Marine Policy 74 (2016) 177185

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

A dynamic ocean management proposal for the Bering Strait region

a, a,b c
crossmark
Anne Siders , Rose Stanley , Kate M. Lewis
a
Stanford University, Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER), 473 Via Ortega, Stanford CA 94305, USA
b
Stanford Law School, 449 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford CA 94305, USA
c
Stanford University, Department of Earth System Science, 473 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Global climate change is raising Arctic temperatures, warming ocean waters, and melting sea ice at
Arctic unprecedented rates, creating new opportunities for industry and development and new risks. As industries
Adaptive Governance and local communities become increasingly active in newly accessible Arctic waters, a robust and dynamic
Climate Change regulatory regime is needed to reduce safety and environmental risks and balance competing needs of multiple
Conservation
resource user groups, all while continually adapting to rapidly changing environmental, economic, and social
Dynamic Management
conditions. Such governance is particularly necessary in the narrow Bering Strait, where humans and animals
Shipping
compete for space while transiting between Pacic and Arctic Oceans, and where traditional subsistence uses
overlap with emerging industries. Dynamic ocean management, a system of resource management that
incorporates real-time data to implement spatially and temporally targeted management responses, oers
guidance on the benets and drawbacks of dynamic regulation and best practices for implementation in the
Bering Strait. Examples of successful dynamic management regimes exist and are reviewed and used to
illustrate benets and challenges of dynamic multi-resource management in the Bering Strait region. Dynamic
regulation has the potential to improve eciency in achieving economic and environmental outcomes, although
substantial stakeholder engagement may be required to identify precise goals and weigh trade-os. Signicant
investment in data collection, analysis, and distribution may also be necessary. However, writing incident-based
regulations and management thresholds to create incentives for government and private sector action should
enable the Bering Strait region to develop a robust governance system able to adapt to the region's on-going
changes.

1. Introduction Pacic Oceans.

Global climate change is causing rapid environmental, economic,
and social change in the Arctic [14]. Arctic air temperatures are rising
at twice the global rate [5]. Ocean waters are warming, and sea ice is
disappearing at unprecedented rates [69], such that ice-free summers
are projected as early as 2030 [8], an event once thought impossible in
this century. Such environmental changes aect the range, distribution,
and health of native and migratory marine species in the region [10
13], with consequences for local and traditional hunting practices
[3,14]. Decreased seasonal ice cover is expected to drive commercial
activity, including shipping, resource extraction, and tourism [2,15
17]. Increased commercial activity both has the potential to contribute
to regional economic development and to increase risks to human
safety [18], marine species and ecosystem health [14,19]. The prob-
ability and consequences of these risks are exacerbated by the conned
geographic space, dynamic conditions, and numerous stakeholders at
play in the Bering Strait region, the sole passage between Arctic and
Balancing goals of economic development with ecosystem protec-
tion in an inclusive and proactive manner requires a governance system
that is multi-disciplinary, collaborative, and precautionary [20]. As the
Arctic has not yet experienced the explosive growth in development
that is projected over the coming decades, stakeholders in the region
have the unusual opportunity to proactively establish a dynamic
governance system to prevent harm rather than responding once a
disaster occurs. Indeed, eorts to govern the multiple uses and
stakeholder groups in the Bering Strait region are emerging [2,21
25] but preliminary eorts are often ad hoc and have been plagued by
long, slow bureaucratic processes that leave a gap between the
regulations on paper and the rapidly changing conditions on the
ground. Among the governance options which have been proposed
are traditional marine governance approaches, including trac separa-
tion schemes (TSS) and marine protected areas (MPA) [21]. Although
successful in more stable environments, such geographically and
temporally static approaches may quickly become ill-placed and

Correspondence to: E-IPER, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega, Suite 226, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
E-mail addresses: siders@stanford.edu (A. Siders), rose.c.stanley@gmail.com (R. Stanley), kmlewis@stanford.edu (K.M. Lewis).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.028
Received 17 August 2016; Received in revised form 16 September 2016; Accepted 16 September 2016
Available online 23 September 2016
0308-597X/ 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Siders et al.
ineective in a region of such rapid change unless paired with more
dynamic management techniques.
Throughout this article, the phrase Bering Strait region is used to
encompass not only the narrow Bering Strait itself, dened as the
channel between the easternmost tip of Russia and westernmost tip of
Alaska, U.S., but also the surrounding waterways extending to the
Chukchi Sea in the north and the Bering Sea in the south (see [Fig. 1]).
Waters in the Bering Strait region fall variously under U.S., Russian, or
international jurisdiction, as discussed in Section 2.1. Other publica-
tions have addressed the potential for U.S. action to reach all Bering
Strait waters, whether domestic or international [26], but, unless
otherwise specied, proposals herein are framed primarily to address
waters and activities under U.S. jurisdiction that the U.S. could
implement unilaterally. Any governance system in the region must
take Arctic geopolitics into account [27], and international pressures
could aect the ability of the U.S. to implement even unilateral eorts.
However, to date, Arctic states have shown a high degree of coopera-
tion and coordination, and stable, protected, well-governed commerce
in the region appears to be in everyone's interest, making a unilateral
management approach for U.S. waters activities feasible..
The following sections briey review the changes occurring in the
Bering Strait region, discuss the theoretical benets of dynamic ocean
management, and illustrate how a dynamic system might be structured
and applied in the Bering Strait.
2. Growing challenges in the Bering Strait
Rapid change in the Arctic environment creates unpredictability
and raises potential for conict among stakeholders and resource
users. Bookending the Bering Strait, the shallow shelves of the
Chukchi and Bering Seas are among the most productive marine
ecosystems in the world [28,29]. The region is home to an exceptional
range of endemic sh and seabird species (an estimated 80% of the U.S.
seabird population), whales (e.g., beluga, bowhead, n, gray, hump-
back, killer, sei and minke), pinnipeds, and polar bears [1,11,30,31].
With its narrowest point only 81 km across and a maximum depth of
50 m, the Bering Strait is a bottleneck for marine species migrations,
commercial trac, and subsistence harvesting activities transiting
between the Pacic and Arctic Oceans [32,33]. In addition to full-time
resident species, large numbers of predators migrate poleward to
access the intense seasonal production on the Chukchi and Bering
shelves [11,30,31]. Local indigenous cultures, including Aleut, Inupiat,
and Yupik, likewise depend on the highly productive oceans for
subsistence hunting and shing, an integral component of survival,
tradition and culture [3,14,34]. In a recent study, approximately 80%
of all subpopulations and subspecies of Arctic marine mammals are
regularly and legally harvested for subsistence [30].
The intensied eects of anthropogenic climate change in the Artic,
coined polar amplication, have prompted rapid change in the region.
Most visible has been a dramatic decline in the extent, volume and
duration of Arctic Ocean sea ice over the past few decades [69]. Loss
of sea ice not only aects the behavior and health of ice-dependent
marine species [10,13,35] but also entire ecosystems from the bottom
of the ocean oor to the coasts [36]. One of many potential changes
expected is a northward migration of temperate marine species [12].
Migratory whales, including gray and killer whales, have already
shifted their primary foraging grounds to waters farther north and
lengthened their residence times in the Arctic, likely increasing
competitive stress on endemic Arctic species that are restricted in
their ability to relocate [10,37]. Likewise, many commercially shed
species (e.g., walleye pollock, pink salmon, snow crab, Pacic cod, and
Bering ounder) have been observed farther north than their typical
range [1,38,39].
Increasing open water extent and duration also unlocks previously
inaccessible natural resources and transportation routes. As sea ice
continues to disappear, the region is expected to experience an increase
178
Marine Policy 74 (2016) 177185
in cargo shipping [2,26,4042], oil and gas development [1416,43],
tourism and cruise ships [17,23,44], and scientic research activity.
Warming temperatures and thawing permafrost may also change
shore-based natural resource extraction and tourism and aect infra-
structure, altering the pattern of shipping required to transport goods
and supplies to coastal communities [45,46]. Trans-Arctic shipping,
connecting Asian and European markets via shorter northern routes
such as the Northern Sea Route or Northwest Passage, has been
described as an attractive economic prospect, [2,47,48] but, to date, the
presence of even small amounts of sea ice and lack of regional
navigational, communication, and support infrastructure have limited
the number of ships willing to undertake the voyage [49]. However, as
ice continues to retreat and infrastructure is developed, vessel trac is
projected to continue to increase. Nome, Alaska, which received only
35 dockings in the 1990 s, had more than 730 in 2015 [50] and is
proposing to build a deep-water port to accommodate larger deep-draft
vessels [51,52]. Much of the short-term increase in vessel trac is
expected to be destinational shipping, servicing local communities and
industries [2,42], but similar governance and management approaches
will be needed to address this short-term increase as to support future
anticipated trans-Arctic trac.
While increased activity will contribute to economic development, it
also poses signicant risks. The Arctic Ocean is a harsh climate;
navigating in shifting sea ice, high winds, rough seas, and limited
daylight makes marine travel risky and the likelihood of an accident
extremely high. Northern Alaskan waters are not well-charted [53] and
global positioning systems (GPS) [54] and communications are limited
at high latitudes [55]. New pilots and captains foraying into Arctic
waters are reportedly less experienced in polar operations [56], a safety
concern given that lack of experience is a known contributor to
maritime accidents [18]. Moreover, as summer sea ice continues to
decline, ice conditions are likely to become more variable and
unpredictable, increasing risk in an already risky operating environ-
ment and requiring improved monitoring and communication systems
[2]. As shipping rates increase, the risk of ecological damage also
grows, both through dangers of daily operations (such as pollution
discharge [13,19,57], noise [58,59], whale strikes [60,61], or the use of
bunker fuel [62,63]) and through the increased potential of an accident
or oil spill [43]. Should an accident occur in the Bering Strait or along
Alaska's North Slope, which many analysts consider a matter of when
not if, the nearest Coast Guard station is roughly 1000 miles away
[43,64], complicating a potential response. Even with an increasing
presence of Coast Guard patrols through Alaskan waters, the infra-
structure and technical capacity to clean a spill or respond to an
accident remains limited [2,43,64,65]. In short, any accident in the
Arctic would be a disaster to both local communities and the marine
ecosystem, and with the unpredictability of climate change and rapidly
changing ice conditions, the risks only grow more severe.
2.1. Emerging Bering Strait governance
Despite known safety and environmental risks, there are, to date,
no regulations or vessel trac separation schemes (shipping lanes) to
guide vessels through the treacherous waters of the Bering Strait or to
aid in avoiding sensitive ecosystems or subsistence hunting grounds
[20,21,24]. This is, in part, due to the geopolitics of the region [66].
Shipping in international waters is governed largely by the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Despite not
being a party, the United States adheres to most UNCLOS provisions.
Under UNCLOS, the Bering Strait, as a recognized international strait
in both U.S. and Russian waters, is subject to provisions that ensure all
nations have relatively free access to transit the strait [24,26]. As a
coastal state bordering the strait, the United States may take unilateral
action to recommend voluntary measures for all vessels or to enforce
mandatory measures for vessels under U.S. domestic jurisdiction (such
as those agged in the United States) and those with a U.S. destination
A. Siders et al.
[24,26,32]. International shipping regulations, such as designated
shipping lanes and regulations governing the safety of vessels and
the environment, are promulgated by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO), although the U.S. may be able to make a legal
case that, due to the sensitive ecosystem of the Bering Strait region,
enhanced unilateral and multilateral regulations, similar to those taken
in the Turkish Straits of Bosphorous and Dardanelles, are necessary
[67]. This legal argument is not necessary to implement dynamic
management but could be used to impose more stringent environ-
mental regulations in future.
The U.S. Coast Guard is currently engaged in a Port Access Route
Study (PARS) of the Bering Strait that may ultimately recommend the
creation of a trac separation scheme (TSS), areas to be avoided
(ATBA), or other measures to guide ships between the Northern Sea
Route along Russia's northern coast and Dutch Harbor, Alaska, the
largest port in the region (see [Fig. 1]) [21]. Any recommendations
from the PARS will be submitted to the IMO for discussion by
international parties before becoming internationally binding. The
IMO recently nalized a mandatory Polar Code to provide standards
for vessel design and operation in order to promote safety in ice-dense
waters [68]. These international eorts are, however, slow. The Coast
Fig. 1. The Bering Strait region. The U.S. Coast Guards proposed port access route connects commercial vessels traveling via the Bering Strait between the Arctic Ocean and the region's
primary deep-water port in Dutch Harbor, Alaska..
179
Marine Policy 74 (2016) 177185
Guard PARS has been several years in the works and has yet to begin
the IMO process, with years before any possible implementation. The
Polar Code took more than a decade to create and will not enter force
until January 2017 [69]. Moreover, the Code has been notably
criticized for weak standards on environmental protection and lack of
recognition of local indigenous subsistence activities or concerns
[70,71]. In the rapidly changing Arctic environment, a regulatory
process that takes a decade to implement is best suited to regulate
conditions a decade out of date. International eorts also require
international agreement, and while cooperation in the region has been
high to date, future eorts to implement or revise regulations may meet
with a dierent political climate.
The U.S. can implement voluntary measures in the region, but
examples of voluntary measures in other maritime areas report mixed
success. In New England, a voluntary system in which vessels were
notied of the presence of engendered North Atlantic right whales
using real-time acoustic sensors and requested to slow their speed has
had limited eect [72,73]. In the Pacic, real-time information on
loggerhead turtle locations provided to shing vessels to aid in avoiding
turtle by-catch actually resulted in shing activity shifting towards
potential turtle grounds, rather than away, as managers had intended
A. Siders et al. Marine Policy 74 (2016) 177185

Dynamic ocean management systems. Examples of how stakeholder engagement, data collection, and regulatory frameworks have been implemented in existing single-resource dynamic management systems. a Howell et al., 2008 b Wiley et al.,
[74]. In California, the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary,

Ability to adjust spatial boundaries

yellowtail ratios (24 h turnaround)

Fishing vessels are able to relocate
vessels e-navigation systems; LNG

during seasons when target stocks

Real-time quota monitoring (24 h
Real-time whale locations sent to

to areas with higher scallop per

loggerhead habitat temperature
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, and the

industry with request to avoid

ships required to slow; others

turnaround) and re-opening

Environmental Defense Center successfully partnered to pay ships to

Real-time SST provided to

slow their speed in the Santa Barbara Channel in order to reduce air

Dynamic Element
pollution and reduce ship strikes of blue whale [75]. However, vessel

of fisheries (2003)
requested (2010)
operators simply increased their speed in adjacent areas, an unin-
tended consequence that reduced air quality in those regions.

zones (2007)

not present
Voluntary measures may be eective when aligned with the right
incentives [76], but will require substantial stakeholder engagement to
balance goals of multiple interest groups.
In the meantime, a series of local initiatives have risen to address

closes areas of the Nantucket Lightship scallop

fishery when bycatch limits are reached (since
(AABM) quota set; Fishery closed when quota
Fishery closed when bycatch limit is reached

NMFS requires speed reductions in seasonal

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

particular safety and regulatory gaps in the Bering Strait region. For

restricts access to fishing grounds to reduce

Australian Fisheries Management Authority

New England Fishery Management Council

Aggregate Abundance-Based Management
Traffic Separation Scheme (BTSS) crosses
management areas (SMAs) where Boston
example, the Alaskan Waterways Safety Commission was created to
develop standards and best practices for operating in Bering Strait
waters [77]. The Marine Exchange of Alaska monitors shipping activity
in the region to identify trends and areas for collaboration [78]. The

Regulatory Framework
Alaska Maritime Prevention and Response Network assists vessel
operators in complying with federal regulations to avoid accidents

risk of tuna capture

and spills [79]. These eorts, although laudable, lack coordination. To
be eective and proactive, the region needs to incorporate these and

(NMFS 2004)
other approaches into a exible governance system.

achieved
(2008)

2004)
3. Dynamic ocean management

Electronic tagging to inform a temperature-

temperature); Fishery logbook bycatch data

[exclusively pre2001]; Allozyme variation;

To balance competing stakeholder interests and address the con-

via vessel monitoring systems with ship-to-

shore email; Seasonal data used to compile
Vessel sightings; NOAA observer sightings;

Real-time bycatch data shared across fleet

[2006] ten acoustic buoys gather spatial
Satellite tagging to inform temperature-
tinually changing eects of global climate change, a Bering Strait

Cohort analysis model; Coded-wire tags

temperature and vertical temperature)

governance system needs to be interdisciplinary, integrated, proactive,

based habitat model (sea surface

based habitat model (sea surface

precautionary, and above all dynamic. The emerging theory of dynamic

hotspot maps of places to avoid

temperature [SST] and vertical
ocean management oers potential guidance for the development of
Data Collection System

Microsatellite surveillance
such a demanding governance system. Dynamic management describes

data of right whale calls

marine governance systems that exibly adjust management and
2013 c Beacham et al., 2004, 2008 d Sprout, 1997 e Hobday & Hartmann, 2006f Hobday et al., 2010g OKeefe & Decelles, 2013.

regulations based on real- or near-real-time resource monitoring to

target management eorts, temporally or spatially, and thereby reduce
conicts among ocean resource users [8082].
Dynamic management is not inherently distinct from traditional
static approaches to marine governance. It uses many of the same
management tools, such as areas to be avoided, bycatch limits, and Pacific Policy Roundtable established by Minister
Group, Massachusetts Port Authority, and others

(SMAST) Scallop Steering Committee created in

Australian Fisheries Management Authority (no
NOAA collaborated with Boston Port Operators

vessel speed reductions. The dierence is that dynamic management

Government, Indigenous, Recreational, Coastal
from government, industry, and conservation

adjusts the parameters of these tools on an on-going basis, based on

1999 as industry and academia partnership

Fisheries Service (NMFS) collaborated with

of Fisheries and Ocean 1995; Commercial,

School for Marine Science and Technology

non-profits; Later partnered with Cornell
Administration (NOAA) National Marine

academic partners to create TurtleWatch

real-time ecological and social data. For example, where a traditional

marine protected area (MPA) has xed spatial boundaries that remain
formalized stakeholder engagement)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric

University to analyze acoustic data

constant through time, a dynamic management approach would

adjusts boundaries on an annual, seasonal, or even weekly basis based
Stakeholder Engagement

on the observed or projected environmental conditions, such as

location of protected species or sea ice extent [8385] (see
[Table 1]). The boundaries of a static MPA reect on past conditions
in place at the time of its creation, while those of a dynamic system are
Community

routinely updated to reect the most current ecological, economic, and

social conditions.
One of the most signicant benets of a dynamic management
approach is the ability to target regulations to maximize both environ-
Southern Bluefin Tuna

mental and economic outcomes [80,86]. Static management ap-

Yellowtail Flounder /
Fraser River sockeye
North Atlantic Right

fishery productivity
Loggerhead turtles

proaches may be over- or under-inclusive (e.g., protecting more or

Maximize scallop
salmon; Chinook

less space than necessary to achieve environmental outcomes), but the

use of real-time data and dynamic response targets management
Resource

eorts, temporally and spatially, and thereby increases eciency and

Whales

salmon

reduces conicts among resource users [80,84]. For example, in the

eastern Australian longline shery, the management authority uses
dynamic spatial zoning to adjust boundaries of areas to avoid southern
British Columbia Salmon
Whales Vessel Strike

Bycatch Avoidancee,f

Bycatch Avoidanceg

Bluen tuna bycatch [83]. By adjusting boundaries based on bi-weekly

Turtle Watch Bycatch

Whale ALERT Right

Longline Fishery

Yellowtail Flounder
Fisheries Quota

Eastern Australian
Managementc,d

information provided from a probability map of southern Bluen tuna

distribution, electronic tag data, and shing vessel reports, the
Avoidancea

Reductionb

management authority was able to minimize tuna bycatch while

System

reducing the areas from which shers were unnecessarily excluded

Table 1

[83]. [Table 1] provides other examples of dynamic management

approaches, including vessel speed reductions near whale sightings

180
A. Siders et al.
Fig. 2. Dynamic Spectrum. The level of dynamism in ocean management systems varies along a spectrum and is rarely either wholly static or wholly dynamic. System designers must
choose the level of dynamism appropriate for the system..
and real-time shing quota monitoring [74,76,83,85,87,88]. Such
dynamic approaches have been shown to achieve ecological outcomes
similar to or better than static systems while regulating up to 80% less
geographic area [86].
As management eorts become increasingly dynamic and targeted,
their eciency in promoting both ecological and economic outcomes
also increases [83]. However, increasingly dynamic management
schemes are more dicult to administer and require signicant data
acquisition, analysis, and distribution. The degree of dynamism and
complexity of data collection and management responses varies
signicantly in existing dynamic systems. Data acquisition may range
from simple communication among resources users to automated data
collection. Similarly, management responses may vary from a simple
request to slow vessel speeds to a complex decision involving trade-os
among multiple resources (e.g., targeted area closures coupled with
targeted area openings) [80]. Management responses may also vary in
their frequency, and while a daily response is clearly dynamic, seasonal
alterations may appear closer to traditional management approaches
(such as seasonal closures) (see [Fig. 2])..
No one management system or degree of complexity will be
appropriate for all areas, and dynamic management is not a panacea.
Dynamic schemes tend to be species-specic (e.g., protecting logger-
head turtles or right whales) rather than place-specic (e.g., protecting
whole ecosystems). Dynamic systems provide less certainty and
stability for stakeholders, many of whom may need regulatory certainty
to invest in the infrastructure and activity that would develop the
Bering Strait economy. Dynamic systems, unless designed with safe-
guards, open the possibility for managers to relax environmental
protection when faced with economic pressures. However, as the most
prominent benets of dynamic management are the ability to rapidly
respond to changing conditions and to balance ecological and economic
outcomes, dynamic management appears appropriate for areas with
multiple resources undergoing rapid environmental and climactic
change, such as in the Bering Strait region.
4. Applying dynamic management in the Bering Strait
Implementing a dynamic management system requires: extensive
stakeholder engagement; data collection, analysis, and distribution;
and regulatory systems which incentivize dynamic action [8082].
Dynamic ocean management has been previously applied primarily for
single-resource management in regions with substantial existing real-
time or near real-time data on the resource in question, both potential
limitations for application of dynamic management in the Bering Strait
region [80]. However, by coordinating existing data sources, engaging a
wide range of stakeholders and regulatory authorities, and creating
incident-based regulations, the Bering Strait has the potential to
develop an eective dynamic system and to pioneer a new means of
managing international straits to balance competing interests within
conned waters.
4.1. Stakeholder engagement and coordination
Stakeholder participation is a key element of any successful
181
Marine Policy 74 (2016) 177185
resource management system [8991]. Stakeholder engagement can
create greater transparency, legitimacy, and trust in the regulatory
system [76,89] and can facilitate long-term compliance [76,80].
Recognizing these benets, most dynamic management systems to
date have created collaborative networks with representatives from
academia, government, management, industry, and other stakeholders
(see Table 1). Industry participation has been particularly crucial to
align incentives and ensure compliance [76]. In the multi-resource and
geographically constrained area of the Bering Strait region, trade-os
among stakeholders are likely to occur as decisions made to discourage
activity in an area of importance to one species or stakeholder group
may simply result in displaced activity relocating to an area of
importance for another group. In order to minimize conict, signicant
stakeholder participation is necessary.
As more stakeholders participate, the nal outcome is more likely to
be balanced between interests and with greater buy-in for the nal
product. However, as more stakeholders engage, the process to balance
competing interests becomes more dicult and has potential to result
in a lengthy decision-making and negotiating period, which may reduce
the benets of a dynamic system. One middle-ground solution could be
to adopt the participatory model from the Arctic Council in which
core stakeholders are identied as voting participants, and other
stakeholders are welcomed to provide input and perspective but whose
opinions have less weight. The challenge in this model is to identify the
core participants. A stratied representation approach, such as that
taken by the Arctic Waterways Safety Committee (AWSC), would
ensure participation from each interest and stakeholder group. The
AWSC identied three areas of interest: subsistence hunting, industry,
and other. Each area is delegated ve positions on the committee, and
stakeholders within each group choose their representative organiza-
tions, for a total of fteen members [77]. Dynamic management in the
Bering Strait region could adopt a similar approach to include core
participants representing interests in shipping, shing, natural re-
source extraction, subsistence uses, tourism or recreational uses, and
environmental conservation. In fact, if the AWSC expanded to include
additional stakeholder voices and had additional support mechanisms
to enable communication between representative organizations and
their constituent stakeholders, it could serve as the very stakeholder
engagement group proposed here.
However, the group would still need to decide whether it wished to
employ a purely voluntary or a regulatory approach. If the region chose
to pursue an entirely voluntary management approach, a stakeholder
group (such as an expanded AWSC) could issue voluntary measures
upon its own authority. In this case, it would be important to ensure
the group retains an appearance of neutrality, without too much
inuence by any one stakeholder, in order to maintain trust and
increase participation by stakeholders. An academic chair, such as the
University of Alaska, could provide executive leadership while main-
taining a relatively neutral perspective.
Such a stakeholder group, existing entirely outside of any regulatory
agency, could make great strides in improving communication and
identifying best practices, but it would have no authority to issue legally
binding regulations. It could, however, make recommendations to
regulatory bodies, most of whom are required to consult with stake-
A. Siders et al.
holders. Indeed, the existence of a coordinated stakeholder group to
facilitate communication could improve the government consultation
process. Including regulatory authorities as participants in a stake-
holder decision-making body would provide an organized forum for
consultation and information distribution. Authorities such as the U.S.
Coast Guard District 17, National Marine and Fisheries Service
(NMFS), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), and
National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS), among others, would be useful
participants. Including a range of regulatory authorities would provide
the group with the most exibility to address a wide range of issues that
may lie outside the authority of any one agency. That said, it may also
be benecial to have one regulatory authority as chair of the stake-
holder group, to provide a clear path from stakeholder decisions to
regulation. The U.S. Coast Guard (District 17) has taken an active role
in promoting governance in the region and could serve as a chair with
the ability to adopt, promulgate, execute, and enforce regulations
recommended by the stakeholder group. However, many actors in
the region see the Coast Guard as a non-neutral and conservative actor,
and this perception may limit trust and participation in the proceed-
ings.
4.2. Data acquisition, analysis, and distribution
Eective dynamic management relies on real- or near real-time
data about the managed resource(s); the more real-time the data, the
more dynamic the management response [80]. In the Arctic, real-time
data on resources and environmental conditions are scarce. Even static
data, such as hydrogeographic measurements, are lacking: a recent
report by the U.S. Committee on Marine Transportation System found
that less than one percent of navigationally signicant Arctic waters
have been surveyed with modern technology [53]. Infrastructure
challenges, including limited remote sensing capabilities [54,55],
acoustic monitoring, and a limited human population to recruit as
citizen science observers, limits the data collection options available to
researchers and managers [9295].
Data in the region is not altogether lacking, however, and in some
cases available data, although not real-time, may be used as a proxy
until more accurate sources become available. Bowhead whales, for
example, are an extremely important species to regional indigenous
cultures and are at risk of vessel strike and noise pollution. While not
complete, some data on bowhead whale locations and migration
patterns are available through electronic tagging and satellite tracking
[96,97]. If expanded to include tracking within the Bering Strait during
the shipping season, this data could be used to provide near real-time
alerts to vessels on the location of bowhead whales. Alternatively, the
Bering Strait could adopt the data collection strategy of the Stellwagen
National Marine Sanctuary in New England to monitor North Atlantic
right whales via acoustic buoys [20]. Once the Coast Guard's proposed
trac separation scheme is implemented, buoys could be placed near
shipping lanes to capture whale activity and notify vessels.
Alternatively, instead of physically tracking species of interest, habitat
models could be developed using species preferences for temperatures
and other variables, as is done in the Turtle Watch dynamic manage-
ment program [74] and Eastern Australian Longline Fishery (see
[Table 1]) [83,98]. Bowhead whales have a demonstrated preference
to aggregate at the seasonal ice edge or in areas with heavy ice cover
[35,99]; this information could potentially be used to develop a
preference model as proxy until more accurate tracking data becomes
available.
A centralized coordinating organization would be needed to take on
the task of gathering, analyzing, and distributing data. Coordinating
existing data and providing an accessible repository would be an
important starting point. Much research exists on whale migration
patterns, for example, but is often archived in disparate, hard-to-locate
agency website sub-pages or academic repositories. A task force could
be convened to develop and recommend data collection, meta-data
182
Marine Policy 74 (2016) 177185
tagging, and distribution standards of practice. State and federally-
funded research projects could be required to add their data to the
centralized database using these standards, thereby creating the start of
an integrated data source for management use. This exercise would
also help researchers and managers assess data gaps.
These are ideas to acquire and coordinate data, but a dynamic
management system can be established even in the absence of real-
time data. In fact, in existing dynamic management systems around the
world, data acquisition eorts to enable dynamic management re-
sponses are often driven by the development of regulations. That is,
real-time data availability is an outcome rather than a prerequisite. For
example, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) created a
regulation to close a Pacic longline shery once 17 loggerhead turtles
were caught as bycatch [74]. When the regulation was developed, no
real-time data regarding loggerhead turtle location was available. The
regulation inspired an industry-academia partnership to research
loggerhead turtle habitat preferences, create hotspot maps and provide
that information to industry to allow shers to avoid loggerhead
locations and avoid triggering the area-closure regulation [74].
Similar situations are found in the Eastern Australian Longline
Fishery and New England Fishery Management of the Nantucket
Lightship scallop shery: regulations that closed substantial areas or
that were triggered when limits were reached inspired industry to
invest in data acquisition (see [Table 1]). Data limitations in the Bering
Strait should not therefore be perceived as barrier to the development
of a dynamic management system.
A further challenge in the Bering Strait is the ability to distribute
updated resource location information and management decisions to
resource users, for example, to transmit the new boundaries of a
shifting area to be avoided (ATBA) or location of a whale sighting. For
shore-based stakeholders, a variety of technological solutions including
websites, email list-servs, and phone notications could be used to
push updated information. For vessels, electronic navigational systems
could provide one solution, as they would enable real-time dissemina-
tion of information to vessels on sea conditions, sea ice, marine
mammal locations, management decisions, and other information.
Section 410 of the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act of
2004 (P.L. 108293) directs the Coast Guard to require electronic chart
systems on commercial vessels operating in U.S. waters and eorts to
develop these regulations are underway [100]. As more than a decade
has passed between the enactment of that law and the writing of this
article, it is likely that even better technological solutions exist and
could be pursued if regulations required vessels to use best available
technology (as is required, for example, for pollution control under the
Clean Air and Clean Water Acts). Industry may have a greater incentive
to adopt electronic navigation systems, or other technologies, under a
dynamic management system that meets their economic goals as well
as environmental conservation outcomes. These regulations, however,
would also need to be applied to small and recreational craft in order to
achieve safety outcomes.
4.3. Adaptive governance via incident-based regulations
Dynamic governance in the Bering Strait region will need to
respond to short- and long-term change. Flexibility may be achieved
by using incident-based regulations: management responses that are
triggered when environmental, social, or economic thresholds are
reached. These incident-based thresholds could be short-term; for
example, if twelve bowhead whales are struck in a given season, for the
remainder of the season, all vessels (under U.S. jurisdiction) will be
required to reduce to a set speed. Before the threshold is reached,
vessels are requested to reduce speed when whales are sighted nearby
in order to avoid triggering the area closure. Fisheries management
routinely uses this type of incident-based regulation by closing sheries
upon reaching the total allowable catch or a certain level of bycatch
[74,76]. As conditions change, limits or speeds may be adjusted. The
A. Siders et al.
frequency with which thresholds are adjusted will depend to some
extent on data availability, but as more data becomes available,
managers will be able to better target appropriate thresholds and
responses. This method of framing the regulation creates an incentive
for resource users to engage in voluntary measures, on their own and as
a group, to avoid reaching the threshold and to invest in data collection
to assist in avoiding incidents [73].
Incident-based thresholds could also be used to promote long-term
exibility. In this case the threshold would be an anticipated future
event or condition. For example, when the deep water port at Nome is
completed and shipping reaches a given level of density (e.g., 200 ships
per year), new areas near Nome can be designated as no-discharge
zones. In this case, the intent is not to limit shipping near Nome.
Rather, it provides exibility, by recognizing that the presence of a new
port may require additional environmental protections in the future
that would be unnecessarily onerous with the current level of vessel
trac. The threshold removes the need to have additional meetings
and deliberations when the port is completed, and it provides predict-
ability by establishing in advance what regulations will be put in place.
The diculty with incident-based regulations lies with the ability to
set appropriate thresholds and responses. Short-term thresholds are
often species- or activity-specic and therefore require managers to
know exactly what interaction they seek to avoid and to have reliable
and measurable indicators by which to monitor and track those
interactions (e.g., observers on vessels reporting whale strikes). Long-
term thresholds require managers to identify critical thresholds some-
times years in advance (e.g., to know in advance if 200 ships per year or
500 a year is the critical level). However, there is no need for future
thresholds to be perfectly accurate. In fact, given the unpredictable
nature of the Arctic environment, the governance system should allow
for some review and revision of thresholds and regulatory responses.
The benet of establishing an advance threshold and response is that it
switches the default option from no-response (e.g., no regulatory
change when 200 ships enter the region) to some-change (e.g.,
designation of three new no-discharge zones). When there is uncer-
tainty about the appropriate threshold or response, managers should
err on the side of enhanced environmental protection. This provides an
incentive for users who wish to reduce the pre-set regulations to engage
in the process. And, while time-consuming studies, discussions, and
negotiations occur to revise the exact regulation (e.g., to propose two or
ve instead of three zones), the initial, environmentally robust,
response remains in place, providing precautionary environmental
protection.
5. Conclusion
In the rapidly changing environment of the Bering Strait region,
dynamic ocean management oers principles to guide the development
of an emerging governance regime. Dynamic management balances
and improves eciency of economic and environmental outcomes
through the use of targeted regulations and management responses.
Regulations may be targeted spatially or temporally, and the level of
dynamism may range from annual to daily uctuations depending on
data availability and the goals of the region. By writing regulations and
management responses in an incident-based and threshold-triggered
manner, the system can retain both short- and long-term adaptive
capacity to respond to changing conditions, whether environmental or
social. Moreover, incident-based, threshold-triggered regulations and
dynamic responses create a system of incentives that encourage
resource users to modify behavior and invest in solutions, as indivi-
duals and groups, to achieve management goals and further increase
eciency. Implementing dynamic management in the Bering Strait
region will require coordination of a large number of stakeholders and
a degree of exibility within their organizations. Stakeholders in the
region have demonstrated a strong commitment to collaboration and
proactive governance, and, with this continued spirit, the region is
183
Marine Policy 74 (2016) 177185
equipped to pursue innovative governance options. Although real-time
data in the region is scarce, its absence should not prevent the use of
dynamic principles. Rather, initiating a dynamic system, even one that
is minimally dynamic, creates an incentive for increased investment in
data collection and management, and the system may adapt to become
more dynamic over time as increased data becomes available.
Stakeholders in the Bering Strait have an unusual opportunity to
design a truly innovative governance system that will adaptively protect
resources and resource users in advance of, rather than response to,
catastrophe. Ensuring this system remains relevant in the face of rapid
environmental, economic, and social change will require a governance
system as dynamic as the region.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by an Ann and Reid Buckley Collaboration
Grant, David and Lucille Packard Foundation Stanford Graduate
Fellowship, and the Arctic Security Initiative at the Hoover
Institution. We would like to thank Sarah Bobbe, Ashley Erickson,
Rebecca Lewison, Sara Maxwell, David Slayton, and Michael Wara and
for their support and critical feedback, although all opinions and
mistakes remain our own.
References
[1] J.M. Grebmeier, Shifting patterns of life in the Pacic Arctic and sub-Arctic seas,
Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 4 (2012) 6378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-
120710-100926.
[2] B. Ellis, L.W. Brigham, Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report, Arct.
Counc. (2009) 1194
[3] M. Nuttall, F. Berkes, B. Forbes, G. Konas, T. Vlassova, G. Wenzel, Hunting,
herding, shing and gathering: Indigenous peoples and renewable resource use in
the Arctic, in: Arct. Clim. Impact Assess, Cambridge University Press, New York,
NY, USA, 2005, pp. 649690.
[4] K.R. Arrigo, G.L. van Dijken, Continued increases in Arctic Ocean primary
production, Prog. Oceanogr. 136 (2015) 6070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.po-
cean.2015.05.002.
[5] O.A. Anisimov, D.G. Vaughan, T. Callaghan, C. Furgal, H. Marchant, T.D. Prowse,
et al., Polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, 2007.
[6] National Snow and Ice Data Center, February continues streak of record low Arctic
sea ice extent, Arct. Sea Ice News Anal. (2016). https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
(accessed March 4, 2016)
[7] M. Wang, J.E. Overland, Projected future duration of the sea-ice-free season in the
Alaskan Arctic, Prog. Oceanogr. 136 (2013) 5059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.pocean.2015.01.001.
[8] J.E. Overland, M. Wang, When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free?,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 40 (2013) 20972101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50316.
[9] Arctic Journal, After slow start, June sea-ice loss sets record, Arct. J. (2016).
http://arcticjournal.com/climate/2431/after-slow-start-june-sea-ice-loss-sets-re-
cord.
[10] K.M. Kovacs, C. Lydersen, J.E. Overland, S.E. Moore, Impacts of changing sea-ice
conditions on, Arct. Mar. Mamm., Mar. Biodivers. 41 (2011) 181194. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12526-010-0061-0.
[11] S.E. Moore, H.P. Huntington, Arctic marine mammals and climate change: Impacts
and resilience, Ecol. Appl. 18 (2008) 157165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/06-
0571.1.
[12] E.L. Hazen, S. Jorgensen, R.R. Rykaczewski, S.J. Bograd, D.G. Foley, I.D. Jonsen,
et al., Predicted habitat shifts of Pacic top predators in a changing climate, Nat.
Clim. Chang 3 (2012) 234238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1686.
[13] K.A. Burek, F.M.D. Gulland, T.M. OHara, Eects of climate change on Arctic
marine mammal health, Ecol. Appl. 18 (2008) S126S134. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1890/06-0553.1.
[14] N. Kishigami, Climate change, oil and gas development, and Inupiat whaling in
northwest Alaska, tudes/Inuit/Stud. 34 (2010) 91107. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/42870075.
[15] P. Holthus, C. Clarkin, J. Lorentzen, Emerging Arctic opportunities: Dramatic
increases expected in Arctic shipping, oil and gas exploration, sheries, and
tourism, Coast Guard J. Saf. Secur. Sea, Proc. Mar. Saf. Secur. Counc. 70 (2013)
1013.
[16] . Harsem, A. Eide, K. Heen, Factors inuencing future oil and gas prospects in the
Arctic, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 80378045. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.en-
pol.2011.09.058.
[17] E.J. Stewart, S. Howell, D. Draper, J. Yackel, A. Tivy, Sea ice in Canada's Arctic:
Implications for cruise tourism, Arctic 60 (2007) 370380. http://dx.doi.org/
10.14430/arctic194.
[18] S. Kum, B. Sahin, A root cause analysis for Arctic Marine accidents from 1993 to
2011, Saf. Sci. 74 (2015) 206220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.12.010.
A. Siders et al.
[19] D. Pietri, A.B.I. Soule, J. Kershner, P. Soles, M. Sullivan, The Arctic Shipping and
Environmental Management Agreement: A regime for marine pollution, Coast.
Manag 36 (2008) 508523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08920750802398735.
[20] A.S. Allen, The development of ships routeing measures in the Bering Strait:
Lessons learned from the North Atlantic right whale to protect local whale
populations, Mar. Policy 50 (2014) 215226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar-
pol.2014.05.019.
[21] U.S. Coast Guard, Port Access Route Study: In the Chukchi Sea, Bering Strait, and
Bering Sea, Fed. Regist. 80 (2015) 1013710138.
[22] A. Chircop, The growth of international shipping in the Arctic: Is a regulatory
review timely?, Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law. 24 (2009) 355380.
[23] J. Dawson, M.E. Johnston, E.J. Stewart, Governance of Arctic expedition cruise
ships in a time of rapid environmental and economic change, Ocean Coast. Manag.
89 (2014) 8899. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.12.005.
[24] P.A. Berkman, A.N. Vylegzhanin, O.R. Young, Governing the Bering Strait Region:
Current status, emerging issues and future options, Ocean Dev. Int. Law. 47 (2016)
186217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2016.1159091.
[25] A.R. MacArthur, U.S. Russia, drafting voluntary Bering Strait passage regulations,
Alsk. Public Media (2014) 15.
[26] H.P. Huntington, R. Daniel, A. Hartsig, K. Harun, M. Heiman, R. Meehan, et al.,
Vessels, risks, and rules: Planning for safe shipping in Bering Strait, Mar. Policy 51
(2015) 119127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.027.
[27] M. Blunden, Geopolitics and the Northern Sea Route, Int. A. 88 (2012) 115129.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2012.01060.x.
[28] Z.W. Brown, K.R. Arrigo, Contrasting trends in sea ice and primary production in
the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean, Ices J. Mar. Sci. 69 (2012) 11801193. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fss113 (Contrasting).
[29] J.M. Grebmeier, L.W. Cooper, H.M. Feder, B.I. Sirenko, Ecosystem dynamics of the
Pacic-inuenced Northern Bering and Chukchi Seas in the Amerasian Arctic,
Prog. Oceanogr. 71 (2006) 331361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.po-
cean.2006.10.001.
[30] K.L. Laidre, H. Stern, K.M. Kovacs, L. Lowry, S.E. Moore, E.V. Regehr, et al., Arctic
marine mammal population status, sea ice habitat loss, and conservation recom-
mendations for the 21st century, Conserv. Biol. 29 (2015) 724737. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12474.
[31] Shell, BOEM Gulf of Mexico, Inc. Revised Outer Continental Shelf Lease
Exploration Plan Chukchi Sea, Alaska OCS EIS / EA BOEM 2015-020, Burger
Prospect, 2015
[32] A. Hartsig, I. Frederickson, C. Young, S. Senner, Arctic bottleneck: Protecting the
Bering Strait region from increased vessel trac, Ocean Coast. Law J. 18 (2012)
3575.
[33] H.P. Huntington, I. Ortiz, G. Noongwook, M. Fidel, D. Childers, M. Morse, et al.,
Mapping human interaction with the Bering Sea ecosystem: Comparing seasonal
use areas, lifetime use areas, and calorie-sheds, Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud.
Oceano. 94 (2013) 292300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.03.015.
[34] M. Renner, H.P. Huntington, Connecting subsistence harvest and marine ecology:
A cluster analysis of communities by shing and hunting patterns, Deep. Res. Part
II Top. Stud. Oceano. 109 (2014) 293299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.dsr2.2014.03.005.
[35] S.E. Moore, K.L. Laidre, Trends in sea ice cover within habitats used by bowhead
whales in the western Arctic, Ecol. Appl. 16 (2006)
932944. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[0932:TISICW]
2.0.CO;2.
[36] F.J. Mueter, M.A. Litzow, Sea ice retreat alters the biogeography of the Bering Sea
Continental Shelf, Ecol. Appl. 18 (2008) 309320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/07-
0564.1.
[37] S.E. Moore, J.M. Grebmeier, J.R. Davies, Gray whale distribution relative to forage
habitat in the northern Bering Sea: current conditions and retrospective summary,
Can. J. Zool. 81 (2003) 734742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z03-043.
[38] J.E. Overland, P.J. Stabeno, Is the climate of the Bering Sea warming and aecting
the ecosystem?, Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union. 85 (2004) 309316.
[39] K.M. Rand, E.A. Logerwell, The rst demersal trawl survey of benthic sh and
invertebrates in the Beaufort Sea since the late 1970s, Polar Biol. 34 (2011)
475488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-010-0900-2.
[40] J. Roberts, Proactive environmental planning for emerging shipping routes in, Arct.
Waters, WMU J. Marit. A. 6 (2007) 207215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF03195115.
[41] J.J. Corbett, D.A. Lack, J.J. Winebrake, S. Harder, J.A. Silberman, M. Gold, Arctic
shipping emissions inventories and future scenarios, Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10 (2010)
96899704. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-9689-2010.
[42] L.W. Brigham, Arctic shipping scenarios and coastal state challenges, WMU J.
Marit. A. 7 (2008) 477484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03195146.
[43] Committee on Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment,
Ocean Studies Board, Polar Research Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies,
Marine Board, Transportation Research Board, et al., Responding to oil spills in the
U.S. Arctic marine environment, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-
2014-1-283740.1
[44] E.J. Stewart, D. Draper, The sinking of the MS Explorer: Implications for cruise
tourism in Arctic Canada, Arctic 61 (2008) 224228. http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/
arctic68.
[45] T.D. Prowse, C. Furgal, R. Chouinard, H. Melling, D. Milburn, S.L. Smith,
Implications of climate change for economic development in Northern Canada:
Energy, resource, and transportation sectors, AMBIO A J. Hum. Environ. 38 (2009)
272281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-38.5.272.
[46] R. Samuels, R. Joule, Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission, Juneau,
Alaska, 2008
184
Marine Policy 74 (2016) 177185
[47] A. Chircop, The Growth of International Shipping in the Arctic: Is a Regulatory
Review Timely?, Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 24 (2009) 355380. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1163/157180809421699.
[48] L.C. Smith, S.R. Stephenson, New Trans-Arctic shipping routes navigable by
midcentury, PNAS 110 (2013) E1191E1195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1214212110.
[49] F. Lasserre, S. Pelletier, Polar super seaways? Maritime transport in the Arctic: An
analysis of shipowners intentions, J. Transp. Geogr. (2011). http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.08.006.
[50] S. Goldberg, A new Titanic? US and Canada prepare for worst as luxury Arctic
cruise sets sail, Guardian. (2016)
[51] T. Findtner, J. Budnik, Corps tentatively selects plan for deep-water port in Nome,
U.S. Army Corps Eng. Press Release. (2015)
[52] D. Joling, Alaska deepwater port proposed for vessels in Arctic waters, Alaska
Dispatch News. (2015)
[53] U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System, U.S. Arctic Marine
Transportation System: Overview and Priorities for Action February 2013, 2013.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
[54] A.B.O. Jensen, J.-P. Sicard, Challenges for positioning and navigation in the Arctic,
Coordinates. (2010)
[55] P.L. Smith, L.A. Wickman, I.A. Min, Future Space System Support to U.S. Military
Operations in an Ice-Free Arctic: Broadband Satellite Communications
Considerations, in: Am. Inst. Aeronaut. Astronaut. Sp. 2009 Conf. Expo. 14-17
Sept. 2009, Pasadena Calif., Pasadena, California, 2009: pp. 115
[56] W. Laursen, Weathering Change in the Arctic, Martitime Exec. (2016)
[57] L. Jing, B. Chen, B. Zhang, H. Peng, A review of ballast water management
practices and challenges in harsh and arctic environments, Environ. Rev. 20 (2012)
83108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/a2012-002.
[58] R.M. Rolland, S.E. Parks, K.E. Hunt, M. Castellote, P.J. Corkeron, D.P. Nowacek,
et al., Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales, Proc. Biol. Sci. 279
(2012) 23632368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.2429.
[59] L.S. Weilgart, A Brief Review of Known Eects of Noise on Marine Mammals, Int. J.
Comp. Psychol. 20 (2007) 159168. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps07117.
[60] A.S.M. Vanderlaan, J.J. Corbett, S.L. Green, J. a Callahan, C. Wang, R.D. Kenney,
et al., Probability and mitigation of vessel encounters with North, Atl. Right whales,
Endanger. Species Res 6 (2009) 273285. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00176.
[61] R. Reeves, C. Rosa, J.C. George, G. Sheeld, M. Moore, Implications of Arctic
industrial growth and strategies to mitigate future vessel and shing gear impacts
on bowhead whales, Mar. Policy 36 (2012) 454462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpol.2011.08.005.
[62] V. Eyring, H.W. Khler, J. van Aardenne, A. Lauer, Emissions from international
shipping, J. Geophys. Res. 110 (2005) D17305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2004jd005619.
[63] A.A. Marks, M.D. King, The eects of additional black carbon on the albedo of
Arctic sea ice: Variation with sea ice type and snow cover, Cryosphere 7 (2013)
11931204. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-1193-2013.
[64] S. Lacey, Coast Guard testies its totally unprepared for an Arctic oil spill: We
have zero to operate with at present., Clim. Prog. (2011)
[65] D. Dickins, Behavior of oil spills in ice and implications for Arctic spill response, in:
OTC Arct. Technol. Conf., Oshore Technology Conference, 2013
[66] N. Wegge, The emerging politics of the Arctic Ocean. Future management of the
living marine resources, Mar. Policy 51 (2015) 331338. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.015.
[67] K. Martin, Conicts in Marine Environmental Protection: The Turkish Straits as a
Case Study, Transnatl, Law Contemp. Probl. 9 (1999) 681. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1525/sp.2007.54.1.23.
[68] International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code), International
Maritime Organization (IMO), 2015
[69] J. Knox, J. Mauger, IMO Polar Code background and update from Arctic
symposium, Coast Guard Marit. Commons. (2015)
[70] Y. Rosen, Environmental Groups: IMO Polar Code Too Weak, Arct. NewsWire.
(2015)
[71] K. Colwell, Polar Code too weak to properly protect polar environments from
increased shipping activity, Friends Earth (2014).
[72] G.K. Silber, J.D. Adams, C.J. Fonnesbeck, Compliance with vessel speed restric-
tions to protect North Atlantic right whales, PeerJ 2 (2014) E399E416. http://
dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.399.
[73] J.M. van der Hoop, A.S.M. Vanderlaan, T.V.N. Cole, A.G. Henry, L. Hall, B. Mase-
Guthrie, et al., Vessel strikes to large whales before and after the 2008 ship strike
rule, Conserv. Lett. 8 (2015) 2432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12105.
[74] E.A. Howell, D.R. Kobayashi, D.M. Parker, G.H. Balazs, J.J. Polovina, TurtleWatch:
A tool to aid in the bycatch reduction of loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta in the
Hawaii-based pelagic longline shery, Endanger. Species Res 5 (2008) 267278.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00096.
[75] K. Birney, M. Byrd, S. Hastings, S. Herron, B. Shafritz, R. Freedman, Protecting
blue whales and blue skies: Report on the 2014 vessel speed reduction incentive
trial in the Santa Barbara Channel, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2015
[76] C.E. OKeefe, G.R. DeCelles, Forming a partnership to avoid bycatch, Fisheries 38
(2013) 434444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2013.838122.
[77] Arctic Waterways Safety Committee, Membership, (2016). http://www.arcticwa-
terways.org/membership.html (accessed March 12, 2016)
[78] Marine Exchange of Alaska, (2016). http://www.mxak.org/ (accessed June 15,
2016).
[79] Alaska Maritime Prevention and Response Network, (2016). http://www.ak-
mprn.org/ (accessed June 15, 2106).
[80] R. Lewison, A.J. Hobday, S. Maxwell, E. Hazen, J.R. Hartog, D.C. Dunn, et al.,
A. Siders et al.
Dynamic ocean management: Identifying the critical ingredients of dynamic
approaches to ocean resource management, Bioscience 65 (2015) 486498. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv018.
[81] S.S.M. Maxwell, E.L. Hazen, R.R.L. Lewison, D.C. Dunn, H. Bailey, S.J. Bograd,
et al., Dynamic ocean management: Dening and conceptualizing real-time
management of the ocean, Mar. Policy 58 (2015) 4250. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.014.
[82] A.J. Hobday, S.M. Maxwell, J. Forgie, J. Mcdonald, M. Darby, K. Sesto, et al.,
Dynamic ocean management: Integrating scientic and technological capacity with
law, policy and management, Stanford Environ, Law J. 33 (2014) 125165.
[83] A.J. Hobday, J.R. Hartog, T. Timmiss, J. Fielding, Dynamic spatial zoning to
manage southern bluen tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) capture in a multi-species
longline shery, Fish. Oceanogr. 19 (2010) 243253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-2419.2010.00540.x.
[84] E.T. Game, M. Bode, E. McDonald-Madden, H.S. Grantham, H.P. Possingham,
Dynamic marine protected areas can improve the resilience of coral reef systems,
Ecol. Lett. 12 (2009) 13361346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-
0248.2009.01384.x.
[85] T.D. Beacham, I. Winter, K.L. Jonsen, M. Wetklo, L. Deng, J.R. Candy, The
application of rapid microsatellite-based stock identication to management of a
Chinook salmon troll shery o the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia,
North Am. J. Fish. Manag 28 (2008) 849855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/M06-
167.1.
[86] D.C. Dunn, S.M. Maxwell, A.M. Boustany, P.N. Halpin, Dynamic ocean manage-
ment increases the eciency and ecacy of sheries management, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. 113 (2016) 201513626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1513626113.
[87] P. Sprout, Management Issues and Quotas in the Salmon Fishery of British
Columbia, in: L. Jones, M. Walker (Eds.), Fish or Cut Bait! Case Individ. Transf.
Quotas Salmon Fish. Br. Columbia, The Fraser Institute, Vancouver, Canada, 1997,
pp. 1724.
[88] D. Wiley, L. Hatch, K.D. Schwehr, M. Thompson, C. MacDonald, Marine
Sanctuaries and Marine Planning, U. S. Coast Guard Proc. 70 (2013) 1016. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
[89] M.S. Reed, Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature
review, Biol. Conserv. 141 (2008) 24172431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bio-
185
Marine Policy 74 (2016) 177185
con.2008.07.014.
[90] M.S. Reed, A. Graves, N. Dandy, H. Posthumus, K. Hubacek, J. Morris, et al., Who's
in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource
management, J. Environ. Manag. 90 (2009) 19331949. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.
[91] E.L. Tompkins, W.N. Adger, Does adaptive management of natural resources
enhance resilience to climate change?, Ecol. Soc. 9 (2004) 1024.
[92] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA deploys survey ships for
Arctic charting projects, (2015). http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/
20150608-noaa-deploys-survey-ships-for-arctic-charting-projects.html (accessed
March 3, 2016).
[93] L. Brigham, B. Ellis, Arctic Marine Transport Workshop, Inst. North, US Arct. Res.
Comm. Intl Arct. Sci. Comm. (2004)
[94] H. Eicken, A.L. Lovecraft, M.L. Druckenmiller, Sea-ice system services: A frame-
work to help identify and meet information needs relevant for arctic observing
networks, Arctic 62 (2009) 119136. http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic126.
[95] B.M. Allen, R.P. Angliss, Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2014, 2015.
doi:10.7289/V5NS0RTS
[96] J.J. Citta, L.T. Quakenbush, J.C. George, R.J. Small, M.P. Heide-Jrgensen,
H. Brower, et al., Winter movements of Bowhead Whales (Balaena mysticetus) in
the Bering Sea, Arctic 65 (2012) 1334. http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic4162.
[97] K.J. Kuletz, M.C. Ferguson, B. Hurley, A.E. Gall, E.A. Labunski, T.C. Morgan,
Seasonal spatial patterns in seabird and marine mammal distribution in the eastern
Chukchi and western Beaufort seas: Identifying biologically important pelagic
areas, Prog. Oceanogr. 136 (2015) 175200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.po-
cean.2015.05.012.
[98] A.J. Hobday, K. Hartmann, Near real-time spatial management based on habitat
predictions for a longline bycatch species, Fish. Manag. Ecol. 13 (2006) 365380.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2006.00515.x.
[99] K.M. Staord, D.K. Mellinger, Analysis of Acoustic and Oceanographic Data from
the Bering Sea May 2006April 2007, 2009
[100] U.S. Coast Guard, AIS Frequently Asked Questions, Navig. Cent. Excell. (2016).
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=AISFAQ#6 (accessed March 7,
2016).