U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70-764 PDF 2012

NOAA’S STELLER SEA LION SCIENCE 

AND FISHERY MANAGEMENT RESTRICTIONS DOES THE SCIENCE 

SUPPORT THE DECISIONS? 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Monday, October 17, 2011, in Seattle, Washington 

Serial No. 112-72 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Monday, October 17, 2011 .......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Young, Hon. Don, the Representative in Congress for the State of Alaska 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Cotter, Larry, Chair, North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Steller 

Sea Lion Mitigation Committee and Chief Executive Officer, Aleutian 

Pribilof Island Community Development Association ............................... 43 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45 

Knapp, Dr. Gunnar, Professor of Economics, Institute of Social and 

Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage ................................ 37 

Joint prepared statement of ..................................................................... 32 

LeVine, Michael, Pacific Senior Counsel, Oceana .......................................... 64 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 66 

Little, David, President, Freezer Longline Coalition ..................................... 57 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 58 

Loomis, Todd, Government and Industry Affairs, Cascade Fishing, Inc. .... 52 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53 

Ragen, Timothy J., Ph.D., Executive Director, Marine Mammal 

Commission ................................................................................................... 39 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41 

Schwaab, Eric, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce .................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Trites, Dr. Andrew, Professor and Director, Marine Mammal Research 

Unit, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia ............................ 30 

Joint prepared statement of ..................................................................... 32 

Tsukada, Ryuichi Rudy, President, Aleut Enterprise, LLC .......................... 60 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 62 

Tweit, Bill, Special Assistant, Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife ........................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Vincent-Lang, Doug, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game .................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING TITLED ‘‘NOAA’S 

STELLER SEA LION SCIENCE AND FISHERY 

MANAGEMENT RESTRICTIONS — DOES THE 

SCIENCE SUPPORT THE DECISIONS?’’ 

Monday, October 17, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Seattle, Washington 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., at the Ruth 

Fisher Boardroom of Union Station, 401 South Jackson Street, 

Seattle, Washington, Hon. Doc Hastings [Chairman of the 

Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hastings and Young. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD ‘‘DOC’’ HASTINGS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

WASHINGTON 

Mr. HASTINGS. I want to thank everybody for being here today, 

and I note that we have a quorum under our rules. 

The Committee on Natural Resources today is meeting to hear 

testimony on an oversight hearing on ‘‘NOAA’s Steller Sea Lion 

Science and Fishery Management Restrictions: Does the Science 

Support the Decisions?’’ 

I ask unanimous consent that in addition to my oral statement 

that I will be giving that my colleague from Alaska, Congressman 

Don Young, be permitted to give an opening statement. Without objection, so ordered. 

I will recognize myself now for an opening statement. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses that will be here today 

for their willingness to testify on the issue of Steller sea lions and 

whether fishery management measures that were in place to protect sea lions are based on sound science. These management actions are the latest in a series of restrictions placed on commercial 

fishing activities in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska in an 

effort to protect Steller sea lions. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or 

NOAA’s, own documents state that the imposition of the fishery 

management restrictions put in place last January will cost the 

commercial fishing industry between $44 million and $61 million 

per year, and cause a job loss of between 250 and 750 jobs. 

Now, at a time when every effort should be focused on creating 

jobs and economic opportunities, it certainly stands out when an 

action by a Federal agency will result in this degree of economic 

loss, especially when one of the missions of the agency is to fully 

utilize our Nation’s fishery resources. 

Now, having said that, I understand that NOAA has multiple 

missions. I also understand that there is a lot about Steller sea 

2 

lions that is still poorly understood. However, I am concerned that 

the decision to impose these restrictions was based on whether 

fishing was, and I quote, ‘‘not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species.’’ 

Now, that standard seems to put the burden of proof on whether 

the Agency could disprove that the commercial fishing industry 

was responsible for harming Steller sea lions. The fact that the Biological Opinion uses the word ‘‘may’’ throughout the document indicates to me that the Agency is not sure what is going on in the 

Bering Sea and, therefore, cannot disprove any of its theories. 

When an agency puts in place a restriction on an industry that will result in a loss of $61 million per year, and a cost of up to 750 

jobs, I expect them to be certain in their deliberations. The Biological Opinion leaves one to wonder whether there is any certainty. 

The independent scientific review that was commissioned by the 

States of Washington and Alaska appear to share this concern. In 

fact, their report states, and I quote, ‘‘The conclusions of the BiOp 

regarding the finding of jeopardy and its posited cause (nutritional 

stress from food competition with fisheries) do not follow logically 

from scientific, economic, and social information presented in the 

BiOp and attendant documents.’’ 

The report goes on to say, and I quote again, ‘‘The conclusions 

are contradicted by both information presented in the BiOp as well 

as information not presented in the BiOp.’’ 

When 13 of the 14 criteria assessed by NOAA to determine if nutritional stress was restricting recovery for the western population 

came up negative, while at the same time the Biological Opinion 

concludes that the fishing industry is restricting food availability, 

it simply raises questions about the validity of the entire Biological 

Opinion. 

This is just one question that has been raised regarding the 

science behind the fishing restrictions. When the agency’s own 

science conflicts with their conclusions, it is no wonder the States 

of Washington and Alaska commissioned an independent scientific 

review. 

It is also concerning that so little has changed since 2000 when 

Congress began to appropriate funding for Steller sea lion research. 

Beginning in Fiscal Year 2001, Congress has appropriated more 

than $150 million for Steller sea lion research, and more than half 

of that went directly to NOAA for their own research program. And 

10 years later, we are still asking many of the same questions. 

Despite this funding, NOAA still has not been able to answer the 

questions regarding whether the commercial fishing industry is 

limiting the food available for Steller sea lions. This is the first 

area of research that should have been conducted so that we would 

not be in the situation we are now, facing new restrictions that will 

cost jobs and restrict economic activity. 

We now have a final report from the independent scientific review panel, and the report raises serious issues with the conclusions in the Biological Opinion, and also raises questions whether 

the science even supports the conclusions made by NOAA. The real 

question is what the Agency will do with this new information. 

Now, I hope our witnesses, and particularly our NOAA witnesses, will discuss what happens next. NOAA has the authority, 

3 

and I would argue, the obligation, to take this independent review 

panel’s report and to take another look at their findings in the Biological Opinion. 

I would also strongly suggest that NOAA look at other new information, such as the Atka mackerel stock assessment that was completed after the BiOp was finalized. This new information is certainly relevant, and the Agency has an obligation to review all new 

information when it becomes available. 

I understand NOAA has its own plans for its own independent 

review of the BiOp. I hope this independent review will allow for 

public input as the Washington State and Alaska review did. I 

would also encourage NOAA to develop the terms of reference for 

the review in a manner suggested by the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, and to include a review of the science and 

the conclusions contained in the BiOp. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

I would like to thank our witnesses for their willingness to testify today on the 

issue of Steller sea lions and whether the fishery management measures that were 

put in place to protect sea lions are based on sound science. These management actions are the latest in a series of restrictions placed on commercial fishing activities 

in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska in an effort to protect Steller sea lions. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s own documents state 

that the imposition of the fishery management restrictions put in place last January 

will cost the commercial fishing industry between $44 million and $61 million per 

year and cause the loss of between 250 and 750 jobs. At a time when every effort 

should be focused upon creating jobs and economic opportunities, it certainly stands 

out when an action by a Federal agency will result in this degree of economic loss— 

especially when one of the missions of the agency is to fully utilize the Nation’s fishery resources. 

Having said that, I understand that NOAA has multiple missions. I also understand that there is a lot about Steller sea lions that is still poorly understood. However, I am concerned that the decision to impose these restrictions was based on 

whether fishing was ‘‘not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species...’’ That standard seems to put the burden of proof on whether the agency could 

disprove that the commercial fishing industry was responsible for harming Steller 

sea lions. The fact that the Biological Opinion uses the word ‘‘may’’ throughout the 

document indicates to me that the agency is not sure what is going on in the Bering 

Sea and therefore cannot disprove any of the theories. 

When an agency puts in place a restriction on an industry that will result in a 

loss of up to $61 million per year and cost 750 jobs, I expect them to be certain. 

The Biological Opinion leaves one to wonder whether there is any certainty. The 

independent scientific review that was commissioned by the States of Washington 

and Alaska appears to share this concern. In fact, their report states, ‘‘the conclusions in the BiOp regarding the finding of jeopardy and its posited cause (nutritional stress from food competition with fisheries) do not follow logically from scientific, economic, and social information presented in the BiOp and attendant documents.’’ The report goes on to say, ‘‘The conclusions are contradicted both by information presented in the BiOp as well as information not presented in the BiOp.’’ 

When 13 of the 14 criteria assessed by NOAA to determine if nutritional stress 

was restricting recovery for the western population came up negative while at the 

same time the Biological Opinion concludes that the fishing industry is restricting 

food availability, it raises questions about the validity of the entire Biological Opinion. This is just one question that has been raised regarding the science behind the 

fishing restrictions. When the agency’s own science conflicts with their conclusions, 

it is no wonder the States of Washington and Alaska commissioned an independent 

scientific review. 

It is also concerning that so little has changed since 2000 when Congress began 

to appropriate funding for Steller sea lion research. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2001, 

Congress appropriated more than $150 million for Steller sea lion research and 

more than half of that went directly to NOAA for their research program. And ten 

4 

years later, we still are asking many of the same questions. Despite this funding, 

NOAA still is not able to answer the questions regarding whether the commercial 

fishing industry is limiting the food available for Steller sea lions. This is the first 

area of research that should be have been conducted so that we would not be in 

the situation we are in now—facing new restrictions that will costs jobs and restrict 

economic activity. 

We now have the final report from the independent scientific review panel and 

the report raises serious issues with the conclusions in the Biological Opinion and 

also questions whether the science even supports the conclusions made by NOAA. 

The real question is what the agency will do with this new information. I hope 

our witnesses—in particular our NOAA witness—will discuss what happens next. 

NOAA has the authority, and I would argue the obligation, to take this independent 

review panel’s report and to take another look at their findings in the Biological 

Opinion. I would also strongly suggest that NOAA look at other new information 

such as the Atka mackerel stock assessment that was completed after the Biological 

Opinion was finalized. This new information is certainly relevant and the agency 

has an obligation to review all new information when it becomes available. 

I understand NOAA has plans for its own independent review of the Biological 

Opinion. I hope that independent review will allow for public input as the Washington state and Alaska review did. I would also strongly encourage NOAA to develop the terms of reference for the review in the manner suggested by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council and to include a review of the science and the 

conclusions contained in the Biological Opinion. 

Mr. HASTINGS. And with that, I would like to recognize my 

colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, and thank you for 

holding this hearing on a topic that is of great interest to both of 

our States, and for hosting me in your great State of Washington— 

although I think where you are from is a lot nicer, but that is beside the point. 

The other day, I was reminded about a hearing held on this same 

topic in 1999. At that hearing, my friend, former Chairman Jim 

Saxton, said, ‘‘If you can clearly identify a problem and a solution, 

then everyone will work together to accomplish the goal. If there 

is scientific uncertainty, distress, and animosity, then the process 

of cooperatively working together to find a solution is doomed to 

fail.’’ 

Over a decade later, sadly nothing has changed, as you mentioned in your statement. We are talking about the same issue and 

asking the same questions. Most shocking, significant taxpayer dollars have been directed toward research on the Steller sea lion. The 

National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, still cannot answer 

basic questions, and is making decisions that impact the economies 

of an entire region and countless individual families with grossly 

limited data. 

Once again, the Agency cannot say with certainty what is causing the population decline. But again, fishermen are paying the 

price. While we have no idea if these closures and restrictions will 

benefit the sea lion, we do know they will have devastating effects 

on fishermen and fishing communities. 

From all the evidence I have seen, I can reasonably draw only 

one conclusion: We are confronted with an agency that has a 

premise, but a lack of information to prove or disprove it. And out 

of fear of a lawsuit by extreme organizations, the Agency hides 

5 

behind the ‘‘best available science’’ excuse. The worst thing, Mr. 

Chairman, their ‘‘best available science’’ did not use any science 

from the State of Washington or the State of Alaska. They used excuses and exercised an overabundance of precaution akin to someone who cannot swim refusing to bathe. 

I want to commend the States of Alaska and Washington for taking it upon themselves to work together to find answers for these 

outstanding questions. Among other things, they found that the 

Biological Opinion’s conclusions were contrary to their own science, 

it was not adequately peer reviewed, and was not supported by 

scientific evidence. 

As Alaska and Washington have aptly demonstrated, this NMFS 

proposal does not have the best available science, or even complete 

science, and as a result, our fishermen and communities will suffer. 

Mr. Chairman, I do believe this is being driven within the Agency. I am trying to find who is pushing this issue, and I think there 

is a political agenda. It is not new. It has happened in the past, 

and it will probably happen in the future unless you and I and 

NMFS and NOAA work together with those involved to solve this 

problem. 

There is no shortage of sea lions. I have always fought this issue 

to arbitrarily set the number of sea lions. It had no scientific information behind it, and what it should be. And even in their own report, they said there was no availability of science to say fishermen 

are causing the problem. And, in fact, the sea lion herds are stabilized. I even called the head of NOAA when this occurred and 

asked them are they the same, because the so-called Western stock 

has declined, but the Eastern stock has increased, and it has the 

same DNA. And yet, they are punishing my fishermen, your fishermen, and they are doing what I think gives NOAA a black eye. 

NOAA is not really on my favorite list anyway, I want you to 

know that. Over the years I have introduced bills to eliminate 

NMFS because you do some real stupid things. And I just argue 

work together, let us do what is right, and do not caught get into 

this mid-management pushing of something that is an agenda. Get 

everybody off the water. No human fishermen will raise all our fish 

in fish farms off our shores. That is coming right out of your department. That is not right. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Don Young, the Representative in Congress 

from the State of Alaska 

Chairman Hastings, thank you for holding this hearing on a topic that is of great 

interest to both of our states, and for hosting me in your great state of Washington. 

The other day, I was reminded about a hearing held on this same topic in 1999. 

At that hearing, my friend, former Chairman Jim Saxton said, 

‘‘If you can clearly indentify a problem and a solution, then everyone will 

work together to accomplish the goal. If there is scientific uncertainty, distrust and animosity, then the process of cooperatively working together to 

find a solution is doomed to fail.’’ 

Over a decade later, sadly, nothing has changed and we’re talking about the same 

issue and asking the same questions. Most shocking, significant taxpayer dollars 

have been directed towards research on the Steller Sea Lion, yet the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) still cannot answer basic questions, and is making 

decisions that impact the economies of an entire region and countless individual 

families with grossly limited data. 

6 

Once again, the Agency cannot say with any certainty what is causing the population decline, but fishermen and again paying the price. While we have no idea if 

these closures and restrictions will benefit the sea lion, we do know that they will 

have devastating affects on the fishermen and fishing communities. 

From all the evidence I’ve seen, I can reasonably draw only one conclusion—we’re 

confronted with an Agency that has a premise, but a lack of information to prove 

or disprove it. And out of fear of a lawsuit by extreme organizations the Agency 

hides behind ‘‘the best available science’’ excuse and exercises an overabundance of 

precaution akin to someone who can’t swim refusing to bathe. 

I want to commend the States of Alaska and Washington for taking it upon themselves to work together to find answers to these outstanding questions. Among other 

things, they found that the Biological Opinion’s (BiOp) conclusions are contradictory 

to their own science, weren’t adequately peer reviewed, and are not supported by 

scientific evidence. 

As Alaska and Washington have aptly demonstrated, this NMFS doesn’t have the 

best available science or even complete science, and, as a result, our fishermen and 

communities will suffer. 

Once again, Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and I, like you, look 

forward to examining this issue more closely today and hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement, 

and obviously in your remarks trying to ascertain what exactly is 

happening. That is the reason for this hearing. That is why we are 

holding this hearing here in Seattle—more closely to where all this 

activity happens. So, I thank you very much for being here and for 

your statement. 

On our first panel, we have Mr. Eric Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, part of 

NOAA, Mr. Doug Vincent-Lang, Special Projects Coordinator of the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Mr. Bill Tweit, Special 

Assistant to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Thank you all very much for being here. I will just remind you, 

if you have not had an opportunity to testify, your entire written 

statement will appear in the record. But we have these lights there 

sitting right in front of you and sitting right in front of me. It is 

a five-minute light, and when the green light goes on, that means 

you are doing really, really very, very well. But when the yellow 

light goes on, that means you have done four minutes, and you 

have one minute left. And when the red light goes on, then that 

means that your time has expired. Now, I want to accommodate 

you as much as we can, but because we have several panels, if you 

could confine your remarks to the five minutes, I would very much 

appreciate that. 

So, we will start with Mr. Schwaab. Mr. Schwaab, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC SCHWAAB, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Chairman Hastings, Congressman Young, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today on NOAA’s Steller sea lion 

science and fishery management decisions to protect the species. 

My name is Eric Schwaab. I am the Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries within NOAA. 

Also with me today is Dr. Doug DeMaster. Doug has been the 

Science and Research Director of the Alaska Fishery Science 

7 

Center since October 2001. They have directed most of the Steller 

sea lion research for the agency. 

NOAA has been assessing Steller sea lion population status and 

the interactions between Alaskan groundfish fisheries and Steller 

sea lions for many years. Between the late 1970s and the late 

1990s, the endangered Western population of the Steller sea lion 

declined by almost 90 percent throughout its range, reaching its 

smallest size in 2000. 

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, NOAA and the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council implemented a number of significant 

changes in fishery management that lessened the potential impact 

of the fisheries on sea lions. Most of these changes were made in 

the area to the east of 178 degrees west longitude. In those areas, 

we have seen significant improvement in the numbers of sea lions. 

However, there appears to be a significant problem west of 178. 

This geographic boundary is significant because it is the same 

boundary where the National Marine Fisheries Service employed a 

different management strategy in 2001. The management strategies west of 178 degrees provided considerably more opportunity 

for commercial fishermen to prosecute fisheries inside of critical 

habitat. 

More recently in November 2010, NMFS released the 2010 final 

groundfish Biological Opinion, and in December 2010 we published 

an interim final rule to implement Steller sea lion protection measures. Prior to finalizing the Biological Opinion, we provided draft 

to the public, comments were sought, and over 10,000 were received. All of these comments were evaluated and analyzed for possible inclusion. 

In addition, an economic analysis was conducted to examine a 

wide range of potential impacts, including costs to the fishing industry and local communities. 

In the Biological Opinion, NOAA determined that the continued 

operation of the fishery as it was currently being conducted was 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Steller sea lions. 

Without protective measures, sea lions will likely continue to decline in abundance in the Western Aleutian Islands in the foreseeable future. Extirpation or localized extinction in the Western Aleutian Islands sub-region is likely, and possible in the Central Aleutian Island sub-region as well. 

NMFS is committed to ensuring that all management decisions 

are based on the best available science. In the coming months, we 

will be taking a number of steps to address concerns being raised. 

On October 8th, 2011, the States of Alaska and Washington released a review of the Biological Opinion. We will review and consider the findings in the final report and any future consultations 

concerning impacts of Federally managed groundfish fisheries on 

Steller sea lions. 

If new information on the impacts of the groundfish fisheries on 

Steller sea lions reveals effects on listed species or critical habitat 

that were not previously considered, then re-initiation of formal 

consultation is required and will be undertaken. 

In addition, we will obtain a review of the Biological Opinion by 

the Center of Independent Experts. The CIE will be asked to examine information that was available at the time of the Biological 

8 

Opinion’s development. The draft terms of reference for this review 

will be provided to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

for review and comment during the December 2011 Council meeting. The Council’s comments will be considered by NMFS and the 

completion of the terms of reference for the review. 

Furthermore, the Agency has proposed to the Council that the 

Steller sea lion Mitigation Committee be reconstituted, and asked 

to focus on management issues in the Aleutian Islands. The Agency 

will continue to work with the Council toward this goal. 

Finally, the Agency will invite State of Alaska and Washington 

representatives to a meeting to discuss alternative approaches to 

resolving questions concerning the management of Steller sea lions 

under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. 

The ultimate goal of the actions taken by NMFS is the recovery 

of the Western Steller sea lion population so it can be removed 

from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. These actions 

are designed to conserve Steller sea lion prey in important times 

and areas, while allowing as much fishing as possible to continue. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss NOAA’s Steller sea lion 

work. We are available to answer any questions that you may have 

at the appropriate time. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwaab follows:] 

Statement of Eric Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Chairman Hastings and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on NOAA’s Steller sea lion science and fishery 

management decisions to protect the species. My name is Eric Schwaab and I am 

the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. NOAA’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) is dedicated to the stewardship of living marine resources 

through science-based conservation and management, and the promotion of healthy 

ecosystems. As a steward, NMFS conserves, protects, and manages living marine resources to ensure functioning marine ecosystems and recreational and economic opportunities for the American public. 

On November 24, 2010, NMFS released the 2010 Final Groundfish Biological 

Opinion, which analyzed the effects of the groundfish fisheries in Alaska on the 

western population of the Steller sea lion. On December 13, 2010, NMFS published 

an interim final rule to implement Steller sea lion protection measures to insure 

that the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area groundfish fisheries off 

Alaska are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the western distinct 

population segment of Steller sea lions or adversely modify its designated critical 

habitat (75 Fed. Reg. 77535). This rule went into effect on January 1, 2011. For purposes of consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS was both the 

action agency as well as the consulting agency. The actions taken were designed to 

conserve Steller sea lion prey in important times and areas while allowing as much 

fishing to continue as possible. 

On October 6, 2011, the acting Secretary of Commerce received an invitation from 

the Natural Resources Committee of the House of Representatives to testify at a 

hearing to be held on October 17, 2011 in Seattle, WA concerning several aspects 

of management decisions regarding the federally managed groundfish fishery in 

Alaska and potential interactions with the endangered population of Steller sea lion. 

In particular, the concerns of the Committee are outlined in a series of questions 

that were posed by the Committee and are addressed herein. 

Background 

NOAA has been assessing the interactions between Alaskan groundfish fisheries 

and Steller sea lions for many years. The endangered western population of Steller 

sea lion has declined by almost 90% throughout its range, reaching its smallest size 

in 2000. In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, NOAA and the North Pacific Fishery 

9 

Management Council implemented a number of significant changes towards fisheries management that lessened the potential impact of the fisheries on the sea 

lions. Most of these changes were made in the area to the east of 178° W longitude 

and in those areas we have seen significant improvement in the numbers of sea 

lions. However, as Figure 1 indicates, there appears to be a significant problem west 

of 178° W longitude. 

This boundary at 178° W longitude is significant because this geographic boundary is the same boundary where NMFS changed its management strategy in 2001 

by implementing the Steller sea lion protection measures analyzed in the 2001 Biological Opinion, such that the management strategies west of 178° W longitude provided considerably more opportunity for commercial fishermen to prosecute fisheries 

inside of critical habitat. 

The best, peer-reviewed available science indicates that continued declines in sea 

lions in the western and central Aleutian Islands sub-region are due in part to reduced birth rates. One possible explanation for lowered birth rates in marine mammals is insufficient nutrition. Atka mackerel and Pacific cod are primary prey of 

Steller sea lions in the Aleutian Islands and they are targeted by the fisheries. Unless pup production in the western and central Aleutian Islands sub-regions is improved, the recovery of this ESA listed population will remain in doubt. As noted, 

historically, fishing was allowed in closer proximity to sea lion rookeries and 

haulouts in the western and central Aleutian Islands sub-regions than other parts 

of the western population’s range. NMFS, therefore, took action to reduce fishing 

pressure in important times and areas for sea lions with the expectation that the 

biomass of Pacific cod and Atka mackerel will increase appreciably. 

In its Biological Opinion, NOAA determined that the continued operation of the 

fishery as it was currently being conducted, particularly in the western Aleutians, 

was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Steller sea lions. NOAA then 

worked with the Council to craft a suite of measures to address the situation in a 

Reasonable and Prudent Alternative or RPA. The Biological Opinion required closing the western Aleutian Islands fishery management area (543) to fishing for Atka 

mackerel and Pacific cod, two Steller sea lion prey species. Protective measures in 

the Central Aleutian Islands (Area 542 and 541) include establishing a 3 nm nofishing buffer around a newly-established rookery; new closures of important Steller 

sea lion critical habitat foraging zones to fishing for Atka mackerel and Pacific cod; 

reductions in Atka mackerel harvest amounts; and varying seasonal closures for 

various sectors targeting Pacific cod. The protective measures implemented as part 

of the interim final rule in 2010 are designed to increase the availability of forage 

fish (e.g., Atka mackerel and cod) in the region where sea lion abundance is currently in decline. NMFS took action because, without these protective measures, sea 

lions will likely continue to decline in abundance in the foreseeable future. ExtirVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:25 Jan 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\70764.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY

70764.001.eps
10 

1 NOAA would be happy to provide the referenced documents to Committee Members upon 

request. 

pation, or localized extinction, in the western Aleutian Islands sub-region is likely, 

and possible in the central Aleutian Islands sub-region. 

Development of the 2010 Final Groundfish Biological Opinion 

The fishery management decisions in the 2010 Final Groundfish Biological Opinion were developed through a collaborative process between the NMFS Alaska Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division and NMFS Alaska Region, Protected Resources 

Division. The Protected Resources Division identified the fishing activities that were 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence and recovery or adversely modify designated critical habitat for the western distinct population segment of Steller sea 

lion (hereafter referred to as the western population). The potential impacts of all 

Alaska groundfish fisheries on the western population of sea lions and their critical 

habitat were examined. NMFS determined through the analysis in the Biological 

Opinion that it could not ensure the groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area (primarily Atka mackerel and Pacific cod fisheries in the Aleutian Islands) were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of the western population of sea lions or adversely modify its critical habitat. This 

determination required changes in these fisheries to ensure the effects of these fisheries were not likely to adversely impact the western population of Steller sea lion. 

NMFS included an RPA for the management of the Atka mackerel and Pacific cod 

fisheries in the Biological Opinion. The Protected Resources Division identified in 

the Biological Opinion the protective measures that were needed to be met to remove the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the western population of sea lions and adversely modifying critical habitat in the development of the 

RPA. The Protected Resources Division then worked with the Sustainable Fisheries 

Division on the development of the RPA to ensure the fishery management decisions 

would meet the requirements of the ESA and that these measures could be developed and implemented in a timely manner for the start of the 2011 fishing year. 

NMFS presented the draft RPA to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) in August 2010. Council and public comments were considered in development of the final RPA. In the final Biological Opinion, a result of the Council and 

public comment, revisions were made to the RPA as to further reduce the potential 

burden of the RPA on the fishing industry while maintaining the protection measures necessary to ensure no likelihood of the action jeopardizing the continued existence or adversely modifying critical habitat for the western population. 

The RPA was structured to mitigate effects of the fishery in sub-regions where 

Steller sea lion abundance continues to decline (western and central Aleutian Islands sub-region) and where available information indicates that reproduction may 

be reduced to a level that cannot support positive population growth (the western 

Aleutian Islands sub-region). The western and central Aleutian Islands were the 

two sub-regions where population growth was negative from 2000–2008 and of most 

concern. NMFS determined that additional mitigation measures in the other three 

sub-regions in U.S. waters were unwarranted (i.e., western, central and eastern Gulf 

of Alaska). Currently, the western population of the Steller sea lion is growing at 

a rate of 1.4% per year. However, as explained in Chapter 7 of the Biological Opinion, the western population is not meeting the criteria of a recovering population 

as determined by the Revised Recovery Plan and is at risk of being extirpated in 

the western portion of its range in U.S. waters. 

Scientific Information for the Biological Opinion 

Information referred to in the Biological Opinion, on which the Agency made its 

determination regarding whether the action was likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence or adversely modify critical habitat of the western population, included: 

(1) counts of pups and non-pups by sub-region, (2) food habits data by sub-region, 

(3) telemetry data on foraging behavior, and (4) differences in fishery management 

strategies by sub-region. In addition, NMFS conducted research on the abundance 

of killer whales in the Aleutian Islands. 

One of the most important pieces of information is shown in Fig 3.10 of the Biological Opinion (change in pup counts from 2005 to 2009 by degrees of longitude). 

Another very important piece of information is shown in Table 3.6 of the Biological 

Opinion (pup to non-pup ratios by sub-region). A summary of the underlying evidence supporting the RPA can be found on pages 359 and 360 of the Biological 

Opinion.1

These data suggested that some factor was acting west of 178° W longitude that 

was leading to the declines in pup production. Given the presumed linkage between 

11 

Steller sea lion declines and nutritional stress, and the increased fishing effort in 

this region since 2001, it was reasonable to conclude that a restriction in fishing 

effort would remove fishery effects that may contribute to nutritional stress and potentially ameliorate the decline in pup production. 

Economic Analysis of the Biological Opinion 

The economic analysis examined a wide range of potential impacts, including 1) 

costs to the fishing industry directly affected and the communities deriving jobs and 

income from this fishing activity, and 2) benefits derived from recovering Steller sea 

lion populations. 

The impacts on directly regulated Atka mackerel and Pacific cod fishing operations were evaluated by estimating the loss in gross revenue in Atka mackerel and 

Pacific cod production in prior years that would have occurred if the proposed measures had been in place. This information was supplemented by an analysis (based 

on past fishing patterns, and information on regulatory measures) of how the affected vessels might redeploy, what this might mean to their catches, and how this 

might affect other fishing fleets. Information from industry, primarily obtained during a special Council meeting in August 2010, and from comments on the draft Biological Opinion and draft environmental assessment/regulatory impact review, was 

used in this process. 

Impacts on communities were evaluated in several ways. Licensing and permit 

records were used to identify homes and home ports for fishermen and vessels directly involved in the fishery. Case studies were performed on regional communities 

especially likely to be impacted by the action, including Adak, Atka, and Unalaska. 

More general discussions were provided for areas not local to the fisheries. A new 

impact model prepared by economists at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center was 

used to make quantitative estimates of job, and other impacts, associated with the 

fishery management decisions. Potential impacts on Community Development Quota 

groups were also discussed. 

Potential benefits of the action were evaluated qualitatively for persons placing 

a value on Steller sea lion population health, and for persons using Steller sea lion 

populations for subsistence purposes. 

While these findings were the primary focus of the analysis, the regulatory impact 

review also discussed impacts on other ecosystem resources, on consumers, on inseason management and enforcement, on safety, and on the collection of scientific 

information. 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council Involvement in the Development of the Biological Opinion 

Prior to finalizing the Biological Opinion, NMFS provided to the public a draft Biological Opinion with a draft RPA. The public review process involved a special 

meeting of the Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee and Advisory 

Panel in August 2010. Public comments were sought, and over ten thousand were 

provided to NMFS. The Council submitted a recommendation for an alternative 

RPA that was initially crafted by its Advisory Panel. The Council’s Scientific and 

Statistical Committee also reviewed the draft Biological Opinion and RPA, and 

drafted comments on the scientific analyses and the logic of the underpinning 

science supporting NMFS’ recommended draft RPA. All comments and the Council’s 

suggested alternative RPA were evaluated by NMFS and analyzed for possible inclusion in a revised RPA. NMFS ultimately accepted eight modifications to the RPA 

to the draft Biological Opinion. NMFS analyzed these modifications and found that 

there was a comparable conservation benefit in the revised RPA. For example, proposed restrictions were relaxed for vessels less than 60’ in length using nontrawl 

gear, additional areas inside critical habitat in Area 542 was made available to 

nontrawl vessels, and small portions of critical habitat in the central Aleutian Islands were opened to trawling in a manner similar but not as extensive as the 

Council’s motion. The revised draft RPA was presented to the Council and the public in October 2010, and then included in the final Biological Opinion. 

Independent Scientific Review of the Biological Opinion 

On October 8, 2011, the final version of the States of Alaska and Washington’s 

review of the Biological Opinion (Bernard et al. 2011) was released. NMFS will review and consider the findings in the final report in any future consultations concerning impacts of federally managed groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions. If 

new information on the impacts of the groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions reveals effects on listed species or critical habitat that were not previously considered, 

then reinitiation of formal consultation is required (50 CFR sec. 402.16). 

12 

Future Review of the Biological Opinion 

NMFS will obtain a review of the Biological Opinion by the Center of Independent 

Experts. NMFS has a contract with the Center of Independent Experts to conduct 

independent reviews for the Agency of controversial or complex decision documents 

or assessments. The Center of Independent Experts will be asked to examine information that was available at the time of the Biological Opinion’s development 

(through May 2010). The draft Terms of Reference for this review will be provided 

to the Council for review and comment during the December 2011 Council meeting. 

The Council’s comments will be considered by NMFS in the completion of the Terms 

of Reference for the Center of Independent Experts review, which is scheduled for 

completion in 2012. 

Plans for Gathering Additional Scientific Information about Steller Sea 

Lions 

NMFS will continue to conduct studies on Steller sea lions in Alaska, Washington, 

Oregon, and California, as well as in collaboration with other researchers in the 

U.S., Russia and Canada. These studies address critical data needs to support stock 

assessment and recovery efforts, test multiple hypotheses related to population decline, and inform management decisions and monitor protection measure effectiveness. Collectively this research encompasses population abundance and trend monitoring, estimation of survival and reproductive rates, determination of short and 

long-term movements within and between stock, state, and international boundaries, measures of foraging behavior, diet, and marine habitat requirements, and assessments of sea lion health and condition. The following types of research will be 

undertaken in FY12, assuming funding levels similar to those in FY11: (1) monitoring of population trends by sub-region for Steller sea lions in Alaska, (2) estimation of vital rates of Steller sea lions in Alaska and Russia, (3) research on the 

foraging ecology and composition of the diet in Alaska, and (4) surveys to determine 

the biomass of Atka mackerel and cod in the western, central, and eastern Aleutian 

Islands sub-regions. 

Recovery Criteria in the Biological Opinion 

NMFS assembled a Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team (Team) in 2001 to assist in 

revising the Recovery Plan to promote the conservation of the Steller sea lion. The 

Team included: experts on marine mammals from the private sector, academia, and 

government; experts on endangered species conservation; and representatives of the 

commercial fishing industry, the Alaska Native Steller sea lion subsistence hunting 

community, and the environmental community. In March 2006, the Team submitted 

a draft of the Recovery Plan to NMFS, at which time it became an agency document. NMFS made minor editorial changes prior to releasing the first draft for public review and comment in May 2006. Upon review of the comments and recommendations submitted by peer reviewers and the public, and in light of new information available, NMFS further revised and updated the Plan. The changes 

made by NMFS were reflected in the Agency’s updated (May 2007 version) Draft 

Revised Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan, released by NMFS for further public review 

and comment on May 21, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 28473), with the comment period closing on August 20, 2007. NMFS reviewed the comments and recommendations submitted by peer reviewers and the public on the 2007 version of the draft revised 

plan and modified the plan as appropriate to produce the Final Revised Steller Sea 

Lion Recovery Plan in February 2008. 

The Final Revised Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan (2008) is a guidance document 

for the Agency as it continues to manage Steller sea lions and their habitat throughout their range. It contains recovery criteria which are described in several chapters 

of the Biological Opinion, and are stated as performance measures by sub-region 

(sub-regions from west to east are: Russia/Asia; western, central, and eastern Aleutian Islands; western, central, and eastern Gulf of Alaska). The Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team believed, and NMFS concurred, it was important to consider sub-population vital rates and demographic characteristics when considering the status of the 

western population of sea lions relative to recovery. The Recovery Plan notes that 

significant declines over large areas (two or more adjacent subareas) could indicate 

that extinction risk may still be high and that further research would be needed 

to understand the threats and would indicate a lack of recovery for the western population as a whole. Thus, NMFS believes it was important to maintain viable subpopulations within the western population and not rely solely on the core of the 

range to provide for increasing population numbers over the short term. 

The 2008 Revised Recovery Plan for Steller sea lions provided NMFS’ rationale 

for considering sub-population vital rates and demographic characteristics when 

considering whether the western population of Steller sea lion was sufficiently reVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:25 Jan 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\70764.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
13 

covered to merit delisting. According to the Revised Recovery Plan, significant declines over large areas could indicate that the extinction risk for the western population may still be high and would indicate a lack of recovery. The Revised Recovery 

Plan stressed the importance of maintaining viable sub-populations throughout the 

range of the western population to achieve recovery and the ability to delist. 

The current decline in abundance of Steller sea lions in the adjacent western and 

central Aleutian Islands sub-regions is, therefore, inconsistent with the recovery criteria of this population. Therefore, it was necessary to develop RPAs associated with 

the Biological Opinion for the Fishery Management Plans that could improve the 

availability of forage fish for sea lions in these sub-regions. Only then could NMFS 

ensure that authorization of the federal commercial fisheries was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the western population of sea lions or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. 

The RPA recommended in the Biological Opinion was designed to insure that the 

action, the authorization of Federal fisheries off Alaska, was not likely to reduce appreciably the likelihood of recovery of the western population of the Steller sea lion. 

A key consideration in making the determination that the action, as modified by the 

RPA, would not reduce appreciably the likelihood of recovery was use of the criteria 

developed by NMFS and the recovery team to determine when recovery has been 

achieved and when the western population no longer requires protection under the 

ESA. 

Conclusion 

The ultimate goal of the actions taken by NMFS is the recovery of the western 

Steller sea lion population so it can be removed from the list of endangered and 

threatened wildlife. These actions are designed to conserve Steller sea lion prey in 

important times and areas while allowing as much fishing to continue as possible. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss NOAA’s Steller sea lion science 

and fishery management decisions. We are available to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Schwaab. 

And next, we will recognize Mr. Vincent-Lang, Special Projects 

Coordinator for the Alaska Fish and Game. You are recognized for 

five minutes. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG VINCENT-LANG, SPECIAL PROJECTS 

COORDINATOR, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. Good morning, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Young. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

I am going to speak with you regarding concerns the State of 

Alaska has with the National Marine Fisheries Service Biological 

Opinion for the Western stock of Steller sea lions. 

In this Biological Opinion, the Service concluded that fishing in 

some areas of the Aleutian Islands jeopardizes the Steller sea lion 

stock and adversely modifies its critical habitat. Based on this finding, the Service adopted expansive new area closures and restrictions to fishing of a magnitude that cripples the fishing based economy of the Western Aleutians and raises environmental justice concerns. 

As many as 900 people are employed by fishing fleets and processors in the area facing restrictions. The Service acknowledges 

that implementation of this decision would cause fishery losses of 

up to $61 million annually and 750 jobs. 

Alaska questions whether these restrictions are justified in light 

of evidence that the stock now numbers over 73,000 animals, is 

growing overall across its range, and that there is a lack of credible 

data showing that fishing is, in fact, jeopardizing Steller sea lions 

or adversely modifying their critical habitat. 

14 

The conclusion that fishing is affecting the Western stock is 

based on speculation, not hard facts. Let us look at the scientific 

data upon which the Service based its jeopardy and adverse modification finding. 

First, the Western stock of Steller sea lions as a whole is recovering and is not in jeopardy at this time. The stock is growing at 

a rate of 1.4 percent per year, and now numbers over 73,000 animals. 

Second, recovery objectives established by the 2008 Steller sea 

lion recovery plan are not being violated. Rather, the current status 

of the stock achieves the criteria established within the recovery 

plan. 

Third, the primary rationale for the positive jeopardy and adverse modification finding is that Atka mackerel and Pacific cod 

fishing is causing nutritional stress to Steller sea lions. However, 

there is little sound scientific evidence that nutritional stress is in 

fact causing slower than desired rate of recovery in the Western 

Aleutians, and the scant available evidence is extremely weak. 

Fourth, the cause for restrictions for Pacific cod as an important 

prey species for Steller sea lions in the Western Aleutians is tenuous at best, and the basis for its inclusion in the interim final rule 

is unjustified. 

Fifth, while it may be theoretically possible for commercial fisheries to adversely affect the prey field of Steller sea lions, the data 

are very inconclusive. Studies founded by the Service itself, and 

largely ignored in the Biological Opinion, reveal that correlations 

between Steller sea lion population growth and fishing intensity 

over time and space indicate no significant relationship, much less 

a negative relationship. 

Sixth, the biomass of both Pacific cod and Atka mackerel were 

increasing under the prior management regime, thus negating the 

need for drastic changes implemented by the Service. In fact, the 

most recent biomass surveys for these two species so increasing 

biomasses in the Western Aleutians, even to the level sought as 

targets in the final rule. 

Finally, even accepting as true the false conclusion that fishing 

is negatively affecting Steller sea lions in the Western Aleutians, 

the Biological Opinion presented no information demonstrating 

that this effect is adversely modifying critical habitat as a whole 

for the Western stock as required under the Endangered Species 

Act. 

In summary, there is simply insufficient scientific evidence to 

conclude that fishing is causing acute nutritional stress and, thus, 

jeopardy to the Western Steller sea lions and adverse modification 

of their critical habitat, much less to any level of effect that would 

require immediate implementation of correction actions at this 

time. 

Alaska submitted extensive comments identifying these 

foundational science issues, as well as issues regarding the process 

used by the Service to reach its decision. We do not believe the 

Service adequately considered the State’s concerns. Instead, they 

simply relied on their deference to justify their invalid conclusions 

and discount valid concerns raised by the State and others. 

15 

In reaching their conclusions, the Service failed to conduct an 

independent review of their work. In fact, the subsequent independent analysis contacted by the States of Alaska and Washington substantiated many of the scientific concerns identified by 

affected users. 

We understand that the Service is planning to conduct a CIE review in the upcoming months. We strong urge the Service to employ the Council-adopted terms of reference and established working groups to finalize the CIE process. Specifically, we request that 

the terms of reference mandate all of the science, including the report from aforementioned State review be examined. We also request that the BiOp findings regarding the effects of Steller sea 

lions be examined. Finally, we request that the public process be 

as transparent as that employed by the State panel. 

Also, at the request of the Service, the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council held a special meeting to review the Biological Opinion. The Service maintained that a special Council meeting 

was needed to accommodate its severely shortened decision time 

frame after working on the Biological Opinion for over four years. 

At this meeting, the Council developed a reasonable and prudent 

alternative that would have increased protection for Steller sea 

lions while minimizing the effects of fishing as required under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. We are disappointed he Service did not 

more fully incorporate the recommendations of the Council in the 

implemented action. 

Finally, the State is concerned about the lack of meaningful public process allowed by the Service in evaluating the status of Steller 

sea lions. Specifically, we have concerns about the adequacy of the 

environmental assessment associated with the Biological Opinion. 

In particular, we question whether the economic valuations presented in the economic assessment reflect the real impacts to affected communities and fishing fleets. For example, the draft environment assessment released to the public was missing large pieces 

of critical information necessary to the public to make informed decisions. 

This concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any 

questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vincent-Lang follows:] 

Statement of Doug Vincent-Lang, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Good Morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

My name is Doug Vincent-Lang. I am a Special Assistant to the Commissioner 

of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). As part of my duties I am 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Coordinator for the State of Alaska. I have 

worked in this position since September, 2007. Previously I worked for the ADF&G 

as a biologist and Assistant Director for 26 years. I hold a B.S. degree in biology/ 

population dynamics from the University of Wisconsin—Green Bay and a M.S. degree in Biological Oceanography from the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Today I am here to speak with you regarding concerns the State of Alaska has 

with the National Marine Fishery Service’s Biological Opinion for the western stock 

of Steller sea lions. In this Biological Opinion, the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(Service) concluded that fishing in some areas of the Aleutian Islands jeopardizes 

the Steller sea lion stock and adversely modifies its habitat. Based on this finding, 

the Service adopted expansive new area closures and restrictions to fishing of a 

magnitude that cripples the fishing-based economy of the western Aleutians and 

raises environmental justice questions. As many as 900 people are employed by fisheries fleets and processors in the area facing restrictions. The Service acknowledges 

16 

that implementation of its decision would cost fishery losses of up to $66 million 

annually. 

Alaska questions whether these restrictions are justified in light of evidence that 

the stock now numbers over 73,000 animals, that it is growing overall across its 

range, and that there is a lack of credible data showing that fishing is in fact jeopardizing Steller sea lions or adversely modifying their habitat. 

The conclusion that fishing is affecting the western stock of Steller sea lions was 

based on speculation, not hard facts. Let’s look at the scientific data upon which the 

National Marine Fisheries Service based their jeopardy and adverse modification: 

1. The western stock of Steller sea lions as a whole is recovering and is not in 

jeopardy at this time. This stock is growing at a rate of 1.4% per year and 

now numbers over 73,000 animals. As noted in the Biological Opinion itself 

‘‘Since 2000, the decline has ceased and in most sub-regions the wSSL population is increasing.’’ 

2. Recovery objectives established by the 2008 Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan 

are not being violated; rather the current status of the stock achieves the criteria established by the Recovery Plan. To achieve recovery, the plan criteria 

dictate that the population trend in any two adjacent sub-regions cannot be 

significantly declining. In fact, the data show that no two adjacent sub-regions are significantly declining: one area does show a decline, but it is not 

possible to determine if this decline is significant. The plan also dictates that 

the population trend in any one sub-area cannot have declined by more than 

50%. The data show that the population in one sub-region, the Western Aleutians, has declined, but at a rate less than 50%. 

3. The primary rationale for the positive jeopardy and adverse modification 

finding is that the Atka mackerel and Pacific cod fisheries are causing ‘‘nutritional stress’’ to Steller sea lions. There is little sound evidence, however, 

that nutritional stress is causing the slower-than-desired rate of recovery in 

the western Aleutians, and the scant available evidence is extremely weak. 

For example, of the 17 possible life history indicators identified to assess nutritional stress for which the Service has data to evaluate, only 1 indicator 

showed a positive relationship: reduced birth rate. The remaining 16 biological indicators showed a negative relationship. These negative findings included emaciated pups, reduced pup body size, reduced pup weight, reduced 

growth rate, reduced pup survival, reduced juvenile survival, reduced adult 

survival, reduced overall survival, reduced pup counts, reduced non-pup 

counts, changes in blood chemistry, and increased incidence of disease. And 

even the reduced birth rate relationship should be viewed with caution given 

the lack of life history data for sea lions in the western Aleutians. Low birth 

rates could be attributed to factors other than nutritional stress, for example, 

predation. Other recent data, collected by the ADF&G and funded by cooperative research monies from the Service, confirms that first-year Steller sea 

lions pups in the western stock show no evidence of poor body condition. This 

is yet another source of data that calls into question the Service’s unproven 

and untested nutritional stress theory, on which their onerous Reasonable 

and Prudent Alternative is based. In addition, other National Marine Fisheries Service funded research demonstrates out-migration of branded Steller 

sea lions that move between the western and eastern Steller sea lion stock 

boundaries, which calls into question the assertion in the Biological Opinion 

that there is no cross-migration between the two stocks. 

4. The case for restrictions for Pacific cod as an important prey species for 

Steller sea lions in the western Aleutians is tenuous at best and the basis 

for its inclusion in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives and interim 

final rule is unjustified. Information available to assess sea lion diets in the 

western Aleutians is extremely limited. Only 46 total scat (feces) samples are 

available, and within that limited sample, 94% of the scat samples collected 

contained no cod at all. Information to assess the extent of sea lion feeding 

ranges is also extremely limited. The primary justification for the expansive 

closures in the western Aleutians is the foraging behavior of 3 juvenile 

males, which may not be representative of all Steller sea lions, particularly 

adult females, the population component most critical for determining population trends. 

5. While it may be theoretically possible for commercial fisheries to adversely 

impact the prey field of Steller sea lions, the data are very inconclusive. 

Studies funded by the Service, but largely ignored in the Biological Opinion, 

reveal that correlations between Steller sea lion population growth and fishing intensity over time and space indicate no significant relationship, much 

less a negative relationship. 

17 

6. The biomass of both Pacific cod and Atka mackerel were increasing under 

the prior management regime, thus negating the need for the drastic 

changes implemented by the Service. As a result, the management measures 

imposed by the final Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives are not consistent 

with the most recent 2010 biomass estimates for either Pacific cod or Atka 

mackerel, which were not considered in the Biological Opinion and Reasonable and Prudent Alternative analysis even though they were available before the final Biological Opinion was signed. These most recent (November 

2010) biomass surveys for these two species show increasing biomass in the 

western Aleutians, even to levels sought as targets in the Reasonable and 

Prudent Alternative. 

7. Finally, even accepting as true the false conclusion that fishing is negatively 

affecting Steller sea lions in the western Aleutians, the Biological Opinion 

presented no information demonstrating that this effect is adversely modifying critical habitat as a whole for the western stock, as required under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

In summary, there is simply insufficient scientific evidence to conclude that fishing is causing any nutritional stress and thus jeopardy to western Steller sea lions 

and adverse modification of their critical habitat, much less any level of effect that 

would require immediate implementation of corrective actions at this time. The 

State of Alaska submitted extensive comments identifying these foundational 

science issues, as well as regarding issues with the process used by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service to reach their decision. We do not believe that the Service 

adequately considered the State’s concerns. Instead, they strongly relied on their 

deference to justify their conclusions and discount valid concerns raised by the State 

and others. 

In reaching their conclusion, the Service failed to conduct an independent review 

of their work, as is normally undertaken and which we believe would have highlighted these shortcomings. In fact, a subsequent independent analysis contracted 

by the States of Alaska and Washington substantiated many of the scientific concerns identified by affected users. 

Also, at the request of the National Marine Fisheries Service, the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council held a special meeting to review the Biological Opinion and associated Reasonable and Prudent Alternative. The Service maintained 

that a special Council meeting was needed to accommodate a severely shortened decision timeframe—after working on the Biological Opinion for over four years. At 

this meeting the Council developed an alternate Reasonable and Prudent Alternative that would have increased protections for sea lions while minimizing effects 

on fishing communities as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We are disappointed that the National Marine Fisheries Service did not more fully incorporate 

the recommendations of the Council in their implemented action. 

Finally, the State is also concerned about the lack of meaningful public process 

allowed by the Service in evaluating the status of Steller sea lions. Specifically, we 

have concerns about the adequacy of the Environmental Assessment associated with 

the Biological Opinion; in particular, we question whether the economic valuations 

presented in the Economic Assessment reflect the real impacts to the affected communities and fishing fleets. For example, the draft Environmental Assessment released to the public was missing large pieces of critical information necessary for 

the public to make informed comments. 

The state is challenging this Biological Opinion and the associated fishery restrictions on various scientific and procedural grounds. Nevertheless, we fully support 

the recovery of this stock and will work cooperatively with NMFS on joint research. 

This concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Vincent-Lang. I appreciate your testimony. 

And last, we will go to Mr. Bill Tweit, Special Assistant for the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. You are recognized 

for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BILL TWEIT, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, 

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Mr. HASTINGS. Press the button on your—— 

18 

Mr. TWEIT. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Hastings and 

Representative Young. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with 

you today. 

I work for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and 

represent Director Phil Anderson on the North Pacific Council. 

In addition to Council representation, my duties at the Department include salmon harvest management, Columbia River water 

management, hydro powered mitigation, and tribal relations. 

In my testimony this morning, I will describe the State of 

Washington concerns regarding the Biological Opinion on Steller 

sea lions, the operating guidelines developed by Washington and 

Alaska for the independent science review of this Biological Opinion and, third, our suggestions for resolution of the science and 

management conflicts that have been fostered by this Biological 

Opinion. 

The State’s fundamental concerns are described by Governor 

Gregoire in a pair of letters to Secretary of Commerce Locke. Copies of these letters are attached to my written testimony. The Governor expressed two fundamental and interrelated concerns: first, 

the high degree of scientific uncertainty that this Biological Opinion is addressing, and, second, the top down approach that NMFS 

has adopted to developing the Biological Opinion and its reasonable 

and prudent alternatives. 

For contrast with the approach they have chosen here, I am very 

familiar with the process for crafting another notable Biological 

Opinion, this one regarding the impacts of the operation of the Federal Columbia River power system on listed salmonids. 

While that process certainly has some considerable difficulties 

associated with it, the State of Washington strongly supports the 

current Federal approach. This approach has not ended all of the 

controversy or litigation surrounding this Biological Opinion, which 

is probably an impossible task anyway, but it has brought many of 

the parties together to focus on solutions and implementation of 

salmon recovery actions. It has become a regionally driven, bottom 

up process, in considerable contrast to the Steller sea lions BiOp, 

which has had virtually no constructive regional engagement and 

represents essentially an edict from the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

Washington saw the need for an independent scientific review of 

this Biological Opinion due to the very significant scientific uncertainties. We took a great deal of care in developing the guidelines 

for the independent science review to ensure that the science advice we received would be unbiased and credible. Alaska shared our 

objectives. 

We wish to avoid, on the one hand, an ill-informed review due 

to the reviewer’s lack of familiarity with the subjects. At the same 

time, we also wish to avoid panelists that have already drawn their 

own conclusions about the Biological Opinion. Consequently, we in 

Alaska chose the two co-chairs for their extensive knowledge of 

their fields, their professional integrity and credibility, and their 

lack of engagement in this BiOp. 

We gave them free reign to choose the remaining panelists, develop their terms of reference, and conduct their review. The panel 

conducted their work in an open and transparent process, holding 

19 

two public meetings to solicit input. Until we received their draft 

report, we had no advance knowledge of their findings or even 

whether they would be able to reach consensus on any or all of the 

issues they examined. 

The fact that these four scientists were able to provide us with 

a consensus final report is very convincing to us. Their findings are 

Washington’s position on the economic and scientific underpinnings 

of the Biological Opinion and its RPAs. 

Based on their findings, it is apparent to us that the BiOp is 

flawed, likely as a consequence, in our judgment, of the top down 

Federal process that was employed. 

In concluding, I would like to return to a primary theme of both 

of the letters from Governor Gregoire that NMFS commit to an 

open and transparent process to be implemented as quickly as possible for revisions to the Biological Opinion that are responsive to 

both the science panel findings and to regional comments. If NMFS 

chooses to initiate its own CIE review of the BiOp, their first step 

should be to develop the terms of reference concurrently with the 

Council. These terms should include the CIE’s ability to examine 

the results of the State’s independent review and should also include opportunity for public input. 

I believe the North Pacific Council is willing to facilitate a process for engaging all stakeholders. In our view, that process should 

start now, and not wait for the results of another science review 

or for litigation to be settled. And most importantly, the top down 

approach with a one-sided and erroneous application of the precautionary approach is not acceptable. 

Mr. Chair, the ingredients for a successful regional collaboration 

are present in this case. The North Pacific Council is a leader in 

applying ecosystem management principles to fishery management 

issues. The States of Washington and Alaska are experienced with 

and very supportive of collaborative approaches to solving thorny 

resource management issues, and the stakeholders are willing to 

participate. The only missing ingredient at this point appears to be 

a NOAA interest in collaborative development of measures that 

will support sea lion recovery. 

We urge the Committee to express its support for NOAA to participate in a regional collaborative process to revise the Biological 

Opinion to address the errors and shortcomings identified by the 

State’s independent science review. 

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tweit follows:] 

Statement of Bill Tweit, Special Assistant, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Good Morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

My name is Bill Tweit. I represent Director Phil Anderson on the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), and it is in that capacity that I provide our 

testimony to you today. I have worked for the Department since 1988; in addition 

to NPFMC representation my duties include salmon harvest management, Columbia 

River water management, hydropower mitigation, and tribal relations. I received my 

Bachelors degree in Ecology and Field Biology from The Evergreen State College in 

1976. 

In my testimony, I will describe the State of Washington concerns regarding the 

NMFS Biological Opinion that addresses potential impacts of the North Pacific 

20 

groundfish fisheries on Stellers Sea Lions (BiOp), the operating guidelines developed 

by Washington and Alaska for the Independent Science Review that we commissioned to review this BiOp, and our suggestions for resolution of the science and 

management conflicts fostered by this BiOp. 

The State’s concerns are described by Governor Gregoire in a pair of letters to 

Secretary of Commerce Locke; copies of those letters are attached to my written testimony. The Governor expressed two fundamental and inter-related concerns: the 

high degree of scientific uncertainty and the ‘‘top-down’’ approach that NMFS adopted to developing the BiOp and its Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPA). She 

noted that NMFS was proposing regulations that would have significant impacts to 

the fishing fleets, and that there was considerable scientific uncertainty concerning 

the need for and the effect of those regulations. 

In view of the significance of both the impacts and the level of scientific uncertainty, in October 2010 she urged NMFS to adopt the interim measures proposed 

by the NPFMC and to initiate a collaborative approach to development of the longterm measures. NMFS decided that the Council’s proposed interim measures were 

inadequate, implemented their own recommended measures on January 1 via an interim final rule that allows enactment without public comment, and have yet to describe a collaborative approach for either resolution of the uncertainties or development of alternative measures. 

In her January letter, following the NMFS interim final rule, Governor Gregoire 

reiterated her support for establishing a collaborative process, expressed her concern 

that the public process to-date had allowed little room for substantive public involvement, and emphasized her belief that controversial resource management 

issues with high levels of scientific uncertainty are best addressed through fair and 

transparent inclusion of all perspectives, and concluded that ‘‘there is great benefit 

in having all sides work together toward a solution’’. 

I am very familiar with the process for crafting another NMFS Biological Opinion, 

regarding the impacts of the operation of the Federal Columbia River Hydropower 

System on listed salmonids. While that process has some difficulties, the State of 

Washington strongly supports the current Federal approach for development of the 

most recent version. The approach is inclusive of all regional governments, including 

plaintiffs, acknowledges the scientific uncertainties, and is oriented to solutions that 

are robust to the uncertainties and sensitive to economic impacts. An Adaptive Management process was developed to alter the Columbia River BiOp provisions if the 

assumptions proved incorrect. 

This approach has not ended all of the controversy or litigation surrounding this 

BiOp, probably an impossible task, but it has brought many of the parties together 

to focus on solutions and implementation of salmon recovery actions. It became a 

regionally-driven, bottom-up process, in considerable contrast to the Stellers Sea 

Lion BiOp, which has had virtually no constructive regional engagement, and is essentially an edict from NMFS. 

Washington acknowledged that there are very significant scientific uncertainties 

concerning factors for decline for Stellers Sea Lions in the central and western Aleutians, and was hesitant to draw our own conclusions regarding the NMFS scientific 

and economic assessments until we had the benefit of an independent review. Consequently, we took a great deal of care in developing the guidelines for the independent science review, to ensure that science advice would be unbiased and credible. Alaska shared our objectives. We wished to avoid an ill-informed review due 

to lack of familiarity with Stellers Sea Lion biology and population dynamics, fisheries population assessments, or North Pacific fisheries. We also wished to avoid 

panelists that had already made their own conclusions about the BiOp. 

Consequently, we chose the two co-chairs for their extensive knowledge of their 

subjects, and their professional integrity and credibility. We gave them free reign 

to choose the remaining panelists, develop their terms of reference and conduct their 

review. Dr. David Bernard, a retired quantitative scientist, has a long and distinguished history in international arenas and knows population modeling and exploitation issues. Steve Jeffries, a researcher for WDFW, is a coast-wide authority on 

pinnipeds. They chose two additional panel members; Dr. Andrew Trites and Dr. 

Gunnar Knapp, finalized their terms of reference, and did their review without further policy direction from either state. The panel conducted their work in an open 

and transparent process, holding several public meetings to solicit public input. 

Until we reviewed their draft report, we had no advance knowledge of their findings, or even whether they would be able to reach consensus on any or all of the 

issues that they examined. The fact that these four scientists were able to provide 

us with a consensus final report is very convincing to us. Their findings are Washington’s position on the economic and scientific underpinnings of the BiOp and its 

RPAs. 

21 

I understand that Dr. Knapp and Dr. Trites will provide the Committee with an 

overview of the panel’s finding at this hearing, so I will focus on a few highlights 

from our perspective. The panel was critical of the science used in the NMFS finding 

of Jeopardy with Adverse Modification for the groundfish fisheries, for two reasons. 

They characterized the NMFS logic as a classic fallacy, confusing correlation with 

causation. The panel noted there was very scant scientific evidence supporting the 

fishery induced nutritional stress hypothesis, and that evidence is now over a decade old and not supported by more recent years’ data, so it appears that NMFS applied the precautionary principle to fisheries simply because they believed that 

something had to be done. 

As state managers, we value consistency in application of the ESA, and we appreciate that this extreme version of the precautionary approach has not been applied 

more broadly. The panel found that there is little overlap between sea lion prey and 

fishery catches; the fishery typically harvests larger fish than sea lions eat. NMFS 

acknowledges that reproduction of the primary prey species is not affected by fishing, and the science panel notes that the sea lions are eating younger fish than the 

fishery harvests. We conclude that the BiOp fishery restrictions are misdirected, 

will not benefit sea lions, but clearly are detrimental to the fishery. 

This hearing comes shortly after the release of the science panel final report; I 

am sure that we will have more suggestions for BiOp revisions as we study their 

report. One conclusion that we draw from their report is that the BiOp is very 

flawed, and we believe that is likely a consequence of the ‘‘top-down’’ Federal process. In concluding, I’d like to return to a primary theme of both of the letters from 

Governor Gregoire: that NMFS commit to an open and transparent process, to be 

implemented as quickly as possible, for revisions to the BiOp that are responsive 

to the panel findings and regional comments. NMFS used an interim final rule process to implement this BiOp, and while we are still uncertain what that means, we 

hope that it provides more flexibility and timeliness for modification than a permanent final rule. 

The North Pacific Council remains willing to facilitate a process for engaging all 

stakeholders in what Governor Gregoire terms a ‘‘regional collaborative process’’. In 

our view, that process should start now, and not wait for the results of a NMFS 

CIE review, or for litigation to be settled. NMFS needs to engage in this process 

with staff from their Sustainable Fisheries Division, not just the Protected Resources staff responsible for this flawed BiOp, and most importantly, NMFS should 

be told that their ‘‘top-down’’ approach, with a one-sided and erroneous application 

of the precautionary approach, is not acceptable. 

The ingredients for a successful regional collaboration are present here. The 

North Pacific Council is a leader in applying ecosystem management principles to 

fishery management; the States of Washington and Alaska are experienced with 

and very supportive of collaborative approaches to thorny resource management 

issues; and the stakeholders are willing to engage when the science is solid. The 

long-list of sustainable fishing practices that North Pacific industry has supported 

includes development of seabird avoidance gear, protection of coral gardens, bottom 

trawl gear modifications, bycatch reduction programs, and support for scientifically 

established allowable catch levels. The only missing ingredient appears to be NOAA 

interest in collaborative development of measures that will support sea lion recovery. 

We urge the committee to express its support for NOAA to immediately initiate 

a regional, collaborative process to revise the BiOp to address the errors and shortcomings identified by the state’s independent science review. 

Thank you, I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Tweit, and thank all 

three of you for you testified here. As to your last comment, Mr. 

Tweit, that is why we are here. 

Mr. Schwaab, according to Mr. Vincent-Lang’s testimony that he 

alluded to orally, and in his written statement, he said that the November 2010 biomass survey show that the biomass for both cod 

and Atka mackerel are increasing, and in his written testimony he 

said, and I quote, ‘‘Even to the level sought as targets in the reasonable and prudent alternatives.’’ 

22 

Now, is this not this significantly new information that should 

almost be a requirement for immediate review of the BiOp and the 

RPAs? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That type of information certainly could be grounds for re-initiation. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Just grounds for? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Well, significant new information. Obviously, 

when we reach that critical point at which re-initiation would yield 

some significantly different result is something that we would be 

looking closely at. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, we heard kind of specifically that the process by which, at least this decision or this observation from this 

group came about was very transparent. 

Let me just ask a question then. I will use your terms ‘‘grounds,’’ 

except that there is a process by which you go through. But will 

this information be discussed openly and transparently as you go 

forward? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously as I indicated in my testimony, the new report initiated by—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. Do I take that as a yes then? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. The answer is that that new report, along with a 

number of other new—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. My question was open and transparent. Do I take 

it as a yes that you will treat that openly and transparently? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Yes. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you. 

Another question for you, Mr. Schwaab. Other than the funding 

that was appropriated by Congress for Steller sea lion research, 

and I alluded that $150 million has been appropriated on that, 

what has been the Administration’s request for this research? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. This research, you know, generally falls into a 

range of other competing priorities that we put forward. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, let me ask you. The reason I ask, if the economic impact is such that you stated in your report of up to 750 

job loss and an impact of $61 million, should the Administration 

not be requesting money for Steller sea lion research rather than 

saying, OK, it is part of the process if this is a big economic impact? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. We do request money that is allocated to Steller 

sea lion research. I could, if you would like, perhaps defer to my 

colleague, Dr. DeMaster, to say in a little more detail what that 

ask is and to what purpose. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Real quickly, go ahead. 

Dr. DEMASTER. Thank you, Chair. Most of the funding requests 

are on the order of $3 million to $5 million a year for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service’s work on Steller sea lions. Most of that 

work goes toward doing pup surveys to determine trends in pup 

counts, trends in non-pup counts in terms of abundance whether it 

is increasing or decreasing, food habits work, telemetry work to 

look at foraging. And our focus this year, in fact, right in the next 

two weeks—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. My question was not so much what you are doing 

because I assume that is all part of that. My question was, given 

the economic impact and the potential job loss by your own report, 

23 

should you not be requesting enough to get this done in a very 

timely manner? That is my question. 

Dr. DEMASTER. In the end of last Fiscal Year and this Fiscal 

Year, Fiscal Year 2012, we specifically reprogrammed funding to do 

the telemetry work that the Council asked us to do regarding 

Steller sea lions in the Western Aleutians. We are doing that work 

jointly with ADF&G. 

Mr. HASTINGS. OK. And finally, and you alluded to this, as you 

go through with this process, and both the witnesses on your panel 

suggested very strongly that their process was open and transparent. I will just ask again, because I think it is very important 

just that that process be as open and transparent. 

Will you just give me your commitment that you will do that in 

a way that all people that have an interest in this will have adequate time in order to respond? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I just clarify? Are 

you speaking specifically to the CIE process or to the process in totality that we would introduce CIE information? 

Mr. HASTINGS. Probably both. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. So, the CIE process, as I mentioned, would involve 

a process whereby we would initiate with, as I indicated, work with 

the Council on establishing the terms of reference. That process 

then includes outreach to appropriate information that was available to the Agency at the time at which the BiOp was developed. 

There is, of course, a broader process that involves significant opportunity for public engagement, consideration of RPAs and the 

like with the Council going forward. 

Mr. HASTINGS. My time has run out, but that is the process that 

I want to make sure is more fully open and transparent. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Yes, sir, I can commit that to you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you. 

Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are going to have a series of questions because I know you 

have some more, I hope. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. 

Mr. Schwaab, have you ever worked in Washington, D.C.? Do you 

work in Washington, D.C.? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. My office is based in Silver Spring. I spend a lot 

of time in Washington, D.C., yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. That explains how you learned how to dance. You 

guys are really good at that. I say, I have watched the Administration come down time again, dance around an answer better than 

anybody I have ever seen. So, congratulations. 

Is it true the Agency did a phone survey of the lower 48 States 

to ask people how much they would be willing to pay to recover the 

Steller sea lions? And how does that have any bearing whatsoever 

on anything relevant to the scientifically based Biological Opinion? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Mr. Young, I do not know the answer to that 

question. Perhaps Dr. DeMaster does. 

Dr. DEMASTER. The answer is yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. They do not even know what a Steller stock is, let 

alone Steller sea lion. If you took the money and the time in your 

24 

research, Doctor, to call people in the lower 48 and ask them 

whether they would be willing to save—did they ever write you a 

check? Did you ever ask for any money? 

Dr. DEMASTER. No, we did not. 

Mr. YOUNG. You did not. So, if I find a check written to you, how 

much they would be willing to pay, you would have to take that 

back, would you not? I would suggest you say yes, OK? 

We have spent $150 million in sea lion research since the Fiscal 

Year of, I believe it is 2001. And we still do not have any scientific 

information. When you have the term ‘‘best science available,’’ and 

you do not use the science of other peer review groups, is that best 

science available, Mr. Schwaab? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Mr. Young, if you are referring to the report that 

we just received, we have indicated that we will take that under 

consideration. If there is new evidence there that is useful, we will 

use that. 

Mr. YOUNG. But I go to what science did you use? What was the 

science that you used to put this species and eliminate the fishing? 

What science was there? What did you do? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. So, you know, perhaps I can mention a few items 

that we found particularly compelling—declining counts of pups 

and non-pups in the Western Aleutians and Central Aleutian Islands sub-region since 2000. 

Mr. YOUNG. But, again, that, by the way, if I can say so has been 

refuted. There is an increase of population, not a decrease in population. The fact is there are probably more sea lions now in that 

area than there ever has been. Yet you are affecting about $60 million in fisheries and affecting communities because you are sitting 

in Washington, D.C. or Silver Springs. 

Now, are you going to listen to gentleman from Washington, the 

gentleman from Alaska? Are you going to review their findings? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. And what if you find that they are right. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. If we find new information—— 

Mr. YOUNG. How long is that going to take? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Obviously there are a number of steps that are 

under way right now. 

Mr. YOUNG. How long is it going to take? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. I do not have an answer for you right now. 

Mr. YOUNG. So, you mean you are going to shut the fisheries 

down. In fact, there is a paragraph here that really interests me, 

if I can find it, that if there a review of—and some things found 

that there could be a possible threat—I think it is in your testimony. It is on independent scientific review. That would be the 

States of Alaska and Washington, am I correct? Then I to go ahead 

and read it and it says, ‘‘NMFS will review and consider the findings of the final report of any future consultations concerning the 

impacts of Federally managed groundfish or fisheries of Steller sea 

lions. If any new information or impacts of the groundfish fisheries 

of the Steller sea lions reveals effects on the list of species or critical habitat that were not previously considered then, a formal consultation is required.’’ 

25 

So, if you review those, do you have another formal consultation, 

or are will you threaten them if they come in with their peer review? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. There would be, at the point at which consultation 

was re-initiated, we would be entering into approximately an 18- 

month process. Obviously some of the information that was provided by the State’s review might either be useful in that consultation or be grounds for initiation. There might be new scientific information based on some of the research that Dr. DeMaster mentioned that would be useful or cause re-initiation. There is new information relating to groundfish stocks that could also contribute 

to—of subsequent biological review. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, what I am looking at here, you say 18 months. 

We have communities that are directly affected, infrastructure will 

be directly affected. And you have done something from the top 

down with no consultation, no understanding, and no science. You 

have no science. That is why you lean on the term ‘‘best science 

available,’’ I want to eliminate that, Mr. Chairman, take it away. 

The ‘‘best science available’’ to just say the ‘‘best science’’ so we can 

utilize that so you cannot arbitrarily go out and do things as you 

have been doing. 

There is no shortage of sea lions, none. The pups are growing. 

We know that. We have evidence of that, about a 14 percent increase. 

I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the gentleman. And I have—just have a 

couple of questions and let him proceed if he has more questions. 

Mr. Schwaab, my understanding is you are required to make a 

decision by a petition from the State of Alaska, I think, to down 

list the Eastern population of the Steller sea lion by August of this 

year. It is obviously beyond August. When will you make that decision, and why did you not make the August deadline? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That process has been 

under way. We did have that August deadline. We are proceeding 

with preparation regarding that finding. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Wait, wait, and wait, preparation for the finding. 

Now, it was August. When will you—maybe you are getting to the 

point, but when will you have that? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Yes, sir. The analysis has taken longer than anticipated. We are committed to completing that review and publishing our 12-month finding as soon as practicable. Other workload associated with Steller sea lion work falls on the same people 

who are following through on that review. 

Mr. HASTINGS. So, when will it be done? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. I cannot, as I sit here today, give you an exact 

date, sir. 

Mr. HASTINGS. One month? One year? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. I would certainly think it would be within a period 

of months. 

Mr. HASTINGS. OK, that is plural. That is two months, less than 

six months? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. More than one month, less than one year, sir. 

Mr. HASTINGS. You know, if you sense that both of us are a little 

frustrated, you can understand why. 

26 

Mr. YOUNG. Incompetent. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I mean, it was something that you had agreed to 

in August, and it has not happened. So, I ask you a straightforward question, you give me your reasons why, but you give me 

essentially a one year time frame, and we are already two months 

beyond that time frame. And meanwhile, meanwhile, the activities 

here are potentially costing jobs in the fish industry by your own 

support. 

I mean, so I just get pretty frustrated when I hear that. I do not 

know how much more to pursue it seeing that—do I have to get 

down on my hands and knees and plead? Do they have to get down 

on their hands and knees and plead and say, get this before a one 

year time frame? I mean, I just do not know how to respond to that 

sometimes. 

This information that came to me, and I guess I will just to have 

to ask it straight forward. Is it true that some of the assumptions 

on the Steller sea lion feeding behavior was based on just three juvenile males? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Mr. Chairman, if you do not mind, could I defer 

to Dr. DeMaster? 

Mr. HASTINGS. If he answers my question, yes. 

Dr. DEMASTER. I believe the total number was more like 13. 

Mr. YOUNG. Wow. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Oh, 13. OK. So, it wasn’t three. Now, if one were 

in statistics, you would say, well, it is four times the number, but 

it is still 13. And you are basing everything on 13 juvenile males 

in a population—what did I hear you say—of over 70,000? 

Dr. DEMASTER. The population in the U.S. Western population is 

about 55,000, is our best estimate. But nonetheless, it is a large 

number. The decision was based on all of the available information, 

and part of that information was the telemetry data that was based 

on those 13 or so animals. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, this goes to the frustrations, I think, that 

both of us share here about the scientific data. And I think it is 

something that both our other witnesses on the panel probably 

have a concern with. Thirteen, and I am sorry, I thought it was 

70,000, but 13 out of 55,000 is still a pretty darn small number. 

I recognize the gentleman from Alaska. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, Mr. Tsukada notes that the Western DPS since 2000 

has increased 14 percent, yet your opinion relies on a theory that 

birth rate is declining. That seems to be a major inconsistency. 

How can you explain that? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. I believe that number is 1.4 percent. 

Mr. YOUNG. No, it is 14 percent. It is 14 percent. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Oh, I am sorry. 

Mr. YOUNG. That is right. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Over the decade. So, the focus obviously has been 

on the sub-regions, particularly the Western Aleutian sub-region, 

and that portion of the Central Aleutian sub-region that is west of 

that 178 degree west longitude line. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, those restrictions were put in in 2000, and the 

pups are increasing significantly, yet you shut that area down. 

What grounds? Where is the science behind that? 

27 

Mr. SCHWAAB. So, the focus, again, is on those westernmost subregions. 

Mr. YOUNG. That is where you shut it down, and that is where 

the population increased. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. I do not think that is accurate. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. It is accurate. I mean, I got some of the best 

staff in the world on this issue. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Could I allow Dr. DeMaster—— 

Mr. YOUNG. No. OK. I will leave Mr. Schwaab alone for a moment. I have had enough of him. 

Dr. Vincent-Lang, State of Alaska, you noted that research conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game confirms that 

the first Steller sea lion pups in the Western stock showed no evidence of poor body condition. Was this research considered when 

the Biological Opinion was drafted? And, if so, why did NOAA apparently disregard this information? 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Young, some of 

the critical pieces of information that we felt were available out in 

the science were not considered by NMFS in this Biological Opinion, including that. And, I guess, one of the things that we were 

most disturbed about was the really lack of consultation with the 

State of Alaska overall in the development of the Biological Opinion, or in the significant comments that the State provided and 

having a significant amount of interaction with how those comments might have been incorporated into the draft Biological Opinion that was released, and then the final that was put out upon 

which the RPAs were based. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. Is your department information best available, 

or is it good science? 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. Well, I think it is both. 

Mr. YOUNG. You get rid of that word ‘‘available.’’ Best science. 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. It is best science. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK, that is good. 

Another one you say, marine mammal research has argued that 

fisheries are causing localized depletion or nutritional stress since 

the 1990s. Is this inherent bias by those who write the Biological 

Opinion, that it is not supported by available data? By the way, 

who wrote that opinion? Mr. Schwaab, who wrote the opinion? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. The Biological Opinion came out of our Protective 

Resources Division—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Who did you hire to write it? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. I cannot answer that question, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, we probably can. It was the person who wrote 

the 2000 opinion, I believe. Is that correct? One of the people. Yet 

you went out and hired an outsider outside your department. The 

same person wrote it in 2000. Is that correct? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Mr. Chairman—Mr. Young, if I could obtain—— 

Mr. YOUNG. You can call me Chairman. It makes him mad; it 

does not make me mad. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. I could find out for you—— 

Mr. YOUNG. I would appreciate that if you would. 

Mr. SCHWAAB.—on who provided the writings for it, but I do not 

know that answer directly. 

28 

Mr. YOUNG. Who wrote it, if it was an outsider, a consultant paid 

by taxpayers’ dollars, and you had somebody write an opinion that 

wrote it in 2000. I want all that information for the Committee. 

Thank you. 

I go back to the amount of fisheries. Have there been any studies 

about how much—I believe you can answer this, Mr. Lang. How 

much fish were—cod was apparently being consumed by sea lions? 

What is the percentage? Do you have any idea? Is that their major 

sources of food? 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. I am not sure what you are asking, Mr. 

Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I would say, what do sea lions eat? 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. Well, they are fairly opportunistic feeders, 

and I think they will feed on almost any kind of fish that are out 

there that is available to them. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. And the study—— 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. I guess in our opinion that the amount of 

biomass that is out in the Western Aleutians, there is no evidence 

whatsoever that biomass is insufficient or is causing, in this case, 

nutritional stress to Steller sea lion. 

Mr. YOUNG. In fact, there is larger biomass than expected, is that 

correct? 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. The recent biomass estimates that were put 

out after the BiOp release indicating that the target levels for the 

reasonable and prudent alternatives have been met. So, in fact, the 

biomass probably should be sufficient even if there was nutritional 

stress to alleviate that. 

Mr. YOUNG. And it is increasing in numbers as far as the biomass? 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. The Western DPS is definitely increasing in 

number. 

Mr. YOUNG. But that is the area that NOAA and NMFS shut 

down, is that correct? 

Mr. VINCENT-LANG. They shut down an area west of 178. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. Mr. Chairman, again, my frustration goes beyond this. I have been in this business 40 years, and I have negotiated with NMFS and NOAA and they seem to ignore the paying 

customers, the States, and you do that. And those directly involved, 

the shareholders, for a sea lion. I am not talking about sea lions 

at the locks. I am talking about—they are all related, you know. 

It is my aunt or uncle, but they are all related, and there is no 

shortage of sea lions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Young. 

I just have one further question because it came up earlier, 

again, Mr. Schwaab. You asked about the CIE review, and my 

question to you is, why, as I understand it, the CIE information is 

available for only information that is available through May 2010? 

Why is that cutoff date there? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. The review would be focused on the information 

that was available at the time that the BiOp was undertaken. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Right. OK. Now, you have new information. Are 

you going to open up that CIE review to the new information, for 

29 

example, or is just going to make a report based on the old information? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. The new information would be a basis for re-initiation, not evaluation of the BiOp that is currently in place. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, are you bound and rigidly saying that you 

can only look at something prior to, and not look ahead in that 

review process? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Mr. Chairman, I would just say there are two separate processes. One is a review of the Biological Opinion that is 

governed under which actions to date have been developed. The 

second would be a re-initiation which would take into account any 

number of pieces of new information. 

Mr. HASTINGS. And that will happen? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. That will happen if, based on any of either the information that is presented by the State’s review, some new scientific information, some new fishery information, or any range of 

other pieces of information might suggest the need to do that. 

Mr. HASTINGS. One last question. Will the CIE be open to public 

input? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. That would be something that we could consider 

in the terms of reference, sir, that—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. Would you consider that? 

Mr. SCHWAAB.—that such a provision should be. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Would you consider that? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HASTINGS. Go ahead. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska. 

Mr. YOUNG. I go back to Mr. Lang. In scat examples taken, I believe, by the State, 94 percent of the scat from sea lions shows no 

cod evidence. What do you have to say about that Mr. Doctor? Mr. 

Schwaab? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Could I defer to Dr. DeMaster for that? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yeah. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you. 

Dr. DEMASTER. I think that number is correct. It is six percent 

of the scats in the summer in the Aleutians contained cod. Ninetyfour percent did not. In the winter, 26 percent of the scats contained cod, and the rest did not. So, there is a summer and winter 

contrast that is reflected in the Biological Opinion. 

Mr. YOUNG. It is in the Biological Opinion? 

Dr. DEMASTER. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thought you ignored that. I go back to the other 

one, Mr. Schwaab. NOAA did hire somebody outside the Agency to 

write the BiOp. I wonder, again, I said, that was the same person 

that was involved in drafting the 2000 BiOp. Had a lot of irregularities. In fact, it was looked upon as a bad piece of work. How much 

did NOAA spend in hiring that person? This is the question I am 

going to ask you, and I want it in writing. How long was the employee of NOAA, and where was he working before NOAA brought 

him back? I just want to know his background when it comes to 

who wrote this thing and why you guys did not do it on your own, 

because you are supposed to be the one doing that work, not somebody you hire outside who has another special interest. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

30 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much. 

And I want to thank all of you on the panel. Mr. Schwaab, it 

might appear you are treated like a pin ̃ ata here, but sometimes 

that goes with the territory. But I think that you can understand 

why sometimes we come to this view. 

Now, maybe you are being told that this is what you have to say 

and to follow the company line, and I suppose that is all part of 

it. But I would just get back to what I mentioned in my opening 

statement referencing your BiOp is a potential job loss and the 

costs to the industry, and yet all we are trying to ascertain here 

or get to a point where there is a give and take in understanding 

why all of this is happening. 

And the frustration would be—I am not going to ask you to respond to this, but I think anybody that is observing this, when we 

see the wide range of time lines on very specific questions, that 

leads one to become a pin ̃ ata. And so, I will just say that very respectfully. 

And before I dismiss this panel, I do want to say that if there 

are further questions that the two of us or others on the Committee 

would like to ask of you, we will send them to you written later, 

and if you would respond in a very timely manner, I would appreciate it very much. 

I want to thank all of you for coming, and I will dismiss the first 

panel. At the same time, we will call up the second panel. 

The second panel is Mr. Andrew Trites, Professor and Director 

of Marine Mammal Research at the University of British Columbia, 

Dr. Gunnar Knapp, Professor of Economics at the University of 

Alaska, Dr. Tim Ragen, from the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, and Mr. Larry Cotter, Chair of the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council. I invite you all to come up. 

Thank you all very much for being here. You observed the first 

panel, but I will go through the rules one more time. The timing 

lights are in front of you, and when the green light is on, it means 

you have—you are doing very well. When the yellow lights comes 

on, it means you have one minute, and when the red light comes 

in, it means your five minutes is up. And as I mentioned earlier, 

your entire statement that you submitted for the record will be 

part of the record. 

So, Dr. Trites, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW TRITES, PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, MARINE MAMMAL RESEARCH UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF 

BRITISH COLUMBIA 

Dr. TRITES. Good morning. My name is Andrew Trites. I am a 

Professor at the University of British Columbia’s Fishery Center, 

and Director of the Marine Mammal Research Unit. I am also the 

Research Director of the North Pacific University’s Marine Mammal Research Consortium. I have conducted research on marine 

mammals for the past 31 years, and I focus most of my research 

and understanding on the decline of Steller sea lions and other fur 

seals in Alaska. 

I am one of four scientists who recently completed an independent scientific review of the Biological Opinion that NMFS finalized in November 2010. One of our first tasks as a review panel 

31 

was to read all 664 pages of the BiOp. Now, this is something that 

not many people can say they have done, although everyone seems 

to have an opinion about the BiOp. There are not many people who 

can actually said that they have read it. 

The BiOp is a long document with a plot and a cast of characters 

that is at time difficult to follow. In fact, reading the BiOp is much 

like trying to read John Milton’s Paradise Lost, or Tolstoy’s War 

and Peace. It requires dutiful reading and a keen awareness of the 

fact to distinguish between those facts that are correctly reported 

and those that are misused, mistaken, or missing all together. 

Three of our panel members read the BiOp for the first time this 

summer. This included Dr. Gunnar Knapp, Dr. David Bernard, and 

Mr. Steven Jeffries. As for myself, I spent a good part of my summer reading it for a third time. 

As a panel, we were asked by the States of Alaska and Washington to determine whether the National Marien Fisheries Service 

used all of the relevant scientific information, and whether they 

were impartial in how they considered the facts in the final Biological Opinion. 

We tabled our final report this past week, which is available on 

the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s website. 

Our report draws four conclusions about the science and the way 

in which NMFS chose to use it. 

First, we found that the theory put forward by NMFS that 

Steller sea lions are nutritionally stressed from competition with 

fisheries is not well supported in the BiOp. 

Second, we found that NMFS did not adequately examine and 

consider the alternative scientific explanations to explain the current decline, namely that killer whales are eating disproportionately greater numbers of sea lions, and that birth rates are lower 

because sea lions are eating too much groundfish. 

Third, based on this and the evidence presented in the BiOp, we 

concluded that the finding by NMFS of jeopardy and adverse modification were not warranted. 

And, finally, we concluded that the reasonable and prudent alternatives that NMFS put forward in the Biological Opinion are likely 

to contribute to sea lion recovery. 

This last conclusion is perhaps the most regrettable conclusion of 

all. To think that the significant fishery closures and restrictions 

that went into effect on January 1st of this year in the Western 

Aleutian Island are unlikely to do any good, and could possibly 

even cause greater harm to sea lions. 

In addition to reviewing the BiOp, we conducted a meta-analysis 

of the eight studies cited in the BiOp, plus two additional studies 

that looked for a statistical relationship between fisheries and sea 

lion numbers. Two things stood out from this analysis. First, there 

were a few weak statistical associations between fisheries and sea 

lion numbers prior to 2000; however, none of the studies found statistically significant associations consistent with the fisheries causing harm to sea lions after 2000. That is 100 percent of the statistical tests were consistent with the groundfish fisheries not having 

an effect on sea lion numbers in the last 10 to 20 years. 

Second, the available data indicate that current harvest rate of 

Atka mackerel have been too low, and that the removals of Pacific 

32 

cod have been too small for the fishery on either species to cause 

nutritional stress to sea lions. 

The BiOp never presented any direct evidence that sea lions are 

not finding enough groundfish to eat; thus, implementing an RPA 

that might increase prey abundance seems to be less about correcting a real problem and more about repeating something that 

NMFS did in the past in the Gulf of Alaska in the 1990s where sea 

lion numbers rose after RPAs were implemented. 

Unfortunately, the BiOp provides no evidence that this increase 

in sea lions in the Gulf of Alaska was anything more than coincidental with management actions. In fact, the BiOp presents a 

multi-species model that indicates that this increase in sea lion 

numbers was just a coincidence in the last decade, and was not due 

to fishery restrictions. 

So, the belief that RPAs will work in the Aleutian Islands was 

not based on science, and is simply a case of confusing cause with 

coincidence. 

I would like to conclude by noting that as a review panel, we appreciate that many people may have difficulty believing that the 

BiOp could have gotten things so wrong, or that the BiOp did not 

properly consider the two leading alternative hypotheses. We, 

therefore, encourage others to read the 664 pages of the BiOp as 

we have done, as well as our review, which is available online, to 

judge for themselves. 

Whereas unpleasant as the prospect of reading a Paradise Lost 

or War and Peace might sound, it is only by reading these documents that others will fully understand that the science simply 

does not support the decisions made by NMFS. Thank you. 

[The joint prepared statement of Dr. Trites and Dr. Knapp 

follows:] 

Statement of Andrew Trites, Professor and Director, Marine Mammal 

Research Unit, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia; and 

Gunnar Knapp, Professor of Economics, University of Alaska 

We are two of four scientists who recently completed an independent scientific review of the NMFS November 2010 Biological Opinion of the Fisheries Management 

Plan for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Management Areas. This written testimony provides background information about our review, followed by the Executive 

Summary of our report. 

Background of our Review 

Our review was jointly funded by the States of Alaska and Washington in response to widely-expressed concerns about the science in NMFS’ 2010 Biological 

Opinion (the BiOp). In April 2011, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(ADFG) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW developed initial terms of reference for the review and selected two panel co-chairs, who in turn 

selected two additional panel members. We developed the final terms of reference, 

timeline for our work, and format of our report. 

The panel members were: 

• Dr. David Bernard (co-chair), a fisheries scientist, biometrician, and private 

consultant with over 30 years post-graduate experience involving management of commercial and recreational fisheries for salmon and non-salmon species in the Pacific Northwest. 

• Mr. Steven Jeffries (co-chair), a Research Scientist and marine mammal specialist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, with more than 

30 years of experience working on a variety of Northwest marine mammal 

issues. 

• Dr. Andrew Trites, Professor and Director of the Marine Mammal Research 

Unit in the Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia, who has 

33 

conducted extensive research on the ecology, population biology and 

bioenergetics of marine mammals. 

• Dr. Gunnar Knapp, Professor of Economics at the University of Alaska Anchorage Institute of Social and Economic Research, who has been engaged in 

research on fisheries management, seafood markets, and the Alaska economy 

for the past 30 years. 

We conducted our review fully independently. The conclusions expressed are our 

own and represent our consensus. None of us are federal employees. None of us had 

any role in developing the BiOp or the FMP. None of us have any personal or financial involvement in any fisheries involved in the BiOp. 

We brought a variety of backgrounds and perspectives to our review. One member 

of the panel (Dr. Trites) has an extensive background in Steller sea lion research, 

is widely cited in the BiOp, and commented on the draft BiOp and final BiOp. One 

member (Mr. Jeffries) has extensive experience in sea lion research, marine mammal fishery interactions, and is a member of the Pacific Scientific Review Group. 

Two members of the panel (Dr. Bernard and Dr. Knapp) had no previous background in or knowledge of Steller sea lion research. Three members of the panel 

(Dr. Bernard, Mr. Jeffries and Dr. Knapp) had never seen the BiOp prior to beginning work on this review. 

Various parties are now involved in litigation relating to the BiOp. Our review 

has no relationship to that litigation, and we expressed no opinions about the litigation in this review, or about any legal questions related to the BiOp or the EA/RIR 

(Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review). We focused strictly on the 

scientific questions in our Terms of Reference. 

We held two public hearings to provide an opportunity for the public to provide 

comments for our consideration. We also invited and received written comments. 

Our full 111-page review is posted on the website of the Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/steller_sealions/ 

Summary of our Independent Scientific Review of the Biological Opinion 

We were charged as a review panel to answer a series of questions concerning the 

BiOp and its central conclusion of jeopardy: 

‘‘After reviewing the current status of critical habitat that has been designated for the western population of Steller sea lions, the environmental 

baseline for the action area, the proposed action for Alaska Groundfish in 

the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska, and the cumulative effects, it is NMFS’ Biological Opinion that the action, as proposed, 

is likely to adversely modify the designated critical habitat for the western 

DPS of Steller sea lion.’’ [BiOp, xxxiv] 

We answered each of the specific questions in our terms of reference (see Chapter 

10). For this Executive Summary, however, we have grouped our findings into four 

categories pertaining to: 

• the finding of jeopardy of extinction or of adverse modification of habitat (collectively JAM) for groundfish fisheries in the western and central Aleutian Islands; 

• the effectiveness of reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) to the federal 

action under consultation; 

• the requirement under the Environmental Policy Act (EPA) that RPAs in the 

BiOp be the least-cost choice from all efficacious RPAs; and 

• consideration of public and peer comment in the writing of the BiOp. 

In our review, we looked for consistencies and inconsistencies between data and 

conclusions in the BiOp based on our experience, knowledge of the relevant scientific literature, and relevant public comments. Besides information referenced in 

the BiOp, we considered recently published scientific papers, recent stock assessments, and recent groundfish surveys. We also considered comments by industry, 

scientists, and the North Pacific Management Council through their Scientific and 

Statistical Committee concerning the BiOp in general and specific modifications to 

RPAs, as well as comments submitted to us at public hearings held 2 June, 2011 

in Seattle and in Anchorage on 22 August, 2011 and by e-mail. 

The Finding of Jeopardy 

We do not agree with the finding of JAM (jeopardy of extinction and adverse 

modification of habitat) for Steller sea lions in the western and central Aleutian Islands as concluded in the BiOp for the FMP. We find that NMFS misinterpreted 

crucial evidence from statistical studies of relationships between fishing and sea lion 

demographics. NMFS also failed to scientifically support their explanation of how 

fisheries affected sea lions (fishery-driven nutritional stress), and disregarded or 

misreported evidence that refutes the fishery-driven nutritional stress hypothesis. 

34 

And finally, NMFS did not seriously consider alternative ecologically mediated explanations for declines in sea lion numbers not involving fisheries (environmentallydriven nutritional stress and the killer whale predation hypotheses). 

Statistical analyses are the starting point for examining the relationship between 

fishing and Steller sea lions. If fisheries adversely affect sea lion numbers, statistically significant negative associations should be detectable between measures of 

fishing and measures of sea lion numbers. Failing to find any such associations 

should lead to a conclusion that there is no adverse effect unless there are clear reasons why the effects would not be observable in the data (e.g. measurement error, 

insufficient variation, or low power). Eight studies looking for such statistical associations were cited in the BiOp. NMFS concluded results from these studies to be 

‘‘equivocal’’ and that ‘‘it is not possible. . .to conclude that commercial fisheries are 

not having a significant impact on the recovery of [sea lions]’’. We found these studies insightful and their results hardly ‘‘equivocal’’. 

We undertook a meta-analysis of the eight statistical studies cited in the BiOp 

plus two additional studies. The tests in earlier studies were based on a few years 

of data, and as expected, resulted in mostly non-significant outcomes with a few 

negative and a few positive associations being statistically significant. These results 

can be considered equivocal. Studies published after 2000 involved more years and 

consequently had more power to detect an association between fisheries and Steller 

sea lions. Results from these studies for years prior to 2000 were less equivocal in 

that 40% of tests produced statistically significant associations that were scientifically consistent with fisheries having had a negative impact on Steller sea lions; 

the remaining tests (60%) had statistical outcomes that were scientifically consistent 

with fisheries not having had a negative impact on sea lions. All of the detected statistical associations for years prior to 2000 were weak. However, results for years 

after 2000 are unequivocal. None of these studies found statistically significant associations consistent with harm by fisheries, that is, 100% of the tests resulted in outcomes consistent with the groundfish fisheries having had no effect on sea lion numbers in the last 10–20 years. Power analyses in these latter studies and the results 

themselves show that even weak statistical associations would have been detected 

had they been present. The methodological issues brought forward through comments to the draft BiOp concern statistical significance in tests when significance 

is not warranted. None of the issues would make an association less likely to be 

detected. 

For a specific scientific hypothesis that fisheries negatively impact sea lion numbers, significant negative associations between fishery and sea lion statistics are evidence that this hypothesis is possibly true. Non-significant and statistically significant positive associations are evidence this hypothesis is probably false. What the 

meta-analysis provides is evidence that a scientific hypothesis that fisheries had a 

negative impact on Steller sea lions of the WDPS in general, and specifically on sea 

lions in the western and central Aleutian Islands, was possibly true in the past, but 

in the last 10–20 years, this hypothesis is probably false. On this basis we find that 

not only is it possible ‘‘that commercial fisheries are not having a significant impact 

on the recovery of [sea lions]’’, but the proposition that fisheries are not negatively 

affecting Steller sea lions is highly likely. 

In our judgment, the fishery-driven nutritional stress hypothesis proffered by 

NMFS as an explanation for population declines in the western and central Aleutian 

Islands should be scientifically rejected. We base our conclusion on the process and 

conditions specified in the decision trees given in the BiOp for determining the risk 

of exposure and subsequent nutritional stress [BiOp; Figures 4.24, 4.25]. The BiOp 

drew some incorrect conclusions as it navigated through its own decision tree to arrive at the finding Atka mackerel and Pacific cod fisheries were fisheries of concern. 

The BiOp also ignored evidence contradicting the hypothesis of fishery-driven nutritional stress. 

The available data and analyses indicate that current harvest rates of Atka mackerel have been too low, and the population of Pacific cod has been too small for the 

fishery on either species to cause nutritional stress in sea lions. Modeling efforts by 

NMFS reported in the BiOp support this observation, especially the lack of an effect 

of the Pacific cod fishery on sea lion biomass. Attempts in the BiOp to show spatial 

overlap between catches in fisheries and diets of sea lions, and hence local depletion 

of prey, failed to convincingly do so. Uncertainty in estimates of forage biomass is 

large and was ignored in the BiOp. Other measures of possible competition between 

fisheries and sea lions (e.g., size overlap, temporal overlap, depth overlap) were 

specified in the BiOp, but not investigated. We provide data that were not presented 

in the BiOp showing limited overlap in sizes of fish taken in fisheries and by sea 

lions, especially limited in regards to Pacific cod. Steller sea lions ate younger, 

smaller fish than fisheries caught. 

35 

Arguments presented in the BiOp that Steller sea lions are experiencing nutritional stress caused by a lack of groundfish are not convincing. Forage ratios of 

groundfish to sea lions were higher in the western and central Aleutians than in 

regions where sea lions are recovering, thereby indicating a quantity of groundfish 

area-wide sufficient for sea lions to avoid nutritional stress. Sea lions in the eastern 

Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) show no signs of nutritional stress despite 

having forage ratios within critical habitat that are lower than in the western and 

central Aleutian Islands. 

Direct evidence of sea lions being in nutritional stress is lacking in the BiOp. We 

compared the signs of fishery-driven nutritional stress listed in Figure 4.26 of the 

BiOp with data provided in Table 3.17 of the BiOp. Of the eight general conditions 

consistent with fishery-driven nutritional stress in sea lions, no recent information 

(after 2000) was available on four. Nutritional stress was not indicated for three 

conditions (sea lions were not emaciated, body size was not reduced, and survival 

was not reduced). Information on the final general condition (reduced reproduction) 

was contradictory. 

Considering the compelling evidence that the amounts of prey are sufficient to 

support sea lions in the western and central Aleutian Islands specifically, and for 

the western population in general, it should not be surprising that direct evidence 

for fishery-driven nutritional stress could not be found as posited. Making two ‘‘yes’’ 

decisions at the only two operable decision points of the decision process laid out 

in Figure 4.25 of the BiOp should have ended in a decision of ‘‘No Nutritional 

Stress’’. Such a decision would have been consistent with the results of the metaanalysis on statistical studies described above. 

Of the two leading alternate hypotheses to explain the reduced numbers of Steller 

sea lions in the western and central Aleutian Islands, we conclude that neither the 

hypotheses of environmentally-driven nutritional stress (the ‘‘junk food’’ hypothesis) 

or killer whale predation can be scientifically rejected with available data. Both 

hypotheses remain viable explanations of sea lion demographics. Of the five necessary conditions for acceptance of the ‘‘junk food’’ hypothesis, there is evidence supporting one (good pup condition) in the western and central Aleutian Islands. There 

is no information on three of the other necessary conditions (good adult body condition, short foraging trips, and older age at weaning for pups) and ambiguity on the 

fourth (low birth rates). 

While the BiOp contained no conclusion as to rejecting or not rejecting the ‘‘junk 

food’’ hypothesis, the BiOp did state ‘‘killer whale predation can be an important factor in either causing continued declines or contributing to a robust recovery [of sea 

lions].’’ We interpret this statement as implying that the killer whale predation hypothesis cannot be rejected at this time. We concur. 

Effectiveness of RPAs 

Based on the evidence presented in the BiOp, we conclude that the proposed 

RPAs will not arrest the decline in the numbers of sea lions in the western and central Aleutian Islands. Evidence presented in this BiOp from multispecies modeling 

indicates that any future increase or stabilization in sea lion biomass in the western 

and central Aleutian Islands will not be due to restricting fisheries for Pacific cod. 

There is some modeling evidence in the BiOp indicating that halting fishing for 

Atka mackerel in the western and central Aleutian Islands might cause sea lion biomass to increase, but it is inconsistent with the data on forage ratios showing greater declines of sea lions are associated with greater relative biomasses of groundfish. 

The BiOp does not consider this possibility—that increased amounts of groundfish 

might have negative consequences to sea lions as postulated by the ‘‘junk food’’ hypothesis. 

Aydin (2010) predicted a 6% increase in sea lion biomass with a 10% reduction 

in the mortality rate for Atka mackerel. His model assumed that sea lions can assimilate the increase in Atka mackerel biomass, but did not consider that young sea 

lions can become full on low-energy diets before they have attained enough energy 

to meet their daily needs (see Rosen and Trites 2004). 

The virtual 10 percentage point reduction in Atka mortality projected by Aydin 

(2010) represents closure of the fishery (which harvests 8% of the stock) plus an additional two percentage point reduction in the mortality rate for this species. Unfortunately certain critical bits of information relative to evaluating this finding were 

not included in the BiOp. Most notably, the BiOp did not explain or discuss: 

• How could mortality rates on Atka mackerel be further reduced beyond the 

closure of the virtual fishery? 

• How many years would be needed to realize virtual increases in sea lion biomass? 

• Would these virtual increases persist? 

36 

• What would the virtual effect of closing both cod and mackerel fisheries be 

on sea lion biomass? 

Without such information, the relevance of these simulations involving closing the 

Atka mackerel fishery cannot be fully evaluated. However, this full evaluation 

would probably be of marginal value, considering the lack of evidence for the fishery-driven nutritional stress hypothesis (our Chapter 4) and the meta-analysis of 

statistical studies we described in Chapter 3 showing no negative effects of fishing 

for Atka mackerel in the western and central Aleutian Islands on sea lion demographics in the last 20 years. 

Results from multispecies models can provide insights into the effectiveness of 

RPAs even though the models used in the BiOp were not well explained. The food 

web containing fish, fisheries, and sea lions must be modeled as a whole if the best 

ecological information (scientific data) is to be used. While such modeling is at the 

edge of current understanding of the ecosystem in the Aleutian Islands, such modeling directly addresses the objective of the consultation, which is the response of 

sea lions to implementation of the RPAs. 

In the BiOp, NMFS appears to have eschewed multispecies modeling in favor of 

the simple dictum that ‘‘what worked there and then, will work here and now’’— 

with the ‘‘there’’ being the Gulf of Alaska, the ‘‘then’’ being when RPAs from two 

previous BiOps were implemented, and the ‘‘here’’ being the western and central 

Aleutians. Such a simple approach is empirical in that it depends on personal experience and belief, and does not use the scientific method. In other words, the expectation that the RPAs will result in increased numbers of Steller sea lions was not 

determined using science. 

Sea lion numbers in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) increased following implementation 

of RPAs in the 1990 and early in the last decade. However, no evidence was given 

in the BiOp that this increase in sea lions was other than coincidental with management actions. Evidence in the BiOp from multispecies modeling for the GOA indicate that the increase in sea lion numbers was a coincidence in the last decade and 

was not due to fishery restrictions. While NMFS did use single-species modeling of 

prey species to show the effectiveness of proposed RPAs—their results were preordained by the model they chose. Thus the models do not support the unscientific 

premise of the BiOp that RPAs had worked in the past, and would therefore continue to be effective if implemented elsewhere. There is insufficient evidence that 

past RPAs were ever effective. 

The reason given in the BiOp for forgoing a scientific investigation in favor of an 

unscientific argument is that multi-species modeling is too complex and subject to 

too much error. We disagree. By its very nature, the fishery-driven nutritional 

stress hypothesis requires consideration of the fishery and sea lion food webs. Ecosystem considerations and modeling of the food web is a must for developing RPAs 

if the BiOp accepts the fishery-driven nutritional stress hypothesis. Such modeling 

is complex and does have uncertainty in outcomes. However, a good scientific investigation would include measures of uncertainty in parameters, in initial conditions, 

and in environmental conditions. It would also include an analysis of the sensitivity 

of results to model structure; and would report results in probabilistic terms. 

We believe that NMFS has the resources to conduct ecosystem modeling, yet relied on the simplest of arguments to support the RPAs they proposed. Arguing that 

sea lions must be nutritionally stressed because fishing has occurred where sea lions 

have declined is prone to error in the most obvious of ways by confusing cause with 

coincidence. 

Economic Analysis of RPAs 

In general, the analysis described in the Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR) of economic impacts of the chosen set of RPAs is reasonably complete, scientifically valid and adequate. It addresses most of the questions it should have addressed in an objective and reasonable manner given the limits of available data and confidentiality restrictions. It supports the conclusion that 

‘‘. . .this action will impose relatively heavy costs on the fishing and processing industry that targets Atka mackerel and Pacific cod in the Aleutian Islands.’’ More detailed analysis might have strengthened but not have changed this fundamental 

conclusion. 

The EA/RIR includes an analysis of the economic benefits of full Steller sea lion 

recovery. This is not an analysis of the economic benefits attributable to the uncertain effects of the alternatives. The EA/RIR does not provide a cost-benefit analysis 

of the alternatives. 

The BiOp and RIR failed to demonstrate that the RPAs minimize economic and 

social impacts compared with potential alternatives which would achieve the same 

benefit for Steller sea lion recovery. Neither document could demonstrate this beVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:25 Jan 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\70764.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
37 

cause neither demonstrated what the benefits of the RPAs would be for sea lion recovery, or demonstrated an effort to identify alternatives that would have the same 

level of benefit but lower economic and social impact. 

Standard for Likelihood of Jeopardy 

The BiOp responds to the mandate in the ESA that ‘‘Each Federal agency 

shall. . .ensure that any action. . .is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat. . .’’ In reaching or evaluating any conclusion about jeopardy, a key issue is what standard of scientific evidence is required to conclude that 

an action is ‘‘likely’’ to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered species 

or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its habitat. 

There is no formal scientific standard for ‘‘likely.’’ Given a high degree of uncertainty about whether fishing jeopardizes Steller sea lions, we contend that most scientists would define a scientific standard for ‘‘likely’’ based on their interpretation 

of the preponderance of available evidence. This is the standard we used for our review. 

The BiOp does not explicitly define its standard for ‘‘likely.’’ Implicitly, it uses a 

standard which is significantly weaker than the scientific standard of preponderance 

of evidence. 

Representatives of NMFS argue that the Endangered Species Act mandates a precautionary standard for ‘‘likely’’ and that evidence that adverse effects of fishing on 

Steller sea lions ‘‘may exist’’ requires a conclusion of jeopardy. We claim no expertise 

as to the appropriate legal standard for a conclusion of jeopardy. However, whatever 

the standard, it should be explicitly defined, and the scientific evidence should meet 

that standard. 

Peer and Public Comment 

The BiOp was prepared by NMFS without active interaction with scientists outside the agency or with people in the fishing industry that could have provided useful insights. The period of time provided by NMFS for comment on the draft BiOp 

was insufficient for serious peer and public review. The time between the receipt 

of review comments and NMFS’s self-imposed deadline for release of the final document was also insufficient for adequate consideration of review comments or any 

substantial revision of the BiOp in response to comments. There is little evidence 

that comments on the draft BiOp’s finding of jeopardy were seriously considered 

when developing the final BiOp. There is evidence that comments on RPAs in the 

draft BiOp were considered in developing the final RPAs, although responses to 

these comments were very brief and most suggested changes were rejected. NMFS 

did not summarize or address comments received on the draft BiOp as had been 

promised, nor has it scheduled a formal independent review as promised. In contrast, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) clearly addressed and was strengthened 

by consideration of public and peer comments on the economic analysis. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Dr. Trites. I appreciate your testimony. 

Next, we will go to Dr. Gunnar Knapp, who is a Professor of Economics at the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the 

University of Alaska Anchorage. Dr. Knapp, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF GUNNAR KNAPP, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, 

INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE 

Dr. KNAPP. Thank you. My name is Gunnar Knapp. I am a Professor of Economics at the University of Alaska Anchorage’s Institute of Social and Economic Research, where I have been engaged 

for the past 30 years on research about the fisheries management, 

fisheries markets, and the Alaska economy. I also participated in 

this independent scientific review of the BiOp. 

I would like to highlight a few findings of our review that have 

to do with the BiOp standard for likelihood of jeopardy, the economic analysis associated with the BiOp, and NMFS’ consideration 

of peer and public comment. 

38 

Beginning with the standard for likelihood of jeopardy, the Endangered Species Act mandates that each Federal agency shall ensure that any action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species, or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification of habitat. 

So, in reaching or evaluating any conclusion about jeopardy, a 

key issue is what standard of scientific evidence is required to conclude that an action is ‘‘likely’’ to jeopardize the continued existence 

of the species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 

of its habitat. 

Now, there is not any formal scientific standard for likely, but 

most scientists would base a conclusion about whether or not something is likely based on their interpretation of the preponderance 

of available evidence. The BiOp’s conclusions are not based on the 

preponderance of scientific evidence; rather, the conclusion of jeopardy is based on the possibility that fishing might affect Steller sea 

lions, or that that possibility cannot be excluded. 

So, for example, here is some of the language from the BiOp’s 

conclusions about its conclusion of jeopardy. ‘‘Analysis of available 

data indicate that an adverse relationship between Steller sea lion 

and the commercial fisheries may exist,’’ or, ‘‘Fishery removals of 

prey in the Western and Central Aleutian Islands sub-region may 

be adversely affecting the Western DPS,’’ or, ‘‘The possibility that 

this interaction may be one of several primary causes of the observed declines in non-pup counts cannot be eliminated.’’ 

What this means in effect is that NMFS is not basing its conclusions on the preponderance of scientific evidence. The possibility 

that an effect could exist trumps the fact that there is almost no 

scientific evidence that it does exist. 

Now, NMFS argues that it is legally mandated to be precautionary in its evaluation of the science. We do not claim any expertise on how NMFS is legally mandated to evaluate the evidence. 

But if you use the argument that you cannot prove that fishing 

does not have an effect to trump the available scientific evidence, 

it is hard for scientists or the public to understand the reasoning, 

and it is also hard to call it science. 

Next, I will comment on the economic analysis associated with 

the regulatory impact analysis that accompanied the BiOp. 

In general, the analysis of the economic impacts of the RPAs is 

reasonably complete, scientifically valid, and adequate. It correctly 

concludes that this action will impose relatively heavy costs on the 

fishing and processing industry that targets Atka mackerel and Pacific cod in the Aleutian Islands. 

What the analysis does not do is to demonstrate any attempt to 

reduce economic impacts of the RPAs. NMFS only considered one 

alternative for RPAs to address its conclusion of jeopardy. It invited almost no input from industry about whether there might be 

a less costly way to achieve the same benefits for Steller sea lions. 

And that is a striking contrast with the collaboration that occurred 

in developing the RPAs for the 2001 BiOp through the work of the 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives Committee. 

Finally, I will address NMFS’ consideration of peer and public 

comment in preparing the BiOp. The BiOp was prepared by NMFS 

39 

without active interaction with scientists outside the Agency or 

with people in the fishing industry who could have provided useful 

insights. The period of time provided by NMFS for comment on the 

draft BiOp was insufficient for serious peer and public review. 

The time between the receipt of review and NMFS’ self-imposed 

deadline for release of the final document was also insufficient for 

adequate consideration of review comments for any substantial revision of the BiOp in response to comments. 

There is little evidence that comments on the draft BiOp’s finding of jeopardy were seriously considered when developing the final 

BiOp. 

Finally, NMFS did not address or summarize comments received 

on the draft BiOp as had been promised, nor has it yet undertaken 

any formal independent review. Why does this matter? The BiOp 

addresses very complex issues. Even for good scientists, understanding these issues is difficult without actively interacting with 

and learning from other people who have insights about the issues 

and data, including both independent scientists and people in industry. 

Listening to comments does not mean you have to agree with the 

people who are commenting, but if you do not listen to comments, 

there is a much higher chance that you will make mistakes and 

miss or misinterpret relevant evidence. Good science actively seeks 

review. In preparing the BiOp, NMFS avoided review. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Dr. Knapp. 

And next, we will go to Dr. Ragen, Executive Director of the U.S. 

Marine Mammal Commission. Dr. Ragen, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF TIM RAGEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

U.S. MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION 

Dr. RAGEN. Thank you, Chairman Hastings and Congressman 

Young, for the privilege of appearing before you on this matter. 

I am Tim Ragen. I am the Executive Director of the Marine 

Mammal Commission. From 1998 to 2000, I was the Steller sea 

lion Recovery Coordinator for NOAA Fisheries based in the Alaska 

region. 

Section 7 are critical to the way that we manage these fisheries, 

and I have focused my testimony on the process by which we conduct those consultations. I will just make a few points this morning. 

First of all, with regard to information, I think the most meaningful opportunity for all participants in this issue, all the various 

parties, is to share information or input into this process. In fact, 

there are massive amounts of information available on the topic, 

and as a rule, parties should be able to provide input into the Section 7 consultation. 

Transparency is critical, and one way to promote transparency is 

through the open sharing of information. However, NOAA must 

weigh all of that information based on its relevance and quality. 

With regard to analysis of effects, the fundamental question here 

is whether there is a clear and reasoned relationship between the 

available information and the effects analysis. And my guess is 

that much of what you will hear and be interested in today perVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:25 Jan 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\70764.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
40 

tains to the question of whether or not NOAA arrived at its conclusions given the information available to it. 

Compiling and analyzing all the data is a daunting task, and 

with the exception of one major point, the Commission supports 

NOAA’s analysis. 

Decision making. My third point involves decision making in the 

consultation process. First, other agencies and organizations can 

and should conduct their own reviews and form their own conclusions. But those reviews and conclusions are not a substitute for 

the responsibilities of the consulting agency. 

If you look back over the past decade, you will see a long series 

of reviews, and although they may be helpful, they do not usurp 

or in any way diminish NOAA’s responsibilities. 

That brings me to the role of the Council. I believe the Council 

has a very important role in the consultation process as a source 

of information, a facilitator of coordination, a supporter of research, 

and a forum for developing management measures to meet standards imposed by NOAA Fisheries. 

However, the constitution of the Council is such that it is subject 

to conflicts of interest, and for that reason, it does not have and 

should not share the responsibilities of a consulting agency for decision making purposes. 

My last two points are my most important. With regard to the 

recovery plan criteria, the recovery plan laid out three general 

principles for consideration for recovery. One is to continue with research and monitoring. The second is to maintain the same or 

equivalent protections from fishery effects. And the third was to 

develop an adaptive management plan for assessing the ecological 

effects of fishing on Steller sea lions. 

In my view, NOAA Fisheries and Fisheries Management generally have not developed an adequate adaptive plan for assessing 

the ecological effects of fishing. This is a major shortcoming of the 

Agency’s current approach to fisheries management. Our fishing 

strategy under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act is based on the concept of an optimum view, but 

optimum is defined in terms of the maximum sustainable yield as 

reduced by any relevant social, economic, or ecological factor. 

Although we have a relatively good understanding of the theory 

behind MSY and its effects in a single species context, we do not 

have a good understanding of it in an ecological context. Again, 

NOAA has not developed the kind of adaptive research and management program to clarify those facts. Doing so would be a considerable challenge and would require cooperation from all interested 

parties. But until we do so, and by we I mean all interested parties, I fear we will continue to engage in the kind of back and forth 

debates that are undermined by this ecological uncertainty. 

Doing so likely imposed unnecessary constraints on the fishing 

industry, and exposes our marine resources to unnecessary risk. 

Unless we tackle this challenge, we will simply end up foisting it 

on to the future generations for them to deal with. I would like to 

think that none of us consider that the best plan forward. 

Again, Chairman Hastings, thank you for the opportunity of appearing before the Committee, and I look forward to your questions 

and thoughts. 

41 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ragen follows:] 

Statement of Timothy J. Ragen, Ph.D., Executive Director, 

Marine Mammal Commission 

Chairman Hastings, members of the House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, thank you for inviting me to testify before you on ‘‘NOAA’s Steller 

Sea Lion Science and Fishery Management Restrictions: Does the Science Support 

the Decisions?’’ I am Timothy Ragen, Executive Director of the Marine Mammal 

Commission. From 1998 to 2000, I served as the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Coordinator for the Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries Service. In that position, I 

was responsible for drafting a number of biological opinions on fishery effects on sea 

lions under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Section 7 consultations 

Debates regarding the nature and quality of NOAA’s science are heightened during section 7 consultations concerning fishery management, as is evident from the 

number of law suits related to consultations over the past decade. The Marine Mammal Commission’s concerns regarding those consultations fall under three separate 

but related headings. 

Information management: With regard to managing the information needed for 

section 7 consultations, the Commission believes that— 

• Consultations should be based on the best scientific and commercial data 

available; 

• All affected parties should be allowed to contribute information to the consultation process as long as it is related to the proposed activity and falls 

within the limits established by the Endangered Species Act; 

• Such parties could include state agencies, fishery management councils, the 

industry, tribal governments or organizations, non-governmental conservation 

organizations, and the public; 

• Information management should be transparent—that is, the information 

used in a section 7 consultation should be available for all to see (with some 

exceptions for certain classes of information, e.g., national security information); and 

• The information involved in such consultations should be weighted by its relevance and quality, and clear standards are needed to do so. 

Analysis of effects: For a variety of reasons, analysis-of-effects chapters of biological opinions often are the weakest elements of section 7 consultations. Here, the 

Commission believes that— 

• Such analyses must be comprehensive, including assessment of cumulative effects; 

• They must be clearly linked to the available information and describe important information that is needed but lacking; 

• They must include measures of uncertainty or confidence in their results; and 

• They must be described fully in the resulting biological opinion or in available 

references. 

Decision-making: Conclusions regarding jeopardy to a species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat often are the most controversial elements of a 

section 7 consultation. The Commission’s main concerns with regard to such decision-making are that— 

• Biological opinions resulting from section 7 consultations, and all decisionmaking therein, remain the responsibility of the expert or consulting agency. 

However, that agency should work closely with the action agency to ensure 

that all relevant information is considered in each consultation process; 

• The consulting or expert agency must not have a conflict of interest with regard to the proposed action and the outcome of the consultation; 

• The National Marine Fisheries Service is in a potentially conflicted position 

when one branch of the agency consults with another on fishery-related actions; maintaining the integrity of the consultation process is essential and 

in such cases the agency must impose strong measures and procedures to 

avoid such conflicts; 

• Decisions regarding the two standards of jeopardy to a listed species and destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat must be clearly explained 

in biological opinions; and 

• Decisions and supporting rationale must provide the basis for any reasonable 

and prudent alternatives needed to avoid jeopardy or adverse modification. 

• Although other agencies or organizations may wish to, or may be invited to, 

conduct reviews of the same information, the expert or consulting agency 

42 

alone remains responsible for final decisions in section 7 consultations and 

the accompanying biological opinions. 

Under each of these headings, the Commission’s primary concern is with maintaining the integrity of the process as described in section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Role of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

Section 7 consultations on the management of Alaska groundfish fisheries clearly 

are relevant to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Given its important 

role in fishery management, the Council should have ample opportunity to provide 

information considered during section 7 consultations. The Council also may play a 

number of other important roles: 

• It may serve as a conduit through which the industry can provide input; 

• It may serve as a forum for helping to develop reasonable and prudent alternatives as long as the framework and/or standards for those measures are 

clearly articulated by the consulting agency—in this case, NOAA Fisheries’ 

Office of Protected Resources; 

• It also may serve as a forum for developing and recommending research to 

address important uncertainties; and 

• It may help foster cooperation between research organizations and the industry. 

However, the Council is not part of the consulting or expert agency and should 

not assume the responsibilities of the consulting or expert agency because it is subject to potential conflicts of interest. 

Recovery Plan Criteria 

Ultimately, the purpose of the recovery plan is the same as the purpose of the 

Endangered Species Act: ‘‘. . .to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon 

which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species. . ..’’ More specifically, the recovery plan should include reasoned criteria for 

determining when the species of concern is no longer at risk of extinction and when 

the protections provided under the Endangered Species Act are no longer needed. 

The Commission believes that the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service should have given more weight to the population viability 

analysis used to support the recovery criteria. Such analyses provide the best possible indication of the risk of extinction, which is the key measure of success in the 

management of endangered and threatened species under the Act. That being said, 

the recovery plan criteria were based on a reasoned analysis of the five listing factors set forth in the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the criteria gave appropriate emphasis to three important principles calling for— 

(1) Continued population monitoring and research on the key threats potentially impeding sea lion recovery; 

(2) Maintaining current or equivalent fishery conservation measures until new 

information indicates that changes are warranted; and 

(3) Designing and implementing an adaptive management program to evaluate 

fishery conservation measures. 

In the Commission’s view, the third principle has not been given adequate consideration in fisheries management. In the Alaska groundfish case, a disproportionate 

share of research has been focused on Steller sea lions, without adequate attention 

to assessing the ecological effects of fishing to obtain the optimum yield. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act defines the optimum yield to be based on 

the maximum sustainable yield as reduced by any relevant social, economic, or ecological factors. However, NOAA Fisheries has yet to develop a robust research program to investigate the ecological effects of such fishing. This fundamental issue has 

been neglected for several decades and must be addressed if the United States is 

to assert with justification that its fishery management paradigm is ecosystembased. 

The need for scientific information 

The information used to manage fisheries is not what all parties would like it to 

be. In the case of the Alaska groundfish fisheries, the primary concern is that the 

fisheries severely out-compete sea lions for their prey. Such competition may occur 

in the form of fishery-induced localized depletion of prey, where fishing effort is concentrated in space and time and causes marked reductions in the availability of prey 

to sea lions. These types of depletions were clearly evident in fisheries data collected 

in the late 1990s. The other type of depletion results from the long-term effects of 

harvesting a fish stock year after year, causing intentional reductions of 60 percent 

43 

or more in the total stock biomass. This type of effect has not been evaluated but 

is at the heart of the debate over the ecological effects of fishing. 

Regarding the scientific information used to justify the fishery restrictions in the 

recent biological opinion, the Commission assumes that all parties would like to 

have better information to guide the development and implementation of fishery 

management measures. However, the Commission would respectfully suggest that 

the issue should be rephrased to recognize that the burden for providing the necessary information appropriately lies with the action agency—in this case the Office 

of Sustainable Fisheries. Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act clearly 

places that burden on the action agency, requiring it to ‘‘insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency. . .is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat of such species. . ..’’ 

Gathering the necessary information on the ecological effects of fishing will be a 

challenge, particularly if research budgets for fisheries-related research remain at 

current levels or are reduced in the foreseeable future. In the Commission’s view, 

the best approach for collecting the needed information would be through a longterm, well conceived, and well planned adaptive management approach aimed at investigating the ecological effects of fishing. To the Commission’s knowledge, NOAA 

Fisheries does not now have such a plan in place. 

Conclusion 

The issue to be resolved here involves the ecological interactions between the 

Alaska groundfish fisheries and Steller sea lions. NOAA Fisheries has done an admirable job of reducing direct interactions between the fisheries and sea lions. However, it has not evaluated, in a suitably rigorous way, the ecological effects of fishing 

aimed at achieving, on an ongoing basis, the maximum sustainable yield from a single target fish stock. Unless and until it does so, the ecological consequences of fishing under this paradigm will be left for future generations to resolve. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Dr. Ragen. 

And our last panelist is Mr. Larry Cotter, Chair of the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council, Steller Sea Lion Mitigation 

Committee, and Chief Executive Officer of the Aleutian Pribilof 

Island Community Development Association. 

Mr. Cotter, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY COTTER, CHAIR, NORTH PACIFIC 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT, COUNCIL’S STELLER SEA LION 

MITIGATION COMMITTEE AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

ALEUTIAN PRIBILOF ISLAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. COTTER. Thank you, Chairman Hastings and Congressman 

Young. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I have been down this road twice before—the National Marine 

Fisheries Service Biological Opinion road. The first time was in 

2001. At that time, the RPA Committee was formed in February 

with myself as chair. The Committee was given two tasks. The first 

was to provide the North Pacific Council with draft emergency 

rules to implement fishery management changes by mid-summer to 

allow the groundfish fisheries in the Gulf and Bering Sea Aleutian 

Islands to continue without causing jeopardy or adverse modification. The second role was to provide the Council with draft emergency rules by the fall for subsequent years, so that those fishers 

could continue, again, without causing jeopardy or adverse modification. 

Both of those tasks were successfully completed. In my opinion, 

this was one of the highlights of fishery management in the North 

Pacific. An enormous amount of work, cooperation, and collaboration were necessary. Everyone participated, including the Agency. 

44 

Protected resources staff were not walled off from us, nor were they 

walled off from sustainable fisheries. We all worked together, and 

we got it done. 

Somehow the world changed between then and 2006, and then 

it simply deteriorated continuously. I am going to be very blunt. 

There was not a single moment of this most recent process when 

any action by NMFS resembled the development of an unbiased 

scientific evaluation of Steller sea lions and issues they face regarding recovery. 

The Agency was simply on a mission, and they still are. Even Dr. 

Schwaab includes a series of references to the Steller sea lion recovery team in his testimony to you today concluding with, ‘‘NMFS’ 

review of the comments and recommendations submitted by peer 

reviewers and the public on the 2007 version of the draft revised 

plan and modified the plan as appropriate to produce the final revised Steller sea lion recovery plan in February 2008.’’ 

There is really only one small problem with that. Eight of the 17 

recovery plan members signed a letter repudiating the recovery 

plan, and NMFS continues to this day to pretend that that did not 

happen. It did. 

Our Mitigation Committee paid its own way. Easily in excess of 

half a million dollars was spent on behalf of the volunteers who sat 

on the Committee. From the beginning, the process was tortured. 

The Committee first started to meet in the winter of 2006. We 

were told to expect a BiOp in the fall. We met seven times that 

year. The due for the BiOp was delayed repeatedly until finally it 

was delayed until June 2008. The Committee met five more times 

in 2007. 

That jeopardy and adverse modification review found in this 

BiOp was guaranteed, in my opinion, from the beginning. The cornerstone for the recovery plan and ultimately the Biological Opinion is something referred to as Holmes et al. Holmes et al. is a 

model that was constructed to predict that decreasing pup rates by 

female sea lions was inhibiting the recovery of the species. In fact, 

we were told the increases we were observing in the sea lion population would prove to be an anomaly, and would, in fact, start reversing themselves. 

NMFS assumed that that study was accurate, and assumed that 

that study applied to all sea lions throughout their range, despite 

the fact that the study focused only on one area in the Central 

Gulf. If the Agency is going to assume that Holmes et al. is accurate and applies across the entire range of the WDPS, then it will 

be impossible to avoid jeopardy and adverse modification since the 

population will continue to decline. In essence, the recovery plan, 

with its down and delisting criteria, were doomed for failure. 

I personally pointed this out to major senior members of National 

Marine Fisheries Service, proclaiming that a train wreck was just 

around the bend, but no one cared. 

A few years later, the Seward Sealife Center, through an individual whose name I am going to mispronounce, Maniskopo, presented a paper that directly contradicted Holmes, et al., by reviewing the photographic proof of female sea lions at Chiswell Island 

pupping consistently over the preceding eight years. NMFS did everything they could possibly do to debunk this paper. There was no 

45 

way they were going to let new scientific information get in the 

way. 

The development of the new BiOp commenced in 2006. NMFS 

delayed the release of the BiOp 10 times before issuing it in August 

2010. Along the way, in late 2009 or 2010, they totally changed 

their writing staff. They even sought to retain on a sole source contract a former Alaska Region protected resources employee to write 

the new BiOp. NMFS reportedly offered this individual a six-figure 

contract to do the job. 

That individual, by the way, was then employed by the Department of Energy, and presumably could have been made available 

on an inter-agency employment loan. I do not know what ultimately happened with that contract. 

The next thing that happened was Alaska Regional Director Jim 

Balsiger rejected the draft BiOp in April 2010. If you think about 

that, that was really an incredible act of courage. It was then, and 

remains now, an almost singular clarion call from one person in 

the Agency to call a spade a spade. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Cotter, if you could wrap up. The time is 

over. So, if you could—— 

Mr. COTTER. I am so sorry. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, your full statement is in the record, so if 

you would just conclude, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. COTTER. I am going to conclude if I can with four questions, 

and they will be brief. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Quickly. Very quickly. 

Mr. COTTER. Is the ESA being applied consistently between the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service? And is it being applied consistently with the regions of 

both agencies? 

How can the delisting criteria for Steller sea lions require a less 

than one percent if they will go extinct in the next 100 years, and 

gray wolves only require 10 breeding pairs in four States, or California sea otters, a population excess of 3,000 animals for three 

consecutive years? 

Last, how can Fish and Wildlife Service conclude that transient 

marine mammal eating orcas are the reason for the collapse of sea 

otter populations in the Aleutian Islands, yet NMFS concludes predation by the same orcas has no impact on sea lions in the same 

area? Should this not be—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. Just the question. Just the question. OK. 

Mr. COTTER. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cotter follows:] 

Statement of Larry Cotter, Chairman, North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council Sea Lion Mitigation Committee, and CEO, Aleutian Pribilof 

Island Community Development Organization (APICDA) 

Chairman Hastings and Congressman Young: I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify before your committee today. As I believe you are aware I had 

major back surgery one week ago. That made it impossible for me to complete my 

written testimony in advance. I apologize for that and have copies available now. 

My invitation to testify asked that I share my views, as Chair of the North Pacific 

Council’s Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee, regarding the process used to develop the Biological Opinion, my views of the role of the North Pacific Council in 

the process, my concerns with the recovery plan criteria and my concerns with the 

science relied upon in justifying the fishery restrictions. 

46 

I have been down this road twice with NMFS. The first time was in 2001. At that 

time the RPA Committee was formed in February with me as Chair. We were given 

two tasks: the first was to provide the North Pacific Council with draft emergency 

rules to implement fishery management changes by mid-summer to allow the 

groundfish fisheries in the Gulf and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands to continue without 

causing jeopardy or adverse modification; the second was to provide the North Pacific Council with draft emergency rules to implement fishery management changes 

by October to allow the groundfish fisheries in the Gulf and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands to continue operating into subsequent without causing jeopardy or adverse 

modification. 

Both of these tasks were successfully completed. In my opinion this was one of 

the highlights of fishery management in the North Pacific. An enormous amount of 

work, cooperation and collaboration were necessary. Everyone participated, including the agency. Protected resources staff were not walled off from us and sustainable fisheries—we all worked together and got smart together. 

Somehow the world changed between then and 2006, and then they simply deteriorated. I am going to be very blunt. There was not a single moment of this most 

recent process when any action by NMFS resembled the development of an unbiased 

scientific evaluation of Steller sea lions and issues they face regarding recovery. The 

agency was simply on a mission. They still are. Even Dr. Schwab includes a nice 

series of references to the Steller Sea Lion Recover Team in his testimony to you 

today, concluding with ‘‘NMFS reviewed the comments and recommendations submitted by peer reviewers and the public on the 2007 version of the draft revised 

plan and modified the plan as appropriate to produce the Final Revised Steller Sea 

Lion Recovery Plan in February 2008.’’ Only one small problem with that statement—8 out of 17 recovery plan team members signed a letter repudiating the recovery plan, and NMFS continues to this day to pretend that didn’t happen. 

Our mitigation committee paid its own way. Easily in excess of $500,000 was 

spent on behalf of the volunteers who sat on the committee. From the beginning the 

process was tortured. The committee first started to meet in winter, 2006. We were 

told to expect a draft BiOp in the fall. We met seven times that year. The due date 

for the BiOp was delayed repeatedly, until June, 2008. The committee met five more 

times in 2007. 

That jeopardy and adverse modification would be found in this BiOp was guaranteed from the beginning. The cornerstone for the recovery plan and ultimately the 

BiOp is something referred to as Homes, et al. Homes et al is a model that was 

constructed to predict that decreasing pup rates by female sea lions was inhibiting 

the population recovery of the species. In fact, we were told the increases we were 

observing in the sea lion population would prove to be an anomaly. NMFS assumed 

the study was accurate, and assumed it applied to all sea lions throughout their 

range—despite the fact that the study only focused on one area in the central Gulf 

of Alaska. 

If the agency is going to assume that Holmes et al is accurate and applies across 

the entire range of the WDPS, then it will be impossible to avoid jeopardy and adverse modification since the population will be continuing to decline. In essence, the 

Recovery plan with its down and de-listing criteria were doomed for failure. I personally pointed this out to the most senior members of NMFS, proclaiming that a 

huge train wreck was now just around the bend, but they were contentedly fixed 

on their position. 

A few years later the Seward Sea life Center presented a paper that directly contradicted Homes et al by reviewing the photographic proof of female sea lions at 

Chiswel Island pupping consistently over the preceding eight years. NMFS did everything they could possibly do to debunk this paper. There was no way they were 

going to let new scientific information get in their way. 

The development of the new BiOp commenced in 2006. NMFS delayed the release 

of the BiOp ten times before finally issuing it in August, 2010. Along the way—in 

late 2009 or early 2010—they totally changed their writing staff. They even sought 

to retain on a sole source contract a former Alaska Region Protected Resources employee to write the new BiOp. NMFS reportedly offered this individual a six figure 

contract to do the job. That individual, by the way, was then employed by the Department of Energy and presumably could have been made available on an intraagency employment loan. I do not know what ultimately happened with that contract. 

The next thing that happened was Alaska Regional Director Jim Balsiger rejected 

the draft BiOp in April, 2010. If you think about it, that was really an incredible 

act of courage. It was then and remains now an almost singular clarion call from 

one person in the Agency to call a spade a spade—this BiOp process has failed! 

47 

Unfortunately, there was no time to start the process anew and do it right. The 

environmental NGO litigants were pounding on the door at NOAA in Washington 

DC—do it our way or we sue. So, having no choice, Dr. Balsiger put together a new 

BiOp team that spent the next four months pounding together the best, flawed BiOp 

they could. 4 

This was a crazy, frantic, keystone cops type of process that clearly violated the 

APA, NEPA Magnuson-Stevens Act and other laws. NMFS was not focused on 

sound science—they simply had to get jeopardy/adverse modification BiOp in place 

before the environmental NGOs would sue. This was political, pure and simple. And 

incompetently handled. The Agency should be ashamed of themselves. And thank 

you for the hearing, but what we really need is a whole scale investigation. 

In conclusion, I do think some question must be posed and answered: 

1. Is the ESA being applied consistently between the Fish & Wildlife Service 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service, and is it being applied consistently within the regions of both agencies? 

2. How can the delisting criteria for Steller sea lions require a less than one 

percent chance that they will go extinct in the next 100 years, and grey 

wolves only require ten breeding paids in for states, or California sea otters 

simply need a population in excess of 3,000 animals for three consecutive 

years? 

3. How can Fish & Wildlife Service conclude that transient marine mammal 

eating orcas are the reason for the collapse of sea otter populations in the 

Aleutian Islands (resulting in their status as endangered), yet NMFS concludes predation by the same orcas has no impact on sea lions in the same 

area? Shouldn’t this be an issue to be resolved and agreed upon by these two 

agencies? 

4. How is it that the Seward Sea Life Center is able to do such high quality 

research on sea lions in Russia when NMFS can never find the time to do 

anything in the western Aleutians? 

5. Should it mean anything to discover what we already know—there is no commercial fishing with 50 miles of the Komondorski Islands just west of our 

Aleutian Islands, and their sea lions are apparently doing the same thing as 

ours. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Cotter. And I want to thank all 

of you for your testimony. 

Dr. Trites, you alluded to this several times in various ways in 

your testimony what I am going to ask you. And the BiOp appears 

to rely significantly on the research that you have done. So, my 

question to you is really pretty direct in that regard. 

Do you believe that NOAA correctly interpreted your data, and 

are the NOAA conclusions supported by your research? 

Dr. TRITES. I guess the short answer is, no. We have published 

through the research that I have worked with a lot of research, and 

that research is cited in the BiOp. But there are different ways of 

citing information. One is you can just put the author’s name and 

list the paper, or you can actually reference the work and try to 

put some understanding into it. 

And I would say for the most part, the BiOp is a fairly complete 

list of the scientific record in terms of what was studied. But in 

terms of how they chose to expand the sub parts, overlook others, 

and, in some cases, even misinterpret what was published, it has 

got those shortcomings. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, you alluded to that. That is why I asked the 

question directly. 

Dr. Knapp, you also talked about economics. So, do you believe 

that any future review of any BiOp should include a review of all 

the economic impacts? 

Dr. KNAPP. Yes, I certainly believe that when you are studying 

economic impacts, you should study all the economic impacts. 

48 

Mr. HASTINGS. OK. And if I heard your testimony correct, there 

were some major parts were left out of this, is that correct? 

Dr. KNAPP. My main point actually was the—I actually do not 

have any particular criticism of the analysis of the economic impacts that was done. There was an analysis done, and it looked at 

many different kinds of impacts, and came to the conclusion that 

they were quite substantial from these RPAs. 

The major point that I wanted to make was that there was no 

evidence whatsoever of any attempt to ask the question, how can 

we reduce these economic impacts. Is there a way to do this that 

would have a lower economic impact. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Which falls under the category of looking at all 

economic impacts. I mean, clearly if you are going to have some impact, then what is potentially to mitigate that. That is what you 

are saying, is that correct? 

Dr. KNAPP. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HASTINGS. OK. I agree with that. 

Dr. Ragen, you said there is one thing you do not agree with on 

the BiOp. What is that? 

Dr. RAGEN. Mr. Chairman, if you look at the types of analyses 

that go into fisheries’ effects, most of them are focused on the effects of removal within a given year. Our strategy under the maximum sustainable yield approach is to reduce the biomass of the 

target species by roughly 60 percent. 

The analyses that are often done in fisheries management do not 

deal with that. They look at the 10 percent, so that over time, because these are age structured stocks, if you have knocked the biomass down by 60 percent, and then you only focus on taking 10 

percent of that remaining 40 percent, I think you have missed 

what is probably the major driver in terms of fishery effects; that 

is, the nature of fishing under the MSY paradigm. We have never 

really examined the ecological effects of those kinds of reductions. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Why? Why has that not been done? 

Dr. RAGEN. I do not understand that, and that was one of the 

key questions that really came up in the 2000 Biological Opinion 

is, what are the impacts of removing 60 percent of Pacific cod, Atka 

mackerel, flat fish, et cetera, on an ecosystem. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Let me ask you another question because maybe 

this lends into what you are talking about. Because new information has been referenced several times, available since the BiOp on 

the Atka mackerel stock assessment, do you believe that the Agency has responsibility to re-initiate consultation based on this new 

information? I think that is in line with what you are saying. 

Dr. RAGEN. I think the Agency has to look at all of its new information to decide whether or not it is significant enough for a renewal. You have to recognize that the information on these stocks 

that is available in any given year or any given season is going to 

change, and they will need to look and see does this warrant a reexamination of their overall approach. 

So, surely they should be tuned into new information, but I also 

would not say outright that any time there is new information, 

they should start a consultation, or they would be locked into—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. Unless it is significant, I suppose that is in the 

eye of the beholder, is that correct? 

49 

Dr. RAGEN. I think they have to make their best judgment in 

terms of what the—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. Which unfortunately does not make it objective; 

it makes it subjective potentially. 

Dr. RAGEN. I do not think it necessarily means that you are 

being subjective. I think you need to look at the information and 

say what constitutes sufficient new information to make a decision. 

And that sort of thing is best served by making that judgment in 

advance. 

Mr. HASTINGS. My time has expired. Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cotter, would you repeat those last four questions you were 

going to read? Because they are good questions, I want them in the 

record totally. 

Mr. COTTER. The first question is, is the ESA being applied consistently between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and is it being applied consistently within the regions of both agencies? 

The second question, how can the delisting criteria for Steller sea 

lions require a less than one percent chance that they will go extinct in the next 100 years, and gray wolves only require 10 breeding pairs in four States, or California sea otters simply need a population in excess of 3,000 animals for three consecutive years? 

Third question. How can Fish and Wildlife Service conclude that 

transient marine mammal eating orcas are the reason for the collapse of sea otter populations in the Aleutian Islands resulting in 

their status as endangered, yet NMFS concludes predation by those 

same orcas has no impact on sea lions in the same area? Should 

this not be an issue that demands to be resolved and agreed upon 

between the two agencies. 

The fourth question, how is it that the Seward Sealife Center is 

able to do such high quality research on sea lions in Russia when 

NMFS has difficulty getting anything done in the Western Aleutians. 

And the last question, should it mean anything to discover what 

we already know? There is no commercial fishing within 50 miles 

of the Komandorski Islands just west of our Aleutian Islands. And 

their sea lions are apparently doing the same thing as ours. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Cotter, and I appreciate that. That 

is a good comment. It is the same area, same conditions. 

In Mr. Schwaab’s testimony, any future scientific review will only 

be allowed to look at information available to May 10th—I do not 

understand that—and will not include information, like the most 

recent Atka mackerel assessment. What do you think of this restriction, Mr. Cotter? 

Mr. COTTER. Well, I think that is ridiculous, quite frankly. Any 

time we have access to new information, we need to incorporate 

that new information; otherwise, why are we seeking new information? Why do we seek to improve our knowledge base if we are not 

going to use it? 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the reluctance of not accepting new information. I know Dr. Trites, you know, you made a comment—by the way, I understand you are the expert on sea lions, 

50 

and I congratulate you. At least you give some common knowledge 

on things that can be done and should be done. And I do think they 

have misinterpreted your report or your information. 

Question to Mr. Cotter, any one of you. I may, with the help of 

the Chairman, ask for an independent review of the Steller sea lion 

funding. Do you think the marine mammal scientists who already 

seem to have a bias against fisheries, have used the funding in an 

unbiased manner? Any one of you? Mr. Cotter, do you want to go 

first? 

Mr. COTTER. Well, I would ask Dr. Trites to speak candidly to 

that. 

Mr. YOUNG. Dr. Trites? 

Dr. TRITES. Yeah. I would like to say that there has been a lot 

of research done, a lot of money was put into this. And a lot of 

very, very good research has been done by broad group of individuals. So, I do not think we can fault the science per se outside of 

perhaps saying, why did people not get into the Aleutians sooner. 

I think what the problem comes down to in the end is who is interpreting the scientific record. There is a huge amount of information, and unfortunately, I mean, my take from the BiOp is it is almost as though we have not learned anything, and that is so far 

from the truth. So much has been published. We know so much 

more today. And if it was not for congressional support, we would 

literally still be in the forest. 

So, we know a lot more. I think really the issue is the interpretation of—— 

Mr. YOUNG. How would we correct that, because this is what I 

am asking. NMFS is an agency that has no real qualification for 

anything, and they are maintaining their brown envelope jobs. How 

would we do that, independently, or how could that be done? 

Dr. TRITES. And this would be just be my opinion—— 

Mr. YOUNG. It is my opinion, too, but you go ahead. 

Dr. TRITES. I think the Agency has some excellent scientists, and 

some of the leading marine scientists, marine mammal scientists as 

well. The trouble comes down to who in the end is going to help 

write these management documents? 

I do not think it is a leading scientist. They are not raising their 

hand to volunteer for this. And I think until there is a system put 

in place where you ensure that the best scientists help interpret 

the scientific record as opposed to perhaps, from my impression, it 

is more like looking for volunteers who will help write these. I 

think then the system is open to abuse, and perhaps some of the 

people writing it do not necessarily have the qualification to understand the science that has been done. 

Perhaps there should be a better relationship between protecting 

resources and science, and in particular, not just the science done 

within the Agency, but also science done by the non-Agency. 

Mr. YOUNG. What I am saying, though, they write this thing— 

Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Go right ahead. 

Mr. YOUNG. I could take this panel of four here—I do not agree 

with Dr. Ragen, that is OK, but he has got to be on this side anyway—and probably interpret the science. What you are telling me, 

the science is not bad in NOAA, it is the people. And I asked the 

51 

question, who writes it? So, maybe we ought to have an independent peer board involved in the interpretation of the science, 

because they cannot interpret themselves, Mr. Chairman. You do 

not have to answer that, but I would like to think about that anyway. 

Mr. HASTINGS. That may be something that we should look at directly. There are a lot of ‘‘what ifs’’ involved in Dr. Trites’ response. 

I have no other questions for this panel. Mr. Young, if you would 

like to ask more, then I will yield to you? 

Mr. YOUNG. I want to thank the panel. This is my 40th year on 

marine mammal and fisheries, and this issue is over actually 20 

years old. It started earlier than that. It started with the Endangered Species Act. And we have to straighten it out because if we 

are going to do these things and give faith back into the government, there has to be accountability. That is why I am interested 

in the concept of an independent panel. You guys all may be paid 

a job, you do not know. I will ask for volunteers and see how many 

do it. 

But we have to do something that makes this work, or I would 

just as soon dis-fund the organization. This is my pet peeve. If you 

are not doing the job, if you run an agenda without putting all the 

shareholders in it, we are doing a very poor job. And we as congressmen have the oversight privileges in actually funding these 

agencies. So, I think that is our job. And if they are not doing it 

correctly, let them go out and ask with a tin cup. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, I want to thank the panel very much for 

your testimony. And as usual—I will not say as usual, but many 

times questions arise afterwards. If we submit questions to you, if 

you would respond in a timely way, I would very much appreciate 

it. 

I will dismiss this panel, and at the same time we will call up 

our third and final panel. We have Mr. Todd Loomis, Government 

and Industry Affairs with Cascade Fishing, Inc., Mr. Dave Little, 

President of the Freezer Longline Coalition, Mr. Rudy Tsukada, 

President of Aleut Enterprise, LLC, and Mr. Michael LeVine, Senior Counsel of Oceana. 

Thank you all for joining me. And by now you have heard, if you 

were sitting through the first two panels, what the ground rules 

with the timing lights in front of you. 

Your entire statement that you have submitted will appear in 

the record. The entire statement will. And so, I would ask you to, 

with your oral statements, to keep it confined, if you would, to the 

five minutes. 

And, again, the timing lights, when the green light is on, that 

means you are doing very, very well. When the yellow light goes 

on, it means you have one minute, and when the red light goes on, 

that means that the five minutes have expired. 

So, Mr. Loomis, we will recognize you, Government and Industry 

Affairs with Cascade Fishing. You are recognized for five minutes. 

Turn on that mic. 

52 

STATEMENT OF TODD LOOMIS, GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY 

AFFAIRS, CASCADE FISHING, INC. 

Mr. LOOMIS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

the opportunity to be here today. For the record, my name is Todd 

Loomis, and I work for Cascade Fishing, a company that catches, 

processes, and sells frozen seafood. We have been in business since 

1988 and are the largest single vessel quota holder of Atka mackerel. 

Our company has also been involved in research in the Aleutians 

for nearly a decade. 

We employ 110 individuals, and our payroll will exceed $4 million this year, but we have been deeply impacted by the Biological 

Opinion. 

I would like to accomplish several things today. I will begin by 

describing how the closures in the Aleutians are impacting businesses and people, how the BiOp’s analysis presented no evidence 

that fisheries were impacting sea lions. I will provide some examples of how the economic analysis was insufficient, and then I will 

close with suggestions for how we should proceed from here. 

Prior to the closures, each year we fished about 140 days in the 

Aleutians. Under the closures, we lost about 70 of those days at a 

cost of just under $4 million to our crew, vendors, the State of 

Alaska, and our CDQ partner, APICTA. 

NMFS estimated aggregate annual losses of up to 750 jobs and 

$83 million, but the closures also impact the U.S. trade balance 

and exports to countries such as China, Japan, and Korea. Losses 

in the trade imbalance could be even more dramatic in coming 

years if the current measures are kept in place. 

The North Pacific fisheries are among the best managed in the 

world, and we are fortunate to be part of the Amendment 80 sector. 

Amendment 80 ended nearly 20 years of Olympic style derby fishing and allowed us to form harvesting cooperatives. This has resulted in stability for our sector and increased earnings for our 

crew. 

Amendment 80 also brought additional costs and monitoring requirements for our fisheries, but these came with the benefits of 

being able to very accurately manage and monitor our catch. I am 

very proud of our company, our industry, and the benefits that we 

provide to our employees and the Nation, but the BiOp and the 

fishery closures threaten to derail all of our hard work and 

progress. 

NMFS has put our livelihood at risk by instituting fishery restrictions in an area twice the size of New England and foreclosing 

on the harvest of over 70 million pounds of mackerel. As you heard 

this morning from representatives from the State’s review panel, 

their case was anything but rock solid, and there is no established 

link between fisheries and the Steller sea lion decline. 

NMFS built their case around assertions that the Aleutians were 

an unproductive ecosystem, that a high fraction of the local biomass was being removed, and that sea lions were suffering from 

nutritional stress. But all of these statements are not true, Mr. 

Chairman, and the science simply does not support these claims. 

Both the public and independent scientists challenged NMFS on 

53 

many of their assertions, and while much of the information was 

corrected in the final BiOp, the closures remain. 

The North Pacific Council made a herculean effort to review the 

draft BiOp and take public comment on it. They looked at the 

available science and made surgical recommendations that would 

have allowed mackerel fisheries to continue outside the critical 

habitat in the West and continue inside critical habitat in the Central Aleutians. The Council’s motion passed unanimously, but was 

largely ignored by NMFS in the final BiOp, and they opted instead 

for sweeping fishery restrictions. 

Instead of preparing an environmental analysis for this action, 

NMFS should have prepared an EIS, which would have provided 

a more rigorous assessment of the impacts. The EA assumed revenue would be made up by moving to fisheries such as yellow fin 

and rock sole. Unfortunately, we are mackerel boats, and we 

earned a large portion of our catch history in the Aleutians. Our 

larger vessels need more crew and are costlier to operate than flat 

fish boats. 

As such, we do not have the quota portfolio necessary to make 

a wholesale change from mackerel and code to flat fish in the Bering Sea. And even if we did, it would not be a one-to-one replacement for the revenue we have lost in the Aleutians. 

To state it plainly, Mr. Chairman, the information NMFS had before them simply does not support their findings or the fishery closures they have implemented. NMFS has been reluctant to proceed 

with a review similar to the one conducted by the States of Alaska 

and Washington, but I think that type of review is critical to bringing some sanity to this process. 

If NMFS will not accept the State’s review, then they should conduct their own, but it must be one that is open and transparent, 

conducted jointly by NMFS and the Council. It should consider all 

of the scientific information and public comment to date, as well as 

the conclusions reached in the BiOp. 

In a recent meeting between several industry leaders and Dr. 

Lubchenco, we discussed this very type of review, and I am hopeful 

that it will be conducted as I have described. 

In closing, I would like to recommend that perhaps it is time for 

a broader scientific review of the sea lion programs. We have spent 

roughly $180 million and counting, and we still have many unanswered questions and are lacking crucial data. We need this information to make informed decisions as opposed to precautionary 

guesses at what needs to be done. Perhaps the National Science 

Foundation or a similar body should audit this program and prescribe some recommendations as to how we should proceed. 

I think this approach is the best way to get some of the basic 

questions answered so that we may truly understand what is happening with sea lions in the North Pacific. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Loomis follows:] 

Statement of Todd M. Loomis, Government & Industry Affairs, 

Cascade Fishing, Inc. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on the recent 

Steller Sea Lion (SSL) biological opinion (BiOp) and the resultant Aleutian Islands 

fishery closures that were put in place earlier this year. I work for Cascade Fishing, 

54 

Inc., a Seattle-based seafood company that has been in business since 1988 and one 

that is heavily dependent on the Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel and Pacific cod 

fisheries. Our company owns one catcher/processor and is the largest single-vessel 

quota holder of Atka mackerel. Our vessel catches, processes, and freezes various 

species of groundfish and in recent years has operated over 225 days each year in 

the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and the Aleutian Islands. Our company is also heavily involved in research and has partnered with NMFS, the University of British 

Columbia, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks on numerous projects. 

I’d like to accomplish several things in my testimony today. First, I want to describe our company so you can see how the unnecessary fishery closures that NMFS 

has imposed are impacting real businesses and real people. Second, I’d like to touch 

on the analysis that led to these closures and illustrate how NMFS failed to take 

into account important information that showed their analysis was flawed and that 

there is no evidence these closures will promote SSL recovery. And finally, I’d like 

to give you some examples of how the economic analysis (EA) that was prepared 

was insufficient for this highly controversial action. I’ll close with several suggestions for a way forward including the idea of a high level scientific audit of NMFS’ 

SSL scientific programs. 

Prior to the BiOp and implementation of the fishery closures, our vessel annually 

fished approximately 140 days in the Aleutian Islands targeting mackerel and cod. 

This year, under the new fishery closures, we lost about 70 fishing days in the central and western Aleutians. We estimate these lost days came at a cost of just under 

$4 million to our crew and vendors and we are just one of the affected companies. 

The combined loss for all participants in the Aleutian Islands fisheries was estimated by NMFS to be up to 750 jobs and over $83 million in lost annual earnings. 

There are seven catcher processors and several catcher vessels that participate in 

the mackerel fishery and all have been similarly impacted by the fishery closures 

NMFS has imposed. We expect losses to be even bigger over the next few years if 

NMFS continues the measures that are now in place. 

As a seafood company, we produce high-quality all natural, affordable frozen food 

that we believe is one of the best protein sources in the world. We are also exporters, with most of our product going overseas to China, Japan and Korea, a plus for 

the U.S. trade balance. And most importantly, we create and sustain jobs during 

these uncertain economic times. Our company employs 110 people and our payroll 

will exceed $4 million this year. 

The North Pacific fisheries are among the best managed in the world. We have 

a healthy resource, conservative management by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and we are part of a catch share program created by 

Amendment 80 (A80) to the Fishery Management Plan for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. A80 ended nearly 20 years of Olympic-style derby fishing for our sector 

and empowered us to form harvesting cooperatives. We have taken full advantage 

of this opportunity and have fished as a member of a cooperative since the program’s inception in 2008. A80 has resulted in stability to our sector and increased 

annual pay for our crew by enabling us to operate more efficiently. While A80 

brought additional costs and monitoring requirements it has resulted in improved 

management and conservation measures for our fisheries. We now carry two fisheries observers at all times, have electronic monitoring of our catch and fishing locations, use motion-compensated scales to weigh all catch, and every haul is sampled 

by an observer. All of these tools and technologies have enabled us to very accurately manage and monitor our catch such that we can manage harvest very precisely. We are very proud of our company, the industry we work in, the accomplishments we’ve made, and the benefits we provide to both our employees and the Nation. The BiOp and the fishery closures, however, threaten to derail all of our hard 

work and efforts. 

To put this at risk, NMFS surely must have had strong evidence and scientific 

proof that fisheries were causing jeopardy and adverse modification for SSL before 

closing or restricting fisheries in 145,000 square miles of ocean (that’s more than 

twice the size of New England or roughly the size of the Dakotas) and causing over 

32,000 mt (70 million lbs.) of mackerel to become unavailable for harvest and sale? 

Unfortunately, if you review the BiOp, I think you’ll come to the same conclusion 

that the States of Washington and Alaska came to in their recent review of the 

BiOp—the information that NMFS had before them does not support a jeopardy or 

adverse modification finding and there is no established scientific link between fisheries and the SSL decline or recovery. Also recall that, as a whole, the western distinct population segment (DPS) of SSL has increased in numbers over the past decade to the point that they may be on track for downlisting. With this BiOp however, 

NMFS has chosen to manage SSL for recovery in sub-units smaller than the DPS, 

55 

which we believe is not consistent with the letter or spirit of the Endangered Species Act. 

To put it plainly Mr. Chairman, what you have is an agency that is taking what 

it deems are ‘precautionary measures’ that will likely have no impact on the status 

of SSL, but they are having a profound negative impact on the commercial fishing 

industry, support services, and communities. Much of the work that the public and 

the Council have done to participate in the process has fallen on deaf ears. Critiques 

of the analysis by independent scientists were dismissed and the work of the Council to develop more practical measures designed to meet NMFS criteria were ignored. To date, responses from NMFS have not been received by anyone that took 

the time to review and submit comments on the draft BiOp and the interim final 

rule and that is not acceptable. The process that NMFS has undertaken has been 

driven by an artificial timeline and a pre-conceived notion that the problem is fisheries in spite of the fact that no scientific link to fisheries has been established. 

NMFS has not responded to public comments as is common practice with Federal 

actions of this nature and in my opinion, did not allow for adequate external review 

of the BiOp (including its conclusions and mitigation measures) prior to its release. 

I think you’ll also find that many of the statements that NMFS made in the draft 

BiOp and then later corrected based on public input (e.g., the Aleutians are an unproductive ecosystem) should have resulted in different conclusions or persuaded 

NMFS to modify the fishery closures they originally proposed. For example, NMFS’ 

original assertion in the draft BiOp that fisheries were removing a high fraction of 

the local biomass of mackerel was turned on its head when challenged in public 

comments. In reality, the fishery in the western Aleutians was shown to have a relatively low harvest rate—a rate that was even lower than other areas of the Aleutians where the SSL population is more stable. There are several other examples 

of areas where NMFS’ draft BiOp reached to make a case that fishing was affecting 

SSL and each of their arguments fell apart in the face of comments and information 

brought forward by outside scientists and the public. In some cases NMFS did modify the final BiOp to correct their mistakes, but they failed to measurably change 

their conclusions and resulting fishery closures. One would think that NMFS would 

have reconsidered the closures and the possibility that nutritional stress wasn’t to 

blame, but they just rolled on as if the closures were a pre-ordained outcome that 

couldn’t be modified because they were too far down the road. 

In my view, NMFS has become entrenched in their nutritional stress hypotheses 

and cannot seem to find a way to believe that perhaps something else caused the 

decline or is preventing recovery. I find this very frustrating in light of the fact that 

13 of 14 nutritional stress indicators that have been studied show that nutritional 

stress is not present in SSL. I remain hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that you and your 

committee can bring some sanity to this process—a process that has, without good 

cause, closed fisheries upon which my company’s livelihood depends. 

What is particularly appalling is the total disregard NMFS had for the efforts put 

forth by the Council who worked under an extremely tight timeline to address a serious management issue. In my opinion, the Council did an admirable job given the 

schedule set by NMFS. The Council took the time and made the effort to digest the 

huge amount of information that NMFS made available when it released the draft 

BiOp on August 2, 2010. The Council and public had a mere two weeks to review 

nearly a thousand pages of materials and provide substantive comments during a 

special Council session that was held August 16—20, 2010. It was made clear that 

this would be the only opportunity to comment as there would be no time for the 

Council to make adjustments to the proposed fishery closures at their regularly 

scheduled October 2010 meeting. 

While no small task, the Council deliberated and unanimously passed a motion 

that recommended NMFS consider less restrictive mackerel fishery closures in the 

western and central Aleutians. The Council’s motion was crafted to meet SSL forage 

needs while preserving as much of the commercial fishery as possible. To do so the 

Council relied heavily upon the available scientific information to propose measures 

that allowed fishing outside of critical habitat in the western Aleutians and a geographically spread out fishery inside critical habitat in the central Aleutians. The 

Council also relied on appropriate science to allow fishing in a limited portion of 

SSL critical habitat where research had shown relatively low commercial harvest 

rates of mackerel and protected areas where it appeared harvest rates of the local 

biomass were larger than they thought prudent given the status of SSL. In most 

cases the Council’s alternative used science that NMFS itself had done (Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center has done ongoing studies to examine local biomass and 

harvest rates in areas adjacent to SSL sites). Unfortunately, NMFS largely ignored 

the Council’s motion in the final BiOp and instead of using science to make surgical 

56 

changes to the fisheries they made sweeping changes and largely ignored the Council’s recommendations and the most relevant scientific studies. 

I’d also like to point out that the EA that NMFS prepared for this action was woefully deficient. The agency should have completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because the proposed major Federal action has clearly significantly affected the quality of the human environment (i.e., had a significant economic impact). An EIS is what was prepared during an evaluation of SSL conservation measures in the early 2000’s. Given the significance of the proposed action and the clear 

economic impacts, NMFS should have prepared an EIS, which would have provided 

a more robust and rigorous assessment of the proposed action and its impacts. 

When we got locked out of the mackerel fishery it was assumed in the EA that 

we would simply move to other fisheries to make up the lost revenue. The EA hypothesized that we could make up the estimated 10 weeks of lost fishing time in 

the Aleutians by moving into the rock sole fishery for 3 weeks and yellowfin sole 

for the remaining 7 weeks. While a nice idea, it isn’t that simple Mr. Chairman. 

The EA correctly points out the size difference between mackerel boats and flatfish 

boats—our boats are larger, we have more crew, and they are costlier to operate. 

We also earned a different quota portfolio because of the fisheries we historically 

participated in. Without sufficient prohibited species and other necessary quota allowances, expansion into the more multi-species target fisheries such as flatfish is 

nearly impossible. If it were profitable for us to target rock sole and yellowfin sole 

instead of mackerel we would have done so years ago, but that is not the case and 

we do not have the flexibility to change. I’m also quite certain that other members 

of our cooperative do not want us crowding them out of their traditional fishing 

grounds when we should be fishing mackerel and cod in the Aleutians. 

As a final point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the Committee’s attention to 

some recent developments that may point to a way forward, at least in part. In August, several industry leaders had a meeting with Dr. Lubchenko, head of NOAA. 

In that meeting we discussed NMFS plans for a scientific evaluation of the BiOp 

by the Center for Independent Experts (CIE). We believe that NMFS is pursuing 

a CIE review partly as a response to the scientific review recently completed by the 

States of Washington and Alaska. Unfortunately, the CIE process is not an open 

process like the one the States used, and NMFS has up to now repeatedly refused 

to include the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in the design and implementation of any review of the SSL BiOp despite clear guidance in the MagnusonStevens Act (MSA) that such peer reviews should be jointly conducted by NMFS and 

the Council. 

At the August meeting, Dr. Lubchenko agreed that the CIE review should be 

transparent, and that the Council should be involved in its design and implementation. At the Council’s October meeting, they accepted this apparent change of heart, 

adopted terms of reference for the CIE review, and appointed a workgroup to work 

with NMFS to finalize the process for review of the BiOp. We support this effort, 

and hope the Committee will monitor this process as it unfolds. It is imperative that 

any further review be conducted in as open and transparent a manner as that employed by the States, and that all of the scientific information regarding SSLs be 

evaluated as well as NMFS conclusions. Following such an evaluation, there should 

be a complete review of the fishery restrictions and revisions to them as appropriate. This should be done through the MSA process, with full participation by the 

Council, and not behind closed doors with artificial timelines as was done with the 

current BiOp and fishery closures. 

We also believe that it is time for a broader review of NMFS scientific program 

for SSLs. Over the past decade or so, the United States has spent roughly $180 million to better understand the factors affecting SSL recovery. Yet, when it comes time 

to make decisions regarding our fisheries, crucial data are lacking and we are left 

with these ‘‘precautionary measures’’. Perhaps the National Science Foundation or 

a similar high level scientific organization should audit this program and make recommendations on how we can better use taxpayer funds to get at the basic scientific 

questions about SSL population status and factors affecting them. 

In conclusion Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask this committee to embark on a mission 

to rein in NMFS and the broad latitude they have displayed during the development 

of this BiOp to interpret the science as they see fit and to eliminate economic activity under the guise of being precautionary. Our company supports science and the 

use of science in the decision making process, but we cannot support what has been 

done here. If fisheries had been clearly implicated in the SSL issue we would accept 

the need for fishery restrictions and adjust to the necessary changes. But lacking 

that scientific proof and having NMFS simply guessing at what needs to be done 

is not acceptable. NMFS is supposed to be our Nation’s premier scientific agency, 

but this reckless disregard for science and the law is untenable. In our current ecoVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:25 Jan 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\70764.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
57 

nomic situation our government should not be undertaking this type of devastating 

action. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Loomis, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Next, we will go to Mr. Dave Little, who is President of the 

Freezer Longline Coalition. You are recognized for five minutes, 

Mr. Little. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID LITTLE, PRESIDENT, 

FREEZER LONGLINE COALITION 

Mr. LITTLE. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Congressman 

Young. My name is David Little. I am here today to testify as the 

President of the Freezer Longline Coalition. I am also the President of Clipper Seafoods. 

The Freezer Longline Coalition would like to thank the Committee on Natural Resources for holding this oversight hearing. I 

believe it is particularly important for Congress to address the 

questions of whether the science contained in the Steller sea lion 

Biological Opinion supports the decisions by NMFS to move forward with an interim final rule that imposes vast closures on the 

Aleutian Islands, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel fisheries. 

The Aleutian Islands cod fishery is important for the Freezer 

Longline fleet. Many vessels in our fleet have specialized in the 

high value fish that are caught in this area. For some members, 

this makes up 50 percent of their revenues. 

As the interim final rule is still in its first year, the full effect 

of the rule are not yet well known. However, the anticipated economic impacts in the BiOp state that the losses could be as high 

as 44 percent of gross revenue. 

The loss of valuable Aleutian Islands cod will have long-term unrecoverable damages to the Freezer Longline fleet. 

This Committee has asked, does the science support the decision? 

No, Mr. Chairman, it does not. The NMFS Biological Opinion was 

not reviewed by any independent scientific panels, despite NMFS’ 

public statements that it would undergo such a review. In fact, the 

only peer reviewed analysis was recently conducted, as you heard 

this morning, by scientists commissioned by Washington and Alaska States. 

This review panel found, and we concur, that the determination 

of jeopardy by National Marine Fisheries Service is not supported 

by the best available science. 

It is unbelievable to us that the scientific underpinnings of the 

BiOp and the RPAs were never peer reviewed, even though thousands of pages of public testimony directly criticized the science. 

This is about bad science costing jobs and driving well-managed, 

sustainable fisheries out of business. The fishing fleet has been 

forced into litigation because the Agency has made an irresponsible 

decision that, if allowed to stand, will set a new legal precedent. 

The Agency cannot be allowed to unlawfully regulate sustainable 

American fisheries based upon bad science to support a political 

agenda of a select few. 

The single basis for the National Marine Fisheries Service’s jeopardy and adverse modification determination is the hypothesis that 

58 

fisheries compete with Steller sea lions for food. This is otherwise 

known as the nutritional stress theory. The Agency’s stated position is that it does not know whether nutritional stress is even occurring, and even if the evidence showed that nutritional stress is 

occurring, NMFS does not know whether the fisheries are the 

cause of such stress. 

As acknowledged by the Agency, the Biological Opinion findings 

and supporting information are equivocal at best. 

NMFS’s hypothesis that fisheries affect Steller sea lions is contradicted by current studies that were ignored. A study mandated 

and funded by Congress, Calkins 2008, found that there is no correlation between the Freezer Longline cod fishery and Steller sea 

lion population dynamics. Unfortunately, this study receives essentially no attention in the Agency’s Biological Opinion. 

Throughout the BiOp, the Agency ignored good science for no 

other reason than science did not support the Agency’s preconceived conclusions. 

Mr. Chairman, given the best scientific information available, 

there is little factual basis to support the restrictions on the fisheries. The scientific record does not support NMFS’ findings of jeopardy and adverse modification. Those findings are flawed for several reasons. One, they are based only a small subsection of the 

Western DPS, and not the Western DPS as a whole. They are 

based on the Agency’s assessment of whether the DPS is meeting 

recovery criteria and not ESA Section 7 standards. They are unsupported by any determination that fisheries cause jeopardy in adverse modification, and they are not consistent with the best available science. 

The BiOp focuses upon a foregone conclusion that is built largely 

on advocacy rather than science. The authors of the BiOp make selected use of data and scientific papers to support their conclusion, 

while at the same time, ignoring or dismissing any data that might 

not support the adopted position. 

Thank you again for the Committee’s time and resources and the 

opportunity to speak on behalf of the Freezer Longline Coalition. 

That concludes my comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Little follows:] 

Statement of David Little, President, Freezer Longline Coalition 

Good afternoon Chairman Hastings, Congressman Young and other Members of 

the Committee, 

My name is David Little, I am here today testifying as the President of the Freezer Longline Coalition. I am also the founder and President of Clipper Seafoods, Ltd. 

I have served as a member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s 

Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee as well as a member of the Council’s Advisory Panel and have been involved for more than 15 years in following Steller sea 

lion science. 

The Freezer Longline Coalition would like to thank the Committee on Natural Resources for holding this oversight hearing and especially for this opportunity to provide comments on NOAA’s Steller sea lion science and fishery management restrictions. I believe it is particularly important for Congress to address the question of 

whether the science contained in the Steller Sea-Lion Biological Opinion supports 

the decisions by NMFS to move forward with an ‘‘interim’’ final rule and impose 

vast closures on the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod and Atka mackerel fisheries. 

The Freezer Longline Coalition represents a Washington and Alaska based fleet 

that participates in the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod longline fishery. The Aleutian 

Islands cod fishery is important for the freezer-longline fleet as a whole, as well as 

for individual vessels; many vessels in our fleet have specialized in the high value 

59 

fish that are caught in these areas. For some members, up to 50% of their revenues 

have come from Aleutian Islands cod. Because the interim final rule is still in the 

first year of its implementation, the full financial effects of the rule are not yet well 

known. However, the anticipated economic impacts of the rule, as evaluated by 

NMFS in the BiOp state that resulting losses could be as high as 44% of gross revenue. Certainly the loss of access for valuable Aleutian Islands cod will have longterm, unrecoverable damages to the freezer longline fleet. 

This Committee has asked: Does the Science Support the Decisions? No, Mr. 

Chairman, it does not. My testimony and documents we have submitted for the 

record show how NMFS has used incomplete and misleading science to impose 

sweeping and unnecessary restrictions on the Freezer longline fleet. 

Mr. Chairman, NMFS’s biological opinion supporting the interim final rule was 

not reviewed by any independent science panels or independent individual experts 

before the rule’s implementation, despite NMFS’s public statements that it would 

undergo such a review. In fact, the only peer reviewed analysis of the science supporting NMFS’s decision was recently conducted by a panel of well-established scientists commissioned by the states of Washington and Alaska. This review panel 

found, and we concur, ‘‘That the determination of jeopardy by NMFS is not supported by the best available science.’’ 

It is unbelievable to us that the scientific underpinnings of the BiOp and RPA’s 

were never peer reviewed, even though thousands of pages of testimony were received by the agency much of it questioning and directly criticizing the science. This 

is about bad science, costing jobs and driving well-managed sustainable fisheries out 

of business. The freezer longline fleet has been forced into litigation because the 

agency has made an irresponsible decision that if allowed to stand, will set a new 

legal precedent in a very fundamental respect. We have also challenged the rule because we cannot idly sit by while the agency proposes to unreasonably and unlawfully regulate sustainable American fisheries based upon bad science to support the 

political agenda of a select few. 

As to the content of the biological opinion, the single basis for NMFS’s ‘‘jeopardy 

and adverse modification’’ determination is the agency’s hypothesis that fisheries 

compete with Steller sea lions for food, otherwise known as the ‘‘nutritional stress 

theory.’’ However, the agency’s stated position in the biological opinion is that it 

‘‘does not know’’ whether nutritional stress is even occurring in the sea lion population. And, even if the evidence showed that nutritional stress is occurring, NMFS 

states in the biological opinion that it does not know whether the fisheries are the 

cause of any such stress. As acknowledged by the agency the biological opinion’s 

findings and supporting information are at best ‘‘equivocal’’. Good science and the 

legal requirements of the ESA do not permit the imposition of highly burdensome 

regulations based on this type of speculation. 

NMFS’s statement that it does not have sufficient evidence to determine whether 

fisheries affect Steller sea lions is contradicted by current studies that were ignored 

by the agency. As an example, a study mandated and specifically funded by Congress, (Calkins 2008), found that there is no correlation between the freezer-longline 

cod fishery and Steller sea lion population dynamics. Unfortunately this study receives essentially no attention in the agency’s biological opinion and this is just one 

case. Throughout the BiOp the agency ignored good science for no other reason than 

the science did not support the agency’s preconceived conclusion. 

Additionally, the agency’s conclusion that the entire Steller sea lion Western Distinct Population Segment (WDPS) is ‘‘jeopardized’’ is not consistent with the fact 

that the WDPS as a whole is experiencing a robust increase in abundance. In fact, 

again according to NMFS, the pup count in the WDPS has increased14% (from 

2001–02 to 2009) and the non-pup trend site count has increased 12% (from 2000– 

2008). The NMFS population estimate of the WDPS as of 2009 is greater than 

75,000 with 50,040 in the U.S. portion. Other estimates used in the past such as 

(Trites and Larkin 1996) suggest a population of 56,712 for the U.S. portion in 2009. 

For reference, the ESA downlisting criteria for the U.S. portion is 53,100 by 2015. 

We do not understand how a DPS that is increasing in abundance, and is indisputably in better condition than it was a decade ago, can also be said to be ‘‘jeopardized’’ by a single action that has been occurring over the course of the same decade. 

Indeed, there is no legal or scientific support for such a conclusion. The agency’s decision is not consistent with the evidence and its conclusions are illogical, arbitrary, 

and unreasoned. 

Mr. Chairman, given the best scientific information available, there is little factual basis to support the restrictions on the fisheries in the Aleutian Islands. More 

generally, the scientific record does not support NMFS’s findings of jeopardy and adverse modification, as set forth in the 2010 BiOp. Those findings are flawed because, 

among other things: 

60 

• they are based only on a small subsection of the WDPS and not the WDPS 

as a whole; 

• they are based on the agency’s assessment of whether the DPS is meeting recovery criteria, and not ESA’s Section 7 standards; 

• they are unsupported by any determination that any fisheries cause ‘‘jeopardy 

and adverse modification’’; and 

• they are not consistent with the best available science and were made without 

consideration of scientific data and information that are directly relevant to 

the issues addressed in the BiOp. 

The BIOP failed to present a careful analysis of all relevant factors and information and then failed to arrive at a reasoned conclusion that is supported by factual 

evidence. The BiOp focuses upon a foregone conclusion that is built largely on advocacy rather than science. The authors of BiOp then make selective use of data and 

scientific papers to support their conclusion while at the same time ignoring or dismissing any data that might not support the adopted position. 

In closing I would like to quote Dr. Ian Boyd, a leading marine mammal researcher. ‘‘The document lacks a rigorous approach to the assessment of ‘evidence’ 

and fails to use evidence consistently; information that has much associated uncertainty when first introduced in the analysis gradually drifts to information of high 

certainty as the document develops’’ Dr. Boyd continues ‘‘one should not condone the 

twisting of data to achieve what is, in essence, a political objective.’’ This view was 

echoed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Scientific and Statistical 

Committee, which concluded upon review of the draft biological opinion that 

‘‘. . .the conclusion chapter has retained some tone of advocacy, stating in fact as 

some conclusions that still have a great deal of uncertainty about them.’’ 

Thank you again for the Committee’s time and resources and the opportunity to 

speak on behalf of the FLC. 

The Freezer Longline Coalition submitted for the record the following documents: 

1.) Comments on SSL 2010 Biological Opinion submitted to the Scientific Review Panel, June 2, 2011. These comments also contain public comments to 

date submitted by the FLC to NMFS on the draft and final BIOP. 

2.) Comments on SSL 2010 Biological Opinion submitted by the to the Scientific Review Panel, August 22, 2011 

3.) State of Washington and Alaska Scientific Review Panel, final report 

4.) Legal filings Freezer Longline Coalition v. Lubchenco et al. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Little. 

And next, we will call on Mr. Rudy Tsukada, President of Aleut 

Enterprise, LLC. Mr. Tsukada, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF RUDY TSUKADA, PRESIDENT, 

ALEUT ENTERPRISE, LLC 

Mr. TSUKADA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman 

Young. My name is Rudy Tsukada appearing on behalf of Aleut 

Enterprise, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Aleut Corporation, and we operate a non-8A fuel distribution business of Adak 

Island. 

The Aleut Corporation was created pursuant to Alaska Native 

Claim Settlement Act to represent the native people of the Aleutian 

region by promoting economic development and social welfare, and 

preserving their traditional ways of life. Our shareholders are native Aleuts, their families, and their descendants. 

I am here today because I believe the National Marine Fisheries’ 

groundfish restrictions have severely undermined any possibility of 

economic development on Adak Island, and directly impacts the 

welfare of the Aleut people. 

Adak Island sits on the Western edge of the Aleutian Islands, 

1,300 miles southwest of Anchorage. The island is the 25th largest 

in the United States, and according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is 

currently home to 300 residents. 

61 

Nine thousand years ago, the Aleuts became the first inhabitants 

of Adak Island. They hunted whales, seals, otters, sea lions, and 

island birds, and fished in Adak’s rich waters. There is no better 

or stronger or more caring constituency than my shareholders. 

They are not just sitting there dreaming about sea lions; they actively utilize them, co-inhabit with them. They are part of their culture. 

In 1998, the Aleut Corporation acquired Adak and its facilities 

in a land exchange with the U.S. Navy and the Department of the 

Interior. In return for Adak, the Navy and Interior Department received other lands held by the Aleut Corporation elsewhere on the 

Aleutian Islands. We thought this was a good deal. We wanted to 

make something happen to Adak and to grow it. 

Therefore, the Aleut Corporation invested large monies into companies like mine, Aleut Enterprise, to promote economic development and to try to create businesses in these far flung regions in 

Western Alaska. 

The NMFS fisheries and restrictions on the Aleutian Islands is 

a severe concern to us. Much of my testimony written has already 

been repeated, so I will go ahead and try to emphasize some of the 

other aspects. 

The decline that we saw in the first quarter of this year was 

more than a 50 percent decline in my fuel sales. This was 100 percent related to the restrictions imposed by these regulations—unfounded regulations. What is the impact of that? Congressman 

Young, you understand the importance of heating fuel prices in 

Alaska. In Adak, because of the fisheries, we can sell heating fuel 

for $4.49. Those were the June, 2011 prices per gallon. Because of 

these restrictions and lower volumes, what you will now see is us 

pricing fuel in volumes similar to our neighbors. Our closest neighbor is Atka and St. George. Atka at the time was paying $7.43 per 

gallon for heating oil, St. George, $6.34. This is not just a matter 

of lost opportunity, but it is a matter of ability to heat homes. 

Realizing these impacts of the NMFS’ rules that we believe violates Magnuson-Stevens, NEPA. It goes directly contrary to the Environmental Justice Proclamation by this current Administration. 

We had to something to ensure that this would not happen to our 

shareholders. 

Several hundred years ago, the Russians came in and enslaved 

the Aleut people. That was a tragedy. World War II, both the Japanese and the U.S. Government sent my shareholders to intern 

camps, a forced relocation. This is no different. This is something 

that is completely avoidable, makes absolutely no sense, and is certainly not justified by science. But the impacts are being felt already, and will be felt further on. 

My previous job was with the Quinault Nation’s Enterprise 

Board in Taholah, Washington. While I was not a part of that discussion of the marbled murrelet and the owls, I did see what the 

impacts were. I will not allow that to happen within any of the 

powers that I have while I work for Aleut Enterprise. 

When you look at the graphs, I can show you another graph, a 

graph that shows the number of shareholders in region. It looks 

very much like the Steller sea lion graphs. How can I go back to 

my shareholders and tell them that not only are they second class 

62 

citizens once again, they are now being placed underneath the 

Steller sea lion, animals that they care about, that they need, that 

they interact with? 

And with my time up, I will end my testimony there. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tsukada follows:] 

Statement of Ryuichi Rudy Tsukada, President, Aleut Enterprise, LLC 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Rudy Tsukada, appearing on behalf 

of Aleut Enterprise, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Aleut Corporation that 

operates a fuel distribution business on Adak Island. The Aleut Corporation was 

created pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (‘‘ANCSA’’) to represent the Native people of the Aleutian region of Alaska by promoting their economic and social welfare and preserving their traditional ways of life. Its shareholders are Native Aleuts, their families, and descendants. National Marine Fisheries Service (NFMS) groundfish restrictions have severely undermined the economic development of Adak Island and the welfare of the Aleut people. 

Adak Island sits on the western edge of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, 1300 

miles (a three-hour jet ride) southwest of Anchorage. The island, the 25th-largest 

in the United States, is currently home to over 300 residents, all of whom live in 

the City of Adak. Nine-thousand years ago, the Aleuts became the first inhabitants 

of Adak Island. They hunted whales, seals, otters, sea lions, and islands birds and 

fished Adak’s freshwater streams and surrounding seas. Adak was later settled by 

the Russians and eventually purchased by the United States. In the early 1940s, 

Adak Island became the site of a military base operation by the Army Air Corps 

for offensive action against Japanese military forces occupying the Aleutian Islands 

of Attu and Kiska. By the spring of 1944, an estimated 90,000 military personnel 

lived on Adak Island, preparing for strikes against Axis forces in the Pacific arena. 

After World War II, Adak continued to serve as a naval air station during the Cold 

War, but its population slowly dwindled over the years. The naval station formally 

closed in March 1997, and the EPA began performing cleanup of the site, which had 

been polluted by hazardous substances and explosives. 

In 1998, the Aleut Corporation acquired Adak and its facilities in a land exchange 

agreement with the U.S. Navy and Department of the Interior. In return for Adak, 

the Navy and Interior Department received other lands held by the Aleut Corporation elsewhere in the Aleutian Islands. The Aleut Corporation pursued the exchange 

in part because the island historically had been the location of an early Aleut community and in part because it saw value in the island’s existing facilities. Since the 

Aleut Corporation acquired the land, numerous families have relocated to Adak. The 

Aleut Corporation has taken a very active role in the development of the city of 

Adak, taking action to bring new business to the community. For example, it formed 

Aleut Enterprise, LLC to encourage commerce on the island. Aleut Enterprise owns 

a Seafood processing facility on the island that processes Pacific cod, Atka mackerel, 

halibut, and other Bering Sea groundfish. Another of Aleut Enterprise’s primary 

businesses in Adak is refueling marine vessels, many of which are fishing boats. In 

order to further promote economic development on Adak, in 2004, Congress granted 

the Aleut Corporation the exclusive right to the non-Community Development Quota 

(non-CDQ) directed ollock fishery in the Aleutian Islands Subarea of the Bering SeaAleutian Islands Management Area. The Aleuts have the right to assign their harvest rights to others within the Aleutian Island Subarea. 

NMFS fisheries restrictions in the Aleutian Islands related to concerns regarding 

Stellar sea lion populations threaten to destroy Adak’s economy and the well-being 

of its people. In November of 2010, NMFS published its long-delayed biological opinion, or BiOp, on Stellar sea lions. Based on conclusions made in the BiOp, NMFS 

published an Interim Final Rule on December 13, 2010 that restricted fishing for 

Pacific cod and Atka mackerel in Management Areas 541, 542, and 543 of the western Aleutian Islands. These restrictions included broad fishing prohibitions in areas 

near suspected sea lion rookeries, including many areas directly offshore of the 

Aleutian Islands. 

In the BiOp, NFMS concluded that two of the seven subregions within the western distinct population segment (DPS) of Stellar sea lions were not meeting recovery 

goals and suggested nutritional stress as the cause. The fact is, however, that 

science does not back up this assertion. First, the western distinct population segment of Steller sea lions has increased in abundance over the past decade. According 

to NMFS, pup production across the western distinct population segment has increased 14 percent and non-pup production has increased 12 to 16 percent. Second, 

the available data does not support NFMS’ claim that sea lions aren’t getting 

63 

enough to eat. Of fourteen indicators of nutritional stress, NMFS identified reduced 

natality as the sole indicator to support its theory that chronic nutritional stress has 

caused Steller sea lion declines in the western Aleutian islands. The other thirteen 

indicators suggested that western distinct population sea lions were not nutritionally stressed. Furthermore, NMFS found that available groundfish forage inside 

critical habitat was actually higher in the western Aleutian Islands, where NMFS 

restricted fishing, than elsewhere, such as the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. The 

NMFS conclusion that sea lions are under nutritional stress is contrary to the scientific evidence. 

NMFS even questioned its science. In a November 2010 memorandum to NMFS’ 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS Alaska Region Administrator Jim 

Balsiger identified that: ‘‘The controversy around this action centers on the lack of 

unequivocal evidence that groundfish fisheries impact Steller sea lions. Failure to 

implement fishery restrictions similar to the reasonable and prudent alternative in 

the biological opinion is likely to result in litigation by environmental organizations.’’ Dr. Balsiger admitted that NMFS hastily forced unfounded, ideologicallybased fisheries restrictions down the throats of rural Alaskans. Despite these facts, 

NMFS decided to completely shut down fishing for Pacific cod and Atka mackerel 

in Management Area 543—an area about half the size of Texas—in the Aleutian Islands. NMFS also instated other, somewhat more limited closures, in central Aleutian Islands management areas 541 and 542. 

Realizing that the disastrous impacts of the NFMS rule—which violates the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act (MSA), the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA)—the State of Alaska filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court the 

next day against now-departed Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Director Jane Lubchenco, 

and NMFS Alaska Region. Alaska Governor Sean Parnell said that ‘‘The agency’s 

conclusion that additional fishing restrictions are necessary is not supported by the 

best available scientific information. The drastic measures proposed by NMFS are 

simply not necessary given the overall health of the Stellar sea lion population. This 

decision will have immediate and significant impacts on local communities and fishermen in the area.’’ The Aleut Corporation joined the lawsuit as amicus curiae because NMFS’ restrictions on the fishing industry in the Aleutian Islands have severe negative impacts on the Aleut Corporation, its Native shareholders, and their 

communities, particularly the community of Adak. The NMFS restrictions harm 

Adak’s economy, interfere with Aleuts’ connection to their natural environment, and 

undermine the ability of the Aleut Corporation to pass the intended benefits of its 

pollock allocation along to the Aleut people. 

NMFS’ restrictions will greatly shrink Adak’s economy, which relies heavily on a 

vibrant fishing industry. Fishing vessels regularly visit Adak to purchase fuel, provisions, food, lodging, and other goods and services. The fisheries closures severely 

threaten Adak businesses, many of which are subsidiaries of the Aleut Corporation. 

Numerous fish processing facilities, including Aleut Enterprise subsidiary Aleut 

Fisheries, LLC, are a critical part of the Adak economy, providing jobs to the Aleut 

Community in and near Adak. Commercial fishing vessels that target Atka mackerel and Pacific cod account for the majority of Aleut Enterprise’s total fuel sales. 

Based on my experience as the President of Aleut Enterprise, I believe that marine 

fuel sales in Adak are likely to drop by over 50 percent as a result of NMFS fisheries closures and restrictions. Furthermore, the fishing restrictions will result in 

a sharp decline in tax revenues to support Adak. Local taxes paid by Aleut Corporation companies comprise nearly two-thirds of the City of Adak’s revenue base. The 

loss of business and subsequent loss of tax revenue will severely cripple the City’s 

ability to provide municipal services to an already underserved community. 

In addition to harming Adak’s economy, NFMS fishing restrictions adversely impact Native Aleut culture. The Aleuts have traditionally been very closely tied to 

their environment, including oceans, fisheries, and marine mammals. They have 

traditionally fished in the waters now classified as ‘‘Management Areas 541, 542, 

and 543’’ for thousands of years. Bureaucratic fishing restrictions in these areas 

sever the Native Aleuts’ connection to their natural environment. 

NMFS restrictions on harvesting Pacific cod and Atka mackerel also undermine 

the ability of the Aleut Corporation, its Native shareholders, and the city of Adak 

to realize the economic benefit of its statutorily directed Aleutian Islands Subarea 

pollock allocation. The restrictions make it extremely impractical for vessels to fish 

for pollock in the Aleutian Islands Subarea. It is financially impossible for fishermen 

to fish for pollock in the Aleutians when fishing restrictions have closed access to 

the very locations inhabited by those pollock. 

64 

This spring, realizing that the Aleut Corporation was not going to harvest its 

statutorily directed 2011 pollock allocation in the Aleutian Islands Subarea, NMFS 

reallocated the majority of the allocation to the Bering Sea Subarea. NMFS reallocated it to parties other than the Aleut Corporation, without providing any compensation to the Aleut Corporation for the value of the resource it was unilaterally 

taking away. Because NMFS fishing restrictions make it difficult, if not impossible, 

for the Aleut Corporation or their designees to harvest the Aleut Corporation’s pollock allocation within the Aleutian Islands Subarea, the Aleut Corporation and its 

Native shareholders will continue to be unable to reap the benefits of its pollock allocation. In the future, when NMFS restrictions prevent the Aleut Corporation or 

its designees from harvesting the Aleut Corporation’s pollock allocation, NFMS is 

likely to reallocate the Aleut Corporation’s pollock allocation outside the Aleutian 

Islands Subarea and away from its intended beneficiaries. This will continue to prevent the Aleut Corporation and its Native shareholders to realize the benefits of its 

pollock allocation. 

Hopefully, the unfounded fisheries restrictions in Management Areas 541, 542, 

and 543 of the Aleutian Islands will be reversed. While the lawsuit against the 

Commerce Department, NOAA and NMFS plays out, the Aleut Corporation asks the 

Committee to consider a provision that would allow the voluntary transfer of the 

Aleut Corporation’s pollock allocation outside areas affected by the NFMS fisheries 

restrictions. This option already exists for Community Development Quota (CDQ) 

groups. According to existing law (16 U.S.C. § 1855(i)(C)), CDQs may be reassigned 

or reallocated to another management area or subarea through a voluntary transfer. 

The option to voluntarily transfer its pollock allocation outside the Aleutian Islands 

subarea would allow the Aleut Corporation and its shareholders, many of whom live 

on Adak Island, to realize the benefit from is pollock allocation. This would be a 

small consolation for the Aleut people, whose economy and connection to the environment have been devastated by unnecessary government restrictions. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Tsukada. 

And our last witness on this panel is Mr. Michael LeVine, Pacific 

Senior Counsel with Oceana. You are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LeVINE, 

PACIFIC SENIOR COUNSEL, OCEANA 

Mr. LEVINE. Thank you, Chairman Hastings and Representative 

Young. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. 

Oceana is an international non-profit organization dedicated to 

using science, law, and policy to protect and restore our oceans. 

Our Pacific work is headquartered in Juneau, Alaska, and I 

along with nine colleagues live and work there. 

Mr. Chairman, we all depend on healthy oceans, and in Alaska 

perhaps more than other places, ocean ecosystems are central to 

our economic and cultural well-being. Healthy ocean ecosystems include long-term sustainable fisheries that provide jobs and support 

communities. 

The conversation we are having here today is about how best to 

achieve that shared goal. We are having that conversation in the 

context of the Endangered Species Act because our management 

choices have pushed us up against that backstop. 

The ongoing decline and failure to recover of the Western population of Steller sea lion has forced us to reconsider fisheries’ management decisions under very specific conditions. Our shared goal 

should be to move out of this box, to listen to the story being told 

by the Western population, and to work together to ensure healthy 

ocean ecosystems, including sustainable fisheries and vibrant communities. 

To that end, I hope to leave you today with three main points. 

First, the basic scientific information is clear. The Western popuVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:25 Jan 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\70764.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
65 

lation of Steller sea lion is not meeting recovery goals and continues to decline in some areas. Second, there is a clear legal obligation to take action in light of that information. Third, and most 

importantly, we can and should make policy choices that move us 

toward sustainable management by accounting for the needs of 

Steller sea lions and other Apex predators. 

Much of the scientific information about the Western population 

of Steller sea lions is unequivocal. The population in Alaska has declined by more than 80 percent. That decline began as we shot the 

animals and coincided with the expansion of commercial fishing. It 

also continued until new fishery management measures were put 

in place in 2001. Those new measures appear to be helping to stem 

the decline in most areas, and the population overall appears to be 

holding steady or growing slightly. 

There are, however, still significant declines in some areas, including a 45 percent decline in the Western Aleutians between 

2000 and 2008. In addition, birth rates appear to be down across 

the population, which means that adult females are having fewer 

pups, and the population is aging. 

Steller sea lions live in and depend on an ocean that supports 

some of the largest fisheries in the world. These fisheries target 

important prey for Steller sea lions, and we have reduced that 

prey, including Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock, by 50 to 70 

percent. We also fished Aleutian Islands pollock, for example, to 

the point that it could no longer support a fishery. 

Much of the ongoing debate has been about how much and 

whether these large fisheries are affecting Steller sea lions. In this 

regard, the law is absolutely clear. Fisheries cannot be authorized 

unless the National Marine Fisheries Service can ensure that they 

are not likely to cause jeopardy to Steller sea lions or adversely 

modify their critical habitat. This standard requires the Agency to 

give the benefit of the doubt to the species and requires that it 

allow for the species to recover. 

It is true that other factors may be affecting sea lions. However, 

the fact that predation by killer whales or natural variability in the 

ocean, for example, might also be contributing to the decline or failure to recover in no way lessens the obligation to reduce impacts 

from fisheries. 

Given the continuing decline in the Western Aleutian Islands 

and the population’s overall failure to recover, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service had no choice but to take action. By reducing 

competition in the areas in which sea lion are still declining most 

rapidly, the Agency did the bare minimum needed. The new measures still allow for extensive commercial fishing while closing areas 

only where the population continues to decline and is at risk of 

being extirpated from portions of its range. These measures are not 

as restrictive as some scientists recommended and low birth rates 

may warrant. 

Ultimately, the fact that this conversation is happening in the 

context of the Endangered Species Act should serve as a wake-up 

call to rethink the way we make decisions about fisheries. The 

most obvious place to start is by determining how to allow for the 

needs of top predators, like Steller sea lions, when fishing levels 

are set. We can do better than single species stock assessment 

66 

models, and should move toward addressing ecosystem needs as 

fishing levels are set. 

The Council has begun this process with the Aleutian Islands 

Fishery Ecosystem Plan, and we should take the steps toward ecosystem base management called for in that document and others. 

We can also find better ways to take fish from the ocean and to 

favor more sustainable gear, such as long lines, pots, and jigs. 

Finally, rather than looking to find causes other than fishing for 

Steller sea lions’ continued decline and failure to recover, we 

should dedicate funding to better understanding ocean ecosystems 

and the impacts of fisheries on them. 

In the end, we all support healthy ocean ecosystems, including 

sustainable fisheries and vibrant communities. As we toward that 

goal, we should make choices based on clear scientific information, 

our basic obligations, and a policy that moves us toward sustainable management. 

Thank you again, and I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. LeVine follows:] 

Statement of Michael LeVine, Pacific Senior Counsel, Oceana 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

invitation to participate in today’s hearing. My name is Michael LeVine, and I am 

Pacific Senior Counsel for Oceana. Oceana is an international marine conservation 

organization dedicated to using science, law, and policy to protect the world’s 

oceans. Our headquarters are in Washington, DC, and we have offices in five states 

as well as Belgium, Belize, Spain, Denmark, and Chile. Oceana has more than 

500,000 members and supporters from all 50 states and from 150 countries around 

the globe. Our Pacific work is headquartered in Juneau, Alaska, and, together, our 

Pacific staff has more than 180 years of experience working and living in Alaska. 

Oceana works toward healthy ocean ecosystems, sustainable fisheries, and vibrant 

communities. We have been active in issues surrounding the endangered Western 

Population of Steller sea lions since our inception because the health of that population and the management of the prey species on which it depends are an appropriate lens through which to evaluate progress toward those goals. Despite the contentious history and current controversy surrounding this issue, the facts are clear: 

the western stock of Steller sea lions has declined by more than 80% since the 

1960s. Though management changes implemented in 2001 appear to have some beneficial effect, the population as a whole is not meeting established recovery criteria 

and, irrespective of its overall status, continues to decline sharply in the western 

Aleutian Islands. 

While there may be other factors contributing to the ongoing decline and failure 

to recover, competition with fisheries for food is the only one we have the ability— 

and obligation—to mitigate directly. The best way to achieve this goal, while allowing for sustainable fisheries and supporting communities, is to move toward ecosystem-based management for our oceans. The North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have made important 

strides in this direction, including preparing the Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan (AIFEP) and protecting important seafloor habitat from bottom trawling. The population of Steller sea lions, however, is telling us clearly that more can 

and should be done. 

Ultimately, this conversation is about our oceans and the way we are managing 

large industrial fisheries. Accordingly, I will begin this testimony by discussing the 

importance and health of the North Pacific ocean ecosystems, with a particular focus 

on the Aleutian Islands, the Western Population of Steller sea lions, and the impacts of large-scale industrial fisheries. I will then outline the extensive process undertaken by NMFS, including the role played by the Council, and the justification 

and clear need for the management changes implemented by NMFS pursuant to the 

recent Biological Opinion (BiOp). Finally, I will discuss additional steps toward ecosystem-based management that should be implemented. 

67 

I. The North Pacific Can Support and Maintain Healthy Ocean Ecosystems, 

Sustainable Fisheries, and Vibrant Communities. 

A. Oceans are Central to Our Well-Being, and the Aleutian Islands Ecosystem, in 

Particular, is Unique and Important. 

Covering more than 70% of the world’s surface, oceans and seas are our largest 

public domain, and good stewardship of our ocean resources is vital to our lives and 

livelihoods. As the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy stated, ‘‘the importance of our 

oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes cannot be overstated; they are critical to the very 

existence and wellbeing of the nation and its people.’’ An Ocean Blueprint for the 

21st Century 1 (Sept. 20, 2004); see also Exec. Order No. 13547 (2010) (‘‘America’s 

stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes is intrinsically linked to 

environmental sustainability, human health and well-being, national prosperity, adaptation to climate and other environmental changes, social justice, international diplomacy, and national and homeland security.’’). Thus, we must be careful not to 

risk the long-term viability of our ocean resources by prioritizing short-term economic gains or making poorly informed decisions that could foreclose future opportunities to manage sustainably. 

Nowhere are these statements and the management considerations they engender 

more important than Alaska and, in particular, the vast, productive expanses of the 

North Pacific Ocean. The North Pacific, including the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, 

and the Gulf of Alaska, contains some of the most productive waters on Earth and 

supports rich and diverse marine life. 

The Aleutian Islands ecosystem is one of the most vibrant, dynamic, productive 

and rare ocean environments in the world. At more than 1,000 miles, the Aleutian 

Islands form the longest archipelago in the world. These islands are stretched along 

a narrow shelf, and the bathymetry changes dramatically, from greater than 7,000 

meters deep in the depths of the Aleutian Trench to the nearshore shallows, in a 

distance of less than 150 km. This unique geological setting creates rich habitat that 

draws millions of seabirds and hundreds of thousands of marine mammals each 

year. 

The Aleutian Islands support more than 450 species of fish and shellfish, 260 species of migratory birds, and 25 species of marine mammals. Whales—humpback, 

blue, minke, bowhead, and orca—as well as sea lions, seals, and other marine mammals frequent these waters. More than 38 million seabirds—including a wide variety of geese, gulls, petrels, puffins, murres, auklets, and terns—flock to the islands 

to nest. The ocean waters support salmon, halibut, rockfish, cod, and crab, among 

other fish and shellfish. 

The Aleutian Islands also harbor incredible aggregations of cold water corals. The 

density and diversity of these Alaskan corals rival tropical coral reefs, and there are 

deep-sea coral gardens that are unique to the Aleutian Islands. This living seafloor 

forms habitat that provides nurseries, places to feed, shelter from currents and 

predators, and spawning areas for many marine species. 

This bounty in the Aleutian Islands has been overexploited. After the overhunting 

of sea otters and commercial whaling, early commercial fisheries in the Aleutians 

were characterized by a boom-and-bust cycle. See North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan 9, 16–19 (December 2007) 

(hereinafter ‘‘AIFEP’’). Currently, between 220 and 440 million pounds of groundfish, primarily Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and Pacific ocean perch, are removed annually from the Aleutian Islands region. Much of this biomass is removed from important feeding habitat for marine mammals, including Steller sea lions. 

B. The Decline and Continued Failure to Recover of the Western Population of Steller 

Sea Lions Tell an Important Story About the Health of North Pacific Ecosystems. 

Despite its incredible productivity, not all is well in the North Pacific. The past 

several decades have witnessed significant declines in some marine mammal, bird, 

and fish populations. The continued decline and failure to recover of the Western 

Population of Steller sea lions, in particular, are telling an important story about 

the conditions under which large-scale industrial fisheries are authorized. 

The Steller sea lion’s range extends around the North Pacific Ocean rim from 

northern Japan through the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea, and south to California. Based on DNA analysis and other factors, the U.S. population is divided into 

a Western Population, consisting of animals in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands, and an Eastern Population, which is primarily in Southeast 

Alaska and along the west coast of North America. Despite their expansive range, 

the Steller sea lions breed at only a handful of discrete locations. The Western Population now occupies only 48 breeding sites (or ‘‘rookeries’’), 38 of which are in AlasVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:25 Jan 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\70764.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
68 

ka. See National Marine Fisheries Service, Endangered Species Act—Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion on the Authorization of Groundfish Fisheries under the 

Fishery Management Plans for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management 

Area and the Gulf of Alaska 80, 85–86(Nov. 24, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘2010 BiOp’’). As 

the Western Population has declined, the centers of production for the population 

have contracted and condensed. Now, twelve of the rookeries produce more than 

60% of the population’s pups. 

The worldwide abundance of Steller sea lions was estimated to be approximately 

240,000 to 300,000 animals from the 1950s through the late 1970s; the vast majority of which were part of what is now recognized as the Western Population. That 

population declined precipitously, and it reached a low point in 2000, when it was 

estimated at 42,500 individuals—a decline of more than 80%. Id. at 80, 332. Much 

of this significant decline likely was caused by a combination of commercial and subsistence harvests and intentional shooting of the animals. Id. at 343. Though this 

direct mortality was largely ended in the early 1980s, the Western Population continued to decline. 

Prior to 2000, NMFS had implemented only very limited protections for the Western Population. To address the continuing decline and its obligations under the Endangered Species Act, NMFS put in place new management measures in 2001. 

These new measures appear to have beneficial effects, and, overall the Western Population grew by approximately 3% annually from 2000 to 2004. According to NMFS, 

this brief period from 2000 to 2004 is the ‘‘the only increasing period observed since 

trend information began to be collected in the 1970s.’’ Id. at 287. 

Unfortunately, this growth appears to have been temporary. From 2004–2008, the 

population was stable or slightly declining. Thus, as a whole, it is estimated that 

the Western Population grew by approximately 1.4 percent annually from 2000– 

2008. This growth, however, is not statistically significant, which means that we 

cannot tell whether it is actually increasing, decreasing, or staying steady. Thus, the 

population can be most appropriately described, overall, as stable. 

Moreover, the population continues to experience significant declines in some 

areas. The most severe decline was observed in the western Aleutian Islands, where 

the already greatly diminished adult population declined an additional 45% from 

2000 to 2008. In the central Aleutian Islands during the same period, the adult population declined by 11%. Id. at 333. 

In addition to the declines observed in the western and central Aleutian Islands, 

the population of Steller sea lions is showing another sign of stress—decreased natality. Data collected in the last decade indicate that adult females are having many 

fewer pups than they did historically. The current birth rate estimated to be about 

30% lower than it was before the population began to decline in the 1970s. Id. at 

xxviii. Although natality is low in the western and central Aleutian Islands—the 

areas in which population declines are ongoing—it appears to be down across the 

rest of the population as well. A female pup born ten years ago would be of prime 

breeding age, and she should have produced 3 or 4 pups by now. The decrease in 

natality, however, means that it is likely she has produced only 2 or fewer pups. 

It is very likely that the small increase in the Western Population was due to increased survivorship. Pups are more likely to survive into adulthood than they were 

before the protection measures were put in place. Without a concurrent increase in 

natality, however, the growth of the population cannot be sustained. If pup production is not greater than mortality, the population will not grow. Further, the population will age as higher survival of adults and juveniles outpaces the lower birthrates. A population with this structure is less resilient to disturbance and cannot 

quickly recover from population fluctuations. Thus, the risk of extinction for the 

Western Population increases as it ages and birth rates stay low. 

Significantly, in contrast to the Western Population, the once relatively small 

Eastern Population of Steller sea lions has doubled since the 1970s. The population 

has grown so substantially that NMFS currently is considering petitions to remove 

the population from the list of species protected by the Endangered Species Act. The 

Eastern and Western populations share similar characteristics and depend on some 

of the same prey species—including pollock and Pacific cod. The most apparent difference between these two distinct populations is that no high volume groundfish 

trawling occurs in Southeast Alaska. 

C. Industrial Fishing in the North Pacific Has Significant Impacts on the Ocean 

Ecosystem. 

In addition to ecological riches, the North Pacific also supports some of the largest 

fisheries in the world. Though these fisheries began in the 1920s, they started to 

take their current form in the 1950s. Currently, the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands 

and Gulf of Alaska support fisheries that remove more than four billion pounds of 

69 

groundfish each year. This exploitation has expanded 7,500 percent since 1950. See 

Greenpeace v. NMFS, 106 F. Supp. 2d 1066, 1070 (W.D. Wash. 2000). Of this catch, 

between 220 and 440 million pounds of fish are removed annually from the Aleutian 

Islands region. 

The vast majority of the fish caught are groundfish, among them Atka mackerel, 

Pacific cod, and walleye pollock. These same species are important prey for top predators, including Steller sea lions. Approximately 90% of these groundfish are caught 

by large trawl vessels, most of which are owned by individuals and companies from 

outside Alaska. These trawl vessels can remove huge quantities of fish in a short 

time. One pass of a trawl can net 40 to 100 tons of fish. 

Such intense fishing reduces fish populations significantly. Projections for 2011 

show that important prey stocks have been reduced by between 50–70% from their 

historic, non-fished levels. Aleutian Island Atka mackerel is expected to be at 56% 

of historic biomass; Aleutian Island pollock at 30%; Gulf of Alaska pollock at 29%; 

Bering Sea pollock at 48%; Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Pacific cod at 37%; and Gulf 

of Alaska Pacific cod at 48%. See NMFS, North Pacific Groundfish Stock Assessment 

and Fishery Evaluation Reports for 2011, available at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/ 

REFM/stocks/assessments.htm. These projections will be updated with information 

from this year’s stock assessments in December. 

Moreover, there have been significant local depletion of important prey species. 

These depletions began when sea otters were hunted to near extinction by fur traders, continued with several decades of unsustainable commercial whaling, and led, 

in the 1960s, to the rise of the first industrial fishery for Pacific Ocean perch, which 

were overharvested within 15 years. See AIEP at 9, 16–19. Around the same time, 

red king crabs were overexploited and have not yet recovered. In the late 1980s 

through the mid-1990s, the stock of pollock in the Aleutians was quickly depleted. 

See Barbeaux, S. et al., ‘‘Assessment of the Pollock stock in the Aleutian Islands’’ 

213 (Nov. 2009). Similarly, the stock of Atka mackerel in the Gulf of Alaska was 

overharvested in the late 1970s. See Lowe, S. et al., ‘‘Assessment of Gulf of Alaska 

Atka Mackerel’’ 1166, Tbl 16.1 (Dec. 2009). 

These fisheries are huge economic engines, and the companies that run them are 

very powerful. Indeed, the value of the pollock fishery alone is over $1 billion dollars 

annually. Certainly, these fisheries provide economic benefit in Alaska, and Oceana 

supports commercial fisheries that are managed sustainably. Neither the economic 

benefit, nor the will of the companies receiving it, however, is a sufficient justification for allowing unsustainable fishing practices. 

II. NMFS Has Undertaken a Detailed and Extensive Process, and its 

Actions are Clearly Justified. 

A. Fisheries are Managed By the Secretary of Commerce to Achieve the Greatest 

Benefit to the Nation. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (‘‘MSA’’), 16 

U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., is the overarching statute governing fisheries management in 

United States waters. The first stated purpose of the statute is ‘‘to conserve and 

manage [] fishery resources,’’ and it makes the Secretary of Commerce responsible 

for fulfilling that obligation. The Secretary implements Fishery Management Plans 

that provide the measures necessary for the conservation and management of fisheries. These conservation and management measures are ‘‘all of the rules, regulations, conditions, methods, and other measures’’ 

(A) which are required to rebuild, restore, or maintain, and which are useful 

in rebuilding, restoring, or maintaining, any fishery resource and the marine environment; and 

(B) which are designed to assure that— 

(i) a supply of food and other products may be taken, and that recreational benefits may be obtained, on a continuing basis; 

(ii) irreversible or long-term adverse effects on fishery resources and the 

marine environment are avoided; and 

(iii) there will be a multiplicity of options available with respect to future 

uses of these resources. 

Id. § 1802(5). These measures define the fishery in terms of amount of fish caught, 

the time of year when fishery may occur, the gear types authorized, and other strictures. They are intended to provide the ‘‘optimum yield’’ from a fishery, which is 

defined as ‘‘the amount of fish which. . .will provide the greatest overall benefit to 

the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems.’’ Id. § 1802(33). 

Thus, protection of the fish stocks and marine environment is a central consideration in making decisions to authorize commercial fishing. 

70 

In determining how best to meet these obligations and others under the statute, 

the Secretary of Commerce is advised by eight regional councils comprised of certain 

state and federal government representatives and other stakeholders that are nominated by the governors of affected states and are generally representatives of the 

commercial fishing industry. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is the 

regional body that advises the Secretary about conservation and management of 

fisheries in Alaska. 

The MSA, however, is not the only statute that affects fisheries. In making final 

decisions about fisheries management, the Secretary of Commerce must also ensure 

compliance with other substantive statutes—including the Endangered Species Act 

(‘‘ESA’’), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. The ESA is designed ‘‘to provide a means whereby 

the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may 

be conserved,’’ and ‘‘to provide a program for the conservation of such. . .species.’’ 

Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978) (quoting 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1531(b)). The statute reflects ‘‘a conscious decision by Congress to give endangered 

species priority over the ‘primary missions’ of federal agencies.’’ Id. at 184. 

To effectuate this purpose, the ESA places on all federal agencies the substantive 

obligation to ‘‘insure that any action. . .is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species. . .or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat for such species.’’ 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(1). Agencies must engage 

in a consultation process with the appropriate expert wildlife agency on the impacts 

of any federal action to listed species. As it evaluates the BSAI and GOA groundfish 

fisheries, NMFS is both ‘‘action’’ and ‘‘expert’’ agency: ‘‘NMFS’s Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries is the ‘Action’ Agency’’ because it is responsible for authorizing the fisheries, ‘‘and NMFS’s Office of Protected Resources is the ‘Expert’ Agency’’ because it 

provides the opinion about whether those fisheries comply with the ESA. See 

Greenpeace v. National Marine Fisheries Serv., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1185 n.2 (W.D. 

Wash 2002). These consultation processes are completed in NMFS’s regional offices 

and are signed by the Regional Administrator, who oversees the regional divisions 

of both Protected Resources and Sustainable Fisheries. The agency, therefore, must 

pay particular attention to its procedural obligations and must take all necessary 

precautions to protect the scientific process within the Office of Protected Resources, 

as expert agency, as it prepares a BiOp. 

NMFS’s obligation to prevent jeopardy and adverse modification includes not just 

ensuring survival of the species but also allowing for recovery—an action can cause 

jeopardy or adverse modification when it does not allow for the recovery of the listed 

species. See Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 

1059, 1069–70 (9th Cir. 2004). Recovery means an ‘‘improvement in the status of 

listed species to the point at which’’ the protections of the statute are no longer necessary. 

Thus, in determining whether to authorize fisheries and under what conditions, 

the Secretary of Commerce and NMFS, as advised by the Councils, must strive to 

‘‘provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation’’ while ‘‘taking into account the 

protection of marine ecosystems’’ and ensuring that the actions do not cause jeopardy to species protected under the ESA or adversely modify critical habitat. 

B. NMFS Has Undertaken a Detailed and Extensive Process To Ensure That the 

Groundfish Fisheries Comply With the MSA and ESA. 

Difficulty in balancing the complementary legal obligations for management of the 

groundfish fisheries in Alaska and controversy about competition with Steller sea 

lions are not new phenomena. In fact, this hearing is another chapter in a conversation that goes back two decades. The population declines explained above led the 

Western Population to be listed under the ESA as a threatened species in 1990. 

Critical habitat was designated for the species in 1993, and in 1997, it was reclassified as endangered. At that time, NMFS had concluded that the groundfish fisheries 

were not likely to cause jeopardy to Steller sea lions or adversely modify their critical habitat. The rationale for that conclusion was the subject of lengthy and often 

contentious litigation beginning in 1998. See Greenpeace, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1184. 

In the course of that litigation, the court repeatedly rejected the agency’s rationale 

and even enjoined all trawl fishing in designated critical habitat from July through 

August 2000. 

NMFS issued a revised BiOp in 2000 which concludes that the groundfish fisheries, as managed under the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska FMPs 

are likely to jeopardize endangered Steller sea lions and adversely modify their designated critical habitat by competing with Steller sea lions for prey. It, therefore, 

proposed a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA), which was subsequently 

amended. That Amended RPA includes measures designed to reduce competition 

with Steller sea lions and was the subject of a 2001 BiOp. The 2001 BiOp was supVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:25 Jan 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\70764.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
71 

plemented in 2003 with additional analysis of the RPA. The 2003 Supplement was 

not subject to court challenge and, therefore, concluded that consultation process. 

Those analyses all reached the same conclusion—the groundfish fisheries compete 

with Steller sea lions for prey and that competition may cause jeopardy to the species and adversely modify its critical habitat. Accordingly, management measures 

are needed to address that competition and ensure the viability and recovery of the 

population. 

Further, NMFS worked to revise the recovery plan for the species and, in 2008, 

issued a revised Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion. See http:// 

www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/stellers/recovery/sslrpfinalrev030408.pdf 

(hereinafter ‘‘Recovery Plan’’). That plan establishes very clear demographic criteria 

for recovery of the Western Population of Steller sea lions. To be considered for 

delisting, the population must have ‘‘increased (statistically significant) for 30 years 

(at an average annual growth rate of 3%), based on counts of non-pups (i.e., juveniles and adults).’’ Id. at V–21. In addition, the population also must be stable or 

increasing ‘‘in at least 5 of the 7 sub-regions. The population trend in any two adjacent sub-regions can not be declining significantly[,] and the population trend in any 

sub-region can not have declined by more than 50%.’’ Id. At this time, those criteria 

represent the best available scientific understanding about the changes in the population that are necessary to ensure recovery. 

This plan was subject to extensive review. A draft was reviewed by the public and 

peer reviewers in 2006, and it was subsequently revised and updated. The Draft Revised Recovery Plan was again reviewed by the public in 2007, underwent an independent scientific review by the Center for Independent Experts and a North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council Review (contracted to the North Pacific Research 

Board), and was then revised and updated again. 

Throughout this time, significant time and money was dedicated to research about 

Steller sea lions and the causes of the continued decline and failure to recover. All 

told, more than $100 million was spent on research into these questions. Much of 

this research, however, has been designed to look for causes other than commercial 

fishing for the ongoing decline and failure to recover. Relatively little funding was 

directed toward a better understanding of the effects on predators of removing large 

volumes of prey. 

In 2006, perhaps in response to encouraging signs in the population trend, the 

Council encouraged the NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries to request a re-initiation of ESA consultation. The Office of Sustainable Fisheries did so, and the NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources agreed to start a new consultation process to revisit 

the conclusions in the 2000 BiOp, as amended in 2001 and 2003, about the effects 

of the groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions. In 2008, the NMFS Office of Protected Resources agreed to delay the BiOp in order to allow for consideration new 

survey data. 

In August 2010, NMFS released a draft BiOp. That draft concluded that the management measures put in place in 2001 were not sufficient to prevent jeopardy to 

Steller sea lions or to prevent adverse modification of their critical habitat. It, therefore, included an RPA further restricting fishing in the far western Aleutian Islands, 

where the significant population declines continued. 

The release of a draft was unusual, as the ESA does not contemplate public comment on draft BiOps. Nonetheless, public comment was accepted on that by the 

agency until September 3, 2010. In addition, the Council held a special meeting in 

August 2010 to discuss that draft. NMFS also made a presentation regarding the 

BiOp process at the Council’s normal October meeting, and the agency stated that 

it would consider the Council’s input from that meeting. 

The agency’s actions should not have come as a surprise. As explained above, 

there was clear population information showing the continued decline and failure 

to recover; these data were publicly available and were presented to the Council. 

Throughout this process, the Council could have recommended changes to the 

groundfish fisheries management in an effort to address the problems with the population. See 18 U.S.C. § 1853(c) (stating that a council may submit proposed regulations it ‘‘deems necessary or appropriate’’). It, however, did not do so. 

NMFS completed the consultation process in December 2010 with issuance of the 

final BiOp and interim final rule. See 75 Fed. Reg. 77535 (Dec. 13, 2010). The rule 

implements the proposed RPA with minor changes; it puts in place badly needed 

protections for the portion of the Western Population in the far western Aleutian 

Islands that is still declining significantly. NMFS accepted public comment on the 

interim final rule, and it will eventually be supplanted by a final rule. 

Currently, NMFS is beginning a review of the BiOp by the Center for Independent Experts (CIE). That review is part of the agency’s normal process for scientific documents like this one. The CIE is equipped to undertake a true scientific 

72 

peer review, using reviewers who have the requisite scientific expertise and who are 

independent of the various stakeholders in the process. By contrast, the review 

panel organized by the States of Washington and Alaska cannot be considered an 

independent scientific review. Indeed, the State of Alaska has a clearly established 

position with regards to the current status and trend of the Steller sea lion and has 

made that position clear in its legal challenge to the BiOp and interim final rule. 

See Alaska v. Lubchenco, No. 3:10-cv-00271–TMB (D. Alaska, filed Dec. 14, 2010) 

Oceana supports decisions based on sound science and encourages agencies to 

gather and review basic information at all stages of the decision-making process. We 

also support established processes, have participated in those processes to the extent we are permitted or able, and will continue to do so. 

C. The Conclusions in the BiOp are Justified and the Management Changes Clearly 

Are Necessary. 

As explained above, the Western Population of Steller sea lions is not recovering 

and, in fact, continues to decline significantly in the far western Aleutian Islands. 

The population is not growing at a statistically significant rate, and, whether stable 

or slightly increasing, is not close to the 3% annual growth needed to meet the 

delisting criteria established in the Recovery Plan. Moreover, since 2000, the population has declined by more than 45% in the far western Aleutian Islands. Based 

on this information, NMFS concluded appropriately that the management changes 

implemented in 2001 were not sufficient to prevent jeopardy to Steller sea lions or 

to prevent adverse modification of their critical habitat. As the law requires, NMFS 

addressed that problem by increasing protections in the western Aleutian Islands. 

The agency’s conclusion and subsequent action clearly are justified, and challenges 

to the cause of the decline or necessity of the management changes implemented 

are not credible. 

As it has in every analysis since 2000, NMFS based the 2010 BiOp and interim 

final rule on its well-documented rationale that commercial fisheries adversely affect sea lions by competing with them for food. See 2010 BiOp at 197–202. The 

large-scale industrial fisheries described above remove incredible quantities of fish 

that otherwise would be available to Steller sea lions as prey. Much of this fishing 

effort occurs in important areas for Steller sea lions, and a significant amount of 

prey is removed from their designated critical habitat. It is difficult to imagine that 

reducing the availability of prey by 60 or 70 percent would not affect the population’s ability to grow. 

Moreover, there is evidence that such interactions are occurring. For example, sea 

lion populations have fared better in some regions than others, and the areas of improvement coincide with areas where conservation measures have been implemented. Conversely, the areas of sharpest Steller sea lion declines coincide with 

areas where sea lion protection measures are the fewest and fishing intensity within 

critical habitat is the greatest. See 2010 BiOp at 389, 392. The most likely mechanism for this correlation is nutritional stress resulting from the competition and 

leading to low birth rates, or ‘‘natality.’’ As explained above, natality is down across 

the population. Further, pup counts in the central Gulf of Alaska have not increased 

significantly since 1998. Id. at Tbl 3.2. Rookery counts in the central Gulf are possibly stable or declining, and pup counts are declining rapidly in several major rookeries. Id. at Fig. 3.10. These declines correspond with substantial fisheries in critical 

habitat for important prey species. 

It may very well be true that other factors, such as changing ocean conditions, 

contribute to the ongoing decline and failure to recover. The existence of those factors, whether or not they are contributing to the decline or failure to recover, does 

not in any way affect our obligation to manage the one—commercial fishing—that 

we can control. The law requires it; in the face of scientific uncertainty, the ESA 

requires federal agencies ‘‘to provide the benefit of the doubt to the species concerned with respect to such gaps in the information base.’’ NMFS and US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, ‘‘Consultation Handbook’’ 1–7 (March 1998) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. 

No. 697, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess. 12 (1979)). Scientific information supports it; other 

stresses on the population may result in cumulative impacts that make it even more 

important to ensure sufficient prey for sea lions. And, such action is good policy; 

protection for top predators is one important step toward better management and 

a healthy ecosystem. 

Once NMFS found that the groundfish fisheries, as currently managed did not 

adequately protect the Western Population of Steller sea lions, the agency was required to take action to address that failing. In light of the clear, continuing, and 

significant decline of the Steller sea lion population in the western Aleutian Islands 

and the evidence that nutritional stress may be contributing to it, the additional closures in the far western Aleutian Islands clearly are warranted. 

73 

The new measures are not draconian. They are targeted only to that portion of 

the Steller lions’ range in which the most significant declines are occurring and still 

allow for extensive commercial fishing. There are new closures only in the westernmost portion of the Aleutian Islands, and the total allowable catch is reduced only 

for the Atka mackerel fishery. Even that reduction will not close the fishery; the 

allowable Atka mackerel catch will be reduced in 2011 by only 23% from 2010 levels. Moreover, the Pacific cod quota will not be reduced, and the pollock fishery is 

not affected by the new measures at all. Further, an earlier version of the BiOp required significant reductions in pollock catch around Kodiak to address low natality 

there. Ultimately, those protections were not implemented. 

Contrary to the assertions that the management changes are unnecessary, it is 

clear that more should be done to address the ongoing failure to recover of the Western Population and to move toward ecosystem-based management. 

III. Additional Protections are Likely Warranted, and Additional Steps are 

Needed to Move Toward Ecosystem-Based Management. 

While the management changes in the far western Aleutian Islands clearly are 

necessary, they are likely not sufficient. For example, and as explained above, we 

have not addressed low natality in all regions. There are several steps that could 

be taken to further move toward ecosystem-based management. 

The most obvious place to start is by determining how to allow for the needs of 

top predators, like Steller sea lions, when fishing levels are set. Currently, the 

stock-assessment models on which catch levels are based simply assume a level of 

mortality for the fish species (for Atka mackerel, for example, it is 30%) and then 

assume that all consumers—other than the fisheries—can survive on that percent 

of the population. As evidenced by the ongoing decline of the Steller sea lion population, these assumptions are not sufficient. 

Thus, we should implement the suggestion in the AIFEP to address predator-prey 

interactions and work toward an integrated management approach in which ecosystem considerations and the needs of predators, such as Steller sea lions are considered as fishing levels are set. An earlier version of the BiOp sought to implement 

such a process as part of the new management regime. See Endangered Species 

Act—Section 7 Consultation Draft Biological Opinion Final PRD Version 375 (May 

3, 2010) (requiring, as part of the RPA, a revision to ‘‘the Harvest Management 

Strategy (e.g., optimum yield, harvest control rules, tier system) for exploited 

groundfish forage species (pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod) that explicitly incorporates the needs of non-exploited apex predators (e.g., marine birds, marine 

mammals), and in particular, the needs of ESA listed species to meet their recovery 

goals’’). In addition to more effective management under the MSA, such a process 

would help meet the ESA’s policy of protecting ecosystems and would be an important step toward implementing the AIFEP. 

Further, we must move toward viable sustainable fisheries, that could include 

fixed gear fisheries such as longline, pots, and jigs, that can support local communities. Where tradeoffs are possible, NMFS should favor these more sustainable alternatives. The agency cannot simply weaken necessary protections to allow additional fishing for Steller sea lion prey, but it can consider strengthening other protections to allow these fisheries to continue and to continue to develop in a sustainable manner. For example, NMFS could strengthen protections by addressing overall harvest levels, further reducing the biomass taken from the western Aleutian Islands by the cod and Atka mackerel trawl fisheries. 

It is important to note that current allocation of Atka mackerel catches in the 

Aleutians do not allow for any of that catch to be delivered and processed in Alaskan communities. Almost no Atka mackerel quota is caught by Alaskan residents. 

Through Amendment 80 to the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Management 

Plan, almost all of the Atka mackerel quota has been allocated to a handful of factory trawl vessels which catch and process Atka mackerel offshore. The Atka mackerel quota does not provide processing opportunities for the fish processing plant in 

Adak or elsewhere in the Aleutians. 

In addition, the overfishing of Aleutian Islands pollock described above ended a 

substantial portion of the large-scale commercial fishing opportunities in the Aleutian Islands. In addition to sea lions, the fish processing plant in Adak, which was 

built to rely on a congressional allocation of fish from an Aleutian pollock stock that 

can no longer support sustainable fisheries, is another victim of this unsustainable 

management. While it may be unfortunate that the remaining large-scale fisheries 

that target Steller sea lion prey must bear the brunt of recovery efforts, that process 

is not the appropriate mechanism through which to address the Adak processing 

plant. Oceana supports efforts to maintain communities like Adak and to provide 

74 

sustainable Alaskan fisheries. Together, we can find a way to do that without sacrificing our ocean resources. 

Finally, as we move toward ecosystem-based management, all Alaskans should insist on the best available science and process. We cannot let political considerations—at the federal, state, or local level—get in the way of decisions about our 

oceans, and we must let the experts fulfil their obligations under the MSA and ESA. 

IV. Conclusion 

With an extensive coastline and many cultural, recreational, subsistence, and 

commercial benefits inextricably linked to our oceans, all Alaskans should support 

healthy ocean ecosystems, sustainable fisheries, and vibrant communities. The 

Western Population of Steller sea lions provides a lens through which we can evaluate our progress toward those goals. The science is clear—the Western Population 

of Steller sea lions is not recovering and continues to decline in some areas. The 

law is clear—we cannot authorize fisheries that may cause jeopardy to a listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. And, the policy is clear—Steller sea lions 

are telling us that if we want to manage oceans sustainably, we must change the 

way we manage fisheries to account for the prey needs of apex predators. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. LeVine, and thank all of you for 

your testimony. 

Mr. LeVine, this hearing today is on Steller sea lions, and yet— 

I will not say and yet. But I note in your written testimony, you 

say there are between 220 and 440 million pounds of groundfish 

that have been removed annually from the Aleutian Islands region. 

I do not know what you are saying exactly there, but are you 

suggesting that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has 

not been doing an adequate job in managing those fisheries? 

Mr. LEVINE. Thank you, Chairman Hastings. No, that statement 

in written testimony is no way intended to denigrate the work of 

the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Oceana supports 

the work of the Council. We have been involved there. 

To begin with, that statement and the ones referencing the 4 billion pounds of fish that are removed from the North Pacific ecosystem every year is intended to show what the real issue here is. 

We are here talking about fishing, and the decisions we are making 

to authorize large-scale commercial fisheries in the ocean, and 

what impacts those fisheries might have. 

It is unfortunate that we have to have that conversation in the 

context of the Endangered Species Act—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. In what context did you say it in? I mean, I am 

hearing you saying yes, and I am hearing you saying no. I am just 

asking for a clarification. 

Mr. LEVINE. Yeah. We have pushed against the backstop of the 

Endangered Species Act. And with a better understanding of what 

is in the ocean and a movement toward ecosystems—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. I asked you about the other side of the equation, 

and I did hear you talk about the Endangered Species Act. 

Your last statement in your oral testimony was something like 

we need to have clear scientific review or something to that extent. 

I can go back and look exactly. And I assume you believe that. 

Do you believe that a ratio in part of studying 13 pups in a population of 55,000 is adequate? 

Mr. LEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oceana would support 

additional studies and research, both—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, I asked you if you thought that was adequate. 

75 

Mr. LEVINE. I run the risk of running afoul of Representative 

Young by stating that it is the best science, and that is the best 

science that we have. And the Agency is charged—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. So, the best science is 13 out of 55,000. 

Mr. LEVINE. That is the science we have right now. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Or is that the science that was chosen? 

Mr. LEVINE. My understanding is that is the science that we 

have. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I just find that hard to believe because I think the 

testimony that has been referenced—well. Let me go back to Mr. 

Loomis. Maybe you can shed some light because you know that 

your company participated in the research. Can you describe that 

research? Did it touch on this at all? 

Mr. LOOMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We were not part of the research that tagged the sea lions, the juvenile males. But my understanding is that I believe there were 13 males that were tagged, 

and I think three of those males wandered around outside of critical habitat. And juvenile males are the part of the population that 

we are least concerned about. We are concerned about adult females and what is happening to pups. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, let me ask you this then. Do you think a 

ratio of 13 or 10, if three of them—do you think that is adequate 

to base decisions that are made? 

Mr. LOOMIS. Mr. Chairman, I think what is adequate is to take 

the science that you have and see if it passed the red face test. And 

I think if you look at using information from three juvenile males, 

which are known to wander. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Are you suggesting that does not pass the red face 

test? 

Mr. LOOMIS. I am suggesting exactly that. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I thought that was where you were going. I just 

wanted to get a clarification. 

Mr. Tsukada, one last point. You referenced the fuel costs. Do 

you believe that the BiOp adequately took into account all of the 

economic impacts? 

Mr. TSUKADA. I do not. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Would you like to elaborate? 

Mr. TSUKADA. As Professor Knapp mentioned, a lot of the economic analysis, the standard ones, were done fairly well, fairly 

broad scope. But I did not receive a phone call. Nobody at the Aleut 

Corporation received a phone call. Very little was done on the impact. I do not see anywhere where our lost fuel sales, which translates into salaries for the residents, were included. So, no, I believe 

that the economic analysis, as large as it is, is severely understated, and has a higher proportion of direct impacts to the low income folks on the Aleutian Islands. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Looms, you note that 

in 2008, your fleet developed a harvesting cooperative, which 

changed the way you fished in the Bering Sea. Was this change 

analyzed in the Biological Opinion? And if not, do you think it 

would have made a difference in fishing restriction? 

76 

Mr. LOOMIS.—through the Chair, I do not recall specifically. I do 

not believe it was analyzed in the BiOp, and with those changes, 

we carry two observers on all of our vessels that fish in the Aleutians. We have every hull sampled by observers. They monitor for 

marine mammal interaction. So, we have cameras that run 24/7 on 

most of our boats while we are processing fish, so we are probably 

the most observed fleet out there. But I do not believe—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Did NOAA use any of that information? You do not 

know. 

Mr. LOOMIS. I do not. 

Mr. YOUNG. We should have asked that question. We will find 

out again. We will ask it in writing. 

NOAA has complained that it is hard to observe the Western 

Aleutian Islands, and I happen to agree. I have been out there. I 

have been all the way out to Kiska and Adak, by the way, Mr. 

Tsukada, and had a great time. Great potential out there. But you 

are being robbed right now by a Federal agency. You are absolutely 

correct. 

If I had any suggestions, probably do not follow them; it will get 

you in trouble. Go catch the fish. Let the darn Navy come out and 

try to take you down, or NMFS, because that is right, what you 

said the history of the Aleuts has been one of a tragedy. And you 

established a situation out there and gave them hope and a chance, 

and they are eliminating that. They do not care. They live in Silver 

Spring or someplace like that, you know. They got their heating oil 

at probably $3 a gallon, I will say that. But they took that away 

from you. 

Let me see what else I have here. Again, I will ask the same 

thing of Mr. Little. Did they use your fleet? Did they ask to use 

your fleet, both of you, Mr. Loomis, that they can do any research 

at all? 

I have not found out what research they have done. They never 

answered that question. I want you to comment on it. 

Mr. LOOMIS. Through the Chair, as far as the research goes, our 

company has been actively working with a number of institutions 

to try and fill in the gaps. We have gone as far as training crew 

to collect samples. We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars 

of our own money through a private foundation to do research to 

try and fill in some of these gaps. And the issue, Dr. Trites alluded 

to one of the issues, funding. I would like to see Oceana and their 

members instead of putting money into lawsuits, I would like to 

see them fund some active research. 

Mr. YOUNG. Hallelujah. Go ahead. 

Mr. LOOMIS. I would also like to see some relief in the permitting 

process. We cannot get permits to work in the Western Aleutians 

to go study the fishery interactions. 

Mr. YOUNG. Now, who gives the permits, NOAA and NMFS? 

Mr. LOOMIS. They come out of the permitting office in Silver 

Spring, I believe. 

Mr. YOUNG. Silver Spring. So, it means if you wanted to go out 

and observe pups and actions of the sea lions, you have to get a 

permit? 

Mr. LOOMIS. That is correct. 

Mr. YOUNG. Do they go out there? 

77 

Mr. LOOMIS. The particular research I am referencing was to be 

conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service. We had funding in place through the North Pacific Research Board. We had a 

match from—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Speed it up. I mean, did they go out there? 

Mr. LOOMIS. They did not because they could not get the permit 

to do it. 

Mr. YOUNG. You mean, from their own operation, or you could 

not get it? 

Mr. LOOMIS. They could not get it. National Marine Fisheries 

Service would not issue themselves a permit to do the work. 

Mr. YOUNG. Oh, boy. Does that sound like our great government? 

I am going to ask that question, too. I mean, the idea they could 

not issue a permit to themselves, yet they will come down and stop 

a fisheries, and they are going to make decisions? 

You guys got to support my new bill, Mr. Chairman. I am going 

to eliminate all regulations from every Agency from ’91 to 2011 

until they can justify it. To me, that makes sense. There is no justification for this. This is driven inside. 

Dr. LeVine, you do believe in science, do you not? 

Mr. LEVINE. Yes, I do. 

Mr. YOUNG. You do? But you file lawsuits against scientific findings many times in your organization. Supposing they clean the 

seas up. Now, where are you cleaning the seas up? What does the 

sea lion got to do with it? 

Mr. LEVINE. Representative Young, in this situation with regard 

to the sea lions, the litigation has been brought by the State of 

Alaska and the fishing industry. Oceana has gotten involved to defend what we believe were scientifically necessary—— 

Mr. YOUNG. On what grounds? In fact, every testimony I have 

had here, science is flawed. Everybody’s testimony, other NMFS 

themselves, who did not issue themselves a permit to go out and 

do the studying. 

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, I think that is probably a sign of total 

incompetency. You could not issue yourself a permit? I can get a 

permit to go to the bathroom in a heartbeat, and they could not 

issue themselves a permit? I mean, where is the science behind 

that? 

Mr. LEVINE. Representative Young, I am not in the position to 

comment on the Agency’s internal process about permits or otherwise. 

Mr. YOUNG. But you joined the lawsuit against the State and 

against the State of Washington, correct? 

Mr. LEVINE. In this situation, Representative Young, the Steller 

sea lions in the far Western Aleutians continue to decline, and 

Oceana is involved in litigation and other efforts in order to further—— 

Mr. YOUNG. What basis? There is no science to back that up. It 

does not decline. In fact, we got reports that the pup population is 

increasing. In fact, after the year 2000, yes, from 60 then, they may 

have declined, but they are actually increasing. The species is 

healthy and the biomass is strong to feed the—so what does 

Oceana. You are going get me like Sierra Club pretty quick, buddy, 

because you do it to gain on the side without looking at the science. 

78 

So, what is the science you joined that lawsuit? 

Mr. LEVINE. Representative Young, overall, the population is either holding steady or growing slightly. 

Mr. YOUNG. Holding steady and growing slightly, yet you are 

part of that lawsuit to back up the non-scientific NMFS/NOAA 

findings. 

Mr. LEVINE. In the Western Aleutian Islands, the population has 

declined by 45 percent between 2000 and 2011. 

Mr. YOUNG. And it increased where? 

Mr. LEVINE. I am sorry, I did not understand—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Where did it increase? 

Mr. LEVINE. It increased to the east of that population. 

Mr. YOUNG. And is that DNA of those sea lions exactly the same 

thing? 

Mr. LEVINE. The Agency has treated that population as one 

stock, yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. As one stock. But is the DNA the same? 

Mr. LEVINE. My understanding is that it is. 

Mr. YOUNG. That is right. So, they just went where they thought 

they could do—maybe they wanted to visit their aunt and uncles. 

You ever think about that? When you filed that lawsuit, the people 

in Adak and the Aleuts, did you take them into consideration? 

Mr. LEVINE. Yes, we did, Representative Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. You did? And you contribute to them? You helped 

them make up that fuel price? I know I am running out of time. 

Mr. LEVINE. It is unfortunate that the large scale fisheries have 

to bear the brunt of the situation that we found ourselves in. And 

we support long-term sustainable fisheries that will help provide 

for communities. And that is our job as an ocean conservation organization. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, gladly. I know you got to go. 

Mr. HASTINGS. That graph over there shows the Aleutian Islands 

from West to East. And you can see the green line there shows an 

increase, and there are a few places there admittedly going down. 

But on the whole, it is an increase. I just think that is—one can 

pick out any individual part and base a whole lot of conclusions, 

I guess, like sampling 13 out of 55 and come up with a conclusion. 

But that graph there, which is NOAA’s data, by the way, I think 

is somewhat significant. So, I will yield back to the gentleman. 

Mr. YOUNG. It goes back to I get very frustrated, and then everybody else should be frustrated. There is no science to back up what 

was done by NOAA/NMFS. And, Mr. LeVine, my problem is you 

are supposed to be a reputable group of people, but you are falling 

into that trap of not following science. Again, Mr. Chairman, available science. We should have best science. 

What NMFS did is not the best science. What NMFS is an agenda, and you should not be part of an agenda unless you really believe the fact that people do not count. There are groups of people 

in the United States that believe people are the evil thing. Everything is bad we create. Everything we create. That is nonsense. 

You ought to think about that. 

You are a legal man. There is no law that says that they could 

not have taken and considered this and the other options. That is 

79 

in the law. I want a few people to know a little bit about the law. 

I did not read everything, but I know a little bit about it. And what 

you have to think as an organization is maybe we ought to analyze 

this a little more and not back up an agency that has gone rogue. 

That is what they have done. It is not the first time. But they have 

collectively got worse as time goes by. 

And, Mr. Chairman, again, I will tell you our Congress with its 

oversight ability ought to look at the funding pots of these agencies. And maybe understand that maybe there is another side of 

this coin. And I will tell you right now, there is a big side. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I am tired of raving, but I can do more of it. 

But go ahead. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, listen, the gentleman is—many of his constituents are directly impacted by this, so I can understand his passion. And frankly I think it is very well placed. And the mere fact 

that we are out here having a hearing in areas that are impacted 

shows the seriousness that this Committee and this Chairman 

takes with this issue. But I want to thank you very much for coming down. 

And I want to thank this panel for your testimony. There may 

be some follow-up questions to you. Certainly there is going to be 

a follow-up question to other panels that came from this panel, and 

I appreciate very much your making that suggestion. But if there 

are follow-up questions to you, I would hope that you would 

respond in a timely manner. 

And with that, I will dismiss the panel. And, again, I want to 

thank everybody, all three panels, members of the panel, for being 

here, and those that came. 

And with that, no further business before the Committee, the 

Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ