ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 


MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION, CALENDAR YEAR 1987 


A REPORT TO CONGRESS 


D0C : NT 
LIBRARY 

Woods Hols Oceancgraphic 
Institution 


Marine Mammal Commission 

1625 I 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 ( Euntetopias 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 

VI . Impacts of Marine Debris 109 

Background 109 

Domestic Activities in 1987 Ill 

International Activities 118 


VII. Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions 12 6 

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 13 6 

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 

Pro j ects 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 176 

Application Review 176 

Working Group on the Permit System 177 

Conflicts between Public Display and 

Research Takings 178 

Issues Concerning Lethal Take for Public 

Display 179 

Permit-Related Litigation 179 

Appendix A: Commission Recommendations: 

Calendar Year 1987 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 2 04 


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 reguires that the Commissioners be knowledgeable in 
marine ecology and resource management. At the beginning of 
1987, the Commissioners were Robert Eisner, 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 K. 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 seal, 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 1,2 00 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 2 000, 
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 


84 


— 


1979 


77 


1 


78 


24 


1980 


63 


4 


67 


16 


1981 


113 


3 


116 


24 


1982 


117 


6 


123 


21 


1983 


80 


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 for 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 
(e.g., 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. 


8 


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 
what 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 

10 


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 Acquisition — 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 

11 


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. 

Regulations 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 

12 


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 

13 


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- 

14 


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 
(e.g., 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, 

15 


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 

16 


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. Martins 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- 

17 


lems. 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 Dugong (Dugong duaon) 

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 Mascarene, 
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. 

18 


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 1 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 


19 


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- 

20 


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 

21 


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 

22 


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. 

U pdating 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. 

23 


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 

24 


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 Pribilof s. 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 

25 


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 1979 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 Islands 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 

26 


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 
3 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 

27 


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 Lonq-Rancre Conservation 
Plan 

The cause or causes of the fur seal population decline 
since the mid-1970s has not been determined. Mortality due 
to entanqlement in lost and discarded fishinq qear is no doubt 
a contributinq factor and may be the primary cause of the 
decline (see Chapter VI for a thorouqh discussion of issues 
reqardinq entanqlement) . Other possibilities include: inci- 
dental take durinq fishinq operations; over-fishinq of pollock 
or other species important in the fur seals' diet; past and 
onqoinq fur seal harvest practices; disease; environmental 
pollution in one or more parts of the fur seals' ranqe; preda- 
tion; and natural variation or lonq-term chanqes in the marine 
ecosystem of which fur seals are a part. 

Because of the continuinq fur seal population decline 
and uncertainties concerninq 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 Proqram review and schedule subsequent 
reviews annually until such time as the population decline 
has been reversed; constitute a qroup of experts to write and 
help implement a fur seal conservation plan similar in scope 
and format to an endanqered 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 proqram 
review before February 1987 and noted that the need for a 
lonq-term research plan would be addressed at a meetinq 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 meetinq in Ottawa was cancelled, but subsequently 
was rescheduled and held in Washinqton, D.C. in September 
1987 (see discussion below) . 


28 


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 attention 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 

29 


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 

30 


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 1 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 


31 


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

The Entanglement Workshop 

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 28-3 
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 

32 


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 reguire 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 53 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 1987, 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. 

33 


On 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 

34 


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 formal 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 

35 


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 1 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 scientists indicated 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 Pribilof s. 

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. 


36 


Northern Sea Lion (Eumetopias iubatus) 

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 
(e.g., Marmot Island, Alaska) to determine the nature, extent, 

37 


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 Federal 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 consultation 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 Population (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. 


38 


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. 

39 


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


Number of 


Estimated 


Year 


Landinqs 


Mortality 


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. 

40 


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


Total 

1346 
1338 

1251 
1226 


Spring 
Fall 


Otters 


PUPS 


1982 


1124 
1194 


222 

144 


1983 


Spring 
Fall 


1131 
1062 


120 
164 


1984 


Spring 


1181 


123 


1985 


Spring 
Fall 


1124 
1066 


236 
155 


1986 


Spring 
Fall 


1345 
1088 


225 
113 


1987 


Spring 
Fall 


1430 
1263 


220 

104 


1304 

1360 
1221 

1570 
1201 

1650 
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, 

41 


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- 

42 


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 

43 


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; 

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 18 August 

44 


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. 


45 


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 
reguired 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 subseguent 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 

46 


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. 


47 


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 the 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 to the Service as appropriate. 

48 


Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeanqliae) 

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 reguired 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 

49 


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 (e.g., 
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 

50 


proposed 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 3 00 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 response, 
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 and management actions 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. 


51 


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 (i.e., 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, the 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 

52 


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. 

Humpback 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 
so. 

A report on the inventory was completed in October 1986 
and, on 14 October 1986, 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. 

53 


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 representative, 
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 

54 


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 

55 


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. 

Consideration bv 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 be used 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 


56 


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 


18 


27 


12 


15 


27 


1980 


18 


26 


16 


18 


34 


1981) 


17 


11 


28 


1982 } 


45** 


65** 


8 


11 


19 


1983 J 


9 


9 


18 


1984} 
1985/ ) 


43*** 


12 


13 


25 


26+ 


11 


6 


17 


1986 1 


2 6+ 


19 


9 


28 


1987 ) \ 

1988 ) 


32 ++ 


22 


9 


31 


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. 
k ** 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 2 6 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 
as no more than 32 strikes were taken in any single year. 

++ In 1987, the IWC modified the quota for 1987 as adopted in 
1985 to allow 32 strikes. 


57 


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 Coordination 

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 

58 


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 Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 
( Central California Population) 

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 
200-3 00 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 

59 


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

60 


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 
capacity in 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 

61 


in California. 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 Porpoise (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 f 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 in the 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 . 


62 


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 Dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hector i) 

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 (C. commersonii ) and the black 
dolphin (C. eutropia) , 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 

63 


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 (Superfamilv 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 qeoffrensis . the boto or Amazon river 
dolphin, found in the Amazon and Orinoco River basins in South 
America; Lipotes 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 

64 


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 
copy of the "Action Plan for the Conservation of Dolphins, 
Porpoises and Whales, 1988-1992," prepared by the Cetacean 
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 

65 


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. 


66 


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. 

67 


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 analyzed 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 

68 


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 (i.e. , 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 , 

69 


Vibrio . Pseudomonas , Klebsiella , Acinetobactera . Bacillus , 
and Staphylococcus ; 

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-Def iciency 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. 


70 


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 
than those 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 Groups and Species Reports 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act makes provision for 
management of marine mammals by the Federal Government and, 
under certain conditions described in the next section, by 
states. It has been the Commission's view that, 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 
hispida ) , bearded seal ( Erignathus barbatus) , ribbon seal 
( Phoca fasciata) , spotted seal ( Phoca largha) , harbor seal 
( Phoca yitulina) , northern sea lion ( Eumetopias iubatus ) , 
beluga whale ( Delphinapterus 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 

71 


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 determine the optimum sustainable population 

72 


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 1985, 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. 

73 


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. 

Report of the Special Advisor on Native Affairs 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act recognizes that marine 
mammals play an important role in the cultural and subsis- 
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 
3 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 (e.g., 
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. 

74 


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, 

75 


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 Regulations 

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 year its intention to publish 
final regulations in 1988. 


76 


Litigation 

In a lawsuit filed in 1985 ( Katelnikoff v. U.S. Department 
of the Interior ) , an Alaska Native challenged the validity of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's regulatory definition of 
"authentic Native articles of handicraft and clothing." That 
definition requires that, in order to qualify for the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act's Native-take exemption, handicraft 
articles fashioned from marine mammal parts and products must 
have been "commonly produced on or before December 21, 1972." 
The plaintiff's complaint alleged that the 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. 


77 


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 

78 


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 
sperm whales, killer whales, leopard seals, and other higher- 
order predators. 

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- 

79 


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 Parties 1 and most of the 17 
non-Consultative Parties 2 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 


1 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. 

80 


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 

81 


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 
8th 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 reguesting that SCAR review and provide 
advice on the adeguacy 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 reguest, provided in a report entitled "The Protected 
Areas System in the Antarctic," pointed out a number of de- 
ficiencies in and guestions 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 reguired 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 

82 


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 

83 


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 1 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. 

Safeguards 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 conducted 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 

84 


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 

85 


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 Related 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 framework 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 and 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 

86 


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. 3 
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 gunnari 
and was taken from the area around South Georgia Island. 

The 1986/1987 catch 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. 

87 


since the 1987/1988 fishing season began in August-September, 
the Commission imposed several conservation measures. It 
established a 1987/1988 Total Allowable Catch of 35,000 metric 
tons for C. gunnari in the South Georgia area, retroactive to 
1 July 1987; it required that catches of C. gunnari 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. gunnari is reached. The Commission also closed the C. 
gunnari fishery in the South Georgia area from 1 April to 1 
October 1988 and requested that the Scientific Committee provide 
advice for C. gunnari 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 Monitoring : 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 Inspection : 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. 

88 


to carry out inspection and observation activities on board 
vessels engaged in 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 "do's" and "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 

89 


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 (e.g. , 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 June 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. 

Development of a Conservation 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 development 
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 

90 


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 establishes 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.S. 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. 

91 


Antarctic, convened by the National Marine Fisheries Service 
on 15-16 April 1987. 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 oil, gas, or other non-living resources could 

92 


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 11th 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 Parties 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- 

93 


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. 

94 


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 Whaling 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. 


95 


Moratorium on Commercial Whaling — In 1982, the IWC 
adopted 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 

96 


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. 

Aboriginal/Subsistence Whaling — 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 

97 


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 adversely 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 with its 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 

98 


(d) recommended 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 

99 


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 2 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. 

Japan — 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 


research 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 3 00 
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 Wildlife Service that the United States submit a 
proposal to the Sixth Conference to delete northern elephant 
seals (Mirpunga ancrustirostris ) 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 (Trichechus 
senegalensis ) . 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 Marine 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 (e.g., 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 
sources of pollution. In addition, the U.S. delegation noted 
the need to heighten awareness of the problem of ship-generated 
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 with 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 Program 

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 

111 


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 1 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- 
national 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 (i.e., 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 (e.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 Debris 

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 (e.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 Annex 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, 
"...the disposal of all plastics, including but not limited 
to synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets, and plastic garbage 

bags " 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," 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, 
successful 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 
debris 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 1984 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, 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 


tj* 


c« 


10* 


co 


01 rH 


•o 


TJ 


TJ 


tj 


TJ 


>i 


a o> 


01 


0) 


0) 


0) 


0) 


rH 


•p 


V 


JJ 


•p 


*1 


a 


o to 


■H 


-rH 


■H 


■H 


i-l 


Oi 


<U 0) 


a 


A 


JQ 


a 


A 


P 10 


■p > 


•H 


•H 


iH 


•H 


-H 


c 


Xi 


£ 


A 


A 


£ 


01 CO 


rH 73 


O 


O 


trip 


a. ai 


M 


u 


M 


U 


u 


c c 


•P 


a. 


a. 


04 


a, 


a. 


CO 


•H 01 


a) id 


0) 


u B 


rl -H 


tr 


o> 


0> 


& 


o> 


rH 


P 01 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


■H 


CO u 


£ 


-H 


tH 


■H 


-rH 


■rH 


a 


■H 


0] tO 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


0) p 


<U 01 


S. 


a 


a 


a 


a 


fM 


<w < 


9 


3 


1 


3 


3 


i-i 


O 01 


O 


a 


a 


a 


Q 


A 


X rl 


■o 


•a 


TJ 


TJ 


>, 


01 


0) 


0) 


0) 


rH 


■M 


p 


P 


p 


a 


* 


■H 


■H 


■H 


tH 


a 


« 


A 


A 


ja 


a 


P 10 


a 


•»< 


-H 


■rl 


•ri 


c 


10 


J3 


£ 


.C 


jS 


01 CO 


0) 


O 


o 


O 


CT4J 


O Ij 


U 


rl 


r. 


rl 


C S 


tj < 


a. 


a. 


0. 


Oi 


O 


CO 


-H 0) 


■h 


CD 


. O 


tH a 


a r-i 


o< 


CD 


0< 


o> 


r-t 


«H 


P 01 


C 10 


c 


c 


c 


C 


-H 


tH 


CO u 


M -H 


-H 


■H 


•H 


-H 


a 


a 


-H 


co 


a 


a 


a 


a 


« 


d 


oi 3 

rl & 


a 


3 


3 


3 


3 


H 


rH 


O 0) 


a 


CO 


u 


u 


Q 


Q 


A 


A 


X rl 


rH 


a> 


01 


01 


0) 


> 


rH 


•a 


0) 


>i 


r-< 


0) 


rl 


rH 


< 


n 

10 
0) 

tj < 


•p 

■H 

X) 

-H 


ri 


J3 

CO 
<p 
<u 
O 


a 
a 

■P 10 

c 

0) 10 

CJ1.P 
c c 


1-1 


a. 


a 


CO 


CO 


■H Oi 


CO r-t 


4) 


0) 


CO 


0) 


CO 


U 3 


■P 10 


B> 


rH 


rH 


0) 


rH 


01 


P 01 


3-H 


c 


■rH 


-H 


rH 


-H 


i-< 


10 rl 


O O 


-H 


a 


a 


-H 


a 


•H 


-rl 


01 


a 


a 


a 


0) 3 
U & 


a 


a 


If) 


M 


<S 


CO 


3 


c* 


rH 


o 


rH 


n 


O 0) 


5 


A 


A 


A 


A 


A 


X rl 


o 


•H 


4J 73 


0) C 


« 


rH 


« 


TJ 


J3 i0 


CP 


10 


■ 


0) 


p 


e 


p 


■p 


C 01 


■H 


0) 


P 


3 


>i-P 


C CO 


BTJ 


0I« 


c 


TJ 


CO 01 


•H rH 


C 


TJ 


tH 


01 


c 


f-< 10 


- <0 


- C 


1 


P 


<0 


a 


■H 


CO „ 


CO 3 


3 


co 


P" 


0) CP 


- tj 


SET 


CO O 


o 


C 


0) 


S 


TJ C 


0) 01 


10 U 


O 


•H 


& 


in 


3-H 


tn+j 


rH 0) 


•-< CT> 


1 


rH .C 


10 10 


o<x 


CT 


P 


p 


■ 


U oi 


s a 


O CO 


rl 


o 


0< 


C-H 0) 


c 


- o a 


> 


c 


o 


0) 


10 


-H <P 0> 


3 0> 


CO IH 0) 


CO 


CO 


A 


10 


TJ C 


D> O P 


B»TJ 


0)« 


3 


U 


-•a ja 


•rH 


10 -H 


10 01 


P TJ 


P TJ 


<M 


(0 


CO c 


0>-«S 


rl - 


l-i -P 


CO C 


CO C 


0) 


o 


O «J 01 


C U 


CO u 


3 


<0 3 


10 3 


rl 


•H tJ> 


•rH 10 


- 0) (0 


- C 


» O 


S O 


p CO 10 


p a 


U rH rH 


>J-H 


rl 


u 


TJ 


a oixi 


10 


0) P-rH 


oi a 


TJ tP 


TJ CT> 


0) 


<a o,u 


O TJ 


Ar a 


a 1 


O 


O 


X 


HOD 


rH C 


10 O-H 


10 


O Ih 


O U 


-rH 


o. u o> 


fa (0 


a. xi oi 


a, o 


(t. 


lu O 


X 


u 


c 


• 


l 


-H 

p 


m 


(0 


CO 


in 


l-l 


B 


fM 


rH 


c 


& 


HH 


J= 


01 


iO 


p 


c 


rH 

a 


rl 


-H 


01 


a 


cr 


n 


o 


u 


10 


0) 


3 


10 


ai 


(7> CO 


rH 


u 


10 


« 


Qi <w 


c 


O 


C <w 


01 


rH 


a 


01 


3 


01 


N 


o 


i 


o 


-H 


o 


0) 


0) 


O en 


J3 <« 


£ P 


c 


CO 


a — i 


01 TJ 


rH 


J3 


a 


c 


Q.P 


(0 


-H 


a 


B<» 


p 


CO 


C 


-rH 


10 -H 


u 


> 


0) 


P 


o 


M 


10 


C 


10 


01 


m 


rH TJ 


01 


CO <M 


u 


10 


co 


0) 


IH 


fj< 


CO 


co 


c 


10 ^ 


rH 


01 


iO 


Xi 


10 


X 


&r4 -H 


co 


3 CO <ih 


r-< 


O 


01 


rl TJ rH 


01 


Xi 


CrH 


01 


p 


10 


10 


01 

> 


CO 


» 


9 


CO TJ TJ 


rH 


10 


0) 


3 


rH 


act 


rH 


iO 


* 


CTJ 


p 


O-H 


c 


•H 


iO 


01 4J 


01 


f-t 


rH 


^ 


CO 


XI 


10 


01 


CO 


10 


CQ 


01 


01 


u 


01 


«. 


0) 


3 


XI 


c 


> 


10 


01 


p 


01 TJ 


01 


01 


c 


01 


u 


3 


10 P 


s 


u 


10 •-> 


rl-H 


(O 


01 


01 


u 


0>P 


01 


10 -rl 


CO 


c 


XI TJ 


CO — I 


rl 


0) 


10 


a 


■a x 


CP 


TJ TJ 


01 


s 


01 


TJ J3 


10 X) 


C P 


iO 


3 


01 


01 


rl 


)H 


s 


CO 


en (0 


O <w 


<*H 


o 


IH 


CO P 


O 


10 


10 


c 


0) rH 


TJ 


rl 


Q.-H 


ai 


i0 


p 


P 


to 


10 


3 


■H 


>H P 


C 


A 


O-H 


— I 


H 


J3 


o 


a 


CO M 


s 


01 <«H 


a 


O 


Q.<P 


X 


U co o 


01 


121 


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 implement Annex V. 

24th Session of the Marine Environment Protection Commit- 
tee, 16-2 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 ship-generated garbage be expanded and rewritten 
to present clearer advice on the matters of collecting, pro- 
cessing, 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 


CHAPTER 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 (i.e., 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. 

Background 

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 some other 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 (e.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 (e.g. , 
the length of time that nets are left in the water) that may 
be causing or contributing to the incidental take of harbor 
porpoise, harbor seals, and other marine mammals. 

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 

Minke 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/Fisherv 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 Whale/Black 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 


long-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 


Proposed Fishery-Related Amendments to the 
Marine Mammal Protection 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 proposed 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 ESA" 
(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 
regulations 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 Fisherv 


In the Eastern 


Tropical 


Pacific Ocean 


Estimated Kill 


Year 


and 


Serious Iniury 


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 
was 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, 
"[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 guest ions 
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 Pall's Porpoise Issue 

Dall's porpoise ( Phocoenoides dalli ) become entangled 
and die in gill nets used by Japanese salmon fishermen in the 
North Pacific Ocean. Pursuant to the International 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 Pall'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 Pall's Porpoise 

by the Japanese Salmon Drift Net Fishery 

in the North Pacific Ocean 


Year 


Estimated Take 


1981 


1,850 


1982 


4,187 


1983 


2,906 


1984 


2,443 


1985 


2,760 


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 reguired 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 Register 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 reguest 
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. Testimony was 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's porpoise be issued for two years, subject to research 
and monitoring conditions. Due to the lack of reliable data 
on the status of the affected stocks, the Commission recommended 
that the permit not be issued for northern fur seals and 
northern sea lions. It also recommended establishment of an 
ecosystem 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's Associations opposed issuance of the permit. The 
National Marine Fisheries Service supported the issuance of a 
five-year permit to take annually up to 4,200 Dall's porpoise 
and 450 fur seals from the Commander Islands stock. 

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 should be 
applied if the term of the permit was extended. On 23 January 
1987, the Service published a Federal Register notice setting 
forth required statements on the status of the Commander 
Islands fur seal stock. This action was necessary because, 
during the rulemaking process, the Federation explained that 
it was requesting permission to take fur seals only from the 
Commander Islands stock, 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's porpoise and 45 northern fur seals during 1987, 
and that, for each of four subsequent 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, most of which were consistent with the Commission's 
recommendations . 

All parties filed exceptions to Administrative 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 seals 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's porpoise quota and the mandatory 
annual quota reduction. The Eskimo fishermen's 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 Statement, 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; and 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 Federally-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, Ph.D., 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 Debris 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 natural 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 (e.g., 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 S tranded 
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.e., 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 net 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 Report 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 and 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-Res iqhtinq 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 Porpoise, 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 and 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 Reports 
(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. 

Special 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 (e.g. , 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 #97 
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 PCS Lease Sale #109 
Chukchi 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 PCS Lease Sale #95 
Offshore Southern California 

During 1987, the Minerals 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 Development 

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 198 6, 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 area; 

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 denning 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 is not known how many polar bears den 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 Management Service's 
Environmental Studies Program 

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 
private agencies and organizations. 


168 


Workshop To Assess Possible Systems for Tracking Large 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 (e.g. , 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 whales at 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 Commission's 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. 


Application 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 


Final Departmental Action 


Dept. of 

Commerce 


X 


Dept. of 
Interior 


A 


_3_ 


Dept. of 
Interior 


2. 


Dept. of 
Commerce 


Complete Application 


Commission Recommendation 


i ■ 


* 


Marine 


Mammal 


Commission 


i 


T 


Committee of Scientific 
Advisors on Marine Mammals 


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 (median, 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 the Permit System 

In July 1985, the Commission established a Working Group 
composed of members of the Commission staff and the Committee 
of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals for purposes of 
preparing a report on how the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
permit system could be improved. The 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 Display 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 1986, 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 National 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 

6 January 


7 January 

9 January 

16 January 


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

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. 

Commerce, public display permit application, 
Dolphin Research Center. 

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

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 


28 January 
6 February 


17 February 
19 February 


6 March 


9 March 
9 March 


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

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

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. 

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

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. 

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. 

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 
The Whale Center. 

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 


13 March 

13 March 

18 March 

19 March 


25 March 
30 March 
3 April 
3 April 
3 April 
3 April 
3 April 
3 April 
3 April 
8 April 
8 April 


Commission before committing funds for these 
identified tasks. 

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

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

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

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. 

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

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 
National Zoological Park. 

Interior, public display permit application, 
Columbus Zoo. 

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

Interior, public display permit application, 
Adventure World. 

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 
Steven L. Swart z. 

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

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

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

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

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- 
ing 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, 1988-1990" 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. 

Commerce, modification of scientific research 
permit, James L. Hickman and Virginia Coyle. 

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 

Southwest Fisheries Center. 

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

Interior, scientific research permit application, 
Fish and Wildlife Service. 

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 


18 


May 


18 


May 


18 


May 


18 


May 


19 


May 


19 May 


2 May 


21 May 


28 May 

29 May 
3 June 
3 June 
3 June 


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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Interior, scientific research permit application, 
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. 

Commerce, public display permit application, New 
York Aquarium. 

Commerce, modification of scientific research 
permit, West Coast Whale Research Foundation. 

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. 

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 
Cascadia Research Collective. 


4 June 


Commerce, public display permit application, 
Baltimore Aquarium. 


187 


11 June 


18 June 


18 June 


18 June 


18 June 


25 June 


25 June 


25 June 


2 July 


7 July 


Commerce, modification of scientific research 
permit, Charles Monnett. 

Commerce, modification of scientific research 
permit, Kenneth S. Norris, Randall S. Wells, Jan 
S. Ostman and William T. Doyle. 

Interior, modification of scientific research 
permit, Anthony R. DeGange. 

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

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

Interior, modification of scientific research 
permit, Mote Marine Laboratory. 

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 
Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 

Commerce, modification of public display permit, 
Sea World, Inc. 

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. 

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 reguest 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 Aguarium, 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 

29 July 

5 August 

5 August 

6 August 

7 August 
7 August 
7 August 
7 August 

10 August 


14 August 


Interior, public display permit application, The 
Cousteau Society. 

Interior, modification of public display permits, 
Adventure World, Hiroo Aquarium. 

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 
Southwest Fisheries Center. 

Commerce, public display permit application, John 
G. Shedd Aquarium. 

Commerce, public display permit application, 
Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. 

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 
Naval Ocean Systems Center. 

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 
Southwest Fisheries Center. 

Commerce, public display permit application, 
Aquarium of Niagara Falls. 

Interior, scientific research permit application, 
National Park Service. 

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. 

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- 
tion 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-fathom 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 reguest 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 
routes; 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. Lambert sen. 


191 


27 August 


28 August 

4 September 

11 September 

16 September 


14 September 
18 September 
22 September 
24 September 
13 October 
13 October 
16 October 
16 October 


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. 

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 
All Union Scientific Research Institute of Fish- 
eries and Oceanography, U.S.S.R. 

Interior, scientific research permit application, 
The Cousteau Society. 

Commerce, public display permit application, 
Dolfinarium Brugge. 

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. 

Commerce, modification of public display permit, 
Jolly Roger Amusement Park. 

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

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 
Bernie Tershy. 

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

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

Commerce, public display permit application, 
Ocean Reef Club. 

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

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


192 


20 October 
2 October 
23 October 
28 October 


28 October 

29 October 
6 November 
9 November 


12 November 


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

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

Interior, modification of scientific research 
permit, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

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. 

Interior, public display permit application, Paul 
Jensen Arctic Museum. 

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 
R. H. DeFran. 

Commerce, modification of scientific research 
permit, Gerald G. Joyce. 

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. 

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 


13 November 

17 November 

18 November 

19 November 


2 November 


during its review of the original Japanese 
proposal . 

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

Commerce, scientific research permit application, 
Marine Animal Productions. 

Commerce, modification of scientific research 
permit, Janice M. Straley. 

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. 

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 Register , information summarizing 
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 


24 November 

3 November 

30 November 

30 November 


17 December 


21 December 
29 December 


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. 

Commerce, request to transfer dolphin for public 
display. 

Commerce, public display permit application, 
Miami Seaguarium. 

Commerce, public display permit application, Sea- 
Arama, Inc. 

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. 

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. 

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

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) 1 


Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, R.P. Henderson, and T J. 
Lewis. 1977. Studies of marine mammals at the Faral- 
lon Islands, California, 1970-1975. Final report for 
MMC contract MM4AC002. NTIS PB-274 046. 42 pp. 
(A03) 

Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, R.P. Henderson, TJ. Lewis, 
and S.H. Morrell. 1977. Studies of marine mammals 
at the Farallon Islands, California, 1975-1976. Final 
report for MMC contract MM5AC020. NTIS PB-266 
249. 32 pp. (A03) 

Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, S.H. Morrell, and R.R. 
Le Valley. 1978. Studies of marine mammals at the 
Farallon Islands, California, 1976-1977. Final report 
for MMC contract MM6AC027. NTIS PB-286 603. 44 
pp. (A03) 

Allen, S.G., D.G. Ainley, and G.W. Page. 1980. Haul out 
patterns of harbor seals in Bolinas Lagoon, California. 
Final report for MMC contract MM8AC012. NTIS 
PB80-176 910. 31 pp. (A03) 

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

Bean, M J. 1985. United States and international 

authorities applicable to entanglement of marine mam- 
mals and other organisms in lost or discarded fishing 
gear and other debris. Final report for MMC contract 
MM2629994-7. NTIS PB85-160471. 65 pp. (A04) 

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

Bengtson, J.L. 1978. Review of information regarding the 
conservation of living resources of the Antarctic 
marine ecosystem. Final report for MMC contract 
MM8AD055. NTIS PB-289 4%. 148 pp. (A08) 

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

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

1 Price codes for printed reports (including postage) are shown in 
parentheses at the end of each citation. Microfiche copies of the 
reports are also available (price code A01). The key to the codes 
and ordering information can be found on the last page of this 
Appendix. 


Brownell, R.L., Jr., C. Schoenwald, and R.R. Reeves. 
1978. Preliminary report on world catches of marine 
mammals 1966-1975. Final report for MMC contract 
MM6AC002. NTIS PB-290 713. 353 pp. (A16) 

Chapman, D.G., L.L. Eberhardt, and J.R. Gilbert. 1977. 
A review of marine mammal census methods. Final 
report for MMC contract MM4AC014. NTIS PB-265 
547. 55 pp. (A04) 

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

Cornell, L.H., E.D. Asper, K.N. Osborn, and M J. White, 
Jr. 1979. Investigations on cryogenic marking proce- 
dures for marine mammals. Final report for MMC 
contract MM6AC003. NTIS PB 291 570. 24 pp. (A03) 

Dayton, P.K., B.D. Keller, and DA. Ven Tresca. 1980. 
Studies of a nearshore community inhabited by sea ot- 
ters. Final report for MMC contracts MM6AC026 
and MM1300702-9. NTIS PB81- 109 860. 91pp. 
(A06) 

DeBeer, J. 1980. Cooperative dedicated vessel research 
program on the tuna-porpoise problem: Overview and 
final report. Final report for MMC contract 
MM8AC006. NTIS PB80-150 097. 43 pp. (A03) 

Dohl, T.P. 1981. Remote laser branding of marine mam- 
mals. Final report for MMC contract MM4AC011. 
NTIS PB81-213 449. 34 pp. (A03) 

Erickson, A.W. 1978. Population studies of killer whales 
{Orcinus orca) in the Pacific Northwest: A radio-mark- 
ing and tracking study of killer whales. Final report 
for MMC contract MM5AC012. NTIS PB-285 615. 34 
pp. (A03) 

Fay, F.H., H.M. Feder, and S.W. Stoker. 1977. An es- 
timation of the impact of the Pacific walrus population 
on its food resources in the Bering Sea. Final report 
for MMC contracts MM4AC006 and MM5AC024. 
NTIS PB-273 505. 38 pp. (A03) 

Foster, MA. 1981. Identification of ongoing and 
planned fisheries in the Northwestern Hawaiian Is- 
lands. Final report for MMC contract MM 1801069-7. 
NTIS PB81-207 516. 90 pp. (A05) 

Foster, M.S., C.R. Agegian, R.K. Cowen, R.F. Van 

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

Fowler, C.W., W.T. Bunderson, M.B. Cherry, R.J. Ryel, 
and B.B. Steele. 1980. Comparative population 
dynamics of large mammals: A search for manage- 
ment criteria. Final report for MMC contract 
MM7AC013. NTIS PB80- 178 627. 330 pp. (A15) 


197 


Fowler, C.W., R J. Ryel, and LJ. Nelson. 1982. Sperm 
whale population analysis. Final report for MMC con- 
tract MM8AC009. NTIS PB82-174 335. 35 pp. (A03) 

Gaines, S.E., and D. Schmidt. 1978. Laws a