Public Meeting Summary
MEMORANDUM FOR: Distribution
DATE: July 13, 2000
FROM:: Shane Capron
SUBJECT: Summary of public meetings on the potential for competitive interactions between the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Pacific cod fisheries and the endangered western population of Steller sea lions.
During the June 2000 North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council) meeting in Portland, OR, the Protected Resources Division (PRD) of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) presented a discussion paper (dated June 6, 2000) on the potential for competitive interaction between the endangered western population of Steller sea lions and the BSAI and GOA Pacific cod fisheries. At this meeting, it was determined by the Council and NMFS that competitive interactions were likely and that further investigation was warranted. NMFS has begun development of an environmental assessment to explore possible alternatives to the status-quo fishery.
As requested by the Council and the public at the June Council meeting, NMFS scheduled public meetings to further discuss the issues presented to the Council. A meeting was scheduled for Kodiak on June 27, 2000 and Seattle for June 29.
Kodiak Meeting 9:00am June 27, 2000: NMFS representatives: Michael Payne, Shane Capron, Lew Queirolo, John Lepore, and Tom Pearson.
Thirty-four individuals attended the meeting. The meeting began with a general discussion of the present situation at NMFS under the Endangered Species Act and our requirements to protect listed species as well as manage fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Then Shane Capron presented the information from the June 6, 2000 discussion paper presented to the Council in June and also presented additional information on the Alaska State Pacific cod fishery. Lively discussion and debate took place throughout the morning. Before lunch Shane Capron presented a set of proposed alternatives for discussion. After lunch the attendees presented a variety of viewpoints on the issues with further discussion among most of the staff and attendees. Discussion was informal. The following is a summary of those discussions.
- Introduction by Michael Payne - provided a background on the issues (ESA, NEPA, MSFCMA)
- What about previous agency policy that allowed "takes" of Steller sea lions? This may have contributed to the decline and should be included in the analysis.
- What is the critical number of Steller sea lions for recovery? At what point would they be removed from endangered status? We do have a recovery plan but there isn't a specific target stock size in mind, presently we are most concerned with halting the further decline of the population, once this is established and the population begins to increase this issue will be looked at further.
- Shane Capron presented information from the June 6, 2000 discussion paper.
- NMFS should look at how other fisheries interact both positively and negatively - for example, arrowtooth flounder also prey on juvenile pollock – fishing for arrowtooth could possibly increase the amount of pollock available to Steller sea lions.
- NMFS should base all of its discussions on harvest using the total available biomass not the TAC.
- Critical habitat was delineated based on spawning areas, but we have more recent data in the GOA, how does this affect our determination? Should we consider different critical habitat designations?
- Has NMFS developed ways of determining the caloric value of P. cod? How does P. cod compare with other species, this would help determine the relative value of prey in scat.
- How can NMFS determine that there are localized depletions when the fishery peaks right before it is closed (GOA)? -NMFS, this is likely due to the State P. cod fishery which starts a week after the Federal fishery closes in the spring.
- Two questions: 1) what caused the decline of Steller sea lions, and 2) what is impeding their recovery? Both require action under the ESA.
- If the carrying capacity of the BSAI and GOA is declining why would we try to bring Steller sea lions back to their original population amount? NMFS: we are not looking for an actual number, we are trying to facilitate a recovery demonstrated by an increasing population to a viable amount.
- What about establishing a control area so we can see if there is an impact. We could also check scat samples during different time periods, during peak harvest and during no harvest to make comparisons. However, obtaining scat samples during the winter is difficult, plus the more NMFS attempts to retrieve scats the more disturbance there is on the rookery/haulout.
- Why is winter a critical time to Steller sea lions? What research papers show that this is important?
- Surveys should be conducted at night as well as during the day.
- The following list follows the discussion of the possible alternatives: GOA - June 1 would not work because of halibut bycatch.
- Quarterly allocation may work in GOA.
- GOA would like to see a gear/vessel split.
- Prohibited species bycatch amounts are set annually and could be changed to account for a change in season.
- How will new seasonal allocations affect incidental catch and bycatch?
- One fisherman suggested that the entire GOA P. cod TAC be allocated to pot gear only to alleviate pulse fishing.
- Changing the seasonal regime would cause severe changes in bycatch patterns.
- Start fishing for fixed gear January 1 instead of January 20. Start second season July 1.
- A similar parallel action would be needed with the State of Alaska.
- Any action could cause problems between small and large boats.
- NMFS needs to move towards rationalization of the fishery.
- NMFS should make sure that they collect the information necessary to make management decisions such as these.
- An Aleutian Islands closure may not be warranted, P. cod is not the same issue as pollock, and the rationale for pollock was not that strong.
- In the BSAI there are currently gear splits, so maybe NMFS could evaluate bycatch patterns to manage the fishery by controlling bycatch.
- Closing critical habitat in the Aleutian Islands area would effectively close fishing for P. cod in that area.
- Consider having fishing by different gear groups at different times to avoid conflicts.
- Decapitalization would also help slow down the fishery.
Seattle Meeting 9:00am June 29, 2000: NMFS representatives: Michael Payne, Shane Capron, Lew Queirolo, Sue Salveson, Lowell Fritz, Grant Thompson, Beth Sinclair.
Twenty-eight individuals attended the meeting. The meeting began with a general discussion of the present situation at NMFS under the Endangered Species Act and our requirements to protect listed species as well as manage fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Then Shane Capron presented additional information on the Alaska State Pacific cod fishery. Lively discussion and debate took place throughout the morning. Before lunch Shane Capron presented a set of proposed alternatives for discussion. After lunch the attendees presented a variety of viewpoints on the issues with further discussion among most of the staff and attendees. Discussion was informal. The following is a summary of those discussions.
- Michael Payne reviewed the comments and discussions from the Kodak meeting and gave an overview of the ESA.
- The causes of decline may be a different set of factors than those impeding the recovery of Steller sea lions. The EA should discuss this along with regime shift factors and possible changes in carrying capacity of the ecosystem.
- We don't seem to have much more information to make these decisions today than we had ten years ago. The public would like to see NMFS develop a comprehensive long term plan that would help us collect and analyze the data we need to make these management decisions.
- Given the seemingly large biomass of fish available in the BSAI and GOA relative to the amount of removals by the fishery, it is hard to believe that localized depletions are occurring which would affect Steller sea lions. However, NMFS' understanding of biomass dynamics around rookeries and haulouts is extremely limited.
- We should wait to take an action on P. cod until we know the outcome of the pollock action taken in 1999.
- Before taking action on P. cod, NMFS should consider this competition question in relation to all species available to Steller sea lions and compare these prey fields to Southeast Alaska and other areas where sea lions are doing fine.
- Draconian changes were not seen in the pollock fishery, in the first two years under the Steller sea lion conservation measures the pollock fishery seemed to do quite well. The Agency must consider interactive effects and disturbance as well as fishery removals.
- Request for more precision in the Steller sea lion scat analysis for P. cod size distribution. NMFS is attempting to complete further analyses of the samples and refine the data so that we can better describe the larger sized fish that occur in Steller sea lion diet.
- NMFS needs to consider the cumulative effects of all the regulations and closures.
- Any analysis of CPUE most consider the out-migration of P. cod after spawning in the CVOA.
- Any changes to the current P. cod fishery by spreading it out into the summer and Fall would have severe effects on bycatch of prohibited species and incidental catch of other species.
- NMFS presented preliminary alternatives, the following notes are from the discussion of those alternatives and others presented by the public.
- Why should we limit harvest in the winter season, that is when they aggregate and are abundant?
- How would NMFS manage/monitor critical habitat limits?
- Why should there be dispersion measures outside of critical habitat? Should NMFS worry about critical habitat limits in the summer?
The public made the following request for data/analyses:
In order to determine removal impacts, competition linkages, and bycatch closures likely under different scenarios, we request from NMFS:
1. Cod catch by week, 1995 through the present with better spatial and temporal (weekly) resolution by: gear group, depth, 1/2x1 degree locations, cod sizes, and bycatch rates of salmon and halibut. (later a request was added for inside/outside CH, 3 miles, rookeries and haulouts)
2. An overlay of seasonal opening and closures, TACs by area, gear allocations,
3. Further refine the distribution of cod size in sea lion scats, and break down the data by rookery, and date (year & season) of samples, with number of scats per site-sample. This information is needed to better determine the competition linkages.
4. A legal analysis of the ability of the Feds to preempt state management of cod, and jurisdiction over federally licensed vessels in a state waters fishery. Also, ESA authority over state actions, and a discussion of "nexus" issues between MSFCMA actions, and ESA actions.
5. Maps showing existing protection measures, (all ready available as a council document) with a list in order of priority other rookery /haul our area protective measures.
6. Information on cumulative impacts of pollock RPAs within CH/SCA.
7. Predator/prey analysis of cod prey, by area and season, by size of cod, with qualitative and quantitative estimates (i.e., How much fish which are also sea lion prey are eaten by cod - does cod diet differ between small cod and large cod and by area? Are AI cod eating more Atka Mackerel than the sea lions?)
8. Information on what the TAC would be for the AI area if it were to be split out.
9. Probability analysis of the impact of competition. (Steve Hughes needs to provide a explanation of what this would entail.)
10. Discussion of management measures (how they would be implemented, directed fishing closures only? how they would be enforced? vms requirements?)
NMFS response to the data request:
Given the short time frame NMFS is planning to prepare the following analyses for the public in order to help provide further alternatives to those presented at the public meetings.
1. Steller sea lion scat analysis:
- Further refinement of size of P. cod taken by Steller sea lions.
- Presentation of individual site history vs. summaries previously given.
2. Analysis of CPUE information using sophisticated models to account for the migration of P. cod into and out of the CVOA during spawning periods.
3. Fishery data: a master table is being prepared which will provide information on the fishery by gear type, area, season, and critical habitat. This will not be as detailed as the original request but will provide further information than the discussion paper. Further refinement would be possible after this first draft. Other data in electronic form may also be available via the observer database.
4. Survey information will be analyzed and made available to the public.
5. Existing graphics will be updated by area and gear type when possible.
6. Other requests will be responded to in the initial draft EA to be presented to the Council in September.