NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-154

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Region

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

November 1999

Report of the

Joint Scientific Review Group

Workshop, April 13-14, 1999,

Seattle, Washington
Recent Issues

105. Review of American Lobster (Homarus americanus) Habitat Requirements and Responses to Contaminant Exposures.

By Renee Mercaldo-Allen and Catherine A. Kuropat. July 1994. v + 52 p., 29 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB96-115555.

106. Selected Living Resources, Habitat Conditions, and Human Perturbations of the Gulf of Maine: Environmental and

Ecological Considerations for Fishery Management. By Richard W. Langton, John B. Pearce, and Jon A. Gibson, eds.

August 1994. iv + 70 p., 2 figs., 6 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB95-270906.

107. Invertebrate Neoplasia: Initiation and Promotion Mechanisms -- Proceedings of an International Workshop, 23 June

1992, Washington, D.C. By A. Rosenfield, F.G. Kern, and B.J. Keller, comps. & eds. September 1994. v + 31 p., 8 figs.,

3 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB96-164801.

108. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1994. By Conservation and Utilization Division,

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. January 1995. iv + 140 p., 71 figs., 75 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB95-263414.

109. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Potential for Development of Aquaculture in Massachusetts: 15-17 February

1995, Chatham/Edgartown/Dartmouth, Massachusetts. By Carlos A. Castro and Scott J. Soares, comps. & eds. January

1996. v + 26 p., 1 fig., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB97-103782.

110. Length-Length and Length-Weight Relationships for 13 Shark Species from the Western North Atlantic. By Nancy E.

Kohler, John G. Casey, Patricia A. Turner. May 1996. iv + 22 p., 4 figs., 15 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB97-135032.

111. Review and Evaluation of the 1994 Experimental Fishery in Closed Area II on Georges Bank. By Patricia A. Gerrior,

Fredric M. Serchuk, Kathleen C. Mays, John F. Kenney, and Peter D. Colosi. October 1996. v + 52 p., 24 figs., 20 tables. NTIS

Access. No. PB98-119159.

112. Data Description and Statistical Summary of the 1983-92 Cost-Earnings Data Base for Northeast U.S. Commercial

Fishing Vessels: A Guide to Understanding and Use of the Data Base. By Amy B. Gautam and Andrew W. Kitts. December

1996. v + 21 p., 11 figs., 14 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB97-169320.

113. Individual Vessel Behavior in the Northeast Otter Trawl Fleet during 1982-92. By Barbara Pollard Rountree. August

1997. v + 50 p., 1 fig., 40 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB99-169997.

114. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 1996. By Gordon T. Waring, Debra L. Palka,

Keith D. Mullin, James H.W. Hain, Larry J. Hansen, and Kathryn D. Bisack. October 1997. viii + 250 p., 42 figs., 47 tables.

NTIS Access. No. PB98-112345.

115. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1998. By Stephen H. Clark, ed. September 1998. vi

+ 149 p., 70 figs., 80 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB99-129694.

116. U.S. Atlantic Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 1998. By Gordon T. Waring, Debra L. Palka, Phillip J. Clapham,

Steven Swartz, Marjorie C. Rossman, Timothy V.N. Cole, Kathryn D. Bisack, and Larry J. Hansen. February 1999. vii + 182

p., 16 figs., 56 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB99-134140.

117. Review of Distribution of the Long-finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala melas) in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean.

By Alan A. Abend and Tim D. Smith. April 1999. vi + 22 p., 14 figs., 3 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB99-165029.

118. Tautog (Tautoga onitis) Life History and Habitat Requirements. By Frank W. Steimle and Patricia A. Shaheen. May 1999.

vi + 23 p., 1 fig., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB99-165011.

119. Data Needs for Economic Analysis of Fishery Management Regulations. By Andrew W. Kitts and Scott R. Steinback.

August 1999. iv + 48 p., 10 figs., 22 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB99-171456.

120. Marine Mammal Research Program of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center during 1990-95. By Janeen M. Quintal

and Tim D. Smith. September 1999. v + 28 p., 4 tables, 4 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2000-100809.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-154

This report series represents a secondary level of scientifiic publishing. All issues

employ thorough internal scientific review; some issues employ external scientific

review. By design, reviews are transparent collegial reviews, not anonymous peer

reviews. All issues may be cited in formal scientific communications.

National Marine Fisheries Serv., Woods Hole Lab., 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543

Report of the

Joint Scientific Review Group Workshop,

April 13-14, 1999, Seattle, Washington

Richard L. Merrick, Compiler

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

William M. Daley, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

D. James Baker, Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Penelope D. Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

Northeast Region

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

November 1999
NOTE ON SPECIES NAMES

The NMFS Northeast Region’s policy on the use of species names in all technical communications is generally to follow

the American Fisheries Society’s lists of scientific and common names for fishes (i.e., Robins et al. 1991a), mollusks (i.e.,

Turgeon et al. 1998b), and decapod crustaceans (i.e., Williams et al. 1989c), and to follow the Society for Marine

Mammalogy's guidance on scientific and common names for marine mammals (i.e., Rice 1998d). Exceptions to this policy

occur when there are subsequent compelling revisions in the classifications of species, resulting in changes in the

names of species (e.g., Cooper and Chapleau 1998e). Also, the "sportsman's singular" will be used for plural references

to the common names of species (e.g., blue crab, bluefin tuna, and humpback whale, instead of blue crabs, bluefin tunas,

and humpback whales).

a

Robins, C.R. (chair); Bailey, R.M.; Bond, C.E.; Brooker, J.R.; Lachner, E.A.; Lea, R.N.; Scott, W.B. 1991. Common and scientific names

of fishes from the United States and Canada. 5th ed. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 20; 183 p.

b

Turgeon, D.D. (chair); Quinn, J.F., Jr.; Bogan, A.E.; Coan, E.V.; Hochberg, F.G.; Lyons, W.G.; Mikkelsen, P.M.; Neves, R.J.; Roper,

C.F.E.; Rosenberg, G.; Roth, B.; Scheltema, A.; Thompson, F.G.; Vecchione, M.; Williams, J.D. 1998. Common and scientific names of

aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. 2nd ed. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 26; 526 p.

c

Williams, A.B. (chair); Abele, L.G.; Felder, D.L.; Hobbs, H.H., Jr.; Manning, R.B.; McLaughlin, P.A.; Pérez Farfante, I. 1989. Common

and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: decapod crustaceans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 17; 77 p.

d

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine mammals of the world: systematics and distribution. Soc. Mar. Mammal. Spec. Publ. 4; 231 p.

e

Cooper, J.A.; Chapleau, F. 1998. Monophyly and interrelationships of the family Pleuronectidae (Pleuronectiformes), with a revised classification.

Fish. Bull. (U.S.) 96:686-726.
Page iii

Contents

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... v

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Meeting Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

General Issues ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2

Role of Scientific Review Groups ................................................................................................................................. 2

Proposed Definition of Zero Mortality Rate Goal ......................................................................................................... 3

Proposed Guidelines for Serious Injury Determinations .............................................................................................. 4

Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization ......................................................................................................... 4

Stranding Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

Native Take .................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Stock Assessment Report Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Schedule for Stock Assessment Report Revision ........................................................................................................ 4

Standards for Including Information in Stock Assessment Reports ............................................................................ 5

Recovery Factors for Endangered Species Act-Listed Species ................................................................................... 5

Transboundary Stocks ................................................................................................................................................. 6

Stock Definition ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

Rmax Values Used in Potential Biological Removal Calculations ................................................................................... 6

Incidental-Take Reporting Methods ............................................................................................................................ 7

Joint Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................................. 8

References Cited .................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Appendices

Appendix I. Joint Scientific Review Group Workshop agenda, April 13-14, 1999, Seattle, Washington ...................... 9

Appendix II. Joint Scientific Review Group Workshop participants ............................................................................ 10

Appendix III. A proposal for categorization of scientific information, and for protocols for inclusion of

information by NMFS in its management documents ............................................................................. 11

Appendix IV. Recovery factors for endangered marine mammals: a discussion paper for the Joint Scientific

Review Group Workshop ........................................................................................................................ 13

Appendix V. Recovery factors for endangered marine mammals: a revised decision tree and decision matrix ............ 20

Tables

Table IV-1. Required recovery factor values to attain different percentage increases in recovery time for

different levels of precision ..................................................................................................................... 16

Table IV-2. The declining-trend threshold abundance required both to maintain at least 1,500 individuals

and to be able to detect a 10%/yr decrease for different levels of precision and for different levels

of significance ......................................................................................................................................... 16

Table IV-3. Required years and declining-trend threshold abundances for different coefficients of variation,

assuming α = ß = 0.25, and a 5-yr safety cushion ................................................................................... 17

Table IV-4. Abundance, precision, trend, and recovery factors for endangered species and Cook Inlet beluga ...... 17

Table V-1. Draft decision table or matrix ................................................................................................................... 21

Table V-2. Categorization using the two revised draft schemes, a decision tree, and a decision matrix, as

discussed at the workshop ..................................................................................................................... 21

Figures

Figure IV-1. Probability of extinction of whales and seals in five generations for different initial abundances

and for different increases in the death rate for one out of every 10 yr .................................................. 18

Figure IV-2. Decision tree for the default recovery factor within the endangered category ....................................... 19

Figure V-1. Revised draft decision tree ...................................................................................................................... 22
Page iv

Acronyms

AKFSC = Alaska Fisheries Science Center

AKSRG = Alaska Scientific Review Group

ATSRG = Atlantic Scientific Review Group

CV = coefficient of variation

ESA = Endangered Species Act

ETP = Eastern Tropical Pacific

IDCP = International Dolphin Conservation Program

IUCN = International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

JSRG = Joint Scientific Review Group

LOF = List of Fisheries

MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act

NEFSC = Northeast Fisheries Science Center

NERO = Northeast Regional Office

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service

OMB = Office of Management and Budget

OPR = Office of Protected Resources

PBR = potential biological removal

PSRG = Pacific Scientific Review Group

SAR = stock assessment report

SEFSC = Southeast Fisheries Science Center

SERO = Southeast Regional Office

SRG = scientific review group

SWFSC = Southwest Fisheries Science Center

USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

ZMRG = zero mortality rate goal
Page v

SUMMARY

As required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s (MMPA’s) 1994 amendments, three scientific review groups

(SRGs) were formed in 1994 to review marine mammal stock assessments prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The SRGs jointly met for the first time on October 12 and 13, 1994,

in Seattle, Washington. Between 1994 and 1999, individual SRGs met on a semiannual or annual basis to review annual stock

assessment reports (SARs) and to address other technical issues.

Beginning in 1997, it became clear that there was a need for the SRGs to meet jointly again to address issues of common

concern. As a result, a second joint meeting was held in Seattle, Washington, on April 13 and 14, 1999. The general

objectives of the second joint meeting were to provide a forum for comments and exchange of information among SRGs, and

to develop joint recommendations on common issues.

The SRGs recommended that NMFS and the USFWS should:

1. Finalize as soon as possible the definition of the zero mortality rate goal.

2. Proceed to use the best scientific evidence available to make serious injury determinations, using the guidelines

specified in the report of the Serious Injury Workshop (Angliss and DeMaster 1998).

3. Emphasize collection of life history data and voucher specimens when collecting data on stranded animals, in addition

to pathology data, especially for unusual stranding events.

4. Work with treaty tribes to collect information on takes, so that these data can be included in SARs.

5. Document all takes of marine mammals by source.

6. Publish all SARs every year, review and revise the SARs for strategic stocks every year, and review and revise the

stock assessment reports for nonstrategic stocks at least once every 3 yr.

7. Establish specific reclassification criteria for all species or distinct population segments listed as endangered or

threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and specific declassification criteria for all stocks designated as

depleted under the MMPA.

8. Use a standardized framework for categorizing risk for species listed as endangered when assigning recovery factor

values.

9. Replace the phrase “population stock” in the text of the upcoming reauthorized MMPA with the phrase “management

stock.”

10. Use the potential biological removal guidelines for stock definition contained in Wade and Angliss (1997).

11. Receive recommendations from the SRGs as letters addressed to the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, and

(if relevant) to the appropriate USFWS Regional Director, with copies sent to the appropriate NMFS Regional Administrators and Regional Science and Research Directors.

12. Post recommendations from the SRGs, as well as minutes and reports from SRG meetings, on a NMFS website. An email list should be created to announce the availability of new material on this website.

13. Provide substantive written responses to any SRG written recommendations in a timely fashion, certainly not later than

the next SRG meeting.

14. Provide every year to the SRGs, copies of the meeting reports of the funding process associated with the NMFS’s

strategic goal of “Recover Protected Species,” including the recommended spending plans.

15. Secure additional funding for marine mammal research.

Page 1

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Three regional scientific review groups (SRGs) were created by the 1994 reauthorization of the Marine Mammal

Protection Act (MMPA). Section 117(d) of the MMPA required the Secretary of Commerce to establish three independent regional SRGs representing Alaska, the Pacific

Coast (including Hawaii), and the Atlantic Coast (including

the Gulf of Mexico). The SRGs review the science that goes

into the stock assessment reports (SARs) prepared by the

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as mandated by Section

117(a) of the act.

The MMPA provides the following text regarding the

SRGs:

Sec. 117(d) Regional Scientific Review Groups.

(1) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of

this section [June 29, 1994], the Secretary of Commerce

shall, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior

(with respect to marine mammals under that Secretary’s

jurisdiction), the Marine Mammal Commission, the Governors of affected adjacent coastal States, regional fishery

and wildlife management authorities, Alaska Native organizations and Indian tribes, and environmental and fishery groups, establish three independent regional scientific review groups representing Alaska, the Pacific Coast

(including Hawaii), and the Atlantic Coast (including the

Gulf of Mexico), consisting of individuals with expertise

in marine mammal biology and ecology, population dynamics and modeling, commercial fishing technology and

practices, and stocks taken under section 101(b). The

Secretary of Commerce shall, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to achieve a balanced representation of

viewpoints among the individuals on each regional scientific review group. The regional scientific review groups

shall advise the Secretary on--

(A) population estimates and the population status

and trends of such stocks;

(B) uncertainties and research needed regarding stock

separation, abundance, or trends, and factors affecting the distribution, size, or productivity of the stock;

(C) uncertainties and research needed regarding the

species, number, ages, gender, and reproductive status of marine mammals;

(D) research needed to identify modifications in fishing gear and practices likely to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in commercial fishing operations;

(E) the actual, expected, or potential impacts of habitat destruction, including marine pollution and natural environmental change, on specific marine mammal species or stocks, and for strategic stocks, appropriate conservation or management measures to alleviate any such impacts; and

(F) any other issue which the Secretary or the groups

consider appropriate.

(2) The scientific review groups established under this

subsection shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (5 app. U.S.C.).

(3) Members of the scientific review groups shall serve

without compensation, but may be reimbursed by the Secretary, upon request, for reasonable travel costs and expenses incurred in performing their obligations.

(4) The Secretary may appoint or reappoint individuals

to the regional scientific review groups under paragraph

(1) as needed.

Section 117(a) of the MMPA required that the first of

the marine mammal SARs be prepared in consultation with

the SRGs, and not later than August 1, 1994. These initial

SARs were prepared by NMFS and USFWS staff, and submitted for SRG review at meetings held on October 12 and

13, 1994, in Seattle, Washington. These meetings included

not only the first meeting of each of the individual SRGs,

but also included a joint meeting of the three SRGs.

Section 117(c) of the MMPA requires that marine mammal stock assessments be reviewed on a regular basis and

revised as necessary. Between 1994 and 1999, individual

SRGs met on a semiannual or annual basis to review the

annual SARs and to address technical issues. Beginning in

1997, it became clear that another joint SRG meeting would

be necessary. This report summarizes the results of the

joint SRG meeting held on April 13 and 14, 1999, at the

Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle, Washington.

The agenda and participants for that meeting are contained

in Appendices I and II.

MEETING OBJECTIVES

The general objectives of the meeting were to: 1) provide a forum for comments and exchange of information

among SRGs, and 2) develop recommendations on issues

of common concern to the three SRGs.

Considerable discussion centered on whether consistency was necessary among the three separate SRGs, and

whether this should be an objective of the meeting. The

Joint Scientific Review Group (JSRG) decided that consistency would be addressed as appropriate to specific topics.

The guidelines on potential biological removal are a good

example of where consistency among SRGs was considered

essential.
Page 2

GENERAL ISSUES

ROLE OF SCIENTIFIC REVIEW GROUPS

Standardization of the Recommendation Process,

the Relationship between Different SRGs and

NMFS, and the Future Role of the SRGs

The SRGs were created to provide independent review

of NMFS (“agency”) stock assessments. It was noted that

there was mistrust by some groups (e.g., fisheries, environmental) of the agency acting on its own to carry out statute

provisions without such an oversight group. It was agreed

that the vision of independent oversight has been realized

within the SRGs. The SRGs have been constructive as they

have held the agency accountable for deadlines, quality of

assessments, and technical rigor.

Recommendations coming from the SRGs usually fall

into the category of “grey literature,” but should at least be

presented to the agency in a professional format (e.g., letterhead). The concept of sharing comments and recommendations to a larger distribution base was considered

important, especially for those in more remote areas. A

suggestion was made to place all minutes and recommendations on a website as a matter of public record. This was

considered appropriate as it would minimize the work of the

SRG chairs in distributing paper copies. Specific joint recommendations are provided later in the “Joint Recommendations” section.

The JSRG expressed concern about a lack of NMFS

responsiveness to official SRG correspondence. Agency

replies were frequently a simple “thank you,” and lacked

detail about what action the agency had taken. Some SRG

members asserted that many recommendations are not addressed; therefore, future letters from the SRG should ask

for a response within a specific time period (e.g., 2 wk).

However, it was noted that a response could not be realistically expected within 2 wk for items addressing future research or funding. The JSRG felt the agency reply should

address actions being taken, as well as why action was not

taken on a specific recommendation. It was suggested was

that because the SRGs meet twice a year, an agency response could be presented at the next meeting addressing

all recommendations from the previous meeting. The SRGs

agreed that they needed to follow up by tracking their recommendations. It was also suggested that the SRGs prioritize their recommendations to the agency.

Discussion occurred about where documents should

be sent within NMFS for maximum effect. The general decision was that correspondence should be addressed to the

NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, with copies

sent to appropriate USFWS Regional Directors, NMFS Regional Administrators, and NMFS Regional Science and

Research Directors. Copies of SRG recommendations, along

with SRG minutes, should be posted on the website of the

NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR), and notices

sent to all parties concerned with the recommendations (e.g.,

members of all SRGs and the Marine Mammal Commission).

Representatives from NMFS were asked to provide an

overview of the relationships of NMFS fisheries science

centers and regional offices with the respective SRGs, and

on the future role of SRGs.

The Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s (NEFSC’s) relationship with the Atlantic Scientific Review Group

(ATSRG) has been good, but scope of input from the ATSRG

to the NEFSC should be broadened. The ATSRG has been

requested to provide recommendations on substantive management issues facing NMFS, for example, review of data

for changing the categorization of the squid/mackerel/butterfish fishery under the MMPA Section 118 “List of Fisheries” (LOF). SRG review is vital for guidance on SAR recommendations such as the bottlenose dolphin stock separation question.

The Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) receives advice from a number of groups and agencies to

guide its decisions on its research programs for marine mammals. In addition to the ATSRG, these advisory groups

include the Marine Mammal Commission, NMFS Southeast

Regional Office (for specific management needs), regional

fishery management councils, take reduction teams, implementation teams, etc. Specific advice from the ATSRG and

other groups is most useful in formulating annual research

and spending plans to address topical issues in the NMFS

Southeast Region. ATSRG advice is frequently cited in the

Atlantic SARs to support statements on stock status and

related issues. It is particularly helpful when the ATSRG

provides advice aiding in the establishment of research priorities for protected species.

The Alaska Scientific Review Group (AKSRG) has been

instrumental in providing recommendations to the Alaska

Fisheries Science Center (AKFSC) that increased organizational resources for responding to critical issues (e.g., Cook

Inlet beluga whale surveys). Many of the recommendations made by the AKSRG have been implemented by the

agency. All of the AKSRG research recommendations have

been adopted by the AKFSC. Recommendations and explanations from the minutes of the AKSRG meetings are

often cited in the Alaska SARs as justification for a particular choice of stock structure, recovery factor, etc.

Pacific Scientific Review Group (PSRG) recommendations have influenced many of the research activities of the

Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC). For example,

the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team was

reluctant to accept the NMFS view that an observer program was needed to reduce takes in the Monterey Bay setnet

fisheries. With the review and support of the PSRG, that

program was established.

NMFS regional office representatives supported the

aforementioned views expressed by fisheries science center staff.

SRG recommendations hold weight in critical decisions

within the OPR. These SRG recommendations often support the basis for management decisions (e.g., bottlenose
Page 3

dolphin stock structure) by the OPR Director, especially for

decisions on funding priorities under the allocation process

for NMFS’s strategic goal of “Recover Protected Species.”

SRG members’ opinions varied on the relationship between the SRGs and NMFS. The AKSRG has consistently

tried to keep a clear distinction between its scientific advisory role, and the policy decisions that are the responsibility of NMFS. The ATSRG has a similar view, but members

noted that for many historical issues in the Atlantic (e.g.,

bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, and northern right

whale), scientific recommendations have not always been

adopted by NMFS. Things have improved with recent staff

additions in the NEFSC and SEFSC. Some SRG members

recognized that the lack of NMFS personnel in both the

NEFSC and SEFSC influences NMFS’s ability to respond to

SRG demands. Regardless, the SRG should set goals high,

because this reinforces the need for personnel.

The JSRG was concerned about an overall lack of a

national vision for marine mammals within NMFS. This

statement caused some debate because some SRG members felt that regions needed the ability to operate independently, while others felt that even with a national vision,

regional power would often prevail. Some members were

discouraged by lack of an agency response, and wondered

if the process was worth the SRGs’ effort. However, it was

pointed out that SRG recommendations are valuable outside the agency as advocacy groups can use them to make

sure resources are allocated where they need to be so allocated. AKFSC staff commented that the record shows that

money is going to high priority species, it is just that the

total dollars are very limited, which means all issues cannot

be addressed. In addition, significant efforts are being made

to plan for upcoming years from a national perspective.

While the JSRG recognized this may be true within the marine mammal budget, resources in general were not equally

allocated among different protected species groups (West

Coast salmon was given as an example). After listening to

the discussion, the JSRG concluded that NMFS needed to

make its overall mission more clear to the SRGs, and that

NMFS should include the SRGs on the distribution list for

the marine mammal funding panel report.

Scientific Review Group Review of Stock

Assessment Reports and Primary Documents

An overall recommendation was made that the SRGs

review the science that goes into the SARs, including the

design of research and how data are being analyzed. This

recommendation would mean making NMFS science available to SRG members with specific areas of expertise. Some

suggested that this step would be a maturation of the function of the SRG, permitting it to function more as a formal

peer-review group. The issue of formal review of NMFS

unpublished documents cited in SARs is addressed Appendix III. Some of the calculations used in SARs are mechanical, while other issues, such as stock structure, provoke discussion. Debate also addressed whether there was

a need to go to the data level, or whether the SRGs should

just provide critical questions for NMFS to address.

The JSRG agreed that data in SARs should be thoroughly refereed. SEFSC staff commented that there is a

precedent for a few controversial fish stock assessments

that could serve as a model for marine mammal stock assessments. Those fish stock assessment documents were

elevated to the NMFS Office of Science and Technology

for subsequent review by outside entities. When the controversial aspects of those assessments could not be resolved at that level, then those documents were forwarded

to the National Research Council for resolution.

PROPOSED DEFINITION OF ZERO MORTALITY

RATE GOAL

Section 118(b) of the MMPA specifies a zero mortality

rate goal (ZMRG) for the effects of U.S. commercial fisheries on marine mammal stocks. That section also mandates

that a report be submitted to Congress by April 20, 2001,

reviewing progress made by those fisheries in reaching the

ZMRG. The present draft NMFS policy has been to select

for the ZMRG a mortality rate that would delay recovery

time by not more than 10% of that which would occur in the

absence of fisheries effects. SARs must describe whether:

1) a fishery has met the ZMRG, 2) a marine mammal stock

has an overall insignificant mortality rate, and 3) that stock

is approaching fisheries-effected zero mortality and serious

injury rates. The JSRG expressed considerable concern that

this definition had not yet been finalized.

It was noted that the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) -- developed through Congress -- has

established ZMRG-based mortality limits for Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) dolphins. The IDCP agreement placed

international management of ETP dolphins in line with the

U.S. definition of the ZMRG. The IDCP defines the ZMRG

as 0.1% of the minimum population size estimate (Nmin), which

is considered adequately small to be negligible. This IDCP

definition of the ZMRG yields similar results to the NMFS

definition of the ZMRG as 10% of a stock’s potential biological removal (PBR).

JSRG members suggested that consistency of the

NMFS’s ZMRG definition with the IDCP’s ZMRG defintion

should be given consideration, particularly because the

IDCP definition was based on earlier U.S. ZMRG policy.

The JSRG recommended that the ZMRG definition be finalized before the ZMRG progress report is sent to Congress;

if the opposite occurs, the report’s findings might be inappropriate.
Page 4

PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR SERIOUS INJURY

DETERMINATIONS

A workshop was held in April 1997 to develop specific

criteria for determining what constitutes a serious injury for

marine mammals captured incidental to fishing operations

(Angliss and DeMaster 1998). Guidelines based on the

workshop’s recommendations were subsequently drafted

and did provide guidance on serious injury determination.

However, the publishing of these guidelines was stalled at

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because of

the difficulty of meeting OMB’s new review requirements

for publishing federal “regulations.” The seriousness of a

lack of guidelines is highlighted by the Atlantic and Pacific

longline fisheries which induce a high level of serious injury. The impact that these fisheries have on marine mammal populations is significantly underestimated when serious injuries are not explicitly considered.

Agreement was reached that the SRGs should review

the injury determinations made by NMFS using the proposed serious injury guidelines. These determinations are

likely to be controversial during review by take reduction

teams, and an effort needs to be made to ensure adequate

outside review. The JSRG recommended that SRGs operate

as if the draft guidelines were in place, and use them as

guiding principles because: 1) some animals are being taken

and released alive, but none are currently counted as serious injuries or mortalities; 2) criteria must be used consistently; and 3) the best available scientific advice on serious

injury determinations is found in the workshop guidelines.

MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT

REAUTHORIZATION

NMFS has convened a task force of staff from the fisheries science centers, regional offices, and headquarters to

develop agency comments on the reauthorization of the

MMPA. Presently, these comments are undergoing internal review, and are subject to modification. Discussion

surrounding some of the sections under review was led by

SWFSC staff (J. Barlow).

The JSRG agreed that statutory issues were outside the

scientific advisory role of the SRGs, and that comments

specific only to stock assessment reports or other sciencerelated issues are appropriate. As NMFS refines the list of

recommendations, the SRGs could be asked for advice on

specific science-related topics.

STRANDING PROGRAMS

This agenda topic resulted from an observation made

during a recent training class conducted by NMFS on the

West Coast on the collection of pathology samples from

carcasses. The observation was that NMFS was emphasizing pathology sampling at the expense of collection of basic life history information. NMFS noted that, overall, the

national stranding program does not have a policy of focusing on pathology at the expense of life history information, and that the workshops were directed at pathology

because training was needed.

NATIVE TAKE

A number of specific cases were discussed, including

Cook Inlet beluga, bowhead whale, and Steller sea lion. It

was noted that an emergency listing under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) does not immediately authorize the government to restrict Native harvest. Rather, the formal

rulemaking process identified in the MMPA must be followed, which typically takes 6-12 mo. For Cook Inlet beluga, voluntary comanagement agreements are being developed to restrict Native subsistence harvests during summer 1999. The degree to which these agreements will be

successful is uncertain.

The issue of managing Native subsistence harvests in

the immediate vicinity of Anchorage was discussed. It was

noted that at present this is only a problem for the Cook

Inlet beluga stock. Part of the problem stems from the classification of Anchorage as a Native village by NMFS regulations; this classification allows the sale of marine mammal

products to a large community. As such, large numbers of

animals taken for subsistence purposes can be sold at financial gain to a few individuals. The human demand for

beluga muktuk and meat in the Anchorage area has contributed to this beluga stock being overharvested.

Some subsistence takes are included by NMFS in the

SARs, but not all such takes are reported to NMFS. The

JSRG agreed that NMFS should include, where possible, all

Native harvests as part of mortality estimates provided in

the SARs, including those from treaty tribes.

STOCK ASSESSMENT REPORT ISSUES

SCHEDULE FOR STOCK ASSESSMENT REPORT

REVISION

Timing of SAR production was discussed. It was

pointed out how the timing of SAR production affects the

subsequent year’s LOF production.

One of the main issues discussed was whether a consistent schedule and format were necessary nationwide.

The MMPA requires review of strategic stocks every year,

but other stocks can be evaluated on a 3-yr cycle. Different

regions handle revisions differently. Some SRG members

proposed publishing a full document every year, while others proposed annual reporting only on strategic stocks for

which significant new information is available. Others noted

that there are other interested constituents, including Congress, which could favor publishing a full document every

year.
Page 5

After considerable discussion, the JSRG recommended

that NMFS should: 1) publish all SARs every year; 2) review and, if necessary, revise strategic stock assessments

every year; and 3) review and, if necessary, revise nonstrategic stocks at least once every 3 yr.

STANDARDS FOR INCLUDING INFORMATION IN

STOCK ASSESSMENT REPORTS

The PBR guidelines (Wade and Angliss 1997, p. 34)

specify that “the methods and analyses that produce the

estimates of abundance and mortality that are used in the

SARs should be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, where possible, or in a similar forum that is most appropriate, such as a NOAA Technical Memorandum.” P.

Clapham proposed more rigorous guidelines on how scientific information should be used within the SAR. These

criteria are presented in Appendix III. In summary, Appendix III considers scientific literature in a hierarchical fashion. Level I, the primary or peer-reviewed literature, should

be recognized in the SAR. If desired, NMFS may seek additional reviews of such literature, and also report the findings of those reviews in the SAR. Level II, the non-peerreviewed literature, should not automatically be included in

the SAR. NMFS should solicit internal and/or external review of such literature to elevate its status to peer-reviewed.

If the work is not appropriate for formal review (Level III),

such as presentation abstracts or anecdotal information,

then NMFS should obtain a written summary of the work so

that it can be formally reviewed. Anecdotal information

should generally not be included.

It was recognized that the SAR should include the “best

available information,” but it may take years for scientific

results to appear in peer-reviewed journals, and some information such as traditional knowledge may never be appropriate for such journals. However, the guidelines in Appendix III should, in principle, be followed. A possible amendment is that all non-peer-reviewed literature used in a SAR

should be available, in written form, at the relevant fisheries

science center.

The JSRG encouraged NMFS to formalize more rigorous guidelines for including information in SARs, such that

Appendix III principles were followed. The JSRG also reiterated its previous position that SARs should not be cited

as primary literature.

RECOVERY FACTORS FOR ENDANGERED

SPECIES ACT-LISTED SPECIES

Update on Endangered Species Act Downlisting

and Delisting Criteria

Two sets of criteria are being developed by NMFS to

objectively determine when an ESA-listed marine mammal

species should be reclassified. These criteria will be published in peer-reviewed journals. At this time, NMFS has

not adopted either set of criteria, and has not recommended

any changes in listings.

The JSRG recommended that NMFS and the USFWS

establish specific reclassification criteria for all species or

distinct population units listed as endangered or threatened under ESA.

Protocol to Assign Recovery Factors

The current PBR guidelines set the default recovery

factor, Fr

, for endangered species at 0.1 (Wade and Angliss

1997) to allow a small fishery take while simultaneously

providing for quick recovery. In other words, any humaninduced mortality, including fishing mortality, cannot prolong by more than 10% the recovery time which that species would exhibit in the absence of human-induced mortality. However, some species (e.g., many humpback stocks)

are known to be increasing and are at low risk of extinction.

Thus, a recovery factor value of 0.1 may not be warranted,

and such stocks may be candidates for reclassification. The

JSRG encouraged NMFS to start the reclassification process for such stocks.

Because the reclassification process is long and complicated, some SRG members wanted to adjust the recovery

factor until the species is reclassified. This adjustment could

be a further gradation of the recovery factor to match the

differing levels of risk facing the stock. The questions were:

1) What criteria should be used to determine which species

can safely be adjusted?; and 2) What recovery factor values are reasonable?

B. Taylor presented a discussion paper (Appendix IV)

in which the setting of a recovery factor for endangered

species as high, medium, and low risk was standardized

using information on: 1) the present abundance estimate

and its precision, 2) the presence or absence of a trend in

abundance, and 3) three biological risk factors. It was indicated that the most influential factors were a critical abundance estimate of 1,500 animals, and the stock boundaries

used to obtain the abundance estimate.

The JSRG thanked B. Taylor and others for initiating

the discussion and for focusing attention on the need for a

protocol for assigning reasonable recovery factor values

for endangered species. However, no protocol was agreed

upon by the JSRG. SRG members indicated that additional

time was needed to investigate which criteria should be

used, what cutoff points for the criteria are reasonable, and

what are the influence and robustness of these criteria and

cutoff points. Issues brought up that should be considered in future work included: 1) should absolute abundance or abundance relative to K (i.e., the carrying capacity

of the habitat) be used; 2) should criteria be constant for all

species or be species-specific; 3) should the default level of

Fr

 = 0.1 be used for any species with a declining abundance

trend; 4) the protocol being consistently used by all SRGs;

5) the protocol being able to result in three preset recovery
Page 6

factor values that reflect high, medium, and low risks of

extinction; 6) should the protocol be presented as a decision tree, matrix, or list of qualitative factors; 7) how should

a population that is stable be treated in the protocol; 8) how

should a population that is both small and thought to be at

K be treated in the protocol; 9) should any of the criteria be

weighted or given a higher priority; 10) is there a hierarchical or equal ranking of the criteria; and 11) the protocol

being easy to present and scientifically defendable.

The JSRG agreed that a standardized framework for categorizing risk for endangered species should be considered. The JSRG recommended that a working group, composed of NMFS, USFWS, and SRG representatives, continue to develop the draft proposal (Appendix IV) as well as

alternative strategies, and present a revised proposal to the

SRGs at their next individual meetings. The JSRG also recommended that the proposed framework include three standard recovery factor values that could be used to specify

whether there is a high, medium, or low risk of extinction for

an endangered stock.

TRANSBOUNDARY STOCKS (EXTENDING

BEYOND THE U.S. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE)

The PBR guidelines (Wade and Angliss 1997, p. 56)

advise that for transboundary stocks where there is no international management agreement, it may be reasonable to

use the fraction of time in U.S. waters as the percent of the

PBR to be allocated to U.S. fisheries, or to use the abundance estimate of the portion of the population residing in

U.S. waters as the basis of the PBR allocation. These guidelines have not been applied to all stocks because of different quantities and qualities of available data. In addition,

concerns exist about whether the guidelines are legally correct.

Because of these problems, the JSRG was unable to

suggest ways to consistently handle transboundary stocks.

Each stock situation will, therefore, continue to have to be

handled on a case-by-case basis, using the best available

information.

STOCK DEFINITION

The definition of a stock provided in the existing PBR

guidelines (Wade and Angliss 1997, p. 55-56) is useful in

most cases. However, it is difficult to define stocks for

species with limited data. This difficulty has led to inconsistencies. Another way to state the problem is, “Should

the lumping or splitting strategy of stock definition be

used?” Examples of difficult cases are: 1) stocks that appear to have a genetic cline, 2) stocks that are thought to be

part of a biological population that extends outside the area

used in the abundance estimate, 3) regions of the ocean

that appear to have a mixture of stocks that are indistinguishable (at least by eye), and 4) stocks that have separate

breeding and feeding grounds. Because of such situations,

additional guidelines are needed.

Several case studies were discussed. The North Atlantic humpback whale stock has a maternally-specific feeding

ground in the Gulf of Maine, and breeding grounds in the

Caribbean. (A similar situation exists for the North Pacific

humpback.) Those humpback whales using the Gulf of

Maine feeding ground have distinct genetic characteristics

that are a result of maternal fidelity. The JSRG agreed that

this feeding group is a stock according to the guidelines

presented in Wade and Angliss (1997), and so, the stock

definition in the SARs should be modified. However, NMFS

should be careful to define and manage different stocks

consistently with respect to feeding and breeding ground

stock determinations.

Another case discussed was the sperm whale stock in

the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. Sperm whale occur in

waters between the California/Oregon/Washington coast

and Hawaii, and the animals at the eastern and western

extremes of this region are genetically different. The question is, “Where is the line between the two stocks?” The

guidelines specify that in cases of lack of data, the assessment can be on a management stock which is not the same

as a population stock. These animals represent such a case,

and until more data are available, there is no other way to

define the stock.

To clarify the definition of a stock, the JSRG recommends that the phrase “management stock” replace “population stock” in the text of the upcoming reauthorized

MMPA. The JSRG also recommends that NMFS uniformly

apply the present PBR guidelines to all stocks.

Rmax VALUES USED IN POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL

REMOVAL CALCULATIONS

The discussion of Rmax (i.e., the theoretical or estimated

maximum net productivity rate of a stock when it is at a

small size) focused on when values other than the default

should be used. The PBR guidelines (Wade and Angliss

1997, p. 58) state that “substitution of other values for these

defaults should be made with caution, and only when reliable stock-specific information is available on Rmax (e.g.,

estimates published in peer-reviewed articles or accepted

by review groups such as the MMPA Scientific Review

Groups or the Scientific Committee of the International

Whaling Commission).” The JSRG recognized that Rmax is a

theoretical value, and that in many cases, values measured

in the field are not an adequate substitute. Exceptions to

this include cases such as the North Atlantic right whale

which is at extremely low abundance levels, some seal species where there are long time series of data that can adequately measure Rmax, and studies that adequately show

the default value is too low.

The JSRG recognized that considerable data are needed

to deviate from the default, but did not provide any further

guidance on this issue.
Page 7

INCIDENTAL-TAKE REPORTING METHODS

The JSRG recognized that incidental-take reports differ

in approach among the different regions. A discussion on

the methods used in the different regions led to several

suggestions that could make the reports more consistent.

These suggestions are: 1) in the “Other Mortality” section

of the SARs, the actual number of bullet- and pellet-wounded

stranded animals should be reported, if possible; 2) explanations of the quality of the mortality estimates should be

included (e.g., a mortality estimate may be very imprecise

due to low observer coverage); 3) the average annual mortality estimate from a fishery should include only years that

had the same type of fishing practices and/or extrapolation

method (for example, observer coverage versus logbook

reports); and 4) for fisheries that have on- and off-watch

phases, bycatch rates could be estimated for each phase

and then combined in an appropriate way.

JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The JSRG recommended that NMFS finalize as soon as

possible the definition of the ZMRG.

2. Noting the legislative requirement to include information on serious injuries in the SARs, the JSRG recommended that NMFS and the USFWS proceed to use the

best scientific evidence available to make determinations of which injuries are serious, including use of the

guidelines specified in the report of the Serious Injury

Workshop (Angliss and DeMaster 1998).

3. The JSRG recognized the importance of collecting, from

stranded animals, life history data and voucher specimens to fully evaluate potential human-related impacts.

Therefore, the JSRG recommended that NMFS and the

USFWS, when collecting pathology data on stranded

animals, collect life history data and voucher specimens,

especially for unusual stranding events.

4. The JSRG recognized that treaty tribes do not fall under

the authority of the MMPA, and therefore, information

on takes of marine mammals by treaty tribes (i.e., bycatch in fisheries) may not be collected. Therefore, the

JSRG recommended that NMFS and the USFWS attempt

to work with treaty tribes to collect this information so

that it can be included in SARs. Additionally, the JSRG

recommended that NMFS and the USFWS make all efforts to document all takes of marine mammals, regardless of source.

5. The JSRG recognized there were differences among regions in the schedule being used for the revision and

publication of SARs. The JSRG recommended that

NMFS and USFWS:

a) publish all SARs every year,

b) review and revise as necessary the SARs for strategic stocks every year, and

c) review and revise as necessary the SARs for nonstrategic stocks at least once every 3 yr.

6. The JSRG recommended that NMFS establish:

a) specific reclassification criteria for all species or

distinct population segments listed as endangered

or threatened under ESA, and

b) specific declassification criteria for all stocks designated as depleted under the MMPA.

7. The JSRG requested a standardized framework for categorizing risk for endangered species. The JSRG agreed

that three levels of risk should be specified and that

they be assigned specific recovery factor values. The

JSRG recommended that a working group composed of

NMFS, USFWS, and SRG representatives continue to

develop the draft proposal, consider alternative strategies, and present a revised proposal to the SRGs by

their next meetings.

8. The JSRG recommended that the phrase “management

stock” replace “population stock” in the text of the upcoming reauthorized MMPA. The JSRG also recommended that NMFS uniformly apply the present PBR

guidelines to all stocks.

9. Recognizing that the definition of stocks can often be

difficult, particularly when there is a lack of information,

the JSRG agreed that the definition of stocks contained

in the PBR guidelines (Wade and Angliss 1997) is useful, and recommended that it be consistently implemented

by NMFS and the USFWS.

10. The JSRG believed that communication between the

SRGs and the agencies, as well as other groups, should

be standardized and improved, and recommended:

a) In general, recommendations from the SRGs to the

agencies should be sent as letters addressed to the

NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, and

(if relevant) to the appropriate USFWS Regional

Director, with copies sent to the appropriate NMFS

Regional Administrators and Regional Science and

Research Directors. It was also recognized that

some specific issues might be more appropriately

addressed to NMFS Regional Administrators.

b) To provide for a wider distribution, recommendations from the SRGs, as well as minutes and reports

from their meetings, should be posted on a NMFS

website. It was also suggested that an e-mail list

be created to announce the availability of new material on this website. The list should include all

SRG members, as well as other interested parties

such as the Marine Mammal Commission. The
Page 8

SRGs, after discussion with NMFS personnel, further suggested this could be most easily accomplished by having the SRG chair or NMFS SRG

liaison directly transfer electronic files to an OPR

contact for posting on the OPR website.

c) The JSRG expects that it will receive substantive

written responses to their written recommendations

in a timely fashion, certainly not later than by their

next meeting.

d) The JSRG requested copies every year of the meeting reports of the funding process, including the

recommended spending plans, associated with the

NMFS’s strategic goal of “Recover Protected Species.”

11. The JSRG agreed that additional funds are needed to

adequately support priority research needs that have

been identified by the separate SRGs. Therefore, the

JSRG recommended that NMFS and the USFWS secure additional funding for marine mammal research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr. Douglas DeMaster made available the facilities and

support of the NMFS’s National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, Washington. Dr. Paul Wade was responsible

for providing logistical support for the meetings.

Dr. Debra Palka and Ms. Laurie Allen deserve special

thanks for acting as rapporteurs for the workshop. The

report was greatly improved through reviews by members

of the three SRGs -- particularly Chairs Robin Brown, Jim

Gilbert, and Lloyd Lowry -- and by Dr. Fredric Serchuk.

REFERENCES CITED

Angliss, R.P.; DeMaster, D. 1998. Differentiating serious and

non-serious injury of marine mammals taken incidental to

commercial fishery operations: report of the Serious Injury Workshop; 1-2 April 1997; Silver Spring, MD. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-13; 48 p.

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

April 3-5, 1996; Seattle, WA. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSOPR-12; 93 p.
Page 9

APPENDIX I

Joint Scientific Review Group Workshop Agenda

April 13-14, 1999, Seattle, Washington

1. Introduction and logistics

1.1. Rapporteur, and protocol for producing final minutes

1.2. Objectives for the meeting

1.3. Approval of draft agenda

2. General issues

2.1. Role of the SRGs

2.1a. Standardization of the recommendation process, the relationship between different SRGs and NMFS, and

the future role of the SRGs

2.1b. SRG review of SARs and primary documents

2.2. ZMRG proposed definition

2.2a. Status update (Eagle)

2.3. Serious injury proposed guidelines

2.3a. Status update (Eisele)

2.4. MMPA reauthorization

2.4a. NMFS activities (Barlow)

2.4b. Is there a role for the SRGs?

2.5. Stranding programs

2.5a. Proposed recommendation to change focus to collection of data relevant to monitoring populations (Heyning)

2.6. Native take issues and discussion

3. Stock assessment report issues

3.1. Schedule for SAR revision

3.1a. Status quo (annual revision and publication)

3.1b. Alternative schedules

3.2. Standards for inclusion of data/estimates/information into SARs

3.2a. Proposed citation standards (Clapham)

3.2b. Discussion

3.3. Rmax values used in PBR calculations

3.3a. Guidelines for use of observed rates instead of defaults

3.4. Incidental take reporting methods

3.4a. Standardization of reports in SAR tables

3.4b. Other issues

3.5. Recovery factors for ESA-listed species

3.5a. Review of NMFS activities on ESA reclassification criteria (DeMaster)

3.5b. Proposed starting point for discussion (Taylor)

3.5c. Other issues/discussion

3.6. Stock definition

3.6a. Issues

3.6b. Case study descriptions to illustrate issues/problems

3.7. Transboundary stocks (extending beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone)

3.7a. Issues (Read)

4. Conclusion

4.1. Approval of joint recommendations

4.2. Other

List of Documents for the Joint Meeting

1. “Recovery Factors for Endangered Marine Mammals: A Discussion Paper for the Joint SRG Meetings,” by B.L. Taylor,

P.R. Wade, D.P. DeMaster, and J. Barlow.

2. “Citation Standards for Stock Assessment Reports,” by P. Clapham.

3. “Current PBR Guidelines,” from Wade and Angliss (1997).
Page 10

APPENDIX II

Joint Scientific Review Group Workshop Participants

SRG MEMBERS PRESENT

Alaska SRG

Carl Hild

Charlie Johnson

Denby Lloyd

Lloyd Lowry (Chair)

Beth Mathews

Craig Matkin

Jan Straley

Kate Wynne

Atlantic SRG

James Gilbert (Chair)

Robert Kenney

James Mead

Andrew Read

Randall Wells

Pacific SRG

Hannah Bernard

Robin Brown (Chair)

Mark Fraker

John Heyning

Chuck Janisse

Steven Jeffries

Katherine Ralls

Michael Scott

Terry Wright

OTHERS ATTENDING (all affiliations are NMFS

unless otherwise noted)

Laurie Allen [Northeast Regional Office (NERO)]

Jay Barlow (SWFSC)

Diane Borggaard [Southeast Regional Office (SERO)]

Kaja Brix (Alaska Regional Office)

Phillip Clapham (NEFSC)

Douglas DeMaster (AKFSC)

Tom Eagle (OPR)

Cathy Eisele (OPR)

Tina Fahy (Southwest Regional Office)

Rosa Meehan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Alaska)

Richard Merrick (NEFSC)

Katie Moore (OPR)

Keith Mullin (SEFSC)

Marcia Muto (AKFSC)

Debra Palka (NEFSC)

Simona Perry (AKFSC/University of Washington)

Steven Swartz (SEFSC)

Barb Taylor (SWFSC)

Kimberly Thounhurst (NERO)

Cindy Tynan (NWFSC)

Paul Wade (OPR)

Kathy Wang (SERO)

Sharon Young (Humane Society of the United States)
Page 11

APPENDIX III

A Proposal for Categorization of Scientific Information,

and for Protocols for Inclusion of Information by NMFS

in Its Management Documents

Phillip J. Clapham

NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543

INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM

NMFS is required by statute to consider the “best available information” when formulating management actions

which may affect the status of protected marine animal populations, or which may have social or economic impact on

humans. Since the statute does not define “best available

information,” there has been much debate regarding the

type of scientific (or other) information that should be considered when formulating such actions, and how such information should be treated in documents relating to the

issue at hand.

The purpose of this proposal is to provide criteria for

how (and whether) scientific information is categorized and

used during the preparation of agency documents relating

to management actions. Three proposed levels (i.e., categories) of informational material are defined, and the proposed protocol for using such material is described.

LEVEL 1: PEER-REVIEWED

SCIENTIFIC STUDIES

TYPE OF MATERIAL

Level 1 materials are largely represented by papers in

scientific journals that have been subjected to formal peer

review (i.e., refereed) prior to acceptance and publication.

The materials also include the SARs.

NMFS POLICY AND PROTOCOL

Refereed papers are the primary currency of the scientific process, and NMFS routinely encourages scientists to

publish all of their work as refereed papers so that such

work becomes available for consideration and use by both

managers and other scientists. All scientific journal papers

have theoretically undergone some level of formal review

by referees who are considered sufficiently familiar with the

species or issue concerned to provide an objective and

qualified judgment regarding the quality of the work. The

SARs also fall into this category since they undergo formal

review by one of the three SRGs, as well as being open to

public comment.

Level 1 material which has been relied upon during the

preparation of any NMFS document must be cited. However, NMFS recognizes that the quality of peer review for

scientific papers varies considerably from journal to journal, and even within journals. Consequently, NMFS --

through the appropriate fisheries science center -- may seek

additional formal review of a paper from qualified scientists

either inside or outside the agency, and include the results

of these reviews in NMFS documents relating to the issue

at hand.

LEVEL 2: NON-PEER-REVIEWED

SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTS

TYPE OF MATERIAL

Level 2 materials are represented by complete documents such as reports, proceedings, or unpublished manuscripts that have not been subjected to a formal peer-review process, but that contain sufficient information to

potentially permit such review to occur.

NMFS POLICY AND PROTOCOL

Non-peer-reviewed material may contain errors of fact,

method, interpretation, and/or logic. Indeed, it is rare for a

manuscript submitted to a journal to be accepted for publication without changes -- sometimes minor, often major.

NMFS believes that uncritical acceptance of non-peer-reviewed information when determining management actions

is unwise and potentially damaging to the resource being

managed and to the management process itself. Consequently, non-peer-reviewed material will not automatically

be included in any NMFS document about the issue at hand.

However, in cases in which the material appears to be

relevant, and is sufficiently detailed to allow for evaluation

by qualified referees, the appropriate fisheries science center will solicit internal and/or external review of the material.

If the results of such review support the conclusions of the

material, or are otherwise useful in management considerations, then those materials will be included in NMFS documents about the issue.
Page 12

LEVEL 3: UNREVIEWED MATERIAL

NOT IN DOCUMENT FORM

TYPE OF MATERIAL

Level 3 materials are represented by unreviewed work

for which peer review is impossible because there is no

written record, or a record which provides insufficient detail to adequately assess the quality of the work involved.

Examples include talks, abstracts from meetings, popular

articles, and anecdotal information.

NMFS POLICY AND PROTOCOL

Because of the impossibility of verifying the scientific

quality of the information involved in this category, such

material will generally not be included in NMFS documents

relating to an issue unless there is compelling reason to do

so. If the material appears to be of considerable importance

to the management of a protected species, an effort will be

made by the appropriate fisheries science center to secure a

written summary of the work that is sufficiently detailed for

it to be formally peer reviewed. If this occurs, the material

would become a Level 2 document and would be treated

according to the protocols described above.
Page 13

APPENDIX IV

Recovery Factors for Endangered Marine Mammals:

A Discussion Paper for the Joint Scientific Review Group Workshop

Barbara L. Taylor1, Paul R. Wade2, Douglas P. DeMaster3, and Jay Barlow1

1

NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla, CA 93028

2

NMFS Office of Protected Resources, c/o NMFS National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600

 Sand Point Way, N.E., Bldg. 4, Seattle, WA 98115

3

NMFS National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., Bldg. 4, Seattle, WA

98115

This working paper was presented at the workshop for

consideration as a scheme for assigning recovery factors

to endangered species. The scheme was proposed by the

authors as a way to facilitate discussion of the issue. It was

presented as a “straw man,” and not as a final proposal.

Discussions at the workshop led to revisions of the scheme.

Those revisions are presented in Appendix V.

R.L. Merrick

The PBR guidelines in the 1994 amendments to the

MMPA currently set a default recovery factor, Fr, for endangered species at 0.1, a tenth of the potential PBR (Wade

and Angliss 1997). In other words, any human-induced

mortality in a marine mammal cannot prolong by more than

10% the recovery time which that species would exhibit in

the absence of human-induced mortality. The idea behind

the use of recovery factors for endangered species is to

allow a small kill while striving to allow recovery from a

dangerously low abundance as quickly as possible.

Experience implementing the PBR scheme has highlighted the need for further gradations of the recovery factor to match the differing levels of risk facing the suite of

species classified as endangered. For example, the right

whale in both the North Pacific and North Atlantic continues to remain at perilously low abundance, and requires the

maximum protection the MMPA will allow (Fr

 = 0.1). On the

other hand, most stocks of the humpback whale in these

same ocean basins are known to be increasing, and already

are at much lower risk than when they were originally listed

as endangered.

We propose, for discussion by the SRGs, a decision

tree to standardize setting the default recovery factor for

these differing risk levels. The objective of our proposal is

to focus discussion and elicit recommendations and modifications rather than to make the decision tree a final recommendation. In that spirit, we conclude with a list of currently endangered species and of what recovery factors

would result from the tree.

Perhaps the most informative factors influencing risk of

extinction are absolute abundance and trends in abundance.

When populations become very small, in the low hundreds,

they are subject to more risks than large populations. For

example, the remaining population may be spatially restricted

and more vulnerable to natural and human-caused disasters. Social systems may be disrupted as has been seen for

the Hawaiian monk seal. For cetaceans, particularly those

such as the blue whale without known areas of breeding

concentration, finding a mate may even become difficult.

At what abundance do these problems start? With the

monk seal, it appears that these difficulties began even before the species declined to its current estimated abundance

of 1,400.

Using crude but general models, we explored whether

we could get a better idea of the abundance below which

our concerns increase rapidly. We know that populations

are occasionally reduced by natural or human-caused

events, such as red tides, El Niños, and pollution events.

To evaluate the risk that such chance events pose to species, we need to know both the frequency and magnitude of

such events. Of course, we don’t have such data for any

marine mammal.

We can get an idea of how such events might affect

marine mammals through some crude modeling exercises.

Figure IV-1 shows the probability of extinction of whales

and seals in five generations, which is the time frame set by

the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and

Natural Resources (IUCN) for the endangered category. The

model has the following features: 1) no density dependence (i.e., births equal deaths, with the annualized rate of

each being 0.035 for whales and 0.10 for seals); 2) a generation time of 25 yr for whales, and 9 yr for seals; and 3) a

probability of 10% that 1 yr in every 10 will have a given

amount of decrease in the annualized survival rate. The

different lines in the figure show the different extinction

probabilities associated with two variables: 1) the initial

population abundance, and 2) the size of the decrease in

the annualized survival rate (over a plausible range given

the respective life history strategies of whales and seals) in

one out of every 10 yr. Note that for an initial abundance of

1,000 seals, even assuming a 50% reduction in the annualized survival rate once in every 10 yr, there is a <5% chance

of extinction in five generations. Thus, under even this

high level of stochasticity, a species numbering 1,000 would

not warrant being listed as endangered using the IUCN

criterion that requires a 10% chance of extinction in five

generations.
Page 14

For the Hawaiian monk seal, this model’s measure of

safety goes against what we know, most likely because the

simple model doesn’t consider many factors known to affect small populations, such as population spatial structures, mating systems, or genetic factors. Further, the Hawaiian monk seal may be one of those species that experiences density-dependent reductions in the population

growth rate at relatively low populations levels (i.e., carrying capacity may be relatively small).

For the sea otter, Ralls et al. (1996) use the effective

population size (Ne

 -- the actively breeding part of the population) of 500 suggested by Mace and Lande (1991) as the

threshold for listing as endangered. This effective population size of the sea otter translates to a census population

size ( Nmin) of 1,850.

Because the special risk factors facing small populations

are unknown, and in some cases unknowable, for most endangered species, we find it much more biologically justifiable to use the existing knowledge of monk seal and sea

otter population dynamics as the basis for suggesting a

lower abundance threshold for extinction safety, than to

rely on this model’s results. We therefore recommend a

lower threshold -- 1,500 animals -- in the decision tree, a

value which is between the estimated abundances of the

monk seal and sea otter.

We next consider current trends in abundance because a

species’ risk is largely determined by its population growth

rate as indicated by trends in abundance. Clearly, we should

be less concerned about a species that is known to be increasing than a species that is known to be decreasing or

for which there are no trend data. Recovery factors should

reflect this differing risk by treating species with different

trends accordingly. In terms of risk, species with unknown

trends should be placed somewhere between species with

known increasing or decreasing trends.

We propose that the recovery factor be tuned according

to this ranking of risk by changing the allowed increase in

time to recovery. Currently, most endangered species are

treated as being at the highest level of risk, and the recovery factor has been tuned so that the PBR would not result

in an increase in recovery time (over a population recovering with no human-induced mortality) of greater than 10%.

We propose adding two additional levels of risk within the

endangered category: medium risk with a 15% increase in

recovery time allowed, and low risk with a 25% increase

allowed (Table IV-1). Note that from Table IV-1 that choosing to increase recovery time by 35% equates to Fr

 = 0.5 in

the high coefficient of variation (CV) case, which is currently the default recovery factor for threatened species.

Thus, the suggested increases in recovery time for medium

and low risk levels within the endangered category were

chosen to be intermediate between the level chosen for

endangered (high risk), Fr

 = 0.1, and the level for threatened, Fr

 = 0.5.

The risk to species currently listed as endangered and

known to be declining depends again on abundance. Managers want to be certain that their actions can keep abundance higher than the threshold of 1,500. We arbitrarily

chose a management action period of 20 yr to halt the decline in abundance. Thus, we would want an abundance

that, at the initial rate of decline, would remain >1,500 after

20 yr of operation. The declining threshold would be governed by Equation 1:

Nd-threshold = 1,500 (1)

 er•20

where Nd-threshold is the number of animals associated with

the declining threshold, r is the current trend in abundance

(approximately the exponential rate of growth), and the time

period is 20 yr to reach an abundance of 1,500. Populations

below the declining threshold would be considered high

risk, while those above the threshold would be considered

medium risk (Figure IV-2).

The future remains uncertain even for species with increasing abundances. New sources of mortality might arise

that reverse positive trends, and we want to make sure that

we can detect those sources of mortality and take action

before the species reaches the abundance threshold of 1,500.

Of course, species with unknown trends in abundance have

the same needs.

We base our declining-trend threshold on our ability to

detect a serious decline, which we define as 10%/yr (close

to the rate of decline for the Steller sea lion). We can rearrange the formula for exponential growth (Equation 2):

Nt = N0 ert (2)

where Nt is the number of animals after some period of time,

t, in years, N0 is the initial number of animals, and r is the

trend in abundance, to yield an abundance threshold reflecting our trend objectives (Equation 3):

Nt-threshold = 1,500 (3)

 e-0.1•T

where Nt-threshold is the number of animals associated with the

declining-trend threshold, and T is the number of annual

surveys required to detect a decline of 10%/yr. Table IV-2

shows the number of years it would take to detect a 10%/yr

decline with different levels of precision and with an assumption of equal Type I and Type II errors (as calculated

using Gerrodette’s trends.exe program, assuming exponential growth, assuming CV  1/ N, and using a z-test). It is

more likely that surveys will only occur once every 4 yr.

Thus, Table IV-2 shows results for both 1- and 4-yr survey

intervals.


Page 15

We also contrast the use of different α levels. Clearly,

the number of years required to detect a trend depends

strongly on the evidence required to say a trend is statistically significant. Using the typical high standard of α = β =

0.05 to reject the null hypothesis results in requiring rather

absurdly high abundances with low precision levels when

we assume that surveys occur once every 4 yr. In contrast,

accepting evidence of a serious decline with a substantial

risk of a Type I error (α = 0.25) results in a much lower

declining-trend threshold for abundance. In other words,

there is a tradeoff between: 1) incorrectly pushing the red

button of alarm only very infrequently (α = 0.05), but requiring a very high abundance to attain that low error rate (i.e.,

large overprotection error); and 2) being willing to accept a

one-in-four chance of incorrectly pushing the red button,

but substantially reducing the overprotection error of requiring a much higher abundance for safety than may be

necessary.

It should be noted that this declining-trend threshold

results in detecting a trend just when the abundance threshold is met. The SRGs may consider adding a safety measure

of several years to attempt to halt a decline before the abundance threshold is met. Table IV-3 shows the decliningtrend thresholds with a constant 5-yr safety cushion added

to allow time for vigorous management actions. Note that

even though we should choose among the options presented in Tables IV-2 and IV-3, given current abundances

and precision levels, the recovery factor is unaffected for

any stock of endangered species.

Species that are above both the abundance and declining-trend thresholds, and that are known to be increasing,

would receive the lowest-risk recovery factor (end point J,

Figure IV-2). All other cases would be subject to a further

risk evaluation that considers other forms of risk. The first

consideration is whether the species is vulnerable to a natural or human-caused catastrophe. Species with single populations within an ocean basin are automatically considered

vulnerable. If the species is highly concentrated at some

period at a location vulnerable to catastrophe, then that

species should also be considered more vulnerable and receive a higher level of protection. We propose that “vulnerable to catastrophe” be defined as >50% of the species

within the range vulnerable to a potential catastrophe. The

type of catastrophe will need to be considered on a caseby-case basis.

Finally, populations that naturally experience large fluctuations in abundance are known to be more vulnerable to

extinction. Thus, we propose that a species/stock receive a

more conservative recovery factor if it qualifies for at least

one of the following: 1) species consists of a single population within an ocean basin, 2) >50% of the species is vulnerable to a catastrophe at some point, or 3) large fluctuations in abundance are common (Figure IV-2).

Table IV-4 shows the currently listed endangered species and Cook Inlet beluga for discussion purposes. The

required data for the decision tree are listed along with the

current and proposed recovery factors.

The decision tree leaves several items undefined. We

recommend the following definitions: abundance is Nmin, a

decline uses α = 0.25 for the significance criterion, an increase uses α =0.05 for the significance criterion, and the

rate of decline used in projecting a declining population

over the next 20 yr is rbest - 1sx (where rbest is the best estimate

of the current trend in abundance, and sx is standard error

of the mean).

It would also be useful for the SRGs to discuss how

subsistence harvest should interact with determination of

recovery factor values. That is, should NMFS and the

USFWS try to be less risk averse with their PBR management approach (e.g., setting values for recovery factors)

when applied to marine mammal species harvested for subsistence purposes by Alaskan Natives?

REFERENCES CITED

Mace, G.M.; Lande, R. 1991. Assessing extinction threats:

toward a reevaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conserv. Biol. 5:148-157.

Ralls, K.; DeMaster, D.P.; Estes, J.A. 1996. Developing a

criterion for delisting the southern sea otter under the

U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conserv. Biol. 10:1528-

1537.

Wade, P.R. 1998. Calculating limits to the human-caused mortality of cetaceans and pinnipeds. Mar. Mammal Sci.

14:1-37.

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

April 3-5, 1996; Seattle, WA. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSOPR-12; 93 p.
Page 16

Table IV-1. Required recovery factor values to attain different

percentage increases in recovery time for different levels of

precision (expressed as coefficients of variation, or CVs).

(Taken from Wade 1998.)

________________________________________________

Percentage Increase

 in Precision Level

 Recovery Time Low CV (0.2) High CV (0.8)

________________________________________________

10% 0.15 0.15

15% 0.20 0.25

20% 0.25 0.35

25% 0.35 0.40

30% 0.35 0.40

35% 0.40 0.50

________________________________________________

Table IV-2. The declining-trend threshold abundance required both to maintain at least 1,500 individuals (the abundance

threshold) and to be able to detect a 10%/yr decline for different levels of precision [expressed as coefficients

of variation (CV) in abundance (N)] and at different levels of significance

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 Significance Level for Type I (α) and Type II (ß) Errors ________________________________________________________________________________________________

 α = ß = 0.05 α = ß = 0.25 _____________________________________________ ___________________________________________

 Number of Number of Number of Number of

 Annual Quadrennial Annual Quadrennial

 Surveys Initial N Surveys Initial N Surveys Initial N Surveys Initial N

 to Detect to End to Detect to End to Detect to End to Detect to End

 CV r = -0.1 at 1,500 r = -0.1 at 1,500 r = -0.1 at 1,500 r = -0.1 at 1,500

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

0.1 6 2,733 12 4,980 3 2,025 8 3,338

0.2 10 4,077 16 7,430 4 2,238 12 4,980

0.3 13 5,504 20 11,084 6 2,733 12 4,980

0.4 16 7,429 24 16,535 8 3,338 12 4,980

0.5 19 10,029 32 36,799 9 3,689 12 4,980

0.6 22 13,538 36 54,897 10 4,077 16 7,429

0.7 23 14,961 40 81,897 11 4,506 16 7,429

0.8 25 18,273 44 122,176 12 4,980 16 7,429

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 17

Table IV-3. Required years and declining-trend threshold abundances for different

coefficients of variation, assuming α = ß = 0.25, and a 5-yr safety cushion.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 Number of Number of

 Annual Quadrennial

 Surveys Initial N Surveys Initial N

 to Detect to End to Detect to End

 CV r = -0.1 at 1,500 r = -0.1 at 1,500

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

0.1 8 3,338 13 5,504

0.2 9 3,689 17 8,211

0.3 11 4,506 17 8,211

0.4 13 5,504 17 8,211

0.5 14 6,083 17 8,211

0.6 15 6,723 21 12,249

0.7 16 7,430 21 12,249

0.8 17 8,211 21 12,249

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table IV-4. Abundance, precision, trend, and recovery factors for endangered species and Cook Inlet beluga. (The end

point for use in the decision tree in Figure IV-2 is in italics if a change would be required, and has an asterisk

if a change may be required depending on the increase in recovery time chosen for the different risk levels.

Note that the only case where choice of the threshold criterion makes a difference -- see Tables IV-1 and IV2 -- is for the central North Pacific humpback whale, but that both end points I and J result in a low risk rating.)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 Decision

 Species/Stock Abundance CV Trend Current Fr Proposed Fr Tree Point

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

HI monk seal 1,406 0.09 decreasing 0.10 High A

Steller sea lion (western) 39,500 0.02 decreasing 0.15 Medium *C

NP right whale ? (<1,500) ? ? 0.10 High A

NA right whale 295 ? ?decreasing 0.10 High A

CA/MEX blue whale 2,134 0.27 ?increasing 0.10 Medium H

NA blue whale 308 ? ? 0.10 High A

CA/OR/WA fin whale 935 0.63 ?increasing 0.10 High A

NA fin whale 2,700 0.59 ? 0.10 Medium E

CA/OR/WA sperm whale 756 0.49 ? 0.10 High A

NA sperm whale 2,698 0.67 ? 0.10 Medium E

BCB bowhead whale 8,200 0.07 increasing 0.50 Low J

NA humpback whale 10,600 0.07 increasing 0.10 Low *J

CA humpback whale 597 0.08 ?increasing 0.10 High A

Central NP humpback whale 4,005 0.10 increasing 0.10 Low *I, *J

Western NP humpback whale 394 0.08 ? 0.10 High A

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 18

Figure IV-1. Probability of extinction of whales (Chart A) and seals (Chart B) in five generations for different initial abundances and for

different decreases (as shown in the boxed legends) in the annualized survival rate for 1 out of every 10 yr. [The model is a

simple birth-and-death model with no density dependence (i.e., births equal deaths).]

B. Seal life history

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Abundance

Probability of 

extinction in 5 

generations

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.50

A. Whale life history

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 250 500 750 1000

Probability of 

extinction in 5 

generations

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.2
Page 19

Figure IV-2. Decision tree for the default recovery factor within the endangered category. (“Any one: 1, 2 or 3” refers to the following

criteria: 1) species consists of a single population within an ocean basin, 2) >50% of the species is vulnerable to a catastrophe

at some point, or 3) large fluctuations in abundance are common.)

N < 1,500 (abundance threshold)

Yes

No

Fr = low risk

N < trend threshold

Yes

No

Fr = 0.1

Trend declining Trend unknown

Trend increasing

Fr = 0.1

Fr = med risk

(High risk)

A

B

C

D

E

J

Fr = med risk

No Yes

N < 1,500 in 20 yrs N < trend threshold

Yes No

Any one: Any one: Any one:

1, 2 or 3

Yes No

Fr = 0.1

(High risk)

Yes No No

Yes

Fr = med risk Fr = low risk

Fr = low risk

Fr = med risk

F G H I

1, 2 or 3 1, 2 or 3
Page 20

APPENDIX V

Recovery Factors for Endangered Marine Mammals:

A Revised Decision Tree and Decision Matrix

After the working paper in Appendix IV was presented,

the JSRG, along with other workshop participants, discussed other possible schemes for categorizing endangered

species for the purpose of assigning a recovery factor.

Those discussions led to two new possible schemes that

were considered. Changes from the decision tree presented

in Appendix IV were proposed with the intent of improving

the scheme. However, there was no consensus at the workshop that either new scheme was adequate or acceptable.

These two schemes are presented here for the sake of future discussion, as a record of what was considered at the

workshop. Neither specific scheme was officially endorsed

by the JSRG.

One discussion led to the consideration of a different

format. From this discussion, a decision matrix or table was

created (Table V-1). Another discussion led to consideration of changes that could be made to the decision tree

presented in Appendix IV. The resulting revised decision

tree changed the order in which items were considered (Figure V-1). These two schemes were used to categorize stocks,

as done in Table IV-4. Categorization by the two new

schemes is presented in Table V-2.
Page 21

Table V-1. Draft decision table or matrix

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 Decreasing Trend Unknown Trend Increasing Trend

 Nmin Vulnerablea Not Vulnerable Vulnerablea Not Vulnerable Vulnerablea Not Vulnerable

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

<500 High High High High High High

500-1,499 High High High High High Medium

1,500-2,499 High High High Medium Medium Low

>2,500 High High Medium Low Low Low

_________

a

Vulnerable = Either single population, susceptible to variation in abundance, or subject to catastrophe.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table V-2. Categorization using the two revised draft schemes, a decision tree and a decision matrix, as discussed at

the workshop

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 Decision Tree Decision Matrix

 Risk Category Risk Category

 Species/Stock Nmin CV Trend Current Fr (Fig. V-1) (Tab. V-1)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

HI monk seal 1,406 0.09 decreasing 0.10 High High

Steller sea lion (western) 39,500 0.02 decreasing 0.15 High High

NP right whale ? (<1,500) ? ? 0.10 High High

NA right whale 295 ? decreasing 0.10 High High

CA/MEX blue whale 2,134 0.27 increasing 0.10 Medium Low

NA blue whale 308 ? ? 0.10 High High

CA/OR/WA fin whale 935 0.63 ?increasing 0.10 High High

NA fin whale 2,700 0.59 ? 0.10 High Low

CA/OR/WA sperm whale 756 0.49 ? 0.10 High High

NA sperm whale 2,698 0.67 ? 0.10 High Medium or low

BCB bowhead whale 8,200 0.07 increasing 0.50 Low Low

NA humpback whale 10,600 0.07 increasing 0.10 Low Low

CA humpback whale 597 0.08 ?increasing 0.10 High High or medium

Central NP humpback whale 4,005 0.10 increasing 0.10 Low or medium Low

Western NP humpback whale 394 0.08 ? 0.10 High High

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 22

Figure V-1. Revised draft decision tree. (Decision tree from Appendix IV was revised at the workshop with this result.)

Low

Fr

No

Medium 

Fr

Yes

N < Trend threshold?

No

High Fr

Yes

N < Abundance threshold?

Increasing

Medium

Fr

No

High Fr

Yes

N < Trend threshold?

No

High Fr

Yes

N < Abundance threshold?

Unknown

High Fr

Declining

No

High Fr

Yes

1) Single population in an ocean basin, or

2) >L50% subject to catastrophe, or

3) Large fluctuations in N common, or

4) Social structure makes Allee effects likely

Is the population vulnerable:
NORTHEAST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER

Dr. Michael P. Sissenwine, Science & Research Director

CAPT John T. Moakley, Operations, Management & Information Services Chief

Teri L. Frady, Research Communications Chief

Jon A. Gibson, Biological Sciences Editor & Laura S. Garner, Editorial Assistant

Publishing in NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE

Manuscript Qualification

 This series represents a secondary level of scientific publishing in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). For

all issues, the series employs thorough internal scientific review,

but not necessarily external scientific review. For most issues,

the series employs rigorous technical and copy editing. Manuscripts that may warrant a primary level of scientific publishing

should be initially submitted to one of NMFS’s primary series

(i.e., Fishery Bulletin, NOAA Technical Report NMFS, or Marine Fisheries Review).

Identical, or fundamentally identical, manuscripts should

not be concurrently submitted to this and any other publication

series. Manuscripts which have been rejected by any primary

series strictly because of geographic or temporal limitations may

be submitted to this series.

Manuscripts by Northeast Fisheries Science Center

(NEFSC) authors will be published in this series upon approval

by the NEFSC's Deputy Science & Research Director. Manuscripts by non-NEFSC authors may be published in this series if:

1) the manuscript serves the NEFSC’s mission; 2) the manuscript meets the Deputy Science & Research Director’s approval; and 3) the author arranges for the printing and binding

funds to be transferred to the NEFSC’s Research Communications Unit account from another federal account. For all manuscripts submitted by non-NEFSC authors and published in this

series, the NEFSC will disavow all responsibility for the manuscripts’ contents; authors must accept such responsibility.

The ethics of scientific research and scientific publishing

are a serious matter. All manuscripts submitted to this series are

expected to adhere -- at a minimum -- to the ethical guidelines

contained in Chapter 1 (“Ethical Conduct in Authorship and

Publication”) of the CBE Style Manual, fifth edition (Chicago,

IL: Council of Biology Editors). Copies of the manual are

available at virtually all scientific libraries.

Manuscript Preparation

Organization: Manuscripts must have an abstract, table of

contents, and -- if applicable -- lists of tables, figures, and

acronyms. As much as possible, use traditional scientific

manuscript organization for sections: “Introduction,” “Study

Area,” “Methods & Materials,” “Results,” “Discussion” and/or

“Conclusions,” “Acknowledgments,” and “References Cited.”

Style: All NEFSC publication and report series are obligated to conform to the style contained in the most recent edition

of the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual.

That style manual is silent on many aspects of scientific manuscripts. NEFSC publication and report series rely more on the

CBE Style Manual, fifth edition.

For in-text citations, use the name-date system. A special

effort should be made to ensure that the list of cited works

contains all necessary bibliographic information. For abbreviating serial titles in such lists, use the most recent edition of the

Serial Sources for the BIOSIS Previews Database (Philadelphia,

PA: Biosciences Information Service). Personal communications must include date of contact and full name and mailing

address of source.

For spelling of scientific and common names of fishes,

mollusks, and decapod crustaceans from the United States and

Canada, use Special Publications No. 20 (fishes), 26 (mollusks),

and 17 (decapod crustaceans) of the American Fisheries Society

(Bethesda, MD). For spelling of scientific and common names

of marine mammals, use Special Publication No. 4 of the

Society for Marine Mammalogy (Lawrence, KS). For spelling in

general, use the most recent edition of Webster’s Third New

International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged

(Springfield, MA: G.&C. Merriam).

Typing text, tables, and figure captions: Text, including

tables and figure captions, must be converted to, or able to be

coverted to, WordPerfect. In general, keep text simple (e.g.,

don’t switch fonts, don’t use hard returns within paragraphs,

don’t indent except to begin paragraphs). Especially, don’t use

WordPerfect graphics for embedding tables and figures in text.

If the automatic footnoting function is used, also save a list of

footnotes as a separate WordPerfect file. When the final draft is

ready for review, save the text, tables, figure captions, footnotes,

and front matter as separate document files.

Tables should be prepared using all tabs or all spaces

between columnar data, but not a combination of the two.

Figures must be original (even if oversized) and on paper; they

cannot be photocopies (e.g., Xerox) unless that is all that is

available, nor be on disk. Except under extraordinary circumstances, color will not be used in illustrations.

Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit one paper copy of the double-spaced

manuscript, one magnetic copy on a disk, and original figures (if

applicable). NEFSC authors must include a completely signedoff “NEFSC Manuscript/Abstract/Webpage Review Form.”

Non-NEFSC authors who are not federal employees will be

required to sign a “Release of Copyright” form.

Send all materials and address all correspondence to:

Jon A. Gibson, Biological Sciences Editor

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026 USA
Research Communications Unit

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

166 Water St.

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE -- This series is issued irregularly. The series includes: data reports of longterm or large area studies; synthesis reports for major resources or habitats; annual reports of assessment or monitoring programs;

documentary reports of oceanographic conditions or phenomena; manuals describing field and lab techniques; literature surveys of

major resource or habitat topics; findings of task forces or working groups; summary reports of scientific or technical workshops; and

indexed and/or annotated bibliographies. All issues receive internal scientific review and most issues receive technical and copy

editing. Limited free copies are available from authors or the NEFSC. Issues are also available from the National Technical

Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.

Fishermen's Report and The Shark Tagger -- The Fishermen's Report (FR) is a quick-turnaround report on the

distribution and relative abundance of commercial fisheries resources as derived from each of the NEFSC's periodic research vessel

surveys of the Northeast's continental shelf. There is no scientific review, nor any technical or copy editing, of the FR; copies are

available through free subscription. The Shark Tagger (TST) is an annual summary of tagging and recapture data on large pelagic

sharks as derived from the NMFS's Cooperative Shark Tagging Program; it also presents information on the biology (movement,

growth, reproduction, etc.) of these sharks as subsequently derived from the tagging and recapture data. There is internal scientific

review, but no technical or copy editing, of the TST; copies are available only to participants in the tagging program.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document -- This series is issued irregularly. The series

includes: data reports on field and lab observations or experiments; progress reports on continuing experiments, monitoring, and

assessments; background papers for scientific or technical workshops; and simple bibliographies. Issues receive internal scientific

review but no technical or copy editing. No subscriptions. Free distribution of single copies.

The mission of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is "stewardship of living marine resources for the

benefit of the nation through their science-based conservation and management and promotion of the health of their

environment." As the research arm of the NMFS's Northeast Region, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC)

supports the NMFS mission by "planning, developing, and managing multidisciplinary programs of basic and applied

research to: 1) better understand the living marine resources (including marine mammals) of the Northwest Atlantic,

and the environmental quality essential for their existence and continued productivity; and 2) describe and provide to

management, industry, and the public, options for the utilization and conservation of living marine resources and

maintenance of environmental quality which are consistent with national and regional goals and needs, and with

international commitments." Results of NEFSC research are largely reported in primary scientific media (e.g.,

anonymously-peer-reviewed scientific journals). However, to assist itself in providing data, information, and advice to

its constituents, the NEFSC occasionally releases its results in its own media. Those media are in three categories:

Publications and Reports

of the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

To obtain a copy of a technical memorandum or a reference document, or to subscribe to the fishermen's report,

write: Research Communications Unit, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA

02543-1026. An annual list of NEFSC publications and reports is available upon request at the above address.

Any use of trade names in any NEFSC publication or report does not imply endorsement.

STANDARD

 MAIL A