Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan

Overview of the Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan

North Pacific Fishery Management Council Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan writing team Kerim Aydin, NMFS AFSC Ecosystem/food web modeling Steve Barbeaux, NMFS AFSC Pollock biology, assessment Forrest Bowers, ADF&G Crab and state fisheries Vernon Byrd, USFWS, AKRO Birds and mammals Diana Evans, NPFMC FEP policy, implementation Sarah Gaichas, NMFS AFSC Ecosystem/food web modeling Carol Ladd, NOAA PMEL Physical oceanography Sandra Lowe, NMFS AFSC Atka mackerel biology, assessment John Olson, NMFS AKRO Habitat, GIS Jennifer Sepez, NMFS AFSC Anthropology, socioeconomics Paul Spencer, NMFS AFSC Rockfish biology, assessment Francis Wiese, NPRB Research, seabirds

Abbreviations AFSC - Alaska Fisheries Science Center ADF&G - Alaska Department of Fish and Game AI - Aleutian Islands AKRO - Alaska Regional Office ESA - Endangered Species Act FEP - Fishery Ecosystem Plan GIS - Geographic Information Systems NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPFMC - North Pacific Fishery Management Council NPRB - North Pacific Research Board PMEL - Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory USFWS - US Fish and Wildlife Service

Cover photo credits Background: Aleutian arch, NOAA–Auke Bay Laboratories Insets top to bottom: auklets, Ian Jones; Atka mackerel, Alaska Sea Life Center; Steller sea lion, Alison Banks; crab pot, Kimberly Rand; bubble gum coral, Alberto Lindner, NMFS, NOAA Below: cod and coral, NOAA–Auke Bay Laboratories NOAA-Auke Bay LaboratoriesNOAA-Auke Steve Barbeaux, AFSC, NOAA AFSC, Steve Barbeaux,

This brochure provides a brief summary of information Foreword found in the Aleutian Islands The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has Fishery Ecosystem Plan. developed the Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) as a pilot project. With national attention A disc containing the document on fishery managers to apply an ecosystem approach in its entirety is included on the to management, the Council is continually adapting its back page of this summary. management to better accommodate ecosystem relationships and strive for ecological balance. Consistent with this, the Council has designed a FEP that is rel- evant and applicable to Alaskan fishery management.

The Aleutian Island ecosystem is complex, and is the least predictable of the ecosystems in which the Contents Council manages. The FEP is intended to be an Fishery Ecosystem Plan 4 educational tool and resource that can provide the Council with both an ‘early warning system,’ and an Ecosystem Boundary 5 ecosystem context for fishery management decisions History of the AI Ecosystem 6 affecting the Aleutian Islands area. This document Physical Relationships 8 should help the Council respond to changing Biological Relationships 10 conditions in a proactive rather than reactive mode. Socioeconomic Relationships 14 The FEP is to be a living document, in which ecosys- Management Relationships 17 tem interactions, indicator status, research priorities, Risk Assessment 18 and data gaps are periodically updated. This first Priorities and Considerations 20 iteration of the FEP has been prepared by synthesiz- Next Steps 22 ing currently available information about the Aleutian CD 23 Islands ecosystem. While the Council recognizes that the FEP is a work in progress, the document can immediately be used to improve management action analyses, and to provide a broader understanding of actions affecting the Aleutian Islands ecosystem. Additionally, through the identification of indicators and the assessment of risk, the FEP provides directions and priorities for further study. 3 R U S S I A G.L. Thomson G.L. center: Fisheries NOAA USFWS Kevinright: Bell, What is a Fishery Ecosystem Plan? The goal of this FEP is to provide enhanced scientiﬁ c information and measurable indicators to evaluate and promote ecosystem health, sustainable ﬁ sheries, and vibrant communities in the Aleutian Islands region. FEP

h a bi FEP Concept for Alaska* t a t

e t

n Policy and planning document. a SSSA

m p

i SSSA

r l

n c

d Encompasses all fi sheries in the Aleutian

a State

SSSA t

Islands ecosystem.

Fisheries

s s

n Implementation of specifi c changes to management continues to occur through Fi lan existing fi shery management plan processes. she t P ry Managemen n FEP is not a legal, binding document — it is an educational tool for the Council, to provide an ecosystem context for fi shery management. h h a b a b i it t a a * Other regions may have a different concept t t

and goals. e e t t

a a SSSA SSSA

m p m p

i SSSA

i SSSA r

e e

c c

t SSSA

SSSA

Purposes r

s s

e r

n Integrate information from the F Fi is n different Aleutian Islands fi shery she lan her la ry M nt P y Ma ent P management plans (groundfi sh, crab, anageme nagem scallop, salmon). Communities n Identify indicators specifi c to the  Aleutian Islands, to evaluate the status of the ecosystem over time. Other activities Oil & Gas Shipping n Develop and refi ne tools such as affecting the marine ecosystem ecosystem models.

n Identify sources of uncertainty and research and data needs.  Military n Help the Council set management goals and understand cumulative effects. Scope of Fishery Ecosystem Plan

4 SSSA Single species stock assessment Ecosystem Boundary

R U S S For the purposes of this Fishery Ecosystem Plan, I A the Aleutian Islands ecosystem is defi ned as the portion of the archipelago ranging from Samalga Pass (at 169ºW) to the western boundary of the exclusive economic zone, at 170ºE. Samalga Pass represents a known ecological boundary with the A L A S K A neighboring eastern Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska ecosystems. This boundary is also approximately C A N A D A similar to an important management boundary for the Federal groundfi sh fi shery.

Ale uti an Isla nds

h a bi t a t

e t a SSSA

m p

i SSSA

r l

SSSA t

e r

F is n her Pla y Management Stalemate NIKOLSKI Bank ATTU ATKA Al SHEMYA Petrel eu Samalga tia Bank n Pass Tre nch ADAK Amukta Seguam Pass Buldir Atka Pass Strait Tanaga Pass Amchitka Pass Pass

5 left and center: Photo NOAA Library UniversityAlaska Rasmuson Fairbanks, of UAF-1970-11-2 Library, History of the AI Ecosystem Human history of the Aleutians Aleuts have been present in the Aleutian archipelago for 10,000 years. At one time, there were over 100 villages in the islands, reflecting complex and flexible settlement patterns as people followed fish and marine mammal migrations. Russian contact Estimated population trend of the Aleutian archipelago in 1741 brought profound social change to the Aleuts, and considerable population decline due to epidemic, violent conflict, forced resettlement and impressed labor practices. Russian and American interests pursued the rich Aleutian marine resources over the next 150 years.

Population shifts occurred again with the advent of World War II, and the stationing of substantial US military forces in the islands. The US govern- ment forcibly evacuated the remaining eight Aleut villages in the archipelago, which after the war

were resettled into half that many villages (Atka 1740 1790 1840 1890 1940 1990 being the only one in the ecosystem). The military Year remained a presence through the decades of the Cold War, before scaling back almost entirely in the 1990s. The development of a global fishing industry began to affect Aleutian populations starting in the late 1960s. Historic catch of major groundfish species Catch as % biomassof

6 Year Commercial resource use, 1740-2005

1977 Magnuson Act 200 mi EEZ 1990 Fully U.S. fishing fleet

160,000 1975 Marine Mammal Russians sail to Protection Act Commander Islands; Russians American Co. conscript Aleut hunters controls fur trade 140,000 for fur trade 1799-1857 pollock International fleet whaling peaks Russians settlement in mackerel 120,000 Kodiak and Pribilofs, Koniag hunters U.S. purchases marine American whaling in Large scale foreign conscripted and Aleuts Gulf of Alaska & eastern Alaska 1867 mammals relocated fisheries begin 100,000 Aleutians. Bowhead hunted in rockfish arctic 1850-1890 American whaling; stations at Akutan 80,000 sea otter depleted 1912-39 crab in Aleutians; spectacled 1911 sea otter Metric tons sea cow extinct comorant hunting banned cod extinct WWII: 60,000 Japanese invade; pelagics Arctic fox pelagic Aleuts introduced sealing 40,000 sea otter forcibly flatfish depleted in peaks relocated peninsula Panama Canal other species 20,000 Cook maps AK, opens fur trade opened with Canton

1740 1760 1780 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 (modified from Ortiz, I. 2007. Ecosystem Dynamics of the Aleutian Islands. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle.) Some early (pre-1950) biomass removals do not show up at this scale: n An estimated 500,000 sea otters were removed from the Aleutian archipelago and the far western Gulf of Alaska between 1742 and 1792, which averages to approximately 250 tons of otters annually over this period. n Salmon catch records show intermittent catches from 1911 through 1927 ranging from 24 to 1800 tons annually.

n Kelp forests support a diverse marine community, important for fish and nearshore birds. Historical relationships illustrate ecosystem connections n Sea otters prey on sea urchins, which eat kelp and sea otters – kelp forests – marine communities prevent forests from growing. n As kelp sites have been recolonized by recovering sea otter populations in the 20th century, kelp forests have increased. n Recent sea otter declines will likely continue to have derivative impacts. Dr. Randall Davis, Texas A&M University Texas Randall Davis, Dr.

7 David Fraser center: NOAA, Auke Bay Laboratories center: NOAA, David Fraserright:

Physical Relationships The Aleutian archipelago consists of hundreds of small, volcanic islands, separated by oceanic passes that connect the waters of the North Paciﬁ c with the Bering Sea.

Circulation and depth of passes in the Aleutian archipelago

160°E 165°E 170°E 175°E 180° 175°W 170°W 165°W Bering Sea Kamchatka Pribilof Is. False Pass Current 56°N

BSC Unimak Is. ANSC Aleutian North Slope Current ACC 54°N ACC Alaska Coastal Current ANSC BSC Bering Sea Current 52°N The mean circulation along the

50°N Aleutian Arc is shown together with geographic place names. 0 Akutan The lower panel shows the Atka Amukta Pass depth of the passes in the Buldir TanagaPass Pass Pass Strait Seguam Samalga Unimak Aleutian Arc. Meters 2000 Amchitka Pass Pass Pass Near Strait Pass Stabeno, P.J., Kachel, D.G., Kachel, Kamchatka N.B., Sullivan, M.E., 2005. Observations Strait from moorings in the Aleutian Passes: 4000 temperature, salinity and transport. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 km Fisheries Oceanography 14 (Suppl. 1), 39-54.

Benthic habitat Oceanography Climate (Pelagic habitat) (Terrestrial habitat) n Steep rocky slopes to the n Oceanic marine environment n Wet and stormy maritime climate. north and south surround a mostly (rather than coastal), with primary n Temperature variability and submerged mountain range resting infl uence from the Alaskan Stream. annual storm track determined by the on the Aleutian ridge. n Fierce tidal currents within the strength and location of the Aleutian n Cold water coral and sponge passes allow salt, nutrients, and Low, a low pressure center. plankton from the deep to mix with communities are found on the n Contrary to the warming signal surface water. steep slopes. elsewhere, the Aleutian Islands have n n Benthic communities provide Net northward transport of water experienced a long-term cooling important habitat for fi sh and from the Pacifi c is important to bring trend between 1956 and 2002. invertebrates. nutrients and biota to the Bering Sea. n Currents may also present hazards for navigation and equipment.

8 Bathymetric profi le of the Aleutian Islands

175°W 165°W 155°W 145°W 135°W

61°N

59°N

57°N

55°N

53°N 0

51°N -200 shelf -400 EBS -600 slope n The islands form a porous boundary between -800 two ocean basins, the Bering Sea and the North 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Pacifi c. Thus, the islands are bathed by the warmer 0 North Pacifi c on one side and the colder Bering Sea -200 shelf on the other. -400 -600 open ocean GOA n Bathymetry changes dramatically over a very Depth (m) slope short distance, from the depths of the Aleutian -800 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Trench (greater than 7,000 m deep) to sea level or above over a distance of less than 150 km, provid- 0 ing a diverse range of habitats. -200 -400 open ocean n The interaction of steep bathymetry with fi erce -600 tidal currents results in mixing of the water layers AI -800 (deeper and surface waters), affecting nutrient con- 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 centrations, salinity, and plankton. These vertical Distance (km) circulations can vary on small spatial and temporal scales, and can create areas of increased concentra- The narrow shelf of the Aleutian Islands fosters a strong oceanic infl uence on tions of prey for seabirds and other predators. the ecosystem’s biology. This bathymetric profi le distinguishes the area from the neighboring shelf-dominated ecosystems of the eastern Bering Sea (EBS) and Gulf n The proximity of onshore, nearshore, and off- of Alaska (GOA), whose fi sheries are also managed by the Council. shore systems allows for tight physical and biological connections between the open ocean, the shelf and slope environment, and nearshore and inshore.

NOAA, Auke Bay Laboratories

9 C. LorenC. Buck center:Alison Jeff BanksField right:

Biological Relationships The complexity of the relationships in marine food webs can be over- whelming, so the FEP focuses on key species from economic, biological, and social perspectives to illustrate relationships within the ecosystem. Among these focus species, direct connections exist to all but two of the modeled predators and prey in the Aleutian Islands food web. Focus species for the FEP

Protected status or social interest (identifi ed from 2000s data) n marine mammals Food web of the Aleutian Islands ecosystem n seabirds (based on early 1990s diet data)

High biomass (identifi ed from 2000s data)

n Atka mackerel n pollock n grenadiers n myctophids Steller sealions n squids pisc seabirds

Commercial value

n king crab n Pacifi c halibut n Trophic Pacifi c cod level n Atka mackerel n sablefi sh n Pacifi c ocean perch

This is a simplifi ed view of the full Aleutian Islands model food web that contains 134 predator/prey groups and 15 fi sheries. Some groups have been amalgamated for this view. Box size is proportional to the estimated biomass in the ecosystem, the width of lines is proportional to estimated energy fl ow between boxes, and the vertical distribution of boxes in the fi gure represents the trophic level. Groups are positioned so that benthic energy pathways originate on the left side of the fi gure, and and pelagic pathways are on the right side. KEY pisc = piscivorous NMFS - Federal groundfi sh fi sheries plnkt = planktonic ADF&G - State-managed fi sheries micro = micro-zooplankton IPHC - halibut fi shery 10 Analyses possible with the food web

n Shared prey analysis n Species sensitivity analysis Understanding which species (or fisheries) Simulating mortality changes within the food share a prey base can provide some information web model demonstrates how the impacts to as to whether those species are likely to be one species might transmit to other species competing for prey. Atka mackerel, Pacific through food web relationships. For example, ocean perch, and myctophids share a common the Aleutian Islands ecosystem appears to be zooplankton prey base along with other species. particularly sensitive to increased mortality of The physical processes maintaining the pelagic Atka mackerel, and relatively insensitive to prey base, which dominates the ecosystem, increased mortality of Pacific ocean perch. maintain the focal species at their current levels of productivity, but these processes are poorly n Role of species in the food web understood and there is only limited monitoring Analyses of the relative interaction strengths of the prey base. between predators and prey can inform fishery managers when making decisions about appropriate harvest levels for species that interact.

Diet composition0% for20% species with40% a shared60% prey base80% 100% baleen whales (groups with minimum 33% diet similarity) squids

0% 20% 40% forage 60% 80% 100%

baleen whales myctophids

squids sablefish

forage pollock

myctophids plnkt seabirds

sablefish Atka mackerel

pollock rockfish

plnkt seabirds P. ocean perch Atka mackerel copepods euphausiids zoop forage other prey rockfish

P. ocean perch

copepods euphausiids zoop forage other prey

Steller sea lion

NMFS trawl

skates

Steller sea lion pinnipeds

NMFS trawl Pacific cod

skates halibut

pinnipeds 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Pacific cod

halibut forage Atka mackerel crabs P. ocean perch Pacific cod pollock shrimp squid other prey

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 11 forage Atka mackerel crabs P. ocean perch Pacific cod pollock shrimp squid other prey A. Grillo A.

Spatial variation within the Aleutian Islands While the FEP focuses primarily on the Aleutian Islands ecosystem-wide spatial scale, local spatial patterns are apparent throughout the archipelago. Two main spatial patterns determine the structure of the Aleutian Islands food webs: the longitudinal gradient from east to west, and the vertical distribution of species on the shelf. Further attention to spatial variation has been identified as an area for further work.

Longitudinal variation in predator biomass and consumption (data consolidated in 2 degree blocks)

fisheries piscivorous seabirds planktonic seabirds Steller sea lions Atka mackerel Pacific ocean perch pollock

BIOMASSBiomass Predatorsof OF PREDATORS Pacific cod

100% cod other groundfish pollock Atka mackerel 80% rockfish cephalopods sculpins pop 60% salmon myctophids forage fish crabs 40% shrimps

Consumption benthic amphipods benthic inverts polychaetes 20% euphasiids copepods gel zoop other zoop 0% offal 172°E 174°E 176°E 178°E 180° 178°W 176°W 174°W 172°W 170°W 168°W Buldir Amchitka Amukta Samalga Strait Pass Pass Pass

12 Seabirds in the Aleutian Islands albatrosses n shearwaters n murres n kittiwakes n auklets pufﬁ ns n fulmars n storm petrels n cormorants n gulls

Species Seasonality in AI Est. population size

short-tailed albatross summer and fall foragers low hundreds Laysan albatross oceanic, year-round thousands short-tailed shearwater oceanic in summer hundreds of thousands Ian Jones mottled petrels oceanic in summer thousands marine waterfowl winter tens of thousands through migrant birds spring and fall thousands

Marine mammals in the Aleutian Islands whales n seals n sea lions n sea otters

Species Seasonality in AI Est. population size Listed under ESA?

Steller sea lions year-round thousands endangered northern fur seals spring/fall migration hundreds of thousands no harbor seals year-round tens of thousands no sea otters nearshore, year-round thousands threatened

whales and porpoises resident populations, Alaska-wide range e.g., some killer whales, blue whales migrant populations that summer in Alaska e.g., gray, humpback whales Lowell Fritz, NMML, NOAA NMML, Lowell Fritz,

13 center: Steve Barbeaux, AFSC, NOAA AFSC, center: Steve Barbeaux, right: Diana Evans, NPFMC Dianaright: Evans, Nicole Kimball, NicoleNPFMC Kimball,

Socioeconomic Relationships Commercial ﬁ sheries In 2005, the Aleutian Islands ecosystem produced 216 million Fishery resources harvested pounds of ﬁ sh, with an estimated ex-vessel value of 60 million in the FEP area in 2005 dollars. Fish harvested in the ecoystem was processed through-

Pacifi c cod 20% out the Aleutians, western Alaska, and the Gulf of Alaska. 32 offshore processors (including catcher-processors, mother- Atka mackerel 23% ships, and other offshore sector participants) account for 89% by VALUE rockfi sh 8% of the total landings from the ecosystem, comprising 56% of all other species 1% ex-vessel value. The majority of offshore processing volume is pollock 1% devoted to Atka mackerel. sablefi sh 10% crab 19% Spatial distribution of the Aleutian Island groundﬁ sh halibut 18% ﬁ sheries by gear group Location of 95 percent of observed groundfi sh fi shing effort in the Aleutian Islands ecosystem in 1990-2006. The maps illustrate the number of Atka mackerel 60% observed non-pelagic trawl tows or longline sets within a 400 km2 area. by VOLUME Approximately 87% of trawl tows and 70% of longline sets are observed. all other species 1% pollock 1% 170°E 180° sablefi sh 1% halibut 2% AI observed crab 2% longline sets rockfi sh 10% 11-61 Pacifi c cod 23% 62-137 138-1519

Number of vessels (V) harvesting and plants* (P) processing 50°N Aleutian Islands fi sh in 2005 V P 170°E Atka mackerel 12 12

crab 9 6 Inset fl atfi sh 30 27

halibut 97 16 Kilometers 0 70 140 280 420 other groundfi sh 18 16 50°N

Pacifi c cod 45 27 170°W pollock 22 23 50°N rockfi sh 47 29 sablefi sh 41 23

*inshore or offshore, in Aleutians AI observed and elsewhere. non-pelagic trawls 12-22 23-55 Kilometers 56-628 0 70 140 280 420 14 50°N 180° 170°W A L A S K A Bering Sea Communities

in the FEP area Shemya and Attu Shemya is the site of Eareckson Air Station, a US Air Force base, which is currently occupied by about 300 people (mostly contractor personnel). Security clearances are required to go to Shemya. Attu Shemya Attu hosts a Coast Guard Loran station manned by about 20 active duty personnel on yearly rotation. The station is served by Coast Guard aircraft from Kodiak Air Station.

Adak Atka Nicole Kimball, NicoleNPFMC Kimball, Steve Barbeaux, AFSC, NOAA AFSC, Steve Barbeaux, Adak Atka Population: 167 in 2005 Population: 90 in 2005 Fishery participation Fishery participation n 49 vessels delivered groundfi sh, 32 halibut, 12 crab n 45 vessels delivered fi sh n Adak Fisheries provides processing and cold storage capacity n Part of Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Assoc. n Small onshore processor for halibut

2000 Adak population* 2000 Atka population* (by age and gender) (by age and gender)

MALES FEMALES MALES FEMALES 80 and over 80 and over 70 to 79 70 to 79 60 to 69 60 to 69 50 to 59 50 to 59 Age Age 40 to 49 40 to 49 30 to 39 30 to 39 20 to 29 20 to 29 10 to 19 10 to 19 0 to 9 0 to 9

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 10 5 0 5 10 15

Number of individuals Number of individuals Adak’s population by age and gender structure resembles the Atka’s population by age and gender structure is most similar “labor shape,” dominated by a bulge of working-age males, to the pyramidical “family shape,” displaying a relatively as is commonly observed for industrial towns, such as fi sh even distribution between genders and a general decline by processing centers. The population structure of Adak is likely age. This structure is commonly found in Native villages, and to change over time as the Aleut Corporation continues to often shows a reduction of 20-29 year olds out-migrating for actively seek to move Native families into the area. educational opportunities.

*Data source: U.S. Census

15 Other human activities in the ecosystem Tourism Caribou hunting and bird watching represent the most significant tourism activity at the current time.

Oil and gas development Most oil and gas development in Alaska and elsewhere affects the Aleutian Islands ecosystem through indirect effects of shipping traffic, as discussed below.

Military The Environmental Protection Agency has been per- forming Superfund clean-up and restoration of Adak, and the sea-based X-band radar is scheduled to be- come a permanent installation there in February, 2008.

Shipping Bill Wilson, NPFMC Wilson, Bill The Great Circle shipping route passes through the Near Islands, in the FEP area, with approximately 1600 container ships per year, and approximately 30-40 tankers. The 2004 Selendang Ayu shipping disaster off the coast of Unalaska (although just out- side the fishery ecosystem area) brought into sharp relief the vulnerability of the ecosystem to impacts from shipping. The State of Alaska and the US Coast Guard are developing a risk assessment for the Aleutian Islands. Climate change could increase shipping activities in the area significantly, with the possible opening of an ice-free Northwest Passage.

Research Research accounts for much of the non-fishery MissileAgency Defense activity in the Aleutian Islands area, especially in the summer months.

North Pacific Great Circle Route and the FEP Boundary

60°0'0"N

30°0'0"N 50°0'0"N

40°0'0"N 20°0'0"N

160°0'0"E 170°0'0"E 180°0'0" 170°0'0"W 160°0'0"W 150°0'0"W 140°0'0"W 130°0'0"W 16 A L A S K A Fishery management boundaries in the Aleutian Islands archipelago

groundfi sh: National Marine Fisheries Service crab: Alaska Department of Fish and Game Bering Sea halibut: International Pacifi c Halibut Commission

management boundary for halibut and crab

US - Russia boundary 164°44' W

170°E

169°W FEP boundary FEP 169°W

177°E groundfi sh district sh groundfi for boundary management 170°W

171°W red king crab district district district district district crab crab crab crab crab king king king king king red red red red red 171°W 171°W 171°W 171°W 171°W

172°W halibut, tanner crab district crab tanner halibut, 172°W

174°W golden king crab district crab king golden 174°W

177°W sh district groundfi

Management Relationships Fishery management relationships in the Aleutian Islands are complex because each of the responsible entities identiﬁ es a different geographical boundary for the Aleutian Islands management area, and recognizes different reporting districts within the area. Fisheries The following agencies are responsible for Other entities fi shery management in the Aleutian Islands:

North Pacifi c Fishery Management Council / There are many agencies (Federal, State, and local) with jurisdiction National Marine Fisheries Service over activities (other than fi sheries) affecting the marine ecosystem. n Direct management of Federal groundfi sh fi sheries Federal n Oversight of crab and scallop fi sheries National Marine Fisheries Service n Allocative management of halibut fi shery US Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Land Management Alaska Board of Fisheries / Alaska Department of Fish and Game Minerals Management Service n Direct management of salmon, State waters ground- Department of Defense/Alaskan Command/Pacifi c Command fi sh fi sheries, recreational and subsistence fi sheries; US Army Corps of Engineers n Delegated management of crab and scallop fi sheries US Coast Guard Department of Energy International Pacifi c Halibut Commission n Biological management of halibut fi shery State Department of Fish and Game Department of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation

Local City of Adak City of Atka

17 Nicole Kimball, NicoleNPFMC Kimball, right: Diana Evans, NPFMC Dianaright: Evans, center: Steve Barbeaux, AFSC, NOAA AFSC, center: Steve Barbeaux, Risk Assessment Non-Quantitative Risk Assessment This ﬁ rst iteration of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan relies on a non-quantitative risk assessment to provide general guidance to the Council on priority areas and issues for management attention and further research and analysis. This process still follows the classic risk assessment framework, but relies on expert opinion and the building of consensus. A quantitative risk assessment may be a part of future iterations of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan. Fisheries

Regulatory

Map of Aleutian Islands ecosystem interactions

Climate Change

Socio-economic K other habitat M subsistence activities

Predator-Prey

H total removals I stock structure L fi shery bycatch

A water temperature J fi shery habitat Fisheries B ocean acidifi cation N ESA species

C nutrient transport Climate Change Regulatory O sector allocations

D weather patterns Ecosystem P permits limit fl exibility Structure and

Q community stability Function Predator-Prey V research

E predation mortality R coastal development Socio-economic F bottom up productivity KEY T military activities S vessel traffi c Direction of arrow indicates the impact top down predators G Weight of arrow indicates degree of impact U oil and gas activities = change

Steps of the Risk Assessment n What are the key interactions in the Aleutian Islands ecosystem? n How is risk associated with these interactions currently addressed by managers? n What else might be done to address any risk? Is further action warranted? n What indicators should be used to monitor these interactions? n What are the priority data gaps and research needs for the Aleutian Islands ecosystem?

18 Interactions Interactions

Climate and A Changes in water temperature may impact ecosystem processes Physical B Increased acidifi cation of the ocean may impact ecosystem processes Changes in nutrient transport through the passes and changes in the predominant current patterns that drive primary C production impact ecosystem processes D Changing weather patterns impact ecosystem processes

Predator-prey E Fishing mortality and predation mortality both impact managed species F Bottom up change in ecosystem productivity impacts predators and fi sheries G Top down changes in predation and fi shing impact ecosystem structure and function

Fishing Effects H Total removals from the ecosystem due to fi shing impact ecosystem productivity I Differences between spatial stock structure and the spatial scale of fi shery management may impact managed species J Impact of one fi shery on another through fi shing impacts on habitat K Impact of a fi shery on other biota through fi shing impacts on habitat L Impact of bycatch on fi sheries M Commercial fi shery may impact subsistence uses

Regulatory N Changes in the population status of ESA-listed species impact fi sheries through specifi c regulatory constraints O Sector allocations can impact the ecosystem and communities P Fishery participation permit systems (such as limited entry and harvest quotas) impact the fl exibility of fi shers to react to changing ecosystem conditions

Other Q Changes in fi shery activities impact the sustainability of AI communities Socio-economic R Coastal infrastructure and development impact the ecosystem and communities Activity S Vessel traffi c, and risk of vessel grounding and spillage, may impact ecosystem productivity T Changes in the level of military activity in the area may impact communities U Oil and gas development may impact ecosystem productivity V Research activity may impact fi sheries

Likelihood of occurrence and impact assessment of the interactions (based on the professional judgment of the Aleutian Islands Ecosystem Team)

Economic Ecological

H total removals H A N B S P in ESA spp I I stock structure B U F U O sector alloc. S Q F community stability D N D A J M E E C Q C J L T L T R G G M R V V research K other habitat P O

Likelihood of occurrence Likelihood of occurrence Red boxes in upper right hand quadrant highlights those interactions with a medium to high or unknown likelihood of occurrence or impact. 19 center: NOAA – Auke Bay Laboratoriescenter: – NOAA Fisheries NOAA right: National Marine Fisheries Service Priorities and Considerations for the Council Through the risk assessment, the FEP prioritizes the potential risk associated with the key ecosystem interactions. Some interactions are within the Council’s ability to infl uence (e.g., fi shery removals, bycatch), and others are not (e.g., climate change). For each of the 22 interactions, the FEP identifi es how that risk is currently addressed by the Council, and what other actions the Council might consider to mitigate risk.

Examples of implications for management Climate and Physical B Increased acidifi cation of the ocean may impact ecosystem processes Risk assessment priority: High What is the Council currently doing to address risk? n This interaction is not within the Council’s control. n NOAA is researching acidifi cation and the likely impacts in Alaskan waters. What else might the Council do? n Interact with NOAA program to encourage further investigation into the threshold effects of acidifi cation on different parts of the ecosystem. n Develop adaptive management techniques to mitigate adverse impacts.

Total removals from the ecosystem due to fi shing impact ecosystem productivity Fishing Effects H What is the Council currently doing to address risk? Risk assessment priority: High n Accounting for total removals is currently a fi shery managment priority. n For groundfi sh, total removals are well managed for the joint Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands management area, but not always at the scale of the Aleutian Islands ecosystem. What else might the Council do? n Continue to evaluate the degree to which the Aleutian Islands ecosystem is distinct from the eastern Bering Sea, particularly with regard to genetic fl ow and trophic linkages. n Consider the need to develop an overall limit on removals and/or fi shery timing specifi c to the Aleutian Islands ecosystem.

Socio-economic Activity Q Changes in fi shery activities impact the sustainability of AI communities What is the Council currently doing to address risk? Risk assessment priority: High n Priority for the Council, embodied in the National Standards; only partially within the Council’s control. n The Council considers community impacts of all management actions, and conducts a transparent management process that is open to the public. What else might the Council do? n Develop a community outreach strategy to encourage and facilitate participation by community members in Council process, particularly those from remote communities with complex and expensive access to meeting locations.

20 Overarching considerations

n Recognize the Aleutian Islands ecosystem as a distinct entity Fishery managers should consider the Aleutian Islands area described in this FEP as an ecosystem with unique characteristics. The Aleutians are frequently considered conjointly with the eastern Bering Sea, but are subject to different processes Kimberly Rand and properties. An ecosystem-wide monitoring plan is needed to improve understanding of the area.

n Improve the process to account for ecosystem considerations in fi shery management No group in the Council process is currently assigned with the primary task of integrating ecosystem information and providing ecosystem-level advice. Ecosystem information is often qualitative or Alaska Marine Ecosystem Forum* interpretative, and it is up to the Council, as policy- maker, to determine how to balance risks associated Biannual meetings bring together 11 Federal with unquantifi able ‘ecosystem considerations’. and 4 State agencies to address issues of shared responsibilities related to the marine ecosystems n Dialogue with non-fi shery agencies off Alaska’s coast. It is important for the Council to interact with Purpose: other agencies about activities affecting the eco- n Promote dialogue and information exchange. system. The Council’s participation in the Alaska Marine Ecosystem Forum is an important step in n Improve agency coordination by sharing priorities and data. this regard. The Council may also choose to engage individually with other agencies on n Allow agencies to understand the ecosystem particular issues. impact of other activities. n Provide opportunities for problem solving and joint work.

* established by Memorandum of Understanding in 2006. Kimberly Rand

21 22 Next steps for the FEP the for steps Next account for qualitative ecosystem considerations. ecosystem qualitative for account to how provide to order guidanceto as in states, ecosystem undesirable n west). and east (both ecosystems surrounding to connections n assessment. n Some directions for furtherwork gaps. data close to seek indicators, available on information gather analyses, and description n interactions.keytrendsand ecosystem for years) 3-5 (e.g.,every periodically re-evaluated information, new with n Ways toimprove theFEPdocument indicators. n ecosystem. Islands Aleutian n framework Indicator impacts. discussing when ecosystems Sea Bering n ecosystem. Islands Aleutian the affect n analyses Improvemanagement Council). groups, advisory fiand authors assessment (stock scientifi Council’s analysts, shery c n many from sources. n fifor tool Educational managers shery Immediate uses

Consider spatial patterns within the Aleutian Island ecosystem, also also Islandecosystem, Aleutian the within patterns Considerspatial ecosystem comprehensive expandinto assessment, risk Quantify improve team, on expandexpertise team: FEP thefor tasks Some team FEP the by annually document,updated living a be to is FEP The identifiare indicators available Currently future as desirable well as ed, the monitoring for framework ofinteractionskey creates analysis FEP andIslands Aleutian the distinguish particular,should In analyses management that proposed measures analyzing staff for Resource levels all managementthe into at feed process will information FEP Islands Aleutian the on information ecosystem available Synthesizes Develop Council policy on a “healthy ecosystem,” or desirable and desirable or ecosystem,” “healthy a on policy Council Develop

Ian Jones

Bill Wilson, NPFMC Photo opposite page: Ladd, opposite Carol PMEL,Photo NOAA

North Pacific Fishery Management Council 605 W 4th Ave, Suite 306 Anchorage, AK 99501 Tel: (907) 271-2809 Fax: (907) 271-2817

For more information on the Fishery Ecosystem Plan, or to get involved in other Council activities, visit our website or contact the Council office. www.fakr.noaa.gov/NPFMC

Produced by NPFMC under NOAA Award #NA17NMF4410033 J.A. Estes J.A.