Chapter III — Species of Special Concern 



San Miguel Island Stock — The final stock 

 assessment for the San Miguel Island stock of fur 

 seals estimated its population size in 1994 to be 

 10,536 animals and assumed that the estimated annual 

 maximum recovery rate for the eastern Pacific stock 

 (8.6 percent) also applied to this stock. Except for a 

 sharp decrease in numbers in 1982, the year of a 

 severe El Nino event, the population has increased 

 steadily since the early 1970s. The potential biologi- 

 cal removal level was calculated to be 227 fur seals. 

 Noting there have been no reports from fishery 

 observers or fishermen of fur seals being taken 

 incidentally in California gillnet fisheries in the past 

 five years, the Service determined that the San Miguel 

 Island fur seal stock was not a strategic stock, and no 

 action was taken in 1995 to constitute a take reduction 

 team. 



Development on the Pribilof Islands 



With the end of commercial fur seal harvests on 

 the Pribilof Islands in 1984, Native residents began to 

 encourage development of regional fishing and sea- 

 food processing industries as a new base for the 

 islands' economy. Port facilities were improved and, 

 since the late 1980s, new seafood processing plants 

 have begun operating on St. Paul and St. George 

 Islands. In addition, several processing vessels have 

 begun anchoring nearshore where they discharge 

 processing waste during the fishing season. Coinci- 

 dent with this development, concern arose over the 

 effects of discharged seafood processing waste, vessel 

 traffic, and oil spills on fur seals and rookeries. 



In 1990 a condition previously unreported in 

 marine mammals called white muscle disease syn- 

 drome was observed in fur seal pups at rookeries 

 close to a broken sewage outfall pipe on St. Paul 

 Island. At the time, both sewage and seafood pro- 

 cessing waste was being discharged through the 

 municipal waste system and the pipe was leaking close 

 to shore. Although the syndrome has not recurred 

 and its cause was never identified, some sort of 

 oxidizing compound or chemical dumped into the 

 waste treatment system was a possible factor in the 

 occurrence of the incident. 



Late in 1993 and early in 1994 several new pro- 

 cessing plants opened. As a result of installation and 



design problems in the waste discharge outfalls, some 

 of the outfalls using plastic pipe soon ruptured, 

 allowing discharges closer to shore than permitted. 

 Coincident with the peak crab processing season in 

 February, crab shells, rubber packing bands, and 

 other processing wastes began washing onto rookeries 

 close to the outfalls. That summer researchers found 

 that, while the overall number of northern fur seals on 

 St. Paul Island remained steady, numbers at the two 

 rookeries nearest the outfalls and the industrial area 

 had declined. 



Also early in 1994, both islands experienced an 

 incident where a vessel ran aground and released fuel 

 and other materials on or near fur seal haul-out 

 beaches. During the subsistence harvest the following 

 summer, a sharp increase in the number of fur seals 

 with tar-like material in their ventral pelage was 

 observed among the fur seals harvested from rookeries 

 near the outfalls on St. Paul Island. Although the 

 origin of the substance was not determined, the 

 groundings and increased nearshore vessel traffic were 

 considered among the possible sources. 



While these observations raised concern about 

 impacts on wildlife from seafood processing discharg- 

 es and increases in associated vessel traffic, informa- 

 tion was insufficient to predict possible impacts and 

 develop appropriate management measures. 



Waste outfalls from seafood processing plants for 

 most parts of Alaska, including the Pribilof Islands, 

 have been authorized under a single five-year National 

 Pollution Discharge Elimination System general 

 permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency 

 under the Clean Water Act. In 1994 the agency 

 proposed replacing a 1989 general permit, scheduled 

 to expire in October 1994, with a new permit incorpo- 

 rating more restrictive provisions on discharges near 

 significant biological resources. Many of the new 

 restrictions were precipitated by concern for the many 

 fur seal rookeries, seabird nesting sites, and critical 

 habitats on the Pribilof Islands and would have limited 

 the nearshore areas around the islands where discharg- 

 es could be allowed. The proposed restrictions raised 

 concern among some residents of the Pribilof Islands 

 and seafood processors that seafood processing plants 

 would be precluded from operating on or near the 

 Pribilof Islands. 



41 



