Saving Seafood

NOAA science director steers a new course

January 30, 2017 — It was last Halloween when Jon Hare took over as Science and Research Director for NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole. He was aware he was jumping into a cauldron but it hasn’t spooked him yet.

“I knew it was going to be a challenge and that’s why I was interested in it,” the career NOAA scientist said.

Hare does understatement well.

The director’s job description includes managing “the living marine resources of the Northeast Continental Shelf Ecosystem from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras,” according to the NOAA website.

If that in itself were not sufficient, these resources include commercial fisheries, and in New England that is synonymous with controversy.

Federal fishery management in general, and the efficacy of NOAA’s survey work on fish stocks in particular, have been heavily criticized by fishermen in the Northeast, almost without cessation for the past 15 years and the NEFSC has been at the sharp end of much of this disaffection.

Since his appointment Hare has launched himself upon these troubled waters with energy and candor, reaching out to industry stakeholders at every opportunity in the belief that there is common ground.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

NOAA fisheries releases climate action plans

December 21st, 2016 — After years of preparation, NOAA Fisheries last Friday released five “regional action plans” to guide implementation of the agency’s national climate science strategy over the next five years.

The regions covered include the Northeast, Southeast, Pacific Islands, West Coast and Alaska.

The waters off the Northeastern states are among the fastest warming of the world’s oceans. Marine species from plankton to the largest whales are affected as a variety of ecosystem components — habitat, food webs, water temperatures, wind patterns — respond to climate change.

NOAA’s regional action plan for the Northeast addresses the Continental Shelf ecosystem, which extends from Maine to North Carolina and from the headwaters of local watersheds to the deep ocean. It was developed jointly by NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole and the Greater Atlantic Region Fisheries Office in Gloucester, with input from a variety of sources.

Its goal is to provide “timely and relevant information on what’s changing, what’s at risk and how to respond,” according to NOAA. That information is “key” to minimizing the effects of climate change on the region.

“We are excited to release the Northeast Regional Action Plan, which was developed with input from many partners in the region,” Jon Hare, lead author of the plan and the director of NOAA Fisheries’ Northeast Fisheries Science Center, said in a statement announcing the release of the plan.

Read the full story at The Ellsworth American 

How will Fish in the Northeast Respond to Climate Change?

April 27, 2016 — A new study, published by the journal PLOS ONE found 82 species of marine fish and invertebrates in the northwest Atlantic (or the northeast US) to be vulnerable to climate change (A write up of the study by the New York Times can be found here). These 82 species encompass every commercially managed fishery in the region as well as a few popular recreational species and endangered species.

Not all species were predicted to experience negative effects from climate change – only about half were likely to be negatively affected. 20 percent will be positively affected by climate change and the rest will be neutral, said Jon Hare, NOAA oceanographer and lead author of the paper. However a majority of the species studied did show a high potential for a change in habitat distribution, which could create significant management challenges

“Peter Baker, director of Northeast U.S. oceans for the Pew Charitable Trusts, said the report should be a motivator for fishing managers to protect more ocean habitat and preserve marine species.”

Comment by Doug S. Butterworth, Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group, University of Cape Town

In this paper, Hare et al. report the results of the application of Vulnerability Assessment methodology to assess the extent to which abundance or productivity of species on the Northeast US Continental Shelf may alter in response to climate change. More particularly, they consider, inter alia, directional effects (whether negative, neutral or positive) and potential for changes in distribution. The determinations are based on expert opinions which lead the authors to draw firm conclusions, e.g. that climate change is expected to negatively affect about half the species they consider.

The environmental conditions associated with the habitat preferences of different species may be determined from empirical studies for which considerable data are available. Hence there is a clear basis in data and analyses to formulate the opinions that have been consolidated in this report.

What is much less clear, however, is what bases could defensibly have been used by experts to comment on directional effects for abundance and particularly productivity under projected changes in environmental variables under climate change. The productivity, and consequently to a large extent, the abundance, of a population of a fish or invertebrate species is driven by the (typically) annual recruitments to that population. The inferences drawn by these experts must consequently have been based on knowledge of how environmental variables affect such recruitment.

Yet the difficulties of reliably establishing such relationships are well known in fisheries assessment science. The classic article on this topic by Ram Myers (When do environment-recruitment correlations work?) pointed to the failure of almost all such relationships that had been proposed when tested with new data.

This then begs the questions of what bases the experts contributing inferences concerning directional effects to the Hare et al. study used for their determinations and how reliable those inferences might be. If they are reliable, why are they generally not being used in the fisheries assessments from which advice on catch limits is formulated?

I agree with Hare et al. when they argue that the expert opinions they collated “can guide future monitoring, research, and monitoring studies.” However, they go further to state that their results can be used by managers to “guide management actions” (they provide examples of species for which they suggest decreasing fishing mortality). Should they not first meet the burden of justifying the bases on which the experts who contributed to their study drew their inferences about directional effects, and also explain the associated implications for the reliability of knowledge about fishery recruitment-environmental variable relationships?

Read the original post at CFOOD