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 * Lots of collaboration with BAS

Gaps, Threats, and Opportunities Gaps 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…

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 only Surveys every 2 yrs proportion of years fishes not “depleted” catch as fraction of 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-EMM Original 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

MANDATES Why 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 Convention The 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 Camps R/V Yuzhmorgeologiya Copacabana Cape Shirreff * includes mobilization 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

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 JFMAMJJASOND field campsresearch vessel field camps demobilize mobilize purchasing contracting permitting shipping packing

CCAMLR Meetings (baseline) JFMAMJJASOND US DelWG-SAM TASO WG-EMM WG-FSA SC Comm prepare submit data write papers develop agendas read papers US Del prepare

2009 – Other Commitments CEPWS-VME * vessel solicitation, WS-VME and review preparation, etc. not included SCAR GFDL GLOBEC Gordon JFMAMJJASOND 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. JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND

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 SETS Krill + Oceo. → Finfishes + Benthic Inverts. → Pinnipeds → Seabirds * We have lots of collaborators