Managing Alaska Groundfish and Managing Alaska Groundfish and Steller Sea Lions – at the same Steller Sea Lions – at the same time and same place time and same place Doug DeMaster Doug DeMaster Alaska Fisheries Science Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS Center, NMFS Seattle, WA Seattle, WA
22
Embed
Managing Alaska Groundfish and Steller Sea Lions – at the same time and same place Doug DeMaster Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS Seattle, WA.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Managing Alaska Groundfish and Managing Alaska Groundfish and Steller Sea Lions – at the same time Steller Sea Lions – at the same time
and same placeand same place
Doug DeMaster Doug DeMaster
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFSNMFS
Seattle, WASeattle, WA
Steller sea lion population Steller sea lion population declinedecline
0
50
100
150
200
250
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Thou
sand
s of
non
-pup
s
Eastern stock
Western stock
Total population
Western SSL Stock listed as Endangered in 1997
Proximate Cause of Proximate Cause of DeclineDecline
Reduction in juvenile survivalReduction in juvenile survival– Life table analyses (modeling)Life table analyses (modeling)– Marking-Resighting (I.e., branded animals)Marking-Resighting (I.e., branded animals)
Changes in pregnancy/lactation rates Changes in pregnancy/lactation rates of adult females between 1970s and of adult females between 1970s and 1980s1980s
Data in 1970 and 1980s primarily from Data in 1970 and 1980s primarily from lethal sampling; similar data are not lethal sampling; similar data are not available for the 1990savailable for the 1990s
Ultimate Cause(s) of Ultimate Cause(s) of DeclineDecline
Entanglement in Marine DebrisEntanglement in Marine Debris Increased predationIncreased predation PollutionPollution HarassmentHarassment Pup/Subsistence HarvestsPup/Subsistence Harvests DiseaseDisease Oceanographic ChangesOceanographic Changes Indirect effect of FisheriesIndirect effect of Fisheries
} Prey Availability
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.
Jeopardy (Sec.7 ESA- avoid jeopardy)
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 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.
Adverse modification of CH(Sec 7 ESA – fed. Agencies are to avoid Ad. Mod.)
Frequency of occurrence of Steller Frequency of occurrence of Steller sea lion prey from scats > 10% sea lion prey from scats > 10%
But – what is the direct evidence for nutritional stress in western SSL?
Is It Food? Workshop (1993)- Is It Food? Workshop (1993)- strong support for nutritional strong support for nutritional stress in the western SSL stress in the western SSL population in the 1980spopulation in the 1980s
Is It Food? II Workshop (2001) – 7 Is It Food? II Workshop (2001) – 7 studies all reported data studies all reported data inconsistent with nutritional stress inconsistent with nutritional stress hypothesis (but noted adequate hypothesis (but noted adequate sampling remains to be done) sampling remains to be done)
30 Nov 2000 Biological 30 Nov 2000 Biological Opinion- BiOp 3Opinion- BiOp 3
Conclude that implemented the Conclude that implemented the groundfish FMP is likely to groundfish FMP is likely to jeopardize the western Steller sea jeopardize the western Steller sea lionlion
Conclude that the FMP is likely to Conclude that the FMP is likely to adversely modify the designated adversely modify the designated critical habitat of western Steller critical habitat of western Steller sea lions sea lions
Reasonable and Prudent Reasonable and Prudent Alternative in BiOp 3Alternative in BiOp 3
Global Control RuleGlobal Control Rule CH Closures to Eliminate Competition (66%)CH Closures to Eliminate Competition (66%) 3 nm no-entry zones around rookeries and 3 nm no-entry zones around rookeries and
major hauloutsmajor haulouts Seasonal harvest limits in CH (4 seasons)Seasonal harvest limits in CH (4 seasons) Seasonal harvest limits outside CH (2 seasons)Seasonal harvest limits outside CH (2 seasons) Closure in CH from 1 Nov through 20 JanuaryClosure in CH from 1 Nov through 20 January Spatial apportionment of TAC in open areas in Spatial apportionment of TAC in open areas in
1. Judge Zilly dropped the injunction2. Industry estimated BiOp 3 would cost $500
million to implement (fishery value-$700 m)3. Senator Stevens attached a rider to an
appropriation bill early in FY01 that delayed implementation of the 30 Nov BiOp
4. North Pacific Fishery Management Council established an RPA Committee to develop alternate reasonable and prudent alternatives
RPA Committee: Goals and RPA Committee: Goals and ObjectivesObjectives
Goal: Develop an EIS RPA alternative for 2002 and beyond that meets the mandates of the ESA, MSFCMA, and other applicable laws, while conserving marine biodiversity and sustaining viability of the diverse fishing communities dependent upon the Alaska fishery resources.
Objectives:– Remove jeopardy and adverse Remove jeopardy and adverse
modification.modification.– Develop a sound experimental design for Develop a sound experimental design for
monitoring.monitoring.– Minimize social and economic impacts.Minimize social and economic impacts.– Minimize bycatch of PSC and other Minimize bycatch of PSC and other
groundfish.groundfish.– Promote safety at sea.Promote safety at sea.
RPA Committee: RPA Committee: Recommended Open/Closed Areas Recommended Open/Closed Areas
(BiOp 4- Oct 2001)(BiOp 4- Oct 2001)
Final Action in 2001Final Action in 2001
Council at its October 2001 meeting Council at its October 2001 meeting amended the recommendations of amended the recommendations of the RPA committee (e.g., no pollock the RPA committee (e.g., no pollock fishing in the Aleutians)fishing in the Aleutians)
NMFS found that the proposed action NMFS found that the proposed action did not pose jeopardy or adv. Modify did not pose jeopardy or adv. Modify CH of western SSLCH of western SSL
BiOp 4 finalized in October 2001BiOp 4 finalized in October 2001 Legal action by plaintiffs - uncertainLegal action by plaintiffs - uncertain
ConclusionsConclusions ESA requires fishery managers to ESA requires fishery managers to
consider stewardship of other resources, consider stewardship of other resources, not just harvest strategies and fishery not just harvest strategies and fishery efficienciesefficiencies
ESA mandates and lawsuits shift burden ESA mandates and lawsuits shift burden of proof to fisheries managersof proof to fisheries managers
Determination of no-jeopardy is difficult Determination of no-jeopardy is difficult when information is uncertainwhen information is uncertain
Determination that conservation Determination that conservation measures are effective is difficultmeasures are effective is difficult
0
50
100
150
200
250
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Thou
sand
s of
non
-pup
s
Eastern stock
Western stock
Total population
•Entanglement in debris
•Subsistence harvest
•Pollution
•Harassment
•Increased predation
•Disease
•Oceanographic changes
•Indirect effects of fisheries
CAUSES OF DECLINE
STELLER SEA LION- FISHERY INTERACTIONS SUMMARY
LEGAL CHALLENGES• 8 Aug 2000 – Injunction against all trawling in Critical Habitat
Remand to prepare comprehensive Biol. Opinion Remand to prepare Suppl. Env. Impact Statement
• 30 Nov 2000 – BiOp completed; injunction lifted • Draft Programmatic SEIS – completed Jan 2001• BiOp on 2002 TAC setting process done Oct 19 2001