252 



DRAFT 



Sea Lions Tpages 108-110) 



"In their studies in the early 1980s, Beach (1982) reported maximum 

 counts of 150 to 200 California sea lions in the vicinity of the Oregon 

 coast. " 



Beach (1982) is not listed in the bibliography. Beach et al. (1985) would be the 

 appropriate reference, and it is listed in the bibliography. However, Beach et al. 

 (1985) only reported California sea lion numbers in the Columbia River area , not "in 

 the vicinity of the Oregon coast". The authors erroneously imply that large increases in 

 sea lion numbers were documented in Oregon through the 1980's. Neither the data in 

 Beach et al. (1985) nor the information presented in this report support this conclusion. 

 ODFW and WDW have unpublished data that suggests that numbers of California sea 

 lions in Oregon and V/ashington during the winter have increased along with growing 

 breeding populations in California. However, these data series are incomplete and are 

 not highly useful in demonstrating trends in California sea lion numbers in Oregon. 



"The northern sea lion has a North American population of about 

 200,000 animals with most in the Gulf of Alaska (Olesiuk and Bigg, 

 1988). " 



The reference used for Steller sea lion population status in North America, and the 

 estimates of abundance presented are not current. More recent information is available 

 from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle. 



"A maximum of 350 to 400 northern sea lions were recorded off the 

 coast of Oregon in 1982 (Beach et al. 1982). ' 



Beach et al. (1982) is not referenced in the bibliography. Again, this reference is 

 apparently used incorrectly by referring to numbers of sea lions reported in the 

 Columbia River area as being "recordwl off the coast of Oregon". 



"...a resident population of from 200 to 400 northern sea lions in 

 Oregon. . . (Robin Brown. ODFW personal communications, 4 March 

 1992). " 



In this statement the meaning of "resident" is unclear. The abundance estimates are 

 inaccurate. This is an important point because these estimates and the "residency" 

 status are used directly in the calculations of salmonid consumption by this species. 

 Manipulation of these estimates and the use of the term residency could significantly 



A-46 



