Climate Change Impacts andNOAA Climate Service

Steve MurawskiNOAA Fisheries Director of Scientific Programs & Chief Science Advisor

Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee Meeting3 July 2008

What are Climate Impacts on Fisheries & What is NOAA Doing to Implement a

Climate Service?

• Discuss the evolving understanding of how climate change affects fisheries and protected species

• Responding to the GAO report August 2007 calling for more specific guidance to managers

• VADM’s request for NOAA’s “Grand Plan” to incorporate climate change issues into LMR management

• NOAA’s emerging Climate Service and its role in assisting with trust resource management

“In general, resource managers lack specific guidance for incorporating climate change into their management actions and planning efforts.

Without such guidance, their ability to address climate change and effectively manage resources is constrained.”

August 2007 GAO Report

GAO Report: CLIMATE CHANGE: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects on

Federal Land and Water Resources (August 2007)

• “GAO recommends that the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior develop guidance incorporating agencies’ best practices, which advises managers on how to address climate change effects on the resources they manage and gather the information needed to do so. In commenting on a draft of this report, the three departments generally agreed with the recommendation and provided technical comments, which GAO has incorporated into the report as appropriate”

• “Resource managers at our workshop also said that climate change is not a priority, in part, because of limited support from agency leaders. Specifically, resource managers discussing the coasts and oceans ecosystem said that there has been little support from agency leaders to comprehensively address climate change issues”.

Initial NOAA Response

By December 2008…– NOAA will engage in consultations within

agency to identify climate information needs and capacities

– Written guidance will be provided to help resource managers address climate change effects (including where to go for site-specific information, best practices)

– NOAA will enhance its interagency dialogue on climate and ecosystem management, contributing to identification of best practices

NOAA’s Authorities to Act: Impacts ofGlobal Change Drivers on Trust Resources

• Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Reauthorization Act: (FMPs, National Standard 6, setting population size targets [rebuilding]; Protecting vulnerable Habitats, Essential Fish Habitat provisions)

• Endangered Species Act: Factors in Listing Decisions; Biological Opinions (BiOPs) re. jeopardy determinations for projects, recovery plans

• Marine Mammal Protection Act: setting optimum population sizes; minimizing human impacts from a variety of threats

• Marine Sanctuaries Act: protect biological communities and habitats within sanctuaries, promote scientific research, enhance public awareness, and cooperate with global programs

Continued…

NOAA’s Authorities to Act: Impacts ofGlobal Change Drivers on Trust Resources

• Coastal Zone Management Act/NERRS: Address coastal management issues through coordinated estuarine research; Enhance public awareness and understanding of estuarine areas; Promote collaborative estuarine research, improved understanding & management of estuarine areas

• National Environmental Policy Act: Requires analysis of effects of cumulative environmental impacts

• Coral Reef Conservation Act & Task Force: Managing and conserving coral ecosystems by identifying and addressing threats and issues driving the loss and degradation of coral reefs

• International Treaties, Bilateral Agreements, Commissions & Councils (CCALMR, Arctic Council, ICES/PICES, IOC, Bilaterals…)

…continued

Magnuson Stevens Act Responsibilities

• National Standard 6: “Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among and contingencies in fisheries, fishery resources, and catches”

• Some FMPs (e.g., Pacific Coastal Pelagics) provide adjustments in MSY for periods of low and high productivity influenced by climate variability – will become a more important issue in rebuilding plans and time frames

• Optimum Yield “…is prescribed on the basis of maximum sustainable yield as reduced by any relevant economic, social or ecological factor.” N.B., Impacts rebuilding plans and definition of maximum sustainable yield

Climate change reflected in stock assessment process

• Scientific stock assessments use best scientific information available

• Climate change may affect important stock assessment parameters, including:– Natural mortality– Growth rates– Age at maturity– Recruitment Levels – leading to biomass targets

Fishery Management Process

Endangered Species Act

• over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

• disease or predation;• the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;• other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued

existence.

If listed, projects that may contribute to these factors require Biological Opinions (BiOPs) on their potential jeopardy for listed species

Species can be listed as threatened or endangered if its existence is determined by:

Six Climate Change Issues – Living Marine Resources

• Attribution of climate signals impacting ecosystems: long term change vs. natural variability

• Ocean warming: impacts on distribution & productivity (phenology, production, invasives)

• Impacts of loss of sea ice on living marine resources (at both poles)

• Ocean acidification impacts on marine biota

• Freshwater supply & resource management

• Sea level rise (natural resource implications)

Coastal Pelagics FMP &Climate Variability – Pacific Sardine

Long Term Variationin Sardine Based onscale samples insediments

The FMP adjusts MSY for periods when PDOInfluenced productivity is high or low,

Important question: how do we know when weIn a phase change?

ESA Listing Criteria

ESA section 4(a)(1) factors for listing of species

(A)the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range,

(B)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes,

(C)disease or predation,

(D)the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Loss of Arctic Sea Ice – Ecological Implications for NOAA

September Arctic Sea Ice Measurements

Year

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Mill

ions o

f S

quare

km

3

4

5

6

7

NOAA Trust ResourcesMMPA + ESA

Ringed, Ribbon,Spotted , BeardedSeals

September, 2007

+Arctic FMP

Petition To List

Multi-Year Sea Ice AmountsSNOW

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20602050

IPCC(2004)2080

Maslowskiet al. 2005

Holland et al.2007

We are on a faster track for sea ice loss than “Mean” model projections

Overland 2008

The Bear Facts – Scenario ofScience for ESA Listing by DOI

• For polar bears, sea ice: 2-6 year old ice is needed for breeding, and habitat. Now finding bears on land. Linkage is being broken. Summer

sea ice extent was farther off shore. One-to-one relationship of sea-ice to polar bear (obligate relationship).

• DOI had two goals in mind. Provide best science information to: – Develop sea ice habitat selection models and project future scenarios of habitat

and population response.– Develop population projection models for Southern Beaufort Sea

• 19 polar bear management boundaries: eco-regions• Large loss of the 2-6 year ice in obs. data, the best ice for polar bears - and seal

habitat. Retreat of ice away from where the food (seals) was (deeper water).• Ensemble of sea ice projections 1900-2100 - show that the entire Arctic may be free

of sea ice in summer before c.a. ~2050• Bayesian network model outcomes - sea ice is the only variable that had significant

influence on polar bear (hunting and oil/gas also considered).• Bear populations in areas of seasonal ice, divergent ice and convergent ice regions

will be greatly affected. • In the context of multiple stressors, focus only on bears disregards other human

community and ecological issues arising from loss of sea ice

Climate Change and Extinction Risks

“Approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (medium confidence).”- IPCC Climate Change 2007:Synthesis

Report

Ocean Acidification: A Consequence of Human Production of Greenhouse Gasses – Ocean Impacts & NOAA Responsibilities

Ocean AcidificationThat ‘other’ CO2 problem

• Potential impacts on shelled plankton, coral reefs (shallow and deep), bivalves and crustaceans, and food chains

• Managed resources under Coral Reef Conservation Act, MSRA, ESA

Value:Bivalves: $732M ex-vessel commercial valueCrustaceans: $1,265M ex-vessel commercial valueCombined : $1,997M ex-vessel commercial value (51% of commercial catch by $)

ESA Case Study: Central Valley Project and

State Water Project Operations, Criteria and Plan (OCAP) BiOP/ California Chinook Salmon & Steelhead

• Chinook salmon and steelhead trout are listed endangered/threatened under ESA In the Sacramento River and related drainages in California

• In 2004, NMFS consulted with the State and Federal water agencies and determined that the proposed joint operation of the State and Federal Central Valley water projects was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed salmon and steelhead

• Coalition of environmental groups filed suit regarding the BiOP for chinook and steelhead based in part on the fact that long-term climate impacts on water availability were not taken into account as part of the baseline

• The Bureau of Reclamation, NMFS and CALFED have reopened consultations under Section 7 of ESA regarding the BiOP

Freshwater & Climate

Trends in Sea Level Rise & Resource Impacts

• Once an important nesting island for Hawaiian green sea turtles and a primary pupping site for endangered Hawaiian monk seals

• Few feet above sea level; what would be the impacts of observed rates of SLR on Protected Species breeding and nesting habitat?

• 2006 study published by NOAA scientists in the journal Biological Conservation (Baker et al. 2006)

SLR Example: How will Protected Species critical habitats change with SLR in the NWHI Monument?Example Whaleskate IslandFrench Frigate Shoals, NWHI

19632002 monk seals

Current and projected maps of four Northwestern Hawaiian Islands at mean low water (MLW) with minimum (9 cm), median (48 cm) and maximum (88 cm) predicted sea-level rise by 2100 (IPCC, 2001).

A) Lisianski Island; B) East Island, French Frigate Shoals; C) Trig Island, French Frigate Shoals; D) Southeast Island, Pearl and Hermes Reef

Conclusion: as much as 40%Loss in protected species breeding & nesting areas

Strategy for Incorporating Climate Change Issues into LMR Management Activities

• NOAA operational entities identify, and prioritize climate change factors influencing MSRA, ESA, MMPA, NMSA and other statutes, identify current resources for analyzing effects Develop Operational Guidelines

• Engage a wide variety of NOAA offices & partners to assess requirements and capabilities and develop SOPs – Climate Ecosystems WG

• Combine NOAA’s observations, models and forecasts of climate change impacts on resources

• NOAA Climate Services, supported by appropriate LOs, provide internal customers relevant climate information to meet regulatory and legal requirements, what is “best available science”?

• Develop consistent products, approaches and databases to address the ad hoc nature of some efforts to date (standards and updates), e.g., sea level rise scenarios consistently incorporate scenarios, observations and height information

• Develop a strategy to communicate with regulators, constituents, and the public the impacts of climate change factors on resources and people managed by NOAA

Proposal for A National Climate Service & Partnership

• NOAA currently developing an outline for what a National Climate Service would entail

• Proposal includes both a NCS – with a NOAA lead, and a National Climate Partnership (method to engage across agencies and with various levels of government, academia and the private sector)

• Proposal vetted to individual Agencies (e.g., USGS, NASA, etc.) and at an external users workshop (Vail Colorado, June 16-20)

• Significant comments on the structure, purpose, and relationship of a NCS to use sectors such as water managers, natural resource managers, energy companies, emergency managers etc.

• This issue will be an important one for transition to the next administration

• Comments from the fisheries sector welcomed