NOAA Fisheries

1. What is the biological opinion?

This biological opinion is a scientific assessment of the effects of the federally authorized groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska on endangered or threatened species and designated critical habitat, as defined by the Endangered Species Act. The opinion considers not only the fisheries themselves, but also the overall management framework as established under the two fisheries management plans to determine if that framework contains the necessary conservation and management measures to insure the protection of listed species and critical habitat. The opinion also describes measures the agency determines to be necessary to reduce impacts on listed species and critical habitat to an acceptable level. This measure is called the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative.

2. What is a 'Reasonable and Prudent Alternative' (RPA)?

As defined by the Endangered Species Act, an RPA contains those actions the agency believes necessary to reduce the impacts of the federally authorized activity on listed species and their critical habitat to an acceptable level.

3. In this case, does the RPA remove jeopardy to the continued existence of Steller sea lions?

Yes. NOAA Fisheries believes the actions proposed in the RPA will remove jeopardy, prevent adverse modification of critical habitat, and reduce the impacts of the groundfish fisheries to a level that would allow for recovery of the endangered Steller sea lion (SSL) population. Discussion of expected results for the RPA is provided in Chapter 9 of the biological opinion.

4. What is NOAA Fisheries' proposed monitoring program?

NOAA Fisheries has incorporated into its RPA a monitoring program that will allow for an assessment of Steller sea lion population performance under the RPA. By design, the agency has established a set of decision points in the future that will lead to increased, decreased, or no change in management actions. NOAA Fisheries believes through the implementation of the RPA that we have adequately removed jeopardy and avoided adverse impacts to critical habitat. The monitoring program is designed to collect the information needed to scientifically support such a conclusion and to ascertain the extent to which environmental features beyond the control of humans are contributing to the current decline of the western population of Steller sea lions.

5. NOAA Fisheries plans to run this monitoring program for six years. Does this mean the rules will not change for six years?

No. The agency is not allowed to authorize actions that jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. If the monitoring program produces information that leads the agency to conclude that future actions of the fishery would jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions, NOAA Fisheries would be required under the ESA to initiate a new consultation, and as necessary mitigate the effects of the proposed action. If the monitoring program produces new information that indicates less restrictive management measures are necessary, the agency would also take appropriate action.

6. Do you expect the western population of Steller sea lions to respond to the RPA immediately?

NOAA Fisheries expects a lagtime between the implementation of these measures and indications of a measurable population response by the SSLs. We might expect an increase or stabilization of pup counts as the first response. As these pups survive to adulthood, population trends become more apparent as a result of increased reproduction. NOAA Fisheries anticipates that minimizing the effects of fishing will result in a stabilization of the population at some level.

7. What are the overall economic impacts of these changes to the fisheries?

Predicting the overall economic impacts of these changes with precision is not possible, given the available data, and the uncertainty of the response to these proposed actions, by the affected fleets, by processors, by international and domestic markets, and by consumers. Nonetheless, if one makes a number of simplifying assumptions about prices, total catch, and product mix, by fishery, it is possible to estimate a range of lost gross product value, attributable to the proposed RPA. Based upon the best price and landings data currently available, the estimate of this change in aggregate gross product value is on the order of $0-191 million annually, beginning in 2001 and extending through 2005.

In addition to these estimated losses in gross product value, a number of additional adverse economic and socioeconomic impacts may be associated with these RPA actions. These include adverse effects on: vessel and crew safety, community stability, market supply and price to domestic consumers, and loss of world market share for U.S. producers, negatively impacting balance of trade accounts.

Partially offsetting these adverse effects may be the economic welfare improvements accruing to Alaska Native populations with traditional subsistence-use rights to the Steller sea lion resource, and to those U.S. citizens holding non-market/non-use values associated with Steller sea lions.

None of these costs or benefits can be readily quantified, given available information. They are, however, real impacts which must be included, albeit in qualitative terms, in a full assessment of the effects of the proposed RPA.

8. What about the communities that are not located near or within the areas open to fishing? Won't this create unequal competition and economic impacts with the communities that are closer to the open areas?

Economic impacts accruing to individual communities will vary, depending upon: the nature of the community's involvement in the fisheries (e.g., vessel home port, site of processing facilities, supplier of support facilities and services); the specific fisheries each community supports/depends upon (e.g., solely groundfish-dependent versus highly-diverse, supporting groundfish and non-groundfish fisheries); the absolute distance each is from 'open' fishing grounds (e.g., for communities in closed areas, the nearer the community lies to the boundary between open and closed areas, the smaller the potential impact, all else equal); the size and capability of the fleet(s) operating from the community (e.g., communities with only small-boat fleets may be more vulnerable than those with mixed-size fleets); and the degree of diversity in the general economic structure of the community (e.g., Kodiak has a more diversified economy, with tourism, forestry, government employment, etc., than does Adak).

All else equal, it appears likely that communities located nearer or within "open areas" would incur a smaller adverse economic impact from adoption of the proposed RPAs, than do communities located in areas more remote from open areas.

NOAA Fisheries has attempted to incorporate concerns about community impacts into the experimental design. Most of the principle groundfish fishing communities in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea are adjacent to open areas. These include Cordova, Kodiak, Sand Point, Akutan, Dutch Harbor, and Adak which account for the large majority of pollock and Pacific cod landings.

Nevertheless, several fishing communities are located within closed areas. These include the communities on the Seward Peninsula such as Seward and Homer, and the Western Gulf communities of Cold Bay, King Cove, and False Pass. While these communities are not the primary home ports of most groundfish vessels and groundfish processors, they will none-the-less face impacts.

Fishing vessels are, of course, mobile and impacted vessels should be able to shift their operations to open areas provided they are able to find markets for their catch in different communities. Fishermen may face increased costs and uncertain markets if they are forced to shift their operations away from the communities in which they live. However, because of their mobility, we would expect the impacts to individual fishermen to be less than the impacts to processors and the communities located within closed areas.

9. What's going to happen to the carefully arranged bycatch management system in the BSAI and GOA under this new fishery scheme (crab/halibut/salmon...)?

In the biological opinion, NOAA Fisheries, has first determined what is necessary to remove jeopardy from SSLs, and then worked with NOAA Fisheries' Sustainable Fisheries to implement the RPA in a manner that would minimize impacts or modifications to current management strategies that minimize bycatch at certain times of the year and in certain locations.

10. Is it true Eastern Bering Sea pollock stocks are up 70% for 2001? If so, how can SSLs be starving due to fishery removals when the supply of pollock is going up? Doesn't this prove the junk food hypothesis?

The Plan Team reported that biomass of pollock (3 years and older) in 2001 is considerably larger than the equivalent biomass estimate in 2000. That fact doesn't remove the potential for commercial fisheries to adversely impact the prey field of Steller sea lions. What does matter is that we are attempting to ensure that adequate forage is available to Steller sea lions throughout the year and throughout their range. Removals on the order of 15,000 tons per day of key prey species, like pollock, can create areas where sea lions can not effectively forage. In general, NOAA Fisheries has concluded that prey biomass in the BSAI and GOA is adequate to support a viable population of Steller sea lions. However, NOAA Fisheries has also concluded that commercial fishing for pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel can seriously deplete the local prey field that sea lions rely on to survive and reproduce.

11. Long-liners and pot fisheries don't make "holes in the prey field", they catch fish one at a time. Why are those gear fisheries included in this scheme?

Long-lining includes hook and line fishing and the pot fishery. Individually, these two types of fishing do not have the magnitude of impact on fisheries as does the trawl fishery. However, cumulatively, the rate of removal for pot fisheries can be high over short time periods and total removals approach that of the trawl fishery for some species. This makes the potential rate of removal for these fisheries a concern, and does have the potential to create "holes in the prey field". However, the hook and line fishery does fish in a manner that is consistent with the intent to minimize disturbance to the prey field. NOAA Fisheries recognizes that and for that reason , NOAA Fisheries is allowing hook and line fishing during periods that other fishing is restricted. As protective measures for SSL are being developed, both fisheries are being reviewed separately from other trawl fisheries to see if their impact is of concern.

12. Why does NOAA Fisheries believe that cod fishing jeopardizes Steller sea lions?

Cod is an extremely important component of the SSL diet especially in winter when SSL conservation is considered most important. Most of the fishery occurs inside critical habitat. For these reasons, the cod fishery overlaps in area, in time, and removes large amounts of fish in a very short period, thereby potentially creating "holes in the prey field", which can be of significant consequence to SSLs. The cod fishery is conducted using several gear types and NOAA Fisheries is considering the impacts of each of these gear types when developing conservation measures, as the various gear types have the potential for different levels of impacts.

13. Substantial evidence seems to indicate other causes for the decline of Steller sea lions, such as ocean regime shift and predation by killer whales. Why is NOAA Fisheries focusing on the fisheries as the cause of the decline?

It is difficult to separate the effects of the regime shift and the effects of fishing on the declining SSL population. However, NOAA Fisheries has examined all the known or apparent causes of the decline - environmental shifts, increased predation, direct mortality, indirect and/or incidental competition with fisheries - when looking at the trends over the past few decades. During the 1970-80s, NOAA Fisheries believes the significant decline of 15 percent per year was due to a combination of all these activities. Since the 1990s, most other marine mammal sea lion and seal populations in the BSAI and GOA have begun to stabilize or are recovering. This stabilization has occurred at significantly lower levels of abundance than in previous years, but it indicates that the effects of the regime shift and other direct forms of mortality have subsided or may be nearly over. Yet the SSL population continues to decline at about 4 percent per year, and currently, the most likely explanation is that this decline may be a result of the indirect, competitive effects of fishing since the early 1990s. NOAA Fisheries believes that it is adequately separating and analyzing the effects of fishing from those of the environmental regime shift.

Regarding the impact of killer whale predation on Steller sea lions, an unpublished report by Barrett-Lennard et al. concludes that a population of 125 killer whales that relied on western Steller sea lions for 10-15% of their caloric needs would be responsible for approximately 20% of the total mortality in the sea lion population. That is, if the sea lion population were declining at 5% year and given the life history data assumed by Barrett-Lennard et al, killer whales would be responsible for the mortality of 5%-8% of the sea lion population annually. Such a rate of mortality would not by itself cause the sea lion population to decline as the crude birth rate of the population is likely to exceed 10% per year. Additional information on the impacts of killer whale predation on Steller sea lions is reported in the Biological Opinion in Section 5.2.

NOAA Fisheries is required by law to examine the effects of the fisheries (or any other federally authorized action), and may not allow any authorized actions to jeopardize any listed species, including SSLs.

14. Documented environmental changes in the North Pacific and Bering Sea ecosystems may be affecting Steller populations, right?

Research by NOAA, by the National Academies of Science, and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, strongly indicate that large-scale systemic changes are occurring in the North Pacific/Bering Sea ecosystems. Some of these changes are part of a long-frequency natural cycle which may cause significant changes in populations of fish, shellfish, marine mammals and seabirds. However, these studies also indicate that human activities may be an important factor in some of the changes observed in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. Essentially, changes in the environment may exaggerate or exacerbate the effects of fisheries, and the observed population declines are likely due to environmental changes, fisheries, and other factors that may act synergistically.

The National Research Council, in their report on the Bering Sea ecosystem in 1996, stated: "It is more likely that marine mammals and birds have been affected by the distribution in space and time of fishing effort on pollock, and thus that they would be helped by a broader distribution of fishing effort in space and time, especially in areas where they are known to feed."

15. Couldn't killer whale predation account for the continued decline of sea lions?

The available information is not sufficient to indicate that killer whale predation was the cause of the decline. However, both the 1995 Status Report on Steller sea lions and an unpublished paper by Barrett-Lennard et al. suggest that killer whale predation may be a factor in local areas where the sea lion populations have been severely reduced. This is an area where further study is required. We should note, however, that there is no scientific evidence of trends in killer whale predation over the past three decades, and killer whales and sea lions both exist in high numbers in southeast Alaska, where the sea lion population is stable or increasing slowly.

16. When will the groundfish fisheries open?

The groundfish fisheries will open upon the filing of a Secretarial emergency rule implementing the RPA and the 2001 specifications. Once the regulations are in place fisheries can open under the new regime. However, if the court injunction has not been lifted then trawling will be limited to areas outside of critical habitat. Non-trawl fisheries will be able to resume within critical habitat, subject to provisions in the RPA. The Administration will try to finalize the emergency rule expeditiously in order to allow fisheries to open as soon as possible and intends to announce a schedule for issuing the regulations for the fisheries shortly.

17. What are the (regulatory) steps necessary to open the 2001 groundfish fisheries?

1. Finalize Biological Opinion. NOAA Fisheries Protected Resources must complete and sign the comprehensive biological opinion.

2. Council makes TAC recommendations. The Council must recommend TACs and PSC bycatch limits at its December 2000 meeting

3. NMFS completes its drafting and review of the RPA ER, 2001 specs, and other necessary analytical documents.

4. NOAA and DOC briefings are conducted and approval is given.

5. ER is filed with the Office of the Federal Register. Under emergency circumstances, both the ER and the 2001 specifications can be made effective upon filing.

6. Fisheries open upon filing of the ER.

18. NOAA Fisheries is also doing an Supplimental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Alaskan groundfish fisheries. What is the difference between a biological opinion and an SEIS?

A biological opinion is an analysis of the effects of a Federal action (such as Federallly authorized fisheries) on listed species, as required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is an analysis of various alternative actions and their effects, with the goal of informing Federal decision makers as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The terms of reference and scope of both documents are different, although there can be overlap. In this particular case, the biological opinion assesses the potential effects of the Alaska groundfish fisheries on ESA-listed threatened or endangered species. The programmatic Supplemental EIS (SEIS) analysis being prepared is much broader in scope and is intended to provide more of a general description of the effects of the Alaska groundfish fisheries on the human environment. NEPA defines the human environment as including the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with those environments. The SEIS will provide a broad overview and assessment of fishery effects of the current management regime on the entire ecosystem and not limit its scope to just threatened and endangered species. It will also explore alternative management policies and analyze a number of model regimes that serve as a means of illustrating what can happen when certain policy objectives are emphasized over others. The programmatic SEIS will serve NOAA Fisheries and the Council as a planning tool by providing the environmental policy basis for future decision making.

19. Has the Agency developed a comprehensive research program for Steller sea lions? If so, have you or will you submit this to Congress for review? Does the research program include using researchers other than NOAA Fisheries personnel and are their plans to have NOAA Fisheries research peer reviewed by non-agency personnel?

The Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan serves as the primary research and recovery plan for Steller sea lions. NOAA Fisheries worked closely with the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team to develop this Plan, and is currently working with the Team on revisions to it. This document serves as a guide for the research and recovery effort for NOAA Fisheries scientists, as well as scientists outside the Agency (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska SeaLife Center, North Pacific Universities Marine Mammal Research Consortium, and various university and private researchers).

NOAA Fisheries has in place a strict peer-review process for all papers submitted for publication. Manuscripts are reviewed internally and by scientists outside of the Agency before they are submitted to scientific journals where they undergo further peer-review. In addition, all Steller sea lion research conducted by NOAA Fisheries is reviewed by the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team.

In addition to our efforts to revise the Recovery Plan, we also were requested to provide the North Pacific Fishery Management Council an overview of our general research direction for the future. While this direction will require considerable discussion and consultation within and outside of the Agency, we did present an overview of key research themes to be addressed in the future. Those themes were:

• Population abundance and trends
• Life history and vital rates
• Population biogeography
• Health and condition
• Foraging ecology and habitat
• Fisheries interactions
• Environmental effects on Steller sea lions
• Management

20. The biological opinion states that salmon make up about 40 percent of the Steller sea lion's diet during summer months. Why is the salmon fishery not addressed in the RPA?

Salmon fisheries in Alaska are primarily managed by the State. The federal action we were required to analyze under the ESA in this case is authorization of the groundfish fisheries. Regulations to implement the ESA require that RPAs be consistent with the federal action. That said, as part of this biological opinion we are making conservation recommendations that include working closely with the State and other stakeholders to develop a more comprehensive habitat management plan for Steller sea lions.

21. There's a substantial salmon bycatch in the groundfish fishery. Why is the bycatch issue not addressed in the RPA?

We have looked at this issue closely in a biological opinion we prepared in 1999. Bycatch of salmon in the groundfish fishery was not identified as a major concern. We believe that by increasing overall prey availability to Steller sea lions we will successfully avoid jeopardizing their recovery in the wild.

← Biological Opinion for Listed Species In the BSAI Groundfish FMP and the GOA Groundfish FMP