Institute of Social and Economic Research

Endangered Species, Threatened Fisheries, Science to the Rescue! Evaluating the Congressionally Designated Steller Sea Lion Research Program

Matthew Berrman Institute of Social and Economic Research Policy Forum

August 1, 2006

The Science Program • Congress responds to constituent pressure following court injunction in November 2000 restricting the North Pacific groundfish fisheries – Perceived inadequacies in scientific base for decisionmaking – Duration: FY 2001 - 2004 – Primary goal: relieving restrictions on fishery – Stated goal: determining cause of decline and fisheries’ role

• After 2004, earmarked funds continue at lower level, but money designated more broadly for marine mammal research.

Evaluation questions • • • • •

Who got how much money? How were the funds allocated? What research was done? Did the program achieve its goals? If not, why not? What can we learn from the program about the ability of directed science to solve environmental problems?

Methods • Follow the money • Review selected publications and presentations • Interview science managers, scientists, and resource managers

Context for the science program • • • • •

Steller sea lion decline NOAA inaction and litigation 2000 crisis Congressional response National Research Council Study

Western population of Steller sea lions declined sharply after groundfish harvests increased Total groundfish catch in federal waters off Alaska 2.5

Million metric tons

2

1.5 GOA 1 BSAI 0.5

0 1954

1959

1964

1969

1974

1979

1984

1989

1994

1999

2004

Photos: National Marine Mammal Laboratory

1969

1979

1986

Steller sea lion population decline at Ugamak Island

Evolution Toward a Crisis 1988 NOAA Fisheries lists Steller sea lions as depleted under the MMPA 1989 Environmental organizations petition NMFS to list all Steller sea lion populations in Alaska as endangered under the ESA 1990 NMFS lists Steller sea lions as threatened (not endangered). NOAA Fisheries establishes 3nm no transit zones around Steller sea lion rookeries. 1992 Steller sea lion rookeries closed to trawling, either at 10nm or 20 nm radius 1993 Steller sea lion Critical Habitat defined as 20nm from 39 rookeries 83 haulouts, 3 foraging areas: Seguam Pass, Bogoslof, and Shelikof. 1995 BiOp concludes that fisheries not likely to jeopardize Steller sea lions. 1997 Steller sea lion populations west of 144 west listed as endangered. 1998 Atka Mackerel and Pollock BiOp concludes that pollock fisheries jeopardize the recovery of Steller sea lions. 1999 Emergency closure of directed fishing for Pollock in the Aleutian Islands along with additional spatial closure. NOAA Fisheries recall s BiOp #2 for review. 2000 Additional pollock restrictions areas via Revised Final RPA's. 2000 August: Judge Zilly issues trawl injunction for Steller sea lion critical habitat. 2000 November 30 BiOp #3: 13 Open and Closed areas. Trawl Injunction lifted by Judge Zilly.

How much did Congress spend? Congressionally Designated Funding for Steller Sea Lion Research, 1992-2004 $45

Million dollars

$40 $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 1992

1994

1996 1998 2000 Federal fiscal year NOAA total

2002

Total, other federal funds

Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region, unpublished data

2004

What evaluation was done?

Who got the money? Congressionally Designated Appropriations for Steller Sea Lion Research, 2001-2004 University researchers $13.3 million 11% Non-profit organizations $25.5 million 21%

State of Alaska $9.0 million 7%

Federal agencies and labs $76.0 million 61%

Who got the money? Details Congressionally Designated Steller Sea Lion Research Funding, Federal Fiscal Years 2001-2004 Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation $2.5 million 2%

Alaska SeaLife Center $22.0 million 18%

Prince William Sound Science Center $1.0 million 1% National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska $36.0 million 29%

UAF - Gulf Apex Predator Project $4.0 million 3% North Pacific Univ. Marine Mammal Consortium $9.3 million 8% Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game $9.0 million North Pacific Fishery 7% Management Council NOAA-Office of Atmospheric $8.0 million Research $12.0 7% million

NMFS-Steller Sea Lion Research Initiative $15.0 million 12% NOAA-National Ocean Service $4.0 million 3%

How were the funds allocated?

Appropriations vs. Spending Funds reallocated from federal agencies and labs to university researchers and non-profit organizations. Congressionally Designated Appropriations for Steller Sea Lion Research, 2001-2004 University researchers $13.3 million 11% Non-profit organizations $25.5 million 21%

State of Alaska $9.0 million 7%

Spending of Steller Sea Lion Research Funds, 2001-2004 University researchers $25.3 million 21% Federal agencies and labs $57.7 million 47%

Federal agencies and labs $76.0 million 61%

Non-profit organizations $30.6 million 25%

State of Alaska $9.0 million 7%

What research was done?

Nearly half of funding spent on basic biology of the species. Distribution of Spending by Type of Science Activity, 2001-2004 Population monitoring 12% Physical environment 11% Research coordination 5%

Sea lion biology 43%

Regulatory compliance 9% Fisheries interactions Ecology, food webs 7% 13% Source: Alaska Fisheries Science Center for AFSC research, remainder classified by author.

Research at NOAA labs more broadly distributed than that of other organizations. Spending by Type of Science Activity and Type of Organization, 2001-2004 Research coordination Regulatory compliance Fisheries interactions Ecology, food webs Sea lion biology Population monitoring Physical environment 0

10

Federal agencies and labs Non-profit organizations

20

30 40 million dollars

50

60

University researchers State of Alaska

Source: Alaska Fisheries Science Center for AFSC research, remainder classified by author.

Did the research program achieve the goals? • Primary goal: relieving restrictions on the fishery as soon as possible • Secondary goal: understanding the cause of the decline • Well, ... no, it did not.

Why did it fail to achieve its goals?

Reason 1: Most science effort directed to the wrong questions • Stated research focus -- PL 106-554, App. D, Div. A, Ch. 2, sec. 209 (114 State. 2763A-176) – (a) the western population of Steller sea lions has substantially declined over the last 25 years. – (b) scientists should closely research and analyze all possible factors relating to such decline, including the possible interactions between commercial fishing and Steller sea lions and the localized depletion hypothesis.

• Congressional intent drawn from public controversy and scientific uncertainty over NMFS analysis of potential causes of decline and the role of fisheries.

NOAA 2001 budget language: (d)SEA LION PROTECTION MEASURES.-$20,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce to remain available until expended to develop and implement a coordinated, comprehensive research and recovery program for the Steller sea lion, which shall be designed to study • • • • • • • • • • • •

(1) available prey species; (2) predator/prey relationships; (3) predation by other marine mammals; (4) interactions between fisheries and Steller sea lions, including the localized depletion theory; (5) regime shift, climate change, and other impacts associated with changing environmental conditions in the North Pacific and Bering Sea; (6) disease; (7) juvenile and pup survival rates; (8) population counts; (9) nutritional stress; (10) foreign commercial harvest of sealions outside the exclusive economic zone; (11) the residual impacts of former government-authorized Steller sea lion eradication bounty programs;and (12) the residual impacts of intentional lethal takes of Steller sea lions.

Congress mistakenly sent research money to chase the wrong quarry. •

•

•

•

ESA, section 7 requires consultation by federal agencies to ensure that “any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species....” (36 U.S.C. sec. 1536(a)(2)) Whether fishing was a factor in the decline may be important to science and public relations, but does not affect NMFS’s obligations under the law. The right question is whether fishing could jeopardize the continued existence of the population today, given its current depleted status and the current state of the natural environment. Congress directed research into improving the science for a recovery plan -- a long-term goal -- rather than to the immediate crisis related to reducing potential interactions with fishing.

Reason 2: Allocation of research money lacked understanding of the research business.

Different types of research organizations have different strengths and weaknesses Organization type

Strengths

Weaknesses

NOAA research labs

connection to decisions

lack of horizontal communication

direction, focus

slow to change course

infrastructure University researchers

Non-profit organizations

creativity

driven by peer acclaim rather than public needs

quality control (peer review)

geographically dispersed, balkanized by discipline

quickly take on new issues

slow to complete research (graduate students)

outreach, partnerships

limited scope of mission

entrepreneurial

less formal quality control

specialized infrastructure

specialized infrastructure

Organizational responses to unanticipated funding windfalls differ

Organization type

Response to short-term funding windfall

NOAA research labs

changing staffing levels difficult put money into field research, logistics have to partner with others to carry forward surplus funds

University researchers

changing staffing levels difficult fund graduate student stipends and dissertation research flexibility to carry forward surplus research funds

Non-profit organizations

adapted to uncertain funding, more flexibility to change staffing mix

Insiders perceive strengths and weakness of different organizations

• Scientists closely watch colleagues in other institutions • Views of each other: mix of envy and criticism • “NOAA has the ships” • “NOAA [unlike university researchers] has to make a decision, and live with the consequences.” • “They [NOAA] don’t use their resources effectively. They don’t talk to each other.”

Pattern of earmarks undercut organizational strengths • •

NOAA and universities received large but transitory funding in first two years. NGO and narrow program funding continued or increased. Congressionally Designated Steller Sea Lion Funding Federal Fiscal Years 2000-2004

45 PWS Science Center

40

Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation

Million dollars

35

UAF - Gulf Apex Predator Project

30

North Pacific Univ. Marine Mammal Consortium

25

NMFS-Steller Sea Lion Research Initiative NOAA-National Ocean Service

20

NOAA-Office of Atmospheric Research

15

Alaska SeaLife Center

10

Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game North Pacific Fishery Management Council

5

National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska

0 FY00

FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

Reason 3. Even when directed to right questions, relatively few projects relevant to decisions 1. University researchers, non-profits often not focused on managers' problems 2. Challenge of interdisciplinary research design 3. Mobilizing funding and putting together interdisciplinary teams for larger, collaborative projects takes time 4. Developing research agendas and ensuring quality control (peer review) takes time 5. Finding the right spatial and temporal scales challenging

Examples of challenges faced by researchers undertaking relevant projects •

Conners and Munro: local depletion from cod trawling – Test of adaptive management recommended by NAS study – Time scale too long for Steller sea lion energetics

•

Hinckley and Dorn: agent-based model of SSL energetics – Space and time scale too small for management decisions

•

Horne et al.: fisheries interaction model – Design too complex, takes too long to develop study

•

Hennen dissertation: spatial fishing pressure and SSL population – Individual working alone (dissertation) – Inability to control for other forces of change (fishing reg's)

Examples of challenges faced by researchers undertaking relevant projects (continued) •

Haney dissertation – Individual working alone (dissertation) – Spatial scale too coarse for management decisions

•

Gregr: spatial competition between SSL, fisheries – non-PhD researcher fights for respect for innovation

•

Berman: evaluation of research program – Individual working alone with small budget

Despite not achieving the main goals, the directed science program was in fact highly productive • Rapid learning from large infusion of funds • Interdisciplinary cross-fertilization • Significant organized efforts at coordination and synthesis • Simultaneous inquiry into multiple causes of decline shifts focus from species to ecosystem (how each research piece fits together)

What did the congressionally directed science say about the decline and path recovery? • Scientists who believed that climate-related changes in physical oceanography caused the decline got more evidence supporting their position. – Oceanographic regimes drive entire ecosystem food webs – Vulnerability of juveniles to nutritional stress confirmed – However, insufficient evidence for the “junk-food hypothesis”

• Scientists who believed that fishing factored into the decline got only a little more evidence – Hennen dissertation – Atka mackerel local depletion study

• Evidence weak for predation (orcas) and other “topdown” effects

Broader lessons • Science takes time, coordinated efforts take even more time • Different types of science organizations have different strengths, collaboration across different types of organizations beneficial • Interdisciplinary, policy-relevant research is necessary but difficult • Science can be more helpful for avoiding environmental crises than resolving them as they unfold

Institute of Social and Economic Research

Thank you for your attention