NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 154
Report of the Joint
Scientific Review
Group Workshop, April 13-14, 1999,
Seattle,
Washington
by Richard L. Merrick, Compiler
National Marine Fisheries Serv., Woods Hole Lab., 166 Water St., Woods
Hole, MA 02543
Print
publication date November 1999;
web version posted December 18, 2000
Citation: Merrick RL, Compiler. 1999. Report of the Joint
Scientific Review
Group Workshop, April 13-14, 1999,
Seattle,
Washington. US Dep Commer, NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 154; 22 p.
Download complete PDF/print version
Summary
As required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s (MMPA’s) 1994 amendments,
three scientific review groups (SRGs) were formed in 1994 to review marine
mammal stock assessments prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The SRGs
jointly met for the first time on October 12 and 13, 1994, in Seattle,
Washington. Between 1994 and 1999, individual SRGs met on a semiannual
or annual basis to review annual stock assessment reports (SARs) and
to address other technical issues.
Beginning in 1997, it became clear that there
was a need for the SRGs to meet jointly again to address issues of common
concern. As a result, a second joint meeting was held in Seattle,
Washington, on April 13 and 14, 1999. The general objectives of
the second joint meeting were to provide a forum for comments and exchange
of information among SRGs, and to develop joint recommendations on common
issues.
The SRGs recommended that NMFS and the USFWS should:
- Finalize as soon as possible the definition of the zero mortality
rate goal.
- Proceed to use the best scientific evidence available to
make serious injury determinations, using the guidelines specified
in the report of the Serious Injury Workshop (Angliss and DeMaster
1998).
- Emphasize
collection of life history data and voucher specimens when collecting
data on stranded animals, in addition to pathology data, especially
for unusual stranding events.
- Work with treaty tribes to collect information
on takes, so that these data can be included in SARs.
- Document all
takes
of marine mammals by source.
- Publish all SARs every year, review and
revise the SARs for strategic stocks every year, and review and revise
the stock assessment reports for nonstrategic stocks at least once
every 3 yr.
- Establish specific reclassification criteria for all species
or
distinct population segments listed as endangered or threatened under
the Endangered Species Act, and specific declassification criteria
for all stocks designated as depleted under the MMPA.
- Use a standardized
framework for categorizing risk for species listed as endangered when
assigning recovery factor values.
- Replace the phrase “population stock” in
the text of the upcoming reauthorized MMPA with the phrase “management
stock.”
- Use the potential biological removal guidelines for
stock definition contained in Wade and Angliss (1997).
- Receive recommendations
from the SRGs as letters addressed to the NOAA Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, and (if relevant) to the appropriate USFWS Regional
Director,
with copies sent to the appropriate NMFS Regional Administrators and
Regional Science and Research Directors.
- Post recommendations from
the SRGs, as well as minutes and reports from SRG meetings, on a NMFS
website. An e-mail list should be created to announce the availability
of new material on this website.
- Provide substantive written responses
to any SRG written recommendations in a timely fashion, certainly not
later than the next SRG meeting.
- Provide every year to the SRGs,
copies of the meeting reports of the funding process associated with
the NMFS’s
strategic goal of “Recover Protected Species,” including the recommended
spending plans.
- Secure additional funding for marine mammal research.
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Three regional scientific review groups (SRGs) were created by the 1994
reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Section
117(d) of the MMPA required the Secretary of Commerce to establish three
independent regional SRGs representing Alaska, the Pacific Coast (including
Hawaii), and the Atlantic Coast (including the Gulf of Mexico). The
SRGs review the science that goes into the stock assessment reports (SARs)
prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as mandated by Section 117(a) of the
act.
The MMPA provides the following text regarding the SRGs:
Sec. 117(d) Regional Scientific Review Groups.
(1) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this section
[June 29, 1994], the Secretary of Commerce shall, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior (with respect to marine mammals under
that Secretary’s jurisdiction), the Marine Mammal Commission, the Governors
of affected adjacent coastal States, regional fishery and wildlife
management authorities, Alaska Native organizations and Indian tribes,
and environmental and fishery groups, establish three independent regional
scientific review groups representing Alaska, the Pacific Coast (including
Hawaii), and the Atlantic Coast (including the Gulf of Mexico), consisting
of individuals with expertise in marine mammal biology and ecology,
population dynamics and modeling, commercial fishing technology and
practices, and stocks taken under section 101(b). The Secretary
of Commerce shall, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to achieve
a balanced representation of viewpoints among the individuals on each
regional scientific review group. The regional scientific review
groups shall advise the Secretary on --
(A) population estimates and the population status and trends
of such stocks;
(B) uncertainties and research needed regarding stock separation, abundance,
or trends, and factors affecting the distribution, size, or productivity
of the stock;
(C) uncertainties and research needed regarding the species, number, ages,
gender, and reproductive status of marine mammals;
(D) research needed to identify modifications in fishing gear and practices
likely to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals
in commercial fishing operations;
(E) the actual, expected, or potential impacts of habitat destruction,
including marine pollution and natural environmental change, on specific
marine mammal species or stocks, and for strategic stocks, appropriate conservation
or management measures to alleviate any such impacts; and
(F) any other issue which the Secretary or the groups consider appropriate.
(2) The scientific review groups established under this subsection shall
not
be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 app. U.S.C.).
(3) Members of the scientific review groups shall serve without compensation,
but may be reimbursed by the Secretary, upon request, for reasonable travel costs
and expenses incurred in performing their obligations.
(4) The Secretary may appoint or reappoint individuals to the regional scientific
review groups under paragraph (1) as needed.
Section 117(a) of the MMPA required that the first of the marine mammal SARs
be prepared in consultation with the SRGs, and not later than August 1, 1994. These
initial SARs were prepared by NMFS and USFWS staff, and submitted for SRG review
at meetings held on October 12 and 13, 1994, in Seattle, Washington. These
meetings included not only the first meeting of each of the individual SRGs,
but also included a joint meeting of the three SRGs.
Section 117(c) of the MMPA requires that marine mammal stock assessments be
reviewed on a regular basis and revised as necessary. Between 1994 and
1999, individual SRGs met on a semiannual or annual basis to review the annual
SARs and to address technical issues. Beginning in 1997, it became clear
that another joint SRG meeting would be necessary. This report summarizes
the results of the joint SRG meeting held on April 13 and 14, 1999, at the
Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle, Washington. The agenda and
participants for that meeting are contained in Appendix
I and Appendix II.
MEETING OBJECTIVES
The general objectives of the meeting were to: 1) provide a forum for
comments and exchange of information among SRGs, and 2) develop recommendations
on issues of common concern to the three SRGs.
Considerable discussion centered on whether consistency was necessary among
the three separate SRGs, and whether this should be an objective of the meeting. The
Joint Scientific Review Group (JSRG) decided that consistency would be addressed
as appropriate to specific topics. The guidelines on potential biological
removal are a good example of where consistency among SRGs was considered essential.
GENERAL
ISSUES
ROLE
OF SCIENTIFIC REVIEW GROUPS
Standardization of the Recommendation
Process, the Relationship between Different SRGs and NMFS, and the
Future Role of the SRGs
The SRGs were created to provide independent review of NMFS (“agency”)
stock assessments. It was noted that there was mistrust by some
groups (e.g., fisheries, environmental) of the agency acting on
its own to carry out statute provisions without such an oversight group. It
was agreed that the vision of independent oversight has been realized
within the SRGs. The SRGs have been constructive as they have held
the agency accountable for deadlines, quality of assessments, and technical
rigor.
Recommendations coming from the SRGs usually fall into the category
of “grey literature,” but should at least be presented to the agency
in a professional format (e.g., letterhead). The concept
of sharing comments and recommendations to a larger distribution base
was considered important, especially for those in more remote areas. A
suggestion was made to place all minutes and recommendations on a website
as a matter of public record. This was considered appropriate as
it would minimize the work of the SRG chairs in distributing paper copies. Specific
joint recommendations are provided later in the “Joint
Recommendations” section.
The JSRG expressed concern about a lack of NMFS responsiveness to official
SRG correspondence. Agency replies were frequently a simple “thank
you,” and lacked detail about what action the agency had taken. Some
SRG members asserted that many recommendations are not addressed; therefore,
future letters from the SRG should ask for a response within a specific
time period (e.g., 2 wk). However, it was noted that a response
could not be realistically expected within 2 wk for items addressing
future research or funding. The JSRG felt the agency reply should
address actions being taken, as well as why action was not taken on a
specific recommendation. It was suggested was that because the
SRGs meet twice a year, an agency response could be presented at the
next meeting addressing all recommendations from the previous meeting. The
SRGs agreed that they needed to follow up by tracking their recommendations. It
was also suggested that the SRGs prioritize their recommendations to
the agency.
Discussion occurred about where documents should be sent within NMFS
for maximum effect. The general decision was that correspondence
should be addressed to the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
with copies sent to appropriate USFWS Regional Directors, NMFS Regional
Administrators, and NMFS Regional Science and Research Directors. Copies
of SRG recommendations, along with SRG minutes, should be posted on the
website of the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR), and notices
sent to all parties concerned with the recommendations (e.g.,
members of all SRGs and the Marine Mammal Commission).
Representatives from NMFS were asked to provide an overview of the relationships
of NMFS fisheries science centers and regional offices with the respective
SRGs, and on the future role of SRGs.
The Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s (NEFSC’s) relationship with
the Atlantic Scientific Review Group (ATSRG) has been good, but
scope of input from the ATSRG to the NEFSC should be broadened. The
ATSRG has been requested to provide recommendations on substantive management
issues facing NMFS, for example, review of data for changing the categorization
of the squid/mackerel/butterfish fishery under the MMPA Section 118 “List
of Fisheries” (LOF). SRG review is vital for guidance on SAR recommendations
such as the bottlenose dolphin stock separation question.
The Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) receives advice from
a number of groups and agencies to guide its decisions on its research
programs for marine mammals. In addition to the ATSRG, these advisory
groups include the Marine Mammal Commission, NMFS Southeast Regional
Office (for specific management needs), regional fishery management councils,
take reduction teams, implementation teams, etc. Specific advice
from the ATSRG and other groups is most useful in formulating annual
research and spending plans to address topical issues in the NMFS Southeast
Region. ATSRG advice is frequently cited in the Atlantic SARs to
support statements on stock status and related issues. It is particularly
helpful when the ATSRG provides advice aiding in the establishment of
research priorities for protected species.
The Alaska Scientific Review Group (AKSRG) has been instrumental in
providing recommendations to the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AKFSC)
that increased organizational resources for responding to critical issues
(e.g., Cook Inlet beluga whale surveys). Many of the recommendations
made by the AKSRG have been implemented by the agency. All of the
AKSRG research recommendations have been adopted by the AKFSC. Recommendations
and explanations from the minutes of the AKSRG meetings are often cited
in the Alaska SARs as justification for a particular choice of stock
structure, recovery factor, etc.
Pacific Scientific Review Group (PSRG) recommendations have influenced
many of the research activities of the Southwest Fisheries Science Center
(SWFSC). For example, the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction
Team was reluctant to accept the NMFS view that an observer program was
needed to reduce takes in the Monterey Bay setnet fisheries. With
the review and support of the PSRG, that program was established.
NMFS regional office representatives supported the aforementioned views
expressed by fisheries science center staff.
SRG recommendations hold weight in critical decisions within the OPR. These
SRG recommendations often support the basis for management decisions
(e.g., bottlenose dolphin stock structure) by the OPR Director,
especially for decisions on funding priorities under the allocation process
for NMFS’s strategic goal of “Recover Protected Species.”
SRG members’ opinions varied on the relationship between the SRGs and
NMFS. The AKSRG has consistently tried to keep a clear distinction
between its scientific advisory role, and the policy decisions that are
the responsibility of NMFS. The ATSRG has a similar view, but members
noted that for many historical issues in the Atlantic (e.g., bottlenose
dolphin, harbor porpoise, and northern right whale), scientific recommendations
have not always been adopted by NMFS. Things have improved with
recent staff additions in the NEFSC and SEFSC. Some SRG members
recognized that the lack of NMFS personnel in both the NEFSC and SEFSC
influences NMFS’s ability to respond to SRG demands. Regardless,
the SRG should set goals high, because this reinforces the need for personnel.
The JSRG was concerned about an overall lack of a national vision for
marine mammals within NMFS. This statement caused some debate because
some SRG members felt that regions needed the ability to operate independently,
while others felt that even with a national vision, regional power would
often prevail. Some members were discouraged by lack of an agency
response, and wondered if the process was worth the SRGs’ effort. However,
it was pointed out that SRG recommendations are valuable outside the
agency as advocacy groups can use them to make sure resources are allocated
where they need to be so allocated. AKFSC staff commented that
the record shows that money is going to high priority species, it is
just that the total dollars are very limited, which means all issues
cannot be addressed. In addition, significant efforts are being
made to plan for upcoming years from a national perspective. While
the JSRG recognized this may be true within the marine mammal budget,
resources in general were not equally allocated among different protected
species groups (West Coast salmon was given as an example). After
listening to the discussion, the JSRG concluded that NMFS needed to make
its overall mission more clear to the SRGs, and that NMFS should include
the SRGs on the distribution list for the marine mammal funding panel
report.
Scientific Review Group Review of Stock
Assessment Reports and Primary Documents
An overall recommendation was made that the SRGs review the science
that goes into the SARs, including the design of research and how data
are being analyzed. This recommendation would mean making NMFS
science available to SRG members with specific areas of expertise. Some
suggested that this step would be a maturation of the function of the
SRG, permitting it to function more as a formal peer-review group. The
issue of formal review of NMFS unpublished documents cited in SARs is
addressed in Appendix III. Some of
the calculations used in SARs are mechanical, while other issues, such
as stock structure, provoke discussion. Debate also addressed whether
there was a need to go to the data level, or whether the SRGs should
just provide critical questions for NMFS to address.
The JSRG agreed that data in SARs should be thoroughly refereed. SEFSC
staff commented that there is a precedent for a few controversial fish
stock assessments that could serve as a model for marine mammal stock
assessments. Those fish stock assessment documents were elevated
to the NMFS Office of Science and Technology for subsequent review by
outside entities. When the controversial aspects of those assessments
could not be resolved at that level, then those documents were forwarded
to the National Research Council for resolution.
PROPOSED DEFINITION
OF ZERO MORTALITY RATE GOAL
Section 118(b) of the MMPA specifies a zero mortality rate goal (ZMRG)
for the effects of U.S. commercial fisheries on marine mammal stocks. That
section also mandates that a report be submitted to Congress by April
20, 2001, reviewing progress made by those fisheries in reaching the
ZMRG. The present draft NMFS policy has been to select for the
ZMRG a mortality rate that would delay recovery time by not more than
10% of that which would occur in the absence of fisheries effects. SARs
must describe whether: 1) a fishery has met the ZMRG, 2) a marine
mammal stock has an overall insignificant mortality rate, and 3) that
stock is approaching fisheries-effected zero mortality and serious injury
rates. The JSRG expressed considerable concern that this definition
had not yet been finalized.
It was noted that the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP)
-- developed through Congress -- has established ZMRG-based mortality
limits for Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) dolphins. The IDCP agreement
placed international management of ETP dolphins in line with the U.S.
definition of the ZMRG. The IDCP defines the ZMRG as 0.1% of the
minimum population size estimate (Nmin), which is considered
adequately small to be negligible. This IDCP definition of the
ZMRG yields similar results to the NMFS definition of the ZMRG as 10%
of a stock’s potential biological removal (PBR).
JSRG members suggested that consistency of the NMFS’s ZMRG definition
with the IDCP’s ZMRG defintion should be given consideration, particularly
because the IDCP definition was based on earlier U.S. ZMRG policy. The
JSRG recommended that the ZMRG definition be finalized before the ZMRG
progress report is sent to Congress; if the opposite occurs, the report’s
findings might be inappropriate.
PROPOSED GUIDELINES
FOR SERIOUS INJURY DETERMINATIONS
A workshop was held in April 1997 to develop specific criteria for determining
what constitutes a serious injury for marine mammals captured incidental
to fishing operations (Angliss and DeMaster 1998). Guidelines based
on the workshop’s recommendations were subsequently drafted and did provide
guidance on serious injury determination. However, the publishing
of these guidelines was stalled at the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) because of the difficulty of meeting OMB’s new review requirements
for publishing federal “regulations.” The seriousness of a lack
of guidelines is highlighted by the Atlantic and Pacific longline fisheries
which induce a high level of serious injury. The impact that these
fisheries have on marine mammal populations is significantly underestimated
when serious injuries are not explicitly considered.
Agreement was reached that the SRGs should review the injury determinations
made by NMFS using the proposed serious injury guidelines. These
determinations are likely to be controversial during review by take reduction
teams, and an effort needs to be made to ensure adequate outside review. The
JSRG recommended that SRGs operate as if the draft guidelines were in
place, and use them as guiding principles because: 1) some animals are
being taken and released alive, but none are currently counted as serious
injuries or mortalities; 2) criteria must be used consistently; and 3)
the best available scientific advice on serious injury determinations
is found in the workshop guidelines.
MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION
ACT REAUTHORIZATION
NMFS has convened a task force of staff from the fisheries science centers,
regional offices, and headquarters to develop agency comments on the
reauthorization of the MMPA. Presently, these comments are undergoing
internal review, and are subject to modification. Discussion surrounding
some of the sections under review was led by SWFSC staff (J. Barlow).
The JSRG agreed that statutory issues were outside the scientific advisory
role of the SRGs, and that comments specific only to stock assessment
reports or other science-related issues are appropriate. As NMFS
refines the list of recommendations, the SRGs could be asked for advice
on specific science-related topics.
STRANDING PROGRAMS
This agenda topic resulted from an observation made during a recent
training class conducted by NMFS on the West Coast on the collection
of pathology samples from carcasses. The observation was that NMFS
was emphasizing pathology sampling at the expense of collection of basic
life history information. NMFS noted that, overall, the national
stranding program does not have a policy of focusing on pathology at
the expense of life history information, and that the workshops were
directed at pathology because training was needed.
NATIVE TAKE
A number of specific cases were discussed, including Cook Inlet beluga,
bowhead whale, and Steller sea lion. It was noted that an emergency
listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) does not immediately authorize
the government to restrict Native harvest. Rather, the formal rulemaking
process identified in the MMPA must be followed, which typically takes
6-12 mo. For Cook Inlet beluga, voluntary comanagement agreements
are being developed to restrict Native subsistence harvests during summer
1999. The degree to which these agreements will be successful is
uncertain.
The issue of managing Native subsistence harvests in the immediate vicinity
of Anchorage was discussed. It was noted that at present this is
only a problem for the Cook Inlet beluga stock. Part of the problem
stems from the classification of Anchorage as a Native village by NMFS
regulations; this classification allows the sale of marine mammal products
to a large community. As such, large numbers of animals taken for
subsistence purposes can be sold at financial gain to a few individuals. The
human demand for beluga muktuk and meat in the Anchorage area has contributed
to this beluga stock being overharvested.
Some subsistence takes are included by NMFS in the SARs, but not all
such takes are reported to NMFS. The JSRG agreed that NMFS should
include, where possible, all Native harvests as part of mortality estimates
provided in the SARs, including those from treaty tribes.
STOCK
ASSESSMENT REPORT ISSUES
SCHEDULE
FOR STOCK ASSESSMENT REPORT REVISION
Timing of SAR production was discussed. It was pointed out
how the timing of SAR production affects the subsequent year’s
LOF production.
One of the main issues discussed was whether a consistent schedule
and format were necessary nationwide. The MMPA requires review
of strategic stocks every year, but other stocks can be evaluated
on a 3-yr cycle. Different regions handle revisions differently. Some
SRG members proposed publishing a full document every year, while
others proposed annual reporting only on strategic stocks for which
significant new information is available. Others noted that
there are other interested constituents, including Congress, which
could favor publishing a full document every year.
After considerable discussion, the JSRG recommended that NMFS
should: 1) publish all SARs every year; 2) review and, if
necessary, revise strategic stock assessments every year; and 3)
review and, if necessary, revise nonstrategic stocks at least once
every 3 yr.
STANDARDS FOR
INCLUDING INFORMATION IN STOCK ASSESSMENT REPORTS
The PBR guidelines (Wade and Angliss 1997, p. 34) specify that “the
methods and analyses that produce the estimates of abundance and
mortality that are used in the SARs should be published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals, where possible, or in a similar forum that
is most appropriate, such as a NOAA Technical Memorandum.” P.
Clapham proposed more rigorous guidelines on how scientific information
should be used within the SAR. These criteria are presented
in Appendix III. In summary,
Appendix III considers scientific literature in a hierarchical
fashion. Level I, the primary
or peer-reviewed literature, should be recognized in the SAR. If
desired, NMFS may seek additional reviews of such literature, and
also report the findings of those reviews in the SAR. Level
II, the non-peer-reviewed literature, should not automatically
be included in the SAR. NMFS should solicit internal and/or
external review of such literature to elevate its status to peer-reviewed. If
the work is not appropriate for formal review (Level
III), such as presentation abstracts or anecdotal information,
then NMFS should obtain a written summary of the work so that it
can be formally reviewed. Anecdotal information should generally
not be included.
It was recognized that the SAR should include the “best available
information,” but it may take years for scientific results to appear
in peer-reviewed journals, and some information such as traditional
knowledge may never be appropriate for such journals. However,
the guidelines in Appendix III should, in principle, be followed. A
possible amendment is that all non-peer-reviewed literature used
in a SAR should be available, in written form, at the relevant
fisheries science center.
The JSRG encouraged NMFS to formalize more rigorous guidelines
for including information in SARs, such that Appendix III principles
were followed. The JSRG also reiterated its previous position
that SARs should not be cited as primary literature.
RECOVERY FACTORS
FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT-LISTED SPECIES
Update on Endangered Species Act
Downlisting and Delisting Criteria
Two sets of criteria are being developed by NMFS to objectively
determine when an ESA-listed marine mammal species should be reclassified. These
criteria will be published in peer-reviewed journals. At
this time, NMFS has not adopted either set of criteria, and has
not recommended any changes in listings.
The JSRG recommended that NMFS and the USFWS establish specific
reclassification criteria for all species or distinct population
units listed as endangered or threatened under ESA.
Protocol to Assign Recovery Factors
The current PBR guidelines set the default recovery factor, Fr,
for endangered species at 0.1 (Wade and Angliss 1997) to allow
a small fishery take while simultaneously providing for quick recovery. In
other words, any human-induced mortality, including fishing mortality,
cannot prolong by more than 10% the recovery time which that species
would exhibit in the absence of human-induced mortality. However,
some species (e.g., many humpback stocks) are known to be
increasing and are at low risk of extinction. Thus, a recovery
factor value of 0.1 may not be warranted, and such stocks may be
candidates for reclassification. The JSRG encouraged NMFS
to start the reclassification process for such stocks.
Because the reclassification process is long and complicated,
some SRG members wanted to adjust the recovery factor until the
species is reclassified. This adjustment could be a further
gradation of the recovery factor to match the differing levels
of risk facing the stock. The questions were: 1) What
criteria should be used to determine which species can safely be
adjusted?; and 2) What recovery factor values are reasonable?
B. Taylor presented a discussion paper (Appendix
IV) in which the setting of a recovery factor for endangered
species as high, medium, and low risk was standardized using
information on: 1) the present abundance estimate and its
precision, 2) the presence or absence of a trend in abundance,
and 3) three biological risk factors. It was indicated
that the most influential factors were a critical abundance estimate
of 1,500 animals, and the stock boundaries used to obtain the
abundance estimate.
The JSRG thanked B. Taylor and others for initiating the discussion
and for focusing attention on the need for a protocol for assigning
reasonable recovery factor values for endangered species. However,
no protocol was agreed upon by the JSRG. SRG members indicated
that additional time was needed to investigate which criteria should
be used, what cutoff points for the criteria are reasonable, and
what are the influence and robustness of these criteria and cutoff
points. Issues brought up that should be considered in future
work included: 1) should absolute abundance or abundance
relative to K (i.e., the carrying capacity of the habitat)
be used; 2) should criteria be constant for all species or be species-specific;
3) should the default level of Fr = 0.1 be used for
any species with a declining abundance trend; 4) the protocol being
consistently used by all SRGs; 5) the protocol being able to result
in three preset recovery factor values that reflect high, medium,
and low risks of extinction; 6) should the protocol be presented
as a decision tree, matrix, or list of qualitative factors; 7)
how should a population that is stable be treated in the protocol;
8) how should a population that is both small and thought to be
at K be treated in the protocol; 9) should any of the criteria
be weighted or given a higher priority; 10) is there a hierarchical
or equal ranking of the criteria; and 11) the protocol being easy
to present and scientifically defendable.
The JSRG agreed that a standardized framework for categorizing
risk for endangered species should be considered. The JSRG
recommended that a working group, composed of NMFS, USFWS, and
SRG representatives, continue to develop the draft proposal (Appendix
IV) as well as alternative strategies, and present a revised
proposal to the SRGs at their next individual meetings. The
JSRG also recommended that the proposed framework include three
standard recovery factor values that could be used to specify whether
there is a high, medium, or low risk of extinction for an endangered
stock.
TRANSBOUNDARY
STOCKS (EXTENDING BEYOND THE U.S. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE)
The PBR guidelines (Wade and Angliss 1997, p. 56) advise that
for transboundary stocks where there is no international management
agreement, it may be reasonable to use the fraction of time in
U.S. waters as the percent of the PBR to be allocated to U.S. fisheries,
or to use the abundance estimate of the portion of the population
residing in U.S. waters as the basis of the PBR allocation. These
guidelines have not been applied to all stocks because of different
quantities and qualities of available data. In addition,
concerns exist about whether the guidelines are legally correct.
Because of these problems, the JSRG was unable to suggest ways
to consistently handle transboundary stocks. Each stock situation
will, therefore, continue to have to be handled on a case-by-case
basis, using the best available information.
STOCK DEFINITION
The definition of a stock provided in the existing PBR guidelines
(Wade and Angliss 1997, p. 55-56) is useful in most cases. However,
it is difficult to define stocks for species with limited data. This
difficulty has led to inconsistencies. Another way to state
the problem is, “Should the lumping or splitting strategy of stock
definition be used?” Examples of difficult cases are: 1)
stocks that appear to have a genetic cline, 2) stocks that are
thought to be part of a biological population that extends outside
the area used in the abundance estimate, 3) regions of the ocean
that appear to have a mixture of stocks that are indistinguishable
(at least by eye), and 4) stocks that have separate breeding and
feeding grounds. Because of such situations, additional guidelines
are needed.
Several case studies were discussed. The North Atlantic
humpback whale stock has a maternally-specific feeding ground in
the Gulf of Maine, and breeding grounds in the Caribbean. (A
similar situation exists for the North Pacific humpback.) Those
humpback whales using the Gulf of Maine feeding ground have distinct
genetic characteristics that are a result of maternal fidelity. The
JSRG agreed that this feeding group is a stock according to the
guidelines presented in Wade and Angliss (1997), and so, the stock
definition in the SARs should be modified. However, NMFS
should be careful to define and manage different stocks consistently
with respect to feeding and breeding ground stock determinations.
Another case discussed was the sperm whale stock in the central
and eastern Pacific Ocean. Sperm whale occur in waters between
the California/ Oregon/ Washington coast and Hawaii, and the animals
at the eastern and western extremes of this region are genetically
different. The question is, “Where is the line between the
two stocks?” The guidelines specify that in cases of lack
of data, the assessment can be on a management stock which is not
the same as a population stock. These animals represent such
a case, and until more data are available, there is no other way
to define the stock.
To clarify the definition of a stock, the JSRG recommends that
the phrase “management stock” replace “population stock” in the
text of the upcoming reauthorized MMPA. The JSRG also recommends
that NMFS uniformly apply the present PBR guidelines to all stocks.
Rmax VALUES
USED IN POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL REMOVAL CALCULATIONS
The discussion of Rmax (i.e., the theoretical
or estimated maximum net productivity rate of a stock when it is
at a small size) focused on when values other than the default
should be used. The PBR guidelines (Wade and Angliss 1997,
p. 58) state that “substitution of other values for these defaults
should be made with caution, and only when reliable stock-specific
information is available on Rmax (e.g., estimates
published in peer-reviewed articles or accepted by review groups
such as the MMPA Scientific Review Groups or the Scientific Committee
of the International Whaling Commission).” The JSRG recognized
that Rmax is a theoretical value, and that in many cases,
values measured in the field are not an adequate substitute. Exceptions
to this include cases such as the North Atlantic right whale which
is at extremely low abundance levels, some seal species where there
are long time series of data that can adequately measure Rmax,
and studies that adequately show the default value is too low.
The JSRG recognized that considerable data are needed to deviate
from the default, but did not provide any further guidance on this
issue.
INCIDENTAL-TAKE
REPORTING METHODS
The JSRG recognized that incidental-take reports differ in approach
among the different regions. A discussion on the methods
used in the different regions led to several suggestions that could
make the reports more consistent. These suggestions are: 1)
in the “Other Mortality” section of the SARs, the actual number
of bullet- and pellet-wounded stranded animals should be reported,
if possible; 2) explanations of the quality of the mortality estimates
should be included (e.g., a mortality estimate may be very
imprecise due to low observer coverage); 3) the average annual
mortality estimate from a fishery should include only years that
had the same type of fishing practices and/or extrapolation method
(for example, observer coverage versus logbook reports); and 4)
for fisheries that have on- and off-watch phases, bycatch rates
could be estimated for each phase and then combined in an appropriate
way.
JOINT
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The JSRG recommended
that NMFS finalize as soon as possible the definition of the ZMRG.
2. Noting the legislative requirement to include information
on serious injuries in the SARs, the JSRG recommended that NMFS
and the USFWS proceed to use the best scientific evidence available
to make determinations of which injuries are serious, including
use of the guidelines specified in the report of the Serious Injury
Workshop (Angliss and DeMaster 1998).
3. The JSRG recognized the importance of collecting, from
stranded animals, life history data and voucher specimens to fully
evaluate potential human-related impacts. Therefore, the
JSRG recommended that NMFS and the USFWS, when collecting pathology
data on stranded animals, collect life history data and voucher
specimens, especially for unusual stranding events.
4. The JSRG recognized that treaty tribes do not fall under
the authority of the MMPA, and therefore, information on takes
of marine mammals by treaty tribes (i.e., bycatch in fisheries)
may not be collected. Therefore, the JSRG recommended that
NMFS and the USFWS attempt to work with treaty tribes to collect
this information so that it can be included in SARs. Additionally,
the JSRG recommended that NMFS and the USFWS make all efforts to
document all takes of marine mammals, regardless of source.
5. The JSRG recognized there were differences among regions
in the schedule being used for the revision and publication of
SARs. The JSRG recommended that NMFS and USFWS:
a) publish all SARs every year,
b) review and revise as necessary the SARs for strategic stocks every year,
and
c) review and revise as necessary the SARs for nonstrategic stocks at least
once every 3 yr.
6. The JSRG recommended that NMFS establish:
a) specific reclassification criteria for all species
or distinct population segments listed as endangered or threatened
under ESA, and
b) specific declassification criteria for all stocks designated as depleted
under the MMPA.
7. The JSRG requested a standardized framework for categorizing
risk for
endangered species. The JSRG agreed that three levels of risk should be
specified and that they be assigned specific recovery factor values. The
JSRG recommended that a working group composed of NMFS, USFWS, and SRG representatives
continue to develop the draft proposal, consider alternative strategies, and
present
a revised proposal to the SRGs by their next meetings.
8. The JSRG recommended that the phrase “management stock” replace “population
stock” in the text of the upcoming reauthorized MMPA. The JSRG also recommended
that NMFS uniformly apply the present PBR guidelines to all stocks.
9. Recognizing that the definition of stocks can often be difficult,
particularly when there is a lack of information, the JSRG agreed that the
definition of stocks contained in the PBR guidelines (Wade and Angliss 1997)
is useful, and recommended that it be consistently implemented by NMFS and
the USFWS.
10. The JSRG believed that communication between the SRGs and the agencies,
as well as other groups, should be standardized and improved, and recommended:
a) In general, recommendations from the SRGs to the agencies should
be sent as letters addressed to the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
and (if relevant) to the appropriate USFWS Regional Director, with copies sent
to the appropriate NMFS Regional Administrators and Regional Science and Research
Directors. It was also recognized that some specific issues might be
more appropriately addressed to NMFS Regional Administrators.
b) To provide for a wider distribution, recommendations from the SRGs,
as well as minutes and reports from their meetings, should be posted on
a NMFS website. It was also suggested that an e-mail list be created
to announce the availability of new material on this website. The
list should include all SRG members, as well as other interested parties
such as the Marine Mammal Commission. The SRGs, after discussion
with NMFS personnel, further suggested this could be most easily accomplished
by having the SRG chair or NMFS SRG liaison directly transfer electronic
files to an OPR contact for posting on the OPR website.
c) The JSRG expects that it will receive substantive written responses
to their written recommendations in a timely fashion, certainly not later
than by their next meeting.
d) The JSRG requested copies every year of the meeting reports of the
funding process, including the recommended spending plans, associated with
the NMFS’s strategic goal of “Recover Protected Species.”
11. The JSRG agreed that additional funds are needed to adequately support
priority research needs that have been identified by the separate SRGs. Therefore,
the JSRG recommended that NMFS and the USFWS secure additional funding for marine
mammal research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr.
Douglas DeMaster made available the facilities and support of the NMFS’s
National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, Washington. Dr. Paul
Wade was responsible for providing logistical support for the meetings.
Dr. Debra Palka and Ms. Laurie Allen deserve special thanks for acting
as rapporteurs for the workshop. The report was greatly improved
through reviews by members of the three SRGs -- particularly Chairs Robin
Brown, Jim Gilbert, and Lloyd Lowry -- and by Dr. Fredric Serchuk.
REFERENCES
CITED
Angliss, R.P.; DeMaster, D. 1998. Differentiating
serious and non-serious injury of marine mammals taken incidental
to commercial fishery operations: report of the Serious Injury
Workshop; 1-2 April 1997; Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-OPR-13; 48 p.
Wade, P.R.; Angliss, R.P. 1997. Guidelines for assessing
marine mammal stocks: report of the GAMMS Workshop; April 3-5,
1996; Seattle, WA. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-12;
93 p.
Acronyms |
| AKFSC |
= |
Alaska Fisheries Science Center |
NERO |
= |
Northeast Regional Office |
| AKSRG |
= |
Alaska Scientific Review Group |
NMFS |
= |
National Marine Fisheries Service |
| ATSRG |
= |
Atlantic Scientific Review Group |
OMB |
= |
Office of Management and Budget |
| CV |
= |
coefficient of variation |
OPR |
= |
Office of Protected Resources |
| ESA |
= |
Endangered Species Act |
PBR |
= |
potential biological removal |
| ETP |
= |
Eastern Tropical Pacific |
PSRG |
= |
Pacific Scientific Review Group |
| IDCP |
= |
International Dolphin Conservation
Program |
SAR |
= |
stock assessment report |
| IUCN |
= |
International Union for the Conservation
of
Nature and Natural Resources |
SEFSC
SERO |
=
= |
Southeast Fisheries Science Center
Southeast Regional Office |
| JSRG |
= |
Joint Scientific Review Group |
SRG |
= |
scientific review group |
| LOF |
= |
List of Fisheries |
SWFSC |
= |
Southwest Fisheries Science Center |
| MMPA |
= |
Marine Mammal Protection Act |
USFWS |
= |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
| NEFSC |
= |
Northeast Fisheries Science Center |
ZMRG |
= |
zero mortality rate goal |
|
