Science, Faculty of
Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES), Institute for
DSpace
UBCV
Weatherdon, Lauren Vanessa
Master of Science - MSc
University of British Columbia
Recent studies have demonstrated ways in which climate-related shifts in the distribution and relative abundance of marine species are expected to alter the dynamics and catch potential of global fisheries. While these studies focus on assessing impacts to commercial fisheries, few efforts have been made to quantitatively project impacts to small-scale fisheries that are economically, socially and culturally important to many coastal communities. This study uses a dynamic bioclimate envelope model to project scenarios of climate-related changes in the relative abundance, distribution and richness of 98 exploited marine fishes and invertebrates that are of commercial and cultural importance to First Nations in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Declines in relative abundance are projected for most of the sampled species (n = 84 to 95; x̅ = -15.0% to -20.8%) under both the lower and upper scenarios of climate change, with poleward range shifts occurring at a mean rate of 2.9 and 4.5 kilometres decade-1 for fishes and 2.7 to 3.4 kilometres decade-1 for invertebrates within BC’s exclusive economic zone. While cumulative declines in catch potential are projected to occur coastwide (-4.5 to -10.7%), estimates suggest a strong positive correlation between relative catch potential and latitude, with First Nations’ territories along the north and central coasts experiencing less severe declines than those to the south. Furthermore, a strong negative correlation is projected between latitude and the number of species exhibiting declining abundance. These trends are shown to be robust to alternative species distribution models, and highlight key management challenges that are likely to be encountered under climate change. Drawing from an interdisciplinary literature review of First Nations’ traditional fisheries management strategies and historical responses to changes in the availability of aquatic resources, a scenario-based framework is applied to explore climate-resilient pathways for First Nations’ fisheries given quantitative projections. Findings suggest that joint-management frameworks incorporating First Nations’ traditional ecological knowledge could aid in offsetting impacts and developing site-specific mitigation and adaptation strategies. This interdisciplinary framework thereby facilitates proactive discussions of potential mitigation and adaptation strategies deriving from local fishers’ knowledge that could be used to respond to a range of climate change scenarios.
Scenarios for coastal First Nations’ fisheries under climate change: impacts, resilience and adaptation potential by LAUREN VANESSA WEATHERDON B.A., The University of British Columbia, 2011 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Resource Management and Environmental Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) July 2014 © Lauren Vanessa Weatherdon, 2014 ii ABSTRACT Recent studies have demonstrated ways in which climate-­‐related shifts in the distribution and relative abundance of marine species are expected to alter the dynamics and catch potential of global fisheries. While these studies focus on assessing impacts to commercial fisheries, few efforts have been made to quantitatively project impacts to small-­‐scale fisheries that are economically, socially and culturally important to many coastal communities. This study uses a dynamic bioclimate envelope model to project scenarios of climate-­‐related changes in the relative abundance, distribution and richness of 98 exploited marine fishes and invertebrates that are of commercial and cultural importance to First Nations in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Declines in relative abundance are projected for most of the sampled species (n = 84 to 95; x̅ = -­‐15.0% to -­‐20.8%) under both the lower and upper scenarios of climate change, with poleward range shifts occurring at a mean rate of 2.9 and 4.5 kilometres decade-­‐1 for fishes and 2.7 to 3.4 kilometres decade-­‐1 for invertebrates within BC’s exclusive economic zone. While cumulative declines in catch potential are projected to occur coastwide (-­‐4.5 to -­‐10.7%), estimates suggest a strong positive correlation between relative catch potential and latitude, with First Nations’ territories along the north and central coasts experiencing less severe declines than those to the south. Furthermore, a strong negative correlation is projected between latitude and the number of species exhibiting declining abundance. These trends are shown to be robust to alternative species distribution models, and highlight key management challenges that are likely to be encountered under climate change. iii Drawing from an interdisciplinary literature review of First Nations’ traditional fisheries management strategies and historical responses to changes in the availability of aquatic resources, a scenario-­‐based framework is applied to explore climate-­‐resilient pathways for First Nations’ fisheries given quantitative projections. Findings suggest that joint-­‐management frameworks incorporating First Nations’ traditional ecological knowledge could aid in offsetting impacts and developing site-­‐specific mitigation and adaptation strategies. This interdisciplinary framework thereby facilitates proactive discussions of potential mitigation and adaptation strategies deriving from local fishers’ knowledge that could be used to respond to a range of climate change scenarios. iv PREFACE This dissertation contributes to two research programs led by my co-­‐supervisors: an assessment of the effects of climate change on global fisheries, led by Dr. William Cheung (Director, Changing Ocean Research Unit) and a global Indigenous fisheries assessment (GIFA), led by Dr. Yoshitaka Ota (Co-­‐Director, NF-­‐UBC Nereus Program). Aside from suggested manuscript revisions provided by my committee, the text and graphics in this dissertation are entirely my own. Chapter 2 of the thesis was achieved primarily through collaboration between Dr. William Cheung (co-­‐supervisor) and myself, wherein the dynamic bioclimate envelope model and equations used derive from Dr. Cheung’s previous work with other colleagues (Cheung et al. 2008a; 2009; 2010b; 2011a). I was responsible for collecting data from online databases and published literature regarding habitat preferences, known ranges, and life history traits for each species included in the analysis, and for producing species’ current distribution maps using the Sea Around Us method (Close et al. 2006). Dr. Cheung then used these data and maps to project species’ responses to the lower and upper ranges of climate change (representative concentration pathways 2.6 and 8.5, respectively) using the dynamic bioclimate envelope model. Aside from technical assistance received from Dr. Cheung with R coding, I am exclusively responsible for all subsequent calculations, including each species’ change in relative abundance, distribution, and catch potential. The global climate model (GFDL ESM2M) used in this analysis was obtained from the NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), while tests examining the sensitivity of v results to alternative species distribution models (Maxent and AquaMaps) were run using data obtained from Dr. Miranda Jones and Dr. William Cheung (in press). I was responsible for conducting the literature review and analysis in Chapter 3, but received guidance from my committee—Drs. William Cheung, Yoshitaka Ota, and David Close—in the early stages of concept formation and with manuscript revisions. The data in this chapter derive exclusively from Chapter 2, and are used in concert with knowledge attained from the published literature. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... iv List of tables ........................................................................................................................................ viii List of figures ....................................................................................................................................... xii List of symbols and abbreviations ................................................................................................ xv Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... xvi 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Context ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Aboriginal title and the “right to fish” ..................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Projected climate change impacts on Pacific Northeast marine ecosystems ........................ 8 1.3 Research objectives .......................................................................................................................... 10 2 Projecting climate change impacts to the catch potential of Pacific First Nations’ fisheries ................................................................................................................................................ 13 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 13 2.2 Materials and methods .................................................................................................................... 15 2.2.1 Sampling method .......................................................................................................................................... 15 2.2.2 Identifying species of importance to coastal First Nations ........................................................ 20 2.2.3 Mapping species’ current distributions .............................................................................................. 22 2.2.4 Model selection and parameters ............................................................................................................ 26 2.2.5 Impacts to species’ relative abundance, distribution, and richness ....................................... 29 2.2.6 Fisheries impacts under climate change ............................................................................................ 31 2.3 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 34 2.3.1 Impacts to species’ relative abundance, distribution and richness ........................................ 34 2.3.2 Fisheries impacts under climate change ............................................................................................ 38 2.3.3 Sensitivity analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 47 2.4 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 52 2.4.1 Selection and use of the dynamic bioclimate envelope model (DBEM) ................................ 52 2.4.2 Uncertainties and assumptions .............................................................................................................. 53 2.4.3 Implications for First Nations ................................................................................................................. 58 2.4.4 Climate-­‐resilient pathways for First Nations ................................................................................... 61 2.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 63 3 Scenario-­‐based framework for exploring climate-­‐resilient pathways for coastal First Nations’ fisheries ..................................................................................................................... 65 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 65 3.2 Climate-­‐resilient pathways and the concept of wellbeing ................................................... 69 3.3 First Nations’ worldviews ............................................................................................................... 73 3.4 Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 77 vii 3.4.1 Study regions .................................................................................................................................................. 77 3.4.2 Data processing ............................................................................................................................................. 82 3.4.3 Literature review .......................................................................................................................................... 84 3.4.4 Scenario development ................................................................................................................................ 84 3.4.5 Exploring climate-­‐resilient pathways .................................................................................................. 86 3.5 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 88 3.5.1 Traditional management strategies ..................................................................................................... 88 3.5.2 Examples of fisheries-­‐related mitigation and adaptation ........................................................... 92 3.5.3 Future fisheries mitigation and adaptation prospects ............................................................... 102 3.5.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 117 3.6 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 119 3.6.1 Assumptions and uncertainties ............................................................................................................ 119 3.6.2 Implications for fisheries management ............................................................................................ 120 3.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 124 4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 127 4.1 Summary of research ..................................................................................................................... 127 4.2 Management implications ........................................................................................................... 132 4.3 Cross-­‐application of framework ................................................................................................ 134 4.4 Future research and modifications .......................................................................................... 135 References .......................................................................................................................................... 138 Appendix A: Species ........................................................................................................................ 162 Appendix B: Projections ................................................................................................................ 169 Appendix C: Sensitivity analysis ................................................................................................. 187 Appendix D: Chapter 3 calculations .......................................................................................... 189 Appendix E: Range shifts ............................................................................................................... 200 Appendix F: Species with catch offset potential .................................................................... 207 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Examples of studies estimating the impacts of climate change on marine species found along the Pacific Northwest Coast of British Columbia. ............................................................. 9 Table 2.1 Sample of First Nations and respective regions and treaty groups included in this study. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 2.2 Species harvested by First Nations for food, social and ceremonial (FSC) purposes.1 ................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Table 2.3 First Nations’ participation in British Columbia’s commercial fisheries by percentage and number of total licenses held (modified from James 2003 and (Heiltsuk First Nation 2011)1. .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Table 2.4 Representative concentration pathways (RCPs) used in this study to capture upper and lower bounds of emissions scenarios (adapted from (Moss et al. 2010). .............. 28 Table 2.5 Number of species (n = 98) exhibiting different types of latitudinal range shifts under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) climate change scenarios. ................................ 36 Table 2.6 Number of species (n) whose catch potential (%) is projected to increase, decrease, or remain neutral within First Nations’ respective domestic fishing areas (DFAs) under RCPs 2.6 and 8.5. DFAs are ordered latitudinally from north to south. ........................... 44 Table 2.7 Relative change in catch potential (%) by study area, as projected under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) climate change scenarios. ..................................................... 44 Table 2.8 Estimated upper-­‐ and lower-­‐ thresholds of impacts to landed revenue (2010 CAD), derived from a 10-­‐year average (2001-­‐2010), for a sample of First Nations commercial fisheries under two climate change scenarios (James 2003; BC Ministry of Agriculture 2004; 2006; 2008; 2010; 2011). ............................................................................................ 46 Table 2.9 Impacts to landed revenue (in 2010 value) within the Haida traditional fishing area relating to commercial fisheries (average annual values from Pinfold 2010). ................ 47 Table 3.1 Relative change in catch potential by domestic fishing area (derived from ‘Statement of Intent’ boundaries), as projected under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) climate change scenarios (Chapter 2). ................................................................................................ 78 Table 3.2 A sample of First Nations’ traditional fisheries management approaches and analogous Western fisheries management strategies. .......................................................................... 90 Table 3.3 Social institutions and knowledge employed by coastal First Nations to mitigate aquatic resource fluctuations. .......................................................................................................................... 94 ix Table 3.4 Pre-­‐contact models of changes in resource composition or abundance, and corresponding response strategies suggested in the archaeological and ethnographic records. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 97 Table 3.5. Post-­‐contact examples of changes in resource composition, abundance, or access rights and correlating changes in First Nations’ harvesting patterns. ......................................... 100 Table 3.6 Examples of potential climate-­‐resilient pathways associated with different levels of adaptive capacity for case study #1. ...................................................................................................... 106 Table 3.7 Examples of potential climate-­‐resilient pathways associated with different levels of adaptive capacity under case study #2. ................................................................................................ 111 Table 3.8 Examples of potential climate-­‐resilient pathways associated with different levels of adaptive capacity under case study #3. ................................................................................................ 116 Table 3.9. Summary of risks and adaptation prospects under different climate change scenarios (RCPs 2.6 and 8.5), estimating the level of impacts by 2050 given different levels of adaptive capacity (pathways described in section 3.5.2). ............................................................ 117 Appendices Supplementary Table A1. Species (n = 98) included in the analysis of Chapter 2. ................. 162 Supplementary Table A2. Proportion of species (%) caught in multi-­‐species commercial fisheries that are included in analysis1. ..................................................................................................... 165 Supplementary Table A3. Species included in estimates of changes to commercial fisheries catch potential (%). ............................................................................................................................................ 166 Supplementary Table B 1. Relative change in abundance (%) for each species within British Columbia’s EEZ (numbers do not represent specific units). Ordered by from largest decline to largest increase in catch potential (%) under RCP 8.5. ................................................................. 169 Supplementary Table B2. Relative change in catch potential (%) for each species within British Columbia’s EEZ (numbers do not represent specific units). Ordered by largest decline to largest increase in catch potential under RCP 8.5. .......................................................... 173 Supplementary Table B3. Latitudinal range shifts (km decade-­‐1) within British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone by 2050 relative to 2000, calculating by comparing 20-­‐year averaged latitudinal centroids (lat. cent.). ................................................................................................ 177 Supplementary Table C1. Inter-­‐model variability between species distribution models (SDMs) under RCP 8.5 when projecting changes to relative catch potential in British x Columbia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Data from Aquamaps and Maxent obtained from Jones et al. (2014). ................................................................................................................................... 187 Supplementary Table C2. Sensitivity of model to time frame, comparing results from 20-­‐ and 30-­‐year averages and interdecadal variation (2045 vs. 2050). Intra-­‐model results are shown to be robust to the time frame selected. Ordered from lowest to highest standard deviation (σ). ......................................................................................................................................................... 188 Supplementary Table D1. Change in relative catch potential for Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) under RCPs 2.6 and 8.5 using a 20-­‐year average of 2050 relative to 2000. ............. 189 Supplementary Table D2. Change in relative catch potential for butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus). .............................................................................................................................................................. 190 Supplementary Table D3. Change in relative catch potential for Pacific littleneck clams (Protothaca staminea). ...................................................................................................................................... 190 Supplementary Table D4. Change in relative catch potential for manila clams (Venerupis philippinarum). ..................................................................................................................................................... 191 Supplementary Table D5. Change in relative catch potential for varnish clams (Nuttallia obscurata). .............................................................................................................................................................. 192 Supplementary Table D6. Change in relative catch potential for Pacific geoduck (Panopea abrupta). .................................................................................................................................................................. 192 Supplementary Table D7. Change in relative catch potential for horse clams (Tresus capax). ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 193 Supplementary Table D8. Change in relative catch potential for Pacific gaper (Tresus nuttallii). .................................................................................................................................................................. 194 Supplementary Table D9. Change in relative catch potential for Pacific razor clam (Siliqua patula). ..................................................................................................................................................................... 194 Supplementary Table D10. Cumulative change in relative catch potential for intertidal clams by region. ................................................................................................................................................... 195 Supplementary Table D11. Change in relative catch potential for pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). ............................................................................................................................. 196 Supplementary Table D12. Change in relative catch potential for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). .................................................................................................................................... 196 Supplementary Table D13. Change in relative catch potential for chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). .......................................................................................................................................... 197 xi Supplementary Table D14. Change in relative catch potential for sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). ....................................................................................................................................... 198 Supplementary Table D15. Change in relative catch potential for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawystcha). ......................................................................................................................... 198 Supplementary Table D16. Cumulative change in relative catch potential for salmon by region. ....................................................................................................................................................................... 199 Supplementary Table E1. Latitudinal range shifts (km decade-­‐1) within British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone by 2050 relative to 2000, calculating by comparing 20-­‐year averaged latitudinal centroids (lat. cent.)(Chapter 3). ........................................................................ 200 Supplementary Table E2. Rate of global leading and trailing edges of range shifts (km decade-­‐1) by species, directionality of shifts, and range type (expansion [+], contraction [-­‐], or neutral [N/A]) under the lower and upper scenarios of climate change (RCPs 2.6 and 8.5, respectively). Global rates compared with rates of range shifts within British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). .................................................................................................................... 201 Supplementary Table F1. Catch offset potential for butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus.) . 207 Supplementary Table F2. Catch offset potential for Pacific geoduck (Panopea abrupta). .. 207 Supplementary Table F3. Catch offset potential for manila clams (Venerupis philippinarum). ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 208 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Map outlining First Nations’ communities throughout coastal British Columbia (dark yellow) and domestic fishing areas identified during the BC Treaty Process (teal), noting the sample of communities included in this analysis. ................................................................ 4 Figure 2.1 Cells (0.5° long. x 0.5° lat.) representing domestic fishing areas, as derived from Statement of Intent (SOI) boundaries indicated during the BC treaty process. Cells shared by more than one First Nation are denoted, but do not represent legal boundaries and are only used to assess relative availability of marine resources in a given cell. .............................. 19 Figure 2.2 Projected latitudinal shifts (km decade-­‐1) by functional group or species using a 20-­‐year average latitudinal centroid at 2050 relative to 2000. The line represents the projected range of possibilities between the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) climate change scenarios. ................................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 2.3 (a) Species richness by 0.5° lat. x 0.5° long. cell in 2000 and (b) projected number of species lost or gained per cell by 2050, under both climate change scenarios. Black lines identify First Nations’ domestic fishing areas within the study. ............................... 37 Figure 2.4 Projected change in relative catch potential for commercial fisheries in British Columbia’s EEZ with known First Nation participation, illustrating the range of results obtained from the lower and upper climate change scenarios (RCPs 2.6 and 8.5, respectively). *Remaining two species are harvested occasionally in northern regions and require a special permit. ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 2.5 Graphs exhibit a (a) positive correlation between latitude (°N) and cumulative change in catch potential (%) and (b) a negative correlation between latitude (°N) and the number of species exhibiting declines in catch potential (< -­‐3.0%) under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. ......................................................................... 40 Figure 2.6 Changes in relative catch potential by functional group for four regions: the North Coast, Central Coast, Strait of Georgia, and the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI). The lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) range of climate change scenarios is denoted. ..................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 2.7 Changes in relative catch potential by functional group for four regions: the North Coast, Central Coast, Strait of Georgia, and the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI). The lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) range of climate change scenarios is denoted. ..................................................................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 2.8 Testing sensitivity of results obtained for change in relative catch potential within British Columbia’s EEZ to the assumptions behind different species distribution models (DBEM, AquaMaps, and Maxent) under RCP 8.5. .................................................................... 50 xiii Figure 2.9 Sensitivity of results obtained for the upper-­‐bound climate change scenario (RCP 8.5) within the EEZ to (a) the selected time frame, tested using 20-­‐year averages centred around 2045 and 2050 (a 20-­‐year average centred on 2000 was maintained for comparison), and (b) interdecadal variability, tested using 20-­‐ and 30-­‐year averages centred on 2000 and 2045. ................................................................................................................................ 51 Figure 3.1 Maps outlining the conversion of (a) the sample of First Nations’ domestic fishing territories used in this analysis to (b) 0.5° latitudinal x 0.5° longitudinal grid cells forming five distinct regions along coastal British Columbia (Haida Gwaii, the North Coast, the Central Coast, the Strait of Georgia, and the west coast of Vancouver Island). .................. 83 Figure 3.2 Pacific herring major stock areas (North Coast, Haida Gwaii, Central Coast, West Coast Vancouver Island, and the Strait of Georgia) and minor stock areas (Area 2W and Area 27), showing overlap with First Nations’ traditional territories and commercial fishing areas. Spawning and feeding areas are not meant to be exhaustive, but to focus on key regions of importance. ...................................................................................................................................... 104 Figure 3.3 Regional and coastwide changes in relative catch potential (%) for Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) using a 20-­‐year average of 2050 relative to 2000. Regions include the North Coast (orange), Haida Gwaii (dark blue), Central Coast (light blue), Strait of Georgia (yellow), and the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI; green). The coastwide estimates are bounded by British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). ..................... 105 Figure 3.4 Regional and coastwide changes in relative catch potential (%) for intertidal clams of cultural and commercial importance to First Nations using a 20-­‐year average of 2050 relative to 2000. Regions include the North Coast (orange), Haida Gwaii (dark blue), Central Coast (light blue), Strait of Georgia (yellow), and the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI; green). The coastwide estimates are bounded by British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 110 Figure 3.5 Regional and coastwide changes in relative catch potential (%) for salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) of cultural and commercial importance to First Nations using a 20-­‐year average of 2050 relative to 2000. Regions include the North Coast (orange), Haida Gwaii (dark blue), Central Coast (light blue), Strait of Georgia (yellow), and the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI; green). The coastwide estimates are bounded by British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).………………………………………………………………… 114 xiv Appendices Supplementary Figure B1. Projected change in catch potential (%) by functional group or species within the Gitga’at Nation’s domestic fishing area under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. ......................................................................................... 181 Supplementary Figure B2. Projected change in catch potential (%) by functional group or species within the Haida Nation’s domestic fishing area under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. ......................................................................................... 182 Supplementary Figure B3. Projected change in catch potential (%) by functional group or species within the Heiltsuk Nation’s domestic fishing area under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. ......................................................................................... 183 Supplementary Figure B4. Projected change in catch potential (%) by functional group or species within the ‘Namgis Nation’s domestic fishing area under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. ......................................................................................... 184 Supplementary Figure B5. Projected change in catch potential (%) by functional group or species within the Tla’amin Nation’s domestic fishing area under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. ......................................................................................... 185 Supplementary Figure B6. Projected change in catch potential (%) by functional group or species within the Tsawwassen Nation’s domestic fishing area under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. ................................................................................ 186 xv LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS AFS Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy BC British Columbia BC FLNRO BC Government Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations DBEM Dynamic bioclimate envelope model DFA Domestic fishing area DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada EEZ Exclusive economic zone FNFC (BC) First Nations Fisheries Council FSC Food, social, and ceremonial GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory GCM Global climate model IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change RCP Representative concentration pathway SOI Statement of Intent boundaries SOK Spawn-­‐on-­‐kelp (fishery) SDM Species distribution model TEK Traditional ecological knowledge TPK Traditional phenological knowledge WCVI West coast of Vancouver Island xvi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my immeasurable gratitude to my co-­‐supervisors, Dr. William Cheung and Dr. Yoshi Ota, for their willingness to share their knowledge and for their continued guidance, patience and support both prior to and during the course of my research. I am fortunate to have had support and feedback from the Changing Ocean Research Unit, and am especially grateful to Dr. Miranda Jones for sharing her expertise regarding the technical aspects of my thesis. Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. David Close for his kind assistance and constructive comments, and Dr. Dirk Zeller for taking the time to accommodate my questions and share data obtained from the Sea Around Us project. I have been immensely lucky to have a strong support group throughout the course of my degree, and for that I owe considerable thanks to my friends and colleagues at UBC’s Fisheries Centre, as well as those in Vancouver and abroad. I would like to thank Julia, Andrea, Dana, Gerald, Wilf, Ariel, Ally, Kyle and countless others (essentially everyone at the Fisheries Centre) who have made the last few years a wonderful experience. In particular, I am indebted to Julia Lawson for her friendship, patience and support throughout the program; together, we have weathered the challenges and celebrated the victories, forming many good memories. Additionally, I extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Amanda Vincent and Jenny Selgrath for providing guidance during difficult circumstances and for kindly allowing me to borrow an office. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Nigel Haggan, whose knowledge informed my understanding of the holistic importance of fisheries to First Nations and whose stories were consistently thought provoking and xvii inspiring. Last but certainly not least, I am most grateful to have a wonderful friend in Sarah McNeil, with whom I have spent many happy days chatting over tea. She truly embodies a kindness and selflessness that is seldom seen, and her energy and optimism have been a constant source of strength for me. Above all, I thank my love, Liam Foley, for his unwavering love and support, and my parents, Jim and Peggy Weatherdon, for years of patience and understanding. I would like to affirm that this study does not intend to speak on behalf of First Nations, but rather to draw from the existing literature and examples of traditional fisheries management in the context of environmental or anthropogenic change. My intent is to highlight the potential for interdisciplinary approaches to support the development of mitigation and adaptation strategies under climate change, and to draw attention to the strengths and versatility of traditional ecological knowledge in local contexts. Implementation of the suggestions mentioned within this study would necessarily involve community consultations and a more in-­‐depth study of the full range of ecological, cultural and social impacts at various scales. This study could not have been completed without the assistance of a Joseph-­‐Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)(#766-­‐2013-­‐0832), and without financial support provided by my supervisors through the NF-­‐UBC Nereus Program and external grants held by Dr. William Cheung. 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction Globally, coastal Indigenous fishing communities are socially, culturally, and economically dependent on marine ecosystems through fisheries, which play critical roles in maintaining their cultural heritage. Recent studies argue that climate change and the resulting range of biophysical responses—such as altered species distributions (Perry et al. 2005; Hazen et al. 2013; Bates et al. 2013; Feary et al. 2013), phenology (Poloczanska et al. 2013) physiology (Doney et al. 2012), and marine biodiversity (Cheung et al. 2009; Harley 2011)—are likely to impact fisheries (Lehodey et al. 2005; Roessig et al. 2005; Cheung et al. 2010) and the societies that depend upon them (Badjeck et al. 2010; Barange et al. 2014). In particular, projected changes in fisheries catch potential (Cheung et al. 2010) could result in or exacerbate socio-­‐economic impacts on fisheries through reduced food and economic security (Sumaila et al. 2011). However, while extensive research has been done on the effects of climate change on fish populations and distributions, studies exploring the human dimensions of climate change impacts to marine ecosystems have been primarily limited to large-­‐scale national or global assessments (Allison et al. 2009; Sumaila et al. 2011; Barange et al. 2014), or have examined these impacts qualitatively across broader issues (Grossman 2008; Heyd and Brooks 2009; Adger et al. 2012) or in highly localized circumstances (Ford et al. 2006; Turner and Clifton 2009; Wolf et al. 2012). For instance, while discourses on resilience, adaptability, and vulnerability have served to conceptualize notions regarding interactions 2 within socio-­‐ecological systems, adaptive processes, and non-­‐linear pathways of environmental change (see Folke 2006; Gallopín 2006; Füssel 2007; Folke et al. 2010), their use is predominantly restricted to score-­‐based approaches that define qualitative or quantitative indicators of resilience or adaptive capacity within the context of one or more regional case studies (Marshall et al. 2010; Schwarz et al. 2011). Although these approaches highlight key issues, a framework that merges quantitative projections of climate change impacts to fisheries with qualitative studies of the human dimensions of environmental change could facilitate a more integrated approach to identifying viable mitigation and adaptation strategies. Increasingly, scenario-­‐based assessments have offered promising potential to improve our ability to examine questions and to identify challenges that are likely to be encountered under climate change (IPCC 2014), with specific application in the context of marine fisheries (Jones et al. 2014). Plausible scenarios constructed from expert knowledge have been employed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as a framework for investigating key questions and for engaging in discussions regarding mitigation and adaptation prospects (Moss et al. 2010). Moreover, given that models have been used extensively in fisheries science as necessary tools to address uncertainty and produce defensible management strategies from existing knowledge (Walters and Martell 2004), the integration of climate projections with fisheries models has been shown to generate useful scenarios outlining potential impacts to marine ecosystems and fisheries (Cheung et al. 2008a; Sumaila and Cheung 2010; Jones et al. 2014). 3 This thesis combines quantitative and qualitative methods within an interdisciplinary scope: scenarios of impacts to fisheries’ catch potential derived from a dynamic bioclimate envelope model (DBEM) are combined with records obtained from anthropological, archaeological, and ethnographic literature to inform a more holistic understanding of how community-­‐based knowledge might be applied to respond to climate-­‐related impacts to fisheries. 1.2 Context To illustrate how such methods could be applied, I have focused on coastal First Nations whose unceded territories are situated along the Pacific Northwest Coast of British Columbia (BC), Canada (Figure 1.1). These Nations have demonstrated exemplary resilience in the face of anthropogenic and environmental change for millennia, having occupied this region for more than 10,000 years (Orchard and Clark 2005; Erlandson et al. 2008). However, given the intrinsic importance of the marine ecosystems to coastal First Nations—as cited extensively in the archaeological, anthropological, and ethnographic literature (Stewart 1977; Newell 1993; Mos et al. 2004; Moss and Cannon 2011b)—unprecedented climate change (IPCC 2013a) poses a considerable threat to First Nations’ food sovereignty, cultural practices, economic autonomy, and spiritual values through fisheries (Turner and Clifton 2009; Downing and Cuerrier 2011)(Chapter 2). However, despite the risks associated with climate change, First Nations’ extensive accumulation of knowledge through adaptive ecosystem-­‐based management strategies has provided them with considerable experience in accommodating environmental change and interpreting ecological indicators and relationships (Berkes et al. 2000; Turner and Spalding 2013). 4 Figure 1.1 Map outlining First Nations’ communities throughout coastal British Columbia (yellow) and domestic fishing areas identified during the BC Treaty Process, noting the sample of communities that form the First Nations included in this analysis (red). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !125°0'W125°0'W130°0'W130°0'W135°0'W135°0'W55°0'N55°0'N50°0'N50°0'N0 200 400100 300KilometersF! Sample communities! First Nation communitiesSample domestic fishing areasFirst Nations' domestic fishing areasBC's exclusive economic zone (EEZ)British Columbia 5 In fact, these ongoing relationships with the marine environment have allowed First Nations—as well as other Indigenous and small-­‐scale fishers—to develop “intimate, detailed, and functionally-­‐oriented knowledge” of local marine ecosystems (MacGoodwin 2001). Thus, coastal First Nations provide ideal case studies when examining how traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) regarding the dynamics of marine ecosystems could be applied to develop climate-­‐resilient pathways facilitating mitigation and adaptation (Reidlinger and Berkes 2001; Berkes 2009)(Chapter 3). 1.2.1 Aboriginal title and the “right to fish” Under colonialism, First Nations have experienced considerable challenges in their endeavour to maintain traditional knowledge and resource management practices alongside access to traditional foods, all of which serve to support food sovereignty and cultural continuity (Newell 1993; Elliott et al. 2012). After the Crown appropriated and redistributed fisheries access in the late 1800s and early 1900s, First Nations were increasingly marginalized from fisheries and auxiliary industries, and were simultaneously banned from practicing traditional fishing methods (Newell 1993; Turner et al. 2000; Garner and Parfitt 2006; Menzies and Butler 2008; Johnsen 2009). Despite the many barriers imposed through colonialism, First Nations have continued to exert varying degrees of control over local resources, and have maintained their unceded territorial rights to their traditional lands and waters. In their battle to attain recognition of these rights under the imposed colonial legal framework, First Nations achieved notable landmarks that set precedents for future 6 negotiations, and that are representative of the ongoing struggle between First Nations and the Government of Canada in the context of resource management. The first key decision occurred during the Regina v. Sparrow case, wherein the Supreme Court of Canada upheld First Nations’ constitutional right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which asserts “the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and confirmed” (Constitution Act, 1982, p. 63). The Sparrow decision reinforced the fiduciary duty of the Crown to uphold inherent Aboriginal rights and ensured that the Aboriginal right to fish for food, social, and ceremonial purposes (FSC) superseded all priorities other than conservation (Garner and Parfitt 2006). In response to this decision, DFO launched the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) in 1992, thereby providing a framework that acknowledged the importance of fishing for FSC purposes within Aboriginal communities (McDaniels et al. 1994). These affirmations of Aboriginal fishing rights and were further strengthened through the 1997 decision made in the Delgamuukw v. British Columbia case, which upheld Aboriginal title “based on the continued occupation and use of traditional tribal lands” (p. 1129), citing a point made by Lambert J.A. in the Court of Appeal: . . . the legal rights of the Indian people will have to be accommodated within our total society by political compromises and accommodations based in the first instance on negotiation and agreement and ultimately in accordance with the sovereign will of the community as a whole (Court of Appeal, [1993] 7 5 W.W.R. 97, pp. 379-­‐380, as cited in Supreme Court of Canada 1997, pp. 379-­‐80). Thus, the trial acknowledged the requirement for all external parties—whether governmental or corporate—to consult and accommodate First Nations in all matters affecting Aboriginal title and rights. As cited in Garner and Parfitt (2006), Brenda Gaertner—a lawyer specializing in Aboriginal law—noted the significance of the decision with respect to fisheries issues in a 2004 report to the First Nation Panel: . . . the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (‘DFO’) must ensure that First Nations are consulted in decision-­‐making about the allocation of the resource, and that the actual allocation of the resource accommodates the priority of Aboriginal peoples. This requires that First Nations be consulted on the full range of allocations of the fisheries resources, beyond just issues of allocations for primary food, social and ceremonial purposes. (p. 13) The Aboriginal “right to fish” moved beyond fishing for FSC purposes to include commercial rights through trials—such as Van der Peet, Gladstone, and N.T.C. Smokehouse (Garner and Parfitt 2006)—illustrating the existence of pre-­‐contact economies revolving around the barter and trade of marine resources between First Nations. While only the Gladstone case successfully attained recognition of a pre-­‐contact commercial economy involving the sale of herring spawn-­‐on-­‐kelp (Garner and Parfitt 8 2006), the underrepresentation of First Nations within the commercial fishing sectors was acknowledged by DFO during the implementation of the AFS in 1992, and led to the creation of the Allocation Transfer Program in 1994. This program aims to support fisheries-­‐based economic development for coastal First Nations through comprehensive fisheries agreements that transfer existing commercial licences or quotas to First Nations on a communal basis, with 87 communal commercial licenses having been allocated to First Nations by 2006 (Garner and Parfitt 2006). 1.2.2 Projected climate change impacts on Pacific Northeast marine ecosystems Given the historical challenges faced by First Nations in their efforts to attain recognition of unceded territorial rights to fishing, projected impacts to the marine environments that play critical roles in their livelihoods pose new challenges in addition to existing pressures. The marine ecosystems found in the Pacific Northeast basin are expected to exhibit variable responses to climate given the dynamic interfaces that characterize the region and the diverse biota therein (Okey et al. 2014). Recent studies have projected scenarios that vary by region (Cheung et al. 2011b; Ainsworth et al. 2011) and taxon (Hunter et al. 2014)(Table 1.1). At a larger scale, however, the findings obtained through these studies corroborate the global trend of poleward shifts in the distributions of marine species (Perry et al. 2005; Poloczanska et al. 2013) and regional changes in fisheries catch potential (Cheung et al. 2010; Pinsky and Fogarty 2012). 9 Table 1.1 Examples of studies estimating the impacts of climate change on marine species found along the Pacific Northwest Coast of British Columbia. STUDY REGION(S) AND SAMPLE SIZE APPROACH KEY RESULTS Cheung et al. 2011b Northern Shelf (n = 152 species), Southern Shelf (n = 155), the Strait of Georgia (n = 150), and the Offshore Pacific (n = 149). Large-­‐scale study of climate change impacts to the turnover rate of commercially exploited marine species in Canada’s ecoregions using a dynamic bioclimate envelope model (DBEM). Includes 44 species assessed in Chapter 1 study. Low species turnover rates projected by 2050 within these four regions (less than 0.1 per 100 km2). Species loss highest in the Northern and Southern Shelf regions. Ainsworth et al. 2011 Northern British Columbia (n = 53 functional groups), West Coast Vancouver Island (n = 15 functional groups). Used trophodynamic ecosystem models (Ecopath with Ecosim) for each region of the Northeast Pacific to examine impacts to food webs and fisheries associated with five different drivers (deoxygenation, acidification, range shifts, zooplankton community structure, and primary productivity). Individual climate drivers affect fisheries landings minimally (<7%), with the exception of range shifts (54% reduction in landings), which affected the pelagic fisheries the most. Shellfish and rockfish fisheries do better in Northern British Columbia under some scenarios, the former depending on increased availability of zooplankton. Hunter et al. 2014 West Coast Vancouver Island (n = 43 species) Employed a climate change risk framework to assess species’ sensitivities to climate change by compiling risk scores based on 12 attributes (e.g., fecundity, recruitment period, age at maturity, physiological tolerance, mobility, habitat availability, etc.). Elasmobranchs (equilibrium strategists) were ranked most sensitive to climate change, while flatfishes (periodic strategists) were ranked least sensitive due, in part, to low variability in abundance and periodically strong recruitment events. 10 1.3 Research objectives The objective of this study is to address two research questions: 1. What are the projected changes to relative catch potential for coastal First Nations’ commercial and food, social and ceremonial fisheries under the lower and upper range of climate change scenarios? 2. (a) How have coastal First Nations historically responded to change within marine ecosystems, and (b) how might traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and traditional fisheries management systems be used to establish climate-­‐resilient pathways for fisheries under climate change? To achieve this objective, I employ a scenario-­‐based framework that merges climate change projections regarding changes in fisheries catch potential with a qualitative analysis of First Nations’ traditional fisheries management strategies that could inform mitigation and adaptation pathways. In Chapter 2, a dynamic bioclimate envelope model (DBEM)(Cheung et al. 2008a) is used to project the change in relative abundance, distribution, and richness of 98 species of cultural and commercial importance to a sample of coastal First Nations under the lower and upper ranges of climate change, as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (representative concentration pathways [RCPs] 2.6 and 8.5, respectively). These results are then used to estimate changes in relative catch potential for First Nations’ commercial and 11 FSC fisheries, using British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and First Nations’ respective domestic fishing areas (DFAs) as study areas. Through these analyses, I identify key fisheries management issues that are likely to arise given regional trends in range shifts and fisheries impacts. Chapter 3 offers an interdisciplinary, qualitative analysis of how First Nations’ worldviews, values and knowledge could be aligned with “modern” fisheries management strategies in order to mitigate climate change within their traditional territories. By employing a scenario-­‐based framework, I explore the potential application of TEK and traditional fisheries management strategies in the context of three case studies of climate-­‐related impacts to fisheries, which derive from Chapter 2. By drawing from a literature review of historical responses to environmental change chronicled in anthropological, archaeological, and ethnographic contexts, I outline theoretical climate-­‐resilient pathways under low, medium, and high levels of adaptive capacity, where adaptive capacity is defined according to the ability of a fishery to offset declines in catch potential through alternative harvests, a spatial redistribution of fishing effort, or increased stock productivity associated with selective harvesting methods or mariculture (e.g., traditional clam beds). This analysis identifies important fisheries management caveats under climate change, such as the tendency of adaptation responses to externalize impacts, and to thereby redistribute—rather than offset—declines in catch potential. Ultimately, this thesis offers a preliminary methodology for integrating model-­‐based climate change projections of fisheries impacts with an anthropological understanding of 12 the human dimensions of climate change. By doing so, I demonstrate the versatility of interdisciplinary approaches by producing a framework that is both easily modified and transferrable to other international contexts—particularly where data-­‐poor, small-­‐scale or Indigenous fisheries seek a better understanding of potential impacts and viable responses to climate change that leverage local engagement and expertise. 13 2 PROJECTING CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS TO THE CATCH POTENTIAL OF PACIFIC FIRST NATIONS’ FISHERIES 2.1 Introduction Theoretical and empirical evidence of the influence of anthropogenic climate change on the productivity and ecology of marine ecosystems has been witnessed globally, spanning tropical, temperate, and polar regions (Roessig et al. 2005; Perry et al. 2005; Bates et al. 2013; Poloczanska et al. 2013). The majority of observed warming—over 90 per cent—has accumulated within the world’s oceans, with sea surface temperature (SST) expecting to warm between 0.6°C and 2.0°C by the end of the 21st century (IPCC 2013a). Studies have depicted scenarios in which accompanying shifts in the distribution and abundance of commercially important species are expected to alter the catch potential of global fisheries (Cheung et al. 2008a; Allison et al. 2009; Cheung et al. 2010; Sumaila et al. 2011; Barange et al. 2014). However, while commercial impacts have been explored, few efforts have been made to generate scenarios of potential impacts to small-­‐scale fishing communities that exhibit social, cultural and economic dependence on marine ecosystems through fisheries. First Nations situated along the Pacific coast of Canada are representative of Indigenous communities whose small-­‐scale fishing practices and diversified harvest and storage of marine resources—predominantly that of salmon, in this instance—have played essential roles in the development of their cultural complexity (Cannon 1998; Butler and Campbell 2004; Campbell and Butler 2010). Having occupied the Pacific Northwest Coast for more than 10,000 years (Orchard and Clark 2005; Erlandson et al. 2008), the emergence of maritime cultures among First Nations accommodated increased mobility, regional trade 14 expansion, and intensified harvest of more remote marine species through travel at sea (Ames 2002). The traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and traditional phenological knowledge (TPK) that accumulated during these millennia provide a holistic understanding of both ecological principles, such as the interrelatedness of all environmental components (Turner et al. 2000; Menzies and Butler 2007), and the seasonal timing of growth, development, reproduction and migration of organisms, respectively (Turner and Clifton 2009). This knowledge imparted respect for marine and terrestrial organisms and, by instilling a principle of stewardship (Haggan et al. 2004), facilitated sustainable harvesting and management of these organisms (Trosper 2002). Traditional foods are of such unequivocal importance to First Nations situated along coastal BC that observed declines in the abundance of these resources associated with mismanagement or climate change can lead to devastating economic, nutritional, and cultural impacts to communities (Chan et al. 2011; Gregory et al. 2011; Turner et al. 2013). Many First Nations have noted significant climate-­‐related impacts manifesting in decreased availability of traditional foods through declining abundance, altered growth and migration patterns, and reduced predictability previously established through TEK and TPK (Turner and Clifton 2009; Chan et al. 2011). Thus, it is necessary to improve our understanding of challenges that are likely to be faced increasingly by Indigenous peoples under climate change, thereby allowing for the development and implementation of mitigation and/or adaptation strategies. 15 This study seeks to address this knowledge gap by identifying scenarios that might arise given impacts to fisheries catch potential associated with a changing global climate. To obtain scenarios, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 2.6 and 8.5—representing a low and high range of climate change, respectively—were used to project shifts in species abundance, richness and distribution using a 20-­‐year average of 2050 relative to 2000 under changing environmental conditions. The resulting projections provide an opportunity to heuristically and proactively identify critical fisheries management challenges with respect to regional and localized impacts to First Nations’ fisheries. 2.2 Materials and methods 2.2.1 Sampling method While referred to collectively as First Peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast (Moss 2011), First Nations residing along coastal BC vary with respect to culture, traditions, and diet, making it inappropriate to assess climate-­‐related impacts to First Nations as if they were a single, homogenous entity (Turner et al. 2000). Therefore, First Nations were purposively selected from each of the seven coastal administrative regions defined by the BC First Nations Fisheries Council (FNFC)1, forming a sample of groups with diverse marine resources, geographical locations, territorial sizes, and treaty statuses (see Table 2.1). Ultimately, 12 First Nations were selected, 7 of which fall under two overarching councils negotiating in the BC treaty process: the Council of the Haida Nation and the Maa-­‐nulth 1 For more information, please see the BC First Nations Fisheries Council’s website: http://www.fnfisheriescouncil.ca/regions. 16 First Nations. For the purpose of this study, these 12 Nations are referred to collectively under their respective treaty councils (see Table 2.1). The FNFC’s administrative regions intersect with five ecological regions: the North Coast, comprising the Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance; Haida Gwaii, which includes the waters surrounding the islands; the Central Coast, including Queen Charlotte Sound, Queen Charlotte Strait, and the southern tip of Hecate Strait; the Strait of Georgia; and the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI)(Riddell 2004; Johannessen et al. 2007; Johannessen and McCarter 2010; Okey et al. 2014). First Nations are thereby exposed to different climate-­‐related impacts to fisheries due to the differing ecological characteristics of these regions and to differing traditional and commercial harvests. Moreover, of the Nations selected, the ‘Namgis, Tla’amin, Tsawwassen, and Maa-­‐nulth First Nations treaty groups either hold ratified treaties that incorporate fisheries agreements, or are in the final stages of ratification (BC Treaty Commission 2013). These agreements identify key aquatic resources for each of the participating communities through commercial and FSC2 allocations, and outline different levels of engagement in fisheries management and access to resources. 2 For more information regarding food, social and ceremonial fisheries, please see Chapter 1, section 1.2.1, or refer to DFO’s “Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy” documentation, obtained from: http://www.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/fm-­‐gp/aboriginal-­‐autochtones/afs-­‐srapa-­‐eng.htm. 17 First Nations’ domestic fishing areas (DFAs) were derived from Statement of Intent (SOI) boundaries identified during the BC treaty process3. These boundaries were then converted to 0.5° latitudinal by 0.5° longitudinal grid cells to reflect corresponding species habitat (Figure 2.1). Cells shared by more than one First Nation are denoted, but do not necessarily reflect an overlap in territorial claims due to the scale of the grid. While these boundaries do not signify the full extent of territory previously used by First Nations, particularly with respect to the sharing of resources between communities (Turner and Jones 2000; Trosper 2003; Haggan et al. 2004), the boundaries serve to illustrate approximate areas requested by First Nations for FSC fishing purposes at the finest scale that can be reconciled with current global climate modelling (GCM) approaches. 3 Shapefile of SOI boundaries (BC Treaty Commission 2005)(last accessed 22 June 2014): https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=45438&recordSet=ISO19115. 18 Table 2.1 Sample of First Nations and respective regions and treaty groups included in this study. FIRST NATIONS ADMIN. REGION1 ECO-­‐REGION TREATY GROUP2 REG. POP.3 EST. SIZE OF DFA (sq. km.)4 TREATY STATUS2 Gitga’at First Nation North Coast Hecate Strait/ Dixon Entrance Tsimshian First Nations 733 8,520 Agreement-­‐in-­‐principle negotiations Skidegate Band Council; Old Massett Village Council Haida Gwaii Haida Gwaii Council of the Haida Nation 1,604; 2,962 74,235 Agreement-­‐in-­‐principle negotiations Heiltsuk First Nation Central Coast Central Coast Independent 2,362 10,800 No treaty negotiations (since 2001) ‘Namgis First Nation North Vancouver Island and Mainland Inlets Central Coast Independent 1,787 2,615 Advanced agreement-­‐in-­‐principle Huu-­‐ay-­‐aht First Nation; Ka:’yu:’k’t”h’ / Chek’tles7et’h Nations; Toquaht Nation; Uchucklesaht Tribe; Ucluelet First Nation West Coast Vancouver Island West Coast Vancouver Island Maa-­‐nulth First Nations 704; 538; 144; 206; 639 18,870 Ratified and implemented (April 2011) Tla’amin (Sliammon) First Nation South Island and Mainland Inlets Strait of Georgia Independent 1,035 6,087 Final agreement completed (not ratified) Tsawwassen First Nation Lower Mainland Strait of Georgia Independent 342 1,215 Ratified and implemented (April 2009) 1 Administrative regions based on the BC First Nations Fisheries Council’s seven coastal regions (http://www.fnfisheriescouncil.ca/regions) 2 Treaty groups and statuses accurate as of December 2013 (BC Treaty Commission 2013). 3 Population registered as of December 2013 (AANDC 2013). 4 Approximate size of domestic fishing areas derived from SOI boundary shapefiles (BC Treaty Commission 2005) using ArcGIS. 19 Figure 2.1 Cells (0.5° long. x 0.5° lat.) representing domestic fishing areas (on the right), as derived from Statement of Intent (SOI) boundaries indicated during the BC treaty process (on the left). Cells shared by more than one First Nation are denoted, but do not represent legal boundaries and are only used to assess relative availability of marine resources in a given cell. !H!H !H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H125°0'W130°0'W!H!H !H!H!H!H !H!H!H!H!H!H125°0'W130°0'W55°0'N50°0'N45°0'N0 150 300 450 60075Kilometers'Reserves!H 'Namgis!H Gitga'at!H Haida!H Heiltsuk!H Maa-nulth!H Tla'amin!H TsawwassenTFAsHaida /Gitga'atHaidaGitga-at /HeiltsukGitga'atHeiltsuk'NamgisMaa-nulthTla'amin /TsawwassenTsawwassenTla'amin 20 2.2.2 Identifying species of importance to coastal First Nations A sample of culturally and commercially important species was identified from the peer-­‐reviewed literature, government and non-­‐governmental organization (NGO) reports, treaty agreements, and First Nations’ reports. Ninety-­‐eight species—comprising marine and diadromous fish, shellfish and invertebrates—were selected (summarized in Tables 2.2 and 2.3; full list available in Supplementary Table A1, Appendix A). For the purpose of this study, culturally important species were loosely identified according to qualitative elements outlined by Garibaldi and Turner (2004): intensity, type, and multiplicity of use; naming and terminology in a language; use as seasonal or phenological indicators; roles in narratives, ceremonies, or symbolism; persistence and memory of use in relationship to cultural change; level of unique position in culture; and extent to which species provide opportunities for resource acquisition from beyond the territory. This list is not intended to be a complete representation of the resources used by coastal First Nations, but a summary restricted to a sample of key marine fishes, shellfish and invertebrates documented in the available literature. For instance, while also contributing to First Nations’ traditional harvests, marine mammals, plants and birds were not the focus of this study. Specific data relating to First Nations’ commercial landings were unavailable from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) due to the ‘Three Party Rule’4 under the Access to Information Act 20 (1)(b,c)(Martin Huang, pers. comm., 11th October 2013). For this reason, landings data for species of commercial importance were collated at the 4 DFO applies a ‘Three Party Rule’ to the release of information regarding commercial fisheries, wherein if three or fewer vessels report landings from the same sub-­‐area, the landings weight is considered confidential and is therefore not released. 21 regional scale from published literature (James 2003; McRae and Pearse 2004) and, where applicable, estimated indirectly from catch quota allocations for First Nations’ commercial fisheries, as specified through treaties (see Table 2.3). Table 2.2 Species harvested by First Nations for food, social and ceremonial (FSC) purposes, ordered alphabetically.1 COMMON NAME(S) SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) FISHING METHOD(S) Abalone, northern2 Haliotis kamtschatkana By hand or spear Chitons Katharina tunicate, Cryptochiton stelleri By hand Clams, intertidal (butter, manila, Pacific littleneck, varnish) Saxidomus gigantea, Venerupis philippinarum, Protothaca staminea, Nuttallia obscurata By hand Clam, Pacific razor Siliqua patula Digging Crab spp. (Dungeness, Pacific rock, tanner, purple shore, green) Metacarcinus magister, Cancer productus, Chionoecetes bairdi, Hemigrapsus spp. Handpicking, traps, gaffing, dip net, ring net Dogfish, spiny Squalus suckleyi By hook and line Eulachon (oolichan)2 Thaleichthys pacificus By net (driftnet, bag net); rake Flounder and soles Pleuronectidae Hook and line; traps; seine net Halibut, Pacific Hippoglossus stenolepis Hook and line Herring, Pacific (including roe) Clupea pallasii pallasii Spawn on kelp; seine; gillnet; dip net; herring rake; hand picking Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus Hook and line; jigging in shallow waters; trolling Mussels (Pacific blue, northern horse) Mytilus trossulus Modiolus modiolus By hand Prawn Pandalus platyceros By trap Rockfish2 Sebastes spp., Sebastolobus spp. Hook and line; Jigging in shallow waters; trolling Sablefish (black cod) Anoplopoma fimbria Hook and line; traps Salmon (sockeye, chum, Oncorhynchus spp. Traps, weirs, beach seines; 22 COMMON NAME(S) SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) FISHING METHOD(S) pink, Chinook, coho) trap nets; fish wheels; seine; hook and line; dip or gillnets; spear Scallops (weathervane, spiny pink, rock) Chlamys hastata, Patinopecten caurinus, Crassadoma giganteus Collect by hand Sea cucumber Parasthichopus californicus Collect by dive Shrimp Pandalus spp., Pandalopsis spp. Trap Sturgeon, white2 Acipenser transmontanus Harpoon; weir; set or trawl net Urchins Strongylocentrotus spp. Spear or collect by hand 1 For a full list of species included in the analysis, please see Appendix A. 2 Fishing is restricted or no longer permitted for these species due to conservation concerns. Sources: Stewart 1977; DFO and Gitga'at Indian Band 2005; Tsawwassen First Nation et al. 2006; Council of the Haida Nation 2011; Gregory et al. 2011; Blakley et al. 2011; Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study Participants et al. 2011; DFO and Council of the Haida Nation 2013; Uchucklesaht Tribe 2013. 2.2.3 Mapping species’ current distributions Species’ current distributions were obtained using a species distribution model developed by the Sea Around Us project (Close et al. 2006). The model determines distributions of marine fishes and invertebrates discriminatively by employing a set of filters including: (i) presence in FAO area(s); (ii) latitudinal range; (iii) range-­‐limiting polygons; (iv) depth range; (v) habitat preferences; and (vi) the effect of ‘equatorial submergence’ (for detailed methodology, please see Close et al. 2006). Data for these filters were primarily derived from FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2013), SeaLifeBase (Palomares and Pauly 2013), and the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL 2013) and supplemented or cross-­‐checked with data collected from DFO reports and peer-­‐reviewed literature. For species with limited life history records, data for species within the same genus were used. Range-­‐limiting polygons were 23 produced through reference to known latitudinal and longitudinal ranges and the resulting distributional maps were cross-­‐checked with AquaMaps (Kaschner et al. 2013), the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2014), and FAO’s Aquatic Species Distribution Viewer (FAO 2013). Data for species not listed on FishBase or SeaLifeBase are available by request (l.weatherdon@fisheries.ubc.ca). 24 Table 2.3 First Nations’ participation in British Columbia’s commercial fisheries by percentage and number of total licenses held (modified from James 2003 and Heiltsuk First Nation 2011)1,8. COMMERCIAL LICENSE COMMON NAME (S) SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) PER CENT AND NUMBER OF LICENSES HELD (2003) Haida razor clam Pacific razor clam Siliqua patula 100% (94 – 2692) Heiltsuk intertidal clam Manila clam, Pacific littleneck clam Venerupis philippinarum, Protothaca staminea 100% (50) Herring spawn-­‐on-­‐kelp Pacific herring Clupea pallasii pallasii 78.3% (36)3 Sardine by seine Pacific sardine Sardinops sagax 58% (29) Clam by hand Butter clam, manila clam, Pacific littleneck clam Saxidomus gigantea, Venerupis philippinarum, Protothaca staminea 56.5% (648) Salmon seine (Areas A, B) Salmon Oncorhynchus spp. 29.0% (80)4 Salmon gillnet (Areas C, D, E) Salmon Oncorhynchus spp. 38.1% (536) Roe herring seine Pacific herring Clupea pallasii 25.0% (63)5 Roe herring gillnet Pacific herring Clupea pallasii 27.5% (345)5 Red sea urchin Red sea urchin Mesocentrotus franciscanus 12.7% (14) Eulachon6 Eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus 12.5% (2) Halibut Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis 12.2% (53) Sea cucumber Giant red sea cucumber Parastichopus californicus 11.8% (10) 25 COMMERCIAL LICENSE COMMON NAME (S) SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) PER CENT AND NUMBER OF LICENSES HELD (2003) Salmon troll (Areas F, G, H) Salmon Oncorhynchus spp. 9.3% (50) Rockfish by hook and line Rockfish Sebastes spp., Sebastolobus spp. 7.3% (19) Shrimp trawl Humpback, northern pink, pink, sidestripe Pandalus spp. Pandalopsis dispar 6.1% (15) Crab Dungeness crab, Pacific rock crab Metacarcinus magister, Cancer productus 5% (11) Sablefish Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria 4.2% (2) Category C (hook and line) Schedule II species7 -­‐-­‐ 3.7% (20) Prawn Prawn Pandalus platyceros 3.6% (9) Groundfish trawl (T) Pacific sanddab, sculpins, greenlings, including Schedule II7 Citharichthys sordidus, Cottidae spp., Hexagrammos spp., etc. 7 3.5% (5) Geoduck and horse clam Horse clam, Pacific geoduck, Pacific gaper Tresus capax, Panopea abrupta, Tresus nuttallii 1.8% (1) 1 Note that not all licenses may be active. 2 As of 2003, an unlimited number of harvesters were allowed under the Haida Communal Clam Licence (James 2003). 3 80.8% of the quota was held in 2003 (James 2003). 4 Inclusion of Aboriginal-­‐operated licenses increases the percentage to 46.7% (James 2003). 5 Percentage held of active licenses (James 2003). 6 Commercial fishing is no longer permitted due to conservation status. 7 Outlined under Schedule II – Part II of Canada’s Pacific Fisheries Regulations (1993). 8 Species used to calculate aggregated impacts to each commercial fishery are listed in Supplementary Table A3. 26 2.2.4 Model selection and parameters The species-­‐based dynamic bioclimate envelope model (DBEM)(Cheung et al. 2008a; 2011a) and accompanying Sea Around Us model (Close et al. 2006)(described in Section 2.2.3) are used to model changes to species distribution and relative abundance in each 0.5° latitudinal x 0.5° longitudinal cell (𝑖) at each time step (𝑡) based on the following algorithm: 𝒅(𝑨𝒃𝒅)𝒊𝒅𝒕 = 𝑮𝒊 + 𝑳𝒋𝒊 + 𝑰𝒋𝒊𝑵𝒋?𝟏 ( 1 ) where 𝐴𝑏𝑑? is the relative abundance of cell 𝑖, 𝐺 is the intrinsic population growth, and 𝐿™ and 𝐼™ are settled larvae and net migrated adults from surrounding cells j, respectively (Cheung et al. 2008b; 2009). The intrinsic growth rate of a population is calculated as 𝑮𝒊 = 𝒓 ∙ 𝑨𝒃𝒅𝒊 ∙ (𝟏− 𝑨𝒃𝒅𝒊𝑲𝒊 ) ( 2 ) where r is the intrinsic rate of population increase and 𝐾? is the population carrying capacity for cell 𝑖. The model is defined by (a) sea water temperature; (b) bathymetry; (c) habitats; and (d) distance from sea ice (Cheung et al. 2008a), thereby identifying a ‘climatic niche’ (Pearson and Dawson 2003). Biological parameterization of a species’ capacity to respond to environmental change is represented using four areas of knowledge: current latitudinal and longitudinal range, habitat preferences, depth range, and life history parameters (data collection methods outlined in section 2.2.3). An advection-­‐diffusion-­‐ 27 reaction model is used to account for larval dispersal according to ocean conditions, while adult abundances diffuse following a gradient of habitat suitability (Cheung et al. 2009). Through reference to the von Bertalanffy growth function (VBGF; von Bertalanffy, 1951), the model estimates ecophysiological changes associated with changes in temperature and oxygen (relative to initial conditions) as 𝑾? = 𝑯𝒌 𝟏/(𝟏?𝒂), ( 3 ) and 𝑲 = 𝒌(𝟏− 𝒂), ( 4 ) where 𝑊? is the asymptotic weight, 𝐻 and 𝑘 are the coefficients for anabolism and catabolism respectively, 𝐾 is the von Bertalanffy growth parameter, and 𝑎 is the parameter within the VBGF that scales anabolism with body weight (Cheung et al. 2011a). Two of the four RCPs created for the IPCC’s fifth report are used to reflect expert judgements regarding plausible future scenarios of emissions given socioeconomic, environmental and technological trends (Moss et al. 2010)(see Table 2.4). These RCPs represent the upper (RCP 8.5) and lower (RCP 2.6) bounds of projected emissions scenarios, thereby providing a broad range of estimated scenarios of environmental change (as defined by the IPCC) for the purpose of this study. 28 Table 2.4 Representative concentration pathways (RCPs) used in this study to capture upper and lower bounds of emissions scenarios (adapted from Moss et al. 2010). NAME RADIATIVE FORCING CONCENTRATION (P.P.M.) PATHWAY MODEL PROVIDING RCP REFERENCES RCP8.5 > 8.5 W m-­‐2 in 2100 > 1,370 CO2-­‐equiv. in 2100 Rising MESSAGE1 Riahi et al. 2007; Rao and Riahi 2006 RCP2.6 Peak at ~3 W m-­‐2 before 2100 and then declines Peak at ~490 CO2-­‐equiv. before 2100 and then declines Peak and decline IMAGE2 van Vuuren et al. 2007; van Vuuren et al. 2006 1. MESSAGE, Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General Environmental Impact. 2. IMAGE, Integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Netherlands. A coupled atmosphere-­‐ocean global climate model (GFDL CM2.1) and primary production time series data were obtained from NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory’s IPCC-­‐class earth system model (GFDL ESM2.1 with Tracers of Phytoplankton with Allometric Zooplankton [TOPAZ], Dunne et al. 2010). A geographic information systems (GIS) approach was used to represent the spatial change in species distribution and relative environmental suitability (RES) over time (ESRI, 2013, ArcGIS Version 10.1), while R (version 3.0.0) was used to calculate changes in species’ relative abundance, distribution, and richness, as well as corresponding changes in catch potential. 29 2.2.5 Impacts to species’ relative abundance, distribution, and richness 2.2.5.1 Changes to species’ relative abundances Mean abundance (𝐴𝑏𝑑) per grid cell (0.5° lat. x 0.5° long.) was derived for each species by applying the following equation to the results obtained from the DBEM: 𝑨𝒃𝒅 = (𝑨𝒃𝒅𝒊,𝒕)𝒏𝒊? 𝟏 𝒏 ( 5 ) where 𝐴𝑏𝑑?,? is the relative abundance for a given cell (𝑖) at time step 𝑡 (in years), and 𝑛 is the number of years used to calculate the average abundance. Twenty-­‐year averages centred on 2000 (1991-­‐2010) and 2050 (2041-­‐2060) were used to smooth inter-­‐annual and decadal variability. 2.2.5.2 Changes to species’ relative distributions The latitudinal centroid (LC) of each species was calculated using the following equation, 𝑳𝑪 = 𝑳𝒂𝒕𝒊∗𝑨𝒃𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒊?𝟏 𝑨𝒃𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒊?𝟏 ( 6 ) where 𝐿𝑎𝑡? is the latitudinal centre of the spatial cell (𝑖), 𝐴𝑏𝑑? is the predicted relative abundance in the cell (corrected by the area of the grid cells), and 𝑛 is the total number of cells where abundance is greater than ‘0’ (Cheung et al. 2009; 2012). The range shift was 30 then calculated from the difference between the latitudinal centroid of the projected and reference years, followed by calculation of the shift in distance (in kilometres)(Cheung et al. 2011a): 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒌𝒎 = 𝑳𝒂𝒕𝒎 − 𝑳𝒂𝒕𝒏 𝝅𝟏𝟖𝟎 × 𝟔𝟑𝟕𝟖. 𝟐 ( 7 ) To determine whether each species’ latitudinal range had contracted or expanded, 20-­‐year mean lower and upper latitudinal limits using the global dataset were projected for 2050 and compared with those in 2000. These estimates were obtained for both the lower and upper climate change scenarios. 2.2.5.3 Changes to biodiversity Using the results obtained from Equation 1, changes to species richness were calculated for British Columbia’s EEZ and for the DFA of each First Nation. Relative average abundance data for the projected and reference periods were modified to reflect presence (‘1’) or absence (‘0’) within a given cell and summed to yield species richness for each cell within the area of interest. The difference was then obtained between the projected and reference periods. The threshold used to assess species’ presence or absence was ‘0’, which represents an extremely conservative estimate given that species’ thresholds would differ depending on the spatial density and dynamics of a population (Jones et al. 2013). 31 2.2.6 Fisheries impacts under climate change 2.2.6.1 Estimating relative change in commercial catch potential Change in catch potential was calculated for each 0.5° longitudinal x 0.5° latitudinal grid-­‐cell situated in BC’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) using 20-­‐year average abundances for 2050 relative to 2000 obtained from the DBEM simulations. Species were aggregated by commercial fishery, noting the proportion of species included in the analysis relative to those included in each fishery’s quota (see Appendix A, Supplementary Tables A2 and A3). The empirical relationship between observed catch potential, net primary production, and range area used to estimate relative catch potential is represented by the following algorithm, 𝑴𝒂𝒙𝒊𝒎𝒖𝒎 𝑪𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒕 = 𝑴𝒂𝒙𝒊𝒎𝒖𝒎 𝑪𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒕𝟎 × 𝑷𝒊,𝒕 × 𝑨𝒊,𝒕𝑷𝒊,𝒕𝟎 × 𝑨𝒊,𝒕𝟎 (8) where 𝑃 and 𝐴 are the net primary productivity and area of cell 𝑖 at time step 𝑡, respectively (Cheung et al. 2010; Jones et al. 2014). 2.2.6.2 Estimating relative change in First Nations’ food, social and ceremonial catch potential Impacts to relative catch potential for FSC purposes were estimated by using First Nations’ DFAs as outlined by the SOI boundaries submitted to the BC Treaty Commission. The scale of the model (0.5° long. x 0.5° lat. cells) yielded over-­‐ and under-­‐representation of DFA boundaries. For this reason, DFA polygons were converted to raster format in ArcGIS 32 (version 10.1)(Figure 2.1) using the maximum combined area method, thereby ensuring that potential domestic fishing grounds were fully accounted for and that estimates represented the maximum future catch potential under climate change. 2.2.6.3 Estimating potential impacts to landed revenue Climate-­‐related impacts to First Nations’ commercial fisheries were analysed at an aggregated level to ensure privacy and to accommodate DFO’s ‘Three Party Rule’ (see section 2.2.2). Since DFO was unable to provide detailed records of First Nation licensing due to the above rule (Martin Huang, DFO, pers. comm., 3rd October 2013), First Nations’ participation in commercial fisheries was obtained from a study commissioned by British Columbia’s Ministry of Agriculture (then known as the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries) in 2003, which outlines the proportion of licenses and landed values held by First Nations between 1999 and 2002 (James 2003)(Table 2.3). Annual landed values by taxon or fishery (e.g., herring spawn-­‐on-­‐kelp) between 2001 and 2010 were obtained from the BC Ministry of Agriculture’s annual reports and averaged to provide mean annual landed revenue (BC Ministry of Agriculture 2004; 2006; 2008; 2010; 2011). Data outlining landed revenue in the Heiltsuk commercial intertidal bivalve fishery and First Nations’ participation in the commercial green sea urchin fishery, tuna fishery, and groundfish trawl and hook and lines fisheries were unavailable, and were therefore not included in the estimates of impacts to landed revenue in the EEZ. Projected changes in catch potential for each commercial fishery under RCPs 2.6 and 8.5 were subsequently used to derive a highly conservative estimate of impacts to landed revenue (in 2010 CAD) given the approximate proportion of licenses held by First Nations. Lastly, a case study of commercial fisheries 33 situated within the Haida First Nation’s traditional territory was conducted to explore localized impacts. 2.2.6.4 Sensitivity analysis Results obtained by Jones and Cheung (in press) for two additional species distribution models (SDMs)— Maxent (Phillips et al. 2006) and AquaMaps (Kaschner et al. 2006)—were used to analyse the sensitivity of the upper bounds for catch potential and latitudinal shifts obtained under RCP 8.5 to underlying assumptions behind the DBEM. In contrast with DBEM’s discriminative approach that combines mechanistic and statistical tools, Maxent and AquaMaps use statistical methods to produce bioclimatic envelopes that represent species’ preferred habitats. Species’ current distributions were determined from presence-­‐only data overlaying environmental data (averaged over 30 years, falling between 1971 and 2000), thereby accommodating a large range of existing datasets and reducing the uncertainty associated with small sample sizes (Jones et al. 2013). In order to assess the sensitivity of projected shifts in catch potential to interdecadal variability, two separate analyses were conducted. Firstly, the time frame’s capacity to influence results was tested by comparing the results from two 20-­‐year averaged time frames centred on 2045 and 2050. Secondly, the effect of extending the time frame to 30 years was tested to explore whether further smoothing of interdecadal variability would lead to large changes in the projections. 34 2.3 Results 2.3.1 Impacts to species’ relative abundance, distribution and richness Declines in relative abundance (< -­‐3.0%) are observed for most of the 98 species (RCP 2.6: n = 95; RCP 8.5: n = 84) within British Columbia’s EEZ under both scenarios of climate change, with evidence of latitudinal and regional trends. Three species—white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), Pacific sardines (Sardinops sagax), and manila clams (Venerupis phiippinarum)—are projected to remain neutral or increase in abundance under both scenarios, while a few species (n = 11) remain relatively neutral, with values oscillating around 0%. A poleward range shift in mean abundance is projected for the majority of species (n > 81) at an average rate of 2.9 to 4.5 kilometres decade-­‐1 for fishes5 and 2.7 to 3.4 kilometres decade-­‐1 for invertebrates within BC’s EEZ (Figure 2.2). At the global scale, there are six types of range shifts exhibited by the species included in this study: (1) no change; (2) range expanding both polewards and equatorially; (3) range expanding polewards, with southern latitudinal limit remaining constant; (4) range expanding polewards, with a trailing edge; (5) range contracting polewards, with the rate of the trailing edge exceeding that of the leading edge; or (6) a range contraction where both the lower and upper latitudinal limits contract (Table 2.5). Range expansions are projected for 75 species under RCP 2.6; however, only 28 of these show neutral or increasing catch potential within BC’s EEZ. Shifts are primarily polewards, 5 Estimates for albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) excluded from mean rate since they are likely inaccurate given conflicting results for tuna between species distribution models (Aquamaps and Maxent project a large increase in relative catch potential for albacore). 35 Figure 2.2 Projected latitudinal shifts (km decade-­‐1) by functional group or species using a 20-­‐year average latitudinal centroid at 2050 relative to 2000. The line represents the projected range of possibilities between the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) climate change scenarios. with only a few species simultaneously moving equatorially (n = 19). Conversely, while range expansions are projected for the majority of species at the global scale under RCP 8.5 (n = 76 of 98), only a few of these species (n = 9) exhibit neutral or increased catch potential within BC’s EEZ (i.e., Pacific sardine, Sardinops sagax; black, yellowmouth, tiger, and China rockfish, Sebastes spp.; manila clam, Venerupis philippinarum; white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus; and Pacific geoduck, Panopea abrupta). The majority of species show net poleward shifts at the global scale under the upper climate change scenario (n = 85). For species showing exclusively poleward shifts (n = 69), the rate of the leading edge TunaHalibutEulachonFlounder and soleChitonsShrimp and prawnsUrchinsMusselsRoundfishSalmonCrabsDogfish and skatesHerringTroutRockfishBarnaclesScallopsSea cucumbersLingcodSculpinsOystersClamsSturgeonGreenlingAbalonePerchSardinesLatitudinal shift (km decade Թñ)Functional group or speciesScenarioRCP 2.6RCP 8.5Nï 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 36 of the range shift predominantly exceeds that of the trailing edge (n = 57), which is supported by findings of other meta-­‐analyses (Poloczanska et al. 2013). Only a few cases occurred where the rate of the trailing edge exceeded that of the leading edge, leading to a range contraction (n = 12)(see Table 2.5 for summary). Table 2.5 Number of species (n = 98) exhibiting different types of latitudinal range shifts under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) climate change scenarios (see Appendix E, Supplementary Table E2). TYPE OF RANGE SHIFT RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 (1) No change 10 8 (2) Range expansion, both polewards and equatorially; 19 19 (3) Range expansion polewards, with constant lower latitudinal limit; 48 48 (4) Range expansion polewards, with a trailing edge; 8 9 (5) Range contraction polewards, with the rate of the trailing edge exceeding the leading edge; 13 12 (6) Range contraction, where both limits contract. 0 2 Marine biodiversity along coastal British Columbia remains quite high in most areas, with the spatial extent of each First Nation’s territory containing a minimum of 81 of the 98 species included in this study (Figure 2.3(a)). Given the expected changes in climate, the absolute number of species that occurs within each cell (i.e., with a habitat suitability of greater than ‘0’) differs little under each scenario, with gains or losses of up to 3 species per cell (Figure 2.3(b)). Similar latitudinal patterns to those observed for relative abundance and distribution were again evident, with greater losses in biodiversity experienced towards the southern coast of British Columbia, falling primarily between 48°N and 51°N. 37 Figure 2.3 (a) Species richness by 0.5° lat. x 0.5° long. cell in 2000 and (b) projected number of species lost or gained per cell by 2050 under both climate change scenarios. Black lines identify First Nations’ domestic fishing areas within the study. 125°0'W130°0'W135°0'W55°0'N50°0'N125°0'W130°0'W135°0'W55°0'N50°0'NSpecies richness (2000) 01 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 8081 - 9091 - 1000 150 30075Kilometers0 150 30075Kilometers-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Number of species lost or gained by 2050(b)(a) 38 2.3.2 Fisheries impacts under climate change 2.3.2.1 Relative change in commercial catch potential With two exceptions, all commercial fisheries (n = 15) show modest to severe declines in catch potential under both scenarios of climate change (Figure 2.4). Estimates place the Pacific herring commercial fisheries—comprising roe herring, spawn-­‐on-­‐kelp, and food and bait fisheries—as likely to experience the greatest relative impact under climate change, with declines in catch potential ranging between 28.1% and 49.2% across coastal BC. Similarly, salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) are projected to exhibit cumulative declines between 17.1% and 29.2% within BC’s EEZ. Collectively, the commercial herring and Figure 2.4 Projected change in relative catch potential for commercial fisheries in British Columbia’s EEZ with known First Nation participation, illustrating the range of results obtained from the lower and upper climate change scenarios (RCPs 2.6 and 8.5, respectively). (*Remaining two species are harvested occasionally in northern regions and require a special permit.) Pacific herringGreen sea urchinSalmon (n = 5 of 5)Prawn and shrimp (n = 4 of 7)Red sea urchinSea cucumberPacific halibutRockfish (n = 36 of 60)Geoduck and horse clam (n = 3 of 3)Sablefish Groundfish (n = 43 of 78)Pacific razor clamCrab (n = 2 of 4*)Intertidal clam (n = 4 of 4) Heiltsuk intertidal clam (n = 2 of 2)Pacific sardineï ï ï ï ï 0  20 30 40Change in relative catch potential (%)Commercial FisheryScenarios RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 39 salmon fisheries contribute to approximately 74% of First Nations’ landed revenue (James 2003), with projected declines in catch potential translating to an 89.3% to 90.2% decline in total landed revenue by 2050. Conversely, catch potential for the commercial Pacific sardine fishery is expected to expand, with increases ranging from 42.0 to 44.4% across the EEZ. At a smaller scale, the Heiltsuk intertidal clam fishery is projected to remain relatively neutral or show slight gains under both scenarios of climate changes (-­‐0.5 to 8.6%). 2.3.2.2 Relative change in FSC catch potential Catch potential is projected to decrease for the majority (n = 86) of species harvested for FSC purposes under both scenarios of climate change across the EEZ, with catch potential showing strong positive correlation with latitude (Figure 2.5(a); Table 2.7). Furthermore, the number of species projected to decline under climate change shows a strong negative correlation with latitude (Figure 2.5(b); Table 2.6). This correlation strengthens for both relationships under the upper range of climate change (i.e., RCP 8.5). It is important to note that while catch potential increases with latitude, all First Nations’ DFAs examined in this analysis showed cumulative decreases in species abundance and corresponding catch potential, with declines projected to be less severe with increasing latitude. DBEM estimates suggest that the southern territories, comprising that of the Tsawwassen First Nation, Tla’amin First Nation, and Maa-­‐nulth First Nations, will experience a reduction in relative catch potential (between -­‐15.2% and -­‐27.8%) coinciding with both the upper and lower range of climate change scenarios. In contrast, the northern DFAs (Haida and Gitga’at) and those situated along the central coast or the north-­‐eastern coast of Vancouver 40 Island (Heiltsuk and ‘Namgis, respectively) are projected to experience lower relative reductions in catch potential for each territory, with estimates falling between -­‐4.2 and -­‐8.2% (see Table 2.7). Figure 2.5 Graphs exhibit a (a) positive correlation between latitude and cumulative change in catch potential (%) from the baseline (0%) and (b) a negative correlation between latitude and the number of species exhibiting declines in catch potential (< -­‐3.0%) under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. Shaded bars represent 95% confidence intervals. However, a few trends emerge when comparing impacts across latitudes. For instance, projections for DFAs situated along the North and Central Coasts of British Columbia RCP 2.6RCP 8.50ïïïïïï0ïïïïïï49.0 49.5 50.0 50.5   52.0 52.5 LATITUDE (°N)Change in catch potential (%)RCP 2.6RCP 8.56065707580859095606570758085909549.0 49.5 50.0 50.5   52.0 52.5 (b) Number of species exhibiting declining catch potential (< -3.0%) by latitude.(a) Cumulative change in catch potential(%) by mean latitude for each DFA.LATITUDE (°N)Number of speciesR² = 0.76R² = 0.87R² = 0.97R² = 0.87 41 (Gitga’at and Haida, and Heiltsuk and ‘Namgis, respectively) suggest neutral or positive shifts in catch potential for white sturgeon (A. transmontanus), kelp greenling (H. decagrammus), and two species of perch (Rhacochilus vacca and Brachyistius frenatus) under both scenarios. While varying regionally, both scenarios suggest either a slight cumulative decline or negligible change (given the uncertainty of the projections) in catch potential for clams, rockfish, lingcod, and sculpins across the North and Central Coast DFAs. Moreover, species with neutral catch potential under RCP 2.6 tend to either remain neutral or increase under RCP 8.5 in the North and Central Coast territories. In contrast, territories situated along the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI) and the Strait of Georgia almost invariably exhibit more severe declines across functional groups and species in comparison with those projected for the North and Central Coast regions (Figures 2.6 and 2.7). The exceptions to this include scallops and eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), which show more variable trends: for instance, catch potential for eulachon found in the Hecate Strait along the North Coast is projected to exhibit declines similar to those in the WCVI region (Figure 2.7). Additionally, declines projected for lamprey eels (Entosphenus tridentata) in the Strait of Georgia are of notable concern given its cultural importance to Native Americans located immediately south of the Canadian border (Close et al. 2002). Catch potential for Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) is projected to decrease in all study areas under both climate change scenarios, with DBEM estimates ranging from -­‐26.0 to -­‐49.2%. The results from AquaMaps and Maxent corroborate this projected decline, but 42 offer more conservative estimates (-­‐2.2 to -­‐17.0%). Similarly, declines in salmon—a cultural keystone species for First Nations on the Pacific Northwest Coast (Garibaldi and Turner 2004)—are anticipated for all regions (Figure 2.7). Figure 2.6 Changes in relative catch potential by functional group for four regions: the North Coast, Central Coast, Strait of Georgia, and the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI). The lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) range of climate change scenarios is denoted. Abalone BarnaclesChitons ClamsCrabs MusselsOysters ScallopsSea cucumber UrchinsWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastNorth CoastWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastNorth CoastWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastNorth CoastWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastNorth CoastWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastNorth Coastï ï ï   ï ï ï  Change in relative catch potential (%)REGIONScenario 5&3 5&3 43 Figure 2.7 Changes in relative catch potential by functional group for four regions: the North Coast, Central Coast, Strait of Georgia, and the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI). The lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) range of climate change scenarios is denoted. Albacore ElasmobranchEulachon Flounder and soleGreenling HerringLingcod Pacific halibutPerch RockfishRoundfish SalmonSculpins Shrimp and prawnsSturgeon TroutStrait of GeorgiaWCVICentral CoastNorth CoastStrait of GeorgiaWCVICentral CoastNorth CoastStrait of GeorgiaWCVICentral CoastNorth CoastStrait of GeorgiaWCVICentral CoastNorth CoastStrait of GeorgiaWCVICentral CoastNorth CoastStrait of GeorgiaWCVICentral CoastNorth CoastStrait of GeorgiaWCVICentral CoastNorth CoastStrait of GeorgiaWCVICentral CoastNorth Coast−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30Change in relative catch potential (%)AreaScenarios RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 44 Table 2.6 Number of species (n) whose catch potential (%) is projected to increase, decrease, or remain neutral within First Nations’ respective domestic fishing areas (DFAs) under RCPs 2.6 and 8.5. DFAs are ordered latitudinally from north to south. DOMESTIC FISHING AREA (No. of species) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Decline (<-­‐3.0%) Neutral (-­‐3.0 to 3.0%) Increase (>3.0%) Decline (<-­‐3.0%) Neutral (-­‐3.0 to 3.0%) Increase (>3.0%) Gitga’at (n = 96) 62 29 5 67 11 18 Haida (n = 96) 70 23 3 71 9 16 Heiltsuk (n = 96) 81 12 3 73 9 14 ‘Namgis (n = 90) 86 2 2 84 3 3 Tla’amin (n = 90) 88 0 2 88 0 2 Maa-­‐nulth (n = 98) 97 0 1 97 0 1 Tsawwassen (n = 96) 92 1 3 94 0 2 EEZ (n = 98) 62 33 3 84 7 7 Table 2.7 Relative change in catch potential (%) by study area, as projected under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) climate change scenarios. DOMESTIC FISHING AREA(S) REGION APPROX. LATITUDE (MEAN) RCP2.6 (%) RCP8.5 (%) Gitga’at North Coast 52° -­‐ 54°N (52.96° N) -­‐4.2 -­‐4.9 Haida Haida Gwaii 51° -­‐ 55° N (52.92° N) -­‐5.8 -­‐6.6 Heiltsuk Central Coast 51° -­‐ 53.5° N (52.18° N) -­‐6.6 -­‐7.9 ‘Namgis Central Coast 50.5° -­‐ 51.0° N (50.75° N) -­‐7.9 -­‐8.2 Tla’amin Strait of Georgia 49.0° -­‐ 50.5° N (49.69° N) -­‐21.1 -­‐22.0 Maa-­‐nulth West Coast Vancouver Island 47.5° -­‐ 50.5° N (49.10° N) -­‐25.8 -­‐27.8 Tsawwassen Strait of Georgia 48.5° -­‐ 49.5° N (49.05° N) -­‐15.2 -­‐27.4 EEZ All 47.5° -­‐ 55° N -­‐4.5 -­‐10.7 45 2.3.2.3 Scenarios of potential impacts to First Nations’ landed revenue Conservative estimates of regional losses in landed revenue to a selection of First Nations commercial fisheries range between -­‐$6,720,000 and -­‐$11,820,000, with salmon and herring fisheries comprising 89.3 to 90.6 per cent of the total loss in landed revenue (Table 2.8). Importantly, this does not include estimates for commercial sardine fisheries which are projected to see increases within the EEZ under both climate scenarios, and for which First Nations held 50 per cent (n = 25) of allocated licenses as of 2012 (DFO 2012). Within the Haida DFA, economic impacts range from -­‐$6,420,000 to -­‐$7,430,000 in landed values. This does not include impacts to auxiliary industries, such as fish processing and marketing, nor does it account for potential opportunities attained through increased abundance of lower-­‐latitude species, such as sardines (Table 2.9). 46 Table 2.8 Estimated upper-­‐ and lower-­‐ thresholds of impacts to landed revenue (2010 CAD), derived from a 10-­‐year average (2001-­‐2010), for a sample of First Nations (FN) commercial fisheries under two climate change scenarios (James 2003; BC Ministry of Agriculture 2004; 2006; 2008; 2010; 2011). Estimated commercial value (2003)(adapted from James 2003) Updated commercial value (2010) CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIOS RCP2.6 RCP8.5 Landed value ($ millions, avg. 1999-­‐2002) Estimated FN value ($ millions CAD) Proportion (%)(FN-­‐held and operated) Landed value ($ millions, avg. 2001-­‐2010) Estimated FN value ($ millions CAD) Change in catch potential (%) Loss in landed value ($ millions, 2010 CAD) Change in catch potential (%) Loss in landed value ($ millions, 2010 CAD) Salmon 49.9 20.5 41.1 43.8 18.0 -­‐17.0 -­‐3.06 -­‐29.2 -­‐5.26 Roe herring 37.6 10.2 27.1 22.9 6.2 -­‐28.1 -­‐1.74 -­‐49.2 -­‐3.06 Spawn-­‐on-­‐kelp 9.5 7.7 81.1 5.6 4.5 -­‐28.1 -­‐1.26 -­‐49.2 -­‐2.23 Halibut 41.6 3.9 9.4 44.5 4.2 -­‐7.0 -­‐0.29 -­‐13.2 -­‐0.55 Sablefish 27.9 1.2 4.3 23.8 1.0 -­‐5.1 -­‐0.05 -­‐9.2 -­‐0.09 Crab 26.7 1.3 4.9 34.7 1.7 -­‐4.0 -­‐0.07 -­‐5.8 -­‐0.09 Prawn and shrimp 30.3 1.2 4.0 34.0 1.3 -­‐8.4 -­‐0.11 -­‐20.1 -­‐0.27 Geoduck and horse clam 39.4 0.7 1.8 33.8 0.6 -­‐5.0 -­‐0.03 -­‐9.4 -­‐0.06 Red urchin 8.3 1.1 13.3 5.2 0.7 -­‐4.5 -­‐0.03 -­‐15.8 -­‐0.11 Sea cucumber 1.7 0.2 11.8 1.7 0.2 -­‐7.0 -­‐0.02 -­‐14.8 -­‐0.05 Intertidal clam 5.6 3.4 60.7 5.6 3.4 -­‐1.4 -­‐0.03 -­‐2.3 -­‐0.05 TOTAL 363.7 51.6 18.4 254.7 40.9 TOTAL -­‐6.72 TOTAL -­‐11.82 47 Table 2.9 Impacts to landed revenue (in 2010 value) within the Haida traditional fishing area relating to commercial fisheries (average annual values from Pinfold 2010). RCP2.6 RCP8.5 Commercial fishery Data period Avg. total annual value ($ millions CAD) Change in catch potential Potential loss in landed value ($ millions CAD) Change in catch potential Potential loss in landed value ($ millions CAD) Sablefish trap and longline 96-­‐04 27.8 -­‐8.4 -­‐2.34 -­‐6.7 -­‐1.86 Halibut longline 96-­‐05 23.3 -­‐9.0 -­‐2.10 -­‐15.6 -­‐3.63 Crab 00-­‐04 16.4 -­‐7.0 -­‐1.15 -­‐8.2 -­‐1.34 Geoduck 00-­‐05 4.66 -­‐1.0 -­‐0.05 11.0 0.51 Red urchin 00-­‐05 0.99 -­‐5.3 -­‐0.05 -­‐13.1 -­‐0.13 Rockfish 93-­‐04 0.74 -­‐2.2 -­‐0.02 -­‐2.3 -­‐0.02 Pacific razor clam 95-­‐09 0.31 -­‐7.7 -­‐0.02 -­‐8.7 -­‐0.03 Herring 96-­‐08 0.05 -­‐29.5 -­‐0.01 -­‐47.2 -­‐0.02 Shrimp and prawns 96-­‐04/ 01-­‐04 1.16 -­‐8.4 -­‐0.10 -­‐15.7 -­‐0.18 Salmon, coho 01-­‐07 0.80 -­‐4.4 -­‐0.04 -­‐13.3 -­‐0.11 Salmon, pink 01-­‐07 0.09 -­‐35.2 -­‐0.03 -­‐41.3 -­‐0.04 Salmon, chum 01-­‐07 0.09 -­‐4.4 -­‐0.004 -­‐10.2 -­‐0.01 Salmon, Chinook 01-­‐07 1.26 -­‐41.1 -­‐0.52 -­‐43.9 -­‐0.55 Salmon, sockeye 01-­‐07 0.03 -­‐7.6 -­‐0.002 -­‐37.7 -­‐0.01 TOTAL -­‐6.42 TOTAL -­‐7.43 2.3.3 Sensitivity analysis The majority of estimates obtained from the three SDMs for the 33 species examined were relatively similar and showed agreement regarding whether a species’ relative abundance was expected to decline, increase, or remain relatively neutral under RCP 8.5 (n = 25) (Figure 2.8). 16 of the 33 species tested had standard deviations equal to or below 10.0%, with an additional 10 species falling between 10.0% and 20.0%. For the remaining seven species, all but two (Pacific razor clam and albacore tuna) had estimates that agreed upon the direction of the change in catch potential. For example, AquaMaps and the DBEM 48 derived similar estimates for yellowfin sole (-­‐26.6% and -­‐26.0%, respectively) while Maxent yielded a much larger estimate of -­‐70.1%. However, no clear trend was observed with respect to model biases. In the razor clam example, the DBEM and Maxent models agreed regarding the direction of the shift in catch potential (-­‐13.8% and -­‐3.6%, respectively), countering the AquaMaps estimate that showed a 64.3% increase in relative abundance. The DBEM model occasionally showed larger estimates than those produced by either of the other two models. Two notable examples include those obtained for Pacific herring (S. sagax) and eulachon (T. pacificus). In the former instance, the DBEM model projected a 44.4% increase relative abundance versus the 4.8% and 6.3% increases projected by the other models. In the latter example, the DBEM projected a decline of 37.1% in contrast with the declines of 5.0% and 6.8% estimated by AquaMaps and Maxent. The results obtained from the DBEM for albacore tuna are likely inaccurate given small initial values of abundance and a projected decline of -­‐29.8% under RCP 8.5, which conflict with the strongly positive increases in catch potential projected under the other two SDMs (Maxent: 89.2%; AquaMaps: 274.2%)(Supplementary Table C1). Moreover, given that albacore is a warmer-­‐water species, theoretical and empirical evidence suggests a northward shift in abundance that would increase catch potential within BC’s EEZ (Cheung et al. 2010; Poloczanska et al. 2013). However, due to highly migratory patterns, accurately determining distributional shifts for pelagic species at higher trophic levels can prove challenging (Hazen et al. 2013). 49 Catch potential for 20 of the 27 functional groups used to assess sensitivity to interdecadal variation deviated little across the three time frames (σ ≤ 2.0%)(Figure 2.9). The five groups showing increased variability were oysters, sardines, tuna, herring, and eulachon (σ = 4.3% to 7.6%), the latter four of which are pelagic species whose productivity has been linked to interdecadal regimes, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (Chavez 2003). In spite of this variation, results for 26 of the 27 groups agreed on the directionality of the change in catch potential. The only exceptions to this were the catch potential estimates for greenlings, which were relatively neutral (-­‐1.8% to 2.6%)(Supplementary Table C2). 50 Figure 2.8 Testing sensitivity of results obtained for change in relative catch potential within British Columbia’s EEZ to the assumptions behind different species distribution models (DBEM, AquaMaps, and Maxent) under RCP 8.5. Aquamaps MaxentChinook salmonHumpback shrimpYellowfin soleHumpy shrimpPacific herringPink salmonFlathead soleArrowtooth flounderRock solePacific codEulachonCoho salmonEnglish soleChum salmonPacific halibutLingcodPrawn / northern shrimpWeathervane scallopPacific tomcodButter clamOlympia oysterYellowtail rockfishDungeness crabPacific razor clamSablefishPacific littleneck clamPacific cupped oysterSteelheadNuttall cockleRed rock crabPacific geoduckPacific sardineï ï ï ï     ï ï ï ï    Change in catch potential (%)Functional group or species Maxent(a) (b) DBEMAquaMapsModel 51 Figure 2.9 Sensitivity of results obtained for the upper-­‐bound climate change scenario (RCP 8.5) within the EEZ to (a) the selected time frame, tested using 20-­‐year averages centred around 2045 and 2050 (a 20-­‐year average centred on 2000 was maintained for comparison), and (b) interdecadal variability, tested using 20-­‐ and 30-­‐year averages centred on 2000 and 2045. (a) Time frame (2045 vs. 2050) (b) Interdecadal varLDELOLW\ ïYsïyear average)SardinesSturgeonGreenlingPerchLingcodRockfishSculpinsClamsScallopsBarnaclesOystersCrabHalibutElasmobranchAbaloneSea cucumberTroutRoundfishMusselsShrimp and prawnsUrchinsChitonsTunaSalmonFlounder and soleEulachonHerringï ï ï ï ï 0  20 30 40 ï ï ï ï ï 0  20 30 40Change in relative catch potential (%)Functional GroupLegend 20-year avg. centred on 2045 30-year avg. centred on 204520-year avg. centred on 2050 (study) 52 2.4 Discussion 2.4.1 Selection and use of the dynamic bioclimate envelope model (DBEM) The DBEM was selected for the purpose of this study due to the model’s capacity to predict large-­‐scale scenarios of ecological change for numerous species given limited biological and ecological data. Furthermore, the model is unique in its integration of population and dispersal dynamics, which aid in determining the biogeography of marine systems under scenarios of climate change (Cheung et al. 2008b). While this version of the DBEM does not explicitly incorporate additional factors such as the influence of trophic interactions, evolutionary change, or fishing pressure (Pearson and Dawson 2003), the use of empirically obtained habitat preferences based on species’ current distributions indirectly accounts for a ‘realized’ niche that is constrained by trophic interactions (Pearson and Dawson 2003). For example, when Fernandes et al. (2013) incorporated trophic interactions into the DBEM, they found that the resulting shift in species’ distributions differed only modestly, which they attributed to three potential reasons: (1) predators and prey movements are synchronized, responding within similar time frames and at similar capacities; (2) existing parameterization implicitly incorporates trophic interactions through established relationships that influence species’ current distributions; and (3) trophic interactions may not be the main drivers of responses to climate change (Fernandes et al. 2013). While it is felt that inclusion of trophic interactions may only marginally alter the conclusions of this study considering the results obtained by Fernandes et al. (2013), it is important to acknowledge the different scales of the analyses. Whereas the previous study was 53 conducted at the global level, it is necessary to consider that finer-­‐scale analyses may yield more nuanced results, with trophic interactions potentially playing a larger role in coastal regions and at localized scales. The trends obtained through this analysis are representative of those suggested in the literature, and are likely conservative given the potential for cumulative impacts that are not included in the present analysis (e.g., acidification, overfishing, habitat loss, etc.)(Cheung et al. 2011a). For instance, a recent study using a trophodynamic ecosystem model (Ecopath with Ecosim) projected a 77% to 85% reduction in fisheries landings along the Pacific Northwest Coast under the moderate and severe climate change scenarios, respectively, with range shifts accounting for a 54% reduction when considered in isolation (Ainsworth et al. 2011). Additionally, Ainsworth et al. (2011) projected increases in catch potential for shellfish and rockfish in northern British Columbia under some scenarios of climate change, which they attributed to range shifts. While Ainsworth et al. incorporated the DBEM methodology, similar trends have been detected or projected in other terrestrial and marine regions using different approaches (Perry et al. 2005; Brander 2010). 2.4.2 Uncertainties and assumptions There are a few areas of uncertainty that must be addressed: the initial species’ distributions used in the DBEM; the scale of the analysis; the variability between global climate models (GCMs); and the biological and sociological uncertainties relating to species’ and societies’ capacities to mitigate or respond to environmental change. 54 2.4.2.1 Initial species distributions Species distribution models are inherently contingent on our understanding of species’ environmental preferences and capacity to respond to environmental change. For this reason, model certainty is much higher for species of commercial importance, where extensive research has been conducted on life history traits, environmental tolerance limits, and the extent of distributions. Importantly, a species’ capacity to adapt is sensitive to the time scale over which a change occurs, as well as the magnitude of the change in environmental conditions, both of which can be further exacerbated when faced with multiple stressors. Given that other cumulative pressures are not accounted for in this study, inclusion of these factors (e.g., changes in fishing pressure, habitat loss, changes in predation, etc.) could alter estimated impacts. Moreover, this study does not account for all stages within the life cycles of diadromous species such as salmon, sturgeon, and eulachon. For this reason, anthropogenic or environmental impacts to freshwater systems may alter the projected results of this study for those species. This study assumes that species’ current distributions are in equilibrium with environmental conditions (Guisan and Thuiller 2005; Heikkinen et al. 2006), and thereby accurately reflect preferred habitat and environmental tolerance limits. However, given anthropogenic disturbances, it has been argued that ranges used in SDMs due not fully capture species’ historical ranges, which could lead to biases in estimates of species’ current environmental tolerance limits (Jones et al. 2013). Within the scope of BC’s EEZ, however, such biases would likely be less prominent given that the majority of species examined in this analysis—with a few exceptions (e.g., invasive species, such as manila and 55 varnish clams, or the extirpation of individual stocks of salmon and eulachon)—have varied largely in abundance under pressures, but have maintained their approximate historical range within this region, or occupy other areas with similar habitat. 2.4.2.2 Scale of analysis The resolution of current GCMs is most suited to large-­‐scale, regional analyses due to the intricacies of representing fine-­‐scale ocean dynamics. In particular, there has been a concerted effort towards resolving coastal mixing processes and mesoscale eddies within GCMs (Delworth et al. 2012). While analyses at the scale of the EEZ can provide greater certainty with respect to regional impacts to fisheries, our understanding of impacts to coastal communities is therefore less certain due both to the complicated dynamics of coastal systems and the finer scale of the analysis. 2.4.2.3 Global climate models (GCMs) The use of different GCMs can yield a key source of uncertainty for DBEMs due to the direct relationship between the initial climate simulation and the estimates derived (Tabor and Williams 2010). To counter this uncertainty, multi-­‐model ensembles have been shown to improve projections by accounting for model-­‐selection uncertainty and providing an ensemble of data that tends to agree better with observations (Fordham et al. 2011). Since this analysis evaluates scenarios generated from one coupled atmosphere-­‐ocean global climate model (GFDL’s ESM2M), the inclusion of additional SDM-­‐GCM combinations would 56 help to further elucidate areas of uncertainty in model outputs, and to explore inter-­‐model variation (Jones et al. 2014). 2.4.2.4 Species’ phenological and genetic responses to environmental change Despite globally consistent examples of poleward range shifts exhibited by species in response to climate change (Poloczanska et al. 2013; Perry 2005), recent studies have argued that focusing predominantly on unidirectional shifts may, in fact, underestimate the true impacts of climate change on species’ distributions due to the complexity of potential configurations of the variables that instigate the shifts (VanDerWal 2012). Since climatic niches are not necessarily associated with a latitudinally-­‐defined gradient, it is feasible that outlying habitat situated nearby—or even closer to the equator—may provide refuge for species seeking new climate niches. While likely having little effect on projections at the global scale, finer-­‐scale analyses—such as that outlined in this study—must acknowledge this uncertainty surrounding multi-­‐dimensional shifts (VanDerWal 2012). Furthermore, it is important to note that changes in species’ depth within the water column were not analysed in this study, but have been shown or projected to occur in response to climate change (Dulvy et al. 2008; Cheung et al. 2011a). Given the regional nature of this analysis, such multi-­‐dimensional shifts may help to explain some of the variation exhibited in the projected range shifts (Appendix B, Supplementary Table B3). Notably, range shifts are projected to occur at slower rates than those projected for marine species in other studies (Perry et al. 2005; Poloczanska et al. 2013; Jones et al. 2013; Cheung et al. 2010). This is likely an artefact of the method used in this analysis to 57 calculate latitudinal shifts, which entailed subsetting data to those situated within BC’s EEZ in order to estimate the rate of change exclusively within this region. At this scale, more nuanced, multi-­‐dimensional shifts (as described above) are captured due to fine-­‐scale coastal dynamics and localized temperature gradients that influence species’ responses (Burrows et al. 2014)(see Appendix E, Supplementary Table E2). Additionally, the rate at which different species can genetically and phenotypically evolve to accommodate environmental change is an important area of uncertainty that has been explored through various studies (Hoffmann and Willi 2008; Hoffmann and Sgrò 2011; Cheung et al. 2013a). To date, research suggests that marine species may not have the capacity to genetically adapt to meet the observed rate of environmental change, as indicated by observed shifts in species distributions (IPCC 2014). Research is being conducted by the Changing Ocean Research Unit (CORU) to incorporate evolutionary adaptation into the DBEM. Ultimately, this model is intended to generate hypotheses based on empirical habitat preferences and life history parameters that can serve to explore questions regarding potential impacts to First Nations’ fisheries under climate change scenarios. Additional research would be necessary to explore the genetic and intergenerational adaptive capacity of species to climatic change with regards to inter-­‐ and intraspecific interactions, ocean acidification, and habitat occupation. 58 2.4.3 Implications for First Nations Critically, three marine resources of essential importance to First Nations are projected to decrease considerably across their entire range throughout British Columbia: Pacific herring (C. pallasii), eulachon (T. pacificus), and salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.). Given the existing restrictions applied to the harvest of eulachon in response to its listing as Endangered under COSEWIC (DFO 2013a), as well as the critical role played by salmon and herring in the cultural traditions and diets of First Nations coastwide, these results illustrate the necessity of producing management frameworks that proactively plan for both mitigation and adaptation responses under a range of climate change scenarios (discussed further in Chapter 3). The aggregated results conveyed in the above analysis do not account for preferential harvest of species. For example, catch potential for Pacific razor clams (Siliqua patula)—a culturally, economically, and nutritionally important species for the Haida Nation—is projected to decline by 7.7 to 8.7 per cent in the Haida’s DFA under these scenarios. While this projected decline is offset through a potential increase in catch potential for manila clams (Venerupis philippinarum, 5.3 to 19.8%), butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus, -­‐1.0 to 5.9%), and Pacific geoducks (Panopea abrupta, -­‐1.0 to 11.7%), decreased abundance of razor clams would have economic, cultural, and nutritional consequences. Furthermore, declines in a species’ relative abundance might be disproportionately distributed within a First Nation’s territory. For instance, Pacific razor clams are normally harvested on the northeast coast of Haida Gwaii; therefore, a decline in their abundance would 59 predominantly affect the Massett Haida who reside nearby (Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study Participants et al. 2011). These estimates must be interpreted cautiously when comparing impacts between territories for two reasons: (1) the declines shown for a given species are relative to its initial abundance within a particular territory, which may differ greatly between territories, and (2) the impacts are relative to the size of each territory, leading to potential misrepresentation of the relative magnitude of impacts through comparison. For example, comparing the change in relative catch potential for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) between the Haida and Tsawwassen would yield misleading results given the large differential in both the size of their territories and the relative abundance of halibut within them. Furthermore, a species such as halibut may hold great economic and cultural importance to one Nation, while another Nation places more importance on eulachon. For these reasons, context must be taken into account when considering the management and conservation implications of climate change. Moreover, while the change in species richness depicted between 2000 and 2050 could be construed as natural variation (Figure 2.3(b)), the calculation does not capture the possibility of a high species turnover rate, and employs a high threshold for determining presence or absence within a given cell (absent = ’0’, present > ‘0’), which may not be representative of population dynamics for certain species. Therefore, while the relative biodiversity in 2050 may remain approximately equivalent to that observed in 2000, species composition might differ considerably within each territory. 60 Indeed, while the phrase “invasive species” frequently accompanies detrimental findings, those highlighted in this study may provide a viable alternative to balance the declines in catch potential projected for other culturally and economically important species under climate change. The projected decline in Pacific herring across all SDMs and both RCPs leads to questions regarding appropriate mitigation strategies and alternative sources of nutrition and commercial harvest for First Nations. While Pacific sardines (Sardinops sagax) do not form part of the traditional diet and ancestral heritage of First Nations (DFO 2012), their nutritional value and biology are comparable to that of herring, both falling under the family Clupeidae. Furthermore, since First Nations held the majority of the sardine by seine licenses (58%) in 2003 (James 2003), an increased relative abundance of sardines may yield opportunities to increase participation in the commercial fishery. Though less certain due to differing results from the DBEM, it is also possible that catch potential for albacore tuna may increase according to projections obtained from Maxent and AquaMaps (89.2% and 274.2%, respectively). While poleward shifts indicate other potential increases in harvest opportunities for northern communities under some scenarios, the conditions necessary for a species to colonize new regions may not exist. For instance, 16 of the species included in this analysis are listed at the provincial, national, or international level as being at risk of extinction. Thus, while the relative abundance of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) may be projected to increase along the North and Central Coasts, the accompanying declines in the Strait of Georgia—most notably in the lower Fraser River basin, where it is projected to decrease by between 22.3% and 22.9%—combined with the species’ slow reproductive 61 capacity and conservation status (Endangered under COSEWIC) demonstrate the importance of considering a species’ capacity to respond to multiple pressures. Given these projections, unsuccessful colonization of new habitats could lead to extirpation or extinction (Brander 2007). Another example of the importance of context relates to the effects of climate change on the landed revenue obtained by First Nations’ fisheries. While this analysis focuses on examples of potential impacts through forfeited revenue derived from landings, many auxiliary sectors providing employment to local residents would also experience losses associated with climate-­‐related shifts in species abundance and distribution. For instance, a survey of the North and Central Coasts in 2009 found that 52% and 51% of respective residents have held a job related to the marine sector, with the majority of jobs falling under the categories of cannery worker, fish plant worker, fisheries technician, commercial fisherman, and crabber, among other fisheries-­‐related work (Ference Weicker & Company Ltd 2009)—all of whom would likely experience losses in revenue under the depicted scenarios. 2.4.4 Climate-­‐resilient pathways for First Nations Spatial trade-­‐offs associated with the redistribution of marine resources are expected to complicate marine management (IPCC 2014), but may yield opportunities to implement cross-­‐boundary fishing agreements and strengthen trade between First Nations to minimize localized impacts (Grossman 2008). Such agreements would not only help to fortify responses to changes in resource availability, having been used historically for this 62 purpose (Turner et al. 2003), but could also support the continuation of cultural traditions (see Chapter 3). This study highlights the importance of incorporating clauses within the framework of First Nations’ treaties that outline provisions for accommodating present and future environmental change. Under the circumstances shown, shifts in the abundance and distribution of species would produce challenges regarding equitable allocation of commercial harvesting quotas and sufficient resources to sustain FSC harvesting rights. Diversification of commercial and FSC harvests to include incoming species may help to offset some of the impacts to catch potential, but may also require further investment in other gear types or procurement of new knowledge with respect to harvesting methods. It is important to note that the obtained estimates solely reflect potential impacts to the relative availability of species for the purpose of commercial or FSC harvesting through irrecoverable catch, which, for the purpose of FSC traditions, would need to be replaced either through additional expense or with alternative species. Furthermore, these estimates are likely conservative given the additional pressures—both environmental and anthropogenic—that play a role in determining species’ responses to climatic change. For these reasons, the provided estimates should be treated as exploratory considerations rather than as guidelines informing fisheries stock management decisions. Moreover, this analysis does address the intrinsic impacts to communities that extend to the transfer of traditional knowledge between generations, the traditions of reciprocity and ceremonial practices that aid in maintaining community relationships, and the spiritual essence of— 63 and ancestral connections to—the marine environment, amongst other impacts. However, many of these aspects will be discussed in Chapter 3. 2.5 Conclusion Model results obtained through this analysis project a trend of declining relative catch potential across each of the First Nations’ territories and for the majority of functional groups within British Columbia’s EEZ under both the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. While cumulatively declining, impacts to relative catch potential vary largely across regions, exhibiting localized and latitudinal trends. Results illustrate a strong positive correlation between latitude and relative catch potential, with northern territories experiencing less severe declines than their southern counterparts. These trends support previous findings that suggest differential impacts that are spatially distinct (Cheung et al. 2010; Sumaila et al. 2011), requiring assessment of the economic, management, and ethical implications of an unequal distribution of losses and benefits. In particular, our results show the need to mitigate the likely future inequities arising from the reallocation of species’ relative abundance and distributions along BC’s coast. These inequities would be of particular note for First Nations due to their intrinsic connection to the marine environment through knowledge, tradition, spirit, nutrition, and economy. Given the potential for declines in species of key importance to coastal First Nations—such as those projected for salmon, eulachon, and herring in this study—attention needs to shift towards practical applications to mitigate and, if necessary, equitably accommodate the fisheries impacts that are likely to accompany climate change. 64 Rather than providing specific targets or predictions, the results from this study are intended to inform our understanding of likely scenarios of climate-­‐related impacts to First Nations’ commercial and FSC, and to thereby enable us to identify potential risks and appropriate strategies that could facilitate mitigation or adaptation to changes in the marine environment. 65 3 SCENARIO-­‐BASED FRAMEWORK FOR EXPLORING CLIMATE-­‐RESILIENT PATHWAYS FOR COASTAL FIRST NATIONS’ FISHERIES 3.1 Introduction Small-­‐scale and subsistence fisheries are of critical importance to food security and poverty alleviation worldwide, employing more than 90 per cent of capture fishers and directly affecting about 357 million people (FAO 2012). Given this importance, theoretical and empirical evidence of poleward range shifts for many marine species under climate change (Perry et al. 2005; Feary et al. 2013; Cheung et al. 2013b; Poloczanska et al. 2013) has led to concern regarding potential socio-­‐economic and nutritional impacts to fisheries-­‐dependent communities (Badjeck et al. 2010; Madin et al. 2012; Barange et al. 2014). In particular, implications for the nutritional, economic, and cultural wellbeing of marginalized Indigenous communities dependent upon marine ecosystems—such as those situated along the northern and Pacific coastlines of Canada—have been explored in the contexts of vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity (Paci et al. 2004; Guyot et al. 2006; Ford et al. 2008; Turner and Clifton 2009). For First Nations residing in what is now known as coastal British Columbia, traditional lifeways connected to the marine environment have been traced to more than 10,000 years before present (Ames 2002; Erlandson et al. 2008; Turner and Clifton 2009; Erlandson et al. 2011). During this period, marine faunal abundances and distributions varied in response to climatic change, the rising and ebbing of sea levels following the Last Glacial Maximum, and geomorphic processes (Butler and Campbell 2004). While human 66 populations occupying the coast during this extensive period accommodated changes in fishing techniques, targeted species, and settlement conditions in response to such environmental fluxes (Trosper 2003; Orchard 2008; Turner and Clifton 2009; Orchard and Szpak 2011), the marine environment served as an ongoing provider of the resources required to fulfil the economic and food, social, and ceremonial (FSC) needs and values of First Nations. Despite this demonstration of considerable resilience to climatic variability and changes in resource abundance over the past millennia, as documented through the archaeological record and ancestral memory (Orchard and Clark 2005; Turner and Clifton 2009; Orchard and Szpak 2011), present uncertainty with respect to climate-­‐related changes in marine resources is compounded with the rate at which atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing, which is very likely (with over 90% certainty) unprecedented during the First Nations’ occupation of the Pacific Northwest Coast (IPCC 2013a); the political and administrative constraints imposed by an unresolved colonial history (Newell 1993; Jones et al. 2004; Menzies and Butler 2008); and the decline of traditional marine resources associated with mismanagement and increased commercial pressure from external fisheries (Turner and Turner 2007; Menzies and Butler 2007; Menzies 2010). These confounding factors make it increasingly difficult for First Nations to exercise the strategies they have historically used to accommodate environmental change (Turner et al. 2013). Indigenous fisheries knowledge systems have been acknowledged for their unique worldviews and knowledge relating to ecological systems (Berkes et al. 2000; Menzies and 67 Butler 2007), with studies increasingly urging active integration of traditional knowledge systems and Western science in order to leverage their collective expertise (Moller et al. 2004; Houde 2007; Turner and Spalding 2013), most notably in the area of climate change (Grossman 2008). However, the methods by which such collaboration could be established are more tenuous: although conceptual frameworks have been proposed (Reidlinger and Berkes 2001; Turner and Spalding 2013), issues arise when translating knowledge derived from different epistemologies (Hawley et al. 2004; Turner et al. 2013). Furthermore, misinterpretation and misapplication of traditional knowledge can prove detrimental (Berkes 1999), which highlights the importance of including traditional knowledge holders in resource management decisions and practices. While integration could offer an opportunity to align management objectives and reduce conflict, only a few examples of co-­‐management exist in the context of Pacific First Nations’ fisheries, with existing agreements often occurring in circumstances where there are few competing stakeholders and claims (e.g., the Haida commercial razor clam fishery (DFO and Council of the Haida Nation 2013), the Heiltsuk intertidal clam fishery (Heiltsuk First Nation and DFO 2010), and the Nisga’a Fisheries Program (Garner and Parfitt 2006; Nisga'a Lisims Government 2012)). Moreover, there is uncertainty regarding whether these examples approach the level of joint-­‐management representative of an equal playing field, constituting “the shared authority and responsibility of First Nations and the Government of Canada for the management of fisheries, aquatic and oceans resources, based on the best available knowledge to promote the long-­‐term sustainable use of those resources” (Rusnak 1997; Assembly of First Nations 2011). 68 Despite this uncertainty, unequivocal climate change (IPCC 2013b) reinforces the impetus to establish common and equitable terms with which to negotiate fisheries management, particularly in the context of First Nations’ unceded territorial and legal rights to marine resources. Corresponding with Article 8(j) of the United Nation’s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), of which Canada is a signatory, Aichi Biodiversity Target 18 states that, By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels (CBD Secretariat 2013). Thus, given the projected range shifts and declining abundance of First Nations’ culturally-­‐ and commercially-­‐important species discussed in Chapter 2, it is necessary to consider how federal fisheries management strategies might be effectively aligned with First Nations’ traditional strategies to alleviate fisheries impacts associated with climate change. This chapter aims to explore these strategies through an interdisciplinary analysis of climate-­‐resilient pathways that have aided coastal First Nations in mitigating and adapting to disturbances in the context of marine resource use, drawing from a literature review of historical responses to fluctuations or declines in resource abundance. Specifically, this 69 study explores how traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) could be applied to counter the climatic impacts projected in this study, and highlights potential barriers to successful mitigation and adaptation in the context of fisheries management. I begin by providing contextual clarification regarding the phrase ‘climate-­‐resilient pathways,’ the concept of ‘wellbeing,’ and the difficulty of describing adaptation as “successful.” I then proceed to discuss the worldview and values held by First Nations that are essential to understanding the interrelationships between culture, resource management, and wellbeing in an Indigenous context, and outline examples of traditional fisheries management strategies employed by First Nations, using specific pre-­‐ and post-­‐contact6 examples described in the ethnographic and archaeological literature. Lastly, I engage in a theoretical discussion of how these strategies could be applied to support sustainable fisheries adaptation trajectories through three case studies of fisheries management under climate change: the Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) and herring spawn-­‐on-­‐kelp (SOK) fisheries; the intertidal clam fisheries; and the salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) fisheries. In doing so, I highlight areas of reconciliation between First Nations and federal fisheries management strategies, focusing on potential strengths achieved with adaptive management approaches. 3.2 Climate-­‐resilient pathways and the concept of wellbeing Climate-­‐resilient pathways are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as sustainable-­‐development trajectories that combine adaptation and mitigation to reduce climate change and its impacts (IPCC 2014). Within this framework, the concept of 6 Prior to (end of the Pleistocene to 1778 AD), and following contact (1778 AD to present) with European settlers. 70 resilience has been qualified as the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance by altering its state such that it can accommodate the disturbance while still retaining its essential functional and structural identity (Walker et al. 2004; Folke et al. 2010; IPCC 2014). Such pathways require explicit objectives in order to assess the degree to which adaptation trajectories have sufficiently “moderate[d] harm or exploit[ed] beneficial opportunities” (IPCC 2007) and thereby demonstrated adaptive capacity, or “the capacity of actors in a system to influence resilience” (Folke et al. 2010). Critically, the concepts of adaptation and resilience outlined above are not necessarily indicative of collective wellbeing. Recently, increased attention has been allocated towards the consequences of adaptation and an unequal distribution of impacts both between and within societies (Adger et al. 2007; Coulthard 2012). ‘Wellbeing’ is a challenging yet useful concept that is as ubiquitous as it is multifaceted. Contextually, McGregor (2008) argues that wellbeing “is a state of being with others, which arises where human needs are met, where one can act meaningfully to pursue one’s goals, and where one can enjoy a satisfactory quality of life” (McGregor 2008). In other words, wellbeing derives from three essential outcomes: needs met; freedoms achieved; and quality of life achieved (Coulthard et al. 2011). While these would differ according to the values and aspirations of each community, and would further vary for each member within that community, Coulthard et al. (2011) argue that these operate as universal indicators of wellbeing across geographically, culturally, and politically diverse societies. Thus, the cultural milieu from which such wellbeing derives can offer a foundation for assessing the degree to which adaptive measures successfully meet a community’s collective wellbeing. Moreover, while 71 culture can play a critical role in strengthening a community’s capacity to adapt, the trajectory undertaken can lead to significant and potentially detrimental cultural transformations (Ensor and Berger 2009) that must be anticipated when considering appropriate mitigation and adaptation strategies. Adaptation and coping strategies to environmental change have been classified—in the broadest sense—as: share the loss, bear the loss, modify the events, prevent the effects, change use or change location (Burton et al. 1993). For fisheries, changes in the availability of marine resources could initially result in multiple coping strategies, including “fishing harder” for remaining species, changing fishing grounds, or either temporarily or permanently leaving the industry (McClanahan et al. 2005; Brookfield et al. 2005; Pinsky and Fogarty 2012). However, such responses are—as the name would suggest—compensatory: they do not necessarily reflect long-­‐term adaptation and, moreover, they do not guarantee community well-­‐being (Coulthard 2012) and an equal distribution of the benefits and burdens of adaptation (Daw et al. 2008; Osbahr et al. 2010). While adaptation strategies can provide new opportunities for improved efficiency and decreased cost, they often require investments with respect to learning new skills, purchasing new gear, or spending more on fuel (Sumaila et al. 2011; Pinsky and Fogarty 2012) . Given these conditions, one would expect communal or individual resources and values to dictate the appropriate response, but at what hidden cost? While the implications of climate change have been considered in the context of human wellbeing, such analyses primarily discuss wellbeing within the framework of health, 72 livelihoods, and social and economic factors (IPCC 2014). Since wellbeing is a seemingly intangible and highly subjective target that is difficult to quantify, policymakers are encouraged to aim for more concrete objectives that are included within the scope of wellbeing, such as economic prosperity and food security. As persuasively argued by Turner et al. (2008), Invisible losses, by their very nature unrecognized and unacknowledged, are seldom considered, awarded compensation, or mitigated by decision makers and resource managers. Nevertheless, in terms of risk to peoples’ overall health and capacity for resilience, such losses may have even more profound impacts on individuals and communities than those that are more visible and widely acknowledged (Turner et al. 2008). In the context of fisheries management, measurements of wellbeing and adaptive capacity often focus on socioeconomic status at scales ranging from the nation-­‐state to the individual fisher (Daw et al. 2012), with studies largely assessing the capacity or willingness of fishers’ to turn to alternative sources of income or food security (Cinner et al. 2009; McClanahan et al. 2013). The socioeconomic status of small-­‐scale fishers is evaluated according to several conventional variables: occupational structure, family size and age structure, cash and non-­‐cash income, consumption expenditure, education, house and consumer durables, public services, and social amenities (Aghazadeh 1994). However, such variables may inadequately assess the values, needs, and objectives that influence fishers’ behaviour and wellbeing within the context of traditional—and, in the context of this 73 paper, Indigenous—fishing communities. In reality, many adaptation measures following such definitions of wellbeing may prove unsuccessful, or even undesirable, as ways in which to maintain what is valued. Moreover, as it has been argued that adaptive capacity may be restricted by our values (Adger et al. 2009; O'Brien 2009), accurately defining these values is essential to ensuring that communities successfully maintain a level of wellbeing that encompasses their full set of values. As illustrated, qualifying adaptation as “successful” is often problematic due to the labyrinthine implications of a given strategy and the numerous stakeholders involved. However, classifying climate-­‐resilient trajectories requires identifying overarching community objectives that may inadequately represent the diverse needs of individual stakeholders within the community. While First Nations cannot be treated as homogenous, their underlying values and similar worldviews provide means of identifying key objectives and minimizing “invisible losses” that threaten cultural continuity (Turner et al. 2008). Moreover, First Nations have historically overcome impacts that are unequally distributed through systems of reciprocity (Trosper 2003), thereby demonstrating climate-­‐resilient pathways that are relevant to present efforts to mitigate climate change. 3.3 First Nations’ worldviews Three concentric levels of analysis inform the overarching worldviews that guide First Nations’ relationships with the ecological world: local knowledge systems that serve as the foundations upon which these relationships are based; the resource management systems that are informed by these knowledge systems; and the social institutions, or rules of 74 conduct, that reinforce the beliefs and actions that uphold these principles (Berkes 1999). These three levels are embedded within, and reciprocally influence, a worldview comprising knowledge, practices, and belief systems that guide First Nations’ perceptions of, and relationships with, the ecological world (Berkes 1999). This knowledge-­‐practice-­‐belief complex is often referred to as traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)(Berkes 1999), constituting a comprehensive and cumulative system of knowledge, practices, and beliefs that is unique to each Nation and has evolved over millennia (Berkes et al. 2000; Hawley et al. 2004). Through the intergenerational transfer of knowledge, traditional wisdom regarding phenological cycles, approaches to decision making, values and worldviews have evolved and endured over time (Turner et al. 2000; Turner and Spalding 2013). Pertaining to this knowledge are the myriad of species that play reoccurring roles within the spiritual, economic, nutritional, and social aspects of First Nations’ cultures (Garibaldi and Turner 2004). In particular, marine species feature prominently as supernatural beings within First Nations’ legends, which serve as vibrant depictions of events that bring meaning to traditions and reinforce intergenerational knowledge. The legends explain how landscapes were formed, knowledge attained, and lessons learned, operating in a manner akin to fables by upholding the spiritual, social, ecological, and cultural principles underpinning First Nation societies (Boas 2002). Not only do they demonstrate the importance of respect and reciprocity, but they also offer moral templates that guide interactions with the natural environment. 75 For example, many of the legends highlight repercussions associated with greed in the context of harvests and subsistence, wherein those who are greedy are punished. One such Kwakwaka’wakw tale tells of a monster Halibut whose greed prevented the animal people who lived in the world at that time from harvesting food; Raven punished Halibut by tricking him into boiling the waters and cooking himself, thereby providing the animal people with food and transforming the scraps into the little halibuts that exist today (Lelooska 1998). Similarly, a story inspired by the legends of Pacific Northwest First Nations tells of two twins, born with the crest of the Salmon, whose greed—illustrated by consuming the last fish, which was reserved for an elder—leads Thunderbird to transform them into a two-­‐headed sea serpent. The twins are later redeemed and transformed back into human form after defeating Killer Whale, who had greedily prevented the salmon from going up river to feed the people (Stimpson 2012). These legends also prove to be useful sources of information with regards to the cultural continuity of traditional foods and fishing technologies. For instance, other legends mention of the use of herring rakes and harpoons made of yew-­‐wood, as well as the consumption of “red snapper” (yelloweye rockfish, Sebastes ruberrimus), halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), shellfish, and barnacles, as indicated through the Nuu-­‐chah-­‐nulth story of “Kwo’tiath” (Boas 2002). As a means of illustrating this integral importance of many species to First Nations’ cultures, Garibaldi and Turner (2004) coined the phrase ‘cultural keystone species,’ mirroring that of ‘ecological keystone species.’ Cultural keystone species are defined as 76 species that shape cultural identity through inclusion in multiple facets of a community’s culture (Garibaldi and Turner 2004). However, akin to the cultures they inform, relationships with keystone species are dynamic, evolving over time in response to environmental and socio-­‐economic factors, including fluctuations in abundance and productivity, access to harvesting sites, economic means, and harvesting allocations (Garibaldi and Turner 2004). Critically, fluctuations in the abundance of marine biota do not solely represent issues relating to food or economic security for First Nations. Rather, life-­‐forms are viewed with an inherent respect established through ancient, fiduciary relationships, wherein the closest corresponding notion to Western scientific resource management comprises sustainable—or need-­‐based—harvesting that is both respectful and consensual (Turner and Jones 2000; Haggan et al. 2004; Menzies and Butler 2007). Though difficult to convey its importance adequately, the act of fishing has been described by First Nations as a source of fulfilment, reverence and identity (Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian 2005; Menzies 2010; Jacob et al. 2010), a means of transferring knowledge and values between generations (Haggan et al. 2004; Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study Participants et al. 2011), as a source of food, clothing, and medicine (Menzies 2010), and as a means of continuing ceremonial practices and trade (Menzies 2010). Markedly, economic values—in terms of the modern aim of maximizing profit and utility (van Putten et al. 2012)—were not the stated primary objective among the Haida when discussing responses to fluctuations or declines in resources; rather, statements of loss focused predominantly 77 on the impacts to food supply, social interactions, traditional knowledge, and ceremonial practices (Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study Participants et al. 2011). 3.4 Methods 3.4.1 Study regions Coastal British Columbia (BC) is characterized by considerable terrestrial and marine-­‐based diversity due to a temperate climate and coastal upwelling generating nutrient-­‐rich waters (Erlandson et al. 2008). These conditions yield highly productive environments with complex marine food webs and diverse coastal landscapes, from rocky intertidal zones, shallow rocky reefs, kelp forests, sandy nearshore areas, and estuarine ecosystems (Erlandson et al. 2008). While these regions share similar species assemblages and are driven by comparable environmental drivers (e.g., oceanic currents and wind-­‐driven upwelling)(Ainsworth et al. 2011), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) distinguishes between three ecozones: the North Coast (Hecate Strait and Haida Gwaii), the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI), and the Strait of Georgia (DFO 2010). In Chapter 2, a latitudinal trend in climate-­‐induced changes in fisheries catch potential was observed for First Nations’ domestic fishing areas (DFAs) within British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)(see Table 3.1). To accurately capture these latitudinal trends and to reflect the delineation of respective stocks considered in this analysis, we further divided the North Coast into three regions: the North Coast of the mainland (Dixon Entrance / Hecate Strait), the waters surrounding Haida Gwaii, and the Central Coast (Queen Charlotte Sound / Queen Charlotte Strait). 78 Table 3.1 Relative change in catch potential by domestic fishing area (derived from ‘Statement of Intent’ boundaries), as projected under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) climate change scenarios (Chapter 2). DOMESTIC FISHING AREA REGION APPROX. LATITUDE RCP2.6 (%) RCP8.5 (%) Tsimshian1, 2 North Coast 52° -­‐ 55°N -­‐4.6 -­‐3.2 Haida Haida Gwaii 51° -­‐ 55° N -­‐5.8 -­‐6.6 Heiltsuk Central Coast 51° -­‐ 53.5° N -­‐6.6 -­‐7.9 ‘Namgis Central Coast 50.5° -­‐ 51.0° N -­‐7.9 -­‐8.2 Tla’amin Strait of Georgia 49.0° -­‐ 50.5° N -­‐21.1 -­‐22.0 Tsawwassen Strait of Georgia 48.5° -­‐ 49.5° N -­‐15.2 -­‐27.4 Maa-­‐nulth West Coast Vancouver Island 47.5° -­‐ 50.5° N -­‐25.8 -­‐27.8 EEZ All 47.5° -­‐ 55° N -­‐4.5 -­‐10.7 1 For the purpose of this chapter, we broadened the North Coast sample to five Tsimshian Nations to accurately represent the major spawning locations of the stocks considered in our case studies. For projections, please see Appendices D through F. 2 It is important to note that the territories represented in this analysis only includes those outlined in the Statements of Intent submitted during the BC Treaty Process. As such, not all members or territories within a Nation or group may be represented. For example, as of 2013, only five Nations of the Tsimshian peoples were members of the Tsimshian First Nations Treaty Society, which submitted the SOI map used in this analysis: Gitga’at, Kitasoo/Xaixais, Kitselas, Kitsumkalum, and Metlakatla (AANDC 2014). The Gitxa’ala Nation and Lax Kw’alaams were negotiating separately at that time. 3.4.1.1 North Coast The North Coast as it is defined in this analysis includes the traditional territories of the Tsimshian (here, referring to Nations sharing ‘Statement of Intent’ (SOI) areas as members of the Tsimshian First Nation Treaty Society in the BC Treaty Process), which encompass the waters within the Hecate Strait, between the northern tip of Queen Charlotte Sound and the Dixon Entrance (approximately between 52°N and 55°N). While our scope does not include other coastal Nations that occupy this region (e.g., Lax Kwa’alaams, Gitx’aala, and Nisga’a Nation, to name a few), the findings are likely applicable to Nations whose 79 territories include coastal ecosystems with similar biophysical and latitudinal characteristics. This region is characterized by seasonal switches in upwelling and downwelling that drive productivity, variable patterns of freshwater runoff from watersheds, and strong tidal mixing between ecological interfaces (Okey et al. 2014). 3.4.1.2 Haida Gwaii The waters off of Haida Gwaii include those to the west, which follow a narrow continental shelf and are exposed to severe storms from the Pacific Ocean, and the semi-­‐protected waters of the Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance, and inlets. Wind-­‐driven currents dominate circulation during the winter, while freshwater-­‐driven estuarine circulation occurs in the summer, with large-­‐scale eddies common year-­‐round within the Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance (Johannessen et al. 2007). Of key biological importance are the estuaries, kelp beds, intertidal flats, and archipelagos and fjords that provide essential foraging habitats and nurseries for many fishes and invertebrates (Johannessen et al. 2007). This region comprises the traditional territory of the Haida Nation, which includes the communities of the Masset Haida at the northern end of Graham Island and the Skidegate Haida to the south. For the purpose of this study, I use the territory outlined in the Council of the Haida Nation’s Statement of Intent submitted to the BC Treaty Commission (AANDC and Government of Canada 2005). 80 3.4.1.3 Central Coast (Queen Charlotte Sound and Queen Charlotte Strait) The Central Coast comprises highly varied geographical features, including archipelagos, fjords, straits and channels, the continental slope, and diverse nearshore marine habitats, in addition to waterways that account for 537 known salmon producing systems and 6,276 kilometres of anadromous fish habitat (Haggarty et al. 2003). When discussing the Central Coast, we focus on the traditional waters of the Heiltsuk and ‘Namgis Nations, situated in Queen Charlotte Sound and Queen Charlotte Strait, respectively. Since DFO includes the waters off of north-­‐eastern Vancouver Island in their delineation of the Central Coast (statistical areas 12, 13 and 27)(Riddell 2004), the ‘Namgis Nation’s traditional territory was included within this region. The Heiltsuk and ‘Namgis are only a sample of the many Nations that occupy this region, but are representative of the impacts that may be encountered given areas with similar ecological and oceanographic conditions. 3.4.1.4 Strait of Georgia The Strait of Georgia is considered to be sensitive to climate change impacts due to its biophysical characteristics, history of anthropogenic modifications, and proximity to highly populated regions (Okey et al. 2014). Warming has occurred at all depths (surface to 300 metres) throughout this region between 1970 and 2006, and has been accompanied by variations in the oxygen concentration and pH of inflowing deep water, and in the timing of river discharges (DFO 2010). 81 Our sample for this region comprises the territories of the Tla’amin and Tsawwassen First Nations. However, given that these territories were converted to larger grid cells to accommodate the resolution of the data (see section 3.4.2 for details), the scope of the resulting estimates capture trends spanning the majority of the Strait of Georgia (see Figure 3.1). 3.4.1.5 West Coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI) The waters off of the west coast of Vancouver Island are distinctly different from those within the sheltered Strait of Georgia, comprising a highly variable and productive ecosystem with a much different climate from that of the eastern coast (Labelle 2009). Large-­‐scale pressure systems direct seasonally alternating surface water flows, with associated wind patterns creating upwelling in the summer and downwelling in the winter (DFO 2010). This region exhibits high levels of productivity that provide rich fishing grounds for benthic fish and invertebrates (Hunter et al. 2014) . For the purpose of this analysis, we focus on the waters belonging to the Maa-­‐nulth First Nations, which include those within Barkley Sound and Kyuquot Sound. The Maa-­‐nulth First Nations comprise the Huu-­‐ay-­‐aht, Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’/Chek’tles7et’h’, Toquaht, Uchucklesaht, and Ucluelet First Nations. 82 3.4.2 Data processing First Nations’ domestic fishing areas (DFAs) were derived from Statement of Intent (SOI) boundaries identified during the BC treaty process. These boundaries were then converted into 0.5° latitudinal x 0.5° longitudinal grid cells to correspond with the scale of existing biophysical data representing species habitat (Figure 3.1). Cells shared by more than one First Nation are denoted, but do not necessarily reflect an overlap in territorial claims due to the scale of the grid. It is important to note that these boundaries are approximate, and do not precisely reflect the full extent of territory previously used by First Nations, particularly with respect to the sharing of resources between communities (Turner and Jones 2000; Trosper 2003; Haggan et al. 2004). Rather, the boundaries serve to illustrate approximate areas requested by First Nations for FSC fishing purposes at the finest scale that can be reconciled with current species distribution modelling and global climate modelling (SDM-­‐GCM) approaches. 83 Figure 3.1 Maps outlining the conversion of (a) the sample of First Nations’ domestic fishing territories used in this analysis to (b) 0.5° latitudinal x 0.5° longitudinal grid cells forming five distinct regions along coastal British Columbia (Haida Gwaii, the North Coast, the Central Coast, the Strait of Georgia, and the west coast of Vancouver Island). 125°0'W125°0'W130°0'W130°0'W135°0'W135°0'W55°0'N50°0'N125°0'W130°0'W135°0'W55°0'N55°0'N50°0'N50°0'N45°0'N45°0'NHaida NationP a c i f i c O c e a nP a c i f i c O c e a nRegionsNorth CoastHaida GwaiiCentral CoastStrait of GeorgiaWest Coast Vancouver IslandFishing territoriesExclusive economiczone (EEZ)Unprocessed EEZRasterized EEZ0 200 400100KilometersHeiltsuk NationTsimshian Nations‘Namgis NationM aa-nulthNations Tsaw wassenNationTla’amin NationCentral CoastNor th CoastWest CoastVancouver IslandStrait of GeorgiaHaida GwaiiBC ’s exclusive economic zone PLEASE NOTE: These grids are not intended to represent precise ter r itor ialboundar ies, having been der ived fromStatement of I ntent boundar ies (2005) to cor respond with ecological habitat found fully or par tially within First Nations’ domestic fishing areas, as claimed through the BC treat y process.Ter r itor ies situated within the same0.5 ° lat. x 0.5 ° long. cell af ter conversionhave been denoted. These are not tobe used for legal or navigationalpur poses. (a)(b) 84 3.4.3 Literature review Climate-­‐resilient pathways were identified through reference to analogous pre-­‐ and post-­‐contact examples of traditional fisheries management strategies, as well as short-­‐term and long-­‐term strategies applied to mitigate or respond to aquatic resource fluctuations (Adger 2012; Adger 1999). The ethnographic and archaeological literature were reviewed to find examples of changes in the abundance, distribution, or accessibility of aquatic resources along coastal British Columbia from the end of the Pleistocene to present (11,700 YBP to present), differentiating between pre-­‐contact (preceding 1778 AD) and post-­‐contact (1778 AD to present) examples. The scope included seasonal or inter-­‐annual fluctuations in aquatic resource abundance and long-­‐term declines or increases associated with environmental change, a redistribution of access rights, or anthropogenic impacts, such as overfishing. In documenting these examples, I acknowledge the different temporal and socio-­‐political frames of reference that influence each response. For this reason, these examples are used to illustrate the considerable adaptability demonstrated by First Nations over different time scales and under different political and environmental regimes. These examples are intended to generate discussion and further research regarding the potential application of First Nations’ traditional fisheries management methods in the context of climate change along the Pacific Northwest Coast, focusing specifically on the integration of adaptive ecosystem-­‐based management approaches. 3.4.4 Scenario development Scenarios for changes in regional and coastwide fisheries catch potential were obtained from projected changes to species distributions and relative abundance within BC’s 85 exclusive economic zone (EEZ). These projections were derived from a species-­‐based dynamic bioclimate envelope model (DBEM) that employs macroecological theory—including population and ecophysiological dynamics—to project spatial changes in species relative abundance and distribution under environmental change (Cheung et al. 2008a; 2011a)(see Chapter 2, sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5, for further details). The scenarios used in this analysis provide the lower and upper estimates for changes to species relative abundance and distribution under the lower and upper scenarios of climate change defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(IPCC 2013a). These representative concentration pathways (RCPs)—2.6 (van Vuuren et al. 2006; 2007) and 8.5 (Rao and Riahi 2006; Riahi et al. 2007), respectively—reflect expert judgements regarding likely future scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions given socioeconomic, environmental, and technological trends (Moss et al. 2010). We selected three case studies of fisheries that are of considerable cultural and commercial importance to coastal First Nations: (1) the Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) and herring spawn-­‐on-­‐kelp (SOK) fisheries; (2) intertidal clam fisheries, which harvest butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus), littleneck clams (P. staminea), horse clams (Tresus capax), Pacific gaper (T. nuttallii), and Pacific geoducks (Panopea abrupta), and, more recently, manila (Venerupis philippinarum) and varnish clams (Nuttallia obscurata); and (3) the Pacific salmon fisheries (Oncorhynchus spp.). 86 3.4.5 Exploring climate-­‐resilient pathways There is a high level of uncertainty when assessing the vulnerability, exposure, and adaptive capacity of social-­‐ecological systems under future environmental change (IPCC 2014). For the reasons discussed previously (see section 3.2), adaptation can take many forms and does not necessarily lead to a successful transition to a new resilient state. Rather, adaptation can lead to an unequal distribution of impacts (IPCC 2014), undesirable cultural transformations (Ensor and Berger 2009), and “invisible losses” pertaining to values that sustain culture, identity, knowledge, and autonomy (Turner et al. 2008). For these reasons, we examine climate-­‐related impacts to First Nations’ fisheries specifically in the context of the potential to individually or collectively offset declines in catch potential through fisheries management strategies, spatial reallocations of resources or access rights, and/or supplementing catch through alternative marine resources. To provide a preliminary estimate of the potential for these offsets to occur, we refer to published scientific literature and projections obtained from Chapter 2. Since adaptive capacity within this context often entails successive processes by which implemented management strategies facilitate stakeholder responses that offset fisheries impacts, this study assumes that exclusive management would yield greater adaptive capacity for First Nations through autonomous decision-­‐making and reduced stakeholder conflict. Additionally, two key assumptions are made that are strongly supported by the literature: (1) coastal First Nations would prefer to continue fishing by either maintaining the status quo or increasing participation in commercial and traditional fisheries (Newell 1993; Jones et al. 2004; First Nations Leadership Council 2006), and (2) First Nations would prefer to 87 implement traditional fisheries management strategies and/or jointly or exclusively manage resources within their respective territories (Garibaldi and Turner 2004; King 2004; Elliott et al. 2012; Turner et al. 2013). In these case studies, I outline theoretical pathways associated with low, medium, and high levels of adaptive capacity that might be used to reduce or fully offset impacts to fisheries catch potential. Since a full assessment of viable mitigation and adaptation measures would require community-­‐based consultations to examine socio-­‐economic and cultural factors influencing responses, a binary approach (‘yes’ or ‘no’) is used to answer three questions: (1) is there potential to partially offset declines in catch potential? (2) is there potential to fully offset declines? and (3) is there potential to increase fisheries’ yield? These questions are answered through reference to projections obtained from Chapter 2 and existing literature regarding traditional fisheries management strategies, the degree of conflict exhibited within the fishing sector, the number of competing stakeholders, and the viability of options for reducing impacts through different mitigation strategies, as assessed through quantitative and qualitative studies. It is important to note that these pathways are intended to suggest theoretical approaches by which a given fishery could offset respective declines in catch potential, and do not capture the full range of subsequent ecological and economic impacts that might arise through the redistribution of fisheries effort. Therefore, while some scenarios represent largely internalized mechanisms that might enable First Nations to fully negate impacts within their traditional territories (e.g., the cultivation of highly productive clam beds), 88 most scenarios would to some extent necessitate a redistribution—or externalization—of impacts. While pathways are suggested for offsetting fisheries impacts based on the literature and projected changes in catch potential, this study does not speak to the probability or desirability of these pathways occurring since this would require community consultations and an in-­‐depth analysis of the broad range of risks, political and economic requirements, and key objectives associated with such pathways. This analysis is not meant to represent a full assessment of impacts, but rather to explore how scenarios of projected impacts to fisheries catch potential—derived from theoretical and empirical understanding of macroecological relationships—might be offset by incorporating TEK and Indigenous values into climate-­‐resilient pathways. 3.5 Results 3.5.1 Traditional management strategies The value of First Nations’ TEK lies in its intergenerational development and its community-­‐based nature, with both features having led to considerable localized experience responding to environmental fluctuations and long-­‐term shifts over millennia (Menzies and Butler 2007). These systems of knowledge are, in turn, used to inform resource management systems that comprise sets of practices, tools, and techniques guided by an understanding of ecological processes and relationships (Berkes 1999)(see Table 3.2 for examples). Given that these resource management systems have evolved over millennia in a manner akin to adaptive ecosystem management (Berkes et al. 2000; Trosper 2003), 89 with few of the impediments that are often faced when applying adaptive management in modern contexts (Walters 2007), their diachronic nature offers historical—albeit qualitative—baselines that are unparalleled in Western fisheries management. Thus, rather than placing TEK in juxtaposition Western management strategies and scientific knowledge, the strengths of each should be leveraged to maximize successful implementation of fisheries management approaches, focusing on the potential for dialogue and partnership (Berkes 2009). For example, the different knowledge held and landscapes occupied historically by First Nations led to what has been coined as the “edge effect,” where cultural and ecological edges offered means of accessing cross-­‐boundary knowledge and resources through trade or knowledge transfer (Turner et al. 2003). Such an exchange could be similarly—and successfully—promoted by deriving examples of the commonalities that exist between the differing management regimes. However, it is important to note the difficulty associated with translating knowledge between paradigms (Davis and Ruddle 2010), with many of the nuances remaining imperceptible to those raised outside of the tradition (Haggan et al. 2004). Just as cultural appropriation can lead to misuse without knowledge of its contextual purpose, use of TEK and accompanying management strategies requires the involvement of traditional knowledge holders to ensure that they are implemented correctly (Berkes 1999). 90 Table 3.2 A sample of First Nations’ traditional fisheries management approaches and analogous Western fisheries management strategies. TRADITIONAL STRATEGY/ TOOL DESCRIPTION SIMILAR “MODERN” METHODS REFERENCE(S) Selective fishing Use of selective fishing gear (e.g., stone traps) or harvested species only when at a certain size (e.g., shellfish). Fished stronger runs and at specific times of year to accommodate fluctuations. Targeted fisheries and size-­‐selective gear Haggan et al. 2004; Menzies and Butler 2007; White 2011 Goal-­‐oriented harvesting Pre-­‐estimate the amount of the resource required to fulfil nutritional and economic needs, aiming to meet – rather than exceed – this quantity. Quota-­‐based harvests Menzies and Butler 2007 Spatial management, or ‘area licensing’ Established a system of marine space that delineated harvest zones with restricted access and limited total yields. Management areas and limited entry Haggan and Brown 2003; Menzies and Butler 2007; Powell 2012 Clam gardens Enhancement of clam beds through engineered intertidal terraces that stabilize sediments at a specific tidal height in order to increase shellfish productivity. Mariculture Augustine and Dearden 2014; Groesbeck et al. 2014 Monitoring Monitored and controlled specific resources through designated individuals within a territory. Monitoring Newell 1993; Turner and Jones 2000 Seasonal migrations and rotational harvests Migrated to harvesting sites to accommodate seasonal cycles in resource abundance. Rotational or seasonal closures Turner et al. 2003; Turner and Turner 2007; Berkes 2009 Harvest moratorium Closed fisheries to harvesting when stocks were weak, or prohibiting fishing for two weeks until the strength of the run was assessed (e.g., The ‘First salmon rite’). Harvest closure Johnsen:2009vq Adaptive ecosystem-­‐based management Dynamically adapt ecosystem-­‐based management practices to test responses and modify based on feedback (e.g., clam gardens). Adaptive ecosystem management (Walters 2007) Berkes et al. 2000; Trosper 2003; Haggan et al. 2004; Lepofsky et al. 2005; FNLC 2006 91 At a glance, there is significant overlap between the traditional methods employed by First Nations and “modern” methods implemented by fisheries scientists and managers (see Table 3.2). However, the most evident distinctions between First Nations’ fisheries management strategies and those based on Western science appear to be that of scale and purpose. For example, whereas fisheries scientists aim to attain the maximum sustained biological (MSY) or economic yield (MEY) that falls within biological reference points (Hilborn and Walters 1992), as directed through quotas, First Nations used a quota-­‐based system to identify the targeted quantity of catch that would sufficiently meet their minimum economic and nutritional requirements (Menzies and Butler 2007). Gadgil et al. (1993) astutely note that the above methods—including mesh sizes, closed seasons, and quotas—are often insufficient to prevent the collapse of fisheries in situations where short-­‐term interests conflict with long-­‐term conservation objectives: Arriving at an appropriate set of restraints and implementing them is therefore not a simple matter of information transmission. Rather, implementation seems to be based on a complex set of ‘rules of thumb’ arrived at through accumulated historical experience. Compliance is often facilitated through religious belief, ritual, and social conventions… (Gadgil et al. 1993). 92 While this can be true under both traditional and modern management strategies, First Nations more commonly operate under a value-­‐based paradigm that aligns harvesting objectives with a conservation ethic (Augustine and Dearden 2014) . I argue that a key aspect underlying the resilience exhibited by coastal First Nations’ fisheries is the inherent integration of adaptive ecosystem management into their practices, thereby accommodating and responding to uncertainty. 3.5.2 Examples of fisheries-­‐related mitigation and adaptation 3.5.2.1 Pre-­‐contact examples (late Pleistocene to late Holocene) Human occupation and expansion along the northern Pacific Northwest coast of present-­‐day North America is estimated to have begun as early as the end of the Pleistocene (13,000 YBP to 11,500 YBP), or as late as during the early Holocene (ca. 11,700 to 10,000 YBP), subsequent to the dramatic shifts in landscape that occurred during three warm periods (ca. 18,200 to 17,200, 16,800 to 16,300, and 16,200 to 14,700 YBP) that followed the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)(Ames 2003; Sarnthein et al. 2006; Menzies and Butler 2007; Erlandson et al. 2008; Groesbeck et al. 2014). The “coastal migration theory,” wherein maritime peoples are said to have followed North Pacific shorelines from northeast Asia into the Americas, has become mainstream through an extensive review of archaeological sites throughout the Pacific Northwest (Erlandson et al. 2008), correlating with First Nations’ ancestral accounts of coastal occupation for many millennia. 93 While the resource-­‐rich coastline of British Columbia supported human settlement with the warming trends that followed the LGM, resources were—as they are now—both broadly distributed and highly clustered, varying geographically and seasonally (Deur 1999; Butler and Campbell 2004; Erlandson et al. 2008). Variations in coastal productivity and diversity associated with differences in upwelling, water temperature, coastline type, freshwater or estuarine input, wave energy, and tidal amplitude, among other factors (Erlandson et al. 2008), elicited distinctive and dynamic adaptation strategies to accommodate ever-­‐changing landscapes and instigated competition over ideally situated resources (Tsawwassen First Nation et al. 1998). As Douglas Deur (1999) asserts, “the prehistory of Northwest Coast subsistence appears to have involved peoples’ efforts to maximize output from, and tribal control over, a finite range of conveniently located, resource-­‐rich sites” (Deur 1999). The acquisition of ecological and cultural “edges,” signifying the convergence between two or more landscapes and cultures, respectively, is argued to have increased the resilience of First Nations through increased access to resources and traditional knowledge within this ecologically complex landscape (Turner et al. 2003). These synergistic relationships were among the many strategies employed by First Nations to mitigate and respond to fluctuations in resource abundance, which included: relocating settlements; implementing harvest control rules; strengthening trade and establishing co-­‐use harvest agreements (Turner and Clifton 2009); increasing mobility and harvest capacity through the development of boats (Ames 2002; Turner and Spalding 2013); designing new tools and harvest methodologies (Newell 1993); diversifying harvests; and improving storage 94 technologies (Cannon 1998; Trosper 2003; Ames 2003; Butler and Campbell 2004). In particular, boats served not only to support regional trade expansion, but also allowed for increased mobility and flexibility among communities that strengthened responses to environmental change and resource fluctuations (Ames 2002). Boats also facilitated the mass harvest of more remote species—specifically, marine species—and provided the means by which to transport a large catch to residential sites (Ames 2002). Alongside these technological advancements, First Nations developed a complex arrangement of social institutions and knowledge that were employed to reinforce ecological stewardship and to mitigate aquatic resource fluctuations (Table 3.3). Table 3.3 Social institutions and knowledge employed by coastal First Nations to mitigate aquatic resource fluctuations. STRATEGY/TOOL DESCRIPTION REFERENCE(S) Potlatch ceremony and systems of reciprocity Ceremonial feasts operating on the principal of reciprocity, wherein exchanges of food between houses ensured the equitable distribution of food (a form of insurance). Trosper 2002; Menzies and Butler 2007; Turner and Clifton 2009 Contingent proprietorship Titleholder’s proprietorship was contingent upon correct management decisions, good stewardship of the resource, and the ability to give away surplus generated by the resource. Gadgil et al. 1993; Trosper 2003; Turner and Spalding 2013 Phenological cues or indicators Seasonal cues indicative of appropriate times to conduct harvests. Trosper 2002; Turner and Clifton 2009 International trade Trade between First Nations allowed for spatial redistribution of impacts and increased access to alternative sources of food. Lepofsky et al. 2005; Menzies and Butler 2007; Erlandson et al. 2008; Turner and Clifton 2009 95 STRATEGY/TOOL DESCRIPTION REFERENCE(S) Traditional knowledge Allowed for intergenerational continuation of sustainable fishing practices through knowledge transfer, thereby mitigating future fluctuations in resource abundance. Turner et al. 2000; Johnsen 2009 Marriage alliances Strengthened inter-­‐familial relationships that provided preferential access to resource sites. Trosper 2003; Lepofsky et al. 2005; Turner and Clifton 2009 Political sovereignty Allowed flexibility in developing national ways to respond to environmental changes. Grossman 2008 Records show that a broad selection of marine resources were harvested across coastal present-­‐day British Columbia, though differing compositions of faunal assemblages reflect local abundances and proximity to habitats, such as riverine or coastal systems (Butler and Campbell 2004; Lepofsky et al. 2005; Erlandson et al. 2008; Orchard and Szpak 2011; White 2011). Studies have shown the ubiquity of salmon bones among the faunal assemblages dating to 7,500 radiocarbon YBP, which illustrates the degree to which salmon played a role in local subsistence (Tsawwassen First Nation et al. 1998; Deur 1999; Turner et al. 2003; Lepofsky et al. 2005; Campbell and Butler 2010). On the southern mainland coast of British Columbia, studies of faunal assemblages show considerable variations in salmon harvesting patterns, with some sites showing increases in the harvest of salmon over time while others show variable or even declining harvests (Butler and Campbell 2004). However, this myopic focus on salmon—which has playfully been termed salmonopea (Monks 1987; Moss 1993)—has been argued to underestimate the important roles played by other marine resources (Butler and Campbell 2004), such as Pacific cod, herring, eulachon, halibut, other flatfish, rockfish, and sculpins, among other taxa (Newell 1993; Moss and Cannon 2011a). 96 Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), for instance, served as a substitute food resource in times of scarcity for many First Nations, being of particular importance to the Haida and Nuu-­‐chah-­‐nulth (Newell 1993). The use of halibut is documented extensively in the ethnographic literature and, to a lesser extent, in archaeological faunal assemblages, the latter of which have been suggested to underrepresent its relative importance (Orchard and Wigen 2008). Similarly, shellfish were harvested year-­‐round, but were particularly important during times of scarcity. To demonstrate this, Judith Williams documents an e-­‐mail she received from a Kwakwaka’wakw man, Tom Sewid, wherein he states that “. . . in a still harsh climate, clams could mean the difference between life and death” (Williams 2006). While it is difficult to determine whether a causal relationship exists between environmental change and cultural change exclusively through the archaeological record (Lepofsky et al. 2005), studies have increasingly developed models that help to explain socio-­‐ecological relationships under environmental change by integrating traditional knowledge with existing ethnographic and archaeological records (Lepofsky et al. 2005). Table 3.4 highlights a selection of these models by focusing on three time frames of environmental change—seasonal, inter-­‐annual, and long-­‐term—to illustrate the use of management mechanisms and alternative marine resources as means of mitigating or responding to scarcity. 97 Table 3.4 Pre-­‐contact models of changes in resource composition or abundance, and corresponding response strategies suggested in the archaeological and ethnographic literature. EVENT TIME FRAME RESPONSE REFERENCE(S) Scarcity of aquatic resources, such as salmon. Seasonal Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) and shellfish served to replace other resources when scarce, especially during the winter. Terrestrial resources, such as plants and deer, also served to supplement harvests. Blackman 1990; Newell 1993; Orchard and Wigen 2008; Turner and Clifton 2009; Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study Participants et al. 2011 Over-­‐harvesting of butter clam (Saxidomus giganteus) beds. Inter-­‐annual Regulation of harvest intensity by rotating harvests of clam beds under family-­‐group ownership. Cannon and Burchell 2009 Periodic decline in salmon production at Namu River documented between 1800 B.C. and 200 B.C. Long-­‐term Increased consumption of more marginal foods, such as ratfish, shellfish, and terrestrial sources of protein. Expansion of village sites suggests movement likely to obtain resources to compensate for the decline in salmon production. Cannon 2002 3.5.2.2 Post-­‐contact examples (1778 AD to present) Colonialism brought significant changes to the allocation of fisheries rights and the availability of resources traditionally used by First Nations (Newell 1993). The examples of post-­‐contact events summarized here represent only a few of the impacts sustained and endured by First Nations, and focus specifically on direct impacts to the accessibility and abundance of aquatic resources on the Pacific Northwest Coast (Table 3.5). 98 The replacement of traditional fisheries management systems with an open-­‐access model, based on the European conception of marine resources as common property, led to the displacement of First Nations first from the fisheries, and then increasingly from auxiliary industries such as canneries (Newell 1993; Ames 2002; Haggan and Brown 2003). While the profits of industrialized fishing translated to marginal benefits for First Nations, with approximately 10,000 members of First Nations seasonally employed in the commercial fishing and processing industries after half a century of industrialization, these benefits were lost with the collapse of the industries in the late 1900s (Garner and Parfitt 2006). By 2003, estimates from the Government of British Columbia placed seasonal employment in commercial fishing at 2,684 jobs, or approximately 31 per cent of the Aboriginal population (McRae and Pearse 2004; Garner and Parfitt 2006). These losses were replicated in the overall commercial fishing industry, with employment decreasing by 50 per cent between 1996 and 2006 (Garner and Parfitt 2006). In addition to the loss of employment under colonialism, First Nations lost important food and trade resources through, for example, the collapse of herring stocks in the 1960s (McKechnie et al. 2014), of abalone stocks by 1990 (Menzies 2010), and the recent decline of eulachon stocks throughout much of its distribution in British Columbia (Haggan et al. 2009; Johnsen 2009; Moody and Pitcher 2010), where a combination of overfishing, habitat loss, and poleward shifts in distribution associated with climate change have been suggested as drivers (DFO 2008). 99 Colonialism also impeded core social institutions: the banning of the potlatch ceremony in 1884 served to obstruct traditional practices, while the subsequent implementation of residential schools removed opportunities to teach intergenerational knowledge and languages to children (Newell 1993; Turner and Turner 2007). Despite these challenges, First Nations endeavoured to maintain their traditional practices and to uphold their unceded territorial fishing rights, incorporating new technology with traditional approaches and values (Table 3.5). 100 Table 3.5. Post-­‐contact examples of changes in resource composition, abundance, or access rights and correlating changes in First Nations’ harvesting patterns. EVENT IMPACT(S) RESPONSE(S) REFERENCE(S) Implementation of the reserve system by 1876, and appropriation of traditional territories and harvesting areas by the Crown, with parcels of land sold to European and other settlers as private property. Alienated First Nations from many of their traditional food sources. Lost opportunities to transfer traditional knowledge, which has impeded efforts to renew traditional food systems. Reduced participation in commercial fisheries, and increased conflict over access to fisheries resources. Newell 1993; Turner and Jones 2000; Trosper 2002; Turner and Turner 2007 Weirs were banned in 1877, thereby re-­‐directing salmon catches towards commercial operations and canneries. Increased marginalization of First Nations from fisheries. First Nations formed the foundation of the cannery work force and supplied fish for processing to partially offset lost fishing opportunities. Newell 1993; Garner and Parfitt 2006; Menzies and Butler 2008; Johnsen 2009 Development of salmon canneries and the onset of industrialized fishing in the late 1880s in the traditional territory of the Gitxaała. Increased competition among, and centralization of, commercial salmon fishing operations. Shifts in fishing patterns from customary harvesting (until 1880s) à intense harvesting co-­‐existing with customary harvesting (1880-­‐1930) à locally controlled drag seining (1930-­‐1967) à a less intensive and occasional customary harvest using gillnets (1967 to present). The Gitxaała and Gitga’at formed part of the labor force at the local cannery. Menzies and Butler 2007 Coastwide declines in Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) populations associated with the expansion of industrial fishing effort (early 1900s) and collapsing by the 1960s. Detrimental impacts to the practice of traditional activities, including harvests, feasts, trade, and the transfer of TEK. Reduced participation in commercial and traditional fishing activities. Licenses were issued to First Nations to support food, social and ceremonial fisheries and some forms of commercial fishing (e.g., SOK). Trosper 2003; Lepofsky et al. 2005; Grossman 2008; Turner and Clifton 2009; Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study Participants et al. 2011; McKechnie et al. 2014 101 EVENT IMPACT(S) RESPONSE(S) REFERENCE(S) Influx of invasive clams Manila clams (Venerupis philippinarum) and purple varnish clams (Nuttallia obscurata) in the early 1900s. Rapid colonization of the southern coasts of British Columbia, dominating traditionally harvested species, such as butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus). Incorporated manila and varnish clams into subsistence harvests (e.g., Uchucklesaht) and commercial harvests (e.g., Heiltsuk commercial intertidal clam fishery). Williams 2006; Uchucklesaht Tribe 2013 Implementation of license restrictions in the commercial halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) fishery in 1979 in response to declining stocks. Due to seasonal harvests, vessels owned by First Nations failed to meet the minimum requisite (1,362 kg) in 1979 necessary to maintain a commercial license. Special licenses were distributed to individuals belonging to First Nations, offered to those who depended on the fishery for income, but did not own the vessel they operate. By 1991, First Nations held only 8% of the licenses distributed, further marginalizing communities for whom this activity represented a traditional part of their trading economy (e.g., Haida). Newell 1993 Overharvesting of northern abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) by non-­‐Indigenous commercial fishers led to the closure of the fishery in the traditional territories of the Gitxaała and Haida Nations in 1990. Catch per unit effort declined by 46% in the Gitxaała territory by 1990, and the Haida report an absence of abalone where they used to be found in abundance, with stocks left unviable for FSC harvests. Declines in Haida Gwaii have led to statements of nutritional and socio-­‐cultural losses, being unable to transfer traditional knowledge through the act of harvesting. Gitxaała people express “a palpable sense of grief” associated with this loss, with the impact strongly felt by community elders. Campbell 2000; Menzies 2010; Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study Participants et al. 2011 102 3.5.3 Future fisheries mitigation and adaptation prospects 3.5.3.1 Case Study 1: Herring (Clupea pallasii) and herring spawn-­‐on-­‐kelp (SOK) fisheries 1. Brief overview of importance and key issues British Columbia’s herring stocks are defined according to five major regions—Haida Gwaii, the North Coast (also known as Prince Rupert District), the Central Coast, the Strait of Georgia, and the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI)—with two additional minor stock areas, Area 2W and Area 27 (Figure 3.2)(Hay and McCarter 1997; DFO 2014). These regions and associated spawning areas are found in close proximity to First Nations’ territories, serving as a key resource in many traditional harvests. The archaeological record provides strong evidence of the ubiquity of herring use across the Pacific Northwest Coast, and suggests that the mean abundance of herring was consistently higher and exhibited lower variability prior to the onset of industrialized fishing(McKechnie et al. 2014). Pioneered by First Nations, the herring spawn-­‐on-­‐kelp (SOK) fishery yielded an important resource used both for consumption and for trade with other Nations, often exchanged for eulachon and eulachon grease (Newell 1993). This traditional activity continued for FSC purposes alongside the development of the heavily regulated industrial fishery that began in 1974 (Newell 1993). The fishery was traditionally managed by the Heiltsuk Nation through spatial distribution of harvest zones with restricted access and limits on the quantities harvested (Powell 2012). While the introduction of state-­‐sanctioned SOK fisheries incorporated First Nations’ attention to spatial interactions between stock concentration and harvest distribution 103 (Powell 2012), and allocated the majority of the commercial licenses to First Nations (78.3% of the licenses and 80.8% of the catch in 2003 (James 2003), the inability to exercise joint or exclusive management over the fishery within their respective territories has led to conflict due to ongoing declines in recruitment, which First Nations feel is aggravated by the fishing effort exerted by non-­‐Aboriginal commercial herring roe fisheries (First Nations Summit 2014). 2. Climate change scenarios Projections indicate a decline in catch potential in all regions of importance to First Nations, with notable declines in all regions containing critical spawning habitat that supports First Nations’ spawn-­‐on-­‐kelp fisheries (see Figures 3.2 and 3.3). While projections obtained through alternative SDMs (AquaMaps and Maxent) under the same scenario suggest less severe declines in BC’s EEZ (-­‐17.0% and -­‐2.2%, respectively) under the upper climate change scenario (see Chapter 2), the directionality of the change is robust. Scenario #1: Coastwide declines in catch potential for herring (Clupea pallasii) and herring spawn [-­‐28.1 to -­‐49.2%] are projected under both the lower and upper range of climate change scenarios (Supplementary Table D1), with the most severe declines suggested for First Nation territories in the Strait of Georgia [-­‐33.0 to -­‐56.2%] and on the west coast of Vancouver Island [-­‐35.7 to -­‐57.2%], and marginally less severe declines for territories situated along the Central Coast [-­‐29.1 to -­‐47.0%], North Coast [-­‐29.1 to -­‐47.2%] and Haida Gwaii [-­‐29.5 to -­‐47.2%](Figure 1.5.2). 104 Figure 3.2 Pacific herring major stock areas (North Coast, Haida Gwaii, Central Coast, West Coast Vancouver Island, and the Strait of Georgia) and minor stock areas (Area 2W and Area 27), showing overlap with First Nations’ traditional territories and commercial fishing areas. Spawning and feeding areas are not meant to be exhaustive, but to focus on key regions of importance. 125°0'W125°0'W130°0'W130°0'W55°0'N55°0'N50°0'N50°0'NH e c a t e S t r a i tQ u e e n C h a r l o t t e S o u n dNorth Coast (Prince Rupert District)Area 2WHaida GwaiiArea 27West CoastVancouver IslandCentral CoastStrait of GeorgiaD i x o n E n t r a n c eQ u e e n C h a r l o t t e S t r a i tS t r a i t o f G e o r g i aMajor herring stock areasCommercial herring roe fisheryCommercial herring fisheriesMajor spawning areasKnown spawning areasMajor feeding areasFirst Nations' traditional territories0 100 20050Kilometers'Sources: Commercial herring fisheries (FLNRO and DFO 2005); First Nations' Statement of Intent boundaries (AANDC, FLNRO, and BC Treaty Commission 2005); known spawning areas (DFO 2004). Major herring stock areas georeferenced from DFO 2013/2014 Pacific herring IFMP. Major spawning and feeding areas georeferenced from DFO's Herring Geographical Bulletin (2013; accessed 10 June 2014).Created: 10 June 2014P a c i f i c O c e a nJ u a n d e F u c a S t r a i tJ o h n s t o n e S t r a i tB a r k l e y S o u n dK y u q u o t S o u n d 105 Figure 3.3 Regional and coastwide changes in relative catch potential (%) for Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) using a 20-­‐year average of 2050 relative to 2000. Regions include the North Coast (orange), Haida Gwaii (dark blue), Central Coast (light blue), Strait of Georgia (yellow), and the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI; green). The coastwide estimates are bounded by British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 3. Examples of climate-­‐resilient pathways Establishing joint-­‐management agreements with First Nations and temporarily maintaining commercial roe herring closures, as requested by First Nations (First Nations Summit 2014) and suggested by DFO (Ryan 2014), would achieve three objectives: (1) reduce recruitment overfishing, thereby mitigating stressors associated with climate change; (2) uphold First Nations’ constitutional fishing rights affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada through the Sparrow decision (1982) and strengthened through the Delgamuukw decision (1997), thereby alleviating conflict; and (3) ensure the continuation of First Nations’ traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices as required by the Convention on Biological Diversity, thereby contributing to Canada’s obligations as a ratified Party. EEZWCVIStrait ofGeorgiaCentralCoastHaidaGwaiiNorthCoastï ï ï ï ï ï Change in relative catch potential (%) for Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii)WR WR WR WRWR WR125°0'W125°0'W130°0'W130°0'W135°0'W135°0'W55°0'N55°0'N50°0'N50°0'N45°0'N45°0'N0 175 35087.5KilometersP a c i f i c O c e a n 106 As suggested with migratory stocks, resource-­‐sharing agreements established through joint allocations could provide First Nations with opportunities to collaboratively offset impacts and strengthen international relationships and traditional practices (First Nations Leadership Council 2006). However, coastwide declines in herring catch potential suggest an inability to offset losses solely through a redistribution of access rights, and indicate a need to mitigate other cumulative pressures (e.g., habitat loss, fishing effort). Table 3.6 Examples of potential climate-­‐resilient pathways associated with different levels of adaptive capacity for case study #1 (Pacific herring). ADAPTIVE CAPACITY PATHWAY OUTCOME High Full capacity to implement traditional fisheries management strategies in traditional territories. While unlikely, potential exists to fully offset declines by mitigating cumulative pressures. Could obtain increases in commercial landings through alternative species. Full offset of protected declines and potential increase in landings. Medium Capacity to exclusively or jointly manage herring stocks within traditional fishing areas. Precautionary closure of commercial roe herring fisheries within traditional fishing areas leads to a reduction in recruitment overfishing, enabling increased productivity and capacity to conduct traditional spawn-­‐on-­‐kelp harvests. Opportunity to harvest alternative forage fishes (e.g., sardines) using the same gear may further offset impacts, but could lead to other “invisible” losses. Partial reduction of impacts to catch potential. Low No opportunity to exclusively or jointly manage herring resources. Unable to offset declines in the availability of herring through alternative species. Cumulative decline of herring resources coastwide, ranging between -­‐28.1% and -­‐49.2%1. 1 Projections obtained from Chapter 2, and can be seen in Appendix D, Supplementary Table D1. 107 3.5.3.2 Case Study 2: Intertidal clam fisheries 1. Brief overview of importance and key issues The intertidal commercial and FSC clam fisheries are commonly used by First Nations coastwide as a source of income and subsistence. As shown above, First Nations have depended on clams as a supplementary source of nutrition in times of scarcity, and have accommodated changes in the composition of intertidal resources by incorporating new species (e.g., manila and varnish clams) into their commercial and FSC harvests (Williams 2006; Uchucklesaht Tribe 2013). First Nations prioritize different species, highlighting the need to consider localized impacts. For example, members of the Haida Nation—and specifically the Masset Haida—value butter clams, littleneck clams, and Pacific razor clams (Siliqua patula), the latter of which are found on the north-­‐eastern tip of Graham Island and provide abundant source of food and bait (Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study Participants et al. 2011). Conversely, butter clams are of considerable importance to FSC harvests on Vancouver Island, where they are the primary species cultivated using traditional clam beds (Williams 2006). 2. Climate change scenarios Scenario #2: Coastwide declines in cumulative catch potential for all traditionally and commercially harvested clams (-­‐4.1 to -­‐7.5%)(Supplementary Table D10), with distinct latitudinal patterns and regional specificity (Figure 3.4). Poleward shifts in the abundance of most species are suggested (2.6 to 8.9 km decade-­‐1)(see Appendix E). 108 Impacts vary strongly by species and by scenario, with coastwide declines suggested for some species (e.g., Pacific razor clams and varnish clams) while others show regional increases in abundance under certain scenarios (e.g., manila clams and geoducks). The territories situated along the Strait of Georgia (-­‐21.8 to -­‐25.6%) and WCVI (-­‐28.4 to -­‐26.3%) are likely to experience the most severe cumulative losses under both the lower and upper scenarios of climate change, with declines in these regions suggested for all of the 8 species of clams included in the analysis (Supplementary Tables D2 through D10). Though much less prominent, cumulative declines in catch potential are similarly suggested under both the lower and upper scenarios of climate change for the Central Coast (-­‐3.7 to -­‐4.1%) and Haida Gwaii (-­‐1.4 to -­‐3.6%). Comparatively, the North Coast may experience relative neutrality (-­‐2.4 to 0.8%), with declines in some species (e.g., horse clams) offset by increases in the abundance of other species (e.g., geoducks)(Figure 3.4). Despite projections, impacts may vary considerably depending on aggregated impacts and the species’ tolerance to different parameters. While tolerating a wide range of temperatures, salinities, and substrates (Cannon and Burchell 2009), butter clams grow best in warm-­‐water conditions found along the southern coasts of British Columbia, thriving in areas characterized by nutrient upwelling and beach stability supporting egg retention (Williams 2006). Although climate projections outline warmer-­‐water conditions that might be suitable for increased clam productivity in northern regions, other aggregated stressors may offset these benefits. For example, clams are expected to be affected strongly and detrimentally by acidification (Butler and Campbell 2004; Wootton et 109 al. 2008; IPCC 2014), which is anomalously high in this region due to increased stratification (Okey et al. 2014). 3. Examples of climate-­‐resilient pathways Projections suggest the potential to fully offset regional declines in the abundance of some species, such as the traditionally harvested butter clam and the commercially valuable manila clam (V. philippinarum), under certain ranges of climate change. For instance, increased catch potential along the northern and central coasts of British Columbia could be used to offset up to 100% of projected declines in manila clams along the southern coastline, while maintaining increased yields in northern territories. Aquatic resource sharing agreements between First Nations, as promoted by the First Nations Leadership Council (First Nations Leadership Council 2006), could be used to promote collaboration between Nations and reduce region-­‐specific impacts. It is important to note, however, that these increases are projected only for a few species under a narrow range of climate scenarios. More frequently, projections suggest that cumulative abundance coastwide will decline for some species under both the lower and upper ranges of climate change (e.g., horse clams, littleneck clams, and Pacific gaper), leading to insufficient capacity to fully offset regional shortfalls without mitigation (Figure 3.4). Traditional management strategies may help to alleviate these impacts to clams through active enhancement of native habitat. Clam gardens constructed in a manner akin to those 110 Butter clam (S. giganteus) Horse clam (T. capax)Littleneck clam (P. staminea) Manila clam (V. philippinarum)Pacific gaper (T. nuttallii) Pacific geoduck (P. abrupta)Razor clam (S. patula) Varnish clam (N. obscurata)EEZWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastHaida GwaiiNorth CoastEEZWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastHaida GwaiiNorth CoastEEZWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastHaida GwaiiNorth CoastEEZWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastHaida GwaiiNorth Coastï ï ï     ï ï ï    Change in relative catch potential (%)REGIONWR WRWRWRWRWR WRWRWRWRWR WRWRWRWR WR WR WRWRWRWR WRWRWR WRWRWR WRWR WRWRWRWR WR WRWR WR  WR WRWRWR WRWR WR125°0'W125°0'W130°0'W130°0'W135°0'W135°0'W55°0'N55°0'N50°0'N50°0'N45°0'N45°0'N0 175 35087.5KilometersPaci f i c OceanFigure 3.4 Regional and coastwide changes in relative catch potential (%) for intertidal clams of cultural and commercial importance to First Nations using a 20-year average of 2050 relative to 2000. Regions include the North Coast (orange), Haida Gwaii (dark blue), Central Coast (light blue), Strait of Georgia (yellow), and the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI; green). The coastwide estimates are bounded by British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 111 situated near ancient settlements of the Northern Coast Salish and Laich-­‐kwil-­‐tach First Nations have been found to generate higher clam densities, biomass, and growth rates than non-­‐walled beaches (Groesbeck et al. 2014). These benefits were observed for Pacific littleneck clams (Protothaca staminea) and butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus), two clams that are of cultural, economic, and ecological importance to the region (Groesbeck et al. 2014). Reinstating clam beds in First Nations’ territorial lands has been suggested as a means of simultaneously achieving conservation and cultural objectives (Augustine and Dearden 2014), and may thereby provide a politically and ecologically viable option for mitigating climate-­‐related impacts. Table 3.7 Examples of potential climate-­‐resilient pathways associated with different levels of adaptive capacity under case study #2 (intertidal clams). ADAPTIVE CAPACITY PATHWAY OUTCOME High Engagement in traditional management of clam beds yields highly productive returns of some clam species (e.g., butter clams, littleneck clams) that increase long-­‐term harvest potential within territory (Groesbeck et al. 2014). Increased harvest potential. Medium Engagement in traditional management of clam beds partially or fully offsets declines in clam abundance associated with climate change, thereby achieving long-­‐term conservation objectives. Projections suggest that resource-­‐sharing agreements with North and Central Coast First Nations could help to offset shortfalls for some species (e.g., butter and manila clams), but estimates of offset potential are highly variable1. No change from baseline, or small to moderate declines in harvest potential. Low No opportunity to exclusively or jointly manage clam resources, or to coordinate redistribution of harvest access rights with other First Nations. Unable to offset declines in the availability of intertidal clams through alternative species. Cumulative declines in harvest potential (-­‐4.1 to -­‐7.5%)2. 1 See Appendix F, Supplementary Tables F1 through F3. 2 Projections obtained from Chapter 2. Calculations for cumulative declines in harvest potential can be viewed in Appendix D, Supplementary Table D10. 112 3.5.3.3 Case Study 3: Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) 1. Brief overview of importance and key issues Pacific salmon are estimated to occur in approximately 1,300 to 1,500 rivers and streams throughout British Columbia and the Yukon (DFO 2013b). Despite their ubiquity, the variable strength and size of these stocks combined with complex life histories renders them vulnerable to environmental and anthropogenic pressures (Mote et al. 2003). This vulnerability has led many wild salmon stocks to decline and some of the weaker stocks to have disappeared as a result of industrialized fishing, urbanization, and habitat loss (Mote et al. 2003; Lackey 2003). The contributions of salmon to the Pacific Northwest Coast are manifold. Salmon are considered a cultural keystone species for Pacific Northwest Coast peoples, playing a critical and arguably irreplaceable role in the socio-­‐cultural, spiritual, ceremonial, economic, and nutritional facets of First Nations’ societies (Garibaldi and Turner 2004; King 2004). Yet, given their value, demand from commercial fishers, processors, and markets grew throughout the last century, leading to competing claims over resources. Management of these species has been highly contentious due the myriad of stakeholders who depend upon them, which include First Nations, recreational fisheries, and commercial fisheries. Therein, each group represents an additional layer of complexity: as an example, the Fraser River system is home to nearly 100 First Nation communities, each of which depends upon their legal right to salmon harvests (Garner and Parfitt 2006). Aside from fulfilling societal needs, salmon serve as key ecological components of the Pacific Northwest Coast, functioning as the mechanisms by which nutrients are transferred from 113 the ocean to freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems (Cederholm et al. 1999; Schindler et al. 2003). 2. Climate change scenarios While less evident than the latitudinal differences projected for clams, a distinct latitudinal pattern in the severity of impacts through loss of salmon catch potential is observed between the southern and northern territories. Projections suggest very minor poleward range shifts for salmon (0.6 to 3.3 km decade-­‐1) (Supplementary Table B3). In particular, sockeye salmon exhibit neutral range shifts (-­‐1.0 to 1.7 km decade-­‐1) in addition to highly variable estimates of changes in catch potential (Figure 3.5). Given the continued latitudinal trend in the severity of impacts, these results may be an artefact of reduced abundance and limited capacity to colonize new territories. Despite uncertainty regarding the extent of declines in catch potential—particularly for sockeye salmon—the directionality of the projections is robust, with a coastwide decline suggested for all species of salmon. Of the four species of salmon examined using AquaMaps and Maxent (excluding sockeye), declines in catch potential were obtained for all four under both SDMs given the upper range of climate change (RCP 8.5)(Chapter 2), thereby supporting the directionality of the change. Scenario #3: Cumulative declines in catch potential are suggested for salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.)(-­‐17.1 to -­‐29.2%)(Supplementary Tables D11 through D16), exhibiting regional variation in severity but declining trends coastwide (Figure 3.5). 114 Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha)Chum salmon (O. keta)Coho salmon (O. kisutch)Pink salmon (O. gorbuscha)Sockeye salmon (O. nerka)EEZWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastHaida GwaiiNorth CoastEEZWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastHaida GwaiiNorth CoastEEZWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastHaida GwaiiNorth CoastEEZWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastHaida GwaiiNorth CoastEEZWCVIStrait of GeorgiaCentral CoastHaida GwaiiNorth Coastï ï ï ï ï  Change in relative catch potential (%)REGION WR  WRWR WRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWRWR WRWRWRWRWR125°0'W125°0'W130°0'W130°0'W135°0'W135°0'W55°0'N55°0'N50°0'N50°0'N45°0'N45°0'N0 175 35087.5KilometersP a c i f i c O c e a nFigure 3.5 Regional and coastwide changes in relative catch potential (%) for salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) of cultural and commercial importance to First Nations using a 20-­‐year average of 2050 relative to 2000. Regions include the North Coast (orange), Haida Gwaii (dark blue), Central Coast (light blue), Strait of Georgia (yellow), and the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI; green). The coastwide estimates are bounded by British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 115 3. Examples of climate-­‐resilient pathways Developing policy scenarios and resilient pathways that balance the needs of the many stakeholders who depend upon salmon in BC is what one could suitably refer to as a “wicked problem” (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009), and one that is further exacerbated when considered in the context of climate change (Hulme 2009; Termeer et al. 2012). Moreover, there is high uncertainty regarding the extent to which management strategies can offset declines in salmon witnessed at present, let alone under future cumulative pressures and at the level of individual stocks (Mote et al. 2003). Despite this difficulty, the holistic relationships that exist between First Nations and salmon underline the need to conceptualize viable options to mitigate projected impacts to the predominantly remote communities that rely on these species. The projections depicted in this analysis suggest the inability to fully offset declines through a redistribution of fishing effort achieved under resource access agreements exchanged by First Nations. Of the three case studies, this therefore represents the greatest challenge in the endeavour to avoid externalizing impacts, highlighting the need for collaborative approaches that support conservation objectives and minimize conflict. Established examples of joint-­‐management initiatives may serve to provide frameworks for furthering conservation objectives and implementing traditional management practices. For instance, Garner and Parfitt (2006) identified three key case studies of joint-­‐management of salmon fisheries on the Pacific Northwest Coast that endeavour to integrate First Nations and TEK into fisheries management decisions: the extensive 116 involvement of the Nisga’a Fisheries Program in monitoring and managing local stocks; the Nuu-­‐chah-­‐nulth Tribal Council’s involvement in management discussions with DFO over the last decade regarding WCVI fisheries, and the development of Uu-­‐a-­‐thluk as part of the Aboriginal Aquatic Resource and Ocean Management (AAROM) program; and the involvement of Aboriginal representatives in the Skeena Fisheries Commission (Garner and Parfitt 2006). Importantly, the Nisga’a Nation have ensured their equal partnership in management by employing traditional fish wheel technology to monitor and assess stocks and by leveraging traditional ecosystem-­‐based management practices that could be applied to plan long-­‐term objectives and management approaches (King 2004). Through such joint-­‐management regimes, traditional fisheries management strategies could be applied to advance localized research directives and to reduce impacts to stocks. Table 3.8 Examples of potential climate-­‐resilient pathways associated with different levels of adaptive capacity under case study #3. ADAPTIVE CAPACITY PATHWAY OUTCOME High Successful implementation of local joint-­‐management strategies and stakeholder agreements, reducing fishing pressure and improving recruitment success. Regional losses still expected given cumulative impacts and the variability of stocks. Substantial reductions in losses for some stocks, and improved collaboration between stakeholders. Medium Implementation of joint-­‐management arrangements that integrate TEK and traditional fisheries management strategies could help to increase data collection (e.g., fish wheels), improve localized management, and ensure sustainable harvests. Reduction in pressures that lead to mortality, thereby mitigating localized declines. Low No opportunity to exclusively or jointly manage salmon resources, or to coordinate redistribution of harvest access rights with other First Nations. Potential increase in conflict over resources. Cumulative declines in harvest potential (-­‐17.1% to -­‐29.2%)1. 1 Calculations of cumulative change in catch potential for salmon outlined in Appendix D, Supplementary Table D16. Estimates by species described in Tables D11 through D15. 117 3.5.4 Summary Table 3.9. Summary of risks and adaptation prospects under different climate change scenarios (RCPs 2.6 and 8.5), estimating the level of impacts by 2050 given different levels of adaptive capacity (pathways described in section 3.5.2). CASE STUDY EXAMPLES OF CLIMATE-­‐RESILIENT PATHWAYS AND ISSUES SCENARIO ADAPTIVE CAPACITY OUTCOME (BY 2050) Potential to increase yield? Potential to fully offset declines? Potential to partially offset declines? #1: Coastwide declines in catch potential for herring [-­‐28.1 to -­‐49.2%], with the most severe declines suggested for the southern regions [-­‐33.0 to -­‐57.2%] and moderately less severe projections for the central and northern regions [-­‐29.1 to -­‐47.2%]. • Capacity to exclusively or jointly manage herring stocks within traditional fishing areas; • Precautionary closure of commercial roe herring fisheries (First Nations Summit 2014) within DFAs leads to a reduction in recruitment overfishing; • Opportunity to harvest alternative forage fishes using the same gear may further offset impacts, but could lead to other “invisible” losses. RCP 2.6 Low No No No Medium No Unlikely Yes High Unlikely1 Unlikely Yes RCP 8.5 Low No No No Medium No Unlikely Yes High No Unlikely Yes #2: Coastwide declines in cumulative catch potential for all traditionally and commercially harvested clams (-­‐4.1 to -­‐7.5%), with distinct latitudinal patterns and regional specificity (see Supplementary Table D10 in Appendix D). Poleward shifts in the abundance of most species are suggested (2.6 to 8.9 km decade-­‐1). • Traditional clam beds may increase clam productivity (Groesbeck 2014); • Potential to partially offset declines in commercial harvests through resource sharing agreements with territories situated on the central and northern coasts (Appendix F); • Coastwide abundance may decline for some species under both the lower and upper ranges of climate change, leading to insufficient capacity to fully offset regional shortfalls without mitigation (Supp. Tables D3, 5, 7-­‐9). RCP 2.6 Low No No No Medium Unlikely Yes2 Yes2 High Yes2 Yes2 Yes RCP 8.5 Low No3 No3 No3 Medium Unlikely2 Yes2 Yes High Unlikely2,5 Yes2 Yes 118 CASE STUDY EXAMPLES OF CLIMATE-­‐RESILIENT PATHWAYS AND ISSUES SCENARIO ADAPTIVE CAPACITY OUTCOME (BY 2050) Potential to increase yield? Potential to fully offset declines? Potential to partially offset declines? #3: Cumulative declines in catch potential for all salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) projected coastwide [-­‐17.1 to -­‐29.2%], with the greatest declines suggested for Chinook [-­‐40.6 to -­‐44.3%] and pink salmon [-­‐34.2 to -­‐43.1%]. • Implementation of joint-­‐management arrangements that integrate TEK and traditional fisheries management strategies could help to increase data collection (e.g., fish wheels), improve localized management, and ensure sustainable harvests. • Increases in yield are highly unlikely due to competing claims among a myriad of stakeholders, to the severity of projected impacts to salmon stocks (Supp. Tables D11-­‐D16), and to the lack of alternatives that could replace salmon as a cultural keystone species. RCP 2.6 Low No No No Medium No Unlikely4 Yes High No Unlikely4 Yes RCP 8.5 Low No No No Medium No Unlikely4 Yes High No Unlikely4 Yes 1 A mean increase in the yield of herring within BC’s EEZ is unlikely given the severity of coastwide projections, the oscillatory nature of herring stock recruitment under cumulative pressures (McKechnie et al. 2014), and competing claims for access to key spawning regions to conduct commercial harvests. 2 While potential exists to offset declines through traditional management strategies (e.g., clam beds), benefits will be characterized by regional and taxonomic specificity (see Supplementary Tables D2 through D10). 3 Although the collective abundance of clams is decreasing under this scenario (RCP 8.5), cumulative abundances of certain species (e.g., manila clams, Pacific geoducks) may increase without mitigation efforts (see Supplementary Tables F1 through F3 in Appendix F). 4 Given the projections illustrated in this study, the complex arrangement of stakeholders, and recent declines in abundance under multiple stressors, it is unlikely that projected declines in salmon can be fully offset through mitigation efforts under either scenario. 5 Coastwide increases in cumulative yield are unlikely given specific regional impacts and the projected losses (Appendix D, Supplementary Table D10). 119 3.6 Discussion 3.6.1 Assumptions and uncertainties The adaptive capacity suggested in this chapter does not account for the full range of socioeconomic and cultural factors that would influence mitigation or adaptation responses at the community or individual level. For instance, the expense associated with implementing management strategies is outside of the scope of this study and would require additional research. Furthermore, this study does not address the desirability or feasibility of these pathways, which would require individual consultations with various stakeholders within each of the communities included in this analysis. For this reason, any pathways suggested through this analysis derive solely from published literature and First Nations’ reports, and are used as theoretical guidelines to demonstrate how a framework integrating model-­‐based projections and anthropological methods could be applied. Furthermore, this study does not speak to the full range of impacts that would likely derive from a decline in fisheries catch potential (e.g., nutritional impacts, economic impacts to auxiliary industries, loss of opportunities to practice cultural traditions, etc.). However, other studies have explored the ecosystem services that derive from marine ecosystems in the context of coastal British Columbia, and can be drawn from for guidance regarding a more comprehensive range of socioeconomic, cultural and spiritual values associated with these systems (Chan et al. 2012). Rather than providing a full assessment of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, the approach outlined in this chapter is meant to accomplish three objectives: (1) identify 120 ecological potential for responding to climate change under the given scenarios; (2) identify precedents through TEK and traditional fisheries management strategies that might be used to reduce impacts within First Nations’ traditional territories; and (3) identify key management issues that are likely to arise under climate change. For uncertainties relating to modelling approaches and projections of relative catch potential, please refer to Chapter 2 (Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2). 3.6.2 Implications for fisheries management The case studies outlined above allow us to consider three questions that could arise from climate-­‐related impacts to fisheries: 1. How do we accommodate spatial redistributions of impacts and benefits? Can we equitably implement resource-­‐sharing agreements when there is an imbalance of resources? 2. How do we manage for externalized impacts, such as ecological impacts associated with continued fishing effort on declining stocks, or with fishing pressure that is redirected towards other stocks? 3. How can existing joint-­‐management frameworks be used to develop new approaches or apply existing traditional knowledge to mitigate climate-­‐related impacts within First Nations’ traditional territories? 121 3.6.2.1 Spatial trends and regional offsets With range shifts featuring prominently in projections for climate-­‐related impacts to marine biodiversity (Cheung et al. 2009; Hazen et al. 2013; Poloczanska et al. 2013) and fisheries catch potential (Brander 2007), it is likely that similar patterns will be observed in the Northeast Pacific (Ainsworth et al. 2011). Thus, the primary concern highlighted by this study derives from an unequal distribution of relative losses in catch potential associated with regional ecological differences and poleward range shifts. In addition to the coastwide declines in catch potential that are suggested when viewing cumulative impacts to functional groups (e.g., salmon and clams), species-­‐based estimates reveal a stronger differential that correlates with latitude (i.e., impacts are less severe moving polewards). While there is increasing support for establishing equitable resource sharing agreements between Nations (First Nations Leadership Council 2006), which might offer opportunities to offset such declines, the means by which such agreements could be achieved are uncertain (Garner and Parfitt 2006). Although appearing feasible in theory, three key issues arise from the prospect of applying these agreements to offset regional impacts: the scale of resource-­‐sharing agreements, the extended time frame, and the requirement of reciprocity. Firstly, resource sharing agreements have both existed and been discussed primarily in a localized context—such as a single river system (Garner and Parfitt 2006)—rather than at the regional level. For example, reciprocal agreements between First Nations historically allowed for shared use of a harvesting or processing site in exchange for another (Turner et 122 al. 2003). Although such resources sharing agreements could aid in increasing First Nations’ participation in commercial harvests for manila clams and geoducks along the North and Central Coasts, where their abundances are projected to sufficiently increase under climate change so as to offset other regional losses, the cost of travelling to these regions may offset the prospective benefits. Similarly, FSC harvests hinge upon the feasibility of accessing resources locally, making trans-­‐regional trips unlikely to prove viable or desirable. The remaining two issues—the time frame and the issue of reciprocity—are intertwined, and relate to the circumstances that facilitated resource exchanges. The key traditional institutions that generated considerable adaptive capacity for First Nations primarily supported responses to seasonal or inter-­‐annual fluctuations in resource abundance and availability, rather than long-­‐term declines in productivity or abundance. Since these agreements were intended to provide insurance against future resource scarcity, they inherently pivoted on the exchange of resources or access rights. Given that the scenarios presented in this analysis suggest that all species are likely to exhibit a relative decline in abundance in the southern regions of British Columbia, few arrangements remain where species could be traded or access rights exchanged in accordance with this principle. An exception may occur for commercial fisheries, given the potential influx of warmer-­‐water species (e.g., sardines) that is projected to occur under climate change (see Chapter 2). 123 3.6.2.2 Externalized impacts In almost all circumstances, scenarios represented in this analysis illustrate outcomes where impacts are externalized, rather than internally resolved. For instance, redistributing access rights in circumstances where reciprocal agreements are not feasible serves to reallocate—rather than reduce—impacts. Given existing competition and conflict over key resources, such as salmon and herring, it is unlikely that further reductions associated with climate change will yield equitable outcomes. Traditional clam beds serve as an ideal example of a method that could be applied to offset climatic impacts through internalized mechanisms, using local cultivation to generate increased productivity rather than redirecting extraction efforts towards other regions or species. As illustrated above, the localized nature of such management strategies could provide politically and economically feasible mitigation strategies that simultaneously achieve conservation objectives and maintain traditional practices. 3.6.2.3 Joint-­‐management frameworks While it may be unlikely that climatic impacts to salmon and herring stocks can be fully mitigated, attaining a state of collaboration between First Nations, DFO, and other sectors has the potential to yield beneficial ecological and political results, if done correctly (Garner and Parfitt 2006). As outlined in this study, many parallels exist between First Nations’ traditional fisheries management approaches and “modern” approaches, with differences arising primarily due to conflicting worldviews. By aligning analogous approaches, local 124 application of traditional management strategies could provide opportunities to collaboratively engage in adaptive ecosystem-­‐based management (Berkes 1999) and to coordinate efforts to attain conservation objectives (Augustine and Dearden 2014). Given the benefits that are likely to be incurred through collaboration—namely, increased autonomy for First Nations who wish to manage local resources and integrate traditional practices; improved stock monitoring and management; and the potential to improve economic returns—existing joint-­‐management frameworks can provide foundations from which to construct new, adaptive approaches to managing fisheries under unprecedented environmental change. Moreover, the risk of conflict over declining resources underlines the need to establish common and equitable ground to ensure successful joint management of fisheries, and to leverage collective expertise. 3.7 Conclusion This study illustrates the development and application of a preliminary framework for identifying climate-­‐resilient pathways in the context of small-­‐scale, traditional fisheries. The use of climate change projections combined with anthropological approaches facilitates proactive identification of fisheries management issues that might arise under a range of fisheries-­‐related impacts. Through these discussions, I argue that deferring to First Nations’—and other small-­‐scale fishers’—traditional or local ecological knowledge could aid in the development of adaptive ecosystem-­‐based management strategies that are well suited to addressing unprecedented environmental change along the Pacific Northwest Coast. Additionally, I contend that the active inclusion of First Nations in joint management 125 would not only serve to strengthen local monitoring and management endeavours, as demonstrated by the Nisga’a, but would also contribute to maintaining cultural values and traditions, increasing local job opportunities, and supporting regional sovereignty. Increasing theoretical and empirical evidence of range shifts exhibited by marine species under climate change underlines the need to examine how these impacts could be offset through collaborative agreements that reconsider spatial allocations of harvest rights. While illustrating the theoretical potential for resource sharing agreements between First Nations to offset regional-­‐ and species-­‐specific declines, I suggest that cultural, spatial, and economic challenges would likely hinder implementation of these strategies in the case studies outlined above. Furthermore, I highlight the difficulty of developing scenarios of climate-­‐resilient pathways that negate impacts through internalized mechanisms, rather than redistributing or externalizing ecological, economic, or socio-­‐cultural impacts. The scenarios suggest varying degrees of adaptive capacity for three fisheries of cultural and economic importance to First Nations, emphasizing the importance of effective joint-­‐management approaches to minimize impacts and mitigate stakeholder conflicts over declining resources. In particular, coastwide declines in herring and salmon are likely to produce considerable challenges at local and regional levels given their economic, socio-­‐cultural, and nutritional importance. Conversely, scenarios illustrate opportunities to apply traditional fisheries management strategies to partially or fully offset local declines in the abundance of some species of clams, with examples of successfully increasing clam productivity through cultivated clam beds. 126 This research speaks to the breadth of Indigenous TEK and small-­‐scale fishers’ knowledge and its potential value when developing localized approaches to mitigating climate-­‐related impacts to fisheries. While further research and community consultations would be necessary to fully assess the degree to which TEK and fisheries management strategies could be aligned, this study demonstrates the considerable scope of knowledge possessed by First Nations of the Pacific Northwest Coast, and provides a scenario-­‐based approach to exploring applications of First Nations’ expertise in efforts to mitigate impacts to fisheries under climate change. 127 4 CONCLUSION 4.1 Summary of research To the author’s knowledge, this study offers the first attempt to integrate quantitative projections of climate-­‐related impacts to small-­‐scale fisheries (Chapter 2) with a qualitative analysis of how traditional fisheries management approaches might be applied to develop climate-­‐resilient pathways (Chapter 3). This scenario-­‐based framework provides an opportunity to proactively identify fisheries management issues that are likely to arise under climate change, with specific application to local risk assessments for small-­‐scale fisheries. In particular, this is the first study to quantitatively estimate potential impacts to First Nations’ commercial and food, social and ceremonial (FSC) fisheries under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) ranges of climate change, as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2013a)(Chapter 2). While declines in mean abundance and relative catch potential are projected within BC’s EEZ for the majority of species included in the study, results indicate a strong positive correlation between latitude and the relative change in catch potential under both scenarios of climate change, with less severe declines estimated for coastal First Nations at higher latitudes within the EEZ. This correlation strengthens with the upper range of the climate change (see Section 2.3.2.1, Figure 2.5). These impacts are observed not only for catch potential—which could indicate declines in a few highly abundant species—but also for the number of species exhibiting declines, showing a strong negative correlation with latitude (i.e., as latitude decreases, the number 128 of species exhibiting declines in catch potential increases). While species exhibiting neutral or small declines in abundance under RCP 2.6 tend to remain neutral or marginally increase under RCP 8.5, more severe declines tend to be exacerbated under the upper range of climate change. These trends relate in part to the poleward range shifts that are projected for most of the species examined under both scenarios (2.9 to 4.5 km decade-­‐1 for fishes and 2.7 to 3.4 km decade-­‐1 for invertebrates), which are likely to lead to a regional redistribution of catch potential within BC’s EEZ. While the rate of the shift is slower than those projected for marine species in other studies (Perry et al. 2005; Poloczanska et al. 2013), this may be due to the scale of the analysis, which is expected to capture more nuanced, multi-­‐dimensional shifts resulting from the fine-­‐scale coastal dynamics and localized temperature gradients that influence species’ responses. Calculations of the leading and trailing edges of the range shifts project multi-­‐directional shifts latitudinally, which, while exhibiting a predominant poleward trend, suggest opportunistic responses given suitable habitat (Supplementary Table E2). Collectively, these trends suggest largely detrimental impacts coastwide across both scenarios of climate change, with considerable implications for the stability of catch potential for small-­‐scale commercial and subsistence-­‐based fisheries such as those operated by First Nations. Latitudinal trends exhibited in this study suggest site-­‐specific impacts that vary depending on the taxonomic group, harvest preferences, and the initial abundance of species within a given domestic fishing area. For example, while three marine resources of critical 129 importance to First Nations—Pacific herring (C. pallasii), eulachon (T. pacificus), and salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.)—are projected to decrease in abundance across their entire range within BC’s EEZ (Chapter 2), the relative importance of each species varies for each community (Chapter 3). Furthermore, existing harvest restrictions for species or stocks at risk of extinction, such as Fraser River eulachon (listed as Endangered as of May 2011 by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada [COSEWIC])(DFO 2013a), suggest more severe impacts to stock success given that declines projected in this analysis are relative to initial stock abundance. The results obtained in Chapter 2 corroborate the findings of other studies investigating climate-­‐related impacts to marine ecosystems, which have found empirical and theoretical evidence for range shifts (Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Perry et al. 2005; Hazen et al. 2013; Jones et al. 2013; Poloczanska et al. 2013) and associated impacts to fisheries through changes in catch potential (Cheung et al. 2010; 2013) and redistributions of targeted species (Pinsky and Fogarty 2012). Local analyses have also found similar trends when projecting climate-­‐induced impacts to commercial species along the Pacific Northwest Coast (Cheung et al. 2011b; Ainsworth et al. 2011). Given the rapid ecological changes that are expected within the Pacific Northeast basin (Ainsworth et al. 2011; Okey et al. 2014), a combination of spatial reallocations of, and site-­‐specific declines in, fisheries catch potential would likely to lead to increased conflict between the stakeholders who depend upon these resources for a range of economic, nutritional, spiritual, and cultural values. The trends highlighted in Chapter 2 illustrate the 130 value of scenario-­‐based assessments in improving our understanding of management issues that might emerge, and in enabling discussions of viable mitigation and adaptation strategies to proactively address these issues (Chapter 3). Since climate change analyses are primarily globally or regionally focused, a framework that derives site-­‐specific scenarios from broad-­‐scale quantitative analyses and combines them with an interdisciplinary understanding of localized contexts—particularly through anthropological methods (Barnes et al. 2013)—can serve to develop a more complete understanding of potential mitigation and adaptation pathways. Although the resolution of current global climate models (GCMs) makes it difficult—and perhaps impossible—to produce precise estimates of future change, the robust trends that emerge can yield a useful outline of best-­‐ and worst-­‐case scenarios that can be used to plan appropriate response strategies. As with most models, these approaches are intended to weigh options given likely scenarios, rather than to accurately predict the future. To demonstrate such a framework, I conducted an interdisciplinary analysis of how First Nations’ traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and fisheries management strategies might inform their responses to future climate-­‐related impacts to fisheries within their traditional territories (Chapter 3), using the projections obtained from Chapter 2 to guide the analysis. Through reference to the anthropological, ethnographic, and archaeological literature, I examined First Nations’ pre-­‐contact and post-­‐contact responses to environmental change across coastal British Columbia, using these examples to identify precedents that could aid in developing adaptive approaches to mitigate climate change 131 impacts. In particular, I illustrated the parallels that exist between First Nations’ traditional fisheries management strategies and “modern” strategies developed from Western scientific approaches, while highlighting the different value-­‐based paradigms that inform these strategies. Using three case studies, I then outlined theoretical examples of how First Nations’ TEK—through joint or exclusive management of fisheries within their respective territories—could be effectively implemented to mitigate climate-­‐related impacts, thereby illustrating the importance of deferring to local knowledge holders’ expertise. While two of the three case studies provide immediate options that could help to reduce cumulative impacts (e.g., temporary closure of the commercial roe fisheries within First Nations’ traditional territories), offset impacts through a regional redistribution of access rights (e.g., redistributing access rights to commercial fisheries for Pacific geoduck and manila clams), or increase productivity through mariculture (e.g., cultivating traditional clam beds to increase the productivity of traditional foods, such as butter and littleneck clams), the remaining case study aptly demonstrates why fisheries management and climate change alike have been referred to as ‘wicked problems’ that are inherently interdisciplinary and offer no clear solutions (Hulme 2009; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009). The coastwide declines in abundance that are projected for all species of salmon provide few opportunities to offset impacts (Chapter 3), and pose a considerable challenge for fisheries that are already plagued by conflict over resources (Newell 1993; Erlandson et al. 2008; Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study Participants et al. 2011). Thus, these projections underline the importance of establishing collaborative approaches that support conservation objectives and align management strategies. As illustrated in Chapter 3, 132 existing joint-­‐management frameworks can be used to guide efforts to reduce—if not fully offset—impacts to First Nations that rely upon salmon as cultural keystone species that fulfil economic, socio-­‐cultural, spiritual, and nutritional requirements (Garibaldi and Turner 2004). 4.2 Management implications While studies have qualitatively explored factors influencing the resilience of First Nations in British Columbia (Trosper 2003; Turner and Spalding 2013), highlighted the potential application of TEK in understanding and responding to climate change (Reidlinger and Berkes 2001; Berkes 2009), and produced frameworks for assessing the vulnerability of remote Indigenous communities to climate change (Chapin et al. 2004; Ford and Smit 2004), the interdisciplinary approach employed in this study facilitates a discussion of potential mitigation and adaptation strategies that are directed towards specific challenges likely to occur under climate change. In the context of coastal British Columbia, three key questions are identified: (1) how do we mitigate impacts to fisheries catch potential that are unequally distributed?; (2) how do we account for the externalization of impacts to fisheries?; and (3) how can we effectively implement joint-­‐management frameworks that balance objectives? While I offer three examples of measures that might be applied to address these three questions—resource sharing agreements that redistribute impacts; local mariculture that internally offsets declines in catch potential; and joint-­‐management frameworks that facilitate collaborative management approaches, respectively—further consultation with communities would be 133 necessary to develop viable options that fully accommodate each community’s respective concerns and values. Furthermore, it is essential to note that no single answer represents a panacea. As mentioned previously, each case is context-­‐specific: therefore, while historical or modern strategies may provide feasible frameworks, each approach must be tailored in concert with local communities, ensuring mutual agreement. While the estimates derived from this analysis are not intended to represent precise fisheries management guidelines, the underlying trends that emerge illustrate the value of using quantitatively derived scenarios to examine potential site-­‐specific impacts. For instance, the latitudinal trends in declining catch potential portrayed in this analysis can be used to develop management strategies for addressing spatial trade-­‐offs associated with the redistribution of marine resources. Moreover, this approach identifies key stakeholders that may be impacted, allowing for options to be discussed proactively. Aside from socio-­‐economic implications, this framework can also be used to prioritize conservation measures that mitigate declines in species or stocks that have been assessed as at risk of extinction. Although studies have begun to draw tentative guidelines for accommodating range shifts through fisheries management (Link et al. 2010), more research is necessary to examine how the questions arising from this study could be addressed so as to minimize differential impacts while still maximizing accrued benefits. Presently, it is critical that theoretical discussions take a more guided path towards exploring potential context-­‐specific responses to climate change. In other words, research increasingly needs to shift towards a 134 discussion of solutions that identify links between vulnerability assessments and management options. 4.3 Cross-­‐application of framework This thesis illustrates the development and application of a preliminary methodology for integrating climate change projections for species distributions—derived from outputs obtained from a global circulation model (GFDL ESM2M) and dynamic bioclimate envelope model—with a review of published ethnographic, archaeological, and anthropological literature to explore climate-­‐resilient pathways that could be used to offset or mitigate localized impacts. While used in the context of coastal First Nations’ fisheries along the Pacific Northwest Coast, the inclusion of both broad-­‐scale and localized techniques facilitates application to other marine ecosystems involving Indigenous and small-­‐scale fisheries. In particular, these methods are useful through their relevance to data-­‐poor analyses. For instance, the DBEM requires knowledge regarding species’ distributions and habitat preferences within a given region, both of which can be obtained by referring to local fishers’ knowledge in the absence of other data. The life history traits used to assess the capacity of species to respond to climate change are largely available through online databases (e.g., FishBase or SeaLifeBase) or the scientific literature. However, while the rate of change projected by the DBEM is sensitive to the life history parameters used, the direction of the change is robust to alternative life history parameters, if required. Therefore, species within the same taxonomic group and region can be used as proxies to 135 derive estimates in data-­‐poor circumstances, and to thereby prioritize mitigation measures. Conversely, given more robust sources of data, multi-­‐model ensembles or regional climate models (RCMs) could be used to reduce uncertainty in climate change projections, thereby increasing capacity to identify suitable mitigation or adaptation responses. It is important to recognize that most small-­‐scale fishing communities have resource management systems that have emerged from local traditional knowledge of marine ecosystems, and thereby provide examples of adaptive ecosystem-­‐based management (Berkes et al. 2000) that can offer useful strategies for responding to modern environmental change (Heiltsuk First Nation and DFO 2010; Zhang et al. 2012; Groesbeck et al. 2014). Through reference to TEK, this analysis demonstrates the strengths of deferring to or, at the very least, consulting with local expertise, rather than using top-­‐down approaches to manage fisheries and other natural resources. As Johannes et al. (2000) astutely argue, “Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat.” 4.4 Future research and modifications The methodology proposed in this thesis offers a foundation for conceptualizing fisheries adaptive capacity in the context of Indigenous and small-­‐scale fishing communities that depend on the marine environment for their holistic wellbeing. While I begin by framing adaptive capacity in the context of capacity to offset impacts to catch potential, a more complete assessment would need to consider a range of direct and indirect socioeconomic, spiritual, and cultural impacts that would coincide with, or arise from, climate-­‐related 136 impacts to fisheries. For instance, to achieve an understanding of the full breadth of impacts, community-­‐based consultations and a more thorough understanding of the values and objectives driving responses to shifts in the abundance and availability of marine resources would be necessary. Moreover, such an assessment would need to consider the scale of these responses and to investigate the distribution of impacts both between and within communities (e.g., gender-­‐ or age-­‐specific impacts associated with their dependence on fisheries, which may comprise direct or in-­‐direct participation in the fishing industry or auxiliary industries). To further reduce model uncertainty, I intend to incorporate a multi-­‐model ensemble comprising 5 IPCC-­‐class global climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5; Taylor et al. 2012) of the World Climate Research Programme to explore the sensitivity of the results obtained in this analysis to assumptions regarding ocean biogeochemistry. Ultimately, this study offers a flexible methodology that can be modified to suit local contexts, and that demonstrates the considerable advantages derived from employing interdisciplinary approaches. While challenging, successful dialogue between a qualitative understanding of local worldviews and a quantitative understanding of the likely impacts arising from scenarios of climate change—among other stressors—can inform management frameworks that possess sufficient knowledge to determine holistic mitigation and adaptation responses. In other words, when applied in the context of small-­‐scale fishing communities, such an approach may facilitate management approaches that 137 identify objectives beyond maximizing economic profit and food security, thereby endeavouring towards the broader objective of collective wellbeing. 138 REFERENCES Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), Government of Canada. (2005) First Nation statement of intent boundaries BC (arc regions). Retrieved from: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=45416&recordSet=ISO19115 (1 July 2014). Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC). (2013) First Nation profiles. Retrieved from: http://fnpim-­‐cippn.aandc-­‐aadnc.gc.ca (14 Jun 2014). Adger, W.N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M.M.Q., Conde, C., O'Brien, K.L., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R.S., Smit, B., Takahashi, K. (2007). Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (eds M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 717–743. Adger, W.N., Barnett, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N.A. and O'Brien, K.L. (2012) Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nature Climate Change 3(2): 112–117. Adger, W.N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni I., Nelson, D.R., Naess, L.O., Wolf, J., Wreford, A. (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change 93(3-­‐4): 335–354. Adger, W.N. (1999) Evolution of economy and environment: an application to land use in lowland Vietnam. Ecological Economics 31(3): 365-­‐379. Aghazadeh, E. (1994) Fisheries socio-­‐economic analysis and policy. BGD/89/012. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Accessed from http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/ac385e/ac385e00.htm. (3 July 2014). Ainsworth, C.H., Samhouri, J.F., Busch, D.S., Cheung, W.W.L., Dunne, J.P. and Okey, T.A. (2011) Potential impacts of climate change on Northeast Pacific marine foodwebs and fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68(6): 1217–1229. Allison, E.H., Perry, A.L., Badjeck, M.-­‐C., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Conway, D., Halls, A.S., 139 Pilling, G.M., Reynolds, J.D., Andrew, N.L., Dulvy, N.K. (2009) Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 10(3): 173–196. Ames, K.M. (2002) Going by boat: the forager-­‐collector continuum at sea. In: Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter Gatherer Settlement Systems. (eds B. Fitzhugh and J. Habu). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY. pp. 19-­‐52. Ames, K.M. (2003) The Northwest Coast. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 12(1): 19–33. Assembly of First Nations (2011) Co-­‐Management Discussion Paper. 11 pp. Assembly of First Nations. Accessed from: http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/env/comanagement_paper.pdf (3 July 2014). Augustine, S. and Dearden, P. (2014) Changing paradigms in marine and coastal conservation: A case study of clam gardens in the Southern Gulf Islands, Canada. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien, DOI: 10.1111/cag.12084. Badjeck, M.-­‐C., Allison, E.H., Halls, A.S. and Dulvy, N.K. (2010) Impacts of climate variability and change on fishery-­‐based livelihoods. Marine Policy 34(3): 375–383. Barange, M., Merino, G., Blanchard, J.L., Scholtens, J., Harle, J., Allison, E.H., Allen, J.I., Holt, J., Jennings, S. (2014) Impacts of climate change on marine ecosystem production in societies dependent on fisheries. Nature Climate Change 4(3): 211–216. Barnes, J., Dove, M., Lahsen, M., Mathews, A., McElwee, P., McIntosh, R., Moore, F., O'Reilly, J., Orlove, B., Puri, R., Weiss, H., Yager, K. (2013) Contribution of anthropology to the study of climate change. Nature Climate Change 3(6): 541–544. Bates, A.E., Barrett, N.S., Stuart-­‐Smith, R.D., Holbrook, N.J., Thompson, P.A. and Edgar, G.J. (2013) Resilience and signatures of tropicalization in protected reef fish communities. Nature Climate Change 4: 62–67. BC Ministry of Agriculture. (2004) 2003 British Columbia Seafood Industry Year in Review. 1–8 pp. BC Ministry of Agriculture. Accessed from: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/YIR-­‐2003.pdf (3 July 2014). BC Ministry of Agriculture. (2006) 2005 British Columbia Seafood Industry Year in Review. 1–16 pp. BC Ministry of Agriculture. Accessed from: 140 http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/YIR-­‐2005.pdf (3 July 2014). BC Ministry of Agriculture. (2008) 2007 British Columbia Seafood Industry Year in Review. 1–16 pp. BC Ministry of Agriculture. Accessed from: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/YIR-­‐2007.pdf (3 July 2014). BC Ministry of Agriculture. (2010) 2009 British Columbia Seafood Industry Year in Review. 1–16 pp. BC Ministry of Agriculture. Accessed from: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/YIR-­‐2009.pdf (3 July 2014). BC Ministry of Agriculture. (2011) 2010 British Columbia Seafood Industry Year in Review. 1–16 pp. BC Ministry of Agriculture. Accessed from: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/YIR-­‐2010.pdf (3 July 2014). BC Treaty Commission. (2013) BC Treaty Commission Annual Report 2013. 38 pp. BC Treaty Commission. Accessed from: http://www.bctreaty.net/files/pdf_documents/BCTC-­‐Annual-­‐Report-­‐2013.pdf (3 July 2014). Berkes, F. (1999) Context of traditional ecological knowledge. In: Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor & Francis, Phildelphia, PA, pp 3–16. Berkes, F. (2009) Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 39(4): 151–156. Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10(5): 1251–1262. Blackman, M.B. (1990) Haida: traditional culture. In: Handbook of North American Indians: Northwest Coast, Vol. 7. (ed W. Suttles). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp 240–260. Blakley, A.C., English, K.K. and Cassidy, L. (2011) Tsawwassen First Nation post-­‐season fisheries report 2010. 87 pp. Tsawwassen First Nation, Sidney and Tsawwassen, BC. Accessed from: http://www.tsawwassenfirstnation.com/pdfs/TFN-­‐About/Information-­‐Centre/Fisheries/TFN_Post_Season_Fisheries_Report_2010.pdf (3 July 2014). Boas, F. (2002) Indian myths and legends from the North Pacific Coast of North America. Talonbooks, Vancouver. 141 Brander, K.M. (2007) Global fish production and climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(50): 19709–19714. Brander, K.M. (2010) Impacts of climate change on fisheries. Journal of Marine Systems 79(3): 389–402. Brookfield, K., Gray, T. and Hatchard, J. (2005) The concept of fisheries-­‐dependent communities. Fisheries Research 72(1): 55–69. Burrows, M.T., Schoeman, D.S., Richardson, A.J., Molinos, J.G., Hoffman, A., Buckley, L.B., Moore, P.J., Brown, C.J., Bruno, J.F., Duarte, C.M., Halpern, B.S., Hoegh-­‐Guldberg, O., Kappel, C.V., Kiessling, W., O'Connor, M.I., Pandolfi, J.M., Parmesan, C., Sydeman, W., Ferrier, S., Williams, K.J., Poloczanska, E.S. (2014) Geographical limits to species-­‐range shifts are suggested by climate velocity. Nature 507: 492–495. Burton, I., Kates, R.W. and White, G.F. (1993) The environment as hazard, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press, New York, NY. Butler, V.L. and Campbell, S.K. (2004) Resource intensification and resource depression in the Pacific Northwest of North America: A Zooarchaeological Review. Journal of World Prehistory 18(4): 327–405. Campbell, A. (2000) Review of northern abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana, stock status in British Columbia. In: Workshop on rebuilding abalone stocks in British Columbia. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 130. (ed A. Campbell). NRC Research Press, Ottawa, ON, pp 41–51. Campbell, S.K. and Butler, V.L. (2010) Archaeological evidence for resilience of Pacific northwest salmon populations and the socioecological system over the last ~7,500 years. Ecology and Society 15(1): 17. DOI: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art17/ (Accessed 3 July 2014). Cannon, A. (1998) Contingency and agency in the growth of the Northwest Coast maritime economies. Arctic Anthropology 35(1): 57–67. Cannon, A. (2002) Sacred power and seasonal settlement on the central Northwest Coast. In: Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter Gatherer Settlement Systems. (eds B. Fitzhugh and J. Habu). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 311–338. Cannon, A. and Burchell, M. (2009) Clam growth-­‐stage profiles as a measure of harvest 142 intensity and resource management on the central coast of British Columbia. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(4): 1050–1060. CBD Secretariat. (2013) Quick guide to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: traditional knowledge respected. United Nations. Accessed from: http://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-­‐plan/targets/T18-­‐quick-­‐guide-­‐en.pdf (3 July 2014). Cederholm, C.J., Kunze, M.D., Murota, T. and Sibatani, A. (1999) Pacific salmon carcasses: essential contributions of nutrients and energy for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Fisheries 24(10): 6–15. Chan, L., Receveur, O., Sharp, D., Schwartz, H., Ing, A., Tikhonov, C. and Mimeault, C. (2011) First Nations food, nutrition and environment study. 216 pp. University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George. Chapin, F.S., III, Peterson, G., Berkes, F., Callaghan, T.V., Angelstam, P., Apps, M., Beier, C., Bergeron, Y., Crépin, A.S., Danell, K., Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Forbes, B., Fresco, N., Juday, G., Niemela, J., Shvidenko, A., Whiteman, G. (2004) Resilience and vulnerability of northern regions to social and environmental change. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 33(6): 344–349. Chavez, F.P. (2003) From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299: 217–221. Cheung, W.W.L., Close, C., Lam, V.W.Y., Watson, R. and Pauly, D. (2008a) Application of macroecological theory to predict effects of climate change on global fisheries potential. Marine Ecology Progress Series 365: 187–197. Cheung, W.W.L., Lam, V.W.Y. and Pauly, D. (2008b) Dynamic bioclimate envelope model to predict climate-­‐induced changes in distribution of marine fisheries and invertebrates. In: Modelling present and climate-­‐shifted distribution of marine fishes and invertebrates (eds. W.W.L. Cheung, V.W.Y. Lam, and D. Pauly). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 16(3): 5-­‐50. Cheung, W.W.L., Lam, V.W.Y., Sarmiento, J.L., Kearney, K., Watson, R. and Pauly, D. (2009) Projecting global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish and Fisheries 10(3): 235–251. Cheung, W.W.L., Lam, V.W.Y., Sarmiento, J.L., Kearney, K., Watson, R., Zeller, D. and Pauly, D. (2010) Large-­‐scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global 143 ocean under climate change. Global Change Biology 16(1): 24–35. Cheung, W.W.L., Dunne, J.P., Sarmiento, J.L. and Pauly, D. (2011a) Integrating ecophysiology and plankton dynamics into projected maximum fisheries catch potential under climate change in the Northeast Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68(6): 1008–1018. Cheung, W.W.L., Zeller, D. and Pauly, D. (2011b) Projected species shifts due to climate change in the Canadian Marine Ecoregions. 47 pp. Environment Canada. Accessed from: http://www.seaaroundus.org/researcher/dpauly/PDF/2011/Books_Reports_OrChaptersTherein/ProjectedSpeciesShiftduetoClimateChange.pdf (3 July 2014). Cheung, W.W.L., Sarmiento, J.L., Dunne, J.P., et al. (2013a) Shrinking of fishes exacerbates impacts of global ocean changes on marine ecosystems. Nature Climate Change 3(3): 254–258. Cheung, W.W.L., Watson, R. and Pauly, D. (2013b) Signature of ocean warming in global fisheries catch. Nature 497, 365–368. Cinner, J.E., McClanahan, T.R. and Wamukota, A. (2009) Differences in livelihoods, socioeconomic characteristics, and knowledge about the sea between fishers and non-­‐fishers living near and far from marine parks on the Kenyan coast. Marine Policy 34(1): 22–28. Close, C., Cheung, W., Hodgson, S., Lam, V.W.Y., Watson, R. and Pauly, D. (2006) Distribution ranges of commercial fishes and invertebrates. Fishes in Databases and Ecosystems. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(4): 27–37. Close, D.A., Fitzpatrick, M.S. and Li, H.W. (2002) The ecological and cultural importance of a species at risk of extinction, Pacific lamprey. Fisheries 27(7): 19–25. Coulthard, S. (2012) Can We Be Both Resilient and Well, and What Choices Do People Have? Incorporating Agency into the Resilience Debate from a Fisheries Perspective. Ecology and Society 17(1): 4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-­‐04483-­‐170104 (3 July 2014). Coulthard, S., Johnson, D. and McGregor, J.A. (2011) Poverty, sustainability and human wellbeing: A social wellbeing approach to the global fisheries crisis. Global Environmental Change 21(2): 453–463. Council of the Haida Nation. (2011) Ocean and Way of Life [map]. Accessed from: http://www.haidanation.ca/Pages/documents/pdfs/marine/OceanPoster_60_Wide.pdf (3 July 2014). 144 Davis, A. and Ruddle, K. (2010) Constructing confidence: rational skepticism and systematic enquiry in local ecological knowledge research. Ecological Applications 20(3): 880–894. Daw, T.M., Adger, W.N., Brown, K. Badjeck, M.-­‐C. (2008) Climate change and capture fisheries. In: Review of climate change and capture fisheries. Report for FAO High-­‐Level Conference on World Food Security and the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy 3-­‐5th June 2008. 43 pp. Accessed from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0994e/i0994e03.pdf (3 July 2014). Daw, T.M., Cinner, J.E., McClanahan, T.R., Brown, K., Stead, S.M., Graham, N.A.J. Maina, J. (2012) To fish or not to fish: factors at multiple scales affecting artisanal fishers' readiness to exit a declining fishery. PLoS ONE 7(2): e31460. DOI: 10.1731/journal.pone.0031460 (3 July 2014). Delworth, T.L., Rosati, A., Anderson, W., Adcroft, A.J., Balaji, V., Lee, H.-­‐C., Panacanowski, R.C., Vecchi, G.A., Wittenberg, A.T., Zeng, F., Zhang, R. (2012) Simulated climate and climate change in the GFDL CM2.5 high-­‐resolution coupled climate model. Part I: Formulation and simulation characteristics. Journal of Climate 25(8): 2755-­‐2781. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada [DFO] and Gitga'at Indian Band. (2005) Comprehensive Fisheries Agreement. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Accessed from: http://www.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/Library/342072 AFS2010-­‐SYR-­‐1015-­‐0.pdf (3 July 2014). Deur, D. (1999) Salmon, sedentism, and cultivation: Toward an environmental prehistory of the Northwest Coast. In: Northwest Lands, Northwest Peoples. (eds D.D. Goble and P.W. Hirt). University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. pp. 129–155. DFO. (2008) Fraser River eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus): 2007 population assessment and harvest recommendations for 2008. Science Advisory Report 2007/048, 6 pp. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Accessed from: http://www.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/Library/331734.pdf (3 July 2014). DFO. (2010) 2010 Canadian marine ecosystem status and trends report. Science Advisory Report 2010/030, 38 pp. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Accessed from: http://www.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/Csas/publications/sar-­‐as/2010/2010_030_e.pdf (3 July 2014). 145 DFO. (2012) 2012-­‐2015 Pacific Sardine integrated fisheries management plan summary. 9 pp. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Accessed from: http://www.pac.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/fm-­‐gp/mplans/2013/sardine-­‐sm-­‐2012-­‐2015-­‐eng.pdf (3 July 2014). DFO. (2013a) 2013/2014 Fraser River eulachon integrated fisheries management plan. 44 pp. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Accessed from: http://www.pac.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/fm-­‐gp/mplans/2013/eulachon-­‐eulakane-­‐2013-­‐eng.pdf (3 July 2014). DFO. (2013b) 2013/2014 Northern Pacific salmon integrated fisheries management plan. 141 pp. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Accessed from: http://www.pac.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/fm-­‐gp/mplans/2013/smon/smon-­‐nc-­‐cn-­‐2013-­‐sm-­‐eng.pdf (3 July 2014). DFO. (2014) Stock assessment and management advice for British Columbia Pacific herring: 2013 status and 2014 forecast. Science Advisory Report 2014/003. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Accessed from: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/mpo-­‐dfo/Fs70-­‐6-­‐2014-­‐003-­‐eng.pdf DFO and Council of the Haida Nation. (2013) 2013 Council of the Haida Nation / Fisheries and Oceans Canada joint razor clam management plan. 22 pp. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Accessed from: http://www.pac.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/fm-­‐gp/mplans/2013/razor-­‐couteau-­‐2013-­‐eng.pdf (3 July 2014). Doney, S.C., Ruckelshaus, M., Emmett Duffy, J., Barry, J.P., Chan, F., English, C.A., Galindo, H.M., Grebmeier, J.M., Hollowed, A.B., Knowlton, N., Polovina, J., Rabalais, N.N., Sydeman, W.J., Talley, L.D. (2012) Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science 4(1): 11–37. Downing, A. and Cuerrier, A. (2011) A synthesis of the impacts of climate change on the First Nations and Inuit of Canada. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 10: 57–70. Dulvy, N.K., Rogers, S.I., Jennings, S., Stelzenmller, V., Dye, S.R. and Skjoldal, H.R. (2008) Climate change and deepening of the North Sea fish assemblage: a biotic indicator of warming seas. Journal of Applied Ecology 45(4): 1029–1039. Elliott, B., Jayatilaka, D., Brown, C., Varley, L. and Corbett, K.K. (2012) “We Are Not Being Heard”: Aboriginal Perspectives on Traditional Foods Access and Food Security. Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2012. 9 pp. DOI: 10.1155/2012/130945. 146 Ensor, J. and Berger, R. (2009) Community-­‐based adaptation and culture in theory and practice. In: Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance. (eds W.N. Adger, I. Lorenzoni and K.L. O'Brien). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp 227–239. EOL. (2014). Encyclopedia of Life. World Wide Web online database. Available at: http://www.eol.org (last accessed December 2013). Erlandson, J.M., Moss, M.L. and Lauriers, Des, M. (2008) Life on the edge: early maritime cultures of the Pacific Coast of North America. Quaternary Science Reviews 27(23-­‐24): 2232–2245. Erlandson, J.M., Tveskov, M.A. and Byram, R.S. (2011) The development of maritime adaptations on the southern Northwest Coast of North America. Arctic Anthropology 35(1): 6–22. Feary, D.A., Pratchett, M.S., J Emslie, M., Fowler, A.M., Figueira, W.F., Luiz, O.J., Nakamura, Y., Booth, D.J. (2013) Latitudinal shifts in coral reef fishes: why some species do and others do not shift. Fish and Fisheries. DOI: 10.1111/faf.12036. Ference Weicker & Company Ltd (2009) Social and economic assessment and analysis of First Nation communities and territorial natural resources for integrated marine use planning in the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area. 107 pp. Accessed from: http://ccira.ca/media/documents/pdf/marine-­‐sector-­‐report-­‐f-­‐w.pdf (3 July 2014). Fernandes, J.A., Cheung, W.W.L., Jennings, S., Butenschön, de Mora, L., Frölicher, T.L., Barange, M., Grant, A. (2013) Modelling the effects of climate change on the distribution and production of marine fishes: accounting for trophic interactions in a dynamic bioclimate envelope model. Global Change Biology 19(8): 2596–2607. First Nations Leadership Council (2006) BC First Nations Fisheries Action Plan. 36 pp. British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Summit, and Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. Accessed from: http://www.fns.bc.ca/pdf/FNLC_FisheriesActionPlan.pdf (3 July 2014). First Nations Summit. (2014) An open letter from the First Nations Summit to Hon. Gail Shea, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Accessed from: http://www.fns.bc.ca/pdf/FNS_NR_re_open_Letter_Minister_Shea_re_2014_Herring_fis 147 hery_April-­‐3-­‐2014.pdf (Accessed 1 July 2014). Folke, C. (2006) Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16(3): 253–267. Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T. and Rockström, J. (2010) Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4): 20. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/ (3 July 2014). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]. (2012) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2012. 230 pp. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e.pdf (3 July 2014). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]. (2013) Aquatic species distribution map viewer. Accessed from: http://www.fao.org/figis/geoserver/factsheets/species.html (3 July 2014). Ford, J.D. and Smit, B. (2004) A framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities in the Canadian arctic to risks associated with climate change. Human Dimensions of the Arctic System 57(4): 389–400. Ford, J.D., Smit, B., Wandel, J. and MacDonald, J.S. (2006) Vulnerability to climate change in Igloolik, Nunavut: what we can learn from the past and present. Polar Record 42(221): 127-­‐138. Ford, J.D., Smit, B., Wandel, J., Allurut, M., Shappa, K., Ittusarjuat, H. and Qrunnut, K. (2008) Climate change in the Arctic: current and future vulnerability in two Inuit communities in Canada. The Geographical Journal 174(1): 45–62. Fordham, D.A., Wigley, T.M. and Brook, B.W. (2011) Multi-­‐model climate projections for biodiversity risk assessments. Ecological Applications 21(8): 3317–3331. Froese, R. and Pauly, D, eds. (2014). FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available at: http://www.fishbase.org, version 12/2013. Füssel, H.-­‐M. (2007) Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Global Environmental Change 17(2): 155–167. Gadgil, M., Berkes, F. and Folke, C. (1993) Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 22(2/3): 151–156. 148 Gallopín, G.C. (2006) Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 16(3): 293–303. Garibaldi, A. and Turner, N.J. (2004) Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society 9(3): 1. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1 (3 July 2014). Garner, K. and Parfitt, B. (2006) First Nations, salmon fisheries and the rising importance of conservation. 43 pp. Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. Accessed from: http://www.fish.bc.ca/files/First Nations Salmon Fisheries.pdf (3 July 2014). Gregory, R.S., Failing, L. and Joseph, C. (2011) Economic impacts of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project on the Gitga'at First Nation. 88 pp. Gitga'at First Nation. Accessed from: https://docs.neb-­‐one.gc.ca/ll-­‐eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/384192/620327/624910/697575/777619/D71-­‐7-­‐3_-­‐_Gitga_at_First_Nation_-­‐_Gitga_at_ENGP_Economic_Impact_Report_FINAL_-­‐_A2K4W9.pdf?nodeid=777704&vernum=-­‐2 (Accessed 3 July 2014). Groesbeck, A.S., Rowell, K., Lepofsky, D. and Salomon, A.K. (2014) Ancient clam gardens increased shellfish production: adaptive strategies from the past can inform food security today. PLoS ONE 9: e91235. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091235 (3 July 2014). Grossman, Z. (2008) Indigenous nations' responses to climate change. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 32(3): 5–27. Guisan, A. and Thuiller, W. (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecology Letters 8(9): 993–1009. Guyot, M., Dickson, C., Paci, C.D.J., Furgal, C. and Chan, H.M. (2006) Local observations of climate change and impacts on traditional food security in two northern Aboriginal communities. International Journal of Circumpolar Health 65(5): 403–415. Haggan, N. and Brown, P. (2003) Aboriginal fisheries issues: The west coast of Canada as a case study. In: Production Systems in Fishery Management. (eds D. Pauly and M.L.D. Palomares). pp 17–20. Haggan, N., Jackson, G.D. and Lacroix, P. (2009) Salmon and eulachon in ecosystem space and time: a plea for wider collaboration and data integration. American Fisheries Society Symposium 69: 619–636. Haggan, N., Turner, N.J., Carpenter, J., Jones, J.T., Mackie, Q. and Menzies, C.R. (2004) 12,000 149 years of change: linking traditional and modern ecosystem science in the Pacific Northwest.Victoria, BC, 16 pp. Accessed from: http://seannachie.ca/Website/Website-­‐docs/12000yrs -­‐ Haggan et al.pdf (3 July 2014). Haggarty, D.R., McCorquodale, B., Johannessen, D.I., Levings, C.D., Ross, P.S. and Sidney, B.C. (2003) Marine environmental quality in the central coast of British Columbia, Canada: A review of contaminant sources, types and risks. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2507. 153 pp. Accessed from: http://www.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/Library/278588.pdf (3 July 2014). Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study Participants, Winbourne, J., Haida Oceans Technical Team, Haida Fisheries Program. (2011) Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study Volume 3: Focal Species Summary. 128 pp. Council of the Haida Nation. Accessed from: http://www.haidanation.ca/Pages/programs/marine_planning/documents/traditional_knowledge/Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge vol.3.pdf (3 July 2014). Harley, C.D.G. (2011) Climate change, keystone predation, and biodiversity loss. Science 334: 1124–1127. Hawley, A.W., Sherry, E.E. and Johnson, C.J. (2004) A biologist's perspective on amalgamating traditional environmental knowledge and resource management. Journal of Ecosystems and Management 5(1): 36–50. Hay, D.E. and McCarter, P.B. (1997) Larval distribution, abundance, and stock structure of British Columbia herring. Journal of Fish Biology 51 (Supplement A): 155–175. Hazen, E.L., Jorgensen, S., Rykaczewski, R.R., Bogard, S.J., Foley, D.G., Jonsen, I.D., Shaffer, S.A, Dunne, J.P., Costa, D.P, Crowder, L.B., Block, B.A. (2013) Predicted habitat shifts of Pacific top predators in a changing climate. Nature Climate Change 3: 234-­‐238. Heikkinen, R.K., Luoto, M., Araújo, M.B., Virkkala, R., Thuiller, W. and Sykes, M.T. (2006) Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modelling under climate change. Progress in Physical Geography 30(6): 751–777. Heiltsuk First Nation (2011) Heiltsuk Integrated Marine Use Plan. 118 pp. Accessed from: https://docs.neb-­‐one.gc.ca/ll-­‐eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/384192/620327/624910/701668/779428/D85-­‐3-­‐14_-­‐_Heiltsuk_Tribal_Council_-­‐ 150 _Appendix_O_Heiltsuk_MUP_JRP_evidence_19dec2011_-­‐_A2K6W1.pdf?nodeid=779453&vernum=-­‐2 (Accessed 3 July 2014). Heiltsuk First Nation, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada [DFO]. (2010) 2010/2011 Heiltsuk Tribal Council/Fisheries and Oceans Canada Intertidal Clam Joint Management Plan. 22 pp. DFO. Accessed from: http://www.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/Library/342088.pdf (3 July 2014). Heyd, T. and Brooks, N. (2009) Exploring cultural dimensions of adaptation to climate change. In: Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance. (eds W.N. Adger, I. Lorenzoni and K.L. O'Brien). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 269–282. Hilborn, R.W. and Walters, C.J., eds. (2004) Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: choice, dynamics, & uncertainty. 4nd ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. 570 pp. Hoffmann, A.A. and Sgrò, C.M. (2011) Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature 470: 479–485. Hoffmann, A.A. and Willi, Y. (2008) Detecting genetic responses to environmental change. Nature Reviews Genetics 9(6): 421–432. Houde, N. (2007) The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-­‐management arrangements. Ecology and Society 12(2): 34. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art34/ (24 March 2013). Hulme, M. (2009) Why we disagree about climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 427 pp. Hunter, K.L., Gillespie, K.M., Brydges, T.M. and Irvine, J.R. (2014) Preliminary assessment of the sensitivity of west coast Vancouver Island marine species to climate change. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 3036, 87 pp. Unpublished. IPCC. (2007) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Working Group II contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds., M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 976 pp. IPCC. (2013a) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 151 (eds., T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-­‐K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 1535 pp. IPCC (2013b) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (eds., T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-­‐K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3–29. IPCC. (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (eds. Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-­‐32. IUCN (2014). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org. Jacob, C., McDaniels, T. and Hinch, S. (2010) Indigenous culture and adaptation to climate change: sockeye salmon and the St’át’imc people. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15(8): 859–876. James, M. (2003) Native participation in British Columbia commercial fisheries -­‐ 2003. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. 35 pp. Accessed from: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/Native-­‐Particpation-­‐BC-­‐Fish.pdf (24 March 2013). Jentoft, S. and Chuenpagdee, R. (2009) Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Marine Policy 33(4): 553–560. Johannes, R.E., Freeman, M.M.R. and Hamilton, R.J. (2000) Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat. Fish and Fisheries 1: 257–271. Johannessen, D.I., Harris, K.A., MacDonald, J.S. and Ross, P.S. (2007) Marine environmental quality in the North Coast and Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, Canada: A review of contaminant sources, types and risks. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries 152 and Aquatic Sciences 2717. Accessed from: http://www.pncima.org/media/documents/pdf/contaminant-­‐review-­‐-­‐-­‐johannessen.pdf (3 July 2014). Johannessen, S.C. and McCarter, B. (2010) Ecosystem status and trends report for the Strait of Georgia ecozone. 2010/010, 45. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Sidney, BC. Accessed from: http://www.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/Library/341615.pdf (3 July 2014). Johnsen, D.B. (2009) Salmon, science, and reciprocity on the Northwest Coast. Ecology and Society 14(2): 43. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art43/ (22 October 2013). Jones, M.C., Dye, S.R., Fernandes, J.A., Frölicher, T.L., Pinnegar, J.K., Warren, R. and Cheung, W.W.L. (2013) Predicting the impact of climate change on threatened species in UK waters. PLoS ONE 8(1): e54216. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054216 (3 July 2014). Jones, M.C., Dye, S.R., Pinnegar, J.K., Warren, R. and Cheung, W.W.L. (2014) Using scenarios to project the changing profitability of fisheries under climate change. Fish and Fisheries. DOI: 10.1111/faf.12081 (3 July 2014). Jones, R., Shepert, M. and Sterritt, N.J. (2004) Our place at the table: First Nations in the B.C. fishery. A report by the First Nation Panel on Fisheries. 88 pp. Accessed from: http://www.fns.bc.ca/pdf/FNFishPanelReport0604.pdf (3 July 2014). Kaschner, K., Watson, R., Trites, A.W. and Pauly, D. (2006) Mapping world-­‐wide distributions of marine mammal species using a relative environmental suitability (RES) model. Marine Ecology Progress Series 316: 285–310. Kaschner, K.J., Rius-­‐Barile, J., Kesner-­‐Reyes, K., Garilao, C., Kullander, S.O., Rees, T. and Froese, R. (2013) AquaMaps: Predicted range maps for aquatic species. World Wide Web online publication, version 08/2013. Available at: http://www.aquamaps.org/. King, L. (2004) Competing knowledge systems in the management of fish and forests in the Pacific Northwest. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 4: 161–177. Labelle, M. (2009) Status of Pacific salmon resources in southern British Columbia and the Fraser River. 98 pp. Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, Vancouver, BC. Accessed from: http://fish.bc.ca/files/South Coast Salmon Report Labelle.pdf (9 June 2014). 153 Lackey, R.T. (2003) Pacific Northwest salmon: forecasting their status in 2100. Reviews in Fisheries Science 11(1): 35–88. Lehodey, P., Alheit, J., Barange, M., et al. (2005) Climate variability, fish, and fisheries. Journal of Climate (Special Section) 19: 5009–5030. Lelooska, C.D. (1998) Spirit of the Cedar People: more stories and paintings of Chief Lelooska. 1st ed. DK Ink Publishing, Inc., New York, NY. Lepofsky, D., Lertzman, K., Hallett, D. and Mathewes, R. (2005) Climate change and culture change on the southern coast of British Columbia 2400-­‐1200 Cal. B.P.: An hypothesis. American Antiquity 70(2): 267–293. Link, J.S., Nye, J.A. and Hare, J.A. (2010) Guidelines for incorporating fish distribution shifts into a fisheries management context. Fish and Fisheries 12(4): 461–469. MacGoodwin, J.R. (2001) Understanding the cultures of fishing communities: A key to fisheries management and food security. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 401. Rome, FAO. 287 pp. Accessed from: http://www.fao.org/3/contents/c88f7815-­‐9e8f-­‐566a-­‐9cb2-­‐733831db5ea6/y1290e00.htm (5 August 2013). Madin, E.M., Ban, N.C., Doubleday, Z.A., Holmes, T.H., Pecl, G.T. and Smith, F. (2012) Socio-­‐economic and management implications of range-­‐shifting species in marine systems. Global Environmental Change 22(1): 137–146. Marshall, N.A., Marshall, P.A., Tamelander, J., Obura, D., Malleret-­‐King, D. and Cinner, J.E. (2010) A framework for social adaptation to climate change: sustaining tropical coastal communities and industries. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 36 pp. McClanahan, T., Allison, E.H. and Cinner, J.E. (2013) Managing fisheries for human and food security. Fish and Fisheries. DOI: 10.1111/faf.12045 (3 July 2014). McClanahan, T.R., Maina, J. and Davies, J. (2005) Perceptions of resource users and managers towards fisheries management options in Kenyan coral reefs. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12(2): 105–112. McDaniels, T., Healey, M.C. and Paisley, R.K. (1994) Cooperative fisheries management involving First Nations in British Columbia: an adaptive approach to strategy design. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 2115–2125. McGregor, J.A. (2008) Wellbeing, poverty and conflict WeD policy briefing 01/08. Available at: http://www.bath.ac.uk/econ-­‐dev/wellbeing/research/bp/bp1-­‐08.pdf. [Accessed 154 May 4, 2014]. McKechnie, I., Lepofsky, D., Moss, M.L., et al. (2014) Archaeological data provide alternative hypotheses on Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) distribution, abundance, and variability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(9): E807–E816. DOI: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1316072111 (3 July 2014). McRae, D.M. and Pearse, P.H. (2004) Treaties and transition. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. 32 pp. Accessed from: http://www.pac.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/publications/pdfs/jtf-­‐eng.pdf (19 September 2013). Menzies, C.R. (2010) Dm sibilhaa'nm da laxyuubm Gitxaala: Picking abalone in Gitxaala territory. Human Organization 69(3): 213–220. Menzies, C.R. and Butler, C.F. (2007) Returning to Selective Fishing through Indigenous Fisheries Knowledge: the example of K'moda, Gitxaala territory. American Indian Quarterly 31(3): 441–464. Menzies, C.R. and Butler, C.F. (2008) The Indigenous foundation of the resource economy of BC's north coast. Labour/Le Travail 61: 131–149. Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P.O. and Kislalioglu, M. (2004) Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-­‐management. Ecology and Society 9(3): 2. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2 (15 May 2014). Monks, G.G. (1987) Prey as bait: the Deep Bay example. Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal Canadien d'Archeologie 11: 119–142. Moody, M.F. and Pitcher, T.J. (2010) Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus): past and present. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 18, 197 pp. Accessed from: http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/webfm_send/144 (12 June 2014). Mos, L., Jack, J., Cullon, D., Montour, L., Alleyne, C. and Ross, P.S. (2004) The importance of marine foods to a near-­‐urban First Nation community in coastal British Columbia, Canada: toward a risk-­‐benefit assessment. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 67(8-­‐10): 791–808. Moss, M.L. (2011) Northwest Coast: archaeology as deep history. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. 155 Moss, M.L. (1993) Shellfish, gender, and status on the Northwest Coast: reconciling archeological, ethnographic, and ethnohistorical records of the Tlingit. American Anthropologist 95, 631–652. Moss, M.L. and Cannon, A. (2011a) The Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries: An Introduction. In: Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries. (eds M.L. Moss and A. Cannon). University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK, pp 1–15. Moss, M.L. and Cannon, A. eds (2011b) Archaeology of North Pacific fisheries. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK. Moss, R.H., Edmonds, J.A., Hibbard, K.A., Manning, M.R., Rose, S.K., van Vuuren, D.P., Carter, T.R., Emori, S., Kainuma, M., Kram, T., Meehl, G.A., Mitchell, J.F.,Nakicenovic, N., Riahi, K., Smith, S.J., Stouffer, R.J., Thomson, A.M., Weyant, J.P., Wilbanks, T.J. (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463: 747–756. Mote, P.W., Parson, E.A., Hamlet, A.F., et al. (2003) Preparing for climatic change: the water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 61(1-­‐2): 45–88. Newell, D. (1993) Tangled webs of history: Indians and the law in Canada's Pacific Coast fisheries. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Buffalo, London. Nisga'a Lisims Government (2012) Nisga'a Fisheries and Wildlife Act. Nisga'a Lisims Government. Accessed from: http://www.nisgaanation.ca/sites/default/files/legislation/2000-­‐16 -­‐ Nisga%27a Fisheries and Wildlife Act -­‐ Unofficial Consolidation -­‐ 2012-­‐01-­‐01.pdf (29 May 2014). O'Brien, K.L. (2009) Do values subjectively define the limits to climate change adaptation? In: Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance. (eds W.N. Adger, I. Lorenzoni and K.L. O'Brien). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp 164–180. Okey, T.A., Alidina, H.M., Lo, V. and Jessen, S. (2014) Effects of climate change on Canada’s Pacific marine ecosystems: a summary of scientific knowledge. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 24(2): 519–559. Orchard, T.J. (2008) A re-­‐evaluation of the Late Holocene in Haida Gwaii: salmon intensification and the “developed Northwest Coast pattern.” Society for American Archaeology 73rd Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC, 43 pp. Accessed from: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228711529_A_Re-­‐ 156 evaluation_of_the_Late_Holocene_in_Haida_Gwaii_Salmon_Intensification_and_the_Developed_Northwest_Coast_Pattern (24 March 2013). Orchard, T.J. and Clark, T. (2005) Multidimensional scaling of Northwest Coast faunal assemblages: a case study from southern Haida Gwaii. Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal Canadien d'Archeologie 29(1): 88–112. Orchard, T.J. and Szpak, P. (2011) Identification of salmon species from archaeological remains on the Northwest Coast. In: Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries. (eds M.L. Moss and A. Cannon). University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK, pp 17–30. Orchard, T.J. and Wigen, R.J. (2008) Halibut use on the Northwest Coast: reconciling ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and archaeological data. Northwest Anthropological Conference, Victoria, BC. Accessed from: www.academia.edu/download/30474512/NWAC_2008_-­‐_Orchard_and_Wigen_-­‐_Halibut_Paper.pdf (3 July 2014). Osbahr, H., Twyman, C., Adger, W.N. and Thomas, D.S. (2010) Evaluating successful livelihood adaptation to climate variability and change in southern Africa. Ecology and Society 15(2): 27. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art27/ (2 July 2013). Paci, C.D.J., Dickson, C., Nickels, S., Chan, L. and Furgal, C. (2004) Food security of northern Indigenous peoples in a time of uncertainty. 3rd Northern Research Forum, Yellowknife, NWT, 11 pp. Accessed from: http://www.rha.is/static/files/NRF/OpenAssemblies/Yellowknife2004/3rd-­‐nrf_plenary-­‐4_pp_paci-­‐et-­‐al.pdf (24 March 2013). Palomares, M.L.D. and Pauly, D., eds. (2013) SeaLifeBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available at: http://www.sealifebase.org, version 06/2014. Parmesan, C. and Yohe, G. (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421: 37–42. Pearson, R.G. and Dawson, T.P. (2003) Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Global Ecology and Biogeography 12(5): 361–371. Perry, A.L., Low, P.J., Ellis, J.R. and Reynolds, J.D. (2005) Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science 308: 1912–1915. 157 Phillips, S.J., Anderson, R.P. and Schapire, R.E. (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling 190(3-­‐4): 231–259. Pinfold, T. (2010) Haida Gwaii marine market sector analysis. 79 pp. Accessed at: http://www.haidanation.ca/Pages/programs/marine_planning/documents/HG Marine Market Sector Analysis.pdf (24 March 2013). Pinsky, M.L. and Fogarty, M.J. (2012) Lagged social-­‐ecological responses to climate and range shifts in fisheries. Climatic Change 115(3-­‐4): 883–891. Poloczanska, E.S., Brown, C.J., Sydeman, W.J., et al. (2013) Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nature Climate Change 3(10): 919–925. Powell, M. (2012) Divided waters: Heiltsuk spatial management of herring fisheries and the politics of Native sovereignty. Western Historical Quarterly 43 (Winter 2012): 463-­‐484. Rao, S. and Riahi, K. (2006) The role of non-­‐CO2 greenhouse gases in climate change mitigation: long-­‐term scenarios for the 21st century. Energy Journal 27(3): 177–200. Reidlinger, D. and Berkes, F. (2001) Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Record 203: 315–328. Riahi, K., Grübler, A. and Nakicenovic, N. (2007) Scenarios of long-­‐term socio-­‐economic and environmental development under climate stabilization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74(7): 887–935. Riddell, B.E. (2004) Pacific salmon resources in central and north coast British Columbia. Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, Vancouver, BC. 160 pp. Accessed from: http://www.fish.bc.ca/files/SalmonResources-­‐North_2004_0_Complete.pdf (9 June 2014). Roessig, J.M., Woodley, C.M., Cech, J.J., Jr and Hansen, L.J. (2005) Effects of global climate change on marine and estuarine fishes and fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14(2): 251–275. Rusnak, G. (1997) Co-­‐management of natural resources in Canada: A review of concepts and case studies. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, ON. 39 pp. Accessed from: http://idl-­‐bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/30126/1/117241.pdf (29 May 2014). Ryan, D. (2014) Judge overrules minister's decision to open herring fishery. Vancouver Sun. Accessed from: 158 http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Judge+overrules+minister+decision+open+herring+fishery/9541803/story.html (3 July 2014). Sarnthein, M., Kiefer, T., Grootes, P.M., Elderfield, H. and Erlenkeuser, H. (2006) Warmings in the far northwestern Pacific promoted pre-­‐Clovis immigration to America during Heinrich event 1. Geology 34(3): 141-­‐144. Schindler, D.E., Scheuerell, M.D., Moore, J.W., Gende, S.M., Francis, T.B. and Palen, W.J. (2003) Pacific salmon and the ecology of coastal ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(1): 31–37. Schwarz, A.-­‐M., Béné, C., Bennett, G., et al. (2011) Vulnerability and resilience of remote rural communities to shocks and global changes: Empirical analysis from Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change 21(3): 1128–1140. Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian (2005) Listening to our ancestors. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. Stewart, H. (1977) Indian fishing: Early methods on the Northwest Coast. Douglas & McIntyre / University of Washington Press, Vancouver and Toronto / Seattle. Stimpson, C. (2012) The Salmon Twins. Heritage House Publishing Company. Victoria, BC. Sumaila, U.R. and Cheung, W.W.L. (2010) Cost of adapting fisheries to climate change. The World Bank Discussion Paper 5. 40 pp. Accessed from: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/EACC/DCCDP_5Fisheries.pdf (3 July 2014). Sumaila, U.R., Cheung, W.W.L., Lam, V.W.Y., Pauly, D. and Herrick, S. (2011) Climate change impacts on the biophysics and economics of world fisheries. Nature Climate Change 1: 449–456. Tabor, K. and Williams, J.W. (2010) Globally downscaled climate projections for assessing the conservation impacts of climate change. Ecological Applications 20(2): 554–565. Taylor, K.E., Stouffer, R.J. and Meehl, G.A. (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 93(4): 485–498. Termeer, C., Dewulf, A. and Breeman, G. (2012) Governance of wicked climate adaptation problems. In: Climate Change Management. Climate Change Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 27–39. Trosper, R.L. (2002) Northwest coast indigenous institutions that supported resilience and sustainability. Ecological Economics 41: 329–344. 159 Trosper, R.L. (2003) Resilience in pre-­‐contact Pacific Northwest social ecological systems. Conservation Ecology 7(3): 6. URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art6 (7 July 2013). Tsawwassen First Nation, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and BC Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (2006) Tsawwassen First Nation fisheries operational guidelines. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Accessed from: http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs/418234/fisheries_operational_guidelines.pdf (3 July 2014). Tsawwassen First Nation, Millette, D.M., Sanders, D., Gurniak, B., Moy, A., Bak, A. and Duckworth, G. (1998) Reconstructing culture: A traditional use study of the Tsawwassen First Nation. Tsawwassen First Nation, Vancouver, BC. Turner, N. and Spalding, P.R. (2013) “We might go back to this;” drawing on the past to meet the future in northwestern North American Indigenous communities. Ecology and Society 18(4): 29. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-­‐05981-­‐180429 (4 May 2014). Turner, N.J. and Clifton, H. (2009) “It's so different today”: Climate change and indigenous lifeways in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change 19(2): 180–190. Turner, N.J. and Jones, J.T. (2000) Occupying the land: Traditional patterns of land and resource ownership among First Peoples of British Columbia. IASCP Conference, Bloomington, Indiana. 30 pp. Accessed from: http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/1952 (24 March 2013). Turner, N.J. and Turner, K.L. (2007) Traditional food systems, erosion and renewal in Northwestern North America. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 6(1): 57–68. Turner, N.J., Berkes, F., Stephenson, J. and Dick, J. (2013) Blundering intruders: extraneous impacts on two Indigenous food systems. Human Ecology 41: 563–574. Turner, N.J., Davidson-­‐Hunt, I.J. and O'Flaherty, M. (2003) Living on the edge: ecological and cultural edges as sources of diversity for social-­‐ecological resilience. Human Ecology 31(3): 439–461. Turner, N.J., Gregory, R.S., Brooks, C., Failing, L. and Satterfield, T. (2008) From invisibility to transparency: identifying the implications. Ecology and Society 13(2): 7. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol13/iss2/art7/ (4 July 2013). Turner, N.J., Ignace, M.B. and Ignace, R. (2000) Traditional ecological knowledge and 160 wisdom of Aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications 10(5): 1275–1287. Uchucklesaht Tribe. (2013) 2013/2014 Domestic intertidal bi-­‐valve fishing plan. 7 pp. Uchucklesaht Tribe. Accessed from: http://www.uchucklesaht.ca/cms/wpattachments/wpID228atID168.pdf (22 January 2014). van Putten, I.E., Kulmala, S., Thébaud, O., Dowling, N., Hamon, K.G., Hutton, T. and Pascoe, S. (2012) Theories and behavioural drivers underlying fleet dynamics models. Fish and Fisheries 13(2): 216–235. van Vuuren, D.P., Eickhout, B., Lucas, P.L., den Elzen, M.G.J. (2006) Long-­‐term multi-­‐gas scenarios to stabilise radiative forcing -­‐ Exploring costs and benefits within an integrated assessment framework. Energy Journal 2006: 201–233. van Vuuren, D.P., Elzen, M.G.J., Lucas, P.L., Eickhout, B., Strengers, B.J., Ruijven, B, Wonink, S., Houdt, R.. (2007) Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Climatic Change 81(2): 119–159. VanDerWal, J., Murphy, H.T., Kutt, A.S., Perkins, G.C., Bateman, B.L., Perry, J.J., Reside, A.E. (2012) Focus on poleward shifts in species' distribution underestimates the fingerprint of climate change. Nature Climate Change 3(3): 239–243. Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R. and Kinzig, A. (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-­‐ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5 (4 May 2014). Walters, C.J. (2007) Is adaptive management helping to solve fisheries problems? AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36(4): 304–307. Walters, C.J. and Martell, S.J. (2004) Fisheries ecology and management. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. White, E. (2011) Heiltsuk stone traps on the central coast of British Columbia. In: Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries. (eds M.L. Moss and A. Cannon). University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK, pp 75–90. Williams, J. (2006) Clam gardens: Aboriginal mariculture on Canada's west coast. New Star Books, Vancouver, BC. Wolf, J., Allice, I. and Bell, T. (2012) Values, climate change, and implications for adaptation: 161 Evidence from two communities in Labrador, Canada. Global Environmental Change. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.1.007 (24 March 2013). Wootton, J.T., Pfister, C.A. and Forester, J.D. (2008) Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining ocean pH in a high-­‐resolution multi-­‐year dataset. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(48): 18848–18853. Zhang, J., Fleming, J. and Goericke, R. (2012) Fishermen's perspectives on climate variability. Marine Policy 36(2): 466–472. 162 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: SPECIES Supplementary Table A 1. Species (n = 98) included in the analysis of Chapter 2. TAXON NAME COMMON NAME TYPE FUNCTIONAL GROUP Haliotis kamtschatkana Abalone, northern Demersal Abalone Thunnus alalunga Albacore tuna Pelagic Tuna Balanus glandula Barnacle, acorn Demersal Barnacle Balanus nubilus Barnacle, giant acorn Demersal Barnacle Pollicipes polymerus Barnacle, gooseneck Demersal Barnacle Semibalanus cariosus Barnacle, thatched Demersal Barnacle Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Cabezon Demersal Sculpin Katharina tunicata Chiton, black Demersal Chiton Cryptochiton stelleri Chiton, Giant Pacific Demersal Chiton Saxidomus giganteus Clam, butter Demersal Clam Tresus capax Clam, horse Demersal Clam Venerupis philippinarum Clam, manila Demersal Clam Protothaca staminea Clam, Pacific littleneck Demersal Clam Siliqua patula Clam, Pacific razor Demersal Clam Nuttallia obscurata Clam, varnish Demersal Clam Clinocardium nuttallii Cockle, nuttall Demersal Clam Metacarcinus magister Crab, Dungeness Demersal Crab Hemigrapsus oregonensis Crab, green shore Demersal Crab Hemigrapsus nudus Crab, purple shore Demersal Crab Cancer productus Crab, red rock Demersal Crab Chionoecetes bairdi Crab, tanner Demersal Crab Squalus suckleyi Dogfish, spiny Demersal Elasmobranch Thaleichthys pacificus Eulachon Pelagic Eulachon Atheresthes stomias Flounder, arrowtooth Demersal Flounder and soles Platichthys stellatus Flounder, starry Demersal Flounder and soles Hexagrammos decagrammus Greenling, kelp Demersal Greenling Ophiodon elongatus Lingcod Demersal Lingcod Modiolus modiolus Mussel, northern horse Demersal Mussel Mytilus trossulus Mussel, Pacific blue Demersal Mussel Ostrea lurida Oyster, olympia Demersal Oyster Crassostrea gigas Oyster, Pacific cupped Demersal Oyster Gadus macrocephalus Pacific cod Demersal Roundfish Tresus nuttallii Pacific gaper Demersal Clam Panopea abrupta Pacific geoduck Demersal Clam Hippoglossus stenolepis Pacific halibut Demersal Halibut Clupea pallasii pallasii Pacific herring Pelagic Herring 163 TAXON NAME COMMON NAME TYPE FUNCTIONAL GROUP Entosphenus tridentatus Pacific lamprey Demersal Lamprey Citharichthys sordidus Pacific sanddab Demersal Flounder and soles Sardinops sagax Pacific sardine Pelagic Sardine Microgadus proximus Pacific tomcod Demersal Roundfish Brachyistius frenatus Perch, kelp Demersal Perch Rhacochilus vacca Perch, pile Demersal Perch Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus Red Irish lord Demersal Sculpin Parastichopus californicus Red sea cucumber Demersal Sea cucumber Sebastes melanops Rockfish, black Demersal Rockfish Sebastes paucispinis Rockfish, bocaccio Demersal Rockfish Sebastes pinniger Rockfish, canary Demersal Rockfish Sebastes goodei Rockfish, chilipepper Demersal Rockfish Sebastes nebulosus Rockfish, China Demersal Rockfish Sebastes caurinus Rockfish, copper Demersal Rockfish Sebastes ciliatus Rockfish, dusky Demersal Rockfish Sebastes maliger Rockfish, quillback Demersal Rockfish Sebastes babcocki Rockfish, redbanded Demersal Rockfish Sebastes proriger Rockfish, redstripe Demersal Rockfish Sebastes aleutianus Rockfish, rougheye Demersal Rockfish Sebastes borealis Rockfish, shortraker Demersal Rockfish Sebastes brevispinis Rockfish, silvergray Demersal Rockfish Sebastes nigrocinctus Rockfish, tiger Demersal Rockfish Sebastes miniatus Rockfish, vermillion Demersal Rockfish Sebastes entomelas Rockfish, widow Demersal Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Rockfish, yelloweye Demersal Rockfish Sebastes reedi Rockfish, yellowmouth Demersal Rockfish Sebastes flavidus Rockfish, yellowtail Demersal Rockfish Anoplopoma fimbria Sablefish Demersal Roundfish Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Salmon, Chinook Demersal Salmon Oncorhynchus keta Salmon, chum Demersal Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Salmon, coho Demersal Salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Salmon, pink Demersal Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka Salmon, sockeye Demersal Salmon Crassadoma gigantea Scallop, rock Demersal Scallop Chlamys hastata Scallop, spiny pink Demersal Scallop Patinopecten caurinus Scallop, weathervane Demersal Scallop Icelinus burchami Sculpin, dusky Demersal Sculpin Jordania zonope Sculpin, longfin Demersal Sculpin Ruscarius meanyi Sculpin, Puget Sound Demersal Sculpin Icelinus tenuis Sculpin, spotfin Demersal Sculpin Paricelinus hopliticus Sculpin, thornback Demersal Sculpin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis Sea urchin, green Demersal Sea urchin 164 TAXON NAME COMMON NAME TYPE FUNCTIONAL GROUP Mesocentrotus franciscanus Sea urchin, red Demersal Sea urchin Pandalus hypsinotus Shrimp, humpback Demersal Prawns and shrimp Pandalus goniurus Shrimp, humpy Demersal Prawns and shrimp Pandalus borealis Shrimp, northern (prawn) Demersal Prawns and shrimp Pandalus dispar Shrimp, sidestriped Demersal Prawns and shrimp Pandalus platyceros Shrimp, spot (spot prawn) Demersal Prawns and shrimp Raja rhina Skate, longnose Demersal Elasmobranch Parophrys vetula Sole, English Demersal Flounder and soles Hippoglossoides elassodon Sole, flathead Demersal Flounder and soles Microstomus pacificus Sole, Pacific dover Demersal Flounder and soles Eopsetta jordani Sole, petrale Demersal Flounder and soles Glyptocephalus zachirus Sole, rex Demersal Flounder and soles Lepidopsetta bilineata Sole, rock Demersal Flounder and soles Limanda aspera Sole, yellowfin Demersal Flounder and soles Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead Demersal Trout Acipenser transmontanus Sturgeon, white Demersal Sturgeon Sebastolobus altivelis Thornyhead, longspine Demersal Rockfish Sebastolobus alascanus Thornyhead, shortspine Demersal Rockfish Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii Trout, cutthroat Demersal Trout Salvelinus malma malma Trout, Dolly Varden Demersal Trout 165 Supplementary Table A 2. Proportion of species (%) caught in multi-­‐species commercial fisheries that are included in analysis1. COMMERCIAL FISHERY SPECIES INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS INCLUDED IN FISHERY PROPORTION (%) Groundfish trawl/ hook and line 43 78 55?Rockfish by hook and line (both inside and outside ZN) 36 60 60 Crab by trap 2 4 502 Salmon by gill net, seine or troll 5 5 100 Prawn and shrimp by trap/trawl 5 7 71.4 Geoduck and horse clam by dive 3 3 100 Intertidal clam by hand 4 4 100 Heiltsuk intertidal clam by hand 2 2 100 1 Does not represent the proportion of species caught. 2 The two key species—Dungeness crab and red rock crab—are included in the analysis. Fishing for golden and red king crabs only occurs occasionally in the north and central coast areas where it is permitted under specific arrangements (DFO, 2013, Crab IFMP. Retrieved from: http://www.pac.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/fm-­‐gp/mplans/2013/crab-­‐crabe-­‐2013-­‐eng.pdf. 166 Supplementary Table A 3. Species included in estimates of changes to commercial fisheries catch potential (%). TAXON NAME COMMON NAME FISHERY Sebastes melanops Black rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes paucipispinis Bocaccio rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes pinniger Canary rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes goodei Chilipepper rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes nebulosus China rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes caurinus Copper rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes ciliates Dusky rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastolobus altivelis Longspine thornyhead Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes maliger Quilback rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes babcocki Redbanded rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes proriger Redstripe rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes aleutianus Rougheye rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes borealis Shortraker rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastolobus alascanus Shortspine thornyhead Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes brevispinis Silvergray rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes nigrocinctus Tiger rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes reedi Yellowmouth rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes flavidus Yellowtail rockfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Raja rhina Longnose skate Groundfish trawl/hook and line Squalus suckleyi Spiny dogfish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Atheresthes stomias Arrowtooth flounder Groundfish trawl/hook and line Microstomus pacificus Pacific dover sole Groundfish trawl/hook and line Parophrys vetulus Lemon/English sole Groundfish trawl/hook and line Hippoglossoides elassodon Flathead sole Groundfish trawl/hook and line Citarichthys sordidus Pacific sanddab Groundfish trawl/hook and line Eopsetta jordani Petrale sole Groundfish trawl/hook and line Glyptocephalus zachirus Rex sole Groundfish trawl/hook and line Lepidopsetta bilineata Rock sole Groundfish trawl/hook and line Platichthys stellatus Starry flounder Groundfish trawl/hook and line Limanda aspera Yellowfin sole Groundfish trawl/hook and line Thunnus alalunga Albacore tuna Groundfish trawl/hook and line Hexagrammos decagrammus Kelp greenling Groundfish trawl/hook and line Ophidon elongates Lingcod Groundfish trawl/hook and line Gadus macrocephalus Pacific cod Groundfish trawl/hook and line Anoplopoma fimbria Sablefish Groundfish trawl/hook and line Icelinus burchami Dusky sculpin Groundfish trawl/hook and line Jordania zonope Longfin sculpin Groundfish trawl/hook and line Icelinus tenuis Spotfin sculpin Groundfish trawl/hook and line Paricelinus hopliticus Thornback sculpin Groundfish trawl/hook and line Ruscarius meanyi Puget Sound sculpin Groundfish trawl/hook and line Sebastes melanops Black rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes paucipispinis Bocaccio rockfish Rockfish by hook and line 167 TAXON NAME COMMON NAME FISHERY Sebastes pinniger Canary rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes goodei Chilipepper rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes nebulosus China rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes caurinus Copper rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes ciliates Dusky rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastolobus altivelis Longspine thornyhead Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes maliger Quilback rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes babcocki Redbanded rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes proriger Redstripe rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes aleutianus Rougheye rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes borealis Shortraker rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastolobus alascanus Shortspine thornyhead Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes brevispinis Silvergray rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes nigrocinctus Tiger rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes reedi Yellowmouth rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Sebastes flavidus Yellowtail rockfish Rockfish by hook and line Hippoglossus stenolepis Pacific halibut Rockfish by hook and line Ophiodon elongates Lingcod Rockfish by hook and line Raja rhina Longnose skate Rockfish by hook and line Squalus suckleyi Spiny dogfish Rockfish by hook and line Atheresthes stomias Arrowtooth flounder Rockfish by hook and line Microstomus pacificus Pacific dover sole Rockfish by hook and line Parophrys vetulus Lemon/English sole Rockfish by hook and line Hippoglossoides elassodon Flathead sole Rockfish by hook and line Eopsetta jordani Petrale sole Rockfish by hook and line Glyptocephalus zachirus Rex sole Rockfish by hook and line Lepidopsetta bilineata Rock sole Rockfish by hook and line Platichthys stellatus Starry flounder Rockfish by hook and line Limanda aspera Yellowfin sole Rockfish by hook and line Gadus macrocephalus Pacific cod Rockfish by hook and line Hexagrammos decagrammus Kelp greenling Rockfish by hook and line Metacarcinus magister Dungeness crab Crab by trap Cancer productus Red rock crab Crab by trap Oncorhynchus tshawystcha Chinook salmon Salmon by gill net, seine, or troll Oncorhynchus keta Chum salmon Salmon by gill net, seine, or troll Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho salmon Salmon by gill net, seine, or troll Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Pink salmon Salmon by gill net, seine, or troll Oncorhynchus nerka Sockeye salmon Salmon by gill net, seine, or troll Pandalus platyceros Spot prawn Prawn and shrimp by trap/trawl Pandalus hypsinotus Humpback shrimp Prawn and shrimp by trap/trawl Pandalus borealis Northern pink shrimp Prawn and shrimp by trap/trawl Pandalus goniurus Flexed (humpy) shrimp Prawn and shrimp by trap/trawl Pandalus dispar Sidestriped shrimp Prawn and shrimp by trap/trawl Panopea abrupta Pacific geoduck Geoduck and horse clam by dive 168 TAXON NAME COMMON NAME FISHERY Tresus capax Horse clam Geoduck and horse clam by dive Tresus nuttallii Pacific gaper Geoduck and horse clam by dive Venerupis philippinarum Manila clam Intertidal clam by hand Protothaca staminea Pacific littleneck clam Intertidal clam by hand Saxidomus gigantea Butter clam Intertidal clam by hand Nuttallia obscurata Varnish clam Intertidal clam by hand Venerupis philippinarum Manila clam Heiltsuk intertidal clam Protothaca staminea Pacific littleneck clam Heiltsuk intertidal clam Anoplopoma fimbria Sablefish Sablefish by longline or trap Clupea pallasii Pacific herring Roe herring, spawn on kelp, or food and bait Thunnus alalunga Albacore tuna Tuna hook and line Sardinops sagax Pacific sardine Sardine by seine Hippoglossus stenolepis Pacific halibut Halibut by hook and line Parastichopus californicus Red sea cucumber Sea cucumber by dive Mesocentrotus fransciscanus Red sea urchin Red sea urchin by dive Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis Green sea urchin Green sea urchin by dive Siliqua patula Pacific razor clam Pacific razor clam by hand Sources: 2014/2015 Pacific Groundfish Trawl Commercial Harvest Plan; 2013/2014 Rockfish by Hook and Line (Inside ZN) Commercial Harvest Plan; 2013/2015 Intertidal Clam IFMP; 2013 Crab IFMP; 2013/2014 Salmon IFMP, Northern BC; 2013/2014 Prawn and Shrimp by Trap IFMP; 2013 Geoduck and Horse Clam IFMP; 2010/2011 Heiltsuk Tribal Council/DFO Intertidal Clam Joint Management Plan; 2014/2015 Sablefish Commercial Harvest Plan; 2013/2014 Pacific Herring IFMP; 2013/2014 Albacore Tuna IFMP; 2012/2015 Pacific Sardine IFMP; 2014/2015 Halibut Commercial Harvest Plan; 2013/2014 Sea Cucumber by Dive IFMP; 2013/2016 Red Sea Urchin IFMP; 2013/2016 Green Sea Urchin IFMP; 2013 Council of the Haida Nation/DFO Joint Razor Clam Management Plan. 169 APPENDIX B: PROJECTIONS Supplementary Table B 1. Relative change in abundance (%) for each species within British Columbia’s EEZ (numbers do not represent specific units). Ordered by from largest decline to largest increase in catch potential (%) under RCP 8.5. SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) Humpback shrimp 358,770 89,669 -­‐75.0 314,538 47,970 -­‐84.7 Sidestriped shrimp 9,858,522 5,420,727 -­‐45.0 9,910,307 2,916,715 -­‐70.6 Pacific herring 23,937,301 16,333,605 -­‐31.8 25,516,538 13,091,955 -­‐48.7 Chinook salmon 16,552,132 8,639,635 -­‐47.8 16,560,978 8,803,831 -­‐46.8 Pink salmon 9,917,649 5,923,355 -­‐40.3 9,923,131 5,542,128 -­‐44.1 Shortspine thornyhead 8,450,167 4,666,070 -­‐44.8 8,431,827 4,902,314 -­‐41.9 Rex sole 9,694,725 5,882,385 -­‐39.3 9,521,146 5,745,410 -­‐39.7 Giant Pacific chiton 5,814,770 4,715,379 -­‐18.9 5,833,840 3,663,488 -­‐37.2 Humpy shrimp 10,440,673 8,542,923 -­‐18.2 10,524,963 6,617,842 -­‐37.1 Sockeye salmon 9,237,067 8,292,112 -­‐10.2 9,392,591 5,996,158 -­‐36.2 Green sea urchin 5,414,221 4,496,548 -­‐16.9 5,413,118 3,464,562 -­‐36.0 Eulachon 31,214,994 22,965,617 -­‐26.4 31,621,579 20,322,814 -­‐35.7 Pacific cod 8,608,777 7,527,963 -­‐12.6 8,682,373 5,640,341 -­‐35.0 Red Irish lord 13,231,299 11,878,494 -­‐10.2 13,126,112 8,608,640 -­‐34.4 Northern horse mussel 4,907,937 4,370,645 -­‐10.9 4,905,747 3,278,345 -­‐33.2 Arrowtooth flounder 48,829,976 32,196,043 -­‐34.1 49,086,872 33,370,345 -­‐32.0 Pacific dover sole 6,164,328 5,453,274 -­‐11.5 6,189,099 4,251,202 -­‐31.3 Redstripe rockfish 14,938,314 13,516,314 -­‐9.5 15,085,849 10,668,737 -­‐29.3 Starry flounder 8,997,382 7,989,975 -­‐11.2 8,849,331 6,267,190 -­‐29.2 Pacific sanddab 10,541,142 9,431,930 -­‐10.5 10,585,707 7,541,034 -­‐28.8 English sole 45,217,380 30,767,514 -­‐32.0 44,955,851 32,090,391 -­‐28.6 Rock sole 10,237,450 8,970,729 -­‐12.4 10,051,975 7,209,734 -­‐28.3 Dolly Varden trout 16,255,960 14,501,955 -­‐10.8 16,059,770 11,548,252 -­‐28.1 Petrale sole 10,204,918 9,033,310 -­‐11.5 9,953,102 7,255,932 -­‐27.1 170 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) Longspine thornyhead 5,704,705 4,999,160 -­‐12.4 5,927,265 4,325,413 -­‐27.0 Yellowfin sole 14,948,261 13,756,182 -­‐8.0 14,972,838 11,137,361 -­‐25.6 Purple shore crab 37,163,491 30,748,671 -­‐17.3 37,386,816 27,860,602 -­‐25.5 Flathead sole 11,493,405 8,647,837 -­‐24.8 11,502,185 8,648,379 -­‐24.8 Albacore tuna 133,809 106,801 -­‐20.2 3,155,702 2,401,665 -­‐23.9 Prawn / northern shrimp 5,122,253 4,417,923 -­‐13.8 5,131,100 3,996,976 -­‐22.1 Green shore crab 66,581,871 56,885,624 -­‐14.6 66,593,515 52,035,573 -­‐21.9 Weathervane scallop 18,529,146 16,386,723 -­‐11.6 18,002,839 14,184,827 -­‐21.2 Black chiton 52,614,569 45,134,224 -­‐14.2 52,345,792 41,699,277 -­‐20.3 Pacific cupped oyster 2,722,592 2,075,650 -­‐23.8 2,747,625 2,227,008 -­‐18.9 Shortraker rockfish 12,543,691 11,563,888 -­‐7.8 12,149,365 9,989,399 -­‐17.8 Olympia oyster 177,804,192 156,897,510 -­‐11.8 125,278,490 103,048,924 -­‐17.7 Spiny dogfish 10,447,264 9,399,956 -­‐10.0 10,414,429 8,572,314 -­‐17.7 Quillback rockfish 85,317,121 77,979,629 -­‐8.6 84,963,232 70,122,233 -­‐17.5 Pacific tomcod 40,204,775 31,338,685 -­‐22.1 40,079,548 33,272,235 -­‐17.0 Cutthroat trout 160,769,905 145,601,510 -­‐9.4 158,526,163 132,174,223 -­‐16.6 Tanner crab 7,970,392 6,582,658 -­‐17.4 7,989,386 6,708,627 -­‐16.0 Red sea urchin 15,005,404 13,467,249 -­‐10.3 14,650,050 12,345,802 -­‐15.7 Coho salmon 13,908,047 12,683,169 -­‐8.8 13,799,416 11,706,140 -­‐15.2 Redbanded rockfish 21,832,147 19,989,454 -­‐8.4 21,469,136 18,231,656 -­‐15.1 Canary rockfish 31,972,066 28,793,633 -­‐9.9 31,796,243 27,015,181 -­‐15.0 Widow rockfish 116,922,040 104,113,404 -­‐11.0 116,847,430 99,420,119 -­‐14.9 Red sea cucumber 62,129,441 54,205,607 -­‐12.8 61,459,976 52,326,599 -­‐14.9 Pacific blue mussel 15,826,946 14,213,436 -­‐10.2 15,741,735 13,441,302 -­‐14.6 Spot shrimp/prawn 122,776,980 109,291,901 -­‐11.0 121,628,433 104,462,441 -­‐14.1 Giant acorn barnacle 22,341,515 19,309,905 -­‐13.6 22,276,263 19,134,406 -­‐14.1 Pacific razor clam 52,198,074 45,016,821 -­‐13.8 51,955,009 44,641,688 -­‐14.1 Northern abalone 153,630,152 137,541,981 -­‐10.5 152,544,812 131,349,912 -­‐13.9 Cabezon 105,791,414 96,246,669 -­‐9.0 104,176,906 90,257,003 -­‐13.4 Longnose skate 40,544,737 36,622,958 -­‐9.7 40,402,966 35,011,150 -­‐13.3 171 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) Dusky rockfish 72,501,806 68,972,753 -­‐4.9 71,972,674 62,482,472 -­‐13.2 Pacific halibut 2,786,702 2,442,568 -­‐12.3 2,805,442 2,441,211 -­‐13.0 Thatched barnacle 54,308,137 47,130,572 -­‐13.2 54,186,920 47,501,008 -­‐12.3 Chum salmon 12,333,062 11,153,176 -­‐9.6 12,276,014 10,788,947 -­‐12.1 Longfin sculpin 157,980,302 144,564,139 -­‐8.5 156,431,526 138,041,393 -­‐11.8 Dungeness crab 108,147,679 93,757,887 -­‐13.3 108,213,086 95,697,225 -­‐11.6 Acorn barnacle 12,543,690 10,989,186 -­‐12.4 12,323,906 10,904,929 -­‐11.5 Spotfin sculpin 77,297,975 70,558,128 -­‐8.7 77,330,224 68,617,316 -­‐11.3 Nuttall cockle 6,260,396 5,472,550 -­‐12.6 6,300,615 5,599,591 -­‐11.1 Rougheye rockfish 14,653,359 13,855,372 -­‐5.4 14,712,361 13,123,560 -­‐10.8 Puget Sound sculpin 95,630,904 88,075,337 -­‐7.9 93,396,853 83,327,871 -­‐10.8 Bocaccio rockfish 29,682,882 27,038,835 -­‐8.9 29,372,892 26,293,981 -­‐10.5 Horse clam 113,808,339 98,358,910 -­‐13.6 113,083,679 101,547,016 -­‐10.2 Yellowtail rockfish 47,243,096 43,105,059 -­‐8.8 46,655,983 41,917,095 -­‐10.2 Pacific gaper 149,323,609 135,136,543 -­‐9.5 148,828,880 134,123,725 -­‐9.9 Varnish clam 16,042,990 13,565,564 -­‐15.4 15,637,022 14,104,606 -­‐9.8 Silvergray rockfish 21,997,636 20,154,298 -­‐8.4 22,006,425 19,918,846 -­‐9.5 Spiny scallop 57,762,306 52,585,961 -­‐9.0 57,251,497 51,847,255 -­‐9.4 Sablefish 5,050,159 4,506,634 -­‐10.8 5,117,555 4,647,916 -­‐9.2 Pacific littleneck clam 55,945,103 51,309,778 -­‐8.3 55,482,871 50,473,835 -­‐9.0 Dusky sculpin 110,108,935 101,090,693 -­‐8.2 110,299,197 100,852,864 -­‐8.6 Steelhead 14,992,801 13,528,008 -­‐9.8 14,732,623 13,556,674 -­‐8.0 Lingcod 45,142,269 41,224,367 -­‐8.7 44,489,163 41,233,379 -­‐7.3 Copper rockfish 77,327,271 70,708,628 -­‐8.6 77,010,413 71,626,526 -­‐7.0 Chilipepper rockfish 61,399,581 55,712,097 -­‐9.3 60,410,776 56,592,485 -­‐6.3 Yelloweye rockfish 45,211,749 41,540,348 -­‐8.1 45,070,973 42,245,396 -­‐6.3 Butter clam 54,611,241 49,506,811 -­‐9.3 53,729,433 50,762,485 -­‐5.5 Gooseneck barnacle 67,826,271 62,733,547 -­‐7.5 67,418,348 63,837,086 -­‐5.3 Pacific lamprey 30,866,430 28,355,939 -­‐8.1 30,861,176 29,347,347 -­‐4.9 Pile perch 145,166,441 131,505,555 -­‐9.4 141,272,604 136,461,677 -­‐3.4 172 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) Rock scallop 543,027,831 524,244,855 -­‐3.5 543,107,156 527,566,412 -­‐2.9 Red rock crab 112,241,719 103,602,012 -­‐7.7 111,571,702 109,886,126 -­‐1.5 Tiger rockfish 74,893,673 70,594,461 -­‐5.7 74,410,124 73,883,969 -­‐0.7 Yellowmouth rockfish 85,437,015 80,202,507 -­‐6.1 85,187,240 85,421,851 0.3 Kelp perch 131,765,872 121,592,693 -­‐7.7 127,389,073 128,203,454 0.6 China rockfish 131,322,660 122,148,935 -­‐7.0 128,335,008 129,590,084 1.0 Kelp greenling 13,673,620 12,623,918 -­‐7.7 13,184,006 13,476,595 2.2 Black rockfish 34,326,834 32,107,863 -­‐6.5 33,534,235 34,564,559 3.1 Thornback sculpin 161,841,680 150,252,906 -­‐7.2 156,217,407 162,114,416 3.8 Pacific geoduck 9,087,841 8,337,853 -­‐8.3 8,922,465 9,287,644 4.1 Vermillion rockfish 111,667,454 102,783,291 -­‐8.0 110,942,661 116,022,534 4.6 Manila clam 35,540,755 35,083,846 -­‐1.3 35,227,492 40,336,080 14.5 White sturgeon 39,998,976 40,195,441 0.5 39,421,539 46,690,689 18.4 Pacific sardine 3,953,917 5,254,914 32.9 3,693,413 5,328,942 44.3 173 Supplementary Table B2. Relative change in catch potential (%) for each species within British Columbia’s EEZ (numbers do not represent specific units). Ordered by largest decline to largest increase in catch potential under RCP 8.5. SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) Shrimp, humpback 2,849,759 788,993 -­‐72.3 2,536,502 428,518 -­‐83.1 Shrimp, sidestriped 85,519,597 49,622,096 -­‐42.0 86,428,129 24,973,631 -­‐71.1 Pacific herring 209,013,995 150,366,200 -­‐28.1 222,629,744 113,005,876 -­‐49.2 Salmon, Chinook 118,005,595 70,114,470 -­‐40.6 118,373,616 65,955,588 -­‐44.3 Salmon, pink 75,470,114 49,636,641 -­‐34.2 75,707,968 43,105,564 -­‐43.1 Thornyhead, shortspine 69,242,203 41,453,915 -­‐40.1 69,183,528 40,827,924 -­‐41.0 Sole, rex 77,818,845 50,106,069 -­‐35.6 76,558,918 46,246,023 -­‐39.6 Shrimp, humpy 90,519,009 78,844,506 -­‐12.9 91,370,216 57,029,776 -­‐37.6 Chiton, Pacific giant 50,384,441 43,571,178 -­‐13.5 50,517,805 31,672,239 -­‐37.3 Eulachon 247,499,777 191,420,304 -­‐22.7 251,404,097 158,221,050 -­‐37.1 Salmon, sockeye 77,862,776 74,407,747 -­‐4.4 79,360,628 50,262,898 -­‐36.7 Sea urchin, green 46,855,839 41,415,823 -­‐11.6 46,958,697 29,922,923 -­‐36.3 Pacific cod 73,649,163 68,696,170 -­‐6.7 74,449,419 48,107,193 -­‐35.4 Red Irish lord 116,552,847 111,150,124 -­‐4.6 116,260,003 76,053,662 -­‐34.6 Mussel, northern horse 43,105,992 40,837,387 -­‐5.3 43,329,165 28,698,093 -­‐33.8 Flounder, arrowtooth 397,625,969 280,899,774 -­‐29.4 399,913,432 272,134,596 -­‐32.0 Sole, Pacific dover 54,986,545 51,705,520 -­‐6.0 55,361,304 37,829,083 -­‐31.7 Rockfish, redstripe 133,470,531 128,159,659 -­‐4.0 135,132,404 94,886,298 -­‐29.8 Flounder, starry 78,698,753 74,496,781 -­‐5.3 77,863,603 55,081,614 -­‐29.3 Pacific sanddab 93,374,903 88,772,734 -­‐4.9 94,012,276 66,652,695 -­‐29.1 Sole, English 378,177,986 276,213,628 -­‐27.0 376,656,493 269,664,133 -­‐28.4 Sole, rock 88,997,015 82,934,538 -­‐6.8 87,875,592 62,931,947 -­‐28.4 Trout, Dolly Varden 141,958,270 134,523,972 -­‐5.2 140,994,325 100,906,084 -­‐28.4 Sole, petrale 90,417,852 85,121,026 -­‐5.9 88,895,350 64,633,609 -­‐27.3 174 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) Thornyhead, longspine 57,608,234 53,965,512 -­‐6.3 60,233,490 43,933,473 -­‐27.1 Sole, flathead 96,201,366 76,025,032 -­‐21.0 96,417,768 71,226,208 -­‐26.1 Sole, yellowfin 133,858,968 130,841,506 -­‐2.3 134,346,662 99,467,662 -­‐26.0 Crab, purple shore 288,674,187 254,616,695 -­‐11.8 290,068,685 215,153,935 -­‐25.8 Albacore tuna 1,127,888 949,419 -­‐15.8 33,614,144 25,358,745 -­‐24.6 Shrimp, northern (prawn) 44,596,402 41,187,829 -­‐7.6 44,817,849 34,913,912 -­‐22.1 Crab, green shore 507,137,810 462,379,268 -­‐8.8 507,590,378 396,400,057 -­‐21.9 Scallop, weathervane 162,631,374 153,211,096 -­‐5.8 159,111,727 125,453,656 -­‐21.2 Chiton, black 422,737,947 387,047,465 -­‐8.4 420,738,668 335,287,133 -­‐20.3 Oyster, Pacific cupped 21,056,276 17,092,041 -­‐18.8 21,228,077 17,294,474 -­‐18.5 Oyster, olympia 1,593,712,597 1,494,499,244 -­‐6.2 1,124,982,105 922,461,894 -­‐18.0 Dogfish, spiny 92,241,419 88,223,249 -­‐4.4 91,959,365 75,362,880 -­‐18.0 Rockfish, shortraker 111,056,696 108,387,931 -­‐2.4 108,488,176 89,209,471 -­‐17.8 Rockfish, quillback 751,690,911 731,357,627 -­‐2.7 748,927,613 616,234,766 -­‐17.7 Trout, cutthroat 1,415,718,641 1,365,354,071 -­‐3.6 1,398,783,942 1,162,332,608 -­‐16.9 Pacific tomcod 317,971,606 265,913,749 -­‐16.4 317,357,601 264,751,267 -­‐16.6 Crab, tanner 68,556,966 60,457,805 -­‐11.8 68,785,043 57,438,615 -­‐16.5 Sea urchin, red 128,173,401 122,413,403 -­‐4.5 125,685,423 105,872,089 -­‐15.8 Rockfish, redbanded 198,715,465 193,186,312 -­‐2.8 195,840,938 165,753,368 -­‐15.4 Mussel, Pacific blue 130,607,621 125,039,446 -­‐4.3 130,308,951 110,360,681 -­‐15.3 Salmon, coho 117,601,463 114,363,470 -­‐2.8 117,020,635 99,367,443 -­‐15.1 Rockfish, canary 266,563,672 256,286,022 -­‐3.9 265,664,180 226,187,759 -­‐14.9 Red sea cucumber 536,275,890 498,974,195 -­‐7.0 531,192,070 452,381,885 -­‐14.8 Rockfish, widow 889,289,244 848,165,389 -­‐4.6 890,279,236 763,399,563 -­‐14.3 Barnacle, giant acorn 183,565,583 169,349,544 -­‐7.7 183,211,803 157,422,274 -­‐14.1 Shrimp, spot (spot prawn) 1,062,913,566 1,009,177,809 -­‐5.1 1,055,089,002 906,398,660 -­‐14.1 Northern abalone 1,297,158,438 1,236,780,874 -­‐4.7 1,289,446,004 1,109,071,797 -­‐14.0 175 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) Rockfish, dusky 662,390,997 668,553,026 0.9 658,686,465 567,233,181 -­‐13.9 Clam, Pacific razor 421,547,934 388,434,366 -­‐7.9 419,872,614 361,865,169 -­‐13.8 Cabezon 901,464,524 874,276,666 -­‐3.0 891,027,337 771,030,578 -­‐13.5 Skate, longnose 361,317,457 348,135,605 -­‐3.6 360,591,772 312,514,894 -­‐13.3 Pacific halibut 25,424,332 23,634,023 -­‐7.0 25,604,456 22,218,054 -­‐13.2 Barnacle, thatched 436,853,690 404,885,800 -­‐7.3 436,055,008 382,276,965 -­‐12.3 Sculpin, spotfin 693,020,400 673,386,200 -­‐2.8 695,816,318 612,971,469 -­‐11.9 Salmon, chum 102,683,421 99,148,477 -­‐3.4 102,460,001 90,352,910 -­‐11.8 Sculpin, longfin 1,330,437,053 1,302,537,859 -­‐2.1 1,320,187,426 1,168,844,968 -­‐11.5 Crab, Dungeness 876,382,194 813,834,829 -­‐7.1 876,453,491 776,907,680 -­‐11.4 Barnacle, acorn 105,759,894 98,771,461 -­‐6.6 104,485,096 92,585,055 -­‐11.4 Rockfish, rougheye 131,461,311 132,197,546 0.6 132,115,526 117,400,556 -­‐11.1 Nuttall cockle 52,077,886 48,755,484 -­‐6.4 52,506,803 46,784,029 -­‐10.9 Clam, horse 886,225,032 817,412,967 -­‐7.8 882,940,330 792,944,873 -­‐10.2 Rockfish, bocaccio 246,501,238 239,878,016 -­‐2.7 244,417,690 219,958,591 -­‐10.0 Sculpin, Puget Sound 823,294,385 810,631,709 -­‐1.5 806,364,881 725,532,127 -­‐10.0 Rockfish, yellowtail 395,633,872 385,611,628 -­‐2.5 391,682,661 353,736,111 -­‐9.7 Pacific gaper 1,295,361,057 1,252,055,247 -­‐3.3 1,292,065,019 1,167,315,663 -­‐9.7 Rockfish, silvergray 193,294,859 188,639,496 -­‐2.4 193,838,687 175,072,992 -­‐9.7 Clam, varnish 121,586,915 109,661,772 -­‐9.8 118,552,926 107,064,709 -­‐9.7 Scallop, rock 3,660,265,764 3,530,868,625 -­‐3.5 3,667,473,264 3,317,058,785 -­‐9.6 Sablefish 45,413,229 43,086,614 -­‐5.1 45,961,186 41,726,292 -­‐9.2 Scallop, spiny 497,686,961 483,825,060 -­‐2.8 494,501,668 448,865,916 -­‐9.2 Clam, Pacific littleneck 458,766,096 448,930,066 -­‐2.1 455,618,798 414,915,144 -­‐8.9 Sculpin, dusky 1,005,490,993 984,424,780 -­‐2.1 1,011,013,125 928,084,170 -­‐8.2 Steelhead 126,196,031 121,543,558 -­‐3.7 124,383,093 114,941,144 -­‐7.6 Rockfish, copper 683,734,778 666,757,823 -­‐2.5 683,102,561 636,272,241 -­‐6.9 Lingcod 373,737,539 364,973,195 -­‐2.3 369,189,827 344,941,498 -­‐6.6 Rockfish, chilipepper 523,683,456 507,563,961 -­‐3.1 516,690,227 482,755,030 -­‐6.6 Rockfish, yelloweye 399,130,815 390,603,671 -­‐2.1 399,156,740 374,280,448 -­‐6.2 176 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) Clam, butter 440,415,541 427,112,809 -­‐3.0 434,148,952 412,371,922 -­‐5.0 Barnacle, gooseneck 531,365,864 525,152,452 -­‐1.2 528,297,178 502,701,236 -­‐4.8 Pacific lamprey 269,624,551 264,056,080 -­‐2.1 268,889,696 256,385,721 -­‐4.7 Perch, pile 1,228,692,287 1,188,685,837 -­‐3.3 1,198,488,961 1,162,981,084 -­‐3.0 Crab, red rock 926,231,530 916,411,181 -­‐1.1 922,622,468 917,819,109 -­‐0.5 Rockfish, tiger 659,762,955 663,208,941 0.5 657,103,577 654,163,877 -­‐0.4 Rockfish, yellowmouth 779,899,243 779,207,863 -­‐0.1 780,444,683 785,711,471 0.7 Perch, kelp 1,078,180,129 1,066,084,996 -­‐1.1 1,046,718,930 1,054,730,260 0.8 Rockfish, China 1,154,153,650 1,146,141,547 -­‐0.7 1,129,409,322 1,148,807,715 1.7 Greenling, kelp 112,921,120 111,480,439 -­‐1.3 109,262,370 112,148,943 2.6 Rockfish, black 285,585,167 285,349,111 -­‐0.1 279,824,815 290,590,029 3.8 Sculpin, thornback 1,414,760,719 1,403,219,579 -­‐0.8 1,414,760,719 1,436,238,492 4.6 Pacific geoduck 75,349,615 74,232,419 -­‐1.5 74,272,850 78,065,233 5.1 Rockfish, vermillion 988,622,229 971,564,242 -­‐1.7 984,935,643 1,039,220,601 5.5 Clam, manila 286,428,532 302,808,911 5.7 284,631,152 328,462,256 15.4 White sturgeon 309,160,459 333,223,046 7.8 305,503,727 365,139,896 19.5 Pacific sardine 38,620,251 54,834,600 42.0 36,208,376 52,294,469 44.4 Shrimp, humpback 2,849,759 788,993 -­‐72.3 2,536,502 428,518 -­‐83.1 177 Supplementary Table B3. Latitudinal range shifts (km decade-­‐1) within British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone by 2050 relative to 2000, calculating by comparing 20-­‐year averaged latitudinal centroids (lat. cent.). SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Lat. cent. 2000 Lat. cent. 2050 Distance (km decade-­‐1) Lat. cent. 2000 Lat. cent. 2050 Distance (km decade-­‐1) Olympia oyster 52.14 52.19 1.16 51.40 52.06 14.68 Pacific sardine 50.05 50.52 10.32 49.96 50.59 13.96 Thornback sculpin 51.68 51.82 3.20 51.63 52.14 11.40 China rockfish 51.67 51.84 3.80 51.67 52.15 10.74 Pile perch 51.72 51.88 3.44 51.69 52.14 9.94 Red rock crab 51.82 52.03 4.78 51.79 52.23 9.90 Kelp perch 51.59 51.71 2.64 51.59 52.00 9.12 Butter clam 51.83 52.05 4.96 51.83 52.23 8.86 Puget Sound sculpin 51.83 51.91 1.74 51.81 52.20 8.80 Vermillion rockfish 51.48 51.64 3.64 51.46 51.81 7.78 Kelp greenling 51.50 51.65 3.36 51.50 51.84 7.68 Black rockfish 51.93 52.09 3.54 51.92 52.26 7.60 Longfin sculpin 51.92 52.04 2.64 51.91 52.25 7.56 Pacific gaper 51.99 52.19 4.48 51.96 52.28 7.08 Spiny scallop 51.94 52.13 4.12 51.93 52.23 6.86 Northern abalone 52.08 52.28 4.48 52.07 52.38 6.80 Steelhead 52.02 52.15 2.88 52.01 52.31 6.60 White sturgeon 52.28 52.47 4.20 52.27 52.56 6.56 Dusky sculpin 51.88 51.98 2.16 51.80 52.10 6.50 Horse clam 52.03 52.24 4.82 52.02 52.30 6.40 Pacific geoduck 51.52 51.71 4.10 51.52 51.79 6.06 Yellowmouth rockfish 51.90 52.04 3.30 51.88 52.15 6.06 Manila clam 51.64 51.78 3.14 51.63 51.89 5.94 Spot shrimp/prawn 51.97 52.15 3.98 51.97 52.23 5.80 Tiger rockfish 51.94 52.08 3.04 51.92 52.17 5.52 Pacific razor clam 52.11 52.29 3.96 52.10 52.34 5.32 178 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Lat. cent. 2000 Lat. cent. 2050 Distance (km decade-­‐1) Lat. cent. 2000 Lat. cent. 2050 Distance (km decade-­‐1) Nuttall cockle 51.73 51.83 2.18 51.72 51.95 5.26 Cabezon 52.08 52.20 2.62 52.08 52.32 5.22 Lingcod 52.05 52.19 3.04 52.05 52.28 5.18 Copper rockfish 51.77 51.91 3.08 51.77 52.01 5.18 Pacific littleneck clam 51.88 52.00 2.64 51.87 52.10 5.14 Thatched barnacle 52.16 52.34 4.04 52.18 52.41 5.04 Dungeness crab 52.16 52.35 4.06 52.18 52.40 5.02 Yellowtail rockfish 52.04 52.17 2.92 52.03 52.24 4.68 Widow rockfish 51.40 51.54 3.24 51.39 51.59 4.58 Red sea cucumber 52.08 52.23 3.28 52.10 52.28 4.18 Gooseneck barnacle 51.87 52.01 2.98 51.86 52.05 4.10 Pacific lamprey 51.85 51.96 2.46 51.84 52.02 4.02 Cutthroat trout 51.97 52.10 2.76 51.98 52.16 4.00 Bocaccio rockfish 52.14 52.27 2.88 52.14 52.32 3.90 Pacific herring 52.13 52.20 1.50 52.14 52.31 3.72 Quillback rockfish 52.07 52.19 2.64 52.06 52.23 3.72 Redbanded rockfish 51.93 52.03 2.28 51.95 52.12 3.70 Rock scallop 52.21 52.37 3.52 52.21 52.37 3.68 Red sea urchin 51.96 52.09 2.90 51.98 52.14 3.62 Yelloweye rockfish 51.94 52.05 2.36 51.93 52.09 3.58 Coho salmon 52.08 52.19 2.30 52.08 52.23 3.30 Chum salmon 52.07 52.20 2.78 52.08 52.22 3.28 Giant acorn barnacle 52.16 52.29 2.86 52.14 52.28 3.16 Pacific blue mussel 51.75 51.88 2.74 51.79 51.94 3.14 Longnose skate 51.87 51.98 2.42 51.87 52.01 3.10 Pacific tomcod 52.39 52.52 2.90 52.38 52.52 3.06 Starry flounder 52.29 52.38 2.04 52.30 52.43 2.92 Black chiton 52.20 52.32 2.66 52.19 52.32 2.84 Sablefish 51.87 51.96 1.98 51.87 51.98 2.54 179 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Lat. cent. 2000 Lat. cent. 2050 Distance (km decade-­‐1) Lat. cent. 2000 Lat. cent. 2050 Distance (km decade-­‐1) Flathead sole 52.60 52.77 3.90 52.60 52.71 2.52 Chilipepper rockfish 51.88 52.03 3.32 51.90 52.01 2.50 Pink salmon 52.80 52.91 2.44 52.80 52.91 2.44 Silvergray rockfish 51.81 51.93 2.68 51.81 51.92 2.40 Redstripe rockfish 52.24 52.31 1.66 52.24 52.34 2.36 Acorn barnacle 51.97 52.08 2.48 51.97 52.07 2.26 Canary rockfish 52.16 52.27 2.58 52.16 52.26 2.24 Spiny dogfish 52.06 52.15 2.10 52.07 52.16 2.20 Spotfin sculpin 51.72 51.82 2.24 51.74 51.84 2.14 Weathervane scallop 52.06 52.15 2.12 52.06 52.15 2.12 Dusky rockfish 52.83 52.86 0.68 52.82 52.91 2.10 Rock sole 52.29 52.37 1.74 52.30 52.38 1.74 Shortspine thornyhead 52.10 52.20 2.14 52.09 52.17 1.66 Humpback shrimp 48.51 48.54 0.62 48.56 48.62 1.34 Pacific sanddab 52.20 52.29 1.90 52.21 52.27 1.28 Petrale sole 52.22 52.30 1.72 52.23 52.28 1.24 Red Irish lord 52.37 52.43 1.38 52.39 52.44 1.06 Arrowtooth flounder 52.29 52.37 1.74 52.29 52.34 1.04 Shortraker rockfish 52.62 52.63 0.32 52.66 52.70 0.92 Chinook salmon 52.40 52.45 1.14 52.39 52.42 0.62 Eulachon 52.36 52.42 1.34 52.37 52.40 0.48 Longspine thornyhead 51.45 51.55 2.24 51.43 51.46 0.48 Pacific cupped oyster 51.81 51.84 0.76 51.81 51.82 0.40 Rex sole 52.59 52.66 1.40 52.60 52.62 0.36 Dolly Varden trout 52.28 52.35 1.74 52.29 52.29 0.10 English sole 52.25 52.29 0.90 52.24 52.24 0.06 Northern horse mussel 52.26 52.33 1.52 52.27 52.25 -­‐0.22 Varnish clam 48.63 48.61 -­‐0.36 48.62 48.61 -­‐0.28 180 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Lat. cent. 2000 Lat. cent. 2050 Distance (km decade-­‐1) Lat. cent. 2000 Lat. cent. 2050 Distance (km decade-­‐1) Pacific halibut 52.07 52.15 1.66 52.08 52.06 -­‐0.46 Northern shrimp (prawn) 52.27 52.32 1.02 52.26 52.24 -­‐0.58 Pacific cod 52.54 52.61 1.46 52.55 52.52 -­‐0.74 Pacific dover sole 52.18 52.24 1.32 52.19 52.16 -­‐0.86 Sockeye salmon 52.45 52.53 1.68 52.47 52.42 -­‐0.98 Humpy shrimp 52.53 52.59 1.18 52.54 52.48 -­‐1.36 Albacore tuna 52.01 51.95 -­‐1.28 52.04 51.98 -­‐1.46 Tanner crab 51.97 52.06 1.96 51.98 51.91 -­‐1.46 Green sea urchin 52.42 52.47 1.22 52.43 52.35 -­‐1.70 Rougheye rockfish 52.32 52.25 -­‐1.58 52.33 52.25 -­‐1.70 Giant Pacific chiton 52.47 52.51 0.84 52.48 52.40 -­‐1.72 Green shore crab 52.33 52.37 1.06 52.34 52.26 -­‐1.74 Purple shore crab 52.26 52.31 1.12 52.28 52.18 -­‐2.28 Sidestriped shrimp 51.98 52.26 6.14 52.00 51.88 -­‐2.68 Yellowfin sole 52.46 52.37 -­‐2.02 52.47 52.34 -­‐2.90 181 Supplementary Figure B1. Projected change in catch potential (%) by functional group or species within the Gitga’at Nation’s domestic fishing area under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. HerringEulachonFlounder and soleSalmonChitonsOystersRoundfishUrchinsAlbacoreShrimp and prawnsTroutAbaloneScallopsHalibutMusselsSea cucumberElasmobranchCrabsBarnaclesSculpinsClamsRockfishLingcodPerchGreenlingSturgeon−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20Change in catch potential (%)Functional group or speciesScenarioRCP2.6RCP8.5 182 Supplementary Figure B2. Projected change in catch potential (%) by functional group or species within the Haida Nation’s domestic fishing area under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. HerringEulachonFlounder and soleSalmonAlbacoreRoundfishChitonsUrchinsMusselsHalibutShrimp and prawnsScallopsSea cucumberElasmobranchTroutCrabsBarnaclesAbaloneClamsLingcodRockfishSculpinsOystersPerchGreenlingSturgeon−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30Change in catch potential (%)Functional group or speciesScenarioRCP2.6RCP8.5 183 Supplementary Figure B3. Projected change in catch potential (%) by functional group or species within the Heiltsuk Nation’s domestic fishing area under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. HerringEulachonFlounder and soleOystersSalmonAlbacoreRoundfishChitonsShrimp and prawnsTroutUrchinsAbaloneSea cucumberMusselsHalibutElasmobranchBarnaclesCrabsSculpinsRockfishClamsLingcodScallopsPerchGreenlingSturgeon−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20Change in catch potential (%)Functional group or speciesScenarioRCP2.6RCP8.5 184 Supplementary Figure B4. Projected change in catch potential (%) by functional group or species within the ‘Namgis Nation’s domestic fishing area under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. HerringEulachonSalmonFlounder and soleAlbacoreRoundfishCrabsChitonsUrchinsGreenlingSea cucumberMusselsRockfishShrimp and prawnsOystersTroutBarnaclesElasmobranchClamsPerchAbaloneSculpinsLingcodSturgeonScallopsPacific sardine−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30Change in catch potential (%)Functional group or speciesScenarioRCP2.6RCP8.5 185 Supplementary Figure B5. Projected change in catch potential (%) by functional group or species within the Tla’amin Nation’s domestic fishing area under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. HerringSea cucumberElasmobranchSalmonFlounder and soleOystersShrimp and prawnsAbalonePerchCrabsSculpinsClamsChitonsMusselsBarnaclesRoundfishGreenlingEulachonRockfishLingcodTroutUrchinsSturgeonAlbacoreHalibutScallopsPacific sardine−60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20Change in catch potential (%)Functional group or speciesScenarioRCP2.6RCP8.5 186 Supplementary Figure B6. Projected change in catch potential (%) by functional group or species within the Tsawwassen Nation’s domestic fishing area under the lower (RCP 2.6) and upper (RCP 8.5) scenarios of climate change. HerringRoundfishShrimp and prawnsAbaloneSalmonSea cucumberEulachonFlounder and soleOystersChitonsLingcodUrchinsSturgeonSculpinsCrabsTroutClamsPerchHalibutRockfishMusselsBarnaclesElasmobranchScallopsAlbacoreGreenling−50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10Change in catch potential (%)Functional group or speciesScenarioRCP2.6RCP8.5 187 APPENDIX C: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Supplementary Table C1. Inter-­‐model variability between species distribution models (SDMs) under RCP 8.5 when projecting changes to relative catch potential in British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Data from Aquamaps and Maxent obtained from Jones et al. (2014). Species Common name Change in catch potential (%) Std. dev. (σ) DBEM AquaMaps Maxent Cancer productus Red rock crab -­‐0.5 -­‐3.3 0.0 1.8 Sebastes flavidus Yellowtail rockfish -­‐9.7 -­‐9.3 -­‐6.4 1.8 Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho salmon -­‐15.1 -­‐18.8 -­‐16.1 1.9 Anoplopoma fimbria Sablefish -­‐9.2 -­‐5.1 -­‐1.6 3.8 Protothaca staminea Littleneck clam -­‐8.9 -­‐3.6 -­‐0.3 4.3 Saxidomus giganteus Butter clam -­‐5.0 -­‐14.4 -­‐7.1 4.9 Hippoglossus stenolepis Pacific halibut -­‐13.2 -­‐19.9 -­‐10.0 5.1 Metacarcinus magister Dungeness crab -­‐11.4 -­‐6.3 -­‐1.1 5.2 Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead -­‐7.6 -­‐0.7 3.0 5.4 Oncorhynchus keta Chum salmon -­‐11.8 -­‐21.4 -­‐21.1 5.5 Hippoglossoides elassodon Flathead sole -­‐26.1 -­‐33.5 -­‐20.2 6.7 Lepidopsetta bilineata Rock sole -­‐28.4 -­‐22.5 -­‐14.5 7.0 Microgadus proximus Pacific tomcod -­‐16.6 -­‐6.8 -­‐2.9 7.1 Atheresthes stomias Arrowtooth flounder -­‐32.0 -­‐23.4 -­‐16.6 7.7 Ophiodon elongatus Lingcod -­‐6.6 -­‐22.2 -­‐7.4 8.8 Panopea abrupta Pacific geoduck 5.1 N/A -­‐8.9 9.9 Clinocardium nuttallii Nuttall cockle -­‐10.9 5.0 7.9 10.1 Patinopecten caurinus Weathervane scallop -­‐21.2 -­‐0.4 -­‐4.8 11.0 Ostrea lurida Olympia oyster -­‐18.0 N/A -­‐1.4 11.7 Pandalus borealis Northern shrimp -­‐22.1 -­‐4.2 0.5 11.9 Gadus macrocephalus Pacific cod -­‐35.4 -­‐13.6 -­‐12.8 12.8 Parophrys vetula English sole -­‐28.4 -­‐5.4 -­‐3.5 13.9 Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Pink salmon -­‐43.1 -­‐11.6 -­‐22.6 16.0 Crassostrea gigas Pacific cupped oyster -­‐18.5 8.0 11.2 16.3 Pandalus goniurus Humpy shrimp -­‐37.6 -­‐35.3 -­‐6.8 17.2 Thaleichthys pacificus Eulachon -­‐37.1 -­‐5.0 -­‐6.8 18.0 Sardinops sagax Pacific sardine 44.4 4.8 6.3 22.4 Clupea pallasiii Pacific herring -­‐49.2 -­‐17.0 -­‐2.2 24.0 Limanda aspera Yellowfin sole -­‐26.0 -­‐70.1 -­‐26.6 25.3 Oncorhynchus tshawystcha Chinook salmon -­‐44.3 -­‐68.2 -­‐9.8 29.4 Pandalus hypsinotus Humpback shrimp -­‐83.1 -­‐21.3 -­‐10.3 39.2 Siliqua patula Pacific razor clam -­‐13.8 64.3 -­‐3.6 42.5 Thunnus alalunga Albacore tuna -­‐24.6 274.1 89.2 150.8 1 Values for albacore were low initially, leading to a much larger relative increase. 188 Supplementary Table C2. Sensitivity of model to time frame, comparing results from 20-­‐ and 30-­‐year averages and interdecadal variation (2045 vs. 2050). Intra-­‐model results are shown to be robust to the time frame selected. Ordered from lowest to highest standard deviation (σ). FUNCTIONAL GROUP CHANGE IN RELATIVE CATCH POTENTIAL (%) STD. DEV. (σ) 2050 (20-­‐YEAR AVG.) 2045 (20-­‐YEAR AVG.) 2045 (30-­‐year AVG.) Elasmobranch -­‐14.3 -­‐13.5 -­‐14.2 0.4 Trout -­‐17.2 -­‐16.6 -­‐16.2 0.5 Rockfish -­‐6.7 -­‐7.7 -­‐7.1 0.5 Mussels -­‐19.9 -­‐18.5 -­‐19.8 0.8 Lingcod -­‐6.6 -­‐8.3 -­‐7.6 0.9 Sculpins -­‐8.6 -­‐7.4 -­‐9.1 0.9 Halibut -­‐13.2 -­‐13.4 -­‐11.5 1.0 Scallops -­‐9.9 -­‐9.1 -­‐7.7 1.1 Clams -­‐7.5 -­‐8.9 -­‐6.3 1.3 Urchins -­‐21.3 -­‐21.0 -­‐18.9 1.3 Salmon -­‐29.2 -­‐27.1 -­‐26.7 1.3 Roundfish -­‐19.0 -­‐18.0 -­‐16.3 1.4 Sea cucumber -­‐14.8 -­‐15.1 -­‐12.5 1.4 Crab -­‐11.3 -­‐11.7 -­‐8.8 1.6 Chitons -­‐22.1 -­‐21.0 -­‐18.8 1.7 Shrimp and prawns -­‐20.1 -­‐19.5 -­‐16.9 1.7 Abalone -­‐14.0 -­‐14.1 -­‐11.1 1.7 Barnacles -­‐9.3 -­‐9.5 -­‐6.4 1.7 Perch -­‐1.2 -­‐1.1 -­‐4.2 1.8 Flounder and soles -­‐29.7 -­‐27.2 -­‐25.8 2.0 Greenling 2.6 0.7 -­‐1.8 2.2 Sturgeon 19.5 11.7 14.7 3.9 Eulachon -­‐37.1 -­‐29.5 -­‐29.9 4.3 Oysters -­‐18.0 -­‐10.2 -­‐10.5 4.4 Tuna -­‐29.8 -­‐23.7 -­‐20.2 4.9 Sardines 44.4 36.5 34.6 5.2 Herring -­‐49.2 -­‐39.5 -­‐34.2 7.6 189 APPENDIX D: CHAPTER 3 CALCULATIONS Supplementary Table D1. Change in relative catch potential for Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) under RCPs 2.6 and 8.5 using a 20-­‐year average of 2050 relative to 2000. REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 6,989,383 5,059,273 -­‐27.6 7,549,993 4,232,215 -­‐43.9 Haida Gwaii Haida 25,117,992 17,701,783 -­‐29.5 27,289,081 14,419,816 -­‐47.2 Central Coast Heiltsuk 1,715,037 1,216,272 -­‐29.1 1,861,577 987,675 -­‐46.9 ‘Namgis 8,571 5,426 -­‐36.7 9,455 4,280 -­‐54.7 SUM 1,723,608 1,221,698 -­‐29.1 1,871,032 991,955 -­‐47.0 Strait of Georgia Tla’amin 58,785 39,047 -­‐33.6 53,106 27,534 -­‐56.4 Tsawwassen 39,564 26,884 -­‐32.0 42,012 18,462 -­‐56.1 SUM 98,349 65,931 -­‐33.0 105,118 45,996 -­‐56.2 West Coast Vancouver Island (WCVI) Maa-­‐nulth 1,498,719 963,213 -­‐35.7 1,616,190 692,502 -­‐57.2 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 209,013,995 150,366,200 -­‐28.1 222,629,744 113,005,876 -­‐49.2 190 Supplementary Table D2. Change in relative catch potential for butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus). REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 18,930,327 18,986,082 0.3 18,938,967 20,239,764 6.9 Haida Gwaii Haida 38,504,563 38,108,236 -­‐1.0 38,548,211 40,818,410 5.9 Central Coast Heiltsuk 4,440,775 4,301,977 -­‐3.1 4,498,472 4,533,729 0.8 ‘Namgis 4,405 4,000 -­‐9.2 4,544 3,997 -­‐12.1 SUM 4,445,181 4,305,976 -­‐3.1 4,503,016 4,537,726 0.8 Strait of Georgia Tla’amin 127,726 75,242 -­‐41.1 126,913 76,771 -­‐39.5 Tsawwassen 338,772 275,700 -­‐18.6 338,422 236,692 -­‐30.1 SUM 466,498 350,942 -­‐24.8 465,335 313,462 -­‐32.6 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 1,244,999 866,551 -­‐30.4 1,232,834 853,449 -­‐30.8 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 440,415,541 427,112,809 -­‐3.0 434,148,952 412,371,922 -­‐5.0 Supplementary Table D3. Change in relative catch potential for Pacific littleneck clams (Protothaca staminea). REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 19,828,754 19,371,230 -­‐2.3 19,898,645 19,580,779 -­‐1.6 Haida Gwaii Haida 41,872,150 40,442,819 -­‐3.4 41,987,808 39,732,018 -­‐5.4 Central Coast Heiltsuk 4,473,564 4,230,616 -­‐5.4 4,556,564 4,396,000 -­‐3.5 ‘Namgis 4,611 4,128 -­‐10.5 4,671 4,013 -­‐14.1 SUM 4,478,175 4,234,744 -­‐5.4 4,561,235 4,400,013 -­‐3.5 Strait of Georgia Tla’amin 137,449 82,817 -­‐39.7 138,488 85,302 -­‐38.4 191 REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) Tsawwassen 336,208 308,178 -­‐8.3 346,440 270,700 -­‐21.9 SUM 473,657 390,995 -­‐17.5 484,928 356,002 -­‐26.6 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 1,241,380 926,074 -­‐25.4 1,256,357 900,681 -­‐28.3 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 458,766,096 448,930,066 -­‐2.1 455,618,798 414,915,144 -­‐8.9 Supplementary Table D4. Change in relative catch potential for manila clams (Venerupis philippinarum). REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 10,832,227 11,589,823 7.0 10,837,430 13,962,165 28.8 Haida Gwaii Haida 24,626,740 25,941,770 5.3 24,880,316 29,816,674 19.8 Central Coast Heiltsuk 2,776,988 2,985,946 7.5 2,869,673 3,671,800 28.0 ‘Namgis 6,040 5,629 -­‐6.8 5,761 5,580 -­‐3.1 SUM 2,783,027 2,991,575 7.5 2,875,433 3,677,379 27.9 Strait of Georgia Tla’amin 253,349 210,651 -­‐16.9 247,793 217,042 -­‐12.4 Tsawwassen 219,521 212,142 -­‐3.4 207,365 198,095 -­‐4.5 SUM 472,870 422,794 -­‐10.6 455,157 415,137 -­‐8.8 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 1,852,126 1,570,211 -­‐15.2 1,881,656 1,629,552 -­‐13.4 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 286,428,532 302,808,911 5.7 284,631,152 328,462,256 15.4 192 Supplementary Table D5. Change in relative catch potential for varnish clams (Nuttallia obscurata). REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Haida Gwaii Haida N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Central Coast Heiltsuk N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ‘Namgis N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SUM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Strait of Georgia Tla’amin 83,727 60,232 -­‐28.1 84,333 66,340 -­‐21.3 Tsawwassen 378,433 347,258 -­‐8.2 378,494 360,892 -­‐4.7 SUM 462,159 407,489 -­‐11.8 462,827 427,232 -­‐7.7 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 1,597,381 1,122,919 -­‐29.7 1,555,574 1,168,603 -­‐24.9 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 121,586,915 109,661,772 -­‐9.8 118,552,926 107,064,709 -­‐9.7 Supplementary Table D6. Change in relative catch potential for Pacific geoduck (Panopea abrupta). REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 2,909,760 2,963,186 1.8 2,921,227 3,417,636 17.0 Haida Gwaii Haida 6,256,500 6,196,646 -­‐1.0 6,237,458 6,964,139 11.7 Central Coast Heiltsuk 849,369 861,439 1.4 864,018 983,975 13.9 ‘Namgis 685 674 -­‐1.6 685 597 -­‐12.9 SUM 850,054 862,114 1.4 864,703 984,572 13.9 Strait of Georgia Tla’amin 32,233 19,350 -­‐40.0 27,875 20,954 -­‐24.8 193 REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) Tsawwassen 49,975 42,918 -­‐14.1 52,249 45,043 -­‐13.8 SUM 82,208 62,268 -­‐24.3 80,124 65,997 -­‐17.6 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 410,782 290,957 -­‐29.2 404,033 318,105 -­‐21.3 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 75,349,615 74,232,419 -­‐1.5 74,272,850 78,065,233 5.1 Supplementary Table D7. Change in relative catch potential for horse clams (Tresus capax). REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 40,444,599 38,094,399 -­‐5.8 40,619,056 39,668,380 -­‐2.3 Haida Gwaii Haida 89,627,640 83,274,785 -­‐7.1 90,572,308 86,259,413 -­‐4.8 Central Coast Heiltsuk 7,037,417 6,582,599 -­‐6.5 7,206,790 6,889,374 -­‐4.4 ‘Namgis 11,858 10,501 -­‐11.4 12,100 10,891 -­‐10.0 SUM 7,049,276 6,593,100 -­‐6.5 7,218,890 6,900,266 -­‐4.4 Strait of Georgia Tla’amin 293,085 195,252 -­‐33.4 299,623 208,566 -­‐30.4 Tsawwassen 597,265 449,219 -­‐24.8 607,457 436,963 -­‐28.1 SUM 890,350 644,471 -­‐27.6 907,080 645,529 -­‐28.8 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 2,603,677 1,757,255 -­‐32.5 2,689,147 1,896,012 -­‐29.5 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 886,225,032 817,412,967 -­‐7.8 882,940,330 792,944,873 -­‐10.2 194 Supplementary Table D8. Change in relative catch potential for Pacific gaper (Tresus nuttallii). REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 55,542,258 54,836,944 -­‐1.3 55,856,609 55,152,136 -­‐1.3 Haida Gwaii Haida 133,140,238 129,847,685 -­‐2.5 133,942,853.2 130,766,591 -­‐2.4 Central Coast Heiltsuk 4,440,775 4,301,977 -­‐3.1 16,388,118 14,910,443 -­‐9.0 ‘Namgis 8,348 7,751 -­‐7.2 8,502 7,839 -­‐7.8 SUM 4,449,123 4,309,727 -­‐3.1 16,396,619 14,918,282 -­‐9.0 Strait of Georgia Tla’amin 196,366 130,537 -­‐33.5 208,573 135,945 -­‐34.8 Tsawwassen 577,919 441,157 -­‐23.7 629,533 404,822 -­‐35.7 SUM 774,285 571,694 -­‐26.2 838,106 540,768 -­‐35.5 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 3,584,824 2,471,241 -­‐31.1 3,549,117 2,545,003 -­‐28.3 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 1,295,361,057 1,252,055,247 -­‐3.3 1,292,065,019 1,167,315,663 -­‐9.7 Supplementary Table D9. Change in relative catch potential for Pacific razor clam (Siliqua patula). REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 18,948,274 17,619,141 -­‐7.0 19,205,079 17,649,155 -­‐8.1 Haida Gwaii Haida 40,235,318 37,118,550 -­‐7.7 40,805,405 37,272,827 -­‐8.7 Central Coast Heiltsuk 4,704,135 4,273,746 -­‐9.1 4,735,898 4,230,040 -­‐10.7 ‘Namgis 5,189 4,432 -­‐14.6 5,143 4,330 -­‐15.8 SUM 4,709,324 4,278,178 -­‐9.2 4,741,041 4,234,370 -­‐10.7 Strait of Georgia Tla’amin 105,441 69,417 -­‐34.2 109,093 76,053 -­‐30.3 Tsawwassen 239,454 180,385 -­‐24.7 244,074 169,264 -­‐30.7 195 REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) SUM 344,895 249,802 -­‐28.0 353,167 245,317 -­‐31.0 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 1,013,541 697,621 -­‐31.2 1,053,890 722,868 -­‐31.4 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 421,547,934 388,434,366 -­‐7.9 419,872,614 361,865,169 -­‐13.8 Supplementary Table D10. Cumulative change in relative catch potential for intertidal clams by region. REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 167,436,199 163,460,805 -­‐2.4 168,277,013 169,670,015 0.8 Haida Gwaii Haida 374,263,149 360,930,491 -­‐3.6 376,974,359 371,630,072 -­‐1.4 Central Coast Heiltsuk 28,723,023 27,538,300 -­‐4.1 41,119,533 39,615,361 -­‐3.7 ‘Namgis 41,136 37,115 -­‐9.8 41,406 37,247 -­‐10.0 SUM 28,764,159 27,575,415 -­‐4.1 41,160,939 39,652,608 -­‐3.7 Strait of Georgia Tla’amin 1,229,376 843,498 -­‐31.4 1,242,691 886,973 -­‐28.6 Tsawwassen 2,737,547 2,256,957 -­‐17.6 2,804,034 2,122,471 -­‐24.3 SUM 3,966,923 3,100,455 -­‐21.8 4,046,725 3,009,444 -­‐25.6 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 13,548,710 9,702,829 -­‐28.4 13,622,608 10,034,273 -­‐26.3 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 3,985,680,722 3,820,648,557 -­‐4.1 3,962,102,641 3,663,004,969 -­‐7.5 196 Supplementary Table D11. Change in relative catch potential for pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 3,697,326 2,455,333 -­‐33.6 3,772,700 2,209,318 -­‐41.4 Haida Gwaii Haida 9,337,433 6,052,597 -­‐35.2 9,486,768 5,569,089 -­‐41.3 Central Coast Heiltsuk 826,648 518,385 -­‐37.3 850,789 467,800 -­‐45.0 ‘Namgis 1,721 991 -­‐42.5 1,752 1,040 -­‐40.6 SUM 828,369 519,375 -­‐37.3 852,541 468,840 -­‐45.0 Tla’amin 11,047 5,454 -­‐50.6 11,168 5,942 -­‐46.8 Tsawwassen 7,920 2,956 -­‐62.7 8,047 3,130 -­‐61.1 SUM 18,967 8,409 -­‐55.7 19,215 9,072 -­‐52.8 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 154,702 75,571 -­‐51.2 156,706 80,490 -­‐48.6 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 75,470,114 49,636,641 -­‐34.2 75,707,968 43,105,564 -­‐43.1 Supplementary Table D12. Change in relative catch potential for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 5,004,067 4,826,094 -­‐3.6 5,053,018 4,482,126 -­‐11.3 Haida Gwaii Haida 12,503,315 11,953,321 -­‐4.4 12,628,655 10,946,324 -­‐13.3 Central Coast Heiltsuk 1,302,559 1,224,402 -­‐6.0 1,331,463 1,177,583 -­‐11.6 ‘Namgis 1,409 1,280 -­‐9.1 1,431 1,258 -­‐12.1 197 REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) SUM 1,303,968 1,225,682 -­‐6.0 1,332,894 1,178,841 -­‐11.6 Tla’amin 24,097 18,402 -­‐23.6 24,325 18,037 -­‐25.9 Tsawwassen 50,945 44,373 -­‐12.9 51,556 36,054 -­‐30.1 SUM 75,042 62,775 -­‐16.3 75,881 54,091 -­‐28.7 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 372,040 281,401 -­‐24.4 376,142 271,831 -­‐27.7 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 117,601,463 114,363,470 -­‐2.8 117,020,635 99,367,443 -­‐15.1 Supplementary Table D13. Change in relative catch potential for chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 4,358,620 4,201,068 -­‐3.6 4,419,806 4,084,549 -­‐7.6 Haida Gwaii Haida 10,801,927 10,323,745 -­‐4.4 10,935,309 9,825,327 -­‐10.2 Central Coast Heiltsuk 1,123,414 1,052,049 -­‐6.4 1,153,357 1,058,765 -­‐8.2 ‘Namgis 1,330 1,235 -­‐7.1 1,356 1,215 -­‐10.4 SUM 1,124,744 1,053,284 -­‐6.4 1,154,714 1,059,981 -­‐8.2 Tla’amin 25,336 18,609 -­‐26.6 25,582 19,595 -­‐23.4 Tsawwassen 42,931 35,869 -­‐16.4 43,464 31,982 -­‐26.4 SUM 68,266 54,478 -­‐20.2 69,047 51,577 -­‐25.3 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 365,368 278,869 -­‐23.7 369,857 275,242 -­‐25.6 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 102,683,421 99,148,477 -­‐3.4 102,460,001 90,352,910 -­‐11.8 198 Supplementary Table D14. Change in relative catch potential for sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 3,567,398 3,333,520 -­‐6.6 3,718,875 2,294,189 -­‐38.3 Haida Gwaii Haida 9,299,959 8,595,373 -­‐7.6 9,621,299 5,994,841 -­‐37.7 Central Coast Heiltsuk 828,458 758,650 -­‐8.4 866,097 545,335 -­‐37.0 ‘Namgis 1,423 1,263 -­‐11.2 1,443 1,090 -­‐24.4 SUM 829,880 759,913 -­‐8.4 867,540 546,425 -­‐37.0 Tla’amin 11,353 8,975 -­‐20.9 11,566 9,004 -­‐22.2 Tsawwassen 18,916 15,574 -­‐17.7 19,224 12,438 -­‐35.3 SUM 30,270 24,549 -­‐18.9 30,790 21,442 -­‐30.4 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 199,642 158,885 -­‐20.4 202,738 156,919 -­‐22.6 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 77,862,776 74,407,747 -­‐4.4 79,360,628 50,262,898 -­‐36.7 Supplementary Table D15. Change in relative catch potential for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawystcha). REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 5,215,313 3,152,080 -­‐39.6 5,312,710 3,085,673 -­‐41.9 Haida Gwaii Haida 12,983,905 7,647,716 -­‐41.1 13,189,454 7,397,009 -­‐43.9 Central Coast Heiltsuk 1,158,962 687,884 -­‐40.6 1,191,461 705,040 -­‐40.8 ‘Namgis 2,797 1,296 -­‐53.7 2,857 1,417 -­‐50.4 SUM 1,161,759 689,180 -­‐40.7 1,194,318 706,457 -­‐40.8 Tla’amin 44,737 21,785 -­‐51.3 45,536 23,550 -­‐48.3 Tsawwassen 31,019 15,816 -­‐49.0 31,637 16,668 -­‐47.3 199 REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) SUM 75,756 37,601 -­‐50.4 77,173 40,217 -­‐47.9 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 499,983 249,435 -­‐50.1 509,096 271,403 -­‐46.7 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 118,005,595 70,114,470 -­‐40.6 118,373,616 65,955,588 -­‐44.3 Supplementary Table D16. Cumulative change in relative catch potential for salmon by region. REGION FIRST NATION(S) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 2000 2050 Difference (%) 2000 2050 Difference (%) North Coast Tsimshian 21,842,724 17,968,095 -­‐17.7 22,277,109 16,155,855 -­‐27.5 Haida 54,926,539 44,572,752 -­‐18.9 55,861,485 39,732,590 -­‐28.9 Central Coast Heiltsuk 5,240,041 4,241,370 -­‐19.1 5,393,167 3,954,523 -­‐26.7 ‘Namgis 8,680 6,065 -­‐30.1 8,839 6,020 -­‐31.9 SUM 5,248,721 4,247,435 -­‐19.1 5,402,006 3,960,543 -­‐26.7 Strait of Georgia Tla’amin 116,570 73,225 -­‐37.2 118,177 76,128 -­‐35.6 Tsawwassen 151,731 114,588 -­‐24.5 153,928 100,272 -­‐34.9 SUM 268,301 187,813 -­‐30.0 272,105 176,400 -­‐35.1 WCVI Maa-­‐nulth 1,591,735 1,044,161 -­‐34.4 1,614,539 1,055,885 -­‐34.6 Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) All 491,623,369 407,670,805 -­‐17.1 492,922,848 349,044,403 -­‐29.2 200 APPENDIX E: RANGE SHIFTS Supplementary Table E1. Latitudinal range shifts (km decade-­‐1) within British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone by 2050 relative to 2000, calculating by comparing 20-­‐year averaged latitudinal centroids (lat. cent.)(Chapter 3). SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Lat. cent. 2000 Lat. cent. 2050 Total distance(km) Dist. (km dec.-­‐1) Lat. cent. 2000 Lat. cent. 2050 Total distance (km) Dist. (km dec.-­‐1) Butter clam (S. giganteus) 51.83 52.05 24.8 5.0 51.83 52.23 44.3 8.9 Pacific gaper (T. nuttallii) 51.99 52.19 22.4 4.5 51.96 52.28 35.4 7.1 Horse clam (T. capax) 52.03 52.24 24.1 4.8 52.02 52.30 32.0 6.4 Pacific geoduck (P. abrupta) 51.52 51.71 20.5 4.1 51.52 51.79 30.3 6.1 Manila clam (V. philippinarum) 51.64 51.78 15.7 3.1 51.63 51.89 29.7 5.9 Pacific razor clam (S. patula) 52.11 52.29 19.8 4.0 52.10 52.34 26.6 5.3 Pacific littleneck clam (P. staminea) 51.88 52.00 13.2 2.6 51.87 52.10 25.7 5.1 Pacific herring (C. pallasii) 52.13 52.20 7.5 1.5 52.14 52.31 18.6 3.7 Chum salmon (O. keta) 52.07 52.20 13.9 2.8 52.08 52.22 16.4 3.3 Coho salmon (O. kisutch) 52.08 52.19 11.5 2.3 52.08 52.23 16.5 3.3 Pink salmon (O. gorbuscha) 52.80 52.91 12.2 2.4 52.80 52.91 12.2 2.4 Sockeye salmon (O. nerka) 52.45 52.53 8.4 1.7 52.47 52.42 -­‐4.9 -­‐1.0 Chinook salmon (O. tshawystcsha) 52.40 52.45 5.7 1.1 52.39 52.42 3.1 0.6 Varnish clam (N. obscurata) 48.63 48.61 -­‐1.8 -­‐0.4 48.62 48.61 -­‐1.4 -­‐0.3 201 Supplementary Table E2. Rate of global leading and trailing edges of range shifts (km decade-­‐1) by species, directionality of shifts, and range type (expansion [+], contraction [-­‐], or neutral [N/A]) under the lower and upper scenarios of climate change (RCPs 2.6 and 8.5, respectively). Global rates compared with rates of range shifts within British Columbia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Global trailing edge (km decade-­‐1) Global leading edge (km decade-­‐1) Direction Range type Range shift (km decade-­‐1) in EEZ Global trailing edge (km decade-­‐1) Global leading edge (km decade-­‐1) Direction Range type Range shift (km decade-­‐1) in EEZ Olympia oyster 0 5.01 Poleward + 1.16 0 44.51 Poleward + 14.68 Pacific sardine 0 1.67 Poleward + 10.32 0 11.13 Poleward + 13.96 Thornback sculpin 0 0 No change N/A 3.2 0 0 No change N/A 11.4 China rockfish -­‐2.78 5.01 Equatorial + poleward + 3.8 -­‐6.12 6.68 Equatorial + poleward + 10.74 Pile perch 22.25 0 Poleward -­‐ 3.44 22.25 4.45 Poleward -­‐ 9.94 Red rock crab 0 0 No change N/A 4.78 0 0 No change N/A 9.9 Kelp perch 22.25 0 Poleward -­‐ 2.64 22.25 0 Poleward -­‐ 9.12 Butter clam 0 38.94 Poleward + 4.96 0 54.52 Poleward + 8.86 Puget Sound sculpin 0 9.46 Poleward + 1.74 0 43.39 Poleward + 8.8 Vermillion rockfish 100.14 0 Poleward -­‐ 3.64 100.14 0 Poleward -­‐ 7.78 Kelp greenling 15.02 41.72 Poleward + 3.36 21.14 50.07 Poleward + 7.68 Black rockfish 3.34 24.48 Poleward + 3.54 1.67 51.18 Poleward + 7.6 Longfin sculpin 0 10.57 Poleward + 2.64 0 7.79 Poleward + 7.56 Pacific gaper 0 0 No change N/A 4.48 0 0 No change N/A 7.08 Spiny scallop 0 71.77 Poleward + 4.12 0 76.77 Poleward + 6.86 Northern abalone 0 0 No change N/A 4.48 0 5.01 Poleward + 6.8 Steelhead -­‐147.43 74.55 Equatorial + poleward + 2.88 -­‐141.31 92.35 Equatorial + poleward + 6.6 White sturgeon 0 12.24 Poleward + 4.2 0 43.39 Poleward + 6.56 Dusky sculpin 0 5.01 Poleward + 2.16 0 28.37 Poleward + 6.5 202 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Global trailing edge (km decade-­‐1) Global leading edge (km decade-­‐1) Direction Range type Range shift (km decade-­‐1) in EEZ Global trailing edge (km decade-­‐1) Global leading edge (km decade-­‐1) Direction Range type Range shift (km decade-­‐1) in EEZ Horse clam 0 10.01 Poleward + 4.82 0 11.13 Poleward + 6.4 Pacific geoduck 0 46.73 Poleward + 4.1 0 41.72 Poleward + 6.06 Yellowmouth rockfish 0 23.37 Poleward + 3.3 0 28.93 Poleward + 6.06 Manila clam 0 33.38 Poleward + 3.14 0 33.38 Poleward + 5.94 Spot prawn 0 0 No change N/A 3.98 0 -­‐16.69 Equatorial -­‐ 5.8 Tiger rockfish 0 42.28 Poleward + 3.04 0 48.4 Poleward + 5.52 Pacific razor clam 0 53.41 Poleward + 3.96 0 61.75 Poleward + 5.32 Nuttall cockle 0 0 No change N/A 2.18 0 0 No change N/A 5.26 Cabezon 9.46 0 Poleward -­‐ 2.62 11.13 0 Poleward -­‐ 5.22 Copper rockfish 8.34 25.03 Poleward + 3.08 11.13 79 Poleward + 5.18 Lingcod 0 16.13 Poleward + 3.04 0 43.39 Poleward + 5.18 Pacific littleneck clam 33.38 58.97 Poleward + 2.64 33.38 73.43 Poleward + 5.14 Thatched barnacle 0 50.07 Poleward + 4.04 0 59.53 Poleward + 5.04 Dungeness crab 0 0 No change N/A 4.06 0 0 No change N/A 5.02 Yellowtail rockfish 0 20.03 Poleward + 2.92 0 38.94 Poleward + 4.68 Widow rockfish -­‐2.78 31.15 Equatorial + poleward + 3.24 89.01 61.75 Poleward -­‐ 4.58 Red sea cucumber -­‐10.01 7.79 Equatorial + poleward + 3.28 -­‐8.34 7.23 Equatorial + poleward + 4.18 Gooseneck barnacle 44.51 0 Poleward -­‐ 2.98 44.51 0 Poleward -­‐ 4.1 Pacific lamprey 0 33.38 Poleward + 2.46 0 41.72 Poleward + 4.02 Cutthroat trout 0 2.78 Poleward + 2.76 0 2.78 Poleward + 4 Bocaccio rockfish 0 28.93 Poleward + 2.88 0 42.84 Poleward + 3.9 Quillback rockfish 0 56.19 Poleward + 2.64 0 83.45 Poleward + 3.72 203 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Global trailing edge (km decade-­‐1) Global leading edge (km decade-­‐1) Direction Range type Range shift (km decade-­‐1) in EEZ Global trailing edge (km decade-­‐1) Global leading edge (km decade-­‐1) Direction Range type Range shift (km decade-­‐1) in EEZ Pacific herring 0 32.27 Poleward + 1.5 0 46.17 Poleward + 3.72 Redbanded rockfish 0 18.91 Poleward + 2.28 0 22.25 Poleward + 3.7 Rock scallop 11.13 0 Poleward -­‐ 3.52 11.13 0 Poleward -­‐ 3.68 Red sea urchin 70.65 36.72 Poleward -­‐ 2.9 77.88 34.49 Poleward -­‐ 3.62 Yelloweye rockfish 11.13 32.27 Poleward + 2.36 11.13 45.62 Poleward + 3.58 Coho salmon 8.9 32.27 Poleward + 2.3 11.13 46.17 Poleward + 3.3 Chum salmon -­‐34.49 32.27 Equatorial + poleward + 2.78 -­‐33.38 46.17 Equatorial + poleward + 3.28 Giant acorn barnacle 0 34.49 Poleward + 2.86 0 31.15 Poleward + 3.16 Pacific blue mussel 0 0 No change N/A 2.74 0 0 No change N/A 3.14 Longnose skate 0 8.9 Poleward + 2.42 0 14.46 Poleward + 3.1 Pacific tomcod 6.12 33.94 Poleward + 2.9 2.23 46.73 Poleward + 3.06 Starry flounder -­‐28.93 33.38 Equatorial + poleward + 2.04 -­‐22.25 33.38 Equatorial + poleward + 2.92 Black chiton 0 48.4 Poleward + 2.66 0 63.42 Poleward + 2.84 Sablefish 0 11.13 Poleward + 1.98 0 11.13 Poleward + 2.54 Flathead sole 0 22.25 Poleward + 3.9 0 17.25 Poleward + 2.52 Chilipepper rockfish 8.34 0 Poleward -­‐ 3.32 11.13 0 Poleward -­‐ 2.5 Pink salmon 0 30.6 Poleward + 2.44 0 46.17 Poleward + 2.44 Silvergray rockfish 30.04 27.26 Poleward -­‐ 2.68 33.38 42.28 Poleward + 2.4 Redstripe rockfish -­‐22.25 40.61 Equatorial + poleward + 1.66 -­‐22.25 41.17 Equatorial + poleward + 2.36 204 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Global trailing edge (km decade-­‐1) Global leading edge (km decade-­‐1) Direction Range type Range shift (km decade-­‐1) in EEZ Global trailing edge (km decade-­‐1) Global leading edge (km decade-­‐1) Direction Range type Range shift (km decade-­‐1) in EEZ Acorn barnacle 0 69.54 Poleward + 2.48 0 68.43 Poleward + 2.26 Canary rockfish 0 36.16 Poleward + 2.58 0 47.84 Poleward + 2.24 Spiny dogfish 0 33.38 Poleward + 2.1 0 31.71 Poleward + 2.2 Spotfin sculpin 7.23 0 No change -­‐ 2.24 11.13 0 Poleward -­‐ 2.14 Weathervane scallop 0 34.49 Poleward + 2.12 0 33.94 Poleward + 2.12 Dusky rockfish 0 37.27 Poleward + 0.68 0 94.02 Poleward + 2.1 Rock sole -­‐50.07 35.05 Equatorial + poleward + 1.74 -­‐51.74 33.94 Equatorial + poleward + 1.74 Shortspine thornyhead 0 47.84 Poleward + 2.14 0 54.52 Poleward + 1.66 Humpback shrimp 66.76 15.02 Poleward -­‐ 0.62 76.22 21.7 Poleward -­‐ 1.34 Pacific sanddab 0 36.16 Poleward + 1.9 0 35.6 Poleward + 1.28 Petrale sole -­‐30.04 38.94 Equatorial + poleward + 1.72 -­‐19.47 46.17 Equatorial + poleward + 1.24 Red Irish lord -­‐51.74 40.61 Equatorial + poleward + 1.38 -­‐44.51 43.95 Equatorial + poleward + 1.06 Arrowtooth flounder 0 11.13 Poleward + 1.74 0 11.13 Poleward + 1.04 Shortraker rockfish -­‐39.5 45.62 Equatorial + poleward + 0.32 -­‐38.94 44.51 Equatorial + poleward + 0.92 Chinook salmon 11.13 32.27 Poleward + 1.14 11.13 46.17 Poleward + 0.62 Eulachon -­‐11.13 32.27 Equatorial + poleward + 1.34 -­‐11.13 46.17 Equatorial + poleward + 0.48 Longspine thornyhead 0 0 No change N/A 2.24 0 0 No change N/A 0.48 Pacific cupped oyster 0 24.48 Poleward + 0.76 0 36.16 Poleward + 0.4 205 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Global trailing edge (km decade-­‐1) Global leading edge (km decade-­‐1) Direction Range type Range shift (km decade-­‐1) in EEZ Global trailing edge (km decade-­‐1) Global leading edge (km decade-­‐1) Direction Range type Range shift (km decade-­‐1) in EEZ Rex sole 0 28.37 Poleward + 1.4 0 22.25 Poleward + 0.36 Dolly Varden trout 0 37.83 Poleward + 1.74 0 38.39 Poleward + 0.1 English sole 0 27.26 Poleward + 0.9 0 18.36 Poleward + 0.06 Northern horse mussel -­‐13.91 40.61 Equatorial + poleward + 1.52 -­‐60.64 52.85 Equatorial + poleward + -­‐0.22 Varnish clam 0 0 No change N/A -­‐0.36 0 0 No change N/A -­‐0.28 Pacific halibut -­‐11.13 39.5 Equatorial + poleward + 1.66 0 35.6 Poleward + -­‐0.46 Prawn / northern shrimp 0 32.82 Poleward + 1.02 -­‐9.46 37.83 Equatorial + poleward + -­‐0.58 Pacific cod -­‐37.83 32.27 Equatorial + poleward + 1.46 -­‐33.38 46.17 Equatorial + poleward + -­‐0.74 Pacific dover sole -­‐57.3 38.39 Equatorial + poleward + 1.32 -­‐55.63 39.5 Equatorial + poleward + -­‐0.86 Sockeye salmon 0 32.27 Poleward + 1.68 0 46.17 Poleward + -­‐0.98 Humpy shrimp -­‐36.72 41.72 Equatorial + poleward + 1.18 -­‐33.38 47.29 Equatorial + poleward + -­‐1.36 Albacore tuna 0 38.39 Poleward + -­‐1.28 -­‐33.94 207.51 Equatorial + poleward + -­‐1.46 Tanner crab 0 41.17 Poleward + 1.96 0 37.83 Poleward + -­‐1.46 Green sea urchin 0 58.41 Poleward + 1.22 0 60.64 Poleward + -­‐1.7 Rougheye rockfish -­‐40.06 34.49 Equatorial + poleward + -­‐1.58 -­‐40.06 33.38 Equatorial + poleward + -­‐1.7 Giant Pacific chiton 0 55.08 Poleward + 0.84 0 60.08 Poleward + -­‐1.72 Green shore crab 44.51 0 Poleward -­‐ 1.06 44.51 -­‐11.13 No change -­‐ -­‐1.74 Purple shore crab 44.51 0 Poleward -­‐ 1.12 44.51 0 Poleward -­‐ -­‐2.28 Sidestriped -­‐14.46 32.82 Equatorial + 6.14 -­‐16.69 54.52 Equatorial + -­‐2.68 206 SPECIES RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Global trailing edge (km decade-­‐1) Global leading edge (km decade-­‐1) Direction Range type Range shift (km decade-­‐1) in EEZ Global trailing edge (km decade-­‐1) Global leading edge (km decade-­‐1) Direction Range type Range shift (km decade-­‐1) in EEZ shrimp + poleward + poleward Yellowfin sole 0 34.49 Poleward + -­‐2.02 0 34.49 Poleward + -­‐2.9 207 APPENDIX F: SPECIES WITH CATCH OFFSET POTENTIAL Supplementary Table F1. Catch offset potential for butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus.) CATCH DIFFERENTIAL (2050 RELATIVE TO 2000) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Tsimshian 55,755 1,300,797 Haida -­‐396,327 2,270,199 Heiltsuk 3,861,202 35,257 ‘Namgis -­‐405 -­‐547 Tla’amin -­‐52,484 -­‐50,142 Tsawwassen -­‐63,072 -­‐101,730 Maa-­‐nulth -­‐378,488 -­‐379,385 GAIN 3,916,957 3,606,253 LOSS 890,736 531,804 OFFSET 440.0% 678.0% Supplementary Table F2. Catch offset potential for Pacific geoduck (Panopea abrupta). CATCH DIFFERENTIAL (2050 RELATIVE TO 2000) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Tsimshian 53,436 496,409 Haida -­‐59,854 726,681 Heiltsuk 12,070 119,957 ‘Namgis -­‐11 -­‐88 Tla’amin -­‐12,883 -­‐6,921 Tsawwassen -­‐7,057 -­‐7,206 Maa-­‐nulth -­‐119,825 -­‐85,928 GAIN 65,496 1,343,047 LOSS 199,630 100,143 OFFSET 32.8% 1,341.1% 208 Supplementary Table F3. Catch offset potential for manila clams (Venerupis philippinarum). CATCH DIFFERENTIAL (2050 RELATIVE TO 2000) RCP 2.6 RCP 8.5 Tsimshian 757,596 3,124,735 Haida 1,315,030 4,936,358 Heiltsuk 208,958 802,127 ‘Namgis -­‐411 -­‐11,341 Tla’amin -­‐42,698 -­‐30,751 Tsawwassen -­‐7,379 -­‐9,270 Maa-­‐nulth -­‐281,915 -­‐252,104 GAIN 2,281,584 8,863,220 LOSS 332,403 303,466 OFFSET 686.0% 2,921.0%
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Resource Management and Environmental Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Canada
Graduate
Scenarios for coastal First Nations' fisheries under climate change : impacts, resilience and adaptation potential
Text