A Review of Potential Approaches for 

Managing Marine Fisheries in a Changing 

Climate 

Wendy E. Morrison and Valerie Termini

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OSF-6 

NOVEMBER 2016 

doi:10.7289/V5JM27NF

A Review of Potential Approaches for Managing Marine 

Fisheries in a Changing Climate. 

Wendy E. Morrison1, and Valerie Termini2

1

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

2

California Ocean Protection Council, 1416 9th Street, Sacramento CA 95814 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OSF-3 

NOVEMBER 2016 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny S. Pritzker, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Kathryn D. Sullivan, Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service

Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
ii

Recommended citation: 

Morrison, W.E., and V. Termini. 2016. A Review of Potential Approaches for Managing 

Marine Fisheries in a Changing Climate. U.S. Dept. of Commer., NOAA. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-OSF-6, 35 p.

Copies of this report may be obtained from:

Domestic Fisheries Division

Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Or online at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/publications/technical-memos/index.html
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 ADAPTATION OPTIONS ........................................................................................................ 2

3.0 REACTIVE MANAGEMENT: ADAPTING CURRENT MANAGEMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR 

OBSERVED CHANGES ........................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Creating Flexible, Nimble Management Systems............................................................ 3

3.2 Adjusting Reference Points after Changes in Species Productivity or Stock Structure 

Have Occurred.................................................................................................................. 4

3.3 Adjusting Fisheries Allocations after Species Abundances or Distributions Have 

Changed............................................................................................................................ 5

3.4 Adjusting Fishing Practices or Gears as Fish Community Composition Changes............. 6

4.0 PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT: MANAGING TO INCREASE RESILIENCE OF INDIVIDUAL 

STOCKS OR SPECIES.............................................................................................................. 7

4.1 Managing for Uncertainty- Scenario Planning ................................................................. 7

4.2 Managing to Promote Adaptive Capacity ........................................................................ 7

4.3 Protecting Age Structure and/or Old Females................................................................. 8

4.4 Incorporating Environmental Parameters into Stock Assessments and Management 

Measures:......................................................................................................................... 9

4.5 Decreasing Existing Stressors......................................................................................... 10

4.6 Enhancing or Translocating Stocks................................................................................. 10

5.0 PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT: MANAGING TO INCREASE ECOSYSTEM RESILIENCE............ 11

5.1 Protecting Key Habitats and Species.............................................................................. 12

5.2 Applying Ecosystem Models to Better Understand Species’ Responses....................... 12

5.3 Designing Appropriate Marine Reserves ....................................................................... 13

6.0 PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT: MANAGING TO INCREASE RESILIENCE OF FISHING 

BUSINESSES........................................................................................................................ 14

6.1 Expanding Flexibility in Fisheries Permitting.................................................................. 14

6.2 Providing Insurance for Fishermen to Cover Years with Poor Catch............................. 15

6.3 Improving Flexibility in the Supply Chain....................................................................... 16

7.0 UNDERLYING PRACTICES THAT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT IN A CHANGING CLIMATE ..... 16

7.1 Updating and Clarifying Management Goals................................................................. 16

7.2 Monitoring for Climate Change...................................................................................... 16

7.3 Using Regional Planning to Address Local Needs .......................................................... 17

8.0 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... 18

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS and REFERENCES .................................................................................... 18
iv

TABLES

Table 1 A summary of the management alternatives.............................................................35
1

ABSTRACT

Climate variability and change may affect marine fisheries by altering: ecosystem 

functions, fish abundance and productivity, species and fishery distributions, fish phenology, 

interactions with non-target species and bycatch rates and levels, and habitat use and/or 

availability (e.g., shifting nursery grounds). Because managers may not be aware of the many 

approaches available to respond to or plan for environmental change, we conducted a literature 

review and compiled a list of options. In general, management approaches can be either 

proactive and plan for change, or reactive and respond to change after it has occurred. Pro-active 

management alternatives can be implemented to increase resilience of stocks, species, 

ecosystems, and/or fishing businesses. Given the large uncertainties surrounding the effects of 

climate change, two good approaches are to either reduce the uncertainty, or embrace the 

uncertainty and rely on management options that will be robust to the given uncertainties. On a 

whole, management actions that seek to increase management flexibility and provide incentives 

to the fishing industry to try new approaches while preserving genetic diversity of the fished 

populations should prove to be beneficial. Ideally, the pros, cons, and tradeoffs associated with 

various management options should be evaluated to determine the best approach (or mix of 

approaches) given the information available. New approaches will continue to emerge as 

management across the globe grapples with this complex issue. 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As the climate changes, marine ecosystems will continue to undergo significant physical 

and chemical changes. Some of the anticipated shifts include: global increases in temperature, 

decreases in pH (acidification), changes in currents, rises in sea level, and changes to freshwater 

inputs (Stock et al. 2011; Rhein et al. 2013). These changes may in turn, affect species 

abundances and/or distributions, species phenology, marine habitats, marine communities, and 

the resulting ecosystem productivity and function (O’Connor et al. 2007; Badjeck et al. 2010;

Ottersen et al. 2010; Pörtner and Peck 2010; Stock et al. 2011). 

The effects of the changing climate on marine ecosystems are already being observed. 

Shifting distributions and abundances of fish species are being documented worldwide (Perry et 

al. 2005; Cheung et al. 2010; Hoegh-Gulberg and Bruno 2010), including several important 

commercial and recreational fish species in the United States (Nye et al. 2009; Hollowed et al. 

2012; Mills et al. 2013; Pinksy et al. 2013). In addition, shifts in productivity have already been 

identified for some stocks (Fogarty et al. 2008; NEFSC 2012; Bell et al. 2014). Therefore, 

fishery managers and scientists need to be prepared to anticipate these changes even though they 

are typically making decisions on a much shorter timeframe (next 1–5 years) compared to 

interannual climate variability (1–50+ years) and climate change (projections are typically on a 

multi-decadal scale). Not anticipating or preparing for these biological, economic, and cultural 

changes could result in negative biological, social, and economic effects (Cooley and Doney 

2009; Madin et al. 2012; Mills et al. 2013; Barange et al. 2014). 

Environmental change is not new to fisheries. For example, anchovy and sardine 

populations have well-known oscillations that began prior to human exploitation (Baumgartner 

et al. 1992). However, climate change differs from past environmental change because, even 

though there will be variations in magnitude across years, the overall trends are drifting away 

from recent average conditions. The future may bring environmental conditions not yet 
2

experienced in the historical record, and the speed of these changes is predicted to be faster than 

at any time in history, challenging the adaptation capabilities of marine species. In addition, the 

uncertainty associated with when and how climate change will affect stocks, results in decreased 

confidence in stock projections through time. Biological, ecological, and social responses to 

these changes are hard to predict but have the potential to occur at any point in time. It is unclear 

whether the common approaches currently being used in fisheries management will be sufficient 

(Field and Francis 2002; Plaganyi 2011b; Tingley et al. 2014), or whether the magnitude of 

climate change will simply overwhelm the effectiveness of these management strategies (Daw et 

al. 2009). 

The goal of this paper is to review peer-reviewed literature to outline suggested or 

implemented ideas for managing fisheries in a changing climate. In 2015, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) released their Climate Science Strategy (Link et al. 2015) that outlined 

seven objectives NMFS will tackle to increase the production, delivery, and use of climaterelated science information needed to manage fisheries in a changing climate. Our paper builds 

off of the Climate Science Strategy by identifying possible management approaches that 

facilitate implementation of the Strategy. The intersection between science and management can 

be a thin line and a few of the approaches presented here lean to the science side. However, our 

objective is to delve more into management approaches as much of the science is covered by the 

Climate Science Strategy. Ideas provided here have not been evaluated for feasibility and 

applicability under current legal authorities, and inclusion of alternatives in this paper does not 

represent endorsement by NMFS. 

We divide the management options into five main categories: 1) reactive management 

options, 2) proactive management options that increase species’ resilience, 3) proactive 

management options that increase ecosystem resilience, 4) proactive management options that 

increase resilience of fishermen, and 5) recommended practices that improve management’s 

ability to be successful in a changing climate (Table 1). Managers are encouraged to investigate 

the tradeoffs associated with each approach, and may determine a mixed approach to be the best 

option. For the most part, the alternatives discussed here are within the control of fisheries 

managers. However, a few approaches discussed may be outside the control of the managers and 

dependent on other Agencies or scientists for implementation. The alternatives included in this 

review do not represent an exhaustive list of options. Our hope is that this list of alternatives 

launches the conversation, and subsequent discussions or papers will expand on the alternatives 

included here. For a recent review that covers fisheries adaptation options for specific climate 

changes, see Pinsky and Mantua (2014). Climate change will also have impacts that will likely 

affect terrestrial components of marine fisheries, such as infrastructure (docks and processing 

facilities). These effects of climate change will not be covered here. 

2.0 ADAPTATION 

Adaptation strategies are adjustments to social or ecological systems that are specifically 

designed as a response to current and future expected environmental change, and can be 

applicable to biological, economic, and cultural systems (Stein et al. 2014). Climate change 

adaptation strategies should attempt to maintain key ecosystem functions (Moore et al. 2013) 

while managing for ecological change rather than maintaining the historical state (Stein et al. 

2014). Adaptation strategies can include short to long term timeframes, minor adjustments to 
3

deep transformations, and may or may not in the end be successful at meeting the adaptation 

goals (Moser and Ekstrom 2010). An analogy for climate change adaptation is building a 

structure to provide protection from a storm: the structure does not stop the storm; it just lessens 

the impact (Grafton 2010). 

Climate change adaption can be divided into two main alternatives: proactive or reactive 

management (Sumaila 2011; Frusher et al. 2014); however, these groups are somewhat arbitrary 

as what we describe as reactive options can also be used proactively, and vice versa. Reactive 

management focuses on responses to changes that have already occurred, while proactive 

management prepares for changes before their effects occur. Proactive management is often 

aimed at increasing the resilience of species, ecosystems or fishermen. Because adaptation 

actions can include costs (resources to implement adaptation actions, etc.), there are trade-offs 

between adapting now versus in the future (Grafton 2010). There is a balance between actions 

that occur too early or too late (Fussel 2007). Generally, the earlier we act, the more flexibility 

there is in the actions we can take, but there are consequences (e.g. economic impacts) of any 

management actions. Articulating what is at risk—and the consequences of proactive action 

versus reactive action or inaction—may result in different answers for different fisheries. No 

matter how proactive managers are in planning for climate change, there will still be a need for 

reactive management as scientists will be unable to predict all changes (Schindler and Hilborn 

2015).

3.0 REACTIVE MANAGEMENT: ADAPTING CURRENT MANAGEMENT TO 

ACCOUNT FOR OBSERVED CHANGES

Following a reactive (also called adaptive) management approach—where management 

is rapidly updated in response to identified changes in the environment or resource—may be 

more successful than proactive management that depends on predictive modeling of future 

environmental–fisheries relationships that may or may not be accurate (Plaganyi 2011b, 

Schindler and Hilborn 2015). However, even in a reactive management framework, it can be 

useful to consider predictions about possible future states, and to develop management measures 

that are robust to future changes. 

3.1 Creating Flexible, Nimble Management Systems

The key to successful management in a changing climate is a flexible, nimble, and 

adaptive management system. We need to create a system that identifies when management 

changes are needed and is able to implement these changes in a timely manner. Flexibility and 

adaptability will be necessary at all levels of management (Johnson and Welch 2010; Stein et al. 

2013): within fisheries, between fisheries, and across jurisdictions. Julius et al. (2013, pg 12) 

note that “[i]ncentive systems that reward status quo while discouraging creative-but-risky ideas” 

can limit the adaptation of management systems. They suggest creating incentives that reward 

innovative ideas and policies to encourage local strategies and management actions while 

improving coordination and collaboration between regions and institutions. Other experts 

suggest managers should consider future costs associated with any proposed policy, including to 

the feasibility of altering or reversing the policy should the impacts prove to be different or 

greater than expected (Schindler and Hilborn 2015). In addition, more resources should be 
4

dedicated to monitoring indicators that answer specific questions about resource and ecosystem 

conditions (Schindler and Hilborn, 2015; see section 7.2 on monitoring for climate change). 

The laws governing federal and state rulemaking processes can limit the adaptability and 

flexibility of fisheries management (MAFMC 2014). For example, amendments to U.S. fishery 

management plans (FMPs) take at least three years to review, analyze, and implement. One 

mechanism that may create shorter response times is “frameworking,” whereby an amendment or 

regulation describes a shortened procedure for implementing future regulatory actions that are 

anticipated but cannot be predicted (NMFS 2015). The analyses associated with the action 

would be completed when creating the framework, front-loading the implementation process. 

For example, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council created a framework process for its 

Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan that includes a pre-determined set of reference points 

(e.g., maximum sustainable yield, overfishing limit, and minimum stock size threshold) and 

management measures (e.g., seasonal and area closures, trip/bag limit, and size limits) that may 

be more quickly modified via framework adjustments than via full FMP amendments (CFMC 

2011).

Dynamic ocean management (DOM) is another example of a flexible management 

system. DOM is “management that uses near real-time data to guide spatial distribution of 

commercial activity,” and examples exist from around the world (Lewison et al. in press). In the 

United States, DOM is primarily used to reduce unwanted bycatch (e.g., turtles in the tropical 

Pacific and yellowtail flounder in the northeastern Atlantic; Lewison et al. in press). For sea 

turtles and yellowtail flounder, bycatch advisories are provided to participating fishermen, who 

can then voluntarily avoid areas with higher probability of bycatch (Lewison et al. in press). In 

the Gulf of Maine, researchers use temperature to forecast increased catch rates of lobster in 

summer (GMRI 2016). Their hope is this information will allow fishermen to better prepare for 

the upcoming season. While there can be a disconnect between the timeframes associated with 

climate change and DOM, the approach may provide a mechanism for quickly adjusting fisheries 

management. For now the tool is used mainly to minimize unwanted interactions, but as with the 

lobster example above, managers may expand into other management challenges in the future. 

3.2 Adjusting Reference Points after Changes in Species Productivity or Stock 

Structure Have Occurred

When environmental changes affect the long-term productivity of a stock, biological 

reference points (e.g., catch limits and rebuilding biomass targets) that are based on historical 

conditions may no longer be relevant, achievable, or appropriate (MAFMC 2014). Further, 

changes in biological stocks, such as splitting or merging of stocks, may affect stock 

identification, productivity, evaluation, and management success (Link et al. 2011). In theory, 

adjusting management to account for changes in productivity or stock structure makes sense and 

seems simple. However, it can be difficult to discern when changes in stock dynamics are 

simply due to normal variation around a historical average or the start of a more permanent 

regime shift that will cause the stock to drift away from previously observed states (Punt et al. 

2014). If a regime shift is underway, waiting too long to implement management changes could 

result in negative effects on the resource. Brown et al. (2012) used simulation models to 

demonstrate how delaying management responses more than 5 years after a decrease in stock 

productivity occurs, results in a greater probability of stock collapse. Alternatively, over-
5

reacting to normal environmental variability could result in management practices that are 

unstable and “chasing noise” (MAFMC 2014). 

Both yellowtail flounder in the northeast United States and jackass morwong in Australia 

have had their biological reference points adjusted to account for changes in stock productivity 

(NEFSC 2012; Wayte 2013). An analysis of the evidence used to determine whether these 

changes in productivity occurred found lower weight of evidence to support the management 

shift in yellowtail flounder than in jackass morwong (Klaer et al. 2015). Arnason (2012) notes 

that changes in stock productivity could theoretically lead to management implications that are 

counterintuitive: increasing catch on stocks decreasing in productivity and decreasing catch on 

stocks increasing in productivity. The former would allow fishermen to harvest as much food as 

possible from the biomass before it declines, and the later would provide the stock the biomass 

needed to reach its growth potential (Arnason 2012). 

3.3 Adjusting Fisheries Allocations after Species Abundances or Distributions Have 

Changed

Changes in species distributions can create management challenges, particularly when 

they cross jurisdictional boundaries. As the abundance and/or distribution of fish species 

change, following the common practice of basing allocations on historical catch rates (Bailey et 

al. 2013) may no longer be appropriate. Fish may be in a new location because their distribution 

has shifted or because they are more abundant and have expanded into new habitat (Bell et al. 

2014). Bates et al. (2014) have outlined a methodology for identifying species that have 

significantly shifted their geographical range. They noted their methodology only applies to 

abundant species, and that improved monitoring would be needed to document range shifts in 

rare species. 

Fishermen who have become reliant on particular fish species are unlikely to willingly 

decrease their allocation as stock distributions shift out of their area. Similarly fishermen in 

areas that are being colonized by shifting stocks may want to increase exploitation of the species 

that are now readily available in their region. Both sides have valid claims to the fish, creating a 

political situation that could lead to overexploitation and compromise the sustainability of the 

fish stocks. A good example of this is the “Mackerel wars” between the European Union (EU), 

Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. In response to warming waters, the Atlantic Mackerel 

stock has shifted their migration pattern to the north and into the waters around Iceland and the 

Faroe Islands (Jensen et al. 2015). Iceland and the Faroe Islands unilaterally decided to increase 

their harvest levels in response to the increased abundance present in their exclusive economic 

zone. However, the EU wanted to continue their historic catch levels, especially those from 

Scotland where fishermen are dependent on this species. The combined quota demands 

exceeded the sustainable harvest levels, creating a politically charged allocation dispute that 

included trade restrictions, landing bans, and ultimately a rejection of Iceland’s application for 

full EU membership (Jensen et al. 2015). Multiple failed negotiations were attempted before a 

2014 agreement was reached between Norway, EU, and the Faroe Islands. Iceland chose not to 

participate in this agreement and is thus still sanctioned by Norway and EU (Jensen et al. 2015). 

The literature mentions multiple options for adjusting allocations as the distribution of 

fish species move into and out of adjacent areas or jurisdictions (management, state, or country 

boundaries). First, managers could create an allocation mechanism where annual allocations are 

based on the distribution of the stock that year (Bailey et al. 2013). For example, an agreement 
6

between tuna fishermen in the Western Pacific Ocean determines annual allocations on a 

combination of historical effort in a zone (50%) and estimated biomass in each zone each year 

(50%) (Dunn et al. 2006; Bell et al. 2013). Similarly, pre-arranged management responses 

(Brander 2010) can be negotiated that “clearly articulate a set of rules for adjusting quotas and 

allocations as a function of mutually agreed upon indicators of changes in the shared stock” 

(Miller and Munro 2004, pg 388). Finally, countries with abundant capital might purchase rights 

to access resources within another country’s exclusive economic zone (Sumaila et al. 2011). 

Payments for those access rights can either be direct payments for fishing rights, or side 

payments in an allocation agreement (Miller and Munro 2004; Sumaila 2011; Bailey et al. 2013; 

Pinsky and Mantua 2014). Side payments—whereby parties that will benefit the most from the 

allocation agreement compensate1 the parties that would benefit from breaking the agreement—

can help improve compliance (Munro et al. 2004; Bailey et al. 2013). 

3.4 Adjusting Fishing Practices or Gears as Fish Community Composition Changes 

As species shift abundances and distributions in response to a changing climate, the mix 

of species caught in fishing gears will also change, potentially creating management issues when 

the overlap of targeted stocks with either non-target stocks or protected species increases. 

Fishermen can adjust their fishing practices or gears to minimize these interactions. Adjusting 

fishing practices/gears can be considered as reactive and proactive depending on the situation. It 

can be reactive if the changes are in response to a change that has already occurred, or proactive 

if it is in response to either a predicted change in catch composition or a need to improve the 

resilience of the ecosystem by reducing habitat or bycatch impacts (see section 5.1 on Protecting 

Key Habitats and Species). Even though there is limited discussion in the literature related to 

adjusting fishing practices as an adaptation for climate change, there is considerable literature 

available on how changes in fishing behavior (Abbott et al. 2015; Wallace et al. 2015) or 

changes in gear (Glass et al. 2000; Serafy et al. 2012; Lomeli and Wakefield 2013; Senko et al. 

2014) can decrease habitat impacts, bycatch of sensitive stocks, or interactions with marine 

megafauna. However, there are trade-offs associated with switching behaviors or gears that need 

to be considered (Jenkins and Garrison, 2012). For example, positive impacts can include 

increased efficiency, decreased impacts on habitats and species, and increased sustainability of 

stocks (Jenkins and Garrison, 2012). Negative impacts can include the economic costs of buying 

new gear, as well as social impacts such as decreased safety, and changes to the social dynamics 

in associated fishing communities (Jenkins and Garrison, 2012). Compliance for using new 

fishing gears can be low (Lewinson et al., 2003; Orphanides and Palka 2013). Therefore, 

involving fishermen early in discussions and analyses of socio-economic and biological tradeoffs 

can improve the success of these initiatives (Jenkins and Garrison, 2012). 

 

1 Munro et al. (2004) clarify that side payments do not have to be monetary (i.e., they can include 

trade concessions on products other than fish).
7

4.0 PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT: MANAGING TO INCREASE RESILIENCE OF 

INDIVIDUAL STOCKS OR SPECIES

Resilience is defined as the “capacity of an ecosystem [species, or industry] to absorb 

recurrent disturbances or shocks and adapt to change while retaining essentially the same 

function and structure” (McClanahan et al. 2012). Most discussions of resilience are at the scale 

of the ecosystem (Walker et al. 2004; McClanahan et al. 2012). However, the idea can be 

expanded to include resilience of a species, community, or industry to resist change as it occurs, 

and recover after a change has occurred. 

4.1 Managing for Uncertainty- Scenario Planning

Given the uncertainties associated with climate change, managers can either work to 

reduce the uncertainty or they can embrace the uncertainty and adapt management options that 

will be robust to the given uncertainties (Basson 1999; Moore et al. 2013). Scenario planning is 

a methodology for identifying the uncertainties, articulating possible future scenarios, and 

determining options that will meet management goals across multiple possible futures (Moore et 

al. 2013). Scenario planning can range from low-tech options that articulate possible futures in a 

few sentences to promote brainstorming of adaptation options, to full implementation of 

management strategy evaluations that use sophisticated ecosystem models to analyze the success 

of different options in meeting specific management goals. 

At a relatively simplistic level, written descriptions of possible scenarios can be used to 

describe how climate change could affect fisheries. A general guide for this type of scenario 

planning is available for marine resource managers (Moore et al. 2013). In four fisheries in 

Australia, stakeholders used short descriptions of possible futures to identify potential options for 

adaptation to climate change (Lim Camacho et al. 2014). Stakeholders then brainstormed 

possible adaptation options, including moving fisheries to more productive areas and improving 

the quality of their fishery products. Most adaptation options identified were described as being 

beneficial even in the absence of climate change (Lim Camacho et al. 2014).

Management strategy evaluation (MSE) is a more technical approach to answering the 

same questions. MSE is a general framework that uses simulation modeling to quantify how 

often management alternatives meet quantifiable management goals under specified uncertainties 

(Holland 2010). For example, Ianelli et al. (2011) simulated and tested multiple management 

alternatives for the Alaska pollock fishery given expected changes in sea surface temperature and 

a predicted functional relationship between sea surface temperature and recruitment. Results 

showed that the status quo management alternative resulted in lower catches and a higher risk of 

fishery closures than alternatives that allowed for adjustments in carrying capacity (Ianelli et al. 

2011). The most sophisticated MSE analyses include potential socio-economic behavioral 

responses of the fishermen (Holland 2010). Punt et al. (2016) provides a good summary of 

MSEs completed to date and suggests best practices for completing future MSE analyses.

4.2 Managing to Promote Adaptive Capacity

Management decisions can have a direct impact on a population’s ability to adapt as the 

climate changes (Munguia-Vega et al. 2015). Little is known about the adaptive capacity of 

marine fish and invertebrate populations, suggesting a priority for future research. There are 
8

three components to adaptive capacity: 1) ability to adjust to new conditions (i.e., plasticity in 

phenotypic response), 2) ability to relocate if or when conditions change (i.e., dispersal), and 3) 

ability to evolve strategies to survive in the new conditions (requires sufficient genetic diversity) 

(Beever et al. 2015). Management approaches are largely restricted to efforts that improve the 

genetic diversity of managed species, but management aimed at improving or assisting adult 

movement may also be useful.

Given the high rate of expected environmental change, genetic adaptation to climate 

change may be necessary, and management should aim to increase or preserve current genetic 

diversity. Recent investigations into the genetic diversity of abalone found that “management 

decisions are capable of increasing or decreasing genetic diversity over relatively short time 

scales” (Munguia-Vega et al. 2015, p 274). Since environmental stress can reduce genetic 

variation (Pauls et al. 2013; Munguia-Vega et al. 2015; Beever et al. 2015), an important 

management approach may be to decrease existing stressors (see above). 

Another important management option is to protect populations with high genetic 

diversity or those that possess appropriate alleles (e.g., higher heat tolerance). For example, 

genetic diversity at the edges of a population may differ from the rest of the population. The rear 

edge often has high genetic diversity as it preserves historical alleles (Pauls et al. 2013). 

Conversely, even though the leading edge can contain lower diversity, it can also contain the 

alleles best adapted to the new conditions and are thus the “source for most of the surviving 

lineages and persisting alleles” (Pauls et al. 2013, p 927). Therefore, scientists have suggested 

that, as fish distributions advance or contract, it may be prudent to be cautious in our 

management of fish populations located at both edges of the species distribution (Brander 2010; 

Brown et al. 2011). Scientists suggest that decreasing fishing on these populations will help 

individuals with these advantageous adaptations survive and reproduce. In doing so the 

populations’ ability to establish in new areas or remain viable in historical areas may be 

increased (Brander 2010; Pinsky and Fogarty 2012). 

4.3 Protecting Age Structure and/or Old Females

Protecting or recovering the full age structure of a stock or population can increase that 

population’s resilience to a changing environment. The importance of a full age structure 

(including the presence of large females) to a population is not new (Berkeley et al. 2004; 

Palumbi 2004; Planque et al. 2010); large females tend to have larger, healthier eggs and more of 

them, all of which contribute to the subsequent recruitment success of a population (Planque et 

al. 2010). However, newer research suggests that a full age structure is even more important for 

a population’s persistence as it experiences environmental changes (Field and Francis 2002; 

Planque et al. 2010; Rouyer et al. 2011, 2012).

Environmental conditions have a stronger influence on recruitment variability in stocks 

with a truncated age structure. This is due to two main mechanisms. First, in many species, the 

older and larger fish spawn over a longer time period, depth gradient, and an extended area when 

compared to younger fish (Rouyer et al. 2011). Second, removal of larger, older fish can result 

in the loss of historical migration routes, concentrating the remaining individuals into fewer 

migration routes and spawning sites (Planque et al. 2010). Thus, the removal of large females 

can decrease the variety of conditions experienced by eggs and larvae, reducing the likelihood 

that some eggs and larvae encounter the necessary environmental conditions (Planque et al. 

2010). While the theory and ecology behind the importance of age structure is clear, simulations 
9

that investigated the impact of population age structure on population health are less clear. 

Brunel and Piet (2013) found no relationship between age structure and population health, 

measured as deviation from the initial state when affected by a disturbance as well as recovery 

back to the initial state after the disturbance is over. Management options that may improve a 

population’s age structure include: increased use of MPAs (see below), maximum size or slot 

limits, gear modifications (i.e., grates that stop large fish from entering nets), using gears that 

improve post-release survival, or closures during times and over areas when large individuals 

congregate. 

4.4 Incorporating Environmental Parameters into Stock Assessments and Management 

Measures:

There is strong evidence to suggest that the productivity of many fish stocks is directly 

influenced by environmental variables (Vert-Pre et al. 2013; Szuwalski et al. 2014). For species 

whose productivity is known to be dependent upon environmental conditions, managers can 

integrate appropriate environmental parameters into stock assessments and/or management 

(Maunder and Watters 2003; Brander 2010; Plaganyi et al. 2011b; Punt et al. 2014; Pinsky and 

Mantua 2014; Wayte 2013). U.S. Pacific Sardine management directly incorporates temperature 

into management decisions. Recruitment of Pacific sardine is dependent on temperature 

(Lindergren and Checkley 2013); stock productivity is typically higher during warm water 

conditions (PFMC 2014). The management of Pacific sardine accounts for this temperature 

effect by using an environmentally dependent maximum sustainable yield parameter (EMSY) and 

adjusting the catch quotas (harvest guidelines) depending on temperature (PFMC 2014). 

Adjusting harvest levels to match expected population size (based on temperature) should 

decrease the probability of large fluctuations in abundance (Lindergren and Checkley 2013). A 

good example of successfully incorporating an environmental parameter into a stock assessment 

is butterfish. Scientists have used water temperature to help predict pelagic habitat for butterfish 

along the U.S. east coast, which reduced uncertainty in the butterfish stock assessment and 

increased catch limits for this species (NEFSC 2014). For an overview of analytical methods for 

incorporating environmental variables into fisheries models, see Keyl and Wolff (2008).

However, multiple studies highlight challenges and indicate that there may be limited 

advantages for incorporating environmental parameters into stock assessments and management. 

Two separate simulation studies that link environmental parameters to recruitment found limited 

to no benefit to incorporating an environmental parameter into an assessment or management 

rule (De Oliveira and Butterworth 2005; Basson 1999). De Oliveira and Butterworth (2005) 

found the environmental index needs to explain at least 50 percent of the variance in recruitment 

before limited benefits of incorporating the index into the management process occur (e.g., a 2–4 

percent increase in catch). Similarly, Basson (1999) found only minimal benefits (measured as 

increased yield or decreased probability of spawning stock biomass falling below a desired level) 

in even the best-case simulations (i.e., situations where the environmental factor can be well 

predicted and the interaction between the environmental factor and recruitment is strong). In 

situations with weaker relationships, adding the environmental parameter into management could 

actually decrease benefits (Basson 1999). Similarly, Punt et al. (2014) reviewed these 

simulation studies as well as current fisheries that incorporate the environment into assessments 

and found limited success: “...modifying management strategies to include environmental 

covariates did not improve the ability to achieve management goals over time scales relevant to 
10

short and medium term fisheries management decision making much, if at all. They did so only 

if information on environmental factors driving the system was well known” (Punt et al. 2014, 

pg 2217). Therefore, Punt et al. (2014), suggest that a better option is to consider all the broad, 

plausible climate forecasts to assess which management strategies are successful across multiple 

possible future conditions (see next section on scenario planning). However, as knowledge of 

relationships between managed fish stocks and environmental dynamics continues to improve, 

there will be more justification for incorporating environmental factors in stock assessment and 

management (Keyl and Wolff 2008). Also, as the ability to forecast environmental conditions on 

time scales that are most germane to fisheries management (e.g., seasonal to decadal) continues 

to improve, fishery managers will be more equipped to facilitate climate-ready fisheries 

management within existing management frameworks. 

4.5 Decreasing Existing Stressors

One strategy for increasing resilience of stocks (and ecosystems) to climate change is 

decreasing existing stressors already impacting the stocks (Sumaila et al. 2011; Stein et al. 2013; 

Pinsky and Mantua 2014). Scientists theorize that species experiencing other stressors 

(cumulative impacts) are more likely to have faster and more acute reactions to climate change 

(Hsieh et al. 2008; Sumaila et al. 2011; Stein et al. 2013). Tingley et al. (2014) note that it is 

critical to consider climate change as well as other stressors when determining appropriate 

management responses. Stress on living marine resources can come from many sources, some of 

which are outside the direct control of fisheries managers (e.g. pollution, hypoxia). Some 

examples of existing stressors include: high fishing mortality, habitat degradation, invasive 

species, disease, pollution, and hypoxia. Location specific analyses can be completed to 

determine what stressors can be reduced, and to conduct trade-off analyses to determine if the 

effort to reduce stress is worth the resulting impact on the species (see section on Regional 

Planning). 

Fishing mortality is one source of stress on stocks that is within the control of fisheries 

managers. Given that scientists are uncertain about how climate change will impact fish stocks, 

it has been suggested that managers be more precautionary in their decisions regarding catch 

limits. Increased precaution can include increasing the buffer around allowable catch limits to 

account for increased uncertainty (Johnson and Welch, 2010; Pinksy and Mantua 2014); 

however, not everyone supports this idea (Schindler and Hilborn 2015). Trade-offs between 

Economic, ecological and social impacts need to be considered (Johnson and Welch 2010). 

4.6 Enhancing or Translocating Stocks

As climate change affects economically or ecologically important fish species, fisheries 

managers may want to consider more resource intensive options for sustaining these important 

species, including active enhancements and translocations of stocks (Koehn et al. 2011; Madin et 

al. 2012; Lorenzen et al. 2013; Tingley et al. 2014). To date, there are limited analyses of these 

options for marine systems. 

Translocation, also called assisted migration, is: “the intentional translocation or 

movement of species outside of their historical ranges in order to mitigate actual or anticipated 

biodiversity losses caused by anthropogenic climate change” (Hewitt et al. 2011). Translocation 

was initially proposed for terrestrial species in 1985, but has only recently been identified as an 
11

option for marine species (e.g., Hoegh-Gulberg et al. 2008; Koehn et al. 2011; Madin et al. 

2012). For example, in Tasmania, active translocation of rock lobster has been considered as a 

methodology for reducing the abundance of urchins that have recently expanded their range and 

are denuding important kelp habitats (Madin et al. 2012). Transloction is controversial because 

it creates complex scientific, policy, and ethical questions (Hewitt et al. 2011). There are 

concerns with unintended consequences, such as the spreading of disease, parasites, and invasive 

species (Hoegh-Gulberg et al. 2008; Tingley et al. 2014). Therefore, any translocations should 

be studied carefully to determine ecological and economic feasibility (Koehn et al. 2011). See 

Hoegh-Gulberg et al. (2008) for a decision tree that was developed to help managers determine 

when translocation might be beneficial. 

Stock enhancement is defined as “a set of management approaches that involve the 

release of cultured organisms to enhance or restore fisheries” and can include sea ranching 

(release for direct re-capture), stock enhancement (continued release into wild stocks), or 

restocking (temporary releases aimed at building up wild stock) (Lorenzen et al. 2013). The use 

of stock enhancements as a response to climate change has not received much discussion, but 

Lorenzen et al. (2013) point out that traditional fisheries management measures may be 

insufficient to fully mitigate the broad changes coming. To date, there are only a few success 

stories associated with stock enhancements (e.g., salmon, oysters, and bay scallops), and stock 

enhancements tend to be controversial due to questions about system effects and genetic 

diversity. Improvements in the process continue. Lorenzen et al. (2010, 2013) have outlined a 

responsible approach to stock enhancement, and created modeling approaches that allow for 

appraisal of the costs/benefits of possible enhancement projects before implementation. Given

the magnitude of expected climate change, stock enhancements of important species may 

increase in the future. 

5.0 PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT: MANAGING TO INCREASE ECOSYSTEM 

RESILIENCE

Climate change is expected to increase the need to account for ecosystem interactions as 

productivity, distributions, species interactions, and habitats adjust to changing environmental 

conditions. Management that maintains ecosystem heterogeneity may better retain ecosystem 

functionality and improve the stability of the resources (Schindler and Hilborn 2015). As the 

climate changes, it may be unrealistic to preserve ecosystems in their historical state (Stein et al. 

2014); instead, it may be more realistic to manage fisheries to maintain key ecological functions 

(Moore et al. 2013). 

Scientists recommend moving toward Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) 

to increase the health and resilience of ecosystems, but a full discussion of EBFM is outside the 

scope of this paper. EBFM “is a systematic approach to fisheries management in a 

geographically specified area that contributes to the resilience and sustainability of the ecosystem 

; recognizes the physical, biological, economic, and social interactions among the affected 

fishery-related components of the ecosystem, including humans; and seeks to optimize benefits 

among a diverse set of societal goals” (NMFS 2016). Many of the management actions 

described in this article fall under the umbrella of EBFM (e.g., scenario planning, protecting age 

structure, protecting key habitats and species, designing appropriate marine reserves, and 
12

applying ecosystem models). Scientists and managers have the science and management tools to 

implement EBFM today (Link 2010; deReynier 2014; Patrick and Link 2015). 

5.1 Protecting Key Habitats and Species

Because healthy marine ecosystems are more resilient to environmental changes, 

managers should consider regulations that protect key habitats and species. Gear modifications 

that reduce effects on habitats will result in a less stressed, more resilient ecosystem (Sumaila 

2011). Where habitats have become degraded, active restoration or creation of new habitat may 

be a viable management option. Since climate change is expected to decrease important larval 

intertidal habitat by 20-70 percent over the next 100 years (Harley et al. 2006), adaptation efforts 

aimed at offsetting anticipated losses could be helpful (Gilman et al. 2008). Active wetland 

restoration programs not only address losses of key larval fish habitat, but they also provide a 

number of climate services, including carbon sequestration (M. Johnson, Habitat Conservation 

Division at NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, personal communication). 

Similarly, creating reserve zones behind current mangrove stands (Gilman et al. 2008) or rolling 

easements (Titus 2011) could allow larval habitats such as wetlands to migrate inland as sea 

level rises. In a more extreme example, van Oppen et al. (2015) suggest assisted evolution in 

habitat forming coral species may be necessary to help these vulnerable species adapt to climate 

change. 

Focusing management on species fulfilling key ecological functions may be necessary for 

maintaining ecosystem function and resiliency as the environment changes (MacNeil et al. 2010; 

Staudinger 2013; Tingley et al. 2014). In the U.S. Caribbean, management has introduced 

regulations to reduce fishing pressure on important herbivores because of their functional 

importance at reducing the abundance of fleshy algae (Bellwood 2005; Nystrom 2006; Burkepile 

and Hay 2008; CFMC 2013). Key functional groups may differ between habitats and could 

include forage fish (Pikitch et al. 2014), keystone species (Paine 1995), predators (Bellwood 

2005; Heithaus et al. 2008), or habitat-forming species such as corals and algae (Wilson et al. 

2008). Improving our understanding about which species have important functional roles in an 

ecosystem and how these roles may change as the environment adjusts should be prioritized.

5.2 Applying Ecosystem Models to Better Understand Species’ Responses

Modeling species and ecosystems will be an important component of managing fisheries 

in a changing climate. Ecosystem models are useful for improving our understanding of direct 

and indirect interactions between the environment, species and human beings (Plaganyi et al. 

2011a, Link 2010). The “integrative power of models” allow scientists to review the health of 

entire ecosystems and determine if ecosystem overfishing is occurring (Link 2010). Once stock 

or ecosystem models exist, they can be integrated with management alternatives to test which 

alternatives best meet identified objectives of the fishery. In addition, models can help clarify 

interactions within the ecosystem and between the biological and human components of 

ecosystems, which are necessary when evaluating how management options will influence the 

resilience of natural resources (Plaganyi et al. 2011a). Hollowed et al. (2009) outline a 

framework that can be followed when modeling how fish species may respond to climate 

change, and Plaganyi et al. (2011a) provide a discussion about which ecosystem models are 

better suited for improving our understanding of the effects of climate change. 
13

Even though models provide estimates of how stocks and ecosystems may change in the 

near future, limitations of the models also need to be considered. Sizable uncertainty exists in 

these models: uncertainty surrounding anthropogenic climate change scenarios is coupled with 

uncertainty in species responses to these changes (Plaganyi et al. 2011b, Schindler and Hilborn 

2015). Models must balance competing goals of realism (number of underlying processes 

included in the model), precision (“exactness” of predictions), or generality (extrapolating to new 

conditions) (Dickey-Collas et al. 2014). If possible, creating and running multiple types of 

models is recommended, as this can provide competing perspectives and can increase confidence 

of the results if models agree in their general conclusions (Link 2010). Schindler and Hilborn 

(2015) argue that since we will never be able to accurately forecast the future, we should use 

models to capture uncertainty in our knowledge and determine what management will be robust 

across multiple plausible scenarios (see section on scenario planning). As computational power 

continues to grow, our ability to model complex systems will improve and the usefulness of 

these models should expand (Keyl and Wolff 2008; Link 2010). 

5.3 Designing Appropriate Marine Reserves

Marine reserves (also called marine protected areas) are a tool that can help maintain 

ecosystem resilience in a changing climate (Bellwood et al. 2004; Micheli and Halpern 2005), 

but careful implementation is needed to ensure that the reserve will continue to be effective 

under changing conditions (Field and Francis 2002; Hobday 2011; Campbell 2013). In theory, 

protecting a subset of habitat and individuals from the effects of fishing or other human uses can 

increase the resiliency to climate effects of both the species being protected and the associated 

ecosystem (Bellwood et al. 2004). For example, reserves increase the abundance of older 

females, which in turn improve the age structure of a stock, and decrease the influence of 

environmental variability on stock abundance (Planque et al. 2010; Rouyer et al. 2011, 2012). In 

addition, because marine reserves protect multiple trophic levels, they can help retain the 

functional diversity of an area (Micheli and Halpern 2005), improving its ability to maintain 

basic ecosystem functions through a changing environment (Belwood et al. 2005). Marine 

reserves also provide locations to observe and study how ecosystems react to climate change 

without the added stress of fishing. 

Managers should consider climate change effects on species and habitats when designing 

new reserves or assessing the effectiveness of established reserves, because the effectiveness of a 

reserve may change as habitats, ranges, and productivities shift (Field and Francis 2002; Tingley 

et al. 2014). There are three options for creating marine reserves that are effective even in the 

face of a changing climate. 1) Managers can locate reserves to include the habitat or species we 

currently want to protect in addition to the areas where we expect habitats or species to move 

(Hobday 2011). 2) Managers can periodically reexamine and modify closures to ensure they 

remain centered on core areas of stock distribution (Campbell 2013) and are maintaining their 

goals. 3) Managers can create reserves to be dynamic, where boundaries are tied to current 

environmental conditions (Hobday et al. 2010; Campbell 2013; Pinsky and Mantua 2014; e.g. 

dynamic ocean management discussed in the previous section on “flexible and nimble 

management systems”).
14

6.0 PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT: MANAGING TO INCREASE RESILIENCE OF 

FISHING BUSINESSES

The idea of resilience can be expanded to include not only the fish species, but also the 

resilience of the fishery and fishing businesses (Pinsky and Mantua 2014). As fish stocks adjust 

their distributions and abundances, fishing effort may also have to adjust by changing the species 

targeted and the locations and times fished, as well as landing or processing locations (Haynie 

and Pfeiffer 2013). Communities that are reliant on more than one fishery, or that have 

alternative livelihood options will be better able to adjust as climate change impacts the marine 

resources (Jepson and Colburn 2013; Mathis et al. 2015; Barange et al. 2014). Similarly, 

overcapitalized fisheries operating with a thin profit margin will be limited in its ability to 

experiment with new practices or to remain viable as the environment changes. Management 

can be updated to improve the resilience of the fishermen and communities dependent on fishing; 

however, many relevant factors, such as dependence on the fishery and availability of alternative 

livelihoods, may be outside the control of fishery management (MAFMC 2014). 

6.1 Expanding Flexibility in Fisheries Permitting

To adapt to a changing climate, fishermen will need the flexibility to adjust where, when, 

and what they catch (as well as the associated permits) depending on conditions (Miller and 

Munro 2004; MacNeil et al. 2010; Mills et al. 2013; Campbell 2013; Schindler and Hilborn 

2015). In the past, fishermen have been able to adjust their fishing targets to match species with 

high abundances. For example, when crab fishing was not profitable, they switched to 

groundfish (Campbell 2013). In contrast, cod fishermen in Canada lost their livelihoods when 

the cod fishery collapsed. The removal of the cod allowed shellfish and shrimp to increase in 

abundance, but the regulations in place made switching fisheries difficult. Therefore the 

fishermen who benefitted from the increases in shrimp and shellfish were different than the 

fishermen put out of work by the loss of cod (Schindler and Hilborn, 2015). Fishermen need the 

ability to diversify their target stocks as changes in the climate, ecosystem, and fishery occur. 

Systems locking fishermen into specific species, locations or gears may reduce fishing flexibility 

(Grafton 2010, Schindler and Hilborn 2015), and options for amending or switching permits 

should be considered (Mills et al. 2013). For example, policies may need to be created that 

facilitate access to loans for operators who want to diversify by purchasing quota in other 

fisheries (Kasperski and Holland 2013) or by expanding their business to include aquaculture. In 

addition, including flexibility as a management goal in government policies and regulations may 

need to be considered (Badjeck 2010). 

Recent regulations aimed at reducing the high competition associated with short fishing 

seasons (sometimes called the race to fish) have moved from open access fisheries (where 

anyone can fish) to limited access fisheries (a limited number of fishermen are allowed access) to 

rights-based management (a limited number of fishermen have access to an individual- or groupspecific amount of the allowable catch). Some experts suggest that changing to rights-based 

management could increase the adaptability of fishermen (Grafton 2010; Sumaila et al. 2011), 

while others argue the opposite (Campbell 2013), highlighting the extreme opinions often 

associated with rights-based management programs. Differences in interpretation may depend 

on the design elements of the programs. Examples that limit flexibility include requirements to 

land fish in specific areas or for specific processors, high entrance costs into a fishery, and 
15

single-species permits. Alternatively, rights-based management provides fishermen incentives to 

experiment with alternative fishing methods that decrease the bycatch of overfished stocks 

(Kaplan et al. 2010; Holland and Jannot 2012) as catch composition shifts over time. Even 

though rights-based management can decrease the diversification of fishermen, it also provides 

the opportunity for fishermen to build a portfolio of harvest privileges that can reduce their 

income risk (Kasperski and Holland 2013).

Similarly, management that encourages ownership of quota (the right to catch a given 

percent of the allowable catch) within fishing communities could improve the resilience of 

fishermen and communities. Anchoring quota for many species within communities rather than 

individual businesses should create a robust system better able to adapt to environmental change 

(Schindler and Hilborn 2015). Permit banks, risk pools, and community quota entities have been 

implemented within the United States to anchor quota within communities (Stoll and Holliday 

2014). 

6.2 Providing Insurance for Fishermen to Cover Years with Poor Catch

Extending insurance to fishermen to cover years with low catch could increase financial 

stability for fishermen. Similar to crop insurance for farmers, an insurance program for 

fishermen run by the Federal Government has been discussed (Hermann et al. 2004; Mumford et 

al. 2009). Theoretically, fishing insurance could simultaneously improve managers’ ability to 

meet a goal of sustainability as well as improve the fishing industry’s goal of income security 

(Mumford et al. 2009). In brief, fishing insurance provides a program where fishermen pay an 

annual insurance premium that guarantees them some proportional payout if catch rates are low. 

The insurance program could provide more stability to fishermen because income would be less 

variable when poor years are supplemented with insurance payouts. Positive benefits to this 

stability include decreasing the incentives for fishermen to keep fishing when biomass is at low 

levels, as well as improved fishing practices if eligibility for insurance were tied to sustainable 

fishing practices (Mumford et al. 2009). Cons of fishing insurance include the possibility of 

fishermen reducing effort and “gaming” the system, and a decreased incentive to test new fishing 

practices that decrease catch on limiting species (Mumford et al. 2009). 

Even if official forms of catch insurance are not available, fishermen who participate in 

rights-based fisheries have the option of creating their own catch insurance by joining together to 

create catch pools. Fishermen who participate in catch pools do so by pooling catch quotas and 

then pulling from the pool to cover quota needs. Catch pools can be organized to include all 

catch (Sethi et al. 2012), or just bycatch species that can limit a fisherman’s ability to catch target 

species (Holland and Jannot 2012). Holland and Jannot (2012) outline general conditions that 

are amenable to bycatch pools, such as: bycatch species are rare and have a high variance, 

bycatch risk is uncorrelated with expected profits, bycatch risk is homogeneous across vessels, 

vessels have a low number of fishing events, and real-time information sharing is available. 

West Coast trawl businesses have successfully formed bycatch pools to help each other deal with 

bycatch in the West Coast Trawl Rationalization Program (Holland and Jannot 2012). 
16

6.3 Improving Flexibility in the Supply Chain

Changes to the composition, magnitude, and timing of landings could be complicated if 

the shore-side processing and supply chain is not adaptable. For example, a 2012 heat wave in 

the Gulf of Maine led to an increase in American lobster landings, and the processing facilities 

and markets were unable to respond appropriately (Mills et al. 2013). Due to the lack of 

flexibility in the supply chain, fishermen experienced an unexpected decrease in the price they 

received for their catch, which resulted in severe economic hardships and the need to 

immediately reduce fishing effort and landings (Mills et al. 2013). Identifying key elements 

along a supply chain could help identify adaptation strategies that would improve the resilience 

of the markets to changes in supply or demand (Plaganyi et al 2014). 

7.0 UNDERLYING PRACTICES THAT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT IN A 

CHANGING CLIMATE

In reviewing the literature on preparing fisheries for climate change, a few key practices 

are discussed as being imperative for climate-ready fisheries management: clarifying and 

updating management goals, monitoring the environment to detect changes, and creating 

regional management plans to address localized issues. 

7.1 Updating and Clarifying Management Goals

Climate change will affect fisheries; therefore, management decisions need to be made 

with a clear understanding of the goals and priorities associated with the fishery and ecosystem. 

Often, goals and objectives for a fishery are articulated when the management of that fishery 

begins and are not re-assessed as the fishery matures. To prioritize adaptation options, 

management goals should be current, clear, measurable and forward-looking (Grafton 2009, 

Stein et al. 2013).

Fisheries goals can vary between biological goals, such as conserving the resource for 

future generations, to economic goals, such as maximizing catch or reducing negative effects on 

communities (Punt 2006). Attainment of multiple fisheries goals can be contradictory if 

achieving one goal affects the ability to achieve another one. When these trade-offs occur, clear 

articulation of current goals and priorities could aid in determining the best way forward. For 

example, complex ethical decisions—such as whether to concentrate on maintaining historic 

ecosystems or on protecting the new ecosystems that emerge (Madin et al. 2012)—may be easier 

if priorities are clearly articulated. 

7.2 Monitoring for Climate Change

Monitoring will be an important component of many strategies related to managing 

fisheries in a changing climate (Madin et al. 2012; Plaganyi et al. 2013; Frusher et al. 2014). 

Monitoring is the collection of biotic, abiotic, and human social information to answer 

management questions (Levin 2013). “Accurate assessment of resource states and ecosystem 

services must be given high priority” (Schindler and Hilborn 2015, p 954). Plaganyi et al. (2013) 

compared management options across eight species of sea cucumbers and found that strategies 
17

that included monitoring resulted in decreased risk and increased profit compared to strategies 

without monitoring. Current monitoring programs could benefit from a re-evaluation of their 

design and scope in light of climate change (e.g., Bates et al. 2014). 

Newer technologies could be considered when planning monitoring programs. For 

example, cell phones allow stakeholders to provide real-time catch or sightings information (e.g. 

http://www.redmap.org.au/), and satellite remote sensing results (e.g., chlorophyll density and 

sea surface temperature) can be used to estimate area-specific phytoplankton productivity and 

predict the fish distribution and abundance (Chassot et al. 2011). Development of new 

indicators—such as duration of spring blooms and the size composition of phytoplankton—could 

provide even better information relevant to predicting climate effects on fishing resources 

(Chassot et al. 2011).

Processes for identifying (Kershner et al. 2011) and selecting (Boldt et al. 2014) 

appropriate indicators are available. Recent research suggests that certain biological parameters 

could provide predictions about which stocks are experiencing a change in productivity due to 

changes in climate, habitat, or community interactions. For example, declines in mean weight at 

age often preclude stock collapse by several years, suggesting that monitoring age and length of 

an indicator species could predict future changes in stock abundance (Brander 2010). Another 

paper found that spatial variability in catches increased prior to stock collapse (Litzow et al. 

2013); however, the authors caution that more studies are necessary to determine whether this 

indicator would be useful to management. 

7.3 Using Regional Planning to Address Local Needs

Climate effects will vary significantly from one region to the next, so it will be important 

to develop regional management responses. For example, although ocean acidification is 

increasing globally there are also local contributors to coastal waters where acidification effects 

may disproportionately affect certain coastal communities (Kelly et al. 2011; Ekstrom et al. 

2015). Incentives for implementing local storm water runoff protections or generally decreasing 

local stressors can be more successful than incentives for improving the global environment 

(e.g., reducing local pollution as opposed to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions) (Scheffer 

et al. 2015). Developing regional planning bodies or using existing regional frameworks might 

be helpful in developing a management response to the many effects on the marine environment 

from land-based sources. For example, a 2013 Washington State law established the 

Washington Marine Resources Advisory Council—composed of representatives from academia, 

government, nongovernmental organizations, tribes, and the private sector—that will implement 

local actions to combat ocean acidification that were identified during a 2012 Washington State 

Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification (WSBRP 2012). Similarly, some of the adaptation 

options discussed by Pecl et al. (2009) for the Australian rock lobster fishery are local responses 

to possible changes. Options discussed include: reducing catch in areas where rock lobster prey 

(urchins) are expected to have a large negative effect; reducing high-cost input controls (such as 

trap limits and seasonal closures); and improving the quality of catch as quantity of catch 

decreases.
18

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

Climate change will continue to affect the abundance and distribution of fisheries 

resources. Because fisheries management occurs in an uncertain and changing environment, the 

foundation already exists for management to adjust as the climate changes. 

The list of management alternatives provided here is not comprehensive, and there is no 

one “right” answer. Suitable approaches will differ depending on local conditions such as life 

history traits of the species being managed, the type of management being implemented, the 

fishing community, and the resources available for monitoring and modeling. In general, 

management actions that seek to increase management flexibility and provide incentives to the 

fishing industry to try new approaches while preserving genetic diversity of the fished 

populations should prove to be beneficial. Managers should consider the pros and cons of 

different alternatives when determining the appropriate mix of options for their situation, 

including estimates of the risks associated with each action (including inaction), where risk 

includes the probability as well as the consequence. Other questions that should be considered 

include: what are the associated costs and benefits, which options would be more acceptable to 

fishermen, which options require an update to federal mandates and which are feasible under 

current laws. Managers should involve constituents and discuss what mix of existing and new 

management options would be most appropriate for their fisheries. 

This document is intended to assist managers facing this issue and to spur brainstorming 

about various management approaches and options. New research, ideas, and options should 

emerge as management across the globe grapples with this issue and determines what works and 

what does not work in each region. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We appreciate the constructive feedback from K. Abrams, B. Arnold, Y. deReynier, M. 

Johnson, J. Link, P. Lynch, S. McAfee, F. Pflieger, and M. Nelson on earlier drafts of this paper. 

The views expressed herein are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or 

the State of California or any of its sub-agencies.

REFERENCES

Abbott, J. K, A. C. Haynie, and M. N. Reimer. 2015. Hidden flexibility: Institutions, incentives, 

and the margins of selectivity in fishing. Land Economics 91:169-195.

Arnason, R. 2012. Global warming: New challenges for the common fisheries policy? Ocean 

and Coastal Management 70:4-9.

Badjeck, M., E. A. Allison, A. S. Halls, and N. K. Dulvey. 2010. Impacts of climate variability 

and change on fishery-based livelihoods. Marine Policy 34:375-383.

Bailey, M., G. Ishimura, R. Paisley, and U. R. Sumaila. 2013. Moving beyond catch in 

allocation approaches for internationally shared fish stocks. Marine Policy 40: 124-136. 
19

Barange, M., G. Merino, J. L. Blanchard, J. Scholtens, J. Harle, E. H. Allison, J. I. Allen, J. Holt, 

and S. Jennings. 2014. Impacts of climate change on marine ecosystem production in 

societies dependent on fisheries. Nature Climate Change 4:211-216.

Basson, M. 1999. The importance of environmental factors in the design of management 

procedures. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56:933–942.

Bates, A. E., G. T. Pecl, S. Frusher, A. J. Hobday, T. Wernberg, D. A. Smale, J. M. Sunday, N. 

A. Hill, N. K. Dulvy, R. K. Colwell, N. J. Holbrook, E. A. Fulton, D. Slawinski, M. Feng, 

G. J. Edgar, B. T. Radford, P. A. Thompson, and R. A. Watson. 2014. Defining and 

observing stages of climate-mediated range shifts in marine systems. Global 

Environmental Change 26:27-38.

Baumgartner, T. R., A. Soutar, and V. Ferreira-Bartrina. 1992. Reconstruction of the history of 

Pacific sardine and northern anchovy populations over the past two millennia from 

sediments of the Santa Barbara Basin, California. CalCOFI Reports 33:24-40.

Beever, E. A., J. O’Learly, C. Mengelt, J. M. West, S. Julius, N. Green, D. Magness, L. Petes, B. 

Stein, A. B. Nicotra, J. J. Hellmann, A. L. Robertson, M. D. Staudinger, A. A. 

Rosenberg, E. Babijj, J. Brennan, G. W. Schuurman, and G. E. Hofmann. 2015. 

Improving conservation outcomes with a new paradigm for understanding species’ 

fundamental and realized adaptive capacity. Conservation Letters: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12190. 

Bell, J. D., A. Ganachaud, P. C. Gehrke, S. P. Griffiths, A. J. Hobday, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. E. 

Johnson, R. L. Borgne, P. Lehodey, J. M. Lough, R. J. Matear, T. D. Pickering, M. S. 

Pratchett, A. S. Gupta, I. Senina, and M. Waycott. 2013. Mixed response of tropical 

Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change. Nature Climate Change 3:591-599.

Bell, R. J., J. A. Hare, J. P., Manderson, and D. E. Richardson. 2014. Externally driven changes 

in the abundance of summer and winter flounder. ICES Journal of Marine Science 

71:2416–2428.

Bellwood, D. R., T. P. Hughes, C. Folke, and M. Nystrom. 2004. Confronting the coral reef 

crisis. Nature 429:827-833.

Bellwood, D. R., A. S. Hoey, and J. H. Choat. 2003. Limited functional redundancy in high 

diversity systems: resilience and ecosystem function on coral reefs. Ecology Letters 

6:281-285.

Berkeley, S. A., Chapman, C., and S. M. Sogard. 2004. Maternal age as a determinant of larval 

growth and survival in a marine fish, Sebastes Melanops. Ecology 85:1258-1264.
20

Boldt, J.L., R. Martone, J. Samhouri, R.I. Perry, S. Itoh, I.K. Chung, M. Takahashi, and N. 

Yoshie. 2014. Developing ecosystem indicators for responses to multiple stressors. 

Oceanography 27:116–133.

Brander, K. 2010. Impacts of climate change on fisheries. Journal of Marine Systems 79:389-

402. 

BREP (Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program). 2013. 2013 Bycatch Reduction Engineering 

Program Grant Awards By Region. Available: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/docs/2013_brep_awards_abstracts_final1.pdf. (October 

2015).

Brown, C. J., E. A. Fulton, H. P. Possingham, and A. J. Richardson. 2012. How long can 

fisheries management delay action in response to ecosystem and climate change? 

Ecological Applications 22:298-310.

Brown, C. J., D. S. Schoeman, W. J. Sydeman, K. Brander, L. B. Buckley, M. Burrows, C. M. 

Duarte, P. J. Moore, J. M. Pandolfi, E. Poloczanska, W. Venables, and A. J. Richardson. 

2011. Quantitative approaches in climate change ecology. Global Change Biology 

17:3697-3713.

Brunel, T. and G. J. Piet. 2013. Is age structure a relevant criterion for the health of fish stocks? 

ICES Journal of Marine Science 70:270-283.

Burkepile, D.E., and M. E. Hay. 2008. Herbivore species richness and feeding complementarity 

affect community structure and function on a coral reef. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences 105:16201-16206.

Campbell, C. 2013. Implications of changing ecosystems for fisheries managers. Pages 160-167 

in Managing our Nations Fisheries 3: Advancing Sustainability. Proceedings of a 

Conference on Fisheries Management in the United States. Portland Oregon. Available: 

http://www.managingfisheries.org/2013_documents/Proceedings_session2.pdf. (October 

2015).

CFMC (Caribbean Fisheries Management Council). 2011. Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit 

Amendment for the U.S. Caribbean. 

Available:http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/caribbean/2011_acl/documents/

pdfs/2011_caribb_acl_amend_feis.pdf. (October 2015).

CFMC (Caribbean Fisheries Management Council). 2013. Regulatory Amendment four to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. Available: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-11/pdf/2013-05538.pdf. 

(October 2015).
21

Chassot, E., S. Bonhommeau, G. Reygondeau, K. Nieto, J. J. Polovina, M. Huret, N. K. Dulvy, 

and H. Demercq. 2011. Satellite remote sensing for an ecosystem approach to fisheries 

management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68:651-666.

Cheung, W. W. L., V. W. Y. Lam, J. L. Sarmiento, K. Kearney, R. Watson, D. Zeller, and D. 

Pauly. 2010. Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the 

global ocean under climate change. Global Change Biology 16:24-35.

Church, J. A., Clark, P. U., Cazenave, A., Gregory, J. M., Jevrejeva, S., Levermann, A., 

Merrifield, M. A., Milne, G. A., Nerem, R. S., Nunn, P. D., Payne, A. J., Pfeffer, W. T., 

Stammer, D., and Unnikrishnan, A. S. 2013. Sea Level Change. Pages 1137-1216 in T.F. 

Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, 

V. Bex and P.M. Midgley, editors. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York, 

NY.

Cooley, S. R., and Doney, S. C. 2009. Anticipating ocean acidification’s economic 

consequences for commercial fisheries. Environmental Research Letters 4:024007.

Daw, T., W. N. Adger, K. Brown, and M. Badjeck. 2009. Climate change and capture fisheries: 

potential impacts, adaptation and mitigation. Pages 107-150 in K. Cochrane, C. De 

Young, D. Soto and T. Bahri, editors. Climate change implications for fisheries and 

aquaculture: overview of current scientific knowledge. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture 

Technical Paper. No. 530. Rome, Italy.

De Oliveira, J. A. A. and D. S. Butterworth. 2005. Limits to the use of environmental indices to 

reduce risk and/or increase yield in the South African anchovy fishery. African Journal 

of Marine Science 27:191-203.

deReynier, Y. 2014. U.S. Fishery Management Councils as Ecosystem-Based Management 

Policy Takers and Policymakers. Coastal Management 42:512-530.

Dickey-Collas, M., M. R. Payne, B. M. Trenkel, and R. D. M. Nash. 2014. Hazard warning: 

model misuse ahead. ICES Journal of Marine Science 71:2300-2306.

Dunn, S., L. Rodwell, and G. Joseph. 2006. The Palau arrangement for the management of the 

western Pacific purse seine fishery – managmenet scheme (vessel day scheme). Sharing 

the Fish Conference, Perth Australia. Available: 

http://www.fishallocation.com/papers/pdf/papers/GlenJoseph.pdf. (October 2015).

Ekstrom, J. A., L. Suatoni, S. R. Cooley, L. H. Pendleton, G. C. Waldbusser, J. E. Cinner, J. 

Ritter, C. Langdon, R. van Hooidonk, D. Gledhill, K. Wellman, M. W. Beck, L. M. 

Brander, D. Rittschof, C. Doherty, P. E. T. Edwards, and R. Portela. 2015. Vulnerability 

and adaptation of US shellfisheries to ocean acidification. Nature Climate Change 5:207-

214.
22

Field, J. C., and R. C. Francis. 2002. Cooperating with the Environment: Case studies of 

climate and fisheries in the Northern California current. Pages 245-260 in N. A. McGinn, 

editor. Fisheries in a changing climate. American Fisheries Society Symposium 32, 

Bethesda, Maryland.

Fogarty, M., L. Incze, K. Hayhoe, D. Mountain, and J. Manning. 2008. Potential climate change 

impacts on Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) off the northeastern USA. Mitigation and 

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 13:453-466.

Frusher, S. D., A. J. Hobday, S. M. Jennings, C. Creighton, D. D’Silva, M. Haward, N. J. 

Holbrook, M. Nursey-Bray, G. T. Pecl, and E. I. vanPutten. 2014. The short history of 

research in a marine climate change hotspot: from anecdote to adaptation in south-east 

Australia. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 24:593-611.

Fussel, H. M. 2007. Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches 

and Key lessons. Sustainability Science 2:265-275.

Gilman, E. L., J. Ellison, N. C. Duke, and C. Field. 2008. Threats to mangroves from climate 

change and adaptation options. A review. Aquatic Botany 89:237-250.

Glass, C.W. 2000. Conservation of fish stocks through bycatch reduction: a review. 

Northeastern Naturalist 7:395-410. 

Grafton, R.Q. 2010. Adaptation to climate change in marine capture fisheries. Marine Policy 

34:606-615.

GMRI (Gulf of Maine Research Institute). 2016. Gulf of Maine Lobster Forecasting. 

Available: http://www.gmri.org/our-work/research/projects/gulf-maine-lobsterforecasting (February 2016).

Hare, J. A., M. A. Alexander, M. J. Fogarty, E. H. Williams, and J. D. Scott. 2010. Forecasting 

the dynamics of a coastal fishery species using a coupled climate-population model. 

Ecological Applications, 20:452–464.

Harley, C. D. G., A. R. Hughes, K. M. Hultgren, B. G. Miner, C. J. B. Sorte, C. S. Thornber, L. 

F. Rodriguez, L. Tomanek, and S. L. Williams. 2006. The impacts of climate change in 

coastal marine systems. Ecology Letters 9:228-241.

Haynie, A. C., and L. Pfiefer. 2013. Why economics matters for understanding the effects of 

climate change on fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 70:1023-1037. 

Heithaus, M. R., A. Frid, A. J. Wirsing, and B. Worm. 2008. Predicting ecological consequences 

of marine top predator declines. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23:202-210.
23

Herrmann, M., J. Greenberg, C. Hamel, H. Geier. 2004. Extending federal crop insurance 

programs to commercial fisheries: the case of Bristol Bay, Alaska, sockeye salmon. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:352-366.

Hewitt, N., N. Klenk, A. L. Smith, D. R. Bazely, N. Yan, S. Wood, J. I. Maclellan, C. LipsigMumme, I. Henriques. 2011. Taking stock of the assisted migration debate. Biological 

Conservation 144:2560-2572.

Hobday, A. J., J. R. Hartog, T. Timmiss, and J. Fielding. 2010. Dynamic spatial zoning to 

manage southern Bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) capture in a multi-species longline

fishery. Fisheries Oceanography 19:243-253.

Hobday, A. J. 2011. Sliding baselines and shuffling species: implications of climate change for 

marine conservation. Marine Ecology 32:392-403.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., L. Hughes, S. McIntyre, D. B. Lindenmayer, C. Parmesan, H. P. 

Possingham, and C. D. Thomas. 2008. Assisted colonization and rapid climate change. 

Science 321:345-346.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., and J. F. Bruno. 2010. The impact of climate change on the world’s 

marine ecosystems. Science 328:1523-1528.

Holland, D. S. 2010. Management Strategy Evaluation and Management Procedures: Tools for 

Rebuilding and Sustaining Fisheries. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working 

Papers, No. 25. OECD Publishing. Available: 

http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/fisheries/45497984.pdf . (October 2015).

Holland, D. S., and J. E. Jannot. 2012. Bycatch risk pools for the U.S. West Coast Groundfish 

Fishery. Ecological Economics 78:132-147.

Hollowed, A. B., N. A. Bond, T. K. Wilderbuer, W. T. Stockhausen, Z. T. A’mar, R. J. Beamish, 

J. E. Overland, and M. J. Schirripa. 2009. A framework for modelling fish and shellfish 

responses to future climate change. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66:1584-1594.

Hollowed, A. B., S. J. Barbeaux, E. D. Cokelot, E. Farley, S. Kotwicki, P. H. Ressler, C. Spital, 

and C. D. Wilson. 2012. Effects of climate variations on pelagic ocean habitats and their 

role in structuring forage fish distributions in the Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research II 675-

70:230-250. 

Hsieh, C., C. S. Reiss, R. P. Hewitt, and G. Sugihara. 2008. Spatial analysis shows that fishing 

enhances the climatic sensitivity of marine fishes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 65:947-961.

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 68:1297–1304.
24

Jackson, J., M. Kirby, W. Berger, and K. Bjorndal. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent 

collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, 293:629-637.

Jensen, F., H. Frost, T. Thogersen, P. Andersen, and J. L. Anderson. 2015. Game theory and 

fish wars: The case of the Northeast Atlantic Mackerel Fishery. Fisheries Research 

172:7-16.

Jenkins, L. D., and K. Garrison. 2013. Fishing gear substitutions to reduce bycatch and habitat 

impacts: An example of social-ecological research to inform policy. Marine Policy 

38:293-303.

Jepson, M., and L. L. Colburn 2013. Development of Social Indicators of Fishing Community 

Vulnerability and Resilience in the U.S. Southeast and Northeast Regions. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-F/SPO-129. Available: 

http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/. (October 2015).

Johnson, J. E., and D. J. Welch. 2010. Marine fisheries management in a changing climate: A 

review of vulnerability and future options. Reviews in Fisheries Science 18: 106-124.

Julius, S. H., J. M. West, D. Nover, R. Hauser, D. S. Schimel, A. C. Janetos, M. K. Walsh, and P. 

Backlund. 2013. Climate change and U.S. Natural Resources: Advancing the Nation’s 

Capability to Adapt. Issues in Ecology 18:1-16. Available: http://www.esa.org/esa/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/Issue18.pdf. (October 2015).

Kasperski, S. and D. S. Holland. 2013. Income diversification and risk for fishermen. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:2076-2081.

Kaplan, I. C., P. S. Levin, M. Burden, and E. A. Fulton. 2010. Fishing catch shares in the face 

of global change: a framework for integrating cumulative impacts and single species 

management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67:1968-1982.

Kelly, R. P., M. M. Foley, W. S. Fischer, R. A. Feely, B. S. Halpern, G. G. Waldbusser, and M. 

R. Caldwell. 2011. Mitigating local causes of ocean acidification with existing laws. 

Science 332:1036-1037.

Klaer, N. L., R. N. O’Boyle, J. J. Deroba, S. E. Wayte, L. R. Little, L. A. Alade, and P. J. Rago. 

2015. How much evidence is required for acceptance of productivity regime shifts in fish 

stock assessments: Are we letting managers off the hook? Fisheries Research 168:49-55.

Koehn, J. D., A. J. Hobday, M. S. Prtchett, and B. M. Gillanders. 2011. Climate change and 

Australian marine and freshwater environments, fishes and fisheries: synthesis and 

options for adaptation. Marine and Freshwater Research 62:1148-1164.

Kershner, J., J. F. Samhouri, C. A. James, P. S. Levin. 2011. Selecting indicator portfolios for 

marine species and food webs: a Pugent Sound case study. PLoSONE 6:e25248.
25

Keyl, F. and M. Wolff. 2008. Environmental variability and fisheries: what can models do? 

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 18:273-299.

Levin, P. S. 2013. Assessment and maintenance of ecosystem health in the face of a changing 

climate. Pages 168-174 in Managing our Nations Fisheries 3: Advancing Sustainability. 

Proceedings of a Conference on Fisheries Management in the United States. Portland 

Oregon. Available: 

http://www.managingfisheries.org/2013_documents/Proceedings_session2.pdf. (October 

2015).

Lewison, R. L. , L.B. Crowder, and D. J. Shaver. 2003. The impact of turtle excluder devices 

and fisheries closures on loggerhead and Kemp’s Ridley strandings in the Western Gulf 

of Mexico. Conservation Biology 17:1089-1097.

Lewison, R. , A. J. Hobday, S. Maxwell, E. Hazen, J. R. Hartog, D. C. Dunn, D. Briscoe, S. 

Fossette, C. E. O’Keefe, M. Barnes, M. Abecassis, S. Bograd, N.D. Bethoney, H. Bailey, 

D. Wiley, S. Andrews, L. Hazen, and L.B. Crowder. In Press. Dynamic ocean 

management: identifying the critical ingredients of dynamic approaches to ocean resource 

management. Bio Science. 

Lim-Camacho, L., A. J. Hobday, R. H. Bustamante, A. Farmery, A. Fleming, S. Frusher, B. S. 

Green, A. Norman-Lopez, G. T. Pecl, E. E. Plaganyi, P. Schrobback, O. Thebaud, L. 

Thomas, and I. van PUtten. 2014. Facing the wave of change: stakeholder perspectives 

on climate adaptation for Australian seafood supply chains. Regional Environmental 

Change 15:595-606.

Lindergren, M. and D. M. Checkley, Jr. 2013. Temperature dependence of Pacific sardine 

(Sardinops sagax) recruitment in the California Current Ecosystem revisited and revised. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 70:245-252.

Lindholm, J., M. Gleason, D. Kline, L. Clary, S. Rienecke, A. Cramer, M. LosHuertos. 2015. 

Ecological effects of bottom trawling on the structural attributes of fish habitat in 

unconsolidated sediments along the central California outer continental shelf. Fishery 

Bulletin 113:82-96.

Link, J. S. 2010. Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management: Confronting Tradeoffs. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

Link, J. S., J. A. Nye, and J. A. Hare. 2011. Guidelines for incorporating fish distribution shifts 

into a fisheries management context. Fish and Fisheries 12: 461-469. 

Link, J. S., R. Griffis, and S. Busch (Editors). 2015. NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-155, 

70p. Available: 
26

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/ecosystems/climate/documents/NCSS_Final.pdf. 

(Febrary 2016).

Litzow, M. A. F. J. Mueter, and J. D. Urban. 2013. Rising catch variability preceded historical 

fisheries collapses in Alaska. Ecological Applications 23:1475-1487.

Lomeli, M. J. M., and W. W. Wakefield. 2013. A flexible sorting grid to reduce Pacific halibut 

(Hippoglossus stenolepis) bycatch in the U.S. west coast groundfish bottom trawl fishery. 

Fisheries Research 143:102-108.

Lorenzen, K., K. M. Leber, and H. L. Blankenship. 2010. Responsible approach to marine stock 

enhancement: an update. Reviews in Fisheries Science 18:189-210.

Lorenzen, K., A. Agnalt, H. L. Blankenship, A. H. Hines, K. M. Leber, N. R. Longeragan, M. D. 

Taylor. 2013. Evolving context and maturing science: aquaculture-based enhancement 

and restoration enter the marine fisheries management toolbox. Reviews in Fisheries 

Science 21:213-221.

Lynch, P. D., J. A. Nye, J. A. Hare, C. A. Stock, M. A. Alexander, J. D. Scott, K. L. Curti, and 

K. Drew. 2015. Projected ocean warming creates a conservation challenge for river 

herring populations. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72:374-387. 

doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsul134.

MacNeil, M. A., N. A. J. Graham, J. E. Cinner, N. K. Dulvy, P. A. Loring, S. Jennings, N. V. C. 

Polunin, A. T. Fisk, and T. R. McClanahan. 2010. Transitional states in marine 

fisheries: adapting to predicted global change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal 

Society B 365:3753-3763.

Madin, E., M. P., N. C. Ban, Z. A. Doubleday, T. H. Holmes, G. T. Pecl, and F. Smith. 2012. 

Soci-economic and management implications of range-shifting species in marine 

systems. Global Environmental Change 22:137-146.

MAFMC (Mid Atlantic Fisheries Management Council). 2014. East coast climate change and 

fisheries governance workshop. March 19-21, Washington D.C. Available: 

http://www.mafmc.org/council-events/2014/east-coast-climate-change-and-fisheriesgovernance-workshop. (October 2015).

Mathis, J. T., S. R. Cooley, N. Lucey, S. colt, J. Ekstrom, T. Hurst, C. Hauri, W. Evans, J. N. 

Cross, R. A Feely. 2015. Ocean acidification risk assessment for Alaska’s fishery sector. 

Progress in Oceanography 136:71-91. 

Maunder, M. N. and G. M. Watters. 2003. A general framework for integrating environmental 

time series into stock assessment models: model description, simulation testing, and 

example. Fisheries bulletin 101:89-99.
27

McClanahan, T. R., S. D. Donner, J. A. Maynard, M. A. MacNeil, N. A. J. Graham, J. Maina, A. 

C. Baker, J. B. Alemu, M. Beger, S. J. Campbell, E. S. Darling, C. M. Eakin, S. F. Heron, 

S. D. Jupiter, C. J. Lundquist, E. McLeod, P. J. Mumby, M. J. Paddack, E. R. Selig, and 

R. van Woesik. 2012. Prioritizing key resilience indicators to support coral reef 

management in a changing climate. PlosOne 7:e42884.

Micheli, F. and B. S. Halpern. 2005. Low functional redundancy in coastal marine assemblages. 

Ecology Letters 8:391-400.

Miller, K. A., and G. R. Munro. 2004. Climate and Cooperation: A new perspective on the 

management of shared fish stocks. Marine Resource Economics 19:367-393.

Mills, K. E., A. J. Pershing, C. J. Brown, Y. Chen, F. S. Chiang, D. S. Holland, S. Lehuta, J. A. 

Nye, J. C. Sun, A. C. Thomas, and R. A. Wahle. 2013. Fisheries management in a 

changing climate: Lessons from the 2012 ocean heat wave in the Northwest Atlantic. 

Oceanography 26:60-64.

Mooney, H., A. Larigauderie, M. Cesario, T. Elmquist, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, S. Lavorel, G. 

Mace, M. Palmer, R. Scholes, and T. Yahara. 2009. Biodiversity, climate change, and 

ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 1:46-54. 

Moore, S. S., N. E. Seavy, and M. Gerhart. 2013. Scenario planning for climate change 

adaptation: A guidance for resource managers. Point Blue Conservation Science and 

California Coastal Conservancy. Available: 

http://www.prbo.org/refs/files/12263_Moore2013.pdf. (October 2015). 

Moser, S. C., and J. A. Ekstrom. 2010. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change 

adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:22026-22031.

Mumford, J. D., A. W. Leach, P. Levontin, and L. T. Kell. 2009. Insurance mechanisms to 

mediate economic risks in marine fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66:950-959.

Munguia-Vega, A., A. Saenz-Arroyo, A. P. Greenley, J. A. Espinoza-Montes, S. R. Palumbi, M. 

Rossetto, and F. Micheli. 2015. Marine reserves help preserve genetic diversity after 

impacts derived from climate variability: lessons from the pink abalone in Baja 

California. Global Ecology and Conservation 4:264-276.

Munro, G., A. VanHoutte, and R. Willman. 2004. The conservation and management of shared 

fish stocks: legal and economic aspects. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 465. Rome, 

FAO. Available: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y5438e/y5438e00.pdf. (October 

2015).

NCSE (National Council for Science and the Environment). 2014. Managing marine fisheries in 

a changing climate. Session 10 at Building Climate Solutions. 14th National Conference 

and Global Forum on Science, Policy and the Environment. Available: 
28

http://www.buildingclimatesolutions.org/topics/view/523383680cf2ea76e535e6f0/. 

(October 2015).

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2012. Southern New England Mid-Atlantic 

yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) stock assessment for 2012, updated through 

2011. Available: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1218/partb.pdf. 

(October 2015).

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2014. 58th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment 

Workshop (58th SAW) Assessment Summary Report. US Department of Commerce, 

Northeast Fish Science Center. Available: 

http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1403/crd1403.pdf. (October 2015).

NFWPCAP (National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership). 2012. 

National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy. Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, Council on Environmental Quality, Great Lakes Indian Fish and 

Wildlife Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. Available: 

http://www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov/pdf/NFWPCAS-Final.pdf. (October 2015).

Nicholls, R.J., Wong, P.P., Burkett, V.R., Codignotto, J.O., Hay, J.E., McLean, R.F., 

Ragoonaden, S., and Woodroffe, C.D. 2007. Coastal systems and low-lying areas. Pages 

315-356 in M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden and C. E. 

Hanson, editors. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

UK. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Bluefin tuna bycatch reduction in the Gulf of 

Mexico pelagic longline fishery. Available: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-

05/pdf/2011-8052.pdf#page=1. (October 2015).

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2015. Operational guidelines for the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act fishery management process 

appendices. Available: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/councils/operational_guidelines/og_append.p

df. (October 2015).

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2016. National Marine Fisheries Service 

Ecosystem Based Fishery Management Policy. Available: 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/ecosystems/ebfm/Final-EBFM-Policy-PDS-Review5.20.2016-final-for-PDS.pdf. (October 2016). 

NRC (National Research Council), 1997. Striking a Balance: Improving Stewardship of Marine 

Areas. National Academy of Sciences, National Academies Press. Available: 
29

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5797/striking-a-balance-improving-stewardship-of-marineareas. (October 2015).

Nye, J. A., J. S. Link, J. A. Hare, W. J. Overholtz. 2009. Changing spatial distribution of fish 

stocks in relation to climate and population size on the Northeast United States 

continental shelf. Marine Ecology Progress Series 393:111-129.

Nystrom, M. 2006. Redundancy and response diversity of functional groups: Implications for 

the resilience of coral reefs. Ambio 35:30-35.

O’Connor, M. I., J. F. Bruno, S. D. Gaines, B. S. Halpern, and S. E. Lester. 2007. Temperature 

control of larval dispersal and the implications for marine ecology, evolution, and 

conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:1266-1271.

Orphanides, C. D., and D. L. Palka. 2013. Analysis of harbor porpoise gillnet bycatch, 

compliance, and enforcement trends in the U.S. northwestern Atlantic, January 1999-May 

2010. Endangered Species Research 20:251-269.

Ottersen, G., S. Kim, G. Huse, J. J. Polovina, and N. C. Stenseth. 2010. Major pathways by 

which climate may force marine fish populations. Journal of Marine Systems 79:343-

360.

Pörtner, H. O., and M.A. Peck. 2010. Climate change effects on fishes and fisheries: towards a 

cause-and-effect understanding. Journal of Fish Biology 77:1745-1779.

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2013. Pacific Coast Fishery Ecosystem Plan for 

the U.S. Portion of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. Available: 

http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/FEP_FINAL.pdf. (October 2015).

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2014. Status of the Pacific Coast coastal pelagic 

species fishery and recommended acceptable biological catches. Stock Assessment and 

Fishery Evaluation for 2014. Appendix C: 2014 Pacific Sardine Stock Assessment. 

Available: http://www.pcouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014_CPS_SAFE_Text_FINAL.pdf. (October 2015).

Paine, R. T. 1995. A conversation on refining the concept of keystond species. Conservation 

Biology 9:962-964.

Palumbi, S. R. 2004. Why mothers matter. Nature 430:621-622.

Patrick, W. S., and J. S. Link 2015. Myths that continue to impede progress in ecosystem based 

fisheries management. Fisheries 40:155-160.

Pauls, S. U., C. Nowak, M. Balint, and M. Pfenninger. 2013. The impact of global climate 

change on genetic diversity within populations and species. Molecular Ecology 22:925-

946.
30

Pecl, G., S. Frusher, C. Gardner, M. Haward, A. Hobday, S. Jennings, M. Nursey-Bray, A. Punt, 

H. Revill, and I. vanPutten. 2009. The east coast Tasmanian rock lobster fishery –

vulnerability to climate change impacts and adaptation response options. Report to the 

Department of Climate Change, Australia. Available: 

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/48b0b14e-9234-480f-9a6b602274396991/files/rock-lobser-report.pdf. (October 2015).

Perry, A. L., P. J. Low, J. R. Ellis, and J. D. Reynolds. 2005. Climate change and distribution 

shifts in marine fishes. Science 308:1912-1915.

Pikitch, E. K., K. J. Rountos, T. E. Essington, C. Santora, D. Pauly, R. Watson, U. R. Sumaila, P. 

D. Boersma, I. L. Boyd, D. O. Conover, P. Cury, S. S. Heppell, E. D. Houde, M. Mangel, 

E. Plaganyi, K. Sainbury, R. S. Steneck, T. M.Geers, N. Gownaris, and S. B. Munch. 

2014. The global contribution of forage fish to marine fisheries and ecosystems. Fish 

and Fisheries 15:43-64.

Pinsky, M., B. Worm, M. Fogarty, J. Sarmiento, and S. Levin. 2013. Marine taxa track local 

climate velocities. Science 341:1239-1242.

Pinksy, M. L., and M. Fogarty. 2012. Lagged social-ecological responses to climate and range 

shifts in fisheries. Climatic Change 115:883-891.

Pinsky, M. L. and N. J. Mantua. 2014. Emerging adaptation approaches for climate-ready 

fisheries management. Oceanography 27:17-29.

Plaganyi, E. E., J. D. Bell, R. H. Bustamante, J. M. Dambacher, D. M. Dennis, C. M. dichmont, 

L. X. C. Dutra, E. A. Fulton, A. J. Hobday, E. I. vanPutten, F. Smith, A. D. M. Smith, 

and S. Zhou. 2011a. Modelling climate-change effects on Australian and Pacific aquatic 

ecosystems: a review of analytical tools and management implications. Marine and 

Freshwater Research 62:1132-1147.

Plaganyi, E. E., S. J. Weeks, T. D. Skewes, M. T. Gibbs, E. S. Policzanska, A. Norman-Lopez, 

L. K. Blamey, M. Soares, and W. M. L. Robinson. 2011b. Assessing the adequacy of 

current fisheries management under changing climate: a southern synopsis. ICES Journal 

of Marine Science 68:1305-1317.

Plaganyi, E. E., T. D. Skewes, N. A. Dowling, M. Haddon. 2013. Risk management tools for 

sustainable fisheries management under changing climate: a sea cucumber example. 

Climate Change 119:181-197.

Plaganyi, E. E., I. vanPutten, O. Thebaud, A. J. Hobday, J. Innes, L. Lim-camacho, A. NormanLopez, R. H. Bustamante, A. Farmery, A. Fleming, S. Frusher, B. Green, E. Hoshino, S. 

Jennings, G. Pecl, S. Pascoe, P. Schrobback, L. Thomas. 2014. A quantitative metric to 

identify critical elements within seafood supply networks. PlosOne 9:e91833.
31

Planque, B., J. Fromentin, P. Cury, K. F. Drinkwater, S. Jennings, R. I. Perry, and S. Kifani. 

2010. How does fishing alter marine populations and ecosystem sensitivity to climate? 

Journal of Marine Systems 79:403-417.

Punt, A. E. 2006. The FAO precautionary approach after almost 10 years: have we progressed 

toward implementing simulation-tested feedback-control management systems for 

fisheries management? Natural Resource Modeling 19:441-464.

Punt, A. E., T. A’mar, N. A. Bond, D. S. Butterworth, C. L. de Moor, J. A. A. De Oliveira, M. A. 

Haltuch, A. B. Hollowed, A. B., and C. Szuwalski. 2014. Fisheries management under 

climate and environmental uncertainty: control rules and performance simulation. ICES 

Journal of Marine Science 71:2208-2220.

Punt, A. E., D. S. Butterworth, C. L. de Moor, J. A. A. De Oliveira, and M. Haddon. 2016. 

Management strategy evaluation: best practices. Fish and Fisheries 17:303-334.

Rhein, M., S. R. Rintoul, S. Aoki, E. Campos, D. Chambers, R. A. Feely, S. Gulev, G. C. 

Johnson, S. A. Josey, A. Kostianoy, C. Mauritzen, D. Roemmich, L. D. Talley and F. 

Wang. 2013. Observations: Ocean. Pages 255-315 in T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G. K. 

Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P. M. 

Midgley, editors. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Available: 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf. 

(October 2015).

Ramos, J. E., G. T. Pecl, N. A. Moltschaniwskyj, J. M. Strugnell, R. I. Leon, and J. M. 

Semmens. 2014. Body size, growth, and life span: Implications for the polewards range 

shift of Octopus tetricus in South-Eastern Australia. PlosOne 9:e103480. 

Rouyer, T., G. Ottersen, J. M. Durant, M. Hildago, D. O. Hjermann, J. Persson, L. C. Stige, and 

N. C. Stenseth. 2011. Shifting dynamic forces in fish stock fluctuations triggered by age 

truncation? Global Change Biology 17:3046-3057.

Rouyer, T., A. Sadykov, J. Ohlberger and N. C. Stenseth. 2012. Does increasing mortality 

change the response of fish populations to environmental fluctuations? Ecology letters 

15:658-665.

Tingley, M. W., E. S. Darling, and D. S. Wilcove. 2014. Fine- and course-filter conservation 

strategies in a time of climate change. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 

1322:92-109.

Scheffer, M., S. Barrett, S. R. Carptenter, C. Folke, A. J. Green, M. Holmgren, T. P. Hughes, K. 

Kosten, I. A. vandeLeemput, D. C. Nepstad, E. H. vanNes, E. T. H. M. Peeters, and B. 

Walker. 2015. Creating a safe operating space for iconic ecosystems: Manage local 

stressors to promote resilience to global change. Science 347:1317-1319.
32

Schindler, D. E. and R. Hilborn. 2015. Prediction, precaution and policy under global change. 

Science 347:953-954.

Serafy, J. E., S. J. Cooke, G. A. Diaz, J. E. Graves, M. Hall, M. Shivji, and Y. Swimmer. 2012. 

Circle hooks in commercial, recreational, and artisanal fisheries: research status and 

needs for improved conservation and management. Bulletin of Marine Science 88:371-

391.

Senko, J., E. R. White, S. S. Heppell, and L. R. Gerber. 2014. Comparing bycatch mitigation 

strategies for vulnerable marine megafauna. Animal Conservation 17:5-18.

Sethi, S. A., M. Dalton, and R. Hilborn. 2012. Managing harvest risk with catch-pooling 

cooperatives. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69:1038-1044.

Staudinger, M. D., S. L. Carter, M. S. Cross, N. S. Dubois, J. E. Duffy, C. Enquist, R. Griffis, J. 

J. Hellmann, J. J. Lawler, J. O’Leary, S. A. Morrison, L. Sneddon, B. A. Stein, L. M. 

Thompson, and W. Turner. 2013. Biodiversity in a changing climate: a synthesis of 

current and projected trends in the U.S. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 

11:465-473.

Stein, B., A. Staudt, M. S. Cross, N. S. Dubois, C. Enquist, R. Griffis, L. J. Hansen, J. J. 

Hellmann, J. J. Lawler, E. J. Nelson, and A. Pairis. 2013. Preparing for and managing 

change: climate adaptation for biodiversity and ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and 

Environment 11:502-510.

Stein, B. A., P. Glick, N. Edelson, and A. Staudt, editors. 2014. Climate-smart conservation: 

putting adaptation principles into practice. National Wildlife Federation, Washington 

D.C. Available: http://www.nwf.org/pdf/Climate-Smart-Conservation/NWF-ClimateSmart-Conservation_5-08-14.pdf. (October 2015).

Stock, C. A., M. A. Alexander, N. A. Bond, K. M. Brander, W. W. L. Cheung, E. N. Curchitser, 

T. L. Delworth, J. P. Dunne, S. M. Griffies, M. A. Haltuch, J. A. Hare, A. B. Hollowed, 

P. Lehodey, S. A. Levin, J. S. Link, K. A. Rose, R. R. Rykaczewski, J. L. Sarmiento, R. 

J. Stouffer, F. B. Schwing, G. A. Vecchi, and F. E. Werner. 2011. On the use of IPCCclass models to assess the impact of climate on living marine resources. Progress in 

Oceanography 88:1-27.

Stoll, J. S., and M. C. Holliday. 2014. The Design and Use of Fishing Community and Regional 

Fishery Association Entities in Limited Access Privilege Programs. U.S. Dept. of 

Commer., NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-138. Available: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/docs/tm138_fishing_communities_guidance.pdf. (October 

2015).
33

Sumaila, U. R., W. W. L. Cheung, V. W. Y.Lam, D. Pauly, and S. Herrick. 2011. Climate 

change impacts on the biophysics and economics of world fisheries. Nature Climate 

Change 1:449-456.

Szuwalski, C. S., K. A. Vert-Pre, A. E. Punt, T. A. Branch, and R. Hilborn. 2014. Examining 

common assumptions about recruitment: a meta-analysis of recruitment dynamics for 

worldwide marine fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 16:633-648. DOI: 10.1111/faf.12083.

Titus, J. G. 2011. Rolling easements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, 

D.C. Available: 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/rollingeasementsprimer.pdf. 

(October 2015).

Van Oppen, M. J. H., J. K. Oliver, H. M. Putnam, and R. D. Gates 2015. Building coral reef 

resilience through assisted evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

112:2307-2313.

Vert-pre, K. A., R. O. Amoroso, O. P. Jensen, and R. Hilborn. 2013. The frequency and 

intensity of productivity regime shifts in marine fish stocks. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Science 110:1779–1784.

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, Adaptability and 

Transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9:5.

Wallace, S., B. Turris, J. Driscoll, K. Bodtker, B. Mose and G. Munro. 2015. Canada’s pacific 

groundfish trawl habitat agreement: A global first in an ecosystem approach to bottom 

trawl impacts. Marine Policy 60: 240-248.

Ward, T. J., D. Heinemann, and N. Evans. 2001. The Role of Marine Reserves as Fisheries 

Management Tools: a Review of Concepts, Evidence and International Experience. 

Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, Australia. 

Wayte, S. E. 2013. Management implications of including a climate-induced recruitment shift in 

the stock assessment for jackass morwong (Nemadactylus macropterus) in south-eastern 

Australia. Fisheries Research 142:47-55.

Wilson, S. K., S. C. Burgess, A. J. Cheal, M. Emslie, R. Fisher, I. Miller, N. V. C. Polunin, and 

H. P. A. Sweatman. 2008. Habitat utilization by coral reef fish: implications for 

specialists vs generalists in a changing environment. Journal of Animal Ecology 77:220-

228.

WSBRP (Washington State Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification ). 2012. Ocean 

Acidification: From Knowledge to Action, Washington State’s Strategic Response. H. 

Adelsman and L. Whitely Binder, editors. Washington Department of Ecology 

Publication no. 12-01-015. Olympia, Washington. Available: 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1201015.pdf. (October 2015).
34

Table 1. Summary of management alternatives.

Possible options

Reactive 

management

Creating 

flexible, 

nimble 

management 

system

Adjusting 

reference 

points 

Adjusting 

fisheries 

allocations 

Adjusting 

fishing 

practices or 

gears

Proactive 

Management 

to increase 

Resilience of 

stocks or 

species

Incorporating 

environmental 

parameters 

into stock 

assessments 

and 

management

Managing 

for 

uncertainty: 

scenario 

planning

Protecting 

age structure 

and/or old 

females

Decreasing 

existing 

stressors

Enhancing or 

translocating 

stocks

Managing 

to 

promote 

adaptive 

capacity

Proactive 

management 

to increase 

resilience of 

ecosystem

Protecting 

key habitats 

and species

Designing 

appropriate 

marine 

reserves

Applying 

ecosystem 

models to 

create robust 

management

Pro-active 

Management 

to increase 

resilience of 

fishermen

Providing 

insurance for 

fishermen 

Expanding 

flexibility in 

fisheries 

permitting

Improving 

flexibility in 

the supply 

chain

Practices 

that Improve 

Management 

in a 

Changing 

Climate

Updating and 

clarifying 

management 

goals

Monitoring 

for climate 

change

Using 

regional 

planning to 

address local 

needs