Advisors review draft framework to measure resilience of West Coast fishing communities

Northern Economics on Friday presented a draft methodology to an advisory body of the Pacific Fishery Management Council aimed at helping the council assess how its management actions affect the resilience of West Coast fishing communities.

"The overall goal is to develop a decision support framework that will assist the council in evaluating how its management actions and recommendations affect the resilience of fishing‑dependent and fishing‑engaged communities," said Melissa Aaron, an economist with Northern Economics, summarizing the project funded under the Inflation Reduction Act as Council Special Project 2.

The draft methodology frames community resilience in three parts: exposure (the stressors affecting a community, from climate impacts to regulatory change), sensitivity (the community’s dependence on fisheries combined with underlying social vulnerability), and adaptive capacity (the ability to adjust, recover and maintain fisheries‑related livelihoods). Presenters said the tool is intended to be forward‑looking and to integrate social, economic and fishery data so analysts can identify vulnerable communities and weigh trade‑offs across management alternatives.

"Assessing vulnerability enables this forward‑looking evaluation of community impacts," Dr. Karma Norman of Northern Economics told advisory members, noting the approach combines narrative guidance with replicable indicators where feasible.

Advisors and public commenters raised multiple technical and policy issues. Presenters acknowledged gaps in available indicators—particularly for the sociocognitive domains of adaptive capacity such as norms and community learning—and pointed to confidentiality limits on some fishing business data. They said climate vulnerability assessments are not yet standardized across every West Coast fishery or species and that some fisheries (for example, Dungeness crab and some shrimp stocks) still lack full assessments.

Council members pressed on case‑study options: the team can (1) apply the methodology to a past action (a retrospective study that can be used for validation), (2) apply it to a current action (which requires close coordination), or (3) analyze an amendment or specification that may reveal longer‑term effects. Presenters said a retrospective case study offers a way to compare expected outcomes to what actually happened, while a current case study demonstrates how the tool could operate in real time.

Public commenter Sher Hayer of Morro Bay urged more study of offshore‑wind geophysical mapping techniques as a stressor on fisheries, saying local mapping correlated with large local declines. "We saw a 70% decline in our spot prawn fishery," Hayer said, and called for before‑and‑after control impact studies of high‑energy acoustic mapping prior to large‑scale development.

Presenters and advisors also discussed whether the framework should incorporate social exposures—such as internet connectivity, occupational identity and changing dietary preferences—concluding that some social effects could be included in a narrative component where standardized quantitative indicators are not available. Advisors emphasized that measuring when a community crosses a ‘‘tipping point’’ and ceases to function as a fishing community is difficult but central to the work; presenters said a set of indicators (participation networks, diversification measures, node strength) could help flag heightened risk, though they would not precisely predict all tipping points.

On implementation, the expectation expressed by presenters is that analysts already preparing community impact assessments for council actions would use the methodology, with the framework intended to enhance existing NEPA and Magnuson‑Stevens Act impact analyses rather than create an entirely separate process. The project timeline presented calls for a draft decision framework and baseline assessment over the next year, draft findings for review next June, and final materials before September 2027.

The advisory body did not take formal votes. Presenters asked attendees for feedback on potential case studies, additional data sources, and practical outputs that would be most useful for decision‑making. "These June meetings are an opportunity to incorporate revisions or changes in the draft methodology," Aaron said. The council will discuss the project during its upcoming meetings on June 12–13; presenters invited written comments by email.