SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
58-051 DTP
2001
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON STELLER SEA LIONS
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MAY 20, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 106-28
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.resourcescommittee.house.gov
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
GEORGE MILLER, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A.
DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO,
Puerto Rico
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
PETER A.
DeFAZIO, Oregon
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO,
Puerto Rico
ADAM SMITH, Washington
HARRY BURROUGHS, Staff Director
DAVE WHALEY, Legislative Staff
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JEAN FLEMMA, Democratic Legislative Staff
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held May 20, 1999
Statement of Members:
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey
Prepared statement of
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska
Prepared statement of
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, Prepared statement of
Statement of Witnesses:
Burch, Al, Executive Director, Alaska Draggers Association
Prepared statement of
Jacobsen, Hon. Dick, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough, Alaska, Prepared statement of
Kelty, Hon. Frank V., Mayor, City of Unalaska, Alaska
Prepared statement of
Lavigne, Dr. David, Executive Director, International Marine Mammal Association
Prepared statement of
Marks, Rick, Steller Sea Lion Caucus
Prepared statement of
Owletuck, George, Anchorage, Alaska
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Pereyra, Dr. Walter, Vice Chairman, North Pacific Fishery Management Council
Prepared statement of
Rosenberg, Dr. Andrew, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service
Prepared statement of
Stewart, Beth, Natural Resources Director, Aleutians East Borough, Alaska
Van Tuyn, Peter, Trustees for Alaska
Prepared statement of
Wynne, Kate, Marine Mammal Specialist, Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Backgound Memorandum
Boyd, I.L., Prepared statement of
Marks, Rick, Response to questions
Swetzof, Simeon, Mayor, and John R. Merculief, City Manager, City of Saint Paul, Pribilof
Islands, Alaska, Prepared statement of
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON STELLER SEA LIONS
THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans,
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m. in Room 1334
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. SAXTON. The
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans will come to order.
Good afternoon.
Today, we will discuss the National Marine Fisheries Service's
research program on Steller sea lions in the Bering Sea. We are here because there is apparently
a great deal of distrust about whether NMFS has an adequate scientific basis for making
adjustments to the pollock and mackerel fisheries off Alaska.
We will hear the agency's presentation on the research program, and
we will listen to the concerns of a number of witnesses who have legitimate, unanswered
questions. It seems to me that the major questions for this hearing are:
One, do we know what caused the decline in Steller sea lion
populations in the Bering Sea?
Two, do we know enough about Steller sea lions and their life history
to determine what is preventing their recovery?
Three, has there been a physical change in the Bering Sea which has
altered the ecosystem? If that has occurred, could that be the cause of the decline and, therefore,
be an impediment to the recovery?
And finally, four, has the Federal Government adequately completed
its scientific research responsibilities so as to convince the fishing community that the proposed
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
changes to the fisheries will actually make a difference, or is there so much uncertainty that we
really don't know what we are doing?
I believe that the last question is the most important. If you can clearly
identify a problem and a solution, then everyone will work together to accomplish the goal. If
there is scientific uncertainty, distrust and animosity, then the process of cooperatively working
together to find a solution is doomed and will fail.
I would like to recognize others who might have statements. Mr.
Gilchrest, do you have any opening statement? Thank you for coming. I ask unanimous consent
that all Subcommittee Members be permitted to include their opening statement in the record.
[The prepared statements follow:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Good afternoon. Today we will discuss the National Marine Fisheries Service's research
program on Steller sea lions in the Bering Sea. We are here because there is apparently a great
deal of distrust about whether NMFS has an adequate scientific basis for making adjustments to
the pollock and mackerel fisheries off Alaska.
We will hear the agency's presentation on its research program and we will listen to the
concerns of a number of witnesses who have legitimate, unanswered questions. It seems to me
that the major questions for this hearing are:
fDo we know what caused the decline of Steller sea lion populations in
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
the Bering Sea?
fDo we know enough about Steller sea lions and their life history to
determine what is preventing their recovery?
fHas there been a physical change in the Bering Sea which has altered
the entire ecosystem? If that has occurred, could that be the cause of the decline and, therefore,
be an impediment to the recovery? And,
fHas the Federal Government adequately completed its scientific
research responsibilities so as to convince the fishing community that the proposed changes to
the fisheries will actually make a difference, or is there so much uncertainty that we really don't
know what we are doing?
I believe the last question is the most important. If you can clearly identify a problem and a
solution, then everyone will work together to accomplish the goal. If there is scientific
uncertainty, distrust and animosity, then the process of cooperatively working together to find a
solution is doomed to fail.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
We are here to discuss Steller sea lions in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska, the lack
of science and general information about this animal, and the inability of the agency charged
with responsibility for conserving this species to answer basic questions.
Let me briefly summarize the situation we now find ourselves in. For years, the National
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has consistently determined that the pollock fishery did not
jeopardize the recovery of Steller sea lions.
It is my understanding that NMFS made this determination, either formally or informally,
not once or twice, but 39 times. Now, because of the filing of a lawsuit by various environmental
groups, NMFS has done a 180-degree turn and finds that the pollock fishery does indeed pose a
risk to the recovery of the Steller sea lion. How remarkable! I am really curious how the agency
made this determination when no new science has been presented which makes that
break-through discovery.
Let me see if I've got the situation properly in perspective:
fNo one has debated that the western population of Steller sea lions
has been declining. Unfortunately, the agency does not seem to know, and does not seem to care,
why the western stock has declined so rapidly in the last twenty years.
fThe agency has not requested an increase in its Steller sea lion
research budget in at least six years, and probably longer than that, even though Congress
increased the funding for Steller research in Fiscal Year 1998.
fSince 1992, the agency has had a research plan, which was developed
by the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan Team, yet many of the research recommendations have
still not been funded.
fThe agency has ignored or rejected research projects conducted by
scientists outside the agency (and, in fact, some of the research conducted by scientists within the
agency) because the conclusions didn't match the agency's latest theory.
fThe agency completed no new research projects between its decision
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
in 1996 that the pollock fishery did not pose a jeopardy to the recovery of the western population
and the 1998 decision that the fishery did indeed pose a threat to the recovery.
fThe agency declared in a report to Congress, as late as October 1998,
that ''Given the current understanding of the sea lion/fishery prey interactions, additional
research is warranted prior to establishing revised management actions.''
fThe agency drafted and circulated Reasonable and Prudent
Alternatives (or RPAs) concluding that there needed to be changes to the pollock fishery even
before it had released a draft Biological Opinion.
fThe agency appears to have had no intention of including the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council in any decision about potential changes in the management
of the pollock fishery.
This appears to be a situation where the agency had a theory, but not enough science to
either prove or disprove it, and once its bluff had been called by a lawsuit, hid behind the
''precautionary principle'' and the ''best available science'' excuses to attack the pollock
fishery in the hope that the lawsuit would go away. I am convinced that the agency has neither
best available science nor knows whether the management changes in its proposal will have any
positive effect on the Steller populations. While NMFS has no clue whether these measures will
be good for sea lions, it certainly will have negative effects on fishermen and the communities
that depend on this resource.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Alaskan fishing industry have
always been proactive when dealing with potential resource problems. They took action to
change management of the Atka mackerel fishery when presented with credible evidence that
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
changes were needed for sea lions. They have taken action to prevent a targeted forage fish
fishery in the Gulf of Alaska. They constantly take action to minimize bycatch, to close specific
areas when necessary for conservation reasons, and have always set conservative harvest levels.
In this case, if they had been presented with credible science in time, they could have taken
proactive action to help Steller sea lions. Unfortunately, they were constantly told by the agency
that there was not a problem with the pollock fishery.
This is a typical response from this agency. It cannot control the environmental changes
occurring in the ocean, will not control predators, but the one area it can control is the fishing
fleet. What will happen—based on the closed areas and proposed closed areas I have seen—is that
small boat fishermen are going to be forced to fish in seas that are unsafe for that vessel size. The
agency is responsible for these people and should consider the effect the closed areas will have
on small vessels. Instead, the agency will do whatever it takes to save the Steller sea lion,
without having the proper science, and will risk the lives of fishermen because it has the power to
do so. This is unacceptable and I am tired of having the lives of my constituents used as barter to
stop lawsuits, most of which have no merit anyway!
I am deeply concerned with the actions of the agency in this case. NMFS has more
questions than answers and doesn't seem to care that its actions have consequences for fishermen
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
and fishing communities.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to discuss the dramatic decline of the
Steller sea lion in the north Pacific Ocean. As a coastal district Member, I have always been
supportive of protecting our Nation's splendid marine resources. I am also well aware of the
complex dynamic that exists when managing marine mammals. I am eager to learn more about
the reasons for the Steller sea lion population decline and the role the commercial fishery may
play in the depletion of pollock, the principle prey of sea lions.
An alarming decline in the abundance of Steller sea lions has occurred throughout their
range over the past 30 years. The estimated population has dropped from about 280,000 non-pups in the early 1960's to approximately 52,200 in 1994. This represents a decline of about 232,000 sea lions, or about 70 percent of the population, in just 34 years. As a result, Steller sea lions were afforded protection as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 1990,
and the Aleutian stock is now under consideration for endangered status.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has implemented a Steller sea lion recovery
plan and designated areas as critical habitat. NMFS has also restricted commercial fishing
activity in Steller habitat in an attempt to stop deleterious impacts on Steller feeding activity.
Regrettably, despite these conservation efforts, the Steller population continues to decline.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Uncertainty continues to surround the reasons for this downward trend. Disagreement
centers on whether commercial exploitation of pollock and the associated reduction of a food
supply are having as significant an impact to the sea lions as some suggest.
The Steller population crash has indeed coincided with intensified commercial fishing in
and around rookeries and haul-out sites. Flagrant overfishing of roe-bearing pollock during the
winter spawning season, and a decrease in the abundance of young pollock of the size preferred
by juvenile sea lions have undoubtedly played a role in sea lion decline. Yet some reports
estimate that pollock numbers in the Bering Sea have been at an all time high during this time
period. These ambiguities must be addressed if we are to effectively reverse the species decline.
While it is true that fishery exploitation in Steller habitat took place in the 1980's, it is far
too convenient to lay blame solely on overfishing. What other contributing factors could be
causing nutritional stress and be preventing a full Steller recovery? Has a change in the Bering
Sea ecosystem played a role in prey availability? Has direct mortality from commercial fishing,
rather solely overfishing, played an additional role in the sea lions' decline?
I applaud National Marine Fishery Service efforts to amend groundfish management plans
in the north Pacific Ocean to ensure that Federal actions do not jeopardize the Steller sea lion.
However, in order to ensure the species' full protection, we must minimize any human-induced
activity that may be detrimental to the survival of the species. I hope that today's hearing will
help identify such activities, clarify actions needed to reverse this unfortunate decline, and define
action needed to restore the Steller sea lion to a healthy level.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is an urgent need to take immediate steps to ensure that future generations can enjoy
this wonderful animal. I look forward to learning to what extent the issues I have raised
contribute to the necessary protection of the Steller sea lion.
Mr. SAXTON. I would
like now to introduce our witnesses on Panel I. We have Dr. Walter Pereyra, Vice Chairman of
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Dr. Andy Rosenberg, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service; Ms. Kate Wynne, Marine
Mammal Specialist, Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program; Dr. David Lavigne, Executive
Director, International Marine Mammal Association; and Mr. Rick Marks, Steller Sea Lion
Caucus.
Would you all take your places, please, at the table, and let me remind
you, while you are doing so, that under our Committee rules your statements are limited to five
minutes, but your entire statement will be made a part of the record.
Dr. Pereyra, you may begin when you are ready and in your place.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER PEREYRA, VICE CHAIRMAN, NORTH
PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Dr. PEREYRA. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dr. Walter Pereyra. I am a former NMFS scientist, and I am
presently chairman and part owner of Arctic Storm, which owns and manages two catcher
processors in the Bering Sea fishery for pollock and also a couple of catcher boats which
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
participate in that same fishery. I am also vice chairman of the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, which is responsible, together with NMFS, for the conservation and
management of the fishery resources in the Federal waters off Alaska. This is my ninth and final
year on the council, and I could say something about that but I won't.
Mr. GILCHREST. I
would like to hear that part.
Dr. PEREYRA. You
might not.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear
before you today to comment on the issue of the decline of the Steller sea lion populations in
certain areas off Alaska. As requested, I will focus my attention on the perceived and actual
deficiencies in the Steller sea lion research and management program and also how the National
Marine Fisheries Service could improve or expand on its current research program. I will also
offer some comments on other research areas that could be pursued to better understand the
reasons for the current decline in the western population of Steller sea lions.
I have taken the liberty to review the extensive comments and
recommendations of the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee, but I want to emphasize
that the SSC's comments notwithstanding, the conclusions that I have drawn and the
recommendations that I have put forth here before you are really my own.
Now, with regard to the decline of the Steller sea lion populations in
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska, there has been a considerable
amount of literature on this particular subject, and I think it is pretty well-known that this decline
has been quite substantial; but despite the research and scientific inquiry into the factors that
have led to this decline, these factors remain poorly understood at best. Moreover, there has been
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
no conclusive evidence that the pollock fishery is the causative factor, either directly or
indirectly, in the sea lion's decline, and I would like to note, if I may, that the independent review
panel which was established to review the biological opinion and the jeopardy decision, that
review panel just issued their report this week, and that report concluded, and I would quote,
''The relative importance of environmental changes in the carrying capacity versus the effects of
commercial pollock fisheries in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska on hypothesized food
shortages to Steller sea lions is unknown.''
Now, in my mind the difficulty with which we find ourselves today
was created by the listing of the western population of Steller sea lions as endangered under the
ESA in June of 1997 together with our poor understanding of the dynamics of the Bering Sea and
Gulf of Alaska ecosystems and their relationship to the Steller sea lion population. This
endangered listing immediately put the Council and NMFS in a difficult position of having to
take the so-called precautionary management actions to the pollock fishery without the benefit of
an adequate understanding of the relationship between the fishery and the Steller sea lion
population.
Without such an understanding, we have no assurance that despite our
good intentions we, in fact, will be doing anything to benefit the recovery of the Steller sea lion
population. We do know, though, that these remedial management measures will negatively
impact the economics of the important pollock fishery in waters off Alaska. Furthermore, there is
some suggestion that certain of the reasonable and prudent alternatives could actually be
hindering the recovery of the sea lion population itself.
Now, in gaining an appreciation of the considerable research required
to adequately understand this complex subject, it is helpful to note that the National Marine
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fisheries Service concluded in their opinion from the Section 7 consultation that the decline in
the sea lion population was due most likely to decreased juvenile survival, with reduced
availability of prey identified as the underlying cause.
In response to this conclusion, the National Marine Fisheries Service
recommended the RPA's, consisting principally of additional fishery exclusion zones around
rookeries and haulouts and so-called time-area restrictions on the pollock fishery, as a means of
buffering the sea lions from possible fishery-induced localized depletion of prey stocks. These
management measures have been invoked despite the fact that there has been no conclusive proof
that the pollock fishery is responsible for any localized depletion of the prey species or that if
such localized depletion does in fact occur, that foraging ability of sea lions is compromised in
any way.
Now, in looking at the deficiencies that we have in these Steller
research and management programs, I feel that the lack of funding, the need to invoke the new
measures to manage the fishery following a listing and the narrow focus of the inquiry into the
basic reasons for the sea lion's decline appear to be responsible for these deficiencies, and I will
go through, I think, some of the areas where I think these deficiencies exist.
The first is localized depletions—the underlying hypothesis driving the
finding of jeopardy and the RPA principles is a notion that the pollock fishery is responsible for
the localized depletion of pollock within the Steller sea lion's critical habitat and, furthermore,
that this localized depletion has negatively impacted the sea lions. Attempts to measure localized
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
impacts of fishing on the population density of pollock by tracking temporal changes in catch per
unit efforts in the fishery and the abundance of pollock within the critical habitat have been
unsuccessful. Therefore, fishery independent surveys in conjunction with the fishery I feel are
going to be required to quantitatively assess the relationship, if there is any at all, between
fishing and localized depletion.
Along with studies of fishery-induced localized depletion, there is a
need to determine the degree to which localized depletions, if they are occurring, negatively
impacts the sea lion's ability to forage successfully, and we have no knowledge of this important
relationship either. If the pollock fishery impairs the foraging success, then we need to know
more about the relationship between foraging success and the sea lions' overall condition and
fitness.
The next area where I think there is a need for expanded research is in
the time-area distribution of the pollock. The proposed RPAs involving these time-area
regulations of the pollock fishery are premised on an understanding of this distribution and
abundance.
Mr. SAXTON. Dr.
Pereyra, could you summarize or give us an outline of the balance of your testimony? That
would be appreciated. Thank you.
Dr. PEREYRA.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I think that there is a need to expand the winter surveys in the Bering
Sea. There is also a need to expand the summer surveys. If we don't do that, we are not going to
know whether we are, in fact, helping or hindering the Steller sea lions by the way we are
managing the fishery.
We also have put in a number of closure areas around rookeries since
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
the early nineties. These have never been studied to determine whether or not they, in fact, are
helping the Stellers recover at all.
Predator studies—there have been lots of reports on killer whales,
so-called orcas. I think these really have never been looked at in a critical manner. There have
not been any studies done on orca distribution or abundance levels of orcas and that needs to be
done because they could, in fact, be hindering the recovery of the Stellers entirely just by the
pressure that they put on the population from their predation.
And lastly, I think very important are ecosystem studies. There has
been a lot of information that has been gathered recently on the so-called Pacific Decadal
Oscillation, which is a regime shift as in the seventies when we had a major change in the Bering
Sea ecosystem. This now seems to be going back the other way. This can have an effect upon
the very important small fish populations, the capelin, the herring, the smelts and so forth, that
seem to be, based upon some other studies that are being done, seem to be very important to the
overall health of the sea lions.
So, in summary, Mr. Chairman, I think there is need, probably
somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 to $15 million a year, of additional research money
appropriated for these very important studies in the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pereyra follows:]
STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER T. PEREYRA, VICE CHAIRMAN, NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT
COUNCIL, CHAIRMAN, ARCTIC STORM, INC.
My name is Dr. Walter T. Pereyra. I am a former National Marine Fisheries Service
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(''NMFS'') fisheries scientist. Presently I am Chairman and part owner of the Arctic Storm, Inc.
(''Arctic Storm''). Arctic Storm owns and/or manages two catcher processors, one of which is in
partnership with the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, and two catcher vessels,
all of which participate in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Island fisheries for Alaskan pollock. I am
also Vice Chairman of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (''Council'') which is
responsible together with NMFS for the conservation and management of the fishery resources in
the Federal waters off Alaska. I am serving my ninth and final year on the Council.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to appear before you today
to comment on the issue of the decline of the Steller sea lion populations in certain areas off
Alaska. As requested, I will focus my attention on perceived and actual deficiencies in the
NMFS' Steller sea lion research and management program, and how the agency could improve or
expand on its current research program. I will also offer some comments on other research areas
that could be pursued to better understand the reasons for the current decline in the western
population of Steller sea lions. In developing my thoughts on this subject I have taken into
consideration the extensive comments and recommendations of the Council's Scientific and
Statistical Committee (''SSC''). The SSC not withstanding the conclusions drawn and
recommendations put forth in this statement are my own.
Decline of the western population of Steller Sea Lions
The decline of the Steller sea lion populations in Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (''BSAI'')
and the central and western areas of the Gulf of Alaska (''GOA'') has been well chronicled.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Despite considerable research and scientific inquiry into the factors that have led to this decline,
these factors remain poorly understood at best. Moreover, there has been no conclusive evidence
that the pollock fishery is the causative factor either directly or indirectly for the sea lions'
decline. Despite this scientific uncertainty, though, the NMFS concluded in their Biological
Opinion (''BO'') following an extensive Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species
Act (''ESA''), that the pollock fishery as proposed for 1999-2002 was ''likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the western population of Steller sea lions and adversely modify its
critical habitat.''
The roles of the Council and its SSC in regards to this Section 7 consultation have been
minimal. While we were able to comment at length on the content of the BO and conclusions
drawn, the BO itself was exclusively the domain of the NMFS—they had the responsibility for
producing the BO and they alone arrived at the conclusion of jeopardy. Also they alone
established the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (''RPA'') principals by which the Council
had to shape its suite of recommended RPAs to NMFS for management of the pollock fishery.
For the 1999 pollock fishery NWS rejected the Council's RPA recommendations for the
summer/fall portion of the fishery. We will meet next month in Kodiak to revise our
recommendations for the remainder of this year, and for the year 2000 and beyond.
In my mind the difficulty in which we find ourselves today was created by the NMFS'
listing of the western population of Steller sea lions as endangered under the ESA in June 1997
together with our poor understanding of the dynamics of the BSAI and GOA ecosystems and
their relationship to the Steller sea lion population. This endangered listing immediately put the
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Council and NMFS in the difficult position of having to take so-called precautionary
management actions to the pollock fishery without the benefit of an adequate understanding of
the relationship between the fishery and the Steller sea lion population. Without such an
understanding we have no assurance that despite our good intentions we in fact will be doing
anything to benefit the recovery of the Steller sea lion population. We do know, though, that
these remedial management measures will negatively impact the economics of the pollock
fishery. Furthermore, there is some suggestion that certain RPAs could actually be hindering the
recovery of the Steller sea lion population.
In gaining an appreciation of the considerable research required to adequately understand
the complex subject of the Steller sea lion decline and RPAs, it is helpful to note NMFS'
concluding opinion from their Section 7 consultation and the BO. They concluded that the
decline in the sea lion population was due most likely to decreased juvenile survival with
reduced availability of prey identified as the underlying cause. In response to this conclusion
NMFS recommended RPAs consisting principally of additional fishery exclusion zones around
rookeries and haulouts, and time-area restrictions on the pollock fishery as a means of
''buffering'' sea lions from possible fishery-induced localized depletion of prey stocks. These
management measures have been invoked despite the fact that there has been no conclusive proof
that the pollock fishery is responsible for any localized depletion of prey species or that if such
localized depletion does in fact occur, that foraging ability of sea lions is compromised in any
way.
Deficiencies in NMFS' Steller sea lion research and management programs
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Certain deficiencies can be identified in NMFS' Steller sea lion research and management
programs. These deficiencies appear to be due to a lack of funding, the need to invoke new
measures to manage the pollock fishery following the listing of the Steller sea lion as
endangered, and the narrow focus of the NMFS' inquiry into the basic reasons for the sea lion's
decline. Some of these deficiencies have been known for more than 10 years but remarkably little
has been invested in research to answer the questions raised. A discussion of the more important
research deficiencies follows.
(1) Localized depletion—the underlying hypothesis driving the finding of jeopardy and the
RPA principals is the notion that the pollock fishery is responsible for localized depletion of
pollock within the Steller sea lion's critical habitat (''CH''); and furthermore, that this localized
depletion has negatively impacted the sea lions. Attempts to measure localized impacts of fishing
on the population density of pollock by tracking temporal changes in catch-per-unit-effort in the
fishery and abundance of pollock within the CH have been unsuccessful. Therefore, fishery
independent surveys in conjunction with the fishery are going to be required to quantitatively
assess the relationship, if any, of fishing to localized depletion.
Along with studies on fishery-induced localized depletion there is a need to determine the
degree to which localized depletion, should it be occurring, negatively impacts the sea lions'
ability to forage successfully. We have no knowledge of this important relationship. If the
pollock fishery impairs foraging success, we then need to know more as to the relationship
between foraging success and the sea lions' overall condition and fitness.
(2) Time-area distribution of pollock—The proposed RPAs involving time-area regulations
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
on the pollock fishery are premised on an understanding of the distribution and abundance of the
pollock population at the time of the fishery. Due to the lack of winter surveys and the timing of
the summer surveys, time-area RPAs have had to be established in a speculative manner. This
has put the conduct of the pollock fishery in jeopardy and raised the possibility of the pollock
fishery being forced to operate disproportionately to the distribution of pollock, a situation that
would be contrary to the intent of the RPAs themselves.
To reduce the potential risk to both the pollock fishery and the Steller sea lions, there is an
immediate need for NMFS to conduct winter surveys to determine the winter distribution of
pollock relative to the CH prior to the start of the fishery. There is also a need to expand and alter
the timing of the summer survey to determine the distribution of pollock relative to the CH and
the eastern and western portions of the eastern Bering Sea. Both the winter and summer surveys
need to be conducted annually, synoptic in nature (multi-vessel) and include surveys of both the
on-bottom and off-bottom components of the pollock population.
(3) Efficacy of trawl exclusion zones—Trawl exclusion zones around certain sea lion
rookeries have been in place since 1992. To date there have been no experiments or analyses
conducted by the NMFS to test the efficacy of these no trawl zones. This lack of experimental
studies is disturbing considering that in May, 1997 when it reclassified the western population
from threatened to endangered, NMFS stated that it was premature to propose changes to the
Steller sea lion protective measures, because ''(1) more time is required to assess what, if any,
benefit has been derived from the actions currently in place [a reference to the no trawl zones
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
adopted in 1992 and 1993]; and (2) given the limited knowledge of the sea lion/fishery prey
interaction and the effect of human disturbance, it is difficult to identify meaningful management
actions in addition to those already in place.'' Recently an industry analyst examined NMFS'
site-by-site sea lion count data and demonstrated that rookery sites open to trawling had
experienced improving population trends as opposed to those sites closed to trawling. NMFS has
refuted this finding but has not offered any research to counter these conclusions. It is imperative
that NMFS design and conduct a controlled experiment to directly test the efficacy of the no
trawl zones. Only in this manner will it be possible to determine whether the trawl exclusion
zones around rookeries are beneficial (or adverse) to the Steller sea lions. It should be noted that
the closure this year of the Aleutian Islands to all directed pollock fishing can not substitute for a
controlled efficacy experiment of the trawl exclusion zones due to the importance of Atka
mackerel as forage for sea lions in this area and the lack of a suitable control to the Aleutian
Island closure.
(4) Predator studies—One of the ongoing debates surrounds the possibility that predation by
killer whales (''orcas'') could be impeding the sea lion's recovery. Fishermen have reported
seeing large pods of orcas in the Bering Sea in recent years and observations of killer whales
attacking sea lions are common. Unfortunately, due to the dispersed nature of the orca
population, their distribution in pods and survey difficulties, our knowledge of the distribution
and abundance, and feeding ecology of these known sea lion predators is wanting. Attention
should be given to assessing, the size and distribution of the orca population so as to ascertain
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
their potential impact on the recovery of the Steller sea lion.
(5) Feeding studies of captive sea lions by Dr. Andrew Trites and his
colleagues associated with the University Marine Mammal Consortium have revealed some
illuminating results. For one they have found that pollock may in fact be an unsuitable food
source for the Steller sea lion which may explain in part for the decline of the sea lion population
despite an increased abundance of pollock. Conversely more oily species such as herring and/or a
more diverse diet appear to be more suitable for sea lions. These studies suggest that diet and
lack of diversity could be a leading cause for the decline of Steller sea lions. These captive
studies need to be expanded and refined to help answer important questions regarding the
relationship between the availability of certain species as food for sea lions and the robustness of
the Steller sea lion population.
Ecosystem investigations
There is a growing realization that quite possibly a major regime shift associated with the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (''PDO'') may help explain the long-term changes we have witnessed
in the western population of the Steller sea lion. It has been hypothesized that changes in the
position and strength of the Aleutian low pressure could be largely responsible for this regime
shift and that this change resulted in fundamental changes in the production characteristics of the
entire North Pacific Basin. One change may have been a reduction in the populations of oily
forage species such as herring, smelts and capelin, all of potential importance in the diet of Steller
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
sea lions. This in turn may have reduced the carrying capacity of the environment for Steller sea
lions, which in turn would have resulted in a population decline. Unfortunately our historical
knowledge of the characteristics of the Steller sea lion population is lacking, as is our
understanding of the PDO and its effect on the Steller sea lion population.
An examination of the PDO and its possible effect on the Steller sea lion population
should become a focused research endeavor. Such a holistic approach to understanding the
reasons for long term changes in the sea lion population would be consistent with the
recommendations by the NMFS Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel in their recent report to
Congress entitled Ecosystem-based Fishery Management. Research into the environmental
causes for changes in the sea lion population would benefit from the ''Integrated Ocean
Observation Plan'' as recently recommended to this Subcommittee by the National Ocean
Research Leadership Council.
The foregoing comments on deficiencies in the NMFS research and management program
on Steller sea lions, and ways in which the agency could improve or expand its current research
program are not meant to be critical. I am acutely aware of the difficulties and costs involved in
conducting research on Steller sea lions, particularly ecosystem studies. Our SSC has estimated
the cost of improved and new research studies in the range of $10-14 million annually. They also
have stressed the importance of improved communications on the part of NMFS so that
inter-disciplinary and multi-institutional research efforts may emerge.
I hope that my comments may be helpful in moving this much needed research regarding
Steller sea lions forward on a broad front. Certainly if we are ever going to be able to manage our
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
fisheries in an adaptive manner, we must gain a better understanding of the reasons for the Steller
sea lion decline and the efficacy of management measures taken to mitigate this decline. Without
such an improved understanding of the dynamics of the Steller sea lion population and its
relation to the fisheries we risk impacting the recovery of the Steller sea lions and the health of
the important pollock and other fisheries of the North Pacific.
Thank you.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank
you very much, sir.
Dr. Rosenberg.
STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW ROSENBERG, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES
SERVICE
Dr. ROSENBERG.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I thank you for inviting me to
testify before the Committee today on the science supporting NOAA Fisheries' recent biological
opinion and the conservation measures to ensure protection for the endangered western
population of Steller sea lions. I am Andrew Rosenberg, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
NOAA Fisheries, and I am accompanied by agency regional and headquarter staff to try to help
answer your questions.
NOAA is committed to the sustainable stewardship of marine fisheries,
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
as well as to the protection and recovery of endangered and threatened marine species, and we
recognize this dual commitment requires us to find a balance between endangered species
protection and efficient utilization of fisheries for the U.S. fishing industry and the U.S. public.
Today, I am here to discuss the recent management measures
developed with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council in response to our biological
opinion to reduce the potential effects of Alaskan groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions.
Developing these measures has been a complex task due to the competing statutory
responsibilities we have and the complexity of the biological, social and economic features of the
problem, and in fulfilling our responsibilities, we have used the best available scientific and
commercial information.
A recent peer review just cited by Dr. Pereyra of the supporting
science of the biological opinion stated, quote, the panel believes that in general the best
available data and analysis were used in the preparation of the opinion, end quote. I would like
to point out two features of the actions we have taken which we believe are innovative and,
though controversial, vitally important in working towards prudent steps for protecting Steller
sea lions in a reasonable manner for the fishing industry.
Compared to many endangered species actions, we have had a very
high level of public involvement in developing a plan to allow the fishery to operate without
jeopardizing the sea lion population. We have had public meetings which normally is not the
case with Endangered Species Act actions. We have had open meetings with industry and
environmental groups. We have had direct and open interaction with the councils, and we have
provided material on our web site prior to the conclusion of the biological opinion in order to
allow the public to comment.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secondly, we have provided substantial flexibility for the council to
help us address fishery-related concerns by crafting a framework of principles for reasonable and
prudent alternatives, rather than a prescriptive solution to the problem. In other words, we have
explicitly recognized in our biological opinion that there are many possible ways to accomplish
the goal of protecting sea lions from the indirect effects of fishing.
The western population of Steller sea lions was listed as endangered in
1997 because the measures in place to protect them have not halted the continued decline of the
population, and it is vitally important to recognize that at issue in the opinion is the continued
decline, not the cause of earlier declines, although they may be related, but they may not in many
cases.
The Endangered Species Act requires that each Federal agency ensure
that any action carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered
species or result in adverse modification of its habitat. That is the standard that we are working
under, and to engage in that action—any action that is viewed as jeopardizing the continued
existence means to engage in that action would reasonably be expected directly or indirectly to
reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild.
That is the way the standard that we are working with under the Endangered Species Act reads.
Our consultations focused on groundfish fisheries because these
fisheries and Steller sea lions target the same prey. We have identified indirect interactions with
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
fisheries as one of the factors that may have a continued impact on the ability of Steller sea lions
to recover as well as to halt the decline in the first place. The removal of up to 70 percent of the
pollock, total allowable catch, from critical habitat areas, combined with evidence that sea lions
are nutritionally stressed, that pollock are their most important prey, that fishing and sea lion
foraging overlap extensively, all indicate that fisheries are reasonably likely to compete with sea
lions and jeopardize their population. This conclusion was confirmed by the recent independent
peer review of the science.
ESA requires when an interaction is likely to jeopardize a population
that the agency prepare reasonable, prudent alternatives, and, Mr. Chairman, we are well aware
that what is reasonable for the fishery and prudent for the sea lions is a judgment call that we are
required to make, and it will always be controversial as evidenced by this hearing and the lawsuit
in which we are currently engaged, and we believe we have been reasonable for many reasons,
and I want to mention a few.
We decided the evidence did not indicate that a reduction in overall
pollock quota was necessary, and we also worked extremely hard, and I want to acknowledge
NOAA staff here, to ensure that our protection measures were in place so that the fishery could
open as planned on January 20th and proceed for a profitable A season which, in fact, did occur,
taking the full quota for the A season this past year.
In December the council voted to approve a motion containing a
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
number of conservation measures for the first half of 1999, and again, we had the opportunity to
allow the council to craft those measures as opposed to prescribe a set of measures that they had
to adhere to. That is the framework principles that I described before.
To be prudent for the sea lions, the reasonable and prudent alternatives,
disperse the pollock fishery in time and space and protect sea lions from competition in waters
adjacent to rookeries and haulouts.
Our strategy for research and recovery of Steller sea lions is described
in the Steller sea lion recovery plan, and that plan which is developed by experts from outside of
NMFS, with one exception on the team, uses the same principles that we used in our reasonable
and prudent alternatives. Towards this end, the recovery team in NMFS has recently completed
four peer review workshops on different elements of the Steller sea lion research effort, and we
hope to incorporate those in a revised recovery plan, which is our most urgent objective at this
stage, is to revise the recovery plan.
In summary, in the highly charged atmosphere dealing with a very
complex issue, NOAA Fisheries is making an effort to strike a balance between the needs of the
Alaska groundfish fishery and the needs to protect Steller sea lions, while fulfilling its various
mandates under the law. In achieving this balance, the agency has made an unprecedented effort
to maximize stakeholder input, but, Mr. Chairman, as with the terms ''reasonable'' and
''prudent,'' we recognize that one can never have enough stakeholder input for such an important
action to satisfy everyone.
The agency is prepared to work closely with stakeholders to ensure the
future research and management plans will improve our ability to better evaluate fishery
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
management alternatives to minimize impacts on the Steller sea lion population and, of course,
on the fishery.
Thank you for the opportunity, and I will try to answer any questions
the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rosenberg follows:]
STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW A. ROSENBERG, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES,
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify
before the Subcommittee today on the science supporting NOAA Fisheries, recent Biological
Opinion and the conservation measures to ensure protection for the endangered western
population of Steller sea lions. I am Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is charged with and committed to
the sustainable stewardship of marine fisheries, as well as the protection and recovery of
endangered and threatened marine species. We at NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
recognize that this dual commitment requires us to find a balance that ensures the protection of
species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) while ensuring the optimal utilization of
fisheries for the U.S. fishing industry. In finding this balance, we must comply with a number of
legal requirements, including those of the ESA, Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA),
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the
American Fisheries Act. Of particular concern to the Subcommittee today are the recent
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
management measures developed with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in
response to our biological opinion to reduce the potential effects of groundfish fisheries off
Alaska, particularly the pollock fisheries, on Steller sea lions. Meeting these various
requirements has been a complex task, as together they impose a number of competing
responsibilities that must be met within a relatively short period of time. We believe we have
fully complied with all of our statutory responsibilities in managing these fisheries, using the
best scientific and commercial information available in the process. Furthermore, we have done
this with a high level of public involvement for an ESA action, and we have provided substantial
flexibility in the recommendations of the Biological Opinion to accommodate fishery concerns.
Both of these features of the action, we believe, are innovative and helped us work through a
very contentious issue.
Requirements of the Endangered Species Act
The ESA requires that each Federal agency shall insure that any action authorized, funded,
or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
their habitat. Under the ESA, the term ''jeopardize the continued existence of'' means to engage
in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the
likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the
reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species. The term ''destruction or adverse
modification'' means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
are not limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features
that were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.
When Federal actions may result in an adverse effect, either on these species or their habitat,
the agency responsible for the action must consult with either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
or NOAA Fisheries and develop reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) to minimize or
eliminate the adverse effect. NOAA Fisheries, as the agency responsible for authorizing the
pollock fisheries as well as for protecting Steller sea lions, is both the ''action agency'' and the
''consulting'' agency in this case.
On December 3, 1998, NOAA Fisheries completed an ESA Section 7 consultation on the
pollock fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and Eastern Bering Sea, and the Atka mackerel fisheries
of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands region following an interactive process with the public and the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The consultation considered the best scientific and
commercial information available, including input received during two public meetings and a
North Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting in the autumn of 1998 on possible
alternatives to current fishing practices that would reduce the effects of the pollock fisheries on
Steller sea lions. That consultation was summarized in a Biological Opinion, as directed by the
ESA.
The Biological Opinion contained a description of the proposed fishery actions, a review of
the status of western population of Steller sea lions, and an analysis of factors that either may
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
have or are known to have contributed to the 80 percent decline of the western population of
Steller sea lions over the past three to four decades. The Opinion recognized that commercial sea
lion harvests, subsistence harvests, and incidental fisheries catch are known to have contributed
to this decline. The Opinion also recognized that intentional shooting, ecosystem changes, killer
whale predation, disease, and pollutants also have contributed to the decline. For example,
considerable evidence developed by NOAA Fisheries and other scientists indicates that
significant oceanographic changes have occurred in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska
ecosystems, with corresponding alteration of prey species available to Steller sea lions. As a
result, the environment's carrying capacity for Steller sea lions may have been changed. In short,
a number of factors have contributed to the decline of the western population of Steller sea lions.
However, the consultation NMFS conducted last year was concerned with the factors
contributing to the continued decline of Steller sea lions, not the original cause of the decline.
During the consultation on the 1999 pollock and mackerel fisheries, NMFS examined a number
of phenomena that might explain the continued decline of the Steller sea lion. Direct and indirect
interactions with fisheries are among those factors which may continue to have a significant
impact on the western population of Steller sea lions. Our consultations focused on the
groundfish fisheries because these fisheries and Steller sea lions target the same prey.
The potential for competition between the pollock and Atka mackerel fisheries and the
western population of Steller sea lions is difficult to evaluate. The best available evidence
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
suggests that Steller sea lions are nutritionally stressed. That evidence includes data on animal
growth, condition, reproduction, and survival (particularly of juvenile sea lions). The evidence
also indicates that pollock and Atka mackerel are major prey for Steller sea lions in both the Gulf
of Alaska and the Bering Sea regions. In the majority of diet studies conducted to date, pollock
or Atka mackerel have been the most frequently consumed prey.
The question, then, is whether the removal of potential prey by the commercial pollock and
Atka mackerel fisheries, as proposed, could reduce the foraging success of Steller sea lions and
compromise growth, condition, reproduction, and even survival of individuals to the point that
the population continues to decline or fails to recover. Scientific analyses indicate that the
pollock fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea overlap with foraging Steller sea lions in
at least four important ways.
First, the pollock fisheries and feeding Steller sea lions overlap spatially; that is, they occur
in the same place. Since the mid to late 1980s, the proportion of the pollock harvested from
Steller sea lion critical habitat in the Eastern Bering Sea has increased from 35 to 70 percent of
the total Eastern Bering Sea pollock catch. The proportion of the pollock harvested from critical
habitat in the Gulf of Alaska has remained high during the same period, at 50 to 90 percent of the
total Gulf of Alaska pollock catch.
Second, the pollock fisheries overlap in time with feeding Steller sea lions. Since the mid to
late 1980s, large roe fisheries have developed on pollock during the winter period, when Steller
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
sea lions (particularly juveniles and lactating adult females) are thought to be particularly
sensitive to changes in availability of prey. In addition, these fisheries have become concentrated
in time, increasing the likelihood that they result in localized depletions of prey. For example,
since 1990, the Bering Sea pollock fishery has become condensed from about 10 months to less
than 3 months.
Third, the pollock fisheries and foraging Steller sea lions overlap in prey selection and prey
size. As noted above, pollock is a major prey for sea lions. Furthermore, both adult and juvenile
sea lions consume pollock of the same size as those taken by the fisheries.
Fourth, the pollock fisheries and foraging Steller sea lions overlap with respect to the depth
of trawling and foraging. While much remains to be learned about the diving capabilities of sea
lions, the available information is sufficient to show that their diving patterns overlap with the
trawling depths of the fisheries. Furthermore, the pollock resource also moves in the water
column, from deeper levels in the daytime to shallower depths at night.
Finally, analyses of prey biomass harvested from areas important to Steller sea lions
indicate that the fisheries may remove 40 percent or more of the pollock available to Steller sea
lions during some seasons. Essentially, the problem is not the total amount of pollock harvested
from Alaska waters, rather the disproportionate amount harvested from critical habitat and the
resultant potential for localized depletion.
This extensive removal of pollock from critical habitat, combined with the evidence that sea
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
lions are nutritionally stressed, that pollock are important prey, and that fishing and sea lion
foraging overlap extensively, all indicate that the fisheries are reasonably likely to compete with
the western population of Steller sea lions and significantly reduce their available prey. Based on
this information, the Biological Opinion concluded that the pollock fisheries in the Bering Sea
and Gulf of Alaska, as proposed, are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the western
population of Steller sea lions and adversely modify its designated critical habitat.
Concerns about the Atka mackerel fishery were considered by the Council early in 1998.
The fishery had become concentrated in both time and area, and evidence of resultant localized
depletion of Atka mackerel was observed. In June, 1998, the Council recommended a regulatory
amendment to spread the Atka mackerel fishery harvest over time and space to reduce the effects
of competition between the Atka mackerel fishery and Steller sea lions. The Biological Opinion
concluded that implementation of these conservation measures reduced the effects of the Atka
mackerel fishery sufficiently to avoid jeopardy.
The Biological Opinion was based on the best available scientific and commercial data, as
analyzed by scientists both inside and outside of our agency. These scientific data and analyses
were only part, but an important part, of the Biological Opinion and resulting conclusions. The
North Pacific Fishery Management Council recently convened a review of these data and
analyses by a panel of internationally known experts in marine mammal biology.
Development of a reasonable and prudent alternative with public and Council input
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because Federal agencies cannot take actions that jeopardize a listed species or adversely
modify critical habitat, the ESA requires that jeopardy and adverse modification be avoided
through development of a reasonable and prudent alternative to the proposed action; in this case,
authorization of the pollock fisheries. Development of the RPA was initiated in the fall of 1998,
when the analyses of the Biological Opinion indicated that conclusions of jeopardy and adverse
modification were likely. We drafted management measures and solicited public and Council
input to ensure that the fisheries would be able to start in January 1999, as planned.
Early analyses in the Biological Opinion indicated problems with the spatial dispersion of
the fisheries, their temporal dispersion, and their potential to compete with sea lions in the waters
immediately adjacent to rookeries and haulouts. In the fall of 1998, NOAA Fisheries staff began
development of RPAs that would increase spatial and temporal dispersion, and protect prey
resources around rookeries and haulouts. It should be reiterated that changes in the total amount
of pollock harvest allowed were considered, but not deemed necessary.
In October 1998, public workshops were held in Seattle and Anchorage. The purpose of
these workshops was to enlist input from the public on measures to avoid jeopardy and adverse
modification.
In November 1998, the RPA was further developed and presented to the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council. Again, input from the Council and from the public was solicited
on measures to avoid jeopardy and adverse modification.
In late November and early December 1998, NOAA Fisheries developed RPA ''principles''
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
to be included in the Biological Opinion, pending the final decision on jeopardy and adverse
modification. These principles established the objectives to be met by the RPA as a framework,
rather than specifying the exact measures to achieve those objectives. This provided the Council
and the industry much greater flexibility in developing solutions to this problem than is usual for
ESA actions.
In December 1998, NOAA Fisheries took the framework RPA principles in the final
Biological Opinion to the Council to seek their input on measures consistent with that framework
that would avoid jeopardy to Steller sea lions and adverse modification of critical habitat. On
December 13, 1998, the Council voted to approve a motion containing a number of conservation
measures for the first half of the 1999 groundfish fisheries.
On December 16, 1998, NOAA Fisheries accepted the Council motion, with some
modification, as part of the RPA. We also recognized that additional measures would be required
during the latter half of the 1999 fisheries to avoid jeopardy and adverse modification. These
additional measures were discussed with the Council at its February meeting. Again, the Council
and public were asked for input prior to the development of an environmental assessment for the
Steller sea lions conservation measures needed for the latter half of 1999 and for the 2000
fisheries and beyond.
In April 1999, the Council was asked to review and release a draft environmental
assessment on Steller sea lion measures so that final action could be taken in June 1999.
In summary, the RPA, as developed to date, disperses the pollock fisheries in time and
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
space, and protects sea lions from competition in the waters adjacent to important rookeries and
haulouts. The goals of temporal dispersion were to protect portions of the critical winter period
by prohibiting fishing from 1 November to 19 January, and to disperse the fisheries during the
remainder of the year to avoid large pulses of fishing. The goals of spatial dispersion were to
spread the distribution of the catch in a manner that mirrored the actual distribution of the
pollock stocks and, where the stock distribution is not known, place a cap on the amount of the
catch that could be taken from Steller sea lion critical habitat. Zones within which pollock
trawling is prohibited were also established to fully protect sea lions (particularly juveniles and
lactating females) from the possibility of competition for pollock in the waters adjacent to
important rookeries and haulouts. The combined set of RPA principles outlined in the Biological
Opinion were developed to achieve these goals.
Related litigation
NOAA's management of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska is the subject of litigation in a
Federal court. In that case, a number of environmental groups are challenging the environmental
impact statement prepared for the Alaska groundfish fisheries, as well as the biological opinion
addressing the effects of the pollock and Atka mackerel fisheries, and the biological opinion
considering the effects of the other Alaska groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions.
Representatives of the groundfish fishing industry and Alaska fishing communities have
intervened in the case and filed cross claims challenging, among other things, NMFS' emergency
regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act that implement the reasonable and prudent
alternatives identified in one of the biological opinions. Oral argument on some of the issues in
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
this case was held on May 13th.
Steller sea lions and the American Fisheries Act
While the RPA was being developed, the American Fisheries Act (AFA) became public
law. The AFA has changed the structure and nature of the pollock fishery in the Bering Sea. The
AFA has only been in effect since January 1999 and the full effects of its measures on the
western population of Steller sea lions are not yet apparent. Based on the preliminary results, we
are cautiously optimistic that some provisions of the Act will likely further our efforts to avoid
jeopardy to the western population of sea lions and adverse modification of its critical habitat. In
1999, one sector of the pollock fleet, the catcher-processors, was able to establish a fishing
cooperative which helped to avoid the ''race for fish,'' reduce the daily catch rates, and better
disperse the catch over a longer period of time. These are preliminary results from the activities
of only one of the four fishery sectors fishing during the first four months of 1999, but they are
positive and encouraging. We hope to see similar progress in the other sectors, given the shift in
allocation of pollock away from the catcher-processors towards the inshore and Community
Development Quota, or CDQ, fleets. Our Alaska Region is working with the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council to facilitate the full implementation of the AFA as soon as
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
possible.
Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan
Our strategy for research and recovery of Steller sea lions is described in the Steller Sea
Lion Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan). The first version of the Recovery Plan was completed in
1992 by NMFS and the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team. This version provided important
directions for research into the causes of the decline and general management measures for
facilitating recovery. Considerable progress has been made since 1992, and the Recovery Plan is
now ready for revision. The Recovery Team and NMFS have recently completed four
peer-review workshops on different elements of the Steller sea lion research effort. The
workshops and their recommendations will be used to revise and update the Recovery Plan. The
revision is expected to be completed by the end of 1999.
The completion of the revised Recovery Plan is our most urgent objective for management
efforts related to Steller sea lions. The revised Recovery Plan will not only update the
information on the status of the western and eastern populations, but will also incorporate the
extensive research results obtained since 1992. In addition to direction for future research, the
Recovery Plan will incorporate explicit management strategies to facilitate recovery of the
species. The Recovery Plan will guide and coordinate the research and management activities of
the multiple agencies involved with Steller sea lion recovery efforts. Finally, the Recovery Plan
will also define the criteria needed to determine when the eastern and western populations have
recovered and can be removed from the lists of threatened and endangered species.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General research direction and anticipated budget
Specific research topics or themes will be identified and expanded during the revision of the
Recovery Plan. Likely research themes will include research on population abundance and
trends, life history, health foraging ecology, habitat, fisheries interactions, and environmental
effects. NOAA Fisheries funding levels for Steller sea lion research in 1998 was $720,000. In
1999, NOAA Fisheries has a $590,000 base level of funding, plus $850,000 for studies on the
effectiveness of current management measures, and an additional $234,000 for recovery studies.
When combined with other funding sources, the total 1999 funding level for Steller sea lion
research is $3,604,000.
Summary
In summary, NOAA Fisheries is making an effort to strike a balance between the needs of
the Alaska groundfish fishery and the need to protect Steller sea lions while fulfilling the varying
mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ESA, MMPA, and the American Fisheries Act. To
achieve this balance, we considered the best available scientific information, and hold numerous
public meetings to discuss possible alternatives with the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (, the fishing industry, environmental organizations and the public. We have
used a flexible, innovative approach to meeting the mandates of the ESA because of the
complexity of the issue and the legal mandates and because of the importance of the fishery.
Future research and management plans will improve our ability to respond to our complex
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
mandates, and will allow all stakeholders to better evaluate possible fishery management
alternatives to minimize impacts on the western Steller sea lion population.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today. I am prepared to
respond to questions members of the Subcommittee may ask.
Mr. SAXTON. Dr.
Rosenberg, thank you very much for your statement.
Ms. Wynne.
STATEMENT OF KATE WYNNE, MARINE MAMMAL
SPECIALIST, ALASKA SEA GRANT MARINE ADVISORY PROGRAM
Ms. WYNNE. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the National
Marine Fisheries Service's Steller sea lion research and management programs and on how they
might be better integrated. My perspective is based on nearly 20 years of studying marine
mammals and their interactions with fisheries, often from the deck of fishing boats, often
working hand in hand with National Marine Fisheries Service on research, advisory and outreach
projects, and usually, as here, in the midst of conflict.
The Steller sea lion recovery plan published by NMFS in 1992 clearly
outlined research needs and a direction for the NMFS' Steller sea lion research program. I
believe NMFS' scientists, directly and through collaborative studies, have conscientiously
followed this direction in seeking to answer the question, ''why are Stellers declining and how
can we help them recover.'' I believe NMFS and other researchers have made great strides
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
toward understanding Steller sea lion biology and ecology and new techniques and technology
give me great hope for future breakthroughs, but the causes for continued declines remain
unclear, and why is that?
The bulk of Steller sea lion research to date has focused on assessing
the existence and mechanisms of food limitation. These are difficult animals and complex
questions to study. The environment is dynamic, (and as we know, it is changing) and
developing statistically reliable sample sizes is very time-consuming. The research is
challenging and understanding develops slowly. So, after a decade of concerted effort, even
some fundamental information is incomplete and lacking.
These scientific shortcomings become painfully obvious when they
comprise the best available data used by sea lion managers to make decisions that have such
hefty social and economic impact, decisions that are forced by uncertainty and by law to be
conservative and risk adverse.
Now, in the management arena, NMFS is being asked questions that
are related but very different from those addressed in the recovery plan. They may require a very
different research approach. Rather than seeking ecosystem level mechanisms that are limiting
sea lion recovery, NMFS is being asked specific management-related questions like do humans
and sea lions compete for the same prey, and what is critical habitat for Steller sea lions.
This situation does beg for a review, not necessarily of the science
involved but of how NMFS as an agency can better integrate the actions of their management
and research programs. The left hand and the right hand need to be better coordinated.
A case in point was the establishment of protective no-trawl zones
around Steller sea lion rookeries in the early 1990s. A critical opportunity was lost when no
experimental design nor follow-up research was incorporated into that action. Now, there is no
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
way to assess the effectiveness of that measure nor to predict the usefulness and value of
extending them further to protect haulouts.
I encourage NMFS to continue monitoring the sea lion population and
develop technology and studies that will refine our understanding of foraging requirements and
other critical habitat needs of Steller sea lions. But I recommend that NMFS encourage its
scientists to work more directly with its marine mammal and fisheries managers to design
research that is management-related and hypothesis-driven, to design management actions as
experiments, and to test the assumptions included so we can learn as we go, and most
importantly to assure there is a means of measuring success built into every significant sea lion
protective measure that clearly identifies goals and benchmarks so the efficacy of the action can
be determined.
Involving stakeholders in the design of such testable management
actions perhaps in a manner modeled after the MMPA's take reduction teams would enhance
their acceptance and utility, encourage constructive mitigation and reduce the need for
retrospective analyses such as today's.
Communication plays an indirect but critical role in building trust and,
ultimately, reaching Steller sea lion research and management goals. Within NMFS and NOAA
are gifted communicators who could help develop informative sea lion research updates and
other means of increasing awareness and understanding at the grass roots level.
These additional efforts will, however, require additional funding.
NMFS' scientists already compete for a shrinking piece of the NOAA research budget pie. There
are many high profile and critical marine mammal fisheries issues nationwide, including right
whales and harbor porpoise in New England. Increased demands on the National Marine
Fisheries Service's Steller sea lion research and management programs will, therefore, require
congressional support and commitment.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wynne follows:]
STATEMENT OF KATE WYNNE, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SEA GRANT
MARINE ADVISORY PROGRAM
Preface
The endangered western stock of Steller sea lions continues to decline but unlike most
endangered species, the factors initiating their decline and hindering their recovery remain
uncertain despite years of concerted study. This testimony is presented, upon request, to address
the adequacy of the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Steller sea lion research
program and to comment on potential improvements and expansion. More thorough reviews of
NMFS' sea lion research have been provided by independent reviewers, through a series Steller
Sea Lion Recovery Plan workshops, and recently by the North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council.
The perspective I provide herein is a product of nearly 20 years studying marine mammals
and their interactions with commercial fishermen—often with fishermen on their vessels, often
with NMFS in the field, often seeking understanding in a commonly thorny conflict arena. The
opinions expressed herein are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of the institution I
represent. [A Disclosure Form summarizing my professional experience and recent and proposed
NMFS-supported projects is appended to this document.]
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Background
The Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan (SLRP) published by NMFS in 1992 outlined research
priorities and a clear direction for NMFS' Steller sea lion research program. Beyond monitoring
population trends, the SLRP prioritized the research needed to address the question: ''Why are
Steller sea lions declining and how can their recovery be encouraged?'' Although NMFS has
management authority for Steller sea lions throughout the U.S., they have shared responsibility
for SLRP-related sea lion research in Alaska with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADFG). Additional Federal funding has supported Steller sea lion research at the Alaska Sea
Life Center, the North Pacific Universities Marine Mammal Consortium, and numerous
academic institutions.
A number of sources of mortality were identified in SLRP as known or potential
contributors to the population's historic decline but no single causative factor (''smoking gun'')
has been found to account for continued declines. Consequently, by the mid-1990's, much of the
research by NMFS and others focused on seeking evidence to support a single, common
hypothesis: that food limitation (in prey quality, quantity, or diversity) is reducing survival of
juvenile Steller sea lions.
Adequacy of NMFS' science
Unlike El Nino-induced prey shortages, we are NOT seeing classic evidence of acute
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
food shortage in the western stock of Steller sea lions (i.e. thousands of carcasses or starvelings
washing ashore). NMFS and other investigators therefore have sought indicators of chronic
nutritional stress and its potential impact on the population including physiological compromise
detectable in blood parameters, growth and reproductive rates, and foraging effort. By comparing
sea lion diet and condition over space (stable eastern stock vs declining western stock) and time
(pre-decline vs post-decline), researchers have sought to elucidate key changes in Steller sea lion
habitat and determine the role of food limitation in the continued decline. Despite this concerted
effort, evidence supporting the food limitation hypothesis remains weak.
This has not been for lack of trying however. I believe NMFS and others have
conscientiously addressed the questions they have asked. Our knowledge of Steller sea lion
biology and ecology has grown tremendously in the past decade. But until recently, sea lion
questions were asked in a broad ecosystem-process context, as directed by the SLRP. By seeking
sources of continued decline, NMFS and others have asked a complex set of questions where
even the simplest components are logistically difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to
answer. Hampered by these research challenges, even some seemingly fundamental questions
remain unanswered (e.g. What and where do sea lions eat in the winter?) and the ''best available
information'' in those areas may be suboptimal or incomplete. Such data limitations become
particularly obvious and confounding when they form the basis for management decisions of
social and economic significance.
But NMFS is now being asked very different questions. Rather than questioning the
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
mechanisms limiting sea lion survival, NMFS is being asked specific management-related
questions: What direct and indirect impacts does a particular fishery have on sea lions and/or
their prey? Are humans competing with or disrupting sea lion foraging behavior? What IS critical
in a sea lion's habitat? How do fish populations respond to sea lion predation and human harvest?
These are very different from SLRP questions and may require a revised research approach.
Integrate research and management
In many cases, data needed for sound management actions are lacking because appropriate
questions have not yet been asked. This argues for broader integration of NMFS' Steller sea lion
management and research efforts. Research focused on specific management-related,
hypothesis-driven questions can be designed to generate results with direct management
application as well as broader ecosystem insights. Although belated, NMFS' recent steps to
develop hypothesis-driven proposals for assessing the impact of commercial fishing pressure on
sea lion prey distribution are a commendable move in this direction.
The efficient coordination of NMFS' research and management efforts may be limited by
NMFS' infrastructure and the vastly different timelines upon which research and management
programs appear to operate. [There is often a multi-year lag in procuring research funding
whereas management issues are often on shorter, more urgent schedules.] But the desirability of
such coordination is exemplified by NMFS' establishment of protective buffer zones (trawl
closure areas) around Steller sea lion rookeries in the early 1990's. A critical opportunity to study
the effects of this management measure was lost when no experimental design nor follow-up
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
research was incorporated into the buffer zone implementation. Consequently there has been no
way to directly assess the efficacy of this measure or predict the efficacy of recently implemented
trawl closures around haulouts. Such studies could have also been designed to shed light on sea
lion habitat requirements and other trophic interactions.
I recommend that NMFS' sea lion researchers work directly with managers to (1) design
management actions as experiments and (2) develop a measure of success for all significant sea
lion-protective measures implemented: identify goals and benchmarks so the efficacy of the
action can be monitored.
In addition, I believe stakeholder involvement in the design of such testable management
actions may increase their utility and reduce the need for retrospective negotiations or critiques
of assumptions and science involved. ''Take Reduction Teams'' (TRTs), authorized under the
MMPA to develop plans for reducing incidental fishing mortality of strategic stocks, may
provide a model for addressing specific sea lion-fishery interactions. Like TRTs, this team could
be comprised of biologists and stakeholder representatives, have a limited focus and tight
timeline, and develop with NMFS a fishery-specific research plan with clear goals and
benchmarks for success. Unlike TRTS, this proposed team would address competitive or indirect
interactions between sea lions and fisheries, rather than incidental take.
Communication
The fact this hearing is being held demonstrates that Steller sea lion problems go beyond
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
science and that NMFS should make a concerted effort to improve communications with the
public. Misunderstanding and confusion about NMFS' goals has spawned grassroot-level
mistrust and resistance to management actions and led to counterproductive expenditures of time
and money. I believe we all see Steller sea lions in crisis and share common goals for their
recovery—albeit for different reasons (biological, social or economic). The following NOAA
communication efforts are suggested as steps to enhance public awareness, understanding and
cooperation.
fNOAA's newly appointed Fishery Ombudsman will likely encourage
upper level coordination of marine mammal and fisheries issues.
fOutreach at local level: NMFS can facilitate public access to research
results through direct mailings of NOAA Tech Memos to affected AK coastal community
libraries, and funding should be sought to support NOAA development of a semi-annual
newsletter highlighting sea lion research plans and results by NMFS and other researchers.
fAlternate Peer Review: consider requesting the Alaska Scientific
Review Group (ASRG) to formally review the design and goals of proposed NMFS' sea lion
studies. Currently NMFS presents the ASRG with annual updates on funded sea lion research
plans and specific sea lion study results upon request but does not request study plan review.
COMMENTS ON NMFS STELLER SEA LION RESEARCH
Kate Wynne, Research Associate Professor
University of Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program
Research by NMFS and others has made great strides toward understanding Steller sea lion
biology and ecology but cause(s) of continued declines remain unclear.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bulk of Steller sea lion research effort this decade has focused on assessing the
existence and mechanisms of potential food limitation. The questions and animals are difficult to
study and many questions fundamental to management needs remain unanswered.
Research based solely on this single hypothesis may no longer be justified.
Recommendations: NMFS researchers should work more closely with the agency's fish and
sea lion managers to (1) design management-related, hypothesis-driven sea lion research, (2)
design management actions as experiments and (3) develop a measure of success for all
significant sea lion-protective measures implemented, identifying goals and benchmarks so the
efficacy of the action can be monitored.
Communication plays an indirect but critical role in affecting Steller sea lion research and
management goals. NMFS can and should encourage increased awareness and understanding of
their research and management goals at the grass roots level and higher.
Mr. YOUNG.
[presiding.] Thank you, Kate. Dr. Lavigne.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID LAVIGNE, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL MARINE MAMMAL ASSOCIATION
Dr. LAVIGNE. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, first, thank you for the
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
invitation to appear before you today. I would like to begin by providing you with a bit of
personal background in the history of my involvement in the Steller sea lion issue.
I am the Executive Director of the International Marine Mammal
Association, a not-for-profit organization concerned with the conservation of marine mammals. I
am also an adjunct professor in the Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, where I held a
faculty position from 1973 through 1996. I am a member of IUCN Seal Specialist Group, and I
serve on the Pinniped Fishery Interaction Task Force on the Sea Lion/Steelhead Conflict at
Ballard Locks.
My involvement in the Steller sea lion issue began in March of 1991
when I was invited to participate in the Is it Food? workshop held at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks. Later that year I submitted an affidavit in the 1991 sea lion litigation. At that time,
NMFS acknowledged that the commercial pollock fishery may adversely affect Steller sea lions,
but concluded that no harm was likely because the causal connection had not been definitively
proven. I argued that NMFS' conclusion was scientifically unjustified because the process of
science does not and cannot prove hypotheses. Rather, it attempts to reject them.
The pollock fisheries continued between 1991 and 1998, and in 1997,
as we all know, the status of the western population of Steller sea lions was upgraded to
endangered. In March of 1999 the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund asked me to review materials
related to Steller sea lions, including the latest biological opinion, and last month I was invited to
make a presentation before the Northwest Fishery Management Council's panel of independent
scientists in Seattle.
I will now address briefly some of the scientific issues about which
you have asked witnesses to testify. One, the biological opinion. In my opinion, the best
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
available scientific and commercial data support a conclusion that the pollock fisheries compete
with the western population of sea lions. This does not mean, I must emphasize, that such
competition has been demonstrated conclusively. Rather, it means that the data and analyses
reasonably support the conclusion that the pollock fisheries are likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the endangered western population of Steller sea lions and adversely modify its
habitat.
Two, the reasonable and prudent alternatives. Here, I diverge from the
views expressed in the biological opinion. In my opinion, the proposed RPAs are unlikely to
avoid jeopardy and adverse habitat modification for the endangered Steller sea lions because they
do not remedy the factors that led NMFS to reach its conclusions of jeopardy and adverse
modification.
Three, the adequacy of NMFS' scientific research program. It is my
impression that NMFS' scientists have tried to devise the best possible research program within
the limits of the available funding, given the difficulties of working with a threatened and
subsequently endangered species and the logistical realities of working on Steller sea lions in
their remote northern terrestrial and marine environments.
I also suspect that they would be the first to admit that the program
could have been better if they had more research funding and additional human resources, and I
would agree with such an assessment.
How could NMFS improve or expand its current research program?
Well, there are a number of areas where additional scientific information is required to improve
the basis for making future determinations on the likely effects of the pollock fishery on the
endangered Steller sea lions. These include, one, as the review panel noted, there is a need for
additional research to delineate better the critical habitat of Steller sea lions.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is also a need, I feel, to obtain a better understanding of the
nature of the, quote, harsh winter period, and its potential consequences for Steller sea lions.
We also need to obtain data on the abundance of pollock in specific
areas, particularly in sea lion critical habitat and at specific times, before, during and after
commercial fishing in an area to better understand the extent to which the fisheries may cause
local depletion of pollock and over what period of time.
And finally, four, I think we need to take a more experimental
approach to fishing to really test the hypothesis that the pollock fishery competes with the
endangered Steller sea lion.
I would like to end my statement with one additional comment. The
available scientific information comes in a variety of forms. These include peer-reviewed
primary scientific literature published in independent journals, the so-called grey literature,
government reports and the like, reports from meetings, unpublished reports and anecdotal
accounts. There is a tendency, particularly among non-scientists and the media, to give equal
weight to claims arising from all of these sources. Scientists, on the other hand, who are or
should be skeptical by their very nature will instinctively treat the information in the various
sources above with increasing vigilance as they proceed from the peer-reviewed literature at one
end of the spectrum to anecdotal reports at the other.
It may be of some use to your Committee to apply a similar approach
in evaluating the scientific information presented to you. This is important, I think, because
some of the apparent scientific controversy on this issue has been generated by unpublished and
anecdotal information which has been introduced into the scientific debate in unconventional
ways.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lavigne follows:]
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
533
58051.010
533
58051.011
533
58051.012
533
58051.013
533
58051.014
533
58051.015
533
58051.016
533
58051.017
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
533
58051.018
533
58051.019
533
58051.020
533
58051.021
533
58051.022
Mr. YOUNG. Thank
you, Doctor.
Mr. Marks.
STATEMENT OF RICK MARKS, STELLER SEA LION CAUCUS
Mr. MARKS. Mr.
Chairman, when you drop that gavel today and we all go home, 20 Alaskans will have traveled
80,000 miles and spent 20,000 of their own dollars to come here and let this Committee know
that this is a crisis situation in Alaska. These Alaskans are members of the Steller Sea Lion
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Caucus, which includes Unalaska, Akutan, Aleutians East Borough, False Pass, King Cove,
Kodiak, Kodiak Island Borough and Sand Point. These communities, which are in closest
proximity to Steller sea lion haulouts and rookeries, are heavily dependent on Bering Sea and
Gulf of Alaska and other groundfish fisheries for employment and for municipal tax revenues.
I would like to preface my remarks by telling you that recently we
have had some very good discussions with the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding
research. There is a scientist in Kodiak right now working with our folks and that we will
participate proactively with the agency to develop a research program.
However, Mr. Chairman, I am here to tell you on behalf of the caucus
that the Steller sea lion management process has broken, and I am going to tell you why, but
first, I will tell you what the council thinks about it, and I quote, ''there is considerable scientific
uncertainty regarding the relationships between pollock fisheries and the western population of
the Steller sea lions. The uncertainty has placed the industry at risk and forced the council to
react to ESA concerns in a very compressed time frame and make critical decisions based on
incomplete and conflicting data. This is not acceptable.'' That is from the council's December
meeting.
Steller sea lion conservation measures are implemented as
amendments to council-managed FMPs. The council and the public should have had full access
through the Magnuson-Stevens Act public participation process. Unfortunately, this did not
occur properly, and I am going to tell you why.
Greenpeace, et al., filed against the Secretary on April 15th. NMFS
was on notice for at least six months that they were in a dogfight with the environmental
industry. However, at the October council meeting the science and statistical committee minutes
did not have any reference to the Steller sea lion issue. Clearly, as late as October, the scientific
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
arm of the council never had any clue it was going to be playing a role in such a divisive and
time-sensitive issue.
The draft biological opinion was dated October 22nd, and that already
included RPAs directed only at the pollock trawl fishery before any substantive council or public
consideration and in advance of the formal jeopardy finding. Since the RPAs are only required
in cases of jeopardy, the agency had predetermined a condition of jeopardy and predetermined
that pollock trawling was the sole cause of the problem. The council was informed by NMFS at
the November meeting that it would be required to address the RPAs at the December meeting.
However, NMFS did not provide the 200-plus page biological opinion until December 3rd,
leaving just three days before the start of the council meeting and no time for a substantive
review of the document by anyone, in particular the public.
This is clear in that the SSC stated at the December meeting, quote,
''The process has hampered the SSC's ability to thoroughly review the document, and although
the SSC was requested to comment on appropriate actions, we were not presented with
information to complete such a task and there is an inadequate understanding of the roles of the
council, the public, the SSC and in the ESA legal process.''
Despite the fact that the agency had six months advance notice,
mitigation measures were still implemented under an intolerable time frame as emergency
regulations despite the council having no scientific information on which to base their decisions
and that the agency has not provided any indication in the fact that the situation was any different
from any other years when no jeopardy determinations were made. Clearly the lawsuit was both
the difference and the emergency, and to wait six months to do anything suggests that there was
not going to be an open process to include anyone.
In addition, the only formal conduit for constituent participation is the
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Steller sea lion recovery team. NMFS' staff informed the advisory panel at the December council
meeting that the recovery team was not consulted at all in the development or implementation of
the biological opinion or the RPAs.
I would like to comment to Dr. Rosenberg's point about the
independent review substantiating the agency position. I would like to read, the independent
review also includes a few other things, which I will quote, ''The relative importance of
environmental changes in carrying capacity versus the effects of commercial pollock fisheries in
the BSAI, in the Gulf of Alaska on hypothesized food shortages to Steller sea lions is
unknown.'' Ongoing, ''It is not possible to know if RPAs specified in the opinion will
significantly promote the recovery of the western stock of Steller sea lions,'' and finally, ''high
priority should be given to research.'' But here's the nut, Mr. Chairman, we don't have a research
program and for nearly a decade we have not had one, and we are no closer to Steller sea lion
recovery.
To make matters worse the agency has proposed a $1 million net
reduction in Steller sea lion funding for the year 2000. That money was being used to deal with
energetics, foraging dynamics and Steller sea lion/killer whale interactions. That is what that
money was going to be for. Clearly, we have got a problem, and this process continuing will
continue to make the agency vulnerable to ESA-driven lawsuits and the industry to sudden
untested restrictions.
The Greenpeace staff has already informed the SSC and the public at
the December council meeting that pollock-style litigation on Atka mackerel and Pacific cod are
next up on the hit parade.
I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, Steller Sea Lion Caucus submits that
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
there is a stronger correlation between environmental lawsuits and trawling restrictions than there
is between Steller sea lions and commercial fishing. The only way to insulate the agency in the
industry from economy-trashing lawsuits is for Congress to build accountability into a scientific,
administrative and stakeholder process, and this is how we can do it.
Formalizing the agency Steller sea lion research program which
incorporates a peer review. It requires annual reporting of progress and research prioritization.
We can also formalize and fund a peer-reviewed independent Steller sea lion research program
based in Alaska that can test all hypotheses, not just those of the agency's liking.
We can create and fund a Steller sea lion position at the council,
specifically designated to work cooperatively with the agency and the public to ensure efficient
communication and development of an EIS process whereby new information is continually
rolled into the council's EIS process.
We can use this year's MMPA reauthorization to implement a take
reduction team-style program for Steller sea lions in Alaska. We can ensure that the agency is
accountable and responsive to Secretarial Order #3206 with respect to native tribal entities, and
we can also require the agency to reconstitute and reinvigorate the Steller sea lion recovery team.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Steller Sea Lion Caucus, I thank you
very much for that opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marks follows:]
533
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
58051.023
533
58051.024
533
58051.025
533
58051.026
533
58051.027
533
58051.028
533
58051.029
533
58051.030
533
58051.031
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
533
58051.032
533
58051.033
533
58051.034
533
58051.035
533
58051.036
533
58051.037
Mr. YOUNG. Thank
you, Mr. Marks. I want to thank the panel. This is an excellent panel. Mr. Hansen, do you have
any questions?
Mr. HANSEN. No, Mr.
Chairman, I don't have any questions.
Mr. YOUNG. I will
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
have some questions. Don't act so surprised. Because I came in late, I thought I would give you
the first opportunity. Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. GILCHREST. I don't
mind going.
Mr. YOUNG. Go right
ahead.
Mr. GILCHREST. It
probably would help if I went after you, Mr. Chairman, but I guess a couple of basic questions.
Do sea lions or juvenile sea lions eat pollock? I guess, does everybody agree that they eat
pollock?
Ms. WYNNE. At
different times of the year, yes.
Mr. GILCHREST.
Everybody agrees that they eat pollock, and are they an important source of nutrients for their
diet, a major source of nutrients? It seems that some people up here disagree how important the
pollock are to the sea lions, and I guess NMFS had decided that they are an important source so
there needs to be a reduction in the catch or some type of buffer between where the sea lions are
and where the pollock are, and that is the disagreement that Mr. Marks has with NMFS.
Dr. ROSENBERG. If I
may, Congressman, it is clear that sea lions eat pollock. It also is clear that pollock is the most
important prey item currently for sea lions. We are not maintaining that there needs to be a
reduction in pollock fishing but that that fishing needs to be spread out in time and space so that
it does not overlap with sea lion feeding areas quite so much as it currently does.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GILCHREST. How
would that impact the fishermen?
Dr. ROSENBERG. Well,
that, of course, is the difficult and controversial part. It impacts different types of fishermen in
Alaska in different ways. In many cases, the impact, which is—well, in all cases, the impact is
economic, although in some cases it relates to safety because it may require fishermen to either
stay at sea longer or to move to additional areas. That is of great concern certainly in the
industry and of great concern to us.
What we are trying to do and believe that we have done for the first
season within Alaska, the first six months of the year, is to accomplish those goals but still allow
the catch to be taken in an economic fashion, and that is our understanding of the progress of the
first season and not to increase, certainly not to increase risk to fishermen by spreading it out in
as reasonable a way as we can.
Mr. GILCHREST. If I
could just get to Mr. Pereyra.
Dr. PEREYRA. Yes,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GILCHREST. Did
you call me Mr. Chairman? That might be the future, I guess. Not for a while, Don.
Mr. Pereyra, what part of Mr. Rosenberg's statement will you disagree
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
with?
Dr. PEREYRA. Well, I
think I can't disagree with the statement in that portion of it but I don't think it tells the whole
story. If you go back in time and even the NMFS' data will show that small pelagic schooling
species, like smelt, herring and capelin and so forth, back in the early seventies and so forth, were
the principal diet of the Steller sea lions and that——
Mr. GILCHREST. Why
are they not?
Dr. PEREYRA. Now,
we find them eating pollock. We also find them——
Mr. GILCHREST. Why
are they eating pollock now instead of the others?
Dr. PEREYRA. It is the
only thing that is left.
Mr. GILCHREST. Why
is pollock the only thing that is left?
Dr. PEREYRA. Because
of this regime shift which occurred back in the seventies. I mean, this seems to be one of the
hypotheses that has been put forward.
Mr. GILCHREST. What
do you mean regime shift?
Dr. PEREYRA. Well,
the Aleutian low pressure system which tends to dominate the circulation pattern of the north
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Pacific moved, and that caused the temperature regime in the Bering Sea to become much
warmer. It also changed the current patterns, and that is looked upon as being one of the
influencing factors, along with the elimination of many of the apex predators, like whales, for
example. Over 75,000 whales were taken out of the north Pacific, also, and those factors have
changed the actual composition of the resources which were available for Steller sea lions and it
is sort of similar if you had elk eating——
Mr. GILCHREST. The
Steller sea lions didn't move, though?
Dr. PEREY