plan and coordinate an inter-
national research program entitled "Biological Investigations
of Marine Antarctic Systems and Stocks." Recognition of the
need for a legal fram*ework to regulate fisheries led the
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties to develop and adopt
the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources.

The Convention, which was concluded in May 1980 and came
into force in April 1982, established the Commission and the
Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources. The first meetings of the Commission and
Scientific Committee were held in 1982. The Marine Mammal
commission's activities regarding negotiation of the Convention
and the first five meetings of the Commission and Scientific
Committee established by the Convention are described in pre-
vious Annual Reports.

The 1987 meetings of the Commission qnd Scientific Com-
mittee: The 1987 meetings of the Commission and Scientific
Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources were held in Hobart, Australia, on 26'October - 6
November 1987. To help prepare for these meetings and to
review plans for the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Research
Program being developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(see below), the Service, in consultation 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 15-16 April 1987. At that
meeting, information and views were exchanged on scientific
and technical issues on the agenda for the 1987 meetings of
the Living Resources Commission and Scientific Committee and
on research and monitoring which the United States should
carry out to implement the Living Resources Convention. Marine
Mammal commission representatives participated in the prepara-
tory meeting and in subsequent efforts to develop agreed posi-
tions on issues scheduled for consideration during the 26
October - 6 November 1987 meetings of the Living Resources
Commission and Scientific Committee.

During their 1987 meetings, the Living Resources Commission
and Scientific Committee considered a broad range of issues,,
including finfish conservation measures, krill research and
monitoring, observation and inspection, incidental mortality
and marine debris, ecosystem monitoring, and development of a
long-term conservation strategy.

Finfish Conservation Measures: Vessels from six Contract-
ing Parties (Chile, the German Democratic Republic, France,
Japan, Poland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
fished in the Convention Area during the 1986/1987 season.@
The total fish catch was 98,029 metric tons, up substantially
from the catch of 58,228 metric tons in 1985/1986. Most of
the catch (74,142 metric tons) was Champsocephalus ggnnari
and was taken from the area around South Georgia Island.

The 1986/1987 ca tch of C. gunnari (primarily by Soviet
fishing vessels) was more than five times the 1985/1986 catch,
despite the fact that the fishing nations had indicated their
intent at the 1986 Commission meeting to maintain the catch
of this species at about the 1985/1986 level. The increase was
because the fishing fleets found larger than expected quantities
of the species, not because of increased fishing effort.

Recognizing the desirability of limiting fishing mortality
and the possibility that.a considerable quantity of C. gunnari
might already have been taken from the South Georgia area

3 As of 31 December 1987, there were 20 members of the
Living Resources Commission and scientific Committee: Argen-
tina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, the European Economic
Community, France, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal
Republic of Germany, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, New
Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Spain, the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, and the United
States.

since the 1987/1988 fishing season began in August-Septembe r,
the commission imposed several conservation measures. It
established a 1987/19,88 Total Allowable Catch of 35,000 metric
tons for C. ggnnari in the South Georgia area, retroactive to
1 July 1987; it required that catches of C. ggnnari be reported
to the Secretariat at ten-day intervals beginning no later
than 1 December 1987; and it prohibited fishing for other
species in the South Georgia area, except for scientific pur-
poses, after the Total Allowable Catch of 35,000 metric tons
of C..crunnari is reached. The Commission also closed the C.
ggnnari fishery in the South Georgia area from 1 April to -1
October 1988 and requested that the Scientific Committee provide
advice for C. cfunnari and other species on: (i) the appropriate
mesh size to protect young fish;, (ii) closed areas and/or
seasons to protect young fish and reduce by-catch; (iii) esti-
mates of total allowable catch that would achieve an appropri-
ately low value of fishing mortality; and (iv) an evaluation.
of the total finfish replacement yield on an area basis.

Krill Research and Monitgring: The total catch of krill
in the Convention Area in 1986/1987 was 376,527 metric tons,
down substantially from the 1985/1986 catch of 445,673 metric
tons. It is unlikely that this level of catch has had any
adverse effects on either krill stocks or krill predators,
except possibly in local areas. However, the need to assess
and monitor krill stocks and to determine how best to predict
and detect the effects of fishing has been recognized by both
the Living Resources commission and the Scientific Committee.
The Committee, with Commission concurrence, has initiated or
recommended a range of theoretical studies, field experiments,
and monitoring programs to determine how best to assess and
monitor krill stocks and to detect the possible effects of
fishing on both krill stocks and krill predators.4 At its
1987 meeting, the scientific Committee established an ad hoc
working group to review and evaluate past and planned krill
research and to advise it on the potential application of
such research to stock assessment and ecosystem monitoring.

Observation and InsRection: Article XXIV of the Living
Resources Convention provides for establishment of a system
of observation and inspection to insure compliance with pro-
visions of the Convention. During the 1987 meeting of the
commission, it was agreed that: each member of the Commission
may designate inspectors and observers who shall be entitled

4 Actions taken by the Commission and the Scientific
Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources are described in their annual meeting reports.
These and related reports can be obtained from: The Executive
secretary, Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources,.25 Old Wharf,, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia.

to carry out inspection and observation activities on board
vessels engaged i'n scientific research or harvesting of marine
living resources in the Convention area; the commission shall
maintain a register of certified inspectors and observers
designated by members; reports of observers and inspectors
shall be provided to the designating member, which in turn
shall report to the Commission; and, if there is evidence of
violations of the provisions of the Convention or measures
adopted thereunder, the flag state shall take steps to prosecute
and, if necessary, impose sanctions. The Commission also
established a Standing Committee to provide advice on such
matters as boarding and inspection procedures, reporting for-
mats, inspection and observation priorities, and steps taken
by members to enforce compliance with measures adopted under
the Convention. There was preliminary discussion of possible
means for financing the system of observation and inspection.
The discussion will be continued during the 1988 meeting of
the Standing Committee on observation and Inspection.

Incidental Mortality and Marine Debris: Seals, whales,
birds, and other non-target species may be caught and killed
incidentally during fishing operations, be caught and killed
in lost and discarded fishing gear, or die as a result of
ingesting plastic bags and other debris discarded in the Con-
vention Area (see also Chapter VI of this Report). The Living
Resources Commission has recognized this and has adopted a
number of measures to try to insure that accidental and inci-
dental mortality of marine living resources does not become a
serious problem in the Convention Area.

At the 1987 meeting, Commission members reported sightings
of debris, including fishing buoys, gas bottles, plastic con-
tainers, trawl net fragments, and plastic packing bands, in
the Convention Area. In addition, they reported sightings of
two fur seals entangled in fragments of fishing nets and a
third entangled in the dropper of a long line. To call atten-
tion to the problem and steps that should be taken to prevent
it from developing in the Convention Area, the Commission
directed the Executive Secretary to publish and distribute
(1) an information brochure advising fishermen, researchers,
and others working in the Convention Area of the sources,
fates, and effects of potentially hazardous marine debris, and
(2) a placard, describing the 'Idols" and I'don't's" with respect
to handling, storing, and discarding different types of refuse,
that can be displayed in appropriate places aboard ships in
the Convention Area. Members were urged to provide the brochure
to scientists and others working in Antarctica and to ensure
that all vessel operators were provided with the placard.

It was agreed that Members would continue to report and
to take all feasible steps to prevent the discard of poten-
tially hazardous debris in the Convention Area and that the

subject of incidental mortality should be kept under continuing
review.

Ecosystem monitoring: The scientific Committee for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources established
a working Group in 1984 to formulate and coordinate implemen-
tation of a multi-national research program to assess and
monitor key components of the Antarctic marine ecosystem.
This working Group has met three times and developed a long-
range program plan with three major elements: (1) monitoring
of representative krill predators (g._q., crabeater and Antarctic
fur seals and Adelie, chinstrap, and macaroni penguins) at a
network of sites throughout Antarctica; (2) comprehensive
studies of krill, krill predators, and related environmental
variables in three "integrated study areas" (Prydz Bay, the
Bransfield Strait, and the area around South Georgia Island);
and (3) basic studies of the demography and dynamics of crab-
eater seals in one or more pack ice areas.

At its 10-16 aune 1987 meeting in Dammarie-les-Lys, France,
the Working Group began developing standard protocols for
collecting and reporting various types of data. It recom-
mended steps that should be taken to initiate monitoring of
key krill predators, particularly fur seals and penguins, in
and near the three integrated study areas. The Working Group's
recommendations were endorsed by the full Scientific Committee
and by the Commission during their 26 October - 6 November 1987
meetings.

Devglopment of a Conseryation Strategy: There is no
established precedent to the ecosystem-oriented conservation
standard set forth in Article II of the Convention on the
Conservation of Antarctic marine Living Resources. Therefore,
at its 1986 meeting, the Living Resources Commission established
a Working Group to assist in determining how best to give
effect to Article II. This Working Group met during the 1987
meetings of the Commission and Scientific Committee and agreed
to focus initially on development of performance criteria for
assessing the effectiveness of different conservation approaches
with respect to attaining the objectives set forth in Article
II of the Convention. It was agreed that Australia, as convenor
of the Working Group, would prepare and distribute a discussion
paper early in 1988 to serve as the basis for further consid-
eration of the subject during the next meeting of the Commis-
sion, scheduled for on 24 October - 4 November 1988 in Hobart.

The Marine Mammal Commission believes that d evelopment
and implementation of an effective ecosystem monitoring program
and a long-range conservation strategy, combined with timely
and accurate reporting of catch, effort and related biological
information, and development of an effective system of obser-
vation and inspection, are the keys to successful implementation

MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION
1625 EYE STREET, N. W
WASHINGTON, DC 20006

8 February 1988

Library
Nautilus Press
National Press Building
Suite 1201
Washington, DC 20045

Dear Jack:

I enclose a copy of our Annual Report
for Calendar Year 1987.

Sincerely,

John R. Twiss, Jr.
Executive Director

Enclosure

of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources. In 1988, the Commission will consider and
provide advice, as appropriate, to the Department of State,
the National Marine Fisheries service, and the National Science
Foundation on steps needed to facilitate development and imple-
mentation of an effective monitoring program and conservation
strategy for the Antarctic marine ecosystem.

The U.S. Antarctic Marine Living Resources Research Program

The Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of
1984 establisheB the domestic authority necessary for the
United States to implement the Convention for the Conservation
of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Among other things,
the Act directs that the National Science Foundation continue
support of basic marine research in the Antarctic and 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 directed research necessary to effectively
implement the Convention.

In response to the Act's directive, the National Marine
Fisheries Service has prepared, adopted, and begun to imple-
ment a plan for directed marine living resource research in
the Southern ocean. The plan was developed in consultation
with the National Science Foundation, the Marine Mammal Commis-
sion, other Federal agencies, knowledgeable scientists in the
United States and abroad, and representatives of the U.S.
fishing industry and public interest groups.5 The Service
received a $2 million supplement to its Fiscal Year 1987 budget
appropriation to begin implementing the program. Ship support
is a critical limiting factor and, to make the best possible
use of the available funding, the Service arranged to carry
out three research cruises in 1986-1987 on a cost-sharing
basis aboard a Polish research vessel, the Profesor Siedlecki.

The preliminary results of the three research cruises
and an update of the National Marine Fisheries Service's Program
Development Plan were reviewed during the previously mentioned
meeting of the ad hoc U.6. Scientific Working Group on the

5 Details of the National Marine Fisheries Service's
Antarctic Marine Living Resources Research Program can be
obtained from Michael F. Tillman, Ph.D., AMLR Program Manager,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1825 Connecticut Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20235; or Kenneth Sherman, Ph.D.,
Director, Narragansett Laboratory, Northeast Fisheries center,
National Marine Fisheries Service, South Ferry Road, Narragan-
sett, Rhode Island 02882-1199.

Antarctic, convened by the National Marine Fisheries Service
on 15-16 April 19'87. Subsequently, a series of papers describ-
ing the basic results of the research cruises and other studies
done as part of the directed research program were prepared
and provided to the Scientific Committee for the Conservation
of Antarctic Marine Living Resources for consideration during
its 1987 meeting described earlier. One paper described the
results of a fish stock assessment done in November-December
1986. It provided convincing evidence that the stock of Noto-
thenia rossii in the South Georgia region has been seriously
overfished and played a key role in calling attention to the
continuing need for stringent conservation measures.

Again in Fiscal Year 1988, the Service received a $2 mil-
lion supplement to its budget appropriation to continue imple-
mentation of the directed research program mandated by the
Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984.
(This amount may be reduced due to reprogramming of funds or
subsequent Fiscal 1988 budget reductions.) Required ship
support continues to be a major limiting factor and, to make
the best possible use of available funding, the Service again
made arrangements to cooperatively carry out two research
cruises in 1987-88 on a cost-sharing basis aboard the.Profesor
Siedlecki. The Service also made arrangements to conduct
land-based studies of seals and birds at Seal Island in the
South Shetland Islands and at Palmer Station on Anvers Island.

Plans for the FY 1988 research program were reviewed
during a meeting convened by the Service on 21 October 1987.
Representatives of the Commission, the National Science Found-
ation, the State Department, and the Service's four research
centers participated in the meeting. Meeting participants
noted a number of ways to improve planning and exchange of
information between the National Science Foundation and the
National Marine Fisheries service.

The Commission believes that both basic and directed
research are essential to effective operation of the Antarctic
Treaty system. Therefore, in 1988, 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 private organi-
zations to facilitate development of both basic and directed
marine research programs in the Antarctic.

Activities Related to Non-living Resources

There is growing interest, as noted earlier, in potential
non-living resources in Antarctica, particularly offshore oil
and gas. Disturbance, noise, oil spills, and other environ-
mental pollutants resulting from exploration, development,
and transport of o.il, gas, or other non-living resources could

have direct and indirect effects on whales, seals, krill, and
other components-of the Antarctic marine ecosystem. The An-
tarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have recognized this pos-
sibility and, at the l1th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting
(Buenos Aires, Argentina, 23 June - 7 July 1981), agreed that
a regime should be elaborated to provide means for: (1) assess-
ing 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 activity; and (3) governing those activities
determined to be acceptable.

Negotiation of the regime began in New Zealand in June
1982 as the first session of the 4th Special Antarctic Treaty
Consultative Meeting. The negotiations continued at formal
and informal sessions in New Zealand (January 1983), the Federal
Republic of Germany (July 1983), Washington, D.C. (January
1984), Japan (May 1984), Brazil (February 1985), France (Septem-
ber 1985), Australia (April 1986), Japan (October/November
1986), and Uruguay (May 1987). The next round of negotiations
will be held in New Zealand in January 1988. If these are
successful, it is expected that a meeting to conclude the
regime will be held in New Zealand in May 1988.

The Marine Mammal Commission believes that an effective
regime for regulating and monitoring possible mineral resource
activities in the Antarctic offers great potential for ensuring
that any such activities are not to the disadvantage of whales,
seals, and other components of the Antarctic marine ecosystem.
The Commission, therefore, 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 (SCAR)

The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research was estab-
lished in 1958 to foster international cooperation on scientific
research programs in the Antarctic. It is one of the Scientific
Committees under 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 it for scientific and technical advice concerning conser-
vation and other issues. As noted earlier, for example, the
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Patties have, since 1983,
requested that SCAR provide advice on: procedures to evaluate
the possible environmental impacts of scientific research
programs and related logistic support activities in the Ant-

arctic; standards and technology for waste disposal; the ade-
quacy of the existing system of protected areas and the possible
need for an additional category of protected area; and measures
that possibly could be taken to improve the comparability and
accessibility of environmental and other data being collected
by national programs.

SCAR and many of its subsidiary bodies are scheduled to
meet in Hobart, Australia, in September 1988. Conservation-
related issues to be considered at these meetings include:
SCAR's response to the previously mentioned requests from the
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties for advice on waste
disposal and possible means for improving the comparability
and accessibility of scientific data on Antarctica; preparation
of a statement elaborating SCAR principles regarding protection
.of the Antarctic environment; a proposal to establish a Group
of Specialists on Antarctic Environmental Affairs and Conser-
vation; the future of Antarctic science; and continued develop-
ment of cooperative programs'and working relationships with
the Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources. In addition, a symposium (the Fifth
Symposium on Antarctic Biology) will be held immediately before
the SCAR meetings to review and consider information concerning
ecological change and the conservation of Antarctic ecosystems.

The Marine Mammal Commission believes that SCAR plays a
critical role in planning and coordinating research programs
in the Antarctic and is essential to the effective operation
of the Antarctic Treaty system. Through the Polar Research
Board, the Commission will continue to provide whatever assis-
tance possible to facilitate SCAR's work.

New International Interest in Antarctica

There is growing international interest in Antarctica.
Since the Treaty entered into force in 1961, 25 additional
nations have acceded to it, bringing the total number of parties
to 37. As noted earlier, eight of the acceding states have
achieved consultative status by establishing and maintaining
research programs in the Antarctic, making a total of 20 parties
eligible to participate in making decisions under the Antarctic
Treaty.

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
results from speculation about potential resources, particularly
non-renewable mineral and hydrocarbon resources, in Antarctica.
In addition, there is growing interest in tourism, raising
,concerns about tourist safety, impacts of tourism on the Ant-
arctic environment, and impacts of tourism on Antarctic reseach.

As noted in previous Commission Reports, speculation
about possible mineral resources appears to have been a major
factor stimulating an initiative by Malaysia in 1983 and later
to involve the United Nations in Antarctic matters. The
"Question of Antarctica" was raised again during the 42nd
session of the United Nations General Assembly in December
1987. Two resolutions were adopted by vote. The first reso-
lution calls upon the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties
to invite the United Nations Secretary General to all meetings
of the Consultative Parties, including the special meeting
negotiating the minerals regime, and repeats the 1986 call
for a moratorium on the minerals negotiations until such time
as all members of the international community are able to
participate. The second resolution repeats an earlier appeal
to the Antarctic Treaty Parties to exclude the apartheid regime
of South Africa from participation in Consultative Party meet-
ings. As in 1986, the majority of the Antarctic Treaty Parties
did not participate in the vote on the first resolution. A
number of 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 the basis for effectively protecting
and conserving marine mammals and their habitat in the Southern
Ocean. In 1988, the commission will continue its efforts to
help implement the Antarctic Treaty, the Convention for the
Conservation of Antarctic Seals, and the Convention on the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, and to
complete negotiation of an ecologically sound minerals regime.

The International Nhaling Commission (IWC)

During 1987, representatives of the.Marine Mammal Commis-
sion consulted with the U.S. Commissioner to the IWC and
others in preparation for the Thirty-ninth Annual Meeting of
the IWC and attended meetings of the IWC Scientific Committee.
In addition, the Commission consulted with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, the State Department, and
others on other matters related to participation of the United
States in the IWC. A summary of the activities undertaken
during 1987 follows.

The June 1987 Meeting of the IWC

Membership and participation -- Representatives of 33 of
the IWC's 41 member nations participated in the IWC's Thirty-
ninth Annual Meeting, held in Bournemouth, England, on 22-26
June 1987.

adop Moratorium on Commercial Whaling -- In 1982, the IWC
ted a new provision, paragraph 10 (e), to its Schedule of
regulations. The provision established catch limits for all
commercial whaling at zero, beginning with the 1985/1986
pelagic and 1986 coastal whaling seasons, and provided that,
by 1990 at the latest, the IWC would undertake a comprehensive
assessment of the effect of this decision on whale stocks and
consider modifying the provision and establishing catch limits
other than zero. No action was taken during the 1987 meeting
to change this provision and, therefore, catch limits for
commercial whaling remained at zero for all stocks of whales
during the 1987-1988 whaling seasons. Catch limits for commer-
cial whaling will continue to be set at zero unless and until
a three-quarters majority of the IWC's membership votes 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 of
1946, this action removes the obligation of their respective
governments to comply with the requirements of this provision.
During 1987, all three nations exercised their rights under
the Convention to allow whales to be taken commercially by
their nationals.

Notwithstanding any take of whales during permitted
scientific research (see below), all three nations have ex-
pressed plans to suspend commercial whaling activity before
the end of 1988. At the 1985 IWC meeting, the Soviet Union
announced its intention to suspend commercial whaling after
the 1986-1987 Antarctic minke whaling season for technical
reasons. As of the end of 1987, no Soviet ships were engaged
in commercial whaling. As noted in the previous Annual Report,
pursuant to a 1984 agreement between the United States and
Japan, the Government of Japan submitted a prospective with-
drawal of its objection to paragraph 10 (e) in July 1986.
The withdrawal is to take effect on or before 1 April 1988,
after which time Japan will be obligated to comply with the
moratorium provision. The Government of Norway has expressed
its intent to suspend commercial whaling after the 1987 whaling
season, but it has not indicated whether it will withdraw its
objection to the IWC moratorium provision and, if so, when.

Comprehensive Assessment -- During a meeting of the IWC
Scientific Committee in April 1986, a work plan and timetable
were developed for conducting the comprehensive assessment
required under Schedule paragraph 10 (e). They were approved
by the IWC at its meeting in 1986 and, according to its pro-
visions, two workshops and three contract reviews were carried
out or initiated between the 1986 and 1987 IWC meetings. The
workshops were held in Reykjavik, Iceland, in March 1987 and
addressed (a) the utility of using data on catch per unit of

effort as an index of whale abundance and (b) alternative
management procedures for establishing catch limits. The
three contract studies addressed the suitability of biochemical
genetic research techniques for identifying stock discreteness,
alternative whale censusing techniques, and mark-recapture tech-
niques for estimating stock abundance.

A Joint Working Group of the Scientific and Technical
Committees met shortly before the 1987 IWC meeting to consider
progress and further work related to the comprehensive assess-
ment.- Based on the Joint Working Group's recommendations,
the IWC approved the following further work: (1) use of the
Secretariat's computer facilities for testing management
procedures; (2) carrying forward studies on new biochemical
genetic research techniques to distinguish between whale
stocks; (3) continuing stock monitoring studies; (4) contracting
for an analysis of Southern Hemisphere minke whale marking
data; (5) convening a workshop to assess the utility of using
natural markings to estimate whale population parameters; and
(6) compiling information on the methods and hunting strategies
from whalers involved in the past exploitation of minke whales
in the North Atlantic. The IWC also agreed that priority
attention for the comprehensive assessment should be on those
stocks that were the object of substantial whaling activity
before the moratorium.

AboriginalZSubsistence Whalin -- At its 1985 meeting,
the IWC adopted a three-year block quota for the Bering Sea
stock of bowhead whales allowing 26 strikes per year for the
years 1985 through 1987. The quota permitted strikes not
used in any one year to be carried forward to the next year
provided that no more than 32 whales are struck in any one
year. At its 1987 meeting, the IWC modified the last year of
its previous block quota by establishing a new catch limit of
32 strikes for 1987. In addition, a quota of 35 strikes was
set for 1988.

Aboriginal catch limits for other stocks of whales were
set as follows for the 1988 aboriginal whaling seasons: 179
whales from the eastern North Pacific gray whale stock; 110
whales from the West Greenland minke whale stock; 10 whales
from the West Greenland fin whale stock; and 12 whales from
the central Atlantic minke whale stock. A quota of three
humpback whales per year was established for aboriginal whalers
in St. Vincent and the Grenadines for the 1987-1988, 1988-
1989, and 1989-1990 whaling seasons.

Special Permits for Scientific Research -- Article VIII
of the 1946 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 any whales taken may
be processed and sold according to that contracting government's

directions. In addition, the IWC's conservation program
provides that contracting governments must afford the IWC and
its Scientific Committee an opportunity to review the proposed
permits, which must include certain information on the proposed
research activities.

In view of the provisions of Schedule paragraph 10 (e)
calling for a moratorium on commercial whaling and a compre-
hensive assessment of whale stocks, the IWC and its Scientific
Committee have devoted particular attention during recent
meetings to matters pertaining to the issuance of special
permits. In 1985, the Scientific Committee developed a series
of guidelines for reviewing proposed permits. At its 1986
meeting, the IWC adopted a Resolution providing advice to
contracting governments on criteria to be considered in issuing
special permits and authorizing disposition of whale meat and
other products derived from any whales taken.

To further clarify the type of research conducted under
special permits that is consistent with the IWC conservation
program, the United States developed and put forward a proposed
resolution on scientific research programs during the 1987 IWC
meeting. The proposed resolution identified four additional
criteria by which to assess existing and proposed research
involving the killing of whales. The criteria call upon
contracting governments to ensure that permitted research:

(1) addresses a question or questions that should be answered
in order to conduct the comprehensive assessment or to meet
other critically important research needs;

(2) can be conducted without adversel y affecting the overall
status and trends of the stock in question or the success
of the comprehensive assessment of such stock;

(3) addresses a question or questions that cannot be answered
by analysis of existing data and/or use of non-lethal
research techniques; and

(4) is likely to yield results leading to reliable answers
to the question or questions being addressed.

The proposed resolution also: (a) requested that the
Scientific Committee provide the IWC with its views as to
whether the research satisfies those and other relevant cri-
teria; (b) sought agreement that, beginning withits Thirty-
ninth meeting, the IWC would annually review the report of
the Scientific Committee regarding its views on special permits
for the killing of whales; (c) sought agreement that the IWC
would notify contracting governments if, in its view, ongoing
or proposed research did not satisfy the above criteria or
criteria in its 1986 Resolution on Special Permits; and

(d) re commended that, in exercising their sovereign rights,
contracting governments refrain from issuing or revoke permits
that the IWC considers inconsistent with the identified cri-
teria. The IWC adopted the proposed Resolution by a vote of
19 in favor, 6 against, and 7 abstentions.

During the 1987 meeting, two nations (Japan and the
Republic of Korea) submitted proposals to grant special permits
involving the killing of whales and one nation (Iceland)
provided information on an ongoing research program under an
existing special permit. The research programs were reviewed
by the Scientific Committee, which identified a number of
uncertainties regarding the various research protocols.
Consistent with the Resolution adopted at its meeting, the
IWC considered the relevant comments on the proposed and
ongoing research programs in the scientific committee's report
and, based on its review, passed three Resolutions recommending
that Iceland, Japan, and the Republic of Korea revoke or
refrain from issuing their respective special permits until
uncertainties identified by the Scientific Committee are
resolved to its satisfaction.

Related Activities

As discussed in previous Annual Reports, nations which
permit whaling or other activities to be carried out in a
manner inconsistent with the Schedule of regulations or con-
servation program of the IWC may trigger certain actions
under two U.S. laws -- the Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen's
Protective Act and the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Pack-
wood-Magnuson Amendment mandates a reduction by at least 50
percent in the allocation of fish that may be caught within
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone by any nation whose citizens
are certified by the Secretary of Commerce for directly or
indirectly engaging in fishing operations, trade, or taking,
which diminishes the effectiveness of the International Whaling
convention or its conservation program. Under the Pelly
Amendment, the United States may embargo imports of fish
products by any nation so certified. As noted in the previous
Annual Report, the Secretary of Commerce certified Norway and
the Soviet Union in 1986 for permitting their nationals to
continue commercial whaling contrary to the provisions of
Schedule paragraph 10 (e). During 1987, both certification
findings remained in place. Also during 1987, certification
and the exercise of sanctions under these laws were considered
with respect to Iceland and Japan.

Iceland -- At the IWC's 1985 meeting, Iceland submitted
a proposal for a four-year special permit (1986-1989) to take
80 fin whales, 40 sei whales, and 80 minke whales per year for
research purposes. This was about half its 1985 commercial

take. Because of concerns expressed by the IWC Scientific
Committee and a number of contracting governments about the
design of the research program and the appearance of continuing
commercial whaling under the name of research, Iceland refrained
from issuing its special permit and the matter was again
considered at the 1986 IWC meeting. During that meeting,
similar concerns were again raised by some members of the
Scientific Committee and the IWC. In response, the IWC adopted
a resolution calling upon contracting governments to utilize
whale.meat taken during research activities "primarily" for
local consumption.

Despite these concerns, Iceland, having met the IWC's
minimal informational and procedural requirements, issued a
special permit for the research program and whaling began
after the 1986 IWC meeting. The United States subsequently
advised Iceland that it would consider actions to certify
Iceland under the above mentioned U.S. laws if it failed to
abide by provisions in the resolution adopted by the IWC at
the 1986 meeting. There was no evidence that whale meat
taken during the course of Iceland's research program was
utilized "primarily" (more than 50 percent) for other than local
purposes and no action was taken by the United States to
certify Iceland in 1986.

As noted above, the IWC again reviewed the Icelandic
research program during its 1987 meeting. Consistent with the
Resolution on Scientific Research adopted at the meeting, the
IWC adopted a separate resolution on Iceland's research program,
requesting that Iceland revoke its special permit until
uncertainties identified in the report of the 1987 Scientific
Committee meeting had been resolved to the satisfaction of
the Committee. Under IWC rules of procedure, advice adopted
by the IWC in the form of resolutions are non-binding upon
members and, following the meeting, Iceland did not revoke
its special permit and Icelandic whalers resumed research
whaling.

In view of actions by Iceland and its whalers after the
1987 IWC meeting, discussions were initiated between officials
of the United States and.Iceland in July 1987 on Iceland's
research program and the possible imposition of sanctions
against Iceland under U.S. law. During the discussions,
there was a pause in the taking of whales by Icelandic whalers
and U.S. participants tried to secure Iceland's acceptance of
advice in the IWC's resolutions.

To provide advice on developing an appropriate U.S.
position with respect to Iceland's research whaling, the
Marine Mammal Commission wrote to the Acting Secretary of
Commerce on 14 August 1987. In its letter, the Commission
expressed the view that, although IWC resolutions are

100

non-binding upon its members, they do reflect the sense of the
IWC regarding appropriate conservation actions. Thus, if a
nation fails to follow a recommendation adopted in an IWC
resolution, that provides a reasonable basis for the Secretary
of Commerce to certify, pursuant to the Pelly and Packwood-
Magnuson Amendments, that the nation's actions are diminishing
the effectiveness of the IWC's conservation program. In the
view of the Marine Mammal Commission, while Iceland's actions
supported a certification action by the Secretary, it was
appropriate to enter into negotiations with Iceland to attempt
to secure their acceptance of the IWC resolutions. Therefore,
the Commission recommended that Iceland be advised that cer-
tification under the Pelly Amendment would take place if any
more whales were taken or if Iceland did not make clear its
intention to fully comply with all IWC resolutions within 90
days.

Discussions between representatives of the United States
and Iceland concluded on 9 September 1987 with a meeting in
Ottawa, Canada. Based on discussions during the meeting, it
was agreed that: (1) beginning in 1988, Iceland would submit
its research program for review by the IWC Scientific Committee
and would carry out the scientific recommendations of that
Committee; (2) the United States would not certify Iceland
for taking 80 fin whales and 20 sei whales in 1987, nor for
whales taken in 1988 and thereafter, as long as Iceland complies
with the provision of point 1; and (3) the Governments of the
United States and Iceland would cooperate with other IWC
parties to make recommendations regarding the structure of
the IWC Scientific Committee's process for reviewing special
permits for scientific research. The agreement was executed
through an exchange of letters between the Secretary of Commerce
and the Charge d'Affaires of the Embassy of Iceland in Washing-
ton, D.C., on 15-16 September 1987. By the end of 1987,
Iceland had taken 80 fin whales and 20 sei whales. No action
was taken by the United States to certify Iceland under the
Pelly or Packwood-Magnuson Amendments.

Jaipan -- As noted above, Japan submitted a proposed
special permit for scientific research for review by the IWC
and its Scientific Committee during the IWC's 1987 meeting.
The Japanese research proposal involved taking 825 minke
whales and 50 sperm whales from the Southern Ocean during the
first year of a multi-year research program scheduled to begin
in late 1987. In reviewing Japan's proposal, some members of
the Scientific Committee identified a number of uncertainties
about whether the proposed research could contribute reliable
results for the comprehensive assessment or other critically
important research needs. These uncertainties were discussed
in the report of the Committee's meeting and considered by
the IWC. Based on its review, the IWC adopted a resolution
at its 1987 meeting expressing the view that the proposed

101

resea rch did not appear to satisfy the criteria set out in
its 1986 Resolution on Special Permits or to be structured in
a way to provide information essential for stock management.
The resolution therefore recommended that Japan refrain from
issuing special permits for the proposed research until such
time as the Scientific Committee resolves its uncertainties
concerning Japan's research proposal.

In view of the comments and actions taken at the June
1987 meeting of the IWC, Japan developed a revised research
proposal following the meeting. A copy of the revised proposal
was provided for information and review purposes to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 15 October 1987 by
the Director of the Japanese Fisheries Agency. Among other
things, it proposed delaying research under the original
proposal pending results of a preliminary study to test certain
research approaches contained in the original proposal. The,
proposed preliminary study involved a reduced take of 300
Antarctic minke whales during the initial year of research
and omitted research on sperm whales.

To help review Japan's revised research proposal, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided a
copy to the Marine Mammal Commission with a request for com-
ments. By letter of 12 November 1987, the Commission advised
the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries that, in its view,
the revised proposal did not address the concerns raised by
the IWC Scientific Committee during review of the original
proposal. For example, the proposal did not elaborate on the
anticipated contribution to the comprehensive assessment and
it did not provide a clear indication of precisely what data
would be collected.

Shortly after providing the revised.proposal to the
United States in October, Japan submitted it to the IWC
Scientific Committee. Japan was anxious to start its research
program during the 1987-1988 field season, and it requested
that the Committee review the proposal before the end of
1987. The request was granted and, on 15-17 December 1987, a
special meeting of the Committee was convened in Cambridge,
England, for that purpose. Representatives for the United
States, including the Marine Mammal Commission, participated
in the meeting. Among other things, the revised proposal was
considered in light of the criteria in the Resolutions adopted
by the IWC for special permits at its 1986 and 1987 meetings.
Participants in the meeting were of differing views concerning
whether the proposed research program satisfied those criteria;
however, representatives of most the nations participating in
the meeting shared the view that it did not. A report of the
meeting was prepared and submitted to the IWC.

102

Under IWC rules of procedure, any commissioner may request
a postal vote on a proposed action by the IWC between its
annual meetings. In view of the results of the Scientific
Committee's review, the Commissioner for the United Kingdom
submitted to the*IWC Secretariat a proposed resolution recom-
mending that the Government of Japan refrain from issuing a
special permit for the revised research proposal until identi-
fied concerns of the Committee have been addressed to its
satisfaction. The proposed resolution was subsequently cir-
culated to the IWC with a request that votes on the matter be
returned by 14 February 1988.

At the end of 1987, the Committee's report and the
resolution proposed by the United Kingdom were being reviewed
by members of the International Whaling Commission, including
the U.S. IWC Commissioner. in addition, the Japanese whaling
fleet's factory ship left port in late December and catcher
boats were expected to follow shortly for the purpose of
carrying out the planned research. Therefore, the Department
of Commerce, the Marine Mammal Commission, and other involved
Federal agencies were monitoring developments closely at the
end of the year. In the event that Japan permits whales to
be taken in early 1988 under the revised whale research program,
the Secretary of Commerce will make a decision as to whether
Japan should be certified under the Pelly and Packwood-Magnuson
Amendments as having allowed whaling which diminishes the
effectiveness of the IWC's conservation program.

Litigation -- As noted in previous Annual Reports, a
number of environmental groups filed suit in late 1984 seeking
to prevent the Secretaries of Commerce and State from entering
into an agreement negotiated with the Government of Japan on
commercial whaling. Under terms of the agreement, which had
been negotiated in November 1984, the United States agreed
not to certify Japan under the Pelly and Packwood-Magnuson
Amendments in return for a commitment that Japan would phase
out all commercial whaling by 1988 and adhere to the moratorium
provision adopted by the IWC. The Supreme Court issued a
final ruling in favor the Secretaries on 30 June 1986.

In response to recent actions to authorize the Japanese
whale research program mentioned above, environmental groups
involved in the earlier litigation sought to have the 1986
Supreme Court ruling reconsidered. In its motion, which was
filed on 23 September 1987, the environmental groups claimed
that the defendants had misrepresented the agreement to dis-
continue commercial whaling by not disclosing that the Japanese
would continue to take whales for scientific research. They
claimed that this prevented them from fully and fairly present-
ing their case and had misled the Supreme Court. They also
alleged that newly discovered information supported their
motion for relief. on 18 November 1987, the District Court

103

ruled in favor of the Secretaries' finding that there was no
misrepresentation made to the Supreme Court and that the
plaintiffs had failed to present any newly discovered evidence
to support their motion. The motion was therefore denied and
no appeal of the ruling had been filed as of the end of the
year.

At the end of 1987, the environmental groups were con-
templating further litigation concerning Japanese research
whaling and the application of certification provisions under
the Pelly and Packwood-Magnuson Amendments.

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

The convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora regulates trade among signatory
nations in animals and plants that are or may become threatened
with extinction. The extent of trade control depends upon
the extent to which a species is endangered which, in turn,
is reflected by its inclusion on one of three Appendices to
the Convention. Species included under Appendix I are those
considered to be threatened with extinction; they also are or
may be affected by trade. Species on Appendix II are not
necessarily threatened with extinction, but may become so
unless trade in them is strictly controlled. Appendix III
includes species that any Party identifies as being subject
to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of
preventing or restricting exploitation and for which the
Party needs the cooperation of other Parties to control trade.
There are 96 Parties to the Convention, including the United
States.

Additions or deletions of species listed on Appendices I
and II can be made by agreement of the Parties and, in the
case of Appendix III, by individual Parties. Parties to the
Convention meet biennially to consider, among other things,
changes to the lists Of species in the Appendices. The Sixth
Conference of Parties to the Convention was held on 12-24 July
1987 in Ottawa, Canada. 'The Fish and Wildlife Service, on
behalf of the State Department, acts as the lead agency on U.S.
delegations to such meetings.

As noted in the previous Annual Report, on 4 December
1986, the National Marine Fisheries Service suggested to the
Fish and Wi ldlife Service that the United States submit a
proposal to the Sixth Conference to delete northern elephant
seals (Mirounga anggstirostria) from Appendix II. This proposal
was not put forward by the U.S. delegation, nor was it raised
by other delegations during the Sixth Session. At the end of
1987, however, it was the Commission's understanding that the

104

Fish and Wildlife Service would consider submitting such a
proposal to the Seventh Conference of Parties, scheduled to
be held in Indonesia in 1989.

With respect to other species of marine mammals, a proposal
was put forward by the Government of The Netherlands to list
both the Atlantic and Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) on
Appendix II. To assist the Service in developing a U.S.
position on this proposal, the Commission, in consultation
with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed the proposal
and available information on walrus populations in the Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans. Based on its review, the Commission
concluded that neither Pacific nor Atlantic populations of
walrus were in danger of becoming threatened with extinction.
In addition, existing and planned management programs in the
United States and other countries in which the species occurs
appeared to address adequately the concerns regarding native
taking and illegal trade. Therefore, on 28 April 1987, the
commission wrote to the Service recommending that the U.S.
delegation oppose the proposal put forward by The Netherlands.
The Service concurred with the Commission's assessment and a
U.S. position opposing its listing on Appendix II was adopted.

Of the nations that are Party to the Convention, five
have walrus populations and are known, in Convention parlance,
as walrus range states. During the Sixth Conference of Con-
vention Parties, representatives of these countries (Denmark,
Canada, Norway, the Soviet Union, and the United States) held
two informal meetings with proponents of the proposal to
review recent information on the status of the species and
applicable management measures. Representatives of the Eskimo
walrus Commission, the State of Alaska, and the Alaska Outdoor
Council participated in the meetings. Based on the information
presented and commitments made by the five range states to
carry forward certain research and management actions, The
Netherlands withdrew its proposal to add walrus to Appendix
II. The Canadian population, however, remains on Appendix
III. In further response to points raised during the various
meetings on walrus, representatives of the range states met
in Ottawa immediately after the Conference to discuss and
outline a procedure whereby current information on walrus
research and management might be exchanged regularly. The
Fish and Wildlife service is responsible for coordinating
U.S. response to the agreed exchanges of information.

The only other suggested change in the Appendices involving
marine mammals was a proposal submitted by the Government of
Switzerland concerning the West African manatee (TrichechUB
senegalensiB). This species is listed on Appendix II and, as
part of a ten-year review of the status of species listed on
the Appendices, consideration was given to removing the species
from Appendix II or transferring it to Appendix I. The United

105

States opposed both proposals. Based on information provided
by participants at the Sixth Conference of Parties, the pro-
posals were withdrawn, and the West African manatee was retained
on Appendix II. As a related matter, however, the Chairman
of the ten-year review committee proposed that the newly
established Animals Committee investigate and report on trade
problems as may exist for any of the four species of Sirenia.
The proposal was referred to the Committee for consideration,
and it is expected that the matter will be reviewed at the
next Conference of Parties in 1989.

The Convention for the Protection and
Development of the Mgrine Environment of the
Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention)

The Convention for the Protection and Development of the
Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, more commonly
known as the Cartegena convention, is a part of the Caribbean
Environment Program, one of 12 Regional Seas Programs developed
and sponsored by the United Nations Environment Program.
Regional Seas Programs are intended to protect marine resources
and habitat in selected areas vulnerable to pollution by
encouraging nations bordering the areas to commit financial
and human resources to cooperative research and management
programs. Each Regional Seas Program includes an Action Plan
outlining needed environmental projects (1._q., watershed
management, oil spill contingency planning, public awareness
campaigns, environmental impact assessment, and protection
and *recovery of endangered species) and a Convention to provide
a framework for agreement among Contracting Parties to cooperate
in protecting and managing the regional marine environment.

The Action Plan for the Caribbean Environment Program
was developed and approved in 1981. The Cartegena Convention,
which provides a complementry legal framework for the Action
Plan, was concluded in 1983 and entered into force in 1986.
Thirteen nations have ratified the Convention.6 At the end
of 1987, 33 states and territories were participating in the
convention.

The Convention calls for: cooperation in controlling
marine pollution from ships, land-based and atmospheric sources,
man-made structures at sea, and exploration and exploitation
of the seabed; protecting and preserving rare or fragile

6 At the end of 1987, parties that had ratified the
Cartagena Convention were: Antigua and Barbuda; Barbados;
France; Grenada; Jamaica; Mexico; The Netherlands; Panama;
St. Lucia; Trinidad and Tobago; the United Kingdom; the United
States; and Venezuela.

106

ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, and
endangered species; responding to emergencies caused by
pollution; assessing the potential impacts on the environment
from proposed activities and notifying any nation that could
be affected by such impacts; and cooperating in scientific
and technical matters, especially in the exchange of data
that may be pertinent to the objectives of the Convention.
The Convention also provides for concluding detailed agree-
ments, or protocols, as needs arise, to implement or augment
the Convention. To date, only one protocol has been adopted.
It provides for cooperation among Contracting Parties in
responding to oil spill emergencies.

Article 10 of the Convention calls upon Contracting
Parties to "take all appropriate measures to protect and
preserve rare or fragile ecosystems, as well as the habitat
of depleted, threatened, or endangered species" by establishing
protected areas. When the Convention was concluded in March
1983, a resolution was adopted calling upon the parties to
develop a protocol to provide protection for special areas
and wildlife in the wider Caribbean region. The resolution
encouraged "competent governmental and non-governmental or-
ganizations to prepare proposals for submission to the first
meeting of the Contracting Parties after entry into force of
the Convention."

The First Meeting of the Contracting Parties was held
jointly with the Fourth Intergovernmental Meeting of the Action
Plan for the Caribbean Environment Program in Guadeloupe on
26-28 October 1987. Prior to the meeting, a coalition of
non-governmental organizations, including Monitor International,
the Center for Environmental Education, Fund for Animals,
Friends of the United Nations Environment Program, and Widecast
Antigua and Barbuda, prepared and transmitted a draft Protocol
on Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife to the Contracting
Parties for consideration in accordance with the Resolution
mentioned above.

At the meeting in Guadeloupe, the Contracting Parties
noted the draft prepared by non-governmental organizations
and agreed that it would.be desirable to develop a protocol
on specially protected areas and wildlife. They also agreed
that it would be desirable to develop a protocol on land-based
rces of pollution. In addition, the U.S. delegation noted
the need to heighten awareness of the problem of ship-generated
sou

marine debris in the wider Caribbean region and the need to
formally adopt amendments to extend the existing Protocol on
oil spill emergencies to other hazardous substances.

The United States indicated a willingness to host a
meeting of experts in the U.S. Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico
in 1988 to prepare a draft protocol on specially protected

107

areas and wildlife for consideration at the Second Meeting of
Contracting Parties, to be held in Mexico City in 1989.

The area covered by the Convention includes habitat for
the endangered West Indian manatee, the endangered humpback
whale, and the Caribbean monk seal, which is widely believed
to be extinct. The Marine Mammal Commission believes that
identification and protection of important habitats are essen-
tial to the protection and recovery of these and other
endangered or threatened marine mammal species. In 1988, the
Commission will continue to work with the Department of State,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other
Federal agencies, and public interest groups to further develop
and implement strategies for protecting marine mammals and
their habitat in the wider Caribbean region.

108

CHAPTER VI

IMPACTS OF MARINE DEBRIS

The tendency of marine mammals, sea birds, turtles, fish,
and invertebrates 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 ingestion of plastic bags and other plastic materials
by 'marine life and the fouling of beaches and shorelines by
all types of flotsam also have become increasingly apparent.
Plastic debris represents a worldwide pollution problem that
may be particularly acute in certain ocean areas. For example,
in the North Pacific ocean, debris-related injuries and mor-
tality 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
attention on ways to better assess and reduce the extent of
the problem for marine mammals and other species. The Commis-
sion's past efforts have been discussed in its previous Annual
Reports. This chapter provides an overview of the problem
and related activities undertaken by the Commission and others
during 1987.

Background

Since the early 1950s, the use of plastics and other
synthetic materials has developed at a rapid pace. As these
materials have been used for more and more purposes, there has
been a corresponding increase in the amount 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 on the sea floor for years or even decades. As the
amount of such debris increases, so too does its threat to
marine mammals, sea birds, turtles, fish, and crustaceans.
These organisms become entangled in loops and openings of
floating and submerged debris and they ingest items, such as
plastic bags and small plastic objects, because they may
resemble natural prey. Animals that become entangled may
drown, lose their ability to catch food or avoid predators,
or incur wounds and infections from the abrasion 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, the deceptively simple nature of the

109

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, winds, 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 natural prey. Thus, encounters between certain
marine species and marine debris may be relatively common.
At the same time, however, evidence of such encounters may
not be readily apparent because animals affected at sea may
be consumed by predators, sink, or be widely scattered.

The potential magnitude of these effects became apparent
as a result of an International Workshop on the Fate and
Impact of Marine Debris held on 27-29 November 1984 in Honolulu,
Hawaii. As noted in previous Annual Reports, this Workshop
was convened under the direction of National Marine Fisheries
Service at the recommendation of the Marine Mammal Commission.
To help organize the Workshop, the Commission also provided
the Service witli terms of reference and seed money for its
organization and planning. The results of the Workshop,
which the Service published in a Proceedings volume, 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 related impacts on living marine resources.

In response to concerns identified during the Workshop,
Congress appropriated funds to the Service in Fiscal Year
1985 to initiate a responsive research and management program.
Congressional support for this Program has been carried forward
since then. In addition, other Federal agencies have become
increasingly involved in addressing related aspects of the
problem. For example, the Coast Guard and the State Department
have pursued efforts to ratify and implement Annex V of the
1978 Protocol Relating to the Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships, which, among other things, would
prohibit the disposal of plastics from ships at sea; the
Environmental Protection Agency has supported a study to
assess the nature and extent of problems created by plastic
pollution in the marine environment; and the National Marine
Pollution Program office has factored the problem of plastic
pollution into its Federal Plan for Ocean Pollution Research,
Development, and Monitoring.

The commission has assisted these efforts while also taking
steps to support related research and increase international

110

awareness and involvement. Among other efforts, the Commission
has: supported an analysis of domestic and international
authorities related to the problem of marine debris; funded
studies to document and clean up debris on beaches; provided
relevant background information for a global study of the
problem by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organiza-
tion; brought the problem of marine debris to the attention
of parties to the Convention on Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources for responsive action (see also Chapter
V); encouraged the Intergovernmental oceanographic Commission
to develop a manual on procedures for monitoring marine debris;
and provided information on the issue to scientists and govern-
ment officials in New Zealand and Australia.

Domestic Activities in 1987

During 1987, the Commission continued to work closely with
other Federal agencies to strengthen the effectiveness of
domestic programs in addressing problems created by marine
debris. Particular attention was devoted towards implementing
the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Marine
Fisheries service, assisting the National Marine Pollution
Program office in updating the Federal Ocean Pollution Research,
Development, and Monitoring Plan; and working with the White
House Domestic Policy Council in efforts to assess and strength-
en the response of Federal agencies to the marine debris
problem.

The U.S. Marine Entanglement Research Pgogra

For Fiscal Years 1985 and 1986, Congress appropriated
$1,000,000 and $750,000, respectively, to the National Marine
Fisheries Service to develop and undertake a Marine Entanglement
Research Program to improve understanding of and resolve
problems created by marine debris. In appropriating those
funds, Congress also directed that the Service consult with the
Commission on efforts to develop a plan for allocating monies
among priority research and management needs. The steps
taken by the Service and the Commission to develop this program
are described in the Commission's previous Annual Reports.
For each of Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988, Congress appropriated
$750,000 in additional funding to the Service to carry the
program forward and it again directed that allocation of
these funds be made in consultation with, and with the concur-
rence of, the Marine Mammal Commission.

As noted in the previous Annual Report, the commission
participated in a planning meeting held by the Service on 24-
25 September 1986 in Seattle, Washington, to begin identifying
tasks to be undertaken as part of its Fiscal Year 1987 Entangle-
ment Research Program. Based on results of that meeting, the

National Marine Fisheries Service developed a recommended
Program Plan, which it transmitted to the Commission on
12 January 1987.- The recommended Plan proposed allocating
$719,100 among 23 priority research and management tasks,
many of which were continuations of projects begun in previous
years.

Twenty-two proposed tasks were grouped into three cate-
gories with the remaining task addressing program administra-
tion. The first category, education and public awareness,
included six recommended tasks: continuing and expanding educa-
tion programs for three regions, the North Pacific, Gulf of
Mexico, and Northwest Atlantic; evaluating the effectiveness
of past education efforts in the North Pacific area; developing
a teaching unit on the marine debris problem for elementary
and secondary grade levels; and developing a procedures manual
for monitoring marine debris on beaches and at sea. The second
category, technology development and mitigation, included
three tasks: evaluating the feasibility of plastic recycling
systems; assessing potential onboard trash incineration systems;
and convening a marine debris research steering group meeting.

The third grouping of tasks included 13 impact assessment
tasks: monitoring debris and incidental take associated with
high seas squid drift net fisheries in the North Pacific Ocean;
continuing to collect and catalogue marine debris hazardous to
Hawaiian monk seals and other species in the Northwest Hawaiian
Islands; continuing.studies of debris accumulation rates on
Alaska beaches; monitoring rates of juvenile fur seal entangle-
ment on the Pribilof Islands; assessing the incidence of
entanglement in fur seal pups and juvenile female fur seals on
these Islands; comparing the behavior of entangled and unen-
tangled juvenile fur seals; continuing experiments to track
and monitor the movement of drift nets in the North Pacific
Ocean; monitoring stranded sea turtles along the southeast and
east coasts of the United States for evidence of debris-related
mortality; continuing efforts to monitor entanglement of
seals on the California Channel Islands; analyzing stomach
contents of sea turtles collected in the past along the United
States' east coast for occurrence of persistent debris; attempt-
ing to determine decomposition rates of derelict trawl netting
on Alaska beaches; assessing the extent to which debris accumu-
lates and affects marine life along lines of ocean currents;
and assessing the occurrence of plastics in stomachs of sea
birds caught incidentally in high seas drift nets.

On 9 March 1987, the Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors, wrote to the Service providing
comments and recommendations on the Service's Proposed Program
Plan. The Commission's letter noted that the program plan was
generally well done and that it identified many important tasks
needed to better define and resolve specific problems caused

112

by marine debris. With respect to five of the proposed tasks,
however, the Commission expressed the view that further con-
sideration was warranted prior to making final funding decis-
ions. The exceptions included the proposed task to evaluate
onboard trash incineration systems, the proposed study concern-
ing the occurrence of plastics in stomachs of sea birds, and
the three proposed tasks concerning entanglement of North
Pacific fur seals. Therefore, the Commission's letter recom-
mended that the Service proceed with implementing portions of
the proposed program plan but that further analysis and con-
sultation be undertaken with respect to the five noted tasks.

After further consideration, the Service and the Commission
agreed that, in lieu of support for the five proposed projects,
funds should be used to assess the distribution and amount of
floating plastic debris in the North Pacific Ocean, to complete
a cooperative study with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the
effects of plastic ingestion on Hawaiian sea birds, and to
undertake three alternative research projects on the entangle-
ment of.North Pacific fur seals in marine debris. The latter
three projects are discussed in greater detail in the North
Pacific fur seal section of Chapter II of the Report.

As noted above, Congress appropriated $750,000 to the
National Marine Fisheries Service for its Entanglement Program
in Fiscal Year 1988. To begin developing plans for allocating
these funds, the Service convened a meeting in Seattle, Wash-
ington, on 30 June-1 July 1987 to review the status and results
of tasks undertaken up to that point under the Entanglement
Program and to identify priority tasks for future funding.
Representatives of the Commission participated in that meeting
and, based on its results, the Service developed a proposed
Program Plan for Fiscal Year 1988. The recommended Program
Plan was transmitted to the Commission by letter of 4 December
1987 and, to assist the Commission's review, the Service's
Entanglement Program Manager reviewed the proposed Plan during
the course of the Commission's Annual Meeting in Miami on 10
December 1987.

The Service's proposed Fiscal Year 1988 Program budget was
developed at a level of $685,000 because of mandatory budget
reductions. The Service recommended allocating funds among
19 tasks, 11 of which would continue projects begun in previous
years. Those to be carried forward include: the education
and public awareness programs for the North Pacific, Gulf of
Mexico, and Northwest Atlantic areas; monitoring the high
seas squid drift net fishery in the North Pacific Ocean;
collecting and cataloguing marine debris hazardous to Hawaiian
monk seals and other marine life in the Northwest Hawaiian
Islands; monitoring pinniped entanglement rates at the Cali-
fornia Channel Islands; assessing the accumulation and disap-
pearance rates of.marine debris at selected Alaska beaches;

113

determining the extent to which marine debris accumulates and
affects marine life along the margins of ocean currents and
frontal zones; intensifying the collection and analysis of
stranded sea turtles along the Gulf of Mexico and Hawaii
coasts to assess entanglement-related injury and mortality
rates; and overall program management and administration.

In addition, support for the following eight new projects
was proposed: planning and organization for a second inter-
natio nal workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris to
be held before March 1989; an assessment of the feasibility
of manufacturing certain plastic items using technology for
controlled-lifetime plastics; assisting a remote fishing port
(Unalaska) in the Aleutian Islands with efforts to plan for
and develop systems to receive waste fishing gear and other
ship-generated garbage returned to port by regional fishermen;
two projects to assess the impact of entanglement on North
Pacific fur seals; an assessment of the effects of pollutants
along drift lines (j.g., lines of floating material concentrated
by winds, tides, or ocean currents) on sea turtles; and a
cooperative study with the National Park Service to assess
and monitor debris accumulation rates at national seashores.

At the end of the year, the Commission and its Committee
of Scientific Advisors were completing their review of the
Service's recommended Program Plan. Based on a preliminary
assessment, the Commission again found the Program Plan to be
well conceived and anticipated advising the Service, early in
1988, of its concurrence with all but the proposed fur seal
studies. As noted in the North Pacific fur seal section in
Chapter II, the latter studies will be considered at a January
1988 workshop scheduled by the Service to identify priority
research needs related to assessing fur seal entanglement
rates. Thus, the Commission expects to ask the Service to
provide it with final proposals for these studies immediately
after that Workshop. Among other things, the Commission also
expects to recommend that: the project plan for port reception
facilities at Unalaska be expanded to consider similar needs
at other regional ports (e.g., in the Pribilof Islands and
Port Mollar on the Aleutian peninsula); and that the cooperative
study with the National Park Service to monitor marine debris
at national seashores be'expanded to include other protected
areas such as coastal national wildlife refuges and national
marine sanctuaries.

National Marine Pollution Program Plan

Pursuant to the National Ocean Pollution Planning Act of
1978 as amended, the National Marine Pollution Program office
of the National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is
responsible for preparing a five-year Federal plan for ocean
pollution research, development, and monitoring. The plan,

114

which is updated every three years, includes an inventory of
existing Federal programs, an analysis of the extent to which
priority pollution problems are being addressed, and recom-
mendations for improving the overall effectiveness of Federal
efforts to study and monitor marine pollution issues. The
most recent Plan was completed in September 1985 and, as
noted in previous Annual Reports, the Commission participated
in a 1984 workshop convened by the Office to identify priority
marine pollution issues to be addressed in that Plan. During
the workshop, the commission representatives raised the problem
of marine debris as a significant marine pollutant and the
matter was subsequently addressed in the 1985 Plan.

A revised Federal Pollution Plan is scheduled for comple-
tion in September 1988. To help update it, the National
Marine Pollution Program Office convened a Workshop on National
Marine Pollution Problems and Needs on 10-11 June 1987.
Representatives of agencies and organizations from both govern-
mental and non-governmental sectors were invited to participate.
Five Working Groups were established, including one on Persis-
tent Marine Debris, to identify priority information needs
and suggest appropriate changes in related Federal research
and monitoring efforts. A representative of the Commission
participated in the Workshop's Working Group on Persistent
Marine Debris. During the Working Group meeting, the partici-
pants listed 14 types of persistent debris of particular
concern (g.g., fishing nets, fishing traps, plastic pellets,
strapping bands, etc.) and identified and ranked 31 important
research needs. The results of all five working Groups will
be incorporated into a final Workshop report, which will be
considered by the Office in developing the next five-year
plan. During 1988, the commission looks forward to working
with the office to ensure that the problems of marine debris
and plastic pollution are addressed in an appropriate manner
in the forthcoming plan.

Domestic Policy Council Task Force on Marine Debrig

On 2 April 1987, a letter signed by 30 Members of the
U.S. Senate was sent to the President. In their letter, the
Senators expressed their *concern about the increasing amounts
and effects of plastic debris accumulating in ocean and coastal
waters of the United States. Citing the broad range of sources
contributing to the problem (g.g., commercial and recreational
fishermen, recreational boaters, merchant and military ships,
sewage and storm water discharges, etc.) and the related
responsibilities of many Federal agencies (including those in
the Departments of Commerce, Interior, Transportation, and
Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency), it was
suggested that a high-level, interagency task force be estab-
lished to assess the problem and potential solutions.

115

The matter was referred to the President's Domestic
Policy Council which, in response to the letter, asked the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish
and chair an Interagency Marine Debris Task Force composed of
the principal agencies involved in addressing aspects of the
marine debris problem. Representatives of the Coast Guard,
the Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of Agri-
culture, the Department of the Interior, the Department of
State, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of
Management and Budget, the White House Office of Domestic
Policy, the U.S. Navy, and the Marine Mammal Commission were
asked to participate. The Task Force's charge was to prepare
a report for the Council by April 1988 which would assess the
problem and the need for research, identify potential reduction
measures, and consider alternative actions to address the
problem of plastic marine pollution.

A representative from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration was designated as Task Force Director and a
representative of the Environmental Protection Agency was
designated as Deputy Director. The Task Force met several
times during the latter half of 1987 to develop a work plan
for its activities, to consider priority research and management
needs, and to carry out other related responsibilities. At
the end of 1987, the Commission looked forward to continuing
participation on the Task Force and to assisting as possible
with preparation of its report to the Domestic Policy Council.

U.S. Efforts To Ratify MARPOL An nex V

Annex V of the 1978 Protocol Relating to the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973
(MARPOL 73/78) would provide an international regulatory
framework for controlling the disposal of garbage from ships.
Among other things, it would prohibit, with certain exceptions,
11 ... the disposal of all plastics, including but not limited
to synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets, and plastic garbage
bags... 11 into the sea from ships. This provision would be a
significant contribution to efforts to reduce the marine
debris problem; however, criteria established for its entry
into force (see below) had not been met as of the end of
1986, nor had the necessary steps been taken to ratify the
Annex in the United States.

As noted in its Annual Reports for 1985 and 1986, the
importance of Annex V provisions prompted the Marine Mammal
Commission to recommend that steps be taken by the U.S. Coast
Guard and the State Department to have it ratified by the
U.S. Government. Both agencies shared the Commission's appre-
ciation of the need for action and, as of the end of 1986,
the State Department and the Coast Guard were completing the
necessary documentation for review by the President and tran-

116

smittal to the Senate for its advice and consent. By letter
of 21 January 1987, the Secretary of State advised the President
that Annex V had the support of the Coast Guard, the Marine
mammal commission, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration, other involved Federal agencies, the environmental
community, and the maritime industry. He recommended that
the Annex be transmitted to the Senate for its early advice
and consent. The President concurred with the recommendation
and, on 9 February 1987, transmitted the Annex to the Senate.
In so-doing, the President noted that its entry into force
was an important step for controlling and preventing pollution
from disposal of ship-generated garbage at sea.

On 5 November 1987, the Senate voted unanimously to
adopt a resolution that it provide its advice and consent to
ratify Annex V. In taking this action, the Senate recognized
that Annex V provided for the designation of "Special Areas"
in which dumping of all garbage is prohibited, except for
food wastes beyond 12 nautical miles from the nearest land.
In this regard, the Senate called attention to the large
amount of ship- and platform-generated debris washing up on
U.S. beaches along the Gulf of Mexico, particularly on the
Texas shoreline, and the large numbers of endangered sea
turtles that inhabit the Gulf and are susceptible to adverse
interactions with debris. In view of this provision and the
noted problems, the Senate included an understanding in its
resolution that the U.S. Government would make every reasonable
effort to designate the Gulf of Mexico as a Special Area
under this Annex.

The final step in the ratification process is depositing
the instrument of ratification with the Convention's Secretariat
(the International Maritime organization), thereby providing
official notice that the United States accepts the obligations
associated with implementing requirements set forth in the
Annex. On 2 December 1987, the President signed the instrument
of ratification. However, it is U.S. policy not to deposit
such an instrument unless domestic legislation is in place to
authorize all actions required to carry out an agreement's
provisions. At the time the Senate provided its advice and
consent on Annex V, U.S.-law did not provide authority for
regulating garbage disposal from ships in U.S. waters as set
forth in the Annex.

Therefore, the step of depositing the instrument of
ratification was not taken until Congress had passed, and the
President had signed, the implementing legislation necessary
to carry out the requirements of Annex V. Final Congressional
action on the matter was taken on 18 and 19 December 1987
when the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively,
passed H.R. 3674. Title II of the bill, entitled the "Marine
Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987,11 provides

117

the authority necessary to implement requirements of Annex V
by amending the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. The bill
was then sent to the President, who signed it into law on 29
December 1987. With final action on the implementing legisla-
tion completed, the President transmitted the instrument of
ratification to the Secretary of the International Maritime
Organization on 30 December 1987 and the United States thereby
became the 31st nation to ratify MARPOL Annex V. The inter-
national implications of this are discussed below.

In order to carry out the requirements of the new domestic
implementing legislation for Annex V, the Coast Guard will be
preparing regulations under its authority during 1988. At
the end of 1987, the Commission looked forward to assisting
the Coast Guard with this effort.

International Activities

Plastic debris enters the world's oceans from ships and
coastlines of all coastal nations. Many of the Most harmful
plastic materials may drift on ocean currents hundreds or
thousands of miles from their points of origin. Therefore,
succes9ful resolution of the marine debris problem requires
cooperative action at the international level. To facilitate
responsive international actions, the Commission, in cooperation
with other agencies and organizations, undertook the following
actions in 1987.

North Pacific Rim Fishermen's Conference

Lost and discarded fishing gear is among the types of
marine debris that pose the greatest risk of entangling marine
mammals and other marine life. As noted above, problems may
be particularly significant in the North Pacific Ocean and
Bering Sea because of the extensive commercial fisheries in
those waters. As concern about the effects of fishing debris
in these areas has increased, regional fishing industry organi-
zations have responded with constructive actions to help address
the problem. one particularly noteworthy effort was the
North Pacific Rim Fishermen's Conference on Marine Debris on
13-16 October 1987 in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. The Conference
was sponsored by a consortium of fishing industry organizations
from Canada, Japan, the Republic of China, the Republic of
Korea, and the United States.

The purpose of the Conference was to review information
on the nature of the problems, legal requirements, responsive
actions taken by fishing organizations, and possible technical
solutions to the problem. The meeting was well attended by
representatives of more than 20 commercial fishing organizations
from the five North Pacific fishing nations, the scientific

118

community, and involved government agencies, including the
Marine Mammal Commission.

Among other things, the Conference highlighted needs
for: (a) continuing educational efforts, such as those being
supported as part of the Marine Entanglement Research Program,
to advise fishermen of the nature of the problem, applicable
legal requirements, and appropriate procedures to reduce the
problem; (b) developing and maintaining a research program to
monitor the amounts, quantities, distribution, and effects of
debri's so as to assess progress in cleaning up and reducing
the problem; and (c) improving shore-based trash reception
facilities. Fishing industry representatives at the meeting
also adopted a resolution committing their respective organi-
zations to support efforts to eliminate the disposal of plastic
materials at sea, minimize the use of supplies packaged in
synthetic material, promote local education programs on the
problem, secure early adoption and enforcement of Annex V of
the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships, and cooperate with local port authorities in
developing effective shore-based garbage reception facilities.

Planning for a Second International Workshop on the Fate and
Impact of Marine Debris

In November 1984, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
at the recommendation of and with the financial support of
the Marine Mammal Commission, took the lead in supporting and
convening a Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris
in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Workshop, based on terms of reference
developed and presented internationally by the Commission,
marked a turning point in perceptions of persistent marine
debris as a major ocean pollutant. The Proceedings of the
Workshop provided what continues to be perhaps the best single
source of information on the issue. Since that Workshop,
much has been done both in the United States and abroad to
further define elements of the problem and to describe miti-
gating measures. Recognizing the need to review the results
of these efforts so as to provide a basis for improving assess-
ments of the problem and redirecting future research and
management measures, the Commission wrote to the National
Marine Fisheries Service'on 26 December 1986 recommending,
among.other things, that a Second International Workshop on
the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris be convened in 1988. As
indicated above, the Service agreed with the Commission's
recommendation and programmed funds as part of its Fiscal
Year 1988 Marine Entanglement Research Program to begin planning
and organizing for such a Workshop in late 1988 or early 1989.

During 1987, the Commission started informal discussions
about the Workshop with people in the United States and abroad.
An overwhelming majority of those contacted expressed the

119

view that: the Service deserved much credit for its efforts
to convene the 1964 Workshop; substantial new data on the marine
debris problem had been developed since 1984; considerable
progress had been made internationally by organizations includ-
ing the International Maritime organization, the Food and Agri-
cultural organization, the Intergovernmental oceanographic
Commission, and others to recognize and address the issue of
marine debris; and a comprehensive international review of
the entire matter would be timely and provide substantive
guidance to the many research and management actions underway
or contemplated.

Therefore, the Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors, wrote to the Service on
29 December 1987 to provide further recommendations regarding
the Workshop. In its letter, the Commission noted that, if
possible, it might be preferable to hold the Workshop in late
1988 rather than in 1989. By doing so'I the Workshop would
coincide with critical planning periods associated with domestic
efforts to assess recommendations contained in the Marine
Debris Task Force Report to the Domestic Policy Council (see
above) and international actions to develop programs to imple-
ment requirements of Annex V of the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (see below). In
addition, because of the outstanding work done on the 1984
Workshop by the Service's Honolulu Laboratory, the Hawaii Sea
Grant Program Office, and the Steering Group organized by the
Director of the Honolulu Laboratory, the Commission recommended
that responsibility for planning and organizing the forthcoming
Workshop again be.vested with either or both the Laboratory
and the Sea Grant Program office, and that a Steering Group
for the Workshop again be established. With respect to the
Steering Group, the commission also recommended that represen-
tatives from Australia, Canada, England,.France, Japan, New
Zealand, and the Soviet Union, as well as the United States,
be invited to participate so as to ensure a broad interna-
tional focus.

MARPOL Annex V

As noted above, Annex V of the 1978 Protocol Relating to
the Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
would provide an international framework for controlling the
disposal of ship-generated garbage at sea. A summary of
discharge limitations under the Annex is provided in the
table on the following page. The discharge limitations and
other provisions of Annex V, which also include measures for
providing port reception facilities to off-load and properly
dispose of ship-generated garbage, offer an important oppor-
tunity for reducing quantities of potentially harmful marine
debris entering the marine environment. Therefore, the Com-
mission and other Federal agencies have worked hard in the

120

M@ MAN

SUMMARY OF GARBAGE DISCHARGE LIMITATONS UNDER
THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS (1973/1978)

Garbage Type All Vessels offshore Platforms and
outside Inside Associated Vessels***
Special Areas Special Areas**
Plastics, includes synthetic Dumping Prohibited Dumping Prohibited Dumping Prohibited
ropes and fishing nets and
garbage bags
Floating dunnage, lining, >25 miles offshore Dumping Prohibited Dumping Prohibited.
and packing materials
Paper, rags, glass, metal >12 miles Dumping Prohibited Dumping Prohibited
bottles, crockeryand
similar items

Paper, rags, glass, etc.,
comminuted or ground* >3 miles Dumping Prohibited Dumping Prohibited
Food waste not comminuted >12 miles >12 miles Dumping Prohibited
or ground
Food waste comminuted >3 miles >12 miles >12 miles
or ground*
Mixed refuse types More stringent More stringent more stringent
requirements apply requirements apply requirements apply

Comminuted or ground garbage must be able to pass through a screen with mesh size no larger than 25 mm.
Special areas are the Mediterranean, Baltic, Red, and Black Seas areas and the Gulf area.
Offshore platforms and associated vessels include all fixed or floating platforms engaged in exploration or
exploitation of-seabed mineral resources and all vessels alongside or within 500 m of such platforms.

United States and abroad to encourage ratification of the
Annex and preparation for its entry into force.

Entry into Force: Under terms of the Convention, Annex
V will enter into force 12 months after ratification by at least
15 nations, collectively representing at least 50 percent of
the world's registered commercial shipping tonnage. The
purpose of the 12-month waiting period is to allow nations
time to put in place the domestic programs necessary to imple-
ment,the Annex.

As of early December 1987, 30 nations representing 45.2
percent of the world's registered commercial shipping tonnage
had ratified the Convention. Five percent of the world's
commercial ship tonnage is registered with the United States.
Therefore, when the United States deposited its instrument of
ratification on 30 December 1987, the percentage of registered
commercial ship tonnage represented by ratifying nations
passed the 50 percent level, thereby satisfying the remaining
requirement for entry into force. As a result, all nations
which have ratified Annex V will be obligated to begin imple-
menting the provisions of Annex V beginning 31 December 1988.

23rd Session of the Marine Environment Protection Commit-
tee, 7-11 July 1986: To facilitate entry into force of the
Annex, the U.S. Government also assumed a leadership role on
the matter within the International Maritime Organization's
Marine Environment Protection Committee. The Organization
serves as the Secretariat for the Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships and the Committee has been assigned
responsibility for overseeing efforts to implement it. The
U.S. Coast Guard acts on behalf of the State Department as
the agency heading delegations representing the United States
at meetings of the Committee, which are held in London, England.
The Marine Mammal Commission and the National Oceanic and
'Atmospheric Administration have assisted the Coast Guard in
this work.

As described in its previous Annual Report, during 1986,
the Commission, in consultation with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, drafted an information paper on
the nature of the problem created by marine debris and the
importance of Annex V as a responsive action. The Coast
Guard submitted the paper to the 23rd Session of the Committee
in July 1986. The paper was well received and, in response,
the U.S. delegation agreed to provide a paper for the 24th
Session of the Committee in February 1987, describing actions
appropriate to take to implementAnnex V.

24th Session of the Maring Environment Protection Commit-
tee, 16-20 February 1987: To assist the U.S. delegation in
meeting its commitment, the Marine Mammal Commission, in

122

consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, the
National Oceanic-and Atmospheric Administration, and the
Coast Guard, took the lead in drafting a paper which was
submitted to the Committee by the Coast Guard in late 1986.
Among other things, the paper proposed terms of reference for
future work on the Annex as might appropriately be undertaken
by the Committee's Working Group on Optional Annexes, and it
also proposed that the Committee develop recommended guidelines
on actions to implement Annex V.

A representative of the Commission participated as an
observer on the U.S. delegation to the Committee's 24th Session.
During the meeting, the aforementioned U.S. paper and its
proposed actions on Annex V was referred to the Committee's
Working Group on Optional Annexes. Based on the proposal in
the U.S. paper, the working Group recommended adopting the terms
of reference for future work on Annex V. These call upon the
Group to: (a) review information on the nature and magnitude
of problems caused by ship-generated garbage; (b) review infor-
mation on the effectiveness of actions to implement Annex V;
(c) identify and recommend actions to reduce and monitor adverse
effects of ship-generated garbage; (d) identify and recommend
actions to facilitate development of adequate port reception
facilities; and (e) provide advice and recommendation on inter-
preting or amending the provision of Annex V.

The Working Group also concurred with the recommendation
in the U.S. paper to develop guidelines on implementing and
enforcing Annex V. To help prepare those guidelines, the
Working Group developed an annotated outline, with the following
major headings: training, education and information; minimizing
the amount of potential garbage; shipboard storage and handling
procedures for garbage; shipboard equipment and processing of
garbage; port facilities to receive garbage; and ensuring
compliance with Annex V.

The Working Group's recommendations for terms of reference
and developing guidelines on Annex V were adopted by the
Committee in Plenary Session and, to facilitate further work
on the matter, the U.S. delegation agreed to prepare a draft
set of recommended guidelines for consideration at the 25th
session of the Committee, subsequently held in December 1987.

25th Session of the Marine Environment Protection Commit-
tee, 30 November-3 December 1987: To help prepare for the
25th Session of the Committee, the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, in consultation with the Coast Guard
and the Marine Mammal Commission, took the lead in preparing
an initial draft set of guidelines on implementing Annex V.
By letter of 17 August 1987, the Marine Mammal Commission, in
consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, provided
comments to the Administration on an initial draft. The

123

initial draft guidelines developed by the Administration were
responsive to the advice provided by the Working Group on
Optional Annexes at the 24th Session of the Committee and
followed its recommended annotated outline. They provided
practical advice for ship operators, crew members, and Party
Governments on ways to ensure that requirements in the Annex
are met and they also included definitions of terms used in
the guidelines.

Among other things, however, the Commission noted in its
comment letter that the draft guidelines could be improved by
reorganizing and restructuring parts of the recommended guide-
lines and it suggested that the chapter on handling and storage
procedures for Bhip-generated garbage be expanded and rewritten
to present clearer advice on the matters of collecting, pro-
ceBBing, storing, and disposing of garbage generated aboard
ship. In this regard, the Commission provided a suggested
alternative draft text for this chapter.

The draft guidelines were subsequently revised by the
U.S. Coast Guard, taking into account relevant information
provided to.the United States through the Secretariat of the
International Maritime Organization by other contracting
parties. Most of the Commission's comments, including the
suggested alternative text for the chapter on shipboard garbage
handling and storage, were accepted and included in the final
draft guidelines, which the Coast Guard submitted to the
Committee in October 1987.

During the 25th Session of the Committee, the U.S. paper
containing the draft guidelines was referred to the Working
Group on Optional Annexes with a request that the Group finalize
the guidelines and pay particular attention to the definitions
contained therein. The Working Group reviewed the draft
guidelines and related papers presented by other nations.
The draft guidelines were very well received and, with the
exception of certain definitions and some further editorial
work, they were accepted in principle by the Working Group.
With respect to the definitions, the Working Group noted that
the inclusion of certain "oily rags" and "cargo associated
wastes" as garbage may create special disposal hazards which
port reception facilities' for garbage are ill-equipped to
handle. Although the Working Group was unable to completely
resolve when such wastes would be inappropriate for disposal
with other garbage at port reception facilities, it revised
these definitions to better address the identified concerns
and noted that a partial solution to the problem might be
addressed through development of a new Annex (Annex VI) dealing
with the disposal of cargo residues arising from the transpor-
tation of bulk solid cargoes.

124

Therefore' the Working Group recommended that the Committee
instruct the Secretariat to distribute the draft guidelines
as modified by the Working Group to the full Committee in
order that they may be modified as necessary and adopted by
the 26th Session of the Committee. It was also recommended
that the Committee members' views be sought on the development
and scope of a new Annex VI to address disposal of cargo
residues. There was unanimous Committee agreement on the
scope and content of the guidelines drafted by the United
States and the Committee adopted the recommendations made by
its Working Group.

At the end of 1987, it was apparent that the U.S. Coast
Guard had effectively precipitated constructive action, both
domestically and internationally, on the marine debris issue,
and that much of the credit for U.S. ratification and entry
into force of Annex V was attributable to its efforts. It
was, therefore, the Commission's intention to write the Chief
of the Coast Guard's Office of Safety, Security, and Environ-
mental Protection, who also serves as head of the U.S. dele-
gation to the Marine Environment Protection Committee, in
early 1988 to commend him and his staff. The Commission
looks forward to helping the Coast Guard in 1988 as it prepares
for the 26th Session of the Committee in September 1988.

125

CHAP TER VII

MARINE MAMMAL/FISHERY INTERACTIONS

Many marine mammal species may affect and be affected by
fisheries. For example, marine mammals may be disturbed,
harassed, injured, or killed, either incidentally or deliber-
ately, during fishing operations; they may take or damage
bait and fish caught on lines, in traps, and in nets; they
may damage or destroy fishing gear while trying to remove
bait or caught fish or when they accidentally become entangled
in fishing gear; and they may compete with commercial and
recreational fisherman for the same fish and shellfish
resources.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act recognizes that such
interactions can have significant adverse effects on marine
mammals, fish and shellfish stocks, fisheries, and the ecosys-
tems of which they are a part. The Act mandates that the
primary objective of marine mammal management should be to
maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem.
To reduce the possible impacts of marine mammal/fishery inte-
ractions on fisheries, the Act provides that marine mammals
may be taken incidentally in the course of commercial fishing
operations and that permits authorizing such take may be issued
to fishermen subject to regulations prescribed by the Secre-
taries of Commerce and the Interior. Regulations promulgated
by the National Marine Fisheries Service authorize permit
holders to take whatever steps may be necessary, up to and
including killing marine mammals, to protect their gear and
catch. The Act also specifies procedures for waiving the
moratorium on taking marine mammals to give consideration to,
among other things, the conservation, development, and utili-
zation of fishery resources.

To insure that marine mammal populations are not adversely
affected by interactions with fisheries, the Act: prohibits
the taking of depleted species and populations those
that are below their level of maximum net productivity); re-
quires that all feasible efforts be made to reduce to insig-
nificant levels the incidental killing and injury of marine
mammals during commercial fishing operations; and, requires
that, before waiving the moratorium on taking or issuing permits
authorizing the take of marine mammals during commercial fishing
operations, the Secretary of Commerce or the Interior must
determine that the affected population is at or above its
maximum net productivity level and will not be adversely
affected by the authorized taking. In addition, the Act
requires that, in cases where waivers are requested to permit
population reduction, the Secretary shall determine whether

126

it would be preferable to capture and transport the excess
animals to another location within the species' historic range
rather than killing them.

The Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals, has devoted
considerable attention and funding to efforts to identify,
assess, and resolve problems caused by marine mammal/fishery
interactions. Activities prior to 1987 have been reported in
previous Annual Reports. A brief summary of these earlier
efforts and a description of activities in 1987 follow.

Bagkground

Before passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in
1972, regulated and unregulated hunting, bounty programs, and
various forms of harassment were used in a number of areas to
eliminate or reduce marine mammal populations and thus eliminate
or reduce damage and loss of gear and catch being caused, or
thought to be caused, by marine mammals. Consequently, marine
mammal populations were reduced to and held at very low levels
in some areas. The Act imposed a moratorium on such taking
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 inter-
actions between marine mammals and fisheries, particularly in
the Pacific Northwest. In response to these reports, the
Commission, in December 1977, convened a workshop to gather
and review available information on the nature, extent, and
impact of interactions between fisheries and marine mammal
populations in Oregon, Washington, California, Alaska, and
Hawaii. The workshop concluded that the most acute problems
seemed to involve seals, sea lions, and the salmon gill net
fisheries in the Copper River Delta area of Alaska and the
Columbia River in Washington and Oregon (for more information,
see Mate, 1980, Appendix B). In response to the workshop
findings, the Commission, among other things, provided funds
to initiate assessment of the interactions problem in the
Copper River Delta (see Matkin and Fay, 1980, Appendix B) and
to begin development of a plan to assess and determine how to
resolve the interactions problems in the Columbia River and
adjacent areas.

As noted in previous Commission reports, additional studies
subsequently were initiated by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the North Pacific Fishery management Council, and
the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California.
These studies were intended to better determine the nature
and extent of certain interactions in the Bering Sea, in waters

127

off the U.S. west coast from Washington to California, and
off New England.. The Commission, concerned that these studies
might not be providing either comparable data or the types
and quality of data needed for decision-making, convened a
second workshop in October 1981 to review and determine what
steps should be taken to improve and coordinate ongoing and
planned studies.

Participants in the 1981 workshop concluded that: (1) it
is not possible to make broad generalizations about marine
mammal/fishery interactions in different areas and each situ-
ation must therefore be considered individually; (2) because
of the potentially complex nature of indirect (trophic) inter-
actions among marine mammals, fisheries, and fish and shellfish
resources, there is a substantial risk of making bad management
decisions; (3) to minimize this risk, 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 deal with, high priority initially should 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 lethal measures.

These workshop findings have guided subsequent Commission
efforts as described below.

Interactions in California Coastal Waters

Investigations to determine the nature and extent of
marine mammal/fishery 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 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 drift net and set net fisheries.

128

As noted in Chapter II of this Report and in previous
Annual Reports, the California Department of Fish and Game
and the California state legislature have taken steps to pro-
hibit the use of drift nets and set nets at certain times and
in certain areas to prevent or reduce the incidental take of
sea birds, sea otters, harbor porpoise, gray whales, and other
marine mammals. In 1987, the California legislature enacted
additional legislation extending the prohibition on the use
of drift nets and set nets and requiring the modification of
certain types of set nets to reduce the possibility of entang-
ling and killing gray whales. Also, as noted in previous
Reports, the National Marine Fisheries Service has modified
its regulations governing incidental take to allow owners and
operators of commercial passenger fishing vessels to use seal
bombs, cracker shells, and acoustic harassment devices to
prevent California sea lions from taking fish caught by pas-
sengers.

Although substantial effort has been devoted to determining
the nature and extent of marine mammal/fishery interactions,
relatively little has been done to identify and evaluate the
relative cost and benefits of measures that possibly could be
taken to avoid or reduce the adverse effects of interactions.
This fact 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 mammal populations.

As noted in the Commission's previous Annual Report, the
Workshop was held in San Francisco, California, on 26-28 March
1986. It was planned and supported cooperatively by the Comm-
ission, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Cali-
fornia Sea Grant Program, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Participants included
representatives of these agencies and representatives of com-
mercial fisheries, the academic community, and public interest
groups. The Workshop concluded that several fisheries and
marine mammal populations in California are being affected so
severely that measures may be necessary to reduce or mitigate
interactions. For example, the commercial passenger fishing
vessel fishery, the commercial salmon troll fishery, and coastal
set net fisheries are being affected substantially by California
sea lions and other marine mammals that take or damage caught
fish. Likewise, the incidental take of sea otters, harbor
porpoise, harbor seals, and someother marine mammal species
may have caused, or be causing or contributing to, population
declines.

129

workshop participants recognized that the prohibitions
on the use of drift nets and set nets in certain areas were
having an adverse economic impact on some fishermen. They
recommended that a feasibility 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 (g.g., Danish seines) to permit
resumption of halibut and other fisheries in areas where set
net fisheries have been prohibited to protect sea birds, sea
otters, harbor porpoise, and gray whales. Participants also
noted that studies should be done to identify factors (g._q.,
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.

Because of uncertainties concerning the effects of certain
fisheries on marine mammals, Workshop participants concluded
that survey, reporting, and observer programs should be con-
tinued and, in some cases, expanded to provide more reliable
information on the species, numbers, ages, and sex of marine
mammals being taken, both deliberately and incidentally, in
set net, drift net, troll, and other fisheries in California.
Participants noted that depredation by California sea lions
and harbor seals of fish caught in the party boat, gill net,
and salmon troll fisheries could be caused by a small number
of "nuisance" animals who have learned that food is easy to
find in the vicinity of fishing gear and vessels or by a general
cross-section of animals present in 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 concluded that additional
studies should be done to evaluate this potential. Finally,
the participants noted that long-term monitoring of both the
affected fisheries and marine mammal populations is necessary
to evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of
measures taken to avoid or reduce interactions.

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 expansion of
both domestic and foreign fisheries in these areas beginning
in the mid-1960s has increased the potential for marine
mammal/fishery interactions and has focused attention on pos-
sible competition between marine mammals and fishermen for
the same fish and shellfish resources. Because of the potential
interactions, the Marine Mammal Commission and the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council initiated cooperative efforts in
1980 to develop and implement an ecosystem approach to the
management of marine mammals and fishery resources in areas

130

under the Council's jurisdiction. As part of this effort,
the commission and the Council jointly supported a workshop
in October 1983 to review available information concerning
biological interactions among marine mammals and commercial
fisheries in the southeastern Bering Sea. Papers presented
during the Workshop indicated significant potential for inter-
actions between the following marine mammals and fisheries:

North Pacific fur seal groundfish, capelin, squid,
herring
Northern sea lion groundfish, herring, capelin,
salmon
Harbor seal groundfish, herring, capelin,
salmon
Spotted seal groundfish, herring, capelin
Beluga whale salmon, herring, capelin
Harbor porpoise groundfish, herring, capelin
Dall's porpoise salmon
Killer whale salmon
Gray whale salmon
Fin whale herring
Minks whale herring

Workshop participants concluded that available information
was generally insufficient to estimate accurately the impacts
of the interactions on the affected fisheries, fish stocks,
or marine mammals. They identified the types of research and
monitoring programs that would be necessary to determine the
nature, magnitude, and impacts of the interactions.

Northern Sea Lion/Fishery Interactions

As noted in Chapter II of this Report, comparison of
data from northern sea lion surveys conducted in the 1960s,
1970s, and 1980s indicate that there have been substantial
declines in northern sea lion numbers in several areas, par-
ticularly in the eastern Aleutian Islands and the western
Gulf of Alaska. The magnitude and cause of these declines
have not been documented and, in 1983, the Commission provided
funds to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to help
support a survey of Steller sea lion colonies affected by the
winter pollock fishery in the Shelikof Strait (for details,
see the Annual Reports for 1983 and 1984).

The results of these surveys and other information con-
cerning the demography and dynamics of northern sea lion popu-
lations were reviewed during the Workshop convened by the
National Marine Mammal Laboratory on 9-10 December 1986 to
assess the status of northern sea lion populations in Alaska
and the possible cause or causes of the observed decline. As
noted in Chapter II of this Report, the Workshop concluded
that the decline was continuing and probably was due to reduc-

131

tions in juvenile and adult female survival rates, the cause
of which could not be determined.

Given the Workshop findings, the National Marine Fisheries
Service announced on 24 April 1987 that it was undertaking a
status review to determine whether the northern sea lion should
be designated as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act and/or endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species
Act. As noted in Chapter II, this review was expected to be
completed by 30 October 1987, but was not yet available at the
end of 1987. When the status review is made available, the
Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, will review it and provide comments and recommen-
dations to the National Marine Fisheries Service as appropriate.

Killer WhAleZBlack Cod Fishery Interactions

In 1986, the Commission learned of a problem involving
interactions between killer whales and a developing black.cod
(sablefish) long-line fishery in Prince William Sound, Alaska.
As noted in its previous Report, the Commission wrote to the
National Marine Fisheries Service on 5 March 1986 requesting
information on what was being done to investigate and resolve
the problem. By letter of 13 May 1986, the Service advised
the Commission that: (1) it had been aware of the problem
since the fall of 1985; (2) the Service's Alaska Regional
office had let a contract to survey black cod fishermen in
Prince William Sound to determine the quantity of caught fish
being taken by killer whales; (3) the report from the contract
study indicated that approximately 25 percent of the fall
1986 black cod catch*in Prince William Sound had been lost to
killer whales, that a single killer whale pod appeared to be
responsible for the depredation, and that the responsible
killer whale pod had a mortality rate twice that of all other
pods in the area, probably due to shooting by fishermen; (4) the
Service had advised fishermen of steps that they were authorized
to take to protect their gear and catch; (5) the Service was
considering modifying the General Permit issued to the North
Pacific Fishing Vessels owners Association to allow long-line
and pot fishermen to take killer whales only by non-lethal
means; (6) a meeting had-been held at the National Marine
Mammal Laboratory on 21 February 1986 to identify steps that
possibly could be taken to prevent or reduce interactions;
and (7) no potentially effective and acceptable solutions were
identified at that meeting, and funding constraints prevented
the Service from undertaking any major new research at that
time. On 6 June 1986, the Commission advised the Service that
it concurred with the determination that it would be desirable
and appropriate to modify the general permit issued to the
North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners Association to allow long-

132

line and pot fishermen to take killer whales only by non-lethal
means. Recognizing that funding constraints limited the Ser-
vice's ability to undertake a major research program, the Com-
mission recommended that the Service: (1) consult bio-acous-
ticians, killer whale and other cetacean biologists, behavioral
experts, fishery gear experts, and the affected fishermen to
identify possible mitigation measures that would be effective,
but not kill or injure the affected whales; (2) based on these
consultations, design and seek the assistance of the affected
fishermen in carrying out field trials to assess the likely
cost and benefits of the possible solutions judged most pro-
mising; and (3) continue to survey fishermen, researchers,
and others working in Prince William Sound and other areas of
killer whale/fisheries interactions to better assess and monitor
levels of fish loss and killer whale mortality and injury.
The Service subsequently modified the general permit to allow
fishermen to use only non-lethal means to keep killer whales
from taking caught fish. It also continued survey efforts as
recommended by the Commission, but was unable to initiate
efforts to identify and assess possible mitigation measures.

The State of Alaska made funds available in 1986 to evalu-
ate possible mitigation measures. As noted in the Commission's
previous Annual Report, the extension agent of the Alaska Sea
Grant Marine Advisory Program in Cordova, Alaska, had a tele-
phone conference on 19 June 1986 with representatives of the
Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and several
other organizations to seek advice on how best to use the
State funds. During this telephone conference, Commission
representatives pointed out that: there are no obvious solu-
tions to the problem other than prohibiting long-line fisheries
at times and in places that 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 difficult
to overcome; better understanding of acoustic or other cues
attracting killer whales to vessels retrieving long-line gear
might suggest ways for avoiding or reducing interactions; and
a workshop involving the affected fishermen, cetacean biolo-
gists, acousticians, and other relevant experts likely would
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-injurious means
might be useful for preventing or reducing killer whale depre-
dation of caught sablefish. In addition, the National Marine
Fisheries Service extracted and analyzed data from existing
observer reports and asked observers placed aboard Japanese

133

lo ng-line vessels operating in the eastern Bering Sea to record
and report any interactions 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 of the
possible desirability of holding a workshop, as described
earlier, to identify research that would help to identify and
evaluate the likely cost and benefits of possible means for
avoiding or reducing interactions.

Subsequent discussions with personnel from the University
of Alaska Marine Advisory Program indicated that U.S. partici-
pation in the black cod long-line fishery in the Bering Sea
was expanding, and that foreign fisheries for black cod in
the U.S. Fishery Conservation zone were being phased out.
This shift could result in increased conflicts between killer
whales and the U.S. long-line fleet. Therefore, on 13 March
1987, the Commission wrote to the National Marine Fisheries
Service to find out whether the Service or the State of Alaska
would be able to place observers aboard U.S. fishing vessels,
as it had on foreign fishing vessels, and, if not, what steps
would be taken to assess and monitor the impacts of the inter-
actions on the involved killer whales, fisheries, and fish
stocks. The Service responded to the Commission's inquiry on
3 April 1987. In its response, the Service described steps
that it had taken to assess and resolve the problem, including
ongoing efforts to work cooperatively with the Alaska Fishing
Vessel Owners Association to obtain reliable information on
the incidence and impact of interactions in the southern Bering
Sea during the 1987 fishing season. The Service also noted that
it had not been possible to place observers aboard long-line
fishing vessels during the 1987 season, but the option was
available and every effort would be made to work with individual
fishermen in 1988 as needed. The Service also noted that its
Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center would provide a full
report of research activities as soon as data from the 1987
fishing season were provided by the Alaska Fishing Vessel
Owners Association.

In 1988, 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 necessary and appropriate
measures to prevent or reduce interactions between killer
whales and long-line fisheries in both Prince William Sound
and the Bering Sea.

134

PrOROsed Fishery-Related Amendments to the
-Marine Mammal rotection Act

At its 1986 annual meeting, the Pacific Marine Fisheries
commission constituted an ad hoc Technical Committee on Marine
Mammals to identify possible amendments to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. The Committee's draft report and comments
thereon were considered by the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commis-
sion at its annual meeting on 27-28 October 1987, a meeting
to which the Marine Mammal commission was invited and did
send a representative.

On 1 December 1987, the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission
distributed the final report of its ad hoc Technical Committee
on Marine Mammals. The report propoi-ed amendment of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act to: (1) "provide appropriate government
entities with the authority to lethally remove nuisance marine
mammals in limited situations where the conservation and pro-
tection of other significant resources is at risk" (without
having to seek a waiver of the Act's moratorium on taking);
(2) "provide marine mammals with the same system of protection
as provided other wildlife populations under the ESAII
(Endangered Species Act); (3) "provide the option for the
development of cooperative marine mammal management programs
by state and federal resource agencies"; and (4) "provide
funding for state agencies to participate in cooperative
state/federal programs."

In 1988, the Marine Mammal Commission will continue to
work with the National Marine Fisheries Service, state agencies,
fisheries and public interest groups, and the academic com-
munity to better define and seek solutions to problems being
caused by interactions between marine mammals and fisheries.

135

CHAPTER VIII

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 Commis-
sion, to develop regulations governing the incidental taking
of marine mammals by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States. It also calls upon the Secretaries, again in
consultation with the Commission, to develop effective inter-
national arrangements, through the Secretary of State, for
the purpose of reducing the incidental 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 dif-
ferent 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 decade, been the
subject of the most intense concern, attention, and contro-
versy. More recently, there has been concern over the inci-
dental taking of Dall's porpoises and other marine mammals 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 Conservation 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 1987 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 II of this Report. Interactions between fisheries
and other marine mammals are discussed in Chapter VII.

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 continued to
devote substantial attention to the issue in 1987. In 1986,
the U.S. tuna fleet reached the incidental kill quota of
20,500 porpoises in mid-October. As a result, the U.S. tuna
purse seine fleet was prohibited from fishing for tuna by
setting on marine mammals for the remainder of the year. The
level of marine mammal mortality observed in 1987 was con-

136

siderably lower than that for 1986 and there was no need to
prohibit setting on porpoise as was required in 1986. The
mortality of eastern spinner dolphins, however, was unusually
high and necessitated close monitoring to ensure that the
allowable level of take of 2,750 would not be exceeded.

The 1987 Fishing Season

The National Marine Fisheries Service issued final
regul'ations 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 indefinitely the annual quota, as well
as the regulations and the general permit, and added quotas
for eastern spinner and coastal spotted dolphins. 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 in the following table.

Estimated Incidental Take of Porpoise in the
U.S. Tuna Purse Seine Fishery
In the Eastern TrqRical Pacific Ocean

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 20,696
1987 13,992

Preliminary estimate

As noted above, in 1986, the U.S. tuna fleet reached the
allowable take level of 20,500 and was required to cease

137

setting for tuna on schools of porpoise. There are several
possible reasons-why the quota was reached. One is that the
tuna fleet experienced an increased number of problem sets
which resulted in abnormally high levels of take. Another,
perhaps more important, reason is that 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. Another possible
explanation for the high level of porpoise mortality in 1986
was the record high tuna catch rate of approximately 25 tons
of tuna per set. Large schools of tuna may be associated
with large schools of porpoise and, therefore, more porpoise
than usual may have been encircled per set. The large number
of tuna in the net may also have contributed to the high
mortality by making it more difficult to release porpoise
during the backdown procedure.

The preliminary estimate of porpoise mortality in the
tuna fishery during 1987 was significantly less than the 1986
estimate with a total of 13,992 porpoise killed or seriously
injured. In 1987, the catch rate of tuna was somewhat below
20 tons of tuna per set, well below the record level of 1986,
suggesting that a lower incidental mortality of porpoise may
be correlated with a lower catch per unit effort of tuna.

Despite the relatively low overall mortality observed in
1987, an unusually large number of eastern spinner dolphins
were taken. The 1984 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection
Act established a quota of 2,750 for the eastern spinner
stock and, as this quota was approached, mortality was estimated
by the Service on a weekly basis rather than the customary
biweekly basis. At the close of the season, it was estimated
that 2,688 eastern spinner dolphins had been killed or seriously
injured. In comparison, during 1986, when the overall quota
of 20,500 porpoise was reached, the estimated mortality of
eastern spinners was only 1,608. One possible explanation
for the high eastern spinner mortality is that tuna, and,
hence, fishing effort, were concentrated in the area of the
eastern tropical Pacific ocean where eastern spinner dolphins
are more abundant.

Questions concerning the methodology that should be used
to estimate porpoise mortality were raised by the Commission
and others in'1986. As a result of deliberations among the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the Commission, and other
interested parties, it was determined that the same methodology
that had been used previously would be used in 1987, but that
further review of alternative approaches would take place.
In addition, the Service decided to provide 100 percent observer
coverage for the first trip of the U.S. tuna fleet in 1987.
In response to comments from the tuna industry that the metho-

138

dology being used to estimate porpoise mortality tended to
overestimate the true level of kill and that the 1986 season
fas closed prematurely, the Service initiated a study of the
issue and set a target of 100 percent observer coverage through-
out the 1987 season. Preliminary assessments by the Service
indicate that approximately 95 percent of all U.S. sets in
1987 were observed. The Service, in cooperation with the
commission, is reviewing the data from the 1987 season to
better determine the optimal level of observer coverage and will
prepare a report of its findings in 1988. The Service has
set A target of 50 percent observer coverage for 1988.

As noted previously, the Service published emergency
interim regulations in 1986 that imposed a ban on catching,
possessing, or landing yellowfin or bigeye tuna from the eastern
tropical Pacific Ocean once the porpoise quota had been reached.
An exception to the ban was established for vessels that
voluntarily carried a National Marine Fisheries Service observer
to verify compliance with the prohibition on fishing on por-
poise. By letter of 3 October 1986, the Commission supported
the adoption of the regulations and recommended that permanent
regulations including similar requirements be established for
future fishing seasons. The emergency regulations went into
effect on 21 October 1986, and no additional takes of porpoise
were reported for that year. On 23 December 1986, the Com-
mission again recommended that the Service adopt permanent
regulations to enforce the quota. At the close of 1987, no
such regulations had been proposed by the Service.

At the end of 1986, the Service took the first step
toward establishing regulations that would govern the perfor-
mance of individual vessels and/or captains in the U.S. tuna
fleet by issuing a discussion paper on alternative approaches.
These performance standards, which would have been set forth
as regulations, were intended to address the problem that
arose in 1986 when certain vessels and/or captains experienced
exceptionally high kill rates. The standards would have been
implemented 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 inclusion,
on captains and/or vessels with poor performance records.

Early in 1987, the Service circulated a draft proposed rule
that would have established performance standards for operators
of U.S. tuna vessels. A report prepared for the Service by
Living Marine Resources, Inc., summarizing the U.S. tuna
fleet's performance for 1981-1986 and used in preparing the
draft proposed rule, was also circulated. The American Tunaboat
Association, on 6 February 1987, voiced strong opposition to
implementation of the regulations, stating that "there is no
significant, widespread skipper performance problem in the

139

U.S. fleet that supports the complicated and financially
burdensome regulatory process instituted by the draft proposed
rules." The tuna industry representative presented an alter-
native to the regulation of operator performance, proposing
.that the existing Expert Skippers Panel be used to address
the problems of disaster sets and under-performing skippers.
The Service asked the American Tunaboat Association to prepare
a more detailed proposal for distribution to interested parties.

The Commission, by letter of 8 April 1987, expressed its
desire to work with the Service, the environmental community,
and the tuna industry, in developing an effective performance
review program. In that letter, the Commission took issue
with the finding of the Living Marine Resources report and
the statement made by the American Tunaboat Association in
its 6 February letter that "problem performance...cannot be
predicted with any degree of certainty." The Commission
recommended that additional data be analyzed and noted that,
11(a]lthough additional review is necessary, it appears to us
that there is a pattern of predictability between problem
sets and skipper performance."

Also on 8 April, the American Tunaboat Association sub-
mitted its proposal, setting forth the criteria and procedures
that it believes should be used to evaluate the porpoise
mortality performance of vessel operators. Under the proposal,
the Expert Skippers Panel would review the circumstances
surrounding the trip in which a disaster set occurred, would
consider other relevant factors such as the operator's ex-
perience, and would work with the operator to improve perfor-
mance. If performance problems recur, the Service could
sanction the operator by suspending his Certificate of
Inclusion. The Service, by letter of 20 May, indicated that
the proposal was a good beginning toward resolving how it
might use the recommendations of the American Tunaboat Assoc-
iation and the Expert Skippers Panel in addressing problem
performance. In its letter, the Service posed several questions
to the American Tunaboat Association in an effort to clarify
various aspects of the proposal. No further action had been
taken by the end of 1987.

Foreign Nation Compliance Programs

During the 1984 reauthorization hearings on the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, concern was expressed by the Commission,
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 believed that, if further progress were to be made in
achieving the Act's goal of reducing incidental mortality to
insignificant levels approaching zero, foreign fleets would

140

have to comply with porpoise saving regulations similar to
those applicable-to the U.S. fleet. As a 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 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 to the service urging
that it promulgate regulations to implement the foreign nation
certification requirements of the amendments. The Commission
noted that prompt action was needed because the Service's
existing foreign nation reporting and certification standards
were not as stringent as those required by the 1984 amendments.
Concerned about the lack of progress, the Commission wrote to
the Service again 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 1986, asking when the proposed regulations
would be published and requesting that a pre-publication
version of the proposed regulations be provided to the Commis-
sion for review.

While the Service was preparing its proposed regulations,
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 determination had
been made that Mexico was in substantial conformity 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 advised the
Service that, in its opinion, it was inappropriate to render
this decision under regulatory standards that were less strin-
gent than those established by Congress in 1984. It also
pointed out that the Service had not consulted with the Commis-
sion on the Mexican request and that it was not clear how the
certification 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

141

to use some, but not all, of the porpoise-saving devices and
techniques used by the U.S. fleet. No further action Was
taken in 1986 or*1987 with respect to the certification of
Mexico.

On 13 August 1986 the Service published in the Federal
Register proposed regulations to implement the foreign nation
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 unac-
ceptably 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 were expected to be
published early in 1987.

Because of comments received on the proposed rule, however,
several modifications and clarifications were being incorporated
before issuance of the final regulations. Publication of the
final rule was further delayed to accommodate consultations
between the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission seeking to devise a system
that would provide reliable data upon which to make comparisons
between the U.S. and foreign fleets. The Commission worked
closely with the Service during 1987 on various drafts of the
final regulations and, by' letter of 29 December 1987, recom-
mended to the Service that the regulations, with certain
modifications, be promptly adopted. Among the modifications
recommended by the Commission were that: (a) the comparability
of foreign and domestic kill rates reflect the variability
found in the U.S. kill rate and the number of vessels in the
foreign fleet; (b) the Service fully explain why the standards
it eventually adopts for foreign.nations are considered to be
comparable; (c) the comparison of porpoise kill rates between
U.S. and foreign fleets begin in 1988 and that full compara-
bility be required in 1989; (d) mortality data be provided by

142

foreign governments on a stock-by-stock basis; and (e) a
showing be made that tuna were caught when a positive finding
of comparability was in effect for the exporting nation before
tuna may be imported into the United States from that nation.
Publication of an interim final rule is expected in early 1988.

Research Activities and Planning

The 1984 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act
directed the National Marine Fisheries Service to undertake a
scientific research program, beginning on 1 January 1985 and
continuing for at least five years, to monitor indices of
abundance and trends in the porpoise populations affected by
the yellowfin tuna purse seine fishery in the eastern tropical
Pacific Ocean. In response to this directive, the Service,
in consultation with the Commission, the U.S. tuna industry,
and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, convened a
series of meetings in 1984 to plan the monitoring program.
However, as noted in the Commission's previous Report, funding
and logistics constraints prevented initiation of the program
in 1985.

With one exception, the planned program was initiated in
July 1986 in accordance with the plan developed in 1984. The
exception was that the Service was unable to deploy a helicopter
to assist in detecting, counting, and determining whether
porpoise are attracted to or attempt to avoid survey vessels.
The Service was able to deploy a helicopter as well as two
research vessels, the David Starr Jordan and the McArthur, to
conduct porpoise surveys and related oceanographic studies in
1987. The surveys, which began in July and ended in early
December 1987, covered an approximately five million square
mile area in the eastern tropical Pacific and provided aerial
photographic data necessary to calibrate shipboard estimates
of porpoise school size and calculate age composition of
schools.

The Commission was advised at its meeting on 10-12 December
1987 that the Service expects to be able to complete the
remainder of the five-year monitoring program as planned. In
1988, the Commission will review the results of the 1986 and
1987 surveys and, as appropriate, suggest changes to improve
the program plan.

The Dall's PorRoise 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 Convention
for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific, the Japanese
are permitted to fish for salmon inside the U.S. 200-mile

143

Fishery Conservation Zone. The fishery is subject to the
Convention, 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.

The Dall's Porpoise Permit. 1981-1986

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 by the National Marine
Fisheries Service in 1981 for the 1981-1983 fishing seasons.
Through the 1982 amendments to the North Pacific Fisheries
Act, which implements the High Seas Fisheries 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 was required annually to prepare a report on the
operations of the Federation during the preceding fishing
season and issue a detailed action plan concerning monitoring,
research, development, and other necessary actions for the
forthcoming season.

Under section 14(a)(2) of the North Pacific Fisheries
Act, Japan was required to have introduced new gear or fishing
techniques into its entire salmon drift gill net fleet by the
1987 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. In
1987, two types of nets were used. Twenty-one percent of the
fleet used nets with three strands of multi-filament material
along the midline of the net. The remainder of the fleet
used nets with three strands of hollow tube material along
the midline. It was hoped that these gear modifications
would make it easier for porpoise to detect and avoid gill
nets through echolocation. Preliminary reports suggest that
there was no significant.difference in take rates between the
two net types. Additional research is needed to determine
whether these modifications can effectively reduce Dall's
porpoise mortality.

Estimates based on U.S. observer coverage of the Japanese
fishing operations indicate that except through the reduction
of fishing effort, there had been no progress in reducing the
total level of Dall's porpoise mortality since the permit was
issued. Making note of this trend, the Administrative Law
Judge presiding over proceedings for the 1987 permit application
concluded that the Federation has been without success in

144

reducing incidental take. Estimates for incidental take in
each fishing season under the permit are as follows:

Estimated Incidental Take of Dall's PorROise
by the Japanese Salmon Drift Net Fishery
in the North Pacific Ocean

Year Estimated Take
1981 1,850
1982 4,,187
1983 21906
1984 2,443
1985 21760
1981 1,,456
1987 741

The low level of take in 1987 reflects, in large part, a
further reduction in fishing effort. The estimated take rate
in the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone before the 1987 season
has been estimated at 0.47 porpoise per gill net operation.
The mean observed take rate for the 1987 season was 0.26
porpoise per set.

The 1987 Permit

The extension of the 1981 general permit under the North
Pacific Fisheries Act expired on 9 June 1987. In order to fish
for salmon with gill nets in the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone
beyond that date, the Federation was required to have its
permit renewed, pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

On 21 July 1986, the Federation applied to the National
Marine Fisheries Service for a five-year general permit to
incidentally take 5,500 Dall's porpoise,'450 northern fur seals,
and 25 northern sea lions. By Federal Registe notice of 20
August 1986, the Service announced receipt of the application
and published proposed regulations to implement the permit.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the permit request
was issued on 29 August 1986.

Pursuant to section 103 of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, a formal rulemaking procedure was initiated on the appli-
cation. The parties to the proceeding were: the permit
applicant, the Federation of Japan Cooperative Fisheries
Association; several environmental organizations; the Kokechik
and Qaluyaat Fishermen's Associations, representing Alaska
Eskimos; the Marine Mammal Commission; and the National Marine
Fisheries Service.

145

The formal hearing took place in Seattle from 1-7 December
1986. TeBtimony-waB presented by expert witnesses for all of
the parties. 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'B porpoise be issued for two years, subject to research
and monitoring conditions. Due to the lack of reliable data
on the BtatUB of the affected Btocks, the Commission recommended
that the permit not be issued for northern fur Beals and
northern sea lions. It also recommended establishment of an
eCOBYSteM protection zone around the Aleutian Islands which
would be closed to gill net fishing by the Federation. The
environmental organizations and the Kokechik and Qaluyaat
Fishermen'B Associations OPPOBed issuance of the permit. The
National Marine Fisheries Service Bupported the issuance of a
five-year permit to take annually up to 4,200 Dall'B porpoise
and 450 fur Beals from the Commander Islands Btock.

Reply briefs were filed by all parties on 9 January
1987. In its brief, the Commission reaffirmed its earlier
positions and emphasized that quota reductions Bhould be
applied if the term of the permit was extended. On 23 January
1987, the Service published a Federal Register notice Betting
forth required statements on the BtatUB of the Commander
Islands fur Beal Btock. This action was necessary because,
during the rulemaking process, the Federation explained that
it was requesting permission to take fur Beals only from the
Commander Islands Btock, not the Pribilof Islands population
which the parties considered to be depleted.
The Administrative Law Judge issued his Recommended
Decision on 6 March 1987. He recommended that a five-year
permit be issued allowing the Federation to incidentally take
1,750 Dall'B porpoise and 45 northern fur Beals during 1987,
and that, for each of four Bubsequent years, the quota be
reduced by five percent from the previous year. He recom-
mended denial of the request to take sea lions. The Adminis-
trative Law Judge also made findings and recommendations
concerning permit terms and conditions and further research
needs, MOBt of which were Consistent with the Commission's
recommendations.

All parties filed exceptions to Administrat ive Law Judge's
Recommended Decision. In its 2 April 1987 brief, the Commission
urged that a permit be issued for a shorter period of time, that
fur Beals be excluded from the permit, and that the Aleutian
Islands ecosystem protection zone be established. It also
requested that additional emphasis be placed on developing
improved fishing gear and techniques to reduce incidental
take. The Federation filed numerous exceptions, including
objections to the Dall'B porpoise quota and the mandatory
annual quota reduction. The Eskimo fishermen'B groups and

146

the environmental organizations filed objections and argued
that the permit could not lawfully be issued because, among
other problems, it was certain that animals from species and
stocks not covered by the permit would be taken incidental to
the Federation's operations.

The final decision of the Under Secretary of Commerce
and the general permit were issued on 22 May 1987. The final
decision was published in the Federal Register on 28 May
1987. The permit was issued for three years and established
an aggregate three-year quota of no more than 789 Dall's
porpoise from the Bering Sea stock and no more than 5,250
porpoise from the North Pacific Ocean stock. During any
calendar year, no more than 448 animals could be taken in the
Bering Sea and no more than 2,494 from the North Pacific
Ocean. The request to take fur seals and sea lions was denied
on the grounds that the Federation had failed to meet its .
burden of proof to demonstrate that the affected stocks were
within their optimum sustainable population levels and that
the projected levels of take would not be to the disadvantage
of those stocks. The permit was subject to numerous condi-
tions, including requirements for observer coverage and gear
modifications. Under the permit, the Federation began fishing
within the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone on 12 June 1987.

Litigation

Shortly after the final decision, lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the
Kokechik Fishermen's Association, representing Alaska subsis-
tence fishermen; the Center for Environmental Education,
representing numerous environmental organizations; and the
Federation. Kokechik and the Center alleged that the permit
violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act because it covered
only Dall's porpoise when it is certain that other marine
mammals would be taken incidentally. They also alleged vio-
lations of the Act on other grounds, as well as violations of
the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative
Procedure Act. The Federation claimed that the denial of its
request to take fur seals was improper, that it was unlawful
to require the placement.of U.S. observers on Japanese vessels
outside U.S. waters, and that the quota levels were improper.
Subsequently, the Federation voluntarily dismissed its causes
of action on the observer coverage and the quota.

On 15 June 1987, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor
of Kokechik and the Center. The Court preliminarily enjoined
the permit and held that Kokechik and the Center had demon-
strated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of
their claim that the permit unlawfully allowed the taking of
one species of marine mammals, Dall's porpoise, even though
it was known that other species would be taken by the same

147

fishing operations. The Court denied the request of the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the Federation for a stay
pending appeal. However, the injunction was withheld for 20
days to allow the parties time to request a stay from the
Court of Appeals.

On 10 July 1987, the Federation requested a stay of the
injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit. The National Marine Fisheries Service
moved for expedited review and a stay on 13 July 1987, the same
day that the District Court's preliminary injunction took
effect. Both motions were denied on 16 July 1987. The Fede-
ration terminated its operations within the U.S. Fishery
Conservation Zone on 12 July 1987.

Oral argument was held on the Federation's and the Ser-
vice's appeals of the District Court injunction on 2 November
1987. Those appeals are limited to one of the issues raised
in the three lawsuits -- whether a permit may be issued for
one species when it is known that other species also will be
taken. The other issues raised in the District Court litigation
(inadequacy of the Environmental Impact St'atement, insufficient
scientific evidence to support the decision, ex Parte communi-
cations, failure to establish an ecosystem protection zone,
insufficient observer coverage, and failure to include fur
seals in the permit) were being briefed at the end of 1987.
If the litigation is not resolved in its favor before the
1988 fishing season begins, the Federation will be barred
from conducting operations within the U.S. Fishery Conservation
Zone.

Administrative Review and Research

In its 9 January 1987 reply brief to the Administrative
Law Judge, the Commission made numerous recommendations con-
cerning the research and monitoring conditions that should be
included in the permit. Most of these recommendations were
adopted by the Administrative Law Judge in his recommended
decision, accepted by the Under Secretary in his final decision,
and incorporated into the permit. The conditions included in
the permit are as follows: the costs of U.S. observers must
be borne by the Federation or the Government of Japan; U.S.
observers must be accommodated by the Japanese land-based
salmon and high seas squid gill net fleets; a report must be
furnished before 9 June 1988 as to the extent of the Japanese
high seas salmon gill net fishery before 1952; the quotas
must be reduced in proportion to decreases in Japan's salmon
quota set by the Soviet Union; randomness of observer placement
must be ensured; fur seals taken should be identified by
stock; observers should report lost and discarded nets and
plastic debris; research should be conducted on stock discrete-
ness; population assessment techniques must be refined; reliable

148

estimates should be made of Dall's porpoise biological para-
meters, including gross annual reproductive rate and natural
mortality rate; aind expanded research must be conducted by
the Federation on gear modifications, including studies of
the behavioral patterns of Dall's porpoise, mesh sizes, auditory
stimuli, sound generators, net setting and retrieval techniques,
and metal or metal particle filled filament.

In recognition of the importance of this research, on
20 November 1987, the commission recommended to the Service that
the annual report/action plan requirements of the North Pacific
Fisheries Act, which expired on 9 June 1987, be formally
extended for every year the Federation conducts activities in
U.S. waters. If this is done in accordance with the public
review requirements of the North Pacific Fisheries Act, it
should be possible for the Service, the Commission, and other
interested parties to monitor the progress being made in
fulfilling the Federation's research and monitoring permit
conditions.

In the 20 November 1987 letter, the commission also
requested that the Service comply with the North Pacific
Fisheries Act by preparing a report on the results of the
Federation's fishing activities for 1986 and publishing a
notice of availability of that report in the Federal Register.
Finally, the Commission requested information on the enforcement
actions taken by the Service with respect to unauthorized
incidental takes of marine mammals other than Dall's porpoise
during 1987 fishing operations. At the end of 1987, the
Service had not responded to this letter. The Commission
intends to pay particularly close attention to the implemen-
tation of the Federation's permit conditions during 1988.

149

CHAPTER IX

RESEARCH AND STUDIES PROGRAM

The Marine Mammal Protection Act requires that the Commis-
sion: maintain a continuing review of research programs con-
ducted 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 duplication of research. To accomplish
these tasks, the Commission: conducts an annual survey of
Federally-funded marine mammal research; reviews and recommends
steps that should be taken to prevent duplication and improve
the quality of 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 coordinate marine mammal research; and
contracts for studies to help define and develop solutions to
domestic and international problems affecting marine mammals
and their habitats so as to facilitate and complement other
agencies' activities.

Survey of Feder4llv-Funded Marine Mammal Research

Research directly or indirectly relevant to the conser-
vation and protection of marine mammals and their habitat is
conducted or supported by many Federal departments and agencies.
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 dupli-
cation, the Commission annually requests and reviews information
on the marine mammal research programs being conducted, sup-
ported, or planned elsewhere in the Federal Government.

In 1987, the Commission requested information from 22
Federal agencies and departments, at least 16 of which had in
the past conducted or supported research relevant to the conser-
vation and protection of marine mammals. Those departments,
agencies, and offices were the Department of the Air Force,
the Department of Energy, the Department of State, the Minerals
Management Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration, the National Institutes of'Health, the National
Marine Fisheries-Service, the National Park Service, the
National Sea Grant College Program, the National Science Founda-
tion, the Naval Ocean Systems Center, the Office of Naval
Research, the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management,
the office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, the Smith-

150

sonian 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.

Responses to the 1987 survey are due early in 1988.
After the information provided has been compiled and verified,
the Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, will evaluate the information and make such recom-
mendations as may be appropriate to better develop, focus,
and coordinate agency programs.

Research Program Reviews. Workshops.
and Planning Meetings

In 1987, the Commission, in consultation with its Committee
of Scientific Advisors, reviewed, commented on, and/or made
recommendations concerning: the harbor porpoise, Hawaiian
monk seal, North Pacific fur seal, Steller sea lion, entangle-
ment of marine mammals in debris at sea and on beaches, and
Antarctic marine living resources research and management
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 Management Service; and
the manatee, California sea otter, and Pacific walrus research
programs being conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Representatives of the Commission also convened, co-sponsored,
or participated in meetings and workshops to: (1) better
define and decide how best to meet essential information and
management requirements relating to: North Pacific fur seals;
right whales; gray whales; bowhead whales; bottlenose dolphins;
Alaska sea otters; marine mammal strandings; conservation and
research recommendations of the International Whaling Commis-
sion; the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); river dolphins; Steller
sea lions; entanglement; impacts of offshore oil and gas explor-
ation and development on marine mammals; and conservation of
seals and whales in the seas surrounding Antarctica; (2) deter-
mine the cause or causes 'of the bottlenose dolphin die-off
along the mid-Atlantic coast; (3) identify, evaluate, and
recommend safe and effective systems for radio-tagging and
tracking large cetaceans; (4) describe research, education,
and other programs necessary to protect the West Indian manatee
in southern Florida; and (5) review and evaluate the effective-
ness of the National Marine Fisheries service's Hawaiian monk
seal program in promoting the recovery of the species.

151

Commission-Sponsored Research and Study Projects

The Departments of Commerce and the Interior have primary
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 delegated 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 con-
tracted for more than 600 projects, ranging in amounts from
several hundred dollars to $150,000. The average contract
amount has been about $6,800. 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 tran-
sition 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;
$132,611 in FY 86; and $134,975 in FY 87.

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 trans-
ferred, 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 Commis-
sion. in many instances, this approach has made it possible
for agencies to start needed research sooner than might other-
wise 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
1987 are summarized below-. In those cases in which the Commis-
sion has jointly supported the work with other agencies, it
is so noted in the project summary.

Final reports from commission-sponsored studies completed
in 1987 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.

152

Survey of Federally-Funded Marine Mammal Research
(G. H. Waring, MD., Southern Illinois University)

Each year the Commission identifies and publishes a report
on the marine mammal research conducted or supported by Federal
agencies in the preceding Fiscal Year and that which is expected
to be conducted or supported by those agencies in the current
Fiscal Year. At the end of 1987, the agencies were responding
to the commission's request for information on their Fiscal
1987 and Fiscal 1988 marine mammal research programs. In
early 1988, the Contractor will prepare a report summarizing
information being provided by the agencies. A proof copy of
this report will be sent to the agencies to verify the accuracy
of reported data. After verification, the Commission, in
consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, will
review the report and, as appropriate, recommend actions to
agencies for better developing, focusing, and coordinating
their research programs. Copies of the final report will be
provided to agencies conducting or supporting marine mammal
research and will be available to other interested persons
and organizations through the National Technical Information
service.

Mid-Atlantic Die-Off of Bottlenose Dolphins
(Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.; J. E. White,
Virginia Beach, Virginia; and W. T. Wilkins, Eastville,
Virginia)

As noted in Chapter III, the Commission learned in late
July 1987 that unprecedented numbers of bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) had been washing up on Atlantic coast
beaches from New Jersey to Virginia. The Commission subse-
quently coordinated and supported efforts to organize an Emer-
gency Response Team in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to determine
the nature, extent, and cause of the die-off. As part of
this effort, the Commission provided funds to the Smithsonian
Institution to help cover the cost of recovering carcasses
and determining the age, sex, reproductive status, and other
characteristics of the dolphins found dead in the Virginia
Beach area. The Commission also paid for two small boat
charters for a live capture operation during which three live
animals, all showing symptoms of the secondary bacterial infec-
tion thought to be killing the dolphins, were captured,
examined, and released. As described in Chapter III, the
investigation is continuing with funding provided by several
Federal, state and private organizations.

153

Survey of Marine Debrig on the Coasts of Argentina
(R.N.P. Goodall, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina)

As described in Chapter VI, the Commission has played a
major role since the early 1980s in focusing domestic and
international efforts on assessing the extent and impact of
entanglement in marine debris, especially discarded fishing
gear, on marine mammals and to identify ways to reduce or
eliminate the problem. Little is known about the incidence
of marine debris in the Southern Hemisphere and no directed
effort has been undertaken along the Argentine or other coasts
of South America. The contractor is surveying selected beaches
in Argentina to determine the types and quantities of debris
present and to establish a baseline for detecting increases
that may result from developing fisheries. Information pro-
vided by the surveys should provide insight into the nature
and extent of the debris problem in Argentina and South America
in general. The contract report, expected in December 1988,
will be reviewed by the Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors, to determine any need for
further investigation or mitigation measures.

Overview of Federal and State Efforts to Protect Manatees and
Their Habitat in Florida
(J. E. Reynolds, III, Ph.D., Eckerd College, St. Petersburg,
Florida)

In 1986, the Commission provided funds for a review and
evaluation of actions taken since 1979 by the Federal Govern-
ment, the State of Florida, involved public interest groups,
and others to protect manatees and essential manatee habitats
in Florida. During review of the contract report, it became
evident that additional information and evaluation of ongoing
and planned research programs were needed. The contractor is
updating the previous contract report to include the additional
information and analysis. To assist in determining topics
that should be included in the revised report, representatives
of the Commission, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the State
of Florida, and the Florida Power and Light Company met with
the contractor on 9 December 1987 and developed and agreed on
a report outline. The report, which is expected in draft
form in February 1988, will be used by the Commission, in
consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, to
assist in determining additional research and management actions
necessary to help ensure the continued existence of manatee
populations in Florida.

154

Development of a Long-Term Conservation Plan for the Chinese
River Dolphin
(B. Wuersig, Ph.D., Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Moss
Landing, California)

As noted in Chapter II, the Chinese river dolphin (Lipotes
vexillifer), or baiji, is one of only five species of river
dolphins. Survival of the species is believed to be at risk
because of human activities. However, little is known about
the n'atural history and habitat requirements of the species,
knowledge of which is essential for development of sound conser-
vation measures. The contractor is conducting a site visit
to assist researchers from several Chinese universities in
developing and implementing a research program to assess the
movements and social structure of the baiji in the lower Yangtze
River. The contract report, expected in spring 1988, will
describe the results of the site visit, discuss critical
research and management needs, and identify any steps that
possibly could be taken by the Commission or other U.S. agencies
to encourage or facilitate actions necessary to protect the
endangered baiji.

Seminar on Frontiers of Marine Ecosystem Research
(American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Washington, D.C.)

The American Association for the Advancement of Science,
in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service's Northeast
Fisheries Center and the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods
Hole, Massachusetts, is organizing a Seminar on Frontiers of
Marine Ecosystem Research, to be held in Boston, Massachu-
setts, on 11-14 February 1988 as part of the Association's
annual meeting. The seminar is being co-sponsored by the
Association, the Center for Ocean Management Studies at the
University of Rhode Island, the National Science Foundation,
the Marine Mammal Commission, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service.
The purpose of the seminar is to review existing theory and
information concerning the structure and dynamics of marine
ecosystems and to call attention to the importance of collecting
long time series of fisheries, environmental, and other data
using the best available technology. The future of all marine
mammals will depend, in part, on identifying and protecting
key elements feeding and breeding areas) of the marine
ecosystems of which they are a part. Thus, the seminar results
will assist in determining and designing programs necessary
to understand and protect marine ecosystems and their component
elements, including marine mammals.

155

Workshop to Assess Possible Systems for Tracking Large Cetaceans
(A. Bruce, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach,
California; Ebasco Services, Inc., Bellevue, Washington; and
S. Montgomery, Woodstock, Virginia)

Reliable information on daily and seasonal movement pat-
terns is necessary to identify breeding, feeding, and other
areas that may be critical to the survival of endangered ceta-
ceans. Radio-tagging and tracking would be the most cost-
effective means for obtaining such information. To date,
however, efforts to develop safe and effective systems for
radio-tagging and tracking large cetaceans have had limited
success. The purposes of this Workshop, sponsored by the
minerals management Service and organized by the Marine Mammal
Commission at the request of the Service, were to: (a) deter-
mine what if any problems must be overcome to develop a safe
and effective system for long-term tracking and/or relocating
large cetaceans; (2) determine how, if possible, to best over-
come identified problems; and (3) estimate the time, money,
special equipment, and logistic support that would be required
to accomplish the identified tasks. The contractors assisted
in identifying potential workshop sites, provided logistic
support, and prepared the Workshop report. The Workshop was
held at the Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Seattle,
Washington, on 24-26 February 1987. The Workshop concluded
that: (a) tracking radio-tagged whales from satellites offered
the best potential for obtaining needed movement and related
data; (b) the technology is available to tag and track large
cetaceans using existing satellites; (c) problems with attach-
ment and retention of tags pose the greatest obstacles; and
(d) several possible alternatives to satellite tracking may
be useful in some circumstances and thus merit further investi-
gation and development. The Workshop report, which described
research necessary to determine whether and how the tag attach-
ment problems might be overcome, was provided to the Minerals
Management Service and is being used to determine how best to
facilitate further development and use of technology.

Ability of Harbor Porpoise to Detect and Avoid Live-Capture
weirs
(K.S. Norris, Ph.D., G.K. Silber, and R.S. Wells, Ph.D.,
University of California, Santa Cruz, California)

It is not known whether the harbor porpoise being caught
and killed in coastal gill net fisheries in central California
are part of a small local population or part of a larger popu-
lation that ranges north into northern California, Oregon,
and Washington. Since radio-tagging and tracking may be the
most cost-effective means for obtaining movement data necessary
to make this determination, the Commission contracted in 1986
for an evaluation of possible methods of capturing, radio-

156

tagging, and tracking harbor porpoise in central California.
The results to date of that study indicate that harbor porpoise
are able to detect and avoid live-capture weirs. This contract
provides for further study of harbor porpoise responses to
different types of net structure and lines to determine if
the responses suggest ways to alter fishing gear or practices
to reduce incidental mortality in set net fisheries. The
report, to be submitted by 30 September 1988, will be reviewed
by the Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scien-
tific Advisors, to determine how the results might be applied
to reduce incidental mortality in set net fisheries in Cali-
fornia and elsewhere.

Isolation and Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA from Tissues Col-
lected from Stranded Pilot Whales
(R.L. Honeycutt, Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts)

Effective conservation often requires knowledge of whether
animals from different geographic areas are from the same or
different breeding populations. Work at the University of
Michigan, supported by the Commission in the past, indicates
that analysis of mitochondrial DNA may be useful for identifying
discrete populations of bottlenose dolphins. To determine if
the technique may also be useful with other species, the Com-
mission in 1987 provided funds to assist the contractor in
isolating and analyzing mitochondrial DNA from tissues collected
from pilot whales stranded along the east coast of the United
States from 1981 through 1986. If this preliminary study
suggests that mitochondrial DNA might be useful in differen-
tiating pods and stocks of pilot whales, the Commission, in
consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, will
recommend that the National Marine Fisheries Service provide
support to analyze samples from past and future stranding
events to help determine the most reasonable pilot whale manage-
ment units.

Radio-tagging and Release of Rehabilitated Pilot Whales Stranded
on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. in December 1986
(New England Aquarium, Boston, Massachusetts; B.R. Mate, Ph.D.,
Oregon State University, Newport, Oregon)

In December 1986" three young pilot whales from a mass
stranding of pilot whales on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, were
brought to the New England Aquarium in Boston, Massachusetts,
for rehabilitation. By June 1987, the animals were judged
healthy and suitable for reintroduction to the wild. Although
substantial effort has been devoted in the United States,
Australia, and elsewhere to rescuing, rehabilitating and/or
returning live-stranded pilot whales to the sea, it is not

157

known whether these animals survive and are able to locate
and be accepted by other members of the species. To help
resolve these uncertainties, standard radio-tags were attached
to two of the whales and a satellite-linked radio-tag was
attached to the third before they were released east of Nan-
tucket, Massachusetts, on 29 June 1987. The Commission provided
funds to help support aerial and ship surveys to locate possible
optimal release sites (i.g., nearshore areas inhabited by
pilot whales) prior to the release and to attempt to relocate
and verify the health of the whales before expiration of the
70- to 90-day life expectancy of the batteries in the satellite-
linked radio. The transmitter functioned for at least 91
days during which 3,000 transmissions were received and 453
locations were determined. Efforts to visually confirm the
condition of the whale before expiration of transmitter bat-
teries were unsuccessful due to poor weather conditions during
the search period. The fact that transmissions were received
during the full life expectancy of the transmitter indicates
that at least one of the whales was alive and presumably healthy
at least 91 days after release. It also demonstrates the
value of satellite-linked radio tags.

Analysis of Blubber Samples Obtained from Gulf of California
Harbor Porpoises to Determine the Presence and Levels of
Environmental Contaminants
(J.A. Calambokidis, Cascadia Research, Olympia, Washington)

As noted in Chapter II, the Gulf of California harbor
porpoise is one of the smallest and rarest cetaceans. It was
listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1985
because of its limited numbers and the substantial incidental
take in totoaba gill not fisheries in the Gulf of California.
In addition, nutrient depletion and environmental contamination
may be affecting the harbor porpoise and its habitat. At
least 13 animals were caught and killed accidentally in the
spring of 1985 during experimental gill net fishing operations
for totoaba near El Golfo, Santa Clara, Sonora, Mexico. The
contractor is analyzing blubber samples from 8-10 of these
animals to determine the types and levels of environmental
contaminants present in the blubber. The results should provide
insight into the nature and significance of possible threats
to the species from environmental pollution.

Harbor Seal Trend Counts in Selected Areas of Alaska
(Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska)
From 1983 through 1986, the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game conducted aerial surveys of harbor seals hauled out
at selected sites in the Ketchikan and Sitka area of south-
eastern Alaska, in Prince William Sound, in the Kodiak Island

158

area, and along the Bering Sea coast of the Alaska peninsula.
Comparison of data from these surveys and surveys done in the
1960s and 1970s indicate that harbor seal numbers have declined
and may be continuing to decline in several areas. Follow-up
surveys of selected index areas should be conducted at regular
intervals to determine whether the population continues to
decline, stabilizes, or begins to increase. The National
Marine Fisheries Service was unable to provide funding to
continue trend surveys in 1987-1988 and the Commission provided
funds to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to help defray
the survey costs.

Review of Final Draft ReRort on the Sea otter in Alaska
(K. W. Pitcher, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage,
Alaska; L.M. Rotterman, and D.B. Siniff, Ph.D., University of
Minnesota)

As noted in Chapter IV, the Commission initiated efforts
in 1984 to develop species reports, with research and management
recommendations, for sea otters and nine other species of
marine mammals commonly found in Alaska coastal waters.
Reviewers' comments on'the draft sea otter report reflected
substantially differing views on priority research and manage-
ment issues. The Commission therefore organized and held a
meeting of the ad hoc sea otter working group on 24-25 Septem-
ber 1987 to better identify and resolve the differing views.
Following the meeting, another draft was prepared, circulated,
and approved after further revision. As noted in Chapter IV,
the species reports are expected to be published early in
1988 and to provide the bases for developing agreed research
and management programs for these ten species.

Review of Alaska Species Accounts with Research an4 Management
Recommendations
(J.W. Lentfer, Juneau, Alaska)

As described in the Commission's 1985 and 1986 Annual
Reports and in Chapter IV of this Report, the Commission organ-
ized and provided funding for groups of experts to prepare
reports describing the research and management programs neces-
sary to protect and conserve ten species of marine mammals
that commonly occur in Alaska coastal waters. The contractor
coordinated and participated in working group activities under
contract with the Commission from 1984 to 1986. In 1987, the
contractor reviewed and edited the working group reports and
compiled a single document suitable for publication. As noted
in the preceding project description, the report is expected
to be published early in 1988.

159

Analysis of Elephant seal Tag-Resighting Data from the Farallon
Islands
(H.R. Huber, Visiting Scientist, National Marine Mammal Labora-
tory, Seattle, Washington)

Tagging and observation studies of elephant seals on the
Farallon Islands off central California have been conducted
since 1974. The tag-resighting data have not been fully analyz-
ed and, in 1986, the Commission provided funds for analysis
to determine if there were any apparent changes in the juvenile
survival rates between 1974 and 1986. If the survival rates
varied or declined substantially, they may indicate an inverse
correlation with increasing population size (a density-dependent
response) and/or correlation with environmental variables (a
density-independent response). In 1987, the commission provided
funds for additional analysis, including assessment of the
possible effect of the El Nino event in 1982-1983 on the sur-
vival and emigration of immature elephant seals. The contract
report will be reviewed by the Commission, in consultation
with its Committee 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.

Assessment of Information and Programs Concerning the Incidental
Take of Sea Otters, Harbor PorRoise, and Other Marine Mammals
in California coastal Waters
(B. Heneman, Bolinas, California)

The coastal waters of California are inhabited by at
least 34 species of marine mammals, several of which have been
or are being affected by fisheries and other human activities.
In 1984, the Commission provided funds to review and evaluate
research and management programs bearing on these species
conducted by the Fish 4nd Wildlife Service, the National marine
Fisheries Service, and others. In 1987, the commission provided
additional funds to: review and advise the Commission on
actions that have been taken or are being considered by the
California Department of Fish and Game, the California State
Legislature, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and other
organizations to ban or limit the use of set nets in California
waters; assess what effect these actions may have on fisheries
development and on marine mammals including sea otters, harbor
porpoise, gray whales, and harbor seals; describe steps that
could or should be taken by the Commission to assure that
actions being taken or contemplated by other Federal agencies
or State agencies do not adversely affect marine mammals and
identify steps that could or should be taken by the Commission
to facilitate adoption and implementation of the Sea Otter Tran-
slocation Plan. Information and recommendations provided by
the contractor have been used by the Commission, in consul-

160

tation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, to advise
Federal and State.agencies as to steps that should be taken
to better protect and conserve marine mammals and their habitat
in the coastal waters of California.

Publication of Contract ReRorts
(National Technical Information Service)

Many of the Commission's contract reports are of interest
to organizations and individuals outside the Commission 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 Depart-
ment of Commerce, to publish and archive selected reports.
Commission reports available from the Service are listed in
Appendix B of this Report.

SRecial Research Concerns for FY 1988

As noted in this and previous Annual Reports, a substan-
tial amount of additional research is needed to more effec-
tively assess and determine how to deal with problems affecting
the conservation of marine mammals and their habitats world-
wide. As examples, additional research is needed to:

identify and determine how best to protect critical marine
mammal habitats (g._q., breeding and feeding areas of
manatees and dugongs, Hawaiian and Mediterranean monk
seals, river dolphins, and humpback and right whales)
that are being destroyed or damaged by human activities;

determine the cause(s) and how to stop and reverse the
continuing decline of North Pacific fur seal, northern
sea lion, and harbor porpoise populations in the North
Pacific and Bering Sea and the continued die-off of bottle-
nose dolphins along the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast;

identify and evaluate the relative costs and benefits of
possible alternative means for preventing or reducing
the at-sea loss and discard of fishing gear and other
persistent debris that pose hazards to marine mammals,
sea birds, turtles, fish, and mariners;

identify and evaluate the relative costs and benefits of
possible means for avoiding or minimizing the effects of
marine mammal/fishery interactions on the affected marine
mammals, fisheries, and fish stocks;

161

better assess and detect the effects of pollution and
activities such as offshore oil and gas exploration and
development on marine mammals and their habitat; and

develop better methods for assessing and monitoring the
status of marine mammal populations, determining habitat
requirements and essential habitats, and assessing and
detecting the effects of human activities on marine mammals
and their habitat.

As noted earlier in this Chapter, agencies such as the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, and the Minerals Management Service have primary responsi-
bility for ensuring that needed research and studies are done.
The Commission is responsible for assessing the adequacy of
the agency programs and for seeing that any additional work
is done which it deems necessary or desirable for meeting the
objectives of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. To meet its
responsibilities, the Commission, in Fiscal Year 1988, will
continue to hold workshops, convene plenary meetings, and
contract for studies to help identify potential solutions to
critical problems. In particular, the Commission expects to
organize, convene, or help support workshops, program reviews,
and planning meetings to: (1) facilitate development of a
long-range conservation plan for the North Pacific fur seal;
(2) expedite investigations of the continuing die-off of bottle-
nose dolphins along the U.S. Atlantic coast; (3) determine
further actions that usefully can be taken to prevent or miti-
gate problems being caused by lost and discarded fishing gear
and other hazardous marine debris; (4) identify and determine
how to avoid or minimize marine mammal conservation problems
being caused by fishery development, potential mineral develop-
ment, and other activities in the seas surrounding Antarctica;
(5) develop recovery plans for endangered, cetaceans; (6) assess
possible amendments to strengthen and improve the effectiveness
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act; and (7) improve planning
and coordination of marine mammal research and management
programs being conducted or supported by Federal, state, and
private organizations.

162

CHAPTER X

COASTAL AND OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

Activities and oil spills associated with exploration and
development of coastal and 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 develop-
ment. 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 Management Service
of measures that may be needed to assure that those actions
will not have adverse effects on marine mammals or species
listed as endangered or threatened. The Commission reviews
relevant policies and activities of these agencies and recom-
mends actions that appear necessary to protect marine mammals
and their habitats. The Commission's activities in this regard
in 1987 are discussed below.

Proposed OCS Lease Sale 097
Beaufort Sea

Lease Sale #97, tentatively scheduled for January 1988,
involves leasing up to 3,930 blocks (approximately 8.6 million
acres) of submerged lands in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas
off the North Slope of Alaska for the purpose of oil and gas
development. Eight species of marine mammals occur in the
area, including endangered bowhead and gray whales. The
Minerals Management Service's Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) on the proposed action, which was distributed
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 development 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, by letter
of 6 January 1987, provided comments to the Minerals Management
Service. In its letter, the Commission noted that, although
the Draft Statement considered many of the possible impacts of
the proposed action, there were a number of uncertainties
concerning the likelihood and extent of some potential effects
that were not fully understood. For example, the Draft State-
ment did not always recognize that the effects of an oil

163

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
noted that some potential impacts are difficult or impossible
to identify or assess from available information.

Therefore, in its letter, the Commission recommended that
the Minerals Management Service modify the Statement to acknow-
ledge.uncertainties concerning the likely effects of the
proposed action and that the Final Environmental Impact State-
ment consider: (a) the possible effects on polar bears of
garbage disposal from drilling platforms; (b) the possibility
that oil spills, disturbances, etc., will cause walrus, polar
bears, ice seals, and other species to move to adjacent areas
already occupied, thereby increasing animal densities in those
areas to levels that will damage or deplete food supplies;
and (c) the possible cumulative effects of subsistence harvest-
ing and other activities, as well as oil and gas exploration
and development, on bowhead and beluga whales, polar bears,
walrus, and seals. The Commission also recommended that the
Minerals Management Service consider developing and implementing
monitoring programs aimed at detecting unforeseen impacts
before those impacts can reach unacceptable levels.

Proposed OCS Lease Sale #109
Chukghi Sea

Lease Sale #109 is tentatively scheduled for May 1988.
It involves up to 5,448 blocks (approximately 29.5 million
acres) of submerged OCS lands in the Chukchi Sea off north-
west Alaska. Ten species of marine mammals, including four
endangered whales species (bowhead, gray, fin, and humpback
whales) are found in the sale area. The Minerals Management
Service prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on
the proposed action, which was distributed to the Commission
and others for review and comment on 6 March 1987. The Draft
Statement concluded that possible effects of the proposed
activities on all species of non-endangered marine mammals
and on the endangered bowhead and gray whales are likely to
be minor, and that possible impacts on the endangered fin and
humpback whales are likely to be negligible.
The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
scientific Advisors, reviewed the Draft Statement and provided
comments to the Minerals Management Service on 5 May 1987. The
Commission noted that the Statement provides a concise and
useful review of information on the abundance, distribution,
trophic relationships, and subsistence take of both non-
endangered marine mammals and endangered bowhead whales, and
that it also provides a reasonably thorough review of the

164

types and possible effects of oil spills and activities expected
as a result of the proposed and alternative actions. The
Commission also noted that some of the conclusions concerning
possible adverse effects on marine mammals appear to be specu-
lative and based on unstated assumptions.

With respect to potential impacts on both endangered and
non-endangered marine mammals, the Commission recommended that
the Draft Statement be modified to: (a) emphasize the impor-
tance-of post-sale monitoring efforts; (b) consider that, as
a result of the proposed action, animals may move into adjacent
and already occupied areas, thereby increasing animal densities
in those areas to levels which could damage or deplete food sup-
plies; (c) consider the cumulative impacts of oil spills and
disturbances on affected animals throughout their ranges rather
than just within and near the proposed sale area; and (d) con-
sider the possible cumulative effects of subsistence harvesting
and other activities, as well as oil and gas activities, on both
endangered and non-endangered marine mammals.

In its letter, the Commission further noted that the
Statement identified a number of potential mitigating measures
that could help reduce potential impacts on marine mammals and
other marine species. It recommended that these measures be
included as part of the proposed action.

Potential OCS Lease Sale #95
Offshore Southern California
During 1987, the'Xinerals Management.Service began the
planning process for proposed Lease Sale #95 in the Southern
California OCS Planning Area. The Sale is tentatively scheduled
for September 1989. The area under consideration involves
approximately 1,373 whole or partial blocks covering some seven
million acres, located from 3 to approximately 130 miles from
shore. In its 9 July 1987 Call for Information and Nomina-
tions, the Service asked the Commission and others to identify
any issues and areas of concern related to offshore oil and
gas exploration and development in the proposed sale area.

By letter of 24 August 1987, the Commission, in consul-
tation with its committee of Scientific Advisors, provided
the Service its comments and an outline indicating how offshore
oil and gas development could affect marine mammals. It its
letter, the Commission noted that noise and other disturbance
from seismic exploration, platform construction and drilling,
and routine operations may cause some species of marine mammals
to abandon or avoid important breeding, feeding, and haul-out
areas and migration routes. The potential effects of such
disturbances could equal or exceed those that might result
from catastrophic oil spills. Thus, the Commission stressed

165

the need to identify and characterize areas in and near the
proposed lease sale area that may be critically important to
the survival and welfare of marine mammals in the area.

The Commission further noted that, in addition to the
threatened sea otter, at least 30 other species of marine
mammals occur in or near the proposed lease sale area. Several
of these species are listed as threatened or endangered under
the Endangered Species Act. Other populations of marine
mammals, such as the Pribilof Islands population of northern
fur seals and the harbor porpoise population in central Califor-
nia, are either declining and/or near or below the lower
limit of their optimum sustainable population range. Thus,
the Commission suggested that, if it had not already done so,
the Minerals Management Service consult with the National
Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether the proposed
action could jeopardize fur seal or harbor porpoise populations,
and, if so, to identify steps that could be taken to avoid or
minimize possible adverse effects.

In its August 24 letter, the Commission pointed out that
several species of marine mammals in the sale area are affected
by interactions with commercial fisheries, whale watching opera-
tions, and other human activities. It noted that the Service
should factor the possible effects of these activities, as
well as oil and gas exploration and development activities in
other areas, into the assessment of the possible adverse
effects of the proposed action. The Commission again noted
that the risk of possible adverse effects might be minimized
by selecting and monitoring key "indicator" species and para-
meters as a means of verifying predictions and detecting
possible unforeseen effects in time to mitigate them. The
Commission suggested that, if the Service decided to proceed
with the proposed lease sale, the Environmental Impact Statement
should include a comprehensive description of monitoring studies
which would be carried out to increase protection of marine
mammals and important marine mammal habitats in and near the
proposed lease sale area.

Proposed opening of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to Oil and Gas Develoipment

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of
1980 set aside more than 100 million acres of land in Alaska
as national parks, preserves, wildlife refuges, and wilderness
areas. The Act recognized that significant oil and gas
resources could be present in the 1.5 million acres of the
coastal plain of the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge and
directed the Department of the Interior to conduct geological
and biological surveys of the area and to provide a recommen-
dation as to whether the coastal plain should be opened for

166

oil and gas exploration and development. The Department under-
took the studies as directed and, in November 1986, published
a draft report and legislative environmental impact statement
in which it recommended that the coastal plain of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge be opened for oil and gas exploration
and development. Among other things, the report indicated that:

fourteen species of marine mammals, including walrus,
beluga whales, polar bears, and the endangered bowhead
whale occur in or near the proposed lease area and
could be affected by oil and gas exploration and develop-
ment in the areai

many of the potentially affected marine mammal and
other wildlife species are hunted by Alaska Natives
for subsistence purposes and the availability of
these animals could be affected by the proposed action;

activities associated with exploration and development
could cause female polar bears to avoid or abandon
important donning areas, and/or attract polar bears
and increase the probability of both bears and oil
field workers being killed or injured due to interactions;

it in not known how many polar bears don in or near
the coastal plain of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge or
how disturbance and habitat alteration in the area,
combined with subsistence hunting, disturbance, and
habitat alteration in the Canadian Arctic and other
parts of Alaska might affect the size, age/sex
structure, and productivity of the Beaufort Sea polar
bear population;

an annual sea lift would be the most economical means
of transporting supplies, production/support modules,
and other cargo in and out of the Refuge, and it therefore
would be necessary to construct one or more port facilities
for this purpose;

development of port and other support facilities
likely would encourage other activities and additional
exploration and development activities in adjacent
offshore and onshore areas;

it is not known whether frequent or continuous
vessel operations would cause bowhead whales or other
marine mammals to abandon important habitat areas;
and

because the resource potential of the area has not been
verified, it is impossible to determine where or how

167

much development is likely to occur, and what or where
port facilities would be required.

Because of uncertainties concerning the nature and extent
of exploration, development, and related support activities,
and their effects on polar bears and other marine mammals,
the Commission advised the Department of the Interior, on 6
February 1987, that additional studies and assessments should
be conducted before the Refuge coastal plain is made available
for oil and gas exploration and development. In particular,
the Commission advised that further studies are necessary to:
determine the numbers of polar bears, bowhead whales, And
other marine mammal species that could be affected by explora-
tion, development, and related activities; identify the nature
of the potential effects, including possible effects on subsis-
tence uses of the affected marine mammal populations by Alaska
Natives; establish protective restrictions and mitigating
actions (if exploration and development is to occur); and
develop monitoring programs to detect possible unforeseen
effects before they reach unacceptable levels.

The Minerals Man agement Service's
Environmental Studies Progra

As noted above, the Minerals Management Service is respon-
sible for assessing and mitigating possible adverse effects
of offshore oil and gas exploration and development. To help
meet this responsibility, the Service has established an
Environmental Studies Program, which is administered regionally
by its OCS offices in New Orleans, Louisiana; Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia; 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 Scientific
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,. as requested, 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
pri vate agencies and organizations.

168

Workshop To Assess Possible Systems for Tracking Lgrge Cetaceans

Radio-tagging and tracking appears to offer the only
cost-effective way to obtain movement and related information
necessary to adequately assess the possible effects of offshore
oil and gas development and other human activities on endangered
cetaceans. The Minerals Management Service, the National
marine Fisheries Service, and other organizations have devoted
substantial effort to developing and testing technology and
techniques for radio-tagging and using satellites to relay
location and other data from tagged whales. These efforts,
although partially successful, have not demonstrated that a safe
and effective system has been developed. Thus, in late 1986,
the Minerals Management Service requested that the Commission
convene a workshop to: (1) determine what, if any, problems
must be overcome to develop a safe and effective system for
long-term tracking and/or relocation of large cetaceans; (2)
determine whether and, if so, how the identified problems
might best be overcome; and (3) estimate the time, money,
special equipment, and logistic support that would be required
to accomplish the identified tasks.

The Workshop, funded by the Minerals Management Service,
was held at the Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Seattle,
Washington, on 24-26 February 1987. Participants included
researchers who have been involved in radio-tagging cetaceans
and other mammals; representatives of organizations involved
in developing and manufacturing tracking equipment; and repre-
sentatives of the Minerals Management Service, the Marine
Mammal commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Navy, the British Sea
Mammal Research Unit, the Canadian Department of Fisheries
and oceans, and several state agencies. Participants concluded,
among other things, that:

there are at least two radio-tag types that may
be safe and effective for long-term satellite-linked
monitoring of whale movement patterns and related
behavioral characteristics. The first is a dart-type
projectile tag, which is shot from a bow or gun and
is imbedded in the whale with only the antenna protruding
through the skin. The second is a barnacle-type tag
which is attached, either remotely or directly, with
only the attachment mechanism penetrating the skin of
the whale;

a high-frequency, high-power-output transmitter certi-
fied for use with the Argos satellite detection-relay
system has not been and possibly cannot be configured
to fit into a projectile tag of the size range currently
being used for conventional VHF radio tags. Although
Argos-certified transmitters have been configured to

169

work in the barnacle tag, a cheap and effective system
for deploying barnacle tags at distances beyond five
meters has not been and possibly cannot be developed.
Also, it has not been shown that either the projectile
or the barnacle tag will remain attached and function
properly for the periods of time (I.q., one and a half
to eighteen months) necessary to obtain reliable movement
and related data or that radio tags will have no long-term
effects on the behavior or survival of the tagged whales;

to resolve the uncertainties concerning the safety and
effectiveness of possible systems for long-term satel-
lite-linked tracking of large whales, studies should be
done to: (1) determine whether an Argos-certifiable
transmitter can be configured to fit into an existing
or slightly larger projectile housing and, if so,
whether the tag can be implanted without seriously
injuring the target animal or damaging the transmitter;
(2) develop and test systems for attaching barnacle-type
tags to free-swimming whalesat distances beyond five
meters; and (3) determine how long both projectile and
barnacle tags will remain attached to various species of
large whales and whether the tags have any long-term
effects on behavior or survival; and

field trials to determine retention times and possible
effects on long-term behavior or survival should be
carried out on cetacean species that can be individually
recognized from natural marks and in areas where
relatively large numbers of individually recognizable
whales are likely to be present and which can be
easily surveyed.

The report from the workshop (see Montgomery 1987, Appendix
B) was published and provided to the Minerals Management
Service in April 1987. The Service is considering the workshop
recommendations and, in early 1988, is expected to issue a
request for proposals to undertake the studies described in
the workshop report.

Program Review by the National_ Academy of Sciences

when it was initiated in 1973, the Environmental Studies
Program focused on obtaining descriptive, baseline information
necessary to characterize outer continental shelf areas being
considered for leasing of tracts for oil and gas exploration
and development. The data from these studies contributed
relatively little to the decision-making process and, in
1976, the Bureau of Land Management (now the Minerals Management
Service) requested that the National Academy of Sciences
review and provide recommendations for improving the Environ-
mental Studies Program. The review was carried out by a

170

Committee appointed by the Academy's Environmental Studies
Board. The Committee's report, published in 1978, recommended
that: "The Program should (a) reallocate funds for greater
emphasis on study of onshore and nearshore impacts;
(b) formulate a program based on an adequate problem
analysis and relevance to policy decisions; (c) change
research management and procurement practices to assure
scientifically sound and useful results; and (d) adjust
responsibilities for environmental studies within the
Department of the Interior to facilitate effective use
of Program results."

The Bureau reviewed the Committee's report and modified its
Environmental Studies Program accordingly. Among other things,
the 'Bureau, in 1978, drafted study plans for each of the five
OCS regions and distributed these draft plans to the Commission
and others for review and comment (see the Commission's Report
for 1978).

The changes made in 1978 helped to define and accelerate
acquisition of information needed to make and assess the
possible environmental consequences of basic leasing decisions.
A number of lease sales subsequently were held and, in some
areas, both exploration and development activities have since
been authorized and undertaken.

As activities move from leasing to exploration and develop-
ment, data needs may change. To verify assumptions or hypo-
theses concerning predicted effects and to detect possible
unforeseen effects, it might be more cost effective, for
example, to select and monitor a few "index" species and
areas, rather than attempt to monitor each and every species
and area that could be affected directly or indirectly by
offshore exploration, development, or related activities.
Recognizing uncertainties concerning the continuing focus and
effectiveness of its Environmental Studies Program, the Minerals
Management Service contracted with the National Academy of
sciences again in 1986 to further evaluate the program. The
Academy has constituted a committee to review the program and
expects to complete its review and make recommendations to
the Service within two years.

The Commission believes that the program review is timely
and of great importance. It therefore will provide whatever
assistance possible to both the Minerals Management Service
and the National Academy of Sciences to insure that the study
properly reflects issues bearing upon the conservation and
protection of marine mammals and their habitat.

171

CHAPTER XI

MARINE MAMMALS IN CAPTIVITY

On 20 September 1979, the Department of Agriculture's
Standards and Regulations for the Humane Handling, Care,
Treatment, and Transportation of Marine Mammals went into
effect. These Standards were promulgated by the Department
of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act in response to
the Commission's recommendations of 20 October 1974. As
discussed in the Commission's past Annual Reports, they were
the subject of lengthy and extensive correspondence, consul-
tation, and rulemaking. '

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. These Standards apply
to research facilities as well. All persons or facilities
maintaining marine mammals in captivity in the United States,
be it 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 existing facilities, construction of new
facilities, or other actions necessary to achieve full com-
pliance.
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 applying the Standards and needed 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 amendments included
space requirements for primary enclosures for certain marine
mammals, new procedures for the granting of variances, construc-
tion requirements for housing marine mammals, requirements
for accompanying pinnipeds during transport, and specifications
for holding areas for marine mammals maintained in transpor-
tation facilities.

The commission works on an ongoing basis with the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to assist
in implementing the care and maintenance standards. In 1985,

172

for example, the four agencies sponsored a three-day training
seminar for Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service inspec-
tors to advise them of their duties and responsibilities with
regard to marine mammals and how best to meet them.

The Commission also occasionally becomes involved in on-
site inspections of marine mammal facilities. on 4 October
1985, representatives of the Commission's Committee of Scien-
tific 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
problems in complying with the Standards for the Humane Hand-
ling, Care, Treatment and Transportation of Marine Mammals.
The interagency team's findings were transmitted to the Depart-
ment of Agriculture's 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 allega-
tions. A consent order in this matter was issued on 24 July
1987. Under the terms of that order, the facility was assessed
a $5,000 civil penalty and was required to make certain improve-
ments in its structures and practices. Additionally, the
facility's operating license was suspended for 60 days and
thereafter until it demonstrated compliance with the Animal
Welfare Act and the applicable regulations and standards.

The Commission has convened a Working Group to address the
biological, behavioral, legal, and administrative problems
associated with captive reproduction, birth rate control in
captive populations, introduction of beached/stranded animals
into captive populations, and the release of captive-born
animals 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 administrative changes. Participants in the
Working Group include members of the Commission's staff and
the Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals. When
completed, a draft report based on the data collected will be
provided to other government agencies and interested parties
for review.

In 1987, the Commission staff's, utilizing data obtained
from the National Marine Fisheries Service, completed an
analysis of survival patterns of three species of cetaceans
in captivity (bottlenose dolphins, white or beluga whales,
and killer whales). The purpose of the study was to estimate
the average annual survival rate for each species to determine
whether survival rates are significantly different in different
institutions and to compare findings with the literature on

173

the survival of captive and free-ranging cetaceans. The
results of study show, among other things, that: an annual
survival rate in captivity of 0.93 for bottlenose dolphins
and killer whales and 0.94 for white whales; differences in
survival rates between institutions are significant for bottle-
nose dolphins only; calf survival for bottlenose dolphins is
lower than non-calf survival; and survival of male killer whales
is significantly less than that of female killer whales. At
this time, it is not possible to compare the survivability of
animals in captivity with that of animals in the wild.

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 impor-
tation 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 Com-
mission 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 recommendation that the standards be at
least as stringent as the corresponding provisions of the
Standards for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Trans-
portation of Marine Mammals promulgated under the Animal
Welfare Act. Final regulations were published by the Service
on 10 November 1987. With the exception of the Commission's
recommendation that marine mammals not be delivered to a
carrier more than four hours prior to the scheduled departure,
all of the CommissionIs recommendations were adopted in the
final rule.

Animal Welfare Act Amendments

The Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-188), enacted on
23 December 1985, included amendments to the Animal Welfare
Act. The main thrust of.these amendments was to enhance the
humane treatment of animals used in research by minimizing
pain and distress. Congress directed that the Secretary of
Agriculture promulgate standards with respect to animals in
research facilities requiring that: (a) animal pain and
distress be minimized; (b) principal investigators consider
possible alternatives to any procedure likely to produce pain
or distress; (c) veterinarians be consulted in planning poten-
tially painful procedures; (d) appropriate pain-killers be
used, and (e) except when scientifically necessary, no animal
be used in more than one experiment involving major surgery.
The amendments also call for the establishment of Institutional

174

Animal Committees at research facilities to inspect periodi-
cally all animal study areas and to review research practices
and the condition of research animals.

On 21 March 1987, the Department of Agriculture's Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service published proposed regula-
tions to implement the 1985 amendments and to update the
existing Animal Welfare Act regulations. On 10 August 1987,
the Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, provided detailed comments to the Service on the
proposed regulations. Among its primary concerns, the Commis-
sion noted that the definition of "research facility" contained
in the statute and the proposed regulations created some
ambiguity with respect to what facilities and what activities
come within the scope of the regulations. The Commission
recommended that the Service clarify the definition and sug-
gested that the substantive requirements of the regulations
should apply to all "federally funded research on marine
mammals and other animals or any research which involves the
purchase or transport of live animals in commerce." The
Commission further recommended that field research, not of a
biomedical nature and involving little or no pain and distress
in the subject animals, should be exempted from the regulatory
provisions. At the close of 1987, final regulations had not
been issued.

175

CHAPTER XII

PERMIT PROCESS

The Marine Mammal Protection Act placed 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.
Before acting on a permit application, the responsible regula-
tory agency is required to have the application reviewed by
the Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with its Committee
of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals.

ARRlication Review

The permit application and review process involves three
stages: (1) receipt and initial review of the application at
the Department of Commerce or the Interior, publication of a
notice of receipt of the application in the Federal Register,
and transmittal to the Commission; (2) review of the application
by the Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
Scientific Advisors, and transmittal of its recommendation 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 following is a schematic
representation of this process.

Applicant

Application rinal.Departmental Action

t t

Dept. of Dept. of Dept. of
Commerce interior interior Pt;ro'
Comm C

complete Application Commission Recommendation

Marine Mammal Commission

commLttee of Scientific
Advisors on Marine Mammals
EIF@@:D=epartm.,
p f
or
tiio
Inte

tio
ocmplete!Ap@plican

176

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 requirements, such as inspection of an
applicant's marine mammal holding facilities, that may be
warranted before a decision can be reached; and the efficiency
and thoroughness of those responsible for the agency review.

During 1987, the Commission made recommendations on 37
applications submitted to the Department of Commerce, includ-
ing eight applications that were received in 1986 but which
did not receive final action until 1987, and 13 applications
submitted to the Department of the Interior. The Commission's
average review time for complete applications was 46 days
(median, 37 days). Not included in the preceding statistics
are recommendations on eight applications that were awaiting
final action by the Department of Commerce and one application
awaiting final action by the Department of the Interior at
year's end and three applications that were under Commission
review at year's end. Also not included are two applications
from the Department of Commerce and two applications from the
Department of the Interior on which review was suspended at
year's end pending receipt of additional information. The
Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, also made recommendations on 26 requests to modify
permits and other related permit actions during 1987. The
average time required for commission review of these matters
was 25 days.

For the 37 applications processed by the Department of
Commerce during 1987, it took an average of 139 days (median,
112 days) from the date the application was received by the
Department until final action was taken. The 13 permit appli-
cations submitted to the Department of the Interior were pro-
cessed in an average of 107 days (mediant 85 days). If calcu-
lated from the date of receipt of a complete application by
the Departments, the average processing times for the Depart-
ments of Commerce and the Interior were 112 and 72 days,
respectively, compared to 92 and 65 days, respectively, in 1986.

Working Group on &he Permit Syste

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 Working 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, and to recommend such

177

statutory, regulatory, and administrative 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 1988.

Conflicts Between Public pisplay and Research Takings

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 impacted. During 1986, it
became apparent that this competing demand also was creating
the potential for jeopardizing 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 established
as a part of permit application review to identify these
potential conflicts and develop acceptable resolutions. A
follow-up meeting between Commission and service representatives
was held on 24 October and the matter was discussed at the
Commission's 1986 Annual Meeting. In both meetings, the Service
indicated that it was giving the Commission's recommendations
further consideration.. By letter of 23 December 1986, the
Commission reiterated its concern about this matter.

At the close of 1987, the Service had yet to take any
specific action in response to the Commission's recommendation.
It did, however, continue to include a special condition in
permits issued to authorize the capture of bottlenose dolphins
for public display. Under the provision, the Service's Regional
Director specifies the date and location of capture opera-

178

tions. Although this condition does not ensure that all
conflicts between-research and collection activities will be
resolved, it does provide a possible mechanism for avoiding
potential conflicts.

Issues Concerning Lethal Take for Public Display

During 1987, the Fish and Wildlife Service requested
commission comments on a permit application seeking authority
to kill a walrus for purposes of museum display. By letter of
28 October 1987, the Commission advised the Service that, in
its view, lethal taking of marine mammals from the wild for
this use is not warranted if satisfactory specimens can be
obtained from alternative sources, such as an animal that dies
in captivity, is killed intentionally or unintentionally during
scientific research, or is taken incidental to commercial
fishing. In this regard, the Commission noted that, if a
specimen is not immediately available, one is likely to become
available within a reasonable time and it therefore recommended
that the applicant be required to explore alternative sources
of animals.

To address similar requests that might arise in the future,
the Commission wrote a second letter to the Fish and Wildlife
Service on 28 October. In this letter, the Commission recom-
mended that the Service prepare and provide to the Commission
and the National Marine Fisheries Service a draft of a general
policy statement requiring that, for purposes of displaying
stuffed animals, specimens be obtained from sources that do
not require a directed lethal take of animals from the wild.
On 24 November 1987, the Service replied to the Commission's
letter, noting that it agreed that lethal take for public
display is inappropriate if specimens are available from other
sources and that it intended to adopt a formal policy on the
matter. For this purpose, the Service enclosed a draft policy
statement with its letter and requested Commission comments.
At the end of 1987, the Commission was preparing its response
to the Service and it looked forward to working with both
Services on the matter during 1988.

Permit-Related Litigation

On 21 October 198 6, Greenpeace filed a lawsuit challenging
Permit No. 563 issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service
authorizing the take, by harassment, of up to 86 killer whales
(Orcinus orca) in Puget Sound, Washington, 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.

179

In the lawsuit, Greenpeace alleged that the Service
violated the Nati,6nal Environmental Policy Act by failing to:
(a) prepare either an environmental assessment or an environ-
mental impact statement on the permit application; (b) develop
alternatives to the proposed taking that would involve less
impact on the affected animals; and (c) provide a reasoned
explanation for the decision not to prepare an environmental
impact statement or environmental assessment. The plaintiff
also alleged that the Service violated the Marine Mammal Pro-
tection 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 National Marine Fisheries service contended that scien-
tific research permits, in general, do not have a significant
effect on the human environment and argued that the agency had
properly excluded the Issuance of such permits from the require-
ment to prepare an environmental impact statement or an environ-
mental assessment. Although there are certain exceptions to
the "categorical exclusion" for scientific permits, the Service
argued that none were applicable in this instance.

The U.S. District Court held a hearing on this matter on
5 June 1987 and issued a preliminary injunction invalidating
the permit. On 17 June, the court filed its order in the
case, ruling in favor of the plaintiff. While acknowledging
the existence of the general exclusion for scientific research
permits from the requirement to prepare an environmental docu-
ment, the Court found that Greenpeace had raised substantial
questions about whether the research may have significant
environmental effects and that the Service had not adequately
explained why the exceptions to its categorical exclusions were
not applicable.

180

APPENDIX A

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: CALENDAR YEAR 1987

5 January Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Nelio B. Barros and Daniel K. Odell.

6 January Interior, commenting to the Minerals Management
Service on the "Beaufort Sea Sale 97 Draft
Environmental Impact Statement," noting that
the Statement provides a reasonably thorough
review and analysis of available information
on the possible impacts of the proposed action
on marine mammals in the sale area, and recom-
mending, among other things, that the Statement
be modified to consider: (a) the possible
effects of garbage disposal practices on polar
bears; (b) the possibility that oils spills,
disturbances, etc., will cause polar bears and
other marine mammal species to move to areas
already occupied and thus increase animal
densities in those areas to levels that could
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 development, on bowhead
and beluga whales, polar bears, walrus, and*
seals; and also recommending that the Service
consider developing and implementing monitoring
programs to detect possible unforeseen impacts
on the species.

7 January Commerce, public display permit application,
Dolphin Research Center.

9 January Commerce, scientific research permit application,
oceanic Research and Communication Alliance.

16 January Commerce,'commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries Service on draft porpoise mortality
performance standards for tuna vessels and vessel
operators and noting, among other things,
that: (1) the most effective system for applying
performance standards would involve 100% observer
coverage of all vessel trips; (2) if this is not
possible, a dual system of vessel and operator
standards would be most useful; (3) formal rule-
making is required to implement a performance
system; and (4) the Service should continue to

181

discuss its proposals with the Commission, the
environmental community, and the industry.

28 January Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Oceanic Research and Communication Alliance.

6 February Interior, commenting to the Fish and Wildlife
Service on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Coastal Plain Resource Assessment; noting,
among other things, that: marine mammals,
including the endangered bowhead whale, in or
near the Refuge are hunted by Alaska Natives
for subsistence purposes, and availability of
these animals to Natives could be affected by
the proposed action; and recommending that,
considering the many uncertainties about the
nature, extent, and effects of exploration and
development activities in the area, additional
studies and assessments be carried out before
the area is made available for oil and gas
recovery and utilization.

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

19 February Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries Service on a draft paper entitled
"Summary of National Laws and International
Agreements Affecting River Dolphins" and recom-
mending that discussion of U.S. laws applicable
to activities in foreign countries be expanded.

6 March Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries Service on the proposed rulemaking,
"North Pacific Fur Seal -- Pribilof Islands Popu-
lation; Designation as Depleted," and recommend-
ing that the proposed designation be implemented,
with minor modification.

9 March commerce, scientific research permit application,
The Whale.Center.

9 March Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries Service on the Fiscal Year 1987
Entanglement Research Program, noting that,
for the most part, the Program provides a
sound basis for making decisions regarding
project funding, and recommending that the
service: (a) begin implementing portions of
the Plan; (b) give additional consideration to
certain tasks involving North Pacific fur
seals and sea birds; and (c) consult with the

182

Commission before committing funds for these
identified tasks.

13 March commerce, modification of scientific research
permit, Center for Coastal Marine Studies.

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

18 March Commerce, public display permit application,
Theater of the Sea.

19 March Commerce, commenting to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration on the forthcoming
meeting of the International Whaling Commission
and its Scientific Committee and nominating
participants to be included on the U.S. dele-.
gation to its meetings.

25 March Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Northwest and Alaska Fisheries center.

30 March commerce, scientific research permit application,
National Zoological Park.

3 April Interior, public display permit application,
Columbus Zoo.

3 April Interior, public display permit application, Kobe
Municipal Suma Aquarium.

3 April interior, public display permit application,
Adventure World.

3 April Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Steven L. Swartz.

3 April Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Steven L. Swartz and Randall S. Wells.

3 April Commerce,.public display permit application,
Knie's Kinderzoo.

3 April Commerce, modifiction of scientific permit, D.P.
Costa, B.J. LeBoeuf, and C. Leo Ortiz.

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

8 April Commerce, recommending to the National Marine
Fisheries Service that it communicate, in
writing, to the Federation of Japan Salmon

183

Fisheries Cooperative Association rescinding
the Service's 5 March 1987 determination regard-
ifig the required level of observer coverage on
Japanese catcherboats.

13 April Commerce, public display permit application, Sea
World, Inc.

13 April Commerce, modification of scientific research
permit, Gerald L. Kooyman.

13 April Commerce, scientific research permit application,
S. Jonathan Stern.

13 April Commerce, public display permit application,
Mystic Marinelife Aquarium.

21 April Commerce, modification of scientific research
permit, Center for Coastal Marine Studies.

21 April Interior, scientific research permit application,
Charles Monnett.

21 April Commerce, public display permit application, Gulf
Exhibition Corp.

21 April interior, scientific research permit application,
Sea World Research Institute/Hubbs Research
Center.

21 April Interior, scientific research permit application,
The Cousteau Society.

27 April Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries Service on the "Draft Fur Seal Research
Plans: Needs, Alternatives and Priorities with
a List of Proposed Studies for FY 1987"; noting,
among other things, that the draft document
does not provide a priority ranking for proposed
research projects and does not identify all
necessary,research tasks; stating the Commis-
sion's opinion that highest priority should be
placed on assessing and monitoring the fur
seal population and identifying the cause or
causes of its continuing population decline;
and recommending several specific research
efforts to accomplish these tasks; and also
recommending that the long-range fur seal
conservation plan now being developed by the
Service be completed as soon as possible and
that it be made available to the Commission
and other relevant U.S. agencies and organiza-

184

tions for comment prior to discussions with
Canada, Japan, and the Soviet Union on multi-
lateral fur seal research and management.

28 April Interior, commenting to the Fish and Wildlife
Service on a draft proposal from the Government
of the Netherlands to list the Atlantic and
Pacific walrus on Appendix II of the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora and recommending that
the United States oppose the proposal.

30 April Commerce, public display permit application,
Marine Animal Productions.

1 May Commerce, public display permit application, Walt
Disney Company.

1 May Commerce, public display permit application,
Jolly Roger Amusement Park.

1 May Commerce, scientific research permit application,
The Cousteau Society.

1 May Commerce, public display permit application,
Baltimore Aquarium.

4 May Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries Service on the draft update for the
"Antarctic Marine Living Resources Program
Development Plan, 1988-199011 and suggesting
that future draft updates be expanded to provide
detailed information on alternative programs
and funding levels.

5 May interior, commenting to the Minerals Management
Service on the "Chukchi Sea Sale 109 Draft
Environmental Impact Statement"; noting that
the Statement provides a concise and useful
review of relevant information on marine mammal
species and a reasonably thorough review of
the types and possible effects of oil spills
and activities that could result from the
proposed action; suggesting that the Statement
be modified to: (a) emphasize the importance
of post-sale monitoring efforts; (b) consider
the possibility that activities resulting from
the Sale could cause marine mammals to move
into already occupied areas, thus increasing
animal densities in those areas to level which
will damage or deplete food supplies; (c) con-
sider cumulative impacts on marine mammals

185

throughout their range; and (d) consider possible
cumulative effects of subsistence harvesting
and other activities, as well as oil and gas
exploration, on marine mammals; and recommending
that several potential mitigating measures to
reduce potential impacts on marine mammals and
other marine species be included as part of
the Proposed and Alternative Actions.

6 May Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Southwest Fisheries Center.

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

14 May Interior, modification of scientific research
permit, Charles Monnett.

15 May State of California, commenting to the California
Department of Fish and Game and the California
Coastal Commission on the background and ration-
ale for translocating 250 sea otters from their
existing range to San Nicolas Island; expressing
the Commission's strong support for the proposed
action; and urging the two State agencies to
act favorably on the proposal in their decision-
making process.

18 May Commerce, modification of scientific research
permit, James L. Hickman and Virginia Coyle.

IS May commerce, scientific research permit application,
Southwest Fisheries Center.

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

18 May interior, scientific research permit application,
Fish and Wildlife Service.

19 May commerce,-commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries Service, on plans for the Fiscal Year
1987 Marine Entanglement Research Program;
restating the conclusion in its 9 March letter
that certain of the Service's proposed tasks
will not address critical information needs
concerning entanglement of fur seals in marine
debris; recommending again that funds not be
used to support these tasks but be redirected
toward alternative research tasks; concurring
with other alternatives put forth by the Service

186

in response to Commission recommendations;
protesting the Service's proposal to reprogram
$50,200 of the entanglement appropriation to
cover unrelated budget shortfalls; and recom-
mending that the funds be used to support
specific alternative tasks recommended as part
of the entanglement research program.

19 May Federal Trade Commission, commenting to the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on a
request from the Government of Canada to lift
the ban on importing marine mammals or parts
thereof into the United States; noting that the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
opposes removal of the ban on the grounds that
the ban is a conservation rather than a trade
measure; and expressing the Commission's con-
currence with this position.

20 May State of Florida, commenting to the Florida
Department of Natural Resources and the Florida
Game & Freshwater Fish Commission in support
of a request to add some 13,000 acres in the
Crystal River area to the list of recommended
projects eligible for funding under the State
Conservation and Recreation Lands Program.

21 May commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries Service on reported problems related
to a public display permit issued to Jolly Roger
Amusement Park and recommending that the Service
re-examine the permit.

28 May Interior, scientific research permit application,
Natural History Museum of.Los Angeles County.

29 May Commerce, public display permit application, New
York Aquarium.

3 June Commerce, modification of scientific research
permit, West Coast Whale Research Foundation.

3 June commerce, scientific research permit application,
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.

3 June Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Cascadia Research Collective.

4 June Commerce, public display permit application,
Baltimore Aquarium.

187

11 June Commerce, modification of scientific research
permit, Charles Monnett.

18 June Commerce, modification of scientific research
permit, Kenneth S. Norris, Randall S. Wells, Jan
S. Ostman and William T. Doyle.

18 June Interior, modification of scientific research
permit, Anthony R. DeGange.

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

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

25 June Interior, modification of scientific research.
permit, Mote Marine Laboratory.

25 June Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Naval Facilities Engineering command.

25 June Commerce, modification of public display permit,
Sea World, Inc.

2 July Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries Service on human/dolphin swim programs
and recommending that: (1) all facilities
conducting human-dolphin swim programs be
required to inform participants of the potential
hazards; (2) complete records be maintained on
any unfavorable interactions and facilities
forward copies of the records to the Service;
(3) any animal displaying unacceptable behavior
be prevented from participating in such activi-
ties; (4) the Service require facilities con-
ducting such programs to adhere strictly to
all applicable Federal laws, regulations,
etc., and (5) the Service, in consultation
with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, promptly evaluate the suitability of
closed water systems for these programs.

7 July Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Mammal Laboratory on the Service's proposed fur
seal entanglement workshop, the planned fur
seal modelling study, and planned pilot deploy-
ment of large net fragments and suggesting,
among other things, that constitution of a
steering committee would be useful for all
three projects.

188

7 July Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries Service on proposed tasks related to
entanglement of fur seals in marine debris and
expressing its support for the Service's plan
to fund the fur seal entanglement workshop and
the modelling study provided that: (1) a
workshop agenda, list of participants and list
of documents to be distributed be provided to
the Commission for review and concurrence; and
(2) a representative of the Commission be
consulted on the drafting of the request for
proposals for the fur seal modelling study;
and recommending deferral of support for the
task involving deployment of large net frag-
ments, pending submission and approval of a
proposal containing the proposed research
protocol, the underlying rationale, and a
detailed budget justification.

17 July Commerce, modification of scientific research
permit, Loro Parque.

17 July commerce, scientific research permit application,
Naval Surface Weapons Systems.

20 July Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Sealand of Cape Cod.

22 July Interior, public display permit application,
Adventure World.

22 July interior, public display permit application,
Marine Palace Aquarium, Oita Ecological
Aquarium.

22 July Interior, public display permit application,
Hiroo Aquarium.

22 July commerce, scientific research permit application,
Steven L. Swartz and Randall S. Wells.

24 July Commerce,'scientific research permit application,
Gregory K. Silber.

24 July Commerce, public display permit application, John
G. Shedd Aquarium.

28 July Interior, scientific research permit application,
California Department of Fish and Game.

28 July Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Dan R. Salden.

189

28 July Interior, public display permit application, The
Cousteau Society.

29 July Interior, modification of public display permits,
Adventure World, Hiroo Aquarium.

5 August Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Southwest Fisheries Center.

5 August Commerce, public display permit application, John
G. Shedd Aquarium.

6 August Commerce, public display permit application,
Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife.

7 August commerce, scientific research permit application,
Naval Ocean Systems Center.

7 August Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Southwest Fisheries Center.

7 August Commerce, public display permit application,
Aquarium of Niagara Falls.

7 August Interior, scientific research permit application,
National Park Service.

10 August Agriculture, commenting to the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service on the Proposed Rule
to amend the Animal Welfare Act regulations;
suggesting, among other things, that certain
types of research, such as field research not
of a biomedical nature, be categorically excluded
from the provisions of these regulations; and
recommending certain modifications to clarify
the proposed rule.

14 August Commerce, commenting to the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration on a research
program proposed by Iceland and its relationship
to resolutions adopted by the International
Whaling Commission in 1987; stating its concur-
rence with the Department's decision to negotiate
with Iceland on its whaling activities; and
recommending: (a) the immediate certification
of Iceland under the Pelly Amendment if its
nationals take a single sei whale and (2) the
Government of Iceland be advised that, within
90 days, it must announce its full acceptance
of the IWC regulations or be certified under
the Pelly Amendment.

190

14 August Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries service on critical habitat designa-
ti,on for the Hawaiian monk seal; noting that the
Service's re-examination of critical habitat
for the species is appropriate; restating the
Commission's previous recommendations that
areas out to the 20-fathou contour around the
Northwest Hawaiian Islands and Maro Reef be
designated critical habitat for Hawaiian monk
seals.

17 August Commerce, commenting to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration on "Draft Guidelines
on the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from
Ships," noting that draft is responsive to advice
provided by the Marine Environment Protection
Committee; suggesting ways in which the draft
might improved; and recommending alternative
text for the chapter on handling and storing
garbage aboard ship.

19 August Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Suzanne Macy-Marcy and J. Ward Testa.

24 August Interior, commenting to the Minerals Management
Service on the request for information and
nominations to begin the planning process for
offshore oil and gas Lease Sale 95; noting that
at least 30 species of marine mammals occur in
or near the proposed sale area and that noise
and other disturbance from seismic exploration,
platform construction and drilling, and routine
operations may cause some species of marine
mammals to abandon or avoid important breed-
ing, feeding, and haul-out areas and migration
routest pointing out the need to identify and
characterize areas in and near the proposed
lease sale area that may be critically important
to the survival and welfare of marine mammals
in the area; and suggesting that, if it had
not already done so, the Service consult with
the National Marine Fisheries Service to deter-
mine whether the proposed action could jeopar-
dize the Pribilof or San Miguel Islands fur
seal populations or the harbor porpoise popula-
tion and, if so, identify steps that could be
taken to avoid or minimize possible adverse
effects.

25 August Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Richard H. Lambertsen.

191

27 August Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries service on its proposal to extend the
subsistence harvest of North Pacific fur seals
on St. Paul Island; supporting the Service's
proposal to set a strict quota on the number of
seals that may be harvested during the extension;
and recommending that the harvest be limited to
the subsistence level indicated by a Native
survey of the island, that is, 211 seals.

28 August Commerce, scientific research permit application,
All Union scientific Research Institute of Fish-
eries and oceanography, U.S.S.R.

4 September Interior, scientific research permit application,
The Cousteau. Society.

11 September Commerce, public display permit application,
Dolfinarium, Brugge.

16 September Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries Service's Marine Entanglement Research
Program on a proposed study entitled "Evaluating
Controlled-Lifetime Plastics," concurring with
the Service's plan to support the study, on
the condition that the project address potential
effects of degradation products.

14 September Commerce, modification of public display permit,
Jolly Roger Amusement Park.

18 September Commerce modification of scientific research
permit, 4ashington Department of Game.

22 September commerce, scientific research permit application,
Bernie Tershy.

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

13 October Interior, modification of scientific research
permit, Southwest Fisheries Center.

13 October Commerce, public display permit application,
Ocean Reef Club.

16 October commerce, scientific research permit application,
16 October Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center.
Commerce, public display permit application, sea
World, Inc.

192

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

20 October commerce, scientific research permit application,
Donald B. Siniff.

23 October Interior, modification of scientific research
permit, Fish and Wildlife Service.

28 October Interior, recommending to the Fish and Wildlife
Service that it develop a policy statement
requiring that applicants requesting a public
display permit under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act for purposes of taxidermy obtain the specimen
by means other than a directed lethal take
from the wild.

28 October Interior, public display permit application, Paul
Jensen Arctic Museum.

29 October Commerce, scientific research permit application,
R. H. DeFran.

6 November Commerce, modification of scientific research
permit, Gerald G. Joyce.

9 November Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Mammal Laboratory on the draft agenda for the
Service's planned Fur Seal Entanglement Research
Workshop; noting, among other things, that the
Commission had not been provided the opportunity
to review the tentative agenda, list of par-
ticipants, and list of pertinent documents;
further noting that the planned workshop may
not be structured so as to most effectively
identify and address key issues; and recommending
that the workshop be postponed until the latter
part of February 1988 in order to provide time
for consultations.

12 November Commerce, commenting to the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration on "The Research
Plan for the Feasibility Study on 'The Program
for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke
Whale and for the Preliminary Research on the
marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic,"' submitted
to the International Whaling Commission by the
Government of Japan and noting, among other
things, that the revised proposal does not
address the concerns raised by the International
Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee

193

during its review of the original Japanese
proposal.

13 November Commerce, public display permit application, sea
World, Inc.

17 November Commerce, scientific research permit application,
Marine Animal Productions.

18 November Commerce, modification of scientific research
permit, Janice M. Straley.

19 November Interior, commenting to the Fish and Wildlife
Service on the West Indian manatee recovery
program; noting that a number of changes have
occurred since the program was initiated in
1980; and recommending that the Service, in
cooperation with appropriate State agencies in
Florida, the Commission, and other involved
parties, undertake a thorough review of critical
issues confronting the manatee recovery program!
including: updating the West Indian Manatee
Recovery Plan and the Comprehensive Work Plan;
reconstituting and reconvening the West Indian
Manatee Recovery Team; completing land acqui-
sition projects in the Crystal River and Homo-
sassa River areas; improving the effectiveness
of regulations and law enforcement pertaining
to recreational boaters and divers in essential
manatee habitat; controlling development of
marinas and other boating facilities in essential
manatee habitats; identifying and undertaking
priority manatee research needs; and coordinat-
ing Federal-State-private public education and
information programs.

20 November Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries service on the permit issued to the
Federation of Japan Salmon Fisheries Cooperative
Association to take marine mammals incidental
to commercial fishing operations in the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone; recommending that the
Service: (1) make available, through publication
in the Federal Registe , information sijmmarizing
the results of the Federation's fishing
activities in 1986, and (2) continue to fulfill
the requirements of the North Pacific Fisheries
Act to prepare an annual report/action plan
for every year that the Federation conducts
fishery operations within the United States
Exclusive Economic Zone, including 1987; and
requesting, with respect to enforcement, that

194

the Service provide the commission with certain
information on unauthorized incidental take of
marine mammals other than Dall's porpoise by
the Federation during 1987.

24 November Commerce, request to transfer dolphin for public
display.

30 November Commerce, public display permit application,
Miami Seaquarium.

30 November Commerce, public display permit application, sea-
Arama, Inc.

30 November Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries Service on a request to permit Marine
Animal Productions to temporarily maintain two
sea lions and two beluga whales at the Baltimore
Aquarium; noting that it appears that the
recent problem with blastomycosis among Marine
Animal Productions' sea lions has been resolved;
and urging the Service to make every effort to
eliminate the possibility that affected animals
might transmit the disease to animals at the
Baltimore facility.

17 December Commerce, forwarding to the Interagency Marine
Debris Task Force information on the Commission's
involvement in matters pertaining to marine
debris and a list of recommended actions to
address priority research and management needs.

21 December Commerce, public display permit application,
Knie's Kinderzoo.

29 December commerce, recommending to the National Marine
Fisheries Service that: the Service organize
and convene a Second International Workshop on
the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris in late
1988 or early 1989; responsibility for organizing
the Workshop be vested with the Service's
Honolulu Laboratory, the Hawaii Sea Grant
Program Office, or both; and a Workshop Steering
Group be convened including representatives
from the United States and certain other nations.

29 December Commerce, commenting to the National Marine
Fisheries service on the draft final rule
pertaining to importation of yellowfin tuna
and supporting the prompt adoption of the
regulations, subject to modification.

195

29 December Interior, commenting to the Fish and Wildlife
Service on funding for the Service's West
Indian manatee research program; and recom-
mending that the Service: (a) increase the
$237,000 Fiscal Year 1988 budget for the Sirenia
Project by $120,000 to $150,000 for continuing
and expanding manatee tracking studies; (b) main-
tain the Sirenia Project budget at the increased
funding level for the next five Years; (c) ensure
that at least $57,000 is made available in
Fiscal Year 1988 for cooperative studies of
grass beds in Hobe Sound; and (d) continue
support for the Hobe Sound grass bed studies
for the next four years at a level of $65,000
a year.

196

APPENDIX B

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

Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, R.P. Henderson, and TJ. Brownell, R.L., Jr., C. Schoenwald, and R.R. Reeves.
Lewis. 1977. Studies of marine mammals at the Faral- 1978. Preliminary report on world catches of marine
lon Islands, California, 1970-1975. Final report for mammal 1966-1975. Final report for MMC contract
MMC contract MM4AC002. NTIS PB-274 046. 42 pp. MM6AC002. NTIS PB-290 713. 353 pp. (A16)
(A03) - Chapman, D.G., L.L. Eberhardt, and J.R. Gilbert. 1977.
Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, R.P. Henderson, TJ. Lewis, A review of marine mammal census methods. Final
and S.H. Morrell, 1977. Studies of marine mammals report for MMC contract MM4AC014. NTIS PB-265
at the Farallon Islands, California, 1975-1976. Final 547. 55 pp. (A04)
report for MMC contract MM5AC020. NTIS PB-266 Contos, S.M. 1982. Worksho on ammal-
249. 32 pp. (AO3) Finyrep marine m
fisheries interactions. ort for MMC contract
Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, S.H. Morrell, and R.R. MM2079341-0. NTIS PB82-189 507. 64 pp. (AO4)
LeValley. 1978. Studies of marine mammal at the Cornelb L.H., E.D. Asper, K.N. Osborn, and MJ. White,
Farallon Islands, California, 1976-1977. Final report Jr. 1979. Inve@tigations on cryogenic marking proce-
for MMC contract MM6AC027. NTIS PB-286 603. 44 dures for marine mammal . Final report for MMC
pp. (AO3) . contract MM6AC003. NTIS PB 291570. 24 pp. (A03)
Allen, S.G., D.G. Ainley, and G.W. Page. 1980. Haul out Dayton, P.K., B.D. Keller, and D.A. Ven Tresca. 1980.
patterns of harbor seals in Bolinas Lagoon, California. Studies of a nearshore community inhabited by sea ot-
Final report for MMC contract MM8AC012. NTIS ters. Final report for MMC contracts MM6AC026
PB80-176 910. 31 pp. (AO3) and MM1300702-9. NTIS PB81-109 860. 91 pp.
Balcomb, K.C., J.R. Boran, R.W. Osborne, and NJ. (A06)
Haenel. 1980. Observations of killer whales (Orcinus DeBeer, J. 1980. Cooperative dedicated vessel research
orca) in greater Puget Sound, State of Washington. prograin on the tuna-porpoise problem: Overview and
Final report for MMC contract MML3W731-7. NTIS final report. Final report for MMC contract
PB80-224 728. 42 pp. (A03) MM8AC006. NTIS PB80-150 097. 43 pp. (A03)
Bean, MJ. 1985. United States and international Dohl, T.P. 1981. Remote laser branding of marine main-
authorities applicable to entanglement of marine mam.-
mals. Final report for MMC contract MM4AC011.
mals and other or anisms in lost or discarded fishing NTIS PB81-213 449. 34 pp. (A03)
gear and other degris. Final report for MMC contract
MM2629994-7. NTIS PB85-160471. 65 pp. (AO4) Erickson, A.W. 1978. Population studies of killer whales
Beddington, J.R., and H.A. William . 1980. The status (Orcinus orca) in the Pacific Northwest: A radio-mark-
and management of the harp seal in the north-west At- ing and tracking study of killer whales. Final report
lantic. A review and evaluation. Final report for MMC for MMC contract MM5AC012. NTIS PB-285 615. 34
contract MM1301062-1. NTIS PB80-206 105.127 pp. pp. (AO3)
(AO7) Fay, F.H., H.M. Feder, and S.W. Stoker. 1977. An es-
Bengtson, J.L. 1978. Review of information regarding the timation of the impact of the Pacific walrus population
conservation of livin$ resources of the Antarctic on its food resources in the Bering Sea. Final report
marine ecosystem. Final report for MMC contract for MMC contracts MM4AC006 and MM5AC024.
MM8AD055. NTIS PB-289 496.148 pp. (A08) NTIS PB-273 505. 38 pp. (AO3)
Bishop, J.B. 1985. Summary report of OU and trammel Foster, M.A. 1981. Identification of ongoing and
net (set-net) observations in the vicinity of Morro Bay, Planned fisheries in the Northwestern Hawaiian Is-
California, I November 1983 - 31 August 1984. Final lands. Final report for MMC contract MM1801069-7.
report for MMC contract MM2629900-2. NTIS PB85- NTIS PB81-207 516. 90 pp. (AO5)
150076. 18 pp. (A02) Foster, M.S., C.R. Agegian, R.K. Cowen, R.F. Van
Bockstoce, J. 1978. A preliminary estimate of the reduc- Wagenen, D.K. Rose, and A.C. Hurley. 1979. Toward
tion of the western Arctic bowhead whale (Balaena an understanding of the effects of sea otter foraging on
mysticefus) population by the pelagic whaling industry: kelp forest communities in central California. Final
1848-1915. Final report for MMC contract report for MMC contract MM7AC023. NTIS PB-293
MM7AD111. NTIS PB-286 797. 32 pp. (A08) 891 . 60 pp. (AO4)
1 Price codes for printed reports (including postage) are shown in Fowler, C.W., W.T. Bunderson, M.B. Cherry, R.J. Ryel,
parentheses at the end of each citation. Microfiche copies of the and B.B. Steele. 1980. Comparative population
reports are also available (price code A01). T"he key to the codes dynamics of large mammals: A search for manage-
and ordering inforniation can be found on the last page of this ment criteria. Final report for MMC contract
Appendix. MM7AC013. NTIS PB80-178 627. 330 pp. (A15)

197

Fowler, C.W., R4. Ryel, ar@d L.J. Nelson. 1982. Sperm Green-Hammond, KA. 1981. Requirements for effec-
whale population analysis. Final report for MMC con- tive implementation of the Convention on the Conser-
tract MM8AC009. NTIS PB82-174 335. 35 pp. (A03) vation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Final
Gaines, S.E., and D. Schmidt. 1918. Laws and treaties report for MMC contract MM2079173-9. NTIS PB82-
of the United States relevant to marine mammal 123 571. 36 pp. (A03)
protection policy. Final report for MMC contract Green-Hammond, K.A. 1982. Environmental aspects of
MM5AC029. NTIS PB-281 024. 668 pp. (A99) potential petroleum exploration and exploitation in
Gard, R. 1978. Aerial census, behavior, and population Antarctica: Forecasting and evaluating risks. Final
dynamics study of gray whales in Mexico during the report for MMC contract MM2079173-9. NTIS PB82-
1974-75 calving and mating season. Final report for 169 772. 28 pp. (A03)
MMC contract MM5AC006. NTIS PB-274 295. 18 Green-Hammond, KA., D.G. Ainley, D.B. Siniff, and
pp. (AO2) - N.S. Urquhart. 1983. Selection criteria and monito
Gard, R. 1978. Aerial census and population dynamics ing requirements for indirect indicators of changes in
the availability of Antarctic krill applied to some pin-
study of gray whales in Baja California during the 1976 niped and seabird information. Final report for MMC
calving and mating season. Final report for MMC con- contract MM2324753-6. NTIS PB83-263 293. 37 pp.
tract MM6AC014. NTIS PB-275 297. 20 pp. (A03) (A03)
Geraci@ J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin. 1979. Biology of Henry, M.E. 1987. Observations of gill and trammel net
marine mammal : Insights through s -andings. Final fishing activity between Pt. Buchon and Pt. Sur, Cali-
report for MMC contract MM7AC020. NTIS PB-293 fornia, June - October 1985. Final report for MMC
890. 343 pp. (A16) contract MM3309511-8. NTIS PB87-184024. 32 pp.
GeracL J.R., SA. Testaverde, D.J. St. Aubin, and T.H. (A03)
Loop. 1978. A mass stranding of the Atlantic white Herman, L.M., P.H. Forestell, and R.C. Antinoia. 1980.
sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus: A study into The 1976M migration of humpback whales into
pathobiology and life history. Final report for MMC Hawaiian waters: Composite description. Final report
contract MM5AC008. NTIS PB-289 361. 141 pp. for MMC contracts MM7AC014 and MM1300907-2.
(A08) NTIS PB80-162 332. 55 pp. (A04)
Gerrodette, T. 1983. Review of the California sea otter Hofman, R.J. (Editor). 1979. A workshop to identify
salvage program. Final report for MMC contract new research that might contribute to the solution of
MM2629677-5. NTIS PB83-262 949. 23 pp. (A03) the tuna-porpoise problem. Proceedings of a Marine
Gilbert, J.R., V.R. Schurman, and D.T. Richardson. Mammal Commission-sponsored workshop held on 8-9
1979. Gray seals in New England: Present status and December 1975 at the University of California, Santa
management alternatives. Final report for MMC con- Cruz. NTIS PB-290 158. 17 pp. (A02)
tract MM7AC002. NTIS PB-295 599.40 pp. (A03) Hofman, R.J. 1982. Identification and assessment of pos-
Glockner-Ferrari@ DA., and MJ. Ferrari. 1-985. In- sible alternative methods for catching yellowfm tuna.
dividual identification, behavior, reproduction, and dis- NTIS PB83-L38 993. 243 pp. (All)
tribution of humpback whales, Megaptera Hofman, R.J. (Editor). 1985. Workshop to assess
novaeangfide, in Hawaii. Final report for MMC con- methods for regulating the distribution and movements
tract MM262975-5. NTIS PB85-200772. 41 pp. (AO3) of sea otters. Report of a Marine Mammal Commis-
Gold, J. 1981. Marine mammal : A selected bibliography. sion-sponsored workshop held 25-26 October 1984 in
Final report for MMC contract MM1801254-3. NTIS San Francisco, California. NTIS PB85-229250.39 pp.
PB 82-104 282.91 pp. (A05) (A03)
Gonsalves, J.T. 1977. Improved method and device to Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, S.H. Morrell, R.R. LeValley,
prevent porpoise mortalit3r Application of polyvinyl and C.S. Strong. 1979. Studies of marine mammal at
panels to purse seine nets. Final report for MMC con- the Farallon Islands, California, 1977-1978. Final
tract MM6AC007. NTIS PB-274 088. 28 pp. (A03) report for MMC contract MM7AC025. NTIS PB-111
Goodman, D. 1978. Management implications of the 602. 50 pp. (AO4)
mathematical demography of long lived animals. Final Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, S.H. Morrell, R.J. Boekel-
report for MMC contract MM8AD008. NTIS PB-289 heide, and R.P. Henderson. 1980. Studies of marine
678.80 pp. (AO5) mammal at the Farallon Islands, California, 1978-
1979. Final report for MMC contract MM1300888-2.
Green, KA. 1977. Antarctic marine ecosystem modeling NTIS PB80-178 197. 46 pp. (A04)
revised Ross Sea model, general Southern Ocean Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, R.J. Boekelheide, R.P.
budget, and seal model. Final report for MMC con-
tract MM6AC032. NTIS PB-270 375. 111 pp. (A06) Henderson, and B. Bainbridge. 1981. Studies of marine
mammal at the Farallon Islands, California, 1979-
Green-Harnmond, KA. 1980. Fishe-ries management 1980. Final report for MMC contract MM1533599-3.
under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, NTIS PB81-167 082.51 pp. (AO4)
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the En-
dangered Species Act. Final report for MMC contract Hui@ C.A. 1978. Reliability of using dentin layers for age
MM1300885-3. NTIS PB80-180 599. 186 pp. (A09) determination in Tursiops truncatus. Final report for
MMC contract MM7AC021. NTIS PB-288 444. 25 pp.
(A03)

198

Irvine, A.B., M.D. Scott, R.S. Wells, J.H. Kaufmann, and Loughlin, T. 1978. A telemetric and tagging study of sea
W.E. Evans. 1979. A study of the activities and move- otter activities near Monterey, California. Final report
ments of the Atlantic bottlenosed dolphin, Tursiops for MMC contract MM6AC024. NTIS PB-289 682.64
truncatus, including an evaluation of tagging techni- pp. (AO4)
ques. Final report for MMC contracts MM4AC004 Marine Mammal Commission. 1974. Annual report of
and MM5AC018. NTIS PB-298 042. 54 pp. (AO4) the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1973.
Jameson, G.L. 1986. Trial systematic salvage of beach- Report to Congress. NTIS PB-269 708. 14 pp. (A03)
cast sea otter, Enh
,ydra lutris, carcasses in the central Marine Mammal Commission. 1975. Annual report of
and southern portion of the sea otter range in Califor- the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1974.
nia: One year summary of results: October 1983 - Sep- Report to Congress. NTIS PB-269 710. 27 pp. (A04)
tember 1984. Final report for MMC contract
MM2629849-8. NTIS PB87-108288. 60 pp. (A04) Marine Mammal Commission. 1976. Annual report of
Jeffries, S.J. 1986. Seasonal movement and population the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1975.
trends of harbor seals in the Columbia River and ad- Report to Congress. NTIS PB 269-711. 50 pp. (AO4)
I
a=t waters of Washington and Oregon, 1976-1982. Marine Mammal Commission. 1977. Annual report of
F report for MMC contract MM2079357-5. NTIS the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1976.
PB86-200 243. 41 pp. (AO3) Report to Congress. NTIS PB-269 713. 71 pp. (A06)
Johnson, B.W., and PA. Johnson. 1978. The Hawaiian Marine Mammal Commission. 1978. Annual report of
monk seal on Laysan Island: 1977. Final report for the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1977.
MMC contract MM7AC009. NTIS PB-285 428. 38 Report to Congress. NTIS PB-281 564. 101 pp. (AO6)
pp. (AO3) Marine Mammal Commission. 1979. Annualreportof
Johnson, B.W., and PA. Johnson. 1981. Estimating the the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1978.
Hawaiian monk seal population on Laysan Island. Report to Congress. NTIS PB-106 784. 108 pp. (AO6)
Final report for MMC contract MM1533701-4. NTIS
PB82-106 113. 29 pp. (AO5) Marine Mammal Commission. 1980. Humpback whales
in Glacier Bay National Monument, Alaska. Final
Johnson, B.W., and PA. Johnson. 1981. The Hawaiian report for an interagency review meeting. NTIS PB80-
monk seal on Laysan Island: 1978. Final report for 141449. 44 pp. (A03)
MMC contract MM8AC008. NTIS PB82-109 661. 17
pp. (AO2) Marine Mammal Commission. 1981. Annual report of
the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1979.
Johnson, M.L., and S.J. Jeffries. 1977. Population evalua- Report to Congress. NTIS PB81-247 892. 100 pp.
tion of the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina fichardsi) in the (AO6)
waters of the State of Washington. Final report for
MMC contract MM5AC019. NTIS PB-270 376. 27 Marine Mammal Commission. 1981. Amiual report of the
pp. (AO3) Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1980
Johnson, M.L., and S.J. Jeffries. 1983. Population biol- Report to Congress. NTIS PB81-247 884. 114 pp. jA06)
ogy of the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina fichardi) in the Marine Mammal Commission. 1982. Annual report of
waters of the State of Washington: 1976-1977. Final the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1981.
report for MMC contract MM6AC025. NTIS PB83- Report to Congress. NTIS PB82-221 425. 102 pp. (AO6)
159 715. 53 pp. (A04) Marine Mammal Commission. 1982. Report of a meet-
Kasuya, T., and Y. Izumizawa. 1981. The fishery-dolphin ing to review on-going and planned research concern-
conflict in the Iki Island area of Japan. Final report ing humpback whales in Glacier Bay and surrounding
for MMC contract MM1533791-7. NTIS PB81-171 waters in southeast Alaska. Final report of an inter-
357. 31 pp. (AO3) agency meeting. NTIS PB82-201 039. 20 pp. (AO2)
Katona, S.K. 1983. The Gulf of Maine whale sighting Marine Mammal Commission. 1983. Annual report of
network: 1976. Final report for MMC contract the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1982.
MM6AC018. NTIS PB83-151290. 32 pp. (AO3) Report to Congress. NTIS PB84-132 216. 106 pp. (AO6)
Katona, S.K., and S. Kraus. 1979. Photographic iden- Marine Mammal Commission. 1984. Annual report of
tification of individual humpback whales (Megaptera the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1983.
novaeanglide): Evaluation and analysis of the techni- Report to Congress. NTIS PB84-199 389. 118 pp. A06)
que. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC015. Marine Mammal Commission. 1986. Habitat protection
NTIS PB-298 740. 29 pp. (A03) needs for the subpopulation of West Indian manatees
Kraus, S.D. 1986. A review of the status of right whales in the Crystal River area of northwest Florida. NTIS
(Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic PB86-200 250. 46 pp. (AO4)
with a summary of research and management needs. Marine Mammal Commission. 1986. Annual report of
Final report for MMC contract MM2910905-0. NTIS the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1985.
PB86-154 143. 61 pp. (AO4) Report to Congress. NTIS PB86-216 249. 180 pp. (A09)
Kooyman, G.L. 1982. Development and testing of a time- Marine Mammal Commission. 1987. Annual report of
depth recorder for marine mammal . Final report for the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1984.
MMC contract MM6AC019. NTIS PB82-257 932. 10 Report to Congress. NTIS PB87-209573. 173 pp .(AO9)
pp. (A02)

199

Marine Mammal Commission. 1987. Annual report of Odell, D.K. 1979. A preliminary study of the ecology
the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1986. and population biol2$y of the bottlenose dolphin in
Report to Congress. NTIS PB87-L54092. 193 pp. southeast Florida. Final report for MMC contract
(A09) MM4AC003. NTIS PB-294 336. 26 pp. (AO3)
Mate, B.R. 1977. Aerial censusing of pinnipeds in the Odell, D.K., and J.E. Reynolds, HL 1980. Abundance of
eastern Pacific for assessment of population numbers, the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, on the west
atory distributions, rookery stability, breeding ef- coast of Florida. Final report for MMC contract
foFt, and recruitment. Final report for MMC contract MM5AC026. NTTS PB-80-197 650. 47 pp. (A04)
MWAC001. NTIS PB-265 959. 67 pp. (AO4) OdelI, D.K., D.B. Siniff, and G.H. Waring. 1979. Tur-
Mate, B.R. 1980. Workshop on marine mammal-fish- siops tmncatus assessment workshop. Final report for
eries interactions in the northeastern Pacific. Final MMC contract MM5AC021. NTTS PB-291 161. 141
report for MMC contract MM8AC003. NTTS PB80- pp. (A04)
175144. 48pp. (A04) PackardJ.M. 1982. Potential methods for influencing
Mathiesen,OA. 1980. Methods for the estimation of the movements and distribution of sea otters: Assess-
krill abundance in the Antarctic. Final report for ment of research needs. Final report for MMC con-
MMC contract MM7AC032. NTIS PB80-175 151. 26 tract MM2079342-3. NTIS PB83-109 926. 51 pp.
pp. (A03) (AO4)
Matkin, C.O., and F.H. Fay. 1980. Marine mammal- Payne, R., 0. Brazier, E. Dorsey, J. Perkins, V. Rown-
fishery interactions on the Copper River and in Prince
tree, and A. Titus. 1981. External features in southern
William Sound, Alaska, 1978. Final report for MMC right whales (Eubalaena austrafis) and their use in iden-
contract MM8AC013. NTIS PB80-159 536. 71 pp. tifying individuals. Final report for MMC contract
(AO5) MM6AC017. NTIS PB81-161 093. 77 pp. (AO5)
Mayo, CA. 1982. Observations of cetaceans: Cape Cod Pitcher, K.W. 1977. Population productivity and food
Bay and southern Stenwagen Bank, Massachusetts habits of harbor seals in the Prince William Sound-
1975-1979. Final report for MMC contract Copper River Delta area, Alaska. Final report for
MM1800925-5. NTIS PB82-186 263. 68 pp. (A05) MMC contract MM5AC011. NTIS PB-266 935. 36
Medway, W. 1983. Evaluation of the safety and useful- pp. (AO3)
ness of techniques and equipment used to obtain biop- Prescott, J.H., and P.M. Morelli. 1980. Review of the
sies from free-swiniming cetaceans. Final report for harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the U.S.
MMC contract MM2324809-8. NTIS PB83-263 269. northwest Atlantic. Final report for MMC contract
14 pp. (A02) MM8AC016. NTIS PB80-176 928. 64 pp. (AO4)
Miller, L.K. 1978. Energetics of the northern fur seal in Prescott@ J.H., S.D. Kraus, and J.R. Gilbert. 1980. East
relation to climate and food resources of the Be Coast/Gulf Coast cetacean and pinniped workshop.
Sea. Final report for MMC contract A Final report for MMC contract MM1533558-2. NTIS
NTIS PB-275 296. 27 pp. (A03) PB80-160 104. 142 pp. (AO7)
Montgomery, S. 1986. Workshop on measures to ad- Ray, G.C., R.V. Salm, and JA. Dobbin. 1979. Systems
dress marine mammal/fisheries interactions in Califor- analysis mapping: An approach towards identifying
nia. Final report for MMC contract MM3309746-2. critical habitats of marine mammals. Final report for
NTIS PB86-219 060. 123 pp. (AO7) MMC contract MM6AC011. NTIS PB80-111 594. 27
Montgomer S. 1987. Report on the 24-27 February pp. (AO3)
1987 woll hop to assess possible systems for tracking Reeves, R.R. 1977. Exploitation of harp and hooded
large cetaceans. Final report for MMC contract seals in the western North Atlantic. Final report for
MM4465764-2. NTIS PB87-182135. 61 pp. (AO4) MMC contract MM6AD055. NTIS PB-270 186. 57
Nolan, R.S. 1981. Shark control and the Hawaiian monk pp. (AO4)
seal. Final report for MMC contract MM1801065-5. Reeves, R.R. 1977. The problem of yray whale (Eschfich-
NTIS PB81-201808. 45 pp. (A03) dus robustus) harassment: At the breeding lagoons
and during migration. Final report for MMC contract
Norris, K.S., and J.D. Hall. 1979. Developn!ent of techni- MM6AC021. NTIS PB-272 506 (Spanish translation
ques for estimating trophic impact of marine mam- PB-291 763). 60 pp. (A04)
mals. Final report for MMC contract MM4AC013.
NTIS PB-290 399. 16 pp. (AO2) Reynolds, J.E., 111. 1986. Evaluation of the nature and
Norris, K.S., and R.R. Reeves. (Editors). 1978. Report magnitude of interactions between bottlenose dolphins,
on a workshop on problems related to humpback Tursiops ouncatus, and fisheries and other human ac-
tivities in the coastal areas of the southeastern United
whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in HawaiL Final States. Final report for MMC contract MM2910892-5.
report for MMC contract MM7AC018. NTIS PB-280 NTIS PB86-162203. 38 pp. (AO3)
794- 90 pp- (AO5) Ridgway, S.H., and K Benirschke. (Editors). 1977.
Norris, K.S., W.E. Stuntz, and W. Rogers. L978. The be- Breeding dolphins: Present status, suggestions for the
havior of porpoises in the eastern tropical Pacific yel- future. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC009.
lowfin tuna fishery: Preliminary studies. Final report NTIS PB-273 673. 308 pp. (A14)
for MMC contract MM6AC022. NTIS PB-283 970.
86 pp. (AO5)
200

Rid y S.H., d F.Zani Jr. 1981. An inves- Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1978. The evaluation of
t,T
tl@ ;f a al@ thm
for the humane taking human activities on &ray whales, Eschlichtius robustus,
0 rt@ Wh es d seats used for food. Final report in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California, Mexico. Final
for MMC contract MM6AC030. NTIS PB81-161 101. report for MMC contract MM8AC005. NTIS PB-289
12 pp. (AO2) 737 (Spanish translation PB-299 598). 34 pp. (A03)
Risebrough, R.W. 1978. Pollutants in marine mammals: Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1980. Gray whales,
A literature review and recommendations for research. Eschfichtius robustus, during the 1977-1978 and 1978-
Final report for MMC contract MM7AD035. NTIS 1979 winter seasons in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja
PB-290 728. 64 pp. (AO4) California Sur, Mexico. Final report for MMC con-
Risebrough, R.W., D. Alcorn, S.G. Allen, V.C. Anderlini@ tract MM1533497-8. NTIS PB80-202 989. 35pp. (A03)
L. Booren, R.L. DeLong, L.E. Fancher, R.E. Jones, Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1981. Demographic
S.M. McGinnis, and T.T. Schmidt. 1980. Population studies and habitat assessment of gray whales , Eschfich
biology of harbor seals in San Francisco Bay, Califor- dus robustus, in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California
nia. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC006. Sur, Mexico. Final report for MMC contract
NTIS PB81-107 963. 67 pp. (A04) MM20792194. NTIS PB82-123 373. 56 pp. (AO4)
Sawyer-Steffan, J.E., and V.L. Kirby. 1980. A study of Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1986. Demograthy and
serum steroid hormone levels in captive female bot- phenology of gray whales and evaluation of uman ac-
tlenose dolphins, their correlation with reproductive tivities in Laguna San Ignacio ' Baja California Sur,
status, and their application to ovulation induction in Mexico, 1978-1982. Final report for MMC contract
captivity. Final report for MMC contract MM2324713-8. NTIS PB86-219 078. 69 pp. (A05)
MM7AC016. NTIS PB80-177 199. 21 pp. (AO3) Swartzman, G. 1984. Factors bearing on the present
Schmidly, D.J., and S.H. Shane. 1978. A biological as- status and future of the eastern Bering Sea fur seal
sessment of the cetacean fauna of the Texas coast. population with special emphasis on the effect of ter-
Final report for MMC contract MM4AC008. NTIS minating the subadult male harvest on St. Paul Island.
PB-281 763. 38 pp. (A03) Final report for MMC contract MM2629737-6. NTIS
Scott, G.P., and H.E. Winn. 1980. Comparative evalua- PB84-172 329. 77 pp. (AO5)
tion of aerial and shi board mpling techniques for Swartzman, G., and R. Haar. 1980. Exploring interac-
estimating the abun ce of humpback whales (Megap- tions between fur seal populations and fisheries in the
tera novaeangliae). Final report for MMC contract Bering Sea. Final report for MMC contract
MM7AC029. NTIS PB81-109 852. 96 pp. (AO6) MM1800969-5. NTIS PB81-133688. 60 pp. (AO4)
Shallenberger, E. 1981. The status of Hawaiian ceta- Taylor, L.R. and G. Naftel. 1978. Preliminary investi-
ceans. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC028. gations of shark predation on the Hawaiian monk seal
NTIS PB82-109 398. 79 pp. (AO5) at Pearl and Hermes Reef and French Frigate Shoals.
Shane, S.H., and D.J. Schmidt 1978. The population Final report for MMC contract MM7ACOII. NTIS
PB-285 626. 34 pp. (A03)
biology of the Atlantic bottienose dolphin, Tursiops
ouncatus, in the Aransas Pass area of Texas. Final Tinney, R.T., Jr. 1983. Assessment of ast, present, and
report for MMC contract MM6AC028. NTIS PB-283 future risks of oil yffis *in and near Xe present sea
393- 130 pp. (AO7) otter range in California. Final report for MMC con-
Smith, T.D., and T. Polacheck. 1979. Uncertainty *in es- tract MM2324944-0. NTIS PB83-216 069. 208 pp.
timating historical abundance of porpoise populations. (AIO)
Final report for MMC contract MM7AC006. NTIS Ti ey, R.T., Jr. 1984. Some factors affecting the oil
PB-296 476. 59 pp. (A04) spilt risk to sea otters in California. Final report for
Stoker, S.W. 1977. Report on a subtidal commercial MMC contract MM29107654. NTIS PB85-174035. 74
clam fishery proposed for the Bering Sea. Final report pp. (A04)
for MMC contract MM7AD076. NTIS PB-269 712. Treacy, S.D. 1986. Ingestion of salmonids and
33 pp. (AO3) gastrointestinal passage in captive harbor seals (Phoca
Stuntz, W.E. 1980. Preliminary investigations of the pos- vitulina). Final report for MMC contract MM2079357-
sible relationship between passive behavior by spotted 5. NTIS PB86-200 235. 35 pp. (A03)
dolphins, Stenella auenuata, and capture stress. Final Waring, G.H. 1981. Survey of federally-funded marine
report for MMC contract MM7AC027. NTIS PB81- mammal research and studies FY70-FY79. Final
Ill 569. 13 pp. (AO2) report for MMC contract MMI533588-3. NTIS PB81-
Swartz, S.L. 1987. A review of the status of gray whales 174 336. 235 pp. (All)
(Eschrichtius robustus) with a summary of research Waring, G.H. 1981. Survey of federally-funded marine
and management needs. Final report for MMC con- mammal research and studies FY70-FY80. Final
tract MM29110984. NTIS PB87-125035. 30 pp. (AO3) report for MMC contract MM1801196-8. NTIS PB81-
Swartz, S.L., and W.C. Cummings. 1978. Gray whales, 242 059- 43 pp. (A03)
Eschrichtius robustus, in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja Waring, G.H. 1982. Survey of federally-funded marine
California, Mexico. Final report for MMC contract mammal research and studies FY70-FY81. Final
MM7AC008. NTIS PB-276 319 (Spanish translation report for MMC contract MM2079243-6. NTIS PB82-
PB-288 636). 38 pp. (A03) (AO4 Spanish) 227 570. 65 pp. (AO4)

201

Waring, G.H. 1983. Survey of federally-funded marine Woods, CA. 1987. An investigation of possible
mammal research and studies FY70-FY82. Final of Caribbean monk seals, (Monachus tropicalis), ong
report for MMC contract MM2324754-9. NTIS PB83- the north coast of Haiti. Final report for MMC con-
262 998. 83 pp. (A05) tract MM3309519-2. NTIS PB87-164307. 14 pp. (A02)
Waring, G.H. 1984. Survey of federally-funded marine Wray, P. 1978. The West Indian manatee (Trichechus
mammal research and studies FY70-FY83. Final manatus) in Florida: A summary and analysis of
report for MMC contract MM2629857-9. NTIS PB84- biological, ecological, and administrative problems af-
215 086. 84 pp. (A05) fecting preservation and restoration of the population.
Waring, G.H. 1985. Survey of federally-funded marine Final report for MMC contract MM8AD054. NTIS
mammal research and studies FY70-FY84. Final PB-285 410. 89 pp. (AO5)
report for MMC contract MM2910918-6. NTIS PB85- Yellin, M.B., C.R. Agegian, and J.S. Pearse. 1977.
22561-3. 10@ pp. (A06) Ecological benchmarks in the Santa Cruz County kelp
Waring, G.H. 1986. Survey of federally-funded marine forests before the re-establishment of sea otters. Final
mammal research and studies FY70-FY85. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC029. NTIS PB-272
report for MMC contract MM3309688-7. NTIS PB86- 813. 125 pp. (A07)
235 637. 108 pp. (A06) NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
Waring, G.H. 1987. Survey of federally-funded marine
mammal research and studies FY70-FY86. Final CURRENT PRICE LIST
report for MMC contract MM4465754-5. NTIS PB87-
217386. 127 pp. (AO7) Price List U.S., Canada All Other
Wartzok, D., and G.C. Ray. 1980. The hauling-out be- and Meidco Countries
havior of the Pacific walrus. Final report for MMC
contract MM5AC028. NTIS PB80-192 578. 46 pp. A01 $6.95 $13.90
(AO4) A02 9.95 19.90
Wells, R.S., B.G. Wursig, and K.S. Norris. 1981. A sur- A03 12.95 25.90
vey of the marine mammal of the upper Gulf of A04 14.95 29.90
California, Mejdco, with an assessment of the status of A05 14.95 29.90
Phocoena sinus. Final report for MMC contract A06 19.95 39.90
MM1300958-0. NTIS PB81-168 791. 51 pp. (AO4) A07 19.95 39.90
Whitehead, H., and R. Payne. 1981. New techniques for A08 19.95 39.90
measuring whales from the air. Final report for MMC A09 19.95 39.90
contract MM6AC017. NTIS PB81-161 143. 36 pp. A10 25.95 51.90
(AO3) All 25.95 51.90
Whitehead, H., K. Chu, P. Harcourt, and A. Alling. A12 25.95 51.90
1982. The humpback whales off west Greenland: A13 25.95 51.90
Summer 1981, with notes on other marine mammals A14 32.95 65.90
and seabirds sighted. Final report MMC contract
MM2079259-2. NTIS PB82-243 924. 25 pp. (AO3) A15 32.95 65.90
William , T.D. 1978. Chemical immobilization, baseline A16 32.95 65.90
hematological parameters and oil contamination in the A17 32.95 65.90
sea otter. Final report for MMC contract A18 38.95 77.90
MM7AD094. NTIS PB-283969. 27 pp. (AO3) A19 38.95 77.90
Wilson, S.C. 1978. Social organization and behavior of A20 38.95 77.90
harbor seals, Phoca vitulina concolor, in Maine. Final A21 38.95 77.90
report for MMC contract MM6AC013. NTIS PB-280 A22 44.95 89.90
188. 103 pp. (AO6) A23 44.95 89.90
Winn, H.E. 1984. Development of a right whale sighting A24 44.95 89.90
network in the southeastern U.S. Final report for A25 44.95 89.90
MMC contract MM2324805-6. NTIS PB84-240 548. A99 Write to NTIS for price quotation.
12 pp. (AO1)
Winn, H.E., EA. Scott, and R.D. Kenney. 1985. Aerial Each report, regardless of length, is available in micro-
surveys for right whales in the Great South Channel, fiche at the base prices listed for code A01. All prices
Spring 1984. Final report for MMC contract include postage and are given in U.S. currency. In ad-
MM2910792-6. NITS PB85-207 926. 18 pp. (AO2) dition, there is a $3.00 handling charge on domestic
($4.00 on foreign) orders. When ordermig, *include the
Woodhouse, C.D., Jr., R.K. Cowen, and L.R. Wilcoxon. NTIS accession number (eg., PB-265 547). Make
1977. A summary of knowledge of the sea otter En- checks and money orders payable to the National Tech-
hydra luths, L., in California and an appraisal of the nical Information Service. Address: 5285 Port Royal
completeness of the biological understanding of the Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, U.SA.
species. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC008.
NTIS PB-270 374. 71 pp. (A04)
202

APPENDIX C

SELECTED LITERATURE PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE
RESULTING FROM COMMISSION-SPONSORED ACTIVITIES

Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, and K.M. Bailey. 1982. Barham, E.G., J.C. Sweeney, S. Leatherwood, R.K.
Population Fluctuations of California Sea Lions and Beggs, and C.L. Barham. 1980. Aerial Census of the
the Pacific Whiting off Central California. Fishery Bul- Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops truncalus, in a Region of
letin (NOAA) 80:253-258. (MMC Contracts the Texas Coast. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 77(3):585-
MM4AC002, MM5AC027, MM6AC007, MM7AC025, 595. (MMC Contract MM8AC011).
and MM1300888-2). Beach, R.J., A.C. Geiger, S.J. Jeffries, S.D. Treacy, and
Ainley, D.G., R.P. Henderson, H.R. Huber, R.J. Boekel- B.L. Troutman. 1985. Marine Mammals and Their In-
heide, S.G. Allen, and T.L. McElroy. 1985. Dynamics teractions with Fisheries of the Columbia River and
of White Shark/Pinniped Interactions in the Gulf of Adjacent Waters, 1980-1982. NOAA, NMFS, NWAFC
the Farallones 1970 to 1983. Memoirs, Southern Processed Report 85-04,316 pp. (MMC Contracts
California Academy of Sciences, 9:109-122. (MMC MM2079221-7 and MM2324788-2).
Contracts MM4AC002, MM5AC027, MM6AC007,
MM7AC025, and MM1300888-2). Bean, M.J. 1987. Legal Strategies for Reducing Persis-
tent Plastics in the Marine Environment. Marine Pollu-
Ainley, D.G., C.S. Strong, H.R. Huber, T.J. Lewis, and tion Bulletin 18:357-360. (MMC Contract MM2629994-
S.H. Morrell. 1980. Shark Predation of Pinnipeds at 7)_
the Farallon Islands, California. Fishery Bulletin Bengtson, J.L. 1985. Monitoring Indicators of Possible
(NOAA) 78(4):941-945. (MMC Contracts Ecological Changes in the Antarctic Marine Ecosys-
MM4AC002, MM5AC027, MM6AC007, MM7AC025, tem. In Selected Papers, 1982-1984 (Part II), Commis-
and MM1300888-2). sion for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Alexander, L.M., and L.C. Hanson. (Editors). 1985. Ant- Resources, Hobart, Australia. (MMC Contract
arctic Politics and Marine Resources: Critical Choices 2629914-1).
for the 1980s. Proceedings from the Eighth Annual Bengtson, J.L. 1985. Review of Antarctic Marine Fauna.
Conference, 17-20 June 1984, Center for Ocean In Selected Papers, 1982-1984 (Part 1), Commission for
Management Studies, University of Rhode Island, the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resour-
Kingston, Rhode Island. 262 pp. (MMC Contract ces, Hobart, Australia. (MMC Contract 2629914-1).
MM2910791-3). Bfix, A.S., and L.K. Miller. 1979. Newborn Fur Seals
Allen, S.G., D.G. Ainley, G.W. Page, and CA. Ribic. (Callorhinus ursinus) - Do They Suffer from the Cold?
1984. The Effects of Disturbance on Harbor Seal American Journal of Physiolo 236:R322-327.
Haul-Out Behavior Patterns at Bolinas Lagoon,
California. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 82(3):433-500. (MMC Contract MM5AC025F,
(MMC Contract MM8AC012). Bockstoce, J. 1980. A Preliminary Estimate of the
Bailey, K.M., and D.G. Ainley. 1982. Dynamics of Reduction of the Western Arctic Bowhead Whale
California Sea Lion Predation on Pacific Hake. Fish. Population by the Pelagic Whaling Industry: 1848-
Res. 1: 163-176. (MMC Contracts MM4AC002, 1915. Marine Fisheries Review 42(9-10):20-27. (MMC
MM5AC027, MM6AC007, MM7AC025, and Contract MM7AD111).
MM1300888-2). Bockstoce, J.R. 1986. Whales, Ice and Men. The His-
Baker, C.S., and L.M. Herman. 1981. Migration and tory of Whaling in the Western Arctic. University of
Local Movements of Humpback Whales (Megaptera Washington Press, Seattle. (MMC Contract
novaeangfide) through Hawaiian Waters. Canadian MM7AD111).
Journal of Zoology 59(3):460-469. (MMC Contract Breiwick, J.M. 1978. Reanalysis of Antarctic Sei Whale
MM7AC014). Stocks. Report to the International Whaling Commis-
Balcomb, K.C., III, and M.A. Bigg. 1986. Population sion, 28:345-368. (MMC Contract MM7AC012).
Biology of the Three Resident Killer Whale Pods in Breiwick, J.M., E.D. Mitchell, and D.G. Chapman. 1980.
Puget Sound and off Southern Vancouver Island. In Estimated Initial Population Size of the Bering Sea
B.C. Kirkevoid and J.S. Lockard (Editors). Behavioral Stock of Bowhead Whale, Baldena mysticetus: An Itera-
Biology of Killer Whales. Zoo Biology Monographs, tive Method. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 78(4):843-853.
Vol. 1. (MMC Contract MM1300731-7). (MMC Contract MM8AC007).
Balcomb, K.C., III, J.R. Boran, and S.L. Heimlich. 1982. Brown, R.F., and B.R. Mate. 1983. Abundance, Move-
Killer Whales in Greater Puget Sound. Report to the ments and Feeding Habits of Harbor Seals, Phoca
International Whaling Commission 32:681-685. (MMC vitulina, at Netarts and Tillamook Bays, Oregon.
Contract MM1300731-7). Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 91(2):291-301. (MMC Con-
tract MM8AC003).

203

Brownell, R.L., P.B. Best, and J.H. Prescott. (Editors). Coe, J.M., and W.E. Stuntz. 1980. Passive Behavior by
1986. Right Whales: Past and Present Status. the Spotted Dolphin, Stenella allenuata, in Tuna Purse
Proceedings of the Workshop on the Status of Right Seine Nets. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 78(2):535-537.
Whales, Boston, Massachusetts, 15-23 June 1983. In- (MMC Contract MM6AC022).
ternational Whaling Commission, Special Issue 10. Costa, D.P. 1978. The Sea Otter: Its Interaction with
(MMC Contract MM2911051-5). Man. Oceanus 21(2):24-30. (MMC Contract
Brownell, R.L., Jr. 1987. External Morphology and Pig- MM6AA053).
mentation of the Vaquita, Phocoena sinus (Cetacea.- Costa, D.P. 1982. Energy, Nitrogen, and Electrolyte Flux
Matntnalid). Marine Mammal Science 3(l):22-30. and Sea Water Drinking in the Sea Otter, Enhydra
(MMC Contract MM3309558-7). lutris. Physiological Zoology 55(l):35-44. (MMC Con-
Burns, JJ., and F.H. Fay. 1974. New Data on Taxonomic tract MM6AA053).
Relationships Among North Pacific Harbor Seals, Cowen, RX, C.R. Agegian, and M.S. Foster. 1982. The
genus Phoca (sensu stficto). Trans. 1st Internat. Maintenance of Community Structure in a Central
Theriol. Cong. (Moscow) 1:99. (MMC Contract
MM4AC005). California Giant Kelp Forest. Journal of Experimental
Marine Biology and Ecology, 64:189-201. (MMC Con-
Bums, JJ., F.H. Fay, and G.A. Fedoseev. 1984. tract MM7AC023).
Craniological Analysis of Harbor and Spotted Seals of Dayton, P.K. 1984. Processes Structuring Some Marine
the North Pacific Region. Pp. 5-16. In F.H. Fay and Communities: Are They General? Pp. 181-197. In
GA. Fedoseev (Editors). Soviet-American Coopera- D.R. Strong, et al. (Editors). Ecological Com-
tive Research on Marine Mammals. Vol. I-Pinnipeds. munities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence. Prince-
NOAA Tech. Report NMFS-12. (MMC Contract ton University Press. Princeton, NJ. (MMC Contract
MM4AC005). MMUW702-9).
Clapham, P.J., and CA. Mayo. 1987. The Attainment of Dayton, P.K., V. Currie, T. Gerrodette, B.D. Keller, R.
Sexual Maturity in Two Female Humpback Whales. Rosenthal, and D. Van Tresca. 1984. Patch Dynamics
Marine Mammal Science 3(3):279-283. (MMC Con- and Stability of Some California Kelp Communities.
tract MM1800925-5). Ecological Monographs 54(3):253-289. (MMC Con-
Clark, W.G. 1981. Restricted Least-squares Estimates of tract MM1300702-9).
Age Composition from Length Composition. Dayton, P.K., and MJ. Tegner. 1984. The Importance of
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science Scale in Community Ecolog)r A Kelp Forest Example
38:297-307. (MMC Contracts MM1533439-2 and with Terrestrial Analogs. Pp. 457-481. In P.W. Price,
MM1801114-6). et al. (Editors). A New Ecolog)r Novel Approaches
Clark, W.G. 1982. Early Changes in the Recruitment to Interactive Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New
Rates of Antarctic Minke Whales Inferred from York. (MMC Contract MM1300702-9).
Recent Age Distributions. Report to the International Eberhardt, L.L., D.G. Chapman, and J.R. Gilbert. 1979.
Whaling Commi sion, 32:889-895. (MMC Contracts A Review of Marine Mammal Census Methods.
MMIS33439-2 and MM1801114-6). Wildlife Monographs, No. 63. 46 pp. (MMC Contract
Clark, W.G. 1982. Historical Rates of Recruitment to MM4AC014).
Southern Hemisphere Fin Whale Stocks. Report to Everitt, R.D., and RJ. Beach. 1982. Marine Mammal-
the International Whaling Commission, 32. Fisheries Interactions in Oregon and Washington: An
SC/33/Ba3:305-324. (MMC Contracts MM1533439-2 Overview. Pp. 265-277. In Transactions of the 47th
and MM1801114-6). North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
Clark, W.G. 1983. Apparent Inconsistencies among ference. Wildlife Management Institute. Washington,
Countries in Measurements of Fin Whale Lengths. D.C. (MMC Contracts MM2079345-2 and
Report to the International Whaling Commi sion, MM2079357-5).
33:431-434. (MMC Contracts MM1533439-1 and Fay, F.H. 1982. Ecology a .nd Biology of the Pacific Wal-
MM1801114-6). rus, Odobenus rosmarus divergens Illigen. U.S. Fish
Clark, W.G. 1984. Analysis of Variance of Photographic and Wildlife Service. North American Fauna, No. 74.
and Visual Estimates of Dolphin School Size. South- 279 pp. (Partial support under MMC Contract
west Fisheries Center Admin. Report LJ-84-11C. MM1533576-0).
Southwest Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Fay, F.H. 1984. Walrus. Pp. 264-269. In D. Macdonald
Service, La Jolla, California. 36 pp. (MMC Contract (Editor). Encyclopedia of Mammal . Equinox Ltd.,
MM2324792-1). Oxford, England. (MMC Contract MM1533576-0).
Clark, W.G. 1984. Recruitment Rates of Antarctic Fin Fay, F.H. 1985. Odobenusrosmarus. Mammalian Species
Whales, Baldenoptera physalus, Inferred from Cohort 238:1-7. (MMC Contract MM1533576-0).
Analysis. In W.F. Perrin, R.L. Brownell, Jr., and D.P.
DeMaster (Editors). Reproduction in Whales, Dol- Foster, M. 1982. The Regulation of Macroalgal Associa-
phins, and Porpoises. Special Issue 6. International tions in Kelp Forests. Pp. 185-205. In L. Srivastava
Whaling Commission. Cambridge, U.K. (MMC Con- (Editor). Synthetic and Degradative Processes in
tract MM1533439-2). Marine Macrophytes. W. de Gruyter & Company, Ber-
lin. (MMC Contract MM7AC023).

204

Fowler, C.W. 1980. A Rationale for Modifying Effort by Harvey, J.T., and B.R. Mate. 1984. Dive Characteristics
Catch, Using the Sperm Whale of the North Pacific as and Movements of Radio-Tag*ed Gray Whales in San
an Example. Pp. 99-102. In Report to the Internation- Ignacio Lagoon, Baja California Sur, Mexico. In The
al Whaling Commission, Special Issue 2. (MMC Con- Gray Whale. M.L. Jones, S. Swartz, and S. Leather-
tract MM8AC009). wood (Editors). Academic Press, pp. 561-575. (MMC
Fowler, C.W. 1981. Comparative Population Dynamics Contract MM1533416-9).
in Large Mammal . Pp. 437-455. In C.W. Fowler and Heimlich-Boran, J.R. 1986. Photogrammetric Analysis
T.D. Smith (Editors). Dynamics of Large Mammal of Growth in Puget Sound Orcinus orca. In B.C.
Populations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Kirkevoid and J.S. Lockard (Editors). Behavioral Biol-
(MMC Contract MM1"730-4). ogy of Killer Whales. Zoo Biology Monographs. Vol.
Fowler, C.W.. 1981. Density Dependence as Related to 1. (MMC Contract MML300731-7).
Life History Strategy. Ecology 62:602-610. (MMC Heimlich-Boran, J.R. 1986. Fishery Correlations with
Contract MM7AC013). the Occurrence of Killer Whales in Greater Puget
Fowler, C.W. 1987. A Review of Density Dependence in Sound. In B.C. Kirkevoid and J.S. Lockard (Editors).
Populations of Large Mammal . Rep. Current Main Behavioral Biology of Killer Whales. Zoo Biology
malogy, 1:401-441. (MMC Contract MM7AC013). Monographs. Vol. 1. (MMC Contract MML3W731-7).
Gaines, S.E., and D. Schmidt. 1976. Wildlife Manage- Heimlich-Boran, S.L. 1986. Cohesive Relationships
ment under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of Among Puget Sound Killer Whales. In B.C. Kirkevoid
1972. Pp. 50096-50114. In Environmental Law and J.S. Lockard (Editors). Behavioral Biology of
Reporter. (MMC Contract MM5AC029). Killer Whales. Zoo Biology Monographs. Vol. 1.
(MMC Contract MM1300731-7).
Gentry, R.L., and G.L. Kooyman. 1986. Fur Seals: Herman, L.M. 1979. Humpback Whales in Hawaiian
Maternal Strategies on Land and at Sea. Princeton Waters: A Study in Historical Ecology. Pacific
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 291 pp. Science 33(l):1-16. (MMC Contract MM7AC014).
(MMC Contract MM6AO19).
Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. Offshore Herman, L.M., and R.C. Antinoja. 1977. Humpback
Petroleum Resource Development and Marine Mam- Whales in the Hawaiian Breeding Waters: Population
mals: A Review and Research Recommendations. and Pod Characteristics. Scientific Report of the
Marine Fisheries Review 42(11):1-12. (Requested by Whales Research Institute, No. 29:59-85. (MMC Con-
the Marine Mammal Commission). tract MM7AC014).
Glockner-Ferrari, DA., and MJ. Ferrari. 1987. Iden- Hoelzel, A.R., and R.W. Osborne. 1986. Killer Whale
tification, Reproduction, and Distribution of Call Characteristics: Implications for Cooperative
Humpback Whales in Hawaiian Waters, 1984 and Foraging Strategies. In B.C. Kirkevoid and J.S. Lock-
1985. Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, ard (Editors). Behavioral Biology of Killer Whales.
National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle. 33 pp. Zoo Biology Monographs. Vol. 1. (MMC Contract
(MMC Contract MM2629752-5). MML300731-7).
Goodman, D. 1981. Life History Analysis of Lar e Mam- Hofman, RJ. 1985. The Convention on the Conservation
mals. In C.W. Fowler and T.D. Smith (EditorsT of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Pp. 113-122.
Dynamics of Large Mammal Populations. John Wiley In L.M. Alexander and L.C. Hanson (Editors). Ant-
& Sons, Inc., New York. (MMC Contract MM8AD- arctic Politics and Marine Resources: Critical Choices
008). for the 1980s. Center for Ocean Management Studies,
Goodman, D. 1980. Demographic Intervention for Close- University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.
ly Managed Populations. In M.E. Soule and BA. Wil- Hofinan, RJ., and W.N. Bonner. 1985. Conservation
cox (Editors). Conservation Biology- An Evolutionary and Protection of Marine Mammal : Past, Present and
Perspective. Sinaves. (MMC Contract MM8AD-008). Future. Marine Mammal Science 1(2):109.
Haenel, NJ. 1986. General Notes on the Behavioral On- Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, and S.H. Morrell. 1982. Sight-
togeny of Puget Sound Killer Whales and the Occur- ings of Cetaceans in the Gulf of the Farallones, Califor-
rence of Allomaternal Behavior. In B.C.'Kirkevoid nia, 1971-1979. California Fish and Game 68(3):183-
and J.S. Lockard (Editors). Behavioral Biology of 189. (MMC Contract MM1300888-2).
Killer Whales. Zoo Biology Monographs. Vol. 1. Hui@ CA. 1980. Variability of Dentin Deposits in Tur-
(MMC Contract MM1300731-7). siops truncatus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Hain, J.H.W., G.R. Carter, S.D. Kraus, CA. Mayo, and Aquatic Science 37(4):712-716. (MMC Contract
H.E. Winn. 1982. Feeding Behavior of the Humpback MM7AC021).
Whale, Megaptera n ae hae, 'in the Western North Irvine, A.B., M.D. Scott, R.S. Wells, and J.H. Kaufman.
Atlantic. Fishery BNetfeTNOAA) 80(2):259-268. 1981. Movements and Activities of the Atlantic Bot-
(MMC Contract MM1800925-5). tlenose Dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, Near Sarasota,
Hall, J.D. 1977. A Non-Lethal Lavage Device for Sam- Florida. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 79(4):671-688.
pling Stomach Contents of Small Marine Mammal . (MMC Contracts MM4AC004 and MM5AC018).
Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 75(3):653-656. (MMC Con-
tract MM4AC013).

205

Irvine, A.B., R.S. Wells, and M.D. Scott. 1982. An Kraus, S.D., J.H. Prescott, A.R. Knowlton, and G.S.
Evaluation of Techniques for Taong Small Odon- Stone. 1986. Migration and Calving of Right Whales
tocete Cetaceans. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 80(l):135- (Eubalaena glacialis) in the Western North Atlantic.
143. _ (MMC Contracts MM4AC004 and MM5AC018). Report to the International Whaling Commission. Spe-
Johnson, PA., B.W. Johnson, and L.R. Taylor. 1981. In- cial Issue 10. Pp. 145-151. (MMC Contracts
terisland Movement of a Young Hawaiian Monk Seal MM2079355-9 and MM3309800-5).
between Laysan Island and Maro Reef. 'Elepaio, Laist, D.W. 1987. An Overview of the Biological Effects
41(11):113_114. (MMC Contracts MM7AC009 and of Lost and Discarded Plastic Debris in the Marine En-
MM8AC008). vironment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18:319-326.
Jones, M.L., and S.L. Swartz. 1984. Demography and Leatherwood, S. 1975. Some Observations of Feeding
Phenology of Whale-Watching Activities in Laguna Behavior of Bottlenosed Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)
San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Pp. 309-374. in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and (Tursiops cf. T.
In M.L. Jones and S.L. Swartz (Editors). The Gray gilli) off Southern California, Baja California, and
Whale, Eschfichtius robustus. Academic Press. New Nayarit, Mexico. Marine Fisheries Review 37(9):10-16.
York. (MMC Contract MM8AC005). (MMC Contract MM6AC001).
Jones, M.L., S.L. Swartz, and J.S. Leatherwood. Leatherwood, S., J.R. Gilbert, and D.G. Chapman. 1978.
(Editors.) 1984. The Gray Whale. Academic Press, An Evaluation of Some Techniques for Aerial Cen-
Inc., New York. 602 pp. (MMC Contracts suses of Bottlenosed Dolphins. Journal of Wildlife
MM7AC008, MM8AC005, MM1533497-8, Management 42(2):239-250. (MMC Contract
MM20792194, MM2324715-8, MM2324713-8, and MM8AC001).
MM2911098-4). Leatherwood, J.S., R.A. Johnson, D.K. Ljungblad, and
Kirby, V. 1983. Progesterone and Estrogens in Pregnant W.E. Evans. 1977. Broadband Measurements of Un-
and Nonpregnant Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and derwater Acoustic Target Strengths of Panels of Tuna
the Effects of Induced Ovulation. Biology of Nets. Tech. Report 126. Naval Ocean Systems
Reproduction 28:897-901. (MMC Contract Center, San Diego, California. 19 pp. (MMC contract
MM7AC016). MM6AC020).
Kooyman, G.L., J.O. Billups, and W.D. Farwell. 1983. Loughlin, T.R. 1979. Radio Telemetric Determination of
Two Recently Developed Recorders for Monitoring the 24-Hour Feeding Activities of Sea Otters, Enhydra
Diving Activity of Marine Birds and M mmals. Pp. luths. Pp. 717-724. In C.J. Amlaner, Jr., and D.W.
197-214. In: A.G. MacDonald and I.G. Priede McDonald (Editors). A Handbook on Biotelemetry
(Editors). Experimental Biology at Sea. Academic and Radio-Tracking. Pergamon Press, Oxford and
Press, New York. (MMC Contract MM6AC019). New York. (MMC Contracts MM6AC004 and
Kooyman, G.L., and L.H. Cornell. 1981. Flow Proper- MM6AC024).
ties of Expiration and Inspiration in a Trained Bottle- Loughlin, T.R. 1980. Home Range and Territoriality of
nosed Porpoise. Physiological Zoology 54(l):55-61. Sea Otters near Monterey, California. Journal of
(MMC Contract MM4AC012). Wildlife Management 44(3):576-582. (MMC Contracts
Kooyman, G.L., R.L. Gentry, and D.L. Urquhart. 1976. MM6AC004 and MM6AC024).
Northern Fur Seal Diving Behavior: A New Approach Lowry, L.F. 1982. Documentation and Assessment of
to its Study. Science 193:411-412. (MMC Contract Marine Mammal-Fishery Interactions in the Bering
MM6AC019). Sea. Pp. 300-311. In Transactions of the 47th North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
Kooyman, G.L., K.S. Norris, and R.L. Gentry. 1975. Wildlife Management Institute. Washington, D.C.
Spout of the Gray Whale: Its Physical Characteristics. (MMC Contract MM1533596-4).
Science 190:908-910. (MMC Contract MM4AC012). Lowry, L.F., and F.H. Fay. 1984. Seal Eating by Wal-
Kooyman, G.L., and E.E. Sinnett. 1979. Mechanical ruses in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Polar Biology
Properties of the Harbor Porpoise Lung. Respiratory 3:11-18. (MMC Contracts MM5AC006 and
Physiology, 36:287-300. (MMC Contract MM4AC012). MMC5AC024).
Kraus, S.D., J.R. Gilbert, and J.H. Prescott. 1983. A Mate, B.R., J. Harvey, R. Maiefski, and L. Hobbs. 1983.
Comparison of Aerial, Shipboard and Land-Based Sur- A New Radio Tag for Large Whales. Journal of
vey Methodology for the Harbor Porpoise, Phocoena Wildlife Management 47(3):869-872. (MMC Contract
phocoena Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 81:910-912, MM1533416-9).
(MMC Contract MM1801023-1). Mate, B.R., and J.T. Harvey. 1984. Ocean Movements of
Kraus, S.D., K.E. Moore, CA. Price, M.J. Crone, WA. Radio-Tagged Gray Whales. In M.L. Jones and S.L.
Watkins, H.E. Winn, and J.H. Prescott. 1986. The Swartz (Editors). The Gray Whale, Eschfichtius robus-
Use of Photographs to Identify Individual North Atlan- tus. Academic Press, New York. (MMC Contract
tic Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Report to the 1533416-0).
International Whaling Commission. Special Issue 10.
Pp. 139-144. (MMC Contracts MM2079355-9 and Mayo, CA., CA. Carlson, P.J. Clapham-, and D.K. Mat-
MM3309800 5). tila. 1985. Humpback Whales of the Southern Gulf of
Maine. Shankpainter Press, Provincetown, Mas-
sachusetts. (MMC Contract MM1800925-5).

206

Mead, J.G. 1977. Records of Sei and Bryde's Whales Packard, J.M. 1984. Impact of Manatees, Thchechus
from the Atlantic Coast of the United States, the Gulf manatus, on Seagrass Communities in Eastern Florida.
of Mexico and the Caribbean. Pp. 113-116. In Interna- In Acta Zool. Fennica. 172:21-22. (MMC Contract
tional Whaling Commission, Special Issue No. 1. MM1801025-7).
Report of the Special Meeting of the Scientific Com- Packard, J.M. 1984. Proposed Research/Management
mittee on Sei and Bryde's Whales, La Jolla, California. Plan for Crystal River Manatees. Vols. 1-3. Tech.
December 1974. (MMC Contract MM7AC007). Report 7. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Melteff, B.R., and D.H. Rosenberg. (Editors). 1984. Research Unit, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Proceedings of the Workshop on Biological Interac- Florida. Prepared for Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
tions among Marine Mammals and Commercial Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 31 pp.
Fisheries in the Southeastern Bering Sea, October 18- 235 pp. 346 pp. (MMC Contract MM1801024-4).
21, 1983, Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant Col- Packard, J.M., and O.F. Wetterquist. 1985. Evaluation
lege Program, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. of Manatee Habitat on the Northwestern Coast of
300 pp. (MMC Contract MM2324802-7). Florida. Coastal Zone Management Journal 14(4):279-
Merrell, T.R. 1985. Fish Nets and Other Plastic Litter 310. (MMC Contract MM1801025-7).
on Alaska Beaches. In R.S. Shomura and H.O. Payne, R., 0. Brazier, E.M. Dorsey, J.S. Perkins, VJ.
Yoshida (Editors). Proceedings of the Workshop on Rowntree, and A. Titus. 1983. External Features in
the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 26-29 Novem- Southern Right Whales (Eubalaena australis) and
ber 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dept. Commerce, Their Use in Identifying Individuals. pp. 371-445. In
NOAA Tech. Memo. (MMC Contract MM2910786-1). R. Payne (Editor). Communication and Behavior of
Miller, LK 1977. Energetics of the Northern Fur Seal Whales. AAAS Selected Symposium 76. Westview
in Relation to Climate and Food Resources of the Press, Inc. Boulder, Colorado. (MMC Contract
Bering Sea. Proc. 2nd Conf. Biol. Marine Mammals, MM6AC017).
San Diego, California. (MMC Contract MM5AC025). pearse, J.S., D.P. Costa, M.B. Yellin, and C.R. Agegian.
Mizroch, SA., D.W. Rice, J.L. Bengtson, and S.W. Lar- 1977. Localized Mass Mortality of Red Sea Urchin,
son. 1985. Preliminary Atlas of Baldenoptefid Whale S&on&locentrotus fimciscanus, near Santa Cruz,
Distribution in the Southern Ocean based on Pelagic California. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 75(3):645-648.
Catch Data. SC-CAMLR-IV/BG/21. Pp. 113-193. In (MMC Contract MM6AC029).
Selected papers presented to the Scientific Committee Perrin, W.F., and A.C. Myrick, Jr. (Editors). 1980. Age
of CCAMLR, 1985. (MMC Contract MM3309521-5). Determination of Toothed Whales and Sirenians. In-
Nafziger, JA.R. 1978. The Management of Marine ternational. Whaling Commission, Special Issue No. 3.
Mammal After the Fishery Conservation and Manage- 229 pp. (MMC Contract MM8AC004).
ment Act. Willamette Law Journal 14:153-215. Perrin, W.F., R.L. Brownell, Jr., and D.P. DeMaster
(MMC Contract MM7AC001). (Editors). 1984. Reproduction in Whales, Dolphins,
National Research Council. 1981. An Evaluation of Ant- and Porpoises. International Whaling Commission,
arctic Marine Ecosystem Research. Committee to S ecial Issue 6. 490 pp. (MMC Contract MM2079356-
Evaluate Antarctic Marine Ecosystem Research, Polar 2.
Research Board. National Academy Press, Wash- Pierotti@ R.J., D.G. Ainley, T.S. Lewis, and M.C. Coulter.
ington, D.C. 99 pp. (MMC Contract MM1800913-2). 1977. Birth of a California Sea Lion on Southeast Faral-
Norris, Y-S., R. Goodman, B. Villa-Ramirez, and L. lon Island. California Fish and Game 63(l):64-65.
Hobbs. 1977. Behavior of California Gray Whales (MMC Contract MM4AC002).
(Eschfichlius robuslus) in Southern Baja California, Pitcher, Y-W. 1980. Food of the Harbor Seal, Phoca
Mexico. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 75(l):159-172. Wtulina, in the Gulf of Alaska. Fishery Bulletin
(MMC Contract MM5AC007). (NOAA) 78(2):544-549. (MMC Contract
Odell, D.K. 1975. Status and Aspects of the Life History MM5AC011).
of the Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in Pitcher, KW. 1980. Stomach Contents and Feces as In-
Florida. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of dicators of Harbor Seal, Phoca Wtulina, Foods in the
Canada 32(7):1055-1058. (MMC Contract Gulf of Alaska. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 78(3):797-
MM4AC003). 798. (MMC Contract MM5AC011).
Odell, D.K 1976. Distribution and Abundance of Marine Pitcher, Y-W. 1986. Variation in Blubber Thickness of
Mammal in South Florida: Preliminary Results. In Harbor Seals in Southern Alaska. Journal of Wildlife
A. Thorhaug (Editor). 1976. Biscayne Bay- Past/ Management 50(3):463-466. (MMC Contract
Present/Future. Biscayne Bay Symposium 1, 2-3 April MM5AC011).
1976. University of Miami Sea Grant Special Report
No. 5. 315p. (MMC Contract MM4AC003). Ralston, F. (Editor). 1977. A Workshop to Assess
Odell, D.K 1979. Distribution and Abundance of Research Related to the Porpoise/Tuna Problem,
Marine Mammal in the Waters of the Everglades Na- February 28, March 1-2. Southwest Fisheries Center
tional Park. Proceedings of the First Conference on Admin. Report IJ-77-15. Southwest Fisheries Service,
Research in National Parks. USDI, NPS, Transactions National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, California.
Proceedings Series No. 5:673-678. (MMC Contract 119 pp. 6 appendices. (MMC Contract MM7AC022).
MM4CO03).

207

Ra J@ D "bb@@and Rm' 1978. Strategies Swartz, S.L., and M.K. Bursk. 1979. The Gray Whales of
e tLg Main @S @
IrItats. Oceanus Laguna San Ignacio after Two Years. Whalewatcher
21(2):55-67. (MMC Contract MM6AC011). 13(l):709. (MMC Contracts MM7AC008 and
Roffe, T.J., and B.R. Mate. 1984.' Abundances and Feed- MM8AC005).
ing Habits of Pinnipeds in the Rogue River, Oregon. Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1983. Gray Whale
Journal of Wildlife Management 48(4):1262-1274. (Eschrichtius robustus) Calf Production and Mortality
(MMC Contract MM8AC003). in the Winter Range. International Whaling Commis-
Scott, G.P., and H.E. Winn. 1978. Assessment of sion Report, 33:503-508. (MMC Contracts
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangfiae) Stocks MM7AC009, MM1533497-8 and MM2079219-4).
Using Vertical Photographs. Proceedings PECORA Swartz, S.L. and M.L. Jones. 1984. Gray Whale Mothers
IV Symposium, National Wildlife Science and Technol- and Their Calves. Oceans 17(2):47-55. (MMC Con-
ogy Series 3:235-243. (MMC Contract MM7AC029). tracts MM7AC009, MM1533497-8 and MM2079219-4).
Sergeant, D.E., D.J. St. Aubin, and J.R. Geraci. 1980. Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1987. Gray Whales at Play
Life History and Status of the Northwest Atlantic in San Ignacio Lagoon. National Geographic
White-Sided Dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus. Cetol- Magazine (76):755-771. (MMC Contract MM7AC008,
ogy 37:1-12. (MMC Contract MM5AC008). MM8AC005, MM1533497-8, MM2079219-4 and
Shallenberger, E.W. 1977. Humpback Whales in MM2324713-8).
Hawaii: Population and Distribution. Oceans '77, Swartzman, G.L. 1984. Present and Future Potential
Marine Technology Society, Institute of Electrical and Models for Examining the Effect of Fisheries on
Electronics Engineers, p. Hawaii C1-7. (MMC Con- Marine M mmal Populations in the Eastern Bering
tract MM7AC014). Sea. In B. Melteff (Editor). Proceedings of the
Workshop on Biological Interactions Among Marine
Shane, S.H. 1980. Occurrence, Movements, and Dis- Mammals and Commercial Fisheries in the South-
tribution of Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in eastern Bering Sea. Alaska Sea Grant Report 84-1.
Southern Texas. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 78(3):593- (MMC Contract MM1800969-5).
601. (MMC Contract MM6AC028). Swartzman, G.L., and R.T. Haar. 1983. Interactions Bet-
Shaughnessy, P.D., and F.H. Fay. 1977. A Review of the ween Fur Seal Populations and Fisheries in the Bering
Taxonomy and Nomenclature of North Pacific Har- Sea. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 8(l):121-132. (MMC
bour Seals. Journal of Zoology, London, 182:385-419. Contracts MM1800969-5 and MM2629737-6).
(MMC Contract MM4AC005). Swartzman, G.L., and R.T. Haar. 1985. Interactions Bet-
Shomura, R.S., and H.O. Yoshida. 1985. (Editors). ween Fur Seal Populations and Fisheries in the Bering
Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact Sea. Pp. 62-93. In J.R. Beddington, R. Beverton, and
of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, D.M. Lavigne (Editors). Marine Mammal and
Hawaii. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54. 580 pp. Fisheries. George Allen and Unwin. London. 354 PP.
(MMC Contract MM2629949-7). (MMC Contracts MM1800969-5 and MM2629737-6).-
Siniff, D.B., T.D. Williams, A.M. Johnson, and D.L. Gar- Tillman, M.F., and G.P. Donovan (Editors). 1983. Spe-
shelis. 1982. Experiments on the Response of Sea Ot- cial Issue on Historical Whaling Records. Internation-
ters (Enhydra luftis) to Oil Contamination. Biological al Whaling Commission, Special Issue 5. 269 pp.
Conservation 23(4):261-272. (MMC Contract (MMC Contract MM7AC017).
MM7AD-094). sis Tricas, T.C., L.R. Taylor, and G. Naftel. 1981. Diel Be-
Smith, T.D. 1981. The Adequacy of the Scientific Ba havior of the Tiger Shark, Galeocerdo cuvier, at French
for the Management of Sperm Whales. Pp. 333-343. Frigate Shoals, Hawaiian Islands. Copeia 1981:904-
In Mammal in the Seas. FAO Fisheries Series No. 5, 908. (MMC Contract MM7AC011).
Vol. 111. 504 pp. (MMC Contract MM6AD047). Van Wagenen, R.F., M.S. Foster, and F. Bums. 1981.
Smith, T., and T. Polacheck. 1979. Analysis of a Simple Sea Otter Predation on Birds near Monterey, Califor-
Model for Estimating Historical Population Sizes. nia. Journal of Maminalogy, 62(2):433-434. (MMC
Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) 76(4):771-779. (MMC Con- Contract MM7AC023).
tract MM7AC006). Villa-R., B. 1976. Report on the Status of Phocoena
Swartz, S.L. 1981. Cleaning Symbiosis between sinus, Norris and McFarland 1958, in the Gulf of
Topsmelt, Atherinops affinis, and Gray Whales, California. Universidad Nacional Instituto De
Eschfichtius robustus, in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja Biologia Anales: Serie Zo I ia 47(2):203-208.
California Sur, Mexico. Fishery Bulletin (NOAA) (MMC Contract MM6AD00502gl
79(2):360. (MMC Contracts MM8AC005 and
MM1533497-8). Wells, R.S., A.B. Irvine, and M.D. Scott. 1980. The So-
Swartz, S.L., 1986. Gray Whale Migratory, Social and cial Ecology of Inshore Odontocetes. In L.M. Herman
Breeding Behavior. Pp. 207-229. In Donovan, G.P. (Editor). Cetacean Behavior: Mechanisms and
Editor). Cetacean Behavior Relative to Management Processes. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
(MMC Contracts MM4AC004 and MM5AC0018).
Issues. Rep. International Whaling Commission, Spe-
cial Issue 8. Cambridge, United Kingdom. (MMC
Contracts MM7AC008, MM8AC005, MM1533497-8,
MM2079219-4 and MM2324713-8).

208

Whitchead, H., K. Chu, J. Perkins, P. Bryant, and G.
Nichols. 1983. Population Size, Stock Identity, and
Distribution of the Humpback Whales off West Green-
land- Summer 1981. Report to the International
Whaling Commission, 33:497-501. (MMC Contract
MM2079259-2).
Williams, T.D., and F.H. Kocher. 1978. Comparison of
Anaesthetic Agents in the Sea Otter. Journal of
American Veterinary Medical Association 173:1127-
1130. (MMC Contract MM7AD-094).
William , T.D., A.L. William , and D.B. Siniff. 1981.
Fentanyl and Azaperone Produced Neuroleptanalgesia
in the Sea Otter. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 17(3)
July 1981. (MMC Contract MM7AD-094).
Williams, T.D., and L.T. Pulley. 1983. Blood Collection,
Hematology and Blood Chemistlm the Sea Otter.
Journal of Wildlife Diseases 19( .44_47. (MMC Con-
tract MM7AD-094).
Williams, T.D., and D.B. Siniff. 1983. Surgery Implanta-
tion of Radiotelemetry Devices in the Sea Otter. Jour-
nal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
193(11). (MMC Contract MM7AD-094).

209

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lr-- US Department of Commerce ---I
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234, GoutEn. Avo-.1u, e I
I Charle--toua, SO 2,Z.)z,05-2413
I
I

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

3 6668 14111564 4