MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1991 



Protection Act if conducted in the vicinity of the 

 retreating or advancing ice edge. Plaintiffs also noted 

 that, although the oil companies operating in the 

 Chukchi Sea had requested authorization from the 

 Fish and Wildlife Service for the incidental take of 

 small numbers of walruses and polar bears under 

 section 101(a)(5) (see discussion of small-take exemp- 

 tions in Chapter VHI), such authorization had yet to 

 be issued. A motion for summary judgment was filed 

 by plaintiffs on 14 May 1991. 



Federal defendants filed a cross-motion for summa- 

 ry judgment on 14 June 1991, contending that plain- 

 tiffs had not sufficiently demonstrated that walruses 

 would be taken if the exploratory activities were 

 allowed to proceed. While the summary judgment 

 motions were pending, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

 completed its rulemaking and issued letters of author- 

 ization pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the Marine 

 Mammal Protection Act authorizing the taking of 

 walruses and polar bears incidental to oil and gas 

 exploration in the Chukchi Sea. Consequently, on 2 

 July 1991, Federal defendants filed a motion to 

 dismiss the case as being moot. At the end of 1991, 

 a decision in the case had not been rendered. 



Greenpeace v. Mosbacher — Greenpeace and other 

 envirormiental groups filed suit on 26 June 1991 

 seeking to invalidate the 1991 pollock harvest level 

 adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

 Plaintiffs alleged violations of section 7 of the Endan- 

 gered Species Act and the National Envirorunental 

 Policy Act. On 10 October 1991 the court ruled in 

 favor of the Federal defendants. Further discussion of 

 this case is provided in the Steller sea lion section of 

 Chapter II. 



Humane Society of the United States v. Mosbacher 

 — The Humane Society brought suit on 31 July 1991 

 seeking a temporary restraining order to suspend an 

 extension of the fur seal harvest on the Pribilof 

 Islands that had been granted by the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service. Plaintiffs motion for a temporary 

 restraining order was denied on 2 August 1991 and 

 the harvest was allowed to proceed. Further informa- 

 tion on this case and the subsistence harvest of fur 

 seals is included in the North Pacific fiir seal discus- 

 sion in Chapter II. 



United States v. Exxon — On 13 March 1991, the 

 United States filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court 

 for the District of Alaska against the Exxon Corpor- 

 ation. The Federal Government sought to recover 

 clean-up costs and natural resources damages associat- 

 ed with the Exxon Valdez oil spill under the authority 

 of the Clean Water Act and other Federal statutes. A 

 similar action was brought by the State of Alaska. On 

 30 September 1991, parties to the suits filed an agree- 

 ment and consent decree for the Court's approval. 



Under the agreement, the Federal Government and 

 the State of Alaska will receive $900 million over the 

 next 10 years to reimburse them for clean-up costs 

 and to fund restoration of natural resources affected 

 by the spill. The Federal and State Governments will 

 act as co-trustees of all the resources affected by the 

 spill and will jointly use the fiinds received from 

 Exxon to complete the ongoing assessment of environ- 

 mental damage and to implement plans for restoring 

 or replacing the damaged resources. The agreement 

 also contains a provision requiring Exxon to pay up to 

 an additional $100 million for restoring populations, 

 habitats, or species that have suffered substantial 

 losses or declines as a result of the spill where the 

 loss or decline was unknown and could not have been 

 reasonably anticipated at the time of the agreement. 

 The agreement does not affect the claims filed against 

 Exxon by Alaska Native villages, individual Alaska 

 Natives, or Alaska Native corporations. The agree- 

 ment and consent decree was approved by the Court 

 on 8 October 1991. 



As noted above in the discussion of the Exxon 

 Valdez oil spill, only preliminary results of some 

 damage assessment studies have been released to the 

 public because of litigation considerations. By keep- 

 ing this information confidential, the Federal and State 

 Governments have stifled the normal processes of peer 

 review and scientific inquiry. However, a separate 

 agreement filed with the Alaska Superior Court is 

 expected to ease the problem. Private plaintiffs 

 agreed to release the State and Federal Governments 

 from all claims arising from the spill in return for a 

 commitment from the Govenmients to give the private 

 plaintiffs access to the scientific information gathered 

 under the ongoing natural resource damage assessment 

 studies. 



166 



