Foundational Years 2001-2008 North Pacific Research Board

THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS 2001-2008 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD

THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS 2001-2008

Clark James Mishler 4 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Building a clear understanding of the North Paciﬁ c, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean ecosystems that enables effective management and sustainable use of marine resources.

Writers: Clarence Pautzke, Francis Wiese, Carrie Eischens, Thomas Van Pelt, Nora Deans Project Manager/Editor: Nora Deans Design: Eric Cline, TerraGraphica Image Research: Carolyn Rosner

Printed in Anchorage, Alaska.

Produced by NPRB under NOAA Grant No. NA05NMF4721198

Cover photos - top to bottom, left to right: John Schwieder | Irene Jordet Brianne Mecum Patrick Endres | AlaskaStock.com | Luke Bunnell

International Standard Book Number: 978-0-9772670-1-9

North Paciﬁ c Research Board 1007 West Third Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907.644.6700 www.nprb.org A NEW MARINE RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR ALASKA :: PART I 5

CONTENTS PART I – NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD...... 4 A New Marine Research Program for Alaska Enabling Legislation Annual Highlights: 2001-2008 The North Paciﬁ c Research Board Today

PART II – SCIENCE PROGRAM ...... 16 Furthering Knowledge about Alaska’s Seas The Science Plan North Paciﬁ c Research Board Science Program through 2008 Synthesis and Database Development Research Topics 2002-2008 Lower Trophic Level Productivity: Basis for All Life in the Sea ...... 24 Fish Habitat: Oases of Ocean Life ...... 38 Fish and Invertebrates: Alaska’s Ocean Bounty ...... 52 Marine Mammals: Sentinels in the Sea ...... 102 Seabirds: Winged Indicators of Change ...... 124 Humans: People and the Sea ...... 138 Other Prominent Issues: Ocean Challenges ...... 150 Integrated Ecosystem Research: From Physics to Fish ...... 158 Other Research and Partnerships: New Ways of Knowing Alaska’s Seas ...... 166

PART III – EVOLUTION OF A NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM ...... 182 Polices and Procedures North Paciﬁ c Research Board Committee Structure Finance and Budgets Miscellaneous Science Policy Issues View Toward 2009 and Beyond

APPENDICES ...... 208 North Paciﬁ c Research Board In-Depth Appendix I: People ...... 210 Appendix II: Projects ...... 216 Appendix III: Publications ...... 234 Appendix IV: Policies ...... 242

INDEX ...... 278

Loren Banks NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD A New Marine Research Program for Alaska

Bill Heubner A NEW MARINE RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR ALASKA :: PART I 5

PART I NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD

Left ro right: Jared Guthridge | Anatoly Kochnev | Bob Pawlowski 6 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008 Diane Chapman

he North Pacifi c Research Board (NPRB) was established by Congress in 1997 and fi rst organized in 2001. This new organization’s science planning and support activities com- Tmenced in early 2002, and now, eight years later, NPRB plays a signifi cant role in supporting marine research off Alaska. This role is likely to expand in coming years of projected higher federal defi cits that may result in decreased federal funding for research. NPRB has matured as an organization and is poised to lead Alaska marine research activities into the future, improve the understanding of marine ecosystems off Alaska, and provide information to support effective management decisions on sustainable use of Alaska’s abundant marine resources.

Over the past eight years, the Board developed its orga- These are not insignifi cant accomplishments: they derive nizational structure, policies, and procedures; published from many discussions and decisions over the foundational a comprehensive science plan; funded 200 projects for years from 2001 to 2008. This period of intense policy just over $33 million; commenced a six-year, $52 million development, staff and organizational development, bud- ecosystem research partnership with the National Science get formulation and revision, scientifi c plan writing, and Foundation (NSF) in the Bering Sea; initiated a smaller research program implementation, required grappling with ecosystem program in the Gulf of Alaska; facilitated con- the myriad questions and issues that face any new organiza- ferences and science meetings; developed a fl ourishing tion starting from scratch. This report provides background education and outreach program; and adopted prudent information about these decisions and policies that set the budget practices that will provide $4-6 million dollars or foundation for the robust marine research program that more annually for new research in coming years. exists today. We hope these insights will prove valuable to others who may develop research programs and as a historical reference for future Board members and staff. A NEW MARINE RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR ALASKA :: PART I 7

Three major sections comprise this report. Part I: North fi nances and budgets, and a host of other activities that Pacifi c Research Board introduces the Board and its culminated in the Board as a contemporary, prominent enabling legislation, and the statements of vision, mission, research organization. This is not light reading and is and goals that fl ow from the legislation. Annual highlights geared more for those people seeking background infor- are provided for 2001 through 2008. They attempt to cap- mation on the decisions the Board made as an organization ture the tempo and evolution of policies and procedures, to evolve itself into the robust catalyst for marine research and describe the many other steps that have culminated in that it embodies today. the North Pacifi c Research Board as it is today. Part I also lists the current members of the Board, its Science Panel, Two reference documents complement this report: the Advisory Panel, and staff. Science Plan, published in 2005, and the Statement of Policies and Procedures published in 2002, and updated Part II: Science Program is the heart of this report, and in 2005. Both documents provide important context for recounts the development of NPRB’s Science Plan, which all decisions and activities of the Board. Additional back- was published in 2005 and to this day remains the core ground materials may be found in meeting notebooks planning document for all our research. A detailed excur- at NPRB offi ces. All meeting summaries, and project sion through all of the Board’s funded research since 2002 descriptions and deliverables are available on the website is broken down by major thematic areas of the Science at www.nprb.org. Plan. Part II thus refl ects the true accomplishments of the Board in fi elding a robust research program and improv- The Board extends a ing our understanding of the marine ecosystems of the great debt of gratitude Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, and high to U.S. Senator Ted Arctic Ocean. Because research projects are referenced by Stevens of Alaska for number, this section may be used as a convenient portal to his insight and wisdom more detailed project information available on the Board’s in creating this endur- website. Part II also describes major integrated ecosystem ing legacy of marine research programs initiated for the Bering Sea and Gulf of research and providing Alaska, and summarizes other research approaches and the resources necessary partnerships developed from 2002 to 2008. to carry it out.

Part III: Evolution of a New Marine Science Program goes beyond the marine science accomplished by the Board, to a detailed history of its organizational development over the past eight years in terms of policies, management,

Barbara Failing 8 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Enabling Legislation

Congress passed legislation authorizing the establish- Vision ment of the North Pacifi c Research Board on November A clear understanding of the North Pacifi c, Bering Sea, 4, 1997, which President Clinton signed ten days later on and Arctic Ocean ecosystems that enables effective November 14. Although only a few pages long, it provided management and sustainable use of marine resources. the basic foundation for the development of the Board and its scientifi c program. Mission To develop a comprehensive science program of the Of critical importance, the legislation established the highest caliber that provides a better understanding Environmental Improvement and Restoration Fund (EIRF) of the North Pacifi c, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean as a funding source, using one-half of the award by the ecosystems and their fi sheries. The work of the NPRB Supreme Court to the U.S. based on litigation between will be conducted through science planning, prioriti- the State of Alaska and the federal government over rights zation of pressing fi shery management and ecosystem to oil and gas revenues from the Dinkum Sands area off information needs, coordination and cooperation Alaska’s North Slope. Through the Secretary of Commerce, among research programs, competitive selection of the Board was given access to 20% of the annual earn- research projects, enhanced information availability, ings of the fund without further appropriation to carry out and public involvement. marine research. Providing non-appropriated funds was very forward thinking. While created in a period of budget surpluses, it now helps to buffer NPRB from severe budget Supporting Goals defi cits and potential decline in Congressional appropria- • Improve understanding of North Pacifi c marine tions for research. ecosystem dynamics and use of the resources. • Improve ability to manage and protect the healthy, The enabling legislation required the Board to make rec- sustainable fi sh and wildlife populations that com- ommendations for research to the Secretary, placing prise the ecologically diverse marine ecosystems of priority on cooperative research efforts that address press- the North Pacifi c, and provide long-term, sustained ing fi shery management or marine ecosystem information benefi ts to local communities and the nation. needs, while avoiding duplication of other research. It also • Improve ability to forecast and respond to effects identifi ed the composition of the Board and how members of changes, through integration of various research would be nominated and appointed. It further identifi ed activities, including long-term monitoring. fi ve voting members who could act on behalf of the Board in all administrative matters, including the disposition of • Foster cooperation with other entities conducting research funds, but required them to consult with the other research and management in the North Pacifi c, 15 Board members. and work toward common goals for North Pacifi c marine ecosystems. The founding documents also required the Board to estab- • Support high quality projects that promise long- lish written criteria for the competitive submission of grant term results as well as those with more immediate requests with a review process for all requests based on applicability. merit. Research awards could be granted to federal, state, private, or foreign organizations or individuals and conducted anywhere in the northern Pacifi c Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean, including any lesser related bodies of water. With the stroke of a pen, Congress created a completely new program of marine research off Alaska to The enabling legislation, together with the vision, mission, augment and enhance existing state, federal, and univer- and goals, provides the foundation for further develop- sity research programs. ment of policies and research directions, with an overriding aim of establishing a meritorious science program of the The Board fi rst met in February 2001, to outline its vision, highest quality and integrity. Although the legislation pro- mission, and goals statements. These refl ect an overall vides for administrative and technical support from the intent to fi eld a program of applied research resulting in Secretary, the Board chose to have its own staff and began products useful for management, rather than simply a curi- hiring employees in 2002. The next section of this report osity-based science program. highlights the rapid development of NPRB as an organization and its research programs through 2008. A NEW MARINE RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR ALASKA :: PART I 9

Annual Highlights: 2001-2008 2002 Initial Research Program In early 2002, NPRB began developing infrastructure, 2001 Organizational Meetings operating policies, budgets, and the initial research pro- The North Pacifi c Research Board fi rst convened in 2001, gram, and renting offi ce space in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill although not all members offi cially would be onboard Trustee Council offi ce and contracting with their staff for until October. Four of the fi ve voting members held two support. The Executive Committee met by teleconference preliminary meetings to select a fi shing industry repre- with the executive director on February 4 to arrange for sentative and establish a date for the fi rst full meeting. the fi rst full meeting of the Board in March. Throughout These included Dr. James Balsiger (U.S. Department of 2002, NPRB met four times: twice in March, in June, and Commerce), Kevin Duffy (Alaska Department of Fish and in October. Dave Benton and Tylan Schrock were elected Game), David Benton (North Pacifi c Fishery Management as the fi rst chairman and vice chairman, respectively. The Council), and Tylan Schrock (Alaska SeaLife Center). In Board made its fi rst funding decisions about research, dem- February, the Board selected David Benton as fi rst interim onstration, and education and outreach projects, based on chairman and developed criteria for selecting the fi fth vot- accumulated funds available from the EIRF as well as the ing member, the special fi shing interest representative. North Pacifi c Marine Research Institute. (NPMRI was cre- In March, it recommended Trevor McCabe for the fi shing ated by Congress under the auspices of the Alaska SeaLife interest position and he was confi rmed by the Secretary of Center and had its own independent funding, and is dis- Commerce (Secretary) in early October. This fi ve-member cussed more fully in Part III of this report.) body is referred to as NPRB’s Executive Committee. NPRB released its fi rst request for proposals (RFP) in early The other 15 members are ex-offi cio members representing March and received 41 proposals by the April 12 deadline. agencies and organizations or state-nominated members It ended up funding 15 projects for $1.2 million. In October, approved by the Secretary. A mix of executive committee and the Board released a second RFP for projects to be funded ex-offi cio members met in April and May. State-nominated in the spring of 2003, and established a two-tier voting members had yet to be appointed. Substantial progress structure to meet the consultation requirements of the was made: the Board approved continuing David Benton enabling legislation. Standard operating procedures were as interim chairman and discussed other organizations completed and the Board began developing its commit- that could be used as models for institutional structure. It tee structure. NPRB contracted with the National Research also discussed coordination with other research organiza- Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences to pro- tions, the nature of the overall program, types of research vide guidance on drafting its fi rst science plan. The Board to support, and how to engage the public. The Board for- established a budget based on projected earnings of the mally adopted vision and mission statements and goals, and EIRF and created a website to facilitate public outreach. chose to hire staff. After circulating a job announcement for NPRB ended the year with a full 14-member Science Panel executive director in August and September, the Executive appointed to help review proposals and provide direction Committee selected Dr. Clarence Pautzke, who started on for its science program. January 1, 2002. NPRB ended 2001 with all members offi - cially confi rmed by the Secretary. Deborah MercyDeborah The North Pacifi c Research Board in 2008: Top row, left to right: John Gauvin, Steve MacLean, Ian Dutton, Dave Benton, John Hilsinger, Doug DeMaster, John Iani, Denis Wiesenburg. Bottom row: Gerry Merrigan, Howard Horton, Dorothy Childers, Nancy Bird, Eric Olson, Leslie Holland-Bartels. 10 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

2003 Committees and Advisory Panel 2005 Science Plan Completed The Board met in March, May, and October in 2003, fi nal- During three meetings in 2005 (March, May, and izing committee structures and operating procedures, September), the Board reviewed, revised, and fi nally including confl ict-of-interest policies. The fi rst Advisory approved its fi rst science plan, which was published in Panel was appointed in March. After learning that EIRF September. The 2005 RFP drew 103 proposals, of which earnings were much lower than previously projected, 35 new projects for $6 million were recommended to the the Board signifi cantly revised its budget. The 2003 RFP Secretary for funding. In response to a strong recommen- attracted 156 proposals, and recommendations for fund- dation from the NRC for integrated programs, the Board ing 26 new research projects for a total of $7 million were started developing a Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem forwarded to the Secretary. NPRB released the 2004 RFP Research Program (BSIERP). NPRB also appointed its fi rst in October, and received workshop reports from the NRC committee on local and traditional knowledge and hired its concerning the science plan. In May, the Board estab- fourth employee, Dr. Francis Wiese, as program manager. lished new offi ces in Suite 100 at 1007 West Third Avenue in Anchorage, where it resides today. The Board’s second Though data management policies were incorporated in new employee, Misty Ott, was hired as administrative assis- the science plan, data did not really start coming in from tant in September. completed projects until 2005. It took some time to determine a suitable system for archiving the data and metadata 2004 Science Planning descriptions, with the Board deciding that there should be During 2004, the Board met in January, March, July, and two major data systems. One would be at the Board offi ce, September and focused intently on developing a long-term overseen by NPRB’s data systems manager, and would science plan. Early in the year, the NRC committee chair- contain data and metadata just for NPRB-funded research. man presented interim guidance on what should go into A second, larger system would be supported at the such a plan to ensure its success. At subsequent meetings, University of Alaska Fairbanks to house data not only from Board members reviewed various layouts and versions of NPRB, but from as many other agencies and projects as the plan developed by a drafting team under the direction could be found. That larger database would be the cen- of the NPRB executive director. In September, the Board tral repository for marine data from off Alaska, and called approved the draft science plan for NRC review, and also the Alaska Marine Information System (AMIS). For more approved a four-year implementation plan to accompany about AMIS, see “Part II: Other Research Approaches and it. The 2004 RFP drew 87 proposals, of which 21 projects Partnerships. totaling over $3 million were recommended for funding. NPRB released the 2005 RFP in October and hired a third employee, Igor Katrayev, as data systems manager.

Science Panel meeting in Seward, Alaska in April, 2006. Clarence Pautzke Clarence A NEW MARINE RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR ALASKA :: PART I 11

2007 Bering Sea Ecosystem Program During its four meetings in 2007, the Board processed two full proposals for BSIERP. A joint NPRB-NSF Science Panel and NPRB and NSF staff met in Washington, D.C. in June to develop ﬁ nal funding recommendations. In September, the principal investigators associated with the joint BEST- BSIERP program met to discuss their research and ensure a fully integrated program. The regular annual 2007 RFP drew 93 proposals and the Board approved 33 new projects totaling $4,558,647. In June, the Board delayed development and release of a special request for proposals for the Gulf of Alaska IERP until it could assess the process used for the BSIERP.

NPRB continued to develop a variety of educational and outreach products for its website and for diverse audiences, through a grant guided by Nora Deans, the outreach coor- dinator for the Alaska SeaLife Center. Staff continued to update the website with new information and created a 2008 calendar and traveling exhibit based on NPRB’s fi rst annual photo contest. The Board also approved launching 2006 National Science Foundation Partnership a Graduate Student Research Award program, offering fi ve The Board met four times in 2006. The highlight of the year awards of $20,000 each to qualifi ed masters and doctoral was the completion of the BSIERP request for pre-proposals students. In September, the Advisory Panel and the Local for $14 million, released in October. NPRB also forged a and Traditional Knowledge (LTK) Committee were merged partnership with the National Science Foundation and the to ensure better communication among stakeholders and Bering Sea Ecosystem Study (BEST) that brought another to reduce expenses. Dr. Francis Wiese was promoted to $21 million to the joint program, resulting in a potential $35 science director in February. Dr. Carrie Eischens was hired million ecosystem study in the Bering Sea related to climate as a new assistant program manager in early July. change and its potential impacts on fi sheries and other components of the ecosystem. (Total funding for the BEST- 2008 Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Program BSIERP program eventually amounted to over $52 million, The Board met twice in 2008 and selected 25 new projects with $16 million from NPRB, $21 million from NSF and $14.9 out of 89 proposals to fund for $4.1 million dollars. The fi rst million from NOAA and USFWS in matching funds.) fi eld season of the BEST-BSIERP was launched in March, and NPRB hosted a meeting for all of the major principal The opportunity to partner with NSF in funding joint investigators in Girdwood, Alaska in October. In the fall, the research refl ected fi ve years of work by the Board to build a Board released a call for pre-proposals for its Gulf of Alaska highly meritorious science program based on credible oper- IERP with the intent of funding the program for $9 million. ating policies and procedures. NPRB established a special It adopted a policy on long-term monitoring and continued ecosystem modeling committee to advise on the model- funding for the continuous plankton recorder as part of a ing components. Development of an integrated ecosystem consortium developed by the North Pacifi c Marine Science research program for the Gulf of Alaska also was initiated, Organization (PICES). Five graduate students received but the Board chose not to release it until the fall of 2008. research awards for $20,000, and NPRB released it regular In December, scientists submitted three pre-proposals (one 2009 RFP for $3.7 million in the fall. The Board also initiated had three variants) to the BSIERP RFP and the Board invited a process for long-term planning. Thomas van Pelt joined two pre-proposals for full proposals by March 15, 2007. The staff to manage the BSIERP, and Nora Deans was hired regular 2006 RFP drew 126 proposals, and after thorough directly as senior outreach manager. scientifi c review, 44 new projects were funded for $6 million. NPRB contracted for an assistant program manager, Dr. Carl Schoch, to develop the Gulf of Alaska integrated ecosystem research program, and hired Carolyn Rosner as assistant program manager for communications. 12 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

The North Paciﬁ c Research Board Today

By the end of 2008, the Board had funded 200 regular projects that addressed almost all components of its Science Plan. The Board anticipates funding a minimum of $3.7 million in new research projects in both 2009 and 2010 before ramping up to around $5 million annually starting in 2013. Besides the $16 million already dedicated to the Bering Sea research program that will run through 2012, the Board plans to fund a Gulf of Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Research Program for about $9 million that will run from 2010 to 2014. The Board’s science activities, projects, and integrated ecosystem research programs are discussed in more detail in Part II of this report.

Committees and Panels Current stafﬁ ng stands at seven members that serve the 20-member Board in the Anchorage ofﬁ ce. NPRB settled its overall organizational structure in April 2008, when various members of the Advisory Panel and Local and Traditional Knowledge Committee were merged into one large 13-member panel, an important and necessary step to facilitate communication among the wide range of stakeholders hailing from Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, as well as the Alaska Native community, who all depend on marine resources off Alaska. (See pages 170 and 190 for more about the evolution of the Advisory Panel and Local and Traditional Knowledge Committee until they merged.) The 16-member Science Panel, the Board’s other major committee, is comprised of expert scientists from all over the nation and one from Canada.

The Ecosystem Modeling Committee remains the only other standing committee. It is composed of six scientists who monitor and advise on the modeling component of BSIERP and will do so for the Gulf of Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Research Program.

NPRB Board Members December 2008

Executive Committee David Benton (Chair) ✳ Marine Conservation Alliance, Juneau, AK Eric Olson (Vice Chair) ✳ North Paciﬁ c Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK Dr. Douglas DeMaster ✳ NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service ✳ Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Juneau, AK Dr. Ian Dutton ✳ Alaska SeaLife Center, Seward, AK John Hilsinger ✳ Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK

Other Members Nancy Bird ✳ Oil Spill Recovery Institute, Cordova, AK CAPT Michael Cerne ✳ 17th District U.S. Coast Guard, Juneau, AK Dorothy Childers ✳ Alaska Marine Conservation Council, Anchorage, AK Michele Longo Eder ✳ U.S. Arctic Research Commission, Newport, OR John Gauvin ✳ Groundﬁ sh Forum, Seattle, WA Dr. Leslie Holland-Bartels ✳ U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK Dr. Howard Horton ✳ Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR John Iani ✳ Van Ness Feldman, Seattle, WA Paul MacGregor ✳ Mundt MacGregor, Seattle, WA Steve MacLean ✳ The Nature Conservancy, Anchorage, AK Gerry Merrigan ✳ Prowler Fisheries, Petersburg, AK Pamela Pope ✳ BP Exploration Alaska, Anchorage, AK Dr. Denis Wiesenburg ✳ University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK Ofﬁ ce of Naval Research (vacant) U.S. Dept of State, Washington, D.C. (vacant) Thomas Van Pelt Thomas Van A NEW MARINE RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR ALASKA :: PART I 13

Science Panel Members 2008 Dr. Richard Marasco (Chair) Retired ✳ NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA Dr. Douglas Woodby (Vice Chair) ✳ Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK

Dr. Vera Alexander ✳ University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK Dr. Richard Beamish ✳ Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nanaimo, BC Dr. James Berner ✳ Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Anchorage, AK Dr. Michael Dagg ✳ Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin, LA Dr. Robert Gisiner ✳ U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethseda, MD Patricia Livingston ✳ NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA Dr. Seth Macinko ✳ University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI Dr. John Piatt ✳ US Geological Survey, Port Townsend, WA Dr. Andre Punt ✳ University of Washington, Seattle, WA Dr. Cheryl Rosa ✳ North Slope Borough Dept. of Wildlife Management, Barrow, AK Dr. Thomas Royer ✳ Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA Dr. Patricia Tester ✳ NOAA National Ocean Service, Beaufort, NC David Witherell ✳ North Paciﬁ c Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK

Advisory Panel Members 2008 Gale Vick (Chair) ✳ Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition, Anchorage, AK Shirley Kelly (Vice Chair) ✳ U.S. Dept. of Commerce Economic Development Admin., Anchorage, AK

Helen Chythlook ✳ Dillingham, AK Gary Freitag ✳ Ketchikan, AK Justine Gundersen ✳ Nelson Lagoon, AK Ronald Hegge ✳ Grand Junction, CO ✳ Oregon representative Frank Kelty ✳ Unalaska, AK Vera Metcalf ✳ Nome, AK Mike Miller ✳ Sitka, AK Jeff Stephan ✳ Kodiak, AK Arni Thomson ✳ Seattle, WA Kim Williams ✳ Dillingham, AK (One seat vacant) Raymond Brown 14 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

NPRB Staff 2008 Alaska SeaLife Center Dr. Clarence Pautzke ✳ Executive Director Financial Support Dr. Francis Wiese ✳ Science Director Dr. Tara Riemer Jones ✳ Director of Research Nora Deans ✳ Senior Outreach Manager and Grant Operations Dr. Carrie Eischens ✳ Assistant Program Manager Kellee Weaver ✳ Grant Technician Igor Katrayev ✳ Data Systems Manager Carolyn Rosner ✳ Assistant Program Manager Thomas Van Pelt ✳ Assistant Program Manager

Ecosystem Modeling Committee Members Dr. Dan Goodman (Chair) ✳ University of Montana, Bozeman, MT Dr. Tim Barnett ✳ Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA Dr. Dick Beamish ✳ Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nanaimo, BC Dr. George Hunt ✳ University of Washington, Seattle, WA Dr. Tom Royer ✳ Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA Dr. Phil Mundy ✳ NOAA’s Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute, Juneau, AK Bill Scott

Annual Meeting Cycle Annual Requests for Proposals The Board generally meets twice each year in Anchorage: The staff begins developing draft research priorities for once in September to develop the request for proposals the annual RFP in late July and August, based on past for the coming year and again in late April or early May Board direction, and comments from agencies, organiza- to approve proposals. Funding recommendations by the tions, and stakeholders. The draft RFP is reviewed by the Board are subject to review and formal approval of the Science Panel in August, and then by the Advisory Panel Secretary, through his designee, the Regional Administrator in September, and panel comments and recommendations of the NOAA Fisheries Alaska Regional Ofﬁ ce. Thus far, are presented to the Board at their September meeting. all Board recommendations have been approved by the Given Board approval, the RFP is released on the Board’s Secretary. The Advisory Panel also meets twice a year, website in early October and proposals are due in early normally the week of the Board meeting in Anchorage. December. Technical reviews are gathered early the next The Science Panel usually meets twice yearly, two or three year and these are presented to the Science Panel at their weeks in advance of the Board to give staff time to ﬁ nalize April meeting, and then to the Board in late April or early and distribute the report to the Board in advance. May. Successful projects normally may commence as early as June 1 in a given year. A NEW MARINE RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR ALASKA :: PART I 15

Integrated Ecosystem Research Programs its traveling exhibit at science conferences, symposia, and The BEST-BSIERP in the Bering Sea is ongoing. Its fi rst fi eld public festivals and shares publications with scientists, com- year was in 2008 and two more are planned for 2009-2010, munity members, teachers, and the public. The program followed by two years for analysis, synthesis, and report- is described in more detail in “Part II: Other Research and ing. It amounts to a $52 million program with $16 million Partnerships – Communication, Education and Outreach.” from NPRB, $21 million from NSF, and about $15 million in matching funds from NOAA and USFWS. The Gulf of Preserving the Data Alaska IERP was initiated in late 2008 and its fi rst fi eld The Board is endeavoring to ensure that data gathered season is planned for 2011. The program in the Gulf will using its support are made available to other scientists be narrower in scope than the program in the Bering Sea and the general public. Thus there are strict requirements because only $9 million is available for it. in each project agreement for the investigators to submit their datasets along with a metadata description to the Communicating about Research Board for posting on its website and provision to the Alaska The Board’s communication, education and outreach pro- Marine Information System supported at the University of gram is fl ourishing, promoting both completed research Alaska Fairbanks by NPRB and the Alaska Ocean Observing projects and the overall science program of the Board. System, described in more detail in “Other Research NPRB encourages scientists to share their research results Partnerships” in Part II of this report. These requirements with educational and public audiences by mandating a are in addition to any federal requirements for data submis- modest amount of their research funding to support com- sion using federal support. municating about science. Staff also help coordinate media participation in fi eld science, both at sea and on remote Long-Term Planning islands. Lively two-page project synopses offer an over- Starting in 2009, the Board will begin long-term planning view of completed projects and magazine-style summaries to evaluate its programs and determine if any major course of each research theme delve deeper. The staff main- corrections are needed. A committee of external review- tain robust and dynamic websites for the NPRB, the two ers, similar to the NSF’s committees of visitors, will be integrated ecosystem research programs, and the Alaska appointed to thoroughly examine the Board’s cumulative Marine Science Symposium, which reach public audiences programs and procedures in light of the 2005 Science Plan and serve as communication and management tools for and its standard operating procedures, and report back far-fl ung scientists, Board members and staff. NPRB sets up sometime in 2010.

Glenn Aronwits SCIENCE PROGRAM Furthering Knowledge about Alaska’s Seas

Dione Chapman SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II 17

PART II SCIENCE PROGRAM

Left ro right: Gabriel Brown | Ryan Kingsbery | Luke Smithwick 18 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008 Erica Acuna Erica Inset: Brad Stevens Inset: Brad

he North Paciﬁ c Research Board has developed a comprehensive program of marine research based on three major program components. First, there is the Science Plan Tdeveloped in 2004-2005, which serves as the foundation for the annual requests for proposals. Second, there are the annual requests for proposals that have resulted in most of the funded projects, which are numbered by year funded (e.g., #201 funded in 2002 through #829 funded in 2008). Third, there are the integrated ecosystem research programs that the Board is ﬁ elding in the Bering Sea and is developing for the Gulf of Alaska.

As of December 2008, 200 numbered research projects have been funded and the Board anticipates annually funding $3.7-5 million in new research projects over the next few years. The Board’s integrated ecosystem research program in the Bering Sea involves a $52 million partnership with the National Science Foundation. The Gulf of Alaska integrated ecosystem research program is under development and likely will be funded at the $9 million level for 2010-2014. These research activities, beginning with the Science Plan, are described below to explain how the Board is furthering knowledge about Alaska’s seas. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II 19

The Science Plan

The Board identifi ed the need for a comprehensive science This led to the expenditure of signifi cant staff, time, and fi s- plan early in 2002. The executive director interviewed each cal resources to revise the plan in light of NRC’s comments, member of the Board about their expectations of NPRB’s and the Board did not want to repeat that experience with future role in marine research. Many expressed the need its own plan. The NRC was initially hesitant to engage in an for a high-quality research plan that would have long- iterative guidance process that involved a plan drafted by term scientifi c credibility. In February 2002, the Executive someone else for their review. Eventually, a draft statement Committee followed up on a suggestion by one of the of work with NRC won Board approval in June 2002. The Board members that the National Research Council (NRC) Board set aside $474,000 to fund the effort, although the of the National Academy of Sciences be contracted to budget was increased to nearly $500,000 to cover addi- perform a fast-track study of the regions and topics under tional site visits. the Board’s purview, using an outside expert committee to provide recommendations on the components of a suc- National Research Council cessful and comprehensive research plan. The statement of work called for the NRC to establish a study committee of about 12 experts from Alaska, other The Board contacted the NRC and requested that they pro- parts of the nation, and other high-latitude countries. It vide guidance on how to write a good science plan, but not would include individuals with expertise in biological, write it themselves. This approach was taken because NRC physical, chemical and geological oceanography, marine normally establishes an independent scientifi c committee biology, and fi sheries science, with an emphasis on Arctic to write a science plan or review one drafted by others. The research. The committee would attend a workshop in Board believed that if such a committee wrote its plan, the Anchorage to hear presentations describing existing plan might not refl ect its legislated mandates. NPRB did not research programs, review progress on previously pro- view itself as a curiosity-based science organization like the posed research plans, and discuss the issues of greatest National Science Foundation. NPRB’s enabling legislation concern to the participants, with particular emphasis on calls for research that addresses pressing fi shery manage- critical resource management issues. The NRC then would ment and marine ecosystem information needs. The Board draft a white paper, summarizing the discussions and iden- also did not want to invest their own or staff time in drafting tifying the broad research themes that emerged. The paper a science plan without NRC guidance. The previous year, also would summarize previously identifi ed attributes of a another Alaska research organization had drafted a science successful research plan, based on existing reports. plan that was then heavily criticized by an NRC committee. Gabriel Brown 20 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Breaking into smaller groups, the committee would con- The team forwarded a draft plan to the NRC for comment duct site visits in Barrow, Juneau, Kotzebue, Dillingham, in October 2004 and received fi nal comments in mid- Fairbanks, Anchorage, Bethel, and Seattle to hear from February 2005. The plan was fi nalized in spring 2005 with local residents and stakeholders about their concerns signifi cant help from Misty Ott and Francis Wiese, and from and experiences regarding the North Pacifi c ecosystem graphic designer Eric Cline of TerraGraphica. In October and important research needs. The NRC would provide 2005, the NPRB Science Plan was published and remains an interim report that outlined essential components of the foundation for the Board’s activities, including annual a successful, long-term science plan; summarize exist- requests for proposals. ing research plans relevant to the NPRB; refi ne workshop themes into high-level goals for the science plan; and iden- Implementation Plan tify research questions that should be addressed to achieve Associated with the Science Plan , the Board in 2004 devel- each goal. Building on the interim report, the NPRB would oped and approved an implementation plan based on an draft a detailed science plan, working with other agencies overview of projects funded for each major ecosystem com- and organizations, as appropriate. The NRC committee ponent and gave recommendations on next steps in setting would then review the draft plan and offer comments. research priorities. The Board also referred to a matrix indicating the types of research that could be accomplished NRC announced its committee on January 3, 2003, which and funding targets for 2005-2008. The implementation proceeded to hold meetings and site visits throughout plan was updated in March and September 2005 to guide the spring of 2003. In October 2003, Jim Schumacher research priorities for the 2006 RFP while the science plan (aka Two Crow), under contract to NPRB, presented his was being developed. Once the science plan was published review of other science plans to the Board, along with his and became the foundation for annual research priorities, recommendations on how to proceed. Dr. Lynda Shapiro, the Board used it, along with research recommendations Chairman of the NRC Committee, provided their plan from agencies, organizations and stakeholders, to guide guidance to the Board in January 2004, in an interim drafting of its annual requests for proposals, and the imple- report titled “Elements of a Science Plan for the North mentation plan was no longer used. Pacifi c Research Board.” For more information about other program and policy The NPRB executive director then established a draft- issues, read “Part III: Evolution of a New Marine Science ing team comprised of himself, Jim Schumacher, David Research Program.” Table 1 gives an overview of annual Fluharty, Henry Huntington, and Gordon Kruse, which requests for proposals and funding. In Appendix IIA, you worked iteratively with the Board and its science and advi- will fi nd research topics included in annual requests for pro- sory panels. They presented initial outlines in March, and posals, showing how the emphasis changed over time as shared major content at intensive work sessions in July and the research program evolved and requests for proposals September 2004. Summaries of those meetings reported became more refi ned to refl ect changing priorities and les- the major considerations by the Board and its panels. sons learned from previous funding requests.

Table 1: RFP Funding Summary 2002-Present RFP Release RFP Proposals Funds Proposals Funds Approval Year Date Amount ($M) Received Proposed ($M) Funded Granted ($M) Date 2002 8-Mar-02 $1.50 41 $6.30 15 1.64* 15-Mar-02 2003 8-Nov-02 14.00 156 70.00 30 7.00** 18-Mar-03 2004 7-Oct-03 3.00 87 >17.00 23 3.62 17-Mar-04 2005 8-Oct-04 4.50 103 >24.50 35 5.96 15-Mar-05 2006 7-Oct-05 5.15 126 >24.00 44 6.70 29-Mar-06 2007 29-Sep-06 3.90 93 14.20 29 4.56 25-Apr-07 2008 3-Oct-07 4.00 89 15.85 25 4.13 30-Apr-08 2009 3-Oct-08 3.70 85 13.50 TBD TBD TBD

* In 2002, $434,000 was provided from NPMRI funds and $1.21 million from EIRF funds. The Board also approved continuation of ﬁ ve North Paciﬁ c Marine Research Program projects for $571,000. Therefore, the Board funded just over $2.2 million in research beginning in 2002. ** In 2003, a reduced amount of $7 million was made available for new research due to interest earnings from the EIRF that were lower than expected. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II 21

North Paciﬁ c Research Board Science Program through 2008

The Board has funded a broad array of research projects during its ﬁ rst eight years, touching on all aspects of the marine ecosystems off Alaska. Thus far, research projects are currently distributed among regions with 8% to the Arctic, 56% to the Bering Sea and Aleutians, and 36% to the Gulf of Alaska (see Figure 1 for a breakdown of the percentage of funds spent per region 2002-2008).

Seventy agencies and institutions and more than 275 principal investigators have been awarded funds by NPRB, with academic institutions garnering 47% and federal agencies receiving 33%, as shown in Table 2. (For a detailed breakdown of funding per institution, see Appendix IIB.) Through 2008, 168 papers have been published, all of which are available in the NPRB Publication Library found online at www.nprb.org, or in Appendix III.

Figure 1: Percentage of Funds by Region Per Year 2002-2008 Table 2: Institutional Funding Institution Percentage Type of Funding Academic 47 Alaska village 1

Year Arctic Ocean Bering Sea/ Aleutian Islands Gulf of Alaska Consultant 3 2002 0.00 65.52 34.48 Federal 33 2003 0.00 73.70 26.30 International 1 2004 5.67 46.27 48.06 NGO 8 2005 12.23 47.01 40.76 NPRB* 4 2006 7.09 57.78 35.13 State 3 2007 9.17 53.87 36.96 Grand Total 100

2008 12.92 51.10 35.98 * used for ship time and tags for BSIERP 2002-2008 7.61 55.91 36.49

Samuel Horpested 22 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

In this report, we summarize projects by research theme For more in-depth information about individual research following the structure of the Science Plan. By the end of projects summarized in this report, please visit www.nprb. 2008, projects funded through the annual requests for pro- org, where a dynamic searchable project browser gives posals total just over $33 million. The proportion spent on you access to full statements of work, progress and fi nal each primary ecosystem component is as follows: reports, project synopses, and any other available information related to each project. You can search by year, by • 15% lower trophic level productivity project number, by principal investigator, or by key word. • 10% fi sh habitat • 42% fi sh and invertebrates Table 3: Funded Projects by Ecosystem Priority • 16% marine mammals • 10% seabirds Total Total • 5% humans Research Theme Projects Funding ($) • 2% other prominent issues Fish and Invertebrates 75 13,635,415

Table 3 shows the number of projects for each category, Fish Habitat 15 3,388,384 and additional tables summarizing projects by year, fund- Humans 19 1,657,455 ing level, principal investigator and institution are provided Lower Trophic Level 31 5,149,748 in Appendix IIC. Productivity

Descriptions of NPRB’s comprehensive integrated ecosys- Marine Mammals 33 5,284,438 tem research programs for the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Other Prominent 8 762,984 Alaska are included later in this report, although the latter Issues project will not come online until the fall of 2009. Seabirds 19 3,395,249 Grand Total 200 33,273,673

Synthesis and Database Development

To better inform funding decisions for individual projects, the Board needs to understand the scope and types of information that already exist for particular regions. These data help us identify research gaps and determine priorities for the annual requests for proposals to enhance understanding of the relevant marine ecosystems. To build a foundation of knowledge, NPRB funded two syntheses—one in Southeast Alaska and the other in the Arctic Ocean. The Board also has funded two database projects in the Bering Sea region and one comprehensive effort to bring together all relevant bio-physical data in Alaska—the Alaska Marine Information System (described in “Part II: Other Research Partnerships”).

Southeast Alaska Synthesis In setting the research priorities for the 2004 request for collaborations and partnerships between researchers in proposals, the Board identifi ed the need to bring the sci- Southeast Alaska and the Gulf of Alaska, as well as greater entifi c information about Southeast Alaska up to the status collaborations with Canadian colleagues. Our under- of those for other Alaska waters by completing a synthesis standing of the hydrography of the region is poor. More of biological and oceanographic information. studies need to focus on the interactions between marine, terrestrial, and glacial environments and organisms, and Project 406 supported a workshop in March 2005 at the more partnerships need to be developed for research in University of Alaska Southeast to bring together repre- Southeast. Data from past studies should be archived in sentatives from different marine science disciplines and a central and easily accessible location. The synthesis also organizations to develop the synthesis. Thirty-eight individ- offered research priorities on the range of topics covered uals participated and the project was completed in 2007. in the workshop, from oceanography up through seabirds, The synthesis concluded that there should be greater fi sh, and marine mammals. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II 23

Arctic Ocean Synthesis For the 2005 request for proposals, the Board sought to integrated analysis tools, interdisciplinary approaches, bring Arctic Ocean scientifi c background up to the status long-term time series, integration and collaboration among of Alaska’s other large marine ecosystems by completing agencies, year-round observations, infrastructure support a synthesis of biological and oceanographic information, for research, modeling, and taxonomic expertise. This report including Russian research. will serve as an important guide to the development of the Board’s future programs in the high Arctic. Project 503 brought ten different working groups together for a workshop to develop a synthesis focusing on the Bering Sea Climate Database Chukchi and Beaufort seas and nearby waters. They sum- Project 207 was principally a retrospective study to design marized the current state of knowledge and identifi ed the a protocol for detecting and tracking change in the Bering most crucial information gaps, the ‘pulse points’ in the Sea ecosystem. One central product is a database of 47 biological and physical environment that require monitor- metrics that characterize different aspects of the ecosystem ing, and how climate change might impact biota through organized into fi ve groups: climate indices, atmosphere, its infl uence on sea ice, shelf currents through the Bering ocean, fi sheries, and biology. The database is available at Strait, coastal currents along Alaska’s north coast and www.BeringClimate.noaa.gov. their relationship to various biological processes and life histories. Bering Sea and Strait Sea Ice Database Project 705 is providing a comprehensive sea ice database The resulting synthesis provided detailed overviews and for the Bering Sea and Bering Strait. It will help in assessing identifi ed research needs for oceanography and sea ice, trends and variability in sea surface temperature, surface phytoplankton, microbes, zooplankton, benthos, fi shes, air temperature, and sea-level pressure. The project will be seabirds, and marine mammals, with expansive lists of cita- completed by the end of 2009. tions. Overarching needs include data rescue and archiving,

Research Topics: 2002-2008

• Lower Trophic Level Productivity :: Basis of All Life in the Sea ...... 24 • Fish Habitat :: Oases of Ocean Life ...... 38 • Fish and Invertebrates :: Alaska’s Ocean Bounty ...... 52 • Marine Mammals :: Sentinels in the Sea ...... 102 • Seabirds :: Winged Indicators of Change ...... 124 • Humans :: People and the Sea ...... 138 • Other Prominent Issues :: Ocean Challenges ...... 150 • Integrated Ecosystem Research :: From Physics to Fish ...... 158 • Other Research and Partnerships :: New Ways of Knowing Alaska’s Seas ...... 166 Luke Bunnell Luke LOWER TROPHIC LEVEL Basis for All Life in the Sea

Russ Hopcroft SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: LOWER TROPHIC LEVEL 25

LOWER TROPHIC LEVEL

hile ﬁ shes, marine mammals, and seabirds are the most visible living marine resources at the top of the food chain upon which we depend, it is the tiniest organisms drifting Wand swimming with the currents that fuel all life in the sea. Scientists study these lower trophic levels (LTL) to improve our understanding of the overall ocean ecosystem, how it varies over time, and its response to climate change.

In the Science Plan, the National Research Council recommended that NPRB support fundamental studies of the basic structure and function of ecosystems to better understand the populations they support. The following LTL studies also address legislated priorities by speciﬁ cally addressing needs for marine ecosystem information and pressing ﬁ shery management issues that help us better understand the impacts of the environment on upper trophic level species. To date, the Board has funded 31 LTL projects for a total of $5.1 million, of which 16 have been completed. This section discusses them in three main categories:

• oceanography • phytoplankton ecology • zooplankton ecology

Most LTL projects cover several levels, and often are termed nutrient-phytoplankton- zooplankton or NPZ studies, especially for modeling purposes. And many of the 31 projects are continuations of the same research, such as annual support of the Bering Sea moorings to service the hardware and extract the data.

Russ Hopcroft 26 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

LOWER TROPHIC LEVEL PROJECTS

203 Continuation of long-term observations on Bering Sea shelf: Biophysical 701 Sentinels for ecosystem change: long-term biophysical moorings on the moorings at sites 2 and 4 J. NAPP, P. STABENO, T. WHITLEDGE Bering Sea shelf (2007-2008) J. NAPP, P. STABENO, T. WHITLEDGE 207 Detecting change in the Bering Sea ecosystem A. HOLLOWED, J. OVERLAND, 702 Development and testing of a real-time ocean data transmitting buoy N. SOREIDE for the Gulf of Alaska T. WEINGARTNER 211 Sinking particles/pelagic food webs in the SE Bering Sea S. HENRICHS 705 Trends and variability in the Bering Sea/Bering Strait sea ice cover 302 A continuous plankton recorder survey of the North Pacifi c and southern S. DROBOT, C. FOWLER, J. MASLANIK Bering Sea S. BATTEN, D. WELCH 706 Wind fi eld over the Bering-Chukchi Shelf: The QUIKSCAT Perspective 315 Continuation of long-term observations on the Bering Sea shelf: T. WEINGARTNER Biophysical moorings at sites 2 and 4 J. NAPP, J. OVERLAND, P. STABENO, T. WHITLEDGE 707 Alaska ferry oceanographic monitoring in the Gulf of Alaska N. BOND, 402 Evaluation of ocean circulation models for the Bering Sea and Aleutian E. COKELET, C. MORDY Islands Region A. HERMANN, D. MUSGRAVE 708 Gulf of Alaska long-term observations: The Seward line 2007 R. HOPCROFT, 406 Synthesis of marine biology and oceanography of Southeast Alaska T. WEINGARTNER, T. WHITLEDGE G. ECKERT 733 Pribilof Islands community-based ocean monitoring program 410 Long-term observations on the Bering Sea shelf (2004-2005): A. LESTENKOF, M. MALAVANSKY, B. ROBSON, P. ZAVADIL Biophysical moorings at sites 2 and 4 as sentinels for ecosystem change 734 An updated hydrology model for the Gulf of Alaska T. ROYER J. NAPP, P. STABENO, T.WHITLEDGE 803 A continuous plankton recorder survey of the North Pacifi c and southern 517 Sentinels for Bering Sea ecosystem change J. NAPP, P. STABENO, T. WHITLEDGE Bering Sea S. BATTEN, D. MACKAS 520 Gulf of Alaska long-term observations R. HOPCROFT 804 Seward line monitoring R. HOPCROFT 536 A continuous plankton recorder survey of the North Pacifi c and southern 805 Modeling processes controlling the on-shelf transport of oceanic meso- Bering Sea S. BATTEN, D. WELCH zooplankton populations in the Gulf of Alaska and SE Bering Sea 601 A continuous plankton recorder survey of the North Pacifi c and southern K. COYLE, G. GIBSON, K. HEDSTROM Bering Sea S. BATTEN, D. MACKAS 806 Comparison of long-term laboratory estimates of fecundity of Euphausia pacifi ca 602 Sentinels for Bering Sea ecosystem change J. NAPP, P. STABENO, T. WHITLEDGE from the Gulf of Alaska and the northern California Current W. PETERSON 603 Gulf of Alaska long-term observations R. HOPCROFT 828 Collaborative research: dynamicall consistent synthesis of in-situ and 607 Modeling study on the response of lower trophic level production to satellite measurements in the Aleutian passes D. NECHAEV, G. PANTELEEV climate change C. DEAL, M. JIN, J. WANG 829 An important use for Aleutian Island indicators-hunting black swans 608 Response of the Bering Sea integrated circulation-ice-ecosystem to J. OVERLAND forcing by climate and the adjacent North Pacifi c and Arctic oceans 1955-2005 R. BARBER, F. CHAI, Y. CHAO, A. DE CHARON, J. MCWILLIAMS, S.NGHIEM 614 Optimization of a nutrient-phytoplankton-zooplankton ecological model for quantifying physical and biological interactions on the Gulf of Alaska shelf. K. COYLE, A. HERMANN, S. HINCKLEY

Matt Berman and Jay Clark SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: LOWER TROPHIC LEVEL 27

Oceanography

OUR UNDERSTANDING OF OCEAN DYNAMICS DEPENDS ON OUR ABILITY TO MAKE LONG-TERM OCEAN MEASURE- MENTS. THE NRC IDENTIFIED OCEAN MONITORING AS POTENTIALLY ONE OF NPRB’S MOST VALUABLE LEGACIES.

Ocean measurements not only tell us about the current state of the ocean, they also provide an extremely valuable record for retrospective and modeling studies that shed light on how the ocean has changed over time and how it may change in the future.

Time-series measurements are not necessarily cutting-edge science. In fact, the National Science Foundation refers to “service” proposals when they seek to fund basic gathering of ocean data. However, this type of monitoring gives scientists the most synoptic picture of the ocean and its currents, vertical structure, and nutrient ﬂ ux, all critically important drivers for primary and secondary production. Without these long-term observations, researchers would not be able to make comparisons among habitats and years, characterize seasonal and interannual variability, quantify regime shifts and climate changes, or create ecosystem models.

BERING SEA

The Board has invested over three-quarters of its LTL funds on basic oceanographic studies over the past eight years, with most going to the Bering Sea, as well as signiﬁ cant support for monitoring the northern Gulf of Alaska (see page 32). NPRB is now engaged in a ground-breaking $52 million partnership with the National Science Foundation to study the Bering Sea shelf ecosystem and create models that predict how it may change in response to projected climate conditions.

Phytoplankton Blooms and Cold Pools Our perceptions of controlling factors largely derive from a host of measurements of temperature, salinity, currents, nutrients, ice cover, and fl uorescence (a proxy for phytoplankton abundance) beginning in the mid-1990s when NOAA’s Pacifi c Marine Environmental Laboratory deployed moored buoys at two key stations, M2 and M4, in about 70 meters of water on the southeastern Bering Sea shelf. Those measurements continue to enhance our understanding of the relationship of ice cover to the basic primary and secondary production of the overall ecosystem and whether energy fl ows mainly into the pelagic food web to provide forage for large fi sh populations, or rains down on the bottom and powers the benthic food web.

The measurements also inform about the formation of the cold pool (water less than 2ºC) on the shelf, which may keep ﬁ sh from migrating north. They tell us whether the NOAA ECO-FICI Program ECO-FICI NOAA Bering Sea is warmer or cooler than the long-term aver- ages, and how winds and sea ice may reduce or enhance water column stability, with subsequent impacts on nutrient availability for primary production in the upper water column and timing of the spring phytoplankton bloom. 28 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Bering Sea Ocean Observing Systems and Near Real-Time Data Projects 203, 211, 315, 410, 517, 602, 701

MOORINGS ARE EXPENSIVE. THEY NEED SERVICING Shifting of Spring Blooms twice a year, spring and fall, for routine maintenance and These changes in sea ice likely have major consequences data extraction. Starting in 2003, NPRB helped support for primary and secondary production. Over the southeast- those activities through funding for projects 203, 315, 410, ern shelf, the presence of sea ice determines the timing 517, 602, and 701. The funds helped expand the array with of the spring phytoplankton bloom. Conventional wisdom two additional moorings at M5 and M8, thus nurturing a predicts that an early bloom will occur if ice is present fl edgling ocean observing system of four mooring sites, after mid-March, but if there is no ice after mid-March, the plus a hydrographic survey of about 200 stations. bloom will occur later. Presumably the melting ice reduces salinity and suffi ciently stabilizes the surface layer of sea- With NPRB and NOAA support, researchers are making water for phytoplankton to grow and multiply. It should be signifi cant progress towards reporting near real-time data. noted, however, that at least for the winter of 2003, which In 2006, data from temperature, salinity, and zooplankton was relatively warm and ice-free near mooring M2, inves- acoustics sensors were telemetered from a satellite moor- tigators were surprised to fi nd a phytoplankton (diatom) ing near M2 back to the Pacifi c Marine Environmental bloom when they retrieved the sediment trap in March Laboratory in Seattle. In 2007, those data plus fl uorescence 2003. This very early production may have resulted from were again transmitted in real time from the moorings. a lack of severe storms in mid- to late February. It may be Scientists supplement the automated mooring data with that, at least in the shallower areas of the Bering Sea, late shipboard collections of chlorophyll and zooplankton, as winter phytoplankton growth can occur even without sea well as nitrates and other nutrients. Project 211 added a ice meltwater-induced stabilization of the water column. sediment trap to the M2 mooring in winter 2002-2003 to measure carbon, nitrogen, and selected lipids in organic Dominance of Temperature versus Salinity material sinking down through the water column. Overall, it appears that nutrient supply and summer salinity over the shelf have not signifi cantly changed during the last three decades. Scientists noted an apparent decrease in the abundance of coldwater zooplankton species during the warm years of 2001–2005. They have increased in abundance during these last few cold years and provide important prey for fi shes, seabirds, and marine mammals. Temperature dominates the structure of the water column over the southern shelf, while the northern shelf is dominated by salinity. In addition, the location of the boundary between the southern shelf (pelagic) and northern shelf (benthic) ecosystem appears to vary from one year to the next, with its location depending greatly upon maximum ice extent during the spring. Location of biophysical moorings in the Bering Sea. Partnerships in Monitoring the Bering Sea Observations collected on the Bering Sea shelf give us criti- Warming or Cooling Seas? cal information about how this ecosystem is responding to Ocean monitoring tells us that the southeasern Bering Sea decadal shifts in climate. NOAA is one of the few entities shelf warmed markedly by about 3ºC during 2001–2005, monitoring the southeastern Bering Sea and support from closely associated with the decrease of sea ice. In 2006 NPRB has been critical to continuing the existing time and 2007, the Bering Sea cooled again, with ice extending series, expanding the locations where monitoring occurs, farther south than in the previous fi ve years and persisting and expanding the number of variables monitored. These well into May. In 2008, the sea was again very cool and the benchmark studies documented the rapid shifts from a ice was the most extensive over the southern shelf since warm to a cold regime, and how those shifts will change the the mid-1970s. Scientists also learned that the maximum timing of the spring phytoplankton bloom and the relative ice occurrences in spring in the Bering Sea appeared to be stability of nutrient concentrations over the southern shelf. decoupled from the record-breaking low sea-ice concen- The measurements will continue through 2009–2010 as part trations in the Arctic Ocean summer. of the larger NPRB and NSF Bering Sea ecosystem study. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: LOWER TROPHIC LEVEL 29

LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Bering Sea Detecting Regime Shifts Over Time Project 207

THREE OTHER BERING SEA PROJECTS BENEFITTED possible and monitor how the magnitude of the shift may from the moorings data. Project 207 was a retrospective change over time. The investigators showed that regime study to design a protocol for detecting and tracking shifts occurred in 1977, 1989, and 1998. The 1977 shift was change in the Bering Sea ecosystem. Resource managers strongest as related to atmospheric and oceanic indices need these formal indices of change for scientifi c and eco- for all observations stretching back to the beginning of the system-based management purposes. Measuring climate 20th century. They also noted shifts in fi sh stocks, salmon change in an area as large as the Bering Sea is a formidable runs and catches of invertebrates. The regime of 1989– challenge, and organizing and distributing the information 1997 was marked by relative winter cooling and reduced can be equally as challenging. To confi dently detect a cyclonic activity. Researchers detected reductions in fl at- regime shift, a long time series of data of at least ten years head sole and herring stocks, and classifi ed large-scale is needed from the moorings to develop a formal statistical atmospheric circulation patterns associated with warm and test. However, by the time these data are available, scien- cold winters in the Bering Sea. Characteristic features of tists become uncertain whether the new regime is going to the 1998 shift have included a strong emphasis on spring- continue or is about to change its sign again. This project summer processes, an increase in winter cyclonic activity in provided a tool for scientists to process incoming data in the Bering Sea, earlier ice retreat, and lower runs of sock- real time to signal the possibility of a regime shift as soon as eye salmon beginning in 1997.

LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Bering Sea Evaluating Ocean Circulation Models Project 402

SINCE THE BOARD COULD NOT FUND EVERYTHING and was inundated with proposals for different types of models, it requested model evaluation proposals in the 2004 request for proposals to help determine where best to invest money over the long term. Project 402 evaluated ocean circulation models for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands region. A workshop in early 2005 included presentations by experts on existing models and related biological models, state-of-the-art data assimilations, and applications to the Bering Sea. Participants concluded that the ideal circulation model would adequately and simultaneously resolve all of the relevant scales of motion and phenomena in the Bering Sea and Aleutians, including ﬂ ows through Aleutian passes, seasonal ice, and tidal mixing on the shelves. None of the present modeling approaches can rapidly and simultaneously capture all of those features for extended time periods, due in part to computing limits: ﬁ ne-scale multi-decadal hindcasts require months of dedicated computer time. Progress in computer capacities and use of nested models may reduce computer time in the future. Data are also limiting, but this will improve as more These 3D ROMS-NPZ models show depth (top) and ice cover (bottom). monitoring information becomes available from the ocean moorings and other sources. 30 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Bering Sea Modeling Productivity with Changing Sea Ice Project 607

A SECOND MODELING EFFORT, PROJECT 607, involved a coupled ice-ocean ecosystem model that included both pelagic and sea ice habitats. As noted above, climate-related trends in the Bering Sea, including warming waters and reduced ice cover, may have profound impacts on primary and secondary production. This modeling exercise suggested that the ice-associated blooms were seeded by sea ice algae released from melting sea ice. A run of the model over several decades, from 1960-2004, showed that before 1977, primary production was dominated by ice algae in icy cold water with only light grazing, favoring the benthic communities. After 1977,

primary production was dominated by open-water spe- Pelt Thomas Van cies of diatom and fl agellates in later and warmer water with higher grazing, which contributed more toward the waters and in the winter water column. This study refl ects upper ocean pelagic community. Nitrifi cation rate may the value of the monitoring moorings in the Bering Sea, be an important control of dominant phytoplankton func- which provide data of critical importance in determining tional type and the amount of nitrate in summer bottom long-term change.

LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Bering Sea LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Bering Sea Climate Change Response Catching the Wind Project 608 Project 706

PROJECT 608 IS RETROSPECTIVELY ANALYZING THE WE KNOW THAT WINDS AND WIND STRESSES FORCE ice ecosystem response of the Bering Sea to climate ocean circulation, affect coastal sea levels, the wind-wave change and conditions in the adjacent North Pacifi c and climate, air-sea heat fl uxes, sea-ice extent, and provide Arctic oceans during 1955–2005. Researchers are iden- energy for vertical mixing. Direct observations of marine tifying climatic, oceanic, and ice processes that regulate winds are lacking, so marine scientists must rely on point timing, quantity, and quality of the Bering Sea spring phy- measurements from coastal stations, marine buoys, and toplankton bloom, which is essential for recruitment of a numerical weather models for broader application over strong year class of young fi sh that contribute to the valu- larger scales of time and space. Project 706 is analyzing able fi sheries of the Bering Sea. daily, satellite-derived scatterometer wind measurements to characterize their statistical properties on seasonal, monthly, and synoptic time scales, compare them with other wind measurements, and assess their value in driving nutrient-phytoplankton-zooplankton models.

ROMS (model) simulated chlorophyll averaged over a four-year period (1997-2000). SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: LOWER TROPHIC LEVEL 31

LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Bering Sea Nearshore Monitoring Project 733

ALTHOUGH THE MOORINGS AT M2–M8 COLLECT OCEAN data offshore, we also need more local measurements near shore. Project 733 supports a community-based, nearshore ocean monitoring program in the Aleut communities of St. Paul and St. George in the Pribilof Islands to augment measurements taken at M2-M8. Nearshore moorings will collect temperature and salinity to provide regional scientists with valuable time-series measurements to track climate-induced changes in the coastal zone of the Philip Zavadil Bering Sea. Monitoring equipment installed by the community of St. Paul Island.

LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Bering Sea LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Bering Sea Aleutian Pass Circulation Early Warning of Catastrophic Project 828 Events Project 829 THE ALEUTIAN PASSES ARE IMPORTANT CONDUITS for nutrient transport into the Bering Sea and up onto the PROJECT 829 IS EXPLORING THE NATURE OF DRAMATIC shelf areas, even though relatively little is known about shifts and developing ecosystem indicators that may them. Project 828 is a comprehensive study of Aleutian pass provide early warning of potential catastrophic ecosys- circulation that will synthesize historical and contemporary tem events, and thus help guard against them. The large hydrographic data, combined with drifter and current mea- shifts are unexpected large events in complex, non-linear surements, and satellite altimetry observations, to present systems, such as large stock market moves, dramatic a realistic circulation pattern and examine its variability. changes in Arctic sea ice cover, or large swings in ﬁ sh Researchers will reconstruct currents through the passes in populations. 2002-2008, with a focus on silicate transport.

Erika Acuna 32 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

MONITORING THE GULF OF ALASKA

The North Pacifi c has varied signifi cantly over the past decade, due partly to variations in climate as refl ected in indices such as El Niño and the Pacifi c Decadal Oscillation. Changes in these indices suggested that the 1997 El Niño represented a transition to a new regime, or regime shift, which portends a fundamental change in ecosystem structure and function similar to the large change that occurred in 1976 when the Gulf of Alaska fi shery changed from being dominated by shrimp to pollock, salmon, and halibut. As in the Bering Sea, researchers need long-term measurements to characterize changes in the ecosystem.

LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Monitoring the Gulf of Alaska Observations from the Seward Line Transect Projects 520, 603, 702, 708, 804

THE SEWARD LINE IS A 150-MILE TRANSECT ACROSS Zooplankton and Pink Salmon the Gulf of Alaska shelf to the south of Seward, Alaska. The early spring 2007 water column was less stratifi ed The Board supported monitoring along the Seward Line in than normal, suggesting low winter freshwater runoff, the Gulf of Alaska in 2005 with Project 520 and continued strong winter mixing and anomalously high salinities at those measurements through projects 603, 708, and 804. the surface and low salinities at depth. Spring zooplank- The observations build on earlier data collected under the ton biomass was often low in extremely warm years and Global Ocean Ecosystems Dynamics (GLOBEC) program often high during extremely cold years. There also was a from 1998–2004. Apart from the Canadian Line-P sampling seasonal invasion of more southern species during warm program to the south, no other program in the Alaska Gyre years. Changes in zooplankton abundance and commu- allows observation of long-term changes in the oceanog- nity composition could impact pink salmon survival in this raphy of a region that is so critical to Alaska’s fi sheries, region. Zooplankton collection during 2005-2007 remain subsistence, and tourist economies. The long-term data consistent with the belief that years of high springtime will help us distinguish patterns and causes from seasonal Neocalanus copepod abundance often result in higher and interannual variability. Cruises in May and September pink salmon survival at the critical periods of ocean entry. capture spring phytoplankton blooms and summer conditions along the transect. Researchers conclude from these studies, and others begun in 1998, that the relationship between climate Cold Years indices and conditions in the Gulf of Alaska is much Researchers compared observations of physical-chemical more complicated than previously thought. Projects 708 structure, primary (algal) production and the distribution and and 804 will continue monitoring along the Seward Line abundance of zooplankton, along with their seasonal and through 2009. Project 702 supports development and interannual variations to historical datasets to understand testing of real-time ocean data transmission from the how different climatic conditions infl uence the biological GAK-1 mooring. The Board anticipates ongoing sup- conditions during those years. Average May temperature port for ocean monitoring in the Gulf of Alaska within the and salinity over the upper 100 meters across the Seward context of its developing integrated ecosystem research Line in 2005 and 2006 were comparable to other years, but program in that region. it was anomalously cold in 2007. In fact, spring temperatures in 2007 were colder than any year since the early 1970s. Mark Kelley SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: LOWER TROPHIC LEVEL 33

FEATURE PROJECT

LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Monitoring the Gulf of Alaska Zooplankton in the Gulf of Alaska

STUDIES ALONG THE SEWARD LINE, A PROMINENT MONITORING PROGRAM taking the pulse of the northern Gulf of Alaska, revealed a mix of zooplankton species living in these waters.

In May, communities of Neocalanus spp., Metridia paciﬁ ca, and Calanus marshallae dominate the waters at night, while in September, researchers found Metridia paciﬁ ca, Calanus spp., Eucalanus bungii, and euphausiids.

During the day, ﬁ ner mesh collections in May showed more Oithona similis and Pseudocalanus spp., but Neocalanus species and Calanus marshallae still dominated the biomass. Oithona and Pseudocalanus also continued to numerically dominate September daytime collections.

As in other biological communities, researchers noted changes in the abundance Long-Term Observation Program (LTOP) stations. In addition to of certain species between years, although the largest copepods that dominate basic sampling, purple stations have primary production and the spring bloom, Neocalanus cristatus, showed no signifi cant pattern across zooplankton growth or reproduction incubations. years. Abundance of slightly smaller N. plumchrus/fl eminger shifted signifi cantly.

Swings in abundance may not always be related to water temperature, but temperature does affect growth rates and passage of copepod stages through the ecosystem. The physical environment inﬂ uences how long various species Zooplankton studies remain in the upper water column and are more available to predators, such as salmon. These changes in prey availability could have a large impact on the are vitally important survival of juvenile pink salmon, giving zooplankton studies a direct application to fisheries ecology to ﬁ sheries ecology. since changes in prey availability affect survival of juvenile fishes.

Russ Hopcroft 34 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Monitoring the Gulf of Alaska Freshwater Discharge and the Alaska Coastal Current Project 734

THE ALASKA COASTAL CURRENT FLOWS ALONG SHORE AS IT SWEEPS THE COAST OF THE NORTHEASTERN PACIFIC Ocean from the Columbia River to the Aleutian Island chain and into the Bering Sea through Unimak Pass. The current inﬂ u- ences the advection of heat, salt, and nutrients in the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean. Project 734, while not a monitoring project per se, did provide an updated hydrology model that will let scientists incorporate freshwater discharge along the coasts of Alaska and British Columbia into models and estimations of the current. The new model incorporates discharges from glacial melting and rivers, which are accelerating as coastal mountain glaciers melt.

LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Monitoring the Gulf of Alaska NPZ Model Project 614

DUE FOR COMPLETION IN 2010, PROJECT 614 SUPPORTS DEVELOPMENT of a nutrient-phytoplankton-zooplankton ecological model that will incorporate quantitative relationships between the physical and biological data collected during ﬁ eld observations along the Seward Line. Russ Hopcroft

LOWER TROPHIC :: Oceanography :: Monitoring the Gulf of Alaska Ferry Boxes Project 707

THE BOARD ALSO IS SUPPORTING OCEAN MONITORING using a unique observation system on Alaska marine ferries called “ferry boxes.” Project 707 installed these boxes on ferries to record water temperature, salinity, phytoplankton nutrients and biomass, freshwater inﬂ uence, and water clarity along the ferry route between Homer, Kodiak, and Dutch Harbor. This work supports a dataset that, if maintained, may reveal long-term developmental, climatic, and anthropogenic changes. Russ Hopcroft

The primary instrument box on the Tustumena containing temperature, salinity, Temperature along the Tustumena’s route in the Alaska Coastal Current to Dutch nitrate, chlorophyll and CDOM fl uorescence, and optical transmittance sensors. Harbor in August 2005 (top) and August 2006 (bottom). SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: LOWER TROPHIC LEVEL 35

Phytoplankton Ecology

TINY DRIFTING OCEAN PLANTS CALLED PHYTOPLANKTON FUEL ALL LIFE IN THE SEA, FORMING THE FOUNDATION OF THE FOOD WEB.

While the Board has not funded projects that focus A current scientifi c paradigm suggests that water col- solely on phytoplankton ecology, it has funded projects umn grazing by mesozooplankton has very little impact that measure phytoplankton abundance through fl uores- on ice-edge blooms in the northern Bering Sea. Most of cence and relate it to changes in the surrounding ocean the primary production sinks and becomes an important environment, such as the southeastern Bering Sea moor- food source for the benthos. In the southern Bering Sea, ings and along the Seward Line. These studies improve later blooms feed the pelagic system. It also appears that our understanding of the timing of the spring bloom and middle shelf blooms in the Bering Sea are grazed less than in the case of the Bering Sea moorings, how the initial those on the outer shelf, thus enhancing the benthic food onset of phytoplankton production relates to the pres- supplies. Nutrient measurements have shown that both the ence or absence of sea ice on the Bering Sea shelf. The ice-associated bloom and the more typical spring bloom timing of these blooms is important to the Bering Sea’s strip the upper water column of nutrients. In November, food web. when the strong summer thermocline breaks down, a fall bloom is signaled by an increase in fl uorescence.

Zooplankton Ecology

MINUTE ANIMALS KNOWN AS ZOOPLANKTON REPRESENT THE SECONDARY PRODUCTION LEVEL AT THE BASE OF THE FOOD WEB.

Because they have relatively short life spans, mostly a year how zooplankton species respond to variability in ocean or less, and have varying degrees of control over where conditions. The Board has responded to this need in sev- they drift, zooplankton respond very quickly to changes in eral ways – the zooplankton collections along the Seward their environment. Poor conditions for zooplankton mean Line; continuous plankton recorder studies across the less food is available for larger animals. As a result, larger North Paciﬁ c; and zooplankton studies within the NPRB- animals also have a poor year, go somewhere else or eat NSF Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program. whatever else is available. We need to know more about The Board also funded several other smaller studies. Matt Berman and Jay Clark 36 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

LOWER TROPHIC :: Zooplankton Ecology Continuously Recording Where Zooplankton Live Projects T0004, 302, 536, 601, 803

RESEARCHERS OFTEN USE DEDICATED RESEARCH September/October, under funding provided by NPRB. So vessels to collect zooplankton. These expeditions may be far, researchers have identifi ed nearly 290 plankton spe- very expensive and short in duration, offering only selected cies in the samples, including about 130 phytoplankton snapshots of the plankton communities off Alaska. An and 160 zooplankton species. alternative program relies on volunteer commercial ships that tow a Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) along their Distinct Neighborhoods regular routes. The CPR needs no accompanying scientist, Transects pass through many different water masses and making it relatively inexpensive to operate. regions across the North Pacifi c, some more offshore than others. Scientists are starting to see some patterns, albeit CPR studies off Alaska commenced in 2000 with funding highly variable ones, emerge from these past seven years made available under the North Pacifi c Marine Research of collections. There seem to be some ten distinct plank- (NPMR) Program. The Board added its support in 2002, ton communities (termed “mesoscale marine ecosystems”) using North Pacifi c Marine Research Institute research across the North Pacifi c, relating primarily to bathymetry funds to continue an NPMR project (Project T0004 admin- and current systems. Many zooplankton species are com- istered by the Alaska SeaLife Center). NPRB supported mon to all regions, but other species characterize just a few CPR deployments through 2009 by funding projects 302, regions. For example, small copepods dominate in shelf 536, 601, and 803. regions and large subarctic copepods dominate in oceanic regions. Biomass also tends to be higher in shelf regions Project 803 continued CPR activities through 2008 than in oceanic regions. (although data are not yet available) and into 2009. In September 2008, the Board approved setting aside Some Like It Hot $50,000 annually for fi ve years to contribute to a CPR fund- Zooplankton appear to be strongly infl uenced by tempera- ing consortium coordinated by the North Pacifi c Marine ture, which has a strong infl uence on their metabolic and Science Organization (PICES). Depending on funds made developmental rates, and probably on their survival rates. available from other sources, the CPR program may or may Water temperature thus may infl uence the presence of cer- not be maintained at its past activity levels. tain species. In warmer years, southern species may occur further north, expanding their range and abundance in the Great Circle Route northern Gulf of Alaska, and thereby changing community Commercial vessels tow a CPR for more than 6,500 kilome- composition. The western Gulf does not show the same ters across the Pacifi c, following the “Great Circle Route” temperature/zoogeographic relationship, possibly because from British Columbia to Japan. The sampling comple- eddies spinning off the Alaskan Stream add coastal water to ments similar activities in the North Atlantic that have gone the offshore region. Relating various zooplankton species to on for more than 60 years. Samplers collect zooplank- warm or cool conditions may provide greater understand- ton and data on temperature, salinity, and chlorophyll a ing of why certain predator species, such as pink salmon, (measured as fl uorescence) down to a depth of about six are more successful in some years than others, especially as meters. More than 3,000 plankton samples have been their forage base relates to the prey quality, availability, and collected from crossings made mainly in April, June, and abundance of certain zooplankton species.

Position of samples that have been processed. Samples processed under Project 536 are shown in red. The typical great circle route shows a high density of samples, but the Sept 2005 route crossed the Gulf of Alaska further south than normal and the May 2006 route avoided a storm in the Bering Sea and traversed the western Pacifi c much further south than normal. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: LOWER TROPHIC LEVEL 37

LOWER TROPHIC :: Zooplankton Ecology Modeling Where Zooplankton Go in the Gulf Project 805

PROJECT 805 IS A MODELING STUDY THAT FOCUSES ON BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL PROCESSES INFLUENCING transport of oceanic zooplankton onto the southeast Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska shelves under a variety of climate scenarios. Based on these models, fi eld studies can be targeted in time and space on key transport events to eventually provide quantitative information on potential physical-biological mechanisms that infl uence variability in year-class strength of forage and commercial fi sh stocks. Salinity Salinity Zooplankton Zooplankton Abundance (No. m -3) (No. Abundance m -3) (No. Abundance

Salinity and zooplankton abundance across the Gulf of Alaska shelf during a period with no notable frontal structure (a and c) and during a period with a strong frontal structure (b and d). Image from project statement of work.

LOWER TROPHIC :: Zooplankton Ecology A Closer Look at Euphausiids Project 806

STUDIES OF KEY SECONDARY PRODUCERS LIKE EUPHAUSIIDS will help us understand their role in the food web and how they may be infl uencing upper-level predators—salmon, pollock, herring, and rockfi sh, as well as seabirds and marine mammals. Project 806 will provide information about Euphausia pacifi ca from the Gulf of Alaska by exploring the range of reproductive and growth behaviors exhibited by individual females maintained over several months in a controlled laboratory setting. Russ Hopcroft FISH HABITAT Oases of Ocean Life

Shawn Harper SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH HABITAT 39

Fish Habitat

aintaining healthy habitats is essential to ecosystem-based management. According to the National Research Council, the lack of basic information on the distribution Mand habitat use of most early life stages of fish and the ecosystems that support them could pose a major constraint to managing fisheries.

Our national fisheries legislation calls for scientists and resource managers to identify essential fish habitat (EFH) and implement measures to protect it. In characterizing essential fish habitat, researchers need to study more than just where fish live, but answer the more complex questions of how fish production relates to a particular type and extent of habitat. The Board is helping fishery managers and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council address this very daunting challenge by funding a variety of fish habitat-related studies. They fall under three broad topics:

• ecosystem functions of habitat, • habitat mapping, and • fishing effects.

The Board’s Science Plan suggests a mix of research focusing on how fish relate to habitat, comparisons of fished and unfished habitat to determine impacts and recovery, gear mitigation research, and advances in technology that would enable efficient mapping and characterization of the seafloor. To date, the Board has supported 15 habitat- related projects for just under $3.5 million, of which 12 projects have been completed.

Karna McKinney 40 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Fish Habitat projects

201 Pilot nearshore habitat mapping using acoustic and visual techniques. B. Bornhold, B. Burd, W. Collins, J. Harper, P. Thuringer, S. Ward 301 Evaluation of emergent structure in low-relief benthic habitats as a criterion for defining the essential fish habitat of juvenile North Pacific flatfishes. A. Abookire, I. Fleming, C. Ryer, A. Stoner 304 Deep sea coral distribution and habitat in the Aleutian Archipelago. J. Heifetz, J. Reynolds, D. Woodby 316 Essential fish habitat for blue king crab, Phase 1: Development of cultivation techniques for blue king crab larvae. B. Stevens

415 Investigations of a skate nursery area in the eastern Bering Sea. G. R. Hoff 416 Determining the ecological value of habitat to juvenile rockfish in the Aleutian Islands. J. Boldt, C. Rooper, M. Zimmermann 507 Essential habitat for Pribilof Island blue king crab, phase 2C. L. Buck, B. Stevens 604 Retrospective analyses of Norton Sound benthic fauna. T. Hamazaki, S. Jewett, T. Weingartner 615 Marine habitat mapping technology workshop for Alaska. B. Allee, J. Reynolds 616 Chiswell Ridge habitat mapping and groundfish assessment. M. Byerly, R. Sylwester 642 Seasonal distribution, habitat use, and energy density of forage fish in the nearshore ecosystem of Prince William Sound (NPRB-OSRI Collaboration). S. Johnson 709 Species-habitat associations in three flatfish species of the eastern Bering Sea as mediated by demographic, human and cross-scale environmental forcing. K. Bailey, K. Chan, L. Ciannelli, S. Kotwicki 710 Potential trawl impacts upon ecological processes controlling habitat quality in juvenile flatfish nurseries. T. Hurst, B. Knoth, B. Laurel, C. Ryer, A. Stoner 729 Residency and movements of copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus and lingcod Ophiodon elongatus in nearshore areas of Prince William Sound. M. Bishop, S. Powers 808 Habitat mapping and production estimate of skate nursery sites in the eastern Bering Sea. J. Guthridge, G. Hoff, H. Singh

Colleen Young SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH HABITAT 41

Ecosystem Functions of Habitats

The role of habitat in the marine ecosystems off Alaska is the broadest and perhaps most complex topic within the overall fish habitat research category of the Science Plan.

Some of Alaska’s marine habitats are home to a diverse Our ultimate goal in funding this research is to determine assemblage of species, such as corals and sponges, and which habitats are necessary to maintain fish production may or may not support species of commercial interest. consistent with a sustainable fishery and the managed Regardless, as a hub of biodiversity, we need to know species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem. Ecosystem where they are, their role in the ecosystem, and whether functions of habitat include: they need to be protected. • fish-habitat relationships • ecological value of habitat types Investigations of this nature address the “marine eco- • the role of benthic invertebrates systems information needs” priority in NPRB’s enabling • identification of potential refugia legislation. Yet we also need to shed light on how fish • vulnerability of habitat to natural disturbances depend on particular types of habitat so resource man- • identification of important nursery areas, and agers may use the information for sustainable fisheries • linking habitat to species population dynamics. management. And managers need to know more than the rudimentary presence or absence of particular fish species. NPRB has focused most of its fish habitat research on the They must also consider growth, reproduction and survival ecosystem functions of habitat, funding 12 studies of which rates, and to the extent possible, production rates as they nine have been completed so far. relate to different types of habitats.

FISH HABITAT :: Ecosystem Functions of Habitats Shelter for Young Pacific Ocean Perch in the Aleutians Project 416

Using sonar groundtruthed with underwater video, Project 416 examined the ecological value of habitat to juvenile Pacific ocean perch at five study sites in the Aleutian Islands. Researchers found juveniles mainly in mixed sand and boulder substrate, to the exclusion of most other habitats, and usually within one body length of boulders, corals, sponges, or other complex structures. The study also looked at the condition of the fish and why it varied between sites, perhaps due to differences in prey quality, predator abundance, and/or habitat quality, possibly as mediated through the abundance of zooplankton, especially large copepods. Scientists concluded that climate forcing and its effects on wind forcing could influence the intensity of upwelling in different areas, affecting zooplankton production and quality, which could in turn affect the condition of juvenile Pacific ocean perch. Also, the amount and type of habitat available to juveniles could influence their ability to avoid predators. Map of islands of Four Mountains and Samalga Pass area showing three of the five sites (black strips) where acoustic mapping was completed. 42 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH HABITAT :: Ecosystem Functions of Habitats Tube Worm Bed Nurseries for Flatfish Projects 301, 710

The central Gulf of Alaska around Kodiak has supported a commercial flatfish fishery for many years, beginning with foreign fisheries that worked the area starting in the early 1960s. South of Kodiak, emergent structures created by polychaete tube worms dominate the low-relief benthic region. This tube worm habitat provides a nursery area for age-0 juvenile flatfish, particularly northern rock sole and Pacific halibut, which are both commercially important species. Project 301 set out to evaluate these emergent structures to better estimate the distribution and abundance of juvenile flatfishes aroundK odiak.

Using video camera sleds, researchers assessed fish densities, habitat features, and fish-habitat associations on a Cliff Ryer fine spatial scale. They found juvenile flatfish associated with low to moderate worm tube densities, where fish may aggregate to feed on the worms or associated fauna. The structural complexity created by the tubes may also reduce the predation threat for flatfish. Yet when worm tube densities were too high and created a continuous turf, juvenile flatfish were nearly absent because they could not bury themselves and thus were more vulnerable to predation. If shell material was added to the seafloor to enhance structural complexity, juveniles were attracted only when larger adult flatfish were scarce.

Scientists concluded that differential predation pressure may make two seemingly similar areas of seafloor vastly different in quality as perceived by juvenile flatfish. The study also showed how species react to predation pressure. Rock sole minimize activity and bury themselves, while English sole become more active to avoid predation. Pacific hali- Density of age-0 northern rock sole predicted for but had an intermediate reaction. Knowing how individual Holiday Beach based upon video-acquired field vari- species relate to different habitat types, and the vulnerabil- ables identified for the combined nursery grounds. ity or resilience of particular bottom types helps managers Circles show the actual densities of rock sole observed make better decisions on how to protect it. Fishing impacts in the video record. The study site covers a gently on these habitat types are being studied under Project 710. sloping bottom with a depth range of 5-17 meters at mean low water.

FISH HABITAT :: Ecosystem Functions of Habitats Where Flatfish Live in the Eastern Bering Sea Project 709

Scientists are also studying flatfish habitat in the eastern Bering Sea under Project 709. That retrospective study examines the spatial distribution of yellowfin sole, Alaska plaice, and arrowtooth flounder on the eastern Bering Sea shelf over 25 years, from 1982 to 2005. In this ongoing study, researchers expect to analyze fish distributions relative to small-scale environmental features, climatic indices, demographic state of the population, and human harvest activities. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH HABITAT 43

FISH HABITAT :: Ecosystem Functions of Habitats Skate Nurseries Near Deepsea Canyons Projects 415, 808

At the head of Bering Canyon, near where the information on nursery habitat and benthic associations and shallow shelf meets the slope at 150 meters, Alaska skates providing annual production estimates for each site. These deposit eggs in a highly productive nursery covering about estimates will be used to develop a model that predicts the one to two square kilometers. Project 415 set out to study importance of each site and its relative contribution to the this relatively flat, sandy, muddy bottom habitat that had estimated young-of-the-year population for the Alaska skate. no detectable abiotic or biotic structure or diversity, yet which supported more than 500,000 skate eggs per square kilometer. Study Location Skates reproduce in Alaska throughout the year, peaking in fall and winter. Embryos develop slowly, hatching more than 3.5 years after being deposited in the nursery. Skate survival is a gamble—gastropods, particularly the Oregon triton, cruise the nurseries preying on the egg cases, while Pacific cod and halibut feed on newly hatched skates.

Skate nurseries seem to be located in highly productive upwelling areas near canyons. Having a ready supply of food allows skates to remain within the nursery site and minimize foraging excursions during reproductive cycles. Currents supply oxygen and remove metabolic wastes from the egg cases. The shelf-slope interface may provide the delicate balance of these critical elements that ensure the highest production and survival of adults and developing offspring.

Sensitive to disturbances, these nursery sites are important habitat for successful skate reproduction, the study concluded, and may need to be protected from disturbance by fishing activities. Project 808 continues work on skate Trawl locations and egg case density estimates in the Alaska skate nursery site nursery sites in the eastern Bering Sea, gathering detailed during the July 2004 investigation and all seasonal sampling periods combined. Dave Ebert 44 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH HABITAT :: Ecosystem Functions of Habitats Rocky Reef Habitat for Yelloweye and Lingcod Project 616

The Chiswell Ridge south of Seward, Alaska supports high densities of yelloweye rockfish and lingcod. Project 616 estimated the density and abundance of these species based on new habitat delineations and compared those to previous estimates. More precise mapping of rocky reef habitat and evaluating the associated fish densities demonstrated that abundance estimates should be decreased by about 48% for the southern Chiswell area, compared to earlier estimates. Applying these new estimates would require more conservative management, especially considering the low inherent productivity of yelloweye rockfish populations. (For more about the habitat mapping aspect of this study, see page 50: Mapping the

Chiswell Ridge in the Gulf of Alaska) Fidler Terrance

FISH HABITAT :: Ecosystem Functions of Habitats FISH HABITAT :: Ecosystem Functions of Habitats Home Ranges for Copper Forage Fish in Rockfish andL ingcod in Prince Nearshore Habitats William Sound Project 642 Project 729 A second Prince William Sound study, project 642, examined seasonal distribution, habitat use, and Further north and east, in Prince William Sound, energy density of forage fish in the nearshore areas of eel Project 729 studied residency and movements of copper grass beds, bedrock outcrops, and kelp. Scientists most rockfish and lingcod in nearshore areas using acoustic frequently encountered Pacific herring, saffron cod, pink telemetry. Researchers surgically implanted acoustic trans- salmon juveniles, and capelin, which used the nearshore mitters in 45 fish captured in three habitats: artificial reef, habitat for about six months. Pink salmon were most abun- low-relief natural reef, and patch high-relief rock reef. The dant in spring, herring in summer and capelin in fall. These homing experiment demonstrated that rockfish have the areas serve as nursery habitat and are particularly suscep- ability to return to capture sites following a four kilometer tible to oil spills or other shoreline disturbances. displacement. Rockfish and lingcod appear to exhibit very high site fidelity and long periods of residence at the sites studied. Fish on the artificial reef moved least, while those in low-relief natural reef areas maintained the largest home range. The artificial reef also attracted fish from the other habitats and appears to have the potential to provide refuge habitat in the event of physical disturbances such as oil spills and coastal development. NOAA-NMFS Because nearshore habitats are vulnerable to human disturbance, a better understanding of how the nearshore environment supports ecologically important forage fish species is needed to help managers conserve forage fish populations and protect essential habitats. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH HABITAT 45

FISH HABITAT :: Ecosystem Functions of Habitats Crab Survival in Warming Seas Project 507

A follow-up study, project 507, looked at juvenile blue king crabs, looking at environmental effects on hatching, habitat selection and survival, particularly the role that water temperature plays in embryonic development rates, hatch timing, and oxygen consumption. As in Project

Brad Stevens Brad Crab embryo. 316, embryo development and hatching times are slower at lower temperatures, although development times differed by only 24 days over the 4ºC range of temperatures tested. FISH HABITAT :: Ecosystem Functions of Habitats Increases in temperature of up to 4ºC caused adult females Essential Habitat for Declining to increase their oxygen consumption, but had little effect on embryos or larvae. After metamorphosis, blue king crab Crab Species post-larvae settle immediately on suitable habitat. Project 316 In a warming Bering Sea, The main objective of this project was to earlier hatching by king determine if, and under what conditions, the larvae of blue crab could put them out crab, once the basis of thriving commercial fisheries around of synchrony with plank- the Pribilofs and St. Matthews Island, could be cultivated at ton blooms, resulting in the National Marine Fisheries Service Lab in Kodiak. The poor survival and small, longer-term goal, through subsequent research, would be weak subsequent year- to use laboratory experiments to help characterize essen- class survival. Laboratory tial fish habitat for declining or depleted crab species. data from this study showed that crabs may Researchers tested the effects of diet, temperature, and be able to compensate rearing density, but density did not appear to have a sig- somewhat for changing nificant effect on survival. A diet of Artemia nauplii plus temperature regimes by Brad Stevens Brad diatoms produced significantly higher survival and the adjusting development Blue king crab embryo. colder the temperature, the longer it took for the first juve- rates, allowing limited nile crab stage to develop. Results showed that blue king reproductive success in crab larvae can be cultivated with high survival. Using the years of warm conditions, proper diet, and that swimming larvae need to feed, but thus preventing complete settling larvae do not feed. These results may be used to reproductive failure. produce larger numbers of juvenile crab for laboratory research and stock enhancement.

Percent survival of blue king crab (P. platypus) larvae at weekly intervals, from Mean total degree-days and development days for blue king crab larvae. hatching to stage C1, under different culture conditions. 46 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

F e a t u r e P R OJEC T

FISH HABITAT :: Ecosystem Functions of Habitats Biodiversity in Aleutian Coral Gardens Project 304

Project 304 examined deepsea coral distribution and habitat in the central Aleutian Islands. Funded at $1.3 million, this was the largest individual study ever supported by the Board. While primarily a mapping study using sub- mersibles, scientists also wanted to assess the importance of coral and sponge habitat for commercially important species of fish, crab, and octopus, as well as assess any impacts of fishing gear.

Associated Species The study found that 64-72% of commercially important fish species in the Aleutians were associated with corals or sponges. Juvenile rockfish were the most Chris Rooper abundant fish, followed by grenadiers and Pacific ocean perch. Crabs were not as abundant as fishes and among the eight species identified, deepsea Tanner The study found that crabs were the most abundant. Most shallow-water fishery management plan species (those living at depths of less than 1,000 meters) appear to frequently 64-72% of commercially associate with sedentary, structure-providing invertebrates, such as hydroids, actiniarians, bryozoans, and tunicates, and there is evidence that their presence important fish species may be essential to some species. were associated with corals or sponges. Bob NOAA Lauth, SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH HABITAT 47

Project 304: Habitat map of site 02. Project 304: Bathymetric map of site 02.

Mapping Corals and Sponges study reported over 60 sponge species that had not been Scientists mapped 17 sites with dual frequency multibeam known previously in the Aleutians, and more than 25 new sonar systems, covering 2,600 square kilometers down to species that are being formally described. depths of 3,800 meters, coupled with visual observations to 2,950 meters. They collected biological information and Assessing the Impact of Fishing Gear developed a predictive model to relate coral and sponge Scientists examined video footage of the seafloor for distribution to environmental characteristics. They also used damage and disturbance in relation to observed fishing bathymetry and backscatter data, combined with geologic intensity in the central Aleutian Islands. They classified cor- interpretation, to create habitat classification maps. als and sponges as damaged if skeletons were broken, if organisms had missing or broken branches, were torn or The new data showed details of the substrate variations had other evidence of injury, were detached from the sea- within sites, proportions of different types of substrates, floor, or were attached but overturned and lying in contact and the interplay between substrates and geologic and with the seafloor. Overall, 11% of the corals and 21% of the oceanographic processes. Habitats dominated by bedrock sponges were damaged. Disturbance was widespread and and cobble supported the highest densities of corals, while evident on most video transects, with the most damage coral and sponge diversity increased from deep to shal- in heavily trawled areas. This study helped provide signifi- low water. For predictive modeling, explanatory variables cant background information to the North Pacific Fishery included depth, slope, and roughness, with depth and Management Council when it approved closing large areas slope being the most important factors. Models of coral to trawling to protect the coldwater coral and sponge habi- and sponge presence or absence were more successful to tats in the Aleutians. the north of the Aleutian archipelago than to the south. The 48 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Habitat Mapping

Mapping northern marine ecosystems for essential fish habitat.

Once we know that an undersea habitat is important for substrates that support epifaunal structures where fish biodiversity or fish production, we need to know its loca- hide, feed, grow, and reproduce. Hard substrates also may tion and extent for delineating truly essential fish habitat. support coldwater coral and sponge gardens that not only provide refuges for fish, but contribute to the biodiversity Much of Alaska’s continental shelf, especially in the Bering of these northern marine ecosystems. Sea, is characterized by broad regions of sand and silt, with little topographic relief. Resource managers include these Ship time and fuel costs are so high when mapping bot- areas in EFH designations under “fish presence/absence tom habitat that very limited fish habitat mapping has been criteria,” and we know that large populations of walleye accomplished in the Bering Sea, the Aleutians, or the Gulf pollock, Pacific cod, and other pan-shelf species reside of Alaska. NPRB has helped in that regard by supporting there. But often the more critical habitat areas have harder several mapping studies.

FISH HABITAT :: Habitat Mapping

Seafloor Habitat Changes in Norton Sound Chris Rooper Project 604

To the north in Norton Sound, project 604 involved a retrospective analysis of trawl survey data from 1976 to 2006 to examine changes in distribution and abundance of benthic fauna and demersal fishes in response to climate change. Instead of collecting new data, the investigators constructed a geographical information system database and used it to analyze changes in abundance and distribution of selected dominant benthic species, species richness, and diversity.

Over the study period, overall trawl catches grew exponentially by 370%, driven primarily by one sea star, Asterias amurensis, which accounted for 70% of the total catch. Catches increased for some 13 other species as well, although the composition of dominant species remained unchanged. Researchers looked at a variety of environmental factors to explain the variability in species biomasses. Significant correlations were identified with east-west gradients across Norton Sound, incident solar radiation, duration of ice-free waters, and a large-scale climate index called the Pacific-North American Index.

Red king crab, the species of greatest interest, were negatively related to near-bottom water temperatures. Neither the crab population nor the average bottom temperatures showed any trend during the study. The study concluded that physical forc- ings are transmitted unevenly through the benthic community Locations of trawl survey stations in Norton Sound. Stations in the boxed area and other higher-order interactions need to be considered to were continuously surveyed from 1976 to 2006 by NMFS (1976-1991) and ADF&G explain red king crab population dynamics. (1996-2006). Stations outside the boxed area were surveyed when additional time was available. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH HABITAT 49

FISH HABITAT :: Habitat Mapping Which Habitats Do Pacific Ocean Perch Prefer? Project 416

A second mapping project in the Aleutians Researchers drew two important conclusions from the examined preferred substrate characteristics for Pacific mapping study: all substrate types must be groundtruthed, ocean perch. Project 416 mapped five sites using sidescan for example, using underwater video or by sediment grab; and multibeam sonar, groundtruthed by video observa- and they need a relatively large sample size of more than tions. Indices of reflectivity, complexity, roughness, slope, 100 observations to correctly parameterize the classifica- and relative height were related to fish densities. A sub- tion tree and get accurate maps of the seafloor. strate classification tree was used to classify bottom types from acoustic data.

The study found that bottom reflectivity and roughness were the most important features of the acoustic data for determining correct substrate classification. One of the most important findings identified characteristics of nursery habitats utilized by juveniles. Isolated from adult populations, young ocean perch used only specific habitat types within the nurseries, with most found in mixed sand and boulder fields. Juveniles appeared to be using these complex habitats and the associated epibenthic invertebrates for shelter. Sponge and coral were common on all hard substrates and prevalent on boulders in areas occupied by juvenile ocean perch.

Proposed study areas in the western Gulf of Alaska/eastern Aleutian Islands.

FISH HABITAT :: Habitat Mapping Identifying Nearshore Habitat in Northern Bristol Bay Project 201 project 201 demonstrated the efficacy of combining sidescan sonar with towed seabed video imagery to delineate three different habitat associations close to shore in northern Bristol Bay. Researchers identified the following habitats: • eelgrass with sandy gravels • bladed kelps and filamentous red algae with sandy gravels • coralline algae, green urchins and bryozoans with bouldery/cobbly sandy gravel

High-frequency (390 kHz) sidescan sonar worked best in mapping eelgrass beds, with sufficient precision, groundtruthed by visual data, to monitor longer-term changes in eelgrass distribution. The approach did not work all that well in other habitats, especially those that were particularly heterogeneous.

NPRB 50 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH HABITAT :: Habitat Mapping Mapping the Chiswell Ridge in the Gulf of Alaska Project 616

Moving around to the Gulf of Alaska, the Board supported Project 616, which produced high-resolution rocky reef substrate data using sidescan and multibeam sonar for the Chiswell Ridge along the north Gulf coast of the Kenai Peninsula, a biologically important area for commercially important, structure-oriented species such as lingcod and yelloweye rockfish. The sonar data, collected in the fall of 2006, were groundtruthed with visual observations from a previous ROV survey and the resulting substrate maps were used with habitat-specific fish density estimates to obtain new abundance estimates for lingcod and yelloweye on the Chiswell Ridge. Hydrocoral and sponge distribution and density from the 2005 Chiswell Ridge ROV survey.

The results of the study revealed a 47.5% decrease in estimated fish abundance based on a much lower estimate of rocky reef area than shown previously in historical NOAA data. With the decrease in available habitat, the estimated abundance of lingcod remained higher on the southern Chiswell Ridge, but yelloweye rockfish were estimated to be more abundant in the northern ridge area. Given the low inherent productivity of yelloweye rockfish populations, it is important that management remains conservative, and that population estimates are as accurate as possible. (For more about the ecosystem function aspect of this study, see page 44: Rocky reef habitat for yelloweye and lingcod)

FISH HABITAT :: Habitat Mapping Habitat Mapping Workshop Project 615

Since habitat mapping is very expensive, the Board wanted to understand which technologies would be most effective and affordable for a given purpose. Project 615 gathered together experts in various aspects of marine habitat mapping to identify key issues, evaluate available technologies and techniques as well as those in development, and present results in a form that could be used to educate managers and other interested parties.

The workshop produced a comprehensive report discussing available technologies, their capabilities, and how they might be used in the development of effective mapping programs. Researchers reviewed remote sensing technologies and their applications, including a variety of sonar mapping systems, mapping AUVs, small-boat surveys in shallow water, airborne LIDAR (light detection and ranging) bathymetry, and sub-bottom profiling. Visual scale technologies included towed video sleds, small ROVs, the imaging AUV SeaBED, manned submersible Delta, and methods of quantitative video analysis. Participants discussed habitat classification schemes and provided case histories for major habitat mapping programs in other regions.W orkshop results were summarized in a CD available through Sea Grant and NPRB. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH HABITAT 51

Fishing Effects

One of the moRE DIFFICULT issues FOR FISHERIES MANAGERS IS MITIGATING fishing gear impactS ON BENTHIC HABITATS CRITICAL FOR SPECIES SURVIVAL.

All of the regional fishery management councils need this The councils also need to determine if certain areas should information for developing environmental impact state- be closed to protect fish stocks or special faunal assemblages ments and assessments for proposed regulations. Research such as corals and sponges. And if the case for a closure is to support this effort should examine: made, what are the economic consequences for the fisheries? • the magnitude and disturbance rates of repetitive fishing • vulnerability and resilience of certain habitat types to Conclusively determining whether observed changes in fishing disturbances habitat are due to fishing is difficult. As a result, few stud- • recovery rates of benthic habitat ies have come forward to tackle this problem. New studies • how fishing gear may bemodified to reduce its impacts to do so involve a combination of field work, laboratory on habitat experiments, and modeling.

FISH HABITAT :: Fishing Effects Fishing Effects near Round Island Project 201

Project 201 carried out a pilot study to map and classify nearshore habitat in northern Bristol Bay using acoustic and visual techniques. They set out to compare two offshore habitats near Round Island, one trawled and one untrawled, during the yellowfin sole fishery. While researchers accomplished much of the nearshore mapping work, rough seas and very poor visibility severely limited acquisition of seabed video data at the offshore sites, preventing the study from completing the fishing effects component. Caleb Huntington Caleb

FISH HABITAT :: Fishing Effects Impacts of Trawls on Flatfish Habitat off Kodiak Island Project 710

Another study examines potential trawl impacts on ecological processes controlling habitat quality in juvenile flatfish nurseries around Kodiak Island. Project 710 builds on Project 301, which examined worm tube habitat for juvenile flatfish nurseries. It uses controlled field experimentation to examine trawl impacts upon structural components of flatfish habitat and measures the changes in juvenile flatfish spatial distribution in response to that disturbance. The goal is to quantify juvenile flatfish distributional response to trawl disturbance as well as compare feeding and vulnerability to predation in disturbed versus undisturbed areas of seafloor characterized by a range of worm tube densities. Cliff Ryer FISH AND INVERTEBRATES Alaska’s Ocean Bounty

Patrick Endres | Alaska Stock.com SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 53

fish and invertebrates

major goal of the Board is to improve our ability to manage and protect the healthy, sustainable fish and wildlife populations that comprise the ecologically diverse marine Aecosystems of the North Pacific, and provide long-term, sustainable benefits to local communities and the nation. This is a very large task, considering that the marine regions off Alaska support rich and vast assemblages of fish and invertebrates, and the largest fisheries in the U.S. These assemblages are extremely important not only economically, but also ecologically and socially. If fishing is the human activity that has the greatest impact on both targeted and non- targeted populations in the North Pacific, as the National Research Council contends, resource managers must know how the ecosystem functions, and understand the life histories and distributions of the fish stocks themselves and how they are influenced by fishing and changes in their environment.

Studies funded in this category fall within five broad topics which together address pressing fishery management issues and marine ecosystem information needs:

• stock assessment research and development • bycatch reduction • causes of major species decline • implications of ecosystem change on fishery management • management tools

To date, the Board has supported 76 fish and invertebrate projects for just under $14 million, of which 47 have been completed. Researchers have studied a variety of forage species, jellyfish, squid, crab, sculpin, skates, sharks, salmon, rockfish, halibut, pollock, cod, Atka mackerel, and other groundfish species. Projects are split fairly evenly between the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, with a few projects taking place in the Arctic Ocean, reflecting the different degrees of importance of commercial fisheries throughout Alaska.

The complex factors that influence the behavior of fish and drive the fluctuations of their populations require all four research approaches described in the NPRB Science Plan (monitoring, modeling, process, and retrospective studies). The majority, however, have focused on processes in order to increase our understanding and ability to forecast future changes. Several involve cooperative research projects with industry and/or communities, and draw upon local and traditional knowledge. 54 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Fish and invertebrates projects

202 Application of new sonar technology to reducing salmon bycatch in 420 Interannual and spatial variation in population genetic composition of pollock fisheries. C. Rose northeastern Gulf of Alaska young-of-the-year Pacific ocean perch. A. Gharrett 204 NPAFC salmon tagging. V. Fedorenko, J. Helle 502 Integration of ecological indicators for the North Pacific with emphasis 205 Genetic stock identification of W. AK sockeye salmon. J.Seeb, R. Wilmot on the Bering Sea: A workshop approach. A. Bychkov, J.Overland 208 Environmental cues for herring spawning. G. Kruse, D. Musgrave 503 Arctic Ocean synthesis. R. Hopcroft 209 Two species of rougheye rockfishes in the northern Gulf of Alaska. 504 Analysis of ongoing salmon programs. E. Knudsen A. Gharrett 505 Walleye pollock in the Eastern Bering Sea: A spatially explicit model. 210 Nutritional quality of Alaska fish for predators. M. Castellini T. Quinn 303 North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Cooperative Research: 506 Factors influencing the mortality of tagged walleye pollock captured Use of genetic stock ID to determine the distribution, migration, early using a trawl net. R. Foy marine survival, and stock abundance of sockeye and chum salmon in the Bering Sea. S.Abe, J. Seeb, S. Urawa, R. Wilmot 508 Female reproductive output of snow crab in eastern Bering Sea. D. Armstrong, B. Ernst, T. Essington, P. Livingston, L. Orensanz 305 Monitoring and modeling predator-prey relationships. P. Livingston 509 Retrospective analysis of Kodiak red king crab. G. Kruse 306 Species identity and life history of Hematodinium, the causative agent of bitter crab syndrome in northeast Pacific snow (opilio) and Tanner 510 Skate life history and demography. G.Cailliet, D. Ebert (bairdi) crabs. L. Hauser, P. Jensen, F. Morado, D. Woodby 511 Spiny dogfish in Alaska. V. Gallucci, G. Kruse 308 Forage fishes in the western Gulf of Alaska: Variation in productivity. 512 Juvenile Pacific Ocean perch genetics, phase 2. A. Gharrett K. Bailey, J. Duffy-Anderson, J. Napp, J. Paakkonen, M. Wilson 521 A profiling echosounder for North Pacific monitoring. D. Mackas, S. Vagle 310 Estuaries as essential fish habitat for salmonids: Assessing residence time and habitat use of coho and sockeye salmon in Alaska estuaries. 522 Reproductive biology of Atka mackerel. S. Atkinson, M. Canino, N. Hillgruber, M. Bishop, S. Powers, G. Reeves S. McDermott 311 Establishing a statewide data warehouse of salmon size, age, and 523 Pollock recruitment and stock structure. M. Dorn, A. Hermann, S. Hinckley, growth records. B. Agler J. Horne, B. Megrey, C. Parada 314 Thermal habitat preferences of Pacific halibut and the potential influ- 524 Productivity of capelin and pollock. J. Duffy-Anderson, P. Livingston, ence of hydrographic variability on a local coastal fishery. E. Logerwell, M. Wilson T. Loher, H. McCarty 525 Modeling multispecies groundfish interactions. P. Livingston 317 Pre-season forecast of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon migration timing 531 Seabird-fish models. W. Sydeman based on oceanographic and biological variables. G. Ruggerone 605 Modeling growth and survival of early life-stages of Pacific cod in 319 Retrospective study of pigmented macrophage aggregates as markers response to climate-related changes in sea ice conditions in the Bering of Pacific herring population health. G. Marty Sea. M. Behrenfeld, L. Ciannelli, M. Davis, T. Hurst, B. Laurel, A. Stoner 321 Evaluation of alternative hypotheses to explain the collapse of the 606 Modeling climate effects on interdecadal variation in southeastern Kvichak sockeye salmon: A project to catalyze a comprehensive, Bering Sea jellyfish populations. M. B. Decker hypotheses-driven research program. M. Link, G. Ruggerone 610 Adaptation to a changing world: Molecular evidence for selective 325 Video monitoring aboard Bering Sea factory trawlers—a pilot study. mortality in walleye pollock larvae. K. Bailey, M. Canino, L. Hauser S. Anderson, M. Buckley 617 Migration patterns of Pacific halibut in the southeast Bering Sea. 327 Early marine ecology of juvenile chum salmon in Kuskokwim Bay, Alaska. T. Loher, B. Norcross L. Haldorson, N. Hillgruber, C. Zimmerman 618 Spatial and temporal patterns in Pacific cod reproductive maturity in 401 Survey strategies for assessment of Bering Sea forage species. the Bering Sea. El. Logerwell, S. Neidetcher M. Benfield, E. Brown, J. Churnside, N. Hillgruber, J. Horne, S. Parker Stetter, M. Sigler 619 Connectivity between Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) 404 Alaska Marine Information System. D. Kiefer, K. Stocks spawning and nursery areas in the eastern Bering Sea: A paradigm for 407 Kelp-grazer interactions in Kachemak Bay, Alaska: grazing activity, offshore spawning flatfish species. K. Bailey, L. Ciannelli, J. Duffy-Anderson, chemical defenses and resource allocation. K. Iken A. Matarese 417 Reproductive ecology of Atka mackerel, Pleurogrammus monopterygius, 620 Estimating movement rates of Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) in the in Alaska. S. Atkinson, N. Hillgruber, R. Lauth, S. McDermott Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska using mark-recapture methods. 418 Abundance, life history, and population demographics of Spiny Dogfish, D. Gunderson, P. Munro, D. Urban Squalus acanthias. V. Gallucci, G. Kruse 621 Diet and trophic ecology of skates in the Gulf of Alaska (Raja and 419 Modeling of multispecies groundfish interactions in the eastern Bering Bathyraja spp.): Foundational ecological information for ecosystem- based management of demersal resources. G. Cailliet, D. Ebert Sea. P. Livingston SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 55

622 Analysis of fall, winter, and spring predation of key Bering Sea and Gulf 811 Development of a quantitative PCR assay for simultaneous identi- of Alaska groundfish through food habits and stable isotope analysis. fication and enumeration of planktonic red king crab (Paralithodes K. Aydin, B. Miller camtschaticus) larvae. G. Eckert, P. Jensen, J. Morado 623 Tools to assess Hematodinium life history and impacts on Tanner crabs. 812 Reproductive indices of male snow crabs (Chionoecetes opilio) from C. Friedman, L. Hauser, F. Morado the Bering Sea: Analysis of hormones, reproductive structures, and behavior. S. Tamone 624 Modeling transport and survival of larval crab: Investigating the contraction and variability in snow crab stocks in the eastern Bering Sea 813 Determining the implications of uncertainty in snow crab recruitment using individual-based models .D. Armstrong, B. Ernst, A. Hermann, S. Hinckley, using management strategy evaluation. A. Punt, B. Turnock G. Kruse, B. Megrey, J. Napp, J. M. (Lobo) Orensanz, C. Parada 814 Recruitment mechanisms for tanner crabs in the eastern Bering Sea. 625 Assessment of Bristol Bay red king crab resource for future management E. Curchitser, A. Hermann, G. Kruse, J. Napp action—a new approach. G. Conan, S. Hughes 815 Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) migration and distribution related to 627 Identifying life history characteristics of squid in the Bering Sea. spawning in the eastern Bering Sea: A mark-recapture experiment on a N. Bickford, B. Norcross large geographic scale. M. Conners, P. Munro 628 Understanding the population dynamics of an abundant non-target 816 Estimating source contribution and dispersal histories of Pacific cod species group: Life history and demographics of large sculpin species in recruits using otolith elemental composition. T.Hurst, J. Miller, J. Moss the Bering Sea large marine ecosystem. K. Aydin, A. Hollowed, R. Reuter 817 A landscape genetics approach to Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) 629 Assessment of female reproductive effort and maternal effects in Pacific population structure in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; investiga- Ocean perch: Do big old females matter? tion of ecological barriers to connectivity between potentially distinct S. Heppell, S. Heppell, P. Spencer population components. I. Spies 630 Food web linkages: Forage fish distribution and ecology in core areas of 825 Assessment of Bristol Bay red king crab resource for future management predator distribution in the Aleutian archipelago. M. Arimitsu, J. Piatt , V. Byrd action: Implementing a cooperative approach. S. Hughes

704 *Developing the Alaska Marine Information System. M. Johnson 711 Quantification of unobserved injury and mortality of Bering Sea crabs due to encounters with trawls on the seafloor. M. Davis, J. Gauvin, J. Munk, C. Rose, A. Stoner 712 Bycatch characterization in the Pacific halibut fishery : A field test of electronic monitoring technology. J. Cahalan, W. Karp, B. Leaman, J. Watson, G. Williams 713 Predicting snow crab growth and size with climate warming in the northern Bering Sea. J. Lovvorn 714 Developing biological reference points for crustacean fisheries: Reproductive potential of Bristol Bay red king crab and eastern Bering Sea snow crab. G. Eckert, G. Kruse, K. Swiney 715 Life history and population dynamics of four endemic Alaska skates: Determining essential biological information for effective management of bycatch and target species. G. Cailliet, D. Ebert

716 Evaluating acoustics for squid assessment in the Bering Sea. J. Horne 728 Herring synthesis: Documenting and modeling herring spawning areas within socio-ecological systems over time in the southeastern Gulf of Alaska. V. Butler, M. Moss, T. Thornton 731 Temperature data collections on Bering Sea groundfish vessels to evaluate temperature at depth and catch rates for target and bycatch species in order to reduce bycatch and increase knowledge of how ecosystem variables affect fishing. J. Gauvin, J. Ianelli, P. Stabeno 809 Evaluation of echosign data in improving trawl survey biomass estimates for patchily-distributed rockfish. D. Hanselman, P. Spencer 810 Assessment of rockfish species in untrawlable habitat using advanced acoustic, optical, and trawl technologies. D. Demer, M. Martin, C.Rooper, T.s Weber, M.Wilkins, C. Wilson, M. Zimmermann

* discussed in Other Research Partnerships

Jack Helle 56 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Stock Assessment Research and Development

Some of the most challenging issues for fisheries management involves the accurate assessment of fish populations.

The National Marine Fisheries Service annually reports to species, squid, rockfish and planktonic stages of commer- Congress on the status of fisheries under a federal fishery cially important species, to improving existing assessment management plan and identifies their status – overfished, technologies, integrating ecosystem indicators into assess- not overfished, approaching an overfished condition, or ment models, making these models more spatially explicit, unknown. These conditions do not distinguish if a stock has and better understanding the general foraging, behavioral, declined due to natural or human factors. and population ecology of the species of interest.

We need to understand how these factors interact and New Methods for Assessing Difficult Species influence populations so resource management can adapt. State and federal management agencies routinely assess Fishery councils place stocks into different tiers depending stocks of exploited fishes and invertebrates, but some spe- on how much information they have, with fewer data result- cies are difficult to study. We lack information on forage ing in more cautionary considerations. Given the varying species, including myctophids, euphausiids, sandlance, amounts of information known about different species and capelin, and gadids, which are important prey for large the uncertainty in resulting stock assessments, scientists are fishes, seabirds, and mammals. continually gathering more information about target and bycatch species, as well as improving upon stock assess- Forage species occur in sometimes dense patches in space ment techniques, methods, and models. and time, and these ephemeral hotspots influence the structure and function of marine ecosystems. Yet survey The Board has funded 49 projects (29 of which are com- methodologies do not yet accurately measure these prop- pleted) for over $9.3 million related to stock assessment erties, nor have different types of surveys been compared research and development, ranging from the development to each other to determine which approaches or combina- of new methodologies to assessing a variety of forage tion would provide the best information. Christopher Kenaley Christopher Photograph of a hot spot with large concentrations of seabirds and marine mammals. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 57

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development Testing Techniques for Finding Testing Profile Eco-Sounder Forage Species Project 521 Project 401

In project 401, researchers evaluated different techniques to characterize forage species in the slope, shelf, and nearshore regions of the southeast Bering Sea using ship-based (acoustics, midwater trawls, MultiNet, beach seine, jig, ROV) and aerial remote-sensing technologies, including LIDAR. Aerial surveys can rapidly cover large areas and are cheaper than ship-based surveys, but cannot provide information deeper than 20-50 meters.

During ship-based surveys, acoustics profile the water Life cycle of Neocalanus plumchruus (left) and breakdown by size and depth of its column to the seafloor and direct sampling provides bio- predation mortality (right). logical information, such as species composition, but the survey is comparatively slow and may not capture ephem- Scientists most frequently use acoustics to eral events. Ship surveys detected patchy prey at middle measure and monitor the vertical biomass distribution of depths of 100–300 meters along the slope and nearshore, key forage species, validated by vertical net tows. Nearly all but dispersed prey at shallow depths of less than 100 of the food for Pacific salmon, pollock, andother important meters and in deep water of more than 300 meters over pelagic predators funnels through either large calanoid the slope, indicating that eastern Bering Sea slope and copepods (mostly Neocalanus spp.) or through midwater shelf regions differ in forage species composition, distri- micronekton, which are primarily myctophid fishes and bution, and abundance. Ship-based surveys also identified small squids about 5-10 centimeters long. unique types of aggregations as well as several intense surface foraging events involving many birds, fish schools, Both groups live primarily in waters between 400 and 1200 whales, and zooplankton. A typical event measured about meters deep. Copepods migrate seasonally to deeper ten kilometers across and lasted for about three days. water for a prolonged deep dormancy, while the fishes and squids migrate twice a day between the surface and the Both LIDAR and acoustics recorded similar spatial patterns mesopelagic depths occupied by the dormant copepods. in forage species distribution, but most of the forage species remained below the LIDAR penetration depth at more When they migrate up to the sea surface to feed on cope- than 24 meters, even at night. pods, the micronekton in turn are a major source of food for Pacific salmon and other top predators. Knowing Given these findings, a compromise between the advan- the biomass and distribution of these zooplankton and tages and limitations of each approach appears to be that micronekton is key to understanding variations in food sup- shelf, slope and nearshore regions should be surveyed ply for their predators, especially in autumn and winter, separately, and that broad-area aerial surveys can direct when upper ocean food sources are scarce. ship-based surveys to regions of interest. Year-round monitoring of both large copepods and micronekton is problematic. For most of the year, nearly all of the monthly total biomass occurs at depth, where sampling with nets is difficult, time consuming, and expensive. Project 521 focused on adapting a moderate-cost, high- frequency echosounder to allow in situ profiling to ocean depths of at least 1000 meters. Researchers modified existing sonar technology to target the size, power consumption, data-compression, and depth requirements and attached it to Argo profiling floats.

A series of unexpected technical problems in 2006 and early 2007 prevented full field testing of the new profiling eco-sounder, but information suggests that this technology On June 17, fish schools reappear and reform the hot spot as ellw as a secondary hot spot between Unalaska and Akutan Islands. will deliver very useful biological data from mesopelagic layers of the subarctic Pacific. 58 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development Using Acoustic Technology to Survey Squid Project 716

Squid are another important, but poorly understood component of the Bering Sea. Prevalent in the diets of northern fur seals, Steller sea lions, and other marine mammals, squid represent significant bycatch in the Bering Sea walleye pollock fishery. Gaps in our knowledge of squid life history and distribution data limit our ability to effectively manage squid stocks, although we do know that squid populations are generally volatile and strongly tied to environmental conditions, such as temperature.

The National Marine Fisheries Service acknowledges that a directed squid fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands ecosystem could quickly develop, but to set catch and bycatch rates for squid, they need quantitative stock information. No one has comprehen- sively surveyed squid in the Bering Sea and so there are no reliable biomass estimates.

Squid are difficult to assess with conventional trawling. Acoustics provide an alternate approach, surveying large distances over short time periods and providing snapshots of organisms throughout the water column. Project 716 is evaluating the potential of using acoustic technology to assess Bering Sea squid by examining methods used to charac- Works courtesyReprinted Stuff of How terize acoustic energy from squid assemblages in the waters north of the Aleutian archipelago and along the southern portion of the shelf break near Unimak Island, called the horseshoe region. Specimens collected through midwater or bottom trawls will be used to verify the identity of species of squid in the area and will provide life history information. Scientists expect to calculate a squid density index and a catch per unit effort based on the systematic acoustic data and the trawl catches, respectively.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development Counting Rockfish inU ntrawlable Habitats Project 810

The habitat preferences of certain fishes make instruments to estimate abundance, including an EK60 stock assessment surveys problematic. Rockfish aggregate echosounder operating at five frequencies, a multibeam in untrawlable rocky areas, yet constitute an important com- echosounder (ME70) to identify school characteristics, ponent of marine ecosystems and commercial fisheries in and an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) with a 38 Alaska with an ex-vessel value exceeding $11 million in 2006. kHz echosounder, and a stereo drop camera to measure length. A semipelagic trawl will be fished near the sea- A constant problem in estimating groundfish biomass floor to verify species identification and size. Results will using trawl surveys is the unknown, but presumed signifi- be used to develop a methodology that will scale up to cant amount of the continental shelf that is not fishable with entire surveys of the untrawlable areas of the Gulf of Alaska the survey trawl. To estimate the total biomass for a spe- and Aleutian Islands, allowing scientists to compare species, catch per unit effort data from a survey are generally cies composition, abundance, and size between trawlable expanded across entire regions regardless of the propor- and untrawlable areas. tion of untrawlable ground within the area. There is some evidence that untrawlable areas can have different species assemblages and different size classes or abundances of the same species than trawlable areas, potentially resulting in significant effects on the accuracy and precision of bottom trawl survey biomass estimates.

Project 810 is comparing rockfish abundance between trawlable and untrawlable areas to improve assessments of rockfish abundance. The study aims to evaluate the abil- The NOAA Fisheries AUV is configured with a 38 kHz split-beam echosounder, stereo ity of using advanced remote sensing acoustic and optical cameras, CTD, and 300 kHz ADCP. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 59

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development Detecting Patches of Rockfish Project 809

Even within trawlable areas, surveys do not count everything everywhere and scientists extrapolate the data to a larger region, making a series of assumptions about the nature of the fish distribution.I n the case of rockfish, these estimates are often highly variable and thus less precise, in part, because of the patchy distribution of these fish. Project 809 is using improved acoustic technology (specifically echosign data) to better allocate sampling effort during stock assessment surveys so as to better represent high-density rockfish patches and thus decrease

biomass estimate variability. Darin Trobaugh

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development Identifying Red King Crab Larvae Project 811

A key component to developing accurate stock Crab larvae are patchily distributed in time and space, assessments and predicting year-class strength is to under- requiring extensive sampling efforts to track larval disper- stand the dynamics governing early life history stages. The sal and understand larval dynamics. A major impediment Alaska red king crab fishery was one of the most economi- to analyzing large numbers of plankton samples is the time cally important, single-species fisheries in the world with required to sort and individually identify zooplankton via a landed value of US $265 million in 1980, before its col- light microscopy. Identification is tedious and not always lapse in 1981-82 that led to a total closure of the Bristol reliable, making large-scale plankton surveys cost-prohib- Bay fishery in 1983. Stocks have not shown any substantial itive due to the time and expertise required per sample. recovery, and researchers believe that the planktonic larval dispersal and recruitment for red king crab, like that for To tackle this problem, Project 811 is developing a DNA- many other species, are major determinants of the struc- based assay (QPCR) for the simultaneous identification ture and dynamics of its population. and enumeration of red king crab larvae in plankton samples. The assay will advance sampling techniques, which will facilitate comprehensive studies of red king crab larval dynamics. If successful, such an assay should support development of similar protocols for Tanner, snow, and blue king crab larvae. Brad Stevens Brad 60 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development Improving Existing Assessment Technologies Projects 625, 825

Improving population estimates involves more the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Alaska than just developing new technologies for assessing dif- Department of Fish and Game in 2005, a full survey of ficult species, but also ensuring the accuracy of current 241 random site tows was conducted over approximately methodologies, especially in light of significant uncertain- 24,000 square nautical miles in 2007. ties about gear selectivity and catchability. Such is the case for the Bristol Bay red king crab, which for more than The new survey gear, sampling methodology, and geo-sta- 30 years has been annually assessed by trawl surveys to tistical approach proved highly effective and lowered the determine crab densities, biomass estimates, guideline uncertainty of the abundance estimates for large male Bristol harvest levels, and biological parameters for sustained Bay red king crab of about 37% from the standard NMFS yield management. survey over the past ten years to about 13%. Results also showed significantly higher estimated mean abundance and Project 625 developed and conducted an alternative, reduced variance from the Bering Sea Fisheries Research cost-effective survey for Bering Sea crab resources that Foundation survey for all sizes and sexes as compared to eliminates or greatly reduces bias and uncertainty in the National Marine Fisheries Service survey. Recognizing the estimates of crab biomass for all relevant life stages that one survey season, although promising, does not set a of crab. Based on a successful pilot study by the Bering new standard, Project 825 continues this effort with another Sea Fisheries Research Foundation in cooperation with full-scale side-by-side assessment in 2008. Steve Hughes Steve Photos from the 2007 BSFRF trawl showing footrope configuration along wing sections (upper) and the throat section (lower). SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 61

Ecology

Counting and estimating the number of any given species at a specific point in time and place is complex. Determining why a given number of these species are there, or perhaps more critically, why they may not be there, may be even more complicated as it requires in-depth knowledge of their behavioral, foraging, and population ecology. Understanding these aspects, however, is crucial to properly assessing and predicting population status.

Behavioral Ecology The Board has funded a variety of behavioral ecology studies focused mostly on salmon, Pacific halibut, and Pacific cod.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Behavioral Ecology Salmon on the High Seas Project 204

Project 204 tagged almost 1,500 salmon in the Bering Sea to determine where they go in the open ocean and what factors affect their survival. Better understanding of the distribution patterns, habitat use, and movements of Asian and North American salmon migrating in the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean helps determine which competitive feeding dynamics between different stocks and species may be negatively affecting the growth, maturation rates, and survival of salmon in the Bering Sea.

The tags employed in this study recorded sea temperature, depth, salinity, and daily position. Almost 8% of the tags have been recovered to date, and the recorded information suggests that different species preferred different Researchers concluded that fishchoose depth over temper- depth ranges. Chum and chinook prefer deeper water (58– ature and that these depths may remain relatively constant 130 meters) than sockeye, while pink and coho salmon are across water masses and ocean areas. Whether warming found in waters 22–46 meters deep. Temperatures of the ocean temperatures will lead to increases in depths pre- water, on the other hand, varied widely. ferred by both salmon and their prey remains to be seen.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Behavioral Ecology Young Salmon in Estuaries Project 327

Project 327 focused on chum salmon and their behavior in estuaries in the last stage of their migration from fresh to salt water, in this case, Kuskokwim Bay. During this period, young fish undergo the energetically costly process of physiologically

adapting from fresh to marine water and often experience high mortality rates. Gansemer Edward

This project studied the patterns of estuarine distribution, diet, body condition, and growth of juvenile salmon in Kuskokwim Bay to better understand the factors regulating this population at this life stage. Scientists found that the timing of outmigration and spatial distribution of juvenile chum salmon in the bay are critically important to their feeding success, and hence to their growth patterns and subsequent chances of survival. As sea surface temperatures increased from 7˚C in May to 16˚C in June, fish lost energy density with size and season, and models indicated that the lowest growth potential for juvenile chum salmon occurred in inshore habitats. Combined, these factors illustrate the delicate balance between different environmental factors needed to properly prepare young salmon for the ocean period of their life, thus influencing how we may assess these stocks at sea. 62 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Behavioral Ecology Migration Patterns of Pacific Halibut Projects 314, 617

Pacific halibut support one of the strongest fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. Landings between 2000–2006 averaged over 71 million pounds annually, and are worth approximately $170 million ex-vessel. The halibut fishery is especially important to small communities in western Alaska, where they harvest approximately 2.5 million pounds per year. Around the

Pribilof Islands, harvest shortfalls led to speculation that the Guild Gillespie/www.chartingnature.com © B. harvest and changing environmental conditions impacted local abundance and/or accessibility to small vessels that fish close to the shore. Projects 314 and 617 focused on water temperature preferences and migration patterns of Pacific halibut.

Scientists participating in Project 314 supplied members of the local fishing fleet with recorders that could be attached to their longline gear during normal fishing operations to measure bottom temperature and fishing depth. Researchers compared these data with daily catch rates, using logbook information and the total weight of fish landed after each trip.

The data did not demonstrate a direct relationship between temperatures and catch within-season, although fleet-wide catch was lowest in 2003, which was warmer on average than 2002 and 2004. The results suggest that halibut do not respond strongly to temperatures within the observed range over short periods, but that local abundance may be influenced by spring temperature prior to commencement Location of major known spawning grounds for Pacific halibut.From St. Pierre, 1984. of the fishery, with warmer water yielding fewer fish or fish that are harder to capture. The data also revealed geographically localized groups of Project 617 investigated the question of harvest and the Pacific halibut along theA leutian Island chain. All of the fish movement of fish. If fish range widely, then the current tagged there displayed residency, with their movements large area management approach (one stock extending possibly impeded by passes between islands. Mid-winter from California through the Bering Sea) may be adequate. aggregation areas of Pacific halibut are assumed to be If, on the other hand, movement of individual halibut is spawning grounds, of which two were previously unidenti- relatively limited, as suggested by local depletion in the fied and extend its presumed spawning range about 1000 Bering Sea, then areas may be self-recruiting and local area kilometers west and about 600 kilometers north of the management plans may more accurately reflectP acific hali- nearest documented spawning area. but population structure. Overall, halibut seemed to follow three general behavioral Researchers tagged 24 adult Pacific halibut with externally patterns, including dispersal to the continental slope, con- attached pop-up archival transmitting tags in summer, and tinental shelf residency, and feeding site fidelity. Several released them on the southeastern Bering Sea continental additional research projects conducted by the International shelf/slope area. In February of the following year, the tag PacificH alibut Commission and others are currently under- released from the fish, floated to the surface of the ocean, way to help better understand the seasonal movements and transmitted the stored data to overhead satellites. and population structure, and this behavioral information Results showed that none of the Pacific halibut moved out will help refine some assumptions ofP acific halibut biology of the region during the winter spawning season, support- and ecology. ing the concept that fish in this region may belong toa separate group from those in the Gulf of Alaska. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 63

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Behavioral Ecology Movements of Pacific Cod Project 620

Projects 620 and 816 focus on the movement of Pacific cod and implications for stock structure and management. In 1996, the cod fishery caught a record 240,590 metric tons, but catches as of 2005 have declined to about 170,000 metric tons. Pacific cod are harvested almost year-round with the concentrated trawl fishery in winter off Unimak Island called “cod alley” and steady longline and pot fishery over the slope and southeastern Bering Sea. © B. Guild Gillespie/www.chartingnature.com

Besides their economic importance, Pacific cod also play Although movement could be presented graphically, the an important ecosystem role as a major predator of other four original datasets were too disjointed, either in time marine organisms and as winter prey for marine mammals, or space, to allow a quantitative representation of move- such as Steller sea lions. To adequately balance ecological ment rates among regions of the Bering Sea or between needs and commercial wants, we need to accurately assess the Gulf of Alaska and the eastern Bering Sea. The model the size and boundaries of stocks. Resource managers cur- produced estimates of survival and exploitation rates, but rently identify two stocks of cod in Alaska, one in the Gulf these were considered “not very precise and biased due of Alaska and one in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. to the non-controlled nature of the tagging studies in all Project 620 was a modeling study in which four existing four datasets.” A well-designed mark-recapture study is Pacific cod tagging datasets were compiled into one to needed to fill these gaps, so the Board fundedP roject 816. quantify Pacific cod movement and to estimate survival and exploitation rates.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Behavioral Ecology Distribution of Juvenile Pacific Cod Project 816

The graphic representation of the compiled movement data discussed in Project 620 and other previous research indicated that the Unimak Pass–Alaska Peninsula area may likely represent the primary source for dispersal of Bering Sea cod larvae. Fish spawned in this region, or transported through Unimak Pass from Gulf of Alaska spawning areas, would be carried into Bristol Bay by the Bering Coastal Current with possible transport northward toward the Pribilof Islands.

Determining this connectivity and dispersal behavior has great implications for management, yet it is still unknown if larvae and early juveniles follow spatially discrete dispersal pathways depending on the location and timing of spawning, or if individuals from different A graphical presentation of minimum distance traveled and direction of movement of tagged Pacific cod in the eastern Bering Sea. Data presented here were based on FIT study only. Each arrow represents three or regions are intermixing throughout their devel- more recoveries, except the one fish captured inR ussian waters. opment phases.

Project 816 is attempting to solve this puzzle by using otolith elemental composition to quantify and visualize spatial and temporal patterns in the distribution of juvenile Pacific cod collected in the eastern Bering Sea in relation to known spawning distributions, major current fields, and other gadid species. 64 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Behavioral Ecology Capturing Live Walleye Pollock Project 506

Tagging studies help scientists assess move- Overall survival rates of the ten trawl samples were not ment and stock structure, but only if the results properly sufficiently strong to endorse a full-scale tagging sur- represent the natural processes. If care is not taken, vey without further testing. However, information gained tagged fish may be impaired in ways that alter their natural from this study indicated that satisfactory survival may be behavior, and thus provide faulty information. Project 506 achievable by targeting dense aggregations of large fish, evaluated the feasibility of capturing live walleye pollock and carefully de-gassing any individuals with symptoms of with a closed-codend trawl net, which researchers hoped disorientation or swimbladder distension. to use for large-scale tagging surveys of pollock in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska.

A closed-codend trawl net pools fish in calm water as the net is brought on deck. Live pollock from ten trawl samples were placed in laboratory holding tanks for 30 days to analyze survival rates as a function of trawl depth, fish length, and catch density.

From nine of these samples, survival after 30 days was low, with pollock suffering significant scale loss during capture. But from one sample, the survival rate was nearly 50% after the codend unexpectedly overfilled with fish, plugging the codend pool.

This outcome suggested that captured pollock benefit from being within dense aggregations of fish, preventing them from harmful contact with the sides of the net or swimming to exhaustion. Fish length also positively correlated with survival rates. The effects of depth resulted in some pollock displaying persistent symptoms of barotrauma, suggesting that pollock caught in deep water adjust poorly once brought to the surface. Shannon Hanna The NOAA trawl net with chafing gear attached, being lifted onto the survey vessel deck after a tow.

Mark Rauzon SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 65

Foraging Ecology The Board funded two foraging ecology projects—one project studies how oceanography, prey distribution, and competition can determine foraging success, survival, and productivity of capelin and juvenile pollock, and the other project focused on the diet and ecosystem role of skates in the Gulf of Alaska.

Walleye pollock is a key species in the Alaska groundfish complex and a target species for one of the world’s largest fisheries. Juvenile pollock are prey for other groundfish, such asP acific cod, arrowtooth flounderand Pacific halibut, as wellas for marine mammals and seabirds. Capelin, while not important commercially, are an important forage fish inA laska, serving as important prey for seabirds, groundfish, and marine mammals.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Foraging Ecology Foraging Success of Capelin and Juvenile Pollock Project 524

For both ecological and commercial reasons, Project 524 looked at the forage requirements and interaction between pollock and capelin to better understand their productivity. Using mid-water trawls, researchers collected fish for stomach contents analysis off of Kodiak Island, and recorded physical (CTD) and biological (zooplankton) data. The previous year, investigators found spatial overlap between capelin and pollock, with both species foraging on euphausiids, suggesting the potential for competition.

In 2005, however, only juvenile (age-0) pollock were distributed in the cool, high-salinity waters coincident with the distribution of the bulk of their preferred prey, euphausiids, whereas capelin distribution was more wide-spread and coincident more with the distribution of copepods, their dominant prey that year.

Although capelin and pollock ate different prey in 2005, capelin occurring with pollock often had reduced foraging success compared to capelin occurring alone. This suggests that juvenile pollock were the superior competitor of the two species and that the exclusion of capelin from foraging on euphausiids has negative consequences for their Distribution of euphausiids(S m2 nm-2) in August 2004 based on 120-38kHz acoustic growth, and perhaps even their survival. We still need to A differencing overlaid on aterw temerature (˚C) at 75 meters. further examine the potential for resource limitation and to study in more detail the interactions been capelin and juvenile pollock and its effects on their respective productivity.

Population Ecology The study of how populations interact with the environment, and the dynamics and demography of species populations makes population ecology a large and important field of research that provides critical life-history information needed to build accurate population and stock assessment models. Its importance is reflectedin the $4.3 million the Board has dedicated to 23 projects focused on this subject, spread across numerous species of commercial and ecological importance, including skates, dogfish, squid, sculpin, crab, herring, salmon, pollock, cod, Atka mackerel, halibut, and rockfish.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Disease in Herring Populations Project 319

Increased knowledge about critical life-history but the population has abundant year-classes only every parameters is not only crucial for commercial species, but few years, likely connected to environmental factors, nutri- also for those that support valuable resources and play tional stress, exposure to contaminants, and disease. important roles in subsistence. Pacific herring encompass all of the above. Our understanding of the detailed ecological and evolutionary impacts of disease in marine systems is very Herring range throughout coastal regions of the North general, and for herring is particularly poor. As a result, Pacific. They are a critical source of high-energy food for Project 319 focused on identifying a biological “marker” other fish and marine mammals, such as Steller sea lions, that could show if Pacific herring were affected by disease and are highly valued in commercial and subsistence fish- in the past, so that scientists could determine the existence eries. Pacific herring first spawn as three- to five-year olds of disease before populations decrease in the future, and and live as long as 15 years. Mature herring spawn yearly, thus shed light into one of the parameters affecting herring population trends.

Researchers used 1,300 historic fish liver samples collected in Prince William Sound from 1988 and 1994 to study how age, gender, season, and disease affected the amount of small round structures called pigmented macrophage aggregates (PMA) normally found in fish organs. The study showed that PMA are excellent permanent biomarkers of population level stress in Pacific herring that remain with a year class until the fish die. Differences in PMA volume between the 1988 and 1994 fish supported the idea that a stress-related population decline of herring occurred sometime between 1992 and 1994 due to a disease outbreak, and not immediately following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Clupea pallasii. Pigmented macrophage aggregates in the livers from two, six-year-old male Pacific herring sampled in 1994. Micrographs within a column are from serial sections of the same liver; micrographs within a row were stained with the same reagents. Magnification is the same for all images. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 67

F ea t u re P R O J EC T

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Skates in Alaska’s Seas Projects 510,621,715

Skates are common, bottom-dwelling cartilaginous fishes that serve important ecological functions as top predators and compete with other groundfish. Four species inhabit the outer continental shelf and upper continental slope environments of the Gulf of Alaska—big, longnose, Aleutian, and Bering skates.

We know little about what skates eat in Alaska waters, which severely limits effective management of skates and co-occurring species. Project 621 aimed to provide quantitative information on their feeding ecology by collecting individuals caught during the fishery independent trawl surveys of the National Marine Fisheries Service and Alaska Department of Fish and Game in the western Gulf of Alaska in the summers of 2005-2007.

All skates of the four study species were identified, sexed, measured, and stomach contents were preserved for identification and analysis. All skates ate primarily shrimp and crab, although Aleutian and Bering skate diets differed among years, with euphausiids comprising a much greater proportion during 2007, and relatively fewer shrimp.

This first systematic quantification of skate diets in this region provided crucial information for multispecies trophic models, ultimately allowing more effective ecosystem-based management plans. Stomach samples from 2,060 skates were collected in the Gulf of Alaska during 2005–2007. Researchers continue to investigate the sources of variability, such as body size or location and depth of capture, in skate diets. Combined, these three Life Histories of Skates Using the skates collected as part of Project 621, Projects 510 and 715 derived informa- projects have provided tion on their age, longevity, growth, and reproductive biology. Skates are commonly taken as bycatch in groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and eastern Bering Sea, the first quantitative and in 2005, approximately 620,000 pounds of skates were caught as bycatch but information on age, mostly discarded. growth, and reproductive While skate susceptibility to fishing pressure has been well documented, we lack enough knowledge of their life histories to assess stocks and implement sustainable manage- biology of eight Alaska ment plans. Knowing more about skates has recently become even more important with skate species, none the emergence of directed fisheries for big and longnose skates in the Gulf of Alaska. of which had been These two projects revealed maximum age estimates for Aleutian and Bering skates of 17 and 13 years, respectively, with no significant differences between the growth of previously studied in females and males for either species. Researchers estimate that Aleutian skates reach Alaska waters. maturity at ten years, and Bering skates become mature at seven years, with resulting demographic models projecting annual population growth rates of 25% for Aleutian skates, 36% for Bering skates, 33% for big skates, and 20% for longnose skates.

Project 715 continues these research efforts as it studies the age, growth, and reproductive biology of four additional Alaska skate species (commander skate, whiteblotched skate, whitebrow skate, and mud skate). Combined, these two projects have provided the first quantitative information on age, growth, and reproductive biology of eight Alaska skate species, none of which had been previously studied in Alaska waters. 68 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Life Histories of Dogfish Projects 418, 511

Because many elasmobranchs, including skates Using dogfish samples, investigators analyzed predomi- and sharks, grow slowly, mature late, and have few nant prey species and regional variability in the diet, and, young—characteristics that make them especially vulner- using the catch-per-unit-effort data, established a stan- able to fisheries exploitation—we need details on these dardized index of relative abundance. This index, coupled species-specific traits to develop realistic stock assessment with a surplus production model, allowed them to calculate models and establish sustainable management. Projects the potential risk of fishing to spiny dogfish. 418 and 511 investigated the abundance, life history, and population demographics of spiny dogfish to conduct a The studies found that dogfish primarily eat herring, smelt, preliminary stock assessment based on bycatch data. and other forage fishes, with shrimp being the most abundant non-fish portion of their diet. Male and female spiny In the Gulf of Alaska, dogfish have long faced fishing pres- dogfish showed similar growth rates until 30 years of age, sure in significant quantities as bycatch in commercially after which females grew faster and larger than males and valuable sablefish, salmon, halibut and other fisheries. No lived longer. Dogfish catch rates varied with year, area, one knows the impact of this fishing mortality on dogfish depth and vessel, and models estimated that dogfish may populations in the Gulf of Alaska, and no stock assessment be at 80%-90% of their theoretical population carrying had been completed prior to these studies. capacity in the Gulf of Alaska.

Researchers collected dogfish through targeted sampling Given our current life-history knowledge, it appears that cruises, state and federal assessment surveys, and oppor- the population would decline under relatively low rates of tunistic fishery bycatch samples between 2004 and 2007 fishing mortality, with harvest strategies targeting juveniles across the Gulf of Alaska. They also drew on observer data, and subadults leading to the greatest risks to sustainability. survey catch per unit effort (CPUE) and logbook informa- These results are currently being folded into the forth- tion, then used ageing technologies validated in the lab coming NPFMC stock assessments for spiny dogfish and to model the most appropriate age and growth curves for provide the critical tools needed to build a full population spiny dogfish. dynamics model. Mickey Darden Mickey Life history studies reveal that dogfish grow slowly, mature late, and primarily eat herring, smelt, other forage fishes, and shrimp. Dogfish face fishing pressure as bycatch in commercial fisheries. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 69

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Squid Life Histories Project 627

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council also used chemical signatures embedded within the stato- manages squid and sculpin as part of their “other species” lith to estimate the degree of squid movement between category, which has an aggregate quota that also includes hatching and capture locations. taxonomically and biologically dissimilar groups such as sharks and octopi. Researchers assume that squid biomass Although limited sample sizes did not permit detailed diet is huge and mostly concentrated in the Bering Sea basin analysis, it appears that in summer, Berryteuthis magister waters. Squid play an integral role in the trophic web as mainly ate euphausiids and gadids, whereas B. anonychus predators of larval fish and zooplankton, and as prey for ate arrow worms, fish, and euphausiids,Boreoteuthis bore- larger fish and marine mammals, with as much as 1,000,000 alis ate fish, euphausiids, and amphipods, and Gonatus metric tons of squid consumed as prey. kamtschaticus ate squid, fishes, crabs, and euphausiids. This is the first diet baseline information for these species. Despite squid’s ecological importance, and extremely high Scientists found that B. magister, which made up most of abundance in the Bering Sea, we know little about their the available samples, complete their life cycle in about life histories. Project 627 filled in some of these gaps by one year. Juveniles and adults appear to occupy different collecting gonatid squid from research cruises, and oppor- parts of the water column, indicating that the hatching and tunistically from commercial fisherman, then removing capture locations are not the same and that B. magister stomachs for diet analysis, and inner ear bones (statolith) for hatch at three or more different hatching locations along determining age by counting the daily rings. Researchers the Bering Sea slope.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Ecological Role of Sculpin Project 628

Project 628 focuses on sculpin, which represent a significant portion of fishery bycatch in Alaska, with an average of 6,658 metric tons or 22% of the “other species” catch total from 1997–2004. The study focuses on determining age, growth, reproductive biology, food habitats, and other life history parameters to improve stock assessments models and to better understand the ecological role of four abundant large sculpin species (bigmouth sculpin, great sculpin, plain sculpin, and the yellow Irish lord) in the Bering Sea. Samples were collected during the summer 2006 NOAA eastern Bering Sea continental shelf and the Aleutian Islands survey conducted by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, as well as during the fall, spring, and winter of 2007-2007 using field contractors. Photographs of plain sculpin otoliths aged using the surface and the break and bake method. A shows large early years on the surface and the break and bake method. B shows a small 1st year on the surface, but normal size on the break and bake. 70 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology The Reproductive Biology of Female Snow Crabs Project 508

By 2004, the recommended guideline harvest The cyclical signal in the abundance of recruitment to the level for the snow crab fishery dropped to 6% of the 1991 mature female and male populations appears to have a historical maximum of 328 million pounds. The geographic pervasive effect on virtually every aspect of snow crab life range of snow crabs in the eastern Bering Sea has con- history and population ecology—female size at maturity, tracted substantially towards the northwest, but no one egg clutch fullness, sex ratios, and average age past-termi- knows how this reduced range is affecting recruitment. nal molt among others. The research suggests that using Project 508 analyzed existing data from trawl surveys aggregate indices of spawning biomass…as a surrogate conducted between 1978–2003 by the National Marine for female effective reproductive output in conventional Fisheries Service, and from immature crab taken from cod stock assessment can be seriously misleading, obscuring stomachs. interpretable patterns in the case of stocks that, like snow crab in the eastern Bering Sea, show strong geographic Results showed that the early benthic life history for crabs structure. This is particularly so when biological process are at depths of 50 to 100 meters in the eastern shelf of the strongly governed by environmental gradients, geographic Bering Sea lasts for an average of six years—from settle- features, and patterns of circulation and other hydrographic ment to terminal molt when females reach maturity or processes, as is the case for this species. males reach adulthood. Towards the north shelf, life history events tend to be delayed due to colder temperatures, presumably because of a combination of biennial brood- The geographic range of snow crabs in ing and lower molting frequency at higher latitudes. the eastern Bering Sea has contracted Females live for up to 14 years, including six to seven years substantially towards the northwest. of reproductive life. Males may live up to 18 years. The study confirmed and expanded previous results showing that female recruitment over the last 25 years occurred in a regular cycle of four pulses, with a six- to seven-year period. © B. Guild Gillespie/www.chartingnature.com © B. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 71

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Male Snow Crabs Projects 812, 714

Project 812 is adding to our renewed under- Project 714 is also assessing egg quality and larval fitness standing of crab reproductive biology by focusing on male relative to female size and reproductive history to incor- snow crabs, particularly on the physiological difference porate these reproductive potential indices into stock between males that have reached terminal molt and are assessment models, which currently only use a crude mea- thought to be mostly responsible for mating, and indi- sure of reproductive output based on total female biomass. viduals in stages before the terminal molt that are already reproductively mature.

A more detailed understanding of the factors that contribute to successful mating and maximal fertilization of a clutch could support more refined population models. Project 812 is thematically synergistic with Project 714, which is examining the relationship between the amount of sperm in the spermathaeca (sperm load) of Bristol Bay king crab, and the percentage of the clutch that is fertilized. NOAA

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Tanner Crab Abundance Project 814

Project 814 focuses on Tanner crabs, and aims to investigate the causes of the wide swings in Tanner crab abundance over the last 15 years, seemingly due to extreme recruitment variability. Understanding the processes driving this variability would let fishery managers set sustainable biological catch and overfishing limits, and provide a basis for evaluating impacts of climate variability.

The study will apply a process-oriented, simulation model to explore the effects of stock biomass on recruitment through density-dependent relationships. Investigators will also look at how bottom temperature affects gonadal development of maturing adults, and how wind impacts the supply of nutrients leading to primary and second- Estimated male Tanner crab recruitment in Bristol Bay, during 1976-1996. Recruit- ary production favorable to larval crab feeding. The study ment occurs approximately seven years after egg hatching. also examines mixed-layer temperatures on productivity of copepod nauplii as prey of larval crab, and the advection of larval crabs to suitable nursery areas distant from the cold-pool predators such as Pacific cod, and cannibalistic subadult and adult crabs. 72 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

F ea t u re P R O J EC T

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Reproductive Biology of Atka Mackerel Projects 417, 522

Atka mackerel support a multi-million dollar commercial fishery and are important food for fish, seabirds, and marine mammals in the marine ecosystem of the Aleutian Islands. Resource managers need to know more about Atka mackerel life histories to best manage this valuable species.

Projects 417 and 522 proposed to learn more about how temperature affects the development of embryos, how maturity and fecundity differ and change among areas during the reproductive season, and to describe male guarding behavior of egg masses.

Using National Marine Fisheries Service Atka mackerel tag recovery cruises, researchers collected Atka mackerel and their egg masses from inside and outside Trawl Exclusion Zones, then mapped their distribution by reproductive condition. They determined female maturity and fecundity across different geographic areas, and used parentage analyses of embryos produced in both captive and natural populations to assess the mating system and patterns of egg cannibalism by adults.

The reproductive ecology of Atka mackerel turned out to be more complex than previously assumed. Atka mackerel spawn only in specific portions of their habitat, mostly inside the Trawl Exclusion Zones, with males, females, and immature fish living in different areas during the spawning season. Depending on water temperatures, eggs can take up to 100 days to hatch, meaning that adults could The 21 stages of embryonic development for Pleurogrammus monopterygius. Egg be spawning and guarding nests for up to six months a diameter = 2.66 millimeters. year. The study revealed that fecundity and maturity are dependent on growth patterns, with mature females (3-4 years old) in better body condition being more productive.

The study also found that although males mostly fathered the eggs they were guarding, sneaking behavior by other males resulted in egg batches produced by multiple parents.

Overall, variations in behavioral and environmental factors can lead to spawning systems with seasonal influences on the temporal and spatial distributions of the adult population, and it turns out that females are able to regulate their fecundity in response to area and year-specific variations in Bob Lauth Atka mackerel egg masses. the environment. Incorporating this information into stock assessment models and fishery management will greatly enhance our ability to successfully assess and manage this species and fishery. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 73

The reproductive ecology of Atka mackeral turned out to be more complex than researchers previously assumed.

Map of spatial Atka mackerel fishing controls, including the NMFS statistical areas, Steller sea lion critical habitat, and Trawl Exclusion Zones. Also includes three study sites of Amchitka Island. Clark James Mishler 74 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Reproduction of Pacific Ocean Perch in the Bering Sea Project 629

The idea that large females matter a great deal to the population due to their high reproductive potential applies to a variety of species, including Pacific ocean perch. In this long-lived and commercially important species of rockfish, age and size of females could potentially be mediating recruitment variability. Project 629 is investigating the size- and age-specific female reproductive effort of ocean perch and incorporating these data into age-structured population models to determine if and what maternal effects play an important enough role to be taken into account in stock assessment models. Lindsey Arnold Late stage Pacific ocean perch larvae.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Life Histories of Pacific Cod Projects 618, 815, 817

Project 618 aims to identify the spatial and temporal patterns in spawning and maturity of commercially and ecologically valuable Pacific cod in the Bering Sea. Monthly maps of cod maturity stages, based on data collected by observers on commercial vessels, help determine the location and timing of cod spawning. Maturity data collected at St. Paul Island and from the National Marine Fisheries Service Bering Sea trawl surveys and fisheries observers, lets researchers assess the spatial differences in cod maturity schedules to better understand the potential for climate-driven shifts in fish distribution to impact cod life history parameters.

Distribution of Cod Following up on the recommendation made in Project Boundaries for Gene Flow 620, Project 815 will tag 12,000 fish and quantitatively esti- Using landscape genetics as an alternate approach to mate movement rates in the eastern Bering Sea between determining whether there are discrete populations of cod pre-spawning distributions in the fall to spawning distribu- with the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area tions in the late winter and early spring. Understanding is the focus of Project 817. Landscape genetics is a rela- this movement is critical to adult life history. This project tively new approach for examining population structure, is the first study specifically designed to relate geographic but has the potential to identify and correlate clear physical distributions and movement on scales necessary for identi- boundaries, such as oceanic passes, deepwater canyons, fying potentially separate spawning stocks. Doing so gives and current systems, to gene flow (index for the amount of resource managers insight to harvest decisions that can individuals moving between areas). The complex and var- preserve the health of these cod stocks as components of ied physical environment of the Bering Sea and Aleutian a larger system. Islands lends itself to such a study and if successful, results would complement movement information inferred from the tagging study (Project 815), and substantially add to our understanding of the population dynamics of this species. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 75

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Greenland Halibut Collapse Project 619

Quantifying the important connectivity between differences, and for those leading to the ongoing recruit- spawning and nursery areas for Greenland halibut is the ment failure, remain poorly understood. focus of Project 619. Greenland halibut used to be one of the most important commercial flatfish species of the A critical aspect of the Greenland halibut life history Eastern Bering Sea, with landings in the late 1970s far appears to be the transport of eggs and larvae from exceeding the 2005 combined landings of all other com- their deepwater spawning areas across the slope to suit- mercial large flatfish species, such as Pacific halibut, able nursery locations on the shelf. It is the hope of this arrowtooth flounder, and flathead sole. project that understanding how evolving physical conditions of the Bering Sea affect this transport pathway will However, since the late 1970s when landings measured provide critical insight into the recruitment dynamics of 80,000 tons, a dramatic decline in recruitment resulted in Greenland halibut, and possible other deepwater spawn- landings of about 2,000-3,000 tons during the three years ing flatfish. Researchers are employing a combination of before the onset of this project. The collapse of this stock field and laboratory work as well as modeling to achieve is in strong contrast to the increase of other flatfish spe- these objectives. cies of the eastern Bering Sea and the causes for these

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Walleye Pollock in the Gulf of Alaska Project 523

Female walleye pollock spawn millions of eggs, but 99% of these die before the end of their first Map A: Regions where year, due to high levels of predation, transport by ocean modeled pollock eggs currents out of their preferred habitat, and a lack of food. were released for the Project 523 developed and used a physical-biological years 2000-2004. model to simulate the physical environment and the early life history of walleye pollock in the Gulf of Alaska for a better understanding of the processes that influence walleye pollock recruitment, and how recruitment may fluctuate as climate changes. Part of this study also looked at the relationships between spawning locations and nursery areas of walleye pollock in the North Pacific. Map B: Positions of particles (correspond- The study showed that young pollock that were spawned ing to eggs, yolksac in outer Cook Inlet, Shelikof Strait, the Semidi Islands, larvae, feeding larvae, as well as in the Shumagin region, may all be using the and juveniles) during Shumagin Island region as a nursery area. Contrary to pre- the simulation on vious assumptions, the model indicated that many young August 1, 2000. pollock hatched in the Gulf of Alaska may eventually end up in the Bering Sea, especially if they were spawned on the outer edges of the continental shelf or slope or in the Shumagin region. Shumagin Island region a self-sustaining population, or This result raises two important ecological and manage- are all the young fish produced in this region “lost” to the ment questions. Are the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea Bering Sea? Results from this modeling effort need to be walleye pollock populations really separate, as reflected in validated with field observations, but if they are, the pre- the current management scheme, or is recruitment in the dicted survivorship and transport from the model could be Bering Sea affected by spawning in the Gulf? And is the added to the annual stock assessments of walleye pollock. 76 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Tracking Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Project 205

Determining the geographical boundaries of different fish populations and quantifying the connectivity between different areas are important aspects of population ecology and species management, and help in determining population trends. Researchers traditionally relied on tagging individual fish and receiving tag returns from fisheries. In recent years genetics, specifically microsatellite loci and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP, pronounced “snip”, a small genetic change or variation in the DNA), have been increasingly used to track migration, survival, and stock structure of commercially important fish species.

Using these genetic markers, Project 205 tracked the migration and relative survival of juvenile sockeye salmon populations exiting Bristol Bay and the eastern Bering Sea. Data were collected from across the entire eastern Bering Sea using the National Marine Fisheries Service Ocean September stock distributions (except R1-Aug) in the Bering Sea for immature Carrying Capacity (OCC) surveys of 1999-2002, and com- sockeye salmon collected in 2002 and 2003. Sample sizes of successfully genotyped fish are indicated. pared to juvenile reference samples. Unfortunately, the OCC experimental design for sampling juvenile sockeye salmon differed every year in both sampling locations and Some data suggested that the more northerly-derived fish, time of year, precluding a systematic analysis of the data. along with all the other stocks, can migrate northeasterly in some years, but given the single sampling observation Results showed that these genetic techniques could be suc- period it is difficult to predict where these fish migrated cessfully applied to these types of studies and confirmed later in the season. A comprehensive analysis of the interplay that stocks originating from throughout Bristol Bay head between ecological and oceanographic factors became the out into the bay at about the same time and migrate along focus of Project 303, discussed on page 89. the northern Alaska Peninsula in a southeasterly direction.

Dustin Pillips SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 77

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Where Do Pacific Ocean Perch Go? Projects 420, 512

Pacific ocean perch described as part of project 629 were also the subject of projects 420 and 512, which used genetics to determine interannual and spatial variation in northeastern Gulf of Alaska young-of-the-year perch. An important question for this species and other rockfishes is how far individuals move between the release from their mothers until they reproduce about six years later, and how this relates to the size of current management areas. If these areas are much larger than the dispersal distances, uneven harvests may erode potential production and must be carefully considered in stock assessments and management regimes.

Between 1998 and 2003, researchers collected young- Map of collection sites and geographic groupings of adult POP (Palof 2008). Geographic groupings are: Queen Charlotte Islands (QCI), Cross Sound (CSS), Yakutat of-the-year Pacific ocean perch opportunistically during (YAK), Cordova (COR), Kodiak (KOD), Shumagins (SHU), Akutan (AKU), Central Aleu- surveys of juvenile salmon in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering tians (ALE), Western Aleutians (WAL), Southern Bering Sea (SBS), and Central Bering Sea. They genotyped each fish at the same 14 microsatellite Sea (CBS). Solid black lines delineate management areas. loci used during a previous adult ocean perch study, which served as a reference. The genetic composition of the col- where they are caught. Noted differences between years lections of the young ocean perch was compared within at the same geographic locations suggest that the month and among sampling areas within a collection year, as well of capture or differences in oceanographic conditions can as among years for a particular sampling areas. Areas dif- produce differences in distribution patterns from year to fered from each other within a year, confirming that Pacific year. Clearly, the sampling scale of adult fish at about 400 ocean perch in Alaska have a strong localized population kilometers was much larger than the scale of the population structure. Although they have the opportunity and abil- structure, and it appears finer-scale sampling is needed to ity to disperse long distances during their life times, they build accurate models that can evaluate the effects of dif- do not, which means that harvested fish originate close to ferent management approaches.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Ecology :: Population Ecology Identity of Rougheye Rockfish Project 209

Project 209 employed genetics to determine whether rougheye rockfish is really two different species currently managed as one. Fishermen target commercially valuable rougheye rockfish, often harvesting to the maximum level allowed in bycatch guidelines. If two distinct species exist and scientists could identify visual cues for telling them apart, it would be a substantial contribution to conservation and management. The population genetic survey did show that one species Using two independent types of genetic markers to dis- dominated along the Aleutian Chain and in the Bering tinguish between species, the study confirmed that there Sea, but that both were present in the northeastern Gulf are two distinct species, with very few naturally occurring of Alaska. Scientists are continuing this work to develop hybrids between them. Although one type generally had molecular methods which may be more rapidly applied lighter coloration, there was too much visual and morin the field in the future. In the meantime, we still know phological overlap to currently allow for a quick and easy little about the ecological differences between these two distinction in the field. closely related species. 78 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Improving Stock Assessment Models

The number, size, age, location, condition, fecundity, behavior, and many other parameters eventually end up in a stock assessment model that calculates the amount of fish that may be caught the following year. Traditional stock assessment models focus on a single species and in the past did not explicitly take the influence of environmental variability on life history parameters into account. Those impacts were implicitly integrated by the updated biological information, such as counts, being used.

Environmental Issues In recent years, however, and with increased concern about changing climate ocean conditions, the explicit examination of environmental factors driving population dynamics has received more attention, and the Board has funded three projects that fall into this category.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Improving Stock Assessment Models :: Environmental Issues Forecast Model for Bristol Bay Sockeye Salmon Project 317

Project 317 developed a pre-season forecast showed that the migration of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon model for Bristol Bay sockeye salmon based on oceano- can be predicted from sea surface temperature in the graphic and biological variables that influence the timing North PacificO cean if coupled with one or more other vari- of returning adults. The run of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon ables, such as length of adult salmon, river temperature, occurs within a narrow time span, typically between late or harvest rate. The observed runs were consistent with in- June and late July, so migration timing has a significant season projections made from pre-season migration timing effect on the interpretation of in-season abundance of estimates and historical cumulative daily run size data. The Bristol Bay sockeye salmon. The run size entering the fish- study showed that migration timing forecasts can be used ing districts during this one month has ranged from 2.2 to adjust in-season forecasts of sockeye salmon abun- to 61 million sockeye salmon. Researchers developed a dance returning to each fishing district, which represents statistical model to relate historical migration timing to an improved tool for harvest management of Bristol Bay environmental, biological, and fishery information. Results sockeye salmon. Greg Ruggerone Greg SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 79

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Improving Stock Assessment Models :: Environmental Issues Can Seabird Diets Predict Fish Returns? Project 531

Another project aimed at improving Bristol Bay sockeye salmon returns used seabird diets as biological indices. Some seabirds eat the same food as fish of commercial interest, potentially responding to changes in the marine environment in similar ways, and thus could be useful in understanding and forecasting fish abundance. Seabirds are the most conspicuous of all marine organisms, which makes them easier to study than fish.

Project 531 employed statistical methods to relate when seabirds breed and their reproductive success on St. Lazaria Island in Southeast Alaska, and the Pribilof archipelago in the Bering Sea, with the biomass of Pacific herring in SitkaSound and sockeye salmon returns to Bristol Bay, respectively.

Scientists set out to see whether the bird data could predict the fish/fisheries. In Southeast Alaska, the breeding time of common murres related positively to Sitka herring spawning biomass four years later, explaining 61% of the variation in herring biomass and thus substantially improving forecasting abilities. The study speculated that murres may breed later in years when conditions are more favorable for larval and juvenile herring growth and survival, which in turn affects recruitment.

In the eastern Bering Sea, researchers found that the hatching dates of eggs of red-legged kittiwakes on St. Paul Island and the number of young raised to fledging per breeding pair varied relative to prey availability and explained 42% of the sockeye returns three years later.

The study concluded that this link indicates that both the birds and salmon are responding to changes in the availability and/or quality of available prey and that variation in seabird breeding parameters is affected by the same parameters as those affecting salmon survival at sea. The three-year lag between the bird and salmon information supports previous evidence that the first and/or second year at sea is important in determining sockeye year-class strength.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Improving Stock Assessment Models :: Environmental Issues Environmental Effects on Snow Crab Populations Project 813

Project 813 will integrate an analysis of the effects of environmental variables on recruitment directly into the stock assessment model for snow crab. This study is developing scenarios for future recruitment of snow crab and evaluating management strategies based on existing control rules given uncertainty in future recruitment success.

Ryan Kingsbery 80 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Spatial Issues More species appear to have spatial stock structure than previously thought. Once spatial scales and the connections of populations between areas become more clearly defined, researchers need to integrate these considerations into the stock assessment models or they won’t weigh into the management decision process. The Board has funded two projects to this effect, one for pollock and one for snow crab.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Improving Stock Assessment Models :: Spatial Issues Modeling Populations of Walleye Pollock Project 505

Before the start of project 505, the standard eastern Bering Sea walleye pollock stock assessment model had no spatial dimension. Currently there is only sparse information on the degree, size-dependent differences, and actual routes of seasonal migrations by eastern Bering Sea walleye pollock. During cold years, researchers hypothesize that walleye pollock tend to be more offshore as they get older and that there is a general movement from the northwest to the southeast. This project successfully extended the existing stock assessment model into a two-region (northwest and southeastern areas of the eastern Bering Sea), two-season (winter and summer), and age-specific movement model.

Movement between the two regions was estimated based The bottom trawl survey division between the northwest(NW) and southeast (SE) on sparse empirical data, and thus had low precision. The regions of the eastern Bering Sea. Areas 2, 4 and 6 are part of the NW and areas 1, 3 and 5 are part of the SE. study concluded that a mark-recapture study is needed before such a model has sufficient accuracy to be applied to management, but the successful development of the model structure is an important first step in that direction.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Improving Stock Assessment Models :: Spatial Issues Modeling Snow Crab Population Dynamics Project 624

The commercial importance of snow crab, their Despite the contraction in range and decline in abundance recent population decline, and geographic range contrac- of the spawning female population, there have been tion were previously described under Project 508. Project some strong recruitment years based on a combination of 624 is working on coupling an individual-based model of changes in prevailing currents, expansion of the summer larval snow crab with an existing hydrodynamics and food cold pool, (which benefits post-settlement survival), and model, and integrating information on the distribution of less cod predation on early settlement juvenile crab due crab larvae in the eastern Bering Sea. These coupled mod- to fewer cod. Results from this study should provide new els help scientists investigate the spatial stock structure of insight into spatial and environmental population drivers female snow crab and its relationship to transport of larval and thus prove useful for management purposes. stages, as well as the relationship between the ice-edge phytoplankton bloom and larval and early settler survival. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 81

New Models Single-species stock assessment models, even if amplified to take into account environmental and spatial issues, do not include species interactions, such as competition, that can severely impact population dynamics. As a result, current stock assessment models are still far from the ecosystem approach to management required to deal with today’s challenges. Managing fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands with an ecosystem approach requires understanding the predator-prey relationships between fished and unfished marine resources, as well as resource overlap between different species of commercial interest. Continued monitoring of predator/prey relationships and the development and improvement of multispecies and ecosystem models will aid in these goals, and thus the Board has funded four interrelated studies which either support development of new multispecies models or enhancement of existing ones.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Improving Stock Assessment Models :: New Models Predator/Prey Models for Pollock and Mackerel Project 305

Project 305 Proposed to improve estimates of The study revealed that major predators sampled in the predation mortality of walleye pollock and Atka mackerel, eastern Bering Sea tended to consume more walleye pol- both of which are eaten by other fishes, marine mammals, lock on the continental shelf than on the slope, and that and humans. Researchers analyzed more than 20,000 in the Aleutians, important prey for groundfish included stomachs from a variety of groundfish species in the Bering walleye pollock, Atka mackerel, and myctophids. Based on Sea and Aleutian Islands and added the information to a this new information, the updated multispecies statistical multispecies predator/prey model. model provided substantially more precise estimates of mortality due to predation, a crucial factor in stock assessment models.

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Improving Stock Assessment Models :: New Models Multispecies Models for Pollock Projects 419, 525

Project 419 followed up on the work of project 305 by integrating new diet information into the multispecies virtual population analysis and the multispecies forecast model. New estimates of pollock (age-1) predation mortality turned out to be larger than the previous estimates. For older age groups, the opposite trend was observed.

Preliminary results from the multispecies simulation also Comparison of the temporal trend of the predation mortality of age-1 walleye pollock. suggested that the estimates of average long-term walleye pollock spawning biomass are larger than the single-species This improved model creates a powerful new analysis tool estimates. Researchers agreed that they need to perform that will let researchers evaluate a broad range of implica- a more detailed review of the new stomach content data tions of alternative management policies within a complete and the modeling process before extensive forecasting with multispecies framework. Results from these models will pro- this updated model can be used in the management arena. vide advice to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council Project 525 is taking this process a step further, recognizing on how fisheries affect marine ecosystem dynamics through that these models need to consider not only predator-prey food web interactions and technological interactions. relationships, but also the impacts of the fishing on them. 82 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Stock Assessment Research & Development :: Improving Stock Assessment Models :: New Models Sampling What Predators Eat in Fall, Winter and Spring Project 622

A current key shortfall of multi-species and ecosystem models is that most of the diet information they depend on comes from fish collected during assessment surveys, which typically take place between May and September. Different key ecological processes occur during fall, winter and spring, which likely have strong impacts on fish populations and model results, as illustrated by the mismatch between production and consumption estimates of walleye pollock in the Gulf of Alaska. To address this shortfall, Project 622 is sampling predator stomach contents collected by observers during non-survey months from the period 2000-2006 and synthesizing the resulting data on a monthly and geographical scale to provide inputs for future model- Total production of Gulf of Alaska walleye pollock (lines and points) 1990-2005, according efforts. Particular emphasis will be placed on stable ing to the most recent stock assessment, compared with independent consumption isotope analysis that reveals diets over a longer period estimates of major predators on pollock. of time.

Bycatch Reduction

The incidental catch of fishes, marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, and other living marine resources has become a central concern of the commercial and recreational fishing industries, resource managers, conservation organizations, scientists, and the public, both nationally and globally

The Magnuson-Stevens Act defined bycatch as fish which increases the uncertainty concerning total fishing-related are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for mortality, which in turn makes it more difficult to assess the personal use, and includes economic discards and regula- status of stocks. Also, concentrated discards can result in tory discards. Such term does not include fish released alive localized environmental degradation, and hampers growth under a recreational catch and release fishery management of that stock and limits future catch. program. In 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service report “Managing the Nation’s Bycatch,” expanded the The bycatch problem is complex because actions taken definition to include “discarded catch of any living marine to reduce the bycatch of one species can increase that resource plus retained incidental catch and unobserved of another, and efforts to reduce bycatch mortality typi- mortality due to a direct encounter with fishing gear.” cally change the distribution of the net benefits from the fisheries. We need to improve mitigation measures designed to reduce the catch of unwanted species, or perhaps of cer- In its Science Plan, the Board stated that research priori- tain age groups of targeted species. Incidental harvests ties under this topic should include, but are not limited of endangered species, such as short-tailed albatross, or to, mitigation of seabird and marine mammal interactions bycatch of prohibited species, such as red king crab, Pacific with fisheries, new technologies, and methods to reduce herring, chinook and chum salmon, can curtail fisheries and bycatch, and studies of survival rates of discarded fish to elevate concerns for the effects of fishing on other living allow accurate estimation of total fishing mortality. The resources. Board has funded five projects for $900,000 related to fish and invertebrate bycatch. Seabird and marine mam- Incidental catch of undesirable species leads to increased mal-related bycatch studies are expanded upon in their costs of fishing operations and decreases its sustainability. respective sections. If bycatch mortality is not adequately monitored, it SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 83

F ea t u re P R O J EC T

FISH & INVERTS :: Bycatch Reduction Development of New Salmon Bycatch Technologies Project 202

In 2002, the NPRB funded project 202 to examine the feasibility of using sonar technology to reduce salmon bycatch in the Alaska pollock fishery. Salmon are a prohibited species in groundfish fishery management plans and cannot be retained or sold if taken incidentally. Pollock fishermen try to avoid salmon “hotspots” to stay under bycatch caps, but the effort costs fishing time and fuel as they seek fishing grounds with lower salmon bycatch rates, which potentially also have smaller pollock concentrations.

Researchers developed and attached an Advanced Dual-frequency Identification SONar (DIDSON) to nets to provide higher-resolution images that distinguish between different species of fish entering the net.D uring capture, pollock continuously moved toward the back of the net, with relatively infrequent, brief Orientation of the DIDSON sonar and the area that it imaged on efforts to hold position or move slightly forward. Salmon, by contrast, fre- the trawl net. quently moved forward, and swam nearer the top of the net than the pollock.

When the net slowed during retrieval, many salmon swam forward, away from the trawl’s codend, whereas pollock remained in the back of the net. This new The difference in salmon and information aided researchers in developing and testing a new type of salmon excluder that relies on the differences in body shapes and behavior to separate pollock behavior in nets lets animals during capture. researchers develop and test a By using DIDSON to identify species before catching them, chinook salmon bycatch was reduced by 12.9%, while pollock still comprised 95.4% by weight new type of salmon excluder. of the groundfish capture, with flatfish and cod being the primary bycatch. Active industry interest has motivated continued work to improve and apply these excluders. Steve Barbeaux Steve 84 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Bycatch Reduction Exploring Temperature and Bycatch Rates Project 731

To further prevent salmon bycatch in the Scientists participating in this study are deploying up to 20 pollock fishery,P roject 731 is investigating the relationship temperature-depth recorders on the trawl nets of Bering between water column structure and temperature, and Sea fishing vessels to collect the necessary physical data to the spatial patterns in the catch of pollock, salmon, and relate to the catch information. If a significant relationship other species. Researchers think temperature is one of the between temperature and catch rates for pollock, salmon, strongest factors controlling where pollock live. We know and other incidental species is found, this could be a quick less about the specific temperature preferences for adult and useful tool for fishermen to predict bycatch rates of and young salmon in the Bering Sea, which Project 204 salmon and other species, resulting in more selective “tem- revealed to have substantial variation. perature-directed fishing.”

FISH & INVERTS :: Bycatch Reduction Electronic Bycatch Monitoring Project 325

To account for bycatch when assessing fish stocks and setting fishingquotas, resource managers need to know the amounts. Independently collected at-sea data is essential for science, management, and compliance monitoring objectives. Over the past two decades, the traditional method of at-sea monitoring of commercial fisheries by human observers has grown.

With growing monitoring needs, increasing costs and space limits on smaller vessels hampering human observing programs, technology-based at-sea monitoring has emerged. In partnership with industry, Project 325 experimented with hardware and software to develop a verifiable and efficient method of remotely counting bycatch aboard certain trawl vessels that would allow a trained human observer on land to evaluate and process catch data collected remotely at sea.

Once the tool was designed, 2.5 terabytes of shipboard video data were collected, which a professional fisheries observer viewed to identify at-sea discards by event and, if possible, by species. The reviewer watched videos covering a total of 780 hours of at-sea activities, and determined whether there were any bycatch and discards on each haul. It took only 68 hours to physically review and produce reports on those videos, compressing time by a ratio of 11.5:1. The project successfully demonstrated that electronic bycatch monitoring is feasible and could be con-

sidered by management agencies as an additional tool to Mark Buckley on-board human observers. Technicians secure a downward-looking canera to trawler stern gantry. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 85

FISH & INVERTS :: Bycatch Reduction Comparing Electronic and Human Observers in the Halibut Longline Fishery Project 712

The majority of vessels operating in the Pacific halibut fishery are not required to have observers, Carwyn Hammond and their bycatch rates are not well estimated. Previous research documented successful electronic monitoring FISH & INVERTS :: Bycatch Reduction efforts of Pacific halibut longline fishing on chartered research vessels, yet the technique was not tested in the Bycatch Crab Survival commercial halibut fishery, where a much broader range Project 711 of environmental and physical factors affects the vessel operations. Project 711 addresses the issue of unobserved Bering Sea crab injury and mortality after seafloor trawl Project 712 is evaluating and comparing electronic video encounters. Bycatch that comes aboard can be enumerated monitoring and human observers of bycatch in a commer- and included in assessment calculations, but some species cial halibut longline fishery by conducting a cooperative suffer injury or mortality without ever being observed and study with the commercial fishing industry with various ves- counted. To tackle this problem, researchers are designing sel configurations. The resulting information will be key in a recapture net as well as developing handling and holding determining the most cost-effective, efficient, and precise procedures onboard commercial vessels. They will stan- bycatch monitoring methods for this fishery. dardize reflex impairment observations (a method to tell how well a crab is doing) in the lab, then combine these developments to assess the mortality probabilities of crab that have passed the sweeps, wings, and central footrope of a commercial groundfish trawl.

Causes of Major Species Decline

Understanding why some major species populations have declined are among the highest priority ecosystem research needs. Some species, like crab, shrimp and pollock, are particularly important owing to their high economic value while others, like western Alaska salmon, have cultural significance and local value.

Still others, including sharks and arrowtooth flounder, Crab research projects focused on diseases affecting snow play important roles in restructuring the ecosystem. and tanner crab, as well as on the mysterious disappear- Understanding the role of natural and human causes ance of the populations of red king crab near Kodiak that on declines of crab, shrimp, western Alaska salmon, once supported the largest king crab fishery in the world. Greenland turbot, walleye pollock, and halibut and Salmon projects looked at the dramatic decline of Kvichak increases in arrowtooth flounder, other flatfish, sharks, sockeye salmon runs, the distribution of sockeye and chum and skates is important to developing management strat- salmon in the Bering Sea, and life histories of Copper River egies that reflect their causes. The Board has funded six salmon. projects in this category focused on crab and salmon for just under $1.4 million. 86 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

CRAB

Much research has focused on climate variability impacts on recruitment and growth for groundfish and salmon, but relatively little work has been done in this respect with crab stocks. Yet their high commercial value makes it important to better understand the effects of fishery management and environmental processes on crab abundance.

FISH & INVERTS :: Causes of Decline of Major Species :: Crab Bitter Crab Syndrome in Snow and Tanner Crab Projects 306, 623

Snow and Tanner crab were discussed previ- are unable to get parasite samples from the environment, ously under projects 508 and 814. Project 306 studied even though they targeted areas of known high infestation the causative agent of bitter crab syndrome in these two prevalence. Whether free-living life history stages exist or species as a possible key player in increased natural mor- at what densities, and which environmental parameters are tality and poor recruitment. A parasitic dinoflagellate influencing their abundance, remain to be studied. (Hematodinium spp.) causes bitter crab syndrome, which is fatal in snow and Tanner crabs. Infections occur in crus- Project 623 followed up on these problems and is develop- taceans of all sizes and ages, but juveniles are particularly ing an even more precise, quantitative molecular monitoring susceptible. Although the parasite causes death, research- tool (quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction) for ers know little about its life history, or how crabs become Hematodinium. Researchers hope this improved technique infected, yet our understanding is critical for commercially will not only detect the presence, but let us monitor the important crabs in the Bering Sea. effects on Tanner crab size frequencies and general population trends, as well as identify potential infection vectors Using a series of molecular techniques, researchers identi- or reservoirs of the parasite, thereby providing key life his- fied two species of this parasite: one infects the blue king tory parameters that have eluded us so far. Assessing these crab, and one that appears to infect all other decapod disease dynamics would greatly aid managers in develop- hosts studied. Investigators identified an assay to better ing alternative harvest strategies to minimize losses due to detect the presence of Hematodinium, which is the current Hematodinium infections. focus of bitter crab syndrome monitoring efforts. Scientists

Chionoecetes opilio Chionoecetes baidi

Prevalence of BCS in eastern Bering Sea snow and Tanner crabs, 1988-1998. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 87

FISH & INVERTS :: Causes of Decline of Major Species :: Crab Red King Crab Mystery Project 509

Kodiak once supported the largest red king To create prospects of recovery and to learn about future crab fishery in theworld, with peak landings at 94.4 million sustainability, researchers constructed a population dynamics pounds (43,000 metric tons) in 1965, worth $12.2 million model using historical fishery and survey data to estimate at the time. After 15 years of declines, the fishery closed in abundance, recruitment, and fishing and natural mortality 1983, but despite the closure, the red king crab population over the years 1960 to 2004. They also used geographical never recovered. The reasons for the collapse and failure to analyses to explore potential fishery and ecological factors recover remain a mystery that Project 509 set out to solve. in the crab decline.

The study found that during a critical time of fishery development in the late 1960s, a period of strong recruitment promoted fishery overcapitalization, resulting in unsus- tainable harvest rates, particularly from 1981 to 1982. Recruitment failed, resulting in extremely high fishing mortality rates on a declining population of mature males, and producing sex ratios skewed toward females. Adverse environmental and ecological changes likely magnified these problems.

The stock has remained low, at less than one million males and has been stable since 1985, suggesting that predation may be preventing stock recovery. This new analysis will contribute to setting appropriate harvest strategies, and also help evaluate proposed stock enhancement activities. Annual harvests (metric tons) of red king crab from the Kodiak Management Area Scientists will next look in more detail at the effects of eco- during 1950-1982. logical and environmental factors on recruitment for this species.

salmon

Salmon are another species of special interest, particularly concerning some of their regional declines and their implication on commercial and subsistence use, but also concerning their ocean migrations and intermingling of stocks on the high seas, effects of fisheries and environmental conditions on ocean survival, and the issue of overall ocean rearing capacity which is being stressed by increasing releases of young salmon from hatcheries around the Pacific Rim. Greg Ruggerone Greg Sockeye salmon.

FISH & INVERTS :: Causes of Decline of Major Species :: Salmon Kvichak Salmon Declines Project 321

Kvichak sockeye salmon, once the largest were associated with the ocean age structure of the popu- sockeye stock in the world with up to 50% of the world’s lations, with age-2 salmon experiencing greater declines as sockeye production, declined by 73% between 1991-1999 compared to age-3s, likely due to their smaller size. from 1990 stock levels. To find out what caused this dramatic decline, Project 321 examined external human and The authors of the study hypothesize that Kvichak salmon environmental factors, as well as possible changes in bio- may have declined because of reduced at-sea growth logical characteristics of this species. during late marine stages, which produces the highest percentage of ocean age-2 sockeye in Bristol Bay. In addition Researchers found no evidence to support the previously to the impacts of these environmental conditions, the study postulated idea that the decline was due to a regula- also examined the possible role of beluga whale predation tory change in the mid-1980s that led to more stable on smolts migrating out to sea. The analysis estimated that escapement levels. Indeed, specific cyclical spawning approximately two million smolts are consumed by belu- escapements do not seem necessary to achieve high pro- gas in the Kvichak each year, thus reducing the run by less ductivity of Kvichak salmon. A detailed look at patterns than 2% per year. The absolute effect of these predation in smolt abundance and survival at sea indicates that the rates on smolts on the subsequent return of adult sock- decline was driven by factors influencing marine survival eye salmon was estimated to be an average of 180,000 and ocean conditions influencing subsequent processes fish, or about 2%. Given these results, it is unlikely beluga in freshwater. Several other Bristol Bay stocks also declined whales could have played an important role in the decline during these years, although not as deeply. Those declines of salmon returning to the Kvichak River. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 89

FISH & INVERTS :: Causes of Decline of Major Species :: Salmon Distribution of Sockeye and Chum Salmon in the Bering Sea Project 303

Project 303 extensively analyzed the interplay including fall chum salmon from the Yukon River, were dis- between ecological and oceanographic factors influenc- tributed mainly in the eastern North Pacific Ocean. ing the distribution and abundance of Asian and North American sockeye and chum salmon in the Bering Sea. Researchers hypothesize that fish migrate from hatcher- Researchers looked at stock composition at different sta- ies through the Sea of Okhotsk, seasonally through the tions as well as seasonal migration routes and timing. Bering Sea and northwestern Gulf of Alaska, then back to Japan. For sockeye salmon, U.S. investigators identified a The study was carried out under the auspices of the Bering- broader distribution of North American stocks than sug- Aleutian Salmon International Survey (BASIS) developed by gested by historical tagging studies. Bristol Bay salmon the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC), were the most widely-distributed, accounting for more and included researchers from the U.S., Japan, and Russia, than half the mixtures in all areas except the southwest- who shared access to a common, comprehensive database ern Bering Sea. Russian salmon were primarily detected on salmon distribution and environmental conditions in the in the western Bering Sea, and differences were detected Bering Sea. in the distributions between the eastern- and the western- Kamchatka Peninsula populations. Salmon from the Gulf Because of the large number of collaborators from the of Alaska were also widely distributed throughout much of three different nations, the coordination and exchange of the Bering Sea, although at low proportions relative to the ecological data proceeded slowly, and while substantial Pacific Ocean production estimates. progress was made, this project was not able to fully investigate the factors affecting the oceanic distribution and Data from this project have provided the founda- abundance of each regional stock. Through the genetic tion for continuing studies by NPAFC scientists, Pacific analysis of juvenile salmon captured at stations through- Salmon Commission studies by the National Ocean and out the Bering Sea, however, researchers did determine Atmospheric Administration and Alaska Department of that Asian and North American chum stocks were not ran- Fish and Game, and are being used by Fish and Game to domly distributed. Japanese salmon roamed the central improve harvest management in Southeast Alaska, Cook Bering Sea, similar to Russian salmon which also spread Inlet, and Bristol Bay. into the North PacificO cean. Northwestern Alaska salmon,

Greg Ruggerone 90 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Causes of Decline of Major Species :: Salmon Copper River Salmon Project 310

Salmon are an integral component of the socioeconomic and ecological landscape of the North Pacific. Most species livepart of their lives in fresh water, in estuaries and in the open sea. The amount of time that they spend in these habitats varies greatly in the early life histories and migratory behaviors of coho and sockeye salmon, both on local and regional scales.

For sea-going sockeye salmon, time growing up in estuaries may be critical for survival. Project 310 aimed to quantify the spatial and temporal variability in the age that Mary Bishop they migrate to sea and the relative contribution of dif- Otoliths lay down daily growth rings that take into account the chemical concentra- ferent freshwater and marine residence strategies to the tions of ambient water chemistry. surviving spawners in the Copper River watershed. Both species spent only a relatively brief period in estua- Scientists estimated the time coho and sockeye salmon rine waters, an average of 30 days, but during that time spent in estuaries using traditional fisheries sampling ingested substantial quantities of food, clearly pointing to techniques—mid-water trawls, fyke nets, and seine sam- the critical role of these estuarine habitats to ensure subse- ples. They also used micro-chemical analysis of strontium quent marine survival. The authors point out that natural or concentration in otoliths of juvenile and adults within the human-caused alterations to these vital habitats may have Copper River Delta. serious consequences for sustainable harvest of salmonids. Deborah MercyDeborah Researchers sample for coho and sockeye salmon in the Copper River Delta. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 91

Implications of Ecosystem Change on Fishery Management

Harvest rates may be sustainable for single species, yet may have significant impacts on the overall biodiversity of the oceans at the complex, species, stock, and genetic levels. Fish are not removed evenly within the population and the potential exists for competition between fisheries and other species for resources.

Changes in the ecosystem may at first only affect species a particular species based on an optimal harvest of a mix of and habitats not managed or harvested, yet eventually species, rather than solely by the species biomass. reverberate through the food web and have unexpected consequences for fishery management. To provide critical information for such implementation, the Board has funded ten projects for just over $1.5 million, Ideally, new multispecies fishery management strategies focused on the role of climate and forage species in fishery should consider the full range of ecosystem change impli- management, as well as on the development of ecosystem cations to determine acceptable biological catch levels for indicators.

Environmental Change

Most assessments of the potential role of climate and environmental conditions on fish and fisheries consider statistical relationships between various climate indices, such as the PacificD ecadal Oscillation, the Aleutian Low Pressure Index, and time-series of fish catches and recruitment. Although researchers speculate about cause and effect, explicit links between environmental conditions and species composition, fish survival and growth remain largely uncertain.

Ray Morse 92 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Implications of Ecosystem Change on Fishery Management :: Environmental Change Environmental Factors in Herring Predictions for Bristol Bay Project 208 Mike Miller Mike

Project 208 investigated links between environ- The study found recruitment variability depends, in part, on mental factors and a variety of population parameters for the match between where and when herring larvae emerge Pacific herring in Bristol Bay. By analyzing historical catch with bio-physical conditions, such as the spring plank- data, the study surmised that after spawning, Togiak her- ton bloom during March and April. Conditions along the ring migrate clockwise around Bristol Bay and are harvested herring migration corridor and in coastal spawning areas in a small food-and-bait fishery off ofD utch Harbor in July. also affected the timing of both the arrival and spawning of herring in northern Bristol Bay. Researchers concluded Herring then migrate northwest along the continental shelf that ocean temperature changes near the ice edge, which break to the Pribilof Islands where they spend fall and win- are controlled by atmospheric pressure gradients over the ter. In completing their migration, herring may migrate North Pacific Ocean, explain most of the interannual vari- over 1,000 miles annually, providing an important eco- ability of herring spawning, and that placing new moorings logical link between primary production and upper-level in these areas to provide more accurate local information predators, as well as between nearshore and offshore food would likely further improve herring spawning predictions. webs in the Bering Sea.

FISH & INVERTS :: Implications of Ecosystem Change on Fishery Management :: Environmental Change Climate Change and Pacific Cod Productivity Project 605

Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, reduced Project 605 is investigating the responses of larval/juve- sea ice cover corresponded with a northward spread of nile stages exposed to varying temperature and food commercially important species in the Bering Sea, includ- regimes. Investigators are designing models to make spa- ing Pacific cod. Pacific cod have undergone significant tially explicit maps of survival probabilities at monthly and shifts in their diet and in their abundance. Like other spe- annual scales. They are using data taken from lab studies cies in this family, Pacific cod are veryproductive, laying up and coupling these with field data on larval and juvenile to 5,000,000 semi-demersal eggs in one batch during the distributions, temperature and primary productivity to give spring spawning season. This makes them particularly vul- insight into the link between climate change and Pacific nerable to changing environmental conditions during this cod productivity. critical period. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 93

F ea t u re P R O J EC T

FISH & INVERTS :: Implications of Ecosystem Change on Fishery Management :: Environmental Change Jellyfish Fluctuations Project 606

A link between climate change and productivity is sought in Project 606 for jellyfish, which have undergone dramatic fluctuations in biomass in the Bering Sea. Jellyfish can adversely affectcommercial fisheries by clogging nets, by feeding on young fish, and by competing with fish for zooplankton prey.

Jellyfish populations respond promptlyto changes in physical and biological conditions, both by changes in the rates of production of young jellyfish, and by increased feeding and growth in good conditions. To explore the effects of climate change on jellyfish populations in the Bering Sea, this study is using a 27-year time series of jellyfish catches, which extends through two major regime shifts.R esearchers are exploring links between current flow and jellyfish distribution and abundance, and determining the effects of variations in physical (sea ice, temperature, atmospheric Trend in jellyfish biomass from standardized trawl surveys in the variables, currents) and biological conditions (zooplankton, forage fish) on where Bering Sea since 1975. Shown are the total biomass (black line) and jellyfish occur. Our increased understanding of how environmental changes influ- subsets for the SE (red) and NW (blue) Middle Shelf Domains. The ence jellyfish abundance and distribution will help us understand and predict their inset shows the sampling areas on the Bering Sea shelf. potential impacts on fish populations in the Bering Sea.

Understanding jellyfish abundance and distribution helps us predict their impact on fish populations in the Bering Sea. Russell Hopcroft Russell 94 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Implications of Ecosystem Change FISH & INVERTS :: Implications of Ecosystem Change on Fishery Management :: Environmental Change on Fishery Management :: Environmental Change Growth Rates of Snow Crab Genetic Differences in Project 713 Walleye Pollock Project 610 Snow crab distribution in the Bering Sea has shifted north from Bristol Bay to northwest of St. Matthew Scientists know or infer relationships between Island, with evidence of decreasing body size from south to environmental factors like temperature, currents, or primary north. The commercial importance of snow crab, and inves- productivity and fish year-class strength for many species. tigations into their stock dynamics in the Bering Sea was Yet they are uncertain whether larval and juvenile mortal- previously described under projects 508, 624, 812, and 813. ity is random as a consequence of varying environmental parameters, or whether specific genotypes are favored Project 713 expands on some of this work and links to under certain conditions. Project 624, but specificallyaims at understanding the relationship between temperature and the growth rate and Project 610 is using population genomics to estimate diets of settled juveniles and adults around St. Lawrence genetic differences in space and time for walleye pollock Island. The study will provide a critical piece of informa- in the Bering Sea for two years with contrasting environ- tion in the life cycle of this species by predicting when mental conditions, in particular, temperature. Scientists are and where snow crabs may reach marketable size in more also identifying molecular markers that undergo selective northern areas as the climate warms. evolutionary pressure and assessing the scope for adaptation to changing climate conditions.

FISH & INVERTS :: Implications of Ecosystem Change on Fishery Management :: Environmental Change Impacts of Grazers on Kelp Project 407

Kelp beds are highly productive systems that play an important role in nearshore carbon fixation. Many different kinds of invertebrates live in kelp beds, and are prey for other species. Greenlings, ronquils, pricklebacks, and sculpins all use kelp beds as feeding grounds, nurseries, refuges and spawning grounds. Several commercially important fish species, including herring and halibut, depend on nearshore kelp beds during different parts of Heloise Chenelot, their life cycle. Finally, marine mammals, especially sea otters, forage in kelp for sea urchins, clams and other inver- variability of canopy kelp beds in Kachemak Bay, especially tebrates, and wrap themselves in large blades of bull kelp of the dominant, canopy-forming species N. luetkeana, during resting periods. Such biological diversity and cas- which has very limited defense mechanisms against this cading trophic systems depend on the abundance, health, grazer. and stability of the kelp beds. The persistence and abundance of these living habitats are at the mercy of changing Considering the multitude of factors and their variability environmental conditions and grazing pressure. from year to year that likely control kelp recruitment and growth as well as grazer recruitment in Kachemak Bay, it To better understand the environmental and biological is extremely difficult to predict where and when L. vincta dynamics controlling the health of kelp beds and impli- will decimate kelp beds. While at present the researchers cations on fisheries, Project 407 specifically investigated found that kelp beds are reasonably resilient and can re- the grazer-kelp relationship between the gastropod, establish a few years after decimation, it is unclear how this Lacuna vincta, and four common kelp species (Nereocystis resilience may change with changing environmental condi- luetkeana, Agarum clathratum, Saccharina latissima, S. sub- tions. A small but abundant species like L. vincta is difficult simplex) in Kachemak Bay, Alaska. The study showed that to monitor and manage. Learning from terrestrial examples L. vincta, which is only a few millimeters long, is seasonally of ecological pest control, the authors concluded that a abundant in the shallow subtidal zone and reaches den- next step would be to identify natural predators of L. vincta sities of 70 snails per square meter in summer. This snail within the system to better understand the level of natural appears to be a driving force in the spatial and temporal control of the grazer within the system. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 95

The Role of Forage Species

While capelin, eulachon, sand lance, myctophids, and other forage fish are an important component of the North Pacific ecosystem, many aspects of their ecology and population dynamics remain unknown. We understand some of the effects of changes in local availability of forage fish to some seabird colonies, and have estimates of their importance as prey for several commercially important fish species. Yet ecosystem-wide implications of forage fish changes on other ecosystem components remain speculative.

Little is also known about the effects of large fluctuations of crab, shrimp, flatfish, and sharks on other ecosystem components through competition and predation. As intermediaries in the food web, all of these species are important conveyors of trophic energy through the food web and variation in their productivity impacts many other predators, such as fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. John Piatt

FISH & INVERTS :: Implications of Ecosystem Change on Fishery Management :: The Role of Forage Species Forage Fish Productivity Nearshore in the Gulf of Alaska Project 308

In late summer, large numbers of small, silver- colored smelts (capelin and eulachon) and brass-colored young-of-the-year walleye pollock, search the coastal waters of the Gulf of Alaska for zooplankton. Project 308 examined the effects of coastal hydrography and seasonality on forage fish productivity as mediated through bottom-up processes in the western Gulf of Alaska.

Researchers found that the offshore flow near the Shelikof sea valley had high concentrations of krill and large copepods. Fish in regions of high krill and large copepod densities ate more of these prey, were larger and in better condition, had more growth potential, and/or more fish per volume than areas with lower concentrations of prey. Climate-related forcing on hydrographic dynamics in the Gulf of Alaska most affected forage fish growth potentials by altering how much food is available. Also, nursery areas, especially for pollock, near Kodiak Island appeared to provide environmental conditions that tempered wintertime adversity, implying that regional differences in wintertime nursery habitat for this species could be relevant for juvenile walleye pollock survival and subsequent recruitment of individuals to spawning populations. 96 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

FISH & INVERTS :: Implications of Ecosystem Change on Fishery Management :: The Role of Forage Species Characterizing Forage Resources of the Aleutian Islands Project 630

Location of study area and major predator core areas routinely visited by the Tiglax. Map of fishing effort by method during summer 2006.

Our lack of knowledge about forage fish Midwater trawls sampled pelagic forage species and beach biology or links to predator distribution and abundance seines captured nearshore forage species. Twenty-four spe- extends to the Aleutian Islands. Relatively few studies have cies of pelagic fishes and 30 species of nearshore fishes described the regional distribution and abundance of non- were documented throughout the study area. Walleye pol- commercial nearshore and offshore forage resources in the lock, Pacific sand lance and spawning capelin dominated the Aleutian archipelago, in part, because surveying such a pelagic catch, and young-of-the-year gadids, Pacific sand large area is expensive and difficult, and abundance esti- lance and pink salmon dominated the nearshore catch. mates are difficult due to the patchiness of schooling fish and invertebrates. A longitudinal gradient of physical oceanography suggested cooler, more saline, and nutrient rich conditions in Nevertheless, Project 630 opportunistically used estab- the west (central Aleutians) compared to the east (Alaska lished research platforms to sample prey and quantify Peninsula). Researchers found that automated data collec- ocean climate conditions to gain a better understanding tion using equipment permanently installed on the vessel of the ecological relationships between marine predators, is an efficient and cost-effective way to sample the marine prey resources, and marine habitat. Using the U.S. Fish and environment during travel of the Tiglax. Opportunistic Wildlife Service M/V Tiglax, a vessel that routinely travels sampling of station data—CTD, plankton tows, beach throughout the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge seines—was moderately efficient, while trawling was least along the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian archipelago, efficient of all sampling procedures. However, during nor- researchers recorded acoustic backscatter and measured mal operations the refuge bore the cost of transit time, sea surface temperature and salinity using haul-mounted leading to great efficiency in spatial sampling. This research equipment. platform has enormous potential for monitoring key ecosystem components in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian archipelago on seasonal, annual, and decadal time-scales.

Carrie Eischens SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 97

Ecosystem Indicators

As we move toward ecosystem-based fishery management, discussions focus on identifying ecosystem indicators that will monitor trends in the ecosystem and help evaluate whether current management measures are achieving their objectives. On a smaller level, fishquality expressed as energy density could be an index for the health of individual fish.P roject 210 supported the purchase of the equipment necessary to carry out such analyses. Many other species-specific and region-wide environmental parameters have been suggested as indicators of ecosystem status. But even though such indicators are reported, and fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands are managed very progressively under a suite of ecosystem considerations, we still need to develop a more integrated, formalized approach.

FISH & INVERTS :: Implications of Ecosystem Change on Fishery Management :: Ecosystem Indicators Using Ecosystem Indicators in Resource Management Project 502

The Board funded project 502 to help define Although this project was ambitious and no specific indica- a framework within which to choose and implement the tors were chosen, substantial progress was made, and a use of ecosystem indicators for management. Ecosystem series of recommendations was brought forward. indicators are part of a larger process that considers policy- level goals for an ecosystem, and so should be linked to Participants noted that ecosystem-level and community- operational objectives and performance criteria. Although level conservation thresholds are relatively new ideas the project focused on the Bering Sea, the intent was to in marine conservation, and they need further research. provide insights, findings, and recommendations more Existing indicators need to be synthesized into a usable broadly applicable to the North Pacific and adjacent seas. set of parameters, linked to operational objectives, and evaluated using a formal evaluation and selection process Using a workshop approach, the lead investigators involved available from other disciplines. the Bering Sea and international community to discuss a variety of topics, including: While the workshop did not address socio-economic oper- • development of operational objectives for the south- ational objectives for the Bering Sea and North Pacific, eastern Bering Sea ecosystem investigators noted that links between the well-being of • evaluation of the Ecosystem Consideration chapter of people and healthy marine ecosystems require a level the SAFE report and the PICES Marine Ecosystems of of attention comparable to those for ecosystem conser- the North Pacific publication vation objectives. They concluded that the North Pacific • investigation of methodologies to monitor system- Fishery Management Council should play a central role in wide structural changes within the marine ecosystem shepherding the development of these socio-economic • identification of steps to validate indicator perfor- objectives and indicators for the southeastern Bering Sea mance, improve the monitoring network, and integrate and Gulf of Alaska ecosystems. indicators into predictive models

Schematic that matches indicators to objectives using a Driver-Pressure-State- Illustration of an indicator, reference points, and performance measures relative to Impact-Response approach. an ecosystem operational objective. Modified after AOF (2003). 98 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Management Tools

One of the key roles the North Pacific Research Board can play in Alaska’s seas is to foster collaboration, data synthesis, and coordination.

Workshops help bring together regional, national, and international experts to discuss pertinent ecosystem and management questions and develop recommendations to move forward, or to fund the establishment of statewide databases that can be used by researchers and managers to plan and evaluate research needs in a broader context.

Recognizing the importance of this role, the Board has funded a variety of activities related to the different ecosystem components discussed in this report, and specifically, six projects related predominately to fish and invertebrates for almost $700,000.

Workshops

The Arctic is changing. Temperatures are rising, and summer sea ice extent is decreasing. Rivers are discharging more water, sea levels are rising, permafrost is thawing and coasts are eroding. Resident species may shift their ranges and when they reproduce. Ice-dependent species may lose habitat. Hunting cultures may disappear, and access to traditional foods may change. Marine shipping access to natural resources and fisheries may increase.

Despite these potential changes, relatively little is known about the Arctic Ocean and northern Bering Sea ecosystems. We urgently need to synthesize knowledge about the biology and oceanography of this region to have a baseline from which to observe and understand ongoing changes. Elizabeth Eubanks SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 99

F ea t u re P R O J EC T

FISH & INVERTS :: Management Tools :: Workshops Arctic Synthesis Workshop Project 503

Project 503 brought together 30 experts as part of an international workshop focused on the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Participants discussed the state of knowledge, information gaps and research needs in physical and chemical oceanography, sea ice, phytoplankton, microbes, zooplankton, benthos sea floor, fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. They noted possible future efforts that might be undertaken by NPRB. In the western Arctic, climate change may affect the environment in two general ways. External changes will be forced through changes in sea ice processes and shifts in the transport rates and properties of Pacific waters through the Bering Strait. Internally forced changes involve the responses of resident biological populations to altered temperatures and the timing of events in their annual life cycles.

Because each mechanism is system-wide, researchers concluded that these changes will ultimately affect all trophic levels. This will lead to further changes in Sea ice as seen from below can support high the pathways and amount of energy transferred to fish, seabird, and marine mam- densities of amphipods (dark blotches above, mal populations, and consequently impact their abundance and distribution. with close-up shown in inset). Some species are only found associated with sea ice and may be at risk as summer sea ice declines. Based on these two mechanisms, the workshop made several recommendations on how to proceed with future research, including the need for: • data consolidation and analysis • interdisciplinary research approaches Researchers concluded • continuation and/or establishment of long-term time-series that climate change • collaboration and cooperation between agencies and programs • year-round observations will ultimately affect • establishment of research support infrastructure • biogeochemical and ecological modeling all trophic levels. • training of taxonomic expertise Jennifer Nomura 100 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

databases

Scientists have been collecting information about the oceans for over a hundred years, yet in many instances these data are scattered throughout published and unpublished reports all over the world, many in paper format, unavailable to the general public and much of the scientific community. As a result, many questions that we might resolve with previously collected data remain unanswered. New studies are being funded that are potentially redundant to previous or ongoing efforts elsewhere in the world. Given a financial climate of limited funding for ocean research, and an ocean climate that is undergoing dramatic changes that affect us all, it has become more important than ever to bring existing information together in a format usable for management, research, and research planning by all.

FISH & INVERTS :: Management Tools :: Databases Electronic Warehouse for Salmon Data Project 311

Throughout Alaska, hundreds of thousands warehouse through which historical salmon sampling and of salmon are examined annually for sex and size informa- scale pattern data can be maintained and updated annu- tion, and scales are collected for age data. This enormous ally from collections throughout the state. sampling effort over 40-plus years has resulted in millions of data records and scale samples. Designed to inventory all collections, the project established a steering committee composed of state, federal, Although useful for local management needs, there has and research interests and developed a standardized web- been no common process or protocol for managing and accessible database where the sampling information is preserving the historical data and scale samples. Project now accessible, preserved, and facilitates future research 311 initiated a process for establishing an electronic data and management (see http://www.taglab.org/).

FISH & INVERTS :: Management Tools :: Databases Salmon Research and Monitoring Metadata Project 504

The commercial and cultural importance of Alaska, and can summarize the information by species, life salmon in Alaska is reflected inthe number of projects and history stage, bioregion, disciplinary topic, research issue, amount of money that has been invested into better under- and management information needs. standing their biology and forecasting their productivity. Salmon research problems are ecologically complex, cover Although much effort was spent to collaborate and coor- large expanses of marine, estuarine and freshwater habi- dinate with all of the relevant organizations involved in tats, and are being studied by many different organizations salmon research, many researchers did not respond to the and programs. request to share their project information. Also, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, which contributes the larg- Concerns have been raised about the efficacy of the millions est number of salmon research studies in Alaska, asked to of dollars annually dedicated to this topic, and whether the be withdrawn from the survey. most important management-oriented questions are being addressed. Project 504 gathered the necessary metadata Although the project reported an annual funding level of on salmon research and monitoring, and designed an over $11 million for salmon, it is likely only a portion of what online database that is easily searchable so that decision- is actually spent. Future efforts to create a living compen- makers could determine whether additional funding is dium of research projects on this or other topics will clearly warranted for salmon research and for what research topics. need established agreements between organizations and a The database contains 457 recent salmon research stud- commitment by all involved before going forward. ies, and 13,533 records of salmon monitoring programs in SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: FISH & INVERTEBRATES 101

FISH & INVERTS :: Management Tools :: Databases Herring Database Project 728

Pacific herring is a bellwether species for North Pacific marine ecosystems. Herring roe fisheries are among the most lucrative, competitive, and controversial in the region, often pitting commercial and subsistence users against one another. Productive spawning areas and times are limited, and the historical population dynamics and technology of herring are not well understood. Many communities with local and traditional knowledge of herring fisheries claim that historical stocks were larger and spawning areas more numerous, but that they have dwindled due to over-harvesting, predation, disease, development, and climate change.

While shifts in stocks and spawning areas have been reasonably well documented since 1980, no one has synthesized the deeper archaeological, historical, and ethno-ecological records on herring spawning areas and their relation to local ecosystems. Project 728 will synthesize this information for Southeast Alaska from Dixon Entrance to Yakutat Bay, where herring and herring roe were traditionally harvested. Using published and unpublished archaeological, ethnological, historical and biological records as well as community focus groups in each historical herring stock region, the project will compile historical and spatial information into a database. This will allow researchers to investigate the extent of historic and prehistoric herring spawning and massing areas, link changes in herring spawn extent and intensity to environmental and human factors in the socio-ecological system, and identify sensitive areas for protection and potential restoration of herring spawning.

Herring Stock Assessments from Dressel, et al (2005). MARINE MAMMALS Sentinels in the Sea

Gerry Sanger MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: MARINE MAMMALS 103

marine MAMmAls

arine mammals are among the more visible and engaging components of the marine ecosystem and are often considered to be sentinels of how an ecosystem is function- Ming. Top predators in the marine ecosystem, the 26 marine mammal species found in Alaska waters also provide important subsistence resources to many Alaska communities. This cultural and ecological role makes it important for us to understand how these species interact with other ecosystem components and how overlap with commercial fisheries and other human activities impact marine mammal populations. Based on recommendations from the National Research Council and NPRB’s enabling legislation to address both pressing fisheries management needs and marine ecosystem information needs, the Board has funded marine mammal research under the following six categories:

• foraging success • marine habitat use • population dynamics • fisheries interactions • other human-related impacts • long-term climate change

The Board funds a mix of long and short-term marine mammal research, focusing on species that may be at greatest risk from interactions with major commercial fisheries of the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska. To date, the Board has supported 33 marine mammal studies for a total of just under $5.3 million. Studies focus on a variety of baleen and toothed whale species, northern fur seals, Steller sea lions, harbor seals, ice seals, Pacific walrus, and sea otters. Twenty studies have been completed with 13 currently ongoing. Of these, 26 are process studies, two are monitoring, three are modeling, and two are retrospective studies, most focused predominantly in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, with only a few in the Arctic.

Brendan Smith 104 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Marine Mammals

307 Bering Sea right whales: ongoing research and public outreach. 633 Multi-scale predictions of right whale (Eubalaena japonica) habitat in J. Hildebrand the North Pacific and Bering Sea. J. Ford, E. Gregr, R. Reeves 309 Sperm whale and longline fisheries interactions in the Gulf of Alaska. 634 Genetic population structure of bowhead whales, using historical bone G. Beam, L. Behnken, A. Bowles, S. Insley, S. Mesnick, T. O’Connell, J. Straley and baleen samples. P. Morin

312 Ice seal bio-monitoring in the Bering-Chukchi Sea region. L. Quakenbush, 635 Comparison of stable carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios in muscle and G. Sheffield epidermis of subsistence-harvested bowhead, beluga and gray whales. 313 Effects of prey availability and predation risk on the foraging ecology L. Dehn, E. Follmann and demography of harbor seals in Prince William Sound: Development 636 Identifying critical foraging habitat of lactating northern fur seals and and test of a dynamic state variable model. G. Blundell, L.Dill, A. Frid the spatial overlap with commercial fisheries in the eastern Bering Sea. P. Lestenkof, A. Trites 324 Bering Sea wintering grounds of beluga whales. R. Hobbs, D. Litovka, G. O’Corry-Crowe, J. Orr, P. Richard 646 Steller sea lions in Alaska: Direct mortality by humans. M. Turek 411 Investigations into dietary specialization of killer whales in the Bering 717 Threatened southwest Alaska sea otter stock: Delineating the causes Sea and Aleutian Islands. A. Hirons, P. Krahn, P. Wade and constraints to recovery of a keystone predator in the North Pacific Ocean. J. Bodkin, J. Estes 412 Sperm whale and longline fisheries interactions in the Gulf of Alaska - passive acoustic component. W. Kuperman, J. Straley, A. Thode 718 Using predictive habitat modeling and passive acoustics to locate breeding habitats of North Pacific right whales in the Pacific Islands 414 Seasonal foraging strategies and consequences for northern fur seals at Region. C. Good, E. Gregr, D. Johnston, D. Nowacek colonies with opposite population trends. R. Ream, A. Springer 719 Analysis of acoustic and oceanographic data from the Bering Sea. 501 Remote monitoring of survival and short-range year-round movements D. Mellinger, K. Stafford of harbor seals in Prince William Sound. G. Blundell 720 Migration, wintering destinations and habitat use of North Pacific right 513 Winter movements of fur seal pups. R. Andrews, R. Davis whales (Eubalaena japonica ). P. Clapham, M. P. Heide-Jorgensen, A. Zerbini 514 Consequences of fur seal foraging strategies. R. Ream, A. Springer 730 A cooperative pollock acoustic biomass survey for management of 515 Ice seal movements. P. Boveng, B. Kelly fisheries interactions with Steller sea lions in the Aleutian Islands. S. Barbeaux, L. Fritz, E. Logerwell 518 Bering Sea whales and oceanography. D. Mellinger, S. Moore

519 Bering Sea whale acoustics. J. Hildebrand 807 Testing the localized depletion hypothesis: Is Steller sea lion foraging success affected by local fish effort? D. Hennen 527 Evaluation of sperm whale deterrents. L. Behnken, W. Kuperman, S. Mesnick, V. O’ Connell, J. Straley, A. Thode 818 Walrus distributional and foraging response to changing ice and benthic conditions in the Chukchi Sea. J. Grebmeier, C. Jay 535 Dietary specialization of killer whales. A. Hirons, P.Krahn, P. Wade 826 Monitoring, avoiding, and deterring humpback whale bycatch in coastal 626 Testing low-cost methods to reduce sperm whale depredation in the Alaskan fisheries: A cooperative approach. A. Rice, K. Wynne Gulf of Alaska. J. Straley, A. Thode 827 Ambient noise monitoring in the Beaufort Sea using autonomous 631 Population structure of ringed seals. B. Kelly , B. swanson vertical arrays. A. Thode 632 Distribution, abundance, and ecology of Pacific walruses in the Bering Sea. C. Jay, B. Konar, R. Meehan

Raymond Brown SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: MARINE MAMMALS 105

Foraging Success

Understanding what species marine mammal populations eat is critical for interpreting how they function in the marine ecosystem.

We also learn how they may be affected by commercial fisheries, either directly through competition for resources or indirectly through impacts on prey habitat and lower trophic level species. Since 2003, the Board has funded seven research projects addressing what specific marine mammal populations eat and the factors that affect their foraging success for $1.4 million. Matthew Brown

MARINE MAMMALS :: Foraging Success Determining What Arctic Whales Eat Project 635

Stable isotope analysis allows researchers to determine where an individual fits into the food web and is an increasingly important tool in studying foraging ecology. This is especially true for marine mammals where scientists find it difficult to directly observe feeding or collect stomach samples. Project 635 investigated using this technique in bowhead, beluga, and gray whale foraging ecology studies in the Arctic. Stable isotope analysis usually looks at the nitrogen and carbon stable isotope ratios in muscle tissue, which has a turnover rate of about one month and gives a glimpse into the individual’s diet over that period of time. But researchers studying Arctic cetaceans have a more difficult time collecting muscle tissue that lies underneath a thick layer of blubber that can measure up to 30 centimeters in live animals. They can more easily collect skin samples with less-invasive techniques.

This study set out to determine how the isotope ratios of nitrogen and carbon in skin samples compared to those in muscle samples from the same individuals. Analyses based on skin samples would then become comparable Craig George George Craig to analyses of other species based on muscle samples. Sample of ancient bowhead whale muktuk recovered from an ice cellar in Investigators collected skin and muscle samples from Gambell, Alaska. subsistence-hunted bowhead and beluga whales from northern Alaska, and from subsistence-hunted gray whales in Russia. They also gathered samples from gray whales 106 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

stranded along the California coast and from an approxi- The ancient bowhead whale sample let researchers com- mately 1,000 year-old bowhead whale sample found in an pare the diet of this individual to that of present day ice-cellar in Gambell, Alaska. bowhead whales. Isotope ratios of carbon and nitrogen were similar, suggesting that the feeding ecology of bow- Researchers found that both muscle and skin nitrogen sta- head whales has remained stable for a millennium. Stranded ble isotope ratios were indicative of where the species fit gray whales had higher muscle nitrogen and depleted skin in the Arctic marine food web. But skin had higher nitro- carbon ratios compared to those from subsistence-hunted gen ratios than muscle samples for both bowhead whales whales, suggesting that the stranded whales may have and gray whales, although not in beluga whales. The lower been suffering from nutritional stress before they died. nitrogen isotope ratios in beluga skin may be because belugas eat a variety of fish species, or may be linked to their distinct molting process. Belugas molt annually, whereas baleen whales continuously slough skin through- “Ancient bowhead whale samples out the year. compared to bowhead whales alive Carbon stable isotope ratios, on the other hand, showed today suggest the feeding ecology of an opposite trend—lower in skin than in muscle tissue in bowhead and beluga whale samples. Carbon is primarily bowhead whales has remained stable found as fat, an integral part of whale skin. The different utilization of fat by muscle and skin likely explains these for the last thousand years.” differences, which appears to be unique to each species. To counteract the effect of fat on reliable carbon stable isotope ratios, researchers concluded that fat should be extracted from skin samples before comparing carbon isotope ratios between skin and muscle tissue. Bradley Benter Bradley Bowhead whales. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: MARINE MAMMALS 107

MARINE MAMMALS :: Foraging Success Diets of Bering Sea Killer Whales Projects 411, 535

In the Bering Sea and Aleutians, researchers know little about the foraging behavior of killer whales and their role in the decline of several other marine mammal species. Researchers participating in projects 411 and 535 used stable isotope analysis, along with fatty acid and contaminant analysis, to investigate what these top predators are eating.

They examined blubber samples collected from over 200 killer whales and tissues samples from potential prey items to infer diet preferences of three different killer whale ecotypes found in the region.

As in other regions of the North Pacific, resident, transient, and off-shore killer whales fed on distinctly different animals—residents consume fish, transients consume marine Track of the 2005 survey, along with sighting locations for fish-eating resident and mammals, and off-shores consume some fish but poten- mammal-eating transient killer whales. Ecotype determination was made in the field yb experienced observers, but is considered preliminary until genetic and tially other prey types as well. acoustic analyses are complete.

Researchers found that the fatty acid and contaminant analyses provided unambiguous classification to a par- consuming northern fur seals, which either implies that ticular ecotype, but that the stable isotopes analyses did these whales had recently switched their diet preferences not allow for a clear distinction between the three groups. and their tissue samples did not yet reflect that change, or Chemical analyses of both killer whale tissue and potential that these methodologies need to be further refined. prey species let researchers identify not only ecotype differences but also regional and seasonal dietary differences Resident killer whales in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands within those groups. consumed sockeye and chinook salmon, as well as pollock. Seasonal and regional differentiation of diet awaits further Transient killer whales in the eastern Aleutian Islands sampling of the available prey field. appear to consume Steller sea lions and a variety of species lower in the marine food web, while transients in the area For offshore killer whales, chemical analyses indicate that around the Pribilof Islands and eastern Bering Sea appear their diet is clearly distinct from the other two ecotypes and to feed exclusively on whales, such as Dall’s porpoise, the contaminant profile of these individuals suggest that minke, and gray whales. Interestingly, visual observations they likely feed off the coast of California for a portion of of killer whales around the Pribilof Islands conducted dur- the year, potentially on large, long-lived fish species. ing sample collection indicated that killer whales were also

Kari Anderson 108 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

MARINE MAMMALS :: Foraging Success Foraging Strategies of Northern Fur Seals Projects 414, 514

Northern fur seals appear to be the most abundant marine mammal in Alaska’s seas and provide an important subsistence resource to the residents of the Pribilof Islands. Yet the Bering Sea fur seal population has declined by over 80% in the past 50 years and no one knows why.

In contrast, the population of northern fur seals on Bogoslof Island in the eastern Aleutian Islands has increased dramatically. Projects 414 and 514 investigate the foraging strategies of female northern fur seals to determine how the diets, foraging range, and location of females differ at these two locations and how that affects the fitness of the Summer foraging locations of adult female fur seals from St. Paul I. and Bogoslof I. individuals and their offspring. in July-October 2005.

Researchers attached satellite transmitters to adult females on each island to determine where individuals were going to feed during both the summer breeding season and the winter migration period, when animals spend eight months continuously at sea. They also collected a series of biological samples (blubber, milk, and blood) from adult females and their pups during the summer breeding season to examine how body compositions and diets differed between the two islands.

So far, scientists have found that during the winter migration, females from both populations use similar areas in the North Pacific Ocean to feed. In contrast, during the summer breeding season, adult females forage in different locations. Females breeding on the Pribilof Islands feed on the continental shelf and at the shelf break, while females Winter migration movements of adult female fur seals from St. Paul Island between from Bogoslof Island focus their foraging effort in the deep November 2004 and March 2005. oceanic basin. Pribilof females stay out longer and travel farther than Bogoslof females, suggesting that they have to stay away from their pups longer to get enough food. Samples taken three months later at the end of the breeding season, reflecting foraging throughout the breeding Researchers are using fatty acid analyses of blubber and season, differed significantly between females from the milk samples collected at the start and end of the breed- two locations, indicating that they are eating different ing season to determine how diets compare seasonally things, and also concur with the tagging study. and between the two locations. Samples taken early in the breeding season, reflecting diets prior to arrival at the Research continues to determine exactly what the fur breeding colonies, indicate females from both locations eat seals are eating and how these differing foraging strate- similar prey, which agrees with the tagging results above. gies impact the fitness, and potentially the survival, of both adult females and their offspring. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: MARINE MAMMALS 109

MARINE MAMMALS :: Foraging Success First Winters of Northern Fur Seal Pups Project 513

Project 513 focuses on where northern fur Most feeding seems to occur in the dark, when animals seal pups go to feed and how often they acquire food dur- dive more and likely forage on prey that rises towards the ing their first winter, a challenging period for these newly surface at night. The young fur seals fed more often and for weaned animals still learning how to dive and capture fish. longer periods as their foraging and diving skills improved Using a combination of satellite-tracking and stomach tem- and as they reached prey-rich areas later in their migration, perature tags, researchers are investigating where young where they spent most of their time. Several fur seal pups fur seals from the Commander Islands in Russia go after also appeared to increase their foraging behavior at the leaving their natal island and where and when they eat. periphery of cold-core eddies, which may represent areas of high ocean productivity and are likely profitable forag- While the population of fur seals on the Commander ing areas for young fur seals. Islands is smaller and relatively stable compared to the Pribilof Islands population, fur seals range widely and individuals from the two populations likely overlap during the winter period. By understanding how young pups from the Commander Islands find food during their first winter, researchers hope to gain a better understanding of the challenges facing young fur seal pups from the declining population as well.

Results to date indicate that most of the fur seal pups stayed in the western Pacific Ocean and traveled south towards the equatorial transitional zone. Pups traveling the farthest did not reach the transitional zone but veered in a more easterly direction to the central Pacific Ocean. Sea surface temperatures in the north Pacific and Bering Sea, from the Commander Islands to the Aleutians, showing transition zone at 40 degrees N. Track colors represent different sexes of fur seals (n=35; red=female; blue=male). Carrie Eischens Carrie Northern fur seals. 110 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

MARINE MAMMALS :: Foraging Success Harbor Seals in Prince William Sound Project 313

Successful marine mammal foraging depends During the field component of the study, some seals made not only on where and what resources individuals are con- only shallow dives of less than 50 meters, where encounters suming, but also on the impact of other animals, either with sharks are unlikely but food encounters are very unpre- through direct predation or through competition for simi- dictable. Other seals frequently dove to depths of 100 to lar prey resources. Project 313 examined the effect of prey 300 meters, where walleye pollock is a predictable and resources and predators on the foraging behavior of har- profitable food source, but the risk of encountering sleeper bor seals in Prince William Sound, a population that has sharks is also high. declined since the mid-1980s. Theoretically, this individual variation in risk-taking by Earlier research suggested that a lack of food or preda- seals reflects their current level of energy reserves in accu- tion, acting independently, did not adequately explain the mulated fat, with better reserves allowing safer foraging decline of harbor seals. In this study, researchers looked options. Predation from killer whales appeared to have at how food and predators might combine synergistically little influence on seals, possibly because killer whales have to influence the behavior, survival, and reproduction of also declined locally. seals. Investigators attached radio transmitters and time- depth-recorders to individual harbor seals to observe The model predicted that harbor seals are killed by preda- their feeding behavior (how deep they dive, when diving tors more often when food resources are scarce, whether occurs, etc.) and also looked at the depth distribution of as a result of human harvest or competition. If seals are Pacific herring and walleye pollock, two of the main prey overly cautious of predators they may stay in areas that lack species of harbor seals in the Sound. Researchers also sufficient energy resources for reproduction, and therefore compiled existing information on the behavior of Pacific must work harder and longer to gather necessary prey. sleeper sharks and killer whales, two species thought to Modeling results indicated that this increased foraging eat harbor seals. They used the data to develop a model effort can raise the risk of predation from sleeper sharks that linked foraging behavior to body condition and and killer whales beyond that experienced when seals for- survival. age more efficiently in riskier areas.R esults also suggested that predation risk from Pacific sleeper sharks can compromise energy gain by seals, but that this effect will vary between individual seals. Bill Rome Harbor seal on ice floe. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: MARINE MAMMALS 111

Marine Habitat Use

Besides understanding what marine mammals eat, we also need to understand how their distribution and habitat use overlap with commercial fisheries, subsistence hunting, and other human activities.

To date, the Board has funded eight research projects for about $920,000 to address marine mammal habitat use in the North Pacific Ocean. Marine mammal scientists rely on a variety of techniques for studying marine mammal habitat, including analyzing historical data, using acoustic equipment to detect their presence, tagging with satellite tags to track marine mammals, and conducting marine mammal surveys from ships and airplanes.

MARINE MAMMALS :: Marine Habitat Use Winter Habitats of Beluga Whales Project 324

Subsistence hunters in Alaska, northern Canada and Russia harvest beluga whales. Effective management of these harvests requires understanding the winter migrations of beluga whale populations that summer in the Bering, Beaufort and Chukchi seas and in the Arctic Ocean, where much of the subsistence hunting occurs.

Project 324 aimed to identify and define the winter habitat of beluga whales in the Bering Sea and determine which stocks of whales Rod Hobbs were migrating along the coast of the Chukotka Peninsula in the fall. Satellite transmitter attached by cables to three nylon pins. Note that cables are not pulled tight so that they don’t pull on the pins as the Researchers intended to attach satellite transmitters to beluga whales whale flexes and extends its dorsal surface as it swims. in Lavrentia Bay, Russia, in late fall where beluga whales had regularly been seen. Unfortunately, during the first two field years, belugas did not enter the study area or other parts of the bay. During the summer of the third field year, work refocused to the Anadyr River, where researchers captured a beluga whale and attached one tag. Bad weather prevented further capture attempts before the end of the field season.

Movements of the one tagged whale indicated that this animal remained in the Gulf of Anadyr and on the continental shelf during the fall and early winter, before moving north along the coast to Kresta Bay in midwinter, where it stayed until the tag failed in early February. Due to the difficulties of capturing belugas, researchers also focused on developing a satellite tag that they could attach to the whales via harpoon, which could be tested and utilized in future movement studies.

To learn which stocks of beluga whales visited the study area, researchers collected genetic samples from ten individual beluga whales in the Anadyr River area using crossbow biopsy darts. A,B) The range of the tagged whale included the Gulf of Anadyr and shelf Preliminary results indicate that this group is most closely related to waters south and east of Cape Navarin. C) The tagged whale remained in the Anadyr River and Estuary between mid August and the end of the Beaufort Sea stock of beluga whales. October. B,D) During November the tagged whale moved from the Anadyr Estuary to Kresta Bay. In mid November, the tagged whale moved out into the Gulf of Anadyr. It later returned to Kresta Bay then returned to the northern gulf. B) In mid-December the tagged whale moved to shelf waters south of Cape Navarin. 112 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

F e a t u r e P R OJ E C T

MARINE MAMMALS :: Marine Habitat Use Listening for Large Whales Projects 307, 519

Since large whales are difficult to detect by sight, and travel over vast areas of the world’s oceans, little is known about their distribution and seasonal occurrence. Ship surveys are costly and so scientists base most of what they know about the distribution and seasonality of large whales on the historical whaling data from the mid-20th century.

To learn more about which large whale species use specific areas of the North Pacific, researchers rely on acoustic technology to listen for the presence of large whales. Projects 307 and 519 used passive acoustic technology to study the seasonal presence of endangered North Pacific right whales andfin whales in the southeast Bering Sea and the western Gulf of Alaska. Commercial whaling Acoustic recording package deployment locations, 2000-2006. in the 19th and 20th centuries severely depleted these two species throughout the North Pacific andB ering Sea, and decades after whaling ceased, we still do not know whether either species is recovering.

To understand how fisheries and resource extraction may impact these species, we need to know where the whales are and when they use these waters. Researchers attached underwater acoustic recording packages to moorings in two study areas, which provided continuous, long-term data recordings that could detect the presence, distribution, and behavior of calling whales that were within a range of approximately 100 kilometers.

In the southeast Bering Sea study area, right whales called from May to December but rates were highest in August, September, and December. No right whales were detected at the Gulf of Alaska study site. Researchers compared the annual occurrences of right whale calls to the oceanographic conditions. They hypothesized that the springtime presence of right whales on the southeast Bering Sea shelf in years with late spring blooms is related to the production and growth rates of copepods during a warmer-water, oceanic phytoplankton bloom following winters with moderate ice cover.

The occurrence of right whales on the shelf in the summer and fall may be related to their ability to forage on copepods concentrated in the bottom cold water layer. Researchers heard fin whale calls year-round on the southeastern Bering Sea shelf, with the highest call rates in the fall. They also detected fin whales at the Gulf of Alaska site in the late summer.

Acoustic technology helps researchers detect the presence of elusive endangered North Pacific right whales.

Jeffrey Domm SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: MARINE MAMMALS 113

MARINE MAMMALS :: Marine Habitat Use More Ears in the Water Projects 518, 719

To continue passive acoustic research on the distribution of large whales in the Bering Sea, the Board funded projects 518 and 719, which attached hydrophones to oceanographic moorings (M2, M4, and M5) along the Bering Sea shelf. These instruments continuously recorded acoustic events for one year, detecting vocalizations from Mikkel JensenMikkel right, fin, sperm, and humpback whales; bearded seals, and A research vessel uses passive acoustic technology to detect right whales. Pacific walrus. The marine mammals vocalized throughout the year and researchers are currently analyzing these MARINE MAMMALS :: Marine Habitat Use acoustic events to determine differences between seasons and time of day for each species. By locating the record- North PacificR ight Whales ers on oceanographic moorings, researchers can relate Project 720 seasonal occurrences of each species with oceanographic conditions to better understand the physical processes Scientists participating in project 720 seek affecting distribution, movement, and habitat. to better describe the seasonal movements, migration paths, and behaviors of North Pacific right whales by attaching satellite transmitters to whales in the southeast Bering Sea. By characterizing the right whale’s distribution and movements throughout their range, researchers will better understand right whale ecology and can better predict potential impacts from human activities.

During the first field year, researchers sighted 12 whales during ten different sighting events using aerial surveys, and 34 individuals during 22 different sighting events using ship-based survey methods. They tagged one right whale with a satellite transmitter, which monitored the movement A moored hydrophone instrument. of the animal for two months. Weather and unpredictable movements of individual whales hampered further satellite tagging attempts. In preparation for the 2009 field season, researchers are modifying how they attach satellite trans- MARINE MAMMALS :: Marine Habitat Use mitters on whales to avoid the need for direct capture. Modeling Potential Habitat for Northern Right Whales MARINE MAMMALS :: Marine Habitat Use Project 633 Right Whale Calving Grounds modeling studies are also underway to help Project 718 determine which areas of the North Pacific could serve as critical or potential habitat for endangered right whales. In Although right whales migrate seasonally to Project 633, scientists are identifying potential habitat at warmer waters in lower latitudes to calve and mate, little varying spatial and temporal scales. Researchers are com- is known about exactly where they go. This impacts our bining historical whaling data on right whale distribution ability to manage threats in critical calving areas and hin- with contemporary data on current right whale sightings to ders the recovery of these endangered species. Researchers characterize how previous habitat relates to known current working on Project 718 are using information gained from habitat areas. This project also draws on the distribution studies on North Atlantic right whale calving habitat to build and life histories of the main food of right whales (calanoid a predictive model of right whale breeding habitat in the copepods), knowledge of Atlantic right whale foraging Pacific, using existing hydrographic and satellite remote strategies, and oceanographic information to inform their sensing physical data. This model intends to identify, in time multi-scale predictive habitat-use model. and space, the most advantageous and dependable areas for right whale calving. 114 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Population Dynamics

To effectively manage ocean wildlife populations, resource managers need to understand why populations increase, decrease, or remain stable over time.

In the North Pacific, the populations ofmany marine mammal species have dramatically declined over the last several decades. For other species, researchers simply do not know whether they are thriving or not. To better understand the population dynamics of marine mammals in Alaska waters, especially those species important to subsistence communities, the Board has directed almost $1.4 million to seven research projects looking at declining populations of harbor seals and sea otters, as well as the status of ice seals, bowhead whales, and Pacific walrus populations.

MARINE MAMMALS :: Population Dynamics Tracking Harbor Seals Project 501

Monitoring the survival of individual animals within a wild, wide-ranging population can be extremely difficult, particularly for species lacking natural identification marks. To learn about the survival of young harbor seals in Prince William Sound, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game initiated a multi-year study using VHF radio John Wells, Brian Epler, Tim Peltier, transmitters implanted under the skin of individual animals. and Michael Conti (left to right) at- Researchers initially tracked the radio-tagged seals using taching solar panels to the datalogger vessels and airplanes, but these costly surveys are limited tower on Little Green Island, Prince William Sound. The reef in the back- to periods of good weather in the late spring and summer.

Gail Blundell ground is a harbor seal haulout. Project 501 established remote monitoring stations at six land-based haul-out locations in Prince William Sound that record the presence of the individual radio-tagged animals year-round.

Researchers hoped to more efficiently assess the presence and survival of radio-tagged harbor seals for up to five years. During the early phases of the project, investigators faced several technological difficulties and spent considerable effort ensuring that the signals from these remote monitoring stations reported true presence indicators. Once data-quality issues were resolved, scientists noted that the amount of remotely collected telemetry data far exceeded what would have been possible through traditional survey methods alone. Gail Blundell

Stuart Marcus SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: MARINE MAMMALS 115

MARINE MAMMALS :: Population Dynamics MARINE MAMMALS :: Population Dynamics Health of Ice Seals Movements of Ringed Seals Project 312 Projects 515, 631

Bearded, ringed, spotted, and ribbon seals are To understand population dynamics, we need called “ice seals” because they depend upon sea ice for to understand population structure and how, or if, feeding, resting, and pupping. Although these species are individuals move between, and breed with, different sub- important subsistence resources for Alaskans and play an populations, thus increasing the genetic variability and important role in the arctic marine ecosystem, we know lit- decreasing their vulnerability to extinction. Project 515 tle about their biology or population dynamics. They range studied ringed seal movements throughout the year to find widely, and conducting marine mammal surveys in remote, out if individuals return to the same location to breed each ice-covered waters poses serious logistical issues, making it year or breed at different sites, and with different individu- difficult to predict or interpret the impacts of Arctic warm- als, during their reproductive lifetime. ing on the population dynamics of these species. Tracking records of ringed seals indicated that animals had small home ranges between ice freeze up and break up, most less than three square kilometers. In some parts of the species’ range, this can last up to nine months and encompass the breeding period when ringed seals give birth and mate. During ice-free periods, individuals ranged much farther, about 200 square kilometers, but returned to the same breeding sites the following year. Elizabeth Labunski Ribbon seal in the Bering Sea. Fidelity to breeding sites raises the possibility that ringed seals may be subdivided into many demographically The Board funded Project 312 as a monitoring study to distinct subpopulations. Researchers developed a new examine the health and status of the four ice seal species molecular technique to collect, preserve, and extract DNA in the Bering and Chukchi seas. Working with subsistence from molted skin left on the ice next to breathing holes hunters in eight coastal Alaska villages (Barrow, Point during the breeding season. Hope, Shishmaref, Diomede, Nome, Gambell, Savoonga, and Hooper Bay), researchers collected biological samples In a follow-up study, Project 631, investigators are using from more than 1,100 ice seals. this method to examine and estimate rates of gene flow and determine the structure of ringed seal populations. An analysis of these samples indicates that individuals of With the help of a trained dog and local hunters, scien- the ice seal populations in northern Alaska are in relatively tists collected many samples in 2007 and 2008. Analyses good health. Contaminant levels found in the tissues of of these samples, and the population structure they might sampled individuals were lower than levels found in sam- reveal, are ongoing. ples from the Canadian Arctic, and reproductive rates for all species were relatively high. Between 86-91% of adult females appeared to be reproductively active, with ribbon seals maturing as early as two to three years of age.

By comparing current data to information collected in the 1970s, researchers also found that ringed seals are larger at younger ages in the present population, possibly indicating that current environmental conditions are favorable and promote growth. Genetic analysis shows high levels of genetic diversity in all four species, suggesting that all species belonged to historically large populations.

To address the question of population trend, researchers questioned Native subsistence hunters regarding changes in the number and distribution of ice seals over time, and Brendan Kelly Brendan responses seemed to indicate that populations of these A Labrador retriever locates a seal hole. species are stable. 116 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

MARINE MAMMALS :: Population Dynamics Pacific WalrusP opulations Project 632

Pacific walrus depend on sea ice for their Although recent subsistence walrus harvests of approxi- survival and face an uncertain future as the Arctic warms mately 5,000 animals a year in the U.S. and Russia combined and sea ice diminishes. Walrus range across the interna- are lower than historical highs of as many as 16,000 animals tional boundaries of the United States and Russia, and a year, our lack of information about population size or both nations share common interests in the conservation trends prevents any assessment of the sustainability of cur- and management of this species. Walrus are currently rent harvest levels. NPRB funded Project 632 to examine managed as a single stock of animals that inhabits the con- Pacific walrus population biology and ecology using data tinental shelf waters of the Bering and Chukchi seas. from a range-wide survey carried out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Russian scientists in 2006.

Specifically, scientists from both countries are working together to integrate and standardize survey data collected in U.S. and Russian territories to estimate the size of the Pacific walrus population. Researchers are using haul out and movement data from tagged walruses to model the behavior of individual animals relative to meteorological conditions and patterns of sea ice drift. They are also looking at whether benthic walrus prey composition, abundance, and biomass within an area of the St. Lawrence polynya have significantly changed in the past 20 years and how future changes may impact the Pacific walrus population. Bradley Benter Benter Bradley Anatoly Kochnev Anatoly Kochnev SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: MARINE MAMMALS 117

MARINE MAMMALS :: Population Dynamics Bowhead Whale DNA Project 634

New molecular techniques are also being used to examine genetic stock structure in arctic cetaceans to determine how vulnerable local populations of bowhead whales may be to changes in their environment and to subsistence harvesting. Project 634 is investigating the population structure of bowhead whales by studying historical samples of baleen and bone from subsistence hunted bowheads from St. Lawrence Island and Barrow, Alaska. Using a technique called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP), researchers are amplifying and genotyping DNA from low quality and quantity samples extracted from the ancient bones and baleen of bowhead whales.

Data from this project will complement ongoing studies by the International Whaling Commission on bowhead whale population structure based on modern day samples collected from subsistence hunters.

MARINE MAMMALS :: Population Dynamics Declining Sea Otters Project 717

Although sea otter populations in Alaska As part of the study, investigators are evaluating the role successfully recovered from intense harvesting for their of killer whale predation as a consistent cause of decline pelts during the Russian and American fur trade of the 19th throughout southwestern Alaska and are looking at disease and 20th centuries, the numbers of otters in southwestern and other factors that may be constraining the recovery of Alaska dramatically declined in the early 1990s. Alaska the population. Natives still harvest sea otters as a subsistence resource, but that does not appear to account for the decline in SW Alaska Cruise 2008 southwest Alaska.

Project 717 is examining why otters are not thriving by studying local population density, food availability, and net energy gain of foraging sea otters at 13 sites along the geographical range of southwestern sea otters. Researchers are also surveying the beaches at each of these sites for sea otter carcasses to help determine causes of death. They hope to determine the eastern extent of the sea otter decline, currently thought to be somewhere between the Shumigan Islands and Kodiak Island, where sea otter densities remain stable. Sampling locations for summer 2008. Mark Henspeter 118 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Fisheries Interactions

Entanglement and competition for food are among the interactions between the commercial fishing industry and marine mammals that remain a pressing concern for fishery and wildlife managers.

Observable interactions are generally restricted to direct mortality or entanglement in fishing gear and/or fishing gear damage, and catch loss for fishermen. Overlap in the species and size of prey items taken by marine mammals and targeted by commercial fisheries is more difficult to assess, but may limit the ability of marine mammals to obtain sufficient food for growth and reproduction. Since 2003, the Board has directed $1.27 million to eight projects studying the interaction of various fisheries and marine mammal species.

MARINE MAMMALS :: Fisheries Interactions Humpback Whale Entanglements Project 826

As humpback whale populations in the central Through workshops, cooperative observations, and moni- North Pacific increase at an annual rate of 6-10%, interac- toring of fishing practices and humpback whale behavior, tions with the fishing industry are also on the rise. As many researchers participating in Project 826 will improve our as 71% of the humpbacks in Southeast Alaska bear evi- understanding of the nature of humpback whale encoun- dence of prior entanglements. These large baleen whales ters. The study will also reveal the effectiveness of devices get tangled in nearly every type of coastal fishing gear in and techniques currently being used by the fishing fleets to Alaska, from gillnets, longlines, and seines to shrimp and deter or respond to entangled whales in nearshore fisher- crab pots used in commercial, sport, and personal use ies in Southeast Alaska. fisheries.

MARINE MAMMALS :: Fisheries Interactions Northern Fur Seal Interactions with Fisheries Project 636

Previous studies have shown that northern fur seals and commercial pollock fisheries in the Bering Sea target similar prey. Given the overlap, the Bering Sea fishery could be linked to the decline of northern fur seals in the Pribilof Islands. Evaluating the role that commercial fisheries might be playing in the decline of northern fur seals requires fine-scale, high-resolution data on fur seal habitat use. Project 636 examined at-sea movement, habitat use and foraging behavior of adult female fur seals during the breeding season at a fine scale. Scientists tracked seven female fur seals using radio and satellite transmitters and dead-reckon- ing data loggers to assess where and how these females found food.

The fur seals ranged over a wide area of the Bering Sea with no perceived preference for feed- Warshaw Todd ing areas. The small sample of tracked fur seals suggests that the potential for competition with commercial pollock fisheries is low given the wide-spread distribution of fur seal foraging effort relative to the concentrated fishing activity along the outer shelf. Further sampling of the fine-scale movements and foraging of adult female fur seals throughout the summer and fall is being conducted as part of the Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program and will aid in confirming the conclusions of this initial study. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: MARINE MAMMALS 119

MARINE MAMMALS :: Fisheries Interactions Steller Sea Lion Interactions with Fisheries Project 730

Like Several other marine mammal populations in the North Pacific, the western population of Steller sea lions has dramatically declined since the 1970s, resulting in their endangered species listing in 1997. Although researchers still do not know the causes of the population decline and the factors constraining recovery, resource managers put a suite of protective measures in place to mitigate potential competition between fisheries and sea lions, including trawl exclusion zones around sea lion rookeries and haulouts to protect sea lion critical habitat. Implicit in the designation of the trawl exclusion zones is that competition between fisheries and sea lions occurs at Proposed study area. Heavy lines are acoustic transects. Shaded areas are Steller sea local scales. lion critical habitat. The 200m depth contour is also shown. The Oscar Dyson will survey the entire area. The cooperative survey vessel will survey the area outlined in red. In light of this, resource managers need new strategies at local scales for assessing groundfish abundance, and the obtained from commercial vessels are of sufficiently high impact on sea lions of groundfish removals. Project 730 is quality to conduct a biomass assessment at local scales. investigating whether cooperative biomass assessments They’re also collecting information about Steller sea lion and surveys can be an effective way to manage fisheries distribution and diets in winter. By synchronizing the timing at the local scales that are important to Steller sea lions or and spatial scale of the acoustic fishery survey and the sea other predators. lion work, researchers hope to determine how sea lions use the local area to forage relative to the biomass available, Working collaboratively with the fishing industry, scien- and the potential impact of reducing that biomass through tists are trying to determine if winter acoustic survey data fishery harvests.

MARINE MAMMALS :: Fisheries Interactions Stellers in Resurrection Bay Project 807

Project 807, currently on hold due to permitting issues, plans to investigate the hypothesis that depletion of local fish aggregations by the fishery has negative impacts on Steller sea lions. Researchers will manipulate the fishingeffort around Chiswell Island, a well-studied rookery for Steller sea lions in Resurrection Bay, Alaska. Manipulation of the fishing effortand monitoring of the foraging behavior of adult females during the breeding season should give us evidence for or against the localized depletion hypothesis, with obvious implications to sea lion and fisheries management.

Mark Kelley 120 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

F e a t u r e P R OJ E C T

MARINE MAMMALS :: Fisheries Interactions Sperm Whales Targeting Blackcod Fisheries Projects 309, 412, 527, 626

In Southeast Alaska, endangered sperm whales take sablefish off the longline gear of commercial fishing boats. In other parts of the world, this depredation behavior sometimes results in mortality and serious injury to the whales. The economic loss to fishermen presents fisheries managers with a difficult assessment problem as the amount of sablefish lost is unknown.

Sperm whales have learned to depredate deepwater sablefish longlines off Sitka, Alaska, and over the past decade their behavior has become more aggressive and widespread. During a typical encounter, when whales are present during the haul, about 3-6% of the catch is estimated to be removed, but sometimes over 50% of the catch has been lost by individual fishermen.

Beginning in 2003, the Board funded a series of projects (309, 412, 527, and 626) to assist the Southeast Alaska Sperm Whale Avoidance Project (SEASWAP). A cooperative effort between scientists and fishermen, SEASWAP explores the occurrence of sperm whales in association with longline fishing activities along the continental slope and develop strategies to minimize these interactions. In 2006, the North Pacific Research Board worked closely with the fishermen and researchers involved in SEASWAP to create a 35-minute video about the project. It features Alaska commercial fisherman Kendall Folkert, who joins researchers Aaron Thode of Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Jan Straley of the University of Alaska Southeast to investigate which signals draw sperm whales to the fishing vessel Cobra.

A cooperative effort between scientists and fishermen, SEASWAP explores the occurrence of sperm whales in association with longline fishing activities. National Geographic The image above, taken from digital video filmed at a depth of 355 feet off the coast of Sitka, shows a sperm whale “flossing “a longline for sablefish. To capture this depredation as it happened, researchers and fishermen attached a camouflaged high-definition video camera and a single hydrophone to a longline carrying two sablefish, using a camera provided by a National Geographic grant. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: MARINE MAMMALS 121 National Geographic

A sperm whale looks for sablefish near a longline fishing vessel.N MFS permit 473-1700-01.

Researchers learned that most depredation events are the Deterrent measures, such as deploying decoy anchor lines, result of male sperm whales removing fish directly from attaching acoustic reflectors to the fishing gear, conduct- the longlines beginning in April or May, and continuing ing circle hauls to minimize the engine noise that attracts through the remainder of the fishing season.T hey also dis- the whales, and changing the time of year when fishermen covered that the distinctive noise made by fishing vessels deploy their gear all show some promise and continue to as longlines are being hauled attracts animals within ten be tested as a means of reducing sperm whale–fisheries nautical miles of the fishing activity. interactions. 122 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Other Human-Related Impacts

While commercial fishing is the most visible human activity with the potential to impact marine mammal populations, other activities, such as oil and gas exploration and subsistence hunting, may also play a role.

To investigate the impact of other human-related activities on marine mammals in the North Pacific, the Board has funded two projects for just over $150,000. One project looks at direct human impacts on the decline of Steller sea lions. Another project tackles the impacts of noise, an area of growing in interest in the Arctic as the sea ice retreats and opens the Arctic to shipping and potential fisheries.

MARINE MAMMALS :: Other Human-Related Impacts Impacts on Steller Sea Lions Project 646

To examine the role of direct mortality by Interviews indicated that the intensity of the encounters humans on the decline of the western population of Steller between fishermen and Steller sea lions was particularly sea lions, Project 646 examined the hypothesis that his- high in the Shelikof Strait area during the foreign and joint torical indiscriminant shooting, indirect harvesting (i.e., venture trawl fisheries for walleye pollock in the late 1970s entanglement) in commercial fisheries, and subsistence and early 1980s. Respondents consistently indicated that harvesting are not primary sources of sea lion population the targeting of Steller sea lions in most commercial fish- declines. eries was random and opportunistic, and was in addition to incidental catches in fishing gear. Unfortunately, these Researchers extensively reviewed historical data and con- interviews provided no quantitative measure of sea lion ducted interviews with fishermen involved in the industry mortality, making it difficult to assess the actual impact of between 1975 and 1990, when the western sea lion pop- indiscriminant shooting on the Steller sea lion population ulation rapidly declined. Results corroborated previous during the period of decline. research that the annual subsistence harvests of fewer than 600 Steller sea lions was not a primary cause of the population decline of Steller sea lions in western Alaska.

Statewide trends in the number of Alaska Native households hunting Steller sea lions, 1992–2005.

General areas where Steller sea lions were incidentally taken, 1982–1984, in the Shelikof Strait joint venture walleye pollock fishery. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: MARINE MAMMALS 123

MARINE MAMMALS :: Other Human-Related Impacts Ambient Noise in the Beaufort Sea Project 827

Over the past few years, the use of seismic air- researchers participating in Project 827 are examining guns to map subsurface hydrocarbon deposits has added and monitoring ambient noise in the Beaufort Sea near new sources of acoustic noise to the marine environment, Deadhorse, Alaska. Using autonomous vertical arrays, they spurring concerns about the potential impact on the long- measure ambient noise levels, directionality, and spatial term viability of the regional marine mammal population, structure to distinguish between local and distant noise with a particular concern about potential impacts on sources. Investigators track airgun signals, bowhead whale bowhead whales during their fall migration across north- calls, and other discrete sound sources to understand how ern Alaska. In collaboration with the oil and gas industry, they are influenced by the physical environment.

Long-Term Climate Change

Climate change has become a more prominent issue in the world arena than when the 2005 NPRB Science Plan called for future research on the impacts of reduced sea ice or other climate-related changes on populationS dynamics and prey resources.

Wildlife managers even then expressed concern about the implications of a warming environment on marine mammals, particularly for species that depend on sea ice. The Board has recently directed $176,000 to examine the effect of climate change on the Pacific walrus population in the Chukchi Sea.

MARINE MAMMALS :: Long-Term Climate Change Impacts of Climate Change on Walrus Project 818

With the decline in sea ice over good, shallow-water feeding grounds in the Chukchi Sea, walrus are feeding more in the nearshore habitat they can reach from land-based haul-outs. Project 818 looks at the effect of climate change on these marine mammals and compares the foraging range and efforts between walruses using land haul-outs and those using ice haul-outs over the continental shelf in the Chukchi Sea. Scientists are also comparing the nearshore and offshore benthic prey communities available to walruses using the differing haul-out platforms and examining changes in these benthic communities over time, based on retrospective analyses of archived benthic data. Elizabeth Labunski Pacific walrus on ice floe. 124 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

SEABIRDS Winged Indicators of Change

Heidi Cline SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: SEABIRDS 125

seabirds

laska’s marine ecosystems support one of the world’s greatest concentrations of seabirds, with an estimated 100 million individuals of 75 species either breeding on the Astate’s coastlines and offshore islands or visiting Alaska’s waters in the summer. Seabirds influence, and are influenced by, commercially valuable fish populations, and, as widespread and numerous upper-trophic predators, seabirds play an important role in overall marine ecosystem dynamics. Seabirds are also vulnerable to direct fisheries interactions through bycatch, and are an important resource for people who rely on Alaska’s marine waters for subsistence harvests and cultural or recreational value. For all of these reasons, seabird studies have been an important priority for NPRB.

Seabird projects funded by the Board to date can be organized into six broad topics that address both marine ecosystem information needs and pressing fishery management issues:

• management tool development • long-term climate change • population dynamics • foraging success • marine habitat use • fisheries interactions and population conservation

The Board has funded 19 seabird-focused projects for a total of $3.4 million, of which seven have been completed. Projects fall within six of the research need categories, with two focused on long-term climate change, three on population dynamics, four on foraging success, five on marine habitat use, three on fisheries interactions, and two on management tool development, which cuts across all research categories. Fourteen of the studies have been process focused, and NPRB also funded three retrospective and two monitoring studies.

Heidi Cline 126 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Seabirds

206 Integration of marine bird and mammal observations with the continuous plankton recorder program. D. Hyrenbach, W. Sydeman 320 Regime forcing and ecosystem response in the Bering Sea (ReFER): Phase II. S. Iverson, A. Kitaysky, A. Springer 322 Spatial and temporal interactions between endangered short-tailed albatross and North Pacific commercial fisheries. G. Balogh, E. Melvin, G. Robertson, R. Suryan 409 Integration of marine bird and mammal observations with the Pacific continuous plankton recorder (CPR) program: Temporal variability in ecosystem structure across three basins. D. Hyrenbach, W. Sydeman 413 Tufted puffins as biological indicators of forage fish availability in the western Gulf of Alaska. C. L. Buck, C. Williams

516 Seabirds as indicators of marine ecosystems. V. Byrd, D. Irons, J. Piatt, A. Springer, W. Sydeman

532 Albatross habitat and fisheries interaction. G. Balogh, R. Suryan 609 Is the pelagic distribution of seabirds in the Bering Sea driven by climate change? A retrospective analysis. J. Parrish 611 Spatio-temporal variability in North Pacific meso-marine ecosystem (MME) structure: Basin-wide responses to a cooling transition. W. Sydeman 612 COASST-Alaska: A comprehensive monitoring program for coastal ecosystem health and change. J. Parrish

637 North Pacific pelagic seabird observer program. D. Irons, K.Kuletz 638 Relationships among climate variability, ocean productivity and demography of Aleutian populations of three planktivorous seabirds: least (Aethia pusilla), crested (A. cristatella) and whiskered auklets (A. pygmaea). I. Jones 722 North Pacific seabird diet database: A public archival diet information system. D. Daniel, D. Irons, D. Roby 723 Increasing short-tailed albatross population growth and stability through translocation of post guard chicks. G. Balogh, T. Deguchi, K. Ozaki, R. Suryan 724 Estimating diets of two species of threatened sea ducks, the Steller's eider (Polysticta stelleri) and the spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri): Validation of novel diet assessment techniques and identification of benthic resource use. T. Hollmen, S. Iverson

732 COASST - Alaska: A beached bird monitoring program. J. Parrish

801 Seabird and marine mammals combined with CPR. W. Sydeman 819 Body condition of marbled murrelets: Consequences for overwinter survival during a period of collapsed herring stocks. M. Bishop, N. Dawson 820 Measuring and modeling habitat use by spectacled eiders wintering in the Bering Sea. J. Lovvorn

Carrie Eischens SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: SEABIRDS 127

Management Tool Development

We broadly define management tools as information or techniques that assist ecosystem managers in making decisions. Such tools can be targeted and specific, or general and cross-cutting in application. In developing seabird management tools, the Board funded two retrospective studies for a total of $500,000.

Seabirds are often pointed to as “indicators” of marine conditions, and their role as indicators, both in pure research and applied management contexts, has been a very active and fruitful area of endeavor worldwide. To improve the communication and coordination among researchers and managers interested in seabirds as indicators in the North Pacific, the Board funded an international workshop on this topic that focused on developing specific recommendations for future NPRB-funded research. One of those recommendations was to learn more about what seabirds eat; the Board subsequently funded development of a seabird diet database to compile, centralize, and disseminate a broad range of seabird diet information.

SEABIRDS :: Management Tool Development SEABIRDS :: Management Tool Development International Seabird Workshop Seabird Diet Database Project 516 Project 722

In 2005, the Board called for a synthesis of The report produced by Project 516 shaped the current state of knowledge of seabirds as indicators further NPRB-funded seabird research by prioritizing the of marine ecosystems and change in the North Pacific, study of seabird diets, among other recommendations. building on the premise that measurements of abundance, A number of large data sets, yet to be synthesized, con- demographic attributes, diets, behavior and physiology of tain detailed information on the diets of seabirds in Alaska seabirds provide accurate real-time “sensors” of ecosys- and elsewhere in the North Pacific. In a collaborative effort tem variability in the North Pacific. In 2006, project 516 between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Fish and supported an international workshop, “Seabirds as indica- Wildlife Service (USFWS), NOAA Fisheries, and several tors of marine ecosystems: An integrated NPRB science academic institutions, Project 722 is compiling pertinent plan for Alaska.” seabird diet data sets, developing tools for analyzing and mapping the data, and creating web-based products for Researchers convened a special symposium at the 2006 dissemination of the data to scientists, resource manag- Pacific Seabird Group conference, with dozens of invited ers, and the general public. This Seabird Diet Database, experts from around the world. Beginning with a summary to be maintained by the USFWS, links to the North Pacific of the main issues of concern to science and manage- Seabird Colony Database, the North Pacific Pelagic ment organizations in the North Pacific and of the status Seabird Database, the North Pacific Seabird Monitoring of seabirds in the region, the investigators and workshop Database, and NOAA Fisheries’ GroundfishD iet Database. participants reviewed the utility of seabirds as indicators of Investigators are also preparing an “Implementation Plan change in the marine environment and then integrated all for Sampling Seabird Diets in Alaska,” which sets priorities of the workshop outputs to make recommendations to the for augmentation of existing datasets for future at-sea and NPRB on a strategy for the study of seabirds in Alaska. colony-based sampling programs.

Diane Stoecker 128 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Long-Term Climate Change

Since the completion of the NPRB Science Plan in 2005, climate change has increasingly become a key issue in studies of ecosystem processes in Alaska waters.

Long-term climate change in the marine habitat, causing reduced ice cover in the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean, is altering the distribution and availability of prey species, which may in turn affect the behavior and population dynamics of breeding or migrating seabirds. A clearer understanding of long-term climate change impacts on seabirds will have many benefits. For example, seabird populations of particular concern, such as threatened or endangered species like the spectacled eider, or species of particular subsistence or cultural value like common and thick-billed murres, can be better managed if predictions about climate change impacts can be modeled and tested. Also, integrated models of ecosystem dynamics, such as our Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program, will be strengthened if the interaction of climate change and seabird foraging and population dynamics is better understood.

The Board has invested in two projects that address the impacts of long-term climate change on seabird prey availability and demographic consequences.

SEABIRDS :: Long-Term Climate Change Seabirds, Climate Change and the Bering Sea Project 609

Project 609 builds on the North Pacific Pelagic To move beyond observed data, investigators are using Seabird Database (NPPSD) in a retrospective study that characteristics of seabird marine habitats to produce a investigates whether the pelagic distribution of seabirds in predictive model of seabird distribution relative to fixed the Bering Sea is driven by climate change. Researchers physical characteristics over the entire study area. They’re are incorporating additional pelagic seabird data collected analyzing changes in pelagic seabird communities in the by George Hunt and others in the southeastern Bering Sea Bering Sea related to climate indices, and looking at annual during the 1980s and 1990s into the recently developed deviations from the distribution patterns predicted by the NPPSD, and then using the expanded database to map the model to detect how seabird distribution reacts to climate distribution of seabirds in the eastern Bering Sea. change. Dustin Phillips Black-legged kittiwakes feed on small fish. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: SEABIRDS 129

F e a t u r e P R OJ E CT

SEABIRDS :: Long-Term Climate Change Auklet Survival in the Face of Climate Change Project 638

By examining the temporal and geographic patterns of survival in least auklets, crested auklets, and whiskered auklets, researchers participating in Project 638 are examining the relationship between variability in climate and ocean productivity. Auklets consume copepods and euphausiid zooplankton, and are more closely linked to oceanic primary productivity than other fish-eating or mixed-diet seabird species. Auklets can also be captured and individually marked, letting investigators determine survival rates relatively easily. Scientists in this study want to determine whether region-wide climate conditions or local conditions (e.g. oceanography, climate, predators, etc.) near breeding colonies are the main drivers in explaining auklet survival.

Unfortunately, the usual challenges of fieldwork were dramatically increased at one of the field sites when the Kasatochi volcano unexpectedly erupted on August 7, 2008 (http://www.avo.alaska.edu/activity/Kasatochi.php) and the field crew had to immediately evacuate the island. Francis Wiese Francis 130 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Population Dynamics

breeding success, survival rate, and movement between colonies are among the factors researchers study to determine the expansion, contraction, or stability of SEABIRD populations.

Regular monitoring of beaches offers a way to assess large-scale patterns of adult seabird mortality at sea, and is one of the only ways to detect episodic mortality events that often occur outside the breeding season, and are frequently caused by a lack of food. Surveying beaches for dead birds provides a cost-effective method for tracking mortality rates—a key dimension of seabird population dynamics—and can also provide insight into causes of death.

SEABIRDS :: Population Dynamics COASST Project 612

Beach monitoring programs in Alaska have historically been launched in response to oil spills, large-scale die-offs, or other notable events. The Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST) is a Washington-based program established in 1998 to gather information on beach-cast birds, human use of beaches, and beach oiling. A citizen-science program, COASST relies on a large network of volunteer beach surveyors, and has been very successful in the Washington-Oregon area, with hundreds of volun- teers surveying thousands of kilometers of beaches. Julia Parrish

In 2006, the Board supported Project 612, a pilot study to extend the successful COASST monitoring model to Alaska. The project sought to track seabird mortality in Alaska and develop a citizen-science program for nearshore monitoring. COASST conducted over a dozen training sessions, recruiting more than 55 participants and successfully implementing beached bird data collection on 51 beaches, from Sitka to the Aleutians. The project established partnerships with 14 agency, tribal, and nongovernmental organizations, and also demonstrated the use of COASST data in science and natural resource management. This pilot effort concluded that creating and sustaining a community of data collection participants are definitely possible inA laska. Julia Parrish

SEABIRDS :: Population Dynamics Citizen Science in Alaska Project 732

Following the success of the pilot COASST beach monitoring project in Alaska, the Board funded Project 732, which seeks to enhance the development and maintain the momentum of this citizen-science program in Alaska. The project plans to stabilize and strengthen the Alaska program by adapting and enhancing its field guide and protocol for Alaska and by maintaining and expanding partnerships. The program will also expand data collection at current and new sites and disseminate program information through area-specific materials. By the end of 2008, the COASST program had conducted more than 1,100 surveys on 63 beaches, involving over 100 participants. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: SEABIRDS 131 Gus van Vliet Gus van

SEABIRDS :: Population Dynamics Impacts of Herring Decline on Marbled Murrelets Project 819

Project 819 also seeks to understand factors affecting seabird survival probability, but with a focus on marbled murrelets, a species of conservation concern in Alaska. Working closely with the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, Prince William Sound Science Center, and USFWS studies on juvenile Pacific herring and seabird predation on herring, researchers aim to better understand the survival of marbled murrelets within the ecological context of collapsed herring stocks. Mike Miller Mike Juvenile herring are a critical part of the diet of marbled Herring eggs. murrelets. Previous research showed that summer weights of murrelets have been declining, meaning that the birds are entering winter in less than optimal body condition, which could be further compromised by a decline in juvenile herring. By assessing the variation in body condition and stress levels of marbled murrelets in Prince William Sound during winter, using the hormone corticosterone as an indicator of dietary stress, and by describing the winter diet of marbled murrelets, the project team seeks to link marbled murrelet condition and diet to the probability of survival. NOAA/NMFS NOAA/NMFS Herring close-up. 132 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Foraging Success

Foraging success can be critical to the overall health of seabird species and populations. Our Science Plan highlighted the need for research that identifies and clarifies the dominant energy pathways in Alaska’s marine ecosystems.

Considering the overlap between the food that both seabirds and commercial fishes eat, or in some cases, the importance of juvenile commercial fish in seabird diets, this category of research brings together the two overall NPRB missions of pressing fishery management issues and marine ecosystem information needs. The Board has funded $1.35 million for four projects in this category.

Foraging behavior, diet, and habitat use by seabirds can have direct links to management actions and the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. In 2007, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council established the Northern Bering Sea Research Area, which is closed to bottom trawling until a fishery management plan is developed. Part of the rationale behind this conservative approach stems from concerns about potential adverse effects of non- pelagic bottom trawling on threatened species, including seabirds. Funding seabird foraging studies enables more informed decisions on the delineation of protected habitat in the northern Bering Sea, and improves fishery managers’ opportunity to build resilience into fishery management planning.

SEABIRDS :: Foraging Success Diets of Tufted Puffins Project 413

Project 413 is a more focused study that set out Raising captive chicks on a known diet, researchers found to improve our understanding of how the diets of tufted puf- that adult puffins ate mostly invertebrates before laying eggs, fins change seasonally and annually. Tufted puffins feed on a gradually transitioning to fish while rearing chicks.C ompared variety of species, and so give us a glimpse of the abundance to their chicks, adults concurrently fed at the same trophic of marine forage fish in an area. Because they carry whole fish level but appeared to eat a different array of prey species. By from the sea to their nesting burrow to feed to their chicks, showing that nestling puffin diets don’t match adult diets, this scientists can easily observe “bill-loads” of fish. However, we study helps refine efforts to use seabird diets to establish links know little about what adults eat, which scientists think differs between changes in oceanographic conditions and seabird from the food fed to chicks. reproductive success.

To build a more complete understanding of factors affecting tufted puffin diets, this project used stable isotope analysis to learn the trophic level at which the birds are feeding, and fatty acid analysis to estimate the species the birds ate in the weeks prior to sampling. From this, scientists infer annual and seasonal shifts in the diets of tufted puffins onK odiak Island. Julia Parrish Researcher in the field takes a tufted puffin’s “head-bill” measurement to help determine body condition. Gerry Sanger SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: SEABIRDS 133

SEABIRDS :: Foraging Success Changes in Bering Sea Seabird Diets Project 320

Project 320 builds on two key observations Next, they collect samples of what the birds are eating to linking seabird populations and their prey. First, some compare seasonal and interannual changes in both the con- populations of fish-eating seabirds that feed on the shal- tinental shelf and oceanic habitats. Finally, investigators are low, continental shelf ecoregion of the Pribilof Islands are in assessing how the reproductive performance of seabirds decline, contrasted with increases in populations of the same relates to the biological changes and physical variability of species in the deep, oceanic ecoregion of the Aleutian Islands. continental shelf and oceanic habitats. Bringing these four elements together should improve our understanding of the Second, on the continental shelf, changes in the breed- factors that affect seabird diets, and population productivity. ing biology of fish-eating seabirds were the opposite of changes observed in the plankton-feeding species.

Project 320 looks at how pelagic food webs are organized and provides insights into patterns of food web productivity at several trophic levels—from zooplankton to forage fish to birds—between habitats and over time. The investigators work on a suite of ten seabird species, representing both fish and zooplankton specialists, at three primary sites in the Bering Sea with distinct oceanographic characteristics: Buldir Island (deep ocean basin); St. George Island (continental shelf edge); and St. Paul Island (continental shelf).

Relying on chemical analyses that can be linked to diets, as well as direct measurements of the prey items, investigators first measure concentrations of the stress hormone corticosterone in seabirds to assess seasonal and annual dynamics of food availability. They also analyze stomach contents, which directly reveal what the birds are eating and use fatty acid The relationship between productivity and nutritional stress (year/colony/species analysis to indirectly estimate what the birds were eating specific values for both measures) in auklets, murres, and kittiwakes breeding in the during the weeks prior to capture and sampling. Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea regions during 1999-2005.

SEABIRDS :: Foraging Success Foraging Behavior of Eiders Project 724

The diets of two threatened sea duck species, the Steller’s eider and the spectacled eider, are the focus of Project 724. Investigators are studying captive eiders in a controlled experimental setting to validate the use of fatty acid analysis for diet assessment for these species in the wild. The validation involves captive eider feeding trials with minimally invasive, biopsy sampling for fatty acid tissue. Results to date reveal that fatty acid analysis accurately estimates diet and diet switches in captive eiders over a month-long period, rather than only providing information on current diet, as would be the case with stomach content analysis. This validation study should provide the basis for characterizing diet patterns in eider species, which could be used in future studies to better understand benthic habitat requirements.

Tasha-Jo-Dimarzio 134 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

SEABIRDS :: Foraging Success World Population of Spectacled Eiders Project 820

In Alaska waters, one of the key threatened species is the spectacled eider, whose world population winters in small areas of open water among the ice of the northern Bering Sea. Project 820 looks at spectacled eider distribution, abundance, and diet, while making concurrent surveys of benthic prey in collaboration with other NPRB and NSF projects in the Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program. Investigators are testing and refining a model predicting where eiders can maintain positive energy balance, and where they have enough food to survive, giving resource managers vital information for delineating protected habitat in the northern Bering Sea.

Spectacled eiders in an open lead in the northern Bering Sea, spring 2009 BEST-BSIERP Bering Sea Project spring cruise of the

Brendan Smith Brendan Deanna Wheeler USCGC Healy.

Marine Habitat Use

Marine resource management is increasingly moving toward ecosystem-based approaches. Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the NPRB Science Plan highlight the need for information that underpins ecosystem-based decision-making.

We currently have little information about how seabirds use marine habitats at regional or basin scales, which limits the opportunity to build seabird habitat use into large-scale ecosystem-based, management planning.

The Science Plan also encourages cross-cutting and integrated research projects. Projects previously described in the Lower Trophic Level research theme (302, 536, and 601) quantify the abundance of plankton at basin scales in the North Pacificusing ships of opportunity to tow a continuous plankton recorder (CPR). To gather data on top predators whose feeding and distribution patterns are linked either directly or indirectly to plankton, the Board supported four linked projects (206, 409, 611, and 801) focused on marine mammal and bird surveys that coordinate and integrate with the CPR surveys. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: SEABIRDS 135

SEABIRDS :: Marine Habitat Use Surveying Seabirds at Sea Projects 206, 409, 611, 801

Project 206 first established standardized methods for surveying marine birds and mammals from the large container ships used in the CPR program described on page 36. The project then carried out six surveys across a 7500 kilometer swath of ocean, from British Columbia to Japan. Data on oceanographic variables were also collected underway, using satellite remote sensing. Project 409 extended this time series, allowing for yearly variability in seabird and marine mammal distributions relative to CPR-derived plankton communities and satellite-sensed temperature and chlorophyll measurements. Results of the Mark Rauzon two combined projects allowed the investigators to define A northern fulmar flies low over the Bering Sea. ten distinct “meso-marine ecosystems” in the North Pacific and southern Bering Sea study area. Project 611 further extended the survey dataset, crossing into what appears to large spatial scales. Project 801 provides additional fund- be a transition to a cold-water regime, increasing the inves- ing to support integrated analyses of seabird, zooplankton, tigators’ ability to connect plankton, bird, and mammal phytoplankton, and physical oceanographic measurements diversity and abundance with oceanographic variables at with specific focus on the Gulf ofA laska ecosystem.

SEABIRDS :: Marine Habitat Use Shipbased Seabird Observers Project 637

The CPR-Marine Bird and Mammal projects high- on selected vessels of opportunity, in collaboration with light the value of combining surveys of predators, prey, and NOAA, projects funded by the NSF and NPRB, the USFWS, habitat characteristics. Project 637 is a separate but related and the Canadian Wildlife Service. The project placed study that increased the coverage of the North Pacific observers on 25 cruises, surveying 46,373 kilometers of Pelagic Seabird Database (NPPSD), a USGS-USFWS proj- pelagic Alaska waters from the Arctic Ocean to the north- ect to consolidate data on seabirds at sea. ern Gulf of Alaska. These surveys improved distributional data for a variety of species, especially during spring and Most of the data in the NPPSD were collected in the fall months. All the data were contributed to the NPPSD, 1970s and 1980s. Since then, many bird populations have strengthening the database’s ability to provide insights into declined, and oceanic regimes, seabird prey, fisheries, the broad-scale patterns of distribution and abundance for and marine traffic have changed, affecting the foraging apex predators in Alaska’s pelagic waters. Continued sup- patterns and habitat use of seabirds at sea. Project 637 support for seabird-at-sea surveys is being provided through ported a marine bird observer program, placing observers the Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Project.

A B C D Spatial distribution of survey effort by season, from March 2006 through March 2008. Seasons were defined as winterA ( ; February-March), spring (B; April-May), summer (C; June-July), and fall (D; August-October). 136 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Fisheries Interactions and Population Conservation

Short-tailed albatross are a critically endangered species, with a total population of only about 2,500 individualS. These pelagic seabirds are by far the northernmost-breeding species among the North Pacific albatross, and they frequent waters off Alaska, Russia, and Japan that are heavily fished by commercial fisheries.

Short-tailed albatross have been killed in commercial fishing gear inA laska, and the longline and trawl fisheries operate under “incidental-take” limits for this species under the Endangered Species Act. The commercial fishing fleet in Alaska has taken admirable measures to avoid incidental take of short-tailed albatross, implementing requirements for “streamer line” avoidance measures for the hook-and-line groundfish and halibut fisheries.

The Board has supported two linked projects that use satellite telemetry to measure albatross habitat use, combined with satellite remote-sensing measurements of habitat characteristics, chemical analyses of albatross diet, and NOAA fisherieseffort and seabird bycatch data. Despite recent population increases, shortailed albatross remain exceptionally vulnerable, in large part because they nest on only two small, unstable islands. The short-tailed albatross recovery team determined that the establishment of additional colonies is of utmost importance to the recovery of this species, so NPRB funded a study of translocation to more stable islands.

SEABIRDS :: Fisheries Interactions and Population Conservation Survival of Short-Tailed Albatross Project 723

To give us more insights into the overlap Island, an uninhabited, non-volcanic, and politically stable between short-tailed albatross marine habitat and com- Japanese island. The translocation itself is a relatively small mercial fisheries, and to increase short-tailed albatross part of the work. Afterwards, the chicks must be hand- population growth and stability, NPRB funded Project 723, reared for three months until they reach fledging age. which translocates chicks to less vulnerable breeding sites than on active volcanoes. The investigators are measuring several variables of both normally reared chicks at Torishima Island and hand-reared Volcanically active Torishima supports 85% of the breeding chicks at Mukojima Island to allow them to quantify the population, while the other 15% breed on Minami-Kojima success of the translocations, and are using satellite trans- Island (Senkaku Islands group), whose ownership is dis- mitters to evaluate the range and habitat choices of both puted by Japan, China, and Taiwan. populations.

The investigators, a col- Short-Tailed Albatross Population Data at Torishima laborative team of U.S. and Japanese scientists, remove a small number of chicks from Torishima Island and carry them via helicopter to Mukojima

A short-tailed albatross chick translocated from Torishima is hand-reared on Mukojima, Short-tailed albatross population trend from 1947-2003 on Torishima Island, Japan.

Rob Suryan Japan, 300 kilometers away. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: SEABIRDS 137

F e a t u r e P R OJ E CT

SEABIRDS :: Fisheries Interactions and Population Conservation Overlap of Fisheries and Seabird Habitat Projects 322, 532

To help with fisheries management and species conservation, Project 322 sought to better understand short-tailed albatross distribution and marine habitat use. The investigators captured short-tailed albatross, both at sea and at their breeding colony off Japan, and attached satellite transmitters. Data from the satellite-tracked birds showed that short-tailed albatross had the greatest potential overlap with the sablefish fishery and others occurring on the continental shelf break and slope habitats in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. Some birds also travelled onto the Bering Sea shelf, suggesting potential (although more limited) interactions with the walleye pollock and Pacific cod fisheries. This project also highlighted the need for more widespread use of Rob Suryan longline seabird deterrent devices among regions and nations sharing respon- Albatrosses and fulmars with bait raft. sibility for conservation of this imperiled species.

Albatrosses and Regional Fisheries Using the same suite of research techniques, Project 532 extended the success of Project 322 to encompass all three albatross species commonly found in Alaska marine waters: short-tailed, black-footed, and Laysan albatross.

Albatross species showed important differences in foraging niches and habitat associations. Short-tailed albatross had the strongest association with continental shelf break and slope regions, although juveniles also frequented on-shelf habitats. Black-footed albatross were the most varied in habitat use, using all three depth domains of the continental shelf region to equal degrees but spending less time in oceanic waters, whereas Laysan albatross most often used oceanic habitats well off the continental slope.

The Bering Sea walleye pollock and Pacific cod fisheries had the greatest overlap with short-tailed albatross, whereas all three albatross species overlapped with the Aleutian Islands sablefish and Pacific halibut fisheries. Black-footed and juvenile short-tailed albatross had the greatest overlap with Gulf of Alaska fisheries andWest Coast Pacifichalibut and sablefish fisheries, and overlapped Tracks from all black-footed albatross (black lines) and with a portion of the high seas tuna fishery. Overall, Laysan albatross had the Laysan albatross (white lines) captured near Seguam least spatial overlap with North Pacific fisheries, spending the majority of time Pass, Aleutian Islands, Alaska (52.08º N, 172.95º W) superimposed over a composite image of sea surface in areas devoid of fishing activities. Taken together, the results of Projects 322 temperature (ºC) for the study periods (July-October, and 532 provide an improved understanding of ecological relationships among 2005 and 2006). North Pacific albatrosses and inter-specific differences in potential interactions with regional fisheries.

Overlap between black-footed and Laysan albatross 75% density contours of tracking hours and the spatial distribution of observed or reported longline fishing effort (thousands of hooks) in the North Pacific during July-October (years and data sources vary with fisheries). A portion of fishing distribution is not presented. Most notably, sablefish effort in the central and western Aleutian Islands is not displayed. Fishing effort for tunas and billfishes east of 150ºW is underrepresented. HUMANS People and the Sea

Ward Hulbert SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: HUMANS 139

Humans

n structuring large marine ecosystem research programs, humans are often overlooked except for their impacts on commercially fished species, marine mammals, the benthic habitat, or Iother aspects of the ecosystem. As NPRB developed its Science Plan, the National Research Council made it clear that one of the main reasons to study marine ecosystems is to determine their effect on human societies.

The Science Plan covers a wide array of topics related to humans, from policy analysis of living marine resource management, baseline assessments, resource protection and human health to potential impacts of climate variability and change.

The Board has supported 13 projects under this research theme – nine process studies, two modeling and two retrospectives – for a total of about $964,000. They focus on the role of humans in the ecosystem, and the impacts on humans of resource management decisions and variability in resources, including the following categories:

• protecting marine mammals and managing ecosystems • northern fur seal management • crab fisheries and social issues • stakeholder perceptions • making fishing safer • subsistence use of marine resources • social and economic baselines • human health and marine resources

Each responds to the Board’s enabling legislation directive to perform research on pressing fishery management issues.

Brian Dixon 140 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Human Projects

318 Development of comprehensive baseline commercial fishing community engagement and dependency profiles for the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Western Gulf of Alaska regions. M. Downs 326 Enhancing rural high school involvement in North Pacific resource issues through participation in Alaska Regional National Ocean Sciences Bowl. S. Sugai 403 *Building an education and outreach program for the North Pacific Research Board. S. Carrick, A. Haddow 423 An International market model for red king (Paralithodes camtschaticus), blue king (P. platypus), golden king (Lithodes aequispinus), tanner (Chinoecetes Bairdi) and snow (Chinoecetes opilio) crab. J. Greenberg, M. Herrmann

528 Socioeconomic baseline information for the Pribilof Islands. A. Scholz

529 Valuation of habitat closures. M. Berman, U. Sumaila

530 Institutions for ecosystem-based management: Alaska. D. Fluharty

533 Safety evaluation of fisheries management. J. Lincoln 537 *Building an education and outreach program for the North Pacific Research Board. S. Carrick 639 Extending lessons from the Steller sea lion controversy: Getting ahead of the northern fur seal curve. M. Hershman 640 Comprehensive baseline commercial fishing community engagement and dependency profiles: Adak, St. George, St. Paul, and Sand Point, Alaska. M. Downs 641 Role of walrus in distribution of human trichinellosis disease among indigenous people in Chukchi Peninsula. L. Bukina, A. Kolevatova 643 Bering Strait region local and traditional knowledge pilot project. A. Ahmasuk 645 Alaska rockfish: Subsistence harvests and local knowledge of Alaska rockfish (genus Sebastes). J. Dizard

703 *Education and outreach for NPRB. N. L. Deans 725 Fisheries "rationalization" and crew: Workplace dynamics and compensation, what can we learn? S. Macinko

802 *Education and outreach for the North Pacific Research Board. N. L. Deans

823 Cultural models of Copper River salmon biology. J. Brady, D. Hicks, M. Lowe, E.M. Valentine, L. Naves, W. Simeone, G. Stickwan

* discussed in Other Research Partnerships

Erika Acuna SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: HUMANS 141

Protecting Marine Mammals and Managing Ecosystems

One of the most critical issues faced by fishery managers responsible for managing the vast and productive groundfish fisheries off Alaska concerns how fishing activities might be impacting Steller sea lion populations, which are protected under the Endangered Species Act.

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council implemented a series of protective measures throughout the 1990s to give further protection to Steller sea lions, but the whole issue came to a head in 2000 when the Council and National Marine Fisheries Service contemplated closing areas to protect sea lion prey fields from fisheries. Although millions of research dollars went towards trying to determine the exact cause of the sea lion decline, relatively little information was available to assess the economic damages to fishermen of these extensive closures of their fishing grounds.

The Board attempted to address that situation by funding research to develop more exact quantitative methods to estimate the cost of closing groundfish fisheries in Steller sea lion critical habitat in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska.

HUMANS :: Protecting Marine Mammals and Managing Ecosystems Costs of Closing Fisheries in Steller Sea Lion Habitat Project 529

Scientists explored ways to explicitly link The the closures. The results suggested that the 2001 Steller spatial variability of fisheries biomass and profitability over sea lion closures cost the groundfish trawl fisheries five to time to environmental variables to estimate the opportunity 40% of potential net earnings, with most of the impact felt costs to the fishing industry of closures at scales relevant to by the pollock and Pacific cod catcher boats. management in Project 529. Improved methods for estimating opportunity costs of fish- By looking at environmental conditions, including bathyme- eries closures could be helpful if managers propose future try and oceanographic observations at two different spatial closures to protect marine mammals. If further research and temporal scales, and at fish biomass data, research- demonstrates the robustness and stability of the estimated ers sought to predict how catches might change if specific relationships over time, these methods may prove useful in areas were closed to fishing. They related these data to projecting spatial fishery effects of climate variability and economics of the fishing fleet to determine the impacts of change. Randy Stauffer Randy Linda Robinson Gulf of Alaska: Graves Rock. Sea Lions and Fairweather Range: Summer 1999. Steller sea lions on a research capture. 142 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

F e a t u r e P R OJE C T

HUMANS :: Protecting Marine Mammals and Managing Ecosystems Northern Fur Seal Management Project 639

We need to assess what we have learned from fashioning protective measures for sea lions to see how to do a better job with other marine mammals where there may be a conflict with fisheries. Northern fur seal populations around the Pribilofs have declined 80% since their peak in the 1950s and 45% since 1974.

Commercial fisheries operate in fur seal habitat and target some of the same fish species that fur seals eat. Project 639 assessed the legal, policy, and scientific factors affecting Northern fur seal management, based on lessons learned from the experience with Steller sea lions.

The study concluded that scientific research, while beneficial and necessary, may be fraught with uncertainty in terms of shedding a direct light on an issue as complex as fur seal and fishery prey field interactions, making it difficult to identify the appropriate level of precautionary management. The study concluded that using independent stakeholder-driven bodies, such as the Pribilof Islands Cooperative, offers an excellent opportunity to negotiate a politically acceptable resolution in face of considerable scientific uncertainty. Mike Sigler Mike Northern fur seals at St.George Island. Northern fur seal populations around the Pribilofs have declined considerably since the middle of the last century. Alison Banks SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: HUMANS 143

HUMANS :: Protecting Marine Mammals and Managing Ecosystems Ecosystem Management in Alaska Waters Project 530

A broad study now underway examines the entire array of management entities responsible for ecosystem-based management in the waters off Alaska. Project 530 is evaluating the past and present use of ecosystem- based management by major federal and state management institutions. Researchers are developing profiles that will let them explore how various alternative arrangements, such as cooperative or collaborative management, or lead entity management, can result in better-informed management. The study relies on six factors to examine agencies: jurisdiction, structure, function, decision processes, trends in issues and decisions over time, as well as interagency linkages with respect to ecosystem-scale decision-making. This evaluation should provide a composite understanding of the current status and trends of institutional arrangements in Alaska in terms of implementing ecosystem-based management.

Crab Fisheries and Social Issues

Whenever managers propose to impose new restrictions on managing a fishery, they need to consider the economic and social implications of those decisions

To assess those potential impacts, they need to know how the current fisheries operate and the major forces that shape their profitability. The Board has supported a major study of the economics of the Bering Sea crab fishery and a study of impacts of crab rationalizations.

HUMANS :: Crab Fisheries and Social Issues Market Models for Crab Project 423

Project 423 developed an international market model for king and Tanner crab to allow us to compare the fishery before and after the implementation of rights-based management in 2005. This equilibrium supply and demand model established a baseline for future evaluations of the economic impacts of fishery rationalization to fishery participants. It was the first study of its kind to simultaneously model the international allocation and demand for king and Tanner crab in a partial equilibrium framework, and Celeste Leroux Celeste learn how crab prices and revenues are affected by various Pribilof blue king crab, caught by F/V Aleutian Beauty for Alaska King Crab Research market determinants. and Rehabilitation Program, St. Paul Island.

The model demonstrated that the Alaska crab industry faces Unless there is a significant boost from crab rationalization major competition from Canadian, Russian and Greenland or declines in foreign harvests, the model does not foresee snow crab, and Russian king crab fisheries. Alaska crab rev- substantial economic improvement in Alaska crab prices in enues have been severely impacted by dramatic increases the near future. This project is important to managers and in snow crab from Canada and the recent emergence of participants in the crab rationalization process at the North Greenland and Russia as major crab producers has further Pacific Fishery Management Council level because it identi- dragged down Alaska crab prices and revenues. fies market factors which affect price determination. 144 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

HUMANS :: Crab Fisheries and Social Issues Impacts on Bering Sea Crab Fishermen Project 725

Researchers participating in an ongoing study of the Bering Sea crab fishery, Project 725, are conducting interviews with crewmembers to determine how rationalization of the crab fisheries and reduction in the number of participating vessels from 300 to 100 has impacted their workplace dynamics and pay. NOAA - AFSC NOAA

Stakeholder Perceptions

Getting managers and stakeholders to find common ground and agree about the state of the resources and the need for specific management actions is often difficult.

Unreconciled differences in opinion lead to impasse and potential worsening of the resource base, as has happened repeatedly in New England fisheries. There, scientists and fishermen are frequently at odds about how to manage for sustainability.

HUMANS :: Stakeholder Perceptions Traditional Knowledge about Sustainable Fish Populations Project 823

In our region, An ongoing study is assessing local and traditional knowledge as it pertains to salmon biology in the Copper River near Cordova, Alaska, and how it may differ in perspective from State of Alaska fisheries managers. Project 823 is examining knowledge held by Ahtna Native and commercial fishermen to determine how their perceptions of what is necessary to keep the salmon populations sustainable are shaped by their culture, training, and experience in the fisheries. This will allow investigators to determine how local scientific perceptions differ from the views held by fisheries scientists and managers, which could lead to finding common ground, improving communications, and making long- term improvements in the fishery. Deborah MercyDeborah SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: HUMANS 145

Making Fishing Safer

The U.S. Congress wanted managers to consider safety when they developed national standard #10 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act that governs our nation’s fisheries.

The Act states that conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea. But the question arises: Did safety actually improve with the imposition of rights-based management off Alaska?

Comprehensive rationalization of the fisheries off Alaska and the introduction of rights-based management starting in the mid-1990s were highly contentious issues. A major justification for managing the sablefish and halibut longline fisheries with individual fishing quotas I( FQs) was that it would stop the race for fish and significantly improve the safety of fishing operations. Fishing vessels would be in a better position to pick the right weather to take their catch and would not have to be in the At Sea Processors Association SeaAt Processors middle of a frenzied fishing opener when a storm struck.

HUMANS :: Making Fishing Safer Assessing Safety in Halibut, Sablefish, and Pollock Fisheries Project 533

The Board funded project 533 to systematically assess whether safety improved after quota-based management systems were established in the Alaska halibut and sablefish, and pollock fisheries. Researchers measured safety improvements by identifying declines in fatalities and search-and-rescue missions. Their results demonstrated a statistically significant decline in rates of fatalities (-81%) and search-and-rescue missions (-47%) for halibut and sablefish fishermen since the introduction of IFQs. Non-fatal injuries in the Bering Sea pollock fishery declined by 76%. These results provide valuable information to guide future management decisions on whether to use rights-based management as the preferred approach to ameliorate safety problems inherent in the “race for fish.” John Horne

Leif Mjos 146 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Subsistence Use of Marine Resources

Residents in rural coastal communities do not have the same access to commercial food supplies as more populated areas, and rely on subsistence use of Alaska’s living marine resources. Fishing, hunting, and other forms of food gathering are critical activities that sustain rural areas, most of which are off the road system.

The Board has funded two studies, projects 643 and 645, directly related to subsistence use of resources, though others have examined contaminants in subsistence foods (projects 534, 644, and 822) or used subsistence hunters to provide samples (Project 312) and are discussed elsewhere in this report.

HUMANS :: Subsistence Use of Marine Resources Changes in Bering Strait Harvests Project 643

In project 643, researchers set out to document subsistence harvests and gather local and traditional knowledge in the Bering Strait region in communities along the coast of Norton Sound, in the southern Chukchi Sea, and on St. Lawrence Island. The study documented the views of local residents about the many changes they have experienced since Statehood. They’ve witnessed a warming of their region, the appearance of new fish species, marine mammals with reduced blubber thickness, and more prevalence of beavers and willows on the Seward Peninsula. More frequent violent storms wreak havoc with coastal communities, and melting permafrost shrinks tundra ponds and lowers river levels. Changes in sea ice impact the availability of marine mammals and hunting operations that depend on stable ice conditions. The surveys also found that marine mammals and seabird eggs were prominent components in the diets of people living in villages within the sampled area.

HUMANS :: Subsistence Use of Marine Resources Halibut and RockfishH arvests Project 645

In 2003, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council allowed rural community residents to use longlines for subsistence halibut much more extensively than previously allowed by the State of Alaska. Questions immediately arose about the impacts of these new activities on bycatch and discard of rockfish and their populations. Were fishermen catching and discarding more rockfish while targeting halibut? How were rockfish populations faring? What types of gear were being used and how had the fisheries changed? J. Rosenthal To determine how halibut subsistence fishing may be impacting local rockfish stocks, Project 645 collected local Investigators also learned the local Native names for rock- information about rockfish harvests in four communities on fish species, how they prepared and stored it for winter, and the Gulf coast: Sitka in Southeast Alaska, and Nanwalek, how they shared the catch among families. Fishermen also Port Graham, and Tatitlek in Southcentral. They learned that talked about spreading their fishing over broader areas to fishermen tended to catch certain rockfish species such as reduce the chances of overfishing particular concentrations quillback, yelloweye, and black rockfish, but to retain just of rockfish, and voiced their concerns over heavy competi- the larger ones because of the relatively low meat recovery tion from non-local recreational and commercial fishermen. rate (about 30% of the smaller individuals). Longlines were The study concluded by recommending that further effort used more off Sitka than up in Southcentral, where rod and be put into developing practical rockfish avoidance strate- reel was the gear of choice. gies in the subsistence halibut fisheries. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: HUMANS 147

Social and Economic Baselines

Social and economic baselines are necessary for regulatory, environmental, and social impacts studies of proposed changes in fisheries regulations.

Social and economic baselines are very important to management entities such as the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In partnership with the Council, the Board has funded two major baseline studies.

HUMANS :: Social and Economic Baselines Socio-Economic Baseline for the Pribilof Islands Project 528

In the Pribilof Islands, the Board funded a study infrastructure projects have helped create jobs and income, to produce baseline information against which future but employment by the City of St. George has dropped change could be measured. Project 528 responded to infor- sharply and it is unlikely that capital projects will continue mation gaps identified by the Pribilof Islands Collaborative indefinitely. Fish processing and ecotourism offer some (PIC), a working group that had been working to address a promise of sustainable economic activity, but other sources series of Bering Sea fishery and marine resource manage- of employment and income are likely to be needed as well. ment issues in a proactive and collaborative setting. One conclusion from both the data and anecdotal evidence was the importance of economic diversification to the long- The PIC identified knowledge gaps, such as the value of term health of both communities. Finally, the research halibut and other Bering Sea fisheries to the region and showed that while similarities exist between the two com- the Pribilofs, impacts of changes in fisheries on the commu- munities, they are certainly not identical and changes or nities, history of local marine stewardship, and economic perceived changes may impact them differently. importance of substance harvest of halibut, fur seals, and other resources. Researchers gathered key information from local and governmental organizations and combined it with data from on-island surveys to create a comprehensive socioeconomic baseline for the Pribilofs.

The study showed that while both St. George and St. Paul are fishing communities, fisheries have played a lesser role in recent years. Fishery-related revenues and employment are declining but halibut fisheries remain very important. Subsistence harvests are an important source of community sustenance and culture, and contribute to the communities’ sense of health and well-being. The economy of St. Paul has suffered substantially in the last few years but appears Astrid Scholz to be stabilizing, while the future of St. George appears Community meeting at St. Paul. to be more uncertain. A variety of capital investments and

Melissa Grego 148 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

HUMANS :: Social and Economic Baselines Community Dependence on Fisheries Projects 318, 640

Projects 318 and 640 both focused on social and economic information that demonstrates the engagement and dependence on fisheries resources of Unalaska, Akutan, King Cove, Kodiak, Adak, Sand Point, and St. Paul and St. George on the Pribilof Islands. The studies described the harvesting and processing sectors in each community as well as support services. Data included numbers and size of fishing vessels, numbers of permit holders by fishery, catch and earnings data, crewmember information, quantitative assessment of processing activities, and estimates of the importance of fishery-related revenue to the municipal revenue for each community. For example, fishery-related revenues accounted for 41-47% of total revenues for Mike Downs Mike Unalaska, and 52% for Kodiak, suggesting that managers Community fishing at St. Paul. Island must heavily weigh impacts of changes in fishing regulations on these communities. Mike Downs Mike St. Paul in the Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: HUMANS 149

Human Health and Marine Resources

Significant concerns exist about the relationship between human health and subsistence and commercial use of marine resources.

To date, the Board has funded one study focused directly on human health.

HUMANS :: Human Health and Marine Resources Health Risks of Eating Walrus Project 641

The role of walrus in the distribution of human Researchers tested individuals in two Russian communities, trichinellosis disease among indigenous people on the Lorino and Lavrentiya, for infections, which were found to Chukchi Peninsula in Russia was the focus of Project 641. be highest in marine mammal hunters and school children, This research relates to our own Native communities in although there were no clinical signs of disease noted. Four Alaska where walrus meat may be an important part of the mammal species—walrus, red fox, farmed polar fox, and subsistence diet. Subsistence hunting of marine mammals sled dogs—carried the parasite. In Lorino, 6% of the 361 is a primary source of food and carries a health risk associ- individuals tested were infected. In Lavrentiya, only about ated with consumption of trichinella-infected walrus meat 1.3% of the 76 people tested positive for it. The major in raw or fermented form. source of infection in humans was walrus meat, although polar fox meat also played a role. Lydiya Bukina Lydiya Anatoly Kochnev Hunting walrus. Walrus on ice pack. OTHER PROMINENT ISSUES Ocean Challenges

Bill Heubner SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: OTHER PROMINENT ISSUES 151

Other Prominent Issues

ontaminants, harmful algal blooms, invasive species, aquaculture, climate change, and an ice-free Arctic are among other prominent issues that warrant focus by the Board, Caccording to the Board’s Science and Advisory panels. To date, the Board has funded eight studies in this research theme for a total of $764,000 in the following categories:

• contaminants • harmful algal blooms

Climate change and impacts of diminishing sea ice cover often are identified as research priorities within the major thematic sections of the Science Plan. In the past five years, climate change has become a mainstream issue on national and world agendas, and the Board is addressing this accelerating interest in climate change impacts through individual studies, and, in partnership with the National Science Foundation through the comprehensive Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program.

Francis Wiese 152 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Other Prominent Issues (Contaminants, Harmful Algal Blooms, Invasive Species, Aquaculture)

421 Identification of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in sediments and biota in a pristine southeast Alaska watershed and near a municipal waste landfill in Juneau, Alaska. L. Hoferkamp, S. Tamone 422 Ecological implications of fisheries-based economical development in Nelson Lagoon: Steller's eider critical habitat. E. Lance, K. Trust

534 Expanding the seabird tissue archival. P. Becker, D. Roseneau, G. York 644 Response and intervention system for climate change induced paralytic shellfish poisoning in Aleut communities. V. Gofman, R. RaLonde, B. Wright 726 Sediment quality triad assessment in Kachemak Bay, Alaska: Characterization of soft bottom benthic habitats and contaminant Bioeffects Assessment. D. Apeti, S. Hartwell, K. Kimbrough

727 TBT contamination and impacts in Alaskan seaports. L. Hoferkamp, D. Tallmon 821 Using blue mussels as an indicator species for testing domoic acid toxicity in subsistence bivalve harvest. B. Himelbloom, R. Ralonde, B. Wright 822 Mercury levels in murre and gull eggs harvested for food in the Norton Sound region and potential sources of contamination. A. Ahmasuk, A. Ahmasuk, P. Becker, P. Becker, D. Roseneau

Zachary Buchanan SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: OTHER PROMINENT ISSUES 153

Contaminants

The transport, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification of contaminants in the marine ecosystems of Alaska are of utmost concern.

The National Research Council noted in its guidance to the Board that there are three primary risks from contaminants moving through the food web. These include toxicity to individual organisms; toxicity to humans, especially Alaska Natives who may depend predominantly on aquatic foods, and contamination of commercially-fished species, which may affect marketability and cause health problems.

The Board responded to these concerns by including a contaminants priority in each of the eight RFPs from 2002 to 2008, mainly directed at the sources, transport, and accumulation of contaminants and their effects on ecosystem structure and function. The Board received many contaminants-related proposals in its 2003 RFP, but a financial crisis inM arch of that year led the Board to place a higher priority on other marine research.

OTHER PROMINENT ISSUES :: Contaminants Flame Retardant Chemicals in Invertebrates in Southeast Alaska Project 421

In 2004, the Board’s first contaminants study, The research concluded that even the highest PBDE levels, Project 421, examined the levels of polybrominated diphenyl found at Lemon Creek, were four to twenty-seven times lower ether (PBDE) in sediments and invertebrates collected from than those found in surface sediments from bodies of water two study sites in Southeast Alaska: one at Lemon Creek near bordering heavily industrialized areas, such as the Great Lakes an industrial landfill in Juneau, and a second, more pristine or in the North Sea. Unlined municipal solid waste landfills site, at Peterson Creek north of Juneau. bordering the Lemon Creek estuary appeared to be a significant source for PBDEs. In Peterson Creek, concentrations PBDEs are man-made chemicals widely used as flame were much less, though measurable. Those contaminants retardants from 1970 to 1980. U.S. production has been may be spread to glaciers through atmospheric transport and curtailed, but PBDEs continue to be produced elsewhere. then carried into estuaries through ice melt. Researchers stud- Bioaccumulation of PBDEs and transmission up the food web ied a number of invertebrate species including amphipods, may be of particular concern in North Pacific ecosystems if mussels, clams and isopods, finding the highest concentra- they become concentrated in commercially important fish tions in filter-feeding clams. and shellfish species. PBDEs are neurotoxins that can act as endocrine disruptors and impact thyroid hormone regulation.

OTHER PROMINENT ISSUES :: Contaminants Looking for Hydrocarbons in Nelson Lagoon Project 422

Project 422 examined polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs) contamination in blue mussels in Nelson Lagoon, on the north coast of the Alaska Peninsula. These mussels are important prey for threatened Steller’s eiders that gather by the thousands in the lagoon to molt beginning in July. Boating activities, salmon fishing, and accidental oil discharges ran the risk of polluting the water with hydrocarbons. PAHs are associated with chronic risks of cancer, reproductive anoma- lies, and endocrine dysfunction. Researchers found very low concentrations of PAHs in the marine sediments, tissues of invertebrates, and in the water. In general, the lagoon remains relatively pristine. Ellen Lance Nelson Lagoon from the air. 154 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

F e a t u r e P R OJ E C T

OTHER PROMINENT ISSUES :: Contaminants Monitoring Seabird Eggs Project 534

A long-term program to monitor contaminants measured in seabird eggs, an important subsistence food for local residents, began in 2005. Project 534 helped support a collaborative project with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and residents of 15 communities to monitor trends in Alaska marine environmental quality by collecting seabird eggs, and processing and banking the samples to ensure chemical stability during decadal storage.

The overall program, called the Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project (STAMP), seeks to provide a record of long-term anthropogenic contaminants, such as chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), PBDEs, and mercury in murre and gull eggs from the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea.

Examining north-south and east-west patterns helps provide clues to contaminant sources and transport patterns, and their impact on the food web. NPRB’s support was used to analyze contaminants in eggs collected in 2002-2005. Researchers The 1999-2007 Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project found that PCBs and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) were higher in the (STAMP) seabird egg collecting sites Gulf of Alaska than the Bering Sea, while levels of hexachlorobenzene (HCB) had just the opposite pattern.

Levels of persistent organic pollutants appear to have declined in Alaska murre colonies since the mid-1970s. Mercury levels in murre eggs were comparable to levels reported elsewhere in the world. Mercury levels around Norton Sound were higher than elsewhere and may reflect historical mining activities on the Seward Peninsula and natural inputs from the Yukon River and smaller drainages. Francis Wiese Francis Murre eggs, St. George Island. Carrie Eischens Carrie SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: OTHER PROMINENT ISSUES 155

OTHER PROMINENT ISSUES :: Contaminants OTHER PROMINENT ISSUES :: Contaminants Assessing Mercury Levels Characterizing Kachemak Bay in Murres and Gulls in Sediments Norton Sound Project 726 Project 822 Researchers are assessing habitat conditions Related to STAMP (project 534), project 822 that influence biodiversity and distribution of soft bottom supports an assessment of mercury contamination in murre benthic infaunal communities in Kachemak Bay in Project and gull eggs in the Norton Sound region to determine if con- 726. By characterizing sediment properties, benthic infaunal taminant levels correlate with large estuarine wetlands, river community distribution and condition, sediment contaminant outflows, or historical gold mining sites. When completed in concentrations, and toxicity, the study will provide important 2010, the study will provide local residents with important benthic community and sediment toxicity data that can be information about the contaminant levels in bird eggs used integrated with other national status and trends databases. for subsistence purposes. It will also help identify potential sources of contaminants and the presence of those contaminants at traditional egg harvesting locations.

OTHER PROMINENT ISSUES :: Contaminants Analyzing Mussels and Dogwinkles for TBT Contamination Project 727

Tributyltin (TBT) is one of the most toxic compounds ever to come on the market, and poses a potential threat to subsistence harvest, mariculture, and natural populations of marine resources in Alaska. Project 727 will assess TBT impacts throughout Southeast Alaska and the Gulf of Alaska to determine whether levels are elevated in ports used by large ships. The study will also obtain baseline data for long-term monitoring of nearshore ecosystems. By analyzing mussels and file dogwinkles, researchers will quantify TBT contamination in and near harbors and compare changes at Auke Bay and Kodiak over twenty years. Ryan SoderlundRyan Mussels on beach. 156 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Harmful Algal Blooms

Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) is the major harmful algal bloom (HAB) concern in Alaska.

Caused by dinoflagellates, PSP toxins accumulate in filter-feeding shellfish and transfer through the food web to those who feed on shellfish. People with PSP poisoning feel symptoms that can include tingling or numbness in the lips and extremities, nausea, dizziness, shortness of breath, and in extreme cases, paralysis and death.

OTHER PROMINENT ISSUES :: Harmful Algal Blooms Community Monitoring for Shellfish Poisoning Project 644

Through project 644, the Board supported an effort to educate local residents in the Aleutians and Commander Islands about PSP and train them to use test kits to monitor the toxin. Shellfish specimens were collected and analyzed from 21 communities extending the length of the Aleutians. Only low levels of PSP were found. Test kits provided an efficient method for rapid screening for PSP, but the technique had a high percentage of false positives.

The project also included interviews of 13 local residents Ray Ralonde Ray in Sand Point, Alaska, and 30 in Nikolskoye on Bering A researcher digs for clams for PSP testing. Island in Russia. The respondents were asked about learning and teaching about shellfish, indicators of shellfish safety, and shell collection and preparation habits. The project sought to develop a complementary relationship between scientific research and traditional knowledge, and between natural and social sciences that would improve understanding of the risks of PSP to human health in Aleut communities. Researchers concluded that local and traditional knowledge, on its own, cannot equip local residents with sufficient knowledge about safe harvesting of shellfish.

PSP toxins, caused by Bruce Wright Bruce dinoflagellates, accumulate in A Sand Point technician and her assistant prepare a sample of butter clams to be tested for PSP. filter-feeding shellfish and transfer through the food web to those who feed on shellfish. Ray Ralonde Ray These developed Jellett PSP test strips are from the first shellfish samples ever tested for PSP in Sand Point, Alaska. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: OTHER PROMINENT ISSUES 157

OTHER PROMINENT ISSUES :: Harmful Algal Blooms Testing for Domoic Acid Toxins Project 821

Project 821 supports a shellfish testing program doses domoic acid is fatal, particularly among the elderly and for domoic acid for multiple coastal sites from Southeast immuno-compromised shellfish consumers. The occurrence Alaska to Dutch Harbor. Domoic acid is produced by several of domoic acid poisoning is underreported in Alaska, even diatom species and can be incorporated as a toxin in shellfish, though it could have devastating impacts for the marine envi- similar to other toxins, such as PSP. The seriousness of domoic ronment, coastal economies, and human health. The intent acid as a toxin with human health implications was first discov- of this project is to determine if domoic acid is prevalent in ered in North America in 1987 when an outbreak occurred Alaska, measure concentration levels in blue mussels as an in Eastern Canada, causing 107 illnesses and three deaths. indicator species, and design a sampling and testing program Toxicity is extremely variable depending on the general health that will enable Alaska to adequately monitor for domoic acid. and age of the victim. Low doses cause gastrointestinal illness Local residents are being trained to test for domoic acid and and moderate neurological symptoms including loss of short send samples to the Fishery Industrial Technology Center in term memory (termed amnesiac shellfish poisoning). At high Kodiak for analysis.

Dustin Allen Phillips INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH From Physics to Fish

Amy Kennedy SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH 159

integrated ecosystem research

n the 2005 Science Plan, the National Research Council strongly urged the Board to develop integrated research programs for each of the large marine ecosystems off Alaska, with initial Ifocus on the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. Our first program, the Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program, was launched in 2007 as a six-year, $52 million partnership with the National Science Foundation to improve our understanding of how the Bering Sea may respond to climate change, particularly as mediated through changes in seasonal ice cover.

In September 2008, the Board released a request for proposals for a second integrated ecosystem research effort focused on the Gulf of Alaska. It will look at how environmental and anthropogenic processes, including climate change, may affect animals and plants at various trophic levels and dynamic linkages among trophic levels, with particular emphasis on fish and fisheries, marine mammals, and seabirds within the Gulf of Alaska.

Diane Stoecker 160 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program

Alaska’s Bering Sea fisheries provide nearly half of the seafood consumed in the U.S., forming a powerful economic engine for fishing communities and the core of an ocean-based subsistence lifestyle. Whales, seals and seabirds travel from afar to feed and mate here. Fur seals breed on island rookeries, while walrus haul out on sea ice to bear young.

Climate change and reduced ice cover could significantly may be impacted by potential changes in climate, mediated impact the Bering Sea ecosystem. This program seeks to to great extent by the anticipated reduction in or overall understand the mechanisms that create and sustain this loss of seasonal sea ice cover over the next 30 years. They highly productive ecosystem, and how they might be recommended that in the absence of a fully-developed altered over time. implementation plan, the 2006 RFP focus on retrospective, process, and modeling studies on six key research ques- Initiation tions focused on components of the Bering Sea ecosystem Planning for the Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research and how they might respond to climate change. They also Program (BSIERP) began in spring 2005. The Board’s draft noted the potential for collaboration with the National Science Plan had been reviewed by the National Research Science Foundation and its recent call for proposals for the Council and was in production. In its 2005 RFP, the Board Bering Ecosystem Study (BEST), which referenced NPRB in attempted to attract a proposal for a workshop to develop the announcement. an implementation plan for the BSIERP, but there were no submissions. In March 2005, the Board approved the After reviewing this report and recommendations from the staff moving forward with establishing a planning team Science Panel, the Board placed a $1.2 million research pri- and coordinating with an interagency group. The Alaska ority in the 2006 RFP for one- to two-year retrospective and Fisheries Science Center reported on its efforts to put modeling studies to examine climate change impacts on together a study of climate change and loss of sea ice in the Bering Sea ecosystem. The Board also approved fund- the Bering Sea and how they might impact fish stocks and ing for planning teams for each of the two core regions, the fisheries. Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, to develop the details of five- year implementation plans for input into the 2007 RFP. It The Board heard back from the planning group in also approved funding for a Bering Sea ecosystem model- September 2005. The group identified the central scientific ing committee that would develop standards for statistical issue: How the Bering Sea and its living marine resources robustness of the models and validation of model results.

Paul Melovidov SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH 161 Ryan KingsberyRyan John Piatt Sand lance are an important forage fish in the Bering Sea. Kittiwakes along the cliffs of St. George Island.

Implementation Plans with NSF to provide answers to these issues, which the In March 2006, the Board received a draft implementation Board then reviewed. These included concerns over differ- plan and discussion document for the Bering Sea study, ing policies on data ownership, whether applied science along with a plan for the Loss of Sea Ice (LOSI) program could be supported, fiscal risk for each agency, collabora- at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. A draft discussion tion of scientists funded by different agencies, processes paper on Gulf of Alaska ecosystem planning was also pre- for making course corrections, and how to split up the sented. The Board decided to move ahead with further research efforts and questions between NSF and NPRB. planning for the Bering Sea study, but to delay the Gulf study by at least one year. It approved establishing a scien- The Board concluded that the issues were being addressed tific steering committee to further develop the Bering Sea satisfactorily, and unanimously endorsed establishing the study, refine the main research themes, and draft a call for partnership with NSF. It then instructed staff to work with pre-proposals for review in September. They provisionally NSF in resolving all remaining issues and draft a letter of adopted a five- to six-year schedule for the potential study agreement for the Board to review on October 18, 2006. that would include one year of planning and synthesis, The Board recognized that this was a unique opportunity three years of field work, and one to two years of integra- and that the goal should be to get as close as possible to tion and reporting. having one team, working seamlessly and guided by tight protocols, under the twin banners of NPRB and NSF. The In September 2006, the Board reviewed the draft BSIERP Board also approved release of the BSIERP call for pre-pro- implementation plan and draft call for pre-proposals for the posals at a funding level of $14 million once they completed study that would run from 2007–2013 (later adjusted to end a teleconference on October 18, 2006 to review the NSF in late 2012). It also heard the first report of the Ecosystem partnership concerns. The RFP was released on October Modeling Committee and of an opportunity to partner with 23, 2006. The Science Panel met in November to review the National Science Foundation (NSF). William Wiseman, the three pre-proposals, one having three variants. The Program Manager for Arctic Natural Science at NSF, was Board then met on December 5, 2006 to review the pro- present to answer questions and offer clarifications as nec- posals and the Science Panel recommendations and called essary. The Science Panel had raised a number of issues for full proposals from two main groups: the NOAA Alaska when it initially considered the idea of a partnership with Fisheries Science Center—University of Alaska Fairbanks NSF at the panel’s meeting in late August. Between the group, and one from the University of British Columbia. panel meeting and the Board meeting, the staff worked

Climate change and reduced ice cover could significantly impact the Bering Sea ecosystem. This historic partnership seeks to understand the mechanisms that create and sustain this highly productive ecosystem, and how they may be altered over time as the climate changes. 162 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

BSIERP Becomes Reality community and the public. For details, visit the project Two full proposals to the BSIERP RFP were received by website at www.bsierp.nprb.org. March 15, 2007. The two proposals underwent anonymous technical reviews, and were then subsequently reviewed First Field Year: 2008 by a joint NSF-NPRB science panel the week of June 11th The first field year for the BSIERP commenced in March in Washington, D.C. The Board and William Wiseman of 2008 with a cruise of the United States Coast Guard ice- NSF met on June 26-27, 2007, received the joint science breaker Healy from Dutch Harbor to St. Lawrence and panel recommendations and proceeded to fashion the back to study ice conditions, the benthic prey fields and BSIERP, based mainly on the full proposal received from walrus distribution. Other field activities took place in the NOAA-UAF group. They capped the study at $14 mil- 2008, including more Healy and NOAA cruises and patch lion, but approved specific components adding up to only dynamics studies on the Pribilofs with exploratory work on $13.2 million. The remaining funds would be made avail- Bogoslof Island, along with further model development able to fill in identified gaps or to help support the marine and interactions with the Ecosystem Modeling Committee. mammal patch dynamics study from UBC. Status reports were presented to the Board at its April and September 2008 meetings. At the September meeting, the The study was further fleshed out at meetings in September Board approved an additional $120,000 for the Ecosystem and December 2007, when the Board approved additional Modeling Committee (EMC) to apportion to retrospective funds for comparative patch dynamics studies involv- or modeling studies at its discretion. It also approved the ing northern fur seals around the Pribilofs and Bogoslof idea of a BEST-BSIERP advisory group that would func- Island, and one study focusing on benthic feeding walrus tion as a big picture program evaluation group and as a at St. Lawrence Island. The Board also approved other go-between for the different panels and the Board. It components involving local and traditional knowledge, would include two advisory panel members, three science epibenthos, and microzooplankton studies and ecosystem panel members, and the chair of the EMC. The Board also modeling. As a result of these funding decisions, the Board received a presentation on education and outreach activi- had approved a total of $15,992,043 for the BSIERP. NSF ties surrounding the BEST-BSIERP program, which include had contributed about $21 million and NOAA and other a dynamic website, media and outreach campaign, pub- Federal agencies about $14.9 million, bringing the partner- lic radio programming, potential for an exhibition at the ship total to nearly $52 million. Smithsonian’s Ocean Hall, and community outreach. In mid-October, BSIERP-BEST principal investigators met in NPRB also organized and supported the first meeting of the Girdwood, Alaska, for the second annual principal inves- principal investigators for the joint BEST-BSIERP program tigator meeting, focusing on summaries of the 2008 field in Seattle on September 17-19, 2007, where nearly 100 sci- seasons, planning for 2009 field and modeling work, and entists and program management staff reviewed the scope identification of “headline” results and key points for fur- and details of the program, worked toward achieving full ther integration work across project components. program integration, and discussed how to coordinate the field studies and cruise planning for this ambitious effort. They also worked on program management issues and a management plan. A full-time program manager for the combined BEST-BSIERP project, Tom Van Pelt, was hired in June 2008. Nora Deans, as principal investigator for the Education and Outreach component, produced a detailed communication and outreach plan focused on sharing news from the field component among a variety of audiences, including coastal communities and national media. Carolyn Rosner created a dynamic website with constantly changing news for both the scientific Christian Morel Icebreaker Healy cruise March 2008. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH 163

F e a t u re P R OJEC T Bering Sea Program Highlights

Nearly 100 federal, state, university and private institution scientists are studying a range of issues in the Bering Sea, from atmospheric forcing and physical oceanography to humans and communities, including the attendant economic and social impacts of a changing ecosystem. Both organizations are supporting ecosystem modeling and data management.

Studies supported by the National Science Foundation include: • Climate, oceanography, and lower trophic level—benthos, primary production near sea ice, nutrients, modeling, micro- and meso-zooplankton, euphausiids, biophysical moorings, and physical oceanography • Social science research—relationships between a changing marine environment and Bering Sea communities

Studies supported by the North Pacific Research Board include: • Climate, oceanography, and lower trophic levels—benthos, micro-zooplankton, biophysical moorings, and physical oceanography • Forage species—euphausiids, myctophids and capelin • Fish—arrowtooth flounder, Pacific cod, and walleye pollock • Marine mammals—fur seals, walrus and broad-scale whale distribution • Seabirds—thick-billed murres, black-legged kittiwakes, and broad-scale sea- For more details and to follow along with the field science, local and traditional knowledge research, ecosystem model- bird distribution ing and communication, education and outreach as it unfolds, • local and Traditional Knowledge (LTK—subsistence harvest and LTK ecosys- visit the dynamic project website (www.bsierp.nprb.org) and tem perspectives download the richly illustrated Bering Sea program brochure. • Education, outreach, and communication Sarah KruseSarah 164 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Gulf of Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Research Program

The Gulf of Alaska is dominated by the strongest and most persistent currents found along either coasts of North America. These conditions reflect the influence of weather and climate and provide the link to efficiently transfer physical and biological “signals” from lower latitudes of the North Pacific Ocean into the northern Gulf of Alaska. Although large gaps remain in our understanding of this complex marine ecosystem, ocean research in the Gulf has been ongoing for decades. Any new program needs to capitalize on the existing knowledge and data.

Program Development The Board first started considering an integrated research In June 2007, while finalizing the BSIERP components, the program in the Gulf of Alaska in September 2005, along Board noted that the requirement for large multidisciplinary with the Bering Sea Project and completion of the Science teams to send in proposals and have a winner-take-all Plan, which emphasized the need for ecosystem research. approach led to less competition than the Board desired. At that meeting, the Board approved funding to support a They said this should not happen again for the Gulf of planning team to start developing the program. A discussion Alaska program. The process of developing proposals paper was presented in March 2006 by Dr. Carl Schoch, work- needed to be fully competitive and well thought out. The ing under contract to the Board, but the Board decided to Board emphasized that it would thoroughly consider the delay further development of the Gulf of Alaska Integrated lessons learned from the BSIERP when proceeding with the Ecosystem Research Program (GOAIERP) until it had more development of the GOAIERP. experience with the BSIERP. Further discussion occurred in September 2006 and April 2007. At the April meeting, the The Science Panel, meeting in August 2007, reflected Board discussed development of the Gulf program and heard upon the approaches and lessons learned in the BSIERP. a report from the executive director of the EVOSTC about Everyone agreed not to repeat the large group, winner- a potential collaboration with NPRB. Although the original take-all approach, nor to follow the NSF individual proposal intent in crafting the Gulf of Alaska project was to release a approach. Instead, they recommended that a directed, but call for pre-proposals in October 2007, the Board concluded still competitive strategy should be explored. Staff sug- that it would be better to wait until February or March 2008, gested a modular approach, where all modules that would but not wait as long as October 2008. This would give time make up an integrated ecosystem research program are for it to learn from the ongoing Bering Sea Project. The Board identified initially and roughly defined by NPRB (aswas also expressed interest in the collaboration with the EVOSTC. done for LTK and patch dynamics components of BSIERP).

Mark Kelley SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH 165

Modules would be process-oriented and could be com- Preliminary Program peted openly, followed by focal meetings like those for In September 2008, the Board finally approved the release the patch dynamics and LTK components, which proved to of a call for pre-proposals that would address the overarch- be extremely valuable and productive. Such an approach ing question of how environmental and anthropogenic would give control, ensure competition, allow for creativity processes, including climate change, affect various tro- within defined modules and prevent any group or insti- phic levels and trophic linkages in the Gulf, with particular tution from dominating. Such a modular approach could emphasis on fish and fisheries, marine mammals, and sea- also deal with the issue of insufficient funding, depending birds. The goal would be to determine and quantify the upon available partnerships, as well as ensure a high qual- processes driving upper trophic level populations and to ity, comprehensive and integrated program comparative better understand observed and potential future variability to BSIERP. Core modules could be identified for funding therein as they affect key management issues in the North simultaneously in a first instance, with additional modules Pacific. designed ahead of time to be added as more funding becomes available. The Science Panel endorsed this idea The overall Gulf of Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Research and added that relevant long-term datasets should be Program would range from climate and physics up through identified and their availability determined to ensure a level fish, birds, mammals and humans. It would have four com- playing-field in terms of data access for all applicants. ponents: upper trophic level species, forage base, lower trophic level and physical oceanography, and ecosystem In September 2007, the Board agreed with the recommen- modeling. They would be competed separately and inte- dations of the Science Panel and said it wanted to evaluate grated in a post-proposal selection process. the BSIERP process and determine whether it was suitable for the Gulf of Alaska program. They requested that staff The program is anticipated to run from 2009 to 2013 or further develop the modular approach for the April 2008 2014, and cost about $9 million including $1 million meeting. reserved for unanticipated expenses, including ship time. It would need at least one fish species of commercial impor- By April 2008, staff had fleshed out the beginnings of a tance and encourage two areas for comparative study, modular approach, and the Board’s science director, Francis though not require it. It would need to identify clear man- Wiese, presented a detailed overview with the following agement application. There would be an option of two or specifics: three field seasons but none could exceed $3 million. It would envision a planning year and a wrap-up year, each 1. Process-oriented multi-disciplinary modules will be funded at about $500,000. competed individually. 2. give longer timeline than BSIERP for module teams to The call for pre-proposals focused on just the upper trophic develop proposals as no field work is planned for 2009. level to investigate the processes and mechanisms that 3. 2009 would be used for programmatic and logistic regulate the productivity and population trends, including development, as well as to start retrospective analy- their variability, of the top level species of interest. The call sis and modeling (depending on modular approach for pre-proposals was released on September 26, 2008. chosen). Further development for the Gulf of Alaska integrated pro- 4. Field seasons in 2010–2012 will give a one year field gram will be covered in the next annual report. overlap with BSIERP and thus a potential to determine downstream effects (depending on modular approach chosen, see presentation).

The Board thoroughly discussed the suggestions and through unanimous vote, requested that staff develop five examples for their review in September 2008, along with a discussion of strengths and weaknesses of each. Staff also should be prepared to release a call for pre-proposals. The Board was also informed that the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council had not agreed to pursue a partnership with the Board for a joint GOAIERP. Brendan Smith Brendan OTHER RESEARCH APPROACHES AND PARTNERSHIPS New Ways of Knowing Alaska’s Seas

Brianne Mecum SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: OTHER RESEARCH APPROACHES AND PARTNERSHIPS 167

OTHER RESEARCH APPROACHES AND PARTNERSHIPS

orth Pacific Research Board members represent a broad array of federal, state, and other entities involved in research off Alaska. By its very composition and nature, the NBoard can provide coordination among research programs and encourage partnerships and other approaches to research. NPRB provides leadership in working with other agencies and entities to identify science, management, and monitoring needs. The Board intends for its science program to be a source of unbiased, high-quality information incorporating both western science and local and traditional knowledge.

Projects funded to support the following areas of study are described in the research themes that best relate to a particular project:

• Local and Traditional Knowledge and Research • Cooperative Research • NPRB-OSRI Collaboration • Communication, Education, and Outreach • Other Partnerships

Mary Cody 168 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Local and Traditional Knowledge Research

The Board has worked throughout its first eight years to develop a robust program of local and traditional knowledge (LTK) research. One approach was to have a separate LTK committee. That idea first came up at the Board meeting in March, 2002.

In drafting the 2003 RFP, the Board discussed the use Ad Hoc Committee and Initial LTK Activities of committees to help refine research priorities, with an The Board returned to the discussion of establishing an option to use two separate committees, one with LTK and LTK committee in context of its implementation plan subsistence users, and the other with commercial and rec- in September 2004, and decided to establish an ad hoc reational users and non-governmental organizations. The committee with one-year terms, renewable for up to three executive director developed a discussion paper on com- years, which would report through the Advisory Panel to mittee structure for the Board to review in March 2003. the Board. Membership would include one member of the The Board concluded that while there are merits to having Board and Science Panel, two members of the Advisory a separate LTK committee, it would be better served by Panel, and one elder, one fisherman, and one community placing emphasis on achieving such representation on its representative from each of the three large marine eco- single Advisory Panel so that all points of view could be systems—Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Arctic/Chukchi expressed through one panel. It would also reduce costs. region. Residency within the marine ecosystem region This discussion was held against a backdrop of the funding was encouraged. In early 2005, the Board solicited new crisis of 2003 discussed elsewhere in Part III of this report. members. The Board noted that it would address this subject again in considering its science plan. That year, the Board also earmarked $250,000 for LTK activities, including hiring a contractor, holding workshops, and supporting an LTK committee. In March 2005, Information, understanding and wisdom the Board was briefed on a possible partnership oppor- accumulated over time, based on tunity with the National Science Foundation that would have two purposes: (1) to describe a pathway for devel- experience and shared within a group oping the LTK program, and (2) to describe a potential opportunity for collaboration with NSF on LTK beginning or community, offers new in 2005 and building toward major programs during the International Polar Years (IPY) in 2007-2008. It would begin perspectives and paradigms for understanding Alaska’s marine ecosystems.

Mark Rauzon SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: OTHER RESEARCH APPROACHES AND PARTNERSHIPS 169 with a pilot program of community observations in three areas – the Bering Sea (Pribilof Islands) in partnership with the Alaska Native Science Commission; the Gulf of Alaska with the Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition; and Baffin Island with NSF support. The lessons learned from those pilot programs would be very useful to the Board in establishing a longer-range LTK program and partnership with NSF. The Board authorized the newly formed LTK Committee to work with staff to develop pilot projects up to a total of $80,000, and to work with the NSF to get this underway as a proof of concept, believing it would help inform the 2006 RFP and further development of LTK. The proposals for pilot projects would not have to come back Eli Gurarie to the Board for review.

LTK Committee members were appointed in May 2005 Science Panel Recommendations for LTK for one-year terms, renewable for up to three terms (see and Community Involvement Appendix IC). The Committee first convened in June 2005, In developing the 2006 RFP at their August 2005 meet- and discussed the notion of spending $80,000 on pilot ing, the Science Panel recommended incorporating pilot projects, among other items. The LTK Committee and projects for a community-based observation system and a two applicants that earlier had submitted proposals for request for LTK-related studies in the 2006 RFP at a total the pilot projects (Alaska Native Science Commission and target funding level of $300,000. The Advisory Panel con- Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition) thought curred with the Science Panel recommendations, and also this would be premature and that the $80,000 would be recommended that a permanent LTK seat be appointed to insufficient for any substantial projects. Therefore, no the Science Panel and that there be a provision for an ad pilot projects were funded over the summer. Secondly, hoc review group of three to four Native scientists to review they developed recommendations for the 2006 RFP for LTK and community involvement proposals and make rec- the Board to consider in September 2005. They recom- ommendations to the Science Panel and the Board in time mended that LTK projects be funded through a research for the 2006 RFP review cycle. The Advisory Panel also sup- priority set at $100,000-$250,000 in the 2006 RFP, and ported focal workshops to develop three-to-four research also that NPRB sponsor activities that would help generate topics to guide the 2007 RFP at a funding level not to specific questions and hypotheses for future RFPs. They exceed $80,000. urged NPRB to cooperate with other agencies to explore the potential for a system for recording observations as In September 2005, the Board approved the Science Panel part of the International Polar Year. The Committee also recommendation and placed a two-part research priority made recommendations on evaluating LTK-related pro- in the 2006 RFP. One was for pilot projects for community- posals and expressed concern about impacts to local based observation systems at $150,000 and the other was communities from research projects, for example, distur- for LTK studies that addressed other priorities in the RFP bance of migratory birds and mammals. and engage LTK in projects responsive to the LTK components of the Science Plan. Six proposals were submitted for these research priorities to the RFP and the Board approved funding for three projects for $450,000 as shown in Table 4. Table 4: LTK Projects

Project Title Research Theme

643 Bering Strait Region LTK Pilot Project Humans 644 Response and Intervention System for Climate Change Induced Paralytic Shellfish Other Prominent Poisoning in Aleut Communities Issues 645 Alaska Rockfish: Subsistence Harvests and Local Knowledge of Alaska Rockfish Humans (genus Sebastes) 170 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

LTK as Part of Integrated Ecosystem Projects Combined LTK and Advisory Panel Also in March 2006, after reviewing proposals, the Board In 2007, the Board proceeded with a thorough review of discussed how LTK should fit into the overallS B IERP. the operations and necessity of having both an Advisory The Board concluded that in considering the 2007 RFP in Panel and LTK committee. It held in abeyance further com- September, it would discuss whether to place LTK inside mittee work on LTK-related activities until its Bering Sea or outside of the RFP for integrated ecosystem research ecosystem program was more fully fleshed out and the programs and, if the latter, whether to use a target amount LTK components identified. InS eptember 2007, the Board in dollars or put in a percentage (e.g. 10%) of the overall decided to merge the Advisory and LTK panels together program funds. The Board noted that if it really wanted a into one large 13-member committee to facilitate com- strong commitment to LTK in the proposal development munications and reduce costs. In December 2007, five phase, then it should be directly incorporated as a compo- members volunteered to be on an ad hoc committee to nent of the IERP. develop a call for nominations for a reconstituted Advisory Panel. The call for nominations was circulated beginning Associated with the LTK topic, the Board also heard from in February 2008, with applications due by March 3, 2008. its community involvement committee in March 2006. This The Board approved 12 members to the reconstituted committee was a sub-committee of the Advisory Panel. It Advisory Panel by teleconference on March 31, 2008. The met on February 24, 2006 to provide advice on developing new committee met for the first time on April 28-29, 2008. the Board’s outreach into rural communities. Its three main Through 2008, the Board continued to seek a 13th mem- recommendations included: ber that would represent the North Slope region. (1) identify community and research priorities in the annual RFP The Board also proceeded to embed LTK as a component (2) hold community workshops to facilitate communication funded at $1,000,000 in BSIERP and develop a program between scientists and community members about local that would document existing knowledge, foster collab- research and understanding of the ecosystem orative analysis, generate research hypotheses, collaborate (3) help build capacity so that rural residents and Tribal with other projects in the overall program, and record organizations can develop individual and collective observations. The program would examine all animal abilities to participate in scientific research on par with species harvested by residents of the partner communi- other research institutions. ties, focusing on species that are significant subsistence resources (nutritionally, culturally, or otherwise) and that The Board received the recommendations and had no res- also serve as focal species for other program components. ervations about arranging for community workshops, but For example, the cultural and subsistence practices regard- urged that they be coordinated with other educational pro- ing walrus in Savoogna, fur seals in St. Paul, and seabirds in grams in the rural communities. The Board heard another all communities, as well as other species or environmental report in September 2006, but took no immediate action. parameters would be examined. Local community advisory boards would be established to work closely with a The LTK Committee convened next in December 2006 regional board to help guide LTK research. to focus on research issues and priorities for future RFPs. The committee discussed the developing integrated eco- The Board continued to include LTK priorities in its 2007- system research programs for the Bering Sea and Gulf of 2008 RFPs at the $100,000 level for each priority. Four Alaska, and how to enhance education and outreach in proposals were submitted in 2007 and one project (728) local communities. The December 2006 meeting was the on herring synthesis was funded for $100,000. In 2008, final meeting of the LTK committee. the Board funded one of the four proposals received for $99,535, for a study of the cultural models of Copper River salmon (Project 823).

Community involvement projects that were funded in 2007 include the COASST Project (732) and the Pribilof Island Ocean Monitoring Project (733), for a total of $159,692. In 2008, the Board received one community involvement proposal but it was not funded. Jeff Tyler Jeff SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: OTHER RESEARCH APPROACHES AND PARTNERSHIPS 171

Cooperative Research

The Science Plan provides for cooperative research with industry. In September 2005, NPRB approved adding general language to the preamble of the 2006 RFP encouraging proposals that involved cooperative research with industry.

In March 2006, the Board noted that it had already funded at the $250,000 level. Topics for the oil and gas industry several projects that involved cooperative research, but included seaduck migration and potential impacts of infra- wanted to be more proactive in generating cooperative structure, walrus distribution and habitat use in the Chukchi research with industry. NPRB considered the following: Sea, polar bear distribution and abundance in the Chukchi Sea, and salmon distribution and abundance. The Board (1) continuing the more passive approach also identified topics for the fishing industry, including gear (2) placing a specific priority in the 2007 RFP to require modification, fisheries monitoring, bycatch reduction, and cooperative research ecosystem monitoring and research. Six proposals were (3) contracting with someone to actively build our coop- submitted and two were funded for a total of $329,000. erative research program (4) partnering with other organizations that were doing The Board continued to include cooperative industry topics cooperative research in 2008. Three of the six submitted proposals were funded for a total of $481,000. The Board decided to seek ways to broaden participation in cooperative research, for example, by supporting In the fall of 2008, the Board raised the level of funding in the industry and scientists working together on gear modifica- 2009 RFP for this category to $600,000, and five proposals tions to reduce impacts on fish habitat. It also wanted to were submitted. For more details about funded cooperative include cooperative research with the oil and gas industry, research projects, please refer to the appropriate research so it placed a cooperative research priority in the 2007 RFP theme section of the report, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Cooperative Research Projects

Project Title Research Theme

730 A Cooperative Pollock Acoustic Biomass Survey for Management of Fisheries Marine Mammals Interactions with Steller Sea Lions in the Aleutians Islands 731 Temperature Data Collections on Bering Sea Groundfish Vessels to Evaluate Fish & Invertebrates Temperature at Depth and Catch Rates for Target and Bycatch Species in order to Reduce Bycatch and Increase Knowledge of How Ecosystem Variables Affect 825 Assessment of Bristol Bay Red King Crab Resource for Future Management Action: Fish & Invertebrates Implementing a Cooperative Approach 826 Monitoring, Avoiding, and Deterring Humpback Whale Bycatch in Coastal Alaska Marine Mammals Fisheries: A Cooperative Approach 827 Ambient Noise Monitoring in the Beaufort Sea using Autonomous Vertical Arrays Marine Mammals

Leif Mjos 172 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

NPRB-OSRI Collaboration

In 2005, the Board first discussed collaborating with the Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI) at the March and September meetings, proposing an annual funding commitment of $100,000 from each organization, which could be renewed each year.

Staff identified three potential topics for consideration: OSRI collaboration on forage fish as a component of its • Role of forage fish in the Northern Gulf of Alaska and 2006 RFP. One proposal focusing on forage fish in Prince Prince William Sound William Sound was submitted and funded for a total of • Tracking and monitoring of marine organisms $75,000. In the 2007 RFP, the categories included tracking • Long-term ecological research (LTER) site in the Gulf of and monitoring of marine organisms and modeling com- Alaska (NPRB, OSRI, AOOS and NSF) munity impacts. Three proposals were submitted, and one studying rockfish and lingcod in Prince William Sound was The Board also received a draft protocol for working with funded for $145,000. The Board included three catego- OSRI. Nancy Bird, executive director for OSRI, indicated ries in the 2008 RFP, which included modeling community that her board was most interested in research in or near impacts, contaminant baseline assessment, and forage fish the vicinity of Prince William Sound, even though their and nearshore habitat associations. None of the four pro- geographical purview covers all of Alaska. The Board posals received was approved for funding. For more details stated its intent to adopt the draft protocol as a five-year about funded NPRB-OSRI collaborations, please refer to umbrella agreement, the details of which would be worked the appropriate research theme section of the report, as out by staffs of OSRI and NPRB. The Board identified the shown in Table 6.

Table 6: NPRB-OSRI Collaborations

Project Title Research Theme

642 Seasonal Distribution, Habitat Use, and Energy Density of Forage Fish in the Nearshore Fish Habitat

Ecosystem of Prince William Sound Scott Johnson 729 Residency and Movement of Copper Rockfish Sebastes caurinus and Lingcod Ophiodon Fish Habitat elongates in Nearshore Areas of Prince William Sound Scott Johnson Researchers sample for forage fish in the nearshore ecosystem of Prince William Sound to determine seasonal distribution, habitat use, and energy density. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: OTHER RESEARCH APPROACHES AND PARTNERSHIPS 173

Communication, Education and Outreach

In the Science Plan, the National Research Council stated that education and outreach are crucial elements of an effective science program, and recommended encouraging outreach and education by principal investigators as part of their proposals or as independently funded activities to let the general public know about NPRB-funded research and new scientific findings.

From the beginning, the Board has strived to make its • enhance opportunities for field scientists to document information available to many different audiences includ- their research on video ing managers, rural communities, people dependent • provide seed money for marine science education for upon the resources, students, congressional representa- teachers and students in Alaska communities tives, and others interested in the marine ecosystems off • establish post-secondary education internships, short Alaska. Strategies for education and outreach include dif- courses, and workshops in marine science and educa- ferent products and mechanisms for reaching each of these tion, veterinary medicine, and teaching programs groups, capitalizing on existing partnerships and respond- • support development of a Bering Sea exhibit at the ing to new opportunities. Alaska Sealife Center and an aquarium at its satellite office in Anchorage Some of the Board’s first decisions involved education and outreach. Early in 2002, the Board approved The Board prioritized creating a website to provide infor- an Alaska SeaLife Center recommendation to use some mation to the general public and scientific community. It of the $800,000 North Pacific Marine Research Institute also placed education and outreach requirements in annual funds to: requests for proposals, requiring $500 in each project in the early RFPs, but gradually increasing to $2000 in later RFPs. Scott Johnson

NPRB’s ten-foot exhibit gives conference and workshop participants an overview of the organization’s mission. 174 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Alaska SeaLife Center A significant step forward in education and outreach occurred in developing the 2004 RFP. The Board decided it needed a professional team so it inserted a priority for a program to help principal investigators develop materials for interpreting project and research results. The Alaska SeaLife Center, which already had its own vibrant program of such activities, received a grant of $103,000 to develop the program for NPRB. They hired Michael Illenberg for two years, during which he developed exhibits, brochures, and fact sheets for many of the projects. He also played a major role in developing the Southeast Alaska Sperm Whale Avoidance Project video of sperm whale depredation on longlines in Southeast Alaska.

This relationship with the Center continued through most of 2008. Illenberg left in 2006 and the Alaska SeaLife Center hired Nora L. Deans as his replacement. She brought a wealth of experience in communicating ocean science and developing books, videos, exhibitions, and public programs for informal learning centers such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium, where she created and directed a marine science publishing program. Summaries of the strategic communication, education and outreach activities, and projects over the years may be found in the final reports for the grants to the Alaska SeaLife Center, listed in Table 7.

Nora Deans works closely with Carolyn Rosner, whom NPRB hired as an assistant program manager with a spe- cialty in communication in May 2006 for her expertise in website development and graphic design. The outrgrowth of websites and publications now reach diverse audiences with information about NPRB funded research, and the overall program has flourished over the last two years.

The Board continues to support these efforts by budgeting about $150,000 annually, of which $50,000 is dedicated solely to additional education and outreach materials. NPRB hired Nora Deans directly in October 2008 to further grow the communication, education and outreach program, and to serve as principal investigator for the BSIERP Communication, Education and Outreach component described in the Integrated Ecosystem Research Program section of this report. MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: OTHER RESEARCH APPROACHES AND PARTNERSHIPS 175

Sharing Research with Public Audiences In 2008, NPRB executive director and staff traveled to NPRB staff develop dynamic websites, publications, exhib- Washington, DC and met with colleagues at the Smithsonian its and other materials, including project synopses and Institution’s National Museum of Natural History new Sant research summaries to bring the research to life for the Ocean Hall and at NOAA, (which developed a network of diverse audiences described in the Board’s Science Plan. Ocean News Kiosks displaying short videos about ongo- NPRB also provides information to the media, resulting in ing research and exploration), to share research stories and public radio programs and news features. In 2008 NPRB explore collaborations. contracted with Encounters North, an award-winning radio program that showcases Alaska’s natural and cultural heri- tage and created by Dr. Richard Nelson, a widely respected anthropologist, writer and producer. Staff worked closely with independent radio journalist Elizabeth Arnold on several Encounters programs produced in the field along- side NPRB funded scientists working on fur seals, sea ice, and the patch dynamics component of the BEST-BSIERP project. Each of these radio programs are featured on the NPRB website and are downloadable as podcasts. More programs are currently in development. Nora Deans Nora A scientist shares Bering Sea research stories with 4th grade students.

Table 7: Education and Outreach Projects

Project Title Research Theme

403 Building an Education and Outreach Program for the North Pacific Research Board Education and Outreach 537 Building an Education and Outreach Program for the North Pacific Research Board Education and Outreach 703 Education and Outreach for the North Pacific Research Board Education and Outreach 802 Education and Outreach for the North Pacific Research Board Education and Outreach Carrie Eischens Carrie Elizabeth Arnold records the sounds of fur seals on St. Paul Island for an Encounters North radio program about the Bering Sea project. 176 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

F eat u re Images of Alaska’s Seas

In 2007, NPRB launched an annual photo contest that emphasizes its research themes and helps promote public understanding of the Board’s mission, while bolstering image resources. The Board and Advisory Panel selected the winners at the April 2007 Board meeting. Prizes ranged from $1,200 for first, $600 for second, and $300 for third in the adult category, and $600 for first, $400 for second and $200 for third in the youth category for those ages 17 and under. The winning photographs were incorporated into a 2008 calendar shared with external reviewers of research proposals, the Board and Committees, and participants at the Alaska Marine Science Symposium.

The Board judged the second annual competition in April 2008, choosing winners from finalists narrowed down from a field of 200 photos, including 14 in the youth 2008 Calendar cover. category. Professional art directors, designers, and publishers acted as judges to narrow the field to ten adult and three youth finalists. The Board, with help from its Advisory Panel, chose the top three in each category.

NPRB featured the winning images in a 2009 calendar, and hosted an exhibit of photo contest images at a local restaurant gallery during the 2008 Alaska Marine Science Symposium, with an opening reception as part of Anchorage’s First Friday events.

2009 Calendar cover. Robert Flood SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: OTHER RESEARCH APPROACHES AND PARTNERSHIPS 177 Nora Deans Nora Girdwood elementary school student Sebastian Middlestadt (with Dr. Carrie Eischens) received an NPRB award for his marine science project, “Tidal Power vs. Indian Creek.” West High School student Kelsey Meacham (with Dr. Francis Wiese) received the NPRB award for her project “Cook Inlet: Sea Ice Variability.”

Inspiring Youth to Pursue Science programs. The workshop, designed to inspire ocean sci- In 2007 and 2008, NPRB sponsored special marine scientists to share their research with diverse audiences, ence awards at the Alaska State Science and Engineering was well-received by scientists and graduate students Fair for elementary, middle, and high school science fair and offered again in 2008 with support from the Alaska projects. Awards included a cash prize and a behind-the- Ocean Observing System. Planning for the 2009 work- scenes-tour of the Alaska SeaLife Center. shop involved Alaska’s new regional Center for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE), a five-year, Virtual Communication $2.6 million program funded by that National Science Dynamic websites for NPRB (www.nprb.org) and the two Foundation’s Ocean Sciences Division. NPRB’s executive integrated ecosystem research programs (www.bsierp. director serves on the COSEE Alaska Advisory Council nprb.org; www.goaierp.nprb.org) share a wealth of infor- formed in 2008, and the Senior Outreach Manager serves mation with both the scientific community and the public, as director of COSEE Alaska, which networks ocean scien- and are constantly updated with stories from scientists tists, educators and the public in a partnership of research and staff in the field, as well as media updates, program organizations, informal learning centers and formal edu- highlights and project updates. Staff also maintain the cational institutions, and furthers NPRB’s education and website for the Alaska Marine Science Symposium (www. outreach efforts. alaskamarinescience.org), an annual gathering of ocean scientists from around the world to share their latest Inspiring Science Teachers research findings in Alaska’s marine ecosystems. NPRB Engaging teachers in field science helps them bring takes the lead in organizing the annual Alaska Marine science into the classroom, and the Board’s outreach pro- Science Symposium, co-hosted by about 20 agencies and gram supports teachers-at-sea through the Arctic Research organizations who contribute funds that support this free, Consortium of the United State’s PolarTREC program, three-day symposium, which is open to the public. funded by the National Science Foundation, and through NOAA’s Teachers-at-Sea Program. NPRB also encourages Communicating Ocean Science Workshop teachers in local communities to take part in field science In January 2007, NPRB staff organized the first of when research vessels stop by their communities and link what would become annual one-day Communicating scientists via video conferencing technology from sea. Staff Ocean Science Workshop at the Alaska Marine Science and scientists also take part in community events and festi- Symposium to bring together scientists, media, educators vals and give talks at schools. and community members and showcase stellar regional and national communication, education, and outreach 178 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Graduate Student Awards and Research Support students enrolled at accredited colleges and universities. The Board actively supports the training and education of Students are limited to one award per degree. young marine scientists by funding major marine research at academic institutions across the nation. But more By April 2008, NPRB had received and reviewed 37 appli- recently, the Board rolled out two other programs, special cations; 19 from doctoral students and 18 from Master’s graduate student awards and presentation awards at the level students. Recommendations were developed by an annual Alaska Marine Science Symposium. ad hoc committee of Science Panel members, working with staff. These were reviewed by the Advisory Panel, The Board first discussed the graduate student award pro- and then the Board, which unanimously approved awards gram in March 2006, when considering how to develop its for the individuals shown in Table 8: integrated ecosystem research programs for the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. The draft implementation plans The second call for applications was released on included a provision for special fellowships to gradu- November 14, 2008 with a deadline of February 13, 2009. ate students that would provide individual awards of Throughout the coming years, this award program will $25,000 per year to be used for tuition or any research- facilitate the graduate education and training of many related expenses. Masters students could have them for young scientists to contribute to our knowledge of the three years and doctoral students for four. The Board was marine ecosystems off Alaska. enthusiastic about such a program, but was concerned with the price tag, especially given the high demand to The Board also rewards high-quality student presenta- fund other research. tions. The idea of judging student presentations at the annual Alaska Marine Science Symposia was approved at The fellowship program came under review in subsequent the September 2007 meeting. The Board made available meetings in September 2006, and April and September up to $1,000 for four small awards ($250 each) for best 2007. Eventually, the fellowship program was separated student oral presentations at the January 2008 Alaska from development of the integrated programs, and finally Marine Science Symposium. Staff and other scientists in September 2007, the Board adopted an Advisory Panel helped judge the competition, which included 35 stu- recommendation to fund up to five awards of $20,000 dents – one undergraduate student, 23 master’s students each to be awarded to qualified master’s and doctoral and 11 doctoral students. Student oral presentation win- students. They were renamed Graduate Student Research ners are shown in Table 9. Awards and would be available on a competitive basis to

Table 8: 2008 Graduate Student Research Award Recipients

Name Degree Institution

Elizabeth Atwood MS University of Washington Shannon O’Brien MS University of Washington Mary Hunsicker Ph.D University of Washington Markus Janout Ph.D University of Alaska Fairbanks Rebecca Young Ph.D University of Alaska Fairbanks

Table 9: 2008 Alaska Marine Science Symposium Student Awards

Name Degree Institution

Diane Hass MS Moss Landing Marine Lab Katie Palof MS University of Alaska Fairbanks Steffen Oppel Ph.D University of Alaska Fairbanks Cindy Tribuzio Ph.D University of Alaska Fairbanks Dustin Phillips SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: OTHER RESEARCH APPROACHES AND PARTNERSHIPS 179

Other Partnerships and Data Management

NPRB encourages partnerships and other approaches to research and provides leadership in working with other agencies and entities to identify science, management, and monitoring needs. NPRB intends for its science program to be viewed as a source of unbiased, high quality information and continues to develop its own database for its funded projects.

OTHER RESEARCH APPROACHES AND PARTNERSHIPS :: Other Partnerships and Data Management Alaska Marine Information System Projects 704, 901

In 2002, the Board began efforts to fund what has come to The development of the new AMIS and the Board’s own be known as the Alaska Marine Information System (AMIS). data system will provide access to historical information on The purpose was to build an online portal to data and infor- projects as well as provide access to relevant current and mation about Alaska’s oceans, and was initially developed real-time datasets around Alaska. The Board’s project data through a web-based GIS application and included a series are available at www.nprb.org, and the AMIS database, of oceanographic, fisheries, and bio-geographic informa- which has the potential to become a one-stop-shop for all tion to illustrate how this could be achieved and the type marine research related information in Alaska, is accessible of products and applications of such a system. The project at http://ak.aoos.org/amis/. achieved these goals, but it became clear that all major research institutions that conduct work in Alaska needed to Background participate, and that the operational center needed to be Information collected by NPRB-supported projects and institutionalized. other research must be made available to scientists and anyone interested in the marine ecosystems of Alaska. The As a result, the Board partnered with the Alaska Ocean Board began its efforts to build a searchable database for Observing System (AOOS) and the University of Alaska its research starting in early 2002. The Executive Committee Fairbanks in projects 704 and 901 to develop, expand, met on February 4, 2002, and recommended funding to and maintain a searchable database that has an advanced develop the database. After further consideration by the project browser searchable by researcher, contact informa- full Board at the two March 2002 meetings, $200,000 was tion, project location, funding source, and project duration. identified for the searchable database. Another $42,166 Other variables such as fisheries and biogeographic infor- was approved for continued development of the Bering mation for the Alaska region would be included, as well as Sea Metadatabase Project at NOAA’s Pacific Marine a data access and display center that are key ingredients Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. The Board also added to successful project planning, research, and management. data submission requirements to its annual RFPs. For 2002- Krista Keck 180 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

2004 there was a basic requirement for scientists to report from NPRB, but from as many other agencies and marine their data to federal databases at NODC or USGS in accor- related projects as could be found. That larger database dance with a data transfer plan to be developed by NPRB. would be the central repository for marine data from Alaska That plan really was not developed for several years due to and called the Alaska Marine Information System. the press of other business, but eventually NPRB ramped up its data system and all data must now be submitted as Expansion of AMIS explained below. Consideration of such a larger system began in March 2006 when the Board received a comprehensive options The Board decided in 2003 that it needed to put a pri- paper. An expanded AMIS was being developed at UAF ority for data system development in its 2004 RFP. As a by the Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS) to pro- result, the Board approved funding in March 2004 for vide data from NPRB, AOOS, NOAA and other agencies Project 404, which included a consulting firm, System through one web portal. The Board was informed it did Science Application, and Karen Stocks at the San Diego not have the hardware or staff to serve as a central hub for Supercomputer Center, University of California, to develop Alaska marine data, but that a collaboration with AOOS what would be named the Alaska Marine Information could do that task at UAF if properly funded. AOOS was System (AMIS). The project was completed in November building a web-accessible database that focused initially 2005. It provided weblinks to AMIS on the NPRB home on historical oceanographic and meteorological data. page, and access to software that integrated multivariate Then it would incorporate real time data and model fore- oceanographic, fisheries, and biogeographic information casts and provide users with several interface styles for for the Alaska region. There also was an Alaska-centered easy access to the information. The data management portal to the species distribution information in the Ocean team included a project leader, web-designer, data man- Biogeographic Information System (OBIS) and a series of ager, data analyst, and a satellite data technician. The informational pages on various marine science topics relat- Arctic Region Supercomputing Center at UAF had further ing to Alaska. These were important first steps, but the expanded this team by two numerical modelers who were most significant progress was made when we decided to working on ocean model forecasts for Alaska waters and hire our own data systems manager. the North Pacific Ocean. Together, this group was developing the web interface for data access, and a modeling Igor Katrayev was hired April 2004 and set about develop- and analysis effort that would form a core program within ing an in-house system. While he initially worked with the AOOS based on non-proprietary software for data search systems established under Project 404, real strides forward and retrieval. Stakeholders could search graphically for were made in 2005 when he started developing his own locations of oceanographic cruises, moored instruments, system, with advice from Francis Wiese, program manager and meteorological stations and download available data at the time. Together, they established a project browser in several formats. Browsers would be developed to allow to map projects onto Google satellite and hybrid maps of searches for specific projects and data sets, and AOOS Alaska and provide information on each NPRB project. The was positioned to expand data mining efforts to include browser and mapping system were made available under a biological, chemical and fisheries data. The AMIS could be research link on the NPRB home page (http://project.nprb. developed to be the single site sponsored by many agen- org/) and enables searches for projects, data, publications, cies to provide a wide array of information to scientists contacts, and investigators. and stakeholders, i.e. the one-stop-shop for marine data for Alaska. Data management policies were incorporated in the science planning in 2004, but data did not really start coming in As a result of these considerations in March 2006, the from completed projects until 2005. And even then, it took Board started budgeting $100,000 annually, starting in quite awhile to determine a suitable system for archiving the 2007 and inflation proofed by 4% in future years, for sup- data and metadata descriptions. Over time, it was decided port for AMIS at UAF. The funding supports a person to that there should be two major data systems. One would help develop the data archive and website, and obtain be at the Board office, overseen by our data manager, and data sets from other agencies for inclusion in the AMIS. would contain data and metadata just for NPRB-funded This has worked out well and a robust database can now research. A second larger system would be supported at be accessed through a weblink on the AOOS web site at the University of Alaska Fairbanks to house data not only www.AOOS.org. SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART II :: OTHER RESEARCH APPROACHES AND PARTNERSHIPS 181

OTHER RESEARCH APPROACHES AND PARTNERSHIPS :: Other Partnerships and Data Management NPRB Metadata and Data Management

NPRB continues to develop its own database for its funded For principal investigators and institutions associated with projects. In addition it has contracted with a remote server proposals that were not recommended for funding, a notice farm to store and backup data. Data from our projects are would be sent to their respective institutions, with a copy to arriving slowly and are made available on the Board’s web principal investigators, that future funding would be jeop- site, as well as distributed through the AMIS site. Obtaining ardized if data and metadata issues were not resolved. This data from researchers has met with varying success to date. decision had an energizing effect on principal investigators, Some readily provide it, while others are not so forthcom- and the staff reported to the Board in September 2008 that ing. This issue came to a head at the April 2007 meeting considerable progress was being made in receiving data when the Board was informed about how each of the princi- and metadata. Staff will continue to report progress during pal investigators was doing in terms of supplying metadata proposal review at April meetings. and data. Staff were instructed to not release funds for 2008 RFP recommended projects until data issues were resolved The Board also hosts metadata workshops at the annual from any earlier NPRB projects. The Board agreed that if a Alaska Marine Science Symposia and identified over reasonable timeline was established for metadata and data $860,000 within the BSIERP solely for data management delivery from earlier projects, funds could be released, but if and distribution. We anticipate that funds will be identified that timeline was not adhered to, then payment of invoices for data management in the Gulf of Alaska integrated pro- for all projects associated with that PI would stop until data gram in 2009 when it is fully developed. and metadata were delivered.

OTHER RESEARCH APPROACHES AND PARTNERSHIPS :: Other Partnerships and Data Management Requests for Scientific Review by Other Organizations

In April 2007, the Board was contracted by the North that some conservation measures, such as protection from Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to assemble killing were having positive impacts on the dynamics of an independent group of experts to conduct a review of Steller sea lions, but the benefit of others, such as critical the National Marine Fisheries Service’s second draft of habitat and fishery conservation measures remained uncer- a revised Steller sea lion recovery plan. To conduct the tain. Nevertheless, the recent increase in numbers in the review, three independent experts, Drs. Don Bowen, Lloyd western segment of the population was a welcome devel- Lowry, and Daryl Boness, were contracted to perform the opment. The increase, however, had not been observed review. Review questions were prepared in consultation uniformly across the western portion of the U.S. popula- with Council staff. The review was provided in writing to the tion, which underscored the need to recognize that limiting Council offices in July and Don Bowen, committee chair, factors must differ either in nature or magnitude through- reported to the Council and its Scientific and Statistical out the range. The panel concluded that this fundamental Committee in early August 2007. realization was captured in the draft plan and that the application of recovery actions and their evaluation within In their summary remarks, the panel stated that the reasons this context should provide the best opportunity to both for the dramatic decline of the western Distinct Population understand and ameliorate the threats limiting the recov- Segment (DPS) of Steller sea lions may never be known ery of the western population segment. with any certainty. The panel concluded that it was clear

Mark Kelley Evolution of a n E w M A R i n E S c i e n c e P r o g r a m Policies and Procedures

Dustin Phillips NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART III 183

Part III Evolution of a New MARINE Science Program

Left ro right: Dustin Phillips | Brendan Smith | Elizabeth Eubanks 184 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008 Markus Janout

orth Pacific Research Board developed most of its policies and procedures in 2002–2003. Early in 2002, upon first being hired, the executive director interviewed Board members Nindividually, seeking their views on organization of the Board and the role it should play in research and coordination. Summaries of these views were brought back to the full Board and over time developed into policies and procedures, based on several different white papers and discussion documents. The executive director also talked to other organizations or reviewed their operating procedures, including NOAA, NSF, EVOSTC, and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The long-term goal, of course, was to establish a highly meritorious science program that was based on competitive proposals that were thoroughly peer-reviewed, not only by anonymous technical reviewers, but also by a science panel. In that regard, the Board was trying to ensure a scientific program and proposal competitions that would meet National Science Foundation standards.

The Board also chose a relatively simple organizational conflict of interest rules and strive to ensure that all recom- make-up with two main committees or panels, and mini- mendations are developed with objectivity and attention mal subcommittee structure, except on a very short-term to scientific merit. ad hoc basis. This committee structure is patterned to a large extent on that used by the North Pacific Fishery This section describes policy development by the Board Management Council, which has a Scientific and Statistical and its organization, including its staff. It provides a his- Committee and an Advisory Panel. The Board’s counter- torical review and reference piece for others who may be parts, the Science Panel (SP) and Advisory Panel (AP), serve establishing organizations and for future members and essentially the same functions as they do with the Council, staff who may wonder how a particular policy came about. however, whereas the Council’s AP reviews regulatory pro- Almost every meeting, especially in 2002–2003, included posals, the Board’s AP does not review research proposals. some discussion of the organization of the Board. These This was a very controversial decision and is discussed discussions and conclusions are summarized in this section below. But it is safe to say that the Board wanted its scien- of the report, with the meeting dates referenced in paren- tific proposals judged by peer scientists as they would be theses. Additional information is available in the Board’s in NSF. The Board takes the advice it receives from its two meeting notebooks at the office, in the meeting summaries panels into account seriously when structuring its annual posted on the website, in the 2005 Science Plan, and in the requests for proposals and approving projects for scien- final standard operating procedures adopted by the Board tific research. The SP and Board members closely follow (http://www.nprb.org/about/operating.html). NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART III 185

North Pacific Research Board The Executive Committee (described in Part 1) called for nominations in late 2004 and again in the fall of 2005. Six Membership criteria were used to evaluate applicants, based largely on The membership of the Board is defined in its legislation. similar criteria used by the Secretary in making appoint- Ten members are ex-officio members who serve by virtue ments to the regional fishery management councils: of their holding a particular position within an organization. They serve at the pleasure of their organizations, but oth- 1. Knowledge or experience regarding commercial fish- erwise have no official term length. They include: the U.S. ing, processing, or marketing of fish in one or more Departments of Commerce, State and Interior; U.S. Coast commercial fisheries off Alaska Guard, Office of Naval Research, U.S. Arctic Research 2. Knowledge or experience regarding management, Commission, Oil Spill Recovery Institute, North Pacific conservation, and stewardship of natural resources, Fishery Management Council, Alaska SeaLife Center, including related interactions with industry, government and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. These ten bodies, academic institutions, and public agencies organizations were represented at the two organizational 3. Experience in a state or regional organization whose meetings in April and May 2001, and played a large role in members participate in an Alaska fishery developing the vision, mission, and goals listed in Part I of 4. Experience serving as a member of the NPRB, North this report. Pacific Fishery Management Council, or Alaska Board of Fisheries or their associated committees Nine additional members are appointed by the Secretary 5. Knowledge or experience regarding marine research of Commerce from nominations provided by the governors organizations and activities off Alaska of the states of Alaska (five seats), Washington (three seats), 6. Minimum potential for conflict of interest in funding and Oregon (one seat). For State of Alaska representatives decisions of the Board, as defined in NPRB policy only, the enabling legislation further identifies that the five seats must represent: fishing interests, Alaska Natives, Based on this process, David Benton (representing the environmental interests, academia, and oil and gas inter- Marine Conservation Alliance and previously Chairman of ests. The first members for these nine “state” seats were the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the officially appointed to three-year terms starting October 2, North Pacific Research Board, and Deputy Commissioner 2001. The legislation prescribes individual terms of three of Alaska Department of Fish and Game) was nominated years, but no limits on the number of terms a member may by the Executive Committee, and then approved by the have. Secretary for a three-year term starting March 23, 2006.

The Board’s membership has changed since 2002 as Voting and Meeting Procedures ex-officio members changed and new state-nominated As described in Part I, the legislation confers voting members were appointed by the Secretary. Membership rights only on five members, referred to as the Executive since 2001 is shown in Appendix IA. Committee, but requires them to consult with the other 15 members. On March 1, 2002, non-voting members Special Fishing Industry Seat asked how they could be meaningfully involved, i.e., how The 20th member is a special seat that represents fishing did the Executive Committee interpret the consultation interests and must be nominated by the Board and then requirements? This was particularly sensitive because early is subject to approval and appointment by the Secretary draft legislation had granted voting rights to all members, of Commerce. There is no term length or limit for this seat not just the five. When the final legislation was passed, it in the legislation, but a three-year appointment has been replaced their vote with a consultation requirement. applied by the Secretary. The Executive Committee considered an options paper The first person to hold this position was Trevor McCabe later in March 2002, and decided to grant voting privi- who was recommended by the four voting members of leges to non-voting members. This decision satisfied the the Board on March 9, 2001, after calling for nominations consultation requirement and recognized the depth of during February 9-26. The criteria used in his selection knowledge of the non-voting members and value of their included knowledge of groundfish, shellfish, salmon, contributions to the decision process. Because the legis- and other fisheries, as well as a general understanding lation clearly stated that a majority vote was needed of of other research initiatives currently underway in waters the Executive Committee to pass a motion, e.g. approve off Alaska. He voluntarily stepped down from the Board funding for a research proposal, a two-pronged voting in 2004. procedure was adopted to establish that record of decision-making. A motion could be approved only if there 186 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

were (1) an affirmative vote of a simple majority of the Then in 2003, the Executive Committee was asked how far Executive Committee, and (2) an affirmative vote of a sim- it had extended those voting privileges. The issue arose ple majority of other members present and voting. This because most ex-officio members were, in fact, designees gave all members a say in Board decisions through the of more prominent members actually named in the legisla- voting process, and still comported with the legislation. tion, e.g., the Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Commandant of the Coast Guard, etc. Obviously the pri- The Board then defined a quorum as the presence of at mary members were not going to attend Board meetings least three Executive Committee members and nine other and the legislation was written quite broadly to allow all members. Once achieved to open the meeting, the quorum members, ex-officio and State-nominated members alike, is no longer necessary to continue the meeting (October to have designees. Therefore the intent of the Executive 2002). To satisfy the legislation, however, there must be at Committee in 2002 was to indeed grant those agency least three Executive Committee members present for any designees voting privileges, much as was practiced by the vote to occur, and, if only three are present, all three must North Pacific Fishery Management Council. In 2003, those vote in the affirmative to pass a motion. The other fifteen ex-officio designees asked if they could have an alternate members have more flexibility in that a simple majority of with voting privileges because scheduling conflicts could those “present and voting” could still cause a motion to arise and they might not be able to attend every Board pass. In effect, if there are nine other members present to meeting. The Executive Committee accepted their argu- convene a meeting, some could leave during the meeting ment and extended voting privileges to their alternates if and a vote could still be taken. the Board was given written notification prior to the meeting the alternate would attend. Voting Privileges for Designees and Alternates When the Board considered and adopted the above vot- When the Executive Committee considered voting privi- ing procedures, those present included the Executive leges for state-nominated members, the committee Committee, ex-officio members of organizations, and stated its expectation that these members, not designees, members that had been nominated by their governor would attend and participate in meetings because of their and appointed by the Secretary in accordance with the unique qualifications that resulted in their nomination by enabling legislation. So, all members had voting privileges their governor in the first place. The Executive Committee as of late 2002. could not restrict them from having a designee because Dutin Phillips NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART III 187 the legislation provided for one. However, the commit- University of Alaska Representation tee could withhold the privilege of voting from designees, The Board briefly considered University of Alaska Fairbanks which it proceeded to do. In effect, such designees may (UAF) representation at the table in an advisory, non-voting attend meetings, engage in discussion, and voice their capacity (March 21–22, June, and October 2002). While opinion, but cannot vote on any motion. the Board noted its appreciation for the valuable marine research performed by the University of Alaska, it decided Officer Rotation against giving the University any special representation The chairman and vice chairman serve one-year terms, are because other organizations may also request to be seated, elected annually at the first regular meeting after the cal- thus leading to a very large body. This issue became moot endar year begins, and must be elected from the Executive when a UAF representative was nominated by the State of Committee. In October 2002, a motion to rotate the offices Alaska and appointed by the Secretary to fill the Alaska aca- of chairman and vice chairman annually between the demic seat on the Board. Executive Committee and other members was defeated. National Ocean Service Board Decisions The Board considered its relationship with the National The enabling legislation makes all Board recommendations Ocean Service (NOS), which initially was a conduit for one on research proposal funding subject to final review and half of the EIRF funds granted to the Board, the other half approval by the Secretary of Commerce, whose authority flowing down through the National Marine Fisheries Service is delegated to the Alaska Regional Administrator for the (NMFS), described in more detail in Financial Policies and National Marine Fisheries Service (and alternate Procedures later in this section. To simplify the is the director of the Alaska Fisheries Science granting process, NOS and NMFS agreed to Center). The Secretary, however, cannot allow all EIRF funds to flow down through choose to fund another project unless NMFS. In turn, the Board’s execu- it has been recommended by the tive director committed to keeping Board. NOS informed of all Board activities and meetings and providing Conflict of Interest all background materials to NOS. In March 2003, the Board consid- In addition, the NOS representa- ered conflict of interest and recusal tive is designated as an alternate

provisions and policies used by for the Secretary of Commerce

p m

several other organizations, and a designee (this is a second alter-

then adopted the following policy: e nate in addition to the director of

r r

m the Alaska Fisheries Science Center

f f

Board members must refrain from o who normally attends).

b ri voting under three circumstances: (1) P on approval of funding for a research Standard Meeting Procedures project if the Board member is listed as a The Board adopted standard meeting pro- principal investigator or collaborator whose cedures in October 2002. Agenda items and curriculum vitae is included in the proposal, (2) if the times will be posted on the web. Each agenda issue decision would have a significant and predictable effect on will be taken up in the following sequence: the Board will their financial interest, or (3) if the Board member believes hear staff reports and ask any clarifying questions, and then, he/she has a conflict of interest. committee and/or work group reports will be presented. These will be followed by public comments. Five minutes Examples of instances covered under (3) include: will be allowed for each person to provide comment. Board • Current employment in the specific department of the members may ask up to two clarification questions per com- applicant for research funds menter. Sign-up sheets will be made available for persons • Ownership of the institution’s securities or other evi- to register to give public comment. After the close of the dences of debt public comment session, the Board will discuss the issue • Known family or marriage relationship, if relationship is and take action as necessary. Notebook materials should with a principal investigator or collaborator whose cur- clearly identify the actions required. riculum vitae is included in the proposal • Business or professional partnership with a principal investigator or collaborator whose curriculum vitae is included in the proposal 188 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures Committee Structure The Board approved its Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures (SOPP) in October 2002 after The Board established its committee structure through a considerable discussion and various amendments. It is series of decisions starting in March 2002 when it instructed available in Appendix IVA and at http://www.nprb.org/ its executive director, working with an ad hoc commit- about/operating.html. In May 2003, the Board adopted a tee, to develop options for committee structure based on decision matrix indicating the types of decisions that would that used by other organizations. The ad hoc committee be made by the Executive Committee alone, by the full reported back in June and October 2002 with its recom- Board, and by the staff. It is available with the SOPP. mendations. The Board proceeded to establish a science panel, advisory panel, and local and traditional knowledge Compensation and Travel Expenses (LTK) committee as described below. The Executive Committee considered a request for daily compensation for certain non-voting members for prepara- Science Panel tion, travel time, and attendance at meetings. Because of Membership the very tight legislated budget constraints, the commit- The need for a science panel to review proposals and the tee decided not to consider daily compensation, though science program was considered initially by the Executive it will fund travel and per diem costs while at full Board Committee on February 4, 2002, and then by the full Board meetings for those not affiliated with federal agencies at both meetings in March 2002. To deal with propos- (February 2002). The Board approved reimbursement for als that were received that spring in response to its first travel expenses for members to attend the annual Alaska request for proposals, before there was time to fully flesh Marine Science Symposium each January (October 2002; out a science panel structure and policy, the Board estab- September 2004). lished an interim six-member independent review team of agency representatives to help review proposals and develop recommendations for research. The team included Douglas DeMaster (AFSC; he was not a Board member at the time), Shannon Atkinson (ASLC), Douglas Eggers (ADFG), Steve Hare (IPHC), Rich Marasco (AFSC), and Gary Stauffer (AFSC).

In October 2002, the Board finalized its policies and procedures for the Science Panel, based in part on a broader consideration of potential stakeholder committees that had commenced the previous June. The Board’s nominating committee suggested that it consider two science panels, one with agency scientists and one with academic and non-agency scientists to achieve broader representation. The Board decided to name 14 members to one larger panel, with balanced representation from agencies, private organizations, and academia. The members initially were given staggered one- or two-year terms, assigned on a random basis within three categories—agency, private, and academia—to maintain balance, and could be reappointed. Subsequent appointments were for two-year terms. In March 2005, after discussing the workload of the Science Panel in reviewing proposals, the Board expanded the membership to 16. In addition to reviewing proposals, the Science Panel helps shape the research program, advises on science planning and identification of research priorities, and helps draft annual requests for proposals. Membership through 2008 is shown in Appendix IB. Amy Kennedy NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART III 189 Samuel Horpestad

Native Scientists Conflict of Interest The Board noted in October 2002 that it would work toward In June 2002, the Board began to consider how to handle establishing a separate traditional ecological knowledge potential conflicts of interest when scientists on its commit- panel that could interact with the Science Panel, particu- tees and panels also have interest in doing NPRB-funded larly in reviewing LTK-related proposals. In May 2003, the research. In September that year, the Board again dis- Board requested that the executive director seek potential cussed the potential conflict of interest and issued a call candidates over the summer for up to two Alaska Native for nominations to the Science Panel with a proviso that scientists that are recognized in both the Native and west- nominees could not have an interest in Board funding to be ern science communities, noting that in October 2003, it considered for the Science Panel. It also was noted that the would discuss how to improve Native scientist involve- issue would not be resolved until the October Board meet- ment in Board activities, and confer with Advisory Panel ing. Therefore, scientists were encouraged to submit their members before determining whether to add Native sci- applications even if a conflict might exist. entists to the Science Panel. Finally, the Board decided in September 2005 to seek at least one well-qualified marine In October 2002, after much discussion of the pros and mammal expert and possibly an expert on harvesting, com- cons of allowing scientists with Board funding to participate munity involvement, and local and traditional knowledge, on the panel, the Board decided to allow such participa- while stating that it was not its intent to designate a manda- tion, but to adopt recusal procedures patterned after those tory seat for LTK on the Science Panel. of the National Science Foundation. Conflict-of-interest rules were approved in March 2003. Panel members must Honoraria identify proposals with which they have a potential con- In June 2002, the Board reviewed how other organizations flict and not participate in discussions of those proposals. approached the matter of paying for reviews and for science Panel members must leave the room during discussion panel participation and found that in general, large fund- and decision on a proposal if they are listed as a principal ing organizations like the National Science Foundation and investigator or as a collaborator and their curriculum vitae NOAA’s National Ocean Service do not provide honoraria is included in the proposal. or pay for reviews. Although some Board members argued that reviewers should be paid because of the time they commit to Board activities away from their private sector jobs, the Board decided in October 2002 (with reconsid- erations in March and July 2004) to not pay for reviews or a daily stipend or honorarium for panel members. This would allow more funds to be available for research. 190 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Advisory Panel Board stayed with just ten members, and then in May 2005, changed its procedures to cap the panel at ten members to Membership control costs, recognizing that there were stakeholder rep- The Advisory Panel is a committee of stakeholders that resentatives on the full Board already, i.e., those nominated has a significant advice-giving role, with active involve- by governors and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. ment in setting priorities, defining questions, and keeping The Board also placed a limit of two consecutive terms on interested users informed of Board activities. In forming AP memberships to allow for freshening of the committee its Advisory Panel in 2002 and 2003, the Board consid- membership and to discourage entrenched seats. ered other models of such committees used by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Exxon Valdez Oil In May 2003, the Board stipulated that the panel hold its Spill Trustee Council, and the Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring regular meetings just before the full Board meeting to Program. It initially considered having advisory panels (or reduce expenses and improve communications, and so the stakeholder committees) from the three major regions in panel chairman could provide their report to the Board. Alaska—the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and Aleutians, and Arctic Ocean—but decided to pattern its panel after that of Conflict of Interest the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, which has In March 2003, the Board discussed operating procedures only one panel to cover all the regions and issues and thus and policy for the Advisory Panel. In the draft procedures, facilitate communications between various sectors. The it deleted references to approval of funding for research Board made that decision based on the need to enhance projects because panel members would not be requested communications across regions and sectors, to reduce to approve or disapprove research proposals. The panel’s travel costs and the support needed for the committees to main role in research would be in the planning phase and meet, and to lessen the risk of becoming insular. identification of research priorities. The following policy was adopted: The decision in October 2002 to have one 20-member committee still allowed for augmentation as necessary on an ad Advisory Panel members must refrain from voting if the hoc basis if a particular expertise was needed. Memberships decision would have a significant and predictable effect on were for two years and staggered to enhance continuity. Ten their financial interest or if the member believes he/she has members were appointed to the first panel in March 2003 a conflict of interest. with the intent of appointing more in the fall. However, the

Clarence Pautzke NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART III 191

Proposal Review and seconded to change the Advisory Panel’s policy and The issue of Advisory Panel involvement in proposal review allow the panel to review proposals that were judged to be was first considered by the Board in October 2002 when scientifically meritorious by the Science Panel. The motion the Board’s ad hoc committee on committee structure was tabled until the January 2004 Board meeting so it presented its recommendations. It recommended that could be placed on the agenda as a policy discussion for any future stakeholder panel not be involved in approv- resolution. ing research projects. The committee believed that review should be based solely on the technical-scientific merits of In January 2004, the Advisory Panel again reported that it the proposals. In adopting policies and procedures for the wanted a role in proposal review, not necessarily to rank Advisory Panel in March 2003, the Board did not include a them, but to comment on how proposals would fit into role in proposal review. Further, in considering draft con- the Board’s program. This would only be done for those flict-of-interest policies for the Advisory Panel, the Board proposals deemed scientifically meritorious by the Science deleted references to approval of funding for research Panel. Following this report, a motion was made at the programs because members would not be requested to Board meeting to change Board policy to provide a role approve or disapprove research proposals. for the Advisory Panel in reviewing proposals. The Board debated the panel’s role, especially in light of the strong The Board appointed the first Advisory Panel in March recommendation by the NRC committee that the panel 2003 and it first met on May 19, 2003. Among other items should not be involved in reviewing proposals. Some discussed at the meeting, the panel stated their desire Board members expressed their belief that the members to be involved in proposal review. They recognized that of the Board provide adequate representation of stake- the Board must maintain high scientific standards in the holder groups for the purpose of reviewing proposals and research it funds and that the scientific merit of each pro- ensuring that the approved proposals are responsive to the posal should be established through the technical review goals and objectives of the Board. Others commented that process and by the Science Panel, but they believed they the panel’s input would be helpful to the Board as expres- could play a very useful role in advising the Board on sions of stakeholder needs, especially as they pertain to whether a particular proposal adequately addresses the pressing fisheries management issues. A friendly amend- Board’s mission and goals. They envisioned performing the ment was offered to restrict the Advisory Panel’s review to review after the Science Panel had established the scientific being very prescriptive, in effect, simply stating whether merits of each proposal. The AP wanted to be provided the a proposal was consistent or inconsistent with the Boards confidential technical and Science Panel reviews and would goals and objectives. This amendment was ruled out of develop its own report on the proposals. The Board took order as being significantly different from the motion on that recommendation under consideration in May 2003 the floor. It was noted that the role of the Advisory Panel and requested the executive director to develop options had been debated extensively and that the panel has a very for enabling panel involvement in Board activities and find meaningful role outside of proposal review as indicated out how other programs incorporated constituent panel in its operating procedures. The issue would need to be advice in the proposal review process. resolved in development of the Science Plan, recognizing that the NRC committee was against such proposal review In September 2003, the Advisory Panel reiterated its desire by the panel. The motion to provide a role for the Advisory to be involved in proposal review. The Board revisited the Panel in reviewing proposals failed (Executive Committee issue at its October 1–2, 2003 meeting, and had before it 1-3, other members 3-6). A motion was made to evaluate a discussion paper drafted by the executive director that and resolve the role of the Advisory Panel in reviewing pro- described how other organizations involved stakeholder posals within the context of the Science Plan that was to committees, and also apprised the Board of various per- be drafted over the next 6-9 months. After discussion, the ceptions of the scientific community on how proposals motion failed (Executive Committee 2-2, other members were graded during the 2003 RFP process, cautioning that 3-6). the Board should not add an extra dynamic into the review process, but stay with strictly scientific review of proposals. In March 2004, in reviewing the draft Science Plan, the The executive director argued that the Board should try Board again stated its position that the Advisory Panel will to emulate the National Science Foundation to field the not be involved in proposal review. The Advisory Panel highest quality science program possible, one that is per- expressed their continuing desire to be involved in pro- ceived by the scientific community to be fair and objective posal review at the March and July 2004 meetings, but the in its funding decisions. Further, the Board is fully capable Board did not change its position. of ensuring that funded research projects will address its policy objectives and enabling legislation without further advice from its Advisory Panel. Then a motion was made 192 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

In April 2007, the Board received a report from two outgo- Ecosystem Modeling Committee ing officers of the Advisory Panel. They indicated they were The third active committee of the Board, beginning in 2007 disappointed about not being able to review proposals and still active, is the Ecosystem Modeling Committee, and were concerned about the continuing relevance of the which was appointed to assist the Board and the staff in panel to the NPRB process. The Board responded that it developing the conceptual basis and design criteria for would agenda a full discussion of the role and future of the large-scale ecosystem modeling components of the Bering Advisory Panel for its September 2007 meeting. Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program, offer suggestions on how to proceed with construction and validation Also in April 2007, the Board was scheduled to consider of the integrated modeling components of the BSIERP, approving new Advisory Panel memberships. However, and ensure its linkages with the field research activities. having heard concerns from outgoing panel members at This committee continues to monitor the modeling com- the beginning of the meeting, the Board decided not to ponents of the BSIERP and offer guidance, and will be approve new members or seek additional nominations. involved in developing the modeling components of the Instead, it would fully review its policy on the Advisory Panel Gulf of Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Research Program. at the September meeting and the necessity of having one. Committee members include Daniel Goodman (Chairman), The Board extended the terms of six of the panel members Tim Barnett, Richard Beamish, George Hunt, Phil Mundy, through September 2007 (Ron Hegge, Shirley Kelly, Frank and Tom Royer. Andre Punt was initially also a member but Kelty, Steve MacLean, Arni Thomson, and Gale Vick) and withdrew from the committee when he became one of the asked staff to notify other applicants of this postponement funded BSIERP principal investigators. and to place the issue at the beginning of the September meeting agenda so there could be a meaningful discussion. Staff The Board began building its staff with the hiring of an In September 2007, the Board discussions centered on executive director starting January 1, 2002. The mix of receiving adequate stakeholder input. Some members positions has evolved over time, but now there is a staff suggested that the various stakeholder interests were rep- of seven located in Suite 100 at 1007 West 3rd Avenue, resented directly on the Board through its membership, Anchorage, Alaska, where it has resided since leasing while others placed great value on the additional input and renovating the space in spring 2003. A second five- from the Advisory Panel and the Local and Traditional year office lease runs through September 30, 2012. Space Knowledge Committee. During the Board meeting, an is shared with the Alaska Ocean Observing System, the ad hoc committee of David Benton, Nancy Bird, Paul Alaska SeaLife Center, Alaska Sea Grant, and the Alaska MacGregor, Pam Pope, John Gauvin, and Earl Krygier was Center for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence, which all asked to meet to develop recommendations on the future pay rent in proportion to their space utilization. The follow- of the Advisory Panel. The committee met and developed ing staff changes have occurred since 2001: the following recommendations (among others): January 2002 Dr. Clarence Pautzke, executive director • An Advisory Panel is still relevant and needed. May 2004 Igor Katrayev, data manager • Panel should continue to provide advice on other April 2005 Dr. Francis Wiese, program manager; things such as research priorities, but continue the cur- promoted to science director Feb. 2007 rent policy of not reviewing proposals. May 2006 Carolyn Rosner, assistant program • The AP and LTK committee should be blended together. manager - communications • The new Advisory Panel should be involved in program- July 2007 Dr. Carrie Eischens, assistant program matic reviews and retrospective reviews of projects to manager—science ensure they are meeting the Board’s goals and objec- June 2008 Tom Van Pelt, assistant program manager, tives. This would include reviewing progress on the Bering Sea Project BSIERP and other ecosystem research. October 2008 Nora Deans, senior outreach manager The Board unanimously accepted the ad hoc workgroup’s recommendations and a call for nominations was released Past early in 2008, with the intention of seating a new Advisory September 2003 Misty Ott, administrative assistant Panel by early April 2008 so they could meet the last week (departed 2005) of April just before the Board meeting. Subsequently, the July 2005 Ramona Brown, administrative assistant Advisory Panel was combined with the Local and Traditional (departed 2006) Knowledge committee into one 13-member panel, which is the way it remains into 2009. Please see Appendix IC for membership through 2008. NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART III 193

We thank Pete Jones, Shawn Carey, Marina Lindsey, and Supplementing Agency Programs Sheela McLean, at the Alaska Regional Office of NOAA The Board considered whether to fund research that it Fisheries in Juneau, for their help in developing NPRB’s believes is more of an agency responsibility. While the early subaward agreements, web site, and outreach efforts Board needs to coordinate and cooperate with agencies in 2002 and 2003. conducting research in the North Pacific, and attempt to address gaps in research, it does not want to be placed We also thank Nancy Anderson, Alaska SeaLife Center, for in the position of making up shortfalls in agency funded her help with the science panel meeting there in August research. The Board will review proposals in that light, and 2003, and advice and support along the way in building make decisions on a case-by-case basis. (June 2002). our program. Equipment Purchases Miscellaneous Science Policy Issues The Board considered whether to set a policy on funding equipment purchases. Some proposals were for the pur- Over the years, the Board made many policy decisions chase of equipment such as a bomb calorimeter, but no in developing its science program. They involved struc- actual research. The Board decided to fund several equip- ture and contents of the requests for proposals, review ment purchases in anticipation of potentially valuable, processes to ensure meritorious science, limitations on the future research that may be performed using that equip- types of research the Board would consider, and a host ment. (June 2002). of other policies, many of which are incorporated in the Science Plan of 2005 and standard operating procedures, Long-Term Monitoring but some of which have been made more recently. The The Board touched on this subject in June 2002, but did main decisions are presented below with meeting months not give it in-depth consideration until April 2007 when it indicated. discussed the need for a policy on long-term monitoring. While the NRC encouraged the Board to support long-term monitoring because of its stable funding source, funds allo- cated to such monitoring are no longer available for shorter term research projects. In April 2007, the question was asked whether the Board should set aside some amount of funds, for example $400,000, for monitoring projects outside of any monitoring it might already be funding as part of shorter term projects or within the scope of the integrated ecosystem research program. A decision finally was made in April 2008 that long-term monitoring needs in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska will be addressed within the scope of the respective integrated ecosystem research programs, and not as special initiatives in those two regions. The Board decided against providing any special set-aside of $400,000 for long-term monitoring elsewhere, such as the Arctic or Aleutian Islands, until it has the opportunity to determine what kind of coherent scientific program it wishes to engage in those areas. (June 2002, April 2007, April 2008).

In September 2008, the Board discussed the issue again and approved $50,000 annually for the next five years to support continuous plankton recorder (CPR) work under a PICES led CPR-Consortium, contingent on PICES securing sufficient other funds to make the research program viable. Ryan SoderlundRyan 194 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Interagency Agreements with Pre-Proposal Process Other Research Entities The Board considered a pre-proposal process for its annual In addition to the periodic memoranda of understanding RFPs, but concerns were raised about the time that would be the Board signs with federal agencies to fund research by necessary to conduct the preliminary review, and the expec- federal scientists, the Board is party to the following extant tation and reaction that an applicant might have if requested interagency agreements, which are kept on file at the to submit a full proposal, but then subsequently be denied Board office and are included in Appendix IVB: funding. Requesting pre-proposals might also encourage many applicants to submit a one- or two-page proposal (1) A memorandum of understanding signed in 2001 by that would require an inordinate amount of time to screen, NOAA, the Alaska SeaLife Center, and the Board concern- leading to larger expenditures of staff time than is currently ing the establishment of the North Pacific Marine Research required to review full proposals. The Board decided against Institute and the administration of the Environmental calling for pre-proposals for the annual RFP (but they did Improvement and Restoration Fund decide to call for pre-proposals for the more complicated BSIERP and GOAIERP proposals) (May 2003). (2) A memorandum of agreement signed in 2003 by the Board, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Confidentiality of Proposals (EVOSTC), and the University of Alaska, for establishing In processing its first RFP in 2002, the Board considered shared research priorities, coordination of research pro- confidentiality of proposals. At first the Board made avail- grams, and cooperation in developing a network of people able to the public the proposal titles, authors, duration, and to assist with proposal and program reviews funding requests, and kept the full text of the proposals confidential until approved for funding. Once funded, they (3) A memorandum of agreement signed in 2004 by the become the property of NPRB and the full proposal is pub- EVOSTC and the Board concerning a combined Linux lished on the website, without sensitive budget information server purchase and use (June, October 2002). The Board subsequently decided to make proposal summary pages available to the public (4) A joint protocol signed in 2005 by the Board and the Oil (March 2003). Spill Recovery Institute to facilitate a partnership for funding research Public Comments on Proposals The Board decided not to circulate proposals received to (5) A management plan signed in 2006 by the Board and an RFP for public comment (March 21-22, 2002). the National Science Foundation for the joint partnership for funding and managing the Bering Sea ecosystem Initial Screening of Proposals studies This subject was considered by the Board initially in March 2005 and a policy was adopted in September 2005. It resulted in authorization for the staff to screen applications for conformance with requirements set forth in the RFP notice. The evaluation will consider also whether the proposal is responsive to NPRB enabling legislation and criteria and adequately addresses one or more of the research priorities and program needs listed in this notice. The executive director will request an ad hoc committee of available Science Panel members to help in the initial screening. Those proposals that are found by the executive director and the ad hoc committee to not comply with the requirements of the RFP will be rejected without further processing (March and September 2005).

Grievance Procedures The Board decided there will be no formal grievance procedure. Submitters of rejected proposals will have the opportunity to re-submit rejected proposals in the next annual cycle with changes and/or respond to technical evaluations (October 2002).

Karna McKinney NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART III 195

Confidentiality of Video and Photographic Information In March 2003, the Board approved two proposals that would involve taking photos or video footage of operations on commercial fishing vessels. Fishing companies then raised concerns that these images might be obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests or court subpoenas and used for unintended purposes, such as evidence in injury cases. Board members noted that protecting the privacy of fishermen must be balanced against providing access to raw data sufficient to allow for peer review and validation of research results. The Board requested a legal opinion from NOAA General Counsel, but none was forthcoming. The issue was never resolved. The statement of work for one of the projects was revised to have private industry purchase the imaging equipment and thus the raw footage was never the property of the Board (May and October 2003).

Out-of-Cycle Proposals In 2006, the Board had to deal with a proposal that was received out-of-cycle. Alaska Department of Fish and Game proposed to collect information on direct mortality inflicted on Steller sea lions by humans and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council needed the information quickly, which meant that the proposal could not go through the regular annual RFP process. The following

approach was used to process that proposal: Mark Rauzon

1. The proposal was sent to the Executive Committee to Related to this issue was a request that came to the Board in determine if there was interest in moving forward. April 2008 for additional funds for an ongoing project that 2. Anonymous technical reviews were gathered. had been funded previously by the Board. Additional funds 3. It was considered scientifically meritorious and sent out were requested for additional analysis of extra samples to to the full Board for comments. study squid biology and life history information. The Board 4. On the basis of comments and reviews, the Executive voted against providing extra funds, noting that it would Committee made the final decision whether to fund. set precedence and that funding requests should come to the Board under the regular requests for proposals. The critical factor in processing this proposal was the need for the information for an ESA-related issue. It must be Subaward Compliance Policy determined on a case-by-case basis whether a proposal The Executive Committee developed and approved an is sufficiently important to require immediate processing interim policy on November 5, 2008. It went into effect rather than delaying it to the annual RFP cycle. The bar immediately. (The Board gave their approval in April 2009 should be placed very, very high for an out-of-cycle pro- and the policy is posted on the web at http://doc.nprb.org/ posal to be considered. A proponent must make a very web/nprb/policies/03.09_nprb_subaward_compliance_ compelling case for why the proposed work cannot wait policy.doc.) until the next RFP, and not just be on a fishing expedition for funds. The Board agreed that the staff should be del- Long-Term Planning egated the authority to make the decision about whether In April 2008, the Board began discussing long-term plan- a proposal needs to be processed immediately or not. If ning goals, with further discussion at the September 2008 the staff turns the proposal down, the applicant can always meeting. This will involve not only a programmatic review of elevate the issue to the Executive Committee and then the the Board and its policies and activities, but also an examina- Board. Otherwise, the proposal will need to go through the tion of how major thematic research topical areas could be annual RFP process. Board requested the staff to send it rotated through the annual RPPs. Long-term planning will be the results of any final decisions on out-of-cycle proposals a focal activity in late 2009 and throughout 2010. (September 2006). 196 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Financial Policy and Budgets

Sources of Funding The Board has operated under three large grants from NOAA since 2001. They have come from two sources: interest earnings of the Environmental Improvement and Restoration Fund (EIRF) and annual appropriations made by Congress to the Board in 2004–2006. The U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) manages the EIRF and annually transfers the earnings to NOAA, usually in August. The funds flow down through the National Marine Fisheries Service within NOAA and our grants manager is in Juneau at the NMFS Regional Office. NPRB has to apply annually to NOAA to receive the award.

Congressional appropriations are the second source of funds for NPRB. They were provided to NPRB three times: fiscal years 2004–2006. These funds were very important in assisting the Board through a financial crisis that arose in early 2003 and is explained below. No appropriations were made after 2006 and none is expected in the future. The mix of funds that comprised the three large grants that supported the Board during its first eight years is as follows:

EIRF Appropriations Total

Grant 1 Pre-2002 $12,099,000 FY2004 $2,830,075 $20,140,075 FY2002 5,211,000

Grant 2 FY2003 2,843,428 FY2005 2,924,174 19,860,115 FY2004 5,304,075 FY2006 1,952,762 FY2005 6,835,676

Grant 3 FY2006 7,839,598 16,489,294 FY2007 8,649,696

Writing annual budgets for use of funds from the two Having made the forward-funding decision, budgeting was sources was quite complex in the beginning because still quite complex because EIRF funds were non-appropri- (1) the restrictions on when the funds could be used dif- ated funds and therefore did not need to be spent in a certain fered between the two sources, and (2) the Board was fiscal year. On the other hand, appropriations needed to be starting from scratch in terms of determining its overall spent during a particular fiscal year. In addition, the legislated slate of activities and how much each activity would cost. 5-15% cap on administrative use of funds, as will be described Regarding the first point, when to use the funds, the Board further below, applied to EIRF funds but not necessarily to decided early on in 2002 to base its budget on the fed- appropriated funds. As a result of these complexities, the eral fiscal year (beginning October 1) and to forward fund Board was faced with budget decisions at almost every meet- its program by one year, i.e., EIRF earnings from one year ing, especially from 2002-2004. This report will not go into would not be used the next year, but the next year thereaf- the details about each of the line items in the budgets, past ter. Skipping a year allowed the Board to plan better based or present. It will be shown, however, that the budget has on a confirmed funding level from the EIRF earnings. This evolved to be much simpler than in the early years, and now kept the Board out of the situation often encountered by it is relatively easy to explain and to make accurate projec- federal agencies such as NOAA, wherein it would not know tions out over a 5-10 year horizon. This gives the Board a very its exact budget until the last minute, or their budget might substantial advantage and stability in its planning and funding be tied up in a continuing resolution and they might not decisions over federal agencies with which NPRB cooperates know the full amount until well into the fiscal year. who are at the whim of the federal appropriations process.

Christy Tyler NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART III 197

North Pacific Marine Research Institute of 2002 The North Pacific Marine Research Institute (NPMRI) was a potential third source of funding for NPRB, but it did not last long. Starting in 2002, in addition to the EIRF funds of just over $12 million, the Board had oversight over a $2 million appropriation to NPMRI, which was created through legislation to provide a funding mechanism for the Alaska SeaLife Center in Seward, Alaska. The Board’s relationship with NPMRI, based on the institute’s enabling legislation, was identified in the June 29, 2001 memorandum of understanding signed by NOAA, NPRB and the Alaska SeaLife Center. Among other things, it stipulated that NPRB would (1) use the ASLC as its fiscal agent, (2) administer EIRF and NPMRI funds using up to 10% of institute funds to support that administration, and (3) make recommendations on how to spend the institute funds. NPMRI appeared in 2002 to have great potential as a continuing source of new funds for marine research at and through the ASLC and NPRB would have been involved in its oversight. However, it failed to receive any further appropriations and the Board’s involvement essentially was completed in 2002 when it worked with the Center on how to spend the $2 million.

The Institute originally received an appropriation of $5 million for 2001. It used $3 million for infrastructure build-out and facility maintenance at ASLC. The remaining $2 million was split $200,000 to administration and $1.8 million to projects to be recommended by NPRB. Meeting in February

2002, the NPRB Executive Committee recommended appor- KinsberyRyan tioning the $1.8 million as $1 million to research, $500,000 to demonstration (which included building the aquarium Administrative Cap at the joint NPRB-ASLC satellite office in Anchorage), and The Board’s original enabling legislation placed a 5% limit $300,000 to education. The Board approved this recom- on the amount of EIRF funds that could be “…used to mendation at the March 1, 2002 teleconference. At that provide support for the Board and administer grants….” meeting, and the March 21-22 meeting, the full Board Compared with other organizations inside and outside approved spending $571,456 of the $1 million on a third the federal government, which may have overheads in year for five projects that had been funded earlier under the the 30-50% range or more, this is a very restrictive limit, North Pacific Marine Research Program at the University of considering that it has to support staff, office, Board mem- Alaska. These included a Bering Sea Metadatabase, and ber travel, supplies, etc, that keep the basic organization research on right whales, mesoscale eddies in the Bering going. Therefore, in developing its early budget requests Sea, continuous plankton recorder collections, and nutrient to NOAA, the Board was very specific in defining, and cycling in the Bering Sea. These became projects T0001- restricting, exactly which activities were considered to be 0005, administered by the Alaska SeaLife Center. The supporting the Board and administering grants, as will be remaining NPMRI funds, about $434,000, were combined described later in this report. The problem was alleviated with EIRF funds to support the 2002 EIRF and used to fund in February 2003 when legislation was passed raising the four projects, which included Bering Sea right whale acous- cap to 15%. The general practice of the Board has been to tics, a pelagic seabird database, diet composition of Steller use only about 12% for administration and it is projected sea lions, and nearshore circulation in the Bering Sea. They that barring any major changes in staffing and operations, were administered by the ASLC as projects T2100-T2130. the administrative percentage will stay in the range of These funding decisions and the resulting projects, and the 12-13% through 2016. Concerning the three appropria- use of institute administrative funds until EIRF funds were tions, there is no legislated administrative limit for use of made available, constituted the total involvement of NPRB those funds, but the practice of the Board was to use them with the institute. The ASLC eventually was compensated for all for research and science and not for administrative costs, the administrative funds through reduced space rental fees which could be satisfied totally by the EIRF funds once the in the Anchorage office. cap was raised. 198 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Budget Crisis of 2003 funding policy to stabilize fiscal planning. The Board also In early 2003, the Board was still operating under the reduced the 2003 RFP from $14 million to $7 million to assumptions provided by NOAA that it was earning 5.65% smooth the funding out over 2-3 years rather than have a on the EIRF which would provide roughly $11-12 million precipitous decline in available research funds. MMS was annually into the foreseeable future. The previous October contacted to determine how to restructure the EIRF invest- (2002), the Board had released the 2003 RFP at the $14 ment to provide higher earnings. The Board was notified million level to utilize the funds that had accumulated while by MMS in January 2004 that the EIRF investment had the Board was getting organized in 2001 and 2002. As been restructured from six-month T-bills yielding about 1% the Board entered its March 2003 meeting, it had before to laddered, 10-year notes that would yield about 3.2%. it the recommendations of its Science Panel, which had It was projected that EIRF earnings would be about $5.7 met two weeks earlier and developed a slate of projects million in FY04, $6.9 million for FY05, and $7.3 million for for the $14 million level. In the intervening week between FY06, which would allow the Board to ramp up the annual the Science Panel and Board meetings, MMS informed the RFPs from the $3 million level for FY04, to $4.5 million for Board through NOAA that the EIRF was invested in short- each of the next two years, and then $6 million annually term Treasury notes and that the earnings had declined in 2007 and beyond. Those amounts were augmented by precipitously from over 6% in November 2000 to about appropriations in 2004–2006. 1.2% as of early March 2003. Thus the EIRF was buffeted by the short-term bond market, which had taken a serious Financial Policy Decisions decline along with the stock market. So, by March 2003, the The enabling legislation provides limited advice on use of EIRF account was invested at only 1.175% for the period EIRF funds. Grants for research projects shall be recom- February 20–August 21, 2003. This had the result that the mended on the basis of merit in accordance with priorities $11-12 million, predicted to be available annually to the established by the Board. The Secretary of Commerce Board for research and administration, was declining to less must review all grant recommendations from the Board. than $3.2 million for FY 2004 and beyond, unless interest If the Secretary does not approve a recommendation rates rebounded. This shortfall would severely impact the by the Board, the reasons must be explained in writing. availability of research funds, and also administrative funds, Disapproved funding can only be used for other projects even though the 5% cap on such use was raised to 15% in recommended by the Board. The legislation allows recipi- legislation passed in February 2003. ents of research funds to be federal, state, private or foreign organizations or individuals, and stipulates that the Board The Board considered this new information and took must recommend grants through a competitive process immediate action to maximize the use of the 15% cap on based on written criteria. Based on those provisions, the administrative funding, to apply it as broadly as possible Board began developing its fiscal policies mainly in 2002 to current and future grants, and to reaffirm the forward and 2003, though some changes were made later. Sara Francis Sara NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART III 199

In February 2002, the Executive Committee authorized administrative costs. The administrative expenses were the executive director to establish accounts at the Alaska covered completely by the 15% EIRF earnings, and in SeaLife Center, sign checks, establish an office, authorize fact have been well within that cap at the 11-12% level. payroll, and expend funds in accordance with a transitional The Board also transfers any unexpended administra- budget. NPRB accounts would be maintained separately tive EIRF funds to science planning and research if they from any other Center accounts. This decision was based will not be needed (March 2005). on the June 29, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding • Keep in reserve at all times at least two fiscal years signed by NOAA, NPRB and the Alaska SeaLife Center. It requirements for administrative funding, but review designated the Center as the Board’s fiscal agent, making it budget needs each March for the coming two years responsible for all accounting, grants monitoring and audits, and redirect excess administrative funds to science. and check writing. In addition, NPRB employees technically This later was reduced to a one-year buffer in 2008 to are employees of the Center, although in practice they are make funding available to support the Gulf of Alaska supervised by the Board as an independent staff. Integrated Ecosystem Research Program (September 2005, September 2008). Many specific financial decisions were made by the Board on research projects, meetings, fellowships, etc. are found General Budget Overview in Parts I and II of this report. Broader financial policy deci- The Board’s budget has evolved over time. It initially was sions made along the way include the following, most of very complex due to the start-up nature and the mix of which were made through 2005 and thus were incorporated non-year EIRF funds with those resulting from appropria- in the Board’s standard operating procedures originally tions that had to be used in a specific year, as explained approved in October 2002 and revised through September above. The current budget, made up totally of EIRF funds, 2005 (available at http://doc.nprb.org/web/nprb/nprb%20 is relatively easy to understand. Incoming awards from the background%20docs/11.05_sopp.pdf). EIRF are partitioned into two broad categories: administration and science. The administration category, capped at • Forward fund the budget by one year. For example, 15%, but generally using 11-12% (see above), covers staff apply FY2003 earnings to FY2005, FY2004 earnings to salaries and benefits, travel for staff and Board members, FY2006, and so forth (general budget approach in 2002). office supplies, accounting and audits, office rent and fur- • Do not compensate Board members for participation, nishings, and supplies, i.e., all those things that keep the but do reimburse travel costs (February 2002). lights on and make the organization run and are normally • Decision matrix in SOPP specifies that full Board is included in overhead in research programs. needed to approve annual budgets, but the Executive Committee reviews periodic audits and monitors grant performance (October 2002). • Board will not compensate for proposal reviews (June 2002). • Science Panel members will not be compensated but travel costs are reimbursed (October 2002, July 2004.) • Make maximum use of the 15% cap on administration funding, applying it as broadly as possible to current and future grants (March 2003). • Cap funds annually available for outside meetings at $50,000, exclusive of NPRB-initiated workshops, synthesis meetings, and the annual science symposium. There are criteria for vetting meeting requests and the authority was delegated to the executive director to approve amounts of $5,000 or less, and report to the Board at the next regular meeting. Individual requests exceeding $5,000 would be brought to the Board for approval (March 2004). • Board member travel expenses to annual Alaska Marine Science Symposium will be reimbursed (September 2004). • Adopt general practice of using all of the appropriated funds (starting with FY2005 appropriations) for sci-

ence planning and research, instead of using any for Zachary Buchanan 200 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

The science category is further partitioned into two sub- and funds became invested in laddered bonds and thus categories. The first is termed non-RFP/IERP science. This were more stable, the Board adopted the practice of mak- includes support for panels and committees, education ing as much funding as possible available to science. In and outreach, data management, planning and coordi- other words, the Board made a conscious decision to not nation, and meeting and symposium support. In other develop a huge administrative structure (i.e. many staff) words, all of the activities the Board supports to provide that would soak up all of the administrative funds. Instead, the infrastructure for good science and coordination, but its philosophy was and remains to have a relatively small not the actual research itself. The actual research is funded and efficient staff and thus be able to return some of the under the largest subcategory and covers all of the indi- administrative funding back to science. vidual research projects funded under competitive RFPs through the years, and the integrated ecosystem research Grant 1: EIRF and Appropriations programs for the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. At its initial meetings in 2001, the Board was informed that estimated EIRF earnings totaled about $12.5 mil- Whereas earlier grants were composed of an original lion. A more accurate estimate of $12,099,000 was given request that was augmented with amendments as new to the Board in early 2002 and the NOAA award to the EIRF and appropriated funds became available, current Board was made on May 10, 2002. The Board set aside practice in 2008 is to combine no more than two fiscal years the legislated administrative cap of 5%, or $604,000, to of EIRF funds together into one grant. While this imposes support staff compensation, fringe benefits, travel, sup- more reporting requirements on our fiscal agent, it clari- plies, office rent, and all other administrative activities fies the budget and makes it easily presentable, as will be to support the Board and its operations. It used roughly explained in the three descriptions of the individual grants another $1.2 million for science planning and coordina- that have been the basis for the Board’s activities these past tion, which included science plan development and NRC eight years. Another evolution to note when reading about review, a searchable database, science planning, and the budget activities is that the practice for Grant 1 was support for the Alaska Oceans/Watershed Symposium, to use the maximum allowable amount for administration and a membership in the Consortium on Ocean Research (i.e., up to the administrative cap, which was a mixture of and Education. As far as new marine research, the Board 5% and 15% during the grant period) and not redistribute funded 11 research projects for $1.2 million through its it to science. This was due to the budget crisis of 2003 and first competitive request for proposals (2002 RFP) and ensuring that the administrative functions were protected then combined the remaining $9.1 million in research as far out as possible appeared to be the most practicable funds with a second EIRF release to fund new projects thing to do. As the Board got through the budget crisis through the competitive 2003 and 2004 RFPs.

Loren Banks NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART III 201

These initial EIRF funds of $12.1 million were augmented to run counter to previous statements in this report that with $5,211,000 in EIRF earnings for 2002 on December in general only 11-12% was used for administration, the 5, 2003, and $2,830,075 from a 2004 appropriation on higher amounts charged to administration resulted from August 12, 2004. The combined amount of $20.14 mil- the situation wherein administrative costs were extended lion became what was known as Grant 1, running from out as far as practicable into additional years to cover January 2002 through December 2007. Table 10 provides expenditures that were in general short term, as opposed a complete summary of Grant 1 expenditures. It supported to new research projects that could have run past the end administrative costs for 2002-2006 and partial costs for of the grant period. This practice distorts the real admin- 2007 and 2008. It supported nearly 90 research projects istrative costs associated with this grant on a more annual resulting from RFPs for 2002-2007, as well as panels and basis. The reason that only 14.9% was used instead of the committees, science plan development and NRC review, full 15% is that the administrative cap up to February 2003 start-up funds for the Alaska Ocean Observing System, a was only 5%, and then 15% thereafter. Thus the cap had to PICES ecosystem report and 17 meetings and symposia. be used proportionately on expenditures before and after Overall, 14.9% of Grant 1 was used to support administra- the February 2003 legislated increase in the cap, leading to tion and 85.1% was used to support science, coordination, the 14.9% used overall during the life of Grant 1. and meetings. While this percentage appears high and

Grant 1 (NA17FL2556) TABLE 10 January 2002 - December 2007 Detail Summation Grant Total: $20,140,075 Administrative (14.9%) Spent/Obligated Grant 1 ran thru 12/31/07: (14.9%) $3,001,016 FY2002-2003 456,041 EIRF - FY01 12,099,000 FY2004 692,507 EIRF FY02 5,211,000 FY2005 759,191 Approps FY04 2,830,075 FY2006 841,236 Total Grant 1 20,140,075 FY2007-2008 251,814 Total Admin 3,000,789 Remainder sent to Science 227

Science $17,139,059 $17,139,059 (85.1%) From Admin 227 Total Science $17,139,286

RFP Numbered Projects 2002 - 11 projects All 1,195,371 2003 - 26 projects All 6,749,707 2004 - 21 projects All 3,135,831 24 Projects funded under Grant 1: 2005 - 24 projects 24 of 37 3,859,641 501-502, 504-505, 507, 510, 513, 515-518, 2006 - 3 projects 601-603 708,481 520-522, 527-534, 536, 537 ADFG Steller sea lion study (646) 33,853 2007 - 1 project 734 8,185 Outside Meetings 15,691,069 UW Symposium (11/04) 10,000 BEST Symposium (05/05) 25,000 Panels and Committees AFS Cooperative Res. (09/05) 15,000 Science Panel F1300 132,686 4th World Fisheries Congress (05/04) 5,000 Advisory Panel F1400 32,168 Forage fish meeting 3,442 Ecosystem Modeling Committee F1900 128,487 Pribilof Collaborative 10,056 Local and Traditional Knowledge Committee F1800 26,608 AK Native Snowchange Conf. (09/05) 5,000 319,949 PICES Climate Conference (04/06) 20,000 Other Expenditures AK Crab Symposium (03/06) 5,000 Science Plan development and publication (NRC, team, pub, core) 686,011 Center for Alaska Coast (03/06) 5,000 AOOS start-up funds F2000 62,500 Sperm whale depredation (10/06) 10,000 PICES ecosystem report F1700-06 82,540 Marine mammals Holarctic (09/06) 10,000 831,051 ESSAS symposium (01/07) 5,000 PICES Conference (07/07) 10,000 Meetings Bitter crab conference (09/07) 5,000 Ocean Watersheds Conference F1200 17,907 AAAS Arctic Scienc (09/07) 5,000 Annual sci symposia (2003-2006) F1600 81,542 National Ocean Science Bowl 49,269 Outside meetings F1700-xx 197,767 Meeting total 197,767 297,216 Science Total 17,139,286 Final Admin 14.90% Administrative Total 3,000,789 Final Science 85.10% Total Grant Expenditures/Obligations 20,140,075 Grant 1 Total 20,140,075 202 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Grant 2: EIRF and Appropriations Grant 2 started on June 1, 2005 and will run through September 30, 2010. It is a mix of EIRF earnings in 2003–2005 and appropriations from 2005 and 2006, as indicated in Table 11, which is an overview of the grant. It was used to fund administration for a partial year in 2007 and for all of 2008. As indicated in the note, the amount spent on administration in 2007 was low because much of that year was charged to Grant 1. Therefore, while the Grant 1 administrative percentage came in at 14.9%, Grant 2 administration will be about 8% of the overall $19,860,115 grant total. It should be noted that almost $650,000 was transferred from under the 15% administrative cap to fund science-related activities. Science activities for Grant 2 are similar to Grant 1: panel and committee support, education and outreach, data management, external meeting support, symposia; new research projects from 2005–2007, and significant support for the new Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program. Grant 2 also provided the first support for graduate student awards, which will be a continuing program of the Board to support budding scientists in their graduate career.

Summation of Grant 2 Award Period: June 1, 2005 - September 30, 2010 Table 11 (NA05NMF4721198) EIRF FY2003 2,843,428 Approps FY05 2,924,174 EIRF FY2004 5,304,075 Approps FY06 1,952,762 EIRF FY2005 6,835,676 4,876,936 14,983,179 Grant Total: 19,860,115 Actuals Actuals for 2007 for 2008

Administrative (15% all EIRFs) 2,247,477 613,775 986,027 2007 Admin is low Excess to Science 647,675 because Grant 1 was used to pay admin Science $17,612,638 $17,612,638 (85% EIRFs + all approps) Excess Admin 647,675 Total Science $18,260,313 Non-RFP/IERP SciencePanels and Committees FY2007 FY2008 Science Panel F1302 41,085 41,521 Advisory Panel F1402 5,313 19,891 Ecosystem Modeling Committee F1902-00 19,189 41,164

IERP Review Committee F1902-15 59,262 . 124,849 102,576 Other Anticipated Expenditures (07) Other Expenditures Litwin - On thin ice expedition IPY 27,254 Education and Outreach - ASLC (Project 703) - - Arctic Survey Design 4,303 Additional education and outreach materials & projects F1002-01 7,145 74,000 31,557 Community involvement (including workshop support) F1102-01 20,000 Other Anticipated Expenditures (08) Data management - AMIS (Project 704) F1102-02 - 100,000 Beamish salmon paper 15,000 Graduate Student Awards ('08) F1102-09 - 100,000 Ridgway BS 19,729 Other unanticipated expenditures F1102-05&08 F1102-06&07 31,557 34,729 34,729 38,702 328,729 Outside meetings for FY2007 Meetings Young Scientist Conference 15,731 Annual sci symposia (Jan 2007 and 2008) F1602 17,211 12,820 Future of Fisheries Research 20,000 NPRB meetings F1102-04 870 50,000 International Arctic Fisheries Symposium Outside meetings F1702-01, 03 & 04 ('07) F1702-05 thru 09 ('08) 35,731 45,500 Outside meetings for FY2008 53,812 108,320 Pacific Seabird Group 5,000 Holarctic (approved 4/08) 15,000 Total Non-RFP/IERP Science per year 217,363 539,625 Kachemak Bay (approved 4/08) 5,500 Total Non-RFP/IERP Science for both 2007 & 2008 combined 756,988 Electronic monitoring McElderry 15000 Northern Research Forum 5000 RFP/IERP Science Total Science Available 18,260,313 Subtract Estimated Non-RFP/IERP Science (2007-2008) 756,988 Remaining for RFP/IERP Science 17,503,325 #5XX: 12 Projects funded under Grant 2: Already Obligated from Grant 2: 503, 506, 508-509, 511-512, 514, 519, RFP Numbered Projects 2005 - 12 projects 12 of 36 2,064,743 523-525, 535 2006 - 38 projects 604-641 5,861,614 #7XX: All projects funded under grant 2 2007 RFP 700 series 4,595,545 except 714 for $248,206 RFP Total 12,521,902 BSIERP-Related Items Project Contracts B-series F28xx 4,617,121 Part of Sep08 $120k add-on 23,571 Hare/Mantua Project Mgmt Year 1 F1802-01 117,986 Ed & Outreach Year 1 F1802-02 20,000 4,778,678 BSIERP Total Remaining for additional projects under Grant 2 202,746

Summation Administrative Total Admin 1,599,802 8.06% Science Total Science 18,260,313 91.94% Total Grant Expenditures/Obligations Total 19,860,115 100.00% NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART III 203

Grant 3: EIRF Only Grant 3 started on October 1, 2007 and will run until September 30, 2012. It is comprised solely of EIRF earnings from 2006 and 2007. Table 12 provides an overview of expected expenditures from Grant 3. It is anticipated that about 12.5% of the total $16,489,294 in Grant 3 will be used for administration, although that part of the budget only will apply to the last three months of this report period, October 1–December 31, 2008, which is the first quarter of FY 2009. At the time of the writing of this report in late 2009, the science part of Grant 3 has been used to support one research project (#714) from 2007, and all projects for 2008 and 2009 (800 and 900–series projects). Nearly $4.9 million has been used to support projects, management, and education and outreach activities related to the Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program. It is anticipated that remaining funds in Grant 3 will be used to support administrative activities and non-RFP science activities (panels, committees, meetings, and other expenditures, etc.) during FY2009 and 2010.

Summation of Grant 3 Award Period: October 1, 2007 - September 30, 2012 Table 12 (NA07NMF4720082) EIRF FY2006 7,839,598 EIRF FY2007 8,649,696

Grant Total: 16,489,294 Budget FY09 Budget FY10 Estimated Estimated

Administrative (15% all EIRFs) 2,473,394 1,022,458 1,048,453 Excess to Science 402,483

Science $14,015,900 $14,015,900 (85% EIRFs + all approps) Excess Admin 402,483 Total Science $14,418,383 Non-RFP/IERP SciencePanels and Committees FY2009 FY2010 Science Panel F1303-00 35,000 36,400 Advisory Panel F1403-00 15,000 15,600 Ecosystem Modeling Committee F1903-00 30,000 30,000 IERP Review Committee F1903-02 30,000 30,000 110,000 112,000 Other Expenditures Education and Outreach - ASLC 67,500 70,200 Additional education and outreach materials 97,651 83,800 Community involvement (including workshop support) 10,000 30,000 Other expenses: FY09 Graduate Student Awards 123,000 100,000 Publish 8-yr report 60,000 Data management - AMIS (#901 funds thru FY2010) Other unanticipated expenditures 60,000 90,000 Other expenses: FY10 358,151 374,000 Review committee 60,000 Meetings Other misc 30,000 Annual sci symposia (Jan 2009 and 2010) 28,000 28,000 NPRB meetings 50,000 Outside meetings 30,000 30,000 ICES/PICES Sendai April 2010 58,000 108,000

Total Non-RFP/IERP Science per year 526,151 594,000 Total Non-RFP/IERP Science for both 2009 & 2010 combined 1,120,151

RFP/IERP Science Total Science Available 14,418,383 Subtract Estimated Non-RFP/IERP Science (2009-2010) 1,120,151 Remaining for RFP/IERP Science 13,298,232

Already Obligated from Grant 3: RFP Numbered Projects 2007 - project 714 248,206 Note: CPR 4 yrs 200k in Grant 4 2008 - all 800 projects 4,455,937 as project #1001 2009 - all 900 projects (as of 9/08) 3,635,936 RFP Total 8,340,079

BSIERP-Related Items From separate budget FY08 774,397 workbook by Tara/Tom FY09 4,018,497 FY10 96,429 BSIERP Total 4,889,323 Remaining for additional projects under Grant 3 2009 RFP/IERPs 68,830

Summation Administrative Total Admin 2,070,911 12.56% Science Total Science 14,418,383 87.44% Total Grant Expenditures/Obligations Total 16,489,294 100.00%

Audits In March 2006, the Board received an audit report from The Board is audited periodically as part of the Alaska KPMG for FY2005. There were no deficiencies, except for SeaLife Center’s larger audit. The first audit was for expen- a late progress report to NOAA Grants for July-December ditures through December 2003 and passed without any 2004. In April 2007, the Board received a KPMG audit report material weaknesses involving internal control or opera- on its financial activities for FY2005 and 2006 covering tions. The second audit was for $2.86 million spent during roughly $6.3 million. KPMG found no deficiencies or matters January-September 2004. KPMG noted no material weak- involving internal control and its operation that they con- nesses involving internal control or operations. sider to be material weaknesses. The Board recommended that audit results be sent to it electronically for future audits. Copies of all audits are on file at the Board office. 204 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Highlights of Meetings and Other Science Activity Support The North Pacific Research Board provides financial and in-kind support to a variety of ocean science related activities, including the annual Alaska Marine Science Symposium (AMSS). NPRB plays a major role in organizing the annual symposium, where scientists from Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Nation, and beyond gather to inform each other about their research activities in the marine regions off Alaska.

Activity Date Approved Location Support Oceans and Watershed Symposium June 2002 Anchorage, AK $18,000 Alaska Ocean Observing System May 2003 Anchorage, AK $62,500 for 1.25 years Alaska Marine Science Symposia January 2003 Anchorage,AK $28,000 annually Support for annual symposium 4th World Fisheries Congress, May 2-6, 2004 October 2003 Vancouver, BC $5,000 Explore issues that underpin fisheries conservation and science Symposium on Defining Best Available Scientific Information for March 2004 Seattle, WA $10,000 Fisheries Management, April 15-16, 2004 Examine fisheries issues in North Pacific and information needed to resolve them International Symposium on Climate Change and Structure of Sub-Arctic March 2004 Victoria, BC $25,000 Marine Ecosystems Bring together international scientists to discuss BEST and ESSAS (Ecosystem Studies of Sub-Arctic Seas). American Fisheries Society National Meeting, September 11-15, 2005 March 2004 Anchorage, AK $5,000 American Fisheries Society Cooperative Research Symposium in September 2004 Anchorage, AK $10,000 conjunction with AFS September 2005 meeting. Catalog critical lesson from past cooperative research, identify challenges and future opportunities. PICES Ecosystem Status Report March 2005 $90,000 Canadian Development and publication of next ecosystem report Pribilof Island Collaborative March 2005 Pribilof Islands $10,000 Support community outreach and involvement PICES International Symposium on “Climate Variability and Ecosystem September 2005 Honolulu, HI $20,000 Impacts on the North Pacific: A Basin Scale Synthesis,” April 19-21, 2006 Bring scientists together to examine climate and the oceans and their ecosystems. Conference on Snow Change, Alaska Native Science Commission September 2005 Anchorage, AK $5,000 Symposium on Fisheries Depredation by Killer and Sperm Whales, March 2006 Vancouver BC $10,000 October 2-5, 2006 Broaden understanding of cues and behaviors that attract whales to fishing gear and produce guidelines on reducing or eliminating depredation Holarctic Symposium on Marine Mammals, September 2006 March 2006 St. Petersburg, Russia $10,000 International scientists shared their results pertaining to marine mammal and ecosystem studies being undertaken in the western portions of the North Pacific Ocean, the Bering Sea, and Chukchi Sea Future of Fisheries Research Symposium on February 13-15, 2007 September 2006 Seattle, WA $20,000 Examine the current state of fishery science in North America and the research opportunities and challenges for the next decade International Whaling Commission annual meeting in Anchorage September 2006 Anchorage, AK $5,000 National Ocean Science Bowl in April 2008 in Seward, Alaska September 2006 Seward AK $50,000 On Thin Ice Project for International Polar Year by Thomas Litwin September 2006 Bering Sea $50,000 contingent on Exploration of the Bering Sea at the dawn of global warming Litwin finding other funding for the program NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART III 205

Activity Date Approved Location Support PICES Workshop on Forecasting Climate Impacts on Fish Production, April 2007 Seattle WA $10,000 July 2007 Understand and forecast responses of North pacific marine ecosystems to climate change and human activities at basin-wide and regional scales, and to broadly communicate this scientific information to governments, resource managers, and the general public Revision of Freshwater Runoff model by Dr. Tom Royer April 2007 Virginia $8,187 For use in the Gulf of Alaska with more recent oceanographic data. Cook Inlet Beluga Whale workshop to develop research priorities, September 2007 Anchorage AK Staff time January 22, 2008. Staff organized workshop at Alaska Marine Science Symposium without spending $30,000 set aside in April 2007.Results reported to the Board at the April 2008 meeting. Arctic Study Design workshop. September 2007 Anchorage AK Staff time Workshop to develop a sampling design for an Arctic Baseline Survey was combined with the Arctic Synthesis Workshop at the January 2009 Alaska Marine Science Symposium. Climate Impacts on the Ocean Survival and Distribution of Pacific September 2007 Where? $15,000 Salmon Reports Funds for a research assistant for Dr. Richard Beamish to produce two salmon reports Pacific Seabird Group Meeting, February 2008 September 2007 Pacific Grove, CA $5,000 Film on Research in the Bering Sea Canyons December 2007 Juneau, AK $20,000 Michelle Ridgeway’s canyon research, concentrating on coral and sponge habitat and sea floor assemblages and biodiversity Bering Sea Canyons Habitat Surveys Workshop organization, September December 2007 Seattle, WA Staff time 11, 2008 Results shared with Board in September 2008 when crafting the 2009 RFP Electronic Monitoring Workshop, July 29-30, 2008 December 2007 Seattle, WA $15,000 With North Pacific Fishery Management Council, supported workshop to determine state of the art and develop research priorities for the 2009 RFP. International Arctic Fisheries Management Workshop, October 19-21, 2009 April 2008 Anchorage, AK $50,000 Partial support for this workshop to initiate international discussions for managing migratory, transboundary and straddling fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean. Workshop goals include identifying current management regimes in the Arctic region and how relevant scientific fisheries data is used to formulate those management decisions. It will attempt to identify potential gaps in management regimes or the collection of scientific data and discuss potential solutions. Fifth International Conference on Marine Mammals of the Holarctic, April 2008 Odessa, Ukraine $15,000 October 14-18, 2008 Kachemak Bay Science Conference, March 2009 April 2008 Homer, AK $5,000 Brings scientists together to communicate about on-going research and monitoring projects in lower Cook Inlet. Shark White Paper and Potential Workshop April 2008 Anchorage, AK (email Staff time Determine what is known or not known about sleeper and salmon shark biology. and phone) Develop white paper and recommend priorities for 2009 RFP. No workshop was held but group got together by email and formulated research priorities for presentation at September 2009 meeting in anticipation of 2009 RFP. Ecosystem Synthesis Report for PICES September 2008 $15,701 Support for Dr. Mike Dagg to write report 206 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008 Bill Heubner

View Toward 2009 and Beyond

These first eight years, 2001-2008, were indeed foun- in response to its 2009 annual request for proposals. The dational years for the North Pacific Research Board. It 2010 RFP for $3.8 million, released on October 2, 2009, has was an opportunity to build organizational structure and attracted a huge response of some 111 proposals. Among policies and procedures from scratch, while developing other priorities, it includes such cutting edge research needs a robust and vibrant research program that has fielded as ocean acidification, marine spatial planning, diseases and many individual research projects and launched an exciting biotoxins, and molecular and laboratory-based technology partnership with the National Science Foundation to study development. the Bering Sea ecosystem from physics to fish and higher trophic level species. The Bering Sea integrated ecosystem research program is entering its third and final field season and modeling, and In the coming years, the North Pacific Research Board will eventually synthesis, will be completed in the next three continue to build on this solid foundation of marine research. years. The Gulf of Alaska integrated ecosystem research As this report is going to press in February 2010, the Board program is in the last stages of development, and field sea- has already funded some 25 new projects for $3.5 million sons may begin as early as 2011. NEW MARINE SCIENCE PROGRAM :: PART III 207

In addition, the Board has initiated a formal outside, com- how NPRB’s limited funds may be optimally applied to the prehensive program review by inviting an independent region. Research needs likely will be driven by those identi- committee of visitors to evaluate its research and other fied in our NPRB-funded Arctic Synthesis (Project 503), the activities, and provide recommendations by September North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Arctic fishery 2010. This thorough review will be conducted in a similar management plan, environmental analyses for federal oil fashion to the approach used by the National Science and gas activities, increased shipping and transportation, Foundation in its internal reviews. It responds to a strong and emerging legislative initiatives, as well as recent work- recommendation by the National Research Council in pro- shops, conferences, and symposia focused on the Arctic. viding science plan guidance in 2004: The Board should conduct periodic internal and external reviews by acknowl- We are hopeful that much of our research will help shed edged experts in fields relevant to NPRB research activities. light on how marine ecosystems may respond to climate The review also will help the Board identify future directions change and recession of the sea ice cover in the Arctic for the next decade. and the Bering Sea. Our long-term goal is to contribute not only to understanding of ecosystem processes and The Board also is beginning to define its program in the responses, but also to sustainability of ocean resources Chukchi and Beaufort Seas of the high Arctic by examin- for future generations. Our progress will be described in ing other research programs and gaps and determining future biennial reports. a p p e n d i c e s North Pacific Research Board In-Depth

Gabriel Brown APPENDICES 209

Appendices

Appendix I: People Appendix II: Projects Appendix III: Publications Appendix IV: Policies

Left ro right: Mark Kelley | Jennifer Nomura | Dustin Phillips 210 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Appendix IA: NPRB Board Members

Name Affiliation Term Office Dr. James Balsiger National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2001-2005 Vice Chair, Oct 2003 - Aug 2005 David Benton North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2001-2003; 2006-2009 Chair, Feb 2001 - Aug Special Fishing Industry Representative 2003; since April 2008 Nancy Bird Oil Spill Recovery Institute 2005- current Rob Bosworth Alaska Department of Fish & Game 2002 Dr. Gary Brass U.S. Arctic Research Commission 2001-2003 Dr. Lawson Brigham U.S. Arctic Research Commission 2003-2005 Dr. Doug DeMaster National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2005-current Kevin Duffy Alaska Department of Fish & Game 2001 Dr. Ian Dutton Alaska SeaLife Center 2008 – current CAPT Michael Cerne U.S. Coast Guard 2007- current Dorothy Childers Alaska (Environmental Interest) 2004 -current Michele Longo Eder U.S. Arctic Research Commission 2005 - current John Gauvin Washington 2001- current Dr. Robert Gisiner Office of Naval Research 2003 (Oct) - 2007 CAPT Mark Guillory U.S. Coast Guard 2004 (Jul) Pete Hagen National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2003 (May) John Hilsinger Alaska Department of Fish & Game 2008- current Dr. Leslie Holland-Bartels U.S. Geological Survey 2004 - current Dr. Howard Horton Oregon 2002- current John Iani Washington 2004 - current Earl Krygier Alaska Department of Fish & Game 2003 - 2008 Stephanie Madsen North Pacific Fishery Management Council 2004 – 2007 Vice Chair, Sept 2005 - Aug 2007 Steve MacLean Alaska (Alaska Native Interest) 2008 - current Paul MacGregor Washington 2004-current Alan McCabe U.S. Coast Guard 2005 (June) - 2007 Trevor McCabe Special Fishing Industry Representative 2001 - 2004 Dr. Gary Matlock National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2007 (Sept) – 2008 (Sept) Gerry Merrigan Alaska (Fishing Interest) 2004 - current Dr. Phil Mundy Alaska (Academic Interest) 2001-2004 Chris Oliver North Pacific Fishery Management Council 2003 (Oct) – 2007 (Sept); April 2008 Eric Olson North Pacific Fishery Management Council 2007 – current Vice Chair, April 2008 CAPT Vince O’Shea U.S. Coast Guard 2001 Dr. Walter Parker Oil Spill Recovery Institute 2001 - 2004 Drue Pearce U.S. Dept. of Interior 2004 (Sept) Pam Pope Alaska (Oil and Gas Interest) 2001 – current CAPT Rich Preston U.S. Coast Guard 2001- 2004 APPENDIX IA :: NPRB BOARD MEMBERS 211

Name Affiliation Term Office Dr. Steve Ramberg Office of Naval Research 2002 Dr. John Roos Washington 2001 - 2004 Frank Rue Alaska Department of Fish & Game 2001 - 2002 Robin Samuelsen Alaska (Alaska Native Interest) 2001-2004 Dr. William Seitz U.S. Geological Survey 2001-2004 Jev Shelton Alaska (Fishing Interest) 2001 - 2004 Tylan Schrock Alaska SeaLife Center 2001-2008 Vice Chair, Mar 2002 - Oct 2003; Chair, Oct 2003 - Apr 2008 Dr. Robert Spies Alaska SeaLife Center 2008 (Sept) Dr. Jack Tagart Washington 2001 - 2004 Dr. Gary Thomas Oil Spill Recovery Institute 2001 Stetson Tinkham U.S. Department of State 2001 Dr. John White Alaska (Environmental Interest) 2001 - 2004 Dr. Denis Wiesenburg Alaska (Academic Interest) 2004 - current 212 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Appendix IB: NPRB Science Panel Members 2002-2008

Present as of Dec 2008 Dr. Vera Alexander December 2002 - present, Vice chair University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks, AK August 2003 - August 2005 Dr. Richard Beamish December 2002 - present Fisheries and Oceans Canada Nanaimo, BC Dr. James Berner December 2002 - present AK Native Tribal Health Consortium Anchorage, AK Dr. Michael Dagg March 2005 - present Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium Chauvin, LA Ms. Pat Livingston December 2007 - present NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center Seattle, WA Dr. Seth Macinko March 2005 - present University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI Dr. Richard Marasco December 2002 - December 2008, NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center Seattle, WA chairman whole time Dr. John Piatt March 2005 - present US Geological Survey Port Townsend, WA Dr. Andre Punt May 2005 - present University of Washington Seattle, WA Dr. Cheryl Rosa September 2008 - present North Slope Borough Dept. Wildlife Barrow, AK Management Dr. Tom Royer December 2002 - present Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA Dr. Pat Tester December 2002 - present NOAA-NOS Center for Coastal Fisheries and Beaufort, NC Habitat Research Mr. David Witherell December 2002 - present North Pacific Fishery Management Council Anchorage, AK

Dr. Douglas Woodby December 2002 - present; Vice Chair AK Dept. of Fish and Game Juneau, AK August 2005 - December 2008

Past Members Dr. Shannon Atkinson May 2002 - September 2008 Alaska SeaLife Center Seward, AK Dr. Douglas DeMaster May 2002 Interim Panel (Chairman) NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center Seattle, WA Dr. Donald Bowen December 2002 - September 2005 Fisheries and Ocean Canada Halifax, NS Dr. Douglas Eggers May 2002 Interim Panel AK Dept. of Fish and Game Juneau, AK Dr. Daniel Goodman December 2002 - September 2005 Montana State University Bozeman, MT Dr. Steve Hare May 2002 Interim Panel International Pacific Halibut Commission Seattle, WA Dr. Anne Hollowed December 2002 - September 2007 NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center Seattle, WA Dr. Edward Houde December 2002 - September 2003 University of Maryland Soloman, MD Dr. Gordon Kruse December 2002 - September 2004 University of Alaska Fairbanks Juneau, AK Ms. Mary Pete March 2006 - September 2008 University of Alaska Fairbanks - Kuskokwim Bethel, AK Campus

Dr. Michael Simpkins March 2006 - September 2008 U.S. Marine Mammal Commission Washington, D.C. Dr. Gary Stauffer May 2002 Interim Panel NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center Seattle, WA APPENDIX IC :: NPRB ADVISORY PANEL AND LTK COMMITTEE MEMBERS 2003-2008 213

Appendix IC: NPRB Advisory Panel and Local and Traditional Knowledge Committee Members 2003-2008

Present AP Members (as of December 2008) Helen Chythlook April 2008 - present Dillingham, AK Dr. Gary Freitag April 2008 - present Ketchikan, AK Justine Gundersen April 2008 - present Nelson Lagoon, AK Ronald Hegge May 2005 - present Grand Junction, CO Shirley Kelly March 2003 - present Vice Chairman 2008 Anchorage, AK Frank Kelty May 2005 - present Unalaska, AK Vera Metcalf April 2008 - present Nome, AK Mike Miller April 2008 - present Sitka, AK Jeff Stephan April 2008 - present Kodiak, AK Arni Thomson March 2003 - present Seattle, WA Gale Vick March 2003 - present Chairman 2008 Fairbanks, AK Kim Williams April 2008 - present Dillingham, AK

Past AP Members Michael Bradley March 2003 - March 2007 Anchorage, AK Patricia Cochran March 2003 - March 2007 Vice Chairman 2003-2007 Anchorage, AK Cora Crome March 2003 - March 2004 Petersburg, AK Dr. John Gerster March 2003 - September 2005 Anchorage, AK Simon Kinneen March 2003 - March 2005 Anchorage, AK Paul MacGregor March 2003 - March 2005 Seattle, WA Steve MacLean May 2005 - December 2007 Chairman 2007 Anchorage, AK Heather McCarty March 2003 - March 2007 Chairman 2003-2007 Juneau, AK Jon Warrenchuk October 2003 - April 2005 Juneau, AK

LTK Committee Rosemary Ahtuangaruak May 2005 - September 2007 Nuiqsut, AK Dr. James Berner May 2005 - September 2007 Anchorage, AK Michael Bradley May 2005 - September 2007 Anchorage, AK Dorothy Childers May 2005 - September 2007 Anchorage, AK Helen Chythlook May 2005 - September 2007 Dillingham. AK Justine Gundersen May 2005 - September 2007 Nelson, Lagoon, AK Ray Koonuk, Sr. May 2005 - September 2007 Point Hope, AK Steve MacLean May 2005 - September 2007 Anchorage, AK Ivan Lukin May 2005 - September 2007 Port Lions, AK Enoch Shiedt, Sr. May 2005 - September 2007 Kotzebue, AK 214 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008 APPENDIX ID :: BOARD, PANELS AND STAFF PHOTO COLLAGE 215

Appendix ID: Board, Panels and Staff Photos

Phil Mundy

Dave Benton Vince O’Shea Stephanie Madsen Paul MacGregor Gerry Merrigan

Doug DeMaster

John Iani

Michele Longo Eder

John Gauvin Earl Krygier Nancy Bird

Jim Balsiger

Tylan Schrock and son Kaden Chris Oliver Howard Horton CAPT Mike Cerne Denis Wiesenburg Eric Olson Ian Dutton

John Hilsinger

Bob Gisiner

Shannon Atkinson Lawson Brigham Steve MacLean

Robin Samuelsen

Dorothy Childers

Rich Marasco Richard Beamish

James Berner Pamela Pope Trevor McCabe

Gordon Kruse Vera Alexander Leslie Holland-Bartels 215b NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008 APPENDIX ID :: BOARD, PANELS AND STAFF PHOTO COLLAGE 215c

Anne Hollowed

Heather McCarty Patricia Cochran Gale Vick Ronald Hegge Dan Goodman Jon Warrenchuk Dave Witherell

Tom Royer

Patricia Tester

Frank Kelty Gary Freitag Vera Metcalf Jeff Stephan Kim Williams

Doug Woodby Gary Stauffer Michael Dagg

Jim “Two Crow” Schumacher Kellee Weaver Tara Riemer Jones

Andre Punt

Seth Macinko

Michael Simpkins

John Piatt

Pat Livingston

Nancy Anderson Carl Schoch

Clarence Pautzke with his close advisors, wife Maureen and son Brian.

Carolyn Rosner Cheryl Rosa

Helen Chythlook

Arni Thomson Nora Deans

Thomas Van Pelt Shirley Kelly

Igor Katrayev Carrie Eischens Francis Wiese 216 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008 APPENDIX IIA :: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RESOLUTION 2002–2009 217

Appendix IIA: North Pacific Research Board: Request for Proposal (RFP) Evolution 2002–2009 Requests for proposals have been aligned with the NPRB Science Plan. Project topics summarize original language in each RFP. This file is available at www.nprb.org/proposals/evolution.html. 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 Lower trophic level productivity Ocean monitoring Ocean monitoring Ocean monitoring Ocean monitoring Ocean monitoring Oceanography and Lower Trophic Level Productivity Oceanography and Lower Trophic Level Productivity • Factors affecting marine productivity • Long term monitoring of NPZ • Long term monitoring of NPZ • Determining ecosystem status • CPR, M2–M8 buoys, GAK Line (non-RFP) • Long-term ocean monitoring • Coupling between shelf, nearshore and inland waters in the Alaska • Importance of ocean fronts to ecosystem processes in the GOA • Influence of climate on ecosystems Coastal Current (ACC) as well as the importance of freshwater • Coupling between shelf, nearshore and inland waters in the Alaska Lower Lower trophic level productivity Lower trophic level productivity Lower trophic level productivity Lower trophic level productivity • Unusual events Also: Special Need 6 runoff Coastal Current (ACC) and the importance of freshwater runoff • Factors affecting marine productivity • Factors affecting marine productivity • Research related to Table 3-2, Science Plan • Shelf-inland water coupling in ACC; importance of freshwater runoff Trophic Level (e.g., coccolithophorid blooms) • Population dynamics, distribution and abundance, productivity and • Changing Arctic food webs • Influence of climate on ecosystems • Influence of climate on ecosystems • Seasonal/interannual variation in • Ecosystem models for managers trophic roles of appendicularians and pteropods Productivity • Unusual events primary and secondary production in SE GOA • Oceanic zooplankton species in shelf food webs: on-shelf transport (e.g., coccolithophorid blooms) Also: Special Needs 3, 4 • Benthos (Science Plan page 41) processes • Ecosystem models for managers • Process driving secondary production • Euphausiid biology • Coral/sensitive substrate habitat maps • Coral/sensitive substrate habitat maps • Coral/sensitive substrate habitat maps • Coral/sensitive substrate habitat maps • Recovery/resilience of fish habitat • Recovery/resilience of fish habitat • Habitat mapping in the Northern Bering Sea Research Area • Bering Sea canyons: comparison between canyon and slope • Factors affecting habitat • Factors affecting habitat • Factors affecting habitat • Effects of commercial fishing on groundfish essential habitat • Research related to Table 3-3, Science Plan • Effects of commercial fishing on groundfish essential habitat habitats using existing data Fish Habitat • Impacts of fisheries and other human • Impacts of fisheries and other human influences • Impacts of fisheries/human influences • Ecosystem function of different habitats • Pribilof Canyon benthic habitat mapping influences • Fishery management tools to protect habitat • Fisheries impacts on prey/predators Also: Special Need 1 • Essential habitats for forage fish in the GOA (Science Plan page 51) • Fishery management tools to protect habitat • Evaluation of fish/habitat associations

Bycatch Bycatch Bycatch Stock assessment/recruitment processes Bycatch Bycatch • Local impacts of fishing on prey availability for top trophic level • Stock assessment, life history and population biology of North • Bycatch assessment and reduction • Bycatch and mortality assessment and reduction techniques • Bycatch and mortality assessment and reduction techniques • Spatially explicit pollock assessments • Reduction of bycatch and bycatch rates • Bycatch estimation consumers Pacific sharks techniques • Stock composition research on bycatch species in • Stock composition research on bycatch species in groundfish • Life history information gaps • Stock assessment and life history of sleeper and salmon sharks • Stock assessment support Stock assessment/recruitment processes Stock assessment/recruitment processes groundfish fisheries fisheries • Crab life history and ecology • Skate nurseries • Fish movement Stock assessment/recruitment • Life history, ecology and fluctuations in BSAI crab stocks • Life history, ecology and fluctuations in BSAI crab stocks • Info on lesser-known, non-target finfish spp. • Research related to Table 3-4, Science Plan • Rockfish processes Stock assessment/recruitment processes • Shark, skate, squid, sculpin and octopus stock • Local impacts of fishing on prey of upper trophic level consumers • Efficacy of bycatch mitigation measures Fishes and • Stock assessment techniques and • Improve stock assessment techniques and mortality Stock assessment/recruitment processes assessment and life history • Squid and shark assessment Also: Special Need 7 • Processes controlling recruitment dynamics for all crab species larval fish ecology estimates • Improve stock assessment techniques and mortality estimates • Migration patterns and spatial connectivity • Research related to Table 3-4, Science Plan and North Pacific Fishery Invertebrates • Over-winter survival of Pacific salmon species • Salmon stock dynamics, mortality and • Interdependence of fisheries or stocks • Factors affecting stock dynamics and dist. • Seasonal diets of exploited fish stocks Management Council Research Priorities • Pacific cod (Science Plan page 65) migration • Salmon stock dynamics, mortality, migration • Fishing effects on life histories/genetics • Research related to Table 3-4, Science Plan • Genetic identification of salmon stocks • Delineations of stock boundaries Fishery management/economics • Fishing capacity reduction Fishery management/economics Fishery management/economics • Economic impacts of management including capacity • Socio-economic impacts, including capacity reduction/habitat reduction protection • Stressed/endangered species survival • Stressed/endangered species survival • Factors, including fisheries, affecting pinnipeds (excluding • Ice seal studies • Ice seal and walrus distribution/abundance • Sea otters • Ice seals • Study design for quantifying indirect local effects of fisheries on Marine • Responses to ocean climate trends • Responses to ocean climate trends and prey availability Steller sea lions) and cetaceans • Northern fur seal studies • Northern right whale distribution/abundance • North Pacific right whales • Steller sea lions upper trophic predators Mammals and prey availability • Research related to Table 3-9, Science Plan • Cook Inlet beluga whales • Pacific walrus in the Chukchi Sea • Small or declining populations Also: Special Need 1 Also: Special Need 1 • Polar bears • Polar bears (Science Plan page 83) • Fur seals

• Stressed/endangered species survival • Stressed/endangered species survival • Fisheries and other factors affecting seabirds and seaducks Also: Special Needs 1, 5 • Distribution/abundance of seabirds at sea • Seabirds as indicators of forage fish • Seabird-ecosystem relationships • Influence of non-breeding season conditions on population dynamics Seabirds • Responses to ocean climate trends • Responses to ocean climate trends and prey availability • Demographic parameters • Beached bird monitoring program • Indirect and long-term population effect of contaminants • Seabird-forage fish ecosystem relationships and prey availability Also: Special Need 1 • Human impacts during migration and overwintering • Stressed and endangered species survival • Spectacled eiders (Science Plan page 97) • Small or declining populations

• - - - • - - - • - - - • Connecting fisheries, management and science • Research related to Table 3-13, Science Plan • Research related to Table 3-13, Science Plan and North Pacific • Analyses of current determinants of exvessel, wholesale, • - - - • Fisheries management systems and stewardship of living marine Fishery Management Council Research Priorities international, and retail demands for principal seafood products from resources the GOA and BSAI • Conflict elimination in statutes, regulations • Pre- and post-implementation studies of the benefits and costs • Strengthening international agreements associated with changes in management regimes Humans • Impact of public participation in management • Prospective and retrospective analyses of changes in the spatial (Science Plan page 113) • Fisheries history and temporal distribution of fishing effort • Regulatory enforcement/compliance • Fishing safety measures analysis

Also: Special Needs 8,9 Contaminants Contaminants Contaminants Contaminants Contaminants Contaminants Contaminants Marine Diseases • Sources, transport, and accumulation • Sources, transport, and accumulation • Sources, transport, and accumulation • Sources, transport, and accumulation • Sources, transport, effects and accumulation in • Shipping risk assessment studies • Long-term contamination Technology Development Other • Effects on ecosystem structure and • Effects on ecosystem structure and function • Effects on ecosystem structure and function • Effects on ecosystem structure and function subsistence, recreational and commercial spp., and other • Other • Point source contamination • Molecular and laboratory-based technology development function • Effects of climate change ecosystem components Prominent • Marine measurement technology development • Effects of climate change • Oil spills, logging runoff, coastal development • Shipping risk assessment studies Issues • Predictive model development (Science Plan page 123) Invasive species • Origins and impacts • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - Aleutian Islands Aleutian Islands • Nearshore dynamics of the Aleutian Islands • Nearshore dynamics of the Aleutian Islands • Ecosystem impacts of climate and ocean conditions in the Aleutian • Population structure Ecosystem Islands • Impacts of volcanic activity • Fishing effect interactions Studies Ecosystem indicators and data rescue • Advancing ecosystem approach to fisheries management • Data rescue (Science Plan page 133) • Development of forecasting tools that incorporate ecosystem indicators • Ecosystem indicators • Ecosystem indicators incl.retrospective studies

218 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008 APPENDIX IIA :: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RESOLUTION 2002–2009 219

Appendix IIA continued

2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 • - - - • Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands LME planning • Response of the Bering Sea ecosystem to climate change: modeling and • Response of the Bering Sea ecosystem to climate change: • Program funded for 2007–2012: BEST/BSIERP partnership, $35M • Program ongoing Bering Sea IERP Also: Special Need 2 retrospective studies full RFP for BSAI IERP (Science Plan page 133) Also: Special Need 2 • BSIERP LME team established

• - - - • - - - • GOA LME planning • GOA LME team established • GOA LME planning with team • GOA LME implementation and partnerships • GOA IERP funded for $9M 2009–2014; Upper Trophic Level Gulf of AK IERP component funded (Science Plan page 136)

• - - - 1. Develop methods for remote sensing of upper trophic level 9. Develop methods for remote sensing of upper trophic level 18. Marine habitat mapping technology workshop (615) 19. 1 Establish a comprehensive sea ice database for the • - - - • - - - abundance abundance Bering Sea Bering Strait region 2. Evaluate ecosystem indicators 10. Evaluate ecosystem indicators (502) 20. 2 Compile and analyze chlorophyll data 3. Forage Fish stock assessment methodologies (401) 11. Arctic Ocean Synthesis (503) 21. 3 Design arctic baseline survey north of Bering Strait 4. Evaluation of ocean circulation models 12. Ecosystem modeling assessment conference (EMC) One-Time 5. Education and Outreach (402) 13. Evaluate seabirds as ecosystem indicators (516) 6. Alaska Marine Information System (404) 14. Evaluate Plankton monitoring methods Special Needs 7. Arctic Ocean Synthesis 15. Analysis of ongoing salmon programs (504) 8. Southeast Alaska Synthesis (406) 16. Evaluation of bio-economic models for regulatory impact assessments 17. Synthesis of subsistence data availability and sampling programs • Need for LTK emphasized in text • Need for LTK emphasized in text • Need for LTK emphasized in text • Need for LTK emphasized in text • LTK encouraged in text • LTK encouraged in text • LTK encouraged in text • LTK encouraged in text Local and Traditional • LTK related to other priorities • LTK related to other priorities • LTK related to other priorities • LTK related to other priorities Knowledge Also: Community Involvement Also: Community Involvement Also: Community Involvement Also: Community Involvement (Science Plan page 144)

• - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - Oil Spill Recovery Institute Oil Spill Recovery Institute Oil Spill Recovery Institute Oil Spill Recovery Institute • Forage fish • Socio-economics: modeling community impacts • Socio-economics: modeling community impacts • Prince William Sound NPZ model validation Coordination and • Tracking and monitoring marine organisms • Contaminant baseline assessment • Rockfish habitat association in Prince William Sound • Forage fish and near-shore habitat associations • Larval drift, transport and distribution in Prince William Sound Partnerships Alaska Ocean Observing System (Science Plan page 147) • Evaluation of buoy locations

• - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • Cooperative research encouraged in text Fishing Industry Fishing Industry Fishing Industry • Gear modification • Gear modification • Fisheries monitoring and improved estimation of total bycatch • Fisheries monitoring • Fisheries monitoring • Electronic monitoring • Bycatch remediation • Bycatch reduction • Gear modification • Ecosystem monitoring • Ecosystem monitoring and research • Bycatch reduction and reduction in bycatch mortality • Whale entanglement avoidance and deterrents • Avoidance of interactions between fishing gear and whales Oil and Gas Industry • Habitat mapping • Regulatory compliance and effectiveness of fishery enforcement Cooperative • Seaduck migration and impacts services Research • Walrus in Chukchi Sea Oil and Gas Industry • Polar bears in Chukchi Sea • Polar Bears Oil and Gas Industry with Industry • North Slope salmon • Marine mammal acoustic studies • Polar bears (Science Plan page 148) • Shoreline change • Species of special concern • Ice Seals • Shoreline change • Salmon distribution • Invertebrate distribution and abundance • Influence of oil and gas development on marine bird distribution, migration and habitat use

Education and Outreach Education and Outreach Education and Outreach Education and Outreach Education and Outreach Education and Outreach Education and Outreach Education and Outreach • Minimum $500 per project • Minimum $1,500 per project • Minimum $2,000 per project • Minimum $2,000 per project • Minimum $2,000 per project • $60,000 to outreach professionals (BSIERP) • $100,000 (BSIERP) • $100,000 (BSIERP) Education, Outreach • Minimum $2,000 per project (non-BSIERP) • Minimum $2,000 per project (non-BSIERP) • Minimum $2,000 per project (non-BSIERP) Community Involvement Community Involvement Community Involvement Community Involvement Community Involvement • Graduate research awards ($100,000) • Graduate research awards ($100,000) and Community • Encouraged in text • Encouraged in text • Encouraged in text • Encouraged in text • Pilot project for community-based observation system Community Involvement • Student awards at Symposium • Student awards at Symposium • Community-based research Involvement • State Science Fair awards Community Involvement (Science Plan page 150) • Community-based research Community Involvement • Community-based research

220 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Appendix IIB: Funding by Institution

Regular Project % of Funding BSIERP NPRB Institute Institute Type 2002-2008 Project Funding Total Funds Central Michigan University Academic $15,926 $15,926 0.03 Federal State Educational Institution for Higher Academic $40,000 $40,000 0.08 Vocational Education - Vyatka State Agricultural Academy Louisiana State University Academic $40,688 $40,688 0.08 Memorial University of Newfoundland Academic $134,833 $134,833 0.27 Old Dominion University Academic $8,185 $8,185 0.02 Oregon State University Academic $1,190,176 $1,674,444 $2,864,620 5.83 Portland State University Academic $100,000 $100,000 0.20 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Academic $69,916 $69,916 0.14 San Jose State University Research Foundation Academic $499,716 $499,716 1.02 Texas A&M University Academic $109,699 $109,699 0.22 University of Alaska Anchorage Academic $41,202 $41,202 0.08 University of Alaska Southeast Academic $1,037,237 $1,037,237 2.11 University of Alaska Fairbanks Academic $7,544,367 $2,420,208 $9,964,575 20.28 University of British Columbia Academic $18,105 $1,018,218 $1,036,323 2.11 University of California - LA Academic $200,000 $200,000 0.41 University of California - San Diego Academic $636,432 $636,432 1.30 University of California - Santa Cruz Academic $0 $365,536 $365,536 0.74 University of Colorado Academic $99,987 $99,987 0.20 University of Hawaii Academic $29,910 $29,910 0.06 University of Iowa Academic $39,769 $39,769 0.08 University of Maryland Academic $84,926 $414,514 $499,440 1.02 University of New Hampshire Academic $64,152 $64,152 0.13 University of Rhode Island Academic $23,948 $20,000 $43,948 0.09 University of Southern Mississippi Academic $140,612 $140,612 0.29 University of Washington Academic $2,303,622 $2,027,190 $4,330,812 8.81 University of Wyoming Academic $337,602 $337,602 0.69 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Academic $75,000 $75,000 0.15 Yale University Academic $115,690 $115,690 0.24 Aleut Community of St. Paul Alaskan village $59,693 $102,003 $161,696 0.33 Aleut International Association Alaskan village $103,349 $103,349 0.21 Aleut Pribilof Island Association Alaskan village $72,106 $72,106 0.15 Togiak Alaskan village $0 $29,822 $29,822 0.06 Coastal and Ocean Resources Inc. Consultant $120,000 $120,000 0.24 Digital Observer Inc., LLC Consultant $165,000 $165,000 0.34 Ecotrust Consultant $94,220 $65,009 $159,229 0.32 EDAW Consultant $94,999 $94,999 0.19 Farallon Institute Consultant $34,026 $34,026 0.07 Golder Associates Consultant $75,000 $75,000 0.15 Hamachan Consulting Consultant $20,500 $20,500 0.04 Huntington Consulting Consultant $0 $284,680 $284,680 0.58 Kawerak Consulting Consultant $181,368 $181,368 0.37 Knudsen Consultant $99,850 $99,850 0.20 APPENDIX II :: FUNDING BY INSTITUTION 221

Regular Project % of Funding BSIERP NPRB Institute Institute Type 2002-2008 Project Funding Total Funds Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. Consultant $24,930 $24,930 0.05 SCITECH Consultant $140,650 $140,650 0.29 SigmaPlus Consultant $0 $198,428 $198,428 0.40 System Science Applications Consultant $84,316 $84,316 0.17 NIOSH Federal $29,781 $29,781 0.06 NIST Federal $104,772 $104,772 0.21 NOAA - AFSC Federal $7,174,115 $2,560,397 $9,734,512 19.81 NOAA - ETL Federal $108,800 $108,800 0.22 NOAA - NWFSC Federal $90,238 $90,238 0.18 NOAA - PMEL Federal $1,204,611 $509,126 $1,713,737 3.49 NOAA - SWFSC Federal $147,663 $147,663 0.30 NOS Federal $99,677 $99,677 0.20 USFWS Federal $1,256,104 $1,521,555 $2,777,659 5.65 USGS Federal $853,341 $513,119 $1,366,460 2.78 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada International $100,000 $100,000 0.20 International Pacific Halibut Commision International $78,080 $78,080 0.16 North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission International $312,510 $312,510 0.64 North Pacific Marine Science Foundation International $48,710 $48,710 0.10 (NPUMMC) PICES International $64,587 $64,587 0.13 Alaska SeaLife Center NGO $1,442,317 $1,442,317 2.93 Bering Sea Fisheries Research Foundation NGO $459,900 $459,900 0.94 Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute NGO $174,218 $174,218 0.35 Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation NGO $145,561 $145,561 0.30 Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission NGO $195,893 $195,893 0.40 Point Reyes Bird Observatory NGO $432,714 $432,714 0.88 Prince William Sound Science Center NGO $548,588 $548,588 1.12 Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science NGO $429,995 $429,995 0.87 NPRB* NPRB $0 $2,015,384 $2,015,384 4.10 Alaska Department of Fish & Game State $1,275,625 $253,500 $1,529,125 3.11 Grand Total $33,149,507 $15,993,133 $49,142,640 100.00

Institution Type Percentage of Funding Academic 47% Alaskan village 1% Consultant 3% Federal 33% International 1% NGO 8% NPRB* 4% State 3% Grand Total 100% * NPRB funding for BSIERP includes Education & Outreach, Program Management and direct funding for some LTK and Patch items (e.g., tags) which avoids indirect costs. 222 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Appendix IIC: Funded Research Projects

First number in the project number relates to the calendar year in which the project was recommended for funding by NPRB and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. For example, project 302 was funded in 2003.

# Budget Project Title Investigators Institutions 201 $120,000 Pilot nearshore habitat mapping using acoustic Brian Bornhold (PI), Brenda Coastal and Ocean Resources, Inc. and visual techniques. Burd (PI), William Collins (PI), John Harper (PI), Pam Thuringer (PI), Sheri Ward (PI)

202 $121,918 Application of new sonar technology to reduc- Craig Rose (PI) NOAA - AFSC ing salmon bycatch in pollock fisheries and other North Pacific fishery and ecosystem issues. 203 $120,690 Continuation of long-term observations on Jeffery Napp (PI), Phyllis NOAA - AFSC, NOAA - PMEL, University of Bering Sea shelf: biophysical moorings at sites Stabeno (PI), Terry Whitledge Alaska Fairbanks 2 and 4. (PI)

204 $190,800 NPAFC Salmon Tagging Vladimir Fedorenko (PI), Jack North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Helle (PI) 205 $216,515 Genetic stock identification of Western Alaska James Seeb (PI), Richard Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, NOAA - AFSC sockeye salmon. Wilmot (PI) 206 $60,009 Integration of marine bird and mammal obser- David Hyrenbach (PI), William Duke University, Point Reyes Bird Observatory vations with the continuous plankton recorder Sydeman (PI) program.

207 $124,084 A protocol for detection of change in the Bering Anne Hollowed (PI), James NOAA - AFSC, NOAA - PMEL Sea ecosystem. Overland (PI), Nancy Soreide (PI) 208 $131,408 Environmental cues for Pacific herring spawn- Gordon Kruse (PI), David University of Alaska Fairbanks ing in northern Bristol Bay. Musgrave (PI) 209 $76,776 Two species of rougheye rockfishes in the Anthony Gharrett (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks northern Gulf of Alaska. 210 $24,782 Nutritional quality of Alaskan fish for predators. Michael Castellini (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks 211 $21,661 Sinking particles/pelagic food webs in the Susan Henrichs (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks Southeast Bering Sea.

301 $261,102 Evaluation of emergent structure in low-relief Alisa Abookire (PI), Ian NOAA - AFSC, Oregon State University benthic habitats as a criterion for defining the Fleming (PI), Clifford Ryer essential fish habitat of juvenile North Pacific (PI), Allan Stoner (PI) flatfishes.

302 $179,995 A continuous plankton recorder survey of the Sonia Batten (PI), David Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Kintama North Pacific and southern Bering Sea. Welch (PI) Research, Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science 303 $499,080 North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Syuiti Abe (PI), James Seeb Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Hokkaido Cooperative Research: Use of genetic stock (PI), Shigehiko Urawa (PI), University, National Salmon Resources Center identification to determine the distribution, Richard Wilmot (PI) Japan, NOAA-AFSC migration, early marine survival, and relative stock abundance of sockeye and chum salmon in the Bering Sea. APPENDIX IIC :: FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS 223

# Budget Project Title Investigators Institutions 304 $1,303,001 Deep sea coral distribution and habitat in the Jonathan Heifetz (PI), Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, NOAA - AFSC, Aleutian Archipelago. Jennifer Reynolds (PI), University of Alaska Fairbanks Douglas Woodby (PI) 305 $350,000 Monitoring and modeling predator-prey rela- Patricia Livingston (PI) NOAA - AFSC tionships 306 $99,805 Species identity and life history of Lorenz Hauser (PI), Pamela Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, NOAA - AFSC, Hematodinium, the causative agent of bit- Jensen (PI), Frank Morado University of Washington ter crab syndrome in Northeast Pacific snow (PI), Douglas Woodby (PI) (opilio) and Tanner (bairdi) crabs 307 $56,117 Bering Sea right whales: ongoing research and John Hildebrand (PI) Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University public outreach. of California San Diego 308 $320,000 Forage fishes in the western Gulf of Alaska: Kevin Bailey (PI), Janet NOAA - AFSC variation in productivity. Duffy-Anderson (PI), Jeffery Napp (PI), Jari Paakkonen (PI), Matt Wilson (PI) 309 $184,518 Sperm whale and longline fisheries interactions Greg Beam (PI), Linda Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Alaska Longline in the Gulf of Alaska. Behnken (PI), Ann Bowles Fishermen's Association, Hubbs-Sea World (PI), Stephen Insley (PI), Sarah Research Institute, University of California Mesnick (PI), Tory O'Connell Santa Cruz, NOAA - SWFSC, University of (PI), Janice Straley (PI) Alaska Southeast

310 $400,022 Estuaries as essential fish habitat for salmo- Mary Bishop (PI), Sean Prince William Sound Science Center, US nids: assessing residence time and habitat Powers (PI), Gordon Reeves Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research use of coho and sockeye salmon in Alaska (PI) Station estuaries. 311 $43,066 Establishing a statewide data warehouse of Beverly Agler (PI) Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game salmon size, age and growth records. 312 $149,962 Ice seal bio-monitoring in the Bering-Chukchi Lori Quakenbush (PI), Gay Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game Sea region. Sheffield (PI) 313 $172,886 Effects of prey availability and predation risk on Gail Blundell (PI), Lawrence Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Simon Fraser the foraging ecology and demography of harbor Dill (PI), Alejandro Frid (PI) University seals in Prince William Sound: development and test of a dynamic state variable model. 314 $92,920 Thermal habitat preferences of Pacific halibut Tim Loher (PI), Heather Heather McCarty and Associates, International and the potential influence of hydrographic McCarty (PI) Pacific Halibut Commission variability on a local coastal fishery. 315 $320,212 Continuation of long-term observations on the Jeffrey Napp (PI), James NOAA - AFSC, NOAA - PMEL, University of Bering Sea shelf: Biophysical moorings at sites Overland (PI), Phyllis Stabeno Alaska Fairbanks 2 and 4. (PI), Terry Whitledge (PI) 316 $85,561 Essential fish habitat for blue king crab, Phase Bradley Stevens (PI) NOAA - AFSC 1: Development of cultivation techniques for blue king crab larvae. 317 $24,930 Pre-season forecast of Bristol Bay sockeye Greg Ruggerone (PI) Natural Resource Consultants Inc. salmon migration timing based on oceanographic and biological variables. 318 $45,000 Development of comprehensive baseline com- Mike Downs (PI) EDAW, Inc mercial fishing community engagement and dependency profiles for the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Western Gulf of Alaska regions. 319 $68,198 Retrospective study of pigmented macrophage Gary Marty (PI) University of California Davis aggregates as markers of Pacific herring population health. 320 $900,000 Regime forcing and ecosystem response in the Sara Iverson (PI), Alexander Dalhousie University, University of Alaska Bering Sea (ReFER): Phase II. Kitaysky (PI), Alan Springer (PI) Fairbanks, University of Washington 224 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

# Budget Project Title Investigators Institutions 321 $192,850 Evaluation of alternative hypotheses to explain Mike Link (PI), Greg Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute, the collapse of the Kvichak sockeye salmon: a Ruggerone (PI) Natural Resource Consultants Inc. project to catalyze a comprehensive, hypotheses-driven research program. 322 $99,321 Spatial and temporal interactions between Greg Balogh (PI), Ed Melvin Australian Antarctic Division, Oregon State endangered short-tailed albatrosses and North (PI), Graham Robertson (PI), University, University of Washington Sea Grant, Pacific commercial fisheries. Rob Suryan (PI) US Fish & Wildlife Service 324 $161,700 Bering Sea wintering grounds of beluga Rod Hobbs (PI), Denis Litovka Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Pacific whales. (PI), Gregory O’Corry-Crowe Scientific Research Fisheries Institute, NOAA - (PI), Jack Orr (PI), Pierre AFSC, NOAA - SWFSC Richard (PI) 325 $165,000 Video monitoring aboard Bering Sea factory Stosh Anderson (PI), Mark Digital Observer LLC trawlers - a pilot study. Buckley (PI) 326 $100,000 Enhancing rural high school involvement in Susan Sugai (PI) Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska North Pacific resource issues through par- Fairbanks ticipation in Alaska Regional National Ocean Sciences Bowl. 327 $624,025 Early marine ecology of juvenile chum salmon Lewis Haldorson (PI), Nicola University of Alaska Fairbanks, USGS Alaska in Kuskokwim Bay, Alaska. Hillgruber (PI), Christian Science Center Zimmerman (PI) 401 $499,236 Survey strategies for assessment of Bering Sea Mark Benfield (PI), Evelyn Louisiana State University, NOAA - ETL, forage species. Brown (PI), James Churnside NOAA - AFSC, University of Alaska Fairbanks, (PI), Nicola Hillgruber (PI), University of Washington John Horne (PI), Sandra Parker-Stetter (PI), Mike Sigler (PI) 402 $74,949 Evaluation of ocean circulation models for the Albert Hermann (PI), David NOAA - PMEL, University of Alaska Fairbanks Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Region. Musgrave (PI) 403 $103,000 Building an education and outreach program Steve Carrick (PI), Amy Alaska SeaLife Center for the North Pacific Research Board. Haddow (PI) 404 $149,979 Alaska Marine Information System Dale Kiefer (PI), Karen Stocks University of California San Diego, System (PI) Science Applications 406 $120,408 Synthesis of marine biology and oceanography Ginny Eckert (PI), Lisa Eisner NOAA - AFSC, University of Alaska Southeast of southeast Alaska. (PI) 407 $188,963 Kelp-grazer interactions in Kachemak Bay, Katrin Iken (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks Alaska: Grazing activity, chemical defenses and resource allocation in selected kelp species. 409 $255,690 Integration of marine bird and mammal obser- David Hyrenbach (PI), William Duke University, Point Reyes Bird Observatory vations with the Pacific continuous plankton Sydeman (PI) recorder (CPR) program: temporal variability in ecosystem structure across three basins. 410 $170,204 Long-term observations on the Bering Sea shelf Jeffery Napp (PI), Phyllis NOAA - AFSC, NOAA - PMEL, University of (2004-2005): biophysical moorings at sites 2 and Stabeno (PI), Terry Whitledge Alaska Fairbanks 4 as sentinels for ecosystem change. (PI) 411 $168,444 Investigations into dietary specialization of Amy Hirons (PI), Peggy Krahn NOAA - AFSC, NOAA - NWFSC, University of killer whales in the Bering Sea and Aleutian (PI), Paul Wade (PI) Alaska Fairbanks Islands. 412 $68,626 Sperm whale and longline fisheries interac- William Kuperman (PI), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University tions in the Gulf of Alaska: passive acoustic Janice Straley (PI), Aaron of Southeast Sitka Campus component. Thode (PI) APPENDIX IIC :: FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS 225

# Budget Project Title Investigators Institutions 413 $131,476 Tufted puffins as biological indicators of forage C. Loren Buck (PI), Cory University of Alaska Fairbanks fish availability in the western Gulf of Alaska. Williams (PI) 414 $244,000 Seasonal foraging strategies and consequenc- Rolf Ream (PI), Alan Springer NOAA - AFSC, University of Alaska Fairbanks es for Northern Fur Seals at Colonies with (PI) opposite population trends. 415 $140,936 Investigations of a skate nursery area in the Gerald R. Hoff (PI) NOAA - AFSC eastern Bering Sea. 416 $143,384 Determining the ecological value of habitat to Jennifer Boldt (PI), NOAA - AFSC juvenile rockfish in the Aleutian Islands. Chris Rooper (PI), Mark Zimmermann (PI) 417 $200,000 Reproductive ecology of Atka mackerel, Shannon Atkinson (PI), Nicola Alaska SeaLife Center, NOAA - AFSC, University Pleurogrammus monopterygius, in Alaska. Hillgruber (PI), Robert Lauth of Alaska Fairbanks (PI), Susanne McDermott (PI) 418 $171,006 Abundance, life history, and population demo- Vincent Gallucci (PI), Gordon University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of graphics of spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias. Kruse (PI) Washington 419 $90,000 Modeling of multispecies groundfish interac- Patricia Livingston (PI) NOAA - AFSC tions in the eastern Bering Sea. 420 $105,000 Interannual and spatial variation in population Anthony Gharrett (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks genetic composition of northeastern Gulf of Alaska young-of-the-year Pacific ocean perch. 421 $48,402 Identification of polybrominated diphenyl ethers Lisa Hoferkamp (PI), Sherry University of Alaska Southeast (PBDEs) in sediments and biota in a pristine Tamone (PI) southeast Alaska watershed and near a municipal waste landfill in Juneau, Alaska. 422 $108,820 Ecological implications of fisheries-based Ellen Lance (PI), Kimberly US Fish & Wildlife Service economical development in Nelson Lagoon: Trust (PI) Steller's eider critical habitat. 423 $80,000 An international market model for red king Joshua Greenberg (PI), Mark University of Alaska Anchorage, University of (Paralithodes camtschaticus), blue king (P. Herrmann (PI) Alaska Fairbanks platypus), golden king (Lithodes aequispinus), tanner (Chinoecetes Bairdi) and snow (Chinoecetes opilio) crab. 501 $160,600 Remote monitoring of survival and short-range Gail Blundell (PI) Alaska Dept of Fish and Game year-round movements of harbor seals in Prince William Sound 502 $99,957 Integration of ecological indicators for the Alex Bychkov (PI), James NOAA - PMEL, PICES North Pacific with emphasis on the Bering Sea: Overland (PI) A workshop approach. 503 $195,437 Arctic Ocean synthesis. Russell Hopcroft (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks 504 $99,850 Analysis of ongoing salmon programs. Eric Knudsen (PI) Consulting Fisheries Scientist 505 $63,996 Walleye pollock in the Eastern Bering Sea: A Terrance Quinn (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks spatially explicit model. 506 $133,938 Factors influencing the mortality of tagged Robert Foy (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks, walleye pollock captured using a trawl net. 507 $172,863 Essential habitat for Pribilof Island Blue King C. Loren Buck (PI), Bradley NOAA - AFSC, University of Alaska Fairbanks Crab, phase 2. Stevens (PI) 226 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

# Budget Project Title Investigators Institutions 508 $206,353 Female reproductive output of snow crab in David Armstrong (PI), Billy Centro National Patagonico & Dept. of eastern Bering Sea. Ernst (PI), Timothy Essington Oceanography, University of Concepcion, Chile, (PI), Patricia Livingston (PI), NOAA - AFSC, University of Washington Lobo Orensanz (PI) 509 $120,699 Retrospective analysis of Kodiak red king crab. Gordon Kruse (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks 510 $199,069 Skate life history and demography. Gregor Cailliet (PI), Dave Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Ebert (PI) 511 $320,395 Spiny dogfish in Alaska. Vincent Gallucci (PI), Gordon University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Kruse (PI) Washington 512 $116,830 Juvenile Pacific ocean perch genetics, phase 2. Anthony Gharrett (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks 513 $295,824 Winter movements of fur seal pups. Russ Andrews (PI), Randall Alaska SeaLife Center, Texas A&M University Davis (PI) 514 $420,339 Consequences of fur seal foraging strategies. Rolf Ream (PI), Alan Springer NOAA - AFSC, University of Alaska Fairbanks (PI) 515 $203,644 Ice seal movements. Peter Boveng (PI), Brendan NOAA - AFSC, NOAA - NMML, University of Kelly (PI) Alaska Southeast 516 $200,000 Seabirds as indicators of marine ecosystems. Vernon Byrd (PI), David Point Reyes Bird Observatory, University of Irons (PI), John Piatt (PI), Alaska Fairbanks, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Alan Springer (PI), William USGS Alaska Science Center Sydeman (PI) 517 $345,966 Sentinels for Bering Sea ecosystem change. Jeffery Napp (PI), Phyllis NOAA - AFSC, NOAA - PMEL, University of Stabeno (PI), Terry Whitledge Alaska Fairbanks (PI) 518 $155,248 Bering Sea whales and oceanography. David Mellinger (PI), Sue NOAA - NMML, Oregon State University Moore (PI) 519 $30,000 Bering Sea whale acoustics. John Hildebrand (PI) Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego 520 $420,000 Gulf of Alaska Long-Term Observations. Russell Hopcroft (PI), Tom University of Alaska Fairbanks Weingarter, (PI), Terry Whitledge (PI) 521 $100,000 A profiling echosounder for North Pacific David Mackas (PI), Svein Institute of Ocean Sciences, Dept. of Fisheries monitoring. Vagle (PI) and Oceans Canada 522 $499,630 Reproductive biology of Atka mackerel. Shannon Atkinson (PI), Mike Alaska SeaLife Center, NOAA - AFSC, University Canino (PI), Nicola Hillgruber of Alaska Fairbanks (PI), Susanne McDermott (PI) 523 $131,251 Pollock recruitment and stock structure. Martin Dorn (PI), Albert NOAA - AFSC, NOAA - PMEL, University of Hermann (PI), Sarah Hinckley Washington (PI), John Horne (PI), Bern Megrey (PI), Carolina Parada (PI) 524 $70,017 Productivity of capelin and pollock. Janet Duffy-Anderson (PI), NOAA - AFSC Patricia Livingston (PI), Elizabeth Logerwell (PI), Matt Wilson (PI) 525 $183,679 Modeling multispecies groundfish interactions. Kerim Aydin (PI), James NOAA - AFSC Ianelli (PI) APPENDIX IIC :: FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS 227

# Budget Project Title Investigators Institutions 527 $172,507 Evaluation of sperm whale deterrents. Linda Behnken (PI), William Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, Kuperman (PI), Sarah Groundfish Project Leader Region 1, Scripps Mesnick (PI), Victoria O' Institution of Oceanography, NOAA - SWFSC, Connell (PI), Janice Straley University of Alaska Southeast (PI), Aaron Thode (PI) 528 $94,220 Socioeconomic baseline information for the Astrid Scholz (PI) Ecotrust Pribilof Islands. 529 $61,194 Valuation of habitat closures Matt Berman (PI), Ussif University of Alaska Anchorage, University of Sumaila (PI) British Columbia 530 $89,640 Institutions for ecosystem-based management: David Fluharty (PI) University of Washington Alaska 531 $31,234 Seabird-fish models. William Sydeman (PI) Point Reyes Bird Observatory

532 $171,690 Albatross habitat and fisheries interaction. Greg Balogh (PI), Rob Suryan Oregon State University, US Fish & Wildlife (PI) Service 533 $45,269 Safety evaluation of fisheries management. Jennifer Lincoln (PI) NIOSH, US Public Health Service 534 $122,663 Expanding the seabird tissue archival. Paul Becker (PI), David NOAA, NIST, US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Roseneau (PI), Geoffrey York Geological Survey, USGS Alaska Science (PI) Center 535 $183,140 Dietary specialization of killer whales. Amy Hirons (PI), Peggy Krahn NOAA - AFSC, NOAA - NWFSC, University of (PI), Paul Wade (PI) Alaska Fairbanks 536 $100,000 A continuous plankton recorder survey of the Sonia Batten (PI), David Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Kintama North Pacific and southern Bering Sea. Welch (PI) Research, Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science 537 $99,586 Building an education and outreach program Steve Carrick (PI) Alaska SeaLife Center for the North Pacific Research Board. 601 $100,000 A continuous plankton recorder survey of the Sonia Batten (PI), David Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Sir North Pacific and southern Bering Sea. Mackas (PI) Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science 602 $200,000 Sentinels for Bering Sea ecosystem change. Jeffery Napp (PI), Phyllis NOAA- AFSC, NOAA - PMEL, University of Stabeno (PI), Terry Whitledge Alaska Fairbanks (PI) 603 $415,925 Gulf of Alaska Long-Term Observations. Russell Hopcroft (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks 604 $155,350 Retrospective analyses of Norton Sound ben- Toshihide Hamazaki (PI), Hamachan Scientific Research Services, thic fauna. Stephen Jewett (PI), Thomas University of Alaska Fairbanks Weingartner (PI) 605 $199,917 Modeling Growth and Survival of Early Life- Mike Behrenfeld (PI), Lorenzo NOAA - AFSC, Oregon State University Stages of Pacific Cod in Response to Climate- Ciannelli (PI), Michael Davis Related Changes in Sea Ice Conditions in the (PI), Thomas Hurst (PI), Bering Sea. Benjamin Laurel (PI), Al Stoner (PI) 606 $115,690 Modeling Climate Effects on Interdecadal Mary Beth Decker (PI) Yale University Variation in Southeastern Bering Sea Jellyfish Populations. 607 $149,547 Modeling study on the response of lower tro- Clara Deal (PI), Meibing Jin International Arctic Research Center, University phic level production to climate change. (PI), Jia Wang (PI) of Alaska Fairbanks

608 $200,000 Response of the Bering Sea integrated circu- Richard Barber (PI), Fei Chai Duke University, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, lation-ice-ecosystem to forcing by climate and (PI), Yi Chao (PI) University of California Los Angeles, University the adjacent North Pacific and Arctic Oceans of Maine 1955-2005. 228 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

# Budget Project Title Investigators Institutions 609 $97,498 Is the pelagic distribution of seabirds in the Julia Parrish (PI) University of Washington Bering Sea driven by climate change? A retrospective analysis 610 $182,938 Adaptation to a changing world: molecular Kevin Bailey (PI), Michael NOAA - AFSC, University of Washington evidence for selective mortality in walleye pol- Canino (PI), Lorenz Hauser lock larvae. (PI) 611 $85,781 Spatio-temporal variability in North Pacific David Hyrenbach (PI), William Point Reyes Bird Observatory, University of meso-marine ecosystem structure: Basin-wide Sydeman (PI) Washington responses to a cooling transition. 612 $100,000 COASST-Alaska: A comprehensive monitor- Julia Parrish (PI) University of Washington ing program for coastal ecosystem health and change. 614 $256,648 Optimization of a nutrient-phytoplankton- Ken Coyle (PI), Albert NOAA - AFSC, University of Alaska Fairbanks, zooplankton ecological model for quantifying Hermann (PI), Sarah Hinckley University of Washington physical and biological interactions on the Gulf (PI) of Alaska shelf. 615 $149,950 Marine habitat mapping technology workshop Brian Allee (PI), Gary Greene, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, University for Alaska. (PI), Jennifer Reynolds (PI) of Alaska Fairbanks 616 $122,300 Chiswell Ridge habitat mapping and groundfish Mike Byerly (PI), Richard Alaska Dept of Fish and Game, Golder and assessment. Sylwester (PI) Associates 617 $150,000 Migration patterns of Pacific halibut in the Tim Loher (PI), Brenda International Pacific Halibut Commission, southeast Bering Sea. Norcross (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks 618 $39,432 Spatial and temporal patterns in Pacific cod Elizabeth Logerwell (PI), Alaska Fisheries Science Center reproductive maturity in the Bering Sea. Sandra Neidetcher (PI) 619 $244,984 Connectivity between Greenland halibut Kevin Bailey (PI), Lorenzo NOAA - AFSC, Oregon State University (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) spawning and Ciannelli (PI), Janet Duffy- nursery areas in the eastern Bering Sea: A Anderson (PI), Ann Matarese paradigm for offshore spawning flatfish spe- (PI) cies. 620 $108,525 Estimating movement rates of Pacific cod Don Gunderson (PI), Peter Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, NOAA - AFSC, (Gadus macrocephalus) in the Bering Sea Munro (PI), Dan Urban (PI) University of Washington and the Gulf of Alaska using mark-recapture methods. 621 $149,995 Diet and trophic ecology of skates in Gulf of Gregor Cailliet (PI), David Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Alaska (Raja and Bathyraja spp.): Foundational Ebert (PI) ecological information for ecosystem-based management of demersal resources. 622 $150,000 Analysis of fall, winter, and spring predation of Kerim Aydin (PI), Bruce NOAA - AFSC, University of Washington key Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska groundfish Miller (PI) through food habits and stable isotope analysis. 623 $82,300 Tools to assess Hematodinium life history and Carolyn Friedman (PI), Lorenz NOAA - AFSC, University of Washington impacts on Tanner crabs. Hauser (PI), Frank Morado (PI) 624 $294,515 Modeling transport and survival of larval crab: David Armstrong (PI), Billy Centro Nacional Patagonico, NOAA - AFSC, Investigating the contraction and variability in Ernst (PI), Albert Hermann University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of snow crab stocks in the Eastern Bering Sea (PI), Sarah Hinckley (PI), Concepcion, University of Washington using individual-based models. Gordon Kruse (PI), Bernard Megrey (PI), Jeff Napp (PI), Jose Maria (Lobo) Orensanz (PI), Carolina Parada (PI) 625 $250,000 Assessment of Bristol Bay red king crab Steven Hughes (PI) Bering Sea Fisheries Research Foundation resource for future management action--a new approach. APPENDIX IIC :: FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS 229

# Budget Project Title Investigators Institutions 626 $152,464 Testing low-cost methods to reduce sperm Jan Straley (PI), Aaron Thode Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University whale depredation in the Gulf of Alaska. (PI) of Alaska Southeast

627 $196,865 Identifying life history characteristics of squid Nate Bickford (PI), Brenda University of Alaska Fairbanks in the Bering Sea. Norcross (PI) 628 $215,228 Understanding the population dynamics of an Kerim Aydin (PI), Anne NOAA - AFSC, University of Washington abundant non-target species group: life history Hollowed (PI), Bruce Miller, and demographics of large sculpin species in (PI), Rebecca Reuter (PI) the Bering Sea large marine ecosystem. 629 $188,232 Assessment of female reproductive effort and Selina Heppell (PI), Scott NOAA - AFSC, Oregon State University maternal effects in Pacific Ocean perch: do big Heppell (PI), Paul Spencer old females matter? (PI) 630 $163,845 Food web linkages: forage fish distribution and Mayumi Arimitsu (PI), Vernon US Fish & Wildlife Service, USGS Alaska ecology in core Areas of predator distribution in Byrd (PI), John Piatt (PI) Science Center the Aleutian Archipelago. 631 $223,658 Population structure of ringed seals. Brendan Kelly (PI), Bradley Central Michigan University, University of Swenson Alaska Southeast 632 $299,768 Distribution, abundance, and ecology of Pacific Chadwick Jay (PI), Brenda University of Alaska Fairbanks, US Fish & walruses in the Bering Sea. Konar (PI), Rosa Meehan (PI) Wildlife Service, US Geological Survey 633 $140,650 Multi-scale predictions of right whale John Ford (PI), Edward Gregr Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, (Eubalaena japonica) habitat in the North (PI), Randall Reeves (PI) NOAA - AFSC, NOAA - SWFSC, Okapi Wildlife Pacific and Bering Sea. Associates, SciTech Consulting 634 $38,400 Genetic population structure of bowhead Phillip Morin (PI) NOAA - SWFSC whales, using historical bone and baleen samples. 635 $57,196 Comparison of stable carbon and nitrogen Larissa Dehn (PI), Erich University of Alaska Fairbanks isotope ratios in muscle and epidermis of Follmann (PI) subsistence-harvested bowhead, beluga and gray whales. 636 $48,710 Identifying critical foraging habitat of lactating Pamela Lestenkof (PI), North Pacific Universities Marine Mammal northern fur seals and the spatial overlap with Andrew Trites (PI) Research Consortium, Pacific Rim Fisheries commercial fisheries in the eastern Bering Sea. 637 $164,334 North Pacific pelagic seabird observer pro- David Irons (PI), Kathy Kuletz US Fish & Wildlife Service gram. (PI) 638 $99,660 Relationships among climate variability, ocean Ian Jones (PI) Memorial University of Newfoundland productivity and demography of Aleutian populations of three planktvorous seabirds: Least (Aethia pusilla), Crested (A. cristatella) and Whiskered Auklets (A. pygmaea) 639 $35,173 Extending lessons from the Steller sea lion Marc Hershman (PI) University of Washington controversy: Getting ahead of the northern fur seal curve. 640 $49,999 Comprehensive baseline commercial fish- Michael Downs (PI) EDAW, Inc ing community engagement and dependency profiles: Adak, St. George, St. Paul, and Sand Point, Alaska. 641 $40,000 Role of walrus in distribution of human trichi- Lidiya Bukina (PI), Anna Federal State Educational Institution of Higher nellosis disease among indigenous people in Kolevatova (PI) Vocational Education, Vyatka State Agricultural Chukchi Peninsula. Academy 642 $150,000 Seasonal distribution, habitat use, and energy Scott Johnson (PI) NOAA - AFSC density of forage fish in the nearshore ecosystem of Prince William Sound (NPRB-OSRI Collaboration). 230 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

# Budget Project Title Investigators Institutions 643 $150,000 Bering Strait region local and traditional knowl- Austin Ahmasuk (PI) Kawerak, Inc. edge pilot project. 644 $150,000 Response and intervention system for climate Victoria Gofman (PI), Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Inc., Aleut change induced paralytic shellfish poisoning in Raymond Ralonde (PI), Bruce International Association, University of Alaska Aleut communities. Wright (PI) 645 $149,930 Alaska rockfish: Subsistence harvests and Jesse Dizard (PI) Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game local knowledge of Alaska rockfish (genus Sebastes). 646 $33,853 Steller sea lions in Alaska: Direct mortality by Michael Turek (PI) State of Alaska humans. 701 $200,000 Sentinels for ecosystem change: Long-term Jeffery Napp (PI), Phyllis NOAA - AFSC, NOAA - PMEL, University of biophysical moorings on the Bering Sea shelf Stabeno (PI), Terry Whitledge Alaska Fairbanks, (2007-2008). (PI) 702 $113,074 Development and testing of a real-time ocean Thomas Weingartner (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks data transmitting buoy for the Gulf of Alaska. 703 $99,100 Education and Outreach for the North Pacific Nora Deans (PI) Alaska SeaLife Center Research Board. 704 $100,000 Developing the Alaska Marine Information Mark Johnson (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks System. 705 $99,987 Trends and variability in the Bering Sea/Bering Sheldon Drobot (PI) University of Colorado Strait sea ice cover. 706 $168,437 Wind field over the Bering-Chukchi Shelf: The Thomas Weingartner (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks QUIKSCAT perspective. 707 $127,692 Alaskan ferry oceanographic monitoring in the Nicholas Bond (PI), Edward KBRR, NOAA - PMEL, UW/JISAO Gulf of Alaska. Cokelet (PI), Daniel DooLittle (CI), Calvin Mordy (CI) 708 $249,996 Gulf of Alaska long-term observations: The Russell Hopcroft (PI), Thomas University of Alaska Fairbanks Seward Line 2007. Weingartner (CI), Terry Whitledge (CI) 709 $217,708 Species-habitat associations in three flatfish Kevin Bailey (PI), Kung-Sik NOAA - AFSC, Oregon State University, species of the eastern Bering Sea as medi- Chan (PI), Lorenzo Ciannelli University of Iowa ated by demographic, human and cross-scale (PI), Stan Kotwicki (CI) environmental forcing. 710 $133,113 Potential trawl impacts upon ecological Thomas Hurst (CI), Brian NOAA - AFSC processes controlling habitat quality in juvenile Knoth (CI), Benjamin Laurel flatfish nurseries. (CI), Clifford Ryer (PI), Allan Stoner (CI) 711 $221,848 Quantification of unobserved injury and mortal- Michael Davis (CI), John NOAA - AFSC, Marine Conservation Alliance ity of Bering Sea crabs due to encounters with Gauvin (PI), J. Munk (CI), Foundation trawls on the seafloor. Craig Rose (PI), Allan Stoner (CI) 712 $242,895 Bycatch characterization in the Pacific halibut Jennifer Cahalan (PI), William International Pacific Halibut Commission, fishery: A field test of electronic monitoring Karp (PI), Bruce Leaman (PI), NOAA - NMFS, Pacific States Marine Fisheries technology. Jennifer Watson (CI), Gregg Commission Williams (CI) 713 $99,459 Predicting snow crab growth and size with James Lovvorn (PI) University of Wyoming climate warming in the northern Bering Sea. 714 $248,206 Developing biological reference points for Ginny Eckert (PI), Gordon NOAA - NMFS, University of Alaska Fairbanks crustacean fisheries: Reproductive potential of Kruse (CI), Katherine Swiney Bristol Bay red king crab and eastern Bering (PI) Sea snow crab. APPENDIX IIC :: FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS 231

# Budget Project Title Investigators Institutions 715 $135,274 Life history and population dynamics of four Gregor Cailliet (CI), David Moss Landing Marine Laboratory endemic Alaskan skates: Determining essential Ebert (PI) biological information for effective management of bycatch and target species. 716 $249,998 Evaluating acoustics for squid assessment in John Horne (PI) University of Washington the Bering Sea. 717 $299,807 Threatened southwest Alaska sea otter stock: James Bodkin (CI), James Alaska SeaLife Center, USGS Alaska Science delineating the causes and constraints to Estes (PI) Center recovery of a keystone predator in the North Pacific Ocean. 718 $29,910 Using predictive habitat modeling and pas- Caroline Good (PI), Ed Gregr Duke University, Florida State University, sive acoustics to locate breeding habitats of (PI), David Johnston (PI), Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center/Joint North Pacific right whales in the Pacific Islands Douglas Nowacek (PI) Insitute of Marine and Atmospheric Research, Region. SciTech Consulting 719 $52,688 Analysis of Acoustic and Oceanographic Data David Mellinger (PI), Kathleen Oregon State University, University of from the Bering Sea Stafford (PI) Washington 720 $293,753 Migration, wintering destinations and habitat Phillip Clapham (CI), Mads NOAA - NMML, Greenland Institute of Natural use of North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena Peter Heide-Jorgensen (CI), Resources japonica). Alexandre Zerbini (PI) 722 $299,176 North Pacific seabird diet database: A public David Irons (PI), Daniel Roby Oregon State University, U.S. Fish and Wildlife archival diet information system. (PI) Service 723 $199,281 Increasing short-tailed albatross population Gregory Balogh (PI), Oregon State University, U.S. Fish and Wildlife growth and stability through translocation of Tomohiro Deguchi (PI), Service, Yamashina Institute for Ornithological post guard chicks. Kiyoaki Ozaki (CI), Robert Research Suryan (PI) 724 $83,099 Estimating diets of two species of threatened Tuula Hollmen (PI), Sara Alaska SeaLife Center, Dalhousie University sea ducks, the Steller's eider (Polysticta Iverson (CI) stelleri) and the spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri): validation of novel diet assessment techniques and identification of benthic resource use. 725 $23,948 Fisheries "rationalization" and crew: Workplace Seth Macinko (PI) University of Rhode Island dynamics and compensation, what can we learn? 726 $99,677 Sediment quality triad assessment in Dennis Apeti (CI), Stuart NOAA - NOS Watchman Bay, Alaska: Characterization of soft Hartwell (PI), Kimani bottom benthic habitats and contaminant bioef- Kimbrough (CI) fects assessment. 727 $46,399 TBT contamination and impacts in Alaskan Lisa Hoferkamp (CI), David University of Alaska Southeast seaports. Tallmon (PI) 728 $100,000 Herring synthesis: Documenting and modeling Virginia Butler (CI), Madonna Portland State University, University of Oregon herring spawning areas within socio-ecological Moss (CI), Thomas Thornton systems over time in the southeastern Gulf of (PI) Alaska. 729 $145,000 Residency and movements of copper rockfish Mary Bishop (PI), Sean Prince William Sound Science Center, Sebastes caurinus and lingcod Ophiodon Powers (CI) University of South Alabama/Dauphin Island elongatus in nearshore areas of Prince William Sea Lab Sound. 730 $244,022 A cooperative pollock acoustic biomass survey Steven Barbeaux (CI), Lowell NOAA - AFSC for management of fisheries interactions with Fritz (CI), Elizabeth Logerwell Steller sea lions in the Aleutian Islands. (PI) 232 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

# Budget Project Title Investigators Institutions 731 $147,816 Temperature data collections on Bering Sea John Gauvin (PI), James Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation, groundfish vessels to evaluate temperature at Ianelli (PI), Phyllis Stabeno NOAA - AFSC, NOAA - PMEL depth and catch rates for target and bycatch (PI) species in order to reduce bycatch and increase knowledge of how ecosystem variables affect fishing. 732 $99,999 COASST Alaska--A beached bird monitoring Julia Parrish (PI) University of Washington program. 733 $59,693 Pribilof Islands community-based ocean moni- Aquilina Lestenkof (CI), Max Aleut Community of St. Paul Island - Tribal toring program. Malavansky (CI), Bruce Government, St. George Island Traditional Robson (CI), Phillip Zavadil Council (PI) 734 $8,187 An updated hydrology model for the Gulf of Thomas Royer (PI) Old Dominion University Alaska. 801 $34,026 Seabird and marine mammals combined with William Sydeman (PI) Farralon Institute CPR. 802 $79,062 Education and Outreach for the North Pacific Nora Deans (PI) Alaska SeaLife Center Research Board. 803 $50,000 A continuous plankton recorder survey of the Sonia Batten (PI), Dave Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Sir North Pacific and southern Bering Sea. Mackas (PI) Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science 804 $225,000 Seward line monitoring. Russell Hopcroft (PI) University of Alaska Fairbanks 805 $169,050 Modeling processes controlling the on-shelf Kenneth Coyle (CI), Georgina University of Alaska Fairbanks transport of oceanic mesozooplankton popula- Gibson (PI), Kate Hedstrom tions in the Gulf of Alaska and SE Bering Sea. (CI) 806 $53,313 Comparison of long-term laboratory estimates William Peterson (PI) Oregon State University of fecundity of Euphausia pacifica from the Gulf of Alaska and the northern California Current. 807 $249,775 Testing the localized depletion hpothesis: Is Daniel Hennen (PI) Alaska SeaLife Center Steller sea lion foraging success affected by local fish effort? 808 $249,914 Habitat mapping and production estimate of Jared Guthridge (PI), Gerald Alaska SeaLife Center, NOAA - AFSC, Woods skate nursery sites in the eastern Bering Sea. Hoff (PI), Hanumant Singh Hole Oceanographic Institution (PI) 809 $249,905 Evaluation of echosign data in improving trawl Dana Hanselman (CI), Paul NOAA - AFSC survey biomass estimates for patchily-distribut- Spencer (PI) ed rockfish. 810 $242,346 Assessment of rockfish species in untrawlable David Demer (PI), Michael NOAA - AFSC, NOAA - SWFSC, University of habitat using advanced acoustic, optical and Martin (CI), Christopher New Hampshire trawl technologies. Rooper (PI), Thomas Weber (PI), Mark Wilkins (CI), Christopher Wilson (CI), Mark Zimmermann (CI) 811 $112,895 Development of a quantitative PCR assay for Ginny Eckert (CI), Pamela NOAA - AFSC, University of Alaska Fairbanks simultaneous identification and enumeration of Jensen (PI), J. Morado (CI) planktonic red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) larvae. 812 $166,966 Reproductive indices of male snow crabs, Sherry Tamone (PI) University of Alaska Southeast Chionoecetes opilio from the Bering Sea: analysis of hormones, reproductive structures, and behavior. 813 $212,799 Determining the implications of uncertainty Andre Punt (PI), Benjamin NOAA - AFSC, University of Washington in Snow Crab recruitment using management Turnock (PI) strategy evaluation. APPENDIX IIC :: FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS 233

# Budget Project Title Investigators Institutions 814 $248,190 Recruitment mechanisms for Tanner crabs in Enrique Curchitser (PI), JISAO/University of Washington, NOAA - the Eastern Bering Sea. Albert Hermann (PI), Gordon AFSC, Rutgers, The State University of New Kruse (PI), Jeffrey Napp (PI) Jersey, University of Alaska Fairbanks 815 $246,058 Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) migration M. Conners (CI), Peter Munro NOAA - AFSC and distribution related to spawning in the east- (PI) ern Bering Sea: a mark-recapture experiment on a large geographic scale. 816 $232,173 Estimating source contribution and dispersal Thomas Hurst (PI), Jessica NOAA - AFSC, Oregon State University histories of Pacific cod recruits using otolith Miller (PI), Jamal Moss (CI) elemental composition. 817 $30,977 A landscape genetics approach to Pacific cod Ingrid Spies (PI) NOAA - AFSC (Gadus macrocephalus) population structure in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; investigation of ecological barriers to connectivity between potentially distinct population components. 818 $176,349 Walrus distributional and foraging response Jacqueline Grebmeier (PI), University of Maryland, USGS Alaska Science to changing ice and benthic conditions in the Chadwick Jay (PI) Center Chukchi Sea. 819 $76,066 Body condition of marbled murrelets: Mary Bishop (PI), Neil Prince William Sound Science Center Consequences for overwinter survival during a Dawson (CI) period of collapsed herring stocks. 820 $238,143 Measuring and modeling habitat use by spec- James Lovvorn (PI) University of Wyoming tacled eiders wintering in the Bering Sea. 821 $87,089 Using blue mussels as an indicator species Brian Himelbloom (CI), Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, University for testing domoic acid toxicity in subsistence Raymond Ralonde (PI), Bruce of Alaska Fairbanks bivalve harvest. Wright (PI) 822 $99,934 Mercury levels in murre and gull eggs har- Austin Ahmasuk (PI), Paul Kawerak Inc., National Institute of Standards vested for food in the Norton Sound region and Becker (PI), David Roseneau and Technology, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service potential sources of contamination. (PI) 823 $99,535 Cultural models of Copper River salmon biology. James Brady (CI), Donna Ahtna Incorporated, Alaska Department of Hicks (CI), Marie Lowe (CI), Fish and Game, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Erica McCall Valentine Ecotrust, North Cape Fisheries Consulting, (CI), Liliana Naves (CI), University of Alaska William Simeone (PI), Gloria Stickwan (CI) 825 $209,900 Assessment of Bristol Bay Red King Crab Steven Hughes (PI) Bering Sea Fisheries Research Foundation Resource for Future Management Action – Implementing a Cooperative Approach 826 $150,000 Monitoring, avoiding, and deterring humpback Allison Rice (CI), Kate Wynne University of Alaska Fairbanks whale bycatch in coastal Alaskan fisheries: a (PI) cooperative approach 827 $121,420 Ambient Noise monitoring in the Beaufort Sea Aaron Thode (PI) Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University using autonomous vertical arrays of California San Diego 828 $262,189 Collaborative research: Dynamicall consistent Dmitri Nechaev (PI), Gleb University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of synthesis of in-situ and satellite measurements Panteleev (PI) Southern Mississippi in the Aleutian Passes. 829 $99,936 An important use for Aleutian Island indicators: James Overland (PI) NOAA - PMEL Hunting black swans. 234 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Appendix III: Publications through 2008

Pub# Project Reference

1 207 Rodionov, S.N., 2004. A sequential algorithm for testing climate regime shifts. Geophysical Research Letters 31, L09204; doi:10.1029/2004GL019448.

2 301 Ryer, C.H., Stoner, A.W., and Titgen, R.H., 2004. Behavioral mechanisms underlying the refuge value of benthic habitat structure for two flatfishes with differing anti-predator strategies. Marine Ecology Progress Series 268: 231–243.

3 305 Jurado-Molina, J., and Livingston, P., 2004. Sensitivity analysis of the multispecies virtual population analysis model parameterized for a system of trophically-linked species from the eastern Bering Sea. Ciencias Marinas 30(2): 1–12.

4 307 Wiggins, S.M., McDonald, M.A., Munger, L.M., Moore, S.E., and Hildebrand, J.A., 2004. Waveguide propagation allows range estimates for North Pacific right whales in the Bering Sea.Canadian Acoustics 32(2): 146-154

5 207 Rodionov, S.N., and Overland, J.E., 2005. Application of a sequential regime shift detection method to the Bering Sea ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 328–332.

6 209 Gharrett, A.J., Matala, A.P., Peterson, E.L., Gray, A.K., and Li, Z., 2005. Two genetically distinct forms of rougheye rockfish are different species. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134: 242–260.

7 301 Spencer, M.L., Stoner, A.W., Ryer, C.H., and Munk, J.E., 2005. A towed camera sled for estimating abundance of juvenile flatfishes and habitat characteristics: comparison with beam trawls and divers. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64: 497–503.

8 303 Smith, C.T., Seeb, J.E., Schwenke, P., and Seeb, L.W., 2005. Use of the 5’-nuclease reaction for single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping in chinook salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134: 207–217.

10 304 Heifetz, J., Wing, B.L., Stone, R.P., Malecha, P.W., and Courtney, D.L., 2005. Corals of the Aleutian Islands. Fisheries Oceanography 14(suppl. 1): 131–138.

11 305 Jurado-Molina, J., Livingston, P.A., and Ianelli, J.N., 2005. Incorporating predation interactions in a statistical catch-at-age model for a predator–prey system in the eastern Bering Sea. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 1865–1873.

12 305 Jurado-Molina, J., Livingston, P.A., and Galucci, V.F., 2005. Testing the stability of the suitability coefficients from an eastern Bering Sea multispecies virtual population analysis. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62:915–924.

13 305 Livingston, P.A., Aydin, K., Boldt, J., Ianelli, J.N., and Jurado-Molina, J., 2005. A framework for ecosystem impacts assessment using an indicator approach. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62(3): 592–597.

14 307 Munger, L.M., Mellinger, D.K., Wiggins, S.M., Moore, S.E., and Hildebrand, J.A., 2005. Performance of spectrogram cross-correlation in detecting right whale calls in long-term recordings from the Bering Sea. Canadian Acoustics 33(2): 25–34.

15 308 Buchheister, A., and Wilson, M.T., 2005. Shrinkage correction and length conversion equations for Theragra chalcogramma, Mallotus villosus and Thaleichthys pacificus. Journal of Fish Biology 67: 541–548.

16 308 Lanksbury, J.A., Duffy-Anderson, J.T., Mier, K.L., and Wilson, M.T., 2005. Ichthyoplankton abundance, distribution, and assemblage structure in the Gulf of Alaska during September 2000 and 2001. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64: 775–785.

17 327 Zimmerman, C.E., Hillgruber, N., Burril, S.E., St.Peters, M.A., and Wetzel, J.D., 2005. Offshore marine observation of willow ptarmigan, including water landings, Kuskokwim Bay, Alaska. Wilson Bulletin 117(1): 12–14.

20 205, 303 Smith, C.T., Elfstrom, C.M., Seeb, L.W., and Seeb, J.E., 2005. Use of sequence data from rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon for SNP detection in Pacific salmon. Molecular Ecology 14: 4193–4203.

21 313 Frid, A., Baker, G.G., and Dill, L.M., 2006. Do resource declines increase predation rates on North Pacific harbor seals? A behavior-based plausibility model. Marine Ecology Progress Series 312: 265–275.

23 301 Petrie, M.E., and Ryer, C.H., 2006. Laboratory and field evidence for structural habitat affinity of young-of-the-year lingcod. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135: 1622–1630.

25 301 Petrie, M.E., and Ryer, C.H., 2006. Hunger, light level and body size affect refuge use by post-settlement lingcod Ophiodon elongatus. Journal of Fish Biology 69: 957–969.

26 301 Lemke, J.L., and Ryer, C.H., 2006. Relative predation vulnerability of three juvenile (Age-0) North Pacific flatfish species: possible influence of nursery-specific predation pressures. Marine Ecology Progress Series 328: 267–273.

27 301 Stoner, A.W., Spencer, M.L., and Ryer, C.H., 2007. Flatfish-habitat associations in Alaska nursery grounds: use of continuous video records for multi-scale spatial analysis. Journal of Sea Research 57: 137–150. APPENDIX III :: PUBLICATIONS THROUGH 2008 235

Pub# Project Reference

28 535, 411 Krahn, M.M., Herman, D.P., Matkin, C.O., Durban, J.W., Barrett-Lennard, L., Burrows, D.G., Dahlheim, M.E., Black, N., LeDuc, R.G., and Wade, P.R., 2007. Use of chemical tracers in assessing the diet and foraging regions of eastern North Pacific killer whales. Marine Environmental Research 63: 91–114.

29 301 Lemke, J.L., and Ryer, C.H., 2006. Risk sensitivity in three juvenile (Age-0) flatfish species: Does estuarine dependence promote risk-prone behavior? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 333: 172–180.

30 206, 302 Batten, S.D., Hyrenbach, K.D., Sydeman, W.J., Morgan, K.H., Henry, M.F., Yen, P.P. J., and Welch, D.W., 2006. Characterising meso-marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Deep-Sea Research II 53: 270–290.

31 308 Buchheister, A., Wilson, M.T., Foy, R.J., and Beauchamp, D.A., 2006. Seasonal changes in whole body energy content and condition of juvenile walleye pollock in the western Gulf of Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135: 897–907.

33 308 Wilson, M.T., Jump, C.M., and Duffy-Anderson, J.T., 2006. Comparative analysis of the feeding ecology of energy-rich and energy-poor forage fishes: capelin Mallotus villosus versus walleye pollock Theragra chalcogramma. Marine Ecology Progress Series 317: 245–258.

35 322 Suryan, R.M., Sato, F., Balogh, G.R., Hyrenbach, K.D., Sievert, P.R., and Ozaki, K., 2006. Foraging destinations and marine habitat use of short-tailed albatrosses: a multi-scale approach using first-passage time analysis. Deep-Sea Research II 53: 370–386.

37 316 Stevens, B.G., 2006. Embryo development and morphometry in the blue king crab Paralithodes platypus studied by using image and cluster analysis. Journal of Shellfish Research 25(2): 569–576.

38 316 Stevens, B.G., 2006. Timing and duration of larval hatching for blue king crab Paralithodes platypus Brandt, 1850 held in the laboratory. Journal of Crustacean Biology 26(4): 495–502.

40 420 Gharrett, A.J., Mecklenburg, C.W., Seeb, L.W., Li, Z., Matala, A.P., Gray, A.K., and Heifetz, J., 2006. Do genetically distinct rougheye rockfish sibling species differ phenotypically? Transactions of the American Fisheries Society135(3):792–800.

41 534 Day, R.D., Vander Pol, S.S., Christopher, S.J., Davis, W.C., Pugh, R.S., Simac, K.S., Roseneau, D.G., and Becker, P.R., 2006. Murre eggs (Uria aalge and Uria lomvia) as indicators of mercury contamination in the Alaskan marine environment. Environmental Science and Technology 40(3): 659–665.

42 520 Liu, H., and Hopcroft, R.R., 2006. Growth and development of Neocalanus flemingeri/plumchrus in the northern Gulf of Alaska: validation of the artificial-cohort method in cold waters. Journal of Plankton Research 28(1): 87–101.

44 315 Overland, J.E., and Stabeno, P.J., 2004. Is the climate of the Bering Sea warming and affecting the ecosystem? EOS 85(33): 309–312.

46 423 Herrmann, M. and Greenberg, J., 2007. The demand and allocation of Alaskan and Canadian snow crab. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 55: 27–48.

49 204 Fukuwaka, M., Urawa, S., Yoshimitsu, S., Davis, N.D., and Walker, R.V., 2005. Recoveries of high-seas tags in Japan in 2004, and tag releases and recoveries of fin-clipped salmon from Japanese research vessel surveys in the North Pacific Ocean in summer of 2005. NPAFC Doc. 889. Hokkaido National Fisheries Research Institute, Fisheries Research Agency, Kushiro, Japan.

50 204 Nagasawa, T., Fukuwaka, M., Urawa, S., Hirasawa, K., Davis, N., and Walker, R.V., 2004. Recoveries of high-seas tags in Japan in 2003, and tag releases and recoveries of fin-clipped salmon from Japanese research vessel surveys in the North Pacific Ocean in fall of 2003 and summer of 2004. NPAFC Doc. 786. Hokkaido National Fisheries Research Institute, Fisheries Research Agency, Kushiro, Japan.

51 204 Walker, R.V., Davis, N.D., Myers, K.W., and Fukuwaka, M., 2003. Releases and recoveries of U.S. salmonid data storage tags, and recoveries of high seas tags in North America, 2003. NPAFC Doc. 722. SAFS-UW-0308. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

52 204 Walker, R.V., Davis, N.D., Myers, K.W., Urawa, S., and Hirasawa, K., 2004. Releases and recoveries of U.S. and NPRB salmonid data storage tags, and recoveries of high seas tags in North America, 2004. NPAFC Doc. 806. SAFS-UW-0406. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

53 204 Walker, R.V., Davis, N.D., Myers, K.W., Helle, J.H., Fukuwaka, M., Urawa, S., Karpenko, V.I., Dekshtein, A.B., Zolotukhin, S., and Kovalenko, S., 2005. Releases and recoveries of U.S. and NPRB salmonid data storage tags, and recoveries of high seas tags in North America and Russia, 2005. NPAFC Doc. 904. SAFS-UW-0504. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

54 301 Laurel, B.J., Stoner, A.W., and Hurst, T.P., 2007. Density-dependent habitat use in marine flatfish: the dynamic role of ontogeny and temperature. Marine Ecology Progress Series 338: 183–192.

55 301 Hurst, T.P., Ryer, C.H., Ramsey, J.M., and Haines, S.A., 2007. Divergent foraging strategies of three co-occurring north Pacific flatfishes. Marine Biology 151: 1087–1098.

56 301 Ryer, C.H., Stoner, A.W., Spencer, M.L., and Abookire, A.A., 2007. Presence of larger flatfish modifies habitat preference by age-0 northern rock sole Lepidopsetta polyxystra. Marine Ecology Progress Series 342: 227–238. 236 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Pub# Project Reference

57 303 Elfstrom, C.M., Smith, C.T., and Seeb, J.E., 2006. Thirty-two single nucleotide polymorphism markers for high-throughput genotyping of sockeye salmon. Molecular Ecology Notes 6: 1255–1259.

58 303 Seeb, L.W., Smith, C.T., Templin, W.D., Wilmot, R.L., and Seeb, J.E., 2004. Development of a Pacific Rim baseline for chum salmon based on single nucleotide polymorphism markers (SNPs). NPAFC Doc. 824. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.

59 303 Seeb, L.W., Templin, W.D., Smith, C.T., Elfstrom, C., Urawa, S., Wilmot, R.L., Abe, S., and Seeb, J.E., 2005. SNPs provide an easily- standardized baseline for NPAFC studies of chum salmon. NPAFC Doc. 907. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.

60 303 Templin, W.D., Smith, C.T., Seeb, J.E., and Seeb, L.W., 2005. SNPs provide high-throughput resolution for migratory studies of Chinook salmon. NPAFC Doc. 908. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.

61 303 Yoon, M., Brykov, V., Varnavskaya, N., Seeb, L.W., Urawa, S., and Abe, S., 2004. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of genetic variation in the Pacific Rim populations of chum salmon. NPAFC Doc. 792. Graduate School of Fisheries Sciences, Hokkaido University, Hakodate, Japan.

62 303 Yoon, M., Sato, S., Seeb, J.E., Wilmot, R.L., Urawa, S., Urano, A., and Abe, S., 2005. Genetic variation among chum salmon populations in the Pacific Rim inferred from the mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA analyses. NPAFC Doc. 898. Graduate School of Fisheries Sciences, Hokkaido University, Hakodate, Japan.

63 303 Zelenina, D., Khrustaleva, A., Volkov, A., Habicht, C., Smith, C., and Seeb, J., 2005. A case study of two genetic markers for inter-laboratory collaboration: SNPs provide transportability without standardization. NPAFC Doc. 913. Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries & Oceanography, Federal Fisheries Agency of Russia, Moscow, Russia.

64 308 Buchheister, A., Wilson, M.T., Foy, R.J., and Beauchamp, D.A., 2006. Seasonal and geographic variation in condition of juvenile walleye pollock in the western Gulf of Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135: 897–907.

65 308, 524 Mazur, M.M., Wilson, M.T., Dougherty, A.B., Buchheister, A., and Beauchamp, D.A., 2007. Temperature and prey quality effects on growth of juvenile walleye pollock Theragra chalcogramma(Pallas): a spatially-explicit bioenergetics approach. Journal of Fish Biology 70: 816–836.

66 308 Wilson, M.T., Jump, C.M., and Duffy-Anderson, J.T., 2006. Comparative analysis of the feeding ecology of two pelagic forage fishes: capelin (Mallotus villosus) and walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma). Marine Ecology Progress Series 317: 245–258.

67 320 Benowitz-Fredericks, Z.M., Shultz, M.T., and Kitaysky, A.S., 2008. Stress hormones reveal opposite trends of food availability between planktivorous and piscivorous seabirds in two years. Deep-Sea Research II 55(16-17): 1868–1876.

68 327 Burril, S., Hillgruber, N., and Zimmerman, C.E., 2006. Estuarine ecology of juvenile chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in Kuskokwim Bay, Alaska. Proceedings of the 22nd Northeast Pacific Pink & Chum Salmon Workshop. Ketchikan, Alaska, pp. 91–97.

69 419 Jurado-Molina, J., Gatica, C., and Cubillos, L.A., 2006. Incorporating cannibalism into an age-structured model for the Chilean hake. Fisheries Research 82: 30–40.

71 626, 527 Tiemann, C.O., Thode, A., Straley, J., O’Connell, V., and Folkert, K., 2006. Three-dimensional localization of sperm whales using a single hydrophone. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120(4): 2355–2365.

72 304 Lehnert, H., Stone, R., and Heimler, W., 2006. New species of deep-sea demosponges (Porifera) from the Aleutian Islands (Alaska, USA). Zootaxa 1250: 1–35.

73 304 Lehnert, H., Stone, R., and Heimler, W., 2006. New species of Poeciloscerida (Demospongiae, Porifera) from the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, USA. Zootaxa 1155: 1–23.

76 416 Rooper, C.N., and Zimmermann, M., 2007. A bottom-up methodology for integrating underwater video and acoustic mapping for seafloor substrate classification. Continental Shelf Research 27(7): 947–957.

77 302, 536 Batten, S.D., and Freeland , H. J., 2007. Plankton populations at the bifurcation of the North Pacific Current. Fisheries Oceanography 16(6): 536–546.

78 322, 532 Suryan, R.M., Dietrich, K.S., Melvin, E.F., Balogh, G.R., Sato, F., and Ozaki, K., 2007. Migratory routes of short-tailed albatrosses: use of exclusive economic zones of North Pacific Rim countries and spatial overlap with commercial fisheries in Alaska. Biological Conservation 137: 450–460.

79 320 Kitaysky, A.S., Piatt, J.F., and Wingfield, J.C., 2007. Stress hormones link food availability and population processes in seabirds.Marine Ecology Progress Series 352: 245–258.

80 320 Iverson, S.J., Springer, A.M., and Kitaysky, A.S., 2007. Seabirds as indicators of food web structure and ecosystem variability: qualitative and quantitative diet analyses using fatty acids. Marine Ecology Progress Series 352: 235–244.

82 320 Takahashi, A., Matsumoto, K., Hunt Jr., G.L., Shultz, M.T., Kitaysky, A.S., Sato, K., Iida, K., and Watanuki, Y., 2008. Thick-billed murres use different diving behaviors in mixed and stratified waters. Deep-Sea Research II 55 (16-17): 1837–1845. APPENDIX III :: PUBLICATIONS THROUGH 2008 237

Pub# Project Reference

85 529 Berman, M., 2006. Modeling spatial choice in ocean fisheries. Marine Resource Economics 21: 387–406.

86 313 Frid, A., Dill, L.M., Thorne, R.E., and Blundell, G.M., 2007. Inferring prey perception of relative danger in large-scale marine systems. Evolutionary Ecology Research 9: 635–649.

87 205, 303 Smith, C.T., Baker, J., Park, L., Seeb, L.W., Elfstrom, C., Abe, S., and Seeb, J.E., 2005. Characterization of 13 single nucleotide polymorphism markers for chum salmon. Molecular Ecology Notes 5: 259–262.

88 320 413 Williams, C.T., Buck, C.L., Sears, J., and Kitaysky, A.S., 2007. Effects of nutritional restriction on nitrogen and carbon stable isotopes in growing seabirds. Oecologia 153: 11–18.

90 314 Loher, T., 2007. Investigating variability in catch rates of halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis)in the Pribilof Islands: Is temperature important? Deep-Sea Research II 55(16-17): 1801–1808.

91 416 Rooper, C.N., Boldt, J.L., and Zimmermann, M., 2007. An assessment of juvenile Pacific Ocean perch (Sebastes alutus) habitat use in a deepwater nursery. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 75: 371–380.

92 516 Springer, A.M., Byrd, G.V., and Iverson, S.J., 2007. Hot oceanography: planktivorous seabirds reveal ecosystem responses to heating of the Bering Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 352: 289–297.

93 607 Jin, M., Deal, C., Wang, J., Alexander, V., Gradinger, R., Saitoh, S., Iida, T., Wan, Z., and Stabeno, P., 2007. Ice-associated phytoplankton blooms in the southeastern Bering Sea. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L06612, doi:10.1029/2006GL028849, doi:10.1029/2006GL028849 .

95 508 Orensanz, J.M., Ernst, B., and Armstrong, D.A., 2007. Variation of female size and stage at maturity in snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) (Brachyura: Majidae) from the eastern Bering Sea. Journal of Crustacean Biology 27(4): 576-591.

96 606 Brodeur, R.D., Decker, M.B., Ciannelli, L., Purcell, J.E., Bond, N.A., Stabeno, P.J., Acuna, E., and Hunt Jr., G.L., 2007. Rise and fall of jellyfish in the eastern Bering Sea in relation to climate regime shifts. Progress in Oceanography 77: 103-111.

97 527, 626 Thode, A., Straley, J., Tiemann, C.O., Folkert, K., and O’Connell, V., 2007. Observations of potential acoustic cues that attract sperm whales to longline fishing in the Gulf of Alaska. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 122(2): 1265–1277.

98 413 Whidden, S.E., Williams, C.T., Breton, A.R., and Buck, C.L., 2007. Effects of transmitters on the reproductive success of tufted puffins. Journal of Field Ornithology 78(2): 206–212.

99 302, 536 Mackas, D.L., Batten, S., and Trudel, M., 2007. Effects on zooplankton of a warming ocean: recent evidence from the Northeast Pacific. Progress in Oceanography 75: 223–252.

100 313 Frid, A., Baker, G.G., and Dill, L.M., 2007. Do shark declines create fear-released systems? Oikos 117: 191–201.

101 313 Frid, A., Heithaus, M.R., and Dill, L.M., 2007. Dangerous dive cycles and the proverbial ostrich. Oikos 116: 893–902.

102 531 Sydeman, W.J., Abraham, C.L., and Byrd, G.V., 2008. Seabird–sockeye salmon co-variation in the eastern Bering Sea: phenology as an ecosystem indicator and salmonid predictor? Deep Sea Research II 55: 1877–1882.

103 304 Brooke, S., and Stone, R., 2007. Reproduction of deep-water hydrocorals (family Stylasteridae) from the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Bulletin of Marine Science 81(3): 519-532.

104 304 Heifetz, J., Stone, R.P., Malecha, P.W., Courtney, D.L., Fujioka, J.T., and Rigby, P.W., 2003. Research at the Auke Bay Laboratory on benthic habitat. Feature, Alaska Fisheries Science Center Quarterly Report, July-September: 1-10.

105 304 Krutikov, L., 2006. Implications for strain accommodation in an oblique subduction zone: new paleomagnetic and geologic data from the Central Aleutian Arc, Alaska. Master’s Thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska, unpublished.

106 304 Lehnert, H., Stone, R., and Heimler, W., 2005. A new species of Polymastia (Porifera, Hadromerida, Polymastiidae) from the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, USA. Facies 51: 49–52.

107 304 Lehnert, H., Watling, L., and Stone, R., 2005. Cladorhiza corona sp. nov. (Porifera: Demospongiae: Cladorhizidae) from the Aleutian islands (Alaska). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 85: 1359–1366.

108 304 Lehnert, H., Stone, R., and Heimler, W., 2005. Two new species of Plakina Schulze, 1880 (Porifera, Plakinidae) from the Aleutian Islands (Alaska, USA). Zootaxa 1068: 27–38.

109 304 Lehnert, H., Stone, R., and Heimler, W., 2006. Erylus aleuticus sp. nov. (Porifera: Demospongiae: Astrophorida: Geodiidae) from the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, USA. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 86: 971–975.

110 641 Bukina L.A., and Kolevatova A.I., 2007. Trichinella cycle in coastal areas of the Chukchi Peninsula. The contemporary world, nature and man 4(2): 101–103. (In Russian; no English abstract available). 238 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Pub# Project Reference

111 529 Berman, M., and Sumaila, R., 2006. Discounting, amenity values and ecosystem restoration. Marine Resource Economics 21(2): 211–219.

112 601, 536, 302 Lindley, J.A., and Batten, S.D., 2008. Distribution and seasonal cycles of decapod crustacean larvae in Continuous Plankton Records from the North Pacific Ocean. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 88: 443–451.

113 517 Bond, N.A., and Overland, J.E., 2005. The importance of episodic weather events to the ecosystem of the Bering Sea shelf. Fisheries Oceanography 14(2): 97–111.

114 517 Duffy-Anderson, J.T., Busby, M.S., Mier, K.L., Deliyanides, C.M., and Stabeno, P.J., 2006. Spatial and temporal patterns in summer ichthyoplankton assemblages on the eastern Bering Sea shelf 1996–2000. Fisheries Oceanography 15(1): 80–94.

115 517 Jin, M., Deal, C.J., Wang, J., Tanaka, N., and Ikeda, M., 2006. Vertical mixing effects on the phytoplankton bloom in the southeastern Bering Sea midshelf. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, C03002, doi:10.1029/2005JC002994.

116 517 Okkonen, S.R., Schmidt, G.M., Cokelet, E.D., and Stabeno, P.J., 2004. Satellite and hydrographic observations of the Bering Sea “Green Belt”. Deep-Sea Research II 51: 1033–1051.

117 517 Overland, J.E., and Stabeno, P.J., 2004. Is the climate of the Bering Sea warming and affecting the ecosystem? EOS 85(33): 309–316.

118 517 Stabeno, P.J., Bond, N.A., and Salo, S.A., 2007. On the recent warming of the southeastern Bering Sea Shelf. Deep-Sea Research II 54: 2599–2618.

119 301 Hurst, T.P., and Duffy, T.A., 2005. Activity patterns in northern rock sole are mediated by temperature and feeding history. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 325: 201–213.

120 204 Fukuwaka, M., Urawa, S., Yoshimitsu, S., Davis, N.D., and Walker, R.V., 2006. Recoveries of high-seas tags in Japan in 2005, and tag releases and recoveries of fin-clipped salmon from Japanese research vessel surveys in the North Pacific Ocean in 2006. NPAFC Doc. 961. Hokkaido National Fisheries Research Institute, Fisheries Research Agency, Kushiro, Japan.

121 204 Murphy, J.M., Walker, R.V., Moss, J.H., Cieciel, K., Davis, N.D., Myers, K.W., Fukuwaka, M., and Urawa, S., 2007. Releases of high-seas salmon tags by U.S. vessels in 2006. NPAFC Doc. 1038. Auke Bay Laboratories, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries, Juneau, AK.

122 204 Walker, R.V., Sviridov, V.V., Urawa, S., and Azumaya, T., 2007. Spatio-temporal variation in vertical distributions of Pacific salmon in the ocean. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 4: 193–201.

123 605 Litzow, M.A., and Ciannelli, L., 2007. Oscillating trophic control induces community reorganization in a marine ecosystem. Ecology Letters 10: 1124–1134.

124 411, 535 Herman, D.P., Burrows, D.G., Wade, P.R., Durban, J.W., Matkin, C.O., LeDuc, R.G., Barrett-Lennard, L.G., and Krahn, M.M., 2005. Feeding ecology of eastern North Pacific killer whales Orcinus orca from fatty acid, stable isotope, and organochlorine analyses of blubber biopsies. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302: 275–291.

128 208 Tojo, N., Kruse, G.H., and Funk, F.C., 2007. Migration dynamics of Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) and response to spring environmental variability in the southeastern Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research Part II 54: 2832–2848.

129 417 Lauth, R. R., Guthridge, J., Nichol, D., McEntire, S. W., and Hillgruber, N., 2007. Timing and duration of mating and brooding periods of Atka mackerel (Pleurogrammus monopterygius) in the North Pacific Ocean. Fishery Bulletin 105 (4): 560–570.

130 417 Lauth, R.R., and Blood, D.M., 2007. Description of embryonic development of Atka mackerel (Pleurogrammus monopterygius). Fishery Bulletin 105: 571–576.

131 303 Habicht, C., Seeb, L.W., and Seeb, J.E., 2007. Genetic and ecological divergence defines population structure of sockeye salmon populations returning to Bristol Bay, Alaska, and provides a tool for admixture analysis. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: 82–94.

132 303 Moriya, S., Sato, S., Urawa, S., Urano, A., and Abe, S., 2004. Development of DNA microarray for rapid identification of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes in chum salmon. Fish Genetics and Breeding Science 33: 115–121. (In Japanese, with English summary.)

133 303 Moriya, S., Urawa, S., Suzuki, O., Urano, A., and Abe, S., 2005. DNA microarray for rapid detection of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes of chum salmon. Marine Biotechnology 6: 430–434.

134 303 Myers, K.W., Klovach, N.V., Gritsenko, O.F., Urawa, S., and Royer, T.C., 2007. Stock-specific distributions of Asian and North American salmon in the open ocean, interannual changes, and oceanographic conditions. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 4: 159–177.

135 303 Sato, S., Kojima, H., Ando, J., Ando, H., Wilmot, R.L., Seeb, L.W., Efremov, V., LeClair, L., Buchholz, W., Jin, D., Urawa, S., Kaeriyama, M., Urano, A., and Abe, S., 2004. Genetic population structure of chum salmon in the Pacific Rim inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequence variation. Environmental Biology of Fishes 69: 37–50. APPENDIX III :: PUBLICATIONS THROUGH 2008 239

Pub# Project Reference

136 303 Smith, C.T., and Seeb, L.W., 2008. Number of alleles as a predictor of the relative assignment accuracy of short tandem repeat (STR) and single-nucleotide-polymorphism (SNP) baselines for chum salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 751–762.

137 303 Urawa, S., Seki, J., Kawana, M., Saito, T., Crane, P.A., Seeb, L.W., Fukuwaka, M., and Akinicheva, E., 2006. Origins of juvenile chum salmon caught in the southwestern Okhotsk Sea during the fall of 2000. Bulletin of the National Salmon Resources Center 8: 9-16.

138 303 Abe, S., Sato, S., Edpalina, R.R., Ando, H., Kaeriyama, M., Urawa, S., and Urano, A., 2004. Stock identification of chum salmon by mitochondrial DNA sequence analysis. NPAFC Technical Report 5: 82–83.

139 303 Habicht, C., Varnavskaya, N.V., Azumaya, T., Urawa, S., Wilmot, R.L., Guthrie, C.M., and Seeb, J.E., 2005. Migration patterns of sockeye salmon in the Bering Sea discerned from stock composition estimates of fish captured during BASIS studies. NPAFC Technical Report 6: 41–43.

140 303 Sato, S., Yoon, M., Abe, S., and Urawa, S., 2007. Update of mitochondrial DNA baseline for stock identification of chum salmon. NPAFC Doc. 1019. National Salmon Resources Center, Fisheries Research Agency, Sapporo, Japan.

141 303 Moriya, S., Urano, A., Urawa, S., Suzuki, O., and Abe, S., 2004. Development of DNA microarray for rapid detection of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes of chum salmon. NPAFC Technical Report 5: 28–30.

142 303 Sato, S., Moriya, S., Azumaya, T., Suzuki, O., Urawa, S., Abe, S., and Urano, A., 2004. Genetic stock identification of chum salmon in the central Bering Sea and adjacent North Pacific Ocean by DNA microarray during the early falls of 2002 and 2003. NPAFC Doc. 793. National Salmon Resources Center, Sapporo, Japan.

143 303 Sato, S., Takahashi, S., Seeb, L.W., Seeb, J.E., Fukuwaka, M., and Urawa, S., 2006. Stock identification of winter chum salmon by mitochondrial DNA and SNP analyses. NPAFC Doc. 963. National Salmon Resources Center, Fisheries Research Agency, Sapporo, Japan.

144 303 Urawa, S., Kawana, M., Azumaya, T., Crane, P.A., and Seeb, L.W., 2005. Stock-specific ocean distribution of immature chum salmon in the summer and early fall of 2003: estimates by allozyme analysis. NPAFC Doc. 896. National Salmon Resources Center, Sapporo, Japan.

145 303 Urawa, S., Sato, S., Varnavskaya, N., Crane, P.A., and Beacham, T.D., 2007. Genetic stock identification of juvenile chum salmon caught in the Okhotsk Sea during the Fall of 2003. NPAFC Technical Report 7: 72–74.

146 303 Urawa, S., Azumaya, T., Crane, P.A., and Seeb, L.W., 2005. Origins and distribution of chum salmon in the central Bering Sea. NPAFC Technical Report 6: 67–70.

147 303 Urawa, S., Seki, J., Kawana, M., Crane, P.A., Seeb, L.W., Gorbatenko, K., and Fukuwaka, M., 2004. Juvenile chum salmon in the Okhotsk Sea: their origins estimated by genetic and otolith marks. NPAFC Technical Report 5: 87–88.

148 303 Urawa, S., Azumaya, T., Crane, P.A., and Seeb, L.W., 2004. Origin and distribution of chum salmon in the Bering Sea during the early fall of 2002: estimates by allozyme analysis. NPAFC Doc. 794. National Salmon Resources Center, Sapporo, Japan.

149 303 Yoon, M., Azuma, N., Sato, S., Seeb, J.E., Wilmot, R.L., Urawa, S., Urano, A., and Abe, S., 2006. Genetic variation among Pacific Rim chum salmon populations inferred from the microsatellite DNA analysis. NPAFC Doc. 964. Graduate School of Fisheries Sciences, Hokkaido University, Hakodate, Japan.

151 313 Heithaus, M.R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A., and Worm, B., 2008. Predicting ecological consequences of marine top predator declines. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 202–210.

152 313 Wirsing, A.J., Heithaus, M.R., Frid, A., and Dill, L.M., 2007. Seascapes of fear: evaluating sublethal predator effects experienced and generated by marine mammals. Marine Mammal Science 24(1): 1–15.

153 615 Harris, P.T., Heap, A., Whiteway, T., and Post, A., 2008. Applications of geoscience to Australia’s representative marine protected area program. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 219–236.

154 615 Hare, R.M., 2008. Small-boat surveys in shallow water. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 71–89.

155 615 Tolimieri, N., Clarke, M.E., Singh, H., and Goldfinger, C., 2008. Evaluating the SeaBED AUV for monitoring groundfish in untrawlable habitat. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 129–141.

156 612 Parrish, J.K., Bond, N., Nevins, H., Mantua, N., Loeffel, R., Peterson, W.T., and Harvey, J.T., 2007. Beached birds and physical forcing in the California Current System. Marine Ecology Progress Series 352: 275–288.

157 534 Vander Pol, S.S., Ellisor, M.B., Pugh, R.S., Becker, P.R., Poster, D.L., Schantz, M.M., Leigh, S.D., Wakeford, B.J., Roseneau, D.G., and Simac, K.S., 2007. Development of a murre (Uria spp.) egg control material. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 387: 2357–2363. 240 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Pub# Project Reference

158 534 Vander Pol, S.S., and Becker, P.R., 2007. Monitoring contaminants in seabirds: the importance of specimen banking. Marine Ornithology 35: 113–118.

159 320 Shultz, M.T., and Kitaysky, A.S., 2008. Spatial and temporal dynamics of corticosterone and corticosterone binding globulin are driven by environmental heterogeneity. General and Comparative Endocrinology 155(3): 717–728.

160 320 Kitaysky, A.S., Kitaiskaia, E.V., Piatt, J.F., and Wingfield, J.C., 2006. A mechanistic link between chick diet and decline in seabirds? Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273: 445–450.

161 320 Iverson, S.J., Springer, A.M., and Kitaysky, A.S., 2007. Seabirds as indicators of food web structure and ecosystem variability: qualitative and quantitative diet analyses using fatty acids. Marine Ecology Progress Series 352: 235–244.

163 320 Wang, S.W., Iverson, S.J., Springer, A.M., and Hatch, S.A., 2007. Fatty acid signatures of stomach oil and adipose tissue of northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) in Alaska: implications for diet analysis of Procellariiform birds. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 177: 893–903.

164 615 Pacunski, R.E, Palsson, W.A., Greene, H.G., and Gunderson, D., 2008. Conducting visual surveys with a small ROV in shallow water. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 109–128.

165 507 Stevens, B.G., Persselin, S., and Matweyou, J., 2008. Survival of blue king crab, Paralithodes platypus Brandt, 1850, larvae in cultivation: effects of diet, temperature and rearing density. Aquaculture Research 39: 390–397.

167 615 Rooper, C.N., 2008. Underwater video sleds: versatile and cost effective tools for habitat mapping. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 99–107.

168 615 Barrie, J.V., and Conway, K.W., 2008. Surficial Geology: the third dimension in habitat mapping. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 91–97.

169 615 Yoklavich, M.M., and O’Connell, V., 2008. Twenty years of research on demersal communities using the Delta submersible in the Northeast Pacific. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Green, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 143–155.

170 615 Galloway, J.L., 2008. Systematic acoustic seafloor habitat mapping of the British Columbia coast. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 195–201.

171 615 Tissot, B.N., 2008. Video analysis, experimental design, and database management of submersible-based habitat studies. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 157–167.

172 615 Tissot, B.N., Wakefield, .W.,W Hixon, M.A., and Clemons, J.E.R., 2008. Twenty years of fish-habitat studies on Heceta Bank, Oregon. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 203–217.

173 615 Caress, D.W., Thomas, H., Kirkwood, W.J., McEwen, R., Henthorn, R., Clague, D.A., Paull, C.K., Paduan, J., 2008. High-resolution multibeam, sidescan, and subbottom surveys using the MBARI AUV D. Allan B. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

174 615 Cochrane, G.R., 2008. Video-supervised classification of sonar data for mapping seafloor habitat. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 185–194.

175 515 Swanson, B.J., Kelly, B.P., Maddox, C.K., and Moran, J.R., 2006. Shed skin as a source of DNA for genotyping seals. Molecular Ecology Notes 6: 1006–1009.

176 206 Hyrenbach, K.D., Henry, M.F., Morgan, K.H., Welch, D.W., and Sydeman, W.J., 2007. Optimizing the width of strip transects for seabird surveys from vessels of opportunity. Marine Ornithology 35: 29–37.

177 516 Sydeman, W.J., Piatt, J.F., and Browman, H.I., 2007. Seabirds as indicators of marine ecosystems. Theme section, Marine Ecology Progress Series 352: 199–309.

179 615 Greene, H.G., O’Connell, V., Brylinsky, C.K., and Reynolds, J.R., 2008. Marine benthic habitat classification: What’s best for Alaska? In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 169–184.

181 615 Huff, L.C., 2008. Acoustic remote sensing as a tool for habitat mapping in Alaskan waters. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 29–45. APPENDIX III :: PUBLICATIONS THROUGH 2008 241

Pub# Project Reference

182 615 Kurland, J., and Woodby, D., 2008. What is marine habitat mapping and why do managers need it? In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 13–27.

183 615 Reynolds, J.R., Greene, H.G., Woodby, D., Kurland, J., and Allee, B., 2008. Overview: marine habitat mapping technology for Alaska. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp.Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 1–11.

185 621, 510 Haas, D.L., and Ebert, D.A., 2008. First record of hermaphroditism in the Bering skate, Bathyraja interrupta. Northwestern Naturalist 89: 181–185.

186 510 Ebert, D.A., Smith, W.D., and Cailliet, G.M., 2008. Reproductive biology of two commercially exploited skates, Raja binoculata and R. rhina, in the western Gulf of Alaska. Fisheries Research 94: 48–57.

187 615 Reynolds, J.R., Greene, H.G., Woodby, D., Kurland, J., and Allee, B., 2008. Workshop report: marine habitat mapping technology workshop for Alaska. In: Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 237–265.

188 509 Bechtol, W.R., and Kruse, G.H., 2009. Reconstruction of historical abundance and recruitment of red king crab during 1960–2004 around Kodiak, Alaska. Fisheries Research 100: 86–98.

189 418, 511 Rice, J.S., Gallucci, V.F., and Kruse, G.H., 2009. Evaluation of the precision of age estimates for spiny dogfish. In: Gallucci, .F.,V McFarlane, G.A., and Bargmann, G.G. (Eds.), Biology and Management of Dogfish Sharks. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 161–168.

190 615 Reynolds, J.R., and Greene, H.G. (Eds.), 2008. Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

194 607 Jin, M., Deal, C., Wang, J., and McRoy, C.P., 2009. Response of lower trophic level production to long-term climate change in the southeastern Bering Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research 114, C04010.

196 413 Williams, C.T., Iverson, S.J., and Buck, C.L., 2008. Stable isotopes and fatty acid signatures reveal age- and stage-dependent foraging niches in tufted puffins. Marine Ecology Progress Series 363: 287–298.

197 417 Lauth, R.R., McEntire, S.W., and Zenger, H.H., 2007. Geographic distribution, depth range, and description of Atka mackerel Pleurogrammus monopterygius nesting habitat in Alaska. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 12(2): 165–186.

200 607 Deal, C.J., Jin, M., and Wang, J., 2008. The significance of water column nitrification in the southeastern Bering Sea . Chinese Journal of Polar Science 19(2): 185–192.

202 607 Jin, M., Deal, C., and Wang, J., 2008. A coupled ice-ocean ecosystem model for 1-D and 3-D applications in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Chinese Journal of Polar Science 19(2): 204–215.

203 828 Panteleev, G., Yaremchuk, M., and Nechaev, D., 2009. Optimization of mooring observations in Northern Bering Sea. Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans 48(1–3): 143– 154.

204 828 Panteleev, G., Nechaev, D., Luchin, V., Stabeno, P., Maximenko, N., and Ikeda, M., 2008. Toward development of the 4Dvar data assimilation system in the Bering Sea: Reconstruction of the mean dynamic ocean topography. Chinese Journal of Polar Science 19(2): 123–135.

206 415 Hoff, G. R., 2008. A nursery site of the Alaska skate (Bathyraja parmifera) in the eastern Bering Sea. Fishery Bulletin 106(3): 233–244.

235 510 Bizzarro, J.J., and Vaughn, M.T., 2008. First records of the whiteblotched skate (Bathyraja maculata) in the eastern Gulf of Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 89: 193–197. 242 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Appendix IVA: Statement of Organization, Practices and Procedures (Originally approved in October 2002; revised through December 2008)

Table of Contents

Section Title Page

1. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, FUNCTION, MISSION AND GOALS.………...... 243 A. Legislative Authority and Function...... 243 B. Mission and Goals...... 243

2. BOARD ORGANIZATION…………………………………………………...... 244 A. Membership………………………………………………...... 244 B. Special Fishing Industry Seat………………………………...... 244 C. Officers and Terms of Office……………………………...... 244 D. Designees and Alternates……………………………………...... 245 E. Advisory Groups…………………………………………...... 245 F. Committees………………………………………………...... 245 G. Expenses……………………………………………………...... 245 H. Cooperative Arrangements…………………………………...... 245 I. Miscellaneous Fiscal Policy Decisions……………………...... 245

3. BOARD MEETINGS……………………………………………………………...... 246 A. Notice………………………………………………………...... 246 B. Conduct of Meetings………………………………………...... 246 C. Record………………………………………………………...... 247 D. Closed Meetings……………………………………………...... 247 E. Frequency and Duration……………………………………...... 247 F. Emergency Meetings………………………………………...... 247 G. Location……………………………………………………...... 247 H. Conflicts of Interest and Recusal……………………………...... 247 I. Miscellaneous Science Policies and Procedures……………...... 248

Table 1 DECISION MATRIX FOR FULL BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE...... 250

Attachment 1 SCIENCE PANEL POLICY AND PROCEDURES ...... 251 (Includes conflict of interest procedures for technical reviewers.)

Attachment 2 ADVISORY PANEL POLICY AND PROCEDURES...... 254

Attachment 3 POLICY ON SUBAWARD COMPLIANCE...... 256 APPENDIX IVA :: STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION, Practices, and Procedures 243

1. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, FUNCTION, MISSION, AND GOALS

A. Legislative Authority and Function The North Pacific Research Board (Board) was created by Congress under Title IV of H.R. 2107, signed into law on November 14, 1997 as P.L. 105-83, and codified as 43 U.S.C. §1474d. The Board is authorized to recommend marine research to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), who makes final funding decisions. Research is funded by part of the interest earned by the Environmental Improvement and Restoration Fund (EIRF) created under 43 U.S.C. §1474d. Each year, 20 percent of the interest earned and transferred to the EIRF is made available to the Secretary without further appropriation to carry out marine research activities. The enabling legislation requires EIRF funds to be used to conduct research activities on or relating to the fisheries or marine ecosystems in the north Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean (including any lesser related bodies of water). Research priorities and grant requests are reviewed by the Board which will seek to avoid duplicating other research and will place a priority on cooperative research efforts designed to address pressing fishery management or marine ecosystem information needs.

B. Vision, Mission, and Goals The Board’s vision statement is as follows: A clear understanding of the North Pacific, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean ecosystems that enables effective management and sustainable use of marine resources.

The Board’s mission statement is as follows: To develop a comprehensive science program of the highest caliber to enhance understanding of the North Pacific, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean ecosystems and fisheries. It will conduct its work through science planning, prioritization of pressing fishery management and ecosystem information needs, coordination and cooperation among research programs, competitive selection of research projects, increased information availability, and public involvement.

To carry out its mission, the NPRB has adopted the following supporting goals: • Improve understanding of North Pacific marine ecosystem dynamics and use of the resources; • Improve ability to manage and protect the fish and wildlife populations that comprise the ecologically diverse marine ecosystems of the North Pacific, and provide long-term, sustained benefits to local communities and the nation; • Improve ability to forecast and respond to effects of changes, through integration of various research activities, including long-term monitoring; • Foster cooperation with other entities conducting research and management in the North Pacific, and work toward common goals for North Pacific marine ecosystems; and • Support high quality projects that promise long-term results as well as those with more immediate applicability.

The Board has written criteria for submission of proposals through a competitive process and for deciding upon the funding awards. These review criteria are incorporated in all annual and special requests for proposals issued by the Board and may be revised from time to time as appropriate. Research proposals are recommended by the Board based on scientific merit and must be responsive to research priorities identified annually by the Board on the basis of its science plan. The Secretary, through his designee, the Alaska Regional Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service, reviews proposals recommended by the Board. The enabling legislation stipulates that the Secretary must explain in writing why he or she disapproved a Board recommendation. Further, the Secretary cannot choose to fund another project unless it has been recommended by the Board. The Secretary also must provide the Board such administrative and technical support as is necessary for the effective function- ing of the Board.

(Note: Original Section 2 on NORTH PACIFIC MARINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE was deleted because NPMRI has not been funded since 2001 and no longer is active.) 244 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

2. BOARD ORGANIZATION

A. Membership The Board has twenty members. Five members are designated as voting members by the enabling legislation. These five members comprise the executive committee of the Board, and all decisions of the Board, including grant recommendations, require a majority vote of the five members. The five voting members may act on behalf of the Board in all matters of administration, including the disposition of research funds. The five voting members include the following representatives or their designees: 1. Secretary of Commerce, 2. Alaska Commissioner of Fish and Game, 3. Chairman of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 4. Director of the Alaska SeaLife Center, and 5. One member who shall represent fishing interests and shall be nominated by the Board and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.

The Board has fifteen other members comprised of the following representatives or their designees: 1. Secretary of State, 2. Secretary of Interior, 3. Commandant of the Coast Guard, 4. Director of Office of Naval Research, 5. Chairman of the Arctic Research Commission, 6. Director of the Oil Spill Recovery Institute, 7. Five members nominated by the Governor of Alaska and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, of whom one each shall represent fishing interests, Alaska Natives, environmental interests, academia , and oil and gas interests, 8. Three members nominated by the Governor of Washington and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, and 9. One member nominated by the Governor of Oregon and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.

The members of the Board shall be individuals knowledgeable by education, training, or experience regarding fisheries or marine ecosystems in the North Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, or Arctic Ocean. Three nominations must be submitted for each member appointed under provisions 7-9 above, and those members are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce for three- year terms and may be reappointed.

B. Special Fishing Industry Seat The fishing industry seat on the executive committee is nominated by the Board and subject to approval and appointment by the Secretary of Commerce. Though there is no term length or limit for this seat specified in the enabling legislation, the Secretary has applied a three-year term for this special seat. The call for nominations for the fishing industry seat is published on the Board’s website and advertised in the North Pacific Fishery Management Council newsletter which is distributed widely to the fishing industry. The executive committee uses the following criteria in reviewing nominations: 1. Knowledge or experience regarding commercial fishing, processing, or marketing of fish in one or more commercial fisheries off Alaska; 2. Knowledge or experience regarding management, conservation, and stewardship of natural resources, including related interactions with industry, government bodies, academic institutions, and public agencies; 3. Experience in a state or regional organization whose members participate in an Alaska fishery; 4. Experience serving as a member of the NPRB, North Pacific Council, or Alaska Board of Fisheries or their associated committees; 5. Knowledge or experience regarding marine research organizations and activities off Alaska; and 6. Minimum potential for conflict of interest in funding decisions of the Board, as defined in NPRB policy.

C. Officers and Terms of Office A Chairman and Vice Chairman are elected from the members of the executive committee by a majority vote of the executive committee and a majority vote of the other members present and voting. Both officers serve for one year and may succeed themselves. They are elected at the first regular Board meeting held during any calendar year and their terms of office expire at the next regular Board meeting held after the first of any calendar year. If theex-officio status changes for any of the officers, then at the next regular meeting, the Board shall appoint interim officers to serve until the next regular election meeting. APPENDIX IVA :: STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION, Practices, and Procedures 245

The Chairman, or in his absence the Vice Chairman, has authority to convene and adjourn meetings and public hearings and designate members of the Board and its standing committees to attend meetings and public hearings. He will control meetings and hearings by recognizing speakers and establishing the order of business. The Chairman certifies the minutes of the meeting as complete and accurate before they are available for general distribution.

D. Designees and Alternates Designees of ex-officio members may have an alternate with voting privileges, so long as the Board is notified before a meeting that the alternate will be attending in place of the designee. Reimbursement of travel expenses to any meeting is limited to the member or one designee or alternate. State-nominated members that are appointed by the Secretary may have designees, in accordance with the enabling legislation, but they have not been granted voting privileges by the executive committee. (May 2003)

E. Advisory Groups The Board has established two formal advisory groups, a 16-member Science Panel and a 13-member advisory panel. Standard operating procedures for the Science Panel and Advisory Panel are described in Attachments 1 and 2, respectively.

F. Committees The Board may appoint other standing and ad hoc committees as deemed necessary, and will specify the purpose and duration of each committee.

G. Expenses Enabling legislation states that members of the Board may be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in performance of their duties for the Board. The Board reimburses such costs while at Board and executive meetings, only for those members not affiliated with federal agencies. The Board does not reimburse costs for preparation time away from Board meetings. The Board reimburses travel costs for members to the annual marine science symposia and other Board approved activities.

H. Cooperative Arrangements The Board may enter into cooperative arrangements with other groups and organizations with similar goals and activities for the purpose of furthering cooperation, collaboration, coordination, and communication. In May 2003 the Board stated its intention that any joint meetings would be held in association with regularly scheduled Board meetings to reduce travel time and costs.

I. Miscellaneous Fiscal Policy Decisions Though the SOPP’s were not formally amended, the Board from time to time has adopted additional policies and procedures that relate to its finances and expenditures. They are referenced to the Board meeting(s) when they were considered or acted upon.

• Forward fund the budget by one year. For example, apply FY2003 earnings to FY2005, FY2004 earnings to FY2006, and so forth. (general budget approach starting in 2002) • Do not compensate Board members for participation, but do reimburse travel costs. (February 2002) • Decision matrix in SOPP specifies that full Board is needed to approve annual budgets, but the Executive Committee reviews periodic audits and monitors grant performance. (October 2002) • Board will not compensate for proposal reviews. (June 2002) • Science Panel members will not be compensated. (October 2002, July 2004) • Make maximum use of the 15% cap on administration funding, applying it as broadly as possible to current and future grants. (March 2003) • Cap funds annually available for outside meetings at $50,000, exclusive of NPRB-initiated workshops, synthesis meetings, and the annual science symposium. Criteria for vetting meeting requests are as follow: o Is symposium directly related to NPRB-sponsored research? Are our principal investigators involved? How broadly representative are the participants? o Is it relevant to key research issues/questions of interest to NPRB? o How does it fit with our science plan and policies? o What will we learn from the event? Are the symposium products clearly identified and will they help the NPRB achieve its goals and objectives? o Is the funding for a one-time meeting or a series of meetings? o How much is being requested and are other sponsors identified? o If it has resource management implications, are other resource management agencies co-funding the meeting? o Is it being held in the Pacific Northwest (WA, OR, BC) or Alaska? 246 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

The executive director is delegated authority to approve amounts of $5,000 or less, and report to the Board at the next regular meeting. Individual requests exceeding $5,000 will be brought to the Board for approval. (March 2004) • Board member travel expenses to annual Alaska Marine Science Symposium will be reimbursed. (September 2004) • Adopt general practice of using all of the appropriated funds (starting with FY2005 appropriations) for science planning and research, instead of using any for administrative costs. • Keep in reserve at all times at least two fiscal years requirements for administrative funding, but review budget needs each March for the coming two years and redirect excess administrative funds to science. This later was reduced to a one-year buffer in 2008 to make funding available to support the Gulf of Alaska integrated ecosystem research program. (September 2005, September 2008)

3. BOARD MEETINGS

The Board is considered an advisory panel established under section 302(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C 1801 et seq.)(Act) for the purposes of section 302(i)(1) of the Act, which states that the Board and its advisory panels shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.2). The Board and the executive committee will meet at the call of the Chair or upon request of a majority of the executive committee. The following guidelines, as stipulated under section 302(i) of the Act, shall apply to the extent practicable to the conduct of meetings and hearings of the Board and its advisory panels.

A. Notice Timely notice of meetings and hearings, including the time, place, and agenda of the meeting, shall be widely distributed to appropriate media sites and made available on the Board’s website.

B. Conduct of Meetings Board meetings will be conducted according to Roberts Rules of Order and will be open to the public. Public testimony will be taken on matters on the agenda. All written information submitted to the Board by an interested person shall include a statement of the source and date of such information. Any oral or written statement shall include a brief description of the background and interests of the person in the subject of the oral or written statement.

A quorum (which also applies to teleconferences) is defined as the presence of at least three executive committee members and nine other members. A quorum is required to convene a meeting, but once established, the Board may continue without a quorum to conduct its business in accordance with its operating procedures.

The Board will adhere to the following voting procedures:

a. For any motion, the Chairman will ask first if there are any objections. b. If there are no objections, a motion passes unanimously. If there are objections, then: i. A motion is considered approved by “useful consensus,” if three or less members object. ii. If at least 20% of the members present and voting object, then a poll is taken. iii. For a motion to pass by polling there must be (1) an affirmative vote of a simple majority of the Executive Committee, and (2) an affirmative vote of a simple majority of other members present and voting.

The use of a proxy is not permitted. At the request of any member of the Board, the Board shall hold a roll call vote on any matter before the Board. The official minutes and other appropriate records of any Board meeting shall identify all roll call votes held and the final vote tallies for the executive committee and the other members. How each member voted will not be identified by name in the meeting summary.

The above procedures apply to major decisions that must be made by the full Board, rather than by the executive committee. The Board has distinguished between major decisions that must be made by the full Board and those that may be made by the executive committee (Table 1 adopted May 2003).

The Board will follow standard sequence of procedures during meetings. Agenda items and times will be posted. Each agenda issue will be taken up in the following sequence: the Board will hear staff reports and ask any clarifying questions, and then, committee and/or work group reports will be presented. These will be followed by public comments. Five minutes will be APPENDIX IVA :: STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION, Practices, and Procedures 247 allowed for each person to provide comment. Board members may ask up to two clarification questions per commenter. Sign-up sheets will be made available for persons to register to give public comment. After the close of the public comment session, the Board will discuss the issue and take action as necessary. Notebook materials should clearly identify the actions required. (adopted in October 2002)

C. Record Detailed minutes of each meeting of the Board, except for any closed session, shall be kept and shall contain a record of the persons present, a complete and accurate description of matters discussed and conclusions reached, and copies of all statements filed. The Chairman shall certify the accuracy of the minutes of each such meeting and submit a copy to the Secretary. Subject to confidentiality procedures established by the Board, the administrative record and minutes of each meeting and records or other documents which were made available to or prepared for or by the Board, executive committee, or panel incident to the meeting, shall be available for public inspection and copying at a single location in the offices of the Board, or the Secretary, as appropriate.

D. Closed Meetings The Board and its executive committee may close any meeting, or portion thereof, that concerns matters that pertain to international fisheries negotiations, personnel matters, or briefings on litigation in which the Board is interested. During executive sessions, the Board will waive the requirement to operate in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order when considering the memberships of its advisory committees and panels, or personnel matters. For closed meetings, a general list of topics discussed and people present will be maintained as a record of that meeting. This does not require notification regarding any brief closure of a portion of a meeting to discuss employment or other internal administrative matters.

E. Frequency and Duration The Board normally meets approximately two times each year. Each meeting generally lasts two to three days. The executive committee may meet more frequently at the call of the Chairman.

F. Emergency Meetings In the event of an emergency requiring Board action, the executive committee will be convened to address the emergency. The Executive Director will poll other Board members on their opinion on how to address the emergency, but final resolution will be left to the discretion of the executive committee.

G. Location The Board normally will meet in Anchorage, Alaska, but may meet, as appropriate and if funding allows, in other communities in any of the constituent States of the Board.

H. Conflicts of Interest and Recusal Board members must refrain from voting under three circumstances: (1) on approval of funding for a research project if the Board member is listed as a principal investigator or collaborator whose curriculum vitae is included in the proposal, (2) if the decision would have a significant and predictable effect on their financial interest, or (3) if the Board member believes he/she has a conflict of interest.

Examples of instances covered under (3) include: • Current employment in the specific department of the applicant for research funds • Ownership of the institution’s securities or other evidences of debt • Known family or marriage relationship, if relationship is with a principal investigator or collaborator whose curriculum vitae is included in the proposal • Business or professional partnership with a principal investigator or collaborator whose curriculum vitae is included in the proposal (Adopted March 2003)

Conflict of interestprocedures for the Science Panel and Advisory Panel are incorporated in their operating procedures, attachments 1 and 2, respectively. Conflict of interest procedures for technical reviewers are included in the Science Panel procedures. 248 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

I. Miscellaneous Science Policies and Procedures Adopted by the Board Though the SOPP’s were not formally amended, the Board from time to time has adopted additional policies and procedures that relate to conduct of its science and research activities. They are referenced to the Board meeting(s) when they were considered or acted upon.

Confidentiality of Proposals. In processing its first RFP in 2002, the Board considered confidentiality of proposals. At first the Board made available to the public the proposal titles, authors, duration and funding requests, but kept the full text of the proposals confidential until approved for funding. Once funded, they were considered the property of NPRB and the full proposal was published on the website, without sensitive budget information. (June, October 2002) The Board subsequently decided to make proposal summary pages available to the public. (March 2003) In summary, the current practice is that research proposals shall be deemed proprietary and confidential until the Board approves them for funding. Funded proposals then may be released to the public. Unfunded proposals remain proprietary and confidential, with the exception that project title, author(s), funds requested, and duration will be disclosed to the public. Proposal summary pages for all proposals will be made public (adopted in March 2003).

Grievance Procedures. There is no formal grievance procedure for applicants for research funds. Submitters of rejected proposals will have the opportunity to re-submit rejected proposals in the next annual cycle with changes and/or responses to technical evaluations. (October 2002)

Supplementing Agency Programs. The Board considered whether to fund research which it believes is more an agency responsibility. While the Board needs to coordinate and cooperate with agencies conducting research in the North Pacific, and attempt to address gaps in research, it does not want to be placed in the position of making up shortfalls in agency funded research. The Board will review proposals in that light, and make decisions on a case-by-case basis. (June 2002)

Equipment Purchases. The Board considered whether to set policy on funding equipment purchases. Some proposals were for the purchase of equipment such as a bomb calorimeter, but no actual research. The Board decided to fund several equipment purchases in anticipation of potentially valuable, future research that may be performed using that equipment. (June 2002)

Interagency Agreements with Other Research Entities. In addition to the periodic memoranda of understanding the Board signs with federal agencies to fund research by federal scientists, the Board is party to the following extant interagency agreements which are kept on file at the Board office:

(1) A memorandum of understanding signed in 2001 by NOAA, the Alaska SeaLife Center and the Board concerning the establishment of the North Pacific Marine Research Institute and the administration of the Environmental Improvement and Restoration Fund;

(2) A memorandum of agreement signed in 2003 by the Board, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (EVOSTC), and the University of Alaska, for establishing shared research priorities, coordination of research programs and cooperation in developing a network of people to assist with proposal and program reviews;

(3) A memorandum of agreement signed in 2004 by the EVOSTC and the Board concerning a combined Linux server purchase and use;

(4) A joint protocol signed in 2005 by the Board and the Oil Spill Recovery Institute to facilitate a partnership for funding research; and

(5) A management plan signed in 2006 by the Board and the National Science Foundation for the joint partnership for funding and managing the Bering Sea ecosystem studies.

Pre-proposal Process. The Board considered a pre-proposal process for its annual RFPs, but concerns were raised over the time that would be necessary to conduct the preliminary review, and the expectations that an applicant might have if requested to submit a full proposal, but then subsequently be denied funding. Requesting pre-proposals might also encourage many applicants to submit a one or two-page proposal which would require an inordinate amount of time to screen, leading to larger expenditure of staff time than is currently required to review full proposals. The Board decided against calling for pre-proposals for the annual RFP (but they did decide to call for pre-proposals for the BSIERP and GOAIERP in 2007 and 2008). (May 2003) APPENDIX IVA :: STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION, Practices, and Procedures 249

Initial Screening of Proposals. This subject was considered by the Board initially in March 2005 and a policy was adopted in September 2005. It resulted in authorization for the staff to screen applications for conformance with requirements set forth in the RFP notice. The evaluation also will consider whether the proposal is responsive to NPRB enabling legislation and criteria and adequately addresses one or more of the research priorities and program needs listed in this notice. The Executive Director will request an ad hoc committee of available Science Panel members to help in the initial screening. Those proposals that are found by the Executive Director and the ad hoc committee to not comply with the requirements of the RFP will be rejected without further processing. (March and September 2005)

Confidentiality of Video and Photographic Information. In March 2003 the Board had approved two proposals thatwould involve taking photos or video footage of operations on commercial fishing vessels. Fishing companies then raised concerns that these images might be obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests or court subpoenas and used for unintended purposes, such as evidence in injury cases. Board members noted that protecting fishermen privacy must be balanced against providing access to raw data sufficient to allow for peer review and validation of research results. The Board requested a legal opinion from NOAA General Counsel, but none was forthcoming. The issue was never resolved. The statement of work for one of the projects was revised to have private industry purchase the imaging equipment and thus the raw footage was not the property of the Board. (May and October 2003)

Out-of-Cycle Proposals. In 2006, the Board had to deal with a proposal that was received out-of-cycle. It was an ADFG proposal to collect information on direct mortality inflicted on Steller sea lions by humans, and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council needed the information quickly, which meant it could not go through the regular annual RFP process. The following approach was used to process that proposal:

1. It was sent to the executive committee to determine if there was interest in moving forward. 2. Anonymous technical reviews were gathered. 3. It was considered scientifically meritorious and sent out to full Board for comments. 4. On basis of comments and reviews, executive committee made the final decision whether to fund.

The critical factor in processing this proposal was the need for the information for an ESA-related issue. It must be determined on a case-by-case basis whether a proposal is sufficiently important to require immediate processing rather than delaying it to the annual RFP cycle. The bar should be placed very, very high for an out-of-cycle proposal to be considered. A proponent must make a very compelling case why proposed work cannot wait until the next RFP, and not just be on a fishing expedition for funds. The Board agreed that the staff should be delegated the authority to make the decision about whether a proposal needs to be processed immediately or not. The applicant can always walk it up the line to the Executive Committee and then Board if the staff turns the proposal down. Otherwise, the proposal will need to go through the annual RFP process. The Board requested the staff to send it the results of any final decisions on out-of-cycle proposals. (September 2006)

Related to this issue is a request that came to the Board in April 2008 for additional funds for an ongoing project that had been funded earlier by the Board. Additional funds were requested for additional analysis of extra samples to study squid biology and life-history information. The Board voted against providing extra funds, noting that it would set precedence and that funding requests should come to the Board under the regular requests for proposals.

Subaward Compliance Policy. The Board approved a policy on subaward compliance in April 2009. (Attachment 3)

[Note: Additional policies on scientific quality and integrity, data management and quality control, and other issues directly relating to NPRB’s science program may be found in Chapter 5 (p. 155-163) of the 2005 Science Plan. The Board’s report titled The Foundational Years: 2001-2008, also should be consulted for additional information on policies and procedures adopted during that period.] 250 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Table 1. Decision Matrix for Full Board and Executive Committee

Full Board Executive Committee

Standard Operating Procedures Annual schedule X Full Board dates and location X Full Board draft agendas X Board officers and elections X Committee structure X Standing Committee memberships X Ad hoc Committee memberships X Approval of MOA/MOUs w/ other orgs. X Executive Committee meetings X

Annual Research Cycle Annual schedule X Annual science plan & research priorities X Request for proposals X Public hearing schedule and locations X Approach for technical review of proposals X EIRF research project approval X NPMRI project approval X Non-EIRF research project approval X

Coordination and Outreach Educational activities X Outreach activities X

Fiscal Matters Annual budget X Review of periodic audits X Staff administration/oversight X Personnel issues X

Grant Performance Monitoring X APPENDIX IVA :: STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION, Practices, and Procedures 251

ATTACHMENT 1

NPRB Science Panel and Affiliated Work Groups Policy and Procedures

1. Purpose and Need The overall mission of the North Pacific Research Board is to develop a comprehensive science program of the highest caliber that will provide better understanding of the North Pacific, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean ecosystems and their fisheries, and help to sustain and enhance the living marine resources. The Board strongly supports extensive science planning, coordination, and review to enhance its high quality research program, taking into account regional needs. The program will strive to produce scientific knowledge that provides a reference point for understanding the marine ecosystem and impacts of human activities and natural variability on that system.

The Science Panel established by the Board will help shape its comprehensive research program and provide other scientific advice. The Panel’s membership will be drawn from experts in fields of science most relevant to the Board’s interests, such as oceanography, ecosystems dynamics, fish ecology, marine mammal and seabird biology, fisheries management, and socioeconomics. The Board will have access to all areas of knowledge necessary to the development of its research program through the combination of the expertise of the Panel and its supporting peer review process.

2. Objectives and Duties As requested by the Board, through its Chairman or Executive Director, the Science Panel shall:

a. Advise the Board on science planning and identification of research priorities; b. Help develop a science plan that includes a conceptual foundation, central hypotheses and questions for research; c. Advise the Board in identification, development, collection, and evaluation of statistical, biological, oceanographic, ecological, economic, social and other scientific information relevant to the Board’s mission; d. Review proposals and technical evaluations received by the Board; e. Review reports and advise the Board on how to ensure the quality of reports and other products generated by funded research; f. Provide annual reviews of funded research to ensure stated goals and milestones of the research are on schedule; and g. Provide other scientific advice as requested by the Board.

The Panel also will interface with work groups and committees appointed by the Board to develop science plans and research priorities. Minutes shall be kept of each Science Panel meeting and shall be provided to the Board and the public.

3. Members and Officers The Science Panel will have up to 16 members, all of whom shall be appointed by the Board, with the advice of the existing Panel, if applicable. They should include individuals with expertise in fields of science most relevant to the Board’s interests, including but not limited to oceanography, ecosystems dynamics, fish ecology, marine mammal and seabird biology, fisheries management, and socioeconomics. They may be drawn from state/federal agencies, academia, or private organizations. They shall be selected for their expertise, broad perspective, long experience, and leadership in areas important to the Board’s research program. They may have a direct interest in Board funding, but must adhere to recusal procedures prescribed by the Board. They shall be appointed for staggered 2-year terms and may be reappointed. Vacancies may be filled for the remaining unexpired term. The Science Panel Chair and Vice Chair shall be elected by the Panel from among its members for 1-year terms. Members may not designate alternates. The Panel shall attempt to operate by consensus, however, decisions will be made by majority vote in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order whenever necessary.

4. Administrative Provisions The Panel shall meet as a whole, or in part, at the request of the Chairman of the Panel, with the approval of the Chairman of the Board, as often as necessary to fulfill the Panel’s responsibilities, taking into consideration time and budget constraints. It is anticipated that the Panel will meet at least three to four times a year on the following occasions: (1) in late summer to develop recommended research priorities for the coming year, (2) in early winter to review research proposals received in response to the annual request for proposals, (3) in the spring to review research results and assist in science planning, and (4) at other times deemed necessary by the Chairman of the Board. The Executive Director shall provide such staff and other support as the Board 252 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

considers necessary for Panel activities, within budgetary limitations. Panel members will be paid their actual travel expenses in performing their duties in accordance with applicable law and Board travel policy.

5. Science Panel Member Selection Process The Executive Director shall issue a public call for nominations to serve on the Science Panel. It will identify the types of expertise and qualifications the Board is seeking in nominees. Any person (including oneself) or organization is free to make a nomination. A one to two page curriculum vitae and three letters of reference must be provided for each nominee. The letters of reference should come from people who have worked with the nominee on a range of relevant research activities. The list of nominees will be reviewed by a nominating committee of Board members which will develop a recommended list of nominations based on criteria set forth by the Board. The list of nominees, the committee’s recommendations, and any related information shall be forwarded to the Board for consideration and approval. Additional nominations may be solicited by the Board at its discretion.

6. Affiliated Work Groups The Board, or the Science Panel, subject to the approval of the Board, and subject to budget limitations, may establish work groups to provide guidance on research topics, testable hypotheses and other topics for consideration by the Board. Work groups shall identify implementation strategies and possible locations for measuring and monitoring variables that are relevant to the key questions and testable hypotheses. Work groups may help organize peer review on proposals and project reports and may recommend appropriate peer reviewers.

Initially, work groups may be organized along the lines of the seven primary categories of research priorities: marine ecosystem structure and processes, endangered and stressed species, fish habitat, fishery management and economics, bycatch, stock assessment and recruitment processes, and contaminants. Work group structure may evolve as a result of future science planning efforts, particularly as they relate to the Board’s science planning process being assisted by the National Research Council.

Work groups may be composed of 5-8 individuals: scientists, resource managers, and/or experts selected primarily for disciplinary expertise and familiarity with the broad research priorities of the Board. Other criteria include institutional and professional affiliations in order to promote collaboration and cooperation. They may include principal investigators of Board projects. Work groups shall strive for consensus, and meetings will be run in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order. Subject to availability of funds, work group members shall be reimbursed for travel, meals, and lodging not covered by their respective agency/ employer.

NPRB Science Panel Members and Independent Technical Reviewers Conflict-of-Interest and Confidentiality Requirements Conflict of Interest The success of the North Pacific Research Board (Board) in performing its functions depends on the effectiveness and integrity of its decision-making processes. If Board decisions are tainted by conflicting interests, its integrity is severely compromised. The Board must earn the confidence of the scientific community, of the Congress, and of the general public in the integrity, effectiveness, and evenhandedness of its decision-making processes. It will not do so if these processes are seen to be compromised by conflicts of interests. Science Panel members and independent technical reviewers should consider potential conflict situations that may arise in their review of research proposals and in other activities related to the Board. The Board decided in October 2002 that an individual may serve on the Science Panel despite a personal conflict, but must recuse him/herself from voting under three broad affiliations characterized below. The member may remain in the meeting for discussion purposes for all affiliations except item 2, bullet 4, wherein the member must leave the room during discussions and voting. Independent technical reviewers should recuse themselves from evaluating proposals if any of the following circumstances apply.

1. Affiliation with an Applicant Institution • Current employment at the applicant institution or agency within the specific department of the applicant, or being considered for employment in that department • Ownership of the institution’s securities or other evidences of debt • Current membership on a visiting committee or similar body that directly relates to the proposal. • Current enrollment as a student at a department or school submitting a proposal if the proposed project will be of direct professional or financial benefit • Received and retained an honorarium or award related to work or activities in the specific department of the applicant within the last 12 months APPENDIX IVA :: STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION, Practices, and Procedures 253

2. Affiliation with an Investigator, Project Director, or Other Person with Personal Interest in the Proposal • Known family or marriage relationship, if relationship is with a principal investigator, collaborator (if curriculum vitae is included in proposal) or project director • Business or professional partnership • Past or present association as major thesis/dissertation advisor or thesis/dissertation student to one of the principal investigators • Science Panel member is a principal investigator on a proposal or is listed as a collaborator and a curriculum vitae is included in the proposal package (for this case only, the panel member must leave the room during discussion and voting on that particular proposal) • Technical reviewers who have submitted a proposal may be called on to review other proposals, but only if there is a shortage of available reviewers.

3. Other Affiliations or Relationships • Interests of the following persons must be treated as if they were that of the Science Panel member or technical reviewer: any affiliationor relationship of member’s spouse or minor child or sibling, of a relative living in the immediate household or of anyone who is legally a partner of the member, that would be covered by the affiliations listed above • Other relationship, such as a very close personal friendship or open antagonism that might tend to affect a member’s judgment or be seen as doing so by a reasonable person familiar with the relationship

Confidentiality of Documents and Restriction on Contact Unfunded proposals will remain proprietary and confidential, though the title, author, requested funding amount, performance period, and proposal summary page will be made available to the public. Science Panel members will be given access to the full text of proposals and associated technical reviews, but cannot use that information for personal benefit or make it available for the personal benefit of any other individual or organization. Technical reviewers must follow the same requirements, but will not be given access to other reviews. Proposals and materials from unfunded proposals must not be copied, quoted or otherwise disclosed outside official Science Panel meetings, or for non-NPRB related purposes. Panel members and reviewers must not retain copies of proposals in full or part, after completing the review process. They must not contact the originators of proposals under review concerning any aspect of the contents, without NPRB approval. (Adopted March 2003) 254 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

ATTACHMENT 2 NPRB Advisory Panel Policy and Procedures

1. Purpose and Need The overall mission of the North Pacific Research Board is to develop and maintain a comprehensive science program of the highest caliber that will provide better understanding of the North Pacific, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean ecosystems and their fisheries, and help to sustain and enhance the living marine resources. The Board strongly supports extensive science planning, coordination, and review to enhance its high quality research program, taking into account regional needs. The program will strive to produce scientific knowledge that provides a reference point for understanding the marine ecosystem and impacts of human activities and natural variability on that system.

The Advisory Panel will advise the Board on accomplishing its overall mission by providing a mechanism for meaningful community involvement throughout the science program from planning to oversight and review. The Advisory Panel will have a significant advice-giving role, with active involvement in setting research priorities, defining questions, and helping the Board field an effective and meaningful education and outreach program.

2. Membership The Advisory Panel will have up to 10 members and will be representative of user groups and other interested parties from the various regions within the Board’s purview. The Board will not identify specific areas of expertise for potential Panel members, but rather it will retain the flexibility needed to consider applicants in terms of current research priorities and requirements for balanced representation across regions and topical research areas. The Board intends to refresh and redirect committee membership as new research directions and issues emerge over time.

3. Call for Nominations The Executive Director shall issue a public call for nominations to serve on the Advisory Panel. Nominations will be called for every other year, most likely in January, so that appointments may be made at the March Board meeting. It is the desire of the Board to have new members of the Advisory Panel appointed and available to meet in May or early June of each year to help in identifying draft research priorities that will be considered for incorporation in the request for proposals that normally will be released each fall. Any person (including oneself) or organization is free to make a nomination. A one to two page resume must be provided for each nominee. Letters of reference also may be submitted. The list of nominees will be reviewed by the Board in March for possible approval for membership. Additional nominations may be solicited by the Board at its discretion.

The Board will consider the following attributes when deciding on appointments to the Advisory Panel:

• Candidates should have a demonstrated ability to be objective in considering research activities and science planning; • Candidates should be of top quality and caliber and be committed to full and active participation for each meeting during their term; • Candidates should be considered because of the experience they bring to the Board rather than their political clout or onnection; • Candidates should be active, involved members of their community and business to ensure the best and most pertinent input into the Board and likewise should be responsible and diligent in reporting on Board activities back to their communities.

In selecting Panel members, the Board recognizes that constituencies from Washington, Oregon, and other areas may have direct interest in its activities, in addition to people throughout Alaska from Southeast to the Arctic Ocean. Various ad hoc working groups also may be appointed as needed to focus on specific issues.

4. Terms of Membership Advisory Panel members serve for 2-year terms. A member may serve two consecutive 2-year terms, if reappointed by the Board. Vacancies may be filled for the unexpired term. The Board, acting through its Chairman, may remove a member of the Advisory Panel for reasons of malfeasance, incompetence, or failure to attend to membership responsibilities. APPENDIX IVA :: STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION, Practices, and Procedures 255

5. Meetings The Advisory Panel shall meet as a whole, or in part, at the request of the Chairman of the Panel, with the approval of the Chairman of the Board, as often as necessary to fulfill the Advisory Panel’s responsibilities, taking into consideration time and budget constraints. There is no set number of meetings prescribed during the year; rather, the Panel will meet as required and appropriate. The Advisory Panel likely will meet in advance of Board meetings to allow sufficient time for the Panel to prepare recommendations for the Board. All meetings are open to the public.

6. Operations The Advisory Panel Chair and Vice Chair shall be elected by the Panel from among its members for 1-year terms. Members may not designate alternates. The Panel shall attempt to operate by consensus, however, decisions will be made by majority vote in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order whenever necessary. Minutes shall be kept of each Advisory Panel meeting and shall be provided to the Board and the public. The Executive Director shall provide such staff and other support as the Board considers necessary for Panel activities, within budgetary limitations. Panel members will be paid their actual travel expenses in performing their duties in accordance with applicable law and Board travel policy.

7. Conflict of Interest and Recusal Advisory Panel members must refrain from voting if the decision would have a significant and predictable effect on their financial interest or if the member believes he/she has a conflict of interest.

(Originally adopted March 2003; revised May 2005) 256 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

ATTACHMENT 3 North Pacific Research Board Policy Compliance with Subaward Agreements

(Adopted March 2009)*

Purpose The North Pacific Research Board (NPRB) supports marine research activities in the North Pacific based on highly competitive requests for proposals. Projects are funded through NPRB subawards with subrecipients who agree to comply with subaward provisions and all applicable federal law, and perform the work in the research plan. The research plan is the primary basis for selecting proposals by NPRB. It identifies hypotheses, conceptual approach, experimental design, and timelines and measurable milestones used to monitor progress based on periodic financial reports, semi-annual progress reports, and a final report. When approved and subsequently attached as an appendix 1 to the subaward, it becomes the primary basis for evaluating success or failure of the project.

In funding many research projects at institutions across the U.S. and beyond since 2002, NPRB has been fortunate to have supported many very capable principal investigators who have managed their projects successfully. The Board wishes to maintain that high success rate and intends to continue working closely with subrecipients toward successful completion of individual projects.

There are, however, the rare occasions when a project is not progressing satisfactorily. This may happen for a variety of very legitimate reasons, for example, bad weather, absence of animals, equipment failures in remote locations, acts of God, or other factors that may be outside the control of the principal investigators. NPRB fully understands there is risk inherent in conducting scientific research, especially in remote locations, and intends to work closely with subrecipients to bring about a reasonable and acceptable conclusion to those projects.

The procedures herein cover such inadvertence, but this policy is aimed more squarely at situations where principal investigators diverge from their research plan, fail to manage or report properly, or fail to meet other subaward provisions, without prior approval of NPRB. This policy describes steps that NPRB will take to address such deficiencies. Its provisions are derived mainly from a close reading of OMB Circular A-110 (referenced by § in text), NSF Award and Administration Guide (AAG), and the US Department of Commerce Financial Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions (DOC). Part 180 – OMB Guidelines on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension also is referenced.

Guiding Principles In general NPRB will strive to adhere to two guiding principles in taking steps to resolve issues that may arise with research projects. The first guiding principle will be to identify performance problems as early as possible so the subrecipient, working with NPRB, has the opportunity to resolve problems before the situation worsens. NPRB will review progress reports to assess performance. It must be noted, however, that NPRB does not have the primary responsibility for detecting emerging issues. OMB A-133 §215.51(f) requires subrecipients to immediately notify NPRB, as the awarding agency in this case, of developments that have a significant impact on the subaward-supported activities, including any problems, delays, or adverse conditions which may materially impair the ability to meet the objectives of the subaward.

The second guiding principle will be to strive to resolve problems at the lowest point of potential failure, normally at the principal investigator level. Working with the principal investigators, and then the grants managers as appropriate, NPRB will strive to resolve issues at the staff level before elevating the situation to higher authority at the subrecipient or NPRB, as provided for in this policy.

Non-compliance In agreeing to the subaward provisions, the subrecipient accepts full responsibility for managing and monitoring its NPRB- funded project to a successful conclusion (§215.51(a)). Subrecipients must report performance in accordance with subaward provisions, which at a minimum, require brief information on each of the following: a comparison of actual accomplishments to stated goals and objectives, research findings and quantitative data as appropriate, reasons why established goals were

*Note: An interim compliance policy was adopted by the Executive Committee in November 2008. The final policy was adopted in March 2009. The final policy is included here for policy context and clarity. APPENDIX IVA :: STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION, Practices, and Procedures 257 not met, if appropriate, and any cost overruns (§215.51(d)). It has been NPRB’s experience that when problems occur, they generally involve: (1) incomplete or late finance, progress, and final reports; (2) non-achievement of objectives or milestones or pursuit of new ones without prior approval; or (3) incomplete reporting of data or metadata. These problems, as well as any other occasion when subaward provisions are not followed without prior approval of NPRB, may be viewed as instances of non-compliance.

Problem Resolution Successful completion of individual research projects is of paramount importance. NPRB will proceed in good faith to work with recipients and their respective principal investigators and grants managers to resolve potential issues early and at the lowest level necessary in accordance with the two guiding principles stated above. To facilitate resolution, subrecipients are reminded that they are required to:

• Report deviations from budget and program plans and request prior NPRB approval for any change in scope or objective, even if there is no associated budget revision (§215.25(c)). • Immediately notify NPRB of any development that may significantly impact their subaward-supported activities, particularly problems, delays, or adverse conditions which may materially impair the ability to meet their objectives and milestones. The notification must describe the action taken or contemplated and any assistance needed to resolve the situation (§215.51(f)).

Staff Resolution Problems and issues will be resolved to the extent possible through communication between NPRB staff, normally the Science Director, and the principal investigators. If the issue cannot be resolved, the NPRB Executive Director will review the situation and notify the subrecipient, normally through the grants manager, in writing of the circumstances, the nature of the problem, citing the specific deficiency, and the status and outcomes of direct negotiation with the principal investigators to date. A copy of the written communication will be provided to the principal investigator(s). The subrecipient will be requested to respond in writing within 30 calendar days of the date of such communication, describing the steps and schedule for correcting the deficiency (AAG VII.A.2.b(i)). If the prospective actions are deemed satisfactory by the Executive Director, the grants manager will be notified of that decision in writing.

Elevation to NPRB If deficiencies remain unresolved, or the subrecipient has not provided a satisfactory response within the 30-day period or requests to elevate the decision to the Board, the Executive Director will refer the matter in a written report to the NPRB Executive Committee. The report will present the facts as understood, describe the situation and deficiencies, provide responses from the subrecipient, and recommend remedial action as appropriate.

The subrecipient will be notified in writing of this elevation. Upon notification, the subrecipient will have up to 15 calendar days to provide additional information. The NPRB Executive Committee then will review the report and any additional information and take action as appropriate. All actions will be taken by unanimous vote of the members eligible to vote in accordance with NPRB recusal policies. Following a decision, the NPRB Executive Committee will formally notify the subrecipient by certified mail, with copies to the principal investigator(s). The full Board will be informed of the actions taken at their next regularly scheduled meeting.

Mediation If the above procedures fail to resolve the situation, NPRB or the subaward recipient may request formal mediation. In that event, the subaward recipient and NPRB agree to participate in at least two hours of mediation with an independent, professional mediator, with both parties agreeing to share equally in the costs of the mediation. The costs will not include costs incurred by a party for representation by counsel at the mediation. Mediation involves each side of the dispute sitting down with an impartial person, the mediator, to attempt to reach a voluntary settlement. Mediation involves no formal court procedures or rules of evidence, and the mediator does not have the power to render a binding decision or force an agreement on the parties.

Suspension without Prior Notice NPRB may temporarily withdraw its sponsorship under a subaward, pending corrective action by the subrecipient or a decision to terminate the subaward, if the subrecipient has failed to comply with the project objectives, the terms and conditions of the subaward, or reporting requirements (§215.2(ii), §215.22(h)(1), and §215.62(a)). Action by NPRB to suspend an award normally will be taken only after the grants manager has been informed by NPRB of the proposed action and provided an opportunity 258 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

for hearing, appeal, or other administrative proceeding to which the subrecipient is entitled (§215.62(b)), or the steps described above have been taken, and there has been an opportunity to correct the problem(s).

The Executive Director may immediately suspend a subaward without prior notice when it is believed that such action is reasonable to protect the interests of NPRB and the federal government (AAG VII.A.2.a(ii)). No costs incurred during a suspension period will be allowable, except those costs approved by NPRB in the suspension notice, or which, in the opinion of NPRB, are necessary and not reasonably avoidable (§215.62(c)).

The Executive Director then will send a follow-up notice of suspension by certified mail to the subrecipient (normally the grants manager), with a copy to the principal investigator(s), setting forth the reasons for suspension and its effective date. The NPRB Executive Director will inform the NPRB Executive Committee of any such action and provide a written report fully describing the situation, the need for immediate suspension, and the conditions under which the suspension may be lifted. The NPRB Executive Committee will meet as appropriate to determine the next steps for resolving the situation.

Remedies After carefully reviewing the situation and responses from the subrecipient, NPRB will consider taking action as appropriate. NPRB may impose temporary special subaward conditions in accordance with §215.14. NPRB also may take actions as allowed under 215.62(a):

1. Temporarily withhold cash payments pending correction of the deficiency. 2. Disallow all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance. 3. Wholly or partly suspend or terminate the current award. 4. Withhold further awards for the project or program. 5. Take other remedies that may be legally available.

NPRB also may prohibit participation by an individual as a principal investigator, co-investigator or collaborator on new projects for a specified time and under specified conditions until problems are deemed to be resolved by NPRB. Failure to provide required reports within the period specified in the subaward could delay NPRB review and processing of pending proposals for all identified principal investigators and co-PIs on a given subaward (AAG Chapter II.E.4). NPRB also may call for a full audit of expenses for the subaward in question and other subawards to the institution as appropriate.

Remedial actions will stay in effect until all issues identified in writing have been fully resolved to the satisfaction of NPRB. NPRB reserves the right to terminate a subaward if it has attempted to resolve issues under the guidance provided in this policy, but has failed to do so. In cases of termination, NPRB will adhere closely to requirements set out in §215.61 and §215.62.

Research Misconduct Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research funded by NPRB, reviewing research proposals submitted to NPRB, or in reporting research results funded by NPRB. In determining if misconduct has occurred and in taking action, NPRB will adhere as closely as possible to procedures described at AAG Chapter VII.C.

Debarment and Suspension This policy does not refer to debarment or suspension as covered by Part 180 – OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government- wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), in Federal regulations at 70 FR 51865, August 31, 2005, and Executive Orders 12549 and 12689. Under those regulations, certain parties who are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded may not be participants or principals in Federal assistance awards and subawards, and in certain contracts under those awards and subawards (§215.13). NPRB is not defined as a Federal agency pursuant to §180.950, and thus can only make recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce regarding debarment and suspension. The above procedures and remedies do not preclude a subrecipient from being subject to debarment and suspension (§215.62(d)).

Notification This policy was approved by NPRB on March 2, 2009. By reference, it is made part of all NPRB subaward agreements beginning in 2009. Subrecipients will be notified of this policy during each NPRB request for proposals, and must acknowledge and agree to it when accepting subawards. Current and past subawards are covered by their subaward provisions and all applicable Federal law. APPENDIX IVB :: MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT 259

Appendix IVB: Memoranda of Agreement

Memorandum of Understanding between U. S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and The Alaska SeaLife Center and The North Pacific Research Board Concerning the

Establishment of the North Pacific Marine Research Institute and the Administration of the Environmental Improvement and Restoration Fund

I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

A. Introduction Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §2738, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to establish a North Pacific Marine Research Institute to be administered at the Alaska SeaLife Center by the North Pacific Research Board. This memorandum constitutes an agreement between the U.S. ‘Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): the North Pacific Research Board (the Board), and the Alaska Sea Life Center (ASLC) to form a collaborative association which will provide a framework to create the Institute for the purposes of conducting research, carrying out educational projects and carrying out demonstration projects on or relating to the North Pacific marine ecosystem.

In addition, 43 U.S.C. §1474d creates the Environmental Improvement and Restoration Fund (EIRF) which authorizes the Secretary to make grants to Federal, State, private or foreign organizations or individuals to conduct research activities on or relating to the fisheries or marine ecosystems in the North Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean based on recommendations by tb.@ Board.

In furtherance of these statutory initiatives, Congress amended 33 U.S.C. §2738 to provide for the joint administration by the Board of the projects authorized under the Institute and projects authorized to be funded under the EIRF. Public Law 106-554, Miscellaneous Appropriations, Div. B, Title I, Sec. 144 (c).

B. Scope The projects of the Institute will relate to the North Pacific marine ecosystem, with particular emphasis on marine mammal, seabird, fish, and shellfish populations in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska including populations located in or near Kenai Fjords National Park and the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. In an effort to avoid duplicating other research activities administered by the Board, the Parties agree that the Institute and its location, the Alaska SeaLife Center, shall jointly serve as a regional and national center for the Board to administer sub-awards with funds made available to the Secretary of Commerce under the Environmental Improvement and Restoration Fund (43 U.S.C. §1474d) for cooperative marine research projects and activities on or relating to the fisheries or marine ecosystems in the North Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean, including lesser-related bodies of water.

The projects of the Institute and the projects funded under the EIRF shall be administered jointly. 260 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

II. AUTHORITY

In accordance with 33 U.S.C. §2738, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to establish a North Pacific Marine Research Institute to be administered at the Alaska SeaLife Center by the North Pacific Research Board. In addition, the Secretary acting through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is authorized to conduct research and to provide financial assistance in support of the Institute on issues relating to the North Pacific marine ecosystem. Assistance is also authorized for costs associated with the lease, and to maintain, operate, and upgrade research equipment and related facilities necessary to conduct research at the Alaska SeaLife Center. The Institute is not empowered to use Federal funds to initiate litigation or to acquire any interest in real property other than establishing a lease with the Alaska Sea Life Center.

The Board is an advisory panel as defined under 16 U.S.C. §1852(g) and formed pursuant to 43 U.S.C. §1474d to be an administrative arm and recommending body to the Secretary of Commerce to implement a competitive grant program using a portion of the interest earned and covered from the EIRF. The Secretary is authorized to make grants to Federal, State, private or foreign organizations or individuals to conduct research activities on or relating to the fisheries or marine ecosystems in the North Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean based on recommendations by the Board. Congress expanded the Board’s functions to include the administration of the North Pacific Marine Research Institute under 33 U.S.C. §2738.

Congress amended 33 U.S.C. §2738 to give discretion to the Board to provide for the joint administration of the projects authorized under the Institute and projects authorized to be funded under the Environmental Improvement and Restoration Fund (EIRF). Public Law 106-554, Miscellaneous Appropriations, Div. B, Title I, Sec. 144 (c); 33 U.S.C. §2738(e).

III. ESTABLISHMENT The U. S. Department of Commerce hereby establishes, and the Parties agree to establish the North Pacific Marine Research Institute as follows:

A. Location The Institute will be located at the Alaska SeaLife Center and at such other locations as agreed between the North Pacific Research Board and the Alaska Sea Life Center.

B. Administration The Institute will be administered by the North Pacific Research Board at the Alaska SeaLife Center.

No more than ten percent (10%) of funds made available to conduct research and carry out education and demonstration projects under 33 U.S.C. §2738(b)(1) may be used to administer those 33 U.S.C. §2738(b)(1) programs of the Institute. No more than five percent (5%) of funds made available for grants under 43 U.S.C §1474d may be used to administer those 43 U.S.C. §1474d grants. The percentages allotted for administration of §2738(b)(1) programs and §1474d grants respectively may be combined and used to jointly administer those same programs and grants of the Institute. A separate accounting must be maintained to ensure compliance with the statutory limitations imposed on the administrative funds.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. §2) does not apply to the Institute as mandated by 33 U.S.C. §2738(c).

C. Responsibilities of the Parties 1. NOAA a. NOAA will facilitate the transfer of §2738 funds and §1474d funds in accordance with law; approve or reject EIRF grants recommended by the Board to the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to 43 U.S.C. §1474d; have access to any pertinent books, documents, papers and records concerning the administration of funds by the Institute whether written, printed, recorded, ‘produced or reproduced by any mechanical, magnetic or other process or medium, in order-to make audits, inspections,excerpts, transcripts or other examinations as authorized by law; ensure compliance with federal law and regulations; provide technical assistance to the Board in matters pertaining to EIRF grants; and designate one or more individuals within the agency to serve as NOAA Liaison(s) for the Institute.

b. The NOAA Liaison(s) will ensure communication and coordination between Institute activities and the agency’s broader trustee responsibilities to implement and ensure compliance with the intents and purposes of 43 U.S.C. §1474d and 33 U.S.c....§2738. APPENDIX IVB :: MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT 261

2. North Pacific Research Board a. The North Pacific Research Board will make policies for the operations and administration of the North Pacific Marine Research Institute; appoint an Executive Director for Institute affairs; approve budgets for the operations and administration of the Institute; approve research, education and demonstration projects in accordance with 33 U.S.C. §2738; develop criteria and priorities for EIRF grants in a manner that avoids duplication and provides coordination of marine research; make recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce for EIRF grants; provide for scientific guidance and scientific peer review of grant requests and grant administration; provide for oversight of funded projects and funded grants; ensure a public. process of communications and outreach; and administer other marine research that may come within its purview from time to time

b. The Board is composed of the representatives or their designees identified at 43 U.S.C. §1474d(e)(3). The five voting members are the Secretary of Commerce, the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Chairman of the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the Director of the Alaska Sea Life Center, and the person appointed by the Secretary of Commerce to represent fishing interests.

c. The five voting members of the Board may act on behalf of the entire Board in all matters of administration, including the disposition of research funds and administration of research projects not made available through EIRF. All decisions of the Board concerning the EIRF, including grant recommendations, shall be by majority vote of the five voting members, in consultation with other members. The five voting members of the Board shall decide all administrative matters pertaining to the Institute, including the disposition of research funds and administration of research projects. The five voting members of the Board shall decide all administrative matters pertaining to the EIRF program, but shall first consult with the other members of the Board before deciding any non-administrative matters of the EIRF program, such as the establishment of criteria and priorities, and the development of recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce.

3. Alaska SeaLife Center a. The Alaska Sea Life Center will provide administrative infrastructure for the implementation of the policies and priorities of the Board; develop budgetary information for Board consideration and adoption; act as fiscal agent for the Institute; provide the infrastructure and administration of scientific guidance and peer review to ensure the scientific integrity of grants and projects; implement grant administration and the oversight of Institute projects; implement a public process of communications and outreach approved by the Board; implement the administration of other marine research, projects and programs that may come within the purview of the Board from time to time; and, direct its executive director to report to the Board in all matters pertaining to the Institute.

b. Subject to the availability of funds appropriated by Congress and subject to the ordinary budgetary and administrative procedures described in section IV below, NOAA will provide the Alaska SeaLife Center financial assistance for such facilities, including equipment and buildings necessary to conduct the research, education and demonstration projects sponsored by the Institute.

c. The parties agree that the Alaska Sea Life Center shall be appointed fiscal agent to provide a separable, identifiable operating budget with separate accounts maintained for each major research activity in an operating account for the North Pacific Marine Research Institute. The North Pacific Research Board will use these funds to carry out the research, education or demonstration projects and the grant administration at the Alaska SeaLife Center in accordance with 33 U.S.C. §2738(b)(1) and (2), 43 U.S.C. §1474d, and such other laws and regulations as may apply.

D. Projects and Grants 1. The Institute will conduct research, carry out educational projects, and carry out demonstration projects relating to the North Pacific marineecosystem, with particular emphasis on marine mammal, seabird, fish, and shellfish populations in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska including populations located in or near Kenai Fjords National Park and the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, as provided at 33 U.S.C. §2738(b)(1).

2. The Institute will also provide and jointly administer sub-grants to Federal, State, private or foreign organizations or individuals to conduct research activities on or relating to the fisheries or marine ecosystems in the North Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean (including any lesser related bodies of water), as set forth at 43 U.S.C. §1474d(e)(1) and in accordance with criteria and priorities for grants established by the North Pacific Research Board, as set forth at §§1474d(e)(2) and (e)(4)(B).

3. The Institute will implement and administer such other grants, programs and projects, and perform such other functions as may come within its purview from time to time. 262 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

IV. FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS This MOU does not constitute a financial commitment on the part of any Party. Financial support for the Institute shall be contingent upon the availability of funds appropriated by Congress and subject to the ordinary budgetary and administrative procedures of NOAA, the Board and the Alaska SeaLife Center, as applicable. NOAA funds shall not be obligated directly or indirectly, without written approval of either a NOAA Grants Officer (federal assistance) or Contracting Officer (procurements), to which this Memorandum of Understanding does not replace the need for a financial assistance award, procurement award or other transactions pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 6301. et. seq., to legally authorize and obligate federal funds to the Board or the Alaska SeaLife Center for any authorized costs or activities for the North Pacific Marine Research Institute

V. TERM This Memorandum is effective on the date of signature by the Executive Director of the Alaska SeaLife Center, the Chair or Interim Chair of the North Pacific Research Board, and the designee of the Secretary of the Department of Commerce. The parties will review this agreement at least once every five years to determine whether it should be revised, renewed or canceled. It can be modified only in a writing signed by all parties.

VI. SURVIVAL OF TERMS If any terms or conditions of this Memorandum are inconsistent with existing directives or law, those terms or conditions shall be invalid. However, the remaining terms and conditions not affected by the inconsistency shall remain in full force and effect.

VII. CONCILIATION If disagreements arise concerning the interpretation of the provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding, its amendments and/or revisions, and if those disagreements cannot be resolved at the operating level, then those disagreements shall be stated in writing by each party and presented to the other party for consideration. The parties to this Memorandum of Understanding agree to negotiate any disagreements, diligently in good faith, before initiating or resorting to any other formal dispute resolution process. APPENDIX IVB :: MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT 263

Memorandum of Agreement: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, North Pacific Research Board, and University of Alaska

Section I. Parties This Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) is entered into by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the North Pacific Research Board, the University of Alaska, and any other marine research and monitoring entities that may become signatories to this agreement in the future (the “Parties”).

Section II. Purpose Alaska’s oceans and related watersheds are among the most productive ecosystems in existence and the Nation’s greatest natural resources. There must be a concerted effort and commitment to maintain, monitor, and protect the long-term health and sustainability of these ecosystems, their habitats and resources. This can be accomplished, in part, through collaborative, coordinated efforts by the Parties to this MOA, each of which conducts, as part of its mission, scientific research and monitoring of the fish and wildlife resources of these waters. This MOA will provide a framework for the Parties to work cooperatively to more effectively accomplish their individual and common missions and provide for the long-term health and sustainability of Alaska’s oceans and related watersheds.

Section III. Findings The Parties find the following: 1. Alaska’s oceans and related watersheds are extensive and contain fish and wildlife resources of great economic, social, cultural, and scientific value; 2. Populations of many commercial and non-commercial species in these waters are changing for reasons not well understood; 3. Alaska’s oceans and related watersheds can best be managed and understood through an ecosystems-based approach, which is directed toward understanding how habitats and communities of species function together in response to environmental and anthropogenic factors; 4. Improved scientific understanding of marine and marine-related ecosystems will improve management of the region, thereby increasing the sustainability and efficiency of human use; 5. While each Party has its own mission and operates independently, together they share common interests in Alaska’s oceans and related watersheds; 6. Scientific understanding ofthese waters can best be achieved through cooperation and collaboration of the various entities involved in marine research; and 7. Comprehensive, cooperative planning for marine research in Alaska’s oceans and related watersheds is necessary to coordinate the efforts of Parties in order to maximize the benefits to the people who use and depend on Alaska’s marine resources.

Section IV. Cooperative and coordinated research planning The Parties agree to cooperate and coordinate in developing research and monitoring plans for their respective geographic regions. They shall strive to (1) establish shared research priorities and work jointly towards attaining the priorities, (2) coordinate, to the extent permitted by governing legal mandates, the timelines and processes for proposal solicitation, review, and decision- making, and (3) cooperate in developing a network of people to assist with proposal and program reviews upon request.

Section V. Information and data To enhance communications and availability of information, the Parties agree to: 1. Share information regarding: (a) public meetings and newsletters, (b) timelines and processes for proposal solicitation, review, and decision-making, (c) ongoing and proposed research and monitoring activities, (d) invitations for proposals, and (e) results and data from all scientific research; 2. Cooperate in formulating procedures and mechanisms through which such information can be effectively shared; 3. Develop compatible data standards and quality control procedures so data are of the highest quality and compatible between participating agencies; and 4. Cooperate in jointly synthesizing the results of ongoing monitoring and research efforts undertaken by the Parties and other research entities. 264 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Section VI. Shared resources To reduce costs, increase efficiency, and avoid duplication of effort, the Parties agree to expedite access to and sharing of each other’s facilities and equipment, pooled inventories of costly technology development projects, and scarce human skill sets, consistent with each Party’s policies and regulations.

Section VII. Joint meetings The Parties agree to meet jointly at least annually. The date for each succeeding meeting, as well as the Party (ies) responsible for planning, coordinating, supporting, and reporting on it, shall be established at the annual meeting. These meetings will help to foster cooperation among the parties, share findings with other participatory agencies, evaluate research plans and progress in implementation, and coordinate in establishing priorities for research.

Section VIII . Participation of other entities and facilities The Parties recognize that adding to this MOA new participatory organizations involved in marine issues relating to Alaska’s oceans and related watersheds will better enable participatory organizations to reach shared goals. The Parties agree to: 1. Recognize and promote the participation of other organizations that may contribute to the shared interests of monitoring and research in Alaska’ s oceans and related watersheds; and 2. Establish a mechanism through which new participants can participate in planning for research and monitoring.

Section IX. General provisions 1. Effective date. This MOA becomes effective upon the date of the signature of the third Party to execute it. This MOA may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be considered an original document. 2. Withdrawal. Any Party to this MOA may withdraw without obligation upon thirty days written notice to the other Parties. 3. Termination. This MOA shall remain in effect until it is terminated by agreement of the Parties. 4. Authority. Nothing in this MOA shall be construed to limit or modify the authority or responsibility of any participating agency. 5. Third parties. This MOA is not intended to, nor shall it, vest rights in persons or entities who are not Parties. 6. Amendment. This MOA may be amended in writing by the unanimous written agreement of the Parties. 7. Antideficiency. Nothingin this MOA shall be construed as obligating the United States, the State of Alaska, or the University of Alaska, their agents or employees, to expend funds in excess of that authorized by law. 8. Effect. This MOA is intended to express the good faith plans and general intentions of the parties, but does not create any legally enforceable obligations. 9. Notice. Any notice, request, order, or communication to the Parties pursuant to this MOA shall be in writing to each Party at the address that follows:

Molly McCammon, Executive Director David Benton, Chairman Mark Hamilton. President Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council North Pacific Research Board University of Alaska 441 West 5th Avenue, Suite 500 441 West 5th Avenue, Suite 500 P.O. Box 755000 Anchorage, AK 99501-2340 Anchorage, AK 99501-2340 Fairbanks. AK 99775

Or to such other addresses as any Party may designate in writing.

Accepted as affirmed by our signatures below. APPENDIX IVB :: MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT 265

Memorandum of Agreement: GEM Data Management

To: Gail Phillips and Clarence Pautzke From: Rob Bochenek cc: Phil Mundy, Igor Katrayev, and Michael Schlei Date: July 8, 2004 Re: MOA Concerning Combined Linux Server Purchase and Use Stipulations

This MOA defines the terms and funding commitments of the collaborative effort between NPRB and GEM to purchase and utilize a Linux based server. This agreement, once ratified by all parties involved, will act as a binding historic record concerning the use, modification, location, and upkeep of the device outlined in this MOA.

Using funds from NPRB and EVOSTC, GEM Data Management will purchase and configure a Linux based server for the development of a data management system for regional oceanographic data sets. The purchase of this server was authorized in the GEM FY 2004 Work Plan. Attached to this memo is a document detailing the hardware configuration and total costs of the device. Total costs for the unit will amount to $7,654.03. NPRB will provide funding for the server in the amount of $3000 with GEM being responsible for the deficit of $4,654.03.

Section VI. Shared Resources, of the Memorandum of Agreement signed by EVOSTC (11/26/02), NPRB (5/21/03), and UAF(12119/02), provides for the following:

To reduce costs, increase efficiency, and avoid duplication of effort, the Parties agree to expedite access to and sharing of each other’s facilities and equipment, pooled inventories of costly technology development projects, and scarce human skill sets, consistent with each Party’s policies and regulations.

The combined purchase and utilization of the above defined server configuration will provide an environment akin to one outlined in the MOA. The following policies and stipulations conceming the location, use, upkeep, and modification of the server are outlined below.

1. Location. The server will reside at the GEM office until it is agreed upon by all parties involved to move it to a more relevant location.

2. Use. All Parties involved with have full use and administrative control over the server. Though housed at the EVOS GEM office, the server may be administered remotely from NPRB.

3. Upkeep and Maintenance. All Parties involved will be responsible for maintaining and managing the server. This includes costs associated with upgrades and repairs in addition to time and manpower required to assist in maintaining a healthy and productive server.

4. Server Software/Hardware Modifications. Any major change in server configuration must be unanimously ratified by the data systems managers of all parties involved. A major change is defined as installation of new software, removal of software, or modifications to the server configuration which would affect network connectivity, large scale performance, or functionality of the device. Minor changes, which would include changes in settings to promote small increases in performancelfunctionality, can be performed without the need of unanimous authorization.

5. Termination of Joint Project. Should either party cease to use the device for the purposes described in this MOA prior to the end of its useful life, the device may continue to be used by the other party. If both parties cease to use the device for the purposes described in this MOA prior to the end of its useful life, it shall be disposed of in accordance with the financial procedures of the parties. 266 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Accepted as affirmed by our signatures below. APPENDIX IVB :: MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT 267

NPRB-NSF Management Plan for a Study of the Bering Sea Ecosystem

Purpose The National Science Foundation (NSF) and North Pacific Research Board (NPRB) are entering into a partnership to support a comprehensive vertically-integrated investigation of the Bering Sea ecosystem during 2007-2012. The scientific foundation for this partnership is the 2005 Bering Ecosystem Study (BEST) Program implementation plan and Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program (BSIERP) which is based on the NPRB 2005 Science Plan. Both programs seek to support meritorious scientific research that will improve understanding of how the highly productive marine ecosystem of the Bering Sea may respond to climate change, particularly as mediated through changes in seasonal sea ice cover.

BEST has an immediate goal of improving understanding of the role of changing sea-ice conditions on the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of the ecosystem and human resource use activities. BSIERP has an overarching goal of identifying and better understanding the key processes regulating the production, distribution and abundance of marine organisms in the Bering Sea, how they may change quantitatively under various natural and human-induced scenarios (particularly climate change), and the associated economic and sociological impacts. Both organizations have identified specific questions about how the various levels of the marine ecosystem might be impacted (Appendix 1).

NSF anticipates providing tools and understanding needed for improved prediction of climate impacts on the ecosystem as moderated by sea ice, but not the actual predictions. In contrast, NPRB anticipates providing tools for prediction as well as developing assessments or predictions of impacts on fish species and human populations. Each organization understands the advantages of having a well-coordinated, end to-end joint program that leverages the other’s available funds. Such a joint program would serve as a central hub to which other science programs such as NOAA’s NPCREP and LOSI, as well as other regional programs, could link to make an even stronger program. The Bering Sea Interagency Working Group would be helpful in providing communication and coordination.

This NSF-NPRB partnership has the potential to provide a firm foundation for improving our understanding of key processes at work within the food web of the Bering Sea. To achieve that potential, there needs to be firm agreement between NSF and NPRB on key program elements such as each organization’s funding commitment to its separate program, geographic scope of the programs, division of emphasis on ecosystem components, review and selection of proposals, scientific team building and maintenance, planning and coordination of field and modeling activities, data collection, sharing and archival activities, and analysis, synthesis and reporting. This management plan attempts to identify the responsibilities and intentions of each organization regarding those program elements. It will serve as a guide for future activities and interactions of NSF and NPRB in making this partnership successful.

Funding Commitments NPRB is committing approximately $14 million to its program, which includes ship time. That amount is to last for the full six fiscal years starting in 2007 and NPRB anticipates there will be a planning year, three major field seasons during calendar years 2008-2010, and two years for analysis, synthesis and reporting. NSF is committing approximately $21 million to its program, which includes $11 million for ship time. That amount is to last for four fiscal years beginning in 2007, with three major field seasons envisioned during calendar years 2008-2010, and one year for analysis and reporting, though it is anticipated that requests for no-cost extensions will take the program into a fifth fiscal year. The combined funding of $35 million will support a very robust combined program. All funding is dependent on continuing availability of funds to the respective organizations

Geographic Scope The joint research program will take place on the eastern Bering Sea shelf between the Aleutian Islands and St. Lawrence Island. There may be oceanographic data collection in the Aleutians, if required to satisfy input needs for a better understanding of the oceanography of the shelf ecosystem of the eastern Bering Sea, but the main program will be north of the Aleutians. Individual Program Emphasis Individual Program Emphasis 268 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Individual Program Emphasis This partnership envisions a vertically-integrated program that provides for end-to-end coverage of the Bering Sea ecosystem from atmospheric forcing and physical oceanography up through humans and communities, with the attendant economic and social impacts of a changing marine ecosystem. NSF and NPRB both realize this proposed cooperation and leveraging of resources will allow for a much more comprehensive ecosystem study than if each organization were to pursue something similar on its own.

Toward that end, NSF will provide support for the lower trophic levels (LTL), up to and including macro-zooplankton and benthic infauna, as well as social science projects focused on relationships between a changing marine environment and the communities residing around the Bering Sea. NPRB will provide support for upper trophic levels (UTL) above macro-zooplankton and benthic infauna up to and including humans, their communities, and social and economic impacts. The assumption underlying this approach is that work done below the macrozooplankton and benthic infauna level likely will be responsive to any particular array of macrozooplankton and benthic infauna species and thus to any particular focus of the UTL team. There are likely, at the macro-zooplankton and benthic infauna level, a few key species or species groups, with differing life histories that make them susceptible to climate variability in different ways. There is a need to identify, understand, and know the implications of these differences because they may have very major impacts on the pathways of energy flow in the shelf ecosystem.

If appropriate, NPRB may choose to fund some L TL studies, if the research is necessary for a successful BSIERP and the same work is not being funded by NSF, depending on availability of funds.

Announcements of Funding Opportunities 1. NPRB anticipates releasing its request for pre-proposals (RFP) in mid-October and invitations for full proposals in mid- December (to coincide with the NSF solicitation). NSF anticipates releasing its solicitation in mid-December. Though the solicitations will be separate, both organizations will indicate that they are striving for a fully integrated and coordinated program between NSF and NRPB and will be sharing proposals and making their recommendations in consultation with each other. The NPRB invitations for full proposals will include reference to ship schedules identified in the NSF solicitation and will encourage NPRB investigators to leverage NSF ship time and carefully explain any additional ship/cruise requirements. The NSF solicitation will state that ‘Additional opportunities to collect field data may become available through coordination with the winning team from the NPRB competition. Through a confidential process, the cognizant program officers from each organization will solicit comments from the cognizant program officers of the other organization concerning drafts of their proposed solicitations in order to ensure consistency with this partnership agreement.

2. As noted above, the linkage between the NPRB UTL and NSF LTL programs will be at the macro-zooplankton and benthic infauna level. Both organizations will include that level in their solicitations, with NPRB coming at it from the top, and NSF from the bottom, including physical oceanographic studies. Proposals to NPRB for the UTL must clearly identify the types of outputs needed from lower trophic level studies and models. Proposals to NSF for the LTL must clearly identify how their outputs could be used in UTL studies and models, and what outputs are needed from the UTL studies, e.g., grazing rates, etc.

3. NPRB is seeking applications from multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional teams of scientists and anticipates selecting one team to carry out the study. NSF is seeking applications from individual investigators or groups of investigators and will develop a team from the successful applicants. NSF anticipates that between seven and fifteen projects will constitute the final team.

4. If NSF receives and funds macro-zooplankton and benthic infauna proposals that respond to the needs of the UTL team, then NPRB may choose to redirect macro-zooplankton and benthic infauna funds to strengthen other parts of UTL research. NPRB also may choose to fund some LTL studies, if deemed necessary to the comprehensive program and not funded by NSF.

5. The respective solicitations will state that NSF and NPRB do not anticipate funding new climate modeling studies. Applicants will need to state clearly in their proposals which of the IPCC model outputs (though others might be used if there is sufficient justification) they will use in developing their own models and assumptions about climate driven impacts on the ecosystem. Funded principal investigators will need to agree on a set of common climate scenarios and assumptions for both LTL and UTL modeling studies. Outputs of current climate models may need to be down-scaled to the appropriate grid size in the study region. APPENDIX IVB :: MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT 269

6. The respective solicitations will state that successful applicants will be expected to agree to comply with provisions of the project management plan that will be developed by the assembled teams based on requirements identified by NSF and NPRB (see below).

Proposal Review 1. Sharing of Proposals. Proposals will be shared between organizations. Each organization will apply its respective confidentiality procedures to the proposals submitted to that organization under its solicitation. However, NSF proposals shared with NPRB will be treated by NPRB according to NSF rules of confidentiality. In particular, proposals and portions of proposals will be provided to the full Board for purposes of discussions leading to final recommendations. These will be provided on compact discs or other suitable media that will be destroyed after the discussions. NPRB will destroy all documents relating to the NSF proposals not recommended for funding and related documents after the review process is complete. NSF will provide to science panelists electronic access to all proposals submitted to NSF in response to its solicitation. If FOIA or other requests for information are received by NPRB concerning proposals submitted in response to the NSF solicitation, these will be treated in consultation with NSF according to NSF guidelines.

2. Evaluation Criteria. Each organization will use its current criteria for evaluating proposals with jointly agreed additions to better serve the partnership (Appendix 2). At the very least, criteria for both organizations must be explicit in the full RFP and solicitation and defensible against claims of being arbitrary or capricious should there be a legal challenge to the final decisions. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of meritorious science and how well they contribute to the integrated NSF-NPRB program.

3. Ecosystem Model Criteria: As appropriate, model evaluation criteria developed by the NPRB Ecosystem Modeling Committee (EMC) will be incorporated in the NSF solicitation, especially those addressing model skill, calibration, and error. NSF also expects its proposal review panel to carefully review the modeling components for the LTL proposals in light of those or similar criteria. In addition, two EMC members will be invited as ad hoc mail reviewers of all NSF modeling proposals.

4. Technical Reviewers: Each organization will select their own technical reviewers (ad hoc mail reviewers) for the proposals they receive. These reviewers will be used in accordance with each organization’s normal review procedures and conflict-of- interest rules. Names of technical reviewers will remain confidential in accordance with organization operating procedures.

5. Joint Science Panel Review: The joint science review panel will consist of the NPRB science panel (to discuss UTL proposals) and experts appointed by NSF (to discuss LTL proposals). The panel will meet at NSF headquarters in June 2007. All panelists will be appointed as NSF panelists, sign NSF conflict-of-interests forms, and abide by NSF confidentiality rules. If NPRB chooses to impose additional restrictions on their panelists, they will do so. The process will begin with joint instruc- tions to the panel concerning the goals of the partnership. Each day, the panels will discuss proposals submitted to their respective programs. While the LTL proposals are being discussed according to NSF criteria, the UTL panelists will listen to the discussion. While the UTL proposals are being discussed according to NPRB criteria, the LTL panelists will listen to the discussion. Conflicted panelists will leave the room during these discussions. After each group has ranked their respective proposals according to their criteria, the combined panel will discuss how well the highly ranked proposals fit into an integrated ecosystem study and provide advice to the two organizations concerning how to optimize such a study. This joint panel will arrange meritorious proposals into as many good programs as possible and rank their scientific merit. If two or more programs are believed to be equally meritorious from a scientific perspective, the joint panel will provide a final rank- ing based on their view of the societal importance of the programs, e.g., their importance to managers, subsistence hunters, and commercial fishermen.

Proposal Selection 1. Technical reviews and advice will be provided to NPRB and NSF by the technical reviewers (ad hoc mail reviewers) and the joint panel.

2. The full NPRB and appropriate NSF cognizant program officers will meet jointly in June 2007 (exact date TBA) to determine which projects to recommend for the integrated program and if additional studies or principal investigators are needed to improve the overall program. In order to maintain NSF confidentiality commitments to proposers and conflict-of-interest requirements, the Board will meet in closed session when deliberating any NSF proposals. When deliberating proposals received by the Board through its BSIERP RFP, the Board will follow its own confidentiality procedures, while ensuring that 270 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

it does not disclose any confidential information (as defined by NSF) about the LTL proposals received by NSF. Any Board members affiliated with an organization proposing to either the UTL or LTL programs will recuse themselves from voting on those proposals.

Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of meritorious science, societal importance, and how well they contribute to the integrated NSF-NPRB program. There will be no joint funding or transfer of funds between organizations. Each organization will make declines and awards in accordance with its procedures. Principal investigators will be individually informed of the decision.

3. Following the recommendation of successful applicants, and review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce (for NPRB projects) and NSF, a joint NSF-NPRB announcement (likely) will be made. If only NPRB releases an announcement of the new joint program, NSF will be given the opportunity to review it.

Contingency Plan If NPRB and NSF fail to agree on a fully integrated program, NSF retains the option of proceeding to fund proposals of its choosing. NPRB retains the option to fund L TL proposals received by either organization or release an out-of-cycle RFP for new LTL proposals. If appropriate, both organizations may choose to not fund any proposals.

First Year Planning and Organizational Meetings Fall Meetings. All investigators will be required to meet as necessary between July and December 2007 to develop agreed-upon procedures for working as an integrated team. This will require a minimum of two face-to-face meetings with all investigators, plus teleconferences and email exchanges between meetings as necessary. The first session will be an initial get-together to introduce PI’s to one another and identify team leadership. The second session will be a rigorous planning meeting to schedule ship time and work out other program details concerning issues such as field research coordination, modeling and data management. NSF and NPRB will support travel of their respective PIs to these planning meetings. Cognizant program officers from NSF and NPRB will attend also.

Links to Other Programs. The combined teams will meet at least once, and hopefully annually, with the Bering Sea Interagency Working Group to explore other partnerships with ongoing research efforts in the Bering Sea and how communication and coordination can best be achieved among them and duplication minimized. If possible, this annual coordination meeting will be scheduled in conjunction with the annual program review meeting to reduce travel costs.

Project Management Plan. By December 2007, the teams will need to demonstrate clearly to both NSF and NPRB that a coordinated, integrated program has been developed and will be managed as such. Team members will need to develop and agree to a project management plan, based on requirements identified by NPRB and NSF program staff. At a minimum, the project management plan will include:

1. Identification of project and team leadership and individual program responsibilities. 2. Protocols and procedures on working together as a seamless team. 3. Schedule of meetings and other activities. 4. Plans for field seasons and selection of chief scientists for cruises: It is anticipated that an NPRB-funded scien tist would be chief scientist on a cruise that NPRB funds and an NSF-funded scientist would be chief scientist on a cruise that NSF funds. Members of the NPRB team would have priority, of course, for uncommitted berths on the NSF-sponsored cruises and vice-versa. 5. Communications protocols between modelers and field programs, including a detailed plan that will outline when different data sets will be available to the rest of the team and how and at which point they can inform the models and in turn how and when new model outputs will inform the fieldwork. 6. Equipment sharing and ship time scheduling, including icebreaker time and other platforms. NPRB and NSF may provide support to enable NSF investigators to participate in NPRB-funded cruises. NPRB proposers, though, will assume that no NSF ship time will be available, when preparing their budgets. 7. Coordination with other programs, e.g. NOAA NPCREP and LOSI. 8. Implementation and monitoring of required data sharing protocols (see below). 9. Coordination of education and outreach programs to achieve maximum synergies. 10. Plans for annual reviews, progress reports, data analysis, synthesis, and reporting to be responsive to individual program requirements. These annual reviews may be coupled with the January Alaska Marine Science Symposia and may include a more nationally prominent scientific meeting. APPENDIX IVB :: MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT 271

11. Identification of product deliverables from the research, especially as it pertains to synthesis reports, and whowillbe responsible for such. 12. Dispute resolution.

In the case that a project management plan is not successfully completed to the satisfaction of NPRB and NSF, funds may be withheld until all issues and concerns are resolved.

Data Sharing Protocols Both organizations will require data sharing in their respective solicitations and organizational meetings. When the teams are identified and organized, they will need to clearly specify milestones and expectations for the types of data and schedule of availability, and how data will be exchanged between modelers and field researchers. NSF expects that some applicant(s) may be funded solely to perform data management for the LTL program and sharing amongst programs to ensure it gets done.

The combined teams will use a data policy developed on the basis of the U.S. GLOBEC Data Policy (GLOBEC Report No. 10, February 1994), existing OPP data policies, and proposed SEARCH data policies. The specifications of the exact data protocol will be available at the time of the NSF solicitation and the invitation of full proposals for the NPRB competition.

Program Adjustments NPRB plans on annually reviewing this comprehensive program and may request adjustments as necessary if something is going wrong. NSF also plans to closely monitor the program and its progress, and will facilitate adjustments, if needed, and attempt to fill gaps, as necessary.

Program leaders will schedule annual meetings of all principal investigators for planning purposes and to determine if program adjustments are necessary. NSF and NPRB expect such attendance costs to be incorporated in the overall budget for their proposals.

Program leaders will identify protocols for making adjustments in the program, if necessary. NSF and NPRB cognizant program officers (defined below) may be consulted also.

Evaluation: The cognizant program officers at NPRB include the Executive Director and the Program Manager. The cognizant program officers at NSF include the Head of the Arctic Sciences Section, Office of Polar Programs, and Program Officers for the Arctic Natural Sciences Program and Arctic Social Sciences Program, Office of Polar Programs. These officers will meet after the annual review meetings to assess the status and success of the program to date. If corrective action is deemed necessary, the cognizant program officers will take the following escalating steps as necessary and appropriate: (1) Negotiate corrective action to the principal investigator(s) and receive a signed acknowledgement from that investigator that the action will be taken; and (2) If no corrective action is taken, consider not releasing any additional funds for that investigator’s work until the problem is resolved.

At the end of the program the cognizant program officers (in consultation with NPRB) will decide on the merits of seating a panel of independent and objective individuals to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the coordinated approach to support for ecosystems studies.

Approximate NSF Schedule December 15,2006 Release solicitation March 15,2007 Proposals due April 6, 2007 Complete internal review and send to science panel May 18,2007 Science Panel completes review Mid-June, 2007 Joint Science Panels meets in Washington, D.C. Late June 2007 NSF Program staff meets with NPRB to select recommended proposals Early July 2007 Internal NSF final approval Mid July 2007 Announcement of recommended proposals 272 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Approximate NPRB Schedule October 20, 2006 Release call for pre-proposals November 22, 2006 Pre-proposals due November 28-29, 2006 Science Panel meets (includes EMC review) December 4, 2006 Board meets to review pre-proposals December 15, 2006 Invitations for full proposals March 15, 2007 Deadline for full proposals Mid-April 2007 Technical reviews completed Mid-April 2007 EMC review completed Mid-June, 2007 Joint Science Panels meets in Washington, D.C. Late June 2007 NPRB meets with NSF Program staff to select recommended proposals Early July 2007 Secretary of Commerce review and approval Mid July 2007 Announcement of recommended proposals

NPRB-NSF Management Plan accepted as affirmed by the signatures below:

Tylan Schrock Date Simon Stephenson Chairman, NPRB Section Head Arctic Sciences Section Office of Polar Programs, NSF

Appendix 1. Major questions identified in the NSF BEST and NPRB BSIERP programs.

The following questions underpin the BEST scientific program:

1. How does external forcing affect the timing, extent, thickness, and coverage of sea ice over the easterBering Sea shelf’? 2. How does climate variability, particularly the variability of sea ice character, affect the transfer of primary productivity to the zooplankton, benthos, and higher-trophic predators on the eastern Bering Sea shelf’? 3. Has the loss of ice cover in the eastern Bering Sea affected the structure and function of the planktonic and benthic communities by exposing the upper ocean to wind earlier in the season or for a longer period of time 4. How does climate variability, particularly the variability of sea ice character, affect the balance of top-down v. bottom-up control of the zooplankton and benthic infaunal communities? 5. How will subsistence and economic activities in the Bering Sea change in response to variability in sea ice character? 6. What will be the social implications of the consequent potential changes in subsistence activities? 7. How can studies of past climate, ecological, and social responses to changes in sea ice extent and character illuminate present trends and future potential?

The following questions underpin the BSIERP scientific program:

1. How are the distributions (range, spawning and breeding locations) and abundances of species in the Bering Sea ecosystem changing in response to climate change? 2. How are the physical and chemical attributes of the ecosystem changing in response to climate change? 3. Is lower trophic level production (quantity and form) changing in response to climate change? APPENDIX IVB :: MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT 273

4. What are the principal processes controlling energy pathways in the Bering Sea? What is the role of climate change in these processes? 5. What are the linkages between climate change and vital rates of living marine resources in the Bering Sea? 6. What are the economic and sociological impacts of a changing ecosystem on the coastal communities and resource users of the Bering Sea?

Appendix 2. Present technical evaluation criteria of proposals by NSF and NPRB. Both organizations may expand their proposal evaluation criteria to ensure that proposals are evaluated on their scientific merit and on their contribution to the larger comprehensive program envisioned under this agreement.

NSF Criteria All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board (NSB)-approved merit review criteria: intellectual merit and the broader impacts of the proposed effort. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two NSB-approved merit review criteria are listed below. The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which the reviewer is qualified to make judgments.

What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

NSF staff will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:

Integration of Research and Education One of the principal strategies in support of NSF’s goals is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives.

Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

Additional Criteria: Language will be added to the NSF solicitation stressing the importance of a proposal’s contribution to the integrated program, which will be used as an additional decision criterion. Such language might look like the following, subject to approval by the NSF policy and legal departments:

“In addition to the two NSB-approved merit review criteria, proposals will also be evaluated on the basis of their contribution to an integrated ecosystem program. This program will integrate from the physics of the system through the food web to a top predator and interactions with humans. Our ultimate goal will be to develop, in collaboration with the NPRB-funded BSIERP, an integrated ecosystem study that provides understanding an important food chain over the eastern Bering Sea shelf, how this food chain responds to climate variations (particularly variations in sea ice character) and how these changes effect and/or are mediated by humans.” 274 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

NPRB Criteria All proposals that pass initial screening will undergo independent, anonymous, technical peer review, conducted by regional and national experts. NPRB reviewers will be asked to provide comments and qualitative assessments of the technical aspects for each proposal, as indicated below, and an overall summation:

a. Project Responsiveness to BSIERP (section C in the Research Plan): Does the project have the potential to significantly enhance our understanding of each of the following: (1) the major ecosystem processes that regulate the distribution and abundance of upper trophic level organisms, including at least one commercial/subsistence fish species; (2) quantitative changes of these processes under various climate scenarios; (3) the resultant economic and sociological impacts; (4) the interaction between direct and indirect human induced impacts and these ecosystem processes, and (5) does it provide a good and clear description of why and how the program will be relevant to management?

b. Soundness of Project Design/Conceptual Approach (section D in the Research Plan): Applications will be evaluated on the applicant’s comprehension of the problem(s); the overall concept proposed for resolution; justification of species, parameters, locations temporal and spatial scales to be investigated, whether the applicant provided sufficient information to evaluate the project technically; and, if so, the strengths and/or weaknesses of the technical design relative to securing productive results. Particular attention will be given to the inclusion of a clear statement of hypothesis to be tested or objectives to be addressed, the presence of a detailed experimental design with associated power analysis as appropriate, and a list of data sources or requirements. Model criteria may also be evaluated as appropriate, but will also be screened separately by the EMC (see below).

c. Program Management (sections E-H in the Research Plan): Evaluation will include the following: Is there a clear description of proper organization and management of the project, including data management, and do the project’s program leader, team leaders, principal investigator(s) and other personnel have the necessary experience and qualifications for the tasks they have been assigned to? Are a clear schedule and appropriate milestones and deliverables identified in tabular form in the proposal, and an appropriate plan of how the results will be disseminated? Is a data management plan identified and is it structured appropriately to achieve the proposed data management goals? Does the project plan to coordinate and collaborate with other projects and leverage their proposals with support from other sources and are the mechanics of how this will occur well described?

d. Project Costs (Budget Summary and Budget Narrative): The justification and allocation of the budget in terms of the work to be performed will be evaluated. Unreasonably high or low project costs will be taken into account.

Ecosystem Modeling Committee Review. All modeling aspects of your proposal, and specifically the criteria outlined in sections 4D(3) will be reviewed by the EMC, who will make recommendations to the Science Panel and Board on this particular component. APPENDIX IVB :: MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT 275

Joint Protocol for North Pacific Research Board and Oil Spill Recovery Institute

Background The North Pacific Research Board (NPRB) was created by Congress in 1997 to support marine research activities on or relating to the fisheries or marine ecosystems in the North Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean (including any lesser related bodies of water), especially research designed to address pressing fishery management or marine ecosystem information needs. The mission of NPRB is to build a clear understanding of those ecosystems that enables effective management and sustainable use of marine resources, and its science plan envisions a broad range of integrated ecosystem research from basic oceanography and lower trophic level productivity studies up through fish and invertebrates, seabirds, marine mammals, and man, including their habitat. NPRB also may support research on contaminants, harmful algal blooms, invasive species, aquaculture, and climate change impacts on the marine environment.

The Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI) was established by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The mission of OSRI is to better understand the effects of oil pollution on arctic and sub-arctic marine environments, and to seek new techniques and technologies that may prevent, mitigate or recover oil spills in those environments through research, education and demonstration and/or application. OSRI is supportive of marine research that will help develop ecological applications for its ocean observing system, for example, habitat distributions and the functional role of various habitat types on different life stages of important fish, invertebrate and plant species.

Both NPRB and OSRI have science plans that encourage research partnerships. Section 4.2.3 of NPRB’s science plan directly responds to a strong recommendation of the National Research Council to seek partnerships with other entities to support joint research and funding of projects of mutual interest. Similarly, Section IV.A.5.b.i of OSRI’s science plan identifies a potential partnership with NPRB to support ecological research projects in arctic and sub-arctic climates, generally within the NPRB geographic area of interest, but with particular emphasis on the Gulf of Alaska and Prince William Sound. While both organizations have a strong interest in ocean observing, habitat, and ecological studies, other research priorities of mutual interest may be identified during the life of this protocol which potentially could be supported under this partnership.

Purpose The purpose of this joint protocol is to facilitate the NPRB-OSRI partnership. It describes the general approaches that will be used to develop and process joint requests for proposals (RFP) for biologically oriented projects in arctic and sub-arctic climates, but particularly in the Gulf of Alaska and Prince William Sound. It identifies the general steps that will be taken to review and approve proposals and strives to accommodate the procedural requirements of both organizations. The overriding goal is to provide a clearly stated, mutually-agreed foundation for a constructive partnership that will help to leverage funding for meritorious research projects on topics of mutual interest.

Identification of Joint Research Priorities NPRB and OSRI have science and implementation plans that provide the foundation for defining research priorities of mutual interest in any given year. As noted above, ecological studies in the Gulf of Alaska and Prince William Sound, particularly habitat studies related to the ocean observing system in Prince William Sound, provide the initial priorities for a potential joint RFP to be released in October 2005. In later years, however, other topics may be identified for incorporation into a joint RFP.

Mutual research priorities will be identified by a joint committee of three members from each organization. The committee will review current activities and research priorities of each organization and work with the respective science panels to develop potential priorities for consideration by each organization. This process will begin each spring and culminate with consideration by both organizations in September or early October prior to release of the annual RFP. A joint meeting of the OSRI STC and NPRB’s Science Panel may be convened as appropriate to identify priorities of mutual interest, but in any case, the joint committee will be responsible for developing the final recommendation that is presented to the parent organizations. 276 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Approval of Joint Request for Proposals Each organization will consider the joint committee recommendations and separately must approve those provisions of the annual RFP relevant to the partnership. The joint RFP likely will be a section of a larger RFP released by NPRB in early October. Those provisions that pertain to the partnership will be identified clearly in the RFP along with potential funding amounts that will be contributed by each organization.

Scientific Review of Proposals Each proposal received in response to the joint RFP will be provided with at least three anonymous technical reviews, using reviewers assigned by mutual agreement of the NPRB Executive Director and the OSRI Science Director. These anonymous reviews, using mutually agreed evaluation forms, will be provided to the respective science panels, or a joint committee of panel representatives, for joint evaluation and development of recommendations for consideration of the parent organizations. The goal is to identify proposals that are scientifically meritorious in accordance with the standards of each organization.

Approval of Proposals The recommendations of the joint science committee identified in the previous section will be forwarded to a joint committee of the parent organizations, which in turn will develop recommendations for the parent organizations. The parent organizations may meet separately (or together if appropriate) in March or April to consider approving proposals of mutual interest and their funding levels. All recommendations of NPRB are subject to final approval of the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

Confidentiality Provisions The summary pages for each proposal will be disclosed to the public. The summary page includes title, project period, names of applicant and principal investigators, legislative criteria and research priorities addressed by proposed research, a summary of work (250 words or less), requested and matching funding by year for all entities, and the signature of an official authorized to legally bind each submitting organization. The full text of proposals that are not funded will remain confidential and will only be disclosed to NPRB and OSRI board members, their respective science panels, and staff (as well as the selected technical reviewers during the anonymous reviews). Those proposals that are funded will be made available to the public in full (except for suggested peer reviewers and proprietary salary information).

Conflict of Interest Procedures Each organization will adhere to its respective standard operating procedures for avoiding conflicts of interest in considering proposals for funding.

Joint Funding Approaches Joint support of projects of mutual interest is the goal of this protocol. Either of two approaches may be used as appropriate to jointly support projects: (1) related but separate proposals may be funded by separate contracts with each organization, or (2) funds may be pooled by both organizations under one contract for a particular project. In the latter case, both organizations must agree on contract provisions and administration of funds, as well as program oversight.

Prospective Annual Schedule June-August Develop mutual research priorities through separate or joint meetings of science panels or committees as described above September Organizations approve joint RFP Early October Joint RFP released to public and posted on respective web sites Early December Proposals due December-February Proposal reviews Early March* Science panels/joint committees review and develop funding recommendations Mid-March NPRB and OSRI meet separately or jointly to consider proposals April NPRB recommendations forwarded to NMFS April Final notification of PIs April-May Grant and contract arrangements with successful PIs May or June Possible commence research

(*Note: this schedule starting in March may be delayed one month if an excessive number of proposals is received and cannot be processed in time.) APPENDIX IVB :: MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT 277

General Provisions 1. Effective date. This protocol becomes effective upon the date of the signatures of both parties.

2. Withdrawal. Either party to this protocol may withdraw without obligation upon thirty days written notice to the other party.

3. Termination. This protocol shall remain in effect until it is terminated by agreement of the parties.

4. Authority. Nothing in this protocol shall be construed to limit or modify the authority or responsibility of either party.

5. Amendment. This protocol may be amended in writing by the unanimous written agreement of both parties.

6. Effect. This protocol is intended to express the good faith plans and general intentions of the parties, but does not create any legally enforceable obligations.

7. Notice. Any notice, request, order, or communication to the parties pursuant to this protocol shall be in writing to each party at the address that follows:

Clarence Pautzke, Executive Director North Pacific Research Board 1007 West 3rd Ave, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501

Nancy Bird, Executive Director Oil Spill Recovery Institute P.O. Box 705 Cordova, AK 99574

Accepted as affirmed by the signatures below: 278 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Project Index

201: 40, 49, 51, 222 421: 152, 153, 225 619: 54, 75, 228 730: 104, 119, 171, 231 202: 54, 83, 222 422: 152, 153, 225 620: 54, 63, 228 731: 55, 84, 171, 232 203: 26, 28, 222 423: 140, 143, 225, 235 621: 54, 67, 228, 241 732: 126, 130, 232 204: 54, 61, 222, 235, 238 501: 104, 114, 225 622: 55, 82, 228 733: 26, 31, 232 205: 54, 76, 222, 234, 237 502: 54, 97, 225 623: 55, 86, 228 734: 26, 34, 232 206: 126, 135, 222, 235, 240 503: 23, 54, 99, 225 624: 55, 228 801: 126, 135, 232 207: 23, 26, 29, 222, 234 504: 54, 100, 225 625: 55, 60, 228 802: 140, 175, 232 208: 54, 92, 222, 238 505: 54, 80, 225 626: 104, 229, 236, 237 803: 26, 36, 232 209: 54, 77, 222, 234 506: 54, 64, 225 627: 55, 69, 229 804: 26, 32, 232 210: 54, 222 507: 40, 225, 240 628: 55, 69, 229 805: 26, 37, 232 211: 26, 28, 222 508: 54, 69, 226, 237 629: 55, 74, 229 806: 26, 37, 232 301: 40, 42, 222, 234, 235, 238 509: 54, 87, 226, 241 630: 55, 96, 229 807: 104, 119, 232 302: 26, 36, 222, 235, 236, 237, 238 510: 54, 67, 226, 241 631: 104, 115, 229 808: 40, 43, 232 303: 54, 89, 222, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239 511: 54, 68, 226, 241 632: 104, 116, 229 809: 55, 59, 232 304: 40, 46–47, 223, 234, 236, 237 512: 54, 77, 226 633: 104, 113, 229 810: 55, 58, 232 305: 54, 81, 223, 234 513: 104, 109, 226 634: 104, 117, 229 811: 55, 59, 232 306: 54, 86, 223 514: 104, 108, 226 635: 104, 105–106, 229 812: 55, 71, 232 307: 104, 112, 223, 234 515: 104, 115, 226, 240 636: 104, 118, 229 813: 55, 79, 232 308: 54, 95, 223, 234, 235, 236 516: 126, 127, 226, 237, 240 637: 126, 135, 229 814: 55, 71, 233 309: 104, 223 517: 26, 28, 226, 238 638: 126, 129, 229 815: 55, 74, 233 310: 54, 90, 223 518: 104, 113, 226 639: 140, 142, 229 816: 55, 63, 233 311: 54, 100, 223 519: 104, 112, 226 640: 140, 148, 229 817: 55, 74, 233 312: 104, 115, 223 520: 26, 32, 226, 235 641: 140, 149, 229, 237 818: 104, 123, 233 313: 104, 110, 223, 234, 237, 239 521: 54, 57, 226 642: 40, 44, 172, 229 819: 126, 131, 233 314: 54, 62, 223, 237 522: 54, 72–73, 226 643: 140, 146, 169, 230 820: 126, 134, 233 315: 26, 28, 223, 235 523: 54, 75, 226 644: 152, 156, 169, 230 821: 152, 157, 233 316: 40, 45, 223, 235 524: 54, 65, 226, 236 645: 140, 146, 169, 230 822: 152, 155, 233 317: 54, 78, 223 525: 54, 81, 226 646: 104, 122, 230 823: 140, 144, 233 318: 140, 148, 223 527: 104, 227, 236, 237 701: 26, 28, 230 825: 55, 60, 171, 233 319: 54, 66, 223 528: 140, 147, 227 702: 26, 32, 230 826: 104, 118, 171, 233 320: 126, 133, 223, 236, 237, 240 529: 237, 238 703: 140, 175, 230 827: 104, 123, 171, 233 321: 54, 88, 224 530: 140, 143, 227 704: 55, 179, 230 828: 26, 31, 233, 241 322: 126, 137, 224, 235, 236 531: 54, 79, 227, 237 705: 26, 230 829: 26, 31, 233 324: 104, 111, 224 532: 126, 137, 227, 236 706: 26, 30, 230 901: 179 325: 54, 84, 224 533: 140, 145, 227 707: 26, 34, 230 T0004: 36 326: 140, 224 534: 152, 227, 235, 239, 240 708: 26, 32, 230 327: 54, 61, 224, 234, 236 535: 104, 107, 227, 235, 238 709: 40, 42, 230 401: 54, 57, 224 536: 26, 36, 227, 236, 237, 238 710: 40, 42, 51, 230 402: 26, 29, 224 537: 140, 175, 227 711: 55, 85, 230 403: 140, 175, 224 601: 26, 36, 227, 238 712: 55, 85, 230 404: 54, 224 602: 26, 28, 227 713: 55, 94, 230 406: 22, 26, 224 603: 26, 32, 227 714: 55, 71, 230 407: 54, 94, 224 604: 40, 48, 227 715: 55, 67, 231 408: 126, 224 605: 54, 92, 227, 238 716: 55, 58, 231 409: 135, 224 606: 54, 92, 227, 237 717: 104, 117, 231 410: 26, 28, 224 607: 26, 30, 227, 237, 241 718: 104, 113, 231 411: 104, 107, 224, 235, 238 608: 26, 30, 227 719: 104, 113, 231 412: 104, 224 609: 126, 128, 228 720: 104, 113, 231 413: 126, 132, 225, 237, 241 610: 54, 94, 228 722: 126, 127, 231 414: 104, 108, 225 611: 126, 135, 228 723: 126, 136, 231 415: 40, 43, 225, 241 612: 126, 130, 228, 239 724: 126, 133, 231 416: 40, 41, 49, 225, 236, 237 614: 26, 34, 228 725: 140, 144, 231 417: 54, 72–73, 225, 238, 241 615: 40, 50, 228, 239, 240, 241 726: 152, 155, 231 418: 54, 68, 225, 241 616: 40, 44, 50, 228 727: 152, 155, 231 419: 54, 81, 225, 236 617: 54, 62, 228 728: 55, 101, 231 420: 54, 77, 225, 235 618: 54, 74, 228 729: 40, 44, 172, 231 INDEX 279

Index

A southeastern shelf, 27, 28 and Strait Sea Ice Database, 23 Accomplishments of Board, 6 Bering Sea Climate Database, 23 Acoustic technologies Bering Sea Ecosystem Study (BEST), 11, 267 for forage species, 57 Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program (BSIERP), passive research, 113, 113 11, 160–163, 268 for squid, 58 BEST (Bering Sea Ecosystem Study), 11, 267 and whales, 112 Bitter crab syndrome, 86, 86 Administrative caps, 197 Blooms, algal, 156 Administrative provisions, Science Panel, 251–252 Blooms, phytoplankton, 28 Advanced Dual-frequency identification SONar (DIDSON), 83 Board decisions, 187 Advisory groups statement, Board, 245 BSIERP (Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program), Advisory Panel (AP) 11, 160–163, 268 2003-2008 members, 213 Budgets and Board, 184 crisis of 2003, 198 and committees, 9, 10, 169, 170 and financial policy, 196 meeting cycle, 14 overview, 199–200 membership, 13, 190 projects, 222–233 policies and procedures, 254–255 Bycatch, 82, 83, 84, 85 proposal reviews, 191–192 Aerial remote-sensing technologies, 57 C Affiliated work groups, 251–252 Alaska Coastal Current, 34 Calanoid copepods, 57 Alaska Marine Information System (AMIS), 10, 179–180 Calendars, photo contest, 176 Alaska Marine Science Symposium student awards, 178 Capelin, foraging success of, 65 Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS), 180 Carbon stable isotope ratios, 106 Alaska red king crab fishery, 59 Catastrophic events, warning of, 31 Alaska SeaLife Center, 14, 174, 259 Chiswell Ridge habitat, 44 Albatross, 136, 136, 137 Chiswell Ridge, mapping, 50 Aleutian coral gardens, 46–47 Chlorophyll models, 30, 30 Aleutian Islands, forage resources of the, 96, 96 Citizen-science program, 130 Aleutian Pass circulation project, 31 Climate change Algal blooms, 156 auklet survival in, 129 Alternates and designees statement, 245 and jellyfish fluctuations, 93 Ambient noise in Beaufort Sea, 123 long-term, 123, 127 AMIS (Alaska Marine Information System), 10, 179–180 and Pacific cod productivity, 92 AOOS (Alaska Ocean Observing System), 180 response, 30 Arctic Ocean synthesis, 23 on walrus, 123 Arctic Synthesis workshop, 99 Climate variations, 32 Assessment technologies, 60 COASST (Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team), 130 Audits, 203 Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST), 130 Auklet survival in climate change, 129 Cod, 63, 74, 92 Authority of Board, 260 Cold pools in Bering Sea, 27 Autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), 58 Commercially important species, 46–47 AUV (autonomous underwater vehicle), 58 Committees Awards, science fair, 177 and advisory panel, 2003, 9, 10 Board, 184 B current, 12 ecosystem modeling, 12, 14, 192 Background of NPRB-OSRI collaboration, 275 executive, 9 Bathymetric map, 47 members, 169, 170, 213 Beach monitoring, 130 National Research Council study, 19–20 Bering Sea statement, 245 flatfish habitat in eastern, 42 structure of North Pacific Research Board, 188–192 program brochure, 163 280 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Communication programs, 15 web-accessible salmon, 100 Communities worldwide, 100 dependence on fisheries, 148 Debarment of subrecipient, 258 education and outreach, 173–178 Designees and alternates statement, 245 monitoring shellfish poisoning, 156 DIDSON (Advanced Dual-frequency identification SONar), 83 Compensation, Board, 188 Dinoflagellates, parasitic, 86 Conciliation of Memorandum of Understanding, 262 DNA based assay (QPCR), 59 Conduct of meetings, 246–247 Dogfish life histories study, 68 Confidentiality of video and photographic information, 195 Dogwinkles, contamination in, 155 Confidentiality provisions, NPRB-OSRI, 276 Domoic acid toxins, 157 Confidentiality requirements of Science Panel and indepen- Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response approach, 97 dent reviewers, 252–253 Durations of Board meetings, 247 Conflict-of-interest for Advisory Panel, 255 E Board, 187 Ecology independent reviewers, 252–253 behavioral, 61 independent technical reviewers, 252–253 foraging, 64, 105 NPRB-OSRI collaboration, 276 North Pacific Right Whales, 113 rules in committees, 189 phytoplankton, 35 Science Panel, 252–253, 255 population, 66 in voting, 247 Eco-sounder technology, 57 Contaminants, 153, 155 Ecosystem Modeling Committees, 12, 14, 192 Contingency plan, NPRB-NSF, 270 Ecosystems Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR), 36 change on fishery management, 91 Cooperative arrangements statement, 245 early warning indicators, 31 Copper River salmon and estuaries, 90, 90 indicators in resource management, 97, 97 Coral habitat in Aleutian Islands, 46–47 management in Alaska waters, 143 COUNCIL (North Pacific Fishery Management Council), 181 marine mammals and managing, 141 CPR (Continuous Plankton Recorder), 36 mesoscale marine, 36 Crabs nearshore, 172 bitter crab syndrome, 86, 86 research programs, 15, 159, 160 blue king, 45, 143 roles of habitats, 41, 50 bycatch, 85 Education programs, 15, 175, 175 fisheries and social issues, 143, 144 EFH (essential fish habitat), 39 market models for, 143 Egg case density, skate, 43 red king, 48, 59, 60, 87, 87 Eiders, world population of spectacled, 134, 134 snow, 70, 71, 79, 80, 86, 94 Eiders foraging behaviors, 133 species decline, 45 EIRF (Environmental Improvement and Restoration Fund). see Tanner, 71, 86 Environmental Improvement and Restoration Fund (EIRF) Elasmobranchs, life histories of, 68 D Elevation of resolution with subrecipients, 257 Data Employees of 2008 Board, 14 management policies, 10 Encounters North, 175 and metadata management, 181 Environmental change, 91 MOA collaborative project, 263 Environmental Improvement and Restoration Fund (EIRF) near real-time, 28 authority of, 259 preservation, 15 budgeting, 196–199 protocols of NPRB-NSF, 271 establishment of, 8 systems manager, 180 funding, 243, 260, 261 Databases grants, 200–203 Bering Sea and Strait Sea Ice, 23 and National Ocean Service, 187 Bering Sea Climate, 23 Environmental issues, 78 development, 22–23 Equipment purchases, 193, 265–266 Equipment purchases, Board, 193 herring, 101 Essential fish habitat (EFH), 39 seabird diet, 127 Establishment of Board, 6, 8 INDEX 281

Estuaries, salmon in, 61, 90 by institution, 220–221 Euphausiids, distribution of, 65 modular approach, 165 Executive committee, Board, 9 NPRB-NSF announcements of opportunities, 268 Executive committee decision matrix, 250t sources of, 196 Exhibits, 173 summary of proposal, 20t1 Expenses statement, 245 Future of Board, 206–207 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Memorandum of Agreement, 263–264 G F GEM data management MOA, 265–266 General provisions of MOA, 264 Ferry boxes, 34 General provisions of NPRB-OSRI collaboration, 277 Financial commitments of Institute, 262 Genetic markers, 76 Financial policies, Board, 196, 198–199 Geographic scope of Bering Sea Ecosystem plan, 267 Findings of MOA collaborative projects, 263 GOAIERP (Gulf of Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Research First Year Planning, NPRB-NSF, 270–271 Program), 164–165 Fiscal policy decisions statement, 245–246 Goals statement, 8, 243 Fish Graduate student research awards and recipients, 178 commercially important, 46–47 Grant 1, EIRF, 200–201, 201t habitats, 39 Grant 2, EIRF, 202, 202t hot spots, 57, 58 Grant 3, EIRF, 203, 203t and invertebrates projects, 53–55 Grant funding, 196 presence/absence criteria, 48 Grant funding, Board, 196, 200–203 sustainable populations, 144 Grants and projects of Institute, 261 Fisheries Graves Rock, and sea lions, 141 community dependence on, 148 Grazers impact on kelp beds, 94 cost of closing, 141 Great Circle Route, 36, 36 depredation events of, 121 Greenland halibut population, 75 deterrent measures of, 121 Guiding principles of subaward compliance, 256 flatfish, 42 Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Program, 2008, 11 impacts on sea crab, 144 Gulf of Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Research Program interaction studies, 118 (GOAIERP), 164–165 Gulf of Alaska, monitoring, 32 interactions and population conservation, 136 management and ecosystem change, 91 H management councils, 51 red king crab, 59 Habitats safety in halibut, sablefish and pollock, 145 beluga whales, 111 and seabird habitat overlap, 137 closing fisheries in, 141 and seals, 118 coral, 46–47 social issues and crab, 143 declining crab species, 45 status of, 56 mapping, 46–47, 48, 50 Fishing, effects of, 46–47, 47, 51 marine, 41, 111, 134 Fishing safety, 145 nearshore, 44 Fluorescence, 27 Pacific Ocean Perch, 49 Forage fish productivity nearshore in Gulf of Alaska, 95 right whales, 113 Forage resources of the Aleutian Islands, 96, 96 seafloor changes in Norton Sound, 48 Forage species, 44, 57, 95 sponge, 46–47 Four Mountains in Aleutian Islands, 41 untrawlable, 58 Frequency of Board meetings, 247 Halibut Freshwater discharge, 34 decline in population, 75 Fulmars, 135, 137 harvests, 146 Funded research projects, 222–233 migration patterns of, 62 Funding approaches, NPRB-OSRI, 276 spawning locations, 62 Funding commitments of NPRB-NSF management plan, 267 Harvests, subsistence, 146, 147 Funds Health risks of eating walrus, 149 for Continuous Plankton Recorder studies, 36 Healy cruise, March 2008, 162 distribution of, 21f1, 21t2, 22, 22t3 Herring, 66, 92, 101, 101, 131, 131 282 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Highlights, meeting and activity, 9–11, 204–205 Long-term climate change, 123, 127 History of Board, 6 Long-term monitoring policy, 193 Honoraria for reviews, 189 Long-Term Observation Program (LTOP), 33 Hot spots, fish, 57, 58 Long-term planning goals, 195 Human health and marine resources, 149 Lower trophic levels (LTL), 25, 26 Human projects, 139 LTK (local and traditional knowledge) committee members Human-related impacts, 122 2003-2008, 213 Hydrocarbons in Nelson Lagoon, 153 LTK (local and traditional knowledge) research, 168–170 Hydrocoral survey on Chiswell Ridge, 50 LTL (lower trophic levels). see Lower trophic levels (LTL) Hydrophone instrument, 113 LTOP (Long-Term Observation Program), 33 I M Ice occurrences in Bering Sea shelf, 28 Mackerel, reproductive biology of, 72–73 Implementation plan, Board, 20 Mackerel and pollock, predator/prey models for, 81 Implementation plans, 20 Magnuson-Stevens Act, 82, 145 Incidental catches, 82 Management tool development, 127 Individual program emphasis, Bering Sea Ecosystem, 268 Management tools, 98 Information, MOA collaborative project, 263 Mapping Institutions, funding by, 220–221 Chiswell Ridge, 50 Institutions, project, 222–233 corals and sponges, 46–47 Integrated ecosystem research programs, 15, 159, 160, 170 habitats workshop, 50 Interagency agreements, 194 Pacific Ocean Perch, 49 Invertebrate and fish projects, 53–55 Marbled murrelets, herring decline and, 131 Invertebrates, chemicals in, 153 Marine habitat use, 111, 134 Investigators, project, 222–233 Marine mammals, 103 Marine mammals and managing ecosystems, 141 J Marine research components, 18 Jellett PSP test strips, 156 Marine resources and human health, 146, 149 Jellyfish biomass trends, 93 Marine science program, 7 Joint funding approaches, NPRB-OSRI, 276 Measurements of southeastern Bering Sea shelf, 27, 28 Joint meetings, MOA, 264 Mediation with subrecipients, 257 Joint protocol for NPRB and Oil Spill Recovery Institute, Meetings 275–277 Advisory Panel, 255 Joint research priorities, 275 annual cycle, 14 Board, 246 K Board statement, 245–246 Kachemak Bay sediments, toxicity of, 155 closed Board, 247 Kasatochi volcano, 129 emergency, 247 Kelp beds, impacts of grazers on, 94 highlights of activities, 204–205 Kelp species, common, 94 locations of, 247 Killer whales, diet of, 107, 107 organization, 9 Kittiwakes near St. George Island, 161 standard Board procedures, 187 Kodiak Island, impacts of trawls near, 51 Members Kvichak salmon, declines in, 88 2003-2008 Advisory Panel, 213 2003-2008 LTK committee, 213 L Advisory Panel, 254 Board, 9, 12, 185, 210–211 Landscape genetics, 74 Legislation, enabling, 8 Board decision matrix, 250t Legislative authority and function, 243 and officers of Science Panel, 251 Lingcod, 44 Science Panel 2002-2008, 212 Linux based server purchase, 265–266 Science Panel selection process, 252 Little Green Island, Prince William Sound, 114 statement of Board, 244 Local and traditional knowledge (LTK) research, 168–170, 169, Memorandum of Agreement (MOA): 213 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, NPRB, and University Location of North Pacific Marine Research Institute, 260 of Alaska, 263–264 Longline fishery, observations of, 85 GEM Data Management, 265–266 North Pacific Marine Research Institute (NPMRI), 259–262 INDEX 283

Mercury levels in murres and gulls, 155 NSF (National Science Foundation). see National Science Metadata and data management, 181 Foundation (NSF) Micronektons, 57 Nutrient-phytoplankton-zooplankton (NPZ) model, 29, 34 Minutes of Board meetings, 247 Nutrient-phytoplankton-zooplankton (NPZ) studies, 25 Mission of Advisory Panel, 254 Mission of Science Panel, 251 O Mission statement, Board, 8, 243 Objectives and duties of Science Panel, 251 Models Ocean measurements, 27 chlorophyll, 30 Ocean monitoring, 27–28 circulation, 29 Ocean observing systems, 28 for crab markets, 143 Ocean wildlife populations, 114 new, 81 Officer rotation, Board, 187 nutrient-phytoplankton-zooplankton, 34 Officers and terms of office statement, 244–245 of pollock, 81 Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI), 275–277 salinity and zooplankton in Gulf of Alaska, 37 Operations, Advisory Panel, 255 sea ice, 30 Organization statement, Board, 244 Modular approach to funding, 165 Organizational meetings, 2001 Board, 9 Monitoring policies, Board, 193 Organizational meetings, NPRB-NSF, 270–271 Monitoring programs, 28, 31, 31, 32, 100 Otoliths, daily growth rings in, 90 Moorings, biophysical, 28, 28 Out-of-cycle proposals, 195 Murre eggs, 154 Outreach programs, 15, 175, 175 Muscles and skin nitrogen stable isotope ratios, 105–106 Mussels, analyzing contamination in, 155 P Mussels on beach, 155 Pacific-North American Index, 48 Panel photos, 214–215 N Participation of others, MOA, 264 National Ocean Service, 187 Parties, MOA collaborative, 263 National Ocean Service (NOS), 188 Partnerships, 167 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration memo- PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl ether), 153 randa of agreement, 259 Perch, 41, 49, 74, 77 National Research Council (NRC), 19–20 Photo contest, NPRB annual, 176, 176 National Science Foundation (NSF) Photos of Board, 214–215 2006 partnership, 11 Phytoplankton blooms, 27, 28 Bering Sea Ecosystem schedule, 271 Phytoplankton ecology, 35 criteria for proposals, 273 PIC (Pribilof Islands Collaborative), 147 supporting BSIERP, 163 Pigmented macrophage aggregates (PMA), 66 Native scientist involvement, 189 Plan completion, 2005 science, 10 Near real-time data, 28 Planning, 2004 science, 10 Nearshore areas, forage fish in, 44 Planning goals, long-term, 15, 195 Nearshore habitat, Northern Bristol Bay, 49 PMA (pigmented macrophage aggregates), 66 Nearshore monitoring program, 31 Poisoning from shellfish, 156 Nelson Lagoon, hydrocarbons in, 153, 153 Policies and procedures Noise in marine environments, effects of, 123 Advisory Panel, 254–255 Nominations of Advisory Panel, 254 Advisory Panel (AP), 254–255 Non-compliance of subaward agreements, 256–257 affiliated work groups, 251–252 Non-RFP/IERP science, 200 of Board, 248 North Pacific Fishery Management Council (COUNCIL), 181 review of, 184 North Pacific Marine Research Institute (NPMRI), 197, 260–261 Policy compliance with subaward agreements, 256–258 Norton Sound, 48 Policy issues, miscellaneous science, 193–195 Notices of meetings and hearings, 246 Pollock, foraging success of, 65 Notification of subrecipient policies, 258 Pollock, models for, 81 NPRB-NSF management plan, 267 Pollock predators, 82, 82 NPRB-OSRI collaborations, 172, 275–277 Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), 153 NPZ (nutrient-phytoplankton-zooplankton) models, 29, 34 Polychaete tube worms, 42 NPZ (nutrient-phytoplankton-zooplankton) studies, 25 Population conservation and fisheries interactions, 136 NRC (National Research Council), 19–20 Population dynamics, 114, 130 284 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

Population ecology, 66 Responsibilities of the parties, 260–261 Pre-proposal process, 194 RFP (request for proposals), 9–11, 14, 20t1 Pribilof Islands Collaborative (PIC), 147 Ribbon seal in the Bering Sea, 115 Pribilof Islands, St. Paul in the, 148 Ringed seals, movements of, 115 Problem resolution with subrecipients, 257 Rock sole, densities, 42 Program adjustments, NPRB-NSF, 271 Rockfish, 44, 58, 59, 77, 146 Projects, distribution of, 21. see also Funds, distribution of Rocky Reef habitat, 44 Projects, funding of, 12 Round Island, fishing effects near, 51 Projects and grants, Institute, 261 Proposals. see also Request for proposals (RFP) S Board criteria, 274 Salinity and zooplankton in Gulf of Alaska, 37 confidentiality of, 194 Salinity versus temperature in Bering Sea shelves, 28 grievance procedures, 194 Salmon initial screening of, 194 behavior of, 61 NPRB-NSF reviews and selections, 269, 269–270 bycatch technologies, 83, 84 NPRB-OSRI scientific review of, 276 distribution in Bering Sea, 89 NSF criteria, 273 in estuaries, 61 out-of-cycle, 195 excluder, 83 public comments on, 194 forecast model of sockeye, 78 reviews and Advisory Panel, 191–192 research and monitoring metadata, 100 PSP toxins, 156 sockeye, 76, 78, 79, 88 Publications through 2008, 234–241 studies of, 88 Puffins, tufted, 132 survival and estuaries, 90 Purposes survival of pink, 32 of Bering Sea Ecosystem study, 267 web-accessible database on, 100 of collaborative projects, 259 Samalga Pass in Aleutian Islands, 41 of MOA projects, 263 Sand lance, 161 of NPRB-OSRI collaboration, 275 Sand Point, searching clams for PSP in, 156 Scatterometer measurements, 30 Q Schedule for NPRB-OSRI proposal reviews, 276 QPCR (DNA based assay), 59 Science fair awards, 177, 177 Questions in NSF, BEST, and NPRB BSIERP programs, 272–273 Science Panel (SP) conflict-of-interest, 255 R meeting cycle, 14 Radio-tagged animals, 114 meeting in Seward, Alaska, 10 Recusal provisions and policies, Board, 187 members 2002-2008, 212 Reference documents, 7 members 2008, 13 Reflex impairment observations, 85 membership, 188 Regime shifts, 29 policies and procedures, 251–252 Remedies for situations with subrecipients, 258 recommendations for LTK research, 169 Remote sensing acoustic and optical instruments, 58 Science Plan Reproductive biology of Atka mackerel, 72–73 completion, 10 Request for proposals (RFP), 9–11, 14, 20t1 making of, 19 Research research approaches, 53 approaches, 53, 167 Science planning, 2004, 10 awards, 178 Science Program, 7 cooperative projects, 171 Science teachers outreach programs, 177 misconduct, 258 Scientific review of proposals, NPRB-OSRI, 276 planning of MOA projects, 263 Scientific review requests, 181 topics 2002-2008, 23 Scope of collaborative projects, 259 Research programs Sculpin, ecological role of, 69 2002 initial, 9 Sea lions, stellar, 119, 119, 122, 122, 141, 141 distribution of, 21 Sea otters, 117, 117 Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project (STAMP), 154, integrated ecosystem, 15 154 Resource management, ecosystem indicators in, 97, 97 INDEX 285

Seabirds Stakeholder perceptions, 144 changes in diets, 133 STAMP (Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project), 154, climate change and the Bering Sea, 128 154 contaminants in eggs, 154 Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures (SOPP), diet database, 127 188, 242 diets and fish returns, 79 Stock assessment models, 78 and foraging, 132 Stock assessment research and development, 56 habitat and fisheries, 137 Student awards, 177, 178 productivity and nutritional stress, 133 Studies of lower trophic levels, 25 shipbased observers of, 135, 135 Subaward compliance policies, 256–258 Subaward compliance policy, 195 studies of, 125 Subsistence hunters, 111, 115 surveying, 135 Subsistence use of marine resources, 115, 117, 122, 146–147, workshops, 127 149, 154–155. see also Local and traditional knowledge (LTK) Seals research first winter for pups, 109 Supplementing agency programs, 193 foraging strategies of northern fur, 108, 108 Survival of terms of Institute, 262 harbor, 110, 110, 114 Suspension of subaward, 257–258 health of, 115 Sustainable fish populations, knowledge about, 144 hole in ice, 115 Synthesis, Arctic Ocean, 23 interactions with fisheries, 118 Synthesis, Southeast Alaska, 22 movement of ringed, 115 northern fur, 142, 142 T in Prince William Sound, 110 Tanner crabs, 71, 86 ribbon, 115 TBT (tributyltin), 155 SEASWAP (Southeast Alaska Sperm Whale Avoidance Project), Teachers-at-sea outreach programs, 177 120, 120–121 Technical reviewers, requirements of, 252–253 Seward Line transect, 32 Temperatures Shared resources, MOA, 264 and bycatch rates, 84 Shellfish poisoning, community monitoring for, 156 influences on biological conditions, 32 Shifts, regime, 29 influences on zooplankton, 36 Ship-based technologies, 57 Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), 76, 117 measurements from ferry boxes, 34 Skate nurseries, 43 versus salinity in Bering Sea shelves, 28 Skates life histories study, 67 of sea surface in North Pacific and Bering Sea, 109 Skin and muscles nitrogen stable isotope ratios, 105–106 Terms of agreement of Institute, 262 SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism), 76, 117 Tiĝlax, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service M/V, 96, 96 Socio-economic baseline, Pribilof Islands, 147 Time-series measurements, 27 SOPP (Statement of Organization, Practices and Procedures), Toxins in shellfish, 156, 157 188, 242 Travel expenses, Board, 188 Southeast Alaska Sperm Whale Avoidance Project (SEASWAP), Trawls, 48, 51, 80 120, 120–121 Tributyltin (TBT), 155 Southeast Alaska synthesis, 22 Trichinellosis disease, human, 149 SP (Science Panel). see Science Panel (SP) Tube worm bed nurseries, 42 Spatial issues, 80 Tufted puffins, 132, 132 Special fishing industry seat, 244 Tustumena ferry box, 34 Species decline projects, 85 Spectacled eider, population of, 134, 134 U Sperm whales targeting fisheries, 120, 120–121, 121 Unfunded proposals, confidentiality of, 253 Sponge survey on Chiswell Ridge, 50 University of Alaska Memorandum of Agreement, 263–264 Squid, surveying, 58 University of Alaska representation with Board, 187 Squid life histories study, 69 U.S. Department of Commerce memoranda of agreement, 259 St. Paul community fishing, 148 St. Paul community meeting, 147 V Stable isotope analysis, 105–106 Vertically-integrated program, Bering Sea Ecosystem, 268 Staff, Board, 14, 192 Vision statement, 8, 243 Staff photos, 214–215 Voting and meeting procedures of Board, 185–187 Staff resolution with subrecipients, 257 286 NORTH PACIFIC RESEARCH BOARD :: THE FOUNDATIONAL YEARS :: 2001-2008

W Walleye pollock, 64, 75, 80, 81, 94 Walrus, health risks of eating, 149, 149 Walrus population, Pacific, 116, 116 Websites Alaska Marine Science Symposium, 177 Alaska Ocean Observing System, 180 Bering Sea Climate Database, 23 Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program, 162 Board operating procedures, 184 browser and mapping system, 180 Gulf of Alaska Integrated Ecosystem Research Program, 177 Kasatochi volcano, 129 North Pacific Research Board, 7 operating procedures, 199 salmon data, 100 Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures, 188 Websites as outreach tools, 177 Whales acoustic technology and, 112 beluga whale habitats, 111 calving grounds, 113 diet of Arctic, 105–106 DNA of Bowhead, 106, 117 entanglements of humpback, 118 range of tagged, 111 right whales, 112, 113 Wind measurements, 30 Work groups, affiliated, 252 Workshops, habitat mapping, 50 Workshops to synthesize knowledge, 98 Z Zooplankton, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37 Brad Stevens North Pacific Research Board 1007 West 3rd Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907.644.6700 nprb.org

Samuel Horpestad