TESTIMONY OF JAMES LECKY

ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR PROTECTED RESOURCES

SOUTHWEST REGION

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 19, 2003

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jim Lecky, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources for the Southwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on issues involving interactions between increasing marine mammal populations and humans.

NOAA Fisheries administers the MMPA, the principal Federal legislation that guides marine mammal conservation policy in U.S. waters, in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The MMPA provides NOAA with conservation and management responsibility for more than 140 stocks of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions.

The issues and questions the Subcommittee has raised for today’s hearing underscore the importance of appropriate policies that enable NOAA Fisheries to ensure continued protection and recovery of marine mammals, while allowing the public use of marine resources. Although we hope to learn from the experiences that terrestrial wildlife agencies have amassed while managing increasing wildlife populations, we recognize that marine mammal management poses unique challenges that may require new approaches and technologies.

The MMPA is specific in its intent to recover marine mammal stocks to their optimum sustainable population (OSP) levels, defined by the Act as “the number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element.”

In accordance with this basic premise, NOAA Fisheries has assigned highest priority to the important task of the recovery of depleted or declining marine mammal populations, rather than to the management of populations that are increasing or at OSP. Although the 1994 amendments to the MMPA provided tools to investigate and resolve conflicts with expanding pinniped populations, NOAA Fisheries’ efforts to implement these measures have been hindered by controversy and the limited effectiveness of deterrence methods. Given the mixed results of deterrence studies and our limited funds, we have focused our deterrence efforts on situations where there are either clear conflicts between marine mammals and endangered salmonids, or where there are great economic impacts or safety concerns from the presence of nuisance animals.

I have structured my testimony to address the specific questions outlined by the Subcommittee regarding the status of west coast pinniped populations, the nature of interactions between increasing pinniped populations and humans and their effects on the surrounding environment, and the research and testing of pinniped deterrence methods.

Cooperative Monitoring and Research Program

NOAA Fisheries implemented a cooperative state/federal pinniped research and monitoring program on the west coast in 1999 in conjunction with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). This coordinated state/federal coastwide program to study and monitor the effects of expanding populations of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals was initiated in response to the Report to Congress: Impacts of California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals on Salmonids and West Coast Ecosystems, which NOAA Fisheries submitted to Congress in February 1999. Specific Congressional funding for this program, totaling $750,000 annually in recent years, has allowed NOAA Fisheries to conduct research and issue grants to PSMFC and to the state resource agencies to address increasing pinniped populations and their interactions with fishery resources, salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and human activities.

Pinniped Population Monitoring Studies

NOAA Fisheries conducts surveys of pinniped abundance in California using aerial photographic methods. Initially, surveys focused on obtaining counts of the number of California sea lion pups that are born at the major U.S. rookeries. Pup counts are used as an index of population size and have been collected every year since 1975. However, during El Niño conditions pup counts decrease greatly and are a poor index of the entire population. To account for this, the agency began to conduct counts of all the hauled out sea lions (pups, juveniles and adults) in southern and central California during the pupping season, in addition to conducting pup counts. It is expected that these counts will be more stable over time than the pup counts. NOAA Fisheries has also collaborated with Mexican researchers to conduct surveys of California sea lions along the west coast of Baja California and in the Gulf of California.

The agency conducted its first California state-wide survey of Pacific harbor seals in 2002. Previously, surveys in California were conducted by the CDFG, with federal funding from NOAA Fisheries, or through the PSMFC. Surveys of harbor seals in Washington and Oregon are also conducted largely by State Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists, often in collaboration with biologists from our National Marine Mammal Lab in Seattle.

Thus, the population growth and status of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals along the U.S. west coast has been monitored for the last three decades at varying degrees. The cooperative research program on expanding pinniped populations has enabled the development of more broad scale and reliable monitoring efforts and better assessments of population status.

West Coast Pinniped Population Status

While some pinniped populations in the Pacific Ocean have declined and have been listed under the ESA (e.g., Steller sea lions and Hawaiian Monk seals), the opposite has occurred with Pacific harbor seals and California sea lions off the west coast of Washington, Oregon and California. Populations of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals have increased at an annual rate of 5-8% since the early 1970s. Elephant seals on the west coast also have increased at about 8% per year.

More specifically, NOAA Fisheries’ stock assessments indicate the California sea lion population exceeds 200,000 animals in U.S. waters. Population trends have been based on pup counts, which decrease dramatically during El Niño periods (1983-84, 1992-93, and 1998). Pup counts in the last two years (2001 and 2002, neither of which was an El Niño year) were the same or lower than in 2000, which may be the first indicator that these populations may be finally nearing their carrying capacity. The number of total hauled-out sea lions of all age classes was also relatively constant from 2000 to 2002. However, because pup counts vary so much with environmental conditions and the time series for total abundance is short, NOAA Fisheries scientists are not confident in saying that this population is near its carrying capacity.

The Pacific harbor seal populations in Washington and Oregon exceed 42,000 seals, and the California harbor seal population exceeds 30,000 seals. Recent scientific publications by NOAA Fisheries and State scientists on current abundance and life history parameters of harbor seals in Washington and Oregon indicate that these populations are approaching carrying capacity and are within their OSP level. Additional surveys are needed to confirm that the harbor seals in California are also at OSP and approaching carrying capacity.

Ecosystem Impacts

NOAA Fisheries has been studying the food habits of California sea lions since 1981. Studies show sea lions feed on an incredibly broad range of prey, but the dominant food is small pelagic fishes and squids. In central and northern California, Oregon, and Washington, sea lion diet also includes both juvenile and adult salmonid species (salmon and steelhead), although salmonids do not appear to be the dominant food of sea lions in any area. Fewer studies have been undertaken of Pacific harbor seal feeding habits, but they appear to concentrate more on demersal (bottom living) species of fish, squid and octopus.

Coincident with the expansion of these pinniped populations, salmon and steelhead populations along the west coast have declined, raising serious concerns about resource conflicts and impacts of pinnipeds on salmon populations listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As noted in the Report to Congress, although seal and sea lion predation did not cause the decline of salmonids, it may be affecting the recovery of some already depressed populations.

The assessment of impacts on salmonids has proven to be a difficult challenge because of the uncertainty and potential bias in both the assessment of predation rates and the size of fish stocks that are being impacted. In some areas, documented pinniped predation levels may be high enough to affect recovery rates of some ESA-listed salmonid populations. In other areas, the studies have allowed us to exclude predation by pinnipeds as a factor limiting recovery. Commercial and recreational fishermen have raised concerns about the impacts of predation on fish stocks important to their fisheries (e.g., white sea bass, kelp bass, barracuda, rock fish, squid). Quantifying the impact of pinniped predation on these fish stocks has proven to be difficult because the available methods of sampling the diet of seals and sea lions have biases associated with them that underestimate certain fish species and overestimate others. NOAA Fisheries is funding feeding studies to help correct those biases and to obtain a better picture of the total consumption of fish by pinnipeds along the U.S. west coast. Models of pinniped consumption are being developed and tested. Studies are also being funded to determine the species and numbers of individual fish consumed by using their genetic signature. Work is progressing rapidly in this area. However, information on abundance and population dynamics of these fish stocks is needed to assess the impact of predation.

Pinniped Conflicts with Commercial and Recreational Fisheries

The expanding populations of these two species has caused concurrent increased reports of conflicts with fisheries. In commercial fisheries, California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals have been reported removing catch and damaging gear in the salmon troll and gillnet fisheries; nearshore gillnet fisheries; herring, squid, and bait purse seine and round-haul fisheries; and trap and live bait fisheries. This has resulted in economic losses in some commercial fisheries. Both California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals are involved in interactions with recreational fisheries coastwide, but most conflicts are attributable to California sea lions. Sea lions interact by consuming bait and chum, and removing hooked fish that are being reeled in. Fish also may stop feeding or may be scared away by the presence of sea lions. In addition, when sea lions are present, skippers frequently move their boats to other, sometimes less productive, fishing areas, incurring additional fuel costs and loss of fishing time.

Other Conflicts

There have also been space conflicts at beaches and harbors resulting from pinnipeds moving into areas used by humans. Managing these conflicts has been difficult because criteria for deciding whether or not pinnipeds should be excluded from beaches are not clearly established and tools for excluding pinnipeds from beaches and harbors are labor intensive or have proven ineffective to date.

Non-Lethal Deterrence Testing and Evaluation

To help stem conflicts that have arisen from interactions between human activities and these pinniped populations, NOAA Fisheries has worked with states to test and evaluate the effectiveness of various non-lethal measures to deter the animals from human activities. Much of the work took place in confined sites where resource conflicts were occurring (e.g., the California sea lion conflicts at the Ballard Locks and the Willamette Falls fishway) and the measures could be easily tested and evaluated on identifiable (tagged) sea lions (in contrast with open ocean water testing, which is far more difficult). Following is a description of a variety of the methods we have tested and an evaluation of their effectiveness.

Firecrackers – Underwater firecrackers (called "seal bombs") have been used broadly to disperse pinnipeds from fishery conflicts. Underwater firecrackers have been effective on a short term basis in many situations, but over the longer-term with repeated use, sea lions and seals learn to ignore or avoid the noise. At the Ballard Locks, although firecrackers were effective in reducing steelhead predation by California sea lions in the first season of use, they became relatively ineffective in subsequent years because the animals appeared to have learned to ignore or tolerate the noise, or evade close exposure to firecrackers by diving and surfacing in unpredictable patterns. Similar tolerance/avoidance of firecrackers has been observed in fisheries interaction situations with harbor seals.

Cracker shells – Cracker shells are shotgun shells containing an explosive projectile designed to explode about 50 to 75 yards from the point of discharge. Although the noise may startle pinnipeds and cause them to temporarily flee, there is usually no physical discomfort to the animals involved since the explosion is in the air or on the water surface. Cracker shells have been no more effective than seal bombs, again, because the animals have habituated to them.

Acoustic Harassment Devices (AHDs) – The AHD produces a high amplitude, pulsed but irregular "white noise" under water in the 12 to 17 kHz range that is intended to cause physical discomfort and to irritate pinnipeds, thereby repelling them from the area of the sound. AHDs have been shown to be initially effective in some situations, but their effectiveness diminishes quickly as pinnipeds learn to tolerate the noise.

Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) -- The ADDs are a modification of the AHDs developed for use in deterring seals and sea lions from commercial salmonid net-pen and salmonid ranch facilities. The ADDs have omni-directional and unidirectional arrays which produce periodic sound emissions centered at 10 kHz and at higher decibel levels than the AHDs. At the Ballard Locks, an acoustic ensonified zone has been established under water in the area below the spillway dam and fish ladder, and it has been effective in deterring new sea lions from the Ballard Locks area, but has had limited effectiveness on California sea lions that repeatedly forage at this site.

Pulsed Power – This is an electrical power (arc) discharge system that generates both a compression wave and a noise similar to the ADD but at higher decibels. Shock waves are different from acoustic waves because they compress aqueous medium and are able to propagate at a higher velocity for short distances. Field testing of the pulsed power device has not occurred due to environmental concerns about the effects on other species, and concerns for effects on sea lions. Laboratory tests have shown mixed effectiveness of the devices on sea lions when operated at lower levels.

Predator Sounds --The effectiveness of predator vocalizations to frighten sea lions has not been consistent in tests by others. Pinnipeds sometimes have shown immediate avoidance responses to the projection of killer whale sound recordings, but generally they have habituated quickly.

Vessel Chase – Chasing or hazing California sea lions with a vessel proved to be ineffective at the Ballard Locks, as animals learned to avoid the vessel or swim under it. Both commercial and sport fishermen have also used their vessels in an attempt to chase seals and sea lions from their operation, but such efforts are usually unsuccessful.

Tactile Harassment -- Tactile harassment involves shooting pinnipeds with non-lethal projectiles such as rubber bullets or blunt-tipped arrows. Tactile harassment has been used successfully by instilling an avoidance reaction in other wildlife species (e.g., grizzly bears and polar bears) in some situations. Blunt-tipped arrows were tested by WDFW on California sea lions at the Ballard Locks with no significant change in predation rates. Rubber projectiles discharged from a shotgun were tested by ODFW on California sea lions at Willamette Falls with limited success.

Taste Aversion – Taste aversion is a form of aversive conditioning that involves putting an emetic agent (e.g., lithium chloride) into a prey species to induce vomiting when the prey is consumed. This technique has been used on coyotes and was successfully tested on a prey specific basis with captive California sea lions. Using lithium chloride treated fish, captive sea lions were conditioned to avoid one of three prey species without affecting the sea lions’ desire to eat the other two species. Taste aversion using lithium chloride was attempted on California sea lions at the Ballard Locks, but the effort was not successful.

Physical Barriers --Physical barriers have been used to prevent sea lion access to a prime forage area in front of the entrance of the fish ladder at the Ballard Locks, prevent sea lion access to net pens (predator nets), prevent sea lion access to docks (low rails on docks or fencing), and prevent harbor seals from entering a channel in the Dosewallips River where harbor seal presence was causing high coliform counts in shellfish beds. The barrier at the Ballard Locks (a large-mesh net strung underwater) was ineffective because fish passage may have been hampered by the barrier and sea lions were observed foraging on steelhead at the face of the barrier.

Predator Models – Although media reports on the use of a killer whale model indicated that it was effective in repelling seals from net-pens in Scotland, use of the same predator model at net-pens in Maine had no effect in repelling harbor or gray seals. Observations on pinniped behavior in the presence of predators and during field testing has shown that these methods are very short term or ineffective.

Capture and Relocation – Capture and relocation efforts with California sea lions at the Ballard Locks indicate that transporting captured sea lions relatively short distances (from Ballard to the outer Washington coast) are not effective, as the sea lions quickly return. Longer distance relocation from Ballard to the southern California breeding area was a possible, albeit costly, means of delaying sea lion return to Puget Sound for at least 30 days, thereby providing a window of safe passage for migrating salmonids that season. Unfortunately, not all predatory animals can be easily captured, especially those of greatest concern that had been captured/removed previously and have returned to forage at the Ballard Locks.

Capture and Placement in Captivity -- California sea lions have been captured at the Ballard Locks, placed in temporary captivity, and released after the steelhead run. Temporary holding was found to be ineffective in the long-term because the sea lion returned the following season and could not be recaptured before it had preyed on salmonids. Sea lions from the Ballard Locks also have been captured and placed in captivity permanently. Although permanent captivity does eliminate the “problem” sea lions without having to kill them, the method is limited by costs and the availability of facilities that can hold sea lions permanently.

Effectiveness of Non-Lethal Measures

Efforts by NOAA Fisheries and the States as described above have been unsuccessful in finding an effective, long-term approach to eliminating or reducing pinniped predation in most situations. Some non-lethal deterrence measures appear to be initially effective or effective on “new” animals, but become ineffective over time or when used on “new” animals in the presence of “repeat” animals that do not react to deterrence.

High powered acoustic devices, such as the pulsed power device, may be effective non-lethal deterrents, but they also may affect other species. The agency was aware of these concerns in the development of the pulsed power device. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) rejected the agency’s coastal zone consistency determination for ocean testing of the pulsed power device because they viewed it as inconsistent with protective criteria that are used for other sources of sound such as marine geophysical exploration, as well as due to concerns about its impacts on other marine species. NOAA Fisheries postponed the field testing of the pulsed power device to address CCC concerns, and required captive studies to determine what power levels would deter sea lions without causing injury or deafness to the animals.

Our interest was and is for development of deterrence technologies that can be applied on a broad basis (e.g., multiple fishing boats) with little or no adverse impacts on the environment, and without serious injury to the sea lions or other marine mammals – these criteria will apply to any future permits for testing deterrence devices. We need to seek new technologies and methods, beyond acoustic deterrence, to address human interactions with increasing pinniped populations. Perhaps the most promising line of research is a set of studies being conducted by Moss Landing Marine Laboratory to investigate basic behavioral characteristics of sea lions to determine what “cues” they use to find hooked fish. These studies would describe the “cues” involved in interactions with fishing operations and ways to possibly “mask” or eliminate those cues to avoid interactions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, NOAA Fisheries would like to thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing today. While the increase of some marine mammal populations in the United States demonstrates that NOAA Fisheries has achieved the recovery and conservation goals of the MMPA, we also recognize that these “successes” pose complex challenges similar to those that resource management agencies have faced in the terrestrial realm. We must proceed carefully as we move from recovering stocks to managing stocks that are at OSP, given the mandates of the MMPA and the limits of our scientific knowledge and capabilities. As such, we would like to work closely with the Subcommittee to develop careful, creative solutions in the limited circumstances where problem interactions exist.

That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to address any questions the Subcommittee may have.