A forward-looking review of the Antarctic Ecosystem Research Division (SWFSC) and its implementation of the US AMLR Program

31 August – 2 September 2009

Welcome

Thank you

Personal introductions

Logistics

Agenda• Monday – Introduction, Krill and krill-dependent

predators

• Tuesday – Krill and krill-dependent predators contd., Finfish and benthic invertebrates, Marine biodiversity and spatial management

• Wednesday – Follow-up interviews, reporting, etc.

Outline

• Acronyms• Straw man vision• Terms of reference and an extended example• Mandates• Personnel• Physical resources• Budget• A year in the life of the US AMLR Program

Common Acronyms• CCAMLR (Comm): Commission

for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

• SC: Scientific Committee• WG-EMM: Working Group on

Ecosystem Monitoring and Management

• WG-FSA: Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment

• WG-SAM: Working Group on Statistics, Assessments, and Modeling

• CM: conservation measure

• SSMU: small-scale management unit

• CEP: Committee for Environmental Protection (Antarctic Treaty System)

• MPA: marine protected area• VME: vulnerable marine

ecosystem

Vision

The AERD will meet NOAA’s mandates and provide the best scientific information available to implement ecosystem-based management of living marine resources. We will achieve this objective by

• optimizing the maintenance and update of key time-series data and the conduct of project-based studies that fill important information gaps;

• using new and improved sampling technologies to extend the scope of our work;

• integrating and synthesizing data using best practice analytical approaches;

• anticipating future needs for advice and threats to sustainability, including climate change;

• working proactively to address these needs and mitigate these threats;

• leading the scientific community through transparent, impartial, and accountable participation in committees, working groups, and partnerships;

• training the next generation of scientists and building the scientific capacities of partner institutions and nations; and

• communicating effectively with stakeholders and decision makers.

TERMS OF REFERENCE (WITH AN EXAMPLE)

What this review is intended to achieve …

Terms of Reference 1

Review needs for scientific advice related to ecosystem-based management of krill and finfish fisheries

Evaluate ability of the AERD to provide advice given• the design and conduct of its present research and

monitoring efforts• the financial and physical resources available to

accomplish such work• its present staffing level and expertise

Identify areas where directed research, expanded field operations, and investments in new technologies can improve or expand advice

3 million tons ÷ 15 SSMUs = ?

Advise on Krill-Fishery Management

Data → Analysis → Advice• Historical catch• Predator demand• Krill biomass• Krill “surplus”• Monitoring

2002-03 2004-05

2008-09

0

10

20

30

40

50

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Years

% C

oh

ort

su

rviv

al

0

3000

6000

9000

Po

pu

lati

on

siz

e (p

airs

)

2006-07

* Lots of collaboration with BAS

Gaps, Threats, and OpportunitiesGaps and threats catalyze opportunities

• “Fish are … an area of considerable uncertainty.”

• “… estimates of predator abundance were currently considered inappropriate because of the incomplete data ….”

• “The Scientific Committee noted the generic nature of the concerns raised by … and asked that they provide explicit details to the next meetings of WG-SAM and WG-EMM.” [This did not happen.]

• GW is the main AMLR PI on the SSMU issue, but now he is Director…

http://www.nordic-resins.dk/krillmesteren.htm

Expansion and Climate Change• Feedback management in which the spatial allocation

is adjusted on the basis of monitoring holds promise when climate is changing

One survey onlySurveys every 2 yrs

0.0

0.4

0.8

0.0 0.4 0.8

prop

ortio

n of

yea

rsfis

hes

not “

depl

eted

”

catch as fractionof allocation

Allocate using [demand – krill biomass](with climate change)

Terms of Reference 2

• Review needs for scientific advice related to emerging issues (e.g., climate change and marine spatial planning)

• Evaluate whether “traditional” work constrains ability to advise on emerging issues

• Determine how the Program might be expanded to best advise on emerging issues while maintaining capacity to address traditional issues

SSMUs within a Larger Spatial Mosaic

• Prioritized development of “representative” MPA network

• Should ensure future opportunities for fishing

• Many CMs have spatial elements (e.g., VMEs and new or exploratory fisheries)

• More robust to consider an overarching framework for spatial management (i.e., marine spatial planning)

• AERD has data and existing work fits within such a framework

Adapted from 2009 Report of WG-EMMOriginal work by British Antarctic Survey

SSMUs

Terms of Reference 3

• Identify ways to leverage resources and expertise with those of internal and external partners to build synergies that simultaneously address NOAA's broad interests in Antarctic research, the mandates of the US AMLR Program, and other national or international research programs

Monitoring Synergies• AERD monitors krill predators

at 2 sites in 2 SSMUs

• Feedback management seems to demand more monitoring

• Many sites are visited by tourists

• Coordination with CEP or other entities (e.g., Oceanites) could be synergistic → AERD representation on US del to CEP

Chinstrap

colonies

Adapted from WG-EMM-08/8

MANDATESWhy we do our job …

Mandates

AMLR Convention Act of 1984• “United States basic and directed research programs

concerning the marine living resources of the Antarctic are essential to achieve the United States goal of effective implementation of the objectives of the Convention”

• “the Secretary of Commerce … shall design and conduct the program of directed scientific research … supplemental to and coordinated with the United States Antarctic Program”

Mandates Continued

Article II of the Convention• prevent decrease in the size of harvested populations to

levels below those ensuring stable recruitment (≥ level that which ensures the greatest net annual increment)

• maintain ecological relationships between harvested, dependent and related populations and restore depleted populations to the levels defined above

• prevent changes or minimize risk of changes in the marine ecosystem which are not potentially reversible over two or three decades, taking into account … the effects of environmental changes

Mandates Continued

Article IX of the ConventionThe Commission shall …

•“formulate, adopt and revise conservation measures on the basis of the best scientific evidence available, ….”

Report of the CCAMLR Performance Review Panel

•“Protected areas” → MPAs

•“Status of living resources” → recovery plans, orderly development of krill fishery

•“Ecosystem approach” → coherent and coordinated monitoring

Other Mandates

Magnuson Stevens Act – enhance international cooperation• provide recommendations to Dept of State

• strengthen regional fishery management organizations

NOAA Annual Guidance Memo (5 Aug 2009) – advance NOAA’s capacity to support ecosystem-based management• comprehensive marine spatial planning

• research the effects of climate change on ocean ecosystems

PERSONNEL, FACILITIES, AND BUDGET

The resources (currently) available to do our job …

AERD Leadership• George Watters – Director

• Stephanie Sexton – “Deputy”

• Mike Goebel – Leader, Pinnipeds

• Christopher Jones – Leader, Finfishes and benthic invertebrates

• Christian Reiss – Leader, Krill and oceanography

• Wayne Trivelpiece – Leader, Seabirds

Personnel Continued• Amy Van Cise – Administration

and scientific technician

• Anthony Cossio – Acoustics and logistics (ships)

• Douglas Krause – Pinnipeds and logistics (camps)

• Jefferson Hinke – SCEP, Seabirds

• Vacant – Stock assessment

• Raul Vasquez Del Mercado – NOAA Corps, Camp manager and scientific observer coordination

* 11 FTEs + 1 NOAA Corps = 118 yrs cumulative Antarctic experience

Ships and CampsR/V Yuzhmorgeologiya

Copacabana

Cape Shirreff

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Cost

($k

) / D

ay

Char

ter D

ays

* includes mobilization0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Estim

ated

Cam

p Ex

pens

es ($

k)

Additional NSF support for Copa > $160k/yr

Gaps, Threats, and Opportunities• AUVs etc – exciting but

significant hurdles

• Trawlers (partner with Norway?) – unique experiments, pelagic fishes easy, oceanography harder

• Other vessels – difficult to schedule, costly, may need > 1 platform, small ships lose time to weather

• ? – other ideas?

?

Gaps, Threats, and Opportunities

• US AMLR funds larger share

• Partner with Poland

• Seek new NSF funds – more project-based work and proposal writing (less monitoring?)

• More technology, less hands on (many time series will be lost)

Australian Antarctic Division

> US AMLR $

Copacabana

Budget

0.0

1000.0

2000.0

3000.0

4000.0

5000.0

6000.0

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

$ Th

ousa

nds

Allocated Vessel Funds

Program Appropriation

Total Allocation

Total Expenses

Contracts and Grants (2009)

Ship-based• Oceanography ($41k + 2)

• Phytoplankton ($63k + 2)

• Krill and zooplankton ($200k + 7)

• Benthic invertebrates ($33k + 2)

• Finfishes ($8k + 2)

• Seabirds and marine mammals ($40k + 4)

Land-based• Copa Seabirds

($80k + 5)*

• Cape Shirreff Seabirds ($61k + 3)

• Pinnipeds ($57k + 4)

* “pass-through” funds from NSF may need to be picked up by the AERD

A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF THE US AMLR PROGRAM

The time available to do our job …

The AMLR Field Season

J F M A M J J A S O N D

field campsresearch vessel

field camps

demobilize

mobilize•purchasing•contracting•permitting•shipping•packing

CCAMLR Meetings (baseline)

J F M A M J J A S O N D

US Del WG-SAM

TASO

WG-EMM

WG-FSA

SC

Commprepare•submit data•write papers•develop agendas•read papers

US Del

prepare

2009 – Other Commitments

CEP WS-VME

* vessel solicitation, WS-VME and review preparation, etc. not included

SCAR

GFDL

GLOBEC

Gordon

J F M A M J J A S O N D

SG-ASAM

The Leftovers

• Field season + CCAMLR meetings + typical commitments (2009) = little “free time”

• Limited ability to participate in other meetings (e.g., ICED (SOS), SCAR, ASLO, ESA, etc.), write papers, etc.

J F M A M J J A S O N DJ F M A M J J A S O N DJ F M A M J J A S O N D

WRAP UP

Tradeoffs at Multiple Scales

Small staff, increasing costs, and jam-packed annual calendar …

• tradeoffs between field work, CCAMLR meetings, general science meetings, writing papers and proposals, etc.

• tradeoffs between field projects (e.g., “go here vs. go there”)

Trigger Questions 1 – GW Musings

Is the current approach sufficient? What should be expanded? What should be de-emphasized?

• Current approach has been successful but could add mesopelagic fishes, increase winter studies, use technology to expand spatial and temporal coverage, and experiment with krill trawlers.

• Rotating people to CCAMLR meetings?

How should the AERD balance the collection of time-series data with project-based studies?

• Critical to maintain time series because they provide context for interpreting future changes, but can Leg 2 always be project-based?

Trigger Questions 2 – GW Musings

Are the AMLR survey areas and study taxa appropriate given the likely impacts of climate change?

• Expand coverage to the western Weddell Sea, consider winter field work?

What specific aspects of climate change should be the focus of future research?

• Downscale IPCC scenarios with ROMS etc. and use output to predict changes in phenologies and distributions of animals, observe consequences of ocean acidification, work in marginal ice zone, identify robust management strategies and sensible reference points.

AMLR DATA SETSKrill + Oceo. → Finfishes + Benthic Inverts. → Pinnipeds → Seabirds

* We have lots of collaborators