BERING SEA INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM
RESEARCH PROGRAM
2007-2011
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
May 2006
DRAFT
BSIERP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction
Background
Science Program
Program Implementation
A. Pre-proposals
B. Full proposals
a. Proposal components
b. Other requirements
c. Peer review and proposal selection
C. Timelines
5. Non-IERP Projects
6. References
2/12/2016
Page
2
3
4
8
9
9
9
11
11
11
12
12
1
DRAFT
BSIERP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
1. Introduction
The North Pacific Research Board Science Plan (NPRB 2005) identified the need to develop
integrated ecosystem research programs (IERPs) in order to achieve the Board’s vision of
building a clear understanding of the ecosystem that enables effective management and
sustainable use of resources. The IERP approach was heartily endorsed by the National Research
Council in its evaluation of the NPRB Science Plan (NRC 2005). The necessity of maintaining
ecosystem services (material resources and the inherent spiritual, recreational, educational and
other nonmaterial benefits) is consistent with the objectives of the NOAA Fisheries, and
ecosystem-based management and sustainability are also objectives of the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (e.g. Witherell et al., 2000; NPFMC, 2006) that were strongly endorsed in
recent reports on the status of our Nation’s oceans (PEW, 2003; USCOP, 2004). Providing the
best science available is not sufficient. By fielding a successful Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem
Research Program (BSIERP), the NPRB will be a leader in providing information to assist
managers in moving towards ecosystem-based management.
One of the most critical issues facing managers, policy makers and resource users is how the vast
numbers of living marine resources will respond to changes in climate (e.g., PICES 2004),
particularly the anticipated continued reduction in or eventual loss of seasonal sea ice cover over
the next 30 years. Atmospheric phenomena are causing ocean warming that impacts biological
rates and will alter the present locations of the boundaries between ecoregions of the Bering Sea
(Fig. 1). Accompanying this spatial diversity is a wide of range of time scales of forcing of the
ecosystem. Much emphasis has been placed on decadal (regime shifts, e.g., Hare and Mantua,
2000: NPRB, 2005) and secular (global warming) trends. Within a given season, however,
climate change also directly impacts weather, for example changing storm frequency and
intensity that impact regional biotic processes (Bond and Overland, 2005). The cascade of
impacts could fundamentally change ecosystem dynamics (function and form), and thus affect the
livelihood/culture of those who depend on living marine resources (NPRB 2005; Grebmeier et al.
2006).
Among the expected changes in the Bering Sea ecosystem (e.g., PICES 2004; NPRB 2005;
BIAW 2006) are those in:



Physical phenomena (e.g., weather patterns, sea ice characteristics, transport, mixed
layer dynamics, temperature, nutrient fluxes);
Composition, abundance, distribution, and demographic parameters of biological
components from plankton to seabirds and marine mammals; and
Strength of existing predator-prey linkages and development of new linkages.
With these anticipated changes in the ecosystem, the challenge of maintaining ecosystem services
from the Bering Sea is formidable. The very nature of the expected changes, from physics
through fish (and other upper trophic level species) to people, highlights the need for a BSIERP
whose products focus on providing quantitative scenarios of how changes impact abundance and
availability of commercially valuable fishes and the attendant socio-economic conditions.
2/12/2016
2
DRAFT
BSIERP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Figure 1. Marine ecoregions of Alaska (draft by Piatt et al. in prep, with permission from the
author)
2. Background
Distribution and abundance of upper trophic level species, such as fish, seabirds and marine
mammals are influenced by climatic conditions, either directly or indirectly (e.g., NPRB Science
Plan Fig. 2.7). Direct effects include alteration of physical habitat (e.g., temperature, mixed layer
depth, bottom disturbance, currents) with associated impacts on growth, mortality, and
reproductive success. Indirect effects occur through trophic impacts at lower trophic levels
and/or on predator abundance or distribution. Natural control occurs through predator abundance
and/or distribution (top-down) and/or effects of changes in lower trophic levels (bottom-up) and
the importance of these can oscillate (Hunt et al. 2002). Recent studies have examined the relative
importance of both mechanisms to regulate some upper trophic level populations in the eastern
Bering Sea, for example pollock (Mueter et al., 2006) and crabs (Zheng and Kruse, 2006),
however, results are neither unequivocal nor permit generation of quantitative scenarios
(forecasts). Throughout the Bering Sea, organism-organism interactions (i.e. predation and
competition) and processes that link physical forcing to biological production remain poorly
understood (Macklin 2002, BEST 2005). Further, the issue of sustainability of Bering Sea
ecosystem resources, in terms of both biophysical dynamics and management techniques, has
received only limited attention (e.g., Schumacher and Kruse 2005). Without such detailed
knowledge of the processes and interactions that dictate ecosystem function and form, it is not
possible to construct realistic quantitative scenarios of how changes in the physical environment
may cascade through the food web to impact biota.
2/12/2016
3
DRAFT
BSIERP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
As changes occur in distributions, abundances, and species composition, the ecosystem will
change and new pressing fisheries management and ecosystem issues will surface. Determining
and quantifying the processes causing these changes is the missing critical factor. The ultimate
challenge will be to understand how management decisions will interact with these processes to
provide for sustainable harvest while protecting other ecosystem components, including
threatened and endangered species. Of particular importance will be predictions regarding trends
in abundance and distribution of commercial species of high value (e.g. pollock, cod, king and
Tanner crab), and recovery to healthy population levels of protected species such as Steller sea
lions and northern fur seals.
The BSIERP is needed to provide managers with data, tools and information to predict the
response of this vital ecosystem (including socio-economic impacts) to changes in global climate
and/or management policies. It is anticipated that this research program will equip managers to
better advise commercial and subsistence users of marine resources in the Bering Sea regarding
the likelihood that the abundance and distribution of these resources will be significantly altered
over the next 10 years (e.g., Grebmeier et. al. 2006). Informational products from the BSIERP
should consist of various scenarios of changes (quantitative rather than qualitative; e.g., see
Hashioka, 2006) throughout the ecosystem including those in socio-economics. In this way the
BSIERP directly addresses the Board’s vision, mission, and goals (NPRB, 2005). It will require a
multi-faceted approach from a wide variety of scientists, including experts in atmospheric/oceanic
processes, chemical and biological oceanography, fisheries biology, marine mammal and seabird
biology, multi-species/ecosystem modeling, social sciences, economics, and management. As
such, results from this program will have direct applicability to current management issues (e.g.
May 2006 NPFMC research priorities) in today’s changing environment and also substantially
increase our scientific understanding of the critical processes that control the ecosystem and how
they are influenced by climate change.
3. Science Program
Following the implementation strategies outlined in the NPRB Science Plan (2005), the Board
released (fall 2005) an RFP with six questions derived from the Bering Sea Interagency Working
Group (BIAW 2005):
1. Are the distributions (range, spawning and breeding locations) and abundances of
species in the Bering Sea ecosystem changing in response to climate change? If so,
how?
2. Are the physical and chemical attributes of the ecosystem changing in response to
climate change? If so, how?
3. Is lower trophic level production (quantity and form) changing in response to climate
change? If so, how?
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?
The RFP requested 1-2 year modeling and retrospective studies that would support any future
more detailed program, and seven projects were funded in the spring of 2006 (Table 1,
http://project.nprb.org/filter.do). The results from these studies will contribute to the knowledge
generated by the BSIERP in the coming years.
2/12/2016
4
DRAFT
BSIERP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Table 1. Proposals funded under the BSIERP in response to the 2006 RFP (1-2 year, modeling and retrospective studies). See http://project.nprb.org/ for
details.
Proposal #
Proposals by RFP Category
Principal Investigators
Organizations
Years
Requested
Funds
1 Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research
Program Total
Section Target: $1.2 M
6
Retrospective analyses of Norton Sound benthic
fauna
Stephen Jewett, Thomas
Weingartner, Toshihide
Hamazaki
10
Modeling Growth and Survival of Early LifeStages of Pacific Cod in Response to ClimateRelated Changes in Sea Ice Conditions in the
Bering Sea
Modeling Climate Effects on Interdecadal
Variation in Southeastern Bering Sea Jellyfish
Populations
Modeling study on the response of lower trophic
level production to climate change
Response of the Bering Sea Integrated CirculationIce-Ecosystem to Past (1955-2005) and Future
(2005-2055) Forcing by Climate and the Adjacent
North Pacific and Arctic Oceans
Thomas Hurst, Lorenzo
Ciannelli, Michael Davis, Al
Stoner, Mike Behrenfeld,
Benjamin Laurel
Mary Beth Decker
Adaptation to a changing world: molecular
evidence for selective mortality in walleye pollock
larvae
Is the pelagic distribution of seabirds in the Bering
Sea driven by climate change? A retrospective
analysis
12
13
15
122
17
2/12/2016
$1,100,942
University of Alaska
Fairbanks; Hamachan
Scientific Research
Services
NOAA-AFSC; Oregon
State University
1.0
$155,350
1.9
$199,917
Yale University
1.9
$115,690
Meibing Jin, Clara Deal, Jia
Wang
Dick Barber, Fei Chai, Yi
Chao, James McWilliams,
Annette de Charon, Son
Nghiem
University of Alaska
Fairbanks
Duke University
1.9
$149,547
1.9
$200,000
Lorenz Hauser, Mike Canino,
Kevin Bailey
University of Washington
Vernon Byrd
Alaska Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge
1.4
1.5
$182,938
$97,500
5
DRAFT
BSIERP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
This Implementation Plan builds on the six questions/issues listed above together with issues
presented in other recent documents (e.g., a workshop held during the January 2006 Marine
Science Symposium, Implementation Plan for Loss of Sea Ice Program April 2006) to formulate
the BSIERP central question:
What processes regulate the distribution and abundance of upper trophic level
organisms such as commercial/subsistence fish, how will these quantitatively
change under various natural and human induced scenarios (climate and
management) and what are the associated economic and sociological impacts?
While recent research has been conducted that documents and/or determines how changes can
propagate through some of the elements of this ecosystem (e.g., Mueter et al., 2006; Zheng and
Kruse, 2006; Grebmeier et al., 2006), quantified estimates of changes (e.g. such as was done for
saury populations off Japan by Hashioka et al. 2006) through the upper trophic levels, including
the human component, do not yet exist for the Bering Sea ecosystem.
Figure 2 shows important interactions (indicated by arrows) among elements of an ecosystem (we
note that while people clearly impact the atmosphere/ocean element, such interactions are not part
of the IERP). Neither all possible interactions nor quantifiable mechanistic processes between
elements are shown, only those vital to the goals of the BSIERP. Forage fish are a central
element (a critical prey base whose abundance and distribution are poorly known and can be
studied directly or indirectly, e.g. possibly using a surrogate such as seabirds). Based on the most
probable climatic scenarios (e.g. those from Global Climate Models) and management
strategies (e.g. Management Strategy Evaluations- MSE; identified as ‘Scenarios’), the
successful BSIERP will be significantly increase our understanding of: (1) the major processes
that regulate the distribution and abundance of upper trophic level organisms, with an
emphasis on commercial/subsistence fish species; (2) quantitative changes of these processes
under various natural- and human-induced scenarios; (3) the resultant economic and
sociological impacts; and (4) how the above may be impacted by climate change and
mediated by management actions. The “human” element therefore is concerned with how
impacts of ecosystem change will affect the livelihoods and quality of life for all who depend on
ecosystem services of the Bering Sea (e.g., Schumacher and Kruse 2005). Research in this
element should address such topics as: How will alteration in distribution/abundance or behavior
(i.e., aggregation) of commercially valuable fish impact catch per unit effort and associated
economic factors? How will changes in distribution/abundance of species used for subsistence
impact local communities? How will changes in the ecosystem affect development and growth of
coastal communities?
Residents of local communities may also hold local traditional knowledge (LTK) of value to
addressing questions in other elements of Figure 1. Possible approaches to implementing an LTK
research component include: generating hypotheses, documenting existing LTK to complement
retrospective analyses, and collaborative efforts to collect observations and interpret results.
2/12/2016
6
DRAFT
BSIERP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Humans
Management
Scenarios
Quantifiable
processes
Marine
Mammals
Scenarios
Commercial/
subsistence Fish
Seabirds
Quantifiable
processes
Forage Fish
Quantifiable
processes
Quantifiable
processes
NPZ
Quantifiable
processes
Atmosphere/ocean
Scenarios
Figure 2. Schematic of interconnected (shown by arrows) elements of an ecosystem to be
addressed by the BSIERP. Also shown are the critical quantitative links to be determined under
different climate and management scenarios.
2/12/2016
7
DRAFT
BSIERP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
This BSIERP matches well with several of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s
recently (May 2006) revised research priorities based on recommedations of its Scientific and
Statistical
Committee
(http://doc.nprb.org/web/BSIERP/NPFMC%20research%20priorities%20May-06.doc). Priorities
that match the scope outlined for this BSIERP are:




Forage fish. Understanding the dynamics of important pelagic and benthic forage species,
such as capelin, herring, myctophids, euphausids, shrimp, squid, and juvenile pollock
remains a high priority for understanding energy flow to commercially important species
and to protected species, including seabirds and mammals. Forage fish are a central
element in Figure 1.
Climate change and fish communities. If recent changes in ice cover and temperatures in
the Bering Sea persist, they may have profound effects on marine communities. Existing
data sets (bottom trawl surveys, BASIS surveys) can be used to quantify changes in
relative species composition of commercial and non-commercial species, identify and
map assemblages, and monitor changes in the distribution of individual species and
assemblages. Identifying and quantifying the process underlying the observed and
predicted changes presented in this bullet are at the heart of the BSIERP.
Advancing ecosystem approach to fisheries management. This includes development of
suitable indicators and indicator species, developing ecosystem reference points, and
improvements of current ecosystem models. Standardization of "future scenarios" will
help to promote comparability of model outputs. This priority is in concert with the
BSIERP’s requirement for coupled models that produce scenairos generated by both
natural changes to the ecosystem and human induced effects.
Social and economic research. Prospective analyses of the robustness and resilience of
alternative management strategies under varying environmental and ecological
conditions; and analyses or the development of models to evaluate the evolution of
community social and economic structure in response to alternative management actions
are necessary. This priority is compatible with BSIERP requirements in the ‘human’
element of the BSIERP.
In addition, the State of Alaska (Department of Fish and Game, Department of Environmental
Conservation, and Department of Natural Resources) identified (May 2006) sixteen research
priorities (add web site), nearly half of which also are in accord with those of the BSIERP. These
include: integrated physical, chemical and fisheries oceanography studies to better understand
how changes in environmental parameters in coastal habitats influence fish abundance and their
relationship to marine mammals and seabirds in order to develop better predictive capabilities;
understanding large-scale relationships between characteristics of the physical environment and
humans on sustainability of fish stocks; developing state-of-the-art models for population
estimates; establishing management measurers based on ecosystem reference points; and
determining climate change effects on fisheries/subsistence.
A third source of research priorities related to resource management that also mentions several
issues addressed in the BSIERP is the programmatic supplemental environmental impact
statement for the Alaska groundfish fisheries
(http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/seis/final062004/Chaps/chpt_5.pdf). These include:
2/12/2016
8
DRAFT






BSIERP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Conduct process studies to understand the underlying mechanisms relating climate
change and ecosystem response;
Integrate emerging scientific knowledge into prognostic models for resource management
decisions; and
Improve understanding of interactions between the environment and society;
Evaluate impact of different management strategies such as rationalization on
sustainability;
Increase our understanding of the factors influencing forage species dynamics and
spatial/temporal distribution to better separate the role of climate and fishing in
influencing the dynamics of these species; as well as
Investigations into direct and indirect interactions between fisheries and seabirds and
marine mammals.
4. Program Implementation
A successful BSIERP will address processes within and between the elements displayed in Figure
2, from atmospheric/oceanic processes through human dimensions, which likely have a
significant impact on abundance and distribution of selected upper trophic level species. Such a
program will employ the major research activities (monitoring, process, retrospective, modeling;
NPRB 2005) to the extent they are necessary to elucidate relevant processes/mechanism.
Given the focus on quantitative predictions, a continuous interaction between field work and
modeling will play a crucial role: this will require coordination with NPRB’s Ecosystem
Modeling Committee (EMC), which has developed a series of model criteria
(http://www.nprb.org/research/emc.htm).
The saury study conducted off Japan (Hashioka et al. 2006) provides a good example of an
ecosystem study that takes into account all the elements displayed in Figure 2 (up to
commercial/subsistence fish), employs numerous models, and establishes quantitative changes in
the elements. In addition, the successful BSIERP must include the human element so that, among
other things, it can investigate management scenarios and socio-economic impacts.
The funding horizon of this BSIERP is $12M over 5 years. These funds may be differentially
apportioned between years up to a maximum of $3.2M per year. The proposed project must have
at least 3 major field years, and include an analysis and synthesis year at the end. Also, it is clear
that a 5-year program will leave many questions unanswered and identify processes that will
require further studies for which current datasets are non-existent or insufficient. As a result, it is
suggested that the BSIERP will be more than a one time 5-year effort. It likely will be a series of
5-year modules, with one year in between to ensure all the new information can be assimilated
and a new plan can be drafted based on the new information gained. This would ensure
continuity and an incentive for researchers to complete their synthesis at the end of each module.
At the same time, such a long-term strategy would help address some of the long-term climate
change questions by augmenting or creating necessary datasets.
The geographic extent must lie within the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island Large Marine Ecosystem
(LME, Fig 2-1 NPRB 2005), but the choice of the exact location is open. In todays uncertain
funding environment for research, it is critical that the BSIERP be designed to be successful as a
stand-alone program. Coordination, cooperation and integration of data collected by ongoing and
planned programs (see http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/ProcRpt/PR%202006-01.pdf and
other information provided at http://www.nprb.org/research/bsierp.htm), however, are highly
2/12/2016
9
DRAFT
BSIERP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
encouraged. This approach will provide results on a much broader scope: the total product would
be greater than the sum of the individual programs. Key components of a successful BSIERP
proposal are multi-disciplinary and multi-agency research teams made up of academic and agency
scientists and managers, an integrated modeling-field work feedback throughout the program, and
a clear program and data management plan.
Integration, cooperation and products applicable to management are critical aspects for a
successful BSIERP. As a result, we have structured this program to help ensure that these aspects
will occur. The transformation of the above mentioned central question into a successful program
will occur through:
A. Pre-proposals (see RFPP - http://www.nprb.org/research/bsierp.htm for details)
Based on extensive input from the scientific community, the NPRB decided to implement Preproposals for the BSIERP because it believes it will: (1) save considerable time and effort in
preparing lengthy proposals that may be meritorious but non responsive to the goals of the
BSIERP and the NPRB; (2) save time of staff and reviewers in reviewing full proposals which
otherwise might have been ruled out by pre-proposals based on the focus of the proposed
program; (3) allow for a re-combination of proponents if needed to create stronger, more
complete teams; and (4) ensure that the NPRB is more likely to end up with a series of proposals
that more closely correspond to their vision of the BSIERP. Pre-proposals will be due
approximately one month after the launch of the RFPP, i.e. 10 November 2006, see Table 2
below).
Review of pre-proposals will be carried out by NPRB Staff and Science Panel Members, who will
make recommendations to the Board. Based on the Boards decision, full proposals will be
invited by 8 December 2006.
B. Full proposals (see Invitation of Full Proposals http://www.nprb.org/research/bsierp.htm for details)
Coordinating a comprehensive multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional team and drafting a detailed,
scientifically rigorous, proposal as envisioned for this BSIERP may take approximately 2-3
months and may involve a series of meetings or workshops by the proponents. To support such
efforts, the Board is prepared to entertain written requests by invited teams for up to $5K to help
support travel and meeting arrangements. Full proposals will have to be submitted through
NPRB’s online submission system (enter website) by 5pm Alaska Time on 2 March 2007.
After initial screening by NPRB staff, compliant Full proposals will be sent out for anonymous
independent technical review to be evaluated in accordance with the NPRB Technical Evaluation
Criteria (www.nprb.org/research). Modeling components of the proposals will be additionally
reviewed
by
NPRB’s
Ecosystem
Modeling
Committee
(EMC,
http://www.nprb.org/research/emc.htm), which will make recommendations to the Science Panel
specifically on those components. According to standard practice, the Science Panel members
will conduct their review of the proposals, taking into account the independent reviews and EMC
recommendations, and make their recommendation to the Board. The Board will make a final
funding decision on ONE BSIERP proposal by the end of April 2007.
2/12/2016
10
DRAFT
BSIERP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Table 2. Timelines for BSIERP and regular proposals in the 2007 RFP
Action
BSIERP proposals
Regular Proposals
Release of 2007 RFP
6 October 2006
6 October 2006
IERP Pre-Proposals due
10 November 2006
Regular Proposals due
8 December 2006
Invite full IERP proposals
8 December 2006
Full IERP proposals due
2 March 2007
Decision on regular proposals
23-26 April 2007
Decisions on IERP proposals
23-26 April 2007
C. Program Review
Once the successful proposal is selected and the program is underway, a Science Review Team
will be established, which, together with NPRB staff and the EMC, will conduct thorough annual
reviews of the BSIERP. It is envisioned that those reviews will occur in conjunction with or as
part of the annual Marine Science Symposium which usually takes place in January in
Anchorage. In addition, the Board expects that the Program Leader will give progress reports at
their semi-annual (March and September) meetings in Anchorage.
5. Non-IERP Projects (same as existing RFP process)
Even though the NPRB Science Plan and NRC committee both recommended a primary funding
track of integrated research, there is still a need for conventional science projects to explore
alternative hypotheses, methods, technologies, and basic research. Non-IERP projects may
complement the existing IERP (i.e. some critical gaps get identified as the project develops that
cannot be addressed under the current scope of work), or they can be unrelated to the IERP.
6. Other
The NPRB is committed to education and outreach, and as part of this effort is establishing a
Graduate Research Fellowship (more details can be found at www.nprb.org/research). These
competitive fellowships are open to all graduate students conducting research for the NPRB
(IEPR and non-IERP). But because graduate students and post docs are required to be part of the
BSIERP project team, graduate students under this program are encouraged to apply.
7. References
BIAW (Bering Sea Interagency Working Group). 2006. Climate Change and the Bering Sea
Ecosystem: An Integrated, Interagency/Multi-Institutional Approach, Workshop held 8 April
2005, Seattle, WA.
AFSC Processed Report 2006-01, 30 p. Available at:
www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/ProcRpt06.htm.
Bond, N.A. and J. E. Overland. 2005. The importance of episodic weather events to the
ecosystem of the Bering Sea shelf. Fisheries Oceanography. 14:2, 97–111
Grebmeier, J.M., J.E. Overland, S.E. Moore, E.V. Farley, E.C. Carmack, L.W. Cooper, K.E.
Frey, J.H. Helle, F.A. McLaughlin, and S.L. McNutt. 2006. A Major Ecosystem Shift in the
Northern Bering Sea. Science 311: 1461-1464.
2/12/2016
11
DRAFT
BSIERP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Hare, S.R. and Mantua, N.J. (2000) Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977
and 1989. Progress in Oceanography. 47:103–146.
Hashioka, T., Y. Yamanaka, F. Shido, and T.T. Sakamoto. 2006 Ecosystem Change in the
Western North Pacific associated with Global Warming obtained by a 3-D Ecosystem Model.
PICES / GLOBEC CCCC Symposium Climate Variability and Ecosystem Impacts on the North
Pacific, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 19-21 Apr. 2006.
Hunt Jr., G.L., Stabeno, P., Walters, G., Sinclair, E., Brodeur, R.D., Napp, J.M., Bond, N.A.,
2002. Climate change and control of the southeastern Bering Sea pelagic ecosystem. Deep Sea
Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 49, 5821–5853.
Mueter, F.J., C. Ladd, M.C. Palmer, and B.l. Norcross. 2006. Bottom-up and top-down controls
of walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) on the eastern Bering Sea shelf. Progress in
Oceanography 68: 152-183.
Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Final Programmatic Supplemental
Environmental
Impact
Statement.
June
2004.
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/seis/
NOAA 2004.
NPFMC (North Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 2006. Research Priorities. North
Pacific Fisheries Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK: 23 pp.
Available at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/
NRC 2004. Elements of a Science Plan for the North Pacific Research Board. National Research
Council, National Academic Press, Washington D.C. 125pp.
NPRB
2005.
North
Pacific
Research
Board
Science
Plan.
Available
at
http://www.nprb.org/research/index.htm
Pew (Oceans Commission). 2003. America’s living oceans: charting a course for sea change. A
Report to the Nation: recommendations for a new ocean policy.
166p.
http://www.pewoceans.org/
J.F. Piatt et al., in prep. Marine Science Symposium, Anchorage, AK, January 2006. Available at
http://www.nprb.org/symposium/2006/day2.html
PICES (North Pacific Marine Sciences Organization), 2004. PICES Report on Marine
Ecosystems of the North Pacific. Pre-publication of the North Pacific Marine Sciences
Organization, PICES Secretariat, North Saanich, British Columbia
(http://www.pices.int/publications/special_publications/NPESR/2005/npesr_2005.aspx/)
Schumacher, J.D. (AKA Two Crow) and G.H. Kruse. 2005. Toward sustainable ecosystem
services from the Aleutian Archipelago. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (Suppl. 1): 277–291.
USCOP (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy). 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.
Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy—Pre-Publication Copy Washington, D.C.,
2004: 610 pp. Available at: http://www.oceancommission.gov/
2/12/2016
12
DRAFT
BSIERP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Witherell D., D.C. Pautzke and D. Fluharty. 2000. An ecosystem based approach for Alaska
groundfish fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Sciences 57: 771-777.
Zheng, J. and G.H. Kruse. 2006.
Recruitment variation of eastern
Sea crabs: climate-forcing or top-down effects? Progress in Oceanography 68: 184-204.
2/12/2016
Bering
13