slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
31 August – 2 September 2009 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
31 August – 2 September 2009

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 38

31 August – 2 September 2009 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 105 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '31 August – 2 September 2009' - jileen-caffrey


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

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
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
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
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
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 1
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

advise on krill fishery management
Advise on Krill-Fishery Management

3 million tons ÷ 15 SSMUs = ?

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

2002-03

2004-05

2008-09

2006-07

* Lots of collaboration with BAS

gaps threats and opportunities
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…

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

expansion and climate change
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

Allocate using [demand – krill biomass]

(with climate change)

0.8

proportion of years

fishes not “depleted”

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.8

catch as fraction

of allocation

terms of reference 2
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
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

SSMUs

Adapted from 2009 Report of WG-EMM

Original work by British Antarctic Survey

terms of reference 3
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
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

mandates1
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
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 continued1
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
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
aerd leadership
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
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
Ships and Camps

Copacabana

R/V Yuzhmorgeologiya

Cape Shirreff

Additional NSF support for Copa > $160k/yr

* includes mobilization

gaps threats and opportunities1
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 opportunities2
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)

> US AMLR $

Copacabana

Australian Antarctic Division

contracts and grants 2009
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

the amlr field season
The AMLR Field Season

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

research vessel

field camps

field camps

  • mobilize
  • purchasing
  • contracting
  • permitting
  • shipping
  • packing

demobilize

ccamlr meetings baseline
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

Comm

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

US Del

prepare

2009 other commitments
2009 – Other Commitments

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

Gordon

SG-ASAM

SCAR

CEP

GFDL

GLOBEC

WS-VME

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

the leftovers
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

J

J

F

F

F

M

M

M

A

A

A

M

M

M

J

J

J

J

J

J

A

A

A

S

S

S

O

O

O

N

N

N

D

D

D

tradeoffs at multiple scales
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
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
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.