# Presentation: 498619

## The Decline of the Steller Sea Lion in Alaskan Waters:  Untangling Food Webs and Fishing Nets

**The Decline of the Steller Sea Lion in Alaskan Waters:  Untangling Food Webs and Fishing Nets**

**Gordon H. Kruse, Ph.D.**
**Member, Committee on the Alaska Groundfish Fishery and Steller Sea Lions**

**The study was overseen by the Ocean Studies Board **
**and the Polar Research Board of the National Research Council**
**The study was sponsored by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council**

## Genesis of Study

**Genesis of Study**

**Since 1970s:**** sharp decline in Steller sea lions (SSLs) **
**1990:**** SSLs listed as threatened under ESA**
**1997:**** Western stock listed as endangered under ESA**

**1969**

**1979**

**1986**

**Photos: NOAA, Alaska Fishery Science Center**

**Ugamak Island**

## Genesis of Study

**Genesis of Study**

**Nov. 2000:**** NMFS concludes that Alaska groundfish fishery posed a threat to the recovery of SSLs**
**Dec. 2000:**** Congressional Record (House H12260), “The North Pacific Fishery Management Council ... shall utilize the expertise of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent scientific review of the November 30, 2000 Biological Opinion ... of Alaska groundfish fisheries ..., its underlying hypothesis ... The National Academy of Sciences is requested to give its highest priority to this review.”**

## Study Timeframe

**Study Timeframe**

**April 1, 2001:**** start date for NRC study**
**December 4, 2002:**** Executive summary issued**
**January 13, 2003: ****Prepublication of report available **
**Late March 2003:**** Published version available**

## Committee Roster

**ROBERT T. PAINE (Chair)****,**** ****University of Washington, Seattle**
**DANIEL W. BROMLEY****,**** ****University of Wisconsin, Madison**
**MICHAEL A. CASTELLINI****, ****University of Alaska Fairbanks**
**LARRY B. CROWDER****,**** ****Duke University, Beaufort, NC**
**JAMES A. ESTES****,**** ****U.S. Geol. Survey /University of California, Santa Cruz**
**JACQUELINE M. GREBMEIER****, University of Tennessee, Knoxville**
**FRANCES M.D. GULLAND****, The Marine Mammal Center, Sausalito, CA**
**GORDON H. KRUSE****, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Juneau**
**NATHAN J. MANTUA****, University of Washington, Seattle**
**JAMES D. SCHUMACHER****, Two Crow Environmental, Inc., Silver City, NM**
**DONALD B. SINIFF****, University of Minnesota, St. Paul**
**CARL J. WALTERS****, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada**
**National Research Council Staff**
**SUSAN J. ROBERTS****, Study Director, Ocean Studies Board**
**NANCY A. CAPUTO****, Senior Project Assistant, Ocean Studies Board**
** **

## Statement of Task

**Statement of Task**

**This study will examine interactions between Alaska groundfish fisheries and Steller sea lions (*****Eumetopias jubatus, *****SSLs) and the role of these fisheries in the evolving status of the SSL population. The focus of the study will be:**

**The status of current knowledge about the decline of the SSL population in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska ecosystems, **
**The relative importance of food competition and other possible causes of SSL population decline and impediments to SSL recovery, **

**Photo: Kurt Savikko, ADF&G**

## Statement of Task (continued)

**The critical information gaps in understanding the interactions between SSLs and Alaska fisheries, **
**The type of research programs needed to identify and assess potential human and natural causes of SSL decline, and **
**The components of an effective SSL monitoring program, with yardsticks for evaluating the efficacy of various management approaches. **

## Approach

**Information gathering during public meetings: **
**Aug. 22-23, 2001, Seattle:**** ****NPFMC, NMFS, NMML**
**Oct. 29-30, 2001, Anchorage:**** ****Native associations, fishing industry, environmental organizations, consultants, ADF&G, and academia**
**Dec. 10-11, 2001, Seattle:**** ****academia, MMC, PWSSC, USFWS, NMFS, NMML, ADF&G, consultants**
**Review: ****scientific publications and results from ongoing research projects**** **

## Approach (continued)

**New analyses: **
**Estimate groundfish biomass available per SSL based on NMFS fish and SSL abundance estimates**
**Population modeling to estimate unexplained mortality based York’s age-structured model **
**Ecosystem modeling of eastern Bering Sea based on Ecopath/Ecosim models of Walters et al. (1997, 1999) and Trites et al. (1999) **
**Qualitative response variable analysis based on Bowen et al. (2001)**

## What is the status of current knowledge about the decline?

**Source: NOAA, Alaska Fisheries Science Center**

**Source: NOAA, Alaska**
**Fisheries Science Center**

** ****The western stock of SSLs has declined more than 80% since the 1970s**
** ****Decline was steepest in the 1970s and 1980s.**

## Knowledge about the Decline

**Knowledge about the Decline**

**Source: NOAA, Alaska Fisheries Science Center**

** ****Western stock declined:**
** ****5.9%/yr, 1975-1985**
** ****15.6%/yr, 1986-1990**
** ****5.2%/yr, 1990s**
** ****Eastern stock increased:**
** ****1980s to 2002**
** ****1.8%/yr, 1991-2002**

** **Est. SSL Non-pups from June Aerial surveys

**Western stock**

**Kenai to Kiska**

**Southeast Alaska**

**Photo: NOAA, Alaska Fisheries Science Center**

## Spatio-temporal Patterns of Decline

## Spatio-temporal Patterns of Decline

**Spatio-temporal Patterns of Decline**

**GOA**
**Trend Sites**

**1975-2002 trend data**

## What is the importance of food competition and other causes in the decline?

_**Most marine mammal declines due to humans:**_
** ****Commercial harvests for fur, meat, oil**
** ****Fishery interactions – disturbance/incidental catch **
** ****Predator control programs**
_**Case of SSLs is not straightforward:**_
** ****No commercial harvests since 1972**
** ****Reported takes of SSLs by fisheries are small**
** ****Few baseline data to compare healthy, pre-1975 population with current, depleted population**
** ****Lack of definitive data that confirm/refute causes**
** ****Shifts in marine species abundance in 1970s-1980s attributed to commercial harvests and climate**

## The Complexities of Change

**The Complexities of Change**

## The Complexities of Change

**The Complexities of Change**

## Hypotheses about SSL Decline

_**Bottom-up hypotheses:**_
**Large-scale fishery removals have reduced the availability or quality of prey species,**
**A climate regime shift in the late 1970s has changed the abundance or distribution of prey species,**
**Non-lethal disease has reduced the foraging efficiency of sea lions, and**
**Pollutants concentrated through the food web has contaminated fish eaten by sea lions, possibly reducing their fecundity or increasing mortality.**

## Hypotheses about SSL Decline

_**Top-down hypotheses:**_
**Predators such as killer whales (or possibly sharks) have switched their prey preference to sea lions,**
**Incidental take of sea lions through capture or entanglement in fishing gear has increased as a result of the expansion of commercial fisheries,**
**Takes of sea lions in the subsistence harvest have been higher than estimated,**
**Shooting of sea lions has been underestimated in the past and present, and**
**Pollution or disease has increased mortality independent of effects on nutrition.**

## Clues from Population Models

**Clues from Population Models**

**Application of York (2002)  model:**

## Clues from Population Models

**Unexplained mortality peaked at 20,000-25,000 animals per year in mid-1980s**
**Total estimated mortality from groundfish takes, subsistence, shooting, predation is about 4,500 per year in mid 1980s**
**The losses are too large to have only involved pups and yearlings**
**These losses have been widely claimed to have been due to nutritional stress, but killings by humans and natural predators are based on limited data**

**Clues from Population Models**

## Clues from Ecosystem Models

_**Strategy**_
**An Ecosym/Ecopath model was developed for eastern Bering Sea during 1950-2000 based on Trites et al. (1999)**
**See NAS (2003) for details**
**Modeling is used to identify plausible scenarios**
_**Some Results**_
**Reasonable fits to trends in many species groups**
**Anomalies best explained by climate regime shifts**
**Little variation is explained by historical fishing rates alone**
**Much of the good fit is associated with cascade effects after the cessation of whaling**

**Clues from Ecosystem Models**

## Clues from Ecosystem Models

**Clues from Ecosystem Models**

**Time**

**Assessments**

**Simulation**

**Large**
**Discrepancy**

## Clues from Population Models

_**Scenario**_
**Reduced sperm whales led to increased squid**
**Squid increased predation on small pelagics**
**Reduced small pelagics led to start of SSL decline**
**More zooplankton led to increases in jellyfish **
**Herring fisheries hastened herring and SSL declines **
**Fewer herring led to increases in other pelagics **
**More pelagics led to an increase in benthic piscivores, such as arrowtooth flounder**
_**Conclusion**_
**No parameter combination involving only trophics and fishing can match the steep SSL decline**
**Scenarios assuming more SSL culling by fisheries improves fit to SSL observations in 1980s**

**Clues from Population Models**

## Clues from Ecosystem Models

**Clues from Ecosystem Models**

**Time**

**Less**
**Discrepancy**

## Evaluating the Bottom-up Hypotheses

_**Fishery removal hypothesis – Gulf of Alaska:**_

**Evaluating the Bottom-up Hypotheses**

## Evaluating the Bottom-up Hypotheses

_**Fishery removal hypothesis – Gulf of Alaska:**_

**Evaluating the Bottom-up Hypotheses**

## Evaluating the Bottom-up Hypotheses

_**Fishery removal hypothesis – Bering Sea:**_

**Evaluating the Bottom-up Hypotheses**

## Evaluating the Bottom-up Hypotheses

_**Fishery removal hypothesis – Bering Sea:**_

**Evaluating the Bottom-up Hypotheses**

## Evaluating the Bottom-up Hypotheses

_**Fishery removal hypothesis**__**:**_
** ****Hypothesis not supported by general considerations of  fish biomass and sea lion abundance**
** ****Localized depletion remains an open question:**
** ****Fritz (1999) found evidence for localized depletion of Atka mackerel in 1990s**
** ****Wilson et al. (2002) found no evidence for localized depletion of pollock in Kodiak in 2000-2001 **
****** ****More research on reactions of fish schools to fishing, seasonal fish movements, sea lion foraging behavior are needed**

**Evaluating the Bottom-up Hypotheses**

## Evaluating the Bottom-up Hypotheses

_**Climate regime shift hypothesis**_

## Evaluating the Bottom-up Hypotheses

**Testing this ****hypothesis requires a “wait and see” approach**

**Anderson and Piatt (1999)**

**Evaluating the Bottom-up Hypotheses**

_**Climate regime shift hypothesis**_

## Evaluating the Top-down Hypotheses

_**Predation:**_
** ****Salmon sharks – no records of SSL attacks**
** ****Sleeper sharks – occasional remains of marine mammals, but no documented SSLs**
** ****Killer whales – documented attacks; beached killer whale contained tags of 14 SSLs; increased SSL predation could fit in with cascade hypothesis**

**Evaluating the Top-down Hypotheses**

**Photo: Betty Sederquist http://www.sederquist.com**

**Photo: NOAA, Alaska Fishery **
**Science Center**

## Evaluating the Top-down Hypotheses

_**Incidental take:**_
** ****Low rates of entanglement reported**
** ****Thousands of takes in JV pollock trawl fishery in Shelikof Strait in mid-1980s**
** ****Estimated takes by fisheries do not account for SSL declines, but observations are limited to observed vessels and voluntary reports**
_**Subsistence harvest:**_
** ****Russian missionaries reported ~2,000 SSLs harvested annually on St. George Island in the 1830s**
** ****One community on Kodiak Island harvested a reported high of 178 animals in 1983**
** ****In 1995, total takes were 171, of which 43 were lost**

**Evaluating the Top-down Hypotheses**

## Evaluating the Top-down Hypotheses

_**Shooting:**_
** ****SSLs shot in 1940s by PBYs**
** ****Salmon trap operators killed 816 SSLs in spring 1954**
** ****Predator control program in 1950s-1960s (all pups shot on Amatuli Island on 2 occasions)**
** ****Experimental harvest of 45,178 SSL pups in 1963-1972**
** ****Shooting weapons became illegal in 1990**
_**Disease and toxins:**_
** ****SSLs have antibodies to agents that could decrease survival and reproduction, but no evidence of epidemic**
** ****Unlikely that contaminants are causing direct SSL mortality, but more research on subtle effects needed**

**Evaluating the Top-down Hypotheses**

## Response Variable Analysis

**The committee modified and extended the Bowen et al. (2001) approach by:**

**Organize hypotheses into top-down and bottom-up forcing mechanisms**
**Derive expected directions of change from the IS IT FOOD? Conference (1993) similar to Eberhardt’s (1977) approach for marine mammals**
**Compared recent (1990s) available observations with expected changes **
**Evaluated the weight of evidence for each hypothesis**

## Response Variable Analysis

** ****Observed characteristics of SSL biology and behavior should be different under the two categories of hypotheses:**
** ****bottom-up hypotheses**** predict increased mortality through reduction in physical condition (changes in physiology, reproductive success, foraging behavior)**
** ****top-down hypotheses**** predict no loss in individual fitness, but require increased activity by predators, people, or pathogens**
** ****Data can be sorted temporally and geographically**
** ****threats during 1985-1989 had lessened in 1990s**
** ****threats greater in western than eastern stock**

**Response Variable Analysis**

## Response Variable Analysis

## Response Variable Analysis

** ****Recent indicators of SSL health and foraging behavior suggest that the western population is not food limited when compared to the increasing population in Southeast Alaska**
** ****The weight of recent evidence for causality is most consistent with top-down forcing mechanisms**

## Conclusions for 1970s-1980s

** ****5-year period of rapid decline was broad, likely caused by an ecosystem-wide change. Consistent hypotheses are:**
** ****nutritional limitation by fisheries competition**
** ****nutritional limitation by regime shift of late 1970s**
** ****predator switching from depleted prey to SSLs**
** ****introduction of highly contagious disease**
** ****Evidence for nutritional limitation: SSL condition, growth, and reproductive performance were low, but ecosystem models imply prey abundance cannot explain full decline **
** ****No systematic data on killer whale or shark predation**
** ****Serological tests for common pathogens are negative**
** ****Subsistence harvests, toxic algal blooms, and illegal shooting likely vary by area and no evidence of large increase during 5-year period**

**Conclusions for 1970s-1980s**

## Conclusions for 1970s-1980s (con’t.)

****** ****Multiple factors likely contributed to widespread declines in the 1980s, including mortality associated with fishing**

**Photo: Betty Sederquist**
**http://www.sederquist.com**

**Photo: NOAA, Alaska**
**Fishery Science Center**

**Photo: Oceanic**
**Research**
**Foundation**

**Photo: Bill Rawlins**

## Conclusions for 1990s-Present

** ****Groundfish biomass during the 1990s is large relative to SSL abundance, but localized depletion may occur**
** ****Although limited in scope, recent measurements of SSL condition and foraging activity indicate that bottom-up hypotheses invoking nutritional stress are unlikely to represent the primary threat to recovery**
** ****A combination of top-down mortality sources seem to pose the greatest threat to the current population: **
** ****Predation**
** ****Illegal shooting**
** ****Incidental take by fishing **
** ****Subsistence harvest**

## Information Gaps/Research Needs

_**Population trends:**_** continue aerial surveys of juveniles and adults and directs counts of pups at selected rookeries**
_**Vital rates:**_** fecundity, age of 1****st**** reproduction, age distribution, juvenile and adult survival, and growth rates using:**
**Reproductive data from cooperative programs with subsistence hunters**
**Other parameters from branding/resighting program over lifespan of SSL**
_**Critical habitat:**_** **
**Stomach telemetry tags to associate at-sea location with feeding**
**Fishing effects on fish distributions and densities **
**Revisit critical habitat designations**

**Information Gaps/Research Needs**

## Information Gaps/Research Needs (con’t.)

**Information Gaps/Research Needs (con’t.)**

_**Environmental monitoring:**_** **
**Oceanographic conditions**
**Plankton composition, harmful algal blooms**
**Forage fish, cephalopods, arrowtooth flounder **
**Seasonal migrations of groundfish**
**Sampling of SSLs for disease agents**
_**Predator feeding habits and population size:**_**  **
**Killer whale diet, population size and distribution**
**Observer programs to record killer whale feeding**
**Salmon and sleeper shark abundance and diet**

## Information Gaps/Research Needs (con’t.)

_**Other considerations:**_
**Most studies in summer, but increased SSL mortality may occur in other seasons**
**Fate of juveniles remains a potentially pivotal question**
**Remote observation methods (satellite, video) needed to assess seasonal activity patterns**
**Conclusive results on many variables critical to fishery management will take 5-10 yr to collect**
**A prioritized, cohesive research plan is needed to address these information needs**

**Information Gaps/Research Needs (con’t.)**

## What monitoring program is needed to evaluate efficacy of management approaches?

**Although most evidence indicates that groundfish fisheries are not causing range-wide depletion of SSL food resources, there is insufficient evidence to fully exclude fisheries as a contributing factor to the continuing decline owing to potential:**
**Localized depletion**
**Incidental mortality from entanglement**
**Disturbance of animals on haulouts**
**Increased exposure to predators by attraction to fish catches**
**Continued illegal shooting**
**Fisheries are one of the few human influences in SSL environment, and are subject to regulation under ESA**

**What monitoring program is needed to evaluate efficacy of management approaches?**

## Monitoring to Evaluate Management Efficacy

**Wait and see, maintain current closures indefinitely.**** Perhaps recent management actions will work. **
******  ****The most valuable monitoring information would be derived from annual rookery/haulout counts and new demographic data from branded pups.**
**Eliminate direct fishery impacts from greatly expanded closures. ****For instance, close Atka mackerel fishery and main pollock areas in southern half of EBS. **
****** ****Monitoring of fish population dynamics, both locally and at stock level, is required to determine effects of fisheries on stock distribution and fish community composition.**

**Monitoring to Evaluate Management Efficacy**

**The committee ****evaluated ****5 management options**** with respect to their scientific potential to discern the role of the groundfish fishery in the SSL decline:**** **

## Monitoring for Management Efficacy (con’t.)

**Establish spatial management units consisting of two sets of closed and open areas where each treatment area is centered on a rookery.**** The western stock is divided into management regions with at least two closed and two open rookeries per region. “Closed” units are subject to fishery closures and “open” units have SSL-related restrictions removed. **
******  ****The most critical monitoring needs are detailed SSL censuses and spatial analyses of fish population change for each experimental unit.**
**Implement a “titration experiment” where restrictions are increased until a positive response is achieved. **
******  ****Monitoring of SSL trends, but results could be confounded by lack of baseline data and natural environmental variability.**

**Monitoring for Management Efficacy (con’t.)**

## Monitoring for Management Efficacy (con’t.)

**Micro-monitor and manage localized interactions between SSLs and fisheries to reduce mortality when and where it occurs in the future.**** The expense of this program is high because it requires year-round monitoring to detect mortality events in all areas. **
**All basic monitoring activities (e.g., abundance, prey fields, mortality agents) must be expanded around key rookeries to pinpoint times and places of increased mortality so that appropriate management measures could be taken.**

**Monitoring for Management Efficacy (con’t.)**

## Preferred Option #3

**Option 3 is preferred because it is:**
**the only approach that directly tests the role of fishing in the decline**
**an adaptive management experiment, which reduces the possibility that regulation of the fishing industry is perpetuated without demonstrable benefit to SSLs**
**placement of open areas in historical areas of high effort decreases negative impacts on fisheries**
**provides contrasting treatments for valid comparisons; open areas restore opportunities for fisheries, whereas closed areas remove potential negative effects of fisheries on SSLs**
**controls for common effects, such as large-scale changes in oceanographic regimes**

**Preferred Option #3**

## Guidelines for Spatial Units Under Option 3

**Fished area.**** Design closures to minimize displacement of fisheries to more distant, less safe areas. Two experimental treatment options:**
**Close groundfish fisheries only**** – a positive response implicates groundfish fisheries**
**Close all fishing**** – a positive response implicates fishing. Closure to all fishing provides greatest contrast. **
**Size and number of treatment areas.**** Size depends on fish and SSL movements; radius ~20-50 nm. Replicates are needed to assess environmental variability.**
**Timescale.**** Some data gaps can be filled in <5 yr (e.g., evidence of disease, localized depletion, improved mortality estimates), but 5-10 yr required to assess recruitment and mortality rates**

**Guidelines for Spatial Units Under Option 3**

## Final Conclusions

**Western stock of SSLs declined >80% since the 1970s with a spatial and temporal pattern**
**Evaluation of hypotheses suggests that:**
**Multiple factors probably contributed to the decline in the 1980s, including incidental and deliberate mortality associated with fishing activities**
**Although no hypothesis can be excluded based on existing data, top-down sources of mortality appear to pose the greatest threat to the current population**
**Critical information gaps and research and monitoring priorities were identified**
**A spatially explicit management experiment is proposed to test the role of fishing in the decline**

**Final Conclusions**