Fishery Science Under the Microscope

by Laurie Schreiber

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. – At the Fishermen’s Northeast Groundfish Science Forum, hosted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on Nov. 9, scientists and research specialists discussed a number of different surveys used to monitor the status of groundfish stocks and inform the management process.

But they acknowledged industry concerns about how surveys are conducted and interpreted, and they said they welcomed collaborative research opportunities with fishermen.

NMFS is looking at the idea of more collaborative research and ancillary fishery surveys, said Bill Karp, director of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) in Woods Hole, Mass. “What we lack, at the moment, is a strategic vision of how we address long-term and short-term goals, and how we engage the industry,” Karp said.

Karp said he plans to put together a group that involves a broad representation of stakeholders that can work with NMFS and the University of Massachusetts’ School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) as partners, with the idea of articulating short-term and long-term goals of fishery research, identifying ways to better engage the industry, and looking at survey performance and how surveys affect stock assessments.

NEFSC conducts science and research for NMFS in the northeast region. SMAST supports fisheries research in the northeast.

Information provided by NMFS said that what triggered the forum were questions around fishery-independent data, fishery-dependent data, and cooperative research data.

The questions centering on fishery-independent data were: How were the trawl gear and trawling protocols developed for the NEFSC surveys conducted on the survey vessel Henry B. Bigelow? Why does the Bigelow use a rockhopper sweep and how can you expect it to adequately sample flatfish, skate and monkfish? How can fishermen be confident that the Bigelow is fishing the research survey gear effectively? How are the Bigelow’s operations monitored? How does NEFSC know that the gear is on the bottom? How does NEFSC evaluate whether a survey tow is representative of actual stock conditions? How are data used or not used for tows where there are significant gear or gear performance issues? The Bigelow does not sample some inshore areas anymore: Are these inshore areas sampled and if so, who surveys these areas?

The questions on fishery-dependent data included: Are the data that fishermen provide in vessel trip reports (VTRs) incorporated into stock assessments or used for other scientific purposes? What about dealer-reported data? How are observer data incorporated into stock assessments? What other scientific processes utilize observer data? How does the observer program ensure that it achieves representative coverage of each fishery? Who decides on the priorities? What training do observers receive? What quality-control measures are there relative to observer performance and data handling?

The questions concerning cooperative research data included: How can stakeholders identify information the needs of stock assessments that could be addressed through cooperative research projects? Who decides on research priorities for the research set-aside programs? Has cooperative research been incorporated into stock assessments? What are the impediments preventing greater utilization of information generated through cooperative research? What are the advantages and disadvantages of conducting resource surveys on research vessel versus commercial fisheries platforms?

The idea behind the forum, said Karp, was to review the steps and processes involved in collecting data that feed the stock assessment processes. In 2013, said Karp, each of the science centers under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will undergo an independent peer review of the data collection process. The following year, he said, NMFS will look at the stock assessment process itself.

“We’re sensitive to the concerns the community has about the data collection and stock assessment process,” Karp said. NMFS chief John Bullard said that fishermen and scientists should not be on “opposing teams.” “As much as I want science to be exact, it isn’t. It’s frustrating,” Bullard said. “Truth is elusive.” Bullard said that, when stocks are low, the decisions managers have to make cause a lot of economic pain.

“That puts scientists under more pressure,” Bullard said. “When there’s not a lot of fish, I would guess that may make the science harder to do than when stocks are abundan.Fishermen, you speak a different language from scientists, but you are as expert in that field as scientists are. So fishermen and scientists need to talk and listen to each other.”

SMAST director Steve Cadrin offered an overview of current groundfish status and the stock assessment process. Cadrin said the assessment process is plagued with “much greater uncertainty than in the past.” That is particularly true for the northeast groundfish fishery, he said.

“Many assessments have severe retrospective patterns,” Cadrin said. In his presentation, Cadrin said that continued overfishing is not from improper fishery management nor from irresponsible fishing, but instead results from changes in estimates of stock size. He said that nearly all catch projections made in 2008 were found to be substantially wrong. Retrospective patterns and scientific uncertainty, he said lead to conservative catch limits.

Many New England stock assessments have severe retrospective patterns; in order words, the stock size is not what managers thought it was. “The cause of abrupt shifts in stock perceptions is unknown,” Cadrin said. “A systematic review of all aspects of stock assessment is critically needed.”

NEFSC deputy director Russell Brown started at the science center as an assessment biologist, and is one of the few people who moved from assessment to data collection; he has now spent 10 years on data collection. “I have familiarity with the strengths and challenges associated with that part of the operation,” Brown said.

Stock assessments are critically important to management, and accurate and sufficient data are critical for the assessments, Brown said.

Brown said that, contrary to some thought, the spectrum of stakeholders collecting data is “very broad, much broader than many stakeholders acknowledge.”

Together, he said, the spectrum of stakeholders has a responsibility for ensuring quality and effectiveness in the data collection system, he said.

Fishery-independent data, said Brown, is driven by federal, state and university surveys, and provides information on factors such as species composition, spatial distribution patterns, size and age composition, abundance and biomass, patterns in sex ratios, diet composition, fecundity, and other biological and ecological data such as genetics and habitat.

Fishery-dependent data includes commercial and recreational landings, catch per unit of effort, discards, and biological sampling. The data provides information such as how much and where the fish are caught and landed, and the size and age classes of fish caught and landed. The data is collected through avenues such as vessel trip reports, dealer data, observers, and recreational landings.

There is also a myriad of cooperative research projects, said Brown. “All research is, in some sense, cooperative,” Brown said. “It spans a continuum” in that there might be conducted by a government agency but might have some level of fishery input, or might be conducted on a fishing vessel.

The Bigelow

Robert Johnston, chief of NEFSC’s Ecosystems Surveys Branch, discussed the industry’s concerns about NOAA’s newest survey ship, the Henry B. Bigelow. Launched in 2005, the Bigelow is one of the most technologically advanced fisheries survey vessels in the world, according to NOAA. The ship’s primary objective is to study and monitor fisheries from Maine to North Carolina. The region includes Georges Bank, one of the world’s best-known and most productive marine areas. The region is also home to the nation’s top-valued port, oldest commercial fisheries and rare large whales and sea turtles. Data are used by a range of scientists who study variation in ocean conditions and sea life to better inform decisions about sustainability.

The ship also observes weather, sea state, and other environmental conditions, conducts habitat assessments, and surveys marine mammal and marine bird populations.

Johnston said the Bigelow’s survey net and the multispecies survey sampling system were designed over a three-year period with an advisory panel that included scientists, academia, gear researchers, and industry representatives. The survey informs 49 or 50 different assessments, so the net needs to catch a lot of species, and might not work as well with some species as with others, he said.

The net’s rockhopper has been identified by industry representatives as a concern, Johnston said. Rockhoppers are large disks that allow trawls to jump over and plow through rough terrain without snagging.

“Key attributes of our sampling system are that we need to catch variety of species,” said Johnston. “It’s a multispecies survey. Some we do really well at, and some we do less so, and that’s the reality of the situation. We need to sample in variety of habitats and go pretty much everywhere we can go to cover all stock areas.”

Johnston said the objectives of the survey are to monitor trends in abundance, biomass and recruitment; monitor the geographic distribution of species; monitor ecosystem changes; monitor trends in biological parameters (growth, mortality and maturation rates) of the stocks; and collect environmental data.

NEFSC has conducted bottom trawl surveys in the autumn for 49 years, since 1963; and the spring survey for 44 years, since 1968. Both are conducted from Cape Lookout to the Scotian Shelf. The winter survey was conducted for 16 years, from 1992-2007, from Cape Hatteras to Georges Bank. Station locations are randomly selected.

The goal, said Johnston, is to have consistency throughout the operation, including the way the net is configured. “The plan for this net looks complex, but to fishermen, I guess it’s fairly straightforward,” Johnston said. Key attributes of the trawl system, said Johnston, are its ability to obtain a representative sample of a variety of species and sizes; to sample a variety of habitats; to provide maximum catchability between the wing ends and minimum sampling between the wing ends and doors; to provide consistent wing spread, headrope height and bottom contact; and to be easily maintained.

Johnson said the Bigelow fishes among fishing gear whenever it can, in order to get a full picture. Generally, he said, the vessel tows as close as a mile to fishing boats. The crew also solicits information from fishermen about where and when fish stocks occur. Two surveys per year are conducted, in the spring and fall. The survey gear has remained unchanged since 1978. The net is “rather small,” said King.

The survey uses both randomized and assigned stations.

Jim Gartland, a marine scientist with the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (VIMS) in Gloucester Point, Va., described the cooperative nearshore survey in that region. The VIMS survey is called the Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP). Gartland said that, with a 5 year time series now, the program fills a gap that the Bigelow has left. The Bigelow will not fish in depths less than 60 feet.

The survey includes industry partners – Capt. Jimmy Ruhle and his mate Bobby Ruhle – aboard their fishing boat Darana R. In addition to sampling fish, the survey collects environmental data such as air temperature, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, sea state, water quality and temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen. NEAMAP also participates in collaborative fishery research with state and federal agencies, and with universities.

John Williamson said better pathways for communication between fishermen and scientists are needed. Williamson is a fisherman, industry representative, and consultant who runs Sea Keeper Consulting in Kennebunk. He gave a presentation on the Portland-based Gulf of Maine’s Marine Resource Education Program (MREP), a professional development program for the fishing industry. The MREP website says, “First, we aim to substantially increase the number of individuals working in New England fisheries, either at sea or in shore-side support services, who are comfortable navigating the fishery science and management arena.”

The program’s goals are to bring fishermen, scientists and managers together in a neutral setting outside the regulatory process; increase the number of people at work in New England fisheries who are comfortable working with the fishery data and management systems; help policy makers and scientists become more familiar with the inner working of the fishing community; increase the number of fishermen involved in collaborative research and pursuit of best available science; and develop leadership and promote trust.

The MREP curriculum fishery science and fishery management sections, taught by experts such as a New England Fishery Management Council staff member, a manager from the National Marine Fisheries Service, a scientist from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, or a university professor. A course on “Insights into Fisheries Stock Assessments” looks at types of information collected by fishing vessels and research vessels, how differences are reconciled, and how these data contribute to our picture of fishery health. Course participants are offered an insider look at the Bigelow, and tools and methods such as acoustic sampling capabilities, fish handling and sampling tools, and survey trawl gear. Participants tour the NMFS gear warehouse, biological sampling lab, age and growth lab, and observer training facility and meet senior scientists and technicians.

At the forum, Williamson said that fishermen’s knowledge is a valuable database. “I don’t think we get the scientists in the field enough,” he said. “They need to have a certain amount of time in the field. They’ve got to do it every day.”

Williamson was a representative with NEFMC; he was appointed in 1996. He said the same issues persist today, and much of the atmosphere is beset by “fear and suspicion” and “hostility toward science and management, in some cases.”

Williamson said that numerous research projects have hit the water since the early days of the groundfish crisis.

“There was a big gap in the vocabularies people were using,” he said. MREP was born from the need to create common ground, and to foster the idea that fishermen’s views were just as valid as those of scientists, he said. Sampling programs on research versus fishing vessel lead to vastly different views, Williamson said. Fishing vessel sampling is localized in fishing grounds. Scientists get snapshots, fishermen get movies, he said. Scientists use scientific methods, fishermen methods are results-oriented.

“The good news is that fishermen have high expectations and hold scientists to high standards,”

Williamson said. “That’s because there’s much at stake.” MREP provides an opportunity for fishermen to interact with scientists and discover that they’re accessible. He said that many fishermen experience an “Aha!” moment, when they begin to understand the complexity of the many different stock assessments built from many different data systems.

“And finally, it really starts to hit home – management is about the art of accounting for uncertainty in the data,” Williamson said. He said the discussion usually evolves into the way that uncertainty results in costs, in terms of lost revenue.

“There’s a difference between best available science and best possible science,” he said. “And that difference has a cost. There’s a balance to be struck to make it bearable.” In order to find that balance, he said, fishermen are as responsible as scientists are for ensuring that quality data is fed into the system.

Jim Kendall of New Bedford Seafood Consulting said he was not satisfied with how the fall 2011 survey for yellowtail flounder was conducted. “The problem I have is, oftentimes, the areas that should be surveyed are totally ignored for one reason or another,” Kendall said. Missing areas that have yellowtail, he said, directly impacts catch allocations for the coming year, he said. “If you go at the wrong time of year, you’re not going to find these fish,” he said. “That was a flawed survey.”

Karp said the survey system must operate in a standardized, consistent way. “At the same, we’re hearing comments about things we’re missing, because we’re not looking in right places at the right times,” Karp said. Still, he said, “fishermen have to feed information to the scientists, so we better understand what the signals are.”

Vito Giacalone of the Northeast Seafood Coalition said that, in the case of yellowtail, where spatial distribution is somewhat unpredictable, the randomized way that surveys are done may lead to inaccurate results. He suggested that, before the start of a survey, the NEFSC invite the industry to take a look at the survey strata and suggest additional stations to sample. “Even though you think you’re in the right spots, you might not be the right spots,” Giacalone said.

“The number one indicator that there’s a problem is that we have these whipsaw assessments,” said seafood buyer Bill Gerencer. “I think the playing field as shifted beneath us. We’re probably using tools that worked well 20 years ago, but don’t work now.”

Gerencer said that, if assessments were accurate and showed problems with stocks, industry would be saying, “’What are we going to do about it?’ not, ‘We don’t believe what you’re saying.’ We’re using the wrong tool to do this job. And it’s indefensible. You can’t tell me you’re using the right tool until you get consistent, accurate results.”

Karp said that many of the changes seen in the performance of key stocks are related to environmental changes. “Collectively, I think we need to pay attention to these ecosystem changes that affect our ability to move forward in science and management,” Karp said.

“The fishing industry in general is in very negative mood, I would say,” said NEFMC representative David Goethel. “The process works for the things it was designed to do” in terms of indicating information such as trends and abundance. “The problem is, the product has been oversold.” Although the system yields estimates, “It’s very hard to manage on an estimate. And the law requires us to manage to an estimate. And that’s a real problem. So it could be helpful if people could come out of this meeting to tell Congress that the law puts us in an impossible place.”

Goethel said the trawl survey has been compromised by circumstance. In one example, he said, it’s now impossible to conduct a randomized survey in the Gulf of Maine because of the presence of lobster gear, which has “taken over the world.” “That only leaves places left that nobody else wants. And there’s nothing there,” he said.

Goethel proposed that an enforcement boat should be assigned to the survey in order to get the lobster fleet to move its gear. “The fleet will happily move,” he said. “We want you to find cod.” He said the configuration of the survey gear also causes it to miss certain types and sizes of fish. The quality of the surveys is crucial, Goethel said, adding, “We have to find a way to somehow to catch 19 different stocks in numbers that range from 500 pounds to 60,000 pounds and not burn out of any of them, because if you do, you’re done.”

Lobstering Then and Now

History of Belfast

Editorial: Fishermen, Communities, the Economy and Management

Voting Rights at Heart of Catch Share Legal Challenge

Scallopers Grapple with
Yellowtail Limits

Book Review – Less Is More

HMS Bounty Sinks in Hurricane Sandy

Bluefin Tuna Recovery Good
U.S. Quota Stalls at ICCAT

How To Divide A Crumb

Scallop Rotational Management Kicks In

John’s Bay Boat Company

If You Want to Be Happy
for the Rest of Your Life

Fishery Science Under the Microscope

Doing the Quoddy Loop

Launching

Capt. Mark East’s Advice to the Careworn, Confused, Lovelorn and Other Outdoor People

Back Then – Casualties on the Coast

Meetings

Classifieds