Alaska Regional Action Plan 

for the Southeastern Bering Sea

NOAA FISHERIES CLIMATE SCIENCE STRATEGY 

by

Mike Sigler, Anne Hollowed, Kirstin Holsman, Stephani Zador, 

Alan Haynie, Amber Himes-Cornell, Phil Mundy, 

Steve Davis, Janet Duffy-Anderson, Tom Gelatt, 

Brandee Gerke, Phyllis Stabeno

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

September, 2016

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-336
B Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science
Alaska Regional Action Plan 

for the Southeastern Bering Sea

NOAA FISHERIES CLIMATE SCIENCE STRATEGY 

by

Mike Sigler1

, Anne Hollowed1, Kirstin Holsman1, Stephani Zador1, Alan Haynie1, 

Amber Himes-Cornell1

, Phil Mundy1, Steve Davis2, Janet Duffy-Anderson1, Tom 

Gelatt1

, Brandee Gerke2, Phyllis Stabeno3

1

 Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

2 Alaska Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

3 Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service
iv Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science
Contents

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service v

I. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

III. Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Long-term climate science approach of the AFSC and PMEL . . . . . . . . . . . 10

ARAP Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Challenges for climate-ready management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Challenge 1: Improved detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Challenge 2: Representative fishing pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Challenge 3: Reference biomass levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Challenge 4: Shifts in ecosystem dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Challenge 5: Modeling fisher behavior in response to changing climate, 

markets, and management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Challenge 6: Balancing process research and ongoing ecosystem monitoring . . .16

Outreach steps for the ARAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Current assessment of progress on the seven objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

IV. Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

ARAP implementation depends on available resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
vi Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

V. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Appendix A: Assessment of current work and 

action plan with level funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Climate-specific Harvest & Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

 Objective 1: Identify climate-informed reference points for managing 

living marine resources (LMRs). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

 Objective 2: Identify robust strategies for managing 

LMRs under changing climate conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

 Objective 3: Design adaptive decision processes that can incorporate 

and respond to changing climate conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Objective 4: Identify future states of marine and coastal ecosystems, 

LMRs, and LMR dependent human communities in a 

changing climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

 Objective 5: Identify the mechanisms of climate impacts on LMRs, 

ecosystems, and LMR dependent human communities. . . . . . . . . 40

 Objective 6: Track trends in ecosystems, LMRs and LMR-dependent 

human communities and provide early warning of change. . . . . . . 43

 Objective 7: Build and maintain the science infrastructure needed to 

fulfill NOAA Fisheries mandates with changing climate conditions. . 45

Appendix B: Action plan with some additional funding . . . . . . . .48

 Objective 1: Identify appropriate, climate-informed reference points for 

managing living marine resources (LMRs). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

 Objective 2: Identify robust strategies for managing LMRs under 

changing climate conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

 Objective 3: Design adaptive decision processes that can incorporate 

and respond to changing climate conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

 Objective 4: Identify future states of marine and coastal ecosystems, 

LMRs, and LMR-dependent human communities in a 

changing climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

 Objective 5: Identify the mechanisms of climate impacts on LMRs, 

ecosystems, and LMR dependent human communities. . . . . . . . . .49

 Objective 6: Track trends in ecosystems, LMRs and LMR-dependent 

human communities and provide early warning of change. . . . . . . .50

 Objective 7: Build and maintain the science infrastructure needed to 

fulfill NOAA Fisheries mandates with changing climate conditions. . .50
I. Executive Summary

Alaska is on the front lines of climate change

— President Barack Obama 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 1

While temperatures are anticipated to increase globally under future climate change, the 

largest anticipated changes are expected for the Arctic including the Bering Sea (Alaska). 

Such changes may have cascading impacts on regional food-webs. The southeastern 

Bering Sea supports some of the most valuable commercial fisheries in the world. High 

numbers of seabirds and marine mammals also are found in the region and subsistence 

harvests are a critical resource for coastal communities. Climate-related changes in 

ocean and coastal ecosystems likely will impact the zooplankton, fish, seabirds, and 

marine mammals of the southeastern Bering Sea, as well as the people, businesses, and human communities 

that depend on them. Actionable information on when and how climate change will impact Alaska is needed. 

The Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) acquires and distributes the scientific information 

necessary to fulfill the mission of the National Marine Fisheries Service, which supports responsible 

stewardship of the Nation’s living marine resources and their habitats (NOAA Fisheries Mission), 

and collaborates with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) to do so. The enabling 

legislation for the NOAA Fisheries mission is found in the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation 

and Management Act (MSA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). To continue to fulfill this mission in the face of climate change, the AFSC seeks to 

acquire information and develop science-based strategies for sustaining fisheries, healthy ecosystems, 

protected species, and coastal communities in a changing climate. 

The Alaska Regional Action Plan (ARAP) for the southeastern Bering Sea (Figure 1) conforms to a 

nationally consistent blueprint, the NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy. The Strategy guides 

efforts by NOAA Fisheries and its partners to address information needs organized into seven science 

objectives that represent the process of managing the Nation’s fisheries in the face of changing 

climate conditions. The goal of the RAP is to increase the production, delivery and use of climate 

related information for marine resource management in the region. The ARAP identifies strengths, 

weaknesses, priorities, and actions to implement the NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy in 

Alaska over the next 3-5 years, and contributes to implementation of the Strategy by focusing on 

building regional capacity and partnerships to address the Strategy’s seven science objectives (Figure 

2). Successful implementation of the ARAP will require enhanced collaboration with our academic and 

agency partners.

“Climate-ready” management will be precautionary, preemptive, and flexible enough to respond 

rapidly to changing conditions (NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy). Specifically, the AFSC 

The southeastern Bering Sea 

supports some of the most 

valuable commercial fisheries 

in the world. High numbers of 

seabirds and marine mammals 

also are found in the region and 

subsistence harvests are a critical 

resource for coastal communities.
2 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

will continue to provide timely information to 

the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) and the NOAA Fisheries Alaska 

Regional Office regarding both short-term 

changes and long-term shifts in the abundance 

and distribution of federally managed species. 

The AFSC will also provide information to the 

Council and Alaska Regional Office regarding 

vulnerability of protected species to a changing 

climate. To do this, the AFSC is rapidly scoping 

the vulnerability and adaptive capacity of fish, 

crab, marine mammals, fisheries, and coastal 

communities to changing conditions. Such rapid 

assessments help identify potential “winners” 

and “losers” of climate change and should be 

repeated as new data and projections become 

available (e.g., on a 5-10 year cycle). The AFSC 

also will continue to evaluate climate impacts on 

fish, crab, marine mammals, fisheries, and coastal 

communities, including socioeconomic impacts, 

as well as explore management approaches that 

might attenuate or amplify climate impacts. Such 

climate change “stress-test” evaluations will be 

most successful if conducted in collaboration 

Figure 1. Map of the southeastern Bering Sea.

with the Council and regional stakeholders, 

who can help inform the range of potential 

management adaptive responses. Finally, both 

the rapid scoping and management strategy 

evaluations will depend on current PMEL-AFSC 

collaborations including regular projections of 

climate change impacts on physical and lower 

trophic conditions, regional ocean modeling, 

ecosystem process studies and ecosystem 

monitoring to understand the effects of climate 

on fish, crab, and marine mammal populations 

including ongoing surveys to monitor changes 

in biomass, age structure, and distribution of 

commercially important fish and crab species, as 

well as abundance of marine mammal species in 

the southeastern Bering Sea. 

Bering Sea

Alaska

RUSSIA
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 3

1.

Climate enhanced assessment models

2.

Council Fisheries Ecosystem Plan, climate module

Management Strategy Evaluations

Alaska CLIMate Project (ACLIM)

Multispecies technical interaction model

Belmont Forum project

3.

Design adaptive decision processes

Identify ecosystem thresholds & regime shifts*

4.

Comprehensive climate assessment (every 5 yr)*

Ocean model projections

Climate-enhanced projection models

Climate vulnerability assessment for the 

SE Bering Sea

ID climate impacts on LMR dependent 

human communities

Arctic Council, AMAP, impacts 

on coastal communities

Incorporate ocean acidification effects into 

existing ocean models

Integrate tools and data*

Integrate & couple models*

5.

Bering Sea Project

SE Bering Sea Ecosystem Assessment

Ocean acidification research

Fur seal research

Ice-associated seal surveys

Passive acoustic surveys for whales

National seabird program

Economic effects of climate change

Social and human community impacts 

of climate change

Rapid response surveys*

Climate impacts on growth and survival of 

fish and shellfish*

Climate impacts on seabird and 

marine mammal species*

Climate change impacts on human communities*

6.

Alaska IEA and Ecosystems 

Considerations Report

Standard ecosystem monitoring

Loss of Sea Ice research

Coastal Assessments

NOAA oceanographic moorings*

7.

Existing surveys and stock assessments

Recruitment Processes Alliance

Laboratory infrastructure

Predator-prey food habits studies

Ecosystem modeling

Assess economic impacts

Assess community impacts

International coordination*

Build and maintain critical partnerships

Communication of climate change risks

Training, education, and outreach*

Invest in modeling infrastructure*

Figure 2. The seven NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy objectives and the research projects 

supporting these objectives for the southeastern Bering Sea

Climate Science Strategy Objectives

Build and Maintain Adequate Science Infrastructure

Climate-Informed

Reference Points

Robust Management Strategies

Adaptive Management Processes

Project Future Conditions

Understand Mechanisms of Change

Track Change and Provide Early Warnings

Climate enhanced assessment models

Climate enhanced EFH

Climate enhanced rebuilding plans

Design adaptive decision processes

Identify ecosystem thresholds & regime shifts*

Rapid response to climate driven shifts beyond thresholds

Council Fisheries Ecosystem Plan, climate module

Management Strategy Evaluations

Alaska CLIMate Project (ACLIM)

Multispecies technical interaction model

Belmont Forum project

Bering Sea Project

SE Bering Sea Ecosystem Assessment

OA research

Fur seal research

Economic impacts of climate change

Social and human community impact s of climate change

Climate impacts on growth and survival of sh and shellsh*

Climate impacts on ESA and marine mammal species*

Climate change impacts on human communities*

Comprehensive climate assessment (every 5 yr)*

Ocean model projections

Incorporate OA into existing ocean models

Climate-enhanced pop-dynamic models

Climate vulnerability assessment for the SE Bering Sea

ID climate impact s on LMR dependent human communities

Arctic Council, AMAP, impacts on coastal communities

Invest in modeling infrastructure

Integrate tools and data*

Integrate & couple models*

Existing surveys and stock assessments

Recruitment Processes Alliance

Laboratory infrastructure

Predator-prey food habits studies

Ecosystem modeling

Assess economic impacts

Assess community impacts

International coordination*

Build and maintain critical partnerships

Communication of climate change risks

Training, education, and outreach*

Alaska IEA and Ecosystems Considerations Report

Standard ecosystem monitoring

Loss of Sea Ice research

Coastal Assessments

Rapid response

NOAA oceanographic moorings*

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

* Asterisks indicate projects that will be supported if additional funding is available. 

The remaining projects will be supported if funding remains level.
4 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

The ideal elements of managing living marine 

resources (LMRs) under changing conditions is 

the same throughout the Nation. Seven questions 

are described in the NOAA Fisheries Climate 

Science Strategy and motivate the Strategy’s seven 

objectives (Figure 2).

The scientific infrastructure (level 7) needed by 

the AFSC to produce the analyses and deliver 

the benchmarks is reasonably well developed 

within AFSC and its NOAA partners (OAR 

PMEL, NESDIS) for the eastern Bering Sea. 

The AFSC has survey projects in place that are 

maintaining the long time series of physical 

and biological observations sufficient to identify 

independent trends in climate, LMRs and 

LMR-dependent communities. Evaluating the 

trends to identify the mechanisms of climate 

impacts and to develop climate-informed 

reference points can be problematic due to the 

mismatch in the spatial and temporal resolution 

of biological, human dimensions, and physical 

data sets. The older survey projects were put in 

place well before concerns about the impacts 

of climate change became evident, and hence 

physical survey platforms were not originally 

integrated with biological surveys. Yet, as 

resources permit, existing projects have been 

modified and new projects developed in order to 

integrate physical and biological observations. 

For example, the AFSC has aligned historically 

independent oceanographic survey efforts with 

field surveys to provide the improved synoptic 

data sets that are essential to develop climateinformed reference points. The mechanistic 

understanding gained from these integrated 

surveys can be used to identify harvest strategies 

that are robust to climate-induced change, 

project future conditions, and to identify climatedriven mechanisms of change. As our scientific 

infrastructure and institutional experience 

increases and the skill of our models improves, 

the AFSC will provide climate-informed reference 

points to the adaptive management processes of 

the Council and Alaska Regional Office.

Level 1. How can climate-related effects be incorporated into 

LMR reference points? 

 Level 2. What are robust LMR management strategies in the 

face of climate change? 

 Level 3. How can climate-related effects be incorporated into 

adaptive LMR management processes?

 Level 4. How will the abundance and distribution of LMRs 

and marine ecosystems change in the future, and 

how will these changes affect LMR-dependent 

communities? 

 Level 5. How does climate change alter LMRs, ecosystems, 

and LMR-dependent human communities? 

 Level 6. What are the observed trends in climate, LMRs and 

LMR-dependent communities? 

 Level 7. What science infrastructure is needed to produce 

and deliver this information?

In the processes that NOAA Fisheries follows 

to implement the MSA, MMPA, and ESA, 

scientific observations are made and processed 

into information that can be analyzed to 

evaluate current and future stock status relative 

to key biological reference points and other 

national standards that inform the management 

(regulatory) processes. How well each of these 

elements is attained under changing climate in the 

eastern Bering Sea is the subject of this report.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 5

AFSC and PMEL have over 30 projects underway that address the seven NOAA Fisheries Climate 

Science Strategy objectives. The major projects currently underway are: 

u NPFMC Bering Sea Fisheries Ecosystem Plan. Approved for development by the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council in December 2015.

u Alaska CLIMate Project (ACLIM). This project involves a suite of models designed to provide 

scenarios of future fish production under a variety of climate and fishing scenarios. 

u Climate vulnerability assessment for the southeastern Bering Sea. This project will 

qualitatively assess species vulnerabilities to climate change and provide guidance on research 

prioritization. Likely to be completed during 2016.

u Belmont Forum project. This project will synthesize information from regional studies to 

examine climate impacts in the marine ecosystems of the Pacific and Atlantic Arctic, which will 

be completed during 2017.

u Recruitment Processes Alliance (RPA). This ongoing research focuses on understanding 

recruitment processes of important southeastern Bering Sea fish species

u Loss of sea ice research. This effort extends standard surveys of the southeastern Bering Sea 

into the northern Bering Sea.

u Ocean acidification research. This ongoing research focuses on commercially important fish 

and shellfish species and coldwater corals. 

u Fur seal research. This project will link fine-scale changes in fur seal foraging behavior with 

measures of pollock distribution and abundance in real time.

u Assess economic and human community impacts. Modeling of the climate effects on fisheries 

and the related economic and human community impacts will continue.

u Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Assessments and Alaska Marine Ecosystems 

Considerations. The Ecosystem Considerations report is produced annually to summarize 

information about the Alaska Marine Ecosystem for the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, the scientific community and the public.

u Standard ecosystem monitoring. Ecosystem trends are monitored through a combination of 

ongoing standardized resource assessment surveys, fisheries oceanography, seabird, and marine 

mammal surveys, including ships of opportunity, diet collections, and observations collected by 

fisheries observers.

As part of the NOAA Fisheries Climate Science 

Strategy, the Alaska Regional Action Plan 

(ARAP) for the southeastern Bering Sea identifies 

NOAA’s current and possible future efforts to 

increase the production, delivery, and use of the 

climate-related information required to fulfill 

the agency’s mission. The goal of the ARAP is to 

build a portfolio of integrated, “climate-ready” 

management actions based on ecosystembased fisheries management (EBFM) tools and 

approaches, in support of NOAA Fisheries’ 

decisions under the MSA. Similar tools also will 

be applied for protected species conservation, in 

support of NOAA Fisheries’ decisions under the 

MMPA and ESA. Applying these tools to address 

climate-driven changes of the Bering Sea will 

help reduce unintended outcomes of management 

actions and balance newly emerging tradeoffs. 

Some of these tools have already been utilized 

for some time in the Bering Sea to help manage 

fisheries under variable conditions; continued 

development and expansion of these approaches 

will be needed for regional climate-ready fisheries 

management and protected species conservation.
6 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

Figure 3. Projected increases in sea surface temperature for the eastern Bering Sea (left) and future temperatures relative to historic means 

(right). Red lines represent CMIP5 ensemble mean annual projections. Dark gray shading represents estimates from 80% of all models; light 

gray shading represents estimates from 50% of model projections. Data and figure courtesy of the ESRL climate change portal: www.esrl.

noaa.gov/psd/ipcc/.

Projected changes in temperature for the Eastern Bering Sea (Alaska)
Heading Right

Optional call out

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 7

II. Introduction

Alaska is on the front lines of climate change. While temperatures are anticipated 

to increase globally, the largest anticipated increases and changes are expected for 

the Arctic including the Bering Sea (Larsen et al. 2014). Anticipated changes depend 

on future global carbon emission and sequestration practices but range from an increase in summer ocean 

temperatures of 3o C (Hermann et al. 2016) to 8° C (IPCC 2014; Figure 3). Reductions in sea-ice and sea-ice 

driven productivity are also anticipated, especially for the southeastern Bering Sea (Figure 2) where warming 

may be the greatest (Hermann et al. 2016). Such changes may have cascading impacts on regional food webs 

that are structured by climate-driven changes to biophysical processes (Stabeno et al. 2012a). The Alaska 

Regional Action Plan identifies key actions to increase the production, delivery and use of climate-related 

information to help fulfill the NOAA Fisheries mission in the southeastern Bering Sea over the next 5 years.

While historical impacts of climate-driven 

fluctuations in temperature on the Bering 

Sea ecosystem can provide some insight into 

future changes, climate change presents a 

unique challenge to fisheries management as 

the mechanism for warming under climate 

change differs from historical drivers and may be 

unidirectional and rapid. There is also significant 

uncertainty regarding projections of future 

climate conditions, which range from gradual 

warming to the upper part of the historical record 

to significant warming well above temperatures 

observed in the region with a marked reduction 

in interannual variability. Ensuring that 

management is “climate ready” will require an 

integrated approach that combines ecosystem 

science, monitoring, and climate-specific 

management actions that can provide resiliency 

to short- and long-term changes associated with 

climate change (Link et al. 2015; Holsman et al. 

submitted).

Fisheries catches in the southeastern Bering Sea 

represent about 40% of national catches annually, 

and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) 

supports management of walleye pollock, the 

largest fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic 

zone (EEZ), and for many years the largest fishery 

globally. High numbers of seabirds and marine 

mammals are also found in the region, and 

subsistence harvests in the region are a critical 

resource for coastal communities. It is well known 

that ecosystem productivity in the Bering Sea is 

shaped by thermal conditions that can oscillate

in successive years between warm (low spring ice) 

and cold (extensive spring ice) conditions (Hunt et 

al., 2011). Most marine species in the region have 

evolved physiological and behavioral adaptations 

that capitalize on cold water conditions, sea-ice, 

and strong seasonally-driven productivity. The 

strength of seasonal productivity, especially 

during spring months, is in turn structured by 

physical conditions and global wind patterns 

that influence the duration and extent of sea ice 

and the timing of ice-melt driven phytoplankton 

blooms (Brown and Arrigo 2013, Brown et al. 

2011, Sigler et al. 2014). Such conditions are 

expected to change markedly over the next 20-50 

While historical impacts of 

climate-driven fluctuations in 

temperature on the Bering Sea 

ecosystem can provide some 

insight into future changes, 

climate change presents a 

unique challenge to fisheries 

management as the mechanism 

for warming under climate change 

differs from historical drivers and 

may be unidirectional and rapid.
8 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

years as warming alters regional wind-driven 

circulation, sea-ice extent, ocean acidity, and the 

structure and location of thermal refugia.

While annual climate variation has been 

observed to impact marine species in Alaska, 

the overall impact of climate change on Bering 

Sea fisheries and marine mammal populations 

is unclear. For example, the ecological effects 

of reduced sea-ice has previously impacted 

southeastern Bering Sea walleye pollock, but this 

fishery recovered in subsequent years when seaice again was more widespread. Such responses 

to annual climate variation, while temporary, 

allow us to understand potential impacts of 

future climate change. For the eastern Bering Sea 

pollock example, data from integrated ecosystem 

surveys conducted by the AFSC (e.g., Annual 

groundfish bottom trawl survey, EcoFOCI, 

BASIS) provide a mechanistic understanding of 

the impact of stanzas (continued back-to-back 

years) of reduced/increased sea-ice in spring on 

the food web for young-of-the-year gadids (e.g., 

walleye pollock) via the interchange of lipids 

(i.e., fats), fish fitness during critical periods of 

life, predation and cannibalism by adult fish 

species, and survival to older age classes (Coyle 

et al. 2011, Hunt et al. 2011, Heintz et al. 2013, 

Sigler et al. 2016). Our current understanding is 

sufficient to project climate change impacts for 

a small subset of the 21 quantitatively assessed 

Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI) stocks 

in the southeastern Bering Sea; climate change 

is predicted to lead to reduced abundances of 

walleye pollock (through loss of sea-ice and 

warming) (Mueter et al. 2011, Ianelli et al. 2016), 

red king crab (Long et al. 2013, Punt et al. 2014) 

and snow crab (latter two through reduced 

calcium carbonate and warming conditions) 

(Long et al. 2013, 2015, Punt et al. 2015, Swiney et 

al. 2015) and unchanged abundance of northern 

rock sole (Wilderbuer et al. 2013). Climate change 

and associated loss of sea-ice are predicted to lead 

to reduced abundances of ice-associated seals 

(e.g., ringed seals, bearded seals, and spotted 

seals) (Boveng et al. 2009, 2013, Cameron et al. 

2010, Kelley et al. 2010). Climate change impacts 

on northern fur seals and whales have not been 

projected.

A long-term challenge is to design adaptive 

decision processes that can incorporate and 

respond to changing climate conditions. 

Preparing to address this long-term challenge 

must occur in the next 3-5 years. What is not 

well worked out is how and when changes in 

climate-induced reference points and other 

management triggers should compel management 

action, an area that needs considerable attention, 

discussion, and education. Reference biomass 

levels are a key part of the fishery harvest control 

rules followed by the Council. If population 

productivity (governed by reproductive 

success, growth, maturation schedule, and 

natural mortality rate) is affected by climate 

change, then the ability of the Council to 

mitigate this effect will depend on several 

factors, in particular the response of species 

to management actions and harvest control 

approaches. Identifying successful management 

actions will depend on whether the change in 

vital rates can be detected and differentiated 

from fisheries effects, and whether the Council 

can adjust the biological reference points to 

address the change. This discussion should 

involve the Plan Teams, Scientific and Statistical 

Committee, and Ecosystem Committee, all 

subsidiary bodies of the Council, as well as the 

Alaska Regional Office. In December 2015, the 

Council decided to go forward with a Bering 

Sea Fisheries Ecosystem Plan, which includes 

a proposed climate module that will support 

these discussions. These efforts should identify 

short-term management approaches that 

should be preserved going forward (e.g., EBFM 

policies, adaptive management approaches), 

systematically reevaluate long-term (i.e., multidecadal) management measures for continued 

performance (e.g., MPA effectiveness, upper 

or lower biomass thresholds), and conduct 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) studies for 

growing or novel fisheries of species expected to 

thrive under future conditions. 

Similarly, the ability of NOAA Fisheries to 

mitigate effects of climate change on marine 

mammal stocks depends on the ability to detect 

changes in vital rates and adjust management of 

other activities that result in incidental mortality. 

At minimum, consistent monitoring of marine 

mammal population abundance is required to 

evaluate population trends which provide a first 

indication of population health and vulnerability 

to climate change.

The Alaska Regional Action Plan (ARAP) for 

southeastern Bering Sea climate science is 

part of a national effort to explain how NOAA 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 9

Fisheries works to understand the impact of 

climate change on fisheries, protected species, 

and their ecosystems. This first ARAP focuses 

on the southeastern Bering Sea Large Marine 

Ecosystem (LME). The waters of the southeastern 

Bering Sea support large marine mammal 

and seabird populations and some of the most 

profitable and sustainable commercial fisheries 

in the country. Our understanding of climate 

effects on southeastern Bering Sea fisheries, while 

incomplete, is greatest among the five LMEs of 

Alaska. Subsequent Strategies will focus on the 

other LMEs (Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, 

northern Bering and Chukchi seas, Beaufort Sea), 

if funding allows. The primary customers for 

this information are the Council and the Alaska 

Regional Office. 

Climate science by the AFSC is conducted 

collaboratively with NOAA’s Pacific Marine 

Environmental Laboratory (PMEL). 

Collaborations with institutional partners 

also are critical to the success of the ARAP, 

such as other NMFS science centers, state and 

federal agencies, university partners, and nongovernmental organizations1

. This climate 

science informs the ecosystem-based fisheries 

management (EBFM) approach implemented 

by NOAA Fisheries, which utilizes ecosystem 

monitoring to predict changes to ecological 

interactions and employs food web-based 

management tools to quantify both direct and 

indirect impacts of management actions on 

target and non-target species (Link and Bowman 

2014), in support of NOAA Fisheries decisions 

under the MSA. Similar tools also will be applied 

for protected species conservation, in support 

of NOAA Fisheries decisions under the MMPA 

and ESA. The multi-species approach at the core 

of EBFM is of particular utility for addressing 

compound impacts of multiple pressures and 

for evaluating trade-offs in conflicting mandates 

1 The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the North 

Pacific Research Board, the National Science Foundation, 

Alaska Yukon Kuskokwim Sustainable Salmon Initiative, the 

University of Alaska, University of Washington, Oregon State 

University, the University of British Columbia, the Alaska 

Sealife Center, the Sitka Sound Science Center, Sea Grant 

College Program, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as international 

partnerships such as the Russian Pacific Institute of Fisheries 

and Ocean Research (TINRO), the Canadian Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans, the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, North Pacific Marine Sciences Organization (PICES), 

and others.

and objectives. Dynamic 

EBFM approaches can 

also reduce bycatch and 

improve efficiency for 

fisheries under variable and 

changing conditions like 

those expected under climate 

change (e.g., Hobday et al. 

2016).

Climate change is expected 

to alter biophysical 

processes that structure the 

productivity, phenology, 

and distribution of many 

species in the Bering Sea in 

a way that may be deleterious for some stocks 

and favorable for others (Mueter and Litzow 

2008, Hollowed et al. 2013). Divergent responses 

to changing conditions may occur slowly over 

multiple decades (i.e., ecological drift) or as 

conditions approach historical extremes and 

species cross ecological tipping points, rapid 

food-web reorganization and regime shifts 

could result in sudden (< 5 years) changes in 

abundance. Climate-ready management for 

the region will need to be flexible enough to 

address both short- and long-term changes, be 

responsive to emerging information and science, 

and be precautionary in order to lessen cascading 

impacts to biological and socioeconomic systems 

(Holsman et al. submitted). 

Biological marine communities, regional 

fisheries management, and protected species 

conservation in the region are already adapted to 

succeed under variable conditions. For example, 

continued advancement of “in-hand” dynamic 

management tools (e.g., short-term forecasts, 

flexible seasons, bycatch reduction measures 

based on thermal envelopes, climate-specific 

biomass reference points, etc.) can help reduce 

near-term impacts and increase fishery efficiency. 

Long-term static structures (e.g., 2 million metric 

ton cap on southeastern Bering Sea groundfish 

total catch, marine protected areas, northern 

Bering Sea closed area) could be evaluated with 

management strategy evaluations to identify 

the need for and frequency of updating under 

changing conditions (Holsman et al. submitted). 

Ensuring resilience through climate-ready 

management approaches will entail expanding 

the scope of current research and management to 

consider climate-driven changes. 

...the ability of NOAA Fisheries 

to mitigate effects of climate 

change on marine mammal 

stocks depends on the ability 

to detect changes in vital rates 

and adjust management of other 

activities in order to reduce 

incidental mortality. 
Heading Left

Optional call out

10 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

The AFSC and PMEL have conducted research to understand the effects of annual climate variation on the 

southeastern Bering Sea for over two decades; their overall approach is described in the first part of the 

assessment section. The second part describes steps specific to the ARAP (i.e., the next five years) and the 

challenges for developing the science needed for climate-ready management. The assessment section finishes 

with a current assessment of progress on the Strategy’s seven objectives. 

Long-term climate science 

approach of the AFSC and PMEL

The long-term climate science 

approach of the AFSC and 

PMEL is composed of three 

parts (Figure 4): 1) ecosystem 

monitoring (e.g., standard 

fisheries oceanographic surveys, 

which sample “physics-to-fish” 

to track change and provide 

early warnings and longterm biophysical moorings); 

2) directed research toward 

understanding ecological 

processes (fieldwork, laboratory 

research, and retrospective 

analyses of ecosystem monitoring to understand 

mechanisms of climate change); and 3) modeling 

(e.g., individual-based models, food web models, 

and bioeconomic models for management 

strategy evaluations and to project future 

conditions). These three parts (monitoring, 

research on ecological processes, and projection 

modeling) are the three legs of the stool on which 

our understanding of climate effects is seated and 

all three parts are necessary to meet Objectives 5 

and 6 of the Strategy. 

Process studies are heuristic, shorter-term 

studies directed toward understanding ecological 

relationships and mechanisms (e.g., primary 

production rates, predator-prey relationships) 

or coupled biological-socioeconomic 

relationships (e.g., fishery market responses 

to changes in harvest; fisher responses to 

management actions or climate conditions). 

Ecosystem monitoring consists of standard 

oceanographic surveys and moorings, which 

sample “physics-to-fishing communities”, i.e., 

ocean conditions, phytoplankton, zooplankton 

larval fish abundances, adult fish, birds, and 

marine mammal populations, as well as 

socioeconomic monitoring of fish harvest, 

ex-vessel profits, costs and benefits of fisheries 

processing, and socioeconomic conditions of 

fishery-dependent human communities. Both 

the ecosystem monitoring and the biological 

process studies typically are supported by 

laboratory studies (e.g., growth response to 

temperature) and laboratory analyses (e.g., 

lipid content of sampled zooplankton and fish, 

growth rate, maturity schedules, diets). 

III. Assessment

Current assessment of progress

The long-term approach of 

the AFSC and PMEL has led 

to substantial advances in 

our understanding of climate 

effects on the southeastern 

Bering Sea ecosystem. 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 11

Retrospective analyses are typically conducted 

in concert with process studies and aim 

to evaluate the effect of sampling method, 

climate and species interactions, and biological 

and socioeconomic processes on observed 

relationships and patterns in the ecosystem. 

Retrospective analyses of data from long-term 

ecosystem monitoring often are conducted to 

detect climate effects on ecological processes. 

Results of retrospective analyses provide the 

foundation for mechanistic hypotheses of coupled 

climate-biological-socioeconomic systems 

that in-turn are tested and evaluated through 

conceptual and projection ecosystem modeling. 

Retrospective studies provide a framework for 

jointly understanding the results of the ecosystem 

monitoring and process studies. Ecosystem 

and bioeconomic modeling can be complex 

(ecosystem models that are computationally 

intensive) or simple (Qualitative Network Models; 

Puccia and Levins 1985). Dynamic models can 

be projected under various climate, biological, 

and socioeconomic conditions in order to 

evaluate management impacts on biological and 

human communities (i.e., “Management Strategy 

Evaluations”). Modeling, including management 

strategy evaluations, is necessary to meet 

objectives 1 through 5 of the Strategy. 

The AFSC makes a significant investment in 

ecosystem and socioeconomic monitoring, 

process studies, modeling, retrospective 

analyses, and management strategy 

evaluations in order to understand climate 

effects on fisheries and fishery dependenthuman communities, protected species, and 

ecosystems. This effort historically has focused 

on understanding effects of annual climate 

variability and more recently has grown to 

include predicting the effects of climate change. 

Typically this research work is part climate and 

part ecosystems, fish, or marine mammals.

The long-term approach of the AFSC and 

PMEL has led to substantial advances in 

our understanding of climate effects on the 

southeastern Bering Sea ecosystem. Some recent 

research topics with a climate science focus 

include annual variation in oceanographic 

conditions (Stabeno et al. 2012a), ecological 

distinctiveness of the northern and southeastern 

parts of the Bering Sea (Stabeno et al. 2012b, 

Sigler et al. 2011), spring and fall bloom 

timing (Hunt et al. 2011, Sigler et al. 2014), the 

relationship of juvenile fish energy density, 

recruitment success, and annual climate 

conditions (Heintz et al. 2013, Siddon et al. 2013a, 

b), forage fish zoogeography (Hollowed et al. 

Management

Ecosystem modeling

NOAA surveys Process oriented

research

Fishery data

Fisheries

Stock & Ecosystem

Assessments

coupled 

human-biological 

system

Alaska Fisheries Science Center

NOAA Fisheries Figure 4. The AFSC integrated research approach. 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries
12 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

2012, Parker-Stetter et al. 2013), fish distributions 

and annual climate conditions (Baker and 

Hollowed 2014, Smart et al. 2012a, b, Smart et 

al. 2013), marine mammal, 

seabirds and their prey (Sigler 

et al. 2012; Benoit-Bird et al. 

2011, Benoit-Bird et al. 2013a, b, 

c), fisheries spatial distributions 

(Pfeiffer and Haynie 2012, 

Haynie and Pfeiffer 2013), and 

Alaska coastal communities 

(Huntington et al. 2013a, b). 

ARAP Approach

The goal of the ARAP for Southeastern Bering 

Sea Climate Science is to advance the science 

and the use of that science for integrated, 

“climate-ready” management actions. “Climateready” managment will need to continue to be 

precautionary, preemptive, and flexible enough 

to predict and respond rapidly to changing 

conditions (Holsman et al., submitted). 

Specifically, the AFSC will need to provide 

information in a timely and efficient manner 

to the Council and the Alaska Regional Office 

regarding both short-term changes and longterm shifts in the abundance and distribution 

of federally managed species (Holsman et al. 

submitted). For example, in December 2015, 

the Council decided to develop a Bering Sea 

Fisheries Ecosystem Plan. One of the priority 

action modules of this plan would address 

climate change. 

In order to develop management relevant advice 

on climate change, NOAA Fisheries should 1) 

rapidly scope the vulnerability and adaptive 

capacity of species, fisheries, and fishing 

communities to changing conditions. Following 

this rapid assessment, NOAA Fisheries should 

2) further evaluate climate impacts on species 

and fisheries, as well as explore management 

approaches that might attenuate or amplify 

climate impacts. and 3) produce regular short, 

medium and long-term projections of climate 

conditions and biological and socioeconomic 

responses.

The first step of rapid scoping consists of a 

qualitative assessment currently underway 

for the southeastern Bering Sea. This climate 

vulnerability assessment will qualitatively 

assess fish and crab species vulnerabilities 

to climate change and also provide guidance 

on research prioritization. The vulnerability 

assessment uses expert elicitation methods to 

quantify a species’ exposure and sensitivity 

to expected climate change (Hare et al. 2016). 

Vulnerability, as used here, refers to a reduction 

in a species’ productivity or abundance associated 

with an expected change in climate. Such 

rapid assessments can help identify potential 

“winners” and “losers” of climate change and 

should be repeated as new data and projections 

become available (e.g., on a 5 - 10 year cycle). In 

addition, an ocean acidification risk assessment 

(Mathis et al., 2015) was conducted by PMEL 

and AFSC scientists. This assessment predicted 

that the intensity, extent and duration of ocean 

acidification in the coastal areas around Alaska 

will increase with the highest socioeconomic 

risk accruing to regions in southeast and 

southwest Alaska that are highly reliant on 

fishery harvests and have relatively lower incomes 

and employment alternatives. Rapid scoping is 

a qualitative assessment of climate effects on 

fisheries (Morrison et al. 2015). Rapid scoping 

is a good first step for identifying “species of 

climate-concern” that might be the focus of 

future field research programs (if more data or 

mechanistic understanding is needed) or more 

quantitative analyses (if data is sufficient). For 

many species, our present ability to project 

future impacts is limited by our understanding 

of ecological processes, but for a small subset of 

the 21 FSSI stocks in the southeastern Bering Sea, 

quantitative projection is possible immediately.

The second step of the climate strategy is 

management strategy evaluations for those 

species identified as species of climate-concern 

by the rapid assessment and for which there is 

also sufficient mechanistic understanding of 

climate-biological-socioeconomic interactions. 

Management strategy evaluations should 

be broad enough to test a range of potential 

conditions against a range of potential 

management and species responses, and should 

be explicit in evaluation of various sources of 

uncertainty (e.g., process, observation, model 

parameterization; sensu Payne et al. 2016). Such 

climate change “stress-test” evaluations will be 

most successful if conducted in collaboration 

with the Council and regional stakeholders, 

who can help inform the range of potential 

management adaptive responses. 

Climate-enhanced stock 

projections hold promise for 

facilitating preemptive detection 

of climate-driven changes. 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 13

Finally, the third step of the region’s climate 

strategy will be to produce regular short (.e.g, 

9 months), medium (e.g., decadal), and longterm (e.g., 100 year) projections of climate 

conditions and biological and socioeconomic 

responses. Rapid scoping and management 

strategy evaluations (steps 1 and 2) will depend 

on these projections of future climate conditions, 

projections of climate change impacts on the 

physical and lower trophic conditions in the 

Bering Sea (i.e., PMEL-AFSC collaboration on a 

physical oceanography-nutrients-phytoplanktonzooplankton [ROMS/NPZ] regional model 

[Hermann et al. 2016]), ecosystem process 

studies and ecosystem monitoring to understand 

the effect of climate on fish, crab, and marine 

mammal populations, and on-going surveys to 

monitor changes in biomass, age-structure, and 

distribution of commercially important fish and 

crab species, as well as abundance of marine 

mammal species, in the southeastern Bering Sea. 

Such information can help inform monitoring 

efforts in the upcoming year (as was the case for 

intensified studies in 2015 to help understand 

impacts of anomalously warm spring conditions 

forecasted 9 months prior), provide context 

for harvest recommendations (e.g., if warm 

conditions are anticipated to intensify over the 

decade), or eventually be used to derive climatespecific harvest reference points and limits (i.e., 

through climate-enhanced stock assessments or 

climate-specific management actions) and inform 

marine mammal population status relative to 

MMPA biological reference points. Establishment 

of climate-specific fishery harvest reference points 

will need to be vetted through management 

strategy evaluations and modeling efforts, and 

revisited when rapid assessments are updated 

periodically.

The independent steps described above are taking 

place as part of the integrated climate strategy 

of the AFSC. Scientists working on each step are 

working as cross-cutting teams to ensure that 

knowledge and new insights gained through 

research is transferred in an efficient manner. 

Challenges for climate-ready 

management

Challenge 1: Improved detection 

For management to be most effective under 

rapidly changing conditions we will need to 

expand our suite of methods for detecting latent 

changes; that is, climate change-driven shifts in 

the ecosystem that may be masked as climate 

variability or hidden by lags between impacts and 

observations. Climate-enhanced stock projections 

hold promise for shifting management focus 

from retrospective evaluations to preemptive 

detection of climate-driven changes. Explicitly 

considering the impacts of shifting conditions on 

production through a combination of short-term 

forecasts and climate-enhanced models may also 

help prevent unintentional overfishing (sensu 

Szuwalski and Punt 2012, Perishing et al. 2016), 

reduce bycatch loss of non-target species (e.g., 

Hobday et al. 2016), or prevent unsustainable 

incidental mortality of marine mammal stocks. 

Challenge 2: Representative 

fishing pathways 

Scientists at the AFSC recognize that just as 

global climate modelers required representative 

concentration pathways for greenhouse gas 

accumulations in the atmosphere, representative 

fishing pathways (RFPs) are needed for 

implementation of the ARAP. These pathways are 

meant to represent a collection of possible future 

directions for fisheries management in the Bering 

Sea. Identifying representative fishing pathways 

that provide sustainable options for fishery 

management under climate change is a complex 

endeavor. However, if climate change impacts 

are projected using a suite of management 

strategies that do not capture the range of 

expected responses of managers, fishers, and fishdependent communities, they will not provide 

meaningful evaluations of potential management 

measures. 

The ARAP will project the performance of RFPs 

by identifying the management strategies that 

collectively represent realistic pathways for 

management alternatives (e.g., Ianelli et al. 2011, 

Holsman et al. 2015). The Council has a long 
14 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

history of developing novel strategies to address 

management challenges. The NOAA Bering Sea 

ARAP is designed to work within this innovative, 

iterative, and transparent management process. 

The public, government, academic and fisheries 

constituents will all play a role in formulating 

representative fishery pathways. As has been the 

case throughout the history of the Council, this 

management landscape is expected to evolve over 

time as our knowledge of the system improves. 

Developing scenarios that depict this evolution 

will be critical to the success of the ARAP. 

The NOAA Fisheries Climate 

Science Strategy is designed 

to provide simulation tools 

to depict, to the extent 

possible, the expected 

outcome of the integrated 

processes of global climate 

change, marine ecosystem 

response, fisher behavior, 

shifting public policy, shifting 

public opinions, and shifting 

international markets. These 

are uncertain processes and 

therefore as noted above, 

techniques to represent the 

full scope of uncertainty 

(scenario, process, and structural) will be critical. 

Additional outreach and research is needed to 

identify the full range of fishery pathways to 

conduct these projections.

Challenge 3: Reference 

biomass levels 

The MSA and associated national standards 

provide clear guidelines for building sustainable 

fisheries within the United States. For singlespecies management, the existing standards 

are flexible and provide options to cope with 

environmental change. These guidelines are built 

on population dynamics (growth, reproductive 

potential, longevity) and control rules which 

identify biological reference points to prevent 

overfishing and/or rebuild depleted stocks. Under 

some RFPs, the concepts of equilibrium states of 

nature will be violated for stocks that are affected 

by climate change (Szuwalski and Hollowed 

2016). In particular, reference biomass levels are 

a key part of the harvest control rules followed by 

the Council. If population productivity (governed 

by growth, reproductive success, and natural 

mortality) is affected by climate change, then 

the ability of the Council to mitigate this effect 

will depend on several factors, in particular the 

response of species to management actions and 

harvest control approaches. Identifying successful 

management actions will depend on whether 

the change in population productivity can be 

detected and differentiated from fisheries effects, 

and whether the Council can adjust the biological 

reference points to address the change. 

Detecting this change can be challenging. 

Eastern Bering Sea snow crab biomass oscillated 

dramatically during 1988-2000; differentiating 

the climate and fisheries signals was controversial 

(e.g., Oresanz et al. 2007, Parada et al. 2010). 

The challenge will be to develop sufficient 

understanding of the ecosystem to reasonably 

project the implications of changing climate on 

the population dynamics of vulnerable species. 

One approach is to consider the implications of 

plausible broad forecasts related to how biological 

parameters may change in the future as a way to 

assess the robustness of management strategies, 

rather than attempting specific predictions per se

(Punt et al., 2013). These climate-ready strategies 

will require periodic reviews (perhaps in 

conjunction with the 5-year programmatic review 

or the 5-year review of the Fishery Ecosystem 

Plans). Periodic reviews would ensure that the 

southeastern Bering Sea RAP reflects the evolving 

views of stakeholders, the public, and State and 

Federal regulatory agencies.

Similarly, the ability of NOAA Fisheries to 

mitigate effects of climate change on marine 

mammal stocks depends on the ability to detect 

changes in vital rates and adjust management of 

other activities that result in incidental mortality. 

At minimum, consistent monitoring of marine 

mammal population abundance is required to 

evaluate population trends which provide a first 

indication of population health and vulnerability 

to climate change.

Challenge 4: Shifts in 

ecosystem dynamics 

Changes in the ecosystem carrying capacity, 

shifts in energy pathways, changing growth and 

Multi-species assessments 

provide insight into the outcome 

of management scenarios under 

shifting conditions and predator 

prey interactions. 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 15

maturity schedules, altered species compositions, 

and different levels of species interactions 

(competition and predation) are all expected to 

alter the processes governing species coexistence 

and productivity within the Bering Sea (Wilson 

2011; Hollowed and Sundby 2014). Projecting these 

shifting processes using models of different levels 

of ecosystem complexity will provide a landscape 

for anticipating possible futures. Understanding 

interaction strengths between species will be 

a critical element of the ARAP. Multi-species 

assessments provide insight into the outcome of 

management scenarios under shifting conditions 

and predator prey interactions. Managers can 

select from theoretically sustainable harvest 

strategies, but these strategies may change if 

historical interaction strengths are no longer 

representative of encounter probabilities or 

diet preferences. At the whole ecosystem level, 

shifting climate may provide new environmental 

gateways for species from different zoogeographic 

provinces. These changes may necessitate revisiting 

management thresholds and limits (e.g., the system 

level cap on groundfish harvest). 

The challenge for fisheries management 

and protected species conservation will be 

to identify critical thresholds for when or if 

current management should be altered to 

sustain fish, crab, and fisheries, as well as 

marine mammals, and to develop alternatives 

that will mitigate climate change impacts (e.g., 

Walters and Parma 1996). In the North Pacific, 

NOAA has considerable experience with abrupt 

shifts in marine production. This high level 

of ecosystem understanding is necessary to 

correctly adjust a harvest control rule to the 

productivity regime that emerges after a shift. 

With this in mind, defining harvest control 

rules that adjust to changing productivity will be 

particularly desirable. In the case of the Bering 

Sea, the sloping control rules used in crab and 

groundfish management are good examples of 

a type of adaptive harvest strategy that reduces 

exploitation rates with smaller stock size. 

Under some emission scenarios, environmental 

conditions could be altered to such an extent 

that the Bering Sea becomes uninhabitable for 

some presently abundant populations. While the 

Endangered Species Act provides protections for 

species at risk of extinction, such as prohibition 

of take, it may not be adequate to conserve 

species whose required habitat is irreversibly 

altered. This limitation highlights the need for 

rapid vulnerability assessments followed by 

RFPs that identify management provisions and 

mitigation strategies to sustain the vulnerable 

species. Projection models that address 

population viability will be needed to evaluate the 

performance of mitigation strategies that dampen 

the rate of declines of populations stressed by 

changing climate. 

Challenge 5: Modeling fisher 

behavior in response to 

changing climate, markets, 

and management 

The current ecosystem approach to fisheries 

management adopted by the Council is far more 

complicated than the collective suite of singlespecies control rules and system-level caps. This 

complex suite of management strategies includes 

catch share programs, marine spatial provisions 

and incentives to comply with bycatch controls 

and other constraints. The Bering Sea ARAP is 

designed to evaluate how these provisions will 

perform under changing species compositions, 

shifting spatial distributions, changing vital 

rates and phenology of target and non-target 

species. A key element of this study will be to 

model fisher behavior as well as fish responses to 

climate change. The Bering Sea ARAP will utilize 

a wide range of fisher location choice models (e.g., 

Haynie and Layton 2010) as well as multispecies 

technical interaction models that simulate 

how fisheries interact under changing climate 

conditions and alternative harvest strategies.

Participation restrictions in catch share 

programs may limit fishers’ abilities to target 

different species (or fish in different locations) 

when climate change affects fish and crab 

populations. Typically these programs have 

some limits on trading shares and participation. 

Fishing companies may be faced with difficult 

financial choices when they have allocations 

for a population that is declining due to climate 

change. One goal of the ARAP is to provide longterm predictions to industry as a basis of rational 

business decisions. Another goal is to assess the 

value of providing additional flexibility in future 

regulations to enable better adaptation in the face 

of climate change and its effects on fish and crab 
16 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

populations. Research has shown that changing 

regulations (e.g., catch shares) have a significant 

impact on how vessels are able to target different 

species in multispecies fisheries (Abbott et al. 

2015, Reimer et al. 2016). Additional work is 

required to understand the limits of this fishery 

selectivity and how catch shares and incentive 

programs can best achieve management goals.

The Council’s ecosystem approach to fisheries 

management (sensu Dolan et al. 2016) utilizes a 

network of interacting management measures 

(Hollowed et al. 2011) that includes inseason 

management measures that guard against 

overfishing of target and non-target species, 

adhere to prohibited species catch limits, and 

protect forage fish. As such, climate change has 

the potential to influence a variety of target 

species through the complex network of fishery 

interactions. In recognition of these interactions, 

researchers at the AFSC have developed a 

modeling tool to track the performance of 

proposed management strategies within a 

multispecies fishery interaction framework. This 

modeling approach will have to be adapted to 

include the implications of climate change on fish 

and invertebrate production.

Challenge 6: Balancing process 

research and ongoing ecosystem 

monitoring

Understanding climate-change impacts on 

marine ecosystems requires bottom-to-top 

understanding of biophysical, trophodynamic, 

and socioeconomic processes structuring coupled 

human-biological systems like the Bering Sea. 

Thus, integration and coordination of various 

field sampling programs that provide data on 

changes in multiple levels of the biological 

or social system are important for modeling 

climate change impacts on fish, crab, marine 

mammals, and coastal communities. As a result, 

conducting the research necessary to understand 

species’ responses to climate variability is 

challenging. Field, lab, and model-based research 

are necessary to gain this understanding. This 

process oriented research focuses on providing 

mechanistic explanations for species’ response 

to climate variability and is strengthened when 

structured by clear, testable hypotheses. In 

addition, process oriented research depends on an 

integrated approach, bringing together scientists 

from multiple disciplines. While fruitful, 

integrated ecosystem research is complex, time 

consuming and can be costly. 

The AFSC is challenged by its responsibility for 

scientific research in the five LME in Alaska 

(southeastern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, 

Gulf of Alaska, northern Bering/Chukchi seas, 

and Beaufort Sea). LMEs are relatively large 

areas of ocean space of approximately 200,000 

km2 or greater, adjacent to the continents in 

coastal waters where primary productivity is 

generally higher than in open ocean areas. 

Unlike geographical ocean boundaries, LMEs 

are defined by ecological, rather than political 

or economic, criteria. Funding is insufficient 

to study all five LMEs in Alaska to the extent 

required to fully understand climate effects. 

Consequently, research and monitoring efforts 

need to be prioritized. This prioritization will 

affect the balance of process research and ongoing 

ecosystem monitoring as well as the tempo of 

each (e.g., annual vs. biennial surveys). 

The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) 

of the Council has addressed this prioritization 

by expressing strong support for fisheries 

oceanographic surveys to occur on a yearly basis 

“while we are trying to identify the effects of 

climate change and develop the means of making 

‘long-term’ predictions of its impacts” (SSC 

minutes, February 2016). However, ongoing review 

of the balance of scientific activity is necessary to 

ensure that all research priorities are adequately 

addressed. This may require greater focus on some 

components over others in any particular year, 

while not compromising the integrity of long-term 

data sets. In this, management strategy evaluations 

can be used to evaluate the strengths of different 

sampling strategies and prioritization scenarios 

under climate change.

One way these challenges are met is to leverage 

process research from ongoing monitoring 

seasonal fisheries surveys. For example, 

oceanography and multiple trophic levels are 

sampled on all fisheries surveys to provide more 

complete information on the ecosystem. Surveys 

are conducted in all LMEs, adopting a biennial 

approach to efficiently allocate resources and 

preserve an ongoing presence in all of Alaska’s 

marine ecosystems. Biennial surveys permit 

extended spatial sampling beyond that which was 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 17

available in prior years due to increases in daysat-sea allocation for individual projects. Examples 

of this success include a comprehensive gridded 

spring survey that fully encompasses the known 

shelf spawning areas of walleye pollock in the 

Bering Sea and a similar expansion of the Gulf of 

Alaska spring survey for larval walleye pollock. 

Likewise upward looking acoustics in the Gulf of 

Alaska provide knowledge of climate impacts on 

timing of spawning.

Both process research and ecosystem monitoring 

are necessary as they represent different facets 

of understanding climate impacts. For example, 

process studies allow for ground-truthing of 

mechanistic linkages in between the physical 

environment, biological processes, and 

socioeconomic components of the system and 

for checking that oceanographic and ecosystem 

models successfully mimic observations, 

such as temperature, salinity, etc. Ongoing, 

regular ecosystem monitoring depends on 

ship-based fishery independent surveys and 

fisheries oceanography research and are the 

backbone that provides baseline information. 

AFSC has recently implemented cost-effective 

ways to expand their seasonal data collections 

by sampling oceanography and acoustic data 

from ships of opportunity through cooperative 

research with fishing vessels. Additional data are 

acquired through new technologies such as sail 

drones, as well as underway oceanography (Chla, 

oxygen, nutrients) and acoustics (zooplankton), 

and tagging (acoustic, archival, traditional). 

An understanding of the relative importance 

of bottom-up and top-down processes also is 

required for understanding climate impacts; 

information on predator-prey overlap and 

predator diets are collected through fishery 

independent surveys and observer program. 

Finally partnerships with other research 

institutions contribute critical components to the 

process research and ecosystem monitoring.

Integrated ecosystem research in the southeastern 

Bering Sea has focused on walleye pollock, Pacific 

cod, and arrowtooth flounder, as well as some 

other flatfish species such as northern rock sole. 

The most has been learned about walleye pollock, 

in particular uncovering the explanation for why 

walleye pollock recruitment declined during 

the warm years of the early 2000s, and then 

recovered during subsequent cold years (Hunt et 

al. 2011, Sigler et al. 2016). This research identified 

late summer energy density of age-0 walleye 

pollock as a key characteristic of successful 

recruitment and linked high energy densities to 

abundant large crustacean zooplankton (Heintz 

et al., 2013). These steps are 

reasonably documented, but 

the factors leading to abundant 

large crustacean zooplankton, 

while hypothesized, have only 

limited documentation. Thus the 

question arises: what research 

is next? Should research focus 

on completing the walleye 

pollock story by focusing on 

processes affecting zooplankton 

production? Alternately, should 

research focus on fish or crab 

species other than walleye 

pollock? Will increased ocean 

temperatures increase the 

overlap of pollock with predators of pollock? 

In addition, the story may be more complex. 

For example, there is some evidence that in the 

summers of warm years, micro-zooplankton play 

a major role in energy transfer to upper trophic 

levels, adding an additional trophic level, and 

thus reducing the biomass of trophic levels above 

them by roughly 90%, including juvenile walleye 

pollock (Coyle et al. 2011). Overall there are 

the fundamental questions of whether primary 

production is consumed by large zooplankton, 

small zooplankton, micro-zooplankton or falls to 

the bottom, and how climate change might affect 

these trophic pathways is probably fundamental to 

the success of almost all Bering Sea fish and crab.

The AFSC conducts research prioritization 

through well-established business practices 

that provide the AFSC with transparent and 

timely methods of research prioritization and 

funding. Overarching objectives are described 

in the AFSC’s Science Plan. Priorities are 

adjusted as needed on an annual basis through 

an annual guidance memorandum. All AFSC 

projects are reviewed annually and scored 

based on these priorities. For process research, 

the AFSC addresses research prioritization 

through cross-Divisional and cross-Program 

planning. Typically groups of scientific staff 

meet to discuss and to write new research plans 

which are then reviewed and approved by the 

science managers at the AFSC. These plans often 

are published as technical reports and posted 

on the AFSC website. As part of the ARAP, we 

Integrated ecosystem research 

in the southeastern Bering 

Sea has focused on walleye 

pollock, Pacific cod, and 

arrowtooth flounder, as well 

as some other flatfish species 

such as northern rock sole. 
18 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

envision research prioritization also occurring 

through a three-tiered approach that can guide 

research prioritization (as described earlier): 1) 

rapid climate vulnerability assessment (CVA) 

to prioritize research and highlight gaps in 

knowledge, 2) short-term forecasts 

will test our predictive capacity 

and highlight research/process 

oriented gaps in knowledge about 

physical-biological-human system 

couplings, and 3) long-term MSEs 

can be used to evaluate different 

sampling strategies.

Outreach steps for the 

ARAP 

Outreach for the ARAP occurred through 

an organized effort that began with a news 

release announcing the first ARAP draft. A web 

page served as a central point for distributing 

information and soliciting input on the draft. 

As of October 25, 2016, the draft ARAP page 

has been viewed 425 times. A presentation was 

made several times, including to the Council, the 

Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee, 

and in University and web-based seminars. 

Letters seeking written comments were sent 

to Alaska Native organizations, Community 

Development Quota (CDQ) corporations, 

environmental groups, fishing industry groups, 

and the State of Alaska. In addition, most of these 

groups could listen to presentations and comment 

at Council meetings. The ARAP is a living 

document that will continue to evolve and help 

guide climate-science activities over the next 3-5 

years; partners will be encouraged to be engaged 

in this evolution.

Climate science information has been brought 

forward to the Council. A primary outlet used 

is the Ecosystem Considerations chapter of 

the Stock Assessment and Fisheries Evaluation 

report, which has been produced annually for 

20 years. This report includes both ecosystem 

information as well as climate indicators such 

as average bottom temperature, krill biomass, 

and predator and prey biomass. The climate 

and ecosystem information are applied to 

explain recruitment variation in individual 

species, which is available for some species with 

sufficient research and understanding. The latter 

information is particularly useful to justify catch 

quota adjustments for the high-volume, highvalue fisheries of the southeastern Bering Sea. 

Current assessment of progress 

on the seven objectives

The NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy 

calls for periodic assessments of progress on the 

seven strategic objectives. Efforts are underway 

(i.e., relatively new), or ongoing (i.e., wellestablished) for the southeastern Bering Sea, 

however the rate of progress varies substantially 

among objectives. For example, developing 

decision processes that can incorporate and 

respond to changing climate conditions 

(Objective 3) awaits the more precise information 

and improved tools now being developed under 

other objectives, and the identification of robust 

management strategies (Objective 2) depends 

on identification of future states of marine and 

coastal ecosystems (Objective 4). The Council 

has an adaptive management process that 

has occasionally incorporated climate change 

information into its decisions in the past on 

an ad hoc basis. Routine incorporation of 

climate-informed reference points under the 

formal mathematical criteria of accepted stock 

assessment models and stock projection models 

awaits future developments. This Climate 

Science Strategy will complement a Fisheries 

Ecosystem Plan currently being developed for the 

southeastern Bering Sea.

In the ARAP, we assess the current status 

of progress on the seven objectives for the 

southeastern Bering Sea (this section) as well as 

describe an action plan for the next 3-5 years 

(next section). In previous subsections, we have 

described the long-term climate science approach 

of the AFSC and PMEL and the challenges of 

ecosystem-based fisheries management in the 

face of changing climate. Appendix A describes 

the complete list of projects currently underway, 

longer descriptions of each project, and the 

current status of progress on the seven objectives. 

The projects supporting each objective are also 

described in Figure 2.

In summary, the major projects currently 

underway are (i.e., summarizing Appendix A): 

This Alaska Regional Action 

Plan will complement a 

Fisheries Ecosystem Plan 

currently being developed for 

the southeastern Bering Sea. 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 19

u NPFMC Bering Sea Fisheries Ecosystem 

Plan. Approved for development by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council in 

December 2015.

u Alaska CLIMate Project (ACLIM). This project 

involves a suite of models designed to provide 

scenarios of future fish production under a 

variety of climate and fishing scenarios. 

u Climate vulnerability assessment for the 

southeastern Bering Sea. This project will 

qualitatively assess species vulnerabilities 

to climate change and provide guidance on 

research prioritization, will be completed 

during 2016.

u Belmont Forum project. This project will 

synthesize information from regional studies 

to examine climate impacts in the marine 

ecosystems of the Pacific and Atlantic Arctic, 

which will be completed during 2017.

u Recruitment Processes Alliance (RPA). This 

ongoing research focuses on understanding 

recruitment processes of important 

southeastern Bering Sea fish species

u Loss of sea ice research. This effort extends 

standard surveys of the southeastern Bering 

Sea into the northern Bering Sea.

u Ocean acidification research. This ongoing 

research focuses on commercially important 

fish and shellfish species and coldwater corals. 

u Fur seal research. This project will link finescale changes in fur seal foraging behavior 

with measures of pollock distribution and 

abundance in real time.

u Assess economic and human community 

impacts. Modeling of the climate effects on 

fisheries and the related economic and human 

community impacts will continue.

u Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Assessments 

and Alaska Marine Ecosystems 

Considerations and Integrated Ecosystem 

Assessment. The Ecosystem Considerations 

report is produced annually to summarize 

information about the Alaska Marine 

Ecosystem for the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, the scientific 

community and the public.

u Standard ecosystem monitoring. Ecosystem 

trends are monitored through a combination 

of ongoing standardized resource assessment 

surveys, fisheries oceanography, seabird, and 

marine mammal surveys, including ships of 

opportunity, diet collections, and observations 

collected by fisheries observers.
20 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

NOAA Fisheries and the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council can take three important steps to 

improve efforts to identify and adapt to climate change impacts on federally managed fisheries in our region. 

1) NOAA Fisheries needs to be able to inform the Council and industry, (with about a 10-year lead time) as 

to which commercially important species are likely to be “winners” and “losers” in regard to climate change 

in Alaska. These forecasts need to incorporate uncertainty. Such forecasts would assist the Council in 

adjusting management programs (i.e., catch share programs) as necessary, and allow the industry to “tune” 

their capacity (e.g., number of fishing vessels) to match productivity, 2) NOAA Fisheries and the Council need 

to identify and monitor ecosystem status relative to thresholds that signal the need to adjust management 

strategies, and 3) NOAA Fisheries needs to continue on-going ship-based surveys to monitor changes in 

biomass, age-structure, and distribution of commercially important groundfish species in the Bering Sea and 

Gulf of Alaska and the food webs on which these species depend.

The major climate science activities planned for 

the next 3-5 years are to 1) continue research 

to identify the mechanisms of climate impacts 

on fisheries, 2) continue to track trends in 

ecosystems, 3) continue to identify future 

states of marine and coastal ecosystems, and 

4) continue to identify robust strategies for 

fisheries management under changing climate 

conditions. The extent of progress will depend 

on funding levels. We will make some progress 

with level funding. Approximately $5M per 

year is spent to implement the Climate Science 

Strategy in our region as part of about $9M 

per year spent on process studies. The funding 

sources include the NOAA and NOAA Fisheries 

programs of North Pacific Climate Regimes and 

Ecosystem Productivity (NPCREP), Integrated 

Ecosystem Assessment (IEA), Fisheries and the 

Environment (FATE), Stock Assessment Analysis 

and Modeling (SAAM), Loss of Sea Ice (LOSI), 

and Ocean Acidification (OA), as well as external 

funding from the North Pacific Research Board. 

The funding amount is approximate because 

more than one objective usually is supported 

(e.g., climate and ecosystems); project funds 

were partitioned to reflect support of multiple 

objectives. Progress on other Action Plans for 

other Large Marine Ecosystems in waters off 

Alaska will follow, as funding allows. This plan 

assumes two possible funding scenarios: 1) level 

funding; and 2) an increase of 10% (~$1M) above 

current funding. 

It is important to recognize that at the time of 

writing of this RAP, Federal funding levels are 

uncertain. It is more likely than not, that funding 

levels to support research operations at the AFSC 

in FY17 will be less than in FY16. Therefore, 

activities described under funding scenario 1 and 

2 should both be viewed as placeholders, and not 

commitments from the AFSC. Further, efforts 

to develop and implement RAPs for the other 

four LMEs in Alaska are needed, but are also 

dependent upon funding and resources. 

IV. Action Plan

important steps to improve efforts
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 21

NOAA Fisheries needs to 

continue on-going ship-based 

surveys to monitor changes in 

biomass, age-structure, and 

distribution of commercially 

important groundfish species in 

the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska 

and the food webs on which these 

species depend.

In Table 1, we describe projects planned for the 

next 3-5 years, their time frame, and funding 

scenario (level or increase). This table follows 

the prescribed format for all RAPs. The projects 

supporting each objective are also described in 

Figure 2. The planned projects are described 

more fully in the appendices, with level funding 

projects described in Appendix A and additional 

funding projects described in Appendix B. The 

planned projects with level funding largely 

mimic the current projects (described in the 

last section) because most projects are ongoing 

(i.e., the project descriptions in Appendix A are 

relevant for both current projects and planned 

projects with level funding).

ARAP implementation depends 

on available resources

The extent of progress to implement the ARAP 

will depend on what resources are available. The 

ARAP was developed using a “level funding” 

scenario to identify key actions that could be 

implemented at current resource levels as well as 

an “additional” resource level to identify actions 

if other resources were available. This section 

provides a brief assessment of opportunities and 

challenges for the ARAP. We will make some 

progress with level funding, though progress will 

mostly occur in areas such as monitoring trends, 

which are less expensive, than in the major, more 

expensive, challenge of gaining an understanding 

of the ecological processes that connect climate 

change to the productivity of fish populations. 

This understanding is required for quantitative 

forecasts of the impacts of climate change, 

which currently is limited to less than 1/3 of 21 

comprehensively assessed stocks in our region. 

With level funding, several projects will continue 

as described in the assessment. For example, 

the Ecosystems Considerations report will be 

produced annually and standard ecosystem 

monitoring, ocean acidification research, and 

climate-enhanced single-species projection 

modeling will continue. 

Expanded funds for both rapid response and 

systematic climate assessments are needed in 

order to reduce (potentially damaging) lags in 

management response to changing conditions. In 

particular, continued and additional funding is 

needed to support 1) rapid assessments of sudden 

climate and ecological shifts, 2) periodic climate 

change-risk assessments, and 3) predictions of 

the impacts of possible management changes. 

Both rapid and period climate assessments in 

turn depend on development and maintenance 

of monitoring, research, and climate-enhanced 

modelling programs. Specific projects with 

some additional funds are 

described in Appendix B.

Obvious limitations will 

occur with level funding. 

Funds are insufficient to pay 

for analysts and computing 

time on high-performance 

computers to model the 

ecological processes that 

connect climate change to 

the productivity of managed 

populations. As a result, new 

models will be delayed and 

some existing models may 

not be updated to present day. 

Computing senescence may 

also limit future modeling 

capacity without additional 

investment in replacement core processors. 

Existing model projections will stop with IPCC 

scenario AR5. A specific lapse is that Alaska 

CLIMate project (ACLIM) will end in FY17 

without more funds.

Our climate science research program depends 

on continued funding of specific programs. 

Much of the current work is supported by the 

IEA program, NOAA Fisheries S&T Economics, 

Social Sciences, Fisheries and the Environment 

(FATE), Stock Assessment and Analysis Methods 

(SAAM), and the North Pacific Climate Regimes, 

Ecosystem Productivity (NPCREP), and Loss of 

Sea Ice (LOSI). For example, economic and social 

science efforts are largely funded on a projectlevel basis so are highly dependent on annual 

S&T Economics and Social Science funds. We 

also will continue to need to write proposals to 

support project-specific investigations. With 

some additional funding, we would be able to 

provide a more integrated approach. In addition, 

such funding would support the permanent labor 

required to complete this work. 

While climate-related impacts will continue 

to be an integral component of future research 

regardless of the level of funding, significant 

advancements in understanding of climate 
22 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

impacts on marine ecosystems in Alaska depend 

on integrated evaluations. For example, funding 

has supported major programs in the Bering 

Sea every 5-10 years. The most recent major 

integrated ecosystem research programs have 

been funded by the North Pacific Research Board 

and National Science Foundation for the Bering 

Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. Follow on research 

(the Recruitment Processes Alliance) is occurring 

for the Bering Sea Project. Under level funding, 

progress will likely continue to be project-based, 

opportunistic, and periodic around projectspecific funds. Further, major program funding 

is necessary on the same tempo (every 5-10 

years) to continue making substantial progress in 

understanding the ecosystem as a whole.

Diet data, needed to understand predator-prey 

interactions, are regularly collected and analyzed 

for four core species (walleye pollock, Pacific 

cod, arrowtooth flounder, and Pacific halibut), 

and sampling will likely continue for these 

species under level funding. A frustration with 

the current funding level has been that predatorprey interactions, which can be influenced by 

climate, have only been funded on an ad hoc 

basis for most species (beyond the core species), 

rather than receiving continuous funding. 

Continuous, steady funding of dietary analysis 

would remedy this.

Current funding allows NMFS researchers 

and partners to evaluate the impacts of many 

aspects of changing climate on communities 

and fisheries using secondary data sources. In 

terms of fishing impacts, data on costs are not 

collected for most fisheries, so determining the 

net impacts of changing fish abundances and 

spatial distributions must be estimated through 

statistical models that may not capture all 

aspects of changing human impacts of climate 

change. An increase in funding would allow 

more economic data collection to estimate net 

benefits to and among different fisheries and 

communities. It will also enable more primary 

research to be conducted in communities to 

better understand the nuanced manner in which 

different groups and communities depend on 

changing resources. 

Research on responses of fish and fisheries to 

changing climate conditions will continue to 

be an important aspect of AFSC’s research 

enterprise. However, level funding limits 

proactive responses and pushes research and 

management into reactive responses. For 

example, research on climate and oceanographic 

factors influencing Prohibited Species Catch 

(PSC) in groundfish fisheries addresses a growing 

management issue, especially with respect to 

Pacific halibut and Pacific salmon bycatch, and 

may not be fully addressed under level funding. 

Expanded funds for climate effects on bycatch 

would remedy this. 

An increase in funding would allow more economic 

data collection to estimate net benefits to and among 

different fisheries and communities.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 23

Performance Metrics

The following metrics will be used to assess the quality of the output and outcomes of the Action Plan 

and to track implementation of the ARAP. The metrics are categorized according to whether they 

assess the quality and quantity of the science, the value of the science to management or the effects on 

scientific infrastructure.

Science Quality and Quantity

• Number of peer-reviewed publications produced that address climate change and climate 

impacts.

• Completion of climate-vulnerability 

assessments.

• Species (or populations) for which we have 

climate-vital rate relationships.

• Species (or populations) that have 20- to 30-

year population projections.

Value of the Science to Management for 

Sustainable Fisheries and Recovery of 

Protected Species

• Number of stock assessments and 

Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) that are 

climate- informed.

• Number of National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

analyses that are climate-informed.

• Number of climate-related indices in the annual Ecosystems Considerations report.

• Number of protected species recovery plan and 

critical habitat designation analyses that incorporate climate information.

• Number of climate-specific thresholds identified for management actions.

• Frequency of adaptation of management in 

response to changing climate, where relevant.

Science Infrastructure

• Number of long-term monitoring time series 

maintained.

• Full-time equivalent (FTE) time (i.e., sum of 

partial and full FTEs) devoted to climate-related research.

• Frequency of communication of climate research and science to stakeholders and resource 

managers.

• Number of contributions to national and international climate impact assessments.
V. References

24 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

Abbott, J., Haynie, A., and Reimer, M. 

2015. Hidden flexibility: Institutions, 

incentives and the margins of selectivity 

in fishing. Land Economics 91 (1): 

169–195.

Baker, M.R., and Hollowed, A.B. 2014. 

Delineating ecological regions in marine 

systems: Integrating physical structure 

and community composition to inform 

spatial management in the eastern 

Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research Part II: 

Topical Studies in Oceanography 109: 

215-240.

Benoit-Bird, K.J., Kuletz, K., Heppell, S., 

Jones, N., and Hoover, B. 2011. Active 

acoustic examination of the diving 

behavior of murres foraging on patchy 

prey. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

443: 217-235.

Benoit-Bird, K.J., McIntosh, N.E., and 

Heppell, S.A. 2013a. Nested scales of 

spatial heterogeneity in juvenile walleye 

pollock Theragra chalcogramma in 

the southeastern Bering Sea. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 484: 219-238.

Benoit-Bird, K.J., Battaile, B.C., Heppell, 

S.A., Hoover, B., Irons, D., Jones, N., 

Kuletz, K.J., Nordstrom, C.A., Paredes, 

R., Suryan, R.M., and Waluk, C.M. 

2013b. Prey patch patterns predict 

habitat use by top marine predators with 

diverse foraging strategies. PLoS One 

8(1), p.e53348.

Benoit-Bird, K.J., Battaile, B.C., Nordstrom, 

C.A., and Trites, A.W., 2013c. Foraging 

behavior of northern fur seals closely 

matches the hierarchical patch scales of 

prey. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

479: 283-302.

Boveng, P.L., J.L. Bengtson, M.F. Cameron, 

S.P. Dahle, E.A. Logerwell, J.M. 

London, J.E. Overland, J.T. Sterling, 

D.E. Stevenson, B.L. Taylor, and H.L. 

Ziel. 2013. Status review of the ribbon 

seal. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSAFSC-255, 174 p.

Boveng, P. L., Bengtson, J.L., Buckley, T.W, 

Cameron, M. F., Dahle, S.P., Kelly, 

B.P., Megrey, B. A., Overland, J. E., and 

Williamson, N.J. 2009. Status review 

of the spotted seal (Phoca largha). U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum. NMFSAFSC-200, 153 p.

Brown, Z.W., and Arrigo, K.R. 2013. Sea ice 

impacts on spring bloom dynamics and 

net primary production in the eastern 

Bering Sea. Journal of Geophysical 

Research 118: 1–20. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1029/2012JC008034.

Brown, Z.W., van Dijken, G.L., and Arrigo, 

K.R. 2011. A reassessment of primary 

production and environmental change 

in the Bering Sea. Journal of Geophysical 

Research 116 (C8): 2156-2202.

Cameron, M.F., Bengtson, J.L., Boveng, 

P.L., Jansen, J.K., Kelly, B.P., Dahle, S.P., 

Logerwell, E.A., Overland, J.E., Sabine, 

C.L., Waring, G.T., and Wilder, J.M. 

2010. Status review of the bearded seal 

(Erignathus barbatus). U.S. Department 

of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-211, 246 p.

Coyle, K.O., Eisner, L.B., Mueter, F.J., 

Pinchuk, A.I., Janout, M.A., Cieciel, 

K.D., Farley, E.V., and Andrews, 

A.G. 2011. Climate change in the 

southeastern Bering Sea: Impacts on 

pollock stocks and implications for the 

oscillating control hypothesis. Fisheries 

Oceanography 20(2): 139-156.

Dolan, T. E., Patrick, W. S., and Link, J. S. 

2016. Delineating the continuum of 

marine ecosystem-based management: a 

US fisheries reference point perspective. 

ICES Journal of Marine Science. doi: 

10.1093/icesjms/fsv242.

Hare, J.A., Morrison, W.E., Nelson, M.W., 

Stachura, M.M., Teeters, E.J., Griffis, 

R.B., Alexander, M.A., Scott, J.D., Alade, 

L., Bell, R.J., Chute, A.S., Curti, K.L., 

Curtis, T.H., Kircheis, D., Richardson, 

E., Robillard, E., Walsh, H.J., McManus, 

M.C., Maranic, K.E., and Griswold, C.A. 

2016. A vulnerability assessment of fish 

and invertebrates to climate change on 

the northeast U.S. continental shelf. 

PLoS ONE 11(2):e0146756. doi:10.1371/

journal.pone.0146756.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 25

Haynie, A.C., and Huntington, H.P. In press 

. Strong connections, loose coupling: The 

influence of the Bering Sea ecosystem 

on commercial fisheries and subsistence 

harvests in Alaska. Ecology and Society.

Haynie, A., and Layton, D. 2010. An 

expected profit model for monetizing 

fishing location choices. Journal 

of Environmental Economics and 

Management 59(2): 165-176.

Haynie, A.C., and Pfeiffer, L. 2013. 

Climatic and economic drivers of the 

Bering Sea walleye pollock (Theragra 

chalcogramma) fishery: Implications for 

the future. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 70(6): 841-853.

Heintz, R.A., Siddon, E.C., Farley, E.V., and 

Napp, J.M. 2013. Correlation between 

recruitment and fall condition of age-0 

pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) from 

the eastern Bering Sea under varying 

climate conditions. Deep-Sea Research 

Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 

94: 150-156.

Hermann, A.J., Gibson, G.A., Bond, N.A., 

Curchitser, E.N., Hedstrom, K., Cheng, 

W., Wang, M., Cokelet, E.D., Stabeno, 

P.J., and Aydin, K. 2016. Projected future 

biophysical states of the Bering Sea. 

Deep-Sea. Research. II. doi:10.1016/j.

dsr2.2015.11.001.

Hobday, A. J., Spillman, C.M., Eveson, J.P., 

and Hartog, J.R. Seasonal forecasting for 

decision support in marine fisheries and 

aquaculture. Fisheries Oceanography 25 

(Suppl. 1): 45–56 (2016).

Hollowed, A. B., Aydin, K., Essington, T., 

Ianelli, J.N., Megrey, B., Punt, A.E., and 

Smith, A.D.M. 2011. Experience with 

quantitative ecosystem assessment tools 

in the northeast Pacific. Fisheries and 

Fisheries 12: 189-208.

Hollowed, A.B., Barbeaux, S.J., Cokelet, 

E.D., Farley, E., Kotwicki, S., Ressler, 

P.H., Spital, C., and Wilson, C.D. 

2012. Effects of climate variations on 

pelagic ocean habitats and their role in 

structuring forage fish distributions in 

the Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research Part 

II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 65: 

230-250.

Hollowed, A.B., Planque, B., and Loeng, 

H. 2013. Potential movement of fish 

and shellfish stocks from the subArctic to the Arctic Ocean. Fisheries 

Oceanography 22(5): 355-370.

Hollowed, A.B., and Sundby, S. 2014. 

Change is coming to the northern 

oceans. Science 344:1084-1085.

Holsman, K. K., Hazen, E.L., Hollowed, A., 

and Aydin, K. In review. Evolution not 

revolution in implementing ‘climateready’ marine management. Nature 

Climate Change.

Holsman, K. K., Ianelli, J., Aydin, K., 

Punt, A.E. and Moffitt, E.A. 2015. A 

comparison of fisheries biological 

reference points estimated from 

temperature-specific multi-species 

and single-species climate-enhanced 

stock assessment models. Deep-Sea 

Research Part II: Topical Studies in 

Oceanography. Early online 8 August 

2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

dsr2.2015.08.001.

Hunt, G.L., Coyle, K.O., Eisner, L.B., Farley, 

E.V., Heintz, R.A., Mueter, F., Napp, 

J.M., Overland, J.E., Ressler, P.H., Salo, S. 

and Stabeno, P.J. 2011. Climate impacts 

on eastern Bering Sea foodwebs: a 

synthesis of new data and an assessment 

of the Oscillating Control Hypothesis. 

ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal 

du Conseil 68 (6): 1230-1243.

Huntington, H.P., Braem, N.M., Brown, 

C.L., Hunn, E., Krieg, T.M., Lestenkof, 

P., Noongwook, G., Sepez, J., Sigler, M.F., 

Wiese, F.K. and Zavadil, P. 2013a. Local 

and traditional knowledge regarding the 

Bering Sea ecosystem: Selected results 

from five indigenous communities. 

Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical 

Studies in Oceanography 94: 323-332.

Huntington, H.P., Ortiz, I., Noongwook, 

G., Fidel, M., Childers, D., Morse, M., 

Beaty, J., Alessa, L. and Kliskey, A. 

2013b. Mapping human interaction with 

the Bering Sea ecosystem: Comparing 

seasonal use areas, lifetime use areas, 

and “calorie-sheds”. Deep-Sea Research 

Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 

94: 292-300.

Ianelli, J.N., Hollowed, A.B., Haynie, A.C., 

Mueter, F.J. and Bond, N.A. 2011. 

Evaluating management strategies for 

eastern Bering Sea walleye pollock 

(Theragra chalcogramma) in a changing 

environment. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science: Journal du Conseil 68(6): 1297-

1304.

Ianelli, J., Holsman, K.K., Punt, A.E., 

Aydin, K. 2016. Multi-model inference 

for incorporating trophic and climate 

uncertainty into stock assessment 

estimates of fishery biological reference 

points. Deep-Sea Research Part II: 

Topical Studies in Oceanography. 

Early online April 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.

dsr2.2015.04.002

International Panel on Climate Change. 

Climate Change 2014: Impacts, 

Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part 

A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. 

Contribution of Working Group II 

to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. 

Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, 

T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. 

Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. 

Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, 

P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White 

(eds.)]. (Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, NY, USA, 2014) pp. 1-1132.

Kelly, B.P., Bengtson, J.L., Boveng, P.L., 

Cameron, M.F., Dahle, S.P., Jansen, 

J.K., Logerwell, E.A., Overland, J.E., 

Sabine, C.L., Waring, G.T., and Wilder, 

J.M. 2010. Status review of the ringed 

seal (Phoca hispida). U.S. Department 

of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-212, 250 p.

Larsen, J.N., O.A. Anisimov, A. Constable, 

A.B. Hollowed, N. Maynard, P. 

Prestrud, T.D. Prowse, and J.M.R. 

Stone, 2014: Polar regions. In: Climate 

Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and 

Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. 

Contribution of Working Group II 

to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. 

Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, 

T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. 

Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. 

Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. 

Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, 

USA, pp. 1567-1612.

Laurel, B.J., Spencer, M., Iseri, P. and 

Copeman, L.A. 2016. Temperaturedependent growth and behavior of 

juvenile Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) 

and co-occurring North Pacific gadids. 

Polar Biology 39: 1127. doi:10.1007/

s00300-015-1761-5.
26 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

Link, J.S., Browman, H.I., 2014. Integrating 

what? Levels of marine ecosystem-based 

assessment and management. ICES 

Journal of Marine Science 71: 1170–1173.

Link, J. S., Griffis, R., Busch, S. (eds.). 

2015. NOAA Fisheries Climate Science 

Strategy. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-F/SPO-155, 70 p.

Long, W.C., Swiney, K.M., Harris, C., Page, 

H.N. and Foy, R.J., 2013. Effects of ocean 

acidification on juvenile red king crab 

(Paralithodes camtschaticus) and Tanner 

crab (Chionoecetes bairdi) growth, 

condition, calcification, and survival. 

PLOS ONE 8(4): e60959. doi:10.1371/

journal.pone.0060959.

Mathis, J.T., Cooley, S.R., Lucey, N., Colt, S., 

Ekstrom, J., Hurst, T., Hauri, C., Evans, 

W., Cross, J.N., and Feely, R.A. 2015. 

Ocean acidification risk assessment 

for Alaska’s fishery sector. Progress in 

Oceanography 136: 71-91.

Moffitt, E.A., Punt, A.E., Holsman, K., 

Aydin, K.Y., Ianelli, J.N. and Ortiz, 

I. 2015. Moving towards ecosystembased fisheries management: Options 

for parameterizing multi-species 

biological reference points. Deep-Sea 

Research Part II: Topical Studies in 

Oceanography. Early online 12 August 

2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

dsr2.2015.08.002.

Wendy E. Morrison, Mark W. Nelson, 

Roger B. Griffis & Jonathan A. Hare 

(2016) Methodology for Assessing 

the Vulnerability of Marine and 

Anadromous Fish Stocks in a Changing 

Climate, Fisheries, 41:7, 407-409, DOI: 

10.1080/03632415.2016.1182507.

Mueter, F.J., and Litzow, M.A. 2008. Sea ice 

retreat alters the biogeography of the 

Bering Sea continental shelf. Ecological 

Applications 18(2): 309-320.

Mueter, F.J., Bond, N.A., Ianelli, J.N., and 

Hollowed, A.B. 2011. Expected declines 

in recruitment of walleye pollock 

(Theragra chalcogramma) in the eastern 

Bering Sea under future climate change. 

ICES Journal of Marine Science 68(6): 

1284–1296.

Orensanz, J.L., Ernst, B. and Armstrong, 

D.A. 2007. Variation of female size 

and stage at maturity in snow crab 

(Chionoecetes opilio) (Brachyura: 

Majidae) from the eastern Bering Sea. 

Journal of Crustacean Biology 27(4): 

576-591.

Parada, C., Armstrong, D.A., Ernst, 

B., Hinckley, S. and Orensanz, J.M. 

2010. Spatial dynamics of snow crab 

(Chionoecetes opilio) in the eastern 

Bering Sea -- Putting together the pieces 

of the puzzle. Bulletin of Marine Science 

86(2): 413-437.

Parker-Stetter, S.L., Horne, J.K., Farley, E.V., 

Barbee, D.H., Andrews, A.G., Eisner, 

L.B. and Nomura, J.M., 2013. Summer 

distributions of forage fish in the eastern 

Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research Part II: 

Topical Studies in Oceanography 94: 

211-230.

Payne, M.R., Barange, M.,Cheung, W.W.L., 

MacKenzie, B.R., Batchelder, H.

R., Cormon, X.,Eddy, T.D., Fernandes, J.A., 

Hollowed, A.B., Jones, M.C., Link, J.S., 

Neubauer, P., Ortiz, I., Queirós, A.M., 

and Paula, J.R. 2016. Uncertainties in 

projecting climate-change impacts in 

marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of 

Marine Science. Early online December 

17, 2015. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv231.

Pershing, A. J., Alexander, M.A., Hernandez, 

C.M., Kerr, L.A., Le Bris, A., Mills, K.E., 

Nye, J.A., Nicholas, N.R., Scannell, HA., 

Scott, J.D., Sherwood, G.D., Thomas, 

A.C. 2015. Slow adaptation in the face 

of rapid warming leads to collapse of 

the Gulf of Maine cod fishery. Science 

350(6262): 809-812.

Pfeiffer, L., and Haynie, A.C. 2012. The effect 

of decreasing seasonal sea-ice cover on 

the winter Bering Sea pollock fishery. 

ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal 

du Conseil 69(7): 1148-1159.

Puccia, C. J., and Levins, R. 1985. 

Qualitative Modeling of Complex 

Systems. Harvard University Press, 

Cambridge, MA. 259 pp.

Punt, A. E., A’mar, T., Bond, N. A., 

Butterworth, D. S., de Moor, C. L., 

De Oliveira, J. A. A., Haltuch, M. A., 

Hollowed, A. B., and Szuwalski, C. 2013. 

Fisheries management under climate 

and environmental uncertainty: control 

rules and performance simulation. ICES 

Journal of Marine Science. Early online 

May 22, 2013. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/

fst057.

Punt, A.E., Poljak, D., Dalton, M.G., and 

Foy, R.J. 2014. Evaluating the impact of 

ocean acidification on fishery yields and 

profits: The example of red king crab in 

Bristol Bay. Ecological Modelling 285: 

39-53.

Punt, A.E., Foy, R.J., Dalton, M.G., Long, 

W.C., and Swiney, K.M., 2015. Effects 

of long-term exposure to ocean 

acidification conditions on future 

southern Tanner crab (Chionoecetes 

bairdi) fisheries management. ICES 

Journal of Marine Science 73 (3): 849-

864. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv205.

Reimer, M., Abbott, J.K. and Haynie, A.C. 

In press. Empirical Models of the 

Fishery Production Process: Conflating 

Technology with Incentives? Marine 

Resource Economics.

Siddon, E.C., Heintz, R.A., and Mueter, 

F.J. 2013a. Conceptual model of energy 

allocation in walleye pollock (Theragra 

chalcogramma) from age-0 to age-1 in 

the southeastern Bering Sea. Deep Sea 

Research Part II: Topical Studies in 

Oceanography 94: 140-149.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 27

Siddon, E.C., Kristiansen, T., Mueter, F.J., 

Holsman, K.K., Heintz, R.A., and Farley, 

E.V. 2013. Spatial match-mismatch 

between juvenile fish and prey provides 

a mechanism for recruitment variability 

across contrasting climate conditions 

in the eastern Bering Sea. PLOS ONE 

8(12): e84526. doi:10.1371/journal.

pone.0084526.

Sigler, M.F., Renner, M., Danielson, S.L., 

Eisner, L.B., Lauth, R.R., Kuletz, K.J., 

Loggerwell, E.A., and Hunt Jr, G.L. 2011. 

Fluxes, fins, and feathers: Relationships 

among the Bering, Chukchi, and 

Beaufort seas in a time of climate 

change oceanography. Oceanography 

24(3):250–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/

oceanog.2011.77.

Sigler, M.F., Kuletz, K.J., Ressler, P.H., 

Friday, N.A., Wilson, C.D., and Zerbini, 

A.N. 2012. Marine predators and 

persistent prey in the southeast Bering 

Sea. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical 

Studies in Oceanography 65: 292-303.

Sigler, M.F., Stabeno, P.J., Eisner, L.B., Napp, 

J.M., and Mueter, F.J. 2014. Spring 

and fall phytoplankton blooms in a 

productive subarctic ecosystem, the 

eastern Bering Sea, during 1995–2011. 

Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical 

Studies in Oceanography 109: 71-83.

Sigler, M.F., Napp, J.M., Stabeno, P.J., 

Heintz, R.A., Lomas, M.W., and 

Hunt, G.L. 2016. Variation in annual 

production of copepods, euphausiids, 

and juvenile walleye pollock in the 

southeastern Bering Sea. Deep-Sea 

Research Part II: Topical Studies in 

Oceanography. Early online February 

2, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

dsr2.2016.01.003.

Smart, T.I., Duffy-Anderson, J.T., Horne, 

J.K., Farley, E.V., Wilson, C.D., 

and Napp, J.M. 2012a. Influence of 

environment on walleye pollock eggs, 

larvae, and juveniles in the southeastern 

Bering Sea. Deep Sea Research Part 

II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 

65-70:196–207. doi:10.1016/j.

dsr2.2012.02.018.

Smart, T.I., Duffy-Anderson, J.T., and 

Horne, J.K. 2012b. Alternating 

temperature states influence walleye 

pollock early life stages in the 

southeastern Bering Sea. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 455:257-267.

Smart, T.I., Siddon, E.C., and DuffyAnderson, J.T. 2013. Vertical 

distributions of the early life 

stages of walleye pollock (Theragra 

chalcogramma) in the Southeastern 

Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research Part 

II: Topical Studies in Oceanography: 

201-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

dsr2.2013.03.030.

Stabeno, P.J., Kachel, N.B., Moore, S.E., 

Napp, J.M., Sigler, M., Yamaguchi, A., 

and Zerbini, A.N. 2012a. Comparison of 

warm and cold years on the southeastern 

Bering Sea shelf and some implications 

for the ecosystem. Deep-Sea Research 

Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 

65: 31-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

dsr2.2012.02.020.

Stabeno, P.J., Farley Jr, E.V., Kachel, N.B., 

Moore, S., Mordy, C.W., Napp, J.M., 

Overland, J.E., Pinchuk, A.I., and Sigler, 

M.F., 2012b. A comparison of the physics 

of the northern and southern shelves 

of the eastern Bering Sea and some 

implications for the ecosystem. DeepSea Research Part II: Topical Studies in 

Oceanography 65: 14-30. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.02.019.

Swiney, K.M., Long, W.C., and Foy, R.J., 

2015. Effects of high pCO2 on Tanner 

crab reproduction and early life 

history—Part I: long-term exposure 

reduces hatching success and female 

calcification, and alters embryonic 

development. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science: Journal du Conseil 73 (3): 825-

835. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv201.

Szuwalski, C.S., and Hollowed, A.B. 2016. 

Climate change and non-stationary 

population processes in fisheries 

management. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science 73 (5): 1297-1305. doi: 10.1093/

icesjms/fsv229.

Szuwalski, C.S. and Punt, A.E. 2012. 

Fisheries management for regime-based 

ecosystems: a management strategy 

evaluation for the snow crab fishery in 

the eastern Bering Sea. ICES Journal 

of Marine Science 70 (5): 955-967. doi: 

10.1093/icesjms/fss182.

Walters, C. and Parma, A.M. 1996. Fixed 

exploitation rate strategies for coping 

with effects of climate change. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 53(1): 148-158.

Wilderbuer, T., Stockhausen, W., and 

Bond, N. 2013. Updated analysis of 

flatfish recruitment response to climate 

variability and ocean conditions in the 

Eastern Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research 

Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 

94: 157-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

dsr2.2013.03.021.

Wilson, J.B. 2011. The twelve theories of 

co-existence in plant communities: 

the doubtful, the important and the 

unexplored. Journal of Vegetation 

Science 22:184-195.

Zador, S. (ed.). 2015. Ecosystem 

Considerations 2015. In Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 

Report for the Groundfish Resources of 

the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Regions. 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306, 

Anchorage, AK 99301.
28 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

Table 1: ARAP action item table with level and additional funding.

Action Name

Funding 

Scenario

Time 

Frame Action Description POC Partners

Objective 1 – Climate Informed Reference Points

Climate-forced single- and 

multi-species models 

Level 2016-

2019

The purpose of this project is to 

incorporate climate effects into single 

and multi-species models, which are then 

used to derive climate-informed reference 

points. 

Holsman, 

Ianelli

AFSC

Objective 2 – Robust Management Strategies

Council Fisheries Ecosystem 

Plan, climate module 

Level 2016-

2018

The climate module would: 1) synthesize 

current climate change project outcomes; 

2) prioritize species for MSE evaluation; 

and 3) run MSEs on specific species and 

scenarios identified by the Council.

Aydin, 

Hollowed

AFSC, PMEL, 

Council

Management Strategy 

Evaluations

Level 2016-

2019

Identify harvest control rules that remain 

effective as climate changes.

Hollowed, 

Heifetz

AFSC

Alaska CLIMate Project 

(ACLIM)

Level 2016-

2018

Scenarios of future fish production and 

distribution under a variety of climate and 

fishing scenarios.

Hollowed, 

Holsman, 

Haynie

AFSC, PMEL

Multispecies technical 

interaction model

Level 2016-

2019

This model simulates interactions of 

management rules (e.g., bycatch caps) on 

catch.

Ianelli, 

McGilliard

AFSC

Belmont Forum project Level 2016-

2018

1) Review impacts of climate change; 

2) compare impacts in the Atlantic and 

Pacific sectors of the Arctic; 3) review the 

ability of current management frameworks 

to adapt.

Mueter, 

U. Alaska; 

Haynie, 

Sigler; Hunt, 

UW

AFSC, PMEL, 

U. Alaska

Objective 3 – Adaptive Management Processes

Design adaptive decision 

processes

Level 2016-

2019

What is not well worked out is how 

and when the Council should react to 

climate-informed reference point changes. 

Information on changes in the ecosystem, 

including climate change, are presented 

annually to the Council. 

Holsman, 

Hollowed, 

Aydin, Zador

AFSC, Alaska 

Regional 

Office, 

Council
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 29

Action Name

Funding 

Scenario

Time 

Frame Action Description POC Partners

Identify ecosystem 

thresholds and mechanisms 

driving regime shifts

Increase 2016-

2019

How will potential changes in ecosystem 

structure and function (e.g., benthic v. 

pelagic pathways) affect resilience to 

changes in climate? In order to answer 

these types of questions, focused efforts 

to identify ecosystem or species-specific 

thresholds to climate drivers and to 

identify mechanisms of regime shift are 

needed.

Holsman, 

Zador

AFSC

Objective 4 – Project Future Conditions

Ocean model projections Level 2016-

2019

Coupled physical/biological regional 

models that downscale global climate 

change to the ecology of subarctic regions.

Hermann AFSC, PMEL

Incorporate ocean 

acidification effects into 

existing ocean models

Level 2016-

2017

An ocean acidification module is being 

added to the coupled physical/biological 

regional model.

Cross PMEL

Climate-enhanced singlespecies projection modelsLevel 2016-

2019

These single-species models provide 

20- to 50-year forecasts of fish and 

crab abundance, including uncertainty 

estimates for these forecasts.

Ianelli, 

Mueter, 

Punt, Dalton; 

Wilderbuer; 

Stockhausen

AFSC, U. 

Washington, 

U. Alaska

Climate-enhanced multispecies projection modelsLevel 2016-

2019

These multi-species models add species 

interactions.

Holsman; 

Ianelli

AFSC

Climate vulnerability 

assessment for the 

southeastern Bering Sea

Level 2016 Qualitative assessment of species 

vulnerabilities to climate change and 

guidance on research prioritization.

Spencer AFSC, 

PMEL, U. 

Washington, 

U. Alaska

Identify human community 

dependence on LMRs and 

effects of climate change

Level 2016-

2019

Monitor indices developed to track effects 

of climate change on human communities

Kasperski AFSC

Arctic Council, AMAP, 

impacts on coastal 

communities

Level 2016-

2017

Prepare report Adaption Actions for a 

Changing Arctic

Mundy AFSC

Comprehensive climate 

assessment completed 

every 5 years

Increase Operationalize the ACLIM projection 

modeling framework.

Hollowed

Holsman

AFSC

Integrate tools and data Increase More investment is needed for data 

assimilation and for repositories for model 

outputs.

Aydin AFSC, PMEL

Integrate models Increase 2016-

2019

Integrate biological, management technical 

interaction and socioeconomic modeling 

tools into climate-enhanced models

Holsman, 

Hollowed, 

Aydin, 

Hermann, 

Haynie

AFSC, PMEL
30 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

Action Name

Funding 

Scenario

Time 

Frame Action Description POC Partners

Objective 5 – Understand the Mechanisms of Change

Bering Sea Project Level 2007-

2016

Integrated ecosystem research project of 

the eastern Bering Sea.

Sigler AFSC, PMEL, 

USFWS, U. 

Washington, 

U. Alaska, 

others

Southeastern Bering Sea 

Ecosystem Assessment 

research program

Level 2016-

2019

Identify the major processes regulating 

fish recruitment.

Farley, DuffyAndersonAFSC, PMEL

Ocean Acidification research Level 2016-

2019

Understand ocean acidification effects on 

king and tanner crabs, coldwater corals, 

pollock, cod and northern rock sole.

Foy, Hurst AFSC, PMEL

Fur seal research Level 2016-

2019

Understand differing fur seal population 

trends at the Pribilof Islands and Bogoslof 

Island.

Sterling AFSC

Passive acoustic surveys for 

whales

Level 2016-

2019

Monitor marine mammal abundance 

trends, which when combined with climate 

information, will yield insights into how 

climate affects these populations

Clapham AFSC

Ice-associated seal surveys Level 2016-

2019

Monitor marine mammal abundance 

trends, which when combined with climate 

information, will yield insights into how 

climate affects these populations

Boveng AFSC

National Seabird Program Level 2016-

2019

Mitigate seabird bycatch and promote 

seabirds as ecosystem indicators

Fitzgerald, 

Zador

AFSC

Economic impacts of climate 

change

Level 2016-

2019

Understand economic impacts of climate 

change.

Haynie AFSC

Social and human 

community impacts of 

climate change 

Level 2016-

2019

Understand social and human community 

impacts of climate change.

Kasperski AFSC

Discretionary funds for rapid 

/ emergency (< 1yr) surveys

Increase Facilitate the ability to triage sudden shifts 

in oceanographic conditions and evaluate 

ecosystem response.

DuffyAnderson, 

Farley, 

Stabeno 

AFSC, PMEL

Understand the direct 

impact of changing 

conditions on growth and 

survival of fish and shellfish 

species

Increase Studies of the impacts of climate drivers 

(ocean and ocean acidification) on 

phenologies of life cycle attributes. 

Lauth, Heintz, 

Hollowed, 

DuffyAnderson, 

Farley, Foy, 

Hurst, Laurel

AFSC
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 31

Action Name

Funding 

Scenario

Time 

Frame Action Description POC Partners

Understand effect of climate 

on seabirds and marine 

mammal species of concern

Increase For example, direct and indirect (i.e., 

mediated by prey) effects of climate may 

affect fur seal foraging, their reproductive 

success, and thus their population trends, 

which have been declining in the eastern 

Bering Sea.

Gelatt, 

Boveng, 

Clapham

AFSC

Expand research to 

understand climate 

change effects on human 

communities

Increase Collect more primary data on communities 

and fishery-dependent businesses to 

provide a more nuanced understanding 

of complex human trade-offs of changing 

resources.

Kasperski; 

Haynie

AFSC

Objective 6 – Track Change and Provide Early warnings

Alaska Integrated 

Ecosystem Assessments 

and Alaska Marine 

Ecosystems Considerations

Level 2016-

2019

Annually produce Ecosystem 

Considerations report including report 

cards, assessments and detailed 

ecosystem status and ecosystem-based 

management indicators.

Zador AFSC, PMEL

Standard ecosystem 

monitoring 

Level 2016-

2019

Conduct biennial spring and late summer 

cruises. Maintain four oceanographic 

moorings located along the 70-m isobath.

DuffyAnderson, 

Farley

AFSC, PMEL

Loss of Sea Ice research Level 2016-

2019

Biennial surveys of the northern Bering 

Sea. 

Lauth AFSC

Coastal Assessments Level 2016-

2019

Quantify and assess fish habitats in 

coastal areas.

Heintz AFSC

Community and economic 

surveys

Level 2016-

2019

Socioeconomic surveys of communities. Kasperski; 

Haynie

AFSC

Fully support NOAA 

oceanographic moorings

Increase Currently four oceanographic moorings 

monitor the southeastern Bering Sea, 

but are only partially supported by NOAA 

funding.

Stabeno PMEL

Objective 7 – Science Infrastructure to Deliver Actionable Information

Existing science enterprise 

including standard surveys 

and stock assessments

Level 2016-

2019

Standard surveys and data collections 

(e.g., age, diet, maturity, genetics) 

including movement models, and 

retrospective studies 

various AFSC

Recruitment Processes 

Alliance 

Level 2016-

2019

Understand processes affecting 

recruitment strength, including effects of 

climate, on selected gadid, and salmon 

species.

Farley, DuffyAndersonAFSC, PMEL
32 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

Action Name

Funding 

Scenario

Time 

Frame Action Description POC Partners

Laboratory infrastructure Level 2016-

2019

Salt water wet labs; laboratory analyses 

(e.g., lipids, diet, stable isotopes, age and 

growth, ocean acidification, and genetics)

various AFSC

Predator-prey food habits 

studies

Level 2016-

2019

Continue adding to one of the world’s 

largest food habits data collections.

Aydin AFSC

Ecosystem modeling Level 2016-

2019

Ecosystem modeling, ecosystem 

synthesis, and risk assessment

Aydin AFSC

Assess economic impacts Level 2016-

2019

Understand economic impacts of climate 

change.

Haynie AFSC

Assess community impacts Level 2016-

2019

Understand human community impacts of 

climate change.

Kasperski AFSC

International coordination Level 2016-

2019

International collaborations are a key 

part of understanding climate effects on 

fisheries and marine mammals.

various AFSC

Build and maintain critical 

partnerships

Level 2016-

2019

Partnerships are a key part of 

understanding climate effects on fisheries 

and marine mammals.

various AFSC

Invest in modeling 

infrastructure

Increase Invest in computing time and storage on 

high-speed computers to provide new 

projections based on IPCC scenario AR6.

Aydin; Haynie AFSC

Improve communication 

of risks of climate change 

to fishing dependent 

communities

Increase 2016-

2019

Communication products include websites, 

brochures, Council and community 

presentations, and media outreach.

Mooney-Seus AFSC

Invest in training, education, 

and infrastructure

Increase 2016-

2019

More scientists with training in 

interdisciplinary sciences are needed.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 33

Assessment of current work and action plan with level funding. A complete list of projects, 

longer descriptions of each project, and the current status of progress on the seven 

objectives described above. The projects supporting each objective are listed below. 

This information is also pictured as Figure 2 on page 3. 

Appendix A: 

Assessment of current work and action plan with level funding

1. Climate-InformedReference Points

• Climate enhanced assessment models

2. Robust Management Strategies

• Council Fisheries Ecosystem Plan, climate 

module

• Management Strategy Evaluations

• Alaska CLIMate Project (ACLIM)

• Multispecies technical interaction model

• Belmont Forum project

3. Adaptive Management Processes

• Design adaptive decision processes

• Identify ecosystem thresholds & regime shifts*

4. Project Future Conditions

• Comprehensive climate assessment (every 

5 yr)*

• Ocean model projections

• Climate-enhanced projection models

• Climate vulnerability assessment for the 

SE Bering Sea

• ID climate impacts on LMR dependent 

human communities

• Arctic Council, AMAP, impacts 

on coastal communities

• Incorporate ocean acidification effects into 

existing ocean models

• Integrate tools and data*

• Integrate & couple models*

5. Understand Mechanisms of Change

• Bering Sea Project

• SE Bering Sea Ecosystem Assessment

• Ocean acidification research

• Fur seal research

• Ice-associated seal surveys

• Passive acoustic surveys for whales

• National seabird program

• Economic effects of climate change

• Social and human community impacts 

of climate change

• Rapid response surveys*

• Climate impacts on growth and survival of 

fish and shellfish*

• Climate impacts on seabird and 

marine mammal species*

• Climate change impacts on human 

communities*

6. Track Change and Provide Early Warnings

• Alaska IEA and Ecosystems 

Considerations Report

• Standard ecosystem monitoring

• Loss of Sea Ice research

• Coastal Assessments

• NOAA oceanographic moorings*

7. Build and Maintain Adequate Science 

Infrastructure

• Existing surveys and stock assessments

• Recruitment Processes Alliance

• Laboratory infrastructure

• Predator-prey food habits studies

• Ecosystem modeling

• Assess economic impacts

• Assess community impacts

• International coordination*

• Build and maintain critical partnerships

• Communication of climate change risks

• Training, education, and outreach*

• Invest in modeling infrastructure*

Climate Science Strategy Objectives

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

* Asterisks indicate projects that will be supported if additional funding is available. 

The remaining projects will be supported if funding remains level (see Appendix B).
34 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

 Objective 1: Identify climate-informed reference points 

for managing living marine resources (LMRs). 

 Status: Underway. 

u Climate-forced single- and multi-species 

models. The purpose of this research project 

is to incorporate climate effects into single and 

multi-species models (Figure 5), which are 

then used to derive climate-informed reference 

points. The general approach is as follows: 1) 

statistically fitting population-dynamics models 

to fishery-dependent and fishery-independent 

data to estimate abundance, recruitment, 

biological reference points, selectivity, growth 

rate and natural mortality rates; 2) explore 

relationships between key vital rates, fisherydependent or fishery-independent capture 

processes (selectivity, catchability) and 

environmental covariates (e.g., cold-pool area, 

bottom temperature, cross-shelf transport, 

zooplankton biomass) from a hindcast of a 

coupled physical-biological oceanography 

model (Regional Ocean Modeling SystemNutrient Phytoplankton Zooplankton 

Detritus model, ROMS-NPZD); 3) incorporate 

environmental forcing within the assessment 

and use model-selection criteria (AIC) to select 

the subset of climate indices that best fit each 

model-specific data; and 4) project the model 

forward in operating mode for each climate 

scenario to derive recommended harvest rates 

to meet management objectives under future 

climate conditions. This effort is supported 

entirely through competitive proposal 

processes; stable funding or increased funding 

would help ensure the success of this critical 

modeling effort.

Physicaldownscaling

Biologicaldownscaling

NPZ

CEATTLE

IPCC Scenario

 AR4 A1B

Global Climate Models (x 3)

ECHO-G (AR4 A1B)

 MIROC3.2 med res. (AR4 A1B)

 CGCM3-t47 (AR4 A1B) 

Multi-species Model

Walleye pollock

 Pacific cod

 Arrowtooth flounder

Bering Sea Model

Nutrients

 Phytoplankton

 Zooplankton

 Krill

ROMS

Figure 5. Example of climate-enhanced multi-species model with socioeconomic 

module. (Holsman et. al. in prep)

Climate Enhanced

Assessment Models

Climate-specific Harvest & 

Population Projections
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 35

 Objective 2: Identify robust strategies for managing 

LMRs under changing climate conditions. 

 Status: Underway. 

The identification of robust management 

strategies depends on identifying future states 

of marine and coastal systems, as described 

in Objective 4, as well as exploring reasonable 

alternatives to the current management 

paradigm in order to maintain greater flexibility 

in the face of climate change. 

u Council Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan. 

The development of a Fishery Ecosystem Plan 

(FEP) for the Bering Sea Management Area 

was approved by the Council in December 

2015. The FEP is expected to include a climate 

module that would: 1) synthesize current 

climate change project outcomes; 2) prioritize 

species for management strategy evaluation 

(MSE); and 3) run MSEs on specific species and 

scenarios identified by the Council. The climate 

module also would include predictions of the 

future spatial distributions of most commercial 

fish and crab species (i.e., predictions of future 

essential fish habitat). This will take place on 

a 5-7 year cycle and will be summarized in 

an eastern Bering Sea Climate Change and 

Fisheries Assessment Report.

u Management strategy evaluations (MSEs). 

The purpose of this project is to identify 

harvest control rules that remain effective as 

climate changes. This approach relies heavily 

on retrospective studies and process oriented 

research to identify the mechanisms underlying 

recruitment variability (see the Recruitment 

Process Alliance; RPA) or other responses 

(e.g., shifts in spatial distribution, growth, or 

phenology) to changing climate conditions. 

These studies inform the response surface and 

projection using the estimated relationship 

(see Obj. 1), except in each simulation year 

of the projection, the harvest strategy for 

each species in the model is determined from 

a recommended harvest control rule and 

“realized harvest” is modeled as a function 

of fisher behavior, spatial distribution of fish, 

and economic pressures using socioeconomic 

models. These models track the “true” and 

“perceived” (including sampling/measurement 

and process error) biomasses of the 

population, wherein, the harvest control rule 

is applied to the “perceived”population. The 

realized harvest is then fed into the starting 

conditions for the next year of the simulation 

along with “sampled” survey biomass (e.g., 

index of biomass with error). Management 

strategies will be evaluated relative to agreed 

upon benchmarks for sustainable fisheries 

management within an ecosystem context. 

The climate module also would include 

predictions of the future spatial distributions 

of most commercial fish and crab species...
36 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

u Alaska CLIMate Project (ACLIM). This project 

involves a suite of models designed to provide 

scenarios of future fish production under a 

variety of climate and fishing scenarios. The 

project is the U.S. Bering Sea node of the ICES/

PICES Strategic Initiative on Climate Change 

effects on Marine Ecosystems (SICCME). The 

SICCME effort is coordinating research nodes 

in China, Japan, Korea, Russia, the California 

Current, the Gulf of Alaska, the Pacific 

Islands, the Barents Sea, Georges Bank/Gulf 

of Maine, the Gulf of Mexico, the Norwegian 

Sea, the North Sea, the Baltic and possibly the 

high Arctic. The goal of ACLIM / SICCME is 

to provide quantitative scenarios for future 

distribution and abundance of fish and fisheries 

by 2019/2020. The ACLIM Bering Sea node 

features a suite of models that represent a full 

range of structural complexity ranging from 

single-species projection models (see above) 

to fully coupled end-to-end models (FEAST) 

(Figure 6), which allows tracking of different 

sources of uncertainty in the projection 

modelling effort. Projected scenarios will be 

presented to regional fishery management 

councils, industry and other non-governmental 

organizations to seek input and advice on the 

realism of the harvest strategies. The planned 

outcome is the identification of the most 

realistic representation of future responses 

of fishers and fish to changing climate with 

the expressed goal of identifying strategies 

that are robust to changing ocean conditions. 

The ACLIM project also utilizes models from 

the spatial economics toolbox for fisheries 

(FishSET) to model how major fisheries respond 

to changing climate

CE-SSM CEATTLE EwE Size-Spectrum FEAST

multiple non-linear pressures multiple non-linear interacting pressures

Status quo MEY No shing

By-catch MSY

Harvest Control Rules (x5)

Status quo MEY No shing

By-catch MSY

Harvest Control Rules (x5)

Status quo MEY No shing

By-catch MSY

Harvest Control Rules (x5)

Status quo MEY No shing

By-catch MSY

Harvest Control Rules (x5)

Status quo No shing

Fleet dynamics

Harvest Control Rules (x3)

Global Climate Models (x 11)

 ECHO-G (AR4 A1B)

 MIROC3.2 med res. (AR4 A1B)

 CGCM3-t47 (AR4 A1B) 

 CCSM4-NCAR- PO (AR5 RCP 6.0 & 8.5)

 MIROCESM-C- PO (AR5 RCP 6.0 & 8.5)

 GFDL-ESM2M*- PO (AR5 RCP 6.0 & 8.5)

 GFDL-ESM2M*- PON (AR5 RCP 6.0 & 8.5)

Bering Sea Models

IPCC Scenarios (x3)

AR4 A1B

 AR5 RCP4.5

 AR5 RCP8.5

Alaska CLIMate Project

Anne Hollowed (AFSC, SSMA/REFM)

Kirstin Holsman (AFSC, REEM/REFM)

Alan Haynie (AFSC ESSR/REFM)

Stephen Kasperski (AFSC ESSR/REFM)

Jim Ianelli (AFSC, SSMA/REFM)

Kerim Aydin (AFSC, REEM/REFM)

Trond Kristiansen (IMR, Norway)

Al Hermann (UW JISAO/PMEL)

Wei Cheng (UW JISAO/PMEL)

André Punt (UW SAFS)

FATE: Fisheries & the Environment

SAAM: Stock Assessment Analytical Methods

S&T: Climate Regimes & Ecosystem Productivity

Figure 6. Illustration of the multiple models and climate and fishing scenarios in 

the Alaska CLIMate Project. A suite of models represent a full range of structural 

complexity ranging from single-species projection models (see above) to fully 

coupled end-to-end models (FEAST), which allows tracking of different sources 

of uncertainty in the projection modeling effort. In phase 1, the multi-model 

projections will be run to provide a suite of potential fish distributions and fisher 

responses to a suite of climate change scenarios. The climate change scenarios 

will include projected climate conditions under two Representative Concentration 

Pathways (RCPs) using at least three global climate models from the CMIP5 suite. 

Output from downscaled projected ocean conditions will be used to project the 

future distribution and abundance of fish and fisheries. The projected scenarios 

will be presented to regional fishery management councils, industry and other 

non-governmental organizations to seek input and advice on the realism of the 

harvest strategies.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 37

u Multispecies technical interaction model. 

The Council adopted a management approach 

that incorporates an ecosystem approach 

to fishery management as its goal. Within 

this management framework the Council 

includes protocols that explicitly consider the 

implications of mixed stock fisheries relative 

to single-species management targets. In 

addition, the Council imposes several protocols 

to address species interactions including: 

prohibited species caps, ecosystem level caps on 

total groundfish removals, and catch deterrents 

for forage species. The multispecies technical 

interaction modeling effort simulates these 

interacting constraints on future catch and 

serves as a tool for evaluating the implications 

of proposed management changes on catch. 

The model dynamically projects future fish 

responses to climate variability and change 

and estimates future catch within existing or 

proposed constraints. As such this tool provides 

the best expectation of future biological 

reference points used to estimate future catch 

within the Bering Sea under changing climate 

conditions. This model is used to inform the 

multi-model stock projection models used in 

ACLIM by generating future representative 

fishing pathways. 

u Belmont Forum project. This project will 

synthesize information from completed and 

ongoing regional studies conducted by Japan, 

the United States, and Norway to examine 

how climate impacts in the subarctic to arctic 

transition zone may affect future marine 

ecosystems of the Atlantic and Pacific Arctic 

(including the southeastern Bering Sea), their 

resource management, and the socioeconomic 

status of human communities in the regions. 

Natural and social scientists will meet with 

stakeholders from the fishing industry, regional 

management bodies, governments and coastal 

communities in three workshops to assess 

whether the biological, management and 

socioeconomic systems have the resilience 

and adaptive capacity to cope with anticipated 

changes. These workshops will: 1) review 

and synthesize impacts of climate change on 

components of Arctic marine ecosystems; 

2) compare and contrast the impacts in the 

Atlantic and Pacific sectors of the Arctic; 3) 

identify major issues of concern, including 

biological and socioeconomic threats and 

opportunities, from both biological and 

socioeconomic perspectives; 4) review the 

ability of current management frameworks 

to adapt to likely changes; and 5) assess 

the resilience and adaptive capacity of fish, 

fisheries, other living resources, resourcedependent human communities, and resource 

management institutions to future climate 

change. In the United States, this project is 

funded by the National Science Foundation. 

Partners are Hokkaido University, Norway 

Institute of Marine Research, Japan Agency 

for Marine Earth-Science and Technology, 

NOAA-NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center, University of Washington, Huntington 

Consulting, Japan Fisheries Research Agency, 

University of Alaska, and Tohoku University. 
38 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

 Objective 3: Design adaptive decision processes that 

can incorporate and respond to changing 

climate conditions. 

 Status: A work in progress. 

u Design adaptive decision processes. The 

Council currently has a process that adapts 

harvest actions to changing measurements 

from fishery-independent surveys. Changes in 

fishery independent surveys and other direct 

observations are used to adapt fishing mortality 

to estimates of biomass for those stocks on 

which such information is available. What is not 

well worked out is how and when the Council 

should react to climate-informed reference 

point changes. Information on changes in the 

ecosystem, including climate change, for the 

area of this ARAP are presented annually to the 

Council. Implementing Objective 3 is an area 

that needs considerable attention, discussion, 

and education. See the earlier “Challenges for 

management” section. This discussion should 

engage all subsidiary bodies of the Council, 

as well as the Alaska Regional Office. The 

two-phase approach developed by ACLIM to 

involve the Plan Teams, Scientific and Statistical 

Committee, and Ecosystem Committee should 

provide a starting point for these discussions.

These processes are not well worked out because 

management targets for fishing mortality and 

spawning biomass are often calculated by 

assuming stationary population processes, but 

under climate change this assumption may 

be violated. Frameworks for incorporating 

non-stationary responses of exploited 

populations under the changing influence of the 

environment are needed. For example, climateenhanced single- and multi-species assessment 

models, conditioned on variable trophic and 

environmental conditions, can be projected to 

derive climate-specific harvest reference points 

(Moffitt et al. 2015, Holsman et al. 2015). 

Objective 4: Identify future states of marine and coastal 

ecosystems, LMRs, and LMR dependent 

human communities in a changing climate. 

 Status: Underway. 

u Ocean model projections. Coupled physical/

biological models (ROMS-NPZD) are used to 

downscale global climate change to the ecology 

of subarctic regions, and to explore the bottomup and top-down effects of that change on 

the spatial structure of subarctic ecosystems; 

for example, the relative dominance of large 

versus small zooplankton in relation to ice 

cover. Environmental indices are derived from 

these ocean models. A multivariate statistical 

approach is used to extract the emergent 

properties of a coupled physical/biological 

hindcast (ROMS-NPZD) of the Bering Sea 

for years 1970–2009, which includes multiple 

episodes of warming and cooling (e.g. the recent 

cooling of 2005–2009), and a multidecadal 

regional projections of the coupled models, 

driven by an IPCC global model forecast of 

2010–2040. The ocean models were developed 

with funding from outside the AFSC and 

continue to be improved and developed with 

both AFSC and non-AFSC funding. All 

projections are based on a suite of selected IPCC 

models, the IPCC (CMIP3 and CMIP5) model 

evaluations, which were conducted and funded 

by PMEL exclusively. The importance of this 

step cannot be overstated as a poor choice of 

global models to downscale can render poor 

and highly uncertain regional forecasts (e.g. 

multiple global IPCC fail to capture sea ice on 

the eastern Bering Sea [EBS] shelf).

u Incorporate ocean acidification effects into 

existing ocean models. An ocean acidification 

module is being added to the coupled physical 

biological model (ROMS-NPZD). The addition 

of an ocean acidification component (and 

nitrogen, carbon cycles, etc.) is reliant on 

chemical oceanographers from PMEL and the 

University of Washington, and their role will 

increase as this model is developed.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 39

u Climate-enhanced single-species projection 

models. Climate-enhanced single-species 

projection models have been completed for 

walleye pollock, Pacific cod, arrowtooth 

flounder, and Bristol Bay red king crab and 

northern rock sole and provide 20- to 50-

year forecasts of their abundance, including a 

measure of the uncertainty of these forecasts. 

Extensions of these models that include shifting 

overlap of predators and prey have been tested 

for the Bering Sea. These projection models, 

while based on functional relationships, depend 

on a detailed understanding of ecological 

processes affecting population productivity and 

thus benefit from process studies. See objective 

1 for more information on the approach of these 

models. 

u Climate-enhanced multi-species projection 

models. The climate enhanced multispecies 

statistical catch-at-age model (CEATTLE) 

estimated population dynamics of walleye 

pollock, Pacific cod, and arrowtooth flounder 

under future climate and trophic conditions. 

The model uses inputs of temperature and 

climate indices from downscaled climate 

hindcasts and projections to produce biological 

reference points (e.g., F40%) conditioned on 

future climate scenarios, trophic interactions, 

and predator harvest rates. See objective 1 for 

more information on the approach of these 

models. 

u Climate vulnerability assessment for 

the southeastern Bering Sea. A climate 

vulnerability assessment for the southeastern 

Bering Sea, which will qualitatively assess 

species vulnerabilities to climate change and 

provide guidance on research prioritization, 

currently is underway. The vulnerability 

assessment uses expert elicitation methods to 

quantify a species’ exposure and sensitivity 

to expected climate change. Vulnerability, as 

used here, refers to a reduction in a species’ 

productivity and or abundance associated 

with a changing climate, both climate change 

and multidecadal climate variability. This 

vulnerability assessment will be expanded 

in the future as the species vulnerability 

relates to LMR-dependent human community 

vulnerability.

u Identify human community dependence 

on LMRs and effects of climate change. 

A set of social and fisheries engagement 

indices were developed using data for human 

communities throughout Alaska in an 

attempt to better understand how dependent 

individual communities are on LMRs, how 

those communities may be differentially 

affected by changes in resource management 

and other external perturbations, and how 

well each community may be able to adapt 

to such impacts. In addition, work has been 

done to develop similar indices focusing on 

how much communities may be affected by 

the physical effects of climate change (e.g., 

sea level rise, melting permafrost, changes in 

sea-ice distribution). Combined, these indices 

are intended to be used to better understand 

the overall impact that climate change might 

be expected to have on communities across 

a broad spectrum, both geographically 

and socioeconomically. These indices will 

ultimately be linked to the climate vulnerability 

assessment for the southeastern Bering Sea that 

is described above. This work can be tied to 

models of fisher behavior to translate changes in 

fish populations to fleets to communities.

u Arctic Council, AMAP, impacts on coastal 

communities. The Arctic Monitoring and 

Assessment Programme (AMAP) of the 

Arctic Council is preparing a report entitled, 

Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic 

(AACA) at the request of the Arctic Council. 

The AFSC is developing Chapter 6 of AACA 

on the impacts of development in the Bering/

Chukchi/Beaufort area, which focuses on the 

consequences of environmental, economic, and 

cultural/social changes on people in the Arctic 

at present and as may be anticipated in the next 

10-30 years. The orientation of this chapter is 

on the consequences of such changes for the 

people of the Arctic. The report is expected to 

be released during the spring of 2017. Loss of 

sea-ice is projected to increase both the number 

and volume of ship-based oil spills. The acute 

and cumulative impacts of increasing rate of 

introduction of hydrocarbons into the coastal 

environment is expected to threaten food 

security of subsistence cultures and it may 

also lead to the disintegration of subsistence 

dependent coastal communities based on case 

studies now in the literature.
40 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

CLIMATE

SCENARIOS

HUMANS

ATMOSPHERE/OCEAN

COMMERCIAL/

SUBSISTENCE FISH: 

Pollock, Cod

Arrowtooth Flounder

Kittiwakes, Murres

Fur Seals, Walrus

Humpback

Fin Whales

NPZ:

Ichthyoplankton,

Euphausiids

Copepods

Phytoplankton

INFAUNA:

Bivalves

Gastropods

Polychaetes

FORAGE

Juvenile

Pollock

SPECIES:

Capelin,

Myctophids

research program recently was completed in 

the eastern Bering Sea (Bering Sea Project, 

2007-2014) (Figure 7). The most comprehensive 

integrated ecosystem assessment ever conducted 

was completed, revealing how climate cycles 

affect the nation’s largest fishery. This research 

has been continued at a smaller scale and 

has focused on understanding recruitment 

processes of important southeastern Bering Sea 

fish species (Recruitment Processes Alliance). 

Additionally, project research has shown 

that markets, good management, and other 

human responses to a changing environment 

can mitigate the impacts of climate change on 

both subsistence harvesters and commercial 

harvesters (Haynie and Huntington In press).

Figure 7. Scientific scope of the Bering Sea Project. 

The links and species shown here were studied in this project. 

 Objective 5: Identify the mechanisms of climate impacts 

on LMRs, ecosystems, and LMR dependent 

human communities. 

Status: Ongoing. 

u Bering Sea Project. The Bering Sea has 

been the focus of a 40-year history of studies 

on processes underlying recruitment of 

walleye pollock, as well as, biological and 

physical oceanography. The region has 

been the beneficiary of a suite of integrated 

interdisciplinary research efforts including 

Processes and Resources of the Bering Sea 

Shelf (PROBES), Bering FOCI, the Southeast 

Bering Sea Carrying Capacity Program, and 

the Inner Front Study. An integrated ecosystem 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 41

u Southeastern Bering Sea Ecosystem 

Assessment research program. Research 

goals are to identify and quantify the major 

ecosystem processes in the southeastern Bering 

Sea that regulate recruitment strength of key 

groundfish species. In particular, timing and 

location of spawning of adult gadids over 

the southeast Bering Sea shelf, as inferred by 

observations of egg and larval concentrations 

and distributions, is important to management 

of the fishery, and data on relative abundance, 

distribution, and condition of age-0 pollock 

are critical to predicting year class recruitment 

to age-1. We focus on recruitment success of 

groundfish species because large swings in the 

abundance have occurred, mitigated by climate, 

despite precautionary fishing levels. Research 

emphasizes processes and events that occur 

during the first year of life. This is a critical 

period in their life history where climate change 

and variability have the greatest impact on 

marine survival. The survey components of 

this research include biennial seasonal surveys 

of the southeastern Bering Sea for groundfish 

larvae, age-0 and age-1 groundfish as well as 

other biotic and abiotic variables (e.g. bottom 

temperature, zooplankton) that are used in the 

Ecosystems Considerations chapter as part of 

the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment approach. 

Process studies and retrospective studies 

are core tools for the development and 

testing of conceptual models and identifying 

functional responses linking fish distribution, 

abundance, growth and phenology of fish. In 

prior years, collections of demersal species 

(flatfish, crab) had been included but those 

collections have ceased in an effort to focus 

resources on understanding midwater species, 

in particular age-0 walleye pollock. In the case 

of the Bering Sea there is a 40-year history of 

recruitment studies on processes underlying 

recruitment of walleye pollock, biological 

and physical oceanography. These projects 

have provided an integrated understanding of 

several ecosystem processes within the region. 

Scientists within the AFSC continue to conduct 

retrospective studies to update time series with 

new observations to evaluate the skill of past 

relationships in predicting fish responses. The 

AFSC places a high priority on incorporating 

these proposed relationships into stock 

assessments, short-term stock projections, and 

long-term stock projections. 

u Ocean Acidification research. Research 

focuses on commercially important fish and 

shellfish species and coldwater corals. The AFSC 

conducts studies on king and tanner crabs, 

coldwater corals, pollock, cod and northern 

rock sole. These experiments are conducted in 

Kodiak, Alaska, and Newport, Oregon, where 

species-specific culture facilities and experience 

are available. Bioeconomic models of Alaska 

crab fisheries are being used to forecast fishery 

performance for a range of climate and ocean 

acidification scenarios. Ocean acidification 

conditions are being monitored by instruments 

on moorings in the eastern Bering Sea (M2 and 

M8).

u Fur seal research. The most recent estimate of 

northern fur seal pup production on the Pribilof 

Islands indicated that the overall production 

had decreased by approximately 45% (annual 

rate of 3.7%, SE = 0.48%) since 1998. The 

reason for this steady decline is unknown, 

but may include direct and indirect effects of 

fishery competition as well as climate (e.g., 

mediated by prey availability and distribution). 

This trend is in contrast to the growing 

population of northern fur seals on Bogoslof 

Island to the south in the eastern Aleutian 

Islands. Possible demographic mechanisms 

are being assessed by collecting detailed lifehistory information in longitudinal studies of 

individually tagged animals. In summer and 

fall of 2015, the Marine Mammal Laboratory 

deployed 50 satellite tags on adult females and 

pups at St. George Island (20 adult females, 20 

pups) and Bogoslof Island (10 adult females) 

to help understand potential behavioral and 

demographic responses of northern fur seals 

to environmental perturbations experienced 

during the winter migration as a result of 

ongoing El Niño conditions. In the summer of 

2016 another project will use satellite telemetry 

to measure summer foraging behavior in 

relation to prey availability measured from the 

midwater acoustic survey. This project will link 

fine-scale changes in fur seal foraging behavior 

with measures of pollock distribution and 

abundance in real time.
42 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

u Ice-associated seal surveys. Monitoring 

marine mammal abundance trends, when 

combined with climate information, will 

yield insights into how climate affects these 

populations. Bearded, spotted, ribbon, and 

ringed seals are key components of arctic 

marine ecosystems and they are important 

subsistence resources for northern coastal 

Alaska Native communities. Although these 

seals are protected under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) and bearded and 

ringed seals are listed as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), no reliable, 

comprehensive abundance estimates were 

available for any of the species until 2012-2013. 

The Bering Okhotsk Seal Surveys (BOSS) 

project addressed the most critical need for 

fundamental assessment data on ice-associated 

seals (also known as ice seals) in the Bering 

and Okhotsk Seas. Researchers from the

Marine Mammal Laboratory’s (MML) Polar 

Ecosystems Program (PEP), in collaboration 

with Russian colleagues, conducted synoptic 

abundance and distribution surveys for the 

four species of ice-associated seals (bearded, 

spotted, ribbon, and ringed seals) which are 

known to occupy and breed in the Bering Sea 

during the spring and summer. This effort, 

supported by NOAA, the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM), and several 

Russian institutions, constitutes the largest 

survey effort undertaken to estimate the 

abundance of these important seal species. 

The fieldwork was conducted using digital 

cameras and thermal imagers mounted in the 

belly ports of two U.S. and one Russian fixedwing aircraft during 2012 and 2013. Advanced 

thermal-imaging technology was used on 

both the U.S. and Russian survey aircraft 

to detect the warm bodies of seals against 

the background of the cold sea ice. Highresolution digital images were used to identify 

the species of seals detected by the thermal 

imagers. Novel statistical approaches were 

used to tackle the unique challenges presented 

by the moving and melting sea-ice habitat. 

This project provides the first comprehensive 

estimates of abundance for the four species of 

ice-associated seals found in the Okhotsk and 

Bering Seas.

u Passive acoustic surveys for whales. 

Monitoring marine mammal abundance 

trends, when combined with climate 

information, will yield insights into how 

climate affects these populations. Monitoring 

of whale abundance trends has occurred 

through passive acoustics in the southeastern 

Bering Sea for over a decade Marine Mammal 

Laboratory’s (MML) Cetacean Assessment and 

Ecosystems Program (CAEP). Passive acoustic 

moorings are deployed concurrently with 

bio-physical moorings to provide previously 

unattainable year-round assessments of the 

seasonal occurrence of bowhead, humpback, 

right, fin, gray, and other whales and their 

responses to environmental changes (including 

oceanographic conditions, climate, and indices 

of potential prey density). Moorings permit 

observations during periods when ice covers 

the region. Such measurements are virtually 

impossible to obtain from ships, because of 

the relatively short duration of cruises and 

limitations in the availability of ships.

u National Seabird Program. The two key focus 

areas for NOAA’s National Seabird Program 

are mitigation of bycatch and promotion of 

seabirds as ecosystem indicators. Seabird 

data are collected by NOAA during surveys 

or by observer as well as other agencies, 

including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

which has direct trust responsibilities for 

seabirds. Seabird abundance, distribution and 

productivity can reflect physical and biological 

properties of marine systems. As seabirds are 

also relatively easy to detect and observe, they 

can serve as useful indicators of ecosystem 

state. NOAA has prioritized promoting 

seabirds as ecosystem indicators and as such 

will continue to incorporate new seabird 

information into management advice as the 

scientific knowledge of climate change impacts 

develops. 
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 43

u Economic effects of climate change. Past 

research has focused on Bering sea pollock and 

cod and has shown that abundance, the size 

of the cold pool, and the age structure of the 

population interact with management actions 

(e.g., salmon bycatch measures) to determine 

the spatial and temporal distribution of 

fisheries. Current work is also underway on 

the Amendment 80 fishery, composed of 

bottom trawl vessels fishing for yellowfin sole, 

flathead sole, rock sole, Atka mackerel, and 

Pacific ocean perch. More work is needed 

on other species and to consider how to 

minimize the negative economic impacts on 

different stakeholders and LMR-dependent 

communities. The Spatial Economics Toolbox 

for Fisheries (FishSET) provides an integrated 

modeling framework that enables similar 

models to be run on different fisheries using 

historical data to assess and predict how 

fishers respond to changing fish distributions, 

regulations, and prices.

u Social and human community effects 

of climate change. To date, research on 

the effects of climate change on fisheries 

dependent communities has been limited 

to the development of indices related to 

community exposure to the biophysical effects 

of climate change, community dependence on 

fisheries, and adaptive capacity for responding 

to the effects of climate change. Further 

research is needed to extend this higher level 

methodology to specific climate change impact 

projection scenarios so that AFSC can better 

understand how changes in recruitment and 

abundance will ultimately affect fisheriesdependent communities. More primary data 

collected are needed to better characterize and 

predict the complex trade-offs that groups will 

face with a changing environment. This will 

provide more information to many different 

types of stakeholders for long-range planning.

 Objective 6: Track trends in ecosystems, LMRs and LMRdependent human communities and provide 

early warning of change. 

 Status: Ongoing. 

u Alaska Marine Ecosystem Considerations 

and Integrated Ecosystem Assessment. The 

Ecosystem Considerations report is produced 

annually to summarize information about the 

Alaska Marine Ecosystem for the Council, the 

scientific community and the public. The report 

includes ecosystem report cards (Figure 8), 

ecosystem assessments, and detailed ecosystem 

status and ecosystem-based management 

indicators for the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, 

Gulf of Alaska, and Arctic ecosystems. The 

report includes current climatic conditions as 

well as projections (e.g., 9 months) of physical 

and biological conditions that may impact 

fish and fishery productivity (e.g., cold-pool 

area). First developed in 1995, the report 

has a long history as a vehicle for presenting 

current ecosystem status to the Council. The 

annual review by the Council influences each 

subsequent iteration of the report, creating an 

adaptive product that can be flexible as issues 

and scientific knowledge develop.

The integrated ecosystem assessment 

(IEA) program builds on the Ecosystem 

Considerations report to synthesize ecosystem 

information, including climate impacts, on 

multiple marine sectors including fishing. 

IEAs provide a framework for incorporating 

indicator-based ecosystem assessments, 

risk assessments and management strategy 

evaluations. Amongst other things, the Alaska 

IEA program provides support for modelling 

efforts to project short and long term effects 

of climate impacts on fish and fisheries in 

the southeastern Bering Sea and to assess the 

cumulative impacts and risk of long-term 

climate change on the Bering Sea ecosystem 

and dependent human communities.
44 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

u Standard ecosystem monitoring. 

Ecosystem trends are monitored through a 

combination of standardized groundfish and 

crab resource assessment surveys, fisheries 

oceanography, seabird, and marine mammal 

surveys, including ships of opportunity, diet 

collections, and fisheries observer collections. 

The standard set of fisheries oceanography 

surveys are spring and late summer cruises, 

occupied on a biennial basis, which cover 

much of the southeastern Bering Sea (Figure 

9). In addition, four biophysical oceanographic 

moorings are located along the 70-m isobath. 

Seabird surveys often are conducted, usually 

aboard vessels of opportunity, including 

NOAA surveys. Marine mammal surveys are 

less common and typically are independent 

surveys (e.g., northern Bering Sea ice seal 

survey during 2012-2013). The surveys 

typically also monitor other aspects such 

as the food web (via diet collections) and 

bioenergetics. 

u Loss of sea ice research. Northern Bering 

Sea surveys will enumerate commercially 

important shelf species such as snow crab, 

yellowfin sole, and juvenile salmon which have 

distributions extending beyond the current 

area of the southeastern Bering Sea surveys. 

The resulting survey effort will cover most 

of the eastern Bering Sea shelf and will be 

repeated biennially. 

u Coastal assessments. Nearshore habitats 

are essential to the functioning of marine 

ecosystems and LMR-dependent communities 

in Alaska. Climate change is accelerating the 

pace of coastal erosion, which determines the 

ability of coastal habitats to support LMR. 

AFSC coastal assessments are quantifying and 

identifying fish habitats in the eastern Bering 

Sea and elsewhere in Alaska through nearshore 

fish surveys and coastal habitat mapping. 

* North Pacific Index (Nov-Mar average)

* Ice Retreat Index

* Euphausiid biomass

* Motile epifauna biomass (fish and inverts 1000t)

* Benthic forager biomass (fish 1000t)

* Pelagic forager biomass (fish 1000t)

* Apex predator biomass (fish 1000t)

* Multivariate seabird breeding index (PC1)

4e+05

2e+05

0e+05 

150000

105000

60000

10

0

-10

7000

5000

3000

30000

15000

0

9000

6500

4000

11000

6500

2000

60

35

10

70

30

-10

3

0

-3

* St. Paul N. Fur seal pups born

* Max potential area disturbed by trawls (km2)

1957 1980 1990 2000 2014

2010-2014 Mean 2010-2014 Trend

1 s.d. above mean

1 s.d. below mean

within 1 s.d. of mean

fewer than 2 data points

increase by 1 s.d. over time window

decrease by 1 s.d. over time window

change <1 s.d. over window

fewer than 3 data points

Figure 8. Example of ecosystem report card for the eastern Bering Sea 

(Zador et al., 2015).
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 45

 Objective 7: Build and maintain the science 

infrastructure needed to fulfill NOAA 

Fisheries mandates with changing climate 

conditions. 

 Status: Ongoing. 

u Existing “Science Enterprise” including 

standard surveys and stock assessments. 

The mission of the Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center is to generate the scientific information 

and analyses necessary for the conservation, 

management, and utilization of the region’s 

living marine resources. To meet this mission, 

the AFSC devotes more than 80% of its 

resources toward standard surveys, stock 

assessments of fish, crab and marine mammal 

populations, and the observer program. Our 

climate science strategy builds on this effort, 

which includes standard surveys for fish and 

crab species (bottom trawl, longline, midwater 

trawl/acoustics) as well as standard surveys for 

marine mammal species (most often aerial). 

Standard data collections occur for age, size, 

diet, and genetics. A large observer program

monitors fisheries. These information sources 

are incorporated into fish, crab, and marine 

mammal stock assessments, which are used to 

provide quantitative advice for management 

of these species. When combined with climate 

information, these surveys yield insights into 

the effect of climate on fish, crab, and marine 

mammal populations.

u Recruitment Processes Alliance (RPA). 

Research is conducted to understand 

processes affecting recruitment strength, 

including effects of climate. The research 

includes fieldwork, laboratory analysis of 

field sample collections (e.g., feeding, growth, 

bioenergetics), laboratory studies, and 

modeling. A significant fraction of AFSC 

resources are invested in this effort (e.g., ~15% 

of labor). The RPA joins the efforts of six AFSC 

programs: Recruitment Processes, Ecosystem 

Monitoring and Assessment, Recruitment 

Energetics and Coastal Assessment, and 

Resource Ecology and Ecosystem Modeling, 

Status of Stocks and Multispecies Assessments, 

and Marine Ecology and Stock Assessment. 

Figure 9. Example of ecosystem monitoring survey. The example survey (BASIS) occurs biennially 

during late summer (http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/

ABL/EMA/EMA_default.php).

u Community and economic surveys. 

Socioeconomic surveys of communities over 

time provide insight into the economic and 

social importance of commercial, recreational, 

and subsistence fisheries in each of the 

communities. Climate change interacts with 

significant management changes such as 

protected areas and catch shares, so ongoing 

monitoring of the economic and social 

status of fisheries and fishery-dependent 

communities is essential to predict the impacts 

of environmental change and potential future 

management actions.
46 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

u Laboratory infrastructure. Laboratories 

located in Juneau, Kodiak, Newport (OR), 

Seattle, and on research vessels have a wide 

range of capabilities that help us to understand 

the mechanisms and effects of climate 

change. Changes in water temperature and 

chemistry can directly impact the growth 

rate and distribution of fish and shellfish in 

marine environments (Figure 10). Differential 

thermal preferences can additionally lead 

to increases or decreases in species overlap 

and concomitant predator-prey interactions. 

Laboratory experiments are conducted to 

parameterize bioenergetic models of fish growth 

and energetic demand at the core of climateenhanced models and to understand direct 

and indirect impacts of changing pH levels on 

fish and crab species. Laboratory studies and 

field surveys of fish thermal preferences are 

conducted to project future species distributions 

and overlap. Salt water wet labs support process 

studies on the effects of temperature, ocean 

acidification, and contaminants on growth 

and survival of all life stages of fish and crabs. 

Insights into food web structure and function 

(trophic dynamics) are made possible by 

laboratory observations of lipids, stable isotopes, 

hydrocarbons, molecular genetics, primary 

productivity, taxonomic identification of 

ichthyoplankton and other types of zooplankton. 

Laboratories that measure the caloric content, 

growth, age, and food habits of individual 

organisms make models of stock abundance, 

management strategy evaluations and ecosystem 

models possible. 

Figure 10. Example of laboratory research related to climate 

change. Growth response in relation to temperature of four cod 

species (Laurel et al. 2016).

u Predator prey food habits studies. AFSC 

scientists had the foresight to acknowledge the 

importance of the collection and analysis of 

food habits information. This foresight provided 

one of the world’s largest collection and longest 

time series of food habits of fish and crabs. This 

time series allows analysts to develop spatial and 

non-spatial models of predator prey interactions 

for use in stock assessments and short-term and 

long-term projection models.

u Ecosystem modeling, ecosystem synthesis, 

and risk assessment. Projecting future 

physical and biological conditions in the Bering 

Sea is a multi-institutional, collaborative 

effort. It requires coordination between 

physical modelers at PMEL and UW and 

fishery biologists at AFSC and UW who can 

couple biological and physical models through 

bioenergetic, habitat use, and food web models 

of interactions. This requires additional 

personnel support to analyze data, parameterize 

models, and evaluate model results. It also 

requires ample access across facilities to core 

computers and data. Additionally, fundamental 

computing infrastructure needs to be 

maintained in order to run ROMS/NPZ and 

FEAST models for climate projections. This 

includes maintenance of the high performance 

computing infrastructure located at the AFSC 

(or funds for some cloud-based alternative), as 

well as ample storage for archived completed 

model runs.

u Assess economic impacts. A critical element 

of an effective response to a changing climate is 

an understanding of the economic mechanisms 

through which fisheries develop, allocate effort, 

and target different species and sizes of fish. 

In addition, management, markets, and the 

environment will all impact where processors 

A critical element of an effective response to a 

changing climate is an understanding of the economic 

mechanisms through which fisheries develop, allocate 

effort, and target different species and sizes of fish.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 47

and other fishing-related businesses grow or 

decline. By developing standing economic 

behavioral and regional economic models of 

all Alaska fisheries, we are evaluating how 

changing abundances and spatial distributions 

of different species impact communities and 

how management actions can best shape those 

impacts in the face of the uncertainties that we 

face. While some of this work occurs strictly 

within the economic discipline, some also 

requires ongoing interdisciplinary interaction 

among economists, other social scientists, 

biologists, fishery managers, and other 

stakeholders.

u Assess community impacts. There is a 

great need to link the projected and ultimate 

biophysical effects of climate change and 

related them to impacts on LMR dependent 

human communities. While AFSC has started 

in this endeavor with the first iteration of an 

index of climate change exposure at the human 

community level, the analysis would greatly 

benefit from being updated and improved. 

Updating and improving this index would 

allow AFSC to better understand the effects 

of climate change on LMR-dependent human 

communities and develop management 

strategies to mitigate expected future impacts.

u International coordination. International 

scientific organizations such as PICES and ICES 

and bi-lateral partnerships such as NorwayU.S., Korea-U.S., Japan-U.S., and CanadaU.S. remain a key part of progress on climate 

science research. Activities include regional 

comparisons and climate and ecosystem model 

collaborations.

Build and maintain critical partnerships. The 

fisheries oceanography surveys of the AFSC in the 

eastern Bering Sea which are collectively known as 

the Recruitment Processes Alliance (RPA) of which 

PMEL is a partner leverage AFSC resources through 

partnerships in research programs active in the 

Alaska region such as those funded by the National 

Science Foundation (BEST), NOAA Fisheries Office 

of Science and Technology (FATE ,EFH), the North 

Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (BASIS), 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Region III), 

Pacific Marine Environmental Lab (NOAA), North 

Pacific Research Board, North Slope Borough, the 

Bering Sea Fisherman’s Association, the Alaska 

Sustainable Salmon Fund, and the Arctic Yukon 

Kuskokwim Sustainable Salmon Fund. Critical 

partnerships also include the University of Alaska, 

University of Washington, Oregon State University, 

and the associated joint institutes, and the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. The AFSC and the 

NOAA Fisheries Alaska Region rely on a large number 

of data sources on fish landings, stocks, and prices 

that are collected by the State of Alaska. Current fiscal 

challenges faced by the State of Alaska may lead to 

changes in data collection and analysis that have the 

potential to present new and significant data gaps that 

may require additional NOAA Fisheries resources in 

the future. It is very difficult to predict what changes 

may occur and when they are likely to happen.
48 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

Action plan with some additional funding. One or more of the 

following projects could be conducted, depending on funding 

level. A complete list of projects and longer descriptions of 

each project. 

 Objective 1: Identify appropriate, climate-informed 

reference points for managing living marine 

resources (LMRs).

 Objective 2: Identify robust strategies for managing 

LMRs under changing climate conditions.

 Objective 3: Design adaptive decision processes that 

can incorporate and respond to changing 

climate conditions.

u Identify ecosystem thresholds and 

mechanisms driving potential regime 

shifts. Changes in climate forcing may 

influence energy flow through the ecosystem. 

How will potential changes in ecosystem 

structure and function (e.g., benthic vs. 

pelagic pathways) affect resilience to changes 

in climate? In order to answer these types of 

questions, focused efforts to identify ecosystem 

or species-specific thresholds to climate drivers 

and to identify mechanisms of regime shift are 

needed.

 Objective 4: Identify future states of marine and coastal 

ecosystems, LMRs, and LMR-dependent 

human communities in a changing climate.

u Comprehensive climate assessment 

completed every 5 years. Operationalize 

the ACLIM projection modeling framework to 

facilitate the rapid uptake of the most recent 

IPCC global climate projections under a range 

of carbon emission scenarios, application 

of global projections into regional coupled 

physical-biological-economic models for the 

EBS, and coordination of iterative review with 

regional management councils and fishery 

stakeholders to evaluate the performance 

and implications of current and alternative 

“climate-ready” harvest strategies under 

future climate scenarios. The proposed 

iterative ACLIM framework conducted on 

a ~5-year cycle is modeled after the highly 

successful annual stock assessment cycle 

in the region; the approach will ensure that 

fisheries management decisions account for 

climate-driven changes to fish production and 

distribution and that climate-ready fisheries 

management in the region reflects the most 

recent global climate and carbon emission 

projections and best available ecosystem and 

socioeconomic science.

Appendix B: 

Action plan with some additional funding
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 49

u Integrate the evolving tools and dataintegration work completed by AFSC 

and PMEL. The synthesis and modeling of 

climate science and process research is data 

intensive. More investment is needed for 

data assimilation and repositories for model 

outputs. Some possibilities are to work with 

the Alaska Ocean Observing System to 

identify community-specific climate data that 

can be used to improve human community 

climate change vulnerability indices. Create a 

central repository for climate data, including 

geographic-based climate data.

u Integrate biological, management technical 

interaction, and socioeconomic modeling 

tools into climate-enhanced models in 

order to evaluate climate-to-fisheries impacts 

of climate change on the coupled humannatural system of the EBS. 

 Objective 5: Identify the mechanisms of climate impacts 

on LMRs, ecosystems, and LMR dependent 

human communities.

u Discretionary funds for rapid / emergency 

(< 1yr) surveys to evaluate potential 

impacts of sudden changes in climate or 

ecological conditions. Facilitate the ability 

to triage sudden shifts in oceanographic 

conditions and evaluate ecosystem 

response. Rapid response, in the form of 

immediate surveys and field investigations, 

provides near real-time data to inform 

forecast models which provide immediate 

feedback on the repercussions of changes 

in progress. Managers and stakeholders 

have an opportunity to develop a dynamic 

management strategy that changes in 

response to fluctuating ecosystem conditions. 

A successful example was the FY14 request 

to OST to follow up on a sudden, dramatic 

return of warm conditions in the Southeastern 

Bering Sea. Concern for a pronounced decline 

in walleye pollock in the event of a multiyear warm phase prompted funding and 

execution of a series of field surveys to monitor 

ecosystem response to oceanographic shifts. A 

supplemental survey in 2015 was funded and 

executed, data collected and analyzed, and 

results made available within a year’s time. The 

capacity to mount a rapid, strategic response 

to changing environmental conditions 

requires adequate funding and infrastructure. 

Enhancement of these resources provides a 

path to future successful rapid response efforts.

u Invest in understanding biological and 

human community adaptations to climate 

change. Funding is currently limited 

and only sporadically available through 

temporary funds and research proposals. To 

more fully assess the adaptive capacities of 

managed resources and dependent human 

communities, additional funds are needed 

to understand biological and socioeconomic 

responses to changing conditions in order to 

gain knowledge of the functional relationships 

governing fish and shellfish responses to 

changing climate. This includes research funds 

to help

◊ Understand the direct impact of changing 

conditions on growth and survival of fish 

and shellfish species. This might include 

(but is not limited to) studies of the impacts 

of climate drivers (ocean and OA) on 

phenologies of life cycle attributes, research 

to address how OA alters maturation rates 

of core species, and research to evaluate 

temperature-dependent reproductive, 

growth and mortality rates of core species. 

◊ Improve understanding of the effect of 

climate change on seabirds and marine 

mammal species of concern. For example, 

direct and indirect (i.e., mediated by 

prey) effects of climate may affect fur seal 

foraging, their reproductive success, and 

thus their population trends, which have 

been declining in the eastern Bering Sea.

◊ Expand research to understand how 

climate change will impact fisherydependent human communities and 

evaluate socioeconomic scope for 

adaptation. For example, changes in 

the distribution of target and prohibited 

species (e.g., salmon and halibut) might 

impact future fishery catches, changes in 

ex-vessel value might help offset climatedriven changes in harvest, and alternative 

management structures may differentially 

impact fisheries and dependent human 

communities. 
50 Alaska Regional Action Plan for Southeastern Bering Sea Climate Science

 Objective 6: Track trends in ecosystems, LMRs and LMRdependent human communities and provide 

early warning of change.

u Fully support ongoing NOAA oceanographic 

moorings to monitor the ecosystem. 

Currently, four oceanographic moorings 

are located along the 70-m isobath of the 

southeastern Bering Sea, but NOAA covers 

only part of the funds required to continue 

this time series. Additional funds would fully 

support these existing moorings essential 

for providing valuable data for validating the 

ROMS/NPZ models. 

 Objective 7: Build and maintain the science 

infrastructure needed to fulfill NOAA 

Fisheries mandates with changing climate 

conditions.

u Invest in modeling infrastructure. Invest 

in computing time and storage on high-speed 

computers to model ecological processes 

and projections, as well as the analysts 

necessary to construct and operate these 

models, and analyze model outputs. Doing 

so will provide for new projections based on 

IPCC scenario AR6 and new management 

strategy evaluations based on Council input. 

In particular, enhancing the existing high 

resolution ROMS/NPZ model to include 

freshwater inputs and refined nearshore 

dynamics in order to couple terrestrial and 

marine systems will provide foundation 

for near- and long-term projections of 

climate change driven changes to physical 

conditions in both offshore and nearshore 

areas. Investments related to the ROMS-NPZ 

would include: 1) the elaboration of software 

which can directly access the stored output 

from global models; 2) periodic tuning and 

refinement of the ROMS-NPZ model; 3) 

bias correction of the regional forcing and 

boundary terms, based on ROMS hindcasts; 

4) exploration and testing of alternative 

parameterization and structural aspects of 

the zooplankton components; 5) maintenance 

of a searchable online system to query model 

output, e.g. to generate time series of relevant 

indices.

u Improve communication of the risks of 

climate change to fishing-dependent 

communities (e.g., expected and known 

changes to important LMR food sources and 

economically important LMRs), the Council 

and other fisheries managers (e.g., where 

management will have to adapt as climate 

impacts to LMRs occur or are predicted), and 

other stakeholder groups. Communication 

products could involve informational 

interactive websites, glossy brochures and 

other products that could disseminate the 

impacts of climate change on LMRs and the 

expected follow on impact to LMR users.

u Invest in training, education, and 

infrastructure to facilitate innovation. 

There is an overall paucity of scientists who 

are trained in interdisciplinary science that 

bridges meteorology, oceanography, fisheries 

oceanography, social sciences, and fisheries 

management. There also is a need to improve 

transparency through public access to data 

and outreach. New technology can provide 

improved access to data resources using webbased data server support.
RECENT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS

Copies of this and other NOAA Technical Memorandums are available from the National Technical Information 

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22167 (web site: www.ntis.gov). Paper and electronic (.pdf) copies 

vary in price. 

AFSC-

 

335 STEVENSON, D. E., K. L. WEINBERG, and R. R. LAUTH. 2016. Estimating confidence in trawl efficien- cy and catch quantification for the eastern Bering Sea shelf survey, 51 p. NTIS number pending.

334 MILLER, K., D. NEFF, K. HOWARD, and J. MURPHY. 2016. Spatial distribution, diet, and nutritional 

status of juvenile Chinook salmon and other fishes in the Yukon River estuary, 101 p. NTIS number pend- ing.

333 SMITH, K. 2016. Reconciling ambiguity resulting from inconsistent taxonomic classification of marine 

fauna assessed in the field: Querying a database to reclassify by lowest accountable inclusive taxon (LAIT), 

57 p. NTIS number pending.

332 RARING, N. W., E. A. LAMAN, P. G. von SZALAY, C. N. ROOPER, and M. H. MARTIN. 2016. Data 

report: 2012 Aleutian Islands bottom trawl survey, 171 p. NTIS number pending.

331 RARING, N. W., E. A. LAMAN, P. G. von SZALAY, and M. H. MARTIN. 2016. Data report: 2011 Gulf of 

Alaska bottom trawl survey, 231 p. NTIS No.PB2017-100403.

330 RARING, N. W., E. A. LAMAN, P. G. von SZALAY, M. E. WILKINS, and M. H. MARTIN. 2016. Data 

report: 2005 Gulf of Alaska bottom trawl survey, 233 p. NTIS No.PB2017-100402.

329 RARING, N. W., E. A. LAMAN, P. G. von SZALAY, and M. H. MARTIN. 2016. Data report: 2011 Gulf of 

Alaska bottom trawl survey, 233 p. NTIS NoPB2017-100401.

328 RARING, N. W., P. G. von SZALAY, M. H. MARTIN, M. E. WILKINS, and F. R. SHAW. 2016. Data 

report: 2001 Gulf of Alaska bottom trawl survey, 319 p. NTIS No. PB2016-104794.

327 DALY, B. J., C. E. ARMISTEAD, and R. J. FOY. 2016. The 2016 eastern Bering Sea continental shelf bot- tom trawl survey: Results for commercial crab, 167 p. NTIS No. PB2016-104795.

326 LEW, D. K., D. PUTNAM, and D. M. LARSON. 2016. Attitudes and preferences toward Pacific halibut 

management alternatives in the saltwater sport fishing charter sector in Alaska: Results from a survey of 

charter halibut permit holders, 58 p. NTIS No. PB2016-104794.

325 von SZALAY, P. G., and N. W. RARING. 2016. Data report: 2015 Gulf of Alaska bottom trawl survey, 249 

p. NTIS No. PB2016-104802.

324 RUTECKI, T. L., C. J. RODGVELLER, and C. R. LUNSFORD. 2016. National Marine Fisheries Service 

longline survey data report and survey history, 1990-2014, 329 p. NTIS No. PB2016-104793.

323 M. M. MUTO, V. T. HELKER, R. P. ANGLISS, B. A. ALLEN, P. L. BOVENG, J. M. BREIWICK, M. F. 

CAMERON, P. J. CLAPHAM, S. P. DAHLE, M. E. DAHLHEIM, B. S. FADELY, M. C. FERGISON, L. W. 

FRITZ, R. C. HOBBS, Y. V. IVASHCHENKO, A. S. KENNEDY, J. M. LONDON, S. A. MIZROCH, R. R. 

REAM, E. L. RICHMOND, K. E. W. SHELDEN, R. G. TOWELL, P. R. WADE, J. M. WAITE, and A. N. 

ZERBINI. 2016. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2015, 300 p. NTIS No. PB2016-103297.

322 FAUNCE, C., J. GASPAR, J. CAHALAN, S. LOWE, S. BARBEAUX, and R. WEBSTER. 2016. Deployment 

performance review of the 2015 North Pacific Groundfish and Halibut Observer Program, 54 p. NTIS No. 

PB2016-103316.
U.S. Secretary of Commerce

Penny Pritzker

Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration and Undersecretary of Commerce

Dr. Kathryn Sullivan

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

Eileen Sobeck

November 2016

www.nmfs.noaa.gov

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Science and Technology

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910