Marine Mammal Commission. 2002. Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi). Pages 63-76 in Chapter III, Species

of Special Concern, Annual Report to Congress, 2001. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, Maryland.

1

Figure 7. The Hawaiian Archipelago. The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands provide pupping beaches for all majorbreeding colonies of Hawaiian monk seals.

Hawaiian Monk Seal(Monachus schauinslandi)

The Hawaiian monk seal is the mostendangered seal in U.S. waters and one of the mostendangered seals in the world. It occurs only in theHawaiian Archipelago, where it numbers about 1,300to 1,400 animals. The vast majority of monk sealsbreed, pup, and live out their lives in the remoteNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands. This chain of smallislands and atolls extends about 2,000 km (1,100 nmi)northwest of the main Hawaiian Islands (Fig. 7) andincludes the species’ six major breeding sites: FrenchFrigate Shoals, Laysan Island, Lisianski Island, Pearland Hermes Reef, the Midway Islands, and Kure Atoll.Almost all Hawaiian monk seal pups are born at these

sites. Although it seems likely that the species’ rangeoriginally included the main Hawaiian Islands, monkseals apparently were extirpated from those islandsafter the first Polynesians arrived about 2,000 yearsago. A small monk seal colony now occurs on Niihau(the westernmost of the main Hawaiian Islands) and, inrecent years, a few births have been reported annuallyat other islands, principally Kauai. This suggests thatthe species may be in the process of reoccupying themain Hawaiian Islands.

In the 1800s sealers, explorers, shipwreckedsailors, and other visitors to the Northwestern HawaiianIslands killed monk seals for their skins, oil, and food.

2

Although data on their numbers during that period arenot available, this exploitation probably caused asignificant decline. There is evidence suggesting thatby the 1900s monk seals were extirpated from three ofthe Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (i.e., Laysan, theMidway Islands, and French Frigate Shoals).

By the mid-1950s when the first beach countsof seals were made, there must have been some degreeof recovery because monk seals were found at all of thecurrent breeding sites. By the late 1970s, however,beach counts had declined by nearly half. During thatperiod, sharp declines occurred at all of the colonies inthe western end of the chain while a rapid increaseoccurred at French Frigate Shoals in the eastern half ofthe chain. By the early 1980s the colony at FrenchFrigate Shoals made up nearly half of the remainingpopulation. Human activity associated with expansionof a naval air station at Midway Atoll and installationof a Loran station on Kure Atoll likely were significantfactors causing the declines at the westernmost atolls.

Over the past 15 years there has been a reversalin trends at individual colonies. That is, the westerncolonies have increased slowly or remained stablewhile the colony at French Frigate Shoals hasexperienced a sharp decline (Fig. 8). As a result, theoverall population has remained relatively stable sincethe mid-1990s. Increases at the westernmost coloniesappear to be due in large part to improved efforts toprevent disturbance of seals hauled out on puppingbeaches and the translocation of underweight pups thatwere taken from French Frigate Shoals forrehabilitation and released at Kure Atoll in the 1980sand early 1990s.

The cause of the decline at French FrigateShoals is uncertain and may include a combination offactors. Since the decline began in the mid- to late1980s, pups and juveniles at this site typically havebeen underweight or starving and have experiencedvery low survival rates. Also, adult females havetended to be smaller than those at other sites,suggesting that the availability of prey has been limited.Possible explanations for the low weight and poorsurvival rate include overfishing of monk seal prey bythe commercial lobster fishery, declines in preyproductivity due to regional climate shifts andassociated changes in current patterns, prey depletiondue to growth of the monk seal colony to a sizeexceeding its carrying capacity, entanglement of sealsin derelict fishing gear, shark predation, and injuriessustained by pups, females, and juveniles fromaggressive adult male seals.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has leadresponsibility for the recovery of Hawaiian monk sealsunder the Endangered Species Act and the MarineMammal Protection Act. However, other agencies alsohave important responsibilities. Among these are theFish and Wildlife Service, which manages wildlifehabitat and human activities within the lands andwaters of the Hawaiian Islands National WildlifeRefuge and the Midway Atoll National WildlifeRefuge; the U.S. Coast Guard, which assists withenforcement and efforts to clean up marine pollution;the State of Hawaii, which owns Kure Atoll and alsohas jurisdiction over waters between the refugeboundary and 3 nmi (5.5 km) around all emergent landsin the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (exceptMidway); the National Ocean Service, which ischarged with conserving natural resources in theNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef EcosystemReserve extending from state waters out to a perimeterabout 50 nmi (92.5 km) from the NorthwesternHawaiian Islands; and the Western Pacific RegionalFishery Management Council, which is responsible fordeveloping fishery management plans and proposingregulations to the National Marine Fisheries Service forcommercial fisheries around the NorthwesternHawaiian Islands.

Figure 8. Mean beach counts of Hawaiian monk seals atmajor breeding colonies; 1983–2001 (source: NationalMarine Fisheries Service, unpublished data, data for 2001 arepreliminary).

3

In addition, the Service has established aHawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team. Composed ofscientists and agency resource managers, the team hasmet annually over the past decade to review programprogress and plans and to provide advice on priorityresearch and management needs to the Service. TheMarine Mammal Commission has also periodicallyheld reviews of the monk seal recovery program to helpprovide program guidance.

Developments during 2001 related to theconservation of Hawaiian monk seals are discussedbelow.

Population Trends at Major Monk Seal ColoniesMajor monk seal colonies are visited annually

during the summer breeding season by field crews tomonitor pup production and to undertake other researchand management activities. During these field visits,which now typically last from a week to several monthsat each site, repeated counts are made of the number ofseals hauled out on atoll beaches. Abundance trends ateach site are measured by the mean of those counts. Asa general rule, beach counts represent about one-thirdof the total number of seals at a colony, with the othertwo-thirds at sea when the counts are made. Based onpreliminary data through 2001 (see Fig. 8), mean beachcounts at French Frigate Shoals have declined by nearlytwo-thirds since the late 1980s although the rate ofdecline has slowed since the mid-1990s. In contrast,counts at Pearl and Hermes Reef, Midway Atoll, andKure Atoll have been increasing slowly but steadily,and counts at Laysan and Lisianski Islands haveremained relatively stable.

Preliminary results of beach counts in 2001suggested a marked decline at all major breedingcolonies. Also in 2001, there was a marked decline inobserved survival rates of one-year-old seals (i.e., the2000 cohort) at all atolls except Pearl and Hermes Reef.The reports of the unusually high numbers of juveniledeaths prompted the National Marine Fisheries Serviceto declare an “unusual marine mammal mortality event”and to undertake an investigation under provisions ofsection 404 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (seeChapter VI).

The mortality event designation was triggeredby the discovery of four dead juvenile monk seals onLaysan Island over a nine-day period in early January2001. A field team, including a veterinarian, wasdispatched to examine dead seals on Laysan Island aswell as at other atolls. During this and subsequentpopulation monitoring work, one adult and 12 juvenile

monk seal deaths were reported at several breedingcolonies between early January and early July.Necropsy results revealed that the animals wereemaciated, suggesting that an inability of weanedpups and seals between the ages of one and two tofind food was the most likely explanation for thedeaths. As of the end of 2001 analyses of tissuesamples had revealed no signs of infectiousdiseases, natural or anthropogenic toxins,parasitism, or injuries although further testingremained to be done.

Also during 2001 field crews at FrenchFrigate Shoals continued to see evidence of highrates of shark predation on pups. Concern arose in1999 when evidence suggested that more than 25percent of the pups born that year at that site werekilled by sharks. Because this predation continuedto occur in 2000, contingency plans were developedto catch individual sharks found patrolling watersadjacent to pupping beaches and preying on pups.In 2001 eleven pups were believed to have beenkilled by sharks and six others were injured. A largemajority of the shark-related deaths, disappearances,and injuries has occurred at one of the atoll’sislands, Trig Island. In response, five sharksexhibiting predatory behavior were culled, and 18weaned pups were moved from Trig Island andRound Island, where predatory sharks were alsoseen patrolling the beach, to other islands in theatoll. The 11 pup deaths in 2001 represented about17 percent of the pups seen during the field season.

Interactions with Commercial Fisheries

Hawaiian monk seals feed on a variety ofspecies, including small reef fishes, octopuses, andlobsters. The sharp decline in monk seal numbers atFrench Frigate Shoals began in the late 1980s ascommercial lobster stocks in the NorthwesternHawaiian Islands declined. The commercial lobsterfishery, which focused on banks east and west ofFrench Frigate Shoals (i.e., Maro Reef, GardnerPinnacles, and around Necker Island), also has abycatch of octopuses, crabs, and other monk sealprey species. Management of the fishery was basedon the assumption that lobster stocks would besustained as long as the spawning stock biomass oflobsters did not fall below 20 percent of theestimated level that would have occurred in theabsence of fishing. Thus, it was assumed thatremoval of 80 percent of the mature lobsters wouldhave no significant effect on either lobster

4

recruitment or prey availability for monk seals. Underthis management system, lobster catch rates declinedsignificantly, and the fishery was closed under anemergency rule in 1991 to prevent overfishing.

In the early 1990s the concurrent declines oflobster stocks and the French Frigate Shoals monk sealcolony, the occurrence of lobsters and other speciestaken by the fishery in monk seal diets, and clear signsof limited prey availability for seals at French FrigateShoals led the Commission to question the NationalMarine Fisheries Service’s assumption that the lobsterfishery was having no significant effect on monk seals.The Service, however, stated that there was no evidencethat lobsters were an important part of the monk sealdiet and, under management measures developed by theWestern Pacific Regional Fishery ManagementCouncil, the Service reopened the fishery in 1992 eventhough there had been little change in lobsterabundance. At the recommendation of theCommission, the Service also took steps to determinemonk seal foraging patterns using satellite tags on adultmale seals at French Frigate Shoals. These studies soonrevealed that some monk seals at French Frigate Shoalstraveled farther to feed than previously thought,including excursions to the neighboring banks that hadbeen fished intensively for lobster.

Low survival rates of pups and juveniles atFrench Frigate Shoals continued and, over the pastdecade, the Commission has repeatedly recommendedthat the Service adopt a precautionary managementapproach by closing waters to commercial fishingaround French Frigate Shoals until information isadequate to indicate that lobster fishing and its bycatchare not contributing to the sharp decline in monk sealsat that site. In 1995 the Commission also recom-mended that the Service use a new research techniqueto identify monk seal prey preferences — the analysisof fatty acids from prey deposited in seal blubber.Although the Service agreed to pursue this line ofresearch, no action was taken to adopt theCommission’s management recommendations. Monkseal numbers at French Frigate Shoals and lobsterstocks at banks in the eastern end of the chaincontinued to decline.

As a result of depletion of lobster stocks at theeastern end of the chain, the Western Pacific RegionalFishery Management Council proposed a newmanagement system, which the Service adopted in1998. The new system encouraged a shift in fishingeffort to banks that had received comparatively little orno commercial lobster fishing effort, including French

Frigate Shoals and banks in the western end of thechain supporting major monk seal colonies. TheCommission wrote to the Service and the Councilseveral times in 1998 and 1999 opposing the planand recommending that all banks supporting majormonk seal colonies be closed to lobster fishing untilbetter information was available on its effects onmonk seals. However, these recommendations werenot adopted. The Commission also wrote to theHawaii Department of Land and Natural Resourcesurging that the state close waters within itsjurisdiction in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands tolobster fishing, but no action was taken at that time.

Concerned about the possible effects of thelobster fishery on monk seals, the Hawaiian MonkSeal Recovery Team also wrote to the Servicefollowing its 7 December 1999 meeting,recommending that the fishery be closed for at leastthree years to allow the region’s depleted lobsterstocks time to recover. Also, on 26 January 2000several environmental groups represented byEarthjustice, a public interest law firm, sued theService for failing to properly manage NorthwesternHawaiian Islands lobster and bottomfish fisheries toavoid harming monk seals.

In April 2000 the Service proposed and inJune 2000 adopted a rule to close the NorthwesternHawaiian Island lobster fishery for the 2000 fishingseason. At that time, the fishery involved about sixvessels that each fished for a few weeks in July andAugust. In closing the fishery for 2000, the Servicenoted concern about the depleted status of lobsterstocks but made no reference to possible effects ofthe fishery on monk seals. It also announced plansto conduct an experimental lobster fishery in 2000to assess the status of the lobster stock by samplingpreviously tagged lobsters at several banks. Catchlevels in this program were to be set at a muchreduced level from earlier commercial harvests. Asnoted in its previous annual report, the Commissioncommented on a research protocol for theexperimental fishery. Among other things, itrecommended that lobsters caught in this fishery bereturned to the reef alive, rather than kept for latersale, to help rebuild the lobster stock and avoidpossible effects on monk seal prey availability.Plans for the experimental fishery, however, weresubsequently canceled.

On 22 February 2001 the Serviceannounced that the lobster fishery would remainclosed for the 2001 fishing season. At the end of

5

2001 it was the Commission’s understanding that theService planned to assess the status of lobster stocks inthe Northwestern Hawaiian Islands in 2002 through atagging and sampling program in which all caughtlobsters would be released alive.

As a related matter, in December 2001 theHawaii Department of Land and Natural Resourcesproposed rules to designate a fishery management areain all state waters around the Northwestern HawaiianIslands and the region’s national wildlife refuges.Under the proposal, a state permit would be required toaccess and remove living resources around theNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands to ensure the sustain-able use of area resources for present and futuregenerations. At the end of 2001 the Commission wasdeveloping a comment letter expressing support for thestate’s proposed rule and recommending that manage-ment goals for the area explicitly state an intent toapply a precautionary management approach and toconsult with managers of the adjacent national wildliferefuges and the coral reef ecosystem reserve to ensurethat decisions affecting the regional ecosystem areimplemented in a compatible, consistent manner.

Although the Service’s plans for commerciallobster fishing in 2002 and beyond were uncertain as ofthe end of 2001, the future of this and other fisheries inthe Northwestern Hawaiian Islands was the subject ofactions taken to establish the coral reef ecosystemreserve (see below).

Northwestern Hawaiian IslandsCoral Reef Ecosystem Reserve

On 4 December 2000 President Clinton signedinto law Executive Order 13178 establishing theNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef EcosystemReserve. Its purpose is to “ensure the comprehensive,strong, and lasting protection of the coral reefecosystem and related marine resources and species ofthe Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.” The reserveincludes all submerged lands and waters around theNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands from the seaward limitof state jurisdiction (3 nmi around all emergent lands)out to a distance of about 50 nmi from the center of thechain’s islands and banks. At Midway Atoll, where theMidway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge boundaryextends to 3 nmi, the reserve boundary is coterminouswith the refuge boundary. These boundaries make thereserve the world’s second largest marine protectedarea — second only to Australia’s Great Barrier ReefMarine Park. However, much of the chain’s coral reefhabitat lies in state waters between the reserve

boundary and the boundaries of the HawaiianIslands National Wildlife Refuge.

The executive order directed the NationalOcean Service to manage the reserve and to beginthe process of designating it as a national marinesanctuary. The order also directed that a Coral ReefEcosystem Reserve Advisory Council be establishedto provide advice on these matters. The councilincludes experts in certain scientific disciplines andrepresentatives of stakeholder groups as votingmembers; officials of certain concerned agencies,including the Marine Mammal Commission, serveas nonvoting members.

The executive order also directed thatrestrictions be imposed on commercial andrecreational fishing; exploration and extraction ofoil, gas, or other minerals; anchoring on coral;discharging or depositing material; and removing,taking, harvesting, or damaging living or nonlivingresources. With regard to fishing, it called for a capon the number of permits and harvest levels forexisting fisheries and a ban on permits for any newtypes of fishing not authorized by permit in the yearbefore the reserve was established. As a lobstercatch limit was in place through December 1999 butnot in 2000 when the fishery was closed, it isunclear whether or at what level lobster harvestsmight resume under terms of the order. The orderalso called for establishing 15 “reserve preservationareas” within which all fishing (except bottomfishfishing in certain portions of those areas) would beprohibited. The preservation areas were to remainin effect pending an opportunity for public commentand action to make some or all of them permanent.They included waters from the state jurisdictionallimit to the 100-fathom isobath around all bankswith emergent land (except Midway Atoll) as wellas waters within 12 nmi (22.2 km) of certainsubmerged banks.

A request for comments on the reservepreservation areas was published in the FederalRegister on 7 December 2000. The Commissionresponded by letter of 8 January 2001 to theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.In its comments, the Commission expressed supportfor proposed reserve preservation areas andrecommended that they be adopted as permanent. Italso suggested some minor changes in theboundaries allowing bottomfish fishing. To theextent that lobster fishing might continue, theCommission noted its concern about its possible

6

effects on Hawaiian monk seals and recommended thatthe fishery remain closed. It also encouraged closecoordination with the State of Hawaii and the Fish andWildlife Service to develop a consistent,comprehensive management program for the entireNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands ecosystem.

After consideration of submitted comments,President Clinton signed Executive Order 13196 on 18January 2001 making all of the proposed reservepreservation areas permanent. Among other changes,the final provisions increased access to preservationareas for commercial bottomfish fishing and recrea-tional fishing.

Following the inauguration of President Bushand the change of Administration, the Western PacificRegional Fishery Management Council wrote to theSecretary of Commerce on 22 February 2001 raisingconcerns about the boundaries of the new reserve andquestioning the legality of certain provisions in theexecutive orders as they related to the management offisheries. In response, the Secretary initiated a reviewof the executive orders in March. As of the end of 2001the review had not yet been completed.

To guide management decisions pending adecision on designating the reserve as a national marinesanctuary, the National Ocean Service drafted a reserveoperations plan. At the end of 2001 the draft wasundergoing internal review and was expected to becirculated for public review and comment early in2002. Other initial efforts to administer the newreserve included partial funding to continue work toremove derelict fishing gear and other marine debrisfrom reefs in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (seebelow), construction of a research vessel for use in thereserve, development of a public interpretative displayat the reserve’s offices at Hilo, and convening fourmeetings of its advisory council. A representative ofthe Commission participated in all of those meetings.Among other things, the council provided advice onkey management activities, particularly the drafting ofthe reserve operations plan.

As of the end of 2001 the National OceanService planned to begin a scoping process in the springof 2002 to solicit public comments on designating thereserve as a national marine sanctuary. This is the firststep in developing an environmental impact statementon options related to sanctuary designation.

Foraging Ecology WorkshopAs noted above, limited prey availability

appears to have been a factor in the decline of monk

seal abundance at French Frigate Shoals. In recentyears, there also have been signs of prey limitationsat Laysan Island even though lobster fishing within20 nmi (37 km) of the island had been prohibitedsince 1986. Because of these and other concerns,the Service has supported studies to investigatemonk seal foraging patterns. Those include the useof satellite tags and depth-of-dive recorders todetermine where and at what depths monk sealsfeed, “crittercams” (a battery-powered video-camerathat can be mounted on an animal) to documentunderwater foraging behavior, scat and spewanalyses to identify the types and frequency of preyitems consumed, and studies of fatty acids from preyin seal blubber to assess the relative composition ofdifferent dietary components. Although all of thesestudies address important information needs, it hasbeen unclear whether the locations, sample sizes,age and sex composition of animals studied, andother factors have been coordinated in a way thatwould maximize their collective value.

At the recommendation of the HawaiianMonk Seal Recovery Team, the Service thereforeconvened a foraging ecology workshop on 14–15September 2001 in Honolulu. The purpose of theworkshop was to obtain recommendations from anindependent panel of experts for use in formulatinga comprehensive research plan on monk sealforaging ecology. Specific objectives includedevaluating past and ongoing studies, settingpriorities for future research needs, and providing aconceptual framework for synthesizing researchelements into a multidisciplinary research plan. Amember of the Commission’s Committee ofScientific Advisors participated on the panel. At theend of 2001 a report of the workshop was beingcompleted and the results were expected to beavailable early in 2002.

Proposal for a Fishery Support Baseat Midway Atoll

Midway Atoll, located near the western endof the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, includes twoof the chain’s largest islands: Sand Island (about445 hectares or 1,100 acres) and Eastern Island(about 135 hectares or 334 acres). The islands havebeen used since the early 1900s for variouspurposes, including a trans-pacific cable station, astop for early transpacific clipper flights, and aNaval air station. The site also was attacked byJapanese planes on 3 June 1942 during the course of

7

the Battle of Midway. As part of its base closingprocess, the Navy transferred ownership of the atoll tothe Fish and Wildlife Service in 1996 for use as theMidway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge.

The airfield, harbor, and other facilities on theisland remain strategically important for emergencyaircraft landings, medical evacuations of seafarers, arefueling station for Coast Guard enforcement planes,and other purposes. To maintain and operate keycomponents of the islands’ infrastructure, including theairfield and harbor, the Service developed a cooperativeagreement with a private company to manage thefacilities. To generate funding to pay for theseexpenses, the arrangement includes authority foroperating an ecotourism-based public use program thataffords paying visitors an opportunity to view theatoll’s historic and natural resources in a mannercompatible with wildlife protection needs.

On 12 January 2001 the Western PacificRegional Fishery Management Council forwarded aproposal to the Fish and Wildlife Service requestingpermission to use Midway Atoll as a fishery supportstation. The proposal, developed by the WesternFishboat Owners Association, sought to use the atoll’sfacilities as a refueling station for bottomfish, lobster,and albacore trolling vessels. It also proposedestablishing a catch transshipment station for a 20- to70-vessel albacore trolling fleet that operates north ofMidway Atoll between May and October. Thosevessels would transfer their catch to refrigerated carriervessels up to 250 ft (76.2 m) long for transport to acannery in Samoa. Other catch might be shipped to themain Hawaiian Islands by planes already servicingMidway. Such a station could cut a few hundred milesof transit distances for fishing vessels that now offloadtheir catch in the Aleutian Islands or the main HawaiianIslands and provide income to help maintain theislands’ facilities.

Statutes for administering national wildliferefuges require that no activities be permitted unlessthey are compatible with the purposes of the refuge andthe mission of the refuge system. Those includemaintaining biological diversity; conserving fish andwildlife and their habitats; providing opportunities forresearch, education and compatible wildlife-dependentactivities; and maintaining the historic significance ofthe Midway Islands. Consistent with these purposes,vessel access to the atoll has been strictly limited due tothe variety of risks vessels may pose, including thetransport of alien species to the atoll, fuel spills,introduction of debris, discharges of sewage and bilge

water, accidental groundings, and anchor damage tocorals. In addition, the condition of the harbor’spiers and bulkheads is poor and deteriorating.Accordingly, vessel access has been restrictedlargely to small recreational boats, supply vessels,and government ships. The fishery managementcouncil’s proposal would significantly increase thenumber of vessels using the atoll.

As of the end of 2001 the proposal had beendenied at the regional level of the Fish and WildlifeService, but was being reviewed by the Secretary ofthe Interior in response to an appeal by the WesternPacific Regional Fishery Management Council.

Figure 9. Tern Island, French Frigate Shoals.

Tern Island Shoreline ProtectionTern Island is one of several small islets at

French Frigate Shoals (Fig. 9). It is an importanthaul-out site for Hawaiian monk seals, as well as anesting beach for sea turtles and a rookery for manyspecies of seabirds. Tern Island is largely anartificial island built by the Navy during World WarII as a landing strip. Originally a shifting sandisland about 4.5 hectares (11 acres) in size, it wasexpanded to about 13.5 hectares (34 acres) toaccommodate a landing strip and buildings. Thiswas done by installing a sheetmetal bulkhead aroundthe island and in adjacent shallow waters andbackfilling with coral rubble dredged from thesurrounding lagoon. In the process of backfilling,various scrap materials as well as fuel storage tankswere buried on the island. Between 1952 and 1979,the Coast Guard took over the island for use as aLoran station.

In 1979 the Fish and Wildlife Serviceresumed possession of the island and began using its

8

facilities as a permanent field station for the HawaiianIslands National Wildlife Refuge. (The Service hadpre-viously been assigned ownership of the island pur-suant to a 1909 executive order by President TheodoreRoosevelt establishing the Hawaiian Islands Reser-vation.) Since 1979, however, corrosion has caused theseawall to collapse in several areas, forming erosionpockets behind the bulkhead. The eroded areas havecreated entrapment hazards for seals and turtles andhave exposed dump sites containing discarded electricalequipment left during the Coast Guard occupation.Those sites include high concentrations ofcontaminants, including polychlorinated hydrocarbons(PCBs).

If left to deteriorate further, new openings inthe bulkhead will result in loss of the airstrip andpossibly the entire island, forcing the Service toabandon the field station. That would eliminate whathas become an important terrestrial site for wildlife,leave entrapment hazards for seals and turtles with noon-site rescue personnel, expose unknown types andamounts of hazardous debris buried on the island, anddistribute chemical contaminants from untreated dumpsites into the surrounding lagoon.

To address this situation, the Service contractedwith the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1993 todesign a new rock revetment to replace the deterioratingbulkhead. The project was estimated to cost about $11million. Over the past decade, the Service has soughtcongressional funding to begin construction. In theinterim, the Service, the Coast Guard, and the Corpshave been responding to breaches in the seawall withemergency repairs and to discovery of new dump siteswith a series of contaminant clean-up efforts. Due tochanges in the condition of the seawall and erosionpatterns, changing construction costs, and other factorssince the initial 1993 design was developed, theplanned project is now estimated to cost $16 million.At the end of 2000, $11.9 million had beenappropriated for the project.

During 2001 the Service proceeded with stepsto initiate the project. In June it circulated a draftenvironmental assessment for public review andcomment. The preferred alternative called for installing3,854 ft (1,175 m) of rock revetment and 820 ft (259 m)of steel sheet pile bulkhead along one side and bothends of the island. To protect wildlife duringconstruction, the Service identified a number ofpossible mitigation measures, including phasingconstruction work to avoid the sensitive seal breedingseason, confining construction work to the smallest

possible area at any given time, suspending workwhen seals or turtles approach work sites, closelymonitoring potential impacts, and restricting themovement of workers and equipment around theisland.

On 23 July 2001 the Commission wrote tothe Service commenting on the draft assessment. Inthe letter, the Commission expressed its belief thatreplacing the seawall was essential to (1) prevent thespread of hazardous debris and chemicals nowburied on the island, (2) prevent the formation ofnew entrapment hazards, (3) retain importantterrestrial wildlife habitat, and (4) maintainlogistical support for research and managementwork at French Frigate Shoals. The Commissiontherefore concluded that long-term benefits of theproject far outweighed potential short-term impactsand recommended that construction proceed at theearliest possible date. It also recommended that theidentified mitigation measures be included as part ofthe proposed project and that the Service consultwith the Coast Guard and the Navy to identifycontingency measures for cleaning up anycontaminated dump sites that might be discoveredduring construction.

During 2001 the Coast Guard and theService undertook further efforts to clean upcontaminated dump sites exposed by erosion. TheCoast Guard contracted for the removal of 785 cubicyards of PCB-contaminated soil, but, as the affectedarea was larger than had been anticipated, it endedup removing 1,700 cubic yards. Additionalcontamination was identified during the clean-upoperation and will need to be removed beforeinitiation of the seawall project. With the project$800,000 over budget, the Coast Guard was unableto obtain the necessary funds to complete the workin 2002. As of the end of 2001 the Coast Guard, theService, and the Corps were considering steps tointo the work schedule for integrate the removal ofknown contamination sites replacing the seawall,and the Coast Guard was reconsidering theavailability of clean-up funds as part of its FY 2003budget. During 2001 the Service also submittedapplications for required project permits andinitiated formal consultations under section 7 of theEndangered Species Act with the National MarineFisheries Service and the responsible branch of the

9

Figure 10. Diver removing derelict trawl net from reefs in the Northwestern Hawaiian

Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional construction funds were requested

for FY 2002; however, after the terrorist attacks on 11September additional funding for the project was with-drawn from the FY 2002 budget. As of the end of 2001the Service was planning to request additionalconstruction funds for the project as part of its FY 2003budget, complete its section 7 consultation and permitapplication processes, and, if possible, solicit bids forconstruction and begin work in the fall of 2002. It wasuncertain, however, whether the Coast Guard would beable to secure funding to complete clean-up work at thecontaminated dump site in time to avoid delaying theseawall project.

Marine DebrisThe reefs and atolls of the Northwestern

Hawaiian Islands act as traps that catch floating marinedebris circulating in the North Pacific Ocean. As aresult, large amounts of debris, including lost anddiscarded net material, accumulate on its reefs andbeaches. Some seals, particularly young ones, may beattracted to debris because of curiosity or otherbehaviors. Resulting encounters sometimes lead toentanglement. Since 1982 field crews monitoringmonk seal haul-out beaches have documented more

than 200 entangled monk seals, with a record one-year total of 25 incidents in 1999. In 2001, eightseals were observed entangled.

Although some seals are able to freethemselves from minor entanglements, those thatcannot do so quickly are likely to die of wounds andinfections caused by chafing and cutting lines,exhaustion and drowning due to the drag or weightof attached debris, or an inability to avoid sharks orcatch prey. In many instances, field crews have hadto catch and remove material — usually ropes,netting, or packing bands — from hauled-out seals.However, those efforts do not address the unknownnumber of entangled seals that are caught on reefs orotherwise fail to make it back to shore or entangledseals that haul out when field crews are not present.

To help reduce such entanglement, fieldcrews have routinely removed hazardous nets andropes from seal haul-out beaches for more than 15years. Recently the National Marine FisheriesService and other concerned agencies and groupsalso have sent teams of divers to the NorthwesternHawaiian Islands to recover derelict nets from reefsand lagoons around major monk seal breedingbeaches (Fig. 10). The latter effort began after aService survey of nearshore waters in 1997 founddensities of 94 and 64 net fragments per square

10

kilometer on reefs at French Frigate Shoals and Pearland Hermes Reef, respectively. Most of the debrisappears to be derelict trawl netting from unknownlocations, possibly including Southeast Asia and/orAlaska. In addition to ensnaring seals, this debrisentangles sea turtles, seabirds, crustaceans, and fishand, when caught on reef outcrops, can abrade anddamage substantial areas of coral.

Alarmed by the amounts of debris present, in1998 the Service began coordinating cooperativeunderwater clean-ups in addition to the beach clean-ups. Funding, ship time, personnel, equipment, and in-kind services for the work have been generouslycontributed by many agencies and groups in addition tothe Service. These include the Center for MarineConservation (now The Ocean Conservancy), the Cityand County of Honolulu, the Coast Guard, the Fish andWildlife Service, the Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, theHawaii Sea Grant Program, the National Fish andWildlife Foundation, the Navy, the University ofAlaska Marine Advisory Program, and numerous otherstate and private agencies and groups. Initial clean-upwork began at French Frigate Shoals in 1998 six stateand private agencies and groups. Initial clean-up workbegan at French Frigate Shoals in 1998 when six tons(5,440 kg) of debris was removed and shipped toHonolulu for disposal. In 1999, 25 tons (22,675 kg)was recovered from waters and beaches aroundLisianski Island and Pearl and Hermes Reef, and in2000 an additional 25 tons (22,432 kg) was removedfrom those atolls plus Midway and Kure Atolls.

In 2001, $3 million was made available forclean-up work, with most of that money coming froman appropriation to the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration to address coral reefmanagement issues. With those funds, three vesselswere chartered for a 90-day period in the fall. Inaddition, a 30-day cruise was undertaken aboard aNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationresearch vessel to help remove debris and to conductstudies of in-water debris accumulation rates at Pearland Hermes Reef, Kure Atoll, and Lisianski Island. Asa result of these efforts, reefs and beaches at all of themajor monk seal colonies received some clean-upattention during the year, and a total of 24 tons (21,365kg) of debris was removed. As part of this work,studies are being done to assess accumulation rates andto identify sources of the debris. With more than 100tons (90,700 kg) of derelict netting and fishing gearthought to remain, the Service hopes to increase thisclean-up effort in 2002.

Occurrence in the Main Hawaiian IslandsAs noted above, Hawaiian monk seals are

becoming more common in the main HawaiianIslands. As a result, they have been hauling out onpublic beaches with increasing frequency to rest,molt, and give birth to their pups (Fig. 11). Moltingseals and mother-pup pairs may remain on a beachfor several days to several weeks. On publicbeaches, this can lead to interactions between monkseals and beachgoers that are difficult to manage. Insome cases, people have deliberately molestedhauled-out seals, and seals have threatened and, onoccasion, bitten people.

The Pacific Island Area Office of theNational Marine Fisheries Service is the federalagency responsible for managing such interactions.When seals are reported on beaches, the agencyworks with state and local agencies to cordon offsections of beach around the seals. During thesummer of 2001 the same monk seal hauled out andgave birth to a pup for the second year in a row at apopular swimming beach in Po’ipu, Kauai. Inresponse, the beach, one of the most popular onKauai, was closed at the request of the Service toprotect the seals. This and similar actions at otherbeaches around Hawaii have adversely affectedtourism and have strained relationships between theService and state and local agencies. In addition,seals need to be monitored closely to ensure thatpeople do not approach or molest them. TheService, however, does not have staff to monitorseals constantly, and therefore it has relied onvolunteers to watch seals and educate the publicabout their endangered status and requirements fortheir protection.

To date, a long-term strategy has not beendeveloped for responding to haul-out events onpublic and private beaches in the main HawaiianIslands. In addition, lines of authority andresponsibility among the Service, state and localofficials, volunteer groups, and other relevantparties (e.g., lifeguards, local landowners, hoteloperators) have not been clearly delineated. TheHawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources,which often receives the first reports of hauled-outseals and marine mammal strandings, has expressedinterest in assuming a greater role in coordinatingresponses to such events; however, this authoritynow rests with the Service, and the Department haslimited funding for this purpose.

Because of the increasing presence of monk

11

seals in the main Hawaiian Islands, the Hawaiian MonkSeal Recovery Team recommended in March 2001 thatthe Service convene a workshop to developrecommendations on how to manage such situations.In its 13 July 2001 reply to the team, the Service agreedthat such a meeting should be held, but it was unable toschedule one in 2001 because of limited funds. Itnoted, however, that it would keep the team advised ofprogress to plan such a meeting.

As a related matter, the team alsorecommended that the Service seek funding undersection 6 of the Endangered Species Act for the State ofHawaii to develop a cooperative program on managingmonk seals in the main Hawaiian Islands. Section 6 ofthe Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to enterinto cooperative agreements with state agencies for thepurpose of conserving endangered species. Althoughthe section also authorizes requests for federal fundingto help develop and maintain cooperative stateprograms, such requests have never been made by theNational Marine Fisheries Service for endangeredmarine mammals under the Department of Commerce’sjurisdiction.

The Commission also had identifiedcooperative state programs as an important opportunityto strengthen several marine mammal recoveryprograms, including the Hawaiian monk seal program.On 19 June 2001, it wrote to the Service noting thatstate agencies could provide knowledge, personnel,expertise, resources, and legal authorities to help carryout urgent marine mammal recovery tasks. Toencourage greater state involvement, the Commissionrecommended that the Service (1) examine the potentialrole of state agencies to help carry out recoveryprograms for Hawaiian monk seals, as well as certainother endangered marine mammals; (2) whereappropriate, encourage state agencies to developcooperative agreements under section 6 to help addressmarine mammal recovery needs; and (3) annuallydetermine and request appropriate funding levels undersection 6 to help support cooperative state programs.

On 16 July 2001 the acting Administrator forthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationresponded, noting that the National Marine FisheriesService had cooperative agreements with six states andwas pursuing agreements with several other states, andthat it intended to request specific funding for section 6agreements in FY 2003. On 13 July 2001 in itsresponse to the recovery team’s recommendations, theService also advised the recovery team that, althoughdeveloping a cooperative agreement with the Hawaii

Department of Land and Natural Resources wascontingent on receiving and approving a requestfrom the state for such an agreement, it wouldconsider budgetary requirements and develop aproposed budget for this purpose during the nextfunding cycle.

Program Oversight and GuidanceFor more than a decade, Hawaiian monk

seal research and management efforts have beenreviewed annually by a Hawaiian monk sealrecovery team composed mainly of scientificexperts and resource managers. Team meetingswere held annually in early December to considerresults of the prior year’s field season and to providerecommendations before planning for the next fieldseason, which typically begins in March or April.

As noted in the previous annual report, inNovember 2000 the Service unexpectedlyrescheduled the team’s December 2000 meeting forlate March 2001 due to demands on programpersonnel and resources. The team urged theService not to reschedule the meeting because doingso would prevent timely advice for the coming fieldseason, and by letter of 14 November 2000, theCommission also recommended that the meeting notbe deferred. The Service, however, did not movethe meeting back to the original December date, andit was held on 19–21 March 2001. At the beginningof the meeting, representatives of the Serviceadvised the team that it was reviewing the need toupdate the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Plan,which had not been revised since it was adopted in1983. They also noted that consideration was beinggiven to appointing a new recovery team in view ofevolving management issues and plans to hire apermanent recovery plan coordinator. The meetingthen proceeded to review the status of research andmanagement activities.

After its meeting, the recovery team wroteto the Service on 26 March 2001 providingrecommendations. The team suggested that itsscientific focus and current membership be retained,subject to a rotational replacement by new members.The team also expressed its full support for hiring arecovery plan coordinator, offered to draft a revisedrecovery plan, and suggested that evolvingmanagement needs be addressed by a separateimplementation team with appropriate agencyofficials and stakeholders appointed after approval

12

of the revised recovery plan. The team also urged thatfuture recovery team meetings be held in December forreasons noted above. Among other things, the teamalso recommended that the Service:

• convene a workshop to formulate acomprehensive research plan on monk sealforaging ecology;

• take certain steps to complete assessments ofmonk seal prey preferences using fatty acidsignatures as soon as possible;

• assess the potential for using “crittercams” tostudy the foraging behavior of young monkseals;

• determine the optimal duration of field campsto identify all parturient females and pups;

• continue work to remove debris anddisentangle monk seals on beaches and reefs inthe Northwestern Hawaiian Islands;

• develop a contingency plan for removingsharks found preying on monk seal pups atFrench Frigate Shoals;

• ensure that field staff are authorized to removeaggressive male seals they find attackingyoung seals and adult females;

• station a Service staff member at Midway Atollyear-round to minimize, document, and assessecotourism impacts on seals;

• develop a cooperative interagency program tomonitor contaminant clean-up work on FrenchFrigate Shoals and Midway Atoll;

• take such actions as are necessary to preventdevelopment of a fishery support base atMidway Atoll;

• transfer responsibility for removing debrisfrom reef areas from the Service to the newNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral ReefEcosystem Reserve;

• convene a workshop to identify measures forprotecting seals that haul out on public beachesin the main Hawaiian Islands and seekcooperative funding under section 6 of theEndangered Species Act to help support relatedstate activities; and

• take such steps as possible to support actions toreplace the Tern Island seawall.A copy of the team’s letter was provided to the

Commission and, on 13 April 2001, the Commissionwrote to the Service expressing support for all therecommendations put forth by the team. TheCommission also endorsed the team’s recommendation

that the recovery team maintain its scientific focusand current membership, that the recovery plan beupdated, and that a separate implementation team beformed after a new recovery plan was adopted.

On 13 July 2001 the Service responded tothe team’s recommendations and provided a copy ofits response to the Commission. The Service notedthat it was still reviewing the possibility of changingthe recovery team’s composition and role. Withregard to its specific recommendations, the Serviceconcurred with most of the team’s recommendationsand identified steps that were being taken or hadbeen taken to address them.

In part, it noted that it had scheduled aforaging ecology workshop for September 2001, itwas proceeding with fatty acid signature analyses toidentify monk seal prey, and it would continue towork with other agencies to develop contaminantclean-up and monitoring plans. With respect to theproposed fishery support station at Midway, theService noted that it expected to consult with theFish and Wildlife Service and would ensure thatpotential effects of the proposal would not adverselyaffect monk seals. It also advised the team that itwould discuss transferring responsibility for debris

Figure 11. Hawaiian monk seal on popular swimmingbeach on the Island of Kauai (photograph courtesy ofDavid Nichols, Honolulu Laboratory, National MarineFisheries Service)

13

removal from reefs with managers of the new coral reefecosystem reserve. It also noted that a workshop onmanagement needs for monk seals in the mainHawaiian Islands could not be scheduled until fundingfor the meeting was secured. With respect todeveloping a cooperative agreement to help supportstate involvement in managing seals in the mainHawaiian Islands, the Service noted that it wouldconsider budget needs during the next funding cycle.

Following its reply, the Service decided toreconstitute the recovery team and assign the new teamresponsibility for drafting a revised recovery plan. Inmid-September the Service advised existing teammembers of its decision and in October it invited newmembers to join the team. The new team, whichincludes two members of the previous team, has fewerscientific experts and more representatives frominvolved agencies and stakeholder groups. Terms ofreference for the new team charge it with advising theService on issues concerning the conservation andrecovery of Hawaiian monk seals and, in particular,with developing and overseeing implementation of arevised Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Plan. The teamalso is charged with evaluating monk seal research andmanagement programs, assessing the efficacy ofspecific recovery efforts, evaluating the species’ statusand listing classification when appropriate, and recom-mending emergency actions to enhance recovery asneeded. At the end of 2001 the first team meeting wasscheduled for early March 2002.

In light of developments and uncertaintiesaffecting monk seal recovery efforts, the MarineMammal Commission began making plans with theService to convene a review of the Hawaiian monk sealrecovery program during spring 2002.

Monk Seal LitigationAs noted above, on 26 January 2000 several

environmental groups filed suit against the NationalMarine Fisheries Service claiming that the agency hadviolated the Endangered Species Act, theAdministrative Procedure Act, and the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act in authorizing lobster andbottomfish fisheries in the Northwestern HawaiianIslands (Greenpeace Foundation v. Mineta). Theplaintiffs claimed, among other things, that (1) thefisheries were depleting monk seal food supplies, thusjeopardizing the continued existence of the species, (2)operation of the fisheries resulted in the unauthorizedtaking of monk seals in violation of section 9 of theEndangered Species Act, and (3) the environmental

impact statement and environmental assessmentsprepared by the Service failed adequately to assessthe impacts of those fisheries on monk seals. Theplaintiffs sought an injunction to close thosefisheries until the Service came into compliancewith the applicable statutes and regulations. TheService decided to close the lobster fishery while thecase was under consideration because of concernsabout the collapse of Hawaiian lobster stocks.

In an order issued on 15 November 2000 thecourt ruled in favor of the plaintiffs that the Servicehad not complied with section 7(a)(2) of theEndangered Species Act. It found that the Servicehad failed to ensure that implementation of thelobster fishery management plan would notjeopardize monk seals or result in adversemodification of the species critical habitat. As tosection 9 claims, the court found that information inthe record was insufficient to establish “as a matterof law” that lobster is a critical element in the diet ofmonk seals. Because a material fact existed withrespect to this issue, the court declined to rule on itpending additional proceedings. In contrast, thecourt found sufficient evidence in the record thatmonk seals have been killed, hooked, and poisonedin connection with the bottomfish fishery and thatsuch takings constitute a violation of theEndangered Species Act. Nevertheless, the courtdetermined that it needed additional informationbefore deciding whether to enjoin the fishery on thatbasis. The court did, however, grant the plaintiffs’motion for an injunction with respect to the lobsterfishery until a new biological opinion and anadequate environmental impact statement werecompleted.

The evidentiary hearing to examine theimpact of the bottomfish fishery on monk seals wasconvened by the court on 13 March 2001. Sixwitnesses testified, five of whom were either activein the fishery or had been participants in the past.The witnesses provided testimony on theirexperiences with bottomfishing, their fishingtechniques, and their interactions with Hawaiianmonk seals.

On 30 March 2001 the court denied theplaintiffs’ motion for an injunction againstimplementation of the bottomfish fisherymanagement plan. The court determined thatallowing the fishery to continue while the newbiological opinion and environmental impactstatement were being prepared would not present a

14

reasonable likelihood of injury or irreparable harm tomonk seals in the interim. The court also found that theplaintiffs’ claim alleging violations of section 7 of theEndangered Species Act with respect to the bottomfishfishery was moot, inasmuch as the Service hadvoluntarily reinitiated formal consultation. Moreover,the court declined to set aside the 1986 and 1991biological opinions on the impacts of bottomfishfishing on monk seals as being arbitrary or capriciousbecause such action was unwarranted based on theevidence before the court.