A Requirements Plan for Improving 

the Understanding of the Status 

of U.S. Protected Marine Species 

Report of the 

NOAA Fisheries National Task Force 

for Improving Marine Mammal and Turtle Stock Assessments 

September 2004 

Richard Merrick (Chair) 

Laurie Allen 

Robyn Angliss 

George Antonelis 

Tom Eagle 

Sheryan Epperly 

Linda lones 

Steve Reilly 

Barbara Schroeder 

Steve Swartz 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 
A Requirements Plan 

for Improving the Understanding 

of the Status of U.S. Protected Marine Species 

Report of the NOAA Fisheries National Task Force 

for Improving Marine Mammal and Turtle Stock Assessments 

Richard Merrick (Chair), Laurie Allen, Robyn Angliss, 

George Antonelis, Tom Eagle, Sheryan Epperly, 

Linda Jones, Steve Reilly, Barbara Schroeder, and Steve Swartz 

September 2004 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-63 

u.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Donald L. Evans, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (ret.), Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
Copies of this document may be obtained by contacting: 

Office of Protected Resources, F/PR 

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 

1315 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

An online version is available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/overview/publicat.html 

This publication may be cited as: 

NMFS. 2004. A Requirements Plan for Improving the Understanding of the Status of U.S. 

Protected Marine Species. Report of the NOAA Fisheries National Task Force for Improving 

Marine Mammal and Turtle Stock Assessments. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-F/SPO-63, 112 p. 
Table of Contents 

List of illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. IV 

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. IV 

Executive Summary ........................................................................ vii 

I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

A. What Is a Protected Species Stock Assessment? ......................................... 1 

B. Why Develop a Protected Species Requirements Plan? ................................... 1 

C. The Process by Which the Plan Was Developed ......................................... 3 

D. Relationship to the Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment Improvement Plan .................... 4 

E. Scope of This Requirements Plan .................................................... 5 

II. Defining NOAA Fisheries Protected Species Stock Assessment Mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

A. Legislative Mandates ............................................................... 6 

B. Changing Demands ............................................................... 7 

C. Perspective of Individual Scientists .................................................. 11 

D. Defining Tiers I and II ............................................................ 15 

E. Moving Beyond an Evolutionary Approach - Tier ill and Future Workshops ................. 16 

ill. Evaluation of Stock Assessment Data Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 

A. Defining the Matrix of Needs ....................................................... 17 

B. Data Categories ................................................................. 17 

C. Information Tiers ................................................................ 21 

D. Assessment of the Present Status of Protected Species Stock Assessment under the Matrix 

of Needs ....................................................................... 24 

IV. Resource Requirements ................................................................ 27 

A. National Summary ............................................................... 27 

B. Region-Specific Needs to Achieve Tiers I and II ........................................ 30 

C. General Resource Issues ........................................................... 55 

v. Implementation Strategies .............................................................. 58 

A. Implementation and Time Frames ................................................... 58 

B. Funding - NOAA Fisheries and its Partners ............................................ 59 

C. Development of This Plan ......................................................... 59 

Literature Cited ........................................................................... 60 

Acknowledgments ......................................................................... 61 

APPENDIX I. Legislative Mandates for NOAA Fisheries under the Endangered Species Act and Marine 

Mammal Protection Act ...................................................... 87 

APPENDIX II. Protected Species Stock Assessment Improvement Plan Questionnaire ................. 93 

APPENDIX ill. Responses to the Protected Species Stock Assessment Improvement Program Needs 

Questionnaire ...................................................... '....... 105 

111 
List of Illustrations 

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the stock assessment process ........................................ 2 

Figure 2. Priorities for general improvement in data collection for protected species stock assessments 

averaged across NOAA Fisheries Science Centers and taxa based on a survey of 17 NOAA 

stock assessment scientists. For ease of interpretation priorities have been reordered from the 

questionnaire so that 1 is lowest priority and 5 is highest .................................. 12 

Figure 3. Priorities for improvement in abundance surveys averaged across NOAA Fisheries Science 

Centers and taxa based on a survey of 17 NOAA stock assessment scientists. For ease of 

interpretation priorities have been reordered from the questionnaire so that 1 is lowest priority 

and 5 is highest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 

Figure 4. Priorities for improvement in mortality estimation averaged across NOAA Fisheries Science 

Centers and taxa based on a survey of 17 NOAA stock assessment scientists. For ease of 

interpretation priorities have been reordered from the questionnaire so that 1 is lowest priority 

and 5 is highest .................................................................. 14 

Figure 5. Estimated percentage of time currently spent on Activites (clear bar) compared to desired 

percentages of time (black bar) averaged across NOAA Fisheries Science Centers and taxa 

based on a survey of 17 NOAA stock assessment scientists ............................... 14 

Figure 6. Priorities for professional development averaged across NOAA Fisheries Science Centers and 

taxa based on a survey of 17 NOAA stock assessment scientists. For ease of interpretation 

priorities have been reordered from the questionnaire so that 1 is lowest priority and 5 is highest .. 15 

Figure 7. Summary ofthe key features of the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence .................... 22 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Simplified data categories and levels for marine mammals and turtles as deVeloped under the 

Protected Species Stock Assessment Improvement Plan ......................... '. . . . . . . . .. 18 

Table 2. Summary of status of marine mammal stocks using the Tier I and Tier IT classification scheme 

described in the text. .............................................................. 25 

Table 3. Data quality for marine mammal stocks. Tier I equates with Levels 0-1 data and Tier IT 

equates to Levels 2-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

Table 4. Summary of status of marine turtle stocks using the Tier I and Tier IT classification scheme 

described in the text. .............................................................. 26 

Table 5. Data quality for marine turtle stocks. Tier I equates with Levels 0-1 data and Tier IT equates to 

Levels 2-4. . ..................................................................... 26 

Table 6. National protected species staffing requirements. The numbers of additional staff needed to 

collect the types of information to maintain the status quo and to meet NOAA's legislative 

mandates (Tier 11), respectively, are provided ........................................... 28 

IV 
Table 7. Protected species vessel and aircraft requirements by FMC ................................ 29 

Table 8. AFSC protected species staffing requirements for mammals. The numbers of additional staff 

needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier n and to meet NOAA's 

legislative mandates (Tier II), respectively, are provided ................................... 31 

Table 9. NEFSC protected species staffing requirements for mammals. The numbers of additional staff 

needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier n and to meet NOAA's 

legislative mandates (Tier II), respectively, are provided ................................... 34 

Table 10. NEFSC protected species staffing requirements for turtles. The numbers of additional staff 

needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier n and to meet NOAA's 

legislative mandates (Tier II), respectively, are provided ................................... 35 

Table 11. NWFSC protected species staffing requirements for mammals. The numbers of additional staff 

needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier n and to meet NOAA's 

legislative mandates (Tier II), respectively, are provided ................................... 38 

Table 12. PIFSC protected species staffing requirements for mammals. The numbers of additional staff 

needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier n and to meet NOAA's 

legislative mandates (Tier II), respectively, are provided ................................... 40 

Table 13. PIFSC protected species staffing requirements for turtles. The numbers of additional staff 

needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier n and to meet NOAA's 

legislative mandates (Tier II), respectively, are provided ................................... 42 

Table 14. SEFSC protected species staffing requirements for mammals. The numbers of additional staff 

needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier n and to meet NOAA's 

legislative mandates (Tier II), respectively, are provided ................................... 45 

Table 15. SEFSC protected species staffing requirements for turtles. The numbers of additional staff 

needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier n and to meet NOAA's 

legislative mandates (Tier II), respectively, are provided ................................... 46 

Table 16. SWFSC protected species staffing requirements for mammals. The numbers of additional staff 

needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier n and to meet NOAA's 

legislative mandates (Tier II), respectively, are provided ................................... 51 

Table 17. SWFSC protected species staffing requirements for turtles. The numbers of additional staff 

needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier n and to meet NOAA's 

legislative mandates (Tier II), respectively, are provided ................................... 52 

Appendix Table 1. Detailed protected species mandates within NOAA Fisheries ....................... 62 

Appendix Table 2. Regulatory requirements for marine mammal data and information. . ................ 67 

Appendix Table 3. Data quality and status of U.S. marine mammal stocks by region ................... 75 

Appendix Table 4. Data quality and status of U.S. marine turtle populations by region .................. 85 

v 

Executive Summary 

Under the mandates of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA), NOAA Fisheries must regularly evaluate the status of protected species, specifically 

marine mammal and turtle species. In addition, these laws prohibit the taking of protected 

species unless a specific exception, usually granted through a permit or authorization, is made for 

a particular activity that may affect any protected species. Such authorizations require NOAA 

Fisheries to assess the impacts of the activity on protected species and their habitats, with both 

done in the context of other anthropogenic and natural factors that may affect the species. Thus, 

timely, accurate, and precise biological information is essential for NOAA Fisheries to determine 

the status of each stock or population and to design effective and efficient conservation programs 

to promote the recovery of the affected populations. 

These stock assessment mandates have been supplemented over the past decade by changes in 

how protected resource management and science are conducted. These changes include: 

international and domestic interest in observing systems; mapping; ecosystem approaches; 

demands by courts and the public for greater precision; scientific certainty and transparency in 

decisions; increased litigation by non-governmental organizations to pursue policy and 

management agendas; expanding interest by executive branch leadership in partnerships between 

federal agencies; and the comprehensive NOAA Requirements Planning and Program Review 

(2002). 

To address and meet its mandates, NOAA Fisheries must improve its research capability and 

capacity, and significantly enhance the quantity and quality of its protected species stock 

assessment data and analyses. NOAA's Strategic Plan specifically sets the goal to move toward 

"an ecosystem-based approach to management" where an "ecosystem" is defined as a 

geographically specified system of organisms (including humans), the environment, and the 

processes that control its dynamics. The "environment" is the biological, chemical, physical, and 

social conditions that surround organisms, and should be qualified as biological, chemical, 

physical, and/or social. To meet changing demands, NOAA Fisheries must pursue a 

requirements-based program to increase and improve its protected species stock assessment 

research activities in the context of broad based, integrated ecosystem investigations. 

The plan provided here is designed to provide the basis for improving NOAA Fisheries' 

protected species stock assessments. The plan explicitly identifies the attributes of a stock 

assessment that make it reliable, and enumerates NOAA Fisheries' goals for the protected 

species stock assessment program. The plan reviews the current state of the protected species 

stock assessment program in terms of present research capability and capacity, and delineates the 

resources necessary to acquire reliable assessment information. Finally, this plan describes 

reasonable expectations from the assessment program given current levels of effort and support, 

and highlights the resource gap between FY03 levels of program effort and the levels required to 

fully meet the NOAA Fisheries' legislative mandates. 

Vll 
The plan was developed through a series of discussions both within NOAA and with several of 

its major Federal partners (the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, Minerals Management 

Service, and the US Navy). Work was initiated in October 2001 and involved a series of 

meetings conducted through December 2002. NOAA Fisheries Science Center staff were polled 

in January-April 2003 to identify: a) the status of all US marine mammal and turtle stocks as of 

FY2003; b) the resources dedicated to research on these species as of FY2003; c) the resources 

needs to maintain our level of knowledge on protected resource stocks at the status quo (known 

as Tier I); and d) the additional resources required to improve the information on the status of all 

stocks to meet legislative mandates (known as Tier II). 

Ofthe 165 marine mammal stocks assessed by NOAA Fisheries in FY2003, 134 were at Tier I 

status while 31 had attained Tier II status. Improvements for most stocks are needed in all five 

data categories: stock identification, abundance, fishery mortality, and .assessment frequency and 

data quality. The greatest need is in stock identification (101 stocks [61 %] are deficient in this 

category). However, significant improvements are also necessary under the remaining four 

categories. 

All ofthe 13 populations of marine turtles were considered to be at Tier I in FY2003. Major 

deficiencies exist for almost all of the data categories. 

All six of NOAA Fisheries' regional science centers have staffing for marine mammal stock 

assessments, and all but the Northwest and Alaska are also staffed to assess marine turtles. A 

few Regional and Headquarters Offices have staff involved in stock assessment work, notably in 

the conduct of fishery observer programs. As of mid year FY03, 195 NOAA FTE were involved 

with protected resource stock assessments. This full time staff is supplemented by ca. 200 

contract staff, most of which are either surveyor fishery observers, although are a few (6) 

students, interns, and postdoctoral associates. Agency-wide, protected species- fishery observer 

programs include 156 individuals (36 FTE and 120 contract). 

Aircraft and ships are the principal physical resources required to conduct protected species 

surveys. In FY03, 2094 flight hours (539 flight days) and 765 sea days were used nationally. All 

Centers use both aircraft and ships in their surveys, though the mix varies significantly. Most 

offshore cetacean surveys are conducted using high-winged, twin engine aircraft, such as a 

DeHavilland Twin Otter or a Rockwell Aero Commander. NOAA's Marine and Aviation 

Operations (NMAO) office is typically the supplier for NOAA Fisheries' use of Twin Otter 

aircraft. Aircraft needs not met through NMAO (e.g., helicopters and single engine aircraft) are 

met through charters. 

The ship time (765 sea days) required for protected species surveys is provided either by NMAO 

or by charter. Center staff presently spend a considerable amount of time aboard NOAA vessels, 

though frequently the vessels are used for purposes other than abundance surveys (e.g., fisheries 

trawl and long-line surveys). The specialized nature of many protected species surveys (e.g., 

shallow draft for inshore surveys or two observing platforms) has led to chartering ofUNOLS 

and commercial vessels to supplement the available NOAA vessels. 

Vl11 
The Tier I research program will involve no new surveys or observer initiatives, but will make 

better use of existing programs and data. This level of effort will simply maintain (or restore) the 

status quo and improve assessments for some species in all regions by making better use of 

existing data or surveys. However, meeting Tier I needs will require an increase of377 

individuals (137 FTE, 234 contract, six others). Much of this increase in staffing will improve 

existing fishery observer programs to meet desired levels of precision for mortality estimates. 

Even without additional surveys, an estimated 345 sea days and 870 flight hours (223 days) are 

needed to simply maintain the current level of assessments, because significant erosion of 

research spending power has occurred over the past decade. Fewer sea days or flight hours are 

available for surveys, which has led to abbreviated surveys and reduced precision of abundance 

estimates. 

To achieve the MMP A and ESA' s mandates, all remaining Tier I stocks will need eventually to 

be reach Tier IT. This will involve deploying new surveys and observing additional fisheries. An 

additional 120 FTE and 386 contract employees will be needed. Again, expansion of observer 

programs to adequately sample all fisheries with protected species interactions will constitute a 

major part of this increase (22 FTE and 184 contract employees). Because Tier IT assessments 

typically involve expanded survey effort (e.g., seasonal rather than annual surveys), large 

increases in platform time requirements will occur. Vessel time will increase by 705 sea days 

and flight time by 900 flight hours (~222 days). Many of these days and hours will be on 

chartered vessels or aircraft rather than through NMAO. 

Implementation of this plan will take upwards to 10 years. However, the result will be that for 

the first time NOAA Fisheries will achieve the information requirements of the ESA and MMPA 

for protected species assessments, and NOAA Fisheries will be significantly closer to achieving 

an "ecosystem approach to management." 

IX 

I. Introduction 

A. What Is a Protected Species Stock 

Assessment? 

Under Federal law, NOAA Fisheries must 

assess the status of all protected species, 

which include all marine mammals, marine 

turtles, and those marine and anadromous 

species (e.g., salmonids) that are listed as 

depleted under the MMP A, or listed as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA. In 

addition, these laws also prohibit the taking 

of protected species unless a specific 

exception, usually through a permit or 

authorization, is made for a particular 

activity that may affect any protected 

species. Such authorizations require NOAA 

Fisheries to assess the impact that the 

activity will have on protected species and 

their habitats, and these impacts must be 

considered in the context of other 

anthropogenic and natural factors that may 

affect the pertinent species. 

A protected species stock assessment (Fig. 

I) consists of collecting, analyzing, and 

reporting information related to the status of 

protected species and the impacts of human 

activity upon protected species. The most 

basic measure of protected species status is 

an estimate or index ofthe abundance at any 

given time. A series of such estimates over 

time allows an evaluation of the 

population's trend (i.e., is it increasing, 

decreasing or stable?). Additional 

information related to life history, such as 

rates of growth, sex and age structure of the 

population, age of sexual maturity, agespecific birth and death rates, and maximum 

longevity, allow scientists to assess the 

status of protected species populations more 

completely than from just abundance and 

trend information alone. 

Other information critical to assessing the 

impacts of human activities includes the 

magnitude of human-caused mortality, 

injury or stress; the seasonal distribution and 

regional densities of protected species; the 

impacts of natural environmental variability 

on the population; and the status and 

abundance of prey and predators. To 

evaluate the impact of anthropogenic 

activities on protected species, NOAA 

Fisheries uses population information along 

with information on the nature and scope of 

human activity in an affected area to 

estimate the likelihood that protected species 

will encounter human activity and to predict 

the impact ofthat activity (along with other 

activities) on the affected protected species 

and their habitats. 

B. Why Develop a Protected Species 

Requirements Plan? 

The protected species stock assessment 

program is a fundamental part of the 

conservation program required under 

Federal law. Statutes specifically require 

that NOAA Fisheries evaluate the status of 

marine mammals and threatened or 

endangered species according to a defined 

schedule. These laws also prohibit the 

taking of protected species, with specific 

exceptions that usually can be only applied 

if the taking is shown to be safe for the 

affected stocks or populations. Thus, timely, 

accurate, and precise biological information 

allows NOAA Fisheries to determine the 

status of each stock or population as 

required by law and to design effective and 

efficient conservation programs to promote 

recovery of affected stocks. Another 

important function that is enabled 
Stock 

Identification 

r 1 

Abundance Mortality 

Estimate Estimate (M) 

l I 

'If 

Public - Stock Scientific Peer 

Review , Assessment Review 

" No Yes Develop Plan ... MonitorM -... M>Allowed? , to 

ReduceM 

-- Figure 1. Conceptual model of the stock assessment process. 

by reliable information on the status of 

protected species and the impacts of human 

activity is the design of regulatory programs 

on commercial, recreational, and other 

activities in marine environments that ensure 

appropriate levels of protection as required 

by law; such regulatory programs would 

ensure the conservation of the affected 

stocks, but not over-regulate the affected 

industries. 

This protected species requirements plan has 

several purposes. First, the plan explicitly 

2 

identifies the attributes of a stock assessment 

that make it reliable, and enumerates NOAA 

Fisheries' goals for the protected species 

stock assessment program. The plan also 

reviews the current state of NOAA 

Fisheries' protected species stock 

assessment program and delineates the 

resources required to acquire reliable 

assessment information. Thus, the plan 

describes reasonable expectations from the 

current protected species assessment and 

highlights the resource gap between current 

levels of program effort and the levels 
necessary to fully meet NOAA Fisheries' 

protected species mandates. 

The goal of improying the stock assessment 

program is to provide sufficient information 

for NOAA Fisheries to make protected 

species management decisions based upon 

reliable scientific information. Such a 

decision making process would allow 

American society to enjoy maximum 

benefits of living marine resources while 

ensuring that the uses of these resources do 

not have a significant adverse impacts on 

species or resources that society has chosen 

to protect through Federal law. 

As the utilization of marine resources 

continues to increase, improved stock 

assessment programs will be required to 

achieve the appropriate balance between 

increased use of resources and 

environmental protection. As stock 

assessments improve, managers will be able 

to increasingly address the cumulative and 

indirect effects of various human activities 

and natural environmental variability on 

protected species. The scientific framework 

for detecting, monitoring and evaluating 

cumulative and indirect effects on species is 

insufficient. 

Improving the quantity and quality of 

protected species status information can only 

be achieved by enhancing and enlarging 

capabilities for gathering and analyzing 

information on status. New "ecosystem 

approaches" need to be developed to 

integrate physical, biological, chemical and 

socioeconomic factors affecting protected 

species and their habitats. Scientifically 

accurate and timely information to support 

such "ecosystem" programs must be 

available to support comprehensive 

3 

conservation management. Integrated 

research and monitoring programs need to 

be implemented to satisfactorily address the 

questions arising from increased utilization 

of living marine resources. 

c. The Process by Which the Plan Was 

Developed 

This plan was developed through a series of 

discussions within NOAA and with several 

of its major Federal partners (the U.S. 

Marine Mammal Commission, Minerals 

Management Service, and the US Navy). 

Work was initiated at a meeting of NOAA 

Fisheries Assistant Regional Administrators 

for Protected Resources held in St. 

Petersburg Beach, Florida in October 2001. 

This was followed by meetings in June and 

August 2002 between NOAA Fisheries and 

its Federal partners to define their 

management information needs. As 

discussions ensued, it became apparent that 

protected species information needs 

encompassed more than just the traditional 

stock assessments. At this same time, a 

questionnaire was distributed to NOAA 

stock assessment scientists to elicit their 

qualitative perspectives on the strengths and 

deficiencies in protected species stock 

assessment science. 

In September 2002, representatives from 

NOAA Fisheries' Science Centers and 

Regional Offices met in Falmouth, MA to 

define the current condition of protected 

species stock assessments, and to develop a 

strategy for improving these assessments 

that would meet Agency mandates under 

MMP A and ESA, as well as the collateral 

data needs of its partners. Regional Office 

and Headquarters staff met again in 
December 2002 to finalize the list of data 

needs. 

Based on these activities, all of the NOAA 

Fisheries' Science Centers were polled in 

January-April 2003 to identify: a) the status 

of all US marine mammal and turtle stocks; 

b) the current fiscal and personnel resources 

dedicated to research on these species; and 

c) the resources needed to maintain the 

status quo level of knowledge (known as 

Tier I) and the resources needed to improve 

the status of information on all stocks to 

meet legislative mandates (known as Tier 

11). Additional discussions recurred between 

NOAA marine turtle scientists and managers 

at a workshop in August 2003 to refine the 

marine turtle research component of the 

plan. 

This report documents the results of all of 

these discussions and provides the final 

recommendations for improving NOAA 

Fisheries' protected species stock 

assessment program. 

D. Relationship to the Marine Fisheries 

Stock Assessment Improvement Plan 

(SAIP) 

In October 2001, NOAA published a 

companion document titled Marine 

Fisheries Stock Assessment Improvement 

Plan, Report of the National Marine 

Fisheries Service National Task Force for 

Improving Fish Stock Assessments (NMFS 

2001). This plan was developed largely 

through the efforts of a task force of 

assessment scientists from the NOAA 

Fisheries Science Centers. The protected 

species requirements plan has been 

structured in a very similar format. The 

4 

similarity between the two documents is 

intended to simplify interpretation and 

implementation of the two plans. Both 

employ a "level of data" approach to 

classifying the level of knowledge about 

individual stocks, and both use "tiers of 

knowledge" to evaluate data with respect to 

requirements under the key legislative 

mandates (MSFCMA for fisheries and the 

MMP NESA for protected species). 

The Protected Species plan, however, 

extends the data requirements beyond simple 

stock assessments (which are largely focused 

on stock identification, estimation of 

abundance and mortality) to include the data 

needs of the Regional Offices and NOAA's 

partners to support management. None the 

less, the ultimate goal of both plans is the 

same: to improve the quality of assessments 

for all stocks managed by NOAA Fisheries. 

A number of plans and initiatives which 

complement both the Plans. Examples 

include the NOAA Fisheries Data 

Acquisition Plan, NOAA Fisheries Science 

Assurance Quality Plan, NOAA's Ocean 

Exploration Program, and the Census of 

Marine Life Program. These and other 

programs are summarized in the Marine 

Fisheries SAIP. 

Lastly, this Plan provides a key to the 

achievement of NOAA Fisheries' primary 

mission goal under the 2005-2010 Strategic 

Plan which is to "Protect, Restore and 

Manage the Use of Coastal and Ocean 

Resources through Ecosystem-based 

Management." It is envisioned that only 

through implementation of the 

recommendations in this protected species 
SAIP that the Protected Species elements of 

NOAA's Mission goal will actually be 

achieved. 

E. Scope of This Requirements Plan 

The intent of this document is to describe 

the staffing, fiscal and logistic resources 

needed by NOAA Fisheries to fulfill its 

mandates under the MMP A and ESA. To 

that end, the report has been divided into 

three sections. Chapter n discusses NOAA 

Fisheries' stock assessment mandates. 

Chapter ill presents a framework for 

assessing the status of marine turtles and 

mammals with respect to these mandates, 

5 

and provides the results ofthe application of 

this framework to assess the status of all US 

stocks of marine mammals and turtles. 

Chapter IV reviews the resources currently 

dedicated to protected species research and 

assessments, and identifies the additional 

resources needed to maintain the status quo 

level of knowledge (Tier I) and to 

adequately meet NOAA's legislative 

mandates (Tier TI) 

This plan only deals with two groups of taxa 

within the NOAA Protected Species trust: 

mammals and turtles. There are a number of 

other protected marine species (fish and 

invertebrates) which the Agency assesses, 

but which are not included in this Plan. 
II. Defining NOAA Fisheries Protected Species 

Stock Assessment Mandate 

A. Legislative Mandates 

NOAA's primary mandates for managing 

marine protected species are the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMP A). NOAA Fisheries 

has both science and management 

requirements under these statutes. The 

Sections ofthese statutes are described in 

Appendix I. Appendix Table 1 presents a 

summary of NOAA Fisheries activities by 

mandates with Appendix Table 2 listing the 

data necessary to fulfill these mandates. 

1. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Key elements of the ESA with respect to 

protected species stock assessments can be 

found under Sections 4 and 7. Section 4 of 

the ESA covers listingldelisting and 

recovery planning activities and requires the 

Secretary to determine if a species is 

endangered or threatened based on five 

criteria, determine if a listed species should 

be removed from the list, identify critical 

habitat (if applicable) and develop recovery 

plans that specify management activities that 

provide for recovery. In order to accomplish 

listing and recovery under the ESA, 

information about the following must be 

assessed: threats to habitat, utilization of the 

species, impacts of disease/predation; 

quantitative assessment of other impacts, 

natural or manmade (human-related 

mortality), species abundance & trends, 

popUlation structure, evaluation of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, and evaluation of 

existing conservation 

6 

mechanisms. These are a combination of 

science and management needs. 

Section 7 of the ESA contains the 

consultation provisions for Federal actions. 

NOAA Fisheries must determine whether 

the action permitted, funded or carried out 

by any Federal agency is in compliance with 

the jeopardy and adverse modification of 

critical habitat standards. NOAA Fisheries 

works with action agencies to evaluate their 

activities, when requested, and if adverse 

effects are likely to occur, works with the 

agency to eliminate to minimize those 

effects, consistent with the original action. 

The analyses of the effects of an action 

require a suite of data and information 

similar to that required for listing and 

recovery. The consultation provisions use a 

survival standard and then require 

conservation actions to minimize taking that 

may still occur after jeopardy or adverse 

modification of critical habitat is no longer 

an issue. This again is a combination of 

science and management needs. Enough 

data and information on the species status 

and expected impacts from the action are 

needed to make the best decisions: decisions 

that minimize both the effects of an activity 

on listed species and the socioeconomic 

implications of the changes to the proposed 

action, consistent with its original purpose. 

Otherwise, in the face of uncertainty, the 

ESA requires the benefit of the doubt be 

given to the species and can result in overly 

precautionary and costly measures that, with 

better information, may have been avoided. 
2. The Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) 

The key provisions of the MMPA with 

respect to stock assessments are Sections 

117 and 118. Section 117 ofthe MMPA 

contains the stock assessment provisions. 

The legislation provides a clear prescriptive 

mandate from Congress to "prepare a stock 

assessment report for each marine mammal 

stock which occurs" in U.S. waters, "each 

stock assessment, based on the best 

scientific information available, shall--

(1) describe the geographic range of affected 

stock, including any seasonal or temporal 

variation;(2) provide for such stock the 

minimum population estimate, current and 

maximum net productivity rates, current 

popUlation trend, including a description of 

the information upon which these are based; 

(3) estimate the annual human caused 

mortality and serious injury of the stock by 

source and , for a strategic stock, other 

factors that may be causing a decline or 

impeding recovery of the stock, including 

effects on marine mammal habitat and prey; 

(4) describe commercial fisheries that 

interact with the stock, including 

-approximate number of vessels actively 

participating in each such fishery; the 

estimated level of incidental mortality and 

serious injury ofthe stock by each such 

fishery on an annual basis; seasonal or area 

differences in such incidental mortality or 

serious injury; and the rate ..... of such 

incidental mortality or serious injury etc ... 

and (5 & 6) categorize the stock and 

estimate its potential biological removal 

levels (PBR). 

Section 118 addresses taking of marine 

mammals incidental to commercial fishing 

operations. The two most prominent 

7 

features of this section's required 

capabilities are to maintain a list of fisheries 

that describes the level of marine mammal 

interactions and to conduct "take reduction 

teams" for strategic stocks whose fishing 

mortality exceeds their potential biological 

removal level. How these teams are 

conducted is also specifically described in 

the Act, including team composition, 

duration of planning, and the use of a 

consensus-based negotiation process. This 

section instructs that Congress's ultimate 

goal is to reduce incidental mortality due to 

commercial fishing to levels approaching a 

"zero mortality rate". Thus, this section 

adds a number of administrative and 

analytical requirements to the scientific 

information discussed in the paragraphs 

above, that describes species status and 

population impacts. Additional analytical 

responsibilities include modeling to assess 

management strategies proposed by the 

teams and fishing gear technology testing. 

Administrative capabilities beyond take 

reduction team support include registration 

of fishermen participating in fisheries with 

high or occasional takes of marine 

mammals, a self-reporting process, and 

monitoring through observer coverage. 

B. Changing Demands 

The demand for protected resource scientific 

investigations and status of stock 

information has increased in the last decade, 

and this demand is dictating how protected 

resource management and science needs to 

proceed in the future. Forces that are 

driving these changes include increasing 

interests in international and domestic ocean 

observing systems, coastal and ocean habitat 

mapping, ecosystem approaches to 
management for all living marine species, 

and legal challenges to the adequacy and 

accuracy of the scientific basis of NOAA 

Fisheries' regulatory actions and permits for 

takes of protected species. 

Increasingly, litigation is being used to 

pursue policy and management agendas by 

non-government organizations, commercial 

and industrial interests which are regulated 

by NOAA Fisheries. Frequently, the 

agency's actions are found to be "arbitrary 

and capricious" owing to the reality that the 

"best available" information on protected 

species is insufficient to support the 

proposed mitigation actions and/or permit 

requirements. In their rulings courts point 

out the need for greater accuracy and 

precision of scientific information, clear 

measures of scientific uncertainty 

surrounding these data, and transparency 

surrounding the process on which 

management decisions are based. 

All of these demands have fueled the need 

for improved information on the status of 

protected resource populations, and for 

improvements in the methods and 

techniques utilized to assess these species. 

In its 2005-2010 Strategic Plan NOAA has 

broadened its mission to include 

"understanding and predicting changes in 

the Earth's environment to conserve and 

manage coastal and marine resources to 

meet our Nation's economic, social, and 

environmental needs." In doing so, NOAA 

has broadened and increased the information 

requirements from its component agencies, 

including NOAA Fisheries. NOAA's 

Strategic Plan specifically sets the goal of 

moving toward "an ecosystem-based 

approach to management" where an 

8 

"ecosystem" is defined as a geographically 

specified system of organisms (including 

humans), the environment, and the processes 

that control its dynamics. The 

"environment" is the biological, chemical, 

physical, and social condition that surrounds 

organisms, and when appropriate, should be 

qualified as biological, chemical, physical, 

and/or social. These terms define the 

specific scientific information standards, 

needs and research requirements for NOAA 

Fisheries' protected species management 

programs. 

NOAA Fisheries has insufficient resources 

to meet legislative mandates and attain the 

mission goals of the Agency with respect to 

protected species programs. The Agency, 

however, has the primary management 

responsibilities to conserve and protect these 

species. Absent sufficient resources, the 

alternative is to promulgate conservative, 

costly and sometimes burdensome 

mitigation measures upon constituents to 

minimize the risk to protected species 

populations. 

Some Federal agencies have invested their 

own resources to complement NOAA 

Fisheries' efforts to address protected 

resource issues that are directly relevant to 

their interests. For example, NOAA 

Fisheries invests approximately $100,000 

annually to investigate the effects of ocean 

noise on popUlations of protected species. 

The US Navy, however, invests 

approximately $7 million annually in marine 

mammal and turtle related acoustics 

research, specifically directed at evaluating 

the effects of sonar systems and other 

operational noise on individual animals. 

Similarly, the Minerals Management Service 

invests millions of dollars each year to 
monitor, define, and assess the effects of 

coastal and offshore oil and gas exploration, 

development, and production activities on 

protected species and their habitats. 

Such partnerships between NOAA Fisheries 

and other agencies provide the means by 

which adequate information on the potential 

effects of Navy and oil and gas industry 

activities might be obtained and evaluated as 

required by law. 

With or without its partners, NOAA 

Fisheries must undertake research to acquire 

the information needed to support 

management actions, particularly concerning 

controversial activities. Inadequate 

understanding of the potential adverse 

impacts of some permitted activities drives 

this research. Scientific uncertainty 

involving these potential effects has often 

led to litigation that has blocked research on 

those activities that would provide the 

scientific basis for reasonable mitigation 

actions. Consequently, the courts and 

NOAA Fisheries have had to impose 

conservative and often burdensome 

requirements on their constituents, rather 

than pursue research that would furnish 

information needed to develop reasonably 

prudent mitigation measures. 

For many protected species an important 

consideration is obtaining information on 

stock status as it relates to potential takes in 

specific operational areas (e.g., coastal 

development, Navy operation and test 

ranges). Information on the density, 

abundance and distribution of these species 

in specific time and area windows is 

required to assess the potential adverse 

effects of a proposed activity in terms of 

"takes" of protected species. In most cases, 

9 

NOAA Fisheries' protected resource surveys 

cover broad areas of ocean and coastline and 

it is not possible to routinely develop 

estimates of animal densities for specific 

subareas of interest. 

An additional research challenge is the need 

to develop clear criteria defining 

"harassment" in the context of assessing the 

effects of noise and other anthropogenic 

activities (e.g., ship disturbance, whalewatching activities, recreational viewing of 

marine mammals) on the behavior and 

health of protected species. In this regard, it 

is desirable to develop a national protected 

resource database that contains current 

information on the status, abundance, 

seasonal distribution and habitat 

requirements for all protected resource 

species. If such a database also included 

sources and levels of anthropogenic noise, 

the potential effects of noise and other 

disturbance associated with a particular 

activity in a particular area could be 

evaluated with respect to the species and 

numbers of animals potentially affected. 

Over time, such a database could generate an 

"ocean noise budget" that would have 

predictive capability for all living marine 

resources and that could be used as a guide 

for mitigating ocean noise from ongoing 

industry and development. 

Collection of survey data and ancillary 

observations, including complementary 

oceanographic and habitat information, is 

presently not an integrated process. 

Individual data sets (e.g., sightings, acoustic 

detections, physical oceanographic 

measurements, prey density data, etc.) are 

currently integrated post-collection, and this 

is a labor-intensive costly exercise which 

delays the analyses of findings, is not 
conducive to an integrated "ecosystem" 

approach, and is further subject to process 

errors. Developing and implementing 

integrated data collection systems on 

NOAA's research platforms would improve 

the accuracy, utility, and timeliness of 

protected resource survey information, and 

advance NOAA Fisheries' protected species 

stock assessment capabilities. 

As data acquisition capabilities improve, and 

the volume and complexity of information 

increases, additional analytic staff will be 

required. At present, NOAA Fisheries' 

protected species analytical potential is 

limited because available staff resources 

must concentrate on specific target species 

rather than analyzing ecosystem information 

in a broader, more comprehensive context. 

Accurate forecasting of protected species 

distribution and abundance will also depend 

on development of predictive modeling 

techniques. Development of such 

techniques remains to be established as a 

routine operational activity within NOAA 

Fisheries' Protected Species programs. 

In recent years NOAA Fisheries has begun 

to develop passive acoustic methodologies 

to augment its traditional visual survey 

methods for marine mammals. These 

programs are examples ofthe potentially 

significant improvements to standard 

research techniques that application of new 

technologies can achieve. Traditional visual 

surveys are limited to daytime and periods of 

relatively calm weather. The addition of 

passive acoustic detection methodologies 

allows survey efforts to continue during 

nighttime and during periods of winds and 

fog that prohibit effective visual survey 

operations, thereby increasing the data 

10 

gathering capabilities of protected species 

survey efforts. Similarly, autonomous 

acoustic recording devices can gather marine 

mammal, ship traffic, and other acoustic 

information over prolonged periods of time 

not achievable by ship or aircraft surveys 

alone. Other sensor packages may be 

attached directly to individual animals to 

record behavior below the surface, received 

noise levels, and environmental information 

at depth, all never before possible for 

protected resource species. The greatest 

impediment to further development of 

technologies to improve protected resource 

information gathering is funding. 

Another means for increasing and improving 

NOAA Fisheries' protected species research 

capabilities is leveraging resources by 

participating in other marine research 

programs. Such a program is the "Census of 

Marine Life" where multiple government 

and non-government contribute their 

specific information on marine resources to 

build a compendium of related information 

from many sources. The contributors then 

have access to information collected by 

other institutions and agencies to 

complement data collected for their specific 

purposes. To date, NOAA Fisheries's 

participation and contribution to the "Census 

of Marine Life" has been limited by 

budgetary constraints, but the potential for 

improving the database for protected 

resource objectives through this and similar 

programs is great. 

In summary, increased protected resource 

research capability and capacity is required 

to develop a more complete picture of 

protected species status and the 

consequences oftheir interactions with 

human activities and within their ecosystem. 
This information is required at the 

population level over long time periods in 

the broadest sense down to small spatial and 

temporal scales to evaluate specific 

activities. To be most useful in formulating 

responsible and scientifically defensible 

management actions. Without the capability 

to operationally produce scientifically sound 

information on the status of protected 

species, the public will continue to employ 

litigation to challenge management 

decisions designed to protect, conserve, and 

recover protected resource populations and 

their habitats. To meet the challenging 

demands for protected resource information, 

NOAA Fisheries must pursue a 

requirements-based program to enhance and 

expand its protected species stock and 

ecosystem investigations. This stock 

assessment improvement plan is designed to 

provide the logic and justification for 

NOAA to invest in new research to meet its 

mandates, mission, goals and objectives. 

c. Perspective of Individual Scientists 

Another tactic to determine NOAA Fisheries 

protected species stock assessment needs 

was to poll the individual scientists for their 

opinion on how stock assessments can be 

improved. These were used: 

• To identify the most important factors 

hampering the Agency's ability to 

provide accurate, precise, valid, and 

credible stock assessments as well as 

information on seasonal distribution 

and abundance of marine turtles and 

mammals 

• To determine the resources (e.g., marine 

mammal and turtle survey data 

11 

collection programs; data collection 

programs for fishery statistics; hire 

additional stock assessment scientific 

staff; hire additional NOAA Fisheries 

staff such as survey personnel, 

technicians, database managers, 

computer programmers; obtain for 

ship/aircraft time) needed to improve 

the Agency's ability to develop credible 

assessments 

• To determine how such needs vary by 

regIOn 

• To use such information to develop 

specific proposals for new or expanded 

research programs, additional staff 

(including specific information on 

where, when and how many are 

needed), and other budget initiatives, if 

NOAA Fisheries determines that such 

would be beneficial. 

A questionnaire (Appendix II) was directed 

at stock assessment scientists (those who use 

and/or are involved in some component of 

the development of stock assessments), as 

these scientists have a good understanding 

of the deficiencies, if any, in the input data 

and/or models used in stock assessments. A 

similar questionnaire was used to develop 

the Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment 

Improvement Plan (NMFS 2001). 

Questionnaires were distributed to each of 

the NOAA Fisheries Science Centers, and 

responses were received from 17 key stock 

assessment scientists. Three responses 

reflected marine turtle needs, eight were for 

pinnipeds, and 11 were for cetaceans (some 

scientists responded for more than one taxa). 

Results are summarized in Appendix Ill. I 
Priority 

Slack structure 

Current population size 

Curre nt population trend 

Intrinsic rale of increase 

01 her life history characteristics 

Mort ality assessment 

Calculat ion of allowed incident al take 

Use of recovery faclors 

Figure 2. Priorities for general improvement in data collection for protected species stock assessments averaged 

across NOAA Fisheries Science Centers and taxa based on a survey of 17 NOAA stock assessment scientists. For 

ease of interpretation priorities have been reordered from the questionnaire so that 1 is lowest priority and 5 is 

highest. 

Questions 1 through 3 dealt with 

identification of the assessment topics most 

in need of improvement. Generally, the 

greatest needs were for improvements to 

abundance surveys, stock identification and 

mortality assessment (Fig. 2). Somewhat 

different needs were identified for marine 

turtles where current abundance, life history 

characteristics, and a calculation of allowed 

incidental take were considered most 

important. 

Priorities shifted somewhat when scientists 

were asked which data collection efforts 

require more funding. Funding for fishery 

observer programs became the clearest 

priority (Question 2) followed closely by 

data on abundance (annual and seasonal). 

Data on stock structure still remained in the 

first tier of critical information needs. 

12 

In response to Question 3 respondents 

indicated that, in terms of importance to the 

assessment of the species or species groups 

studied, the most important items were the 

quality of the abundance surveys, bycatch 

estimates, and stock structure. 

Questions 4 and 5 asked for a ranking of 

specific components of the abundance 

surveys and mortality estimates in terms of 

their impact on assessments. Priorities for 

abundance surveys were identified as 

sampling frequency, use of acoustics, mark 

and recapture studies, and tagging (Fig. 3). 

Overall, the most important needs were 

related to tagging (distribution/movement 

studies and tag development), and survey 

frequency (especially for more frequent 

annual and seasonal surveys). 

Improvements to other survey tools (e.g., 

satellite imagery, LIDAR, photogrammetry) 
Priority 

SAMPLING FREQUENCY FOR 5 URVEYS 

Increased sampling density within asurvey ~§§§§§~~~~:= Statistical analyslso! sampling design ~ 

Research Into the use of acousticsto Improve surveys ~:::~,_ 

Operational deployment of moored or fixed arrays ~ 

Funding for systematic mark and recapture studies 

Morefrequent sampling events 

Improved coordination/standardization of sampling among sites 

TAGGING 

Distribution and movement studies(wideandfinescale) 1~~~E:E::::~~:~ __ J _____ J 

Tagretentionstudi.s ~ 

Figure 3. Priorities for improvement in abundance surveys averaged over NOAA Fisheries Science Centers and taxa 

resulting from a survey of 17 NOAA stock assessment scientists. 

or software, while needed, were of lower 

priority. However, improvements to 

physical and human resources were of high 

priority as were increases in aircraft and ship 

time. More survey personnel were needed. 

The highest priority for the collection of data 

on mortalities of marine mammals and 

turtles was the expansion of fishery observer 

programs (Fig. 4). Improving the quality 

and quantity of staff to estimate mortalities 

was the next most important need. 

In questions 6 and 7, scientists were asked to 

estimate the percentage of time currently 

spent on various protected species activities, 

and then to estimate where the ideal amount 

that one should spend on each activity (Fig. 

5). Not surprisingly, there were a number of 

significant mismatches. Center scientists 

13 

would prefer to spend more time conducting 

research to improve the assessments and in 

professional development (e.g., writing, 

attending scientific meetings). They would 

like to spend less time providing 

management advice and in administrative 

activities. Similar results were obtained 

when fishery assessment scientists 

responded to similar questions as part of the 

Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment Marine 

Fisheries Stock Assessment Improvement 

Plan. 

Question 8 asked individual scientists to 

identify additional training/professional 

development opportunities that would best 

help Agency protected species scientists 

meet present or future assessment 

challenges. With respect to training, more 

education in statistical methods was the 
Priority 

Implementation or expansion of fisheriesobserver program iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.----1-----l 

Quantityorqualityofstafftoestimatemortalltles ••••••••• 

Mandatory reporting of key effort statistics •••••••• 

Statistlcalanalysisof sampling design ••••••• 1 

Analysisof accuracy and statistical propertiesof effort and economic data •••••• 

Quantity or quality of staff t 0 manage incoming dat a reporting and data processing ...... 

requirement s. II 

Quantity or quality of staff to analyze biological data collections ••••• 

Implement ation or expansion of stranding monitoring program 

Implementation or expansion of log book reporting system 

Integ rat ion of healt h assessment int 0 st randing programs 

Implementation or expansion of reporting system for other human-related mortalities 

Figure 4. Priorities for improvement in mortality estimation averaged across NOAA Fisheries Science Centers and 

taxa based on a survey of 17 NOAA stock assessment scientists. 

In the field participating in surveys 

Other fieidw ork or research 

Modeling research to improve stock assessment 

methodology 

Professional development (w riting papers, reading 

journals, attending conferences, training, etc.) 

Participation in Section 7 review s, evaluation of the 

consequences of alternative management strategies, 

Administrative activities 

0.0 5.0 

h10 

~2.3 

I 

I 

_33 3.2 

1°· 

Percentage of Time 

10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 

.4 

9.8 

7.3 

8.3 

8.8 10.6 

9.9 

17.6 

8.7 

10 .0 

12.8 

23. 

16.9 

10 • 

6.7 

15.7 

I 

Figure 5. Estimated percentage of time currently spent on activities (clear bar) compared to desired percentages of 

time (black bar) averaged across NOAA Fisheries Science Center based on questionnaires from 17 NOAA stock 

assessment scientists. 14 
Priority 

TRAINING ~ I 

Statistical methods •••••••••••• 

~ 1 

Survey methods •••••••• 

1 1 

GISanalyseslngeneral ••••••• 

~ 1 

GIS analysesfocused on marine or assessment analyses •••••••• 

~ 1 

Programmingorsoftwareuse ••••••• 

~ 1 

Project management ••••••• 

i 1 

People management •••••• 

i 1 

ASSISTANCEWITHADVANCEDCDURSEWDRK •••••• 

~ 1 

ADDITIONAL TRAVEL TOCONFERNCES ••••••• 

SPECIAL INTEREST WORKSHOPS DESIGNEDTO EXCHANGE INFORMATION ON 1 ...... 1 ••••••• 

SPECIFICSTOCKASSESSMENTTECHNIQUES .. 

Figure 6. Priorities for professional development averaged across all NOAA Fisheries Science Centers based on a 

survey of 17 NOAA stock assessment scientists. 

was the highest priority (Fig. 6). Special 

interest workshops designed to exchange 

infonnation on specific stock assessment 

techniques were also highly desired. These 

could be similar to the NOAA Fisheries 

National Stock Assessment Workshops held 

for marine fishery stock assessment 

scientists. 

D. Defining Tiers I and II (the Woods 

Hole Workshop) 

During September 2003, a three-day 

workshop was held with staff from all of the 

Science Centers, Regional Offices, NOAA 

Fisheries Headquarters (FIPR and FIST), 

and the Marine Mammal Commission to 

address the following issues related to the 

development of a protected species 

requirements plans: 

15 

• 

• 

• 

Identify which data were key to the 

assessments 

Develop criteria which could be used to 

classify the levels of knowledge for 

each data item 

Develop a cross-reference between the 

levels of knowledge and the 

infonnation requirements of the ESA 

and MMP A mandates 

Five data items as essential to assessments: 

stock identification, abundance, fishery 

mortality, assessment frequency, and 

assessment quality. A sixth item (life 

history characteristics) was subsequently 

added from discussions with the turtle 

research community. 

A five level system (0-4) was developed for 

classifying the knowledge available about 
each data item for each stock. Another 

systems was developed to characterize the 

status of knowledge about each stock with 

respect to stock assessment mandates: 

• Tier I - Improve Stock Assessments 

Using Existing Data Collection 

Resources: This tier maintains the 

status quo with no new assessment 

efforts. Much ofthe cost of Tier I 

stems from the need to recover the 

Agency's erosion of resources due to a 

lack of funding increases over the past 

decade. The quality of some stock 

assessments will improve under Tier I 

due to the application of techniques 

developed in recent years. However, 

the quality of many stocks' assessments 

would still remain deficient at Tier I. 

• Tier II - Elevate Stock Assessments 

to New National Standards of 

Excellence: At this Tier the quality of 

all stock assessments should achieve a 

level commensurate with ESA and 

MMP A mandates. This will require a 

significant increase in staffing and 

platform resources. 

Further details of these levels and the tiers 

are provided in Section III below. 

16 

E. Moving Beyond an Evolutionary 

Approach - Tier III and Future 

Workshops 

Development of the plan through Tiers I and 

II represents a simple evolution of past 

practices, however, current methods would 

not provide all the information required by a 

changing NOAA. The evolving information 

needs of NOAA and its partners require a 

host of data items (Appendix Table 2) that 

have not traditionally been collected as part 

of stock assessment efforts. To meet 

NOAA's ESAlMMPA mandates 

information is needed on: 

• Effects and exposure to threats 

• Habitat data 

• Behavioral and physiological data 

These themes and needs are subsumed under 

"Tier IIl- Next Generation Assessments". 

Because the methods needed to collect the 

types of data required under Tier III are 

unclear at the present, and large 

uncertainties remain at to what constitutes 

an "ecosystem-based" approach to marine 

mammal or turtle assessment, it is proposed 

that NOAA Fisheries' convene an 

international workshop of both protected 

species and fishery biologists to fully 

address this issue. 
III. Evaluation of Stock Assessment Data Needs 

A. Defining the Matrix of Needs 

Discussions within NOAA Fisheries and 

with NOAA's partners at the MMS, USN, 

and MMC focused on developing a 

complete list of data categories necessary to 

fulfill the mandates of the MMP A and ESA. 

As such, the list extended well beyond the 

data necessary to meet traditional stock 

assessment needs!. For each data category 

identified, an evaluation was conducted of 

the quality of knowledge for that category 

and a rank assigned from 0 to 4, with 0 

being the lowest level of knowledge (no 

data) and 4 the highest level. Rankings were 

hierarchical so before a higher level of 

knowledge could be achieved, all the lower 

levels fist had to be met. 

It was recognized that it would be difficult, 

ifnot impossible, to: 

• Collect all of the data identified for all 

species within the NOAA trust 

mandate, and 

• Obtain the highest "level" of knowledge 

for each species. 

Thus, a tiered approach was developed 

which focused on achieving a baseline level 

of data collection for a core set of data 

categories for all species to meet the basic 

mandates of the ESA and MMP A. More 

extensive data collection would occur for a 

!For example, since the 1994 

amendments to the MMPA, NOAA 

Fisheries' efforts have focused largely on 

collecting data to estimate minimum 

population size, determine fishery bycatch 

and to refine stock identification. 

17 

limited number of species of special 

concern. 

B. Data Categories 

Five general data categories, each with a 

number of subcategories, were identified: 

• PopUlation characteristics (4 

subcategories) 

• Population threats (7 subcategories) 

• Assessment of population threats (2 

subcategories) 

• Habitat (3 subcategories) 

• Behavior and physiology (4 

subcategories) 

Some subcategories of data were identified 

as critical for management of all species. 

These including stock/population structure, 

abundance, fishery bycatch, and assessment 

frequency and quality (Table I). The 

remaining 15 subcategories of data were 

considered of secondary importance for 

most species in meeting the mandates of the 

MMP A and ESA. 

Stock/population structure - Both the ESA 

and MMP A provide NOAA Fisheries with 

the authority to manage and protect marine 

mammals and turtles at taxonomic levels 

below species. The population (ESA) or 

stock (MMP A) level is the fundamental unit 

of legally mandated conservation efforts. In 

practice stock or population level 

determination is often problematic. Within 

the ESA context, NOAA Fisheries and 

USF & WS have developed guidelines for 

defining population structure as part of the 
Table 1. Simplified data categories and levels for marine mammals and turtles as 

developed under the Protected Species Stock Assessment Improvement Plan 

Cate20ry Level Level Descriotion 

Stock ID 

0 !No information (qualitative or otherwise) available 

1 ~tructure inferred from analyses undertaken for other purposes (e.g. 

distribution, differences in trends, differences in life history) 

2 ~tructure inferred from an analysis specifically aimed at investigating 

population differentiation (e.g., pollutants, stable isotopes, genetics, 

tagging) 

3 ~tructure inferred from an integrative analysis of at least two lines of 

evidence of the type listed under level 2 

4 IEstimates of dispersal rate that include estimates of uncertainty 

Abundance 

0 !No information (qualitative or otherwise) available 

1 !Minimum estimate 

2 ~mprecise and/or infrequent surveys 

3 Precise, frequent survey(s) with size/age composition 

4 lHabitat and season specific surveys 

Life History 

0 !No information (qualitative or otherwise) available 

1 !Basic life history understood 

2 ~ome age/stage parameters available 

3 !Age/stage parameters fully specified and variability determined 

4 ~easonal or spatial information (mixing, migration) available 

Anthropogenic Impacts 

0 !No information (qualitative or otherwise) available 

1 pualitative evidence (anthropogenic impacts) 

2 !Minimum estimate (anthropogenic impacts) 

3 tunbiased estimates (anthropogenic impacts) 

4 Precise estimates, or no evidence of other human related mortality 

Assessment Ouality 

0 !None 

1 !Assessment with minimum abundance/index only 

2 !Assessment with simple deterministic models 

3 iAssessment with advanced deterministic models 

4 !Assessment with stochastic models 

Assessment Freauenc 

0 !Never 

1 !Most recent ~ 10 years 

2 1M0st recent 6-9 years 

3 !Most recent 2-5 years 

4 Most recent s: 1 vear 

18 
Evolutionary Significant Unit (56 FR 58612, 

20 November 1991) and Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segment (61 FR 4722, 7 

February 1996) policy statements. The 

MMP A provides both biological and 

ecological guidance for making such 

determinations. Approaches to stock 

identification for marine mammals were 

clarified at workshops hosted by NOAA 

Fisheries (Barlow et al. 1995 ; Wade and 

Angliss 1997). 

The following levels were used to define the 

quality of data available on species, 

population or stock structure (Table 1): 

o - No information (qualitative or 

otherwise) available 

1 - Structure inferred from analyses 

undertaken for other purposes (e.g., 

distribution, differences in trends, 

differences in life history) 

2 - Structure inferred from an analysis 

specifically aimed at investigating 

popUlation differentiation (e.g., 

pollutants, stable isotopes, genetics, 

tagging) 

3 - Structure inferred from an integrative 

analysis of at least two lines of 

evidence of the type listed under level 

2 

4 - Estimates of dispersal rate that include 

estimates of uncertainty 

Abundance (numbers) - Abundance 

estimates are required under both the ESA 

and MMP A to evaluate the status of a 

species. Typically these estimates are meant 

to describe the status (or trend) of the 

popUlation or at least that portion of the 

population observed in a specific arealtime. 

19 

The estimates can take various forms 

including, but not limited to, estimates of 

total abundance either corrected or 

uncorrected for individuals not seen or 

counted during the survey, estimates of the 

abundance of some known portion of the 

popUlation (e.g., nesting females), index 

counts of that portion of the popUlation 

observed at selected sites, and estimates 

based on mark and recapture (or 

sightlresight) techniques. The data used to 

derive these estimates are usually obtained 

from a sighting survey conducted from an 

aircraft, vessel, or point on land at one time 

of year. For most populations, the data from 

single surveys cannot be used to describe the 

year-round status of the population in a 

specific area. While such an approach is 

compatible with the requirements of ESA 

status reviews and MMP A stock 

assessments, it is inadequate to address other 

needs, such as fine-scale temporal or spatial 

estimates of species numbers or densities 

(that are frequently necessary for ESA 

Section 7 reviews). 

The following levels were used here to 

define the status of data available on the 

abundance of a species, popUlation or stock 

(Table 1): 

o - No information (qualitative or 

otherwise) available 

1 - Minimum count, abundance estimate, 

or index count 

2 - Unbiased estimate of abundance (CV 

=>30%)2 

2 A coefficient of variation (CV) of 

30% or less is generally considered to be a 

desirable level of precision appropriate for 

making management decisions 
3 - Unbiased estimate of abundance (CV < 

30%) with seasonally OR 

geographically explicit density 

4 - Seasonal and geographic specific 

density estimates 

Anthropogenic impacts (numbers)- The third 

component of a status review or 

stock/population assessment is an estimate 

of anthropogenic mortality. For most 

protected species, incidental fishery bycatch 

is the greatest source of anthropogenic 

mortality. NOAA Fisheries is required to 

identify serious injuries and mortalities of 

protected species resulting from interactions 

with fishing gear. Fishery observer 

programs have been implemented in all of 

the NOAA Fisheries' regions to obtain this 

information. Specially trained observers are 

placed on a sample of fishing boats to 

observe and record data on protected species 

bycatch, and to document the characteristics 

of the gear, fishing practices, and landed 

catch. These data are then used to estimate 

the total protected species bycatch in a 

fishery. 

The following levels were used to define the 

status of data available on the fishery 

bycatch mortality of a protected species 

population or stock (Table 1): 

o - No information (qualitative or 

otherwise) available 

1 - Qualitative evidence of anthropogenic 

impacts 

2 - Minimum estimate of anthropogenic 

impacts 

3 - Unbiased estimate of anthropogenic 

20 

impacts (CV =>30%) 

4 - Precise estimate of anthropogenic 

impacts (CV < 30%) OR no evidence 

of human induced mortality 

Assessments (frequency) - One of the major 

uses of the protected species data collected 

by NOAA Fisheries is to assess the status of 

each species under its mandates. An 

assessment involves comparing abundance 

and mortality to determine the current status 

of the species with respect to the biological 

reference points established under the 

MMP A or ESA. Under the 1994 

amendments to the MMP A, there are four 

"reference points"-optimum sustainable 

population (OSP), depletion, potential 

biological removal (PBR) and the zero 

mortality rate goal (ZMRG). The reference 

points under the ESA are less well defined 

but involve quantitative criteria for listing 

the species as threatened or endangered, or 

for delisting. 

The frequency of stock assessment reviews 

are dictated to a certain degree by statute. 

Under Section 117 of the MMP A, stock 

assessments shall be reviewed (although not 

necessarily revised) annually for strategic 

stocks and for stocks with significant new 

information. For all other stocks, 

assessments shall be reviewed at least once 

every third year. However, new abundance 

or mortality estimates are not necessarily 

available this frequently, and as a result the 

annual or triennial assessment reviews often 

lack new data on abundance or mortality 

precluding a new assessment of status. 

Section 4 of the ESA requires a review every 

five years of all listed species. Such a 

review does not always include a new 

assessment, again because of the lack of 
current abundance or mortality data. As upto-date assessments are a key element of the 

protected species stock assessment 

improvement plan, the following levels were 

used to define the recency of the assessment 

(Table 1): 

o - No assessment conducted 

1 - Most recent assessment is ~ 10 yrs old 

2 - Most recent assessment is 6-9 yrs old 

3 - Most recent assessment is 2-5 yrs old 

4 - Assessment conducted in past year 

Assessments (quality) - hnproving the 

quality of protected species assessments was 

one of the key factors behind the 

development of this Plan. Most protected 

species are assessed using very simple 

models driven largely by default values. 

This practice has generated assessments 

which typically have a great deal of 

uncertainty, and have, therefore, led to a 

very precautionary approach to management. 

The approach advocated here is to improve 

the quality of the assessments by improving 

both data collection and model development. 

The following levels were used to define the 

quality of assessments (Table 1): 

o - No assessments conducted 

1 - Assessment with minimum abundance 

or index only 

2 - Assessment using simple deterministic 

models with defaults or proxies 

3 - Assessment using more advanced 

deterministic models without defaults 

or proxies 

21 

4 - Assessment using species specific 

sophisticated models, such as 

stochastic models, depletion models, 

or projection models (e.g., PYA) 

Life history (turtles only) - Turtle 

assessments typically follow a different 

methodological approach than marine 

mammals, and require considerable life 

history information. The following levels 

were used to define the quality of life history 

data available for use in population 

assessments (Table 1): 

o - No information 

1 - Basic life history understood 

2 - Some age/stage parameters available 

3 - Age/stage parameters fully specified 

and variability determined 

4 - Seasonal and/or spatial information 

available 

c. Information Tiers 

The general strategy for achieving 

successively higher levels of data collection 

and stock assessments involves a tiered 

approach. The tiers (Fig. 7) recognize the 

costs of mounting new survey efforts, the 

time required to implement significantly 

new efforts, the technical difficulties 

involved in implementing new 

methodologies, and the obstacles that must 

be overcome in assessing species which are 

difficult to survey. 
Tier I - Improve Stock Assessments Using 

Existing Data Collection Resources 

• No new assessment efforts but simply 

maintain the existing level of stock 

assessments 

• Develop improved survey and analytic 

methods 

The Tier I strategy is to continue the existing 

abundance survey efforts and make better 

use of available data and surveys. Because 

there has been an erosion of spending power 

over time, Tier I will require a significant 

infusion of funds to maintain the existing 

surveys and to add staff for analysis of the 

data collected in these surveys. This will 

maintain the quality of the existing 

assessments and will probably increase the 

quality of some assessments for some 

species and stocks. This tier can be 

achieved quickly (~3 years), given the 

infusion of appropriate funds. 

Tier II - Elevate Stock Assessments to 

New National Standards of Excellence 

• Meet the mandates of the ESA and 

MMP A by achieving Level 2 under 

Categories for abundance (numbers), 

assessment (frequency and quality), 

fishery mortality and stock ID for all 

stocks 

• Upgrade assessments of core species 

stocks to Level 3 under Categories for 

abundance (numbers), life history, 

assessment (frequency and quality), 

anthropogenic impacts (fishery and 

other human), and stock ID. Achieve 

for other Categories, Levels 1-4 as 

appropriate 

22 

• 

• 

Tier I - Improve Stock 

Assessments Using Existing Data 

Collection Resources 

No new assessment efforts but 

simply maintain the existing level of 

stock assessments 

Develop improved surveys and 

analytic methods 

Tier II - Elevate Stock 

Assessments to New National 

Standards of Excellence 

• Meet ESA and MMPA Mandates by 

achieving Level 2 under Categories 

for abundance, assessment 

(frequency and quality), fishery 

mortality and stock ID for all stocks 

• Upgrade assessments of core 

species stocks to Level 3 under 

Categories for abundance life 

history, assessment (frequency and 

quality), anthropogenic impacts and 

stock ID. Achieve for other 

Categories, Levels 1-4 as 

appropriate 

• Conduct "process-like" research 

Tier III - Next Generation 

Assessments 

• Collection of data in all Categories 

for Ecosystem Indicator Species 

• Ecosystem-based approach to 

assessments 

Figure 7. Summary of the key 

features of the three Tiers of 

Assessment Excellence 
• Conduct "process-like" research to 

meet needs of constituents (e.g., 

achieve Level 2 or greater under 

Categories of Behavioral and 

Physiological Responses to Noise for 

Core Species) 

The next step in this strategy (Tier II) is to 

improve the quality of data and assessments 

for all species and stocks so as to meet the 

mandates of the MMPA and ESA. Under 

Tier IT, low quality or nonexistent 

assessments of numerous hard to assess 

species and stocks will be elevated to higher 

levels. This will require that sufficient data 

be collected and analyzed for all species and 

stocks for abundance estimates, stock 

identification, mortality estimates and 

assessments. For some core species3, 

achieving this tier a much higher level of 

data resolution (such as information on 

seasonal and temporal abundance patterns) 

be provided to evaluate impacts of specific 

actions on core species of interest. 

Achieving these improvements will require 

considerable additional research 

Achieving Tier IT will involve significant 

new survey and fishery observer efforts in 

areas and times to properly assess species 

and stocks. Under Tier IT, multiple surveys 

would be scheduled around individual 

species times of peak abundance. Tier IT 

will also require a major effort focused on 

improving the quality of stock identification 

3Core species are defined here as 

species or stocks where higher precision and 

extra data are required to meet the needs of 

decision makers. These will include species 

listed under the ESA as Endangered and 

Threatened, as well as stocks listed as 

depleted under the MMP A. 

23 

for marine mammal species. Most marine 

mammal species are currently managed as a 

single management stock in an oceanic 

basin, despite the existence of data for 

~arious species suggesting that multiple 

stocks exist. These improvements will 

require a significant investment in survey 

infrastructure (e.g., lab equipment, ships and 

aircraft). Data acquisition and analysis 

(particularly for the stock identification 

element) will also require a significant 

amount of time. However, with appropriate 

resources, it is likely Tier IT can be achieved 

for virtually all species within a decade. 

Tier III - Next Generation Assessments 

• Collection of data in all Categories for 

Ecosystem Indicator Species to 

provide better understanding of how 

marine mammals and marine turtles 

function within their respective 

systems 

• Ecosystem-based approach to 

assessments 

The final stage in the strategy will involve 

moving assessments away from the 

traditional single-species approach towards 

an ecosystem-based approach. This will 

complement the current efforts underway for 

improvements in fishery stock assessments. 

For a few key species (i.e., "Ecosystem 

Indicator Species") this will involve the 

collection of a basic suite of data under all 

five data categories discussed previously. 

For all species, this will mean the stock 

assessment will be conducted with processes 

and models not previously used. 
D. Assessment of the Present Statns of 

Protected Species Stock Assessments 

under the Matrix of Needs 

Staff from each Science Center evaluated the 

current status of all protected species for 

which their Center has assessment 

responsibility. 

Marine Mammals - A total of 165 marine 

mammal stocks was identified. Of these 

stocks, 134 are currently at Tier I while 31 

have attained Tier IT status (Table 2, 

Appendix Table 3). All stocks in the Pacific 

Islands region are currently in Tier 1. 

Forty-one of the 165 stocks were considered 

strategic in the 2002 Stock Assessment 

Reports; that is, these stocks were either 

listed under the ESA, listed as depleted 

under the MMP A; or had fishery takes 

greater than their Potential Biological 

Removallevel. Six of the strategic stocks 

were at Tier IT, while 25 of the nonstrategic 

stocks were at Tier IT (Table 2). 

Quality of the data available on each marine 

mammal stock provides insight into where 

improvements are needed (Tier I generally 

equates with data quality Levels 0-1, while 

Tier IT equates to Levels 2-4.) Improvements 

are needed in all five data categories (stock 

identification, abundance, fishery mortality, 

and assessment frequency and quality; Table 

3). There were many species or stocks for 

which no infonnation was available on 

abundance or mortality. Beyond this, the 

greatest need for improvement is in stock 

identification (101 stocks [61 %] were 

24 

deficient in this category), although a 

significant level of improvement is required 

under the remaining four categories. 

The quality of data varies by Region 

reflecting historical resource availability and 

data collection priorities. The Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center has historically 

focused much of its protected species 

resources and efforts on assessments, 

particularly on small cetaceans in the 

Eastern Tropical Pacific. As a result, data 

quality is more advanced under most 

categories for almost all oftheir stocks. 

Assessment work in the newly fonned 

Pacific Islands Region has been chronically 

underfunded and the region has no marine 

mammal stocks classified as Tier IT (Table 

2). 

Marine Turtles - All 13 marine turtle 

popUlations are at Tier I (Tables 4 and 5, 

Appendix Table 4) in tenns of data quality. 

Major deficiencies exist in all data 

categories. Turtle abundance may be 

evaluated using either nesting beach counts 

of adult females and/or in-water estimates. 

Beach count estimates are generally quite 

good, while in-water estimates require 

further refinement. Both are likely 

necessary to properly estimate turtle 

abundance (the fonner is useful for 

estimating total abundance, while the latter 

is important in estimating spatial and 

temporal abundance patterns). Six of the 13 

populations have high quality data for 

nesting beach counts (five do not nest in the 

US), but data quality if rudimentary for inwater estimates for all popUlations. 

Assessment quality also needs significant 

improvement across the board. 
Table 2. Summary of status of marine mammal stocks using the Tier I and Tier II classification 

scheme described in the text. 

Strategic Non-Strategic Total 

Region Tier I Tier II Tier I Tier II Tier I Tier II All 

Alaska 6 4 18 3 24 7 31 

Northeast 10 1 9 4 19 5 24 

Pacific Islands 4 0 24 0 28 0 28 

~outheast 8 1 25 1 33 2 35 

~outhwest 7 0 23 17 30 17 47 

irotal 35 6 99 25 134 31 165 

Table 3. Data quality for marine mammal stocks. Tier I equates with Levels 0-1 data and Tier 

II equates to Levels 2-4. 

Stock ID Abundance Fishery Assessment Assessment 

Mortality Frequency Quality 

Region Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 

I II I II I II I II I II 

Alaska 13 18 16 15 14 17 18 13 22 9 

Northeast 12 12 9 15 3 21 1 23 6 18 

Pacific 27 1 28 0 27 1 28 0 27 1 

Islands 

Southeast 31 4 29 6 31 4 29 6 30 5 

Southwest 18 29 7 40 6 41 1 46 0 47 

Total 101 64 89 76 81 84 77 88 85 80 

25 
Table 4. Summary of status of marine turtle stocks using the Tier I and Tier II classification 

scheme described in the text. 

Endangered Threatened Total 

Region Tier I Tier II Tier I Tier II Tier I Tier II All 

Atlantic and 5 0 2 0 6a 0 6 

Gulf of 

Mexico 

Southwest 4 0 4 0 7b 0 7 

and Pacific 

Islands 

Total 9 0 6 0 13 0 13 

a Green turtles in Atlantic listed as both Threatened and Endangered 

b Olive ridley turtles in Pacific listed as both Threatened and Endangered 

Table 5. Data quality for marine turtle stocks. Tier I equates with Levels 0-1 data and Tier II 

equates to Levels 2-4. 

Stock ID Abundancea Fishery Assessment Assessment 

Mortality Frequency Quality 

Region Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier Tier 

I II I W I II I II I II 

Atlantic 5 0 5 (5) 6 0 3 3 6 0 

and Gulf 

of Mexico 

Southwest 7 0 3 (1) 7 0 0 7 7 0 

and Pacific 

Islands 

Total 12 0 8 (6) 13 0 3 10 13 0 

a 5 populations do not nest within the US, so nesting beach counts are not applicable 

b Quality of nesting beach counts only 

26 
IV. Resource Requirements 

A. National Summary 

Senior protected species staff of the Science 

Centers were polled as to their current, Tier I 

and Tier IT staffing and resource needs. 

Respondents were asked to identify staffing 

(government FTE, contract, and other) needs 

in four general areas-field programs, fishery 

observer programs, lab/office programs, and 

other. Various skill sets or jobs were 

identified under each program. Results of 

this response are summarized below (Table 

6). 

Current situation - All Science Centers 

presently have at least some staffing for 

marine mammal assessments, and all regions 

except for the NW and Alaska are also 

staffed for turtle assessments. A few 

Regional Office and Headquarters staff also 

engage in assessment work, notably in the 

conduct of fishery observer programs. In 

FY03, there were 146 NOAA Fisheries FTE 

involved in assessments (Table 6). This full 

time staff is supplemented by ca. 200 

contract staff, most of whom are either 

surveyor fishery observers. 

The 142 individuals (25 FTE and 117 

contract) working on observer programs 

generally represent observer staff involved 

only in protected species programs. NOAA 

staff typically design and coordinate these 

programs, while contract employees usually 

are the actual observers. Most regions also 

27 

have observer programs which collect data 

on fishery catches, bycatch, and discards. In 

fisheries where the two programs are 

compatible for data collection, sampling 

issues may dictate that additional funding be 

available for protected species to ensure that 

appropriate sample sizes are obtained to 

generate precise, unbiased bycatch 

estimates. Note that levels of current 

observer coverage are typically a function of 

available functions, with deployments 

designed to maximize precision within a 

variety of constraints. However, coverage 

under Tiers I and IT are typically designed to 

meet a desired level of precision (coefficient 

of variation <30% when possible). In 

virtually all cases, this results in a 

significantly greater number of trips 

observed (and increased FTE or sea-days) to 

meet the improved precision even if there is 

no change in the fisheries observed (Tier I). 

An analogous situation exists for abundance 

surveys. Most observers are seasonal 

contractors, employed for 2-3 month periods 

(these have been converted to FTE by 

assuming each seasonal observer equaled 

0.25 FTE). The number of survey observers 

increases between the current situation and 

Tier I, even without additional survey 

efforts, simply to allow for full staffing of 

surveys. For example, a ship board survey 

can be conducted with one observer team; 

however, by employing a second team, it is 

possible to correct for observer error or for 

animals missed by the first team. 
Table 6. National protected species staffing requirements. The numbers of additional staff 

needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier I) and to meet 

NOAA's legislative mandates (Tier ll), respectively, are provided. 

Current (FY03) 

Staff Activity FTE Contract 

Field Programs 

Survey Leaders 17.0 3.0 

Abundance Survey Observers 5.0 28.6 

Biopsy, Mark/recapture, and Tagging 9.1 3.7 

Studies 

Field collection of biological data 14.6 8.7 

Processing of Biological Samples 7.7 9.7 

Fishery Observer Programs 

Fishery Observers 113.0 

Other Observer Staff 24.8 4.0 

Bycatch Analyses 3.5 0.3 

Processing of Biological Samples 1.1 0.3 

Lab/Office Programs 

Stock Identification 7.7 6.5 

Analysis of Biological Data 20.1 11.4 

Conduct Assessments 10.6 0.5 

Assessment Research 2.7 0.8 

Communication of Resultsl 11.3 3.9 

Other (list by name) 

All Series 

I Includes 1 FTE for FIPR2 

Aircraft, vessels and, in some cases, small 

boats are the key physical resources required 

to accomplish protected species stock 

assessments. In FY03, 2094 flight hours 

(539 flight days) and 765 sea days are used 

nationally (Table 7). The mix of aircraft and 

vessels varies significantly among regions. 

Most offshore, cetacean surveys are 

conducted using a high-winged, twin engine 

aircraft, such a DeHavilland Twin Otter or a 

Other 

1.5 

0.3 

3.8 

0.5 

28 

Tier I Tier II 

FTE Contract Other FTE Contract Other 

10.5 1.5 17.5 2.0 

2.5 19.5 7.0 31.3 

7.3 9.3 13.0 9.5 

6.0 10.3 1.0 5.3 

5.3 5.0 4.5 4.0 

149.0 1.0 176.0 

32.0 14.0 5.8 2.0 

2.5 1.0 5.0 2.0 

1.3 1.0 4.5 0.0 

9.3 4.0 6.0 5.0 1.0 

11.3 3.8 2.0 9.0 5.3 2.0 

9.5 0.5 0.0 11.5 1.3 

8.5 2.8 1.0 8.5 8.3 1.0 

11.0 2.5 7.5 2.8 

Rockwell Aero Commander. NOAA's 

Marine and Aviation Operations (NMAO) 

office is typically the vendor for NOAA 

Fishery's Twin Otter aircraft; one of the two 

existing otters is used full time while the 

second is shared with other NOAA Line 

Offices. Needs also exist for aircraft not 

available through NMAO (e.g., helicopters 

and single engine aircraft), and these needs 

are currently met through charters. 
Table 7. Protected species vessel and aircraft requirements by FMC 

Current (FY03) 

FMC Taxa Vessel Aircraft 

AFSC Mammals 200d 209d 

1254h 

NEFSC Mammals 75d 255d 

& Turtles 600h 

NWFSC Mammals Od Od/Oh 

PIFSC Mammals 50d Od/Oh 

Turtles 50d Od/Oh 

SEFSC Mammals 120d 45d 

120h 

SWFSC Mammals 240d Od/Oh 

Turtles 30d 30d 

120h 

National Total 765d 539d 

2094h 

Ship time (765 sea days) required for 

protected species surveys is provided in part 

by NMAO and in part by charter. 

Preference is typically given to NOAA 

vessels if these are available and are suitable 

for the planned field work. However, the 

specialized needs of many protected studies 

(e.g., shallow draft for inshore surveys or 

two observing platforms) have led to 

chartering either UNOLS or commercial 

vessels. 

Additional personnel and resources will be 

needed to achieve the two Tiers of 

excellence proposed under this plan: 

29 

Tier I Tierll 

Vessel Aircraft Vessel Aircraft 

33d 195d 47d 

200h 280h 

90d 90d 45d 45d 

200h lOOh 

Od Od/Oh 90d 30d 

180h 

75d Od/Oh 75d na 

40h 

30d 70d 60d 100d 

350h 300h 

120d Od/Oh 120d Od/Oh 

Od Od/Oh 60d Od/Oh 

30d 30d 60d Od/Oh 

120h 

345d 223d 705d 222d 

870h 900h 

Tier I - This tier involves no new surveys or 

observer programs, but makes better use of 

existing programs and data. This level of 

effort maintains (or restores) the status quo 

but will improve assessments for some 

species in all regions through better use of 

existing programs and data. Meeting Tier I 

needs will require an increase of357 

individuals (127 FTE, 227 contract, 3 

others), essentially doubling the FY03 

protected species assessment staffing (Table 

6). Much of this increase stems from a 

marked increase in existing fishery observer 

programs to meet desired levels of precision 

for assessing protected species mortality. 
Smaller increases are desired in assessment 

areas. 

Even without adding additional surveys, an 

additional 345 sea days and 870 flight hours 

(223 days) are necessary to simply maintain 

the current level of assessinents (Table 7). 

This is a because of the significant erosion 

of research spending power that has 

occurred over the past decade. For example, 

at the NEFSC less than half of the $450K 

transferred in the late 1990s to the Center for 

abundance surveys is presently available for 

vessel and aircraft charter. As a result, 

fewer sea days or flight hours are available 

for the surveys, which has led to abbreviated 

surveys and reduced precision in the 

abundance estimates. 

Tier II - Moving to Tier II will involve new 

surveys and observer programs and will 

significantly increase staffing (Table 6), with 

an additional 112 FTE, 259 contract 

employees, and 4 others needed. Expansion 

of observer programs to adequately sample 

all fisheries with protected species 

interactions will constitute a significant part 

of this increase (7 FTE and 178 contract 

employees). 

Because Tier II involves an increase in 

survey effort (e.g., seasonal rather than 

annual surveys), a large increase in platform 

time is required. An additional 705 sea days 

and 900 flight hours (~222 days) are needed 

(Table 7). Many of these days and hours 

will be on vessels or aircraft which would 

have to be provided by charter rather than 

through NMAO because the needed days 

would exceed the availability of survey 

platforms. 

A result of this increased effort at Tier II will 

be that NOAA Fisheries will fully achieve 

30 

the mandated information requirements of 

both the ESA and MMP A. 

B. Region-Specific Needs to Achieve 

Tiers I and II 

1. Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

Marine mammal stock assessments in the 

Alaska Region involve a partnership 

between the Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center's (APSC) National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory (NMML), the Center's Resource 

Ecology and Fisheries Management Division 

(REFM), and the Protected Species Division 

ofthe Alaska Region (AKR). NMML 

conducts research on distribution, 

abundance, trends in abundance, causes of 

the trends, and prepares stock assessments. 

REFM provides information on bycatch of 

marine mammals in federally-regulated 

fisheries. The AKR administers the Alaska 

Marine Mammal Observer Program 

(AMMOP), which provides information on 

bycatch of marine mammals incidental to 

Alaska's state commercial fisheries. 

Current situation - The NMML currently 

has a staff of 50 FTE and 11 contractors 

involved with the assessment of marine 

mammals in Alaska and in the California 

current ecosystem (Table 8). The AKR has 

one FTE dedicated to the administration of 

the Alaska Marine Mammal Observer 

Program. 

The majority of the efforts at the NMML are 

directed towards marine mammal stocks in 

Alaskan waters. The 4 FTE and I contractor 

in the California current ecosystem program 

work closely with staff from the Northwest 

Center and Region to provide information 
Table 8. AFSC - NMML and AKRIMarine Mammal Observer Program protected species 

staffing requirements. The numbers of additional staff needed to collect the types of information 

to maintain status quo (Tier I) and to meet NOAA's legislative mandates (Tier 11), respectively, 

are provided. 

Current (FY03) 

Staff Activity FTE Contract 

Field Programs 

Survey Leaders 8.8 

Abundance Survey Observers 3.3 1.0 

Biopsy, Mark/recapture, and Tagging 5.3 2.0 

Studies 

Field collection of biological data 6.3 1.5 

Processing of Biological Samples 2.0 1.0 

Fishery Observer Programs 

Fishery Observers 

Other Observer Staff 1.0 

Bycatch Analyses 1.0 

Processing of Biological Samples 

Lab/Office Programs 

Stock Identification 1.0 

Analysis of Biological Data 8.5 3.5 

Conduct Assessments 2.3 0.3 

Assessment Research 0.8 0.3 

Communication of Results 5.1 

Other (list by name) 

Data management 1.5 

Administration 4.0 

Gear maintenance 1.0 

Computer programming 

or assessment of stocks in Washington, 

Oregon, and California. 

NMML staff are solely responsible for the 

assessment of 21 cetacean stocks and 10 seal 

stocks that occur in Alaska waters. Of these 

stocks, two cetacean stocks and five seal 

Other 

0.5 

0.3 

0.8 

0.5 

31 

Tier I Tier II 

FTE Contract Other FTE Contract Other 

0.5 2.0 

1.0 7.0 

1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 

1.5 

0.5 1.0 

40.0 106.0 

1.0 

1.0 2.0 1.0 

0.3 2.5 

1.0 2.0 1.0 

0.8 1.0 2.5 

1.0 3.0 0.5 

0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 

2.0 2.0 

2.3 1.0 

1.0 

stocks are presently assessed at Tier II level; 

all other stocks are at Tier I. In addition, 

NMML staff work with the Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center to assess seven 

cetacean stocks and five pinniped stocks that 

occur in W AlORiCA waters. Of these 

stocks, there are two cetacean stocks and 4 
pinniped stocks at Tier II; all other stocks 

and populations are at Tier I. 

Improving stock assessments of Alaska 

marine mammals currently in Tier I will 

require significant efforts in three major 

areas: stock identification, abundance, and 

fishery-related mortality. Of 27 marine 

mammal stocks in Alaska, abundance is at 

Levels 0 or I for 16 stocks. As is typical in 

all regions, a very few stocks are 

comparatively well studied (e.g., Steller sea 

lions, harbor seals, bowhead whales, Cook 

Inlet beluga whales), while there are major 

gaps in our knowledge about most stocks. 

Research activities routinely conducted by 

NMML include aerial surveys to assess 

harbor seal and Steller sea lion abundance, 

which are conducted every year and rotated 

between areas in Alaska. Every 5 years, 

three years of aerial surveys are flown to 

assess the abundance of small cetaceans in 

Alaska. NMML researchers and their 

associates are pursuing ways to augment and 

improve marine mammal assessment 

methods in Alaska. Foe example, passive 

acoustics recorders have been deployed over 

the past 3-5 years to monitor the seasonal 

distribution of large cetaceans, such as North 

Pacific right whales and blue whales, in the 

Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. 

The RACE division of the APSC collects 

information on marine mammal bycatch 

incidental to federally-regulated fisheries. 

Information provided by the RACE division 

currently meets most of the needs of 

NMML's marine mammal assessment 

program for the federally-regulated fisheries. 

In addition to the federally-regulated 

fisheries, there are several Alaska state 

fisheries with a moderate level of marine 

mammal take that have not been observed 

32 

for more than 10 years, or have never been 

observed. Observer coverage of 1-2 Alaska 

state-managed fisheries per year (~5% 

observer coverage) is provided through the 

AKR's Alaska Marine Mammal Observer 

Program (AMMOP). In 2002, the AMMOP 

completed the first year of a two-year effort 

to observe the Kodiak set gillnet fishery. 

However, the AMMOP was unable to 

deploy observers during FY03 due to a 

severe funding shortfall. It is expected that 

adequate funding will be available in 2004 

to complete the Kodiak program but funding 

beyond 2004 is not expected to be available. 

Tier I - Under Tier I, the APSC would seek 

to accomplish the following objectives: 

• A restoration of aerial survey effort 

needed to assess the abundance of 4 

species of ice seals for which no 

estimate of abundance is available 

(Level 0) 

• 

• 

• 

Improvements in data management and 

analysis efficiency to improve the 

timeliness of producing assessments 

and of communicating research results 

to managers and the public 

Addition of certain research equipment 

(e.g., "bigeye" binoculars, biopsy guns, 

replace passive acoustic recorders) 

which would optimize the quality and 

quantity of data currently collected 

during vessel surveys 

A restoration of fishery observer 

coverage to levels available in 2002, 

which would allow the AMMOP to 

rotate a 2-year observer program with 

5% coverage to high-priority Alaska 

fisheries. 
Accomplishing the first two objectives will 

require additional staff to analyze and 

manage data in hand and results from 

ongoing research. Additional seasonal field 

assistants will also be necessary. Adding 

new equipment or replacing some 

equipment, which is no longer available, 

will increase our ability to improve 

assessments. 

Accomplishing the fourth objective will 

require the addition of 40 contracted fishery 

observers and the equipment, vessels, etc. 

needed to support the program. This level of 

effort will ensure that at least two Alaska 

state fisheries a year with moderate levels of 

marine mammal bycatch could be observed, 

and that each fishery with a moderate level 

of marine mammal bycatch would be 

observed within the next six years. Adding 

two additional FTEs to this program will 

also enable core program activities (i.e., 

database management and observer 

debriefing) to be conducted by NOAA 

Fisheries staff in lieu of contractors. 

Tier II - To achieve the requirements of 

Tier II, the APSe will need to accomplish 

the following objectives: 

• 

• 

Greatly expand vessel and aerial 

survey effort to collect information on 

the distribution and abundance of large 

cetaceans throughout the North Pacific 

and Bering Sea. 

Increase equipment available for 

remote sensing (e.g., satellite 

transmitters, towed acoustic arrays, 

passive acoustic recorders, ARGOS 

time). 

33 

• 

• 

Implement directed biopsy studies and 

expand genetic analysis capability to 

identify stock structure of the 

remaining unstudied stocks. 

Expand observer coverage to ensure 

annual baseline monitoring of all 

fisheries in Alaska with moderate or 

high levels of marine mammal 

bycatch. 

To attain Tier II for large cetacean stocks, 

substantial ship time and aerial survey time 

would be necessary in order to survey the 

full ranges of a variety of species. In 

addition, remote sensing techniques, such as 

installation of passive acoustic recorders and 

use of satellite tags combined with increased 

ARGOS satellite time, will provide the 

information on seasonal distribution needed 

to provide managers with the information 

necessary to avoid conflicts with human 

activities. Targeted stock structure studies 

and genetics analyses would be 

implemented. In addition to additional 

platform costs, staff will be needed to collect 

samples and process/analyze the data. Over 

several years, the additional surveys and 

analytical staff should result in all stocks 

being raised to Tier II. 

To attain Tier II for all stocks, three or more 

fisheries would have observed each year. 

Observer gear needs and other physical 

support such as skiff and RIV charters would 

need to be increased proportionally as 

coverage increases. 

With acquisition of Tier II staffing and 

resources, all stocks should be moved to 

Tier II or higher within approximately 6 

years. 
2. Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Marine mammal and turtle assessment 

activities at the NEFSC are split between 

two administrative units: the Protected 

Species Branch (PSB) within the Center's 

Resource Evaluation and Assessment 

Division, and the Fisheries Sampling Branch 

(FSB) within the Fisheries and Ecosystems 

Monitoring and Analysis Division. The FSB 

runs the fisheries observer program 

responsible for collection of data on 

protected species bycatch in selected 

fisheries. The PSB conducts abundance 

surveys, estimates total bycatch in 

commercial fisheries, and prepares the actual 

assessments. 

Current situation - The NEFSC currently 

has a staff of 18 FTE and eighteen 

contractors involved with the assessment of 

marine mammals and turtles in Northwest 

Atlantic Ocean waters (Tables 9-10). The 

bulk of these staff are involved with marine 

mammals; 4 FTE and 4 contractors were 

involved with turtle activities in FY03 

(Table 10). Approximately 497 sea days 

were devoted in FY03 to protected species 

observations. 

Table 9. NEFSC protected species staffing requirements for mammals. The numbers of 

additional staff needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier 

I) and to meet NOAA's legislative mandates (Tier II), respectively, are provided. 

Staff Activity 

Field Programs 

Survey Leaders 

Abundance Survey Observers 

Biopsy, Mark/recapture, and Tagging 

Studies 

Field collection of biological data 

Processing of Biological Samples 

Fishery Observer Programs 

Fishery Observers 

Other Observer Staff 

Bycatch Analyses 

Processing of Biological Samples 

Lab/Office Programs 

Stock Identification 

Analysis of Biological Data 

Conduct Assessments 

Assessment Research 

Communication of Results 

Other (list by name) 

Administration 

Passive Acoustics 

Economist 

GIS Analyst 

Current (FY03) 

FTE Contract Other 

2.5 

1.0 

1.0 

0.5 

1.0 

1.0 

2.5 

1.0 

1.0 

2.0 

1.0 

14.5 

5.3 

6.0 

3.0 1.0 

34 

Tier I 

FTE Contract Other 

2.0 

0.5 0.8 

0.5 

6.0 

1.0 

1.0 

2.0 

1.0 2.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

Tier II 

FTE Contract Other 

2.0 

0.5 

1.0 

4.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

0.5 

1.5 

40.0 

1.0 

2.0 
Table 10. NEFSC protected species staffing requirements for turtles. The numbers of additional 

staff needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier I) and to 

meet NOAA's legislative mandates (Tier 11), respectively, are provided. 

Current (FY03) 

Staff Activity FTE Contract 

Field Programs 

Survey Leaders 0.3 

Abundance Survey Observers 

Biopsy, Mark/recapture, and Tagging 0.3 Studies 

Field collection of biological data 

Processing of Biological Samples 

Fishery Observer Programs 

Fishery Observers 4.0 

Other Observer Staff 0.3 

Bycatch Analyses 1.0 

Processing of Biological Samples 

Lab/Office Programs 

Stock Identification 

Analysis of Biological Data 0.5 

Conduct Assessments 0.3 

Assessment Research 

Communication of Results 

Other (list by name) 

GIS analyst 

Gear Research 1.0 

NEFSC staff are involved with the 

assessment of 20 cetacean stocks, four seal 

stocks, and four turtle populations. Five 

cetacean stocks and two seal stocks are 

presently assessed at Tier IT level; all the 

remaining mammal stocks and turtle 

populations are at Tier I. The greatest 

impediment to improvement of stock 

assessments is the lack of data on stock 

structure; of 24 marine mammal stocks, 

stock structure for 12 is rudimentary (Levels 

o or 1). However, the lack of adequate 

abundance data is also an issue; of 24 

Other 

1.0 

35 

Tier I Tier II 

FTE Contract Other FTE Contract Other 

0.8 

1.0 0.5 

2.0 4.0 

0.8 

1.0 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 

marine mammal stocks, five have no 

abundance estimate (Level 0) and 4 more 

have only a single point estimate (Levell). 

Of the four populations of marine turtles 

found in NE waters, all have inadequate 

(Levell) estimates of in-water abundance. 

A few stocks are well studied (right and 

humpback whales, harbor porpoises, harbor 

seals), while most stocks (especially turtles 

and some pelagic delphinids) have major 

gaps in knowledge. 

Protected species survey activities conducted 

by the NEFSC include seasonal (6-9 
months) aerial surveys for North Atlantic 

right whales, spring and summer vessel 

surveys for large cetaceans in the Gulf of 

Maine, and triennial surveys of harbor seal 

abundance from MA to ME. The Center is 

also attempting to maintain a triennial 

survey series for coastal cetaceans, and 

offshore cetaceans, partly as a cooperative 

effort with the SEFSC. However, recent 

funding limitations have impeded these 

surveys, such that the survey frequency is 

approaching once every 5-6 years. Surveys 

of pelagic turtle abundance are conducted as 

part ofthe cetacean surveys, however, it 

would be useful to focus surveys in the 

triennial year on turtles alone. The NEFSC 

and the Northeast Regional Office of NOAA 

Fisheries have reinitiated a research project 

in Long Island Sound to provide a long term, 

in-water index site for marine turtles. 

NEFSC scientists and their associates 

continue to work on improved assessment 

methods in the NE. Considerable field work 

is being conducted on the use of passive 

acoustics, both with towed arrays during 

cetacean surveys and using pop-ups to 

monitor the absence/presence of right and 

humpback whales in New England waters. 

Staff are exploring alternative assessment 

techniques (e.g., using multiple survey 

aircraft as a way of avoiding use of ships) 

and have initiated a cooperative project with 

the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute to 

assess sperm and pilot whale dive times to 

improve the quality of assessments (g[O] 

correction). 

The FSB is in the process of developing a 

comprehensive bycatch sampling program 

for most Federally managed fisheries in 

Northeast waters. Traditionally, this 

program was supported by protected species 

36 

funds and directed towards sampling 

commercial sink and drift gillnet fisheries 

(-5% coverage) with limited trawl coverage 

«< 1 % coverage). Reflecting a change in 

funding and priorities, coverage in the last 

two years has shifted to significantly 

increase bottom trawl and scallop dredge 

coverage (-5% coverage for most elements), 

while decreasing coverage on gillnet 

fisheries in New England. Overall, there is 

more coverage for protected species issues 

than in the past but holes remain in the 

coverage (e.g., pot gear). In addition, 

coverage is dependent on continued 

provision of groundfish funds by Congress. 

Tier I - Under Tier I, the NEFSC would 

seek to accomplish: 

• Reduction in the number of stocks 

with unknown stock structure by 

analyzing tissue samples currently in 

hand or collected as part of existing 

surveys 

• Restoration of fishery observer 

coverage to levels available prior to 

2001 

• Maintenance of the triennial survey 

coverage for cetaceans and turtles 

This will require additional staff at the 

NEFSC, as well as support of two additional 

FTE at the SEFSC's genetics lab housed in 

NOAA's Charleston Lab. This effort, by 

itself could move seven stocks into Tier n. 

Restoration of 576 observer sea days (436 

for mammals and 140 for turtle) would 

return observer coverage of New England 

and Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries to levels 
that would guarantee appropriate spatial and 

temporal coverage for gillnet takes of marine 

mammals and turtles. While this would not 

likely move any new stocks to Tier II, it 

would keep several stocks from falling from 

Tier II to Tier I. 

Finally, 6 of the 7 Tier II marine mammal 

stocks are in danger of reverting to Tier I 

unless the triennial abundance survey can be 

maintained. This will require support of an 

additional 6 seasonal employees (equivalent 

to two FTE) for surveys, and funds to 

support a 90 d charter on an appropriate 

vessel. Additional staff will also be needed 

to manage, analyze and process the data, 

particularly the acoustic data. 

Tier II - To achieve the requirements of 

Tier II, the NEFSC will need to: 

• Conduct seasonal abundance surveys 

• Implement directed biopsy studies to 

identify stock structure of the 

remaining unstudied stocks 

• Expand observer coverage to ensure 

baseline monitoring of all fisheries 

with protected species bycatch 

Abundance surveys need to be expanded to 

include a rotating spring and fall survey to 

assess the abundance of species whose 

abundance is greatest in the Northeast 

outside of the summer months (e.g., fin and 

sei whales). One survey would be a 

traditional line transect survey, while the 

second would be a focused photo-id survey. 

A companion to these surveys would be an 

expansion of past stock structure studies, 

much of which will focus on either genetic 

37 

sampling or photo-id. In addition to 

additional platform costs, staff will be 

needed to collect samples and process and 

analyze the data. Over the next 10 years, the 

combination of surveys and stock structure 

studies should move all stocks to Tier II. 

Finally, protected species observer coverage 

will have to be increased to ensure that all 

fisheries and gears of concern have a 

permanent level of coverage. This would 

move the remaining Tier I species to Tier II, 

and ensure that no stocks revert to Tier I. 

3. Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Marine mammal research occurs mainly in 

two groups at the Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center (NWFSC): the 

Environmental Conservation Division 

(ECD) and the Marine Mammal Program in 

the Office of the Science Director (MMP). 

There is also support on some projects from 

the Conservation Biology Division (genetics 

and risk assessment) and the Fishery 

Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division 

(fishery observer data). 

Current Situation - The NWFSC currently 

has staff of 4.5 FTEs shared between the 

ECD and MMP (Table 11). ECD staff are 

involved in analyses of contaminant levels 

and effects of contaminants on marine 

mammals. These researchers are also 

conducting research on stable isotopes and 

fatty acids to understand prey of marine 

mammals. This group focuses on NW 

marine mammals but is also involved with 

research projects with other Science Centers. 
Table 11. NWFSC protected species staffing requirements for mammals. The numbers of 

additional staff needed to collect the types of information to maintain status 'quo (Tier 

I) and to meet NOAA's legislative mandates (Tier ll), respectively, are provided. 

Current (FY03) 

Staff Activity FTE Contract Other 

Field Programs 

Survey Leaders 

Abundance Survey Observers 

Biopsy, Mark/recapture, and Tagging 

Studies 

Field collection of biological data 

Processing of Biological Samples 

Fishery Observer Programs 

Fishery Observers 

Other Observer Staff 

Bycatch Analyses 

Processing of Biological Samples 

Lab/Office Programs 

Stock Identification 

Analysis of Biological Data 

Conduct Assessments 

Assessment Research 

Communication of Results 

Other (list by name) 

GIS analyst 

Data Management 

Acoustics Technician 

Risk Assessment Biologist 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

3.0 

The MMP has two FTEs and the current 

research focuses on Southern Resident killer 

whales. In FY03, over 20 research projects 

were initiated. The areas of research include 

annual photo-identification of all whales, 

acoustic characterization of the killer whale 

environment, behavior of whales in response 

to vessels, identification of prey species and 

abundance, winter distribution of whales, 

1.0 

38 

Tier I 

FTE Contract Other 

3.0 

1.0 

1.0 

2.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.5 

1.0 

1.0 

0.0 

Tier II 

FTE Contract Other 

2.0 3.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

global taxonomy of killer whales, and 

habitat use. 

Tier I - Under Tier 1, the NWFSC would: 

• improve information on abundance and 

trends and life history 
• 

• 

• 

improve information on habitat use 

improve methods for tagging, biopsy 

and analyses 

improve information on stock structure 

To accomplish these improvements will 

require 16 additional staff (11 FTE and 5 

contractors) to be deployed in areas of 

biopsy, tagging and analyses, data 

management, acoustics, GIS analyses, and 

field data collection. Chemical analytical 

methods for determining prey of marine 

mammal species using fatty acid analyses, 

stable isotopes would be further developed. 

This work would move three species to Tier 

II. 

The NWFSC has not been allocated NOAA 

ship days for marine mammal research. 

Therefore, ship time is urgently needed. 

There is also a pressing need for a small boat 

to collect biological samples and conduct 

photo identification work in the Puget Sound 

area. 

Tier II - The focus of the NWFSC Marine 

Mammal Program will be to move all 

species to Tier II. Under Tier II, the 

NWFSCwill: 

• improve information on Threats -

Human related Non-lethal effects or 

stressors 

• assess impacts of threats 

• 

• 

improve information on habitat use 

improve life history information, 

including prey resources 

39 

• 

• 

determine levels of persistent 

contaminants in marine mammal 

species 

compare contaminant levels 

geographically and temporally in 

marine mammals 

• examine impacts of contaminants on 

life history parameters 

Abundance and habitat use studies would be 

expanded to include spring and autumn 

aerial survey work. Staff (six FTE) and 

contractors (four) will be needed to collect 

and perform analyses of the data. Risk 

assessments would be conducted to improve 

assessments of key species. 

With additional staff and resources, the key 

marine mammal species would reach Tier II 

or higher in anthropogenic impacts, 

abundance, habitat use and food habits. 

4. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science 

Center 

Marine mammal and turtle assessments at 

the PIFSC are conducted in the Protected 

Species Division (PSD), which is subdivided 

into the Marine Mammal Research Program 

(MMRP) and the Marine Turtle Research 

Program (MTRP). Fisheries observer 

programs are managed by the Pacific Island 

Region (PIR), and are, therefore, not 

included in this report. 

Current situation - The MMRP almost 

exclusively conducts research on one marine 

mammal, the endangered Hawaiian monk 

seal. 
There are currently four FTE and nine 

contractors working seasonally or full time 

on Hawaiian monk seal assessment (Table 

12). Most of these staff work on population 

monitoring efforts in remote field camps at 

the six main subpopulations of Hawaiian 

monk seals ·in the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands (NWHI). Primarily non-field staff 

include federal and contract data analysts, 

database managers, IT support and field 

logistics staff. 

Table 12. PIFSC protected species staffing requirements for mammals. The numbers 

of additional staff needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo 

(Tier I) and to meet NOAA's legislative mandates (Tier 11), respectively, are provided. 

Current (FY03) Tier I Tier II 

Staff Activity FTE Contract Other FTE Contract Other FTE Contract Other 

Field Programs 

Survey Leaders 1.0 2.5 5.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 

Abundance Survey Observers 3.0 3.0 3.0 

Biopsy, Mark/recapture, and Tagging 

Studies 

Field collection of biological data 0.2 0.3 

Processing of Biological Samples 

Fishery Observer Programs 

Fishery Observers 

Other Observer Staff 

Bycatch Analyses 

Processing of Biological Samples 

Lab/Office Programs 

Stock Identification 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Analysis of Biological Data 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 2.0 0.3 

Conduct Assessments 2.0 0.3 2.0 0.3 2.0 0.3 

Assessment Research 0.5 1.0 0.5 2.0 5.5 

Communication of Results 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 

Other (list by name) 

Cetacean Team Leader 1.0 1.0 

Total 

40 
Deploying, maintaining and retrieving the 

camps, which last from 3 to 6 months per 

year, involves complex logistics. At most of 

the research camps, all supplies and 

equipment must be deployed and retrieved 

each year. This includes all food, water, 

tents, medical supplies, communications 

equipment, small boats, engines, solar power 

systems, generators, fuel, and scientific 

equipment. Transportation to most sites is 

restricted to seagoing vessels, and transit 

time from Honolulu is 2-7 days. Landing 

strips for chartered aircraft are available at 

two sites. 

Detailed demographic information has been 

compiled on Hawaiian monk seals in the 

NWHI, and this unique long-term time 

series is dependent upon the continuation of 

field camps. Conservation strategies are 

greatly enhanced by the detailed information 

available for each sUbpopulation. Currently, 

only one full time field camp survey leader 

is on staff, the remaining survey leaders and 

most field assistants are recruited through a 

contractor on an annual basis, so that yearto-year continuity in staff is sub-optimal. 

Systems for processing raw field data into 

detailed summaries of population abundance 

and trend, age and sex structure, and vital 

parameters in a matter of a few months have 

been developed so that data for decision 

making are available in a timely manner. In 

addition, up-to-date demographic data are 

annually incorporated into a stochastic 

simulation model, which allows for 

exploration of various management 

scenarios. Further efforts to optimize field 

effort, obtain precise and unbiased total 

abundance estimates, and elucidate life 

history parameters of monk seals are 

underway. 

41 

Historically, the SWFSC has had the lead in 

all cetacean assessment work conducted in 

the EEZ around the Hawaiian Archipelago, 

but the formation of the Pacific Islands 

Region (PIR), the apparent need for cetacean 

stock assessments in the entire PIR, and the 

growing concern over possible fisherycetacean interactions require cetacean 

scientific expertise within this newly formed 

region. In addition to the EEZ around the 

Hawaiian Archipelago, a core group of 

cetacean experts from PIFSC will begin to 

work collaboratively with SWFSC experts to 

assess cetacean populations in the EEZ 

around American Samoa, Guam, Northern 

Mariana Islands, Johnston Atoll, Palmyra 

Atoll, Jarvis Island, Howland and Baker 

Islands, and Wake Island. Although these 

islands are very small, the EEZ waters 

surrounding them (including Hawaii) 

encompass nearly 1.5 million square miles, 

an area nearly equal to all other US EEZ 

waters combined. 

MTRP current situation - The Marine 

Turtle Research Program conducts research 

on Hawaiian and other Pacific island 

Threatened and Endangered sea turtle 

popUlations. Currently, 4 FTE and 9 

contractors work seasonally, part-time or 

full-time on Pacific sea turtle biology, 

ecology, life history, assessment and related 

areas of investigation (Table 13). In 

addition, the regional office's observer 

program employees another 15 FTE and 40+ 

contractors to observer fisheries (notably the 

Hawaiian longline fishery). 

Annual assessment tasks include basic 

biological and ecological investigations; 

fishery interaction data collection; pelagic 

and post-nesting satellite tracking; collection 
Table 13. PIFSC protected species staffing requirements for turtles. The numbers of additional 

staff needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier I) and to 

meet NOAA's legislative mandates (Tier 11), respectively, are provided. 

Current (FY03) 

Staff Activity FTE Contract 

Field Programs 

Survey Leaders 

Abundance Survey Observers 0.3 0.3 

Biopsy, Mark/recapture, and Tagging 0.3 0.3 Studies 

Field collection of biological data 0.5 0.3 

Processing of Biological Samples 0.3 0.3 

Fishery Observer Programs 

Fishery Observers 40.0 

Other Observer Staff 15.0 

Bycatch Analyses 0.3 

Processing of Biological Samples 0.3 

Lab/Office Programs 

Stock Identification 

Analysis of Biological Data 0.3 0.3 

Conduct Assessments 

Assessment Research 0.3 

Communication of Results 0.3 

Other (list by name) 

Total 

of field data on growth rates, abundance, 

survival, and movements for computer 

simulation modeling; and long-term 

monitoring for population trends. Five 

species of Pacific sea turtles are included in 

this work: green, loggerhead, leatherback, 

olive ridley, and hawksbill turtles. 

Substantial close collaboration takes place 

with an array of researchers both within and 

outside of NOAA Fisheries. 

Other 

42 

Tier I Tier II 

FTE Contract Other FTE Contract Other 

0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 

0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 

0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 

1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 

0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 

100.0 

30.0 

0.5 

0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 

0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 

0.5 0.3 1.0 0.3 

0.3 0.5 0.5 

The green turtle population endemic to 

Hawaii has been the principal focus of 

investigations to date. Other populations of 

green turtles, including other sea turtle 

species throughout the U.S. Pacific islands 

and affiliates, have been far less studied to 

date due to serious personnel, funding, and 

various logistical constraints. The 

immediate geographical areas in need of 

attention include American Samoa, Guam, 

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 
Islands, Palau, Federated States of 

Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall 

Islands, and various other remote islands 

such as Wake, Johnston Atoll, Palmyra, 

Kingman Reef, Howland, Baker and Jarvis. 

Sea turtles are known to occur at all these 

locations and, like Hawaii, often have 

prominent roles in aspects of the indigenous 

human cultures. However, no stock 

assessments have been conducted and basic 

biological studies are only in their early 

stages. All of the islands and species 

mentioned are designated for priority 

research in the U.S. Pacific Sea Turtle 

Recovery Plans finalized in 1998 by NOAA 

Fisheries and the USF&WS. 

Tier I - Under Tier I, the PIFSC will: 

• 

• 

• 

Conduct a thorough assessment of 

stock ID through use of genetic 

analysis 

Improve continuity in field staffing and 

data processing 

Develop a team of expert cetacean 

ecologists to conduct mandated stock 

assessment research throughout the 

Pacific Islands Region 

To meet Tier I standards, the number of 

federal full time survey leaders involved 

with the Hawaiian monk seal research 

program would need to be substantially 

increased. This has been recommended by 

the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team 

and by nearly every external review of the 

monk seal research program. 

PIFSC must also acquire a staff of cetacean 

experts to begin to build a core group of 

researchers with cetacean expertise in the 

43 

PIR. At a minimum, this will involve a 

cetacean task leader, a field biologist, and a 

data analyst to complement the ongoing 

efforts by the SWFSC to assess cetacean 

stocks and fishery interactions this region. 

Tier II - To achieve standards of Tier IT, the 

PIFSC will need to: 

• Extend assessment activities to the 

Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) 

• Extend assessment activities to Necker 

and Nihoa Islands, NWHI 

• Optimize field effort in the NWHI 

• Collaborate with SWFSC in cetacean 

surveys in the U.S. EEZ in waters of 

American Samoa, Wake, Guam, 

Northern Marianas, Johnston Atoll, 

Jarvis, Howard Baker Is. and the 

Hawaiian Archipelago. Annual three 

month surveys will be conducted on a 

rational basis at each location assuring 

regular and complete coverage 

While most Hawaiian monk seals reside in 

the NWHI, a small population appears to be 

increasing in number and expanding its 

distribution in the Main Hawaiian Islands 

(MHI, including Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, 

Molokai, Kahoolawe, Maui and Hawaii), 

where they were relatively rarely 

encountered prior to the mid-1990's. This 

trend represents perhaps the best opportunity 

for significant progress in recovery for the 

species, but also involves enormous 

challenges related to interactions with 

humans and domestic and feral animals on 

land, vessel collision, fishery interactions, 

oil spills and disease transmission. 

Currently, assessment efforts in the MHI are 
conducted irregularly by staff primarily 

assigned to other duties. To achieve Tier II 

status, at least two full time survey leaders 

stationed on Kauai and Maui are required, as 

well asa one full time assessment scientist to 

coordinate data collection, analyze data, and 

report results. 

Two additional small populations in the 

NWHI, at Necker and Nihoa Islands, exist 

but are rarely visited due to difficulty of 

landing and camping on the islands. 

Further, while they are regularly used by 

seals and pups are born at the islands 

annually, limited vessel support and other 

finite resources have dictated an emphasis 

on the six primary subpopulations in the 

NWHI. To accurately assess the total stock, 

regular monitoring of these sites is need and 

will require additional sea days on a wellequipped, preferably NOAA, research 

vesseL 

Finally, little is known about cetacean stocks 

occurring within the Hawaiian EEZ and . 

almost nothing is known about these stocks 

in the other EEZs within the PIR. A field 

biologist and data analyst are needed to 

augment the proposed work that will be 

initiated by the SWFSC (separate SAIP) in 

American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana 

Islands, Johnston Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, 

Jarvis Island, Howland and Baker Islands, 

and Wake Island. Efforts by these staff 

members will facilitate the collection and 

analysis of cetacean information obtained 

during dedicated surveys and from fishery 

observers and contractors. 

Tiers I and II for MTRP - Tier II 

standards have only been approached for the 

Hawaiian green turtle population. However, 

maintaining this level of excellence in 

44 

coming years is problematic given the 

limited current personnel levels and program 

support. Expansion of research and 

monitoring efforts to conduct sea turtle 

assessments of the other Pacific islands, as 

required under the newly formed PIFSC, 

will diminish the scope and quality of work 

in Hawaii, and will be inadequate overall, if 

additional staffing and support are not 

provided. Table 13 summarizes these needs 

to achieve Tier I and Tier II status. This 

would require an additional 35 FTE and 104 

contractors for Tier I and seven more FTE 

and seven more contractors for Tier II. 

5. Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

Marine mammal and turtle assessment 

activities at the SEFSC are distributed 

between two administrative units: the 

Protected Species and Biodiversity Branch 

(PS&BDB), and the Sustainable Fisheries 

Branch (SFB). The PS&BDB conducts 

abundance surveys, estimates total bycatch 

in commercial fisheries, and prepares 

popUlation assessments. The SFB runs the 

fisheries observer program responsible for 

collection of fishery dependent data on 

protected species bycatch in selected 

fisheries. 

Current situation - The PS&BDB and SFB 

programs together currently have a staff of 

33.9 FTEs and 77 contractors located at five 

laboratories in the Southeast Region 

involved with the assessment of marine 

mammals and turtles in Southwest Atlantic 

Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and northern 

Caribbean waters (Table 14-15). 

PS&BDB staff are involved with the 

assessment of35 cetacean stocks, and 5 sea 
turtle popUlations in the geographical 

Southeast Region. Only the coastal Western 

North Atlantic bottlenose dolphin is 

assessed at Tier IT; all other cetacean stocks 

are assessed at Tier I. The greatest 

impediment to improvement of stock 

assessments is the lack of data on stock 

structure: of 35 cetacean stocks, stock 

structure for 31 stocks are at Level 1, and 4 

stocks are at level 2. The lack of adequate 

abundance data is also an issue: of35 

cetacean stocks, 11 have no abundance 

estimate (Level 0), 18 have only a single 

point estimate (Level 1), 5 have an unbiased 

estimate of abundance (Level 2) , and only 

one has an unbiased abundance estimate 

with geographically explicit density 

estimates (Level 3). Only coastal Western 

North Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are well 

studied; most stocks have major gaps in the 

knowledge of their status. 

Table 14. SEFSC protected species staffing requirements for mammals. The numbers of 

additional staff needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier 

n and to meet NOAA's legislative mandates (Tier ll), respectively, are provided. 

Current (FY03) Tier I Tier II 

Staff Activity FTE Contract Other FIE Contract Other FIE Contract Other 

Field Programs 

Survey Leaders 0.8 2.0 2.0 

Abundance Survey Observers 1.5 13.4 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 

Biopsy, Mark/recapture, and Tagging 1.0 1.4 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Studies 

Field collection of biological data 2.1 1.4 2.0 2.0 

Processing of Biological Samples 1.2 0.7 2.0 2.0 

Fishery Observer Programs 

Fishery Observers 24.0 1.0 20.0 

Other Observer Staff 6.0 1.0 

Bycatch Analyses 0.2 1.0 2.0 

Processing of Biological Samples 0.1 1.0 2.0 

Lab/Office Programs 

Stock Identification 1.4 3.5 2.0 2.0 

Analysis of Biological Data 0.8 3.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

Conduct Assessments 1.1 3.0 2.0 

Assessment Research 0.2 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 

Communication of Results 3.8 0.9 1.0 2.0 

Other (list by name) 

Data Management 0.2 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 

45 
Table 15. SEFSC protected species staffing requirements for turtles. The numbers of additional 

staff needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier n and to 

meet NOAA's legislative mandates (Tier 11), respectively, are provided. 

Current (FY03) 

Staff Activity FTE Contract 

Field Programs 

Survey Leaders 2.0 0.5 

Abundance Survey Observers 1.2 

Biopsy, Mark/recapture, and Tagging 0.1 0.1 Studies 

Field collection of biological data 0.1 

Processing of Biological Samples 0.8 

Fishery Observer Programs 

Fishery Observers 20.0 

Other Observer Staff 5.3 2.0 

Bycatch Analyses 1.4 0.3 

Processing of Biological Samples 0.1 

Lab/Office Programs 

Stock Identification 

Analysis of Biological Data 1.7 1.0 

Conduct Assessments 0.6 

Assessment Research 0.8 

Communication of Results 0.7 

Other (list by name) 

Data management support 1.0 

Program administration 0.2 

Survey activities conducted by the PS&BDB 

include: 

• Seasonal (2-3 month) aerial surveys for 

mid-Atlantic bottlenose dolphins 

• 

• 

Seasonal winter aerial surveys of North 

Atlantic right whales 

February-March and July-August 

vessel surveys for large and small 

Other 

1.0 

46 

Tier I Tier II 

FTE Contract Other FTE Contract Other 

1.5 

1.0 

3.0 

1.0 

2.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

3.0 

2.0 1.0 

3.0 6.0 3.0 

2.0 

2.0 

4.0 2.0 

1.0 2.0 

1.0 2.0 

2.0 2.0 

2.0 

3.0 1.0 

2.0 3.0 

1.0 

1.0 

cetaceans in the southeast Western 

North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 

northern Caribbean, on a rotational 

schedule. 

The PS&BDB is also attempting to maintain 

a triennial survey series for coastal cetaceans 

and offshore cetaceans in coordination with 

the NEFSC. However, recent funding 

limitations have impeded these surveys, 

such that the survey frequency is 
approaching once every 5-6 years, rather 

than once every 3-yrs, and prevents 

obtaining statistically meaningful estimates 

of population trends in these areas. Biopsy 

samples for genetic-based population 

research are obtained during all vessel 

surveys, and from dedicated stock-ID 

research on coastal bottlenose dolphins in 

the mid-Atlantic. 

PS&BDB scientists and their associates 

continue to work on improved abundance 

estimation and assessment methods for 

cetaceans in the Southeast. Beginning in 

2000 the PS&BDB developed and 

implemented passive acoustic methods to 

collect acoustic data with towed hydrophone 

arrays, sonobuoys, and bottom mounted 

acoustic recording devices to complement 

and compare with visual survey data, 

thereby expanding the scope of vessel 

surveys to include survey effort during 

nighttime and limited periods of poor 

visibility. The acoustic data also serve as 

the basis for developing correction factors 

for cetacean detection functions obtained 

during visual surveys (e.g., g(O) bias 

correction). 

The PS&BDB program at the NOS Beaufort 

Laboratory focuses on stock structure, 

causes of mortality, and life history of the 

depleted Western North Atlantic coastal 

bottlenose dolphin, and other species with 

sympatric or parapatric distributions or those 

for which strandings represent a significant 

means of obtaining data for assessments 

(e.g., Kogia sp.). Stock identification of 

Western North Atlantic bottlenose dolphins 

is investigated via a multi-disciplinary 

program involving popUlation genetics, 

stable isotope ratios, telemetry, and photoidentification to define multiple biologically 

based management units within the "coastal 

population". Infonnation is 

opportunistically collected on humpback and 

47 

right whales and spotted dolphins. 

Interactions between bottlenose dolphins 

and mid-Atlantic fisheries are monitored 

through a stranding response program, and 

when possible cause of death is detennined 

(i.e., fishery interaction or other cause). 

Supplemental infonnation is provided to the 

NEC's observer program by means of realtime (weekly) data on the number of boats 

fishing, the species being landed, and the 

gear types in use. The program at Beaufort 

includes an age estimation lab for marine 

mammals, primarily delphinids and 

phocoenids, from which vital rates and life 

history parameters are estimated. 

The SEFSC marine mammal molecular 

genetic program at the NOAA Lafayette, 

LA, laboratory conducts stock identification 

research for the Northeast and Southeast 

Regions. This responsibility encompasses 

21 small cetacean and 4 pinniped stocks in 

the NE Region and 28 small cetacean stocks 

in the SE region. Ofthe 53 stocks, 43 (81 %) 

have stock structure infonnation at Levels 0 

or 1 (27 in the Southeast), including 12 

stocks listed as Strategic. Currently the 

SEFSC bio-molecular genetics program 

employs 1 FTE and 3 contractors to address 

genetic stock identification research for the 

NE and SE Regions. However, at this 

staffing level only a few stocks can be 

studied. Staff are involved in other genetic 

work, including genetic species 

identifications of samples in cases where 

decomposition is too great to identify a 

carcass, or where several species are too 

similar to allow accurate identification using 

external characters. This work supports both 

stranding networks and bycatch estimation, 

particularly for species which are difficult to 

identify, such as the beaked whales. The 

genetics program staff is also working to 

improve stock structure analyses by 

developing and incorporating new and/or 

improved laboratory techniques aimed at 
increased accuracy and speed of sample 

processing and improved methods of 

analysis for examining stock structure. 

The SFB is in the process of developing a 

comprehensive bycatch sampling program 

for most Federally managed fisheries in 

Southeast waters. Traditionally, this 

program was partially supported by 

protected species funds and was directed 

towards sampling commercial pelagic and 

bottom long-line and shark gillnet fisheries 

(~3-5% coverage). Coverage in recent years 

has increased to around 8% for the longline 

fisheries. Regardless of available observer 

effort, lack of enforcement of observer 

requirements and unsafe vessels prevent 

many observers from boarding fishing 

vessels and obtaining the needed data on 

protected species (and fisheries) bycatch. 

Increased effort (sufficient observers to 

achieve 8-1 0% coverage) and improved 

compliance from fishers will improve 

information on protected species bycatch. 

Tier I - Under Tier I, the SEFSC would 

seek to accomplish: 

• A reduction in the number of stocks 

with unknown stock structure by 

analyzing tissue samples currently in 

hand and/or collected as part of 

existing surveys 

• An improvement of fishery observer 

coverage to levels that yield 8-10% 

coverage, as appropriate 

• A maintenance of the triennial survey 

coverage for cetaceans 

The lack of an increase in funding for midAtlantic bottlenose dolphin stock 

identification research and interactions with 

48 

fisheries has diminished the field and 

analysis effort and delayed the attainment of 

the goal of defining stock structure and 

conducting real-time monitoring ofthe 

fisheries interactions for this popUlation. In 

addition, initial funding for the cetacean 

aging lab was superceded by the dolphin 

stock ID and mortality monitoring efforts 

and has not been restored, and as a result 

development of life history information for 

PBR calculations and vital rates assessments 

for bottlenose dolphin and other cetacean 

species have been delayed. 

Under Tier I, the SEFSC Bio-Molecular 

Genetics program would seek to reduce the 

number of stocks with stock ID at levels 0 

and 1 using existing samples and collection 

resourc~s. The number of species for which 

this is possible is relatively small because 

sufficient samples for genetic analyses of 

stock structure are available only for a 

handful of these species. Currently, base 

funds support only 2 of the 4 staff. To 

maintain status quo, funding will be required 

for support of the other two staff members. 

Additionally, staff for dedicated biopsy field 

work (4 people - shooter, boat navigator, 

data collector and photographer) are needed 

to complete ongoing stock structure studies 

in the Southeast and would be critical for 

bringing several Gulf of Mexico stocks to 

Tier II. A biometrician with experience in 

genetic analyses is needed to improve 

analytical methods. A database technician is 

required to properly archive current and 

future. This effort, by itself could move 5-

10 stocks into Tier II. 

Increased observer effort to achieve 8-10% 

coverage in specific Southeast fisheries with 

known interactions with cetaceans would 

greatly improve bycatch estimates, and 

facilitate the moving some affected stocks to 

Tier II (e.g., Western North Atlantic offshore 
bottlenose dolphin, Atlantic spotted 

dolphin). Without an increase in the 

frequency of abundance surveys to cover all 

three southeast regions, it will not be 

possible to move any Tier I stocks to Tier II. 

Increased survey frequency will provide 

sufficient information to provide updates for 

outdated abundance estimates. This will 

require the addition of 2 FTE survey leaders, 

2 FTE observers, and 12 observers to staff 

and analyze data from expanded cruise 

schedules (Table 14). Additional staff and 

resources will also be needed to collect, 

manage, analyze and process the data, 

particularly the acoustic data gathered in 

parallel with the visual survey data. 

Tier II - In order to achieve the 

requirements of Tier II, the SEFSC will need 

to: 

• Conduct seasonal abundance surveys 

for year-round coverage 

• Implement directed biopsy studies to 

identify stock structure ofthe 

remaining unstudied stocks 

• Expand observer coverage to ensure 

baseline monitoring of all fisheries 

with protected species bycatch 

An increase in the number and frequency of 

abundance surveys in all three Southeast 

regions will be necessary to move Tier I 

stocks to Tier II. Increased survey effort will 

allow statistically confident detection of 

popUlation trends over time and cover all 

seasons to detect and analyze seasonal shifts 

in abundance and distribution. Abundance 

surveys will be expanded to include a 

rotating spring, summer, fall and winter 

surveys to assess the abundance of species 

49 

whose abundance is currently only known 

from limited summer surveys. The survey 

schedule would include 4 seasonal surveys 

that rotate between the Mid-Atlantic, Gulf of 

Mexico and Northern Caribbean areas to 

provide complete seasonal coverage. These 

surveys would employ integrated visual and 

passive acoustic survey methodologies, and 

analyses that incorporate correction factors 

for g(O) and other known biases. A 

companion effort to these surveys would be 

an expansion of biopsy collections for 

genetic analyses of stock structure. 

Dedicated biopsy sampling programs will 

target specific populations/species for which 

insufficient genetic information is available. 

In addition to a doubling of platform costs (4 

instead of2 vessel surveys/yr), additional 

staffwill be needed to collect samples and 

process/analyze the data. Over 10 yrs, the 

combination of increased survey effort and 

stock structure studies should move all 

stocks to Level 2 for stock structure and 

abundance. 

Dolphins found in the extensive bays, 

sounds and estuaries in the Southeast have 

been little studied. Limited telemetry data 

have shown that individuals or even stocks 

of dolphins do not strictly reside in estuaries 

or on the coast but to some extent move 

between these environments. Accurate 

estimates of abundance, the extent of 

isolation, residency, and between-habitat 

movement are required to assess these 

popUlations from the mid-Atlantic to the 

Gulf of Mexico, and will require expanding 

genetic, telemetric, mark-recapture studies, 

vessel and aircraft surveys, and research. 

To meet Tier II needs, genetic stock 

structure of the remaining Northeast and 

Southeast Region cetacean stocks is needed. 
To accomplish this, additional staff are 

needed to collect sufficient biopsy samples 

from each stock for this determination to be 

made. At a minimum, a second boat crew of 

four people (shooter, boat navigator, data 

collector and photographer) is needed to 

work inshore and shallow water stocks in the 

Southeast. Collection of biopsy samples 

from more pelagic stocks in the Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico will require a variety of 

large-vessel cruises dedicated to biopsy 

sampling. These cruises must be dedicated 

to biopsy sampling rather than have biopsy 

effort as an add on to other efforts and must 

use vessels conducive to successful 

biopsying, or sufficient sampling will not be 

achieved. Furthermore, seasonal variation in 

stock structure must be addressed, requiring 

multiple cruises per year. Additional 

laboratory staff (3) will be needed to process 

and analyze the samples for Southeast 

stocks. Similar staff additions and cruises 

are required for NE stocks, including small 

vessel work to collect pinniped samples (see 

section on NEFSC). Improved resources for 

data collection, including a DNA sequencer 

with higher throughput capabilities and a 

multi-well fluorometer are necessary for 

more timely analysis of samples. 

Finally, it is proposed that protected species 

observer coverage in those fisheries with 

known interactions will be increased to 

ensure that all fisheries of concern have a 

permanent and statistically meaningful level 

of coverage. This should move Tier I stocks 

to Tier 11, and ensure that some stocks do not 

regress to Tier I. With acquisition of Tier 11 

staffing and resources, all stocks should be 

moved to Tier 11 or higher. 

6. Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Marine mammal and turtle assessment 

activities at the SWFSC are conducted 

50 

within the Protected Resources Division 

(PRD). The PRD is responsible for 

conducting abundance surveys, estimating 

fishery mortality, and assessing the status of 

7 pinniped stocks, 30 west-coast cetacean 

stocks, and 10 eastern tropical Pacific 

dolphin stocks. The SWFSC has 

traditionally assessed the status of 19 

Hawaiian Island cetacean stocks, and 6 turtle 

species, but some or all of these will 

eventually become the responsibility of the 

newly formed PIFSC. 

Current Situation - The PRD conducts 

abundance surveys, estimates total bycatch 

in commercial fisheries, and prepares stock 

assessments. In addition to conducting 

assessments and assessment research, the 

PRD produces the molecular stock 

identification used for the stock assessments. 

Activities within the molecular stock 

identification program include scientists 

directing studies, analyzing data, preparing 

reports and papers, and biologica~ and 

molecular technicians who archive, prepare, 

and analyze biological specimens. Stock 

identification analyses are conducted on core 

species from the eastern tropical Pacific, the 

Hawaiian EEZ, the U.S. west coast and 

selected species from Alaska (Steller sea 

lions, killer whales, harbor seals, and beluga 

whales). We also provide scientific advice 

to the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take 

Reduction Team, which has been working to 

reduce bycatch in the drift gillnet fishery to 

below PBR levels. 

The PRD currently has a staff of 26 FTE and 

~20 contractor FTE involved with the 

assessment of marine mammals and turtles 

in the Pacific Ocean (Tables 16-17). The 

Southwest Regional Office fields the 

observer program and includes another 2 

FTE and 22 contractors. 
Of the cetaceans occurring in the U.S. EEZ, 

3 cetacean stocks are at Tier II and all others 

are at Tier I. All the pinniped stocks are 

currently at Tier II, except for one at Tier I. 

Ofthe dolphin stocks in the eastern tropical 

Pacific that the PRD assesses, all are at Tier 

II, except for two at Tier I. All turtle species 

are at Tier I. 

Table 16. SWFSC protected species staffing requirements for mammals. The numbers of 

additional staff needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier 

I) and to meet NOAA's legislative mandates (Tier 11), respectively, are provided. 

Current (FY03) Tier I Tier II 

Staff Activity FTE Contract Other FTE Contract Other FTE Contract Other 

Field Programs 

Survey Leaders 1.0 1.0 

Abundance Survey Observers 3.0 1.5 

Biopsy, Mark/recapture, and Tagging 

Studies 

Field collection of biological data 3.5 5.3 1.5 4.3 0.8 

Processing of Biological Samples 3.5 7.0 2.0 2.0 

Fishery Observer Programs 

Fishery Observers 

Other Observer Staff 2.0 3.0 1.0 14.0 1.0 1.0 

Bycatch Analyses 

Processing of Biological Samples 

Lab/Office Programs 

Stock Identification 4.0 2.0 2.0 

Analysis of Biological Data 4.0 0.5 3.5 2.0 

Conduct Assessments 2.5 2.0 2.0 

Assessment Research 0.5 4.0 2.0 

Communication of Results 1.0 1.0 2.0 

Other (list by name) 

Total 22.0 40.8 0.0 19.0 19.3 0.0 9.0 0.0 

51 
Tablel7. SWFSC protected species staffing requirements for turtles. The numbers of additional 

staff needed to collect the types of information to maintain status quo (Tier I) and to 

meet NOAA's legislative mandates (Tier 11), respectively, are provided. 

Current (FY03) 

Staff Activity FTE Contract 

Field Programs 

Survey Leaders 0.8 

Abundance Survey Observers 1.5 

Biopsy, Mark/recapture, and Tagging 0.8 Studies 

Field collection of biological data 0.8 

Processing of Biological Samples 0.8 

Fishery Observer Programs 

Fishery Observers 

Other Observer Staff 

Bycatch Analyses 0.3 

Processing of Biological Samples 1.0 

Lab/Office Programs 

Stock Identification 0.8 1.0 

Analysis of Biological Data 1.0 

Conduct Assessments 

Assessment Research 

Communication of Results 

Other (list by name) 

Data Management 

GIS technician 

6.1 

We are currently planning summer/fall 

surveys of the US west coast once every 6 

years and the Hawaii EEZ once every 6 

years (120 sea days for each survey). In the 

past funding has been sufficient for this level 

of survey effort; however, funding comes 

from discretionary funds in national 

programs and the available discretionary 

funds may not be sufficient to fund the next 

survey (2005). Pinniped stocks are less 

expensive to survey, and we have been 

averaging 2-year survey intervals for 

Other 

0.0 

52 

Tier I Tier II 

FTE Contract Other FTE Contract Other 

1.5 

0.3 

0.3 

1.3 

0.5 1.0 

0.3 1.0 

0.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.5 1.0 

1.0 

4.0 0.0 5.0 

northern elephant seals and 1-yr survey 

intervals for California sea lions (the latter 

funded with money for salmonidifishery 

interaction studies). With funding from the 

U.S. Navy, we have been developing 

capabilities to conduct passive acoustic 

surveys of delphinids. Surveys of the 

eastern tropical Pacific will be conducted 

twice, every three years (240 sea days for 

each survey) for the core species and for the 

coastal species, but these surveys are 
contingent upon annual renewal of funding 

for this research. 

The Marine Turtle Research Program 

(MTRP) within the Protected Species 

Division has been working to increase 

scientific knowledge about threatened and 

endangered sea turtle stocks in the eastern 

Pacific Ocean as well as greater Pacific 

Ocean basin. At present, MTRP 

investigations focus primarily on Pacific 

leatherbacks, Eastern Pacific loggerheads, 

and East Pacific green turtles, although other 

stocks such as Pacific olive ridleys and 

hawksbills are also targeted. In all cases, the 

U.S. Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Plans 

serve as templates to help develop research 

and conservation priorities. The MTRP uses 

a variety of technologies including genetic 

analysis, stable isotope analysis, and 

biotelemetry to answer questions about stock 

structure, in-water ecology, and migration. 

In response to the dramatic decline of the 

Pacific leatherback, recovery of this 

population is considered highest priority; 

MTRP actions have been multidimensional, 

including nesting beach conservation, inwater research, and socioeconomic analysis. 

In addition to direct research, we work 

closely with fishers and observers groups in 

a number of Pacific rim countries such as 

Papua, Papua New Guinea, Guatemala, 

Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Galapagos IslandsEcuador to work toward fisheries bycatch 

mitigation. This networking will not only 

assist in enhancing the research capabilities 

of in-country biologists, but will also lead to 

MTRP acquiring additional genetic and 

stable isotope samples for stock 

identification. Moreover, in response to the 

growing concerns about incidental bycatch 

of sea turtles in artisanallongline, drift-net, 

and set-net fisheries, the MTRP provides 

training to concerned onboard and dockside 

observers in these countries. Information 

53 

exchange focuses on de-hooking, 

resuscitation, tissue sample collection, and 

data recording. 

Tier I - Under Tier I, the SWFSC would 

seek to accomplish: 

• Augment lost funding to maintain a 6-

year survey interval for Hawaiian 

cetacean and U.S. West Coast 

cetaceans 

• Analyze the backlog of acoustic data 

collected 1998-2002 in order to 

estimate g(O) for sperm whales and 

delphinids 

• Conduct spatially explicit analyses of 

past survey data to estimate density 

and abundance on a finer spatial scale 

• Salvage data from pre-1991 surveys 

and convert to a common format (data 

rescue). 

• Improve data accessibility by 

conversion to GIS format. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Develop new analytical methods 

focused on model selection and 

parameter estimation 

Reduce the number of stocks with 

unknown stock structure 

Continue to expand and improve the 

SWFSC tissue archive and database 

Develop an integrated molecular 

laboratory information management 

system 

Standardize data rescue formats from 

past molecular genetics and 

demographic studies and link existing 
• 

• 

• 

databases into a relational database 

system 

Continue to improve our 

understanding of variability among 

populations 

Develop and test molecular tools to 

assess reproductive condition from 

biopsy samples to estimate 

demographic parameters 

Fully fund data processing work for 

existing ecosystem field studies. The 

PRD has been conducting ecosystem 

studies concurrent with marine 

mammal assessment cruises for almost 

20 years. We now view these studies 

as obligatory. For example, our recent 

Report to Congress on Results of 

IDCP A Research included a section on 

how ecosystem changes may affect 

abundance of depleted dolphin stocks; 

without this section, a major 

hypothesis would have gone 

unaddressed. Because this research is 

a part of every assessment cruise 

conducted by PRD, we place this item 

in the Tier I category. 

Bullet 1 above would require a permanent 

survey coordinator (in addition to the 

seasonal observers and sea days currently 

used by the PRD). Bullets 2-5 would 

require an additional 6 FTEs (an acoustic 

analyst, a line-transect analyst, an 

assessment research position, a data 

technician position, a statistician and a GIS 

expert). Bullets 6-13 would require 10 FTEs 

(2 biological technicians, an analytical 

population geneticist, a cetacean molecular 

systematist, a demographer, and a cell 

biologist and 2 photogrammetrists, a 

communications position, and an ecosystem 

studies technician). 

54 

With the above funding, we could expect 

sperm whales and some of the delphinids 

and sea turtles to move from Tier I to Tier II. 

Tier II - Under Tier II, the PRD would seek 

to accomplish: 

• 

• 

• 

Increase the number of sea days per 

cetacean survey from 120 to 240 days 

and decrease the survey intervals from 

6 years to 5 years for both U.S. West 

Coast and Hawaii EEZ 

Initiate cetacean surveys in the U.S. 

EEZ waters of the Western Pacific 

(American Samoa, Wake, Guam, 

Northern Marianas, Johnston Atol, 

Jarvis, Howard, and Baker Islands). 

Survey effort would be 120 sea days 

each year, rotating among island 

chains 

Conduct winter/spring aerial surveys 

along the US West Coast and 

winter/spring ship surveys in the 

Hawaiian EEZ to determine 

seasonality of cetacean distribution 

• Initiate sound playback studies to 

determine the behavioral and 

physiological responses to noise 

• Establish a national position for an 

archivist to develop storage procedures 

and standards so that specimens held at 

various Science Centers will be 

maintained in a consistent and safe 

manner 

• Establish a national position to develop 

a web-based distribution database of 

the specimen archive 

Bullet 1 would require 10 seasonal 

employees and 120 additional sea days on a 
NOAA research vessel (twice, every 5 

years). Bullet 2 would require 6 seasonal 

employees, 120 additional sea days on a 

NOAA research vessel every year, and one 

FTE (a line-transect expert). Bullet 3 would 

require 6 seasonal employees and one FTE 

(a line-transect expert). Bullet 4 would 

require one FTE (an acoustic expert) plus 30 

sea days for directed studies and additional 

funds to buy acoustic playback equipment 

and to fund field studies. Bullets 5-6 would 

require two FTEs (national positions 

consisting of one archivist and one computer 

programmer). 

With Tier IT staffing and resources, all 

stocks should be moved to Tier IT or higher. 

C. General Resource Issues 

1. Staffing (NOAA Fisheries employees 

and contractors) 

Staff necessary to achieve the Tiers of 

Excellence include both NOAA Fisheries 

employees and contractors. Much of the 

increase in labor support can reasonably be 

met by contractors, particularly where the 

duty is seasonal or relatively short term (e.g., 

fishery or survey observers). However, new 

long-term staff needs must be met with new 

NOAA Fisheries FTEs. At the present, new 

NOAA Fisheries billets are extremely 

limited, but the data presented in Table 6 

indicate that a least a doubling ofFTE will 

be needed to achieve Tiers I and IT. This 

increase greatly exceeds the current FTE 

ceilings, but represents an important 

investment in the long term future of NOAA 

Fisheries. 

55 

2. Education and Training 

Improved training for NOAA Fisheries 

scientists is a significant issue within the 

agency. New NOAA initiatives for safety 

training in small boats and aerial surveys 

have emerged during FY03-04. Similarly, 

staff training and professional competency 

were issues identified the development of 

the Protected Species Requirements Plan. 

Additional training is clearly needed in: 

• 

• 

• 

Science (e.g., increased competency in 

survey and statistical methods, GIS 

and genetic techniques, etc), 

Management/regulation (e.g, training 

in NEP A, ESA, etc), and 

Skills (e.g, small boat handling and 

safety, aerial survey safety, wilderness 

safety) 

In 2002, NOAA Fisheries protected species 

stock assessment scientists were surveyed to 

identify "What types of additional 

training/professional development 

opportunities would best help you meet 

present or future assessment challenges?". 

Respondents were asked to rank 10 types of 

training from 1-4: 

1 : would greatly enhance the ability to 

produce accurate, precise and timely 

assessments 

2: would help enhance the ability to 

produce accurate, precise, and timely 

assessments 
3: may marginally improve the accuracy, 

precision, or timeliness of assessments 

4: would not help or is irrelevant to these 

specIes 

The results ofthe survey, sorted by average 

rank, are provided in Figure 6. The highest 

priority desire was for special interest 

workshops to exchange information on 

specific stock assessment techniques. This 

could be a complement to the National 

Stock Assessment Workshop held for 

NOAA fisheries assessment scientists. 

Special interest workshops were 

presumeably ranked highly because of the 

efficiency of learning cutting-edge stock 

assessment techniques in a small, 

collaborative atmosphere. The survey also 

did not ask for good topics for workshops, 

but topics might include: programs MARK 

and DISTANCE training and conservation 

genetics. 

Funds for additional travel to conferences 

and assistance with advanced course work 

received the lowest ranks. The low rank for 

advanced course work may be due to the fact 

that most of the respondents were senior 

staff (most already with MS or PhD degrees) 

and would likely not need or be interested in 

pursuing advanced course work. 

3. Vessels and Aircraft 

The availability of suitable platforms 

currently limits the number and quality of 

abundance surveys. Protected species 

surveys frequently compete with fishery 

surveys for scarce time on NOAA vessels, 

and there is often insufficient ship time 

available. As a result, protected species 

programs regularly contract for vessel time, 

56 

which adds significantly to survey cost. 

Contract costs for a 40m+ vessel (the 

minimum for at-sea surveys) are usually 

$4,000/sea day or greater, with larger vessels 

(e.g., UNOLS research ships) running more 

than $10,000 per day. This problem is 

compounded by the difficulty of finding 

ships with appropriate characteristics for 

sighting surveys (e.g., many sighting surveys 

now require separate locations for multiple 

sets of observers, all of which have to have 

an unobstructed view of the water at a 

minimum height above the water). Other 

operations (e.g., seal or dolphin captures) 

require relatively shallow draft vessels of 

medium endurance with the capability to 

launch and/or support skiffs. Most NOAA 

vessels do not meet these needs, and while 

the next generation of vessels will provide 

good survey platforms, their large size will 

not allow them to be used in near shore 

areas. Without investment in additional 

smaller, medium endurance vessels, 

NOAA's Protected Species ship needs will 

continue to require charter vessels. 

The aircraft needed to support protected 

species operations also must meet a diverse 

set of mission requirements. The recent 

acquisition of a third Twin Otter by 

NOAA's NMAO is a valuable asset to 

NOAA's survey operations. However, 

all three Twin Otters are already booked 

to almost 100% capacity. The expected 

increase in survey operations to meet 

protected species needs will require NMAO 

to acquire additional aircraft (and staff) to 

keep pace with survey requirements. 

However, NMAO may not be able to meet 

all of these needs due to requirements for 

multiple aircraft to be simultaneously 

available in the same general location (e.g., 

harbor seal surveys in SE Alaska require 3 
or more aircraft at the same time for a 

synoptic survey of the entire region). These 

needs will probably continue to be met 

through charters. However, use of non 

governmental aircraft carries the additional 

burden of ensuring that charter aircraft meet 

NOAA's safety standards. NOAA aircraft 

are maintained at a higher standard 

(comparable to FAA Part 135 which is the 

air carrier standard for common carriage 

operations) than most charter aircraft, which 

are maintained at FAA Part 91 (the general 

operating rules for aircraft). The increased 

inspection and training requirements 

inherent in Part 135 generally produces safer 

survey operations. NMAO is currently 

developing a revised NOAA Administrative 

Order that will address improved aircraft 

and pilot safety along the lines of the Part 

135 Standard. The impact on surveys 

operations will be improved survey safety, 

but also increased cost. 

4. Software 

Data collected during surveys and analyses 

of these data rely upon a wide variety of 

software products. Some of these are "offthe-shelf," like DISTANCE, MARK, and 

Oracle, but others continue to be developed. 

A national investment in the development of 

a standard protected species assessment 

toolbox (such as exists for fisheries stock 

assessments) could significantly improve the 

quality and transparency of the protected 

species assessment efforts. Such a toolbox 

could include software designed to facilitate 

collection of visual sighting data during a 

survey, collection and processing of passive 

acoustic data (whether from towed arrays or 

pop-up buoys), analysis of telemetry data, 

integration of acoustic and visual sighting 

data, and so on. Presently, each Center 

proceeds independently with software 

57 

development, so a centralized national 

program would save funds and enhance the 

quality and utility of the software. 

5. Equipment 

There are four relatively expensive sets of 

equipment needed by some or all of the 

Centers: 

• Small boats - minimum of $35-40K 

per vessel with engine(s) and trailer 

• Telemetry equipment - including 

satellite platform transmitters ($2.5-4K 

each) and associated processing costs 

• Passive acoustic receivers and 

associated equipment - either towed 

arrays ($20K +) or pop-up buoys ($5-

10K each) 

• Genetic analytic equipment 

(sequencers, etc) - very expensive but 

limited to the 2-3 Centers that support 

the genetic needs of the other Centers 

Each Center has varying needs and 

priorities. 

6. Facilities 

At present, most of the protected resource 

groups are space limited at their respective 

Centers (as are the Centers in general). As 

such, additional space will be necessary at 

all the Centers to house additional 

personnel. Some of this can be met through 

distribution of new staff to field laboratories 

such as the AFSC's Kodiak and Juneau 

(Auke Bay) laboratories. 
V. Implementation Strategies 

A. Implementation and Time Frames 

The development ofthis plan comes at an 

opportune time because of the simultaneous 

implementation of NOAA Fisheries' 

Planning, Programming, Budgeting and 

Execution System (PPBES). PPBES 

provides the vehicle to feed the information 

developed in this report into the FY06-FY10 

budget cycles for NOAA. More specifically, 

the information developed here supports the 

Protected Resources components of the 

Ecosystem Research Matrix Program 

(ERMP). Within this program NOAA 

Fisheries is tasked with identifying the 

Program's 100% Requirement. The 100% 

Requirement is intended to include all 

resources that would be required to 

implement 100% of our mandated research 

activities for all programs including 

protected species (marine mammals, marine 

turtles, salmon, and other listed species). 

For marine mammals and turtles, the 

assumption is that the 100% requirement is 

equivalent to achieving Tier IT for all species 

and stocks. 

Within the ERMP, protected species 

research is a component of at least two 

programs: 

• Ecosystem Observation System 

• Ecosystem Research 

In addition, results from these programs 

provide direct support to the Protected 

Species Management Program. 

The first program (EOSP) crosswalks 

directly to resource needs identified under 

the Field Based Programs, Fishery Observer 

58 

Programs, and Lab/Office Programs 

elements of this plan. The second program 

(ERP) potentially relates to technology 

development under all three programs. 

Note that this plan only provides estimates 

on current and anticipated routine 

operational activities at each Science Center, 

and not large special programs. For 

example, the NEFSC's North Atlantic right 

whale program, SWFSC Eastern Tropical 

Pacific tuna-dolphin population monitoring 

program and the AFSC Steller sea lion 

program are additional programs funded 

directly by Congress that will be added to 

the 100% Requirement. This may also be 

true for an acoustical component to the 

ocean observing system, and marine 

mammal acoustical research. 

This plan and the associated ERMP 

elements focus only upon research. The 

PPBES also includes a separate element for 

Protected Species Management (PSM). 

Elements of the Protected Species ERMP 

support the PSM they are separate. 

Consequently, the 100% Requirement 

developed for PSM represents additional 

funding beyond that included here (or in the 

Protected Species ERMP). 

Funding under the ERMP's 100% 

Requirement should by 2010, be sufficient to 

provide the resources necessary to implement 

this Plan. However, the time to achieve Tier IT 

for all stocks and species will lag behind due 

in part to the difficulty of fully implementing 

the necessary field sampling programs. That 

is, to adequately determine stock identification 

for all cetacean species, a large number of 

individuals (> 50 at a minimum) will need to 

be biopsied from ships or small boats, and 
the biopsy samples will then need to be 

analyzed by NOAA Fisheries' geneticists. 

To obtain the requisite sample sizes, 

dedicated cruises will be needed to simply 

obtain the genetic samples. Many of these 

cruises could sample multiple species, but in 

some cases, differences in seasonal 

distribution would require multiple cruises 

in an area over several years. As a result, 

even with full funding available by 2010, it 

will take at least another 5-10 years before 

most species will be moved to Tier ll. 

B. Funding - NOAA Fisheries and Its 

Partners 

NOAA has traditionally funded most of its 

research. However, even with 

implementation of the 100% ERMP there is 

still a potential for significant cooperation 

between NOAA and its Federal partners. 

This could occur at three levels. First, 

support of NOAA funding initiatives by 

partners such as the US Navy, DOl's 

Minerals Management Service, and the 

Marine Mammal Commission would likely 

increase the success of funding initiatives in 

Congress. Secondly, cooperative research 

programs between NOAA and research units 

such as the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval 

Research (ONR) or the National Science 

Foundation would greatly increase the 

spending power of NOAA funding. 

Currently, ONR and NOAA cooperatively 

fund a number of research projects, 

particularly with respect to marine acoustics. 

Finally, NOAA can continue to seek funding 

59 

for its research from external sources, 

although these sources generally fund 

specific initiatives rather than generic 

programs. 

c. Future Development of This Plan 

Completion of this Plan does not signal the 

end of the process of improving NOAA 

Fisheries stock assessments. A number of 

significant issues remain. The most 

important may be that Tier III - Next 

Generation Assessments remains to be 

defined and assessed. Here, an international 

workshop should be convened to identify the 

future of protected species assessments. 

This workshop could be held jointly with 

NOAA fishery assessment scientists. 

An important next step will be the extension 

of the planning process to protected species 

other than mammal and turtles, and the 

development of a complementary 

requirements plan for Protected Species 

Management. Discussions on these issues 

are underway. 

Finally, the data supporting this document 

require regular updating. In particular, the 

status of knowledge about individual stocks 

and species (Appendix Tables 3-4) provides 

an important metric to measure the progress 

of NOAA Fisheries towards meeting its 

mandates under the MMP A and ESA. To 

that end, the levels of information available 

for each stock should be updated. 
Literature Cited 

Barlow, J.; Swartz, S.L.; Eagle, T.C.; Wade, P.R 1995. U.S. marine mammal stock 

assessments: guidelines for preparation, background, and a summary of the 1995 

assessments. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-95-6. 76 p. 

NMFS. 2001. Marine fisheries stock assessment improvement plan: report of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service National Task Force for Improving Fish Stock Assessment. 

Second ed. (rev.) U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-56. 69 p. 

Wade, P.R; Angliss, RP. 1997. Guidelines for assessing marine mammal stocks: report of the 

GAMMS Workshop, April 3-5, 1996, Seattle, Washington. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-12. 93 p. 

60 
Acknowledgments 

We gratefully acknowledge all those who contributed to the development of this document. The 

guidance from William Fox and Pamela Mace (fonnerly) from NOAA Fisheries' Office of 

Science and Technology was invaluable in the design of the Plan. Staff from the Centers and 

FIPR provided most of the hard infonnation in this document: Jason Baker, George Balazs, Jay 

Barlow, Andy Dizon, Peter Dutton, Sue Moore, Cheryl Ryder, and Jeff Seminoffwere crucial in 

this regard. Many other members of the Science Center staff also helped. Regional office 

Protected Resources leads (Cathy Campbell, Mary Colligan, Garth Griffin, Charles Kamella, 

Michael Payne), Marine Mammal Commission (Tim Ragen), Minerals Management Service (Lee 

Benner), and the US Navy's Office N45 (Y. Frank Stone) provided important guidance on data 

needs. Thanks to Fredric Serchuk and Tom Eagle for a thorough review of drafts of this report. 

Finally, we thank Donna Wieting for her support from the very beginning of this project. 

61 
Appendix Table 1. Detailed protected species mandates within NOAA Fisheries 

Strategic Goal Strategic Program Component Mandate Protected Species Protected Species Program Component 

Objective Science Information Management Requirements Capabilities 

Requirements 

Ecosystems Objective B: Protected Species ESA§§ An extinction risk Make ListingJDe-listing ListingJDe-listing 

Protect, Restore Listing 4(b), analysis which uses: determinations, Designate determinations 

and Manage MMPA§§ Stock ID, Abundance, Critical Habitat, Evaluate 

species and their 112 (e), 115 Anth. Mortality, Natl Conservation efforts, 

habitats listed (a) mortality, non-lethal evaluate economic and 

!under the effects, assessment other relevant impacts, 

Endangered frequency, demography, review petitions, conduct 

Species and habitat use, Food habits proactive conservation 

Marine Mammal efforts 

Protection Acts. 

Critical Habitat 

Species of Concern 

Protected Species ESA§§ iAn assessment of Develop Recovery Plans Pacific Salmon 

Recovery 4©){2), 4(f), population viability i/Conservation plans, Recovery 

4(g),MMPA which uses: Stock ID, Implement recovery plans, 

§§ 103(f), Abundance, Anth. administer recovery teams, 

115(b) Mortality, Natl complete reports to 

mortality, non-lethal congress on recovery, 

effects, assessment conduct post-delisting 

frequency, demography, monitoring, complete 5 yr. 

habitat use, Food habits, status reviews, develop 

Artificial propagation guidance 

information. 

Marine Turtle 

Other Species 

Marine Mammal 

Status Review Updates 

62 
Strategic Goal Strategic Program Component Mandate Protected Species Protected Species Program Component 

Objective Science Information Management Requirements Capabilities 

Requirements 

Protected Species ESA §§ 2 Outreach, education, Outreach 

Education 

Environmental 

Protected Species ESA §§ 4(f), Approve Management ESA section 6 

Partnerships with 6, AgreementslReview State agreements 

States,Tribes and Local 10(a)(I)(B), ProgramslIssue 

Entities MMPA§§ fundinglDevelop Habitat 

109,112,119 Conservation Plans 

PCSRF 

MMP A agreements 

Habitat Conservation 

Protected Species ESA §§ 7 Stock ID, Abundance, Review Federal Programs Section 7consultations 

Federal ESA Anth. Mortality 

Consultations (including gear 

interactions, Nat! 

mortality, non-lethal 

effects, assessment 

frequency, demography, 

Ihabitat use, Food habits, 

physiology, ecological 

relationships to habitat 

Streamlined Section 7 

Section 7 training and 

Protected Species ESA §§ Encourage International ESAICITES 

Cooperation on 8(b), Conservation, regulate 

International issues 8A,MMPA trade in listed species 

§§ 108, 

Whaling ----

63 
Strategic Goal Strategic Program Component Mandate Protected Species Protected Species tprogram Component 

Objective Science Information Management Requirements Capabilities 

Requirements 

Convention 

Act 

MMPAlIWC 

Protected Species MMPA Collect and periodically Establish Marine Mammal Marine Mammal 

Marine Mammal Title IV update: l)data on Health and Stranding Stranding/Response 

Health and Stranding rescuing and rehab'ing Program, develop guidance 

Response on species by species on release of rehabilitated 

basis to determine when marine mammals, establish 

animal can be returned a marine mammal tissue 

to wild, 2) collect, bank, respond to unusual 

preserve, tissues for mortality events, establish 

physical chemical and stranding response 

biological analyses, 3) agreements 

regional stranding by 

numbers, 4) regional 

stranding by conditions, 

5) regional stranding by 

causes of illness and 

deaths, 6) compare 

illness and deaths with 

~hysical, chemical, and 

biological 

environmental 

parameters 

Marine Mammal 

Prescott grants 

! 

Protected Species MMPA§§ Stock ID, Abundance, Establish International Tuna/DolpbinProgram 

Marine Mammal l04(h), ~nth. Mortality, Natl Dolphin Conservation 

Fishery Interactions 118,301 and mortality, non-lethal Program, issue regs for 

others, Tuna effects, assessment IDCP, issue authorizations 

I 

convention frequency, demography, for commercial fishing 

Act, habitat use, Food habits 

64 
Strategic Goal Strategic Program Component Mandate Protected Species Protected Species Program Component 

Objective Science Information Management Requirements Capabilities 

Requirements 

Dolphin IPhysiology, ecological 

Protection relationships to habitat, 

Consumer subsistence harvest 

Information ~on-Iethal impacts of 

Act encirclement 

Fishery 

Take Reduction 

Protected Species ESA §§ 11, Conduct Enforcement ESAlMMPA 

Enforcement MMPA§§ Enforcement 

103(a), 

107,301 

Protected Species ~EPA,ESA NEPA Frontloading 

Regulatory Section 7 

Streamlining 

Review ofNEPA 

Protected Species ESA§§ Stock ID, Abundance, Issue Permits for Research Research and 

Permittingffake ~(d),lO,MM ~nth. Mortality, Natl and Enhancement (MMPA Enhancement 

~uthorization PA§§ mortality, non-lethal Public display as well as 

10I(a)(5),10 effects, assessment scientific research and 

~,118 frequency, demography, enhancement), issue small 

habitat use, Food habits, take authorizations for 

tphysiology, ecological MM, issue permits for 

relationships to habitat, incidental take, authorize 

subsistence harvest release of experimental 

1P0pulations, 

develop/administer 

~rotective regulations, 

~ermit incidental take in 

commercial fisheries 

Incidental Take 

65 
Strategic Goal Strategic Program Component Mandate Protected Species IProtected Species Program Component ! 

~bjective Science Information Management Requirements Capabilities 

Requirements 

4( d) protective 

MMP A Commercial I 

66 
Appendix Table 2. Regulatory requirements for marine mammal data and information 

Legislation! Decision Type Decision Criteria/Standard Infonnation Required to Make Decision 

Part 

ESA General 

ESA§4 Listing E & T Spp best scientific and commercial data only 1. Threats to habitat 

2. Utilization 

specific criteria currently under development 3. Disease/predation 

4. Existing regulatory mechanisms 

5. Quantitative assessment of other impacts natural/manmade 

(human-related mortality) 

6. Abundance & trends 

7. Stock Structure 

ESA§4 Designating Critical best scientific and commercial data AND 1. Season!temporal/spatial habitat use 

Habitat economic impact 

Dredging Activites 

ESA§7 Jeopardy "Appreciably" affect survival and recovery of 1. Abundance 

Adverse Modif. of CH spp in the wild 2. Stock structure 

Efficacy of RP AslRPMs 3. Human related mortality (quantitative assessment) 

Exemption require 4. Characteristics of human related mortality 

5. Seasonal distribution 

6. Animal movements 

7. Trends in abundance, mortality, and distribution 

8. Habitat utilization and structure 

9. Ecological relationships in habitat 

10. Nature of threats 

11. Quantitative assessment of impact of threats 

12. Unusual mortality events 

13. Cumulative impacts of non-lethal stressors 

14. Existence value data 

15. Behavior (e.g. feeding, foraging) 

16. Process infonnation (e.g. how animals respond to sound) I 

17. Physiology 

67 
I 

Legislation! Decision Type Decision Criteria/Standard Information Required to Make Decision I 

Part 

ESA § 10 Permits for incidental take must be incidental See parameters under Section 7, above 

take minlmitigate impact 

no jeopardy 

MMPA § 103 and 104 Permits for taking or Factors considered in regulations: 1) existing and future levels of nun spp and stocks 

importation -existing and future levels of nun spp and stocks 2) existing int'l treaty obligations of US 

-existing int'l treaty obligations of US 3) marine ecosystem and related env considerations 

-marine ecosystem and related env 4) economic and technological feasibility of implementation of Sec 

considerations 103 

-economic and technological feasibility of 5 through 8 are based on sec 117 determinations, see below) 

implementation of Sec 103 9) any other terms and conditions approp based partly on Sec 117 I -Every 12 months, Secty must publish and info but may include things like affects of acoustics and vessel 

report to Congress on status of all marine traffic 

mammal species and population stocks 10) Harassment-be able to differentiate between level A & B and 

subject to MMPA resultant impacts 

Sec 104 any permit must specify: 

# and kind of animals 

location and manner of taking 

period for permit validation 

any other terms and conditions approp 

Harassment- differentiate level A & B 

Fishing Activites 

ESA§ 7 Jeopardy "Appreciably" affect survival and recovery of See list under dredging 

Adverse Modif. of CH spp in the wild 4. Under category 4 particularly important is data on characteristics 

Efficacy of RP AslRPMs of ntanglement so that gear solutions can be considered 

Exemption require 

ESA § 10 Permits for incidental take is incidental 

take minlmitigate impact 

no jeopardy 

68 
Legislation! Decision Type Decision Criteria/Standard Information Required to Make Decision 

Part 

MMPA § 104 Permits for taking or Factors considered in regulations: 1) existing and future levels of mm spp and stocks 

importation -existing and future levels of mm spp and stocks 2) existing int'l treaty obligations of US 

-existing int'l treaty obligations of US 3) marine ecosystem and related env considerations 

-marine ecosystem and related env 4) economic and technological feasibility of implementation of Sec 

considerations 103 

-economic and technological feasibility of 5 through 8 are based on sec 117 determinations, see below) 

implementation of Sec 103 9) any other terms and conditions approp based partly on Sec 117 

-Every 12 months, Secty must publish and info but may include things like affects of acoustics and vessel 

report to Congress on status of all marine traffic 

mammal species and population stocks 10) Harassment-be able to differentiate between level A & B and 

subject to MMPA resultant impacts 

Sec 104 any permit must specify : 

# and kind of animals 

location and manner of taking 

period for permit validation 

any other terms and conditions approp 

Harassment- differentiate level A & B 

MMPA § 118 Incidental Taking in Secty must publish annually a list of fisheries 1) geographic range 

Commercial Fisheries with a statement of marine mammals and the 2) temporal and seasonal variation in range 

approx number of vessels or persons involved in 3)minimum population estimate 

each fishery, specifying if it has incidental taking 4)current and maximum productivity rates 

of marine mammals that is 5) current population trend, 

-frequent 6) estimate of the annual human-caused mortality or serious injury 

-occasional, or of the stock by source 

-a remote likelihood/no known incidental take 7) commercial fishery interactions with stock including: 

-approx # vessels, 

Observers to be prioritized based on fisheries -estimated level of serious injury or mortality, seasonal or area 

taking depleted species, declining, others differences, 

-rate based on standard unit of fishing effort 

8) Estimate take rate relative to PBR 

Marine Operations 

(DOD, USCG) 

69 
Legislation! Decision Type Decision Criteria/Standard Infonnation Required to Make Decision 

Part 

ESA§7 Jeopardy "Appreciably" affect survival and recovery of See list under dredging Section 7 

Adverse Modif. of CH spp in the wild Key elements: 

Efficacy of RP AslRPMs 1. Seasonal distribution 

Exemption require 2. Behavior (e.g. feeding, foraging) 

3. Process infonnation (e.g. how animals respond to sound) 

4. Physiology (effects of sound in the ocean, TSS) 

ESA § 10 Permits for incidental take is incidental 

take minlmitigate impact 

no jeopardy 

MMPA§ 104 Permits for taking or Factors considered in regulations: 1) existing and future levels of mm spp and stocks 

importation -existing and future levels of mm spp and stocks 2) existing int'l treaty obligations of US 

-existing int'l treaty obligations of US 3) marine ecosystem and related env considerations 

-marine ecosystem and related env 4) economic and technological feasibility of implementation of Sec 

considerations 103 

-economic and technological feasibility of 5 through 8 are based on sec 117 determinations, see below) 

implementation of Sec 103 9) any other terms and conditions approp based partly on Sec 117 

-Every 12 months, Secty must publish and info but may include things like affects of acoustics and vessel 

report to Congress on status of all marine traffic 

mammal species and population stocks 10) Harassment-be able to differentiate between level A & B and 

subject to MMPA resultant impacts 

Sec 104 any permit must specify: 

# and kind of animals 

location and manner of taking 

period for permit validation 

any other terms and conditions approp 

Harassment- differentiate level A & B 

Oil and Gas 

Exploration/leasing 

(MMS) 

ESA§7 Jeopardy "Appreciably" affect survival and recovery of See Section 7 for dredging and add acoustics issues under Navy 

Adverse Modif. of CH spp in the wild Key element; 

Efficacy of RP AslRPMs offshore species are of importance (least well known, info difficult 

'------

Exemption require to get) -

70 
Legislation! Decision Type Decision Criteria/Standard Information Required to Make Decision 

Part 

ESA § 10 Permits for incidental take is incidental 

take minlmitigate impact 

no jeopardy 

MMPA§ 104 Permits for taking or Factors considered in regulations: 1) existing and future levels of nnn spp and stocks 

importation -existing and future levels of nnn spp and stocks 2) existing int'l treaty obligations of US 

-existing int'l treaty obligations of US 3) marine ecosystem and related env considerations 

-marine ecosystem and related env 4) economic and technological feasibility of implementation of Sec 

considerations 103 

-economic and technological feasibility of 5 through 8 are based on sec 117 determinations, see below) 

implementation of Sec 103 9) any other terms and conditions approp based partly on Sec 117 

-Every 12 months, Secty must publish and info but may include things like affects of acoustics and vessel 

report to Congress on status of all marine traffic 

mammal species and population stocks 10) Harassment-be able to differentiate between level A & B and 

subject to MMPA resultant impacts 

Sec 104 any permit must specify: 

# and kind of animals 

location and manner of taking 

period for permit validation 

any other terms and conditions approp 

Harassment- differentiate level A & B 

Scientific Research 

ESA§7 Jeopardy "Appreciably" affect survival and recovery of 

Adverse Modif. of CH spp in the wild 

Efficacy of RP AslRPMs 

Exemption require 

ESA § 10 Permits for incidental take is incidental 

take minlmitigate impact 

no jeopardy 

71 
Legislation! Decision Type Decision Criteria/Standard Information Required to Make Decision 

Part 

MMPA§ 104 Pennits for taking or Factors considered in regulations: 1) existing and future levels of mID spp and stocks 

importation 1) existing and future levels of mID spp and 2) existing int'l treaty obligations of US 

stocks 3) marine ecosystem and related env considerations 

2) existing int'l treaty obligations of US 4) economic and technological feasibility of implementation of Sec 

3) marine ecosystem and related env 103 

considerations 5 through 8 are based on sec 117 determinations, see below) 

4) economic and technological feasibility of 9) any other terms and conditions approp based partly on Sec 117 

implementation of Sec 103 info but may include things like affects of acoustics and vessel 

5)Every 12 months, Secty must publish and traffic 

report to Congress on status of all marine 10) Harassment-be able to differentiate between level A & B and 

mammal species and population stocks subject to resultant impacts 

MMPA 

Sec 104 any pennit must specify: 

6) # and kind of animals 

7) location and manner of taking 

8) period for pennit validation 

9) any other terms and conditions approp 

10 ) Harassment- differentiate level A & B 

MMPA General 

MMPA § 110 (d) Gulf of Maine and GOM - assess all human -caused factors 

Bering Sea Ecosystem affecting health and stability of the marine 

Protection ecosystem of which marine mammals are a part 

BS - no later than 180b d after enactment of 1994 

MMP A amendments, undertake scientific 

research program to monitor the health and 

stability of the Bering Sea marine ecosystem and 

to resolve uncertainties in decline of mm, sea 

birds and other living marine resources, shall 

include subsistence use and ways to provide such 

opportunity 

72 
Legislation! Decision Type Decision Criteria/Standard Infonnation Required to Make Decision 

Part 

MMPA § 115 Species status 1) designation as depleted, or determination that See Section 117 Infonnation requirements 

determinations a species should no longer be desig as depleted 

2) status review required within 210 days after 

receipt of petition 

MMPA § 117 Stock Assessments Annually produce Stock Assessment Report for 1) geographic range 

each marine mammal stock which occurs in US 2) temporal and seasonal variation in range 

waters specifying: 3)minimum population estimate 

1) geographic range of affected stock, including 4 )current and maximum productivity rates 

any temporal and seasonal variation in range 5) current population trend, 

2) provide minimum population estimate, current 6) estimate of the annual human-caused mortality or serious injury 

and maximum productivity rates and current of the stock by source 

population trend, including a description of the 7) for a strategic stock, other factors causing a decline or impeding 

infonnation upon which these are based recovery (effects of habitat and prey) 

3) estimate of the annual human-caused mortality 8) commercial fishery interactions with stock including: 

or serious injury of the stock by source and, for a -approx # vessels, 

strategic stock, other factors that may be causing -estimated level of serious injury or mortality, seasonal or area 

a decline or impeding recovery of the stock differences, 

including effects of marine mammal habitat and -rate based on standard unit of fishing effort 

prey 9) level 0 fhuman caused injurylMort not likely to cause stock to be 

4) describes commercial fisheries that interact reduced below OSP or not 

with stock including approx # vessels, estimated 10) Estimate PBR, choose recovery factor 

level of serious injury or mortality, seasonal or 

are differences, rate based on standard unit of 

fishing effort 

5) categorize stock as: 

- level of human caused injurylMort not likely to 

cause stock to be reduced below OSP or 

-is a strategic stock 

6) Estimate PBR, describing the info used to 

calculate it , including the recovery factor 

MMPA § 301 Tuna Dolphin 

Conservation Program 

73 
Legislation! Decision Type Decision Criteria/Standard Infonnation Required to Make Decision 

Part 

MMPA§401 Marine Mannnal Health 1) facilitate collection and dissemination of ref Collect and periodically update: 

and Stranding Program data on health of nun and health trends 1) data on rescuing and rehab'ing on species by species basis to 

worldwide determine hen animal can be returned to wild 

2) collect, preserve, tissues for physical chemical and biological 

2) correlate health of marine mannnals and analyses 

marine mannnal populations in the wild, with 3) regional stranding by numbers 

available data on physical, chemical and 4) regional stranding by conditions 

biological environmental parameters 5) regional stranding by causes of illness and deaths 

6) compare illness and deaths with physical, chemical, and 

3) coordinate responses pt unusual mortality biological environmental parameters 

events 

MMPA § 117 Unusual Mortality Event 1) determine whether an unusual event is 1) info to determine whether an unusual event is occurring 

occurring 2) info to determine when response no longer necessary 

2) determine when response no longer necessary 3) info to develop criteria for types of tissues and analyses needed I 3) develop contingency plan to assist Secty in 4) info care techniques and affects to minimize deaths and provide I 

responding approp care 

5) numbers, size, sex info to analyze effects on affected populations 

6) physical, chemical, and biological data including contaminants 

74 
Appendix Table 3. Data quality and status of U.S. marine mammal stocks by region. 

Anthropogenic Assessment 

Impacts -

Strategic Stock Life Abundance Fishery 

Region Stock in 2003? Tier ID History Number Mortality Frequency Quality 

ALASKAN CETACEANS 

AK Beaked whales N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Beluga whale, Beaufort Sea 

AK stock N 1 3 1 2 4 1 1 

Beluga whale, Bristol Bay 

AK stock N 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 

Beluga whale, Cook Inlet 

AK stock Y 2 3 2 3 4 4 3 

Beluga whale, eastern 

AK Bering Sea stock N 1 3 1 3 0 2 1 

Beluga whale, eastern 

AK Chukchi Sea stock N 1 3 1 1 4 2 1 

AK Bowhead whale Y 2 3 2 4 4 3 4 

AK Dall's porpoise N 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 

AK Fin whale Y 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 

Gray whales, E. North 

AK Pacific stock N 1 3 2 3 1 3 4 

Harbor porpoise, Bering 

AK Sea stock N 1 1 0 3 2 1 1 

Harbor porpoise, Gulf of 

AK Alaska stock N 1 1 0 3 2 1 1 

Harbor porpoise, SE Alaska 

AK stock N 1 1 0 3 2 1 1 

Humpback whales, C. 

AK North Pacific stock Y 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 

Humpback whales, W. 

AK North Pacific stock Y 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 

Killer whale, E. North 

AK Pacific resident stock N 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 

Killer whale, E. North 

AK Pacific transient stock N 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 

75 
Anthropogenic Assessment 

Impacts -

Strategic Stock Life Abundance Fishery 

Region Stock in 2003? Tier ID History Number Mortality Frequency Quality 

AK Minke whale N 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 

AK Pacific white-sided dolphin N 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 

AK Right whale, North Pacific Y 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 

AK ~ennwhale Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

!ALASKAN PINNIPEDS 

AK Ribbon seal N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

AK Bearded seal N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

AK Harbor seal, BS N 2 4 1 3 3 2 2 

AK Harbor seal, GOA N 2 4 1 3 3 2 2 

AK Harbor seal, SE N 2 4 1 3 3 2 2 

AK Northern fur seal Y 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 

AK Ringed seal N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

AK Spotted seal N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Steller sea lion, eastern 

AK stock Y 2 3 2 3 3 4 4 

Steller sea lion, western 

AK stock Y 2 3 2 3 3 4 4 

!ATLANTIC CETACEANS 

NE North Atlantic right whale Y 1 3 3 1 2 4 3 

NE Humpback whale Y 1 4 3 3 2 4 3 

NE Fin whale Y 1 2 1 2 4 4 2 

76 
Anthropogenic Assessment 

Impacts -

Strategic Stock Life Abundance Fishery 

Region Stock in 2003? Tier ID History Number Mortality Frequency Quality 

NE Sei whale Y 1 0 1 0 4 3 1 

NE Minke whale N 2 2 1 3 2 4 2 

NE Blue whale Y 1 2 1 1 4 3 1 

NE Sperm whale Y 1 1 1 2 4 4 2 

NE Killer whale N 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

NE Northern bottlenose whale N 1 1 1 0 0 3 1 

NE Cuvier's beaked whale Y 1 0 0 2 2 4 2 

NE Mesoplodon beaked whales Y 1 0 0 2 2 4 2 

NE Risso's dolphin N 1 1 0 3 2 3 2 

NE Pilot whale, long-fInned Y 1 2 2 3 2 4 2 

Atlantic white-sided 

NE dolphin N 1 1 1 2 2 4 2 

NE White beaked dolphin N 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 

NE Common dolphin Y 1 2? 2 2 2 4 2 

NE Atlantic spotted dolphin N 2 2 0 2 2 3 2 

NE Striped dolphin N 1 1 0 2 2 3 2 

NE Spinner dolphin N 1 0 0 0 2 3 1 

NE Harbor porpoise Y 2 3 1 3 4 4 2 

Bottlenose Dolphin -

SE offshore WNA stock N 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 

Bottlenose Dolphin -

SE coastal WNA stock Y 2 2 1 3 2 4 2 

77 
Anthropogenic Assessment 

Impacts -

Strategic Stock Life Abundance Fishery 

Region Stock in 2003? Tier ill History Number Mortality Frequency Quality 

SE Clymene dolphin N 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 

SE Dwarf Sperm Whale N 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 

SE Pygmy Sperm Whale Y 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 

SE Pygmy Killer Whale N 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 

SE Melon-headed Whale N 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 

SE Fraser's Dolphin N 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Pantropical Spotted 

SE Dolphin N 2 2 0 2 2 3 2 

SE Pilot whale, short-fInned Y 1 2 2 0 2 3 2 

GULF OF MEXICO 

CETACEANS 

Bottlenose Dolphin: Inner 

Continental Shelf Stocks 

SE I(East) N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Bottlenose Dolphin: Inner 

Continental Shelf Stocks 

SE I (West) N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Bottlenose Dolphin: Inner 

Continental Shelf Stocks 

SE l'Oceanic) N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Bottlenose Dolphin: Outer 

SE Continental Shelf N 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

Bottlenose Dolphin: Shelf 

SE Edge and Slope N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

78 
Anthropogenic Assessment 

Impacts -

Strategic Stock Life Abundance Fishery 

Region Stock in 2003? Tier ID History Number Mortality Frequency Quality 

Bottlenose Dolphin: Bays, 

SE Sounds, and Estuaries Y 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 

SE Atlantic Spotted Dolphin N 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 

SE Rough-toothed Dolphin N 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

Pantropical Spotted 

SE Dolphin N 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

SE Striped Dolphin N 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

SE Spinner Dolphin N 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

SE Fraser's Dolphin N 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

SE Risso's Dolphin N 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

SE Pygmy Killer Whale N 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

SE Melon-headed Whale N 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

SE False Killer Whale N 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

SE Killer Whale N 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

SE Short fmned Pilot Whale Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

SE Sperm Whale Y 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 

SE Dwarf Sperm Whale Y 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 

SE Pygmy Sperm Whale Y 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 

SE Cuvier's Beaked Whale Y 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 

SE Blainville's Beaked Whale N 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 

79 
Anthropogenic Assessment 

Impacts -

Strategic Stock Life Abundance Fishery 

Region Stock in 20037 Tier ID History Number Mortality Frequency Quality 

SE Gervais' Beaked Whale N 1 1 0 0 0 1 I 

SE Bryde's Whale N 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

[ATLANTIC PINNIPEDS 

NE Harbor seal N I 1 I 1 4 4 2 

NE Gray seal N 1 2 1 1 4 4 2 

NE Harp seal N 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 

NE Hooded seal N 2 3 2 2 4 3 2 

WEST COAST 

CETACEANS 

Harbor porpoise: Morro 

SW Bay Stock N 1 3 1 2 0 3 3 

Harbor porpoise: Monterey 

SW Bay Stock Y 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 

Harbor porpoise: San 

FranciscolRussian River 

SW Stock N 1 3 I 2 1 3 3 

Harbor porpoise: N. 

California, S. Oregon 

SW Stock N I 3 1 2 1 3 3 

Harbor porpoise: 

Washington/Oregon Coast 

SW Stock N 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 

Harbor porpoise: 

Washington Inland Waters 

SW Stock N 1 3 I 2 0 3 3 

SW Dall's porpoise N 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 

SW Pacific white sided dolohin N 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 

80 
Anthropogenic Assessment 

Impacts -

Strategic Stock Life Abundance Fishery 

Region Stock in 2003? Tier ID History Number Mortality Frequency Quality 

SW Risso's Dolphin N 1 0 0 3 3 3 2 

Bottlenose Dolphin: 

SW California Coastal Stock N 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 

Bottlenose Dolphin: 

California, Oregon, 

SW Washington Offshore Stock N 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 

SW Striped Dolphin N 1 0 1 3 2 3 2 

Short-beaked Connnon 

SW Dolphin N 1 1 2 2 4 3 2 

Long-beaked Connnon 

SW Dolphin N 1 0 2 3 3 3 2 

Northern Right-whale 

SW Dolphin N 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 

Killer Whale: Eastern North 

SW Pacific Transient Stock N 1 3 1 1 2 3 2 

Killer Whale: Eastern North 

SW Pacific Offshore Stock N 1 3 1 1 2 3 2 

Killer Whale: Eastern North 

Pacific Southern Resident 

SW Stock N 1 3 2 1 0 3 2 

SW Short-finned Pilot Whale N 1 0 1 2 3 3 2 

SW Baird's Beaked Whale N 1 0 0 3 3 3 2 

Mesoplodon Beaked 

SW Whales N 1 0 0 2 2 3 2 

SW Cuvier's Beaked Whale N 1 0 0 2 3 3 2 

81 
Anthropogenic Assessment 

Impacts -

Strategic Stock Life Abundance Fishery 

Region Stock in 2003? Tier ID History Number Mortality Frequency Quality 

SW Pygtny Spenn Whale N 1 0 0 2 2 3 2 

SW SpennWhale Y 1 0 1 2 3 3 2 

SW Humpback Whale Y 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 

SW Blue Whale Y 1 1 2 3 4 3 2 

SW Fin Whale Y 1 0 1 3 2 3 2 

SW Bryde's Whale N 1 0 0 2 2 3 2 

SW Sei Whale Y 1 0 1 0 4 3 2 

SW Minke Whale N 1 0 1 2 2 3 2 

HAWAIIAN 

CETACEANS 

PI Rough-toothed Dolphin N 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 

PI Risso's Dolphin N 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 

PI Bottlenose Dolphin N 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 

Pantropical Spotted 

PI Dolphin N 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 

PI Spinner Dolphin N 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 

PI Striped Dolphin N 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 

PI Melon-headed Whale N 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 

PI Pygmy Killer Whale N 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

PI False Killer Whale N 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 

PI Killer Whale N 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 

82 
Anthropogenic Assessment 

Impacts -

Strategic Stock Life Abundance Fishery 

Region Stock in 2003? Tier ID History Number Mortality Frequency Quality 

PI Short-ftnned Pilot Whale N I 0 1 1 1 1 1 

PI Blainville's Beaked Whale N 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 

PI Cuvier's Beaked Whale N 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 

PI Pygmy Sperm Whale N 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

PI Dwarf Sperm Whale N 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

PI Sperm Whale Y 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 

PI Blue Whale Y 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 

PI Fin Whale Y 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 

PI Bryde's Whale N 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Cetaceans of Northern 

PI Mariana Islands* N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

PI Cetaceans of Guam* N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

PI Cetaceans of Wake Island* N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cetaceans of Johnston 

PI Atoll* N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cetaceans of Palmyra 

PI Island* N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cetaceans of Howland and 

PI Baker Islands* N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

PI Cetaceans of Jarvis Island* N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cetaceans of American 

PI Samoa* N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

iEASTERN TROPICAL 

PACIFIC DOLPHINS 

Spotted Dolphin: 

SW Northeastern Stock N 2 3 2 3 4 3 4 

83 
Anthropogenic Assessment 

Impacts -

Strategic Stock Life Abundance Fishery 

Region Stock in 2003? Tier ID History Number Mortality Frequency Quality 

Spotted Dolphin: 

SW Western/southern Stock N 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 

Spotted Dolphin: Coastal 

SW Stock N 2 3 1 2 4 3 2 

Spinner Dolphin: Eastern 

SW Stock N 2 3 2 3 4 3 4 

Spinner Dolphin: White 

SW belly Stock N 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 

Spinner Dolphin: Costa 

SW Rican Stock N 1 3 1 0 4 3 2 

Spinner Dolphin: Tres 

SW Marias Stock N 1 3 1 0 4 3 2 

Common Dolphin: 

SW Northern Stock N 2 3 1 3 4 3 2 

Connnon Dolphin: 

SW Southern Stock N 2 3 1 3 4 3 2 

Connnon Dolphin: Central 

SW Stock N 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 

WEST COAST 

PINNIPEDS 

SW California Sea Lion N 2 3 2 2 4 4 3 

Harbor Seal: California 

SW Stock N 2 3 2 2 4 4 2 

Harbor Seal: Oregon & 

SW Washington Coastal Waters N 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 

Harbor Seal: Washington 

SW Inland Waters Stock N 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 

Northern Elephant Seal 

SW Stock N 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 

SW Guadalupe Fur Seal Y 1 0 2 1 2 2 2 

SW Northern Fur Seal N 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 

PI Hawaiian Monk Seal Y 1 2 2 1 1 4 3 

* * Species/stock inventories are not available for U.S. EEZ areas in Pacific Islands outside of Hawaii. Endemic 

stocks of several species are expected in each of these areas 

84 
Appendix Table 4. Data quality and status of U.S. marine turtle stocks by region 

Status in Stock Life Abundance Anthropogenic Assessment 

Region Stock 2003 Tier ID History Impacts 

Nesting In-Water Frequency Quality 

ATLANTIC, GULF OF MEXICO, & 

CARRIBEAN 

SEI 

NE Loggerhead T 1-2 2 2 4 1 2 3 2 

SEI 

NE Green Turtle EIT 1 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 

SEI 

NE Leatherback E 1 2 1 4 1 2 3 1 

SE Hawksbill E 1 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 

SEI 

NE Kemp's ridley E 1-2 n/a 2 4 1 2 3 2 

SE Olive ridley E 1 2 2 n/a 0 1 0 0 

PACIFIC 

SW Loggerhead T 1 2 2 n/a 0 2 3 1 

SW Green Turtle - HI T 1 2 2 4 1 2 3 1 

SW Green Turtle - Other! T 1 2 1 1 0 1 3 1 

Green Turtle - East 

SW Pacific E 1 2 2 n/a 1 2 3 1 

SW Leatherback E 1 2 1 n/a 1 2 3 1 

SW Hawksbill E 1 2 Yz 1 0 1 3 1 

SW Olive ridley EIT 1 2 2 n/a 0 2 3 1 

1. "Green Turtle - Other" is a construct meant to separate out other populations of Pacific green 

turtles from the Hawaiian and East Pacific greens 

85 

APPENDIX I 

Legislative Mandates for NOAA Fisheries 

under the Endangered Species Act 

and Marine Mammal Protection Act 

1. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 4 of the ESA is "Detennination of endangered and threatened species," and covers 

listingldelisting and recovery planning activities and requires the Secretary to detennine if a 

species is endangered or threatened based on five criteria, detennine if a listed species should be 

removed from the list, identify critical habitat (if applicable) and develop recovery plans that 

specify management activities that provide for recovery. Recovery planning is aimed at 

delivering the main objective ofthe ESA: species recovery and removal from the list. Under this 

section, plans are developed by experts to remove or alleviate the threats affecting threatened and 

endangered species so that they can again become a functioning element of the ecosystem, no 

longer in danger of extinction. 

In order to accomplish listing and recovery under the ESA, infonnation about the following must 

be assessed: threats to habitat, utilization of the species, impacts of disease/predation; 

quantitative assessment of other impacts, natural/manmade (human-related mortality), species 

abundance & ~rends, population structure, evaluation of existing regulatory mechanisms, and 

evaluation of existing conservation mechanisms. These are a combination of science and 

management needs. For detennination of critical habitat, additional infonnation on the following 

is needed: temporal and spatial habitat use (historic/current), economic data for exclusion 

process, essential constituent elements (abiotic/biotic environment), threats to habitat (to evaluate 

the need for special management considerations), and ecological relationships within species 

habitats. 

Section 6 of the ESA concems"Cooperation with the States." This section fosters partnerships 

with states to assist in recovering and protecting listed species through development of 

management agreements. Effective management plans require the same infonnation as recovery 

planning, but are more specific to the smaller geographical regions of states. 

Section 7 of the ESA describes the "Interagency cooperation" process. This section contains the 

consultation provisions for federal actions. NOAA Fisheries must detennine whether the action 

pennitted, funded or carried out by any federal agency is in compliance with the jeopardy and 

adverse modification of critical habitat standards. Section 7 (a) (2) requires that federal actions 

do not jeopardize the continued existence of any species or result in destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. NOAA Fisheries works with action agencies to evaluate their 

activities, when requested, and if adverse effects are likely to occur, works with the agency to 

eliminate to minimize those effects, consistent with the original action. 

If adverse effects cannot be eliminated, NOAA Fisheries must develop conservation measures to 

mitigate and minimize the remaining effects. Such measures become the mandatory 

87 
requirements of an incidental take authorization, if one is required. The numbers of animals 

expected to be taken must also pass the jeopardy and adverse modification determinations. In 

rare cases, no alternatives to jeopardy can be found consistent with the federal activity and the 

Agency must seek an ESA exemption. 

These analyses of the effects of an action require a suite of data and information similar to that 

reqUired for listing and recovery. The consultation provisions use a survival standard and then 

require conservation actions to minimize taking that may still occur after jeopardy or adverse 

modification of critical habitat is no longer an issue. This again is combination of science and 

management needs. Enough data and information on the species status and expected impacts 

from the action are needed to make the best decisions: decisions that minimize both the effects of 

an activity on listed species and the socioeconomic implications of the changes to the proposed 

action, consistent with its original purpose. Otherwise, in the face of uncertainty, the ESA 

requires the benefit of the doubt be given to the species and can result in overly precautionary 

and costly measures that, with better information, may have been avoided. 

Scientific uncertainty can also leave the Agency more vulnerable to lawsuits and constituent 

discontent. Conversely, better information allows NOAA Fisheries to develop conservation 

measures that minimize human impacts effectively, thus reducing the potential for loss of a 

species due to measures that are not sufficiently risk averse. The one aspect that differs from 

listing and recovery requirements is the greater demand for technological developments that 

provide options for an activity that impacts listed species. 

Section 8 of the ESA addresses "International Cooperation" matters concerning listed species. 

This section was included in the ESA to "demonstrate the commitment of the United States to 

worldwide protection of endangered and threatened species" and directs the Secretary of 

Commerce to provide foreign countries with assistance in developing conservation programs. 

The primary interaction the U.S. has internationally on endangered species is the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species and for cetaceans through the International Whaling 

Commission. 

Section 10 of the ESA, "Exceptions", provides a mechanism for NOAA Fisheries to authorize 

direct takes of listed species for scientific research or to enhance the survival of the affected 

species, or for incidental take during otherwise lawful activities not included under Section 7 

(private citizens or non-federal agencies), as long as the takings meet the jeopardy and adverse 

modification standards. For incidental take authorizations, conservation plans must be developed 

that will minimize the impacts. This section's requirements reinforce the same needs with 

respect to determining impacts of takes on survival, and development of conservation 

alternatives and measures as indicated in the previous discussion of Sections 4 and 7. 

2. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMP A) 

Section 101 of the MMPA contains exceptions to the prohibition on taking marine mammals by 

harassment (for activities other than during commercial fishing) and other incidental taking of 

88 
marine mammals (e.g., oil and gas exploration and development). Restrictions on import of 

yellowfin tuna that are caught by international purse seine fleets in the Eastern Tropical Pacific 

that capture dolphins are addressed in this section. The Secretary is required to issue 

authorizations for harassment of marine mammals in the course of otherwise lawful activities if 

certain criteria are met: the harassment taking must have a negligible impact on species or stock, 

will not disrupt subsistence use, must have least practicable impact on species or stock, etc. This 

means that adequate information is required to make decisions on both the status of the species or 

stock, and the impacts of activities on the individual animals. 

Section 103 of the MMP A prescribes exacting requirements for issuance of regulations on the 

taking and importation of each species of marine mammals, and requires the Secretary to 

annually provide Congress with a report "that describes the current status of ALL (emphasis 

added) all marine mammal species and population stocks ... and describe those actions taken and 

those measures believed necessary ... to assure the well-being of such marine mammals (MMP A 

Section 103 (f)." Clearly, Congress intended the Secretary of Commerce, as delegated to 

NOAA, to understand the status of every marine mammal species and population stock to some 

degree, as determined by the Secretary, that will "assure the well-being" of these animals. 

This capability is one of the most specific of NOAA's mandate that is woefully under funded. 

The most well known example of the problems that can be caused under this section with 

inadequate science is the Navy's application on the use of acoustics that may harass marine 

mammals. Enough information on the potential impacts of sound on marine mammals is not 

available to make focused management decisions on permit requirements or on determining harm 

to affected animals. This has resulted in costly unresolved litigation and no benefit for the 

conservation of marine mammals. 

Section 104 allows for permits for directed taking and importation of marine mammals for 

scientific research, public display, or enhancing the survival or recovery of a species or stock, 

consistent with regulations published under Section 103. This means that in order to issue the 

permit, NOAA needs information on the status of the species as well as the impacts of the 

proposed activity. 

Section 117 of the MMPA contains the stock assessment provisions. Again the legislation 

provides a clear prescriptive mandate from Congress to "prepare a stock assessment report for 

each marine mammal stock which occurs" in U.S. waters, "each stock assessment, based on the 

best scientific information available, shall--

(1) describe the geographic range of affected stock, including any seasonal or temporal 

variation; 

(2) provide for such stock the minimum popUlation estimate, current and maximum net 

productivity rates, current population trend, including a description of the information upon 

which these are based; 

(3) estimate the annual human caused mortality and serious injury ofthe stock by source 

and, for a strategic stock, other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery 

89 
of the stock, including effects on marine mammal habitat and prey; 

(4) describe commercial fisheries that interact with the stock, including -approximate 

number of vessels actively participating in each such fishery; the estimated level of 

incidental mortality and serious injury of the stock by each such fishery on an annual basis; 

seasonal or area differences in such incidental mortality or serious injury; and the rate ..... of 

such incidental mortality or serious injury, etc., and (5 & 6) categorize the stock and 

estimate its potential biological removal levels (PBR). 

Section 118 addresses taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. 

The two most prominent features of this section's required capabilities are to maintain a list of 

fisheries that describes the level of marine mammal interactions and to conduct "take reduction 

teams" for strategic stocks whose fishing mortality exceeds their potential biological removal 

level. How these teams are conducted is also specifically described in the Act, including team 

composition, duration of planning, and the use of a consensus-based negotiation process. This 

section instructs that Congress's ultimate goal is to reduce incidental mortality due to commercial 

fishing to levels approaching a "zero mortality rate". Thus, this section adds a number of 

administrative and analytical requirements to the scientific information discussed in the 

paragraphs above, that describes species status and population impacts. Additional analytical 

responsibilities include modeling to assess management strategies proposed by the teams and 

fishing gear technology testing. Administrative capabilities beyond take reduction team support 

include registration of fishermen participating in fisheries with high or occasional takes of marine 

mammals, a self-reporting process, and monitoring through observer coverage. 

Section 301 and 302 of the MMPA establish the international dolphin conservation program. 

The Secretary is required to seek a binding international agreement in partnership with the 

Secretary of State with commitments to progressively reduce the take to approaching a zero 

mortality rate, from a maximum of five thousand animals at the start of the program. A perstock, per-year dolphin mortality limit between 0.2 % and 0.1 % of the minimum population 

estimate through 2000 and then less than 0.1 % starting in 2001. Scientific status reviews are 

required periodically to check on progress toward these goals. These requirements exceed 

domestic needs in terms of certainty. As this involves agreement with other countries that has 

the potential to reduce economic returns, the science behind the estimation of dolphin population 

status and estimates of takes has come under intense scrutiny. 

Sections 401, 402, 404, and 407 of the MMP A are the mandated capabilities of a marine 

mammal health and stranding response program. Data collection and dissemination requirements 

include the daily work of voluntary stranding response teams encompassing both the Atlantic and 

Pacific coastlines. Section 402 establishes stranding network responsibilities, the issuance of 

criteria related to determinations for rescue, rehabilitation, and release of stranded animals. 

Specifically the MMP A requires the Secretary to: (1) facilitate collection and dissemination of 

reference data on health of marine mammals and their health trends worldwide, (2) correlate 

health of marine mammals and marine mammal populations in the wild, with available data on 

physical, chemical and biological environmental parameters, (3) collect and periodically update 

90 
data on rescue and rehabilitation, on a species by species basis, to detennine when an animal can 

be returned to wild, collect, preserve, tissues for physical chemical and biological analyses, 

regional strandings by numbers, regional stranding by conditions, regional stranding by causes of 

illness and deaths and comparison of illness and deaths with physical, chemical, and biological 

environmental parameters. 

Managing the stranding network requires Agency human resources in each regional office and 

some science centers to respond to daily maintenance and emergency needs of the stranding 

network, with coordination through the national office. 

Section 404 is specific to unusual mortality event response, requiring analysis of unusually large 

or uncharacteristic stranding events and development of a response plan. Infonnation and 

management needs are broad: I) detennine whether an unusual event is occurring, 2) detennine 

when response no longer necessary, and 3) develop a contingency plan to assist Secretary in 

responding. These 3 requirements envision the following additional capabilities: infonnation to 

develop criteria for types of tissues and analyses needed, infonnation on care techniques and 

affects to minimize deaths and provide appropriate care, numbers, size, sex infonnation to 

analyze effects on affected populations and physical, chemical, and biological data, including 

contaminants. The final aspect of stranding response is the requirement for maintenance of a 

tissue bank in Section 407. This was envisioned to allow for tissue availability in future years 

when science has advanced further and analytical work can be continued. Congress recently 

appropriated stranding network funds through the Prescott Grant Program, primarily to support 

the volunteer organization's daily operations, such as facilities and equipment, although does 

retain some provision for limited scientific work. This program has been instrumental in 

furthering response capability by the network. However, since the program was limited to small 

grants out of a large appropriation, the administration by NOAA has been difficult as the human 

resources required to conduct this grant process exceed available funding. 

91 

APPENDIX II 

Protected Species Stock Assessment Improvement Plan Questionnaire 

Contacts: 

Tom Eagle - FIPR2 

Barbara Schroeder - F IPR3 

Pamela Mace - F/ST2 

Paul Wade - AFSC 

Richard Merrick - NEFSC 

Bud Antonelis - PIFSC 

Jay Barlow - SWFSC 

Steve Swartz - SEFSC 

Objectives of this exercise: 

The overall objective of this questionnaire is to provide information from the perspective of 

Science Center staff regarding how NMFS Protected Species stock assessments can be improved, 

and more specifically: 

I. To identify the most important factors hampering our ability to provide accurate, precise, 

valid, and credible stock assessments as well as information on seasonal distribution and 

abundance of marine turtles and mammals; 

- II. To determine the resources (e.g. marine mammal and turtle survey data collection programs; 

data collection programs for fishery statistics; hire additional stock assessment scientific staff; 

hire additional NMFS staff such as survey personnel, technicians, database managers, computer 

programmers; obtain for ship/aircraft time) needed to improve our ability to develop credible 

assessments. 

III. To determine how such needs vary by region; 

IV. To use such information to develop specific proposals for new or expanded research 

programs, additional staff (including specific information on where, when and how many are 

needed), and other budget initiatives, ifNMFS determines that such would be beneficial. 

The questionnaire is primarily directed at stock assessment scientists (those who use and/or 

develop stock assessments), because stock assessment scientists should have a good overview of 

the primary deficiencies, if any, in the input data and/or models used for individual stock 

assessments. A second questionnaire will be directed towards stock assessment program 

managers, either at the level of Division Chief or Branch Chief - whichever is best suited to give 

an overview of each Center's assessment programs, which will depend on how each Center 

structures its assessment group(s). 

93 
The questionnaire should not be overly burdensome for assessment scientists or program 

managers to answer, nor for the Stock Assessment hnprovement Plan Task Force to compile and 

summarize. Therefore, we have made use of multiple choice or lists of factors to rank or score in 

importance, with opportunities to provide additional information if respondents so desire. Please 

provide notes in the space provided at the end of each question (or on separate pieces of paper if 

you have a lot to say) whenever you feel that your answers require explanation or caveats. 

Responses will be seen by the members of the Task Force, but will not be circulated beyond that 

group. 

Respondent's name:. ___________________________ _ 

Science Center/ Laboratory _______________________ _ 

Stocks/species for which answers to this questionnaire are provided. List all species/stocks, or at 

least specify the number covered by the relevant Stock Assessment Reports, for which you are 

providing answers here. If you deal with assessments of multiple stocks with distinctly different 

assessment needs, consider filling out separate questionnaires (or at least annotate this 

questionnaire to indicate the different assessment needs): 

94 
1. Identify the degree of improvement needed in the components of your species' Stock 

Assessment using the following ranking criteria (please use a rank no more than twice): 

1 = major impediment to producing credible assessments and high priority for improvement 

2 = major impediment to producing credible assessments, but not amongst the highest 

priorities 

3 = current design is OK for accuracy of results, but increased sampling needed for better 

preCISIon 

4 = relatively minor fine-tuning needed 

5 = current program adequate for assessment needs with no real need for improvement or 

expansion 

6 = unknown (Le., subject areas for which you do not feel confident commenting upon) 

__ Determination of stock size (e.g., NmiJ 

__ Determination of current population trend 

__ Determination of population's intrinsic rate of increase (e.g.,~) 

__ Determination of other life history characteristics (e.g., natality rates, survival, etc) 

__ Use of recovery factors 

Calculation ofPBR or allowed incidental take 

__ Mortality assessment 

__ Other (specify) ____________________ _ 

__ Other (specify) _____________________ _ 

Comments: -------------------------------------------------------------

95 
2. Identify the programmatic needs of your current data collection and assessment 

programs that require additional funds using the following ranking criteria (please use a 

rank no more than twice): 

1 = major impediment to producing credible assessments and high priority for improvement 

2 = major impediment to producing credible assessments, but not amongst the highest 

priorities 

3 = current design is OK for accuracy of results, but increased sampling needed for better 

precision 

4 = relatively minor fine-tuning needed 

5 = current program adequate for assessment needs with no real need for improvement or 

expansion 

6 = unknown (i.e., subject areas for which you do not feel confident commenting upon) 

__ Directed abundance surveys for assessments 

__ Index surveys as surrogates for abundance surveys 

__ Land based surveys ofthe abundance of some component of the stock 

__ Directed surveys for seasonal estimates of seasonal abundance and distribution 

__ Data on stock or population life history characteristics (e.g., age structure, natality rates, 

__ Fine-scale temporal and spatial data for regulatory analyses 

__ Studies for g(O) corrections, distribution, movements, etc 

__ Fishery-dependent catch estimation for bycatch (e.g. by observer programs) 

__ Data from other sources on fishery bycatch (e.g., strandings data) 

__ Biological data (age, sex) on bycaught animals 

__ Estimates of fishery effort 

__ Data on other human-related mortality (e.g., ship strike, harvests, etc) 

Stock structure . 

__ Other (specify) _____________________ _ 

__ Other (specify) _____________________ _ 

(Note: consider adequacy of sampling design and data collection protocols for each of the above). 

Comments: ------------------------------------------------------------

96 
3. Rank the following in terms of importance to the assessment of the species or species 

groups that you work on: 

1 = major impediment to producing credible assessments and high priority for improvement 

2 = major impediment to producing credible assessments, but not amongst the highest 

priorities 

3 = current design is OK for accuracy of results, but increased sampling needed for better 

preCISIon 

4 = relatively minor fine-tuning needed 

5 = current program adequate for assessment needs with no real need for improvement or 

expansion 

6 = unknown (i.e., subject areas for which you do not feel confident commenting upon) 

_ Quality of abundance surveys for assessments 

_ Quality of index surveys as surrogates for abundance surveys 

_ Quality of land based surveys of the abundance of some component of the stock 

_ Quality of seasonal abundance and distribution data 

_ Quality of data on basic biological parameters (age, sex, natality) 

_ Quality of data for g(O) corrections, distribution, movements, etc 

_ Quality of commercial by-catch data (fishery dependent or stranding) 

_ Quality of basic biological parameters of by caught animals (age, sex) 

_ Quality of commercial fishing effort data 

_ Quality of data on other anthropogenic mortality 

_ Quality of data on stock structure 

_ Quality of research on environmental effects 

_ Quality of research on multi species interactions 

_ Quantity or quality of resource survey staff to collect necessary data 

_ Quantity or quality of database managers and computer programmers to pre-process the data 

_ Quantity or quality of assessment scientists to crank out assessments 

_ Quantity or quality of assessment scientists to develop better survey and assessment methods 

_ Quantity or quality of assessment scientists to study habitat associations 

_ Quantity or quality of training for assessment scientists to improve skills 

_ Quantity or quality of assessment scientists or other appropriate staff to communicate results 

to constituents (e.g., Expert Working Groups, Scientific Review Groups, Take Reduction 

Teams), and to conduct other follow-up work related to evaluation of Section 7 reviews, 

court cases, etc. 

_ Quantity or quality of survey platforms (i.e., ships and aircraft) 

_ Quantity or quality of survey equipment (e.g., passive acoustic arrays) 

_ Other (specify) _____________________ _ 

_ Other (specify) _____________________ _ 

Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 

97 
4. Regarding your "survey" data collection program, rank the following in terms of their 

impact on your ability to assess the species for which this response is being prepared (within 

a topic area, please use a rank no more than twice): 

1 = would greatly enhance the ability to produce accurate, precise and timely assessments 

2 = would help enhance the ability to produce accurate, precise and timely assessments but is 

of secondary importance 

3 = may marginally improve the accuracy, precision or timeliness of assessments 

4 = would not help or is irrelevant to these species 

5 = unknown (i.e., subject areas for which you do not feel confident commenting upon) 

Sampling frequency for transect surveys 

_ ¥ore frequent "annual" assessment surveys 

_ Increased sampling density within a survey 

Seasonal distribution and abundance studies 

_ Statistical analysis of sampling design 

Use of acoustics in surveys 

_ Research into the use of acoustics to irp.prove surveys 

_ Operational deployment of towed acoustic arrays and analysis of results 

_ Operational deployment of moored or fixed arrays and analysis of results 

Mark and recapture studies 

_ Funding for systematic mark and recapture studies 

_ Research into methods to improve mark and recapture studies 

_ More frequent sampling events 

_ Increased sampling sites 

_ Improved coordination/standardization of sampling among sites 

_ Statistical analysis of sampling design 

Tagging efforts 

_ Directed funding for g(O) corrections (e.g. dive time studies for cetaceans, hauling out 

for pinnipeds) 

_ Deployments to study distribution and movements (wide and fine scale) 

_ Funding for general instrument development (e.g., archival tags, satellite tags, GPS tags, 

etc) 

_ Tag retention studies 

_ Tag recovery studies 

Development of survey tools 

_ Satellite imagery 

LIDAR 

_ Acoustics, 

_ High resolution vertical imagery 

"Critter Cams" 

Other ________________________________________________________ __ 

98 
Development of software for surveys and analyses: 

_ For recording observations during surveys 

_ For incorporation of multiple data streams during surveys (e.g., survey observations, 

acoustics, oceanographic data) 

_ SoftWare to analyze survey results 

_ Software to analyze the multiple data streams 

_ Integration of full capabilities of GIS in evaluation of survey data Oth~ ______________________________________________________ __ 

Staffing: 

_ Staff to manage incoming data reporting and data processing requirements. 

_ Staff to analyze biological data collections (e.g. age det~inations, food habits 

analysis, stock ID) 

_ Dedicated GIS support 

_ Other (specify) ______________________ _ 

_ Other (specify) ______________________ _ 

Comments: ________________________________________________________ __ 

99 
5. Regarding the collection of data on mortalities of marine mammals and turtles, rank the 

following in terms of their impact on your ability to assess the species for which this 

response is being prepared (please use a rank no more than three times): 

1 = would greatly enhance the ability to produce accurate, precise and timely assessments 

2= would help enhance the ability to produce accurate, precise and timely assessments but is 

of secondary importance 

3= may marginally improve the accuracy, precision or timeliness of assessments 

4= would not help or is irrelevant to these species 

5= unknown (i.e., subject areas for which you do not feel confident commenting upon): 

_ Implementation or expansion of fisheries observer program 

_ Implementation or expansion of stranding monitoring program 

_ Integration of health assessment into stranding programs 

_ Implementation or expansion oflog book reporting system 

_ Implementation or expansion of reporting system for other human-related mortalities 

_ Quantity or quality of staff to manage incoming data reporting and data processing 

requirements. 

_ Quantity or quality of staff to analyze biological data collections (e.g. age determinations, 

food habits analysis) 

_ Quantity or quality of staff to estimate mortalities 

_ Statistical analysis of sampling design 

_ Mandatory reporting of key effort statistics (e.g., horsepower, gear configuration, hours 

fished, haul set and haul back locations etc.) 

_ Analysis of accuracy and statistical properties of effort and economic data 

_ Other (specify) _____________________ _ 

_ Other (specify) _____________________ _ 

Comments:. _________________________________ ___ 

100 
6. Approximately what percentage of your time (roughly averaged over the last two years) 

is spent in the following activities: 

_ In the field participating in surveys 

_ Other (field or related) research to improve stock assessments 

Other fieldwork or research 

The mechanics of stock assessments 

_ Modeling research to improve stock assessment methodology 

_ Participation in data collection or data management activities 

_ Provision of scientific advice to Regional Offices, Review Groups, Councils and others 

_ Participation in Section 7 reviews, evaluation of the consequences of alternative 

management strategies, and other Council-related activities 

Other interactions with constituents 

_ Professional development (writing papers, readingjoumals, attending conferences, training, 

etc.) 

Administrative activities 

_ Other (specify) _____________________ _ 

_ Other (specify) _____________________ _ 

Commen~: ______________________________________________________ _ 

101 
7. What do you think would be the ideal percentage allocation of time (averaged across a 

group of stock assessment scientists, recognizing that there may be some degree of 

specialization between individuals) spent in the following activities: 

_ In the field participating in surveys 

_ Other (field or related) research to improve stock assessments 

Other fieldwork or research 

The mechanics of stock assessments 

_ Modeling research to improve stock assessment methodology 

_ Participation in data collection or data management activities 

_ Provision of scientific advice to Regional Offices, Review Groups, Councils and others 

_ Participation in Section 7 reviews, evaluation of the consequences of alternative 

management strategies, and other Council-related activities 

Other interactions with constituents 

_ Professional development (writing papers, readingjoumals, attending conferences, training, 

etc., for those of you who've forgotten what this is), 

Administrative activities 

_ Other (specify) _____________________ _ 

_ Other (specify) _____________________ _ 

Connnents: __________________________________________________________ __ 

102 
8. What types of additional training/professional development opportunities would best 

help you meet present or future assessment challenges: 

Training 

Statistical methods 

__ Survey methods 

__ GIS analyses 

__ Programming or software use 

__ Project management 

__ People management 

Assistance with advanced course work 

Additional travel to conferences 

__ Special interest workshops designed to exchange information on specific stock assessment 

techniques 

__ Other (specify) ____________________ _ 

__ Other (specify) ________________ --,--____ _ 

List specific courses, training, or development desired: _____________ _ 

103 

APPENDIX III 

Responses to the Protected Species Stock Assessment Improvement Program 

Needs Questionnaire 

TOPIC AFSC NEFSC SEFSC PIFSC SWFSC MEAN 

1. Identify the degree of improvement needed in the components of your species "Stock 

Assessment" 

Detennination of stock size (e.g., Nmin) 3.3 1.3 1.7 2.5 3.5 2.5 

Detennination of current population trend 3.3 2.7 2.3 2.0 2.5 2.6 

Detennination of population's intrinsic rate of increase 4.2 2.0 1.7 2.5 3.0 2.7 (e.g., Rrnax) 

Detennination of other life history characteristics (e.g., 2.8 1.3 1.7 2.5 5.0 2.7 

natality rates, survival, etc) 

Use of recovery factors 4.6 2.7 5.7 3.5 2.0 3.7 

Calculation of PBR or allowed incidental take 4.2 3.7 4.0 1.0 5.0 3.6 

Mortality assessment 3.0 1.7 3.7 3.5 2.0 2.8 

Stock structure 2.3 1.7 3.0 3.5 1.0 2.3 

2. Identify the programmatic needs of your current data collection and assessment programs that 

require additional funds 

Directed abundance surveys for assessments 3.3 1.7 1.0 2.5 3.5 2.4 

Index surveys as surrogates for abundance surveys 4.1 4.0 4.5 2.0 2.0 3.3 

Land based surveys of the abundance of some 4.5 4.7 5.5 4.5 6.0 5.0 

component of the stock 

Directed surveys for seasonal estimates of seasonal 3.2 1.7 1.5 2.5 4.0 2.6 

abundance and distribution 

Data on stock or population life history characteristics 2.7 2.3 3.0 2.5 4.0 2.9 

(e.g., age structure, natality rates, 

Data on individual or population dispersal/migration 2.8 4.3 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.6 

Fine-scale temporal and spatial data for regulatory 3.2 4.3 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.2 

analyses 

Studies for g(O) corrections, distribution, movements, 3.9 2.7 

etc 

2.5 6.0 1.5 3.3 

105 
TOPIC AFSC NEFSC SEFSC PIFSC SWFSC MEAN 

Fishery-dependent catch estimation for bycatch (e.g. 3.8 1.3 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.2 

!by observer programs) 

Data from other sources on fishery bycatch (e.g., 4.1 4.0 5.5 5.0 2.0 4.1 

strandings data) 

Biological data (age, sex) on bycaught animals 5.0 3.7 4.0 2.0 5.0 3.9 

Estimates of fishery effort 4.8 2.3 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.6 

Data on other human-related mortality (e.g., ship 3.6 3.7 3.0 5.5 3.0 3.8 

strike, harvests, etc) 

Stock structure 2.8 2.0 4.0 4.5 1.0 2.9 

3. Rank the following in terms of importance to the assessment of the species or species groups 

that you work on 

Quality of abundance surveys for assessments 3.3 1.7 1.0 2.5 1.5 2.0 

Quality of index surveys as surrogates for abundance 3.9 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 

surveys 

Quality of land based surveys of the abundance of 4.2 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 

some component of the stock 

Quality of seasonal abundance and distribution data 2.5 2.3 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.6 

Quality of stock or population demographics data (age, 2.6 1.3 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.7 

sex, natality) 

Quality of data for g(O) corrections, distribution, 3.1 2.0 2.0 5.5 2.0 2.9 

movements, etc 

Quality of commercial by-catch data (fishery 4.7 1.3 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.4 

dependent or stranding) 

Quality of basic biological parameters of by caught 5.1 3.0 4.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 

animals (age, sex) 

Quality of commercial fishing effort data 5.4 1.7 3.0 4.5 3.0 3.5 

Quality of data on other anthropogenic mortality 4.2 3.3 4.0 2.5 4.0 3.6 

106 
TOPIC AFSC NEFSC SEFSC PIFSC SWFSC MEAN 

Quality of data on stock structure 2.7 1.7 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.5 

Quality of research on environmental effects 2.5 2.7 5.5 2.0 3.0 3.1 

Quality of research on multispecies interactions 3.2 4.0 5.5 2.0 4.0 3.7 

Quantity or quality of resource survey staff to collect 3.2 2.3 3.5 2.0 2.0 2.6 

necessary data 

Quantity or quality of database managers and computer 3.1 3.7 5.0 2.5 5.0 3.9 

IProgrammers to pre-process the data 

Quantity or quality of assessment scientists to crank 3.6 3.3 4.0 1.5 2.0 2.9 

out assessments 

Quantity or quality of assessment scientists to develop 4.0 3.7 4.0 1.5 1.0 2.8 

better survey and assessment methods 

Quantity or quality of assessment scientists to study 3.8 4.0 4.5 2.5 5.0 4.0 

habitat associations 

Quantity or quality of training for assessment scientists 4.3 5.3 4.5 2.0 4.0 4.0 

to improve skills 

Quantity or quality of assessment scientists or other 4.8 4.3 4.5 3.0 5.0 4.3 

appropriate staff to communicate results to 

Quantity or quality of survey platforms (i.e., ships and 3.6 3.0 5.5 3.0 1.0 3.2 

aircraft) 

Quantity or quality of survey equipment (e.g., passive 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.5 2.0 4.1 

acoustic arrays) 

4. Regarding your ""survey'''' data collection program, rank the following in terms of their 

impact on your ability to assess the species for which this response is being prepared 

Sampling frequency for transect surveys 

More frequent ""annual"" assessment surveys 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 

Increased sampling density within a survey 3.5 4.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.8 

Seasonal distribution and abundance studies 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 

Statistical analysis of sampling design 2.6 2.7 2.5 1.5 3.0 2.5 

107 
TOPIC AFSC NEFSC SEFSC PIFSC SWFSC MEAN 

Use of acoustics in surveys 

Research into the use of acoustics to improve 3.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 1.0 2.7 

surveys 

Operational deployment of towed acoustic arrays 3.7 3.7 2.5 4.0 2.0 3.2 

and analysis of results 

Operational deployment of moored or fixed arrays 3.1 4.5 3.5 4.0 1.0 3.2 

and analysis of results 

Mark and recapture studies 

Funding for systematic mark and recapture studies 1.9 3.0 1.5 2.5 1.0 2.0 

Research into methods to improve mark and 3.5 4.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 

recapture studies 

More frequent sampling events 3.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.8 

Increased sampling sites 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 

Improved coordination/standardization of 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.0 1.0 2.9 

sampling among sites 

Statistical analysis of sampling design 3.3 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.9 

Tagging efforts 

Directed funding for g(O) corrections (e.g. dive 2.1 1.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 

time studies for cetaceans, hauling out for 

Deployments to study distribution and movements 1.8 2.3 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 

(wide and fme scale) 

Funding for general instrument development 2.1 3.3 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.9 

(e.g., archival tags, satellite tags, GPS tags, etc) 

Tag retention studies 3.2 2.7 4.5 3.5 2.0 3.2 

Tag recovery studies 3.3 3.0 4.5 3.5 2.0 3.3 

Development of survey tools 

108 
TOPIC AFSC NEFSC SEFSC PIFSC SWFSC MEAN 

Satellite imagery 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 2.8 

LIDAR 4.3 4.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.7 

Acoustics, 3.4 3.3 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 

High resolution vertical imagery 2.8 3.3 3.5 4.0 2.0 3.1 

''''Critter Cams"" 3.3 3.7 4.5 1.5 3.0 3.2 

Development of software for surveys and analyses: 

For recording observations during surveys 3.2 2.7 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.9 

For incorporation of multiple data streams during 2.6 2.3 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 

surveys (e.g., survey observations, acoustics, 

Software to analyze survey results 3.6 3.7 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 

Software to analyze the multiple data streams 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.7 

Integration of full capabilities of GIS in evaluation 1.9 2.0 4.0 1.5 5.0 2.9 

of survey data 

Survey Resources 

Ship time in general 2.3 3.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 

Availability of properly designed ships (quiet, 3.0 3.3 4.0 1.5 1.0 2.6 

adequate observing stations, etc) 

Aircraft time in general 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.8 

Availability of properly configured or designed 2.3 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 

aircraft (size, range, equipoment5, proper 

Staffing: 

Staff to manage incoming data reporting and data 1.6 1.7 3.5 2.0 1.5 2.1 

processing requirements. 

Staff to analyze biological data collections (e.g. 2.1 2.0 4.5 1.0 1.0 2.1 

age determinations, food habits analysis, stock id) 

109 
TOPIC AFSC NEFSC SEFSC PIFSC SWFSC MEAN 

Dedicated GIS support 2.3 1.7 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.6 

5. Regarding the collection of data on mortalities of marine mammals and turtles, rank the following in 

terms of their impact on your ability to assess the species for which this response is being prepared 

Implementation or expansion of fisheries observer 3.3 1.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.8 

program 

Implementation or expansion of stranding monitoring 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 5.0 3.3 

IProgram 

Integration of health assessment into stranding 3.9 1.7 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.5 

IPrograms 

Implementation or expansion of log book reporting 4.2 4.3 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.5 

system 

Implementation or expansion of reporting system for 3.5 2.7 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.6 

other human-related mortalities 

Quantity or quality of staff to manage incoming data 3.0 1.7 5.0 2.0 3.0 2.9 

reporting and data processing requirements. 

Quantity or quality of staff to analyze biological data 3.1 collections (e.g. age determinations, food habits 3.3 3.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 

analysis) 

Quantity or quality of staff to estimate mortalities 3.3 1.3 3.5 1.5 2.5 2.4 

Statistical analysis of sampling design 3.9 2.3 4.0 1.5 2.0 2.8 

Mandatory reporting of key effort statistics (e.g., 2.6 horsepower, gear configuration, hours fished, haul set 3.9 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 

and haul back locations etc.) 

Analysis of accuracy and statistical properties of effort 4.0 1.0 3.5 4.0 2.0 2.9 

and economic data 

6. Approximately what percentage of your time (roughly averaged over the last two years) is spent in the 

following activities: 

In the field participating in surveys 6.1 10.3 15.0 4.0 11.5 9.4 

Other (field or related) research to improve stock 

assessments 

3.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 

Other fieldwork or research 5.3 8.3 0.0 11.0 7.0 6.3 

The mechanics of stock assessments 7.1 1.7 20.0 7.5 7.5 8.8 

Modeling research to improve stock assessment 5.3 5.7 5.0 3.5 30.0 9.9 

methodology 

110 
TOPIC AFSC NEFSC SEFSC PIFSC SWFSC MEAN 

Participation in data collection or data management 8.0 10.7 15.0 5.0 5.0 8.7 

activities 

Provision of scientific advice to Regional Offices, 5.3 15.0 40.0 15.0 9.0 16.9 

Review Groups, Councils and others 

Participation in Section 7 reviews, evaluation of the 

6.7 

consequences of alternative management strategies, 6.7 9.3 0.0 17.5 0.0 

and other Council-related activities 

Other interactions with constituents 5.9 5.0 0.0 0.5 5.0 3.3 

Professional development (writing papers, reading 19.4 16.7 0.0 10.5 17.5 12.8 

'oumals, attending conferences, training, etc.) 

Administrative activities 25.0 15.7 5.0 25.5 7.5 15.7 

7. What do you think would be the ideal percentage allocation of time (averaged across a group of stock 

assessment scientists, recognizing that there may be some degree of specialization between individuals) 

spent in the following activities 

In the field participating in surveys 9.0 8.3 15.0 6.5 10.0 9.8 

Other (field or related) research to improve stock 

assessments 

9.0 10.0 0.0 2.5 15.0 7.3 

Other fieldwork or research 3.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 2.3 

The mechanics of stock assessments 12.0 3.3 20.0 7.5 10.0 10.6 

Modeling research to improve stock assessment 11.8 25.0 30.0 11.0 10.0 17.6 

methodology 

Participation in data collection or data management 9.8 5.0 0.0 15.0 10.0 8.0 

activities 

Provision of scientific advice to Regional Offices, 6.6 9.0 15.0 5.0 7.5 8.6 

Review Groups, Councils and others 

Participation in Section 7 reviews, evaluation of the 4.2 

consequences of alternative management strategies, 6.6 1.7 0.0 5.0 7.5 

and other Council-related activities 

Other interactions with constituents 3.6 5.0 0.0 2.5 5.0 3.2 

Professional development (writing papers, reading 22.6 25.0 20.0 35.0 15.0 23.5 

'oumals, attending conferences, training, etc.) 

Administrative activities 6.0 4.3 0.0 10.0 5.0 5.1 

111 
TOPIC ~FSC NEFSC SEFSC PIFSC SWFSC MEAN 

8. What types of additional training/professional development opportunities would best help you meet 

present or future assessment challenges 

Trainine 

Statistical methods 1.7 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 

Survey methods 3.1 2.7 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.3 

GIS analyses in general 2.8 3.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.7 

GIS analyses focused on marine or assessment 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.4 

analyses 

Programming or software use 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 2.6 

Project management 2.3 1.7 3.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 

People management 2.7 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.7 

Assistance with advanced course work 3.2 4.0 2.5 1.5 3.0 2.8 

IAdditional travel to conferences 2.8 3.3 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.6 

Special interest workshops designed to exchange 1.4 

information on specific stock assessment techniaues 1.5 1.7 1.0 2.0 1.0 

112