Draft U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2009

Under the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are required to publish Stock Assessment Reports for all stocks of marine mammals within U.S. waters, to review new information every year for strategic stocks and every three years for non-strategic stocks, and to update the stock assessment reports when significant new information becomes available. This report presents stock assessments for 13 Pacific marine mammal stocks under NMFS jurisdiction, including 8 “strategic” stocks and 5 “non-strategic” stocks (see summary table). A new stock assessment for humpback whales in American Samoa waters is included in the Pacific reports for the first time. New or revised abundance estimates are available for 9 stocks, including Eastern North Pacific blue whales, American Samoa humpback whales, five U.S. west coast harbor porpoise stocks, the Hawaiian monk seal, and southern resident killer whales. A change in the abundance estimate of Eastern North Pacific blue whales reflects a recommendation from the Pacific Scientific Review Group to utilize mark-recapture estimates for this population, which provide a better estimate of total population size than the average of recent line-transect and mark-recapture estimates. The ‘Northern Oregon/Washington Coast Stock’ harbor porpoise stock assessment includes a name change (‘Oregon’ is appended to ‘Northern Oregon’) to reflect recent stock boundary changes. Changes in abundance estimates for the two stocks of harbor porpoise that occur in Oregon waters are the result of these boundary changes, and do not reflect biological changes in the populations. Updated information on the three stocks of false killer whales in Hawaiian waters is also included in these reports. Information on the remaining 50 Pacific region stocks will be reprinted without revision in the final 2009 reports and currently appears in the 2008 reports (Carretta et al. 2009). Stock Assessments for Alaskan marine mammals are published by the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) in a separate report. Pacific region stock assessments include those studied by the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC, La Jolla, California), the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC, Honolulu, Hawaii), the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML, Seattle, Washington), and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC, Seattle, WA). Northwest Fisheries Science Center staff prepared the report on the Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident killer whale. National Marine Mammal Laboratory staff prepared the Northern Oregon/Washington coast harbor porpoise stock assessment. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center staff prepared the report on the Hawaiian monk seal. Southwest Fisheries Science Center staff prepared stock assessments for 9 stocks. The stock assessment for the American Samoa humpback whale was prepared by staff from the Center for Coastal Studies, Hawaiian Islands Humpback National Marine Sanctuary, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Draft versions of the stock assessment reports were reviewed by the Pacific Scientific Review Group at the November 2008, Maui meeting. The authors also wish to thank those who provided unpublished data, especially Robin Baird and Joseph Mobley, who provided valuable information on Hawaiian cetaceans. Any omissions or errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. This is a working document and individual stock assessment reports will be updated as new information on marine mammal stocks and fisheries becomes available. Background information and guidelines for preparing stock assessment reports are reviewed in Wade and Angliss (1997). The authors solicit any new information or comments which would improve future stock assessment reports. These Stock Assessment Reports summarize information from a wide range of sources and an extensive bibliography of all sources is given in each report. We strongly urge users of this document to refer to and cite original literature sources rather than citing this report or previous Stock Assessment Reports. If the original sources are not accessible, the citation should follow the format: [Original source], as cited in [this Stock Assessment Report citation].

U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments

Under the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were required to produce stock assessment reports for all marine mammal stocks in waters within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. This document contains the stock assessment reports for the U.S. Pacific marine mammal stocks under NMFS jurisdiction. Marine mammal species which are under the management jurisdiction of the USFWS are not included in this report. A separate report containing background, guidelines for preparation, and .a summary of all stock assessment reports is available from the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. This report was prepared by staff of the Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS. The information presented here was compiled primarily from published sources, but additional unpublished information was included where it contributed to the assessments. The authors wish to thanks the members of the Pacific Scientific Review Group for their valuable contributions and constructive criticism: Hannah Bernard, Robin Brown, Mark Fraker, Doyle Hanan, John Heyning, Steve Jeffries, Katherine Ralls, Michael Scott, and Terry Wright. Their comments greatly improved the quality of these reports, We also thanks the Marine Mammal Commission, The Humane Society of the United States, The Marine Mammal Center, The Center for Marine Conservation, and Friends of the Sea Otter for their careful reviews and thoughtful comments. Special thanks to Paul Wade of the Office of Protected Resources for his exhaustive review and comments, which greatly enhanced the consistency and technical quality of the reports. Any ommissions or errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. This is a working document and individual stock assessment reports will be updated as new information becomes available and as changes to marine mammal stocks and fisheries occur; therefore, each stock assessment report is intended to be a stand alone document. The authors solicit any new information or comments which would improve future stock assessment reports. This is Southwest Fisheries Science Center Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC- 219, July 1995. 111

Literacy Research: Issues of Authority, Ownership, and Representation

With the “social turn” of language in the past decade within English studies, ethnographic and teacher research methods increasingly have acquired legitimacy as a means of studying student literacy. And with this legitimacy, graduate students specializing in literacy and composition studies increasingly are being encouraged to use ethnographic and teacher research methods to study student literacy within classrooms. Yet few of the narratives produced from these studies discuss the problems that frequently arise when participant observers enter the classroom. Recently, some researchers have begun to interrogate the extent to which ethnographic and teacher research methods are able to construct and disseminate knowledge in empowering ways (Anderson & Irvine, 1993; Bishop, 1993; Fine, 1994; Fleischer. 1994; McLaren, 1992). While ethnographic and teacher research methods have oftentimes been touted as being more democratic and nonhierarchical than quantitative methods—-which oftentimes erase individuals lived experiences with numbers and statistical formulas—-researchers are just beginning to probe the ways that ethnographic and teacher research models can also be silencing, unreflective, and oppressive. Those who have begun to question the ethics of conducting, writing about, and disseminating knowledge in education have coined the term “critical” research, a rather vague and loose term that proposes a position of reflexivity and self-critique for all research methods, not just ethnography or teacher research. Drawing upon theories of feminist consciousness-raising, liberatory praxis, and community-action research, theories of critical research aim to involve researchers and participants in a highly participatory framework for constructing knowledge, an inquiry that seeks to question, disrupt, or intervene in the conditions under study for some socially transformative end. While critical research methods are always contingent upon the context being studied, in general they are undergirded by principles of non-hierarchical relations, participatory collaboration, problem-posing, dialogic inquiry, and multiple and multi-voiced interpretations. In distinguishing between critical and traditional ethnographic processes, for instance, Peter McLaren says that critical ethnography asks questions such as “[u]nder what conditions and to what ends do we. as educational researchers, enter into relations of cooperation. mutuality, and reciprocity with those who we research?” (p. 78) and “what social effects do you want your evaluations and understandings to have?” (p. 83). In»the same vein, Michelle Fine suggests that critical researchers must move beyond notions of the etic/emic dichotomy of researcher positionality in order to “probe how we are in relation with the contexts we study and with our informants, understanding that we are all multiple in those relations” (p. 72). Researchers in composition and literacy stud¬ies who endorse critical research methods, then, aim to enact some sort of positive transformative change in keeping with the needs and interests of the participants with whom they work.

Community Life and Housing in Rural Nebraska: 2005 Nebraska Rural Poll Results

Many rural communities are experiencing population decline. However, rural residents have continued to show a strong attachment to their communities. How do rural Nebraskans feel about their community? Are they satisfied with the services provided? Do they own their home? What is the condition of their home? This report details 2,851 responses to the 2005 Nebraska Rural Poll, the tenth annual effort to understand rural Nebraskans’ perceptions. Respondents were asked a series of questions about their community and housing. Trends for some of these questions are examined by comparing data from the nine previous polls to this year’s results. For all questions, comparisons are made among different respondent subgroups, that is, comparisons by age, occupation, region, etc. Based on these analyses, some key findings emerged: Rural Nebraskans’ views of the change in their community are similar to those expressed last year. This year, 28 percent believe their community has changed for the better, compared to 26 percent last year. And, in 2005, only 20 percent think their community has changed for the worse, compared to 22 percent last year. The proportion of expected movers who plan to leave the state decreased this year. Last year, 56 percent of the persons planning to move from their community expected to leave the state. That proportion decreased to 47 percent this year. Rural Nebraskans living in or near the largest communities are more likely than persons living in or near the smaller communities to say their community has changed for the better. Thirty-nine percent of persons living in or near communities with populations of 10,000 or more believe their community has changed for the better during the past year, but only 15 percent of persons living in or near communities with less than 500 people share this opinion. The community services and amenities that rural Nebraskans are most dissatisfied with include: entertainment, retail shopping and restaurants. At least one-third of rural Nebraskans express dissatisfaction with these three services. They are most satisfied with parks and recreation, library services, basic medical care services, highways and bridges, and education (K - 12). At least one-half of rural Nebraskans are satisfied with the following items in their community: appearance of residential areas (66%), crime control (61%), maintenance of sidewalks and public areas (57%) and noise (54%). Rural Nebraskans generally have positive views about their community. Sixty percent agree that their community is an ideal place to live and 52 percent say their community has good business leaders. Rural Nebraskans have mixed opinions about the future of their community. Fortyfour percent agree that their community’s future looks bright, but 42 percent disagree with this statement. Fourteen percent have no opinion. Rural Nebraskans living in or near the larger communities are more likely than residents of the smaller communities to think their community’s future looks bright. Fifty-nine percent of persons living in or near communities with populations of 10,000 or more agree with this statement, compared to only 25 percent of residents living in or near communities with less than 500 people. Further, 61 percent of the residents of the smallest communities disagree with this statement, compared to only 28 percent of the residents of the largest communities. Over three-quarters of rural Nebraskans disagree that younger residents of their community tend to stay there after completing high school. Seventy-six percent disagree with this statement, 16 percent have no opinion and eight percent agree that younger residents stay after completing high school. When comparing responses by age, younger persons are more likely than older persons to agree that younger residents stay in their community after high school. Sixteen percent of persons age 19 to 29 agree with this statement, compared to only six percent of persons age 50 to 64. Younger persons are more likely than older persons to be planning to move from their community next year. Fifteen percent of persons between the ages of 19 and 29 are planning to move next year, compared to only two percent of persons age 65 and older. An additional 17 percent of the younger respondents indicate they are uncertain if they plan to move. Most rural Nebraskans own their home. Eighty-four percent of rural Nebraskans own their home. Older persons are more likely than younger persons to own their home. Eighty-eight percent of persons over the age of 50 own their home, compared to only 52 percent of persons age 19 to 29. Housing in rural Nebraska has an average age of 50 years. Twenty-four percent of residences were built before 1930. Another 24 percent were built between 1930 and 1959. Twenty-nine percent were built between 1960 and 1979 and the remaining 24 percent were built in 1980 or later. The housing stock in smaller communities is older than the housing located in larger communities. Over one-third (35%) of the residences in communities with less than 1,000 people were built before 1930. Only 12 percent of the homes in communities with populations of 10,000 or more were built in this time period. Most rural Nebraskans appear satisfied with their home. Only 24 percent say the current size of their home does not meet their needs. The same proportion (24%) say their home is in need of major repairs. Thirty-eight percent agree that their home needs a lot of routine maintenance, but 87 percent like the location (neighborhood) of their home. One-third of rural Nebraskans living in or near the smallest communities say their home is in need of major repairs. Only 19 percent of persons living in or near communities with populations of 5,000 or more are facing this problem. Home ownership is very important to most rural Nebraskans. Eighty-two percent believe it is very important to own their home. An additional 12 percent say it is somewhat important and six percent say it is not at all important. However, persons who do not currently own their home do not feel it is important for them to do so. Only 32 percent of renters say it is very important to own their home, compared to 91 percent of home owners. And, 35 percent of renters say it is not at all important to own their home.