Addressing Uncertainty in Fisheries Science and Management Appendices

Addressing Uncertainty in Fisheries Science and Management Appendices Table of Contents 2 Appendix A: Details on Case Studies 12 Appendix B: Best Practices 13 Appendix C: Biographies of Expert Panel Members

Appendix A: Details on Case Studies The case studies presented are not meant to be comprehensive studies of a particular fishery but rather examples of relevant uncertainty issues at some point in history. The intention was to provide enough background for understanding the context of the fishery and the scientific and management approaches. In some cases, fishery scientists and managers have responded to certain uncertainty crises ; in others, significant work remains to be done in order to address highlighted issues. Regardless, the Panel aimed to highlight useful best practices that can be transferred in some context, to other fisheries. 2

Table 1. Case Studies Considered by the Expert Panel 3

Challenges There was no precautionary buffer and delays in updating assessments for these declining stocks meant that target catch levels were not declining as fast as the stocks were declining. Consequently, hindsight often found that overfishing had occurred, thus exacerbating the declines. Case Study 1. Pacific Coast Groundfish in the mid to late 1990s Fishery/Management The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery involves 90 species of groundfish (> 60 are rockfish) found throughout the coastal region and is conducted using midwater and bottom trawl, pot, and hook and line gear by both commercial and recreational fishermen. This multispecies fishery is managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council under the Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). In the early 1990s, the National Marine Fisheries Service had implemented a default harvest policy for Pacific Coast groundfish based on the best scientific information at that time, but this required use of proxies for target exploitation rates based on other management situations. Many stocks were estimated to still be near or slightly below target levels and some further declines in abundance were not unexpected. Although the management system was usually able to keep the catch levels near the scientific recommendation, there was no precautionary buffer and delays in updating assessments for these declining stocks meant that target catch levels were not declining as fast as the stocks were declining. Consequently, hindsight often found that overfishing had occurred, thus exacerbating the declines. By the mid-1990s, evidence was beginning to accumulate that the recruitment of young fish into these stocks was not as high as expected. It was not known whether this was due to environmental effects or to lower than expected inherent stock productivity. Groundfish are long-lived and take several years to reach maturity and recruit to the fishery, thus the decline in recruitment was just beginning to accelerate the decline in stock abundance. In 1996, the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (aptly named the Sustainable Fisheries Act) required rebuilding of overfished stocks. In 1999, implementation of this provision for Pacific groundfish determined that several stocks had declined below the overfished threshold and would require rebuilding. For additional information regarding the history of this fishery, refer to History of the U.S. West Coast Groundfish Fishery (The Nature Conservancy, 2008). Perfect storm: A requirement to rebuild happened at the same time as a realization that recruitment was lower than expected (mid-1990s). With this low recruitment, itwas calculated to take many decades to rebuild some stocks to target levels. Rebuilding was multi-generational becausethe spawning biomass needed to be rebuilt first to a level that could produce enough recruits to complete rebuilding. A compliant rebuilding plan required significantly reduced catch levels for some stocks. Catches of bocaccio and canary rockfish catch were reduced by a factor of 100 to implement the rebuilding plans which resulted in a disaster declaration for the groundfish fishery (S. Ralston, 2014). The fisheries management scheme in place during the 1990s did not contain enough precaution to be robust to uncertainty about stock productivity and delays in assessments and management. A more conservative policy was adopted for all groundfish in the early 2000 s. Actions Taken The Council took significant actions in response to requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and adopted proxy harvest rates in 1991 (Figure 1). They established rebuilding plans which included very restrictive reduced trip limits (bi-monthly cumulative catch limits) and a limited entry buyback program to reduce capacity. The Council also adopted a narrow but highly productive rockfish conservation area which became temporally and spatially stratified to maximize fishing opportunity on healthy stocks. During this period, the fishing industry endorsed and the Council adopted a gear restriction on trawls. Figure 1. The groundfish harvest policy was revised to incorporate a Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) and precautionary catch reductions (S. Ralston, 2014) 4

There was also a Council effort to streamline the management cycle to reduce uncertainty (moved to multi-year cycle).the Council s Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) now provides information to make risk consideration decisions. In-season monitoring of groundfish is considered an Accountability Measure to address uncertainty. When fisheries scientists looked historically at single stock assessments over time, there was significant variation (authors, data streams, environment, reviewers all different). A default value for the extent of uncertainty in biomass estimates was developed to establish a control rule for buffering Allowable Biological Catch (ABC; p* approach), p* was limited to <0.45 and the Council could indicate their risk preference in buffer on a stock-by-stock basis. That risk preference then altered harvest control rule (ABC line was reduced, based on risk preference). Lessons Learned 1) Fisheries scientists and managers should develop new methodologies that provide a generalized approach to managing data-limited stocks. In data-poor situations where a fishery is significant or the stock plays a significant role in the ecosystem and it is deemed cost-effective, managers should support the development of monitoring programs. Scientific uncertainty can become an acute problem when managing data-limited stocks. In hindsight, it is clear that the proxy used to set fishing mortality rates was too aggressive and allowed overfishing to occur (S. Ralston, 2014). 2) Fisheries scientists and managers should consider in advance the requirements for assessment and management to better evaluate benefits and costs of additional research, alternative investments in data, or application of new technologies and methods for stock assessment as they relate to reducing uncertainty in management outcomes. An objective prioritization plan will focus resources strategically to maximize the value of reducing uncertainty and risk. Pacific Groundfish is a good example of the need to prioritize frequency of stock assessments and address uncertainty relating to inefficiencies in the management process. 3) There continues to be a need to incorporate environmental information into stock assessments and management, to reduce uncertainty related to environmental variability and environmental change. Fisheries oceanography research programs should be expanded to further understand the mechanisms of environmental change, current trends, and effects on fisheries. A strengthened strategic program is needed to concentrate efforts to assess, communicate, and integrate uncertainty and risk related to large-scale and longterm environmental change. Case Study 2. Summer Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), 1970-present Climate change, a general warming trend over recent decades and changes in stock status have caused substantial shifts in the geographic distribution of fisheries resources in the northeast US, generally northward and deeper. Such shifts have profound implications for the northeast US shelf ecosystem and also have considerable implications for fisheries management. Summer flounder offers a typical example of a mid-atlantic stock that has demonstrated a distributional shift and resulting management challenges. Fishery/Management Summer flounder sustains important recreational and commercial fisheries from North Carolina to Maine. The principle gear used in the commercial fishery is the otter trawl, however, recreational rod and reel effort is a major component of the fishery (Terceiro, 2010). Summer flounder fisheries are managed cooperatively by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission under the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP. The summer flounder stock was depleted when the Council and Commission adopted the FMP in 1982, and the stock continued to decrease in the 1990s. A rebuilding plan was implemented in 1993, and the stock rebuilt to its target population level in 2010 (Figure 2). As fishing mortality Figure 2. Estimates of summer flounder spawning stock biomass (SSB, line) and recruitment (R, bars) (Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 2013). 5

has been effectively decreased, survival to older ages has increased as the stock rebuilt. Older fish tend to migrate further north in warmer months, so the apparent shift in distribution may involve both climate and demographic factors. Annual catch limits for summer flounder are allocated to the commercial fishery (60%) and the recreational fishery (40%), and the commercial allocation is further distributed among the states based on their contribution to the coast-wide catch in the 1980s. However, the geographic distribution of summer flounder is now significantly more northward than it was in the 1980s, such that state catch allocations are no longer proportional to the local resource. As Bigelow & Schroeder reported in their classic book on Fishes of the Gulf of Maine (1953) summer flounder Coastwise, the angle of Cape Cod is the northern boundary to the regular range of the fluke in any great abundance. As depicted by fishery and survey data, the distribution of summer flounder has shifted considerably northward since the period used to determine state catch allocations (Figure 3). Figure 3a. Figure 3b. Figures 3a and 3b. Geographic distribution of summer flounder from the commercial fishery (squares) and surveys (circles) 1989-1995 (left) and 2006-2010 (right) from the 2013 Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) stock assessment (NEFSC, 2013). Challenges Uncertainty related to environmental change has caused governance issues in this fishery due to a distributional shift in the population. The mis-match between state allocations and local availability of summer flounder is presenting considerable challenges for fisheries participants and fisheries managers. Commercial fishermen in southern states continue to land their quotas. However, they are generally travelling further north to do so due to the shift in the concentration of the resource and the turtle excluder device requirements in the southern range of the fishery. Northern state fisheries are shutting down early due to lack of quota. The current management scheme prevents the landing of flounder in northern states so vessels fishing in the northern extent of the range (e.g., Georges Bank) are travelling to southern states to land their catch. Actions Taken The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission have initiated a comprehensive amendment to the Summer Flounder FMP. The amendment will review and update the goals and objectives of the FMP and will evaluate the commercial and recreational management strategies for this fishery in the contemporary context of the summer flounder stock. Lessons Learned 1) State, regional and national fisheries allocations based on historical catch patterns are a common practice in fisheries management. However, in the context of geographic shifts, allocations based on catch histories present fisheries and management problems, as demonstrated by summer flounder. An alternative to allocations based on catch history are allocations based on resource distribution. For example the US-Canada Transboundary Guidance Committee developed a sharing agreement for national catch allocations that transitioned from catch histories to resource distributions (Transboundary Management Guidance Committee, 2002). The US-Canada sharing agreement is a weighted average of proportional catch histories by each country and proportional resource distributions in each country s jurisdiction. In the first year of the agreement, the weighted average was based on 60% resource distribution and 40% catch history, and the weighting of resource distribution transitioned to 90% resource distribution and 10% catch history in annual increments over seven years. This combined approach offers catch allocations based on traditional fishery development and is responsive to geographic shifts in resource distribution. 2) Fisheries scientists and managers should prepare for a potential environmental and/or ecosystem shift by educating all participants about the possibility and the potential need to amend reference points and other aspects of control rules or management measures as stock productivity changes. 6

3) Fisheries scientists and managers should work together to prioritize the frequency of stock assessments to focus limited resources where they are most needed to reduce uncertainty. In cases of less frequent stock assessments, summer flounder managers have adopted clear checkpoints or sets of indicators that trigger use of new information in advance of a complete new stock assessment. A companion management process should require response to such checkpoints or sets of indicators. Case Study 3. Pacific Sardine (Sardinops sagax) Fishery/Management The Pacific sardine fishery operates off the west coasts of Mexico, the United States, and Canada in response to sardine abundance, which historically has been cyclical, peaking approximately every 60 years off California. The decline after the mid-1940s was likely to have been caused by environmental factors and high fishing mortality rates. The population began to rebuild during the 1980s and a directed fishery was re-established by 1991. When the population of Pacific sardine is large, fish are abundant from Baja California to southeastern Alaska and the directed fishery is conducted using purse seine gear by Mexican, U.S., and Canadian fishermen in their respective waters. Within US waters, sardines are also caught by charter and party boats and recreational anglers (Figure 4). Since 2000, the fishery for the northern sub-population of Pacific sardine has been managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council under the Coastal Pelagic Species FMP. Other species in this FMP include Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel, anchovy, and market squid. Stock assessments are conducted by the NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fishery Science Center and peer reviewed by independent experts through the through the Stock Assessment Review (STAR) process. Management of the US fishery is based on annual catch limits, with allocations to tribal and nontribal sectors. Challenges Multiple stocks with overlapping distributions are being managed by three nations individually Recruitment which varies substantially in response to environmental drivers challenges common management paradigms Lack of data from southern region increases uncertainty The significance of effects of environmental change are unknown There was a need to evaluate which management strategies would be most robust to uncertainty (including environmental change) Actions Taken There was interest in reviewing the management system that was responsive to changes in sea surface temperature (SST) given evidence that SST may not be an index of the factors influencing long-term trends in recruitment and to compare alternative management strategies. A Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) was initiated in 2013. Development of an initial set of possible management strategies resulted from a 2013 workshop and an MSE was conducted, in iterative fashion, based on input from all parties, including fishermen, scientists, conservation organizations, and Council advisors and members. The MSE was able to select which uncertainties to consider and a harvest strategy based on a set of harvest control rules was developed, that included information about environmental conditions. Lessons Learned The Panel considered the Pacific sardine MSE to develop awareness of the challenges of conducting an MSE as well as the advantages of an adaptive management program that is robust to uncertainty. 1) The MSE enabled scientists and managers to select which uncertainties to consider, including how environmental variation should be modeled, and to identify which management strategies were most robust to uncertainty (Punt & Hurtado, 2014). Figure 4. History of Pacific Sardine Recovery and Expansion 2) The case study also highlights roles and responsibilities during the process, including those of fishery scientists, managers, and participants to define objectives, given the goals of the underlying legislation. 7

3) MSE workshops provide a platform to improve communication about science and management uncertainty to different categories of participants in more meaningful ways, particularly how and when different sources of uncertainty are accounted for and addressed. 4) The MSE enables managers to fully assess the consequences of various management strategies and select a suitable strategy that achieves stated goals and objectives but minimizes impacts on stakeholders. surrounding several factors (recruitment estimates, growth estimates, total fish removals, etc.) The implications of the new information were significant to stakeholders on many fronts, fomenting mistrust. Lack of an explicit risk policy left the Council struggling with an adequate response, given the significant social and economic implications of a revised management regime. Environmental factors affecting recruitment were unknown. 5) While there is hesitation to use MSE in the US fisheries management framework, the MSE of the US Pacific sardine fishery has been successful and the outcomes are consistent with all applicable laws and regulatory structures. 6) Addressing environmental-related variation in biomass through the harvest control rule leads to reduced impacts of uncertainty. Figure 5. Spawning biomass of Gulf of Maine cod as estimated from the 2008 and 2011 stock assessments (NEFSC 2008, 2012). Case Study 4. Gulf of Maine Cod (Gadus morhua), 2011-present Fishery/Management The Gulf of Maine groundfish fishery in 2011 involved numerous species of groundfish found throughout the Greater Atlantic region and was conducted using trawl, gillnet, and hook and line gear by both commercial and recreational fishermen in inshore and offshore areas. This multispecies fishery is managed by the New England Fishery Management Council ( the Council ) under the Northeast Multispecies FMP. Stock assessments are conducted by the NOAA Fisheries NEFSC and peer reviewed by independent experts through the Northeast Stock Assessment Workshop process. Management of the Northeast multispecies fishery transitioned to a system of annual catch limits with allocations to sectors, which are groups of fishermen with multispecies permits. Annual catch limits are supplemented with gear restrictions, size limits, permanent closed areas and seasonal closed areas. Challenges Consecutive stock assessments (2008 and 2011) contained vastly different estimates of spawning biomass, with the 2011 assessment prompting implementation of a stricter rebuilding plan, which also affected fishing for other species (Figure 5). Differences between assessments were due to uncertainty Actions Taken In November 2011, the Gulf of Maine cod stock assessment underwent a peer review by a team of independent scientists. There was a full examination of all sources of uncertainty. The final peer review report accepted the assessment, and it was necessary to set catch limits lower in 2012 than they were in 2011. Given the potential implications for groundfish fishermen and fishing communities, NOAA Fisheries and the Council convened a working group that considered possible management options. The options explored would maintain progress under the new sector management system and mitigate impacts on the fishing industry of lower cod catch limits in 2012. Working group members then met with fishing industry representatives, environmentalists, scientists and others to discuss the stock assessment preliminary findings and solicit comments about how to address this challenge. After a stakeholder meeting to discuss potential new management measures, the Council published interim regulations in 2012 that responded to new assessment results. Public tension ignited an intense examination of many factors highlighted in the assessment, including uncertainty in data and climate change and ecosystem variability. The New England Council s Scientific and Statistical Committee identified several topics that needed investigation: spatial stock structure definitions, the method of estimating recreational catch, the assumed mortality rate of discarded cod, and the exclusion of fishery catch rates in the 2011 stock assessment. The NEFSC held a series of 8

workshops to confront each of these major topics, and a revised assessment was produced in 2012 that generally confirmed the results from the 2011 stock assessment. However, another source of uncertainty identified in the 2012 stock assessment was the possible increase in natural mortality of cod. Recent information on cod productivity and survival suggests that natural variability may have significantly increased. Alternative stock assessment models with a higher rate of natural mortality suggest a greater stock size of cod as well as lower rebuilding targets. Scientists and managers are now challenged with how best to collect and implement environmental data. The 2012 stock assessment of Gulf of Maine cod was used to inform 2013 and 2014 annual catch limits that are expected to end overfishing. The Council currently is developing a risk policy that will help decision-makers address uncertainty in a methodical and transparent manner. The intent of New England fishery managers is to include many factors in the risk policy such as incorporating a range of values of participants (e.g., social and economic and ecological considerations). Lessons Learned 1) There remains much confusion by stakeholders concerning the way that various sources of uncertainty present and are considered in the process. There is a need to communicate science and management uncertainty to different levels of participants in more meaningful ways, particularly how and when different sources of uncertainty are accounted for and addressed. 2) While development of a control rule implies that a risk policy has been adopted, the Council lacked an explicit statement of their risk policy. The control rule used to determine acceptable catch for New England groundfish is 75% of the overfishing limit. 3) Councils that have more explicit processes and tools in place to explore and incorporate larger system uncertainties have been more proactive in considering longer-term challenges such as ecosystem variability. The NEFSC has an ecosystem research group but FMPs rely on single-species stock assessments and reference points. The Council is developing an Ecosystem-Based FMP to establish a formal process to incorporate this information into management decisions. 4) Uncertainties manifest at very different levels of the process (e.g., assessment model uncertainty or data inputs vs. efficacy of management options), and over very different time scales (e.g., annual harvest rate vs. environmental regime shift). Much focus remains on low-level, short-term uncertainties such as inaccuracy of catch data. Comparatively less focus was directed to higher-level and longer-term uncertainties that may be potentially much more critical to long-term sustainability. 5) In some fisheries, there are benefits to conducting an MSE beyond the desire to select a management strategy. This type of evaluation forces decision-makers to consider their long-term goals and to specifically define their objectives and the tradeoffs amongst them. In addition, an effective MSE will allow quantification of the extent to which uncertainties (e.g. retro- spective patterns) are likely to frustrate attempts to achieve management goals. Within the context of the New England groundfish fisheries, an MSE which includes both technical interactions and possible impact of climate change on distribution and abundance would seem very beneficial. Case Study 5: Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) ca. 1996- present Fishery/Management Red snapper is one of the most important recreational and commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and has been for over a hundred years. In 1996, the fishery operated with about 50 per cent of the catch coming from commercial vessels and 50 per cent from recreational and for-hire vessels. In the late 1990s, approximately 70-80% per cent of lifetime F of red snapper was reported as dead discards in the shrimp fishery (predominantly age 0-1 red snapper; Porch, 2007). The fishery is managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council under the Red Snapper FMP. It was classified as overfished in 1996 and overfishing continued to occur for many years. The first assessment was conducted in 1988 and concluded that the stock was overfished. During the next 10 years, six additional assessments were completed; all concluded that the stock was overfished and overfishing was occurring. In 2005 and later, subsequent assessments reached the same conclusions. Total catch was limited, total number of commercial and for hire licenses was limited, trip limits were adopted, and size limits, gear limits and fishing seasons were adopted. Additionally, shrimp effort reduced considerably due to economic issues in the fishery (competing with imports; effects of Hurricane Katrina). The 2013 assessment has shown improvement in the stock and reductions in fishing mortality rates to below overfishing levels (SEDAR, 2013). 9

Challenges Multiple sources of uncertainty in science and management, including: significant recreational component with resulting uncertainty in magnitude of discards and landings; significant bycatch in shrimp fishery with resulting uncertainty in shrimp fishing effort which translated directly into bycatch estimates A lack of cooperation between state and federal governments generates frustration and mistrust by stakeholders Uncertainty that wasn t fully addressed or communicated reduced the credibility of the science that supports management Environmental drivers affecting recruitment were unknown (e.g., environmental variation and effects of oil rigs) Actions Taken Congress responded to the crisis with funding to reduce uncertainty (estimating effort, recreational catch, and bycatch reduction devices). Other factors affecting effort in the shrimp fishery resulted in decreasing uncertainty related to bycatch. Ongoing management efforts have been made by the Council to reduce overfishing, and rebuild the stock to a sustainable level, including reducing season length and increasing size limits in the commercial and recreational sectors, reducing bag limits for recreational fishermen, and implementing an Individual Fishing Quota program for the commercial sector ( Rebuilding Red Snapper, n.d.). Governance issues continue to challenge fishery managers and stakeholders (agreement on state-bystate allocations has not been reached). Lessons Learned 1) Fisheries scientists and managers should work collaboratively to include detailed roles and responsibilities in formal terms of reference for all participants in the fisheries science and management process so that they understand and accept their respective roles, responsibilities, and interactions relating to uncertainty. Roles and responsibilities of SSC vs. stock assessment scientists (SEDAR) managing red snapper have evolved significantly; SSC advice is currently structured to keep stocks below overfishing levels and to account for uncertainty in that advice. The role of bycatch during the recruitment process and unknown effects of oil rigs in the ecosystem could be significant sources of uncertainty. 4) Because sources of uncertainty are subject to change as fishery operations change over time, management processes need to be flexible to respond to shifting issues. For example, bycatch was a significant source of uncertainty in the red snapper fishery in the late 1990s. During that time, however, much research was conducted to develop bycatch reduction devices for shrimp trawls which have been successful in reducing bycatch. More significantly, however, effort in the shrimp fishery has decreased dramatically since 2005, due to increased competition with imported shrimp. The result of this decrease in effort has been a significant decrease in bycatch. 5) Fisheries managers and policy leaders should promote the use of explicit risk evaluation frameworks such as MSE and communicate its benefits to stakeholders in the evaluation of risk and the design of robust management approaches. Specifically, they should show how this tool can better engage participants and help inform the decision-making process. Regional managers and authorities should consider new applications of MSE on a pilot basis to evaluate the potential value of adopting the approach more widely. Measures are in place to rebuild this overfished stock but controversy abounds in relation to brief recreational seasons, significant impacts of reallocation on recreational and commercial fishermen in the face of rebuilding, and governance issues between states and the Federal government. MSE could aid fisheries scientists and managers by providing an objective, unified understanding of priorities while identifying, evaluating and managing sources of uncertainty and their associated risks, and evaluating the trade-offs. Simulations under various scenarios could help move past current debates over specific management challenges and lead to more comprehensive choices among alternative ways forward. 2) There are multiple benefits of reducing uncertainty. Fisheries scientists should evaluate the costs and benefits of improved catch accounting programs where commercial or recreational catch accounting is incomplete or has other short-comings. When the benefits outweigh the costs, managers should prioritize improved, accurate catch accounting for all managed fisheries. Benefits realized in the red snapper fishery include improved credibility, greater utilization of the resource, and acceleration of the allocation process (directed fishery vs. shrimp bycatch). 3) Ecosystem science programs should be more consistently integrated with single-species assessment science to support more comprehensive management advice. Ecosystem report cards were identified as a useful practice in support of better understanding of changing conditions. Ecosystem effects are still an important uncertainty factor in the red snapper fishery. 10

Acronyms ABC Allowable Biological Catch FMP Fishery Management Plan MSE Management Strategy Evaluation MSST Minimum Stock Size Threshold NEFSC NorthEast Fisheries Science Center NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration SEDAR SouthEast Data, Assessment, and Review (Southeast Fisheries Science Center) SSB Spawning Stock Biomass SSC Science and Statistical Committee SST Sea Surface Temperature STAR STock Assessment and Review (Southwest Fisheries Science Center) References Bigelow, H.B. & Schroeder, W.C. (1953). Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. United States Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. (2013). 57th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop Assessment Report. NEFSC Ref Doc. 13-16. Retrieved September 8, 2014 from nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1316/crd1316.pdf Porch, C.E. (2007). An assessment of the red snapper fishery in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico using a spatially-explicit agestructured model. In: Patterson, W.F., Cowan, J.H. Jr., Fitzhugh, G.R., & Nieland, D.L. (eds). Red Snapper ecology and fisheries in the US Gulf of Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 60, Bethesda, Maryland, 355 384. Punt, A.E., Hurtado-Ferro, P., & Whitten, A.R. (2014). Model selection for selectivity in stock assessment. Fisheries Research 158, 124-134. Ralston, S. (April 25, 2014). West Coast Groundfish Case Study. The Bevan Series on Sustainable Fisheries. Presentation conducted from University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Rebuilding Red Snapper. (n.d.). In NOAA Fisheries: Southeast Regional Office Website. Retrieved September 8, 2014 from http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_ fisheries/red_snapper/overview/rebuilding/index.html Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR). (2013). Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Stock Assessment Report. SEDAR, North Charleston, SC. Retrieved July 14, 2014 from http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/ SEDAR%20 31%20SAR% 20Gulf%20Red%20Snapper_sizereduced. pdf?id=document Terceiro, M. (2010). Summer Flounder. Retrieved September 8, 2014 from http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/fldrs/ summer/archives/08_summer_flounder_2010.pdf The Nature Conservancy. (May 15, 2008). History of the U.S. West Coast Groundfish Fishery. Retrieved September 8, 2014 from http://www.morrobaycommunityquotafund. org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ccgp_groundfishfishe ryhistory_080515-1.pdf The Transboundary Management Guidance Committee. (2002). Development of a Sharing Allocation Proposal for Transboundary Resources of Cod, Haddock and Yellowtail Flounder on George s Bank. Retrieved August 13, 2014 from http://www2.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/tmgc/back ground%5cfmr%202002_01.pdf 11

Appendix B: Best Practices This section provides an overview of best management practices for addressing uncertainty in fisheries science and management that were identified by the Panel during its deliberations. Links to additional references relevant to best practices are included and also are filed in our online library accessible at aqua.org/fisheriesuncertainty/library (under Best Practices References ). Table 1. Best Practices for Addressing Uncertainty in U.S. Fisheries Science and Management Part 1: Identifying Uncertainty Best Practice 1. Transparency in Uncertainty Checklist 2. Clarify Roles and Responsibilities for All Identified in Terms of Reference Why It Works Support comprehensive treatment of all sources of uncertainty for participants and laymen; Develop and support iterative dialogue at science/management interface; Foster trust in system Part 2: Reducing Uncertainty 3. Prioritizing Data Requirements for Stock Assessments 4. Increased Catch Reporting Required of For-Hire Vessels 5. Cost-Effective Cooperative Research 6. Using Vessel Monitoring System Data to Support Fisheries Management Reduce uncertainty in catch accounting in cost-effective way 7. Checkpoints and Indicators for Managing Uncertainty Reduces uncertainty associated with delayed response to new information 8. Data-Limited Fisheries Toolkit 9. Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis 10. Default Buffers, Accompanied by a Monitoring Program Reduces uncertainty in data-limited fisheries; Suitable methods for managing in the context of uncertainty Part 3: Managing Fisheries in the Context of Environmental Change 11. Comprehensive Fisheries Oceanography Program 12. Ecosystem Considerations Reports 13. Maximum Allowable Biological Catch Reference Point 14. Harvest Control Rules that Incorporate Environmental Change 15. Allocation of Fishery Resources Based on Physical Distribution of Target Stocks Support planning process and accounting for and responding to large ecosystem changes Part 4: Risk-Based Management in the Context of Uncertainty 16. Tiered Approach for Risk Assessment Based on Availability of Data 17. Development of Structured Ways to Respond to Risk Outside of the ABC Process 18. Decision Tables to Communicate Risk 19. MSE Workshops to Engage Stakeholders and Promote Communication Support iterative dialogue at science/ management interface; Increase likelihood that all sources of uncertainty and consequences will be understood, considered, and addressed APPENDIX APPENDIX A: Details B: Best on Practices Case Studies 12

Appendix C: Biographies of Expert Panel Members Steven X. Cadrin is an Associate Professor of Fisheries Oceanography at the School for Marine Science and Technology in Fairhaven, MA and is the Director of the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute s Education Program. He earned his PhD in Fisheries Science from University of Rhode Island. He was a stock assessment scientist for twenty years with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts Marine Fisheries and New York Department of Environmental Conservation. His accomplishments include the advancement of stock assessment methods for a wide range of invertebrate and finfish species, development of harvest strategies for regional, national and international fishery resources, and global leadership in evaluating geographic stock structure and modeling spatially complex populations. He chairs several regional, national and international working groups and has convened workshops, symposia, and conferences for the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, National Marine Fisheries Service, New England Fishery Management Council, American Fisheries Society and the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference. His teaching and research agendas focus on population modeling, stock identification, fisheries management, collaborative research with fishermen, and application of advanced technologies for fishery science. John Henderschedt is the Executive Director of the Fisheries Leadership & Sustainability Forum, a partnership between the Nicholas Institute at Duke University, Stanford Woods Institute, the Center for Ocean Solutions, and the Environmental Defense Fund. He has a bachelor s degree in Russian Studies from Muhlenberg College, and certificate in Russian Language and Literature from the Pushkin Institute in Moscow. Mr. Henderschedt has twenty-five years of experience working in the Alaska and West Coast groundfish fisheries. Prior to joining the Fisheries Forum as its first Executive Director, he served as the Vice President of Phoenix Processor Limited Partnership. He was responsible for fleet cooperative quota tracking, safety and security management, food safety programs, regulatory compliance, and special projects. Mr. Henderschedt started his career in Alaska fisheries as an at-sea representative and interpreter for Russian joint venture Bering Sea fishing operations in the mid-1980s. He currently holds one of Washington State s two obligatory seats on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and has been engaged in the federal fisheries management process since 1988. Pamela Mace is currently the Principal Advisor Fisheries Science at the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries. She earned her PhD while at the Institute of Animal Resource Ecology at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Mace has worked extensively in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand, as well as in Europe and Australia. Her key responsibilities in her current role are to ensure the scientific integrity of Ministry s fisheries research, stock assessment and environmental assessment programs. Her research interests include the national and international development of biological reference points and harvest control rules for fisheries, ecosystem approaches, development of criteria for defining species at risk, fish stock assessments, and the interface between fisheries science and fisheries management. During her 30+ year career, Dr. Mace has been heavily involved in the national and international development of precautionary approaches and harvest control rules for fisheries management; the development and implementation of national standards for overfishing definitions and rebuilding plans, and the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan in U.S. fisheries; research, assessment, and management of a wide variety of fish and shellfish species; and various science quality assurance projects for reviewing and improving fish stock assessments and science processes in the U.S., New Zealand and elsewhere. She has served as the National Stock Assessment Coordinator for NOAA Fisheries and as the Chief Scientist for the former New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries. Richard Methot serves as NOAA s Senior Scientist Advisor for Stock Assessments. Dr. Methot earned his PhD in Biological Oceanography from Scripps Institution of Oceanography. During his 32-year career with NOAA Fisheries he has worked in the Southwest, Alaska, and Northwest Fisheries Science Centers and Office of Science & Technology. Throughout his career, he has focused on development and application of fishery assessment models and communication of assessment results to the fishery management process. In 2008, he was awarded the Department of Commerce Gold Medal for his development of the Stock Synthesis assessment approach. Dr. Methot has a prominent role in several national and international Committees related to marine fish stock assessment and management including National Stock Assessment Workshops, World Conference on Stock Assessment Methods, National Scientific and Statistical Committee, Stock Assessment Improvement Plan and National Standards for science-based fishery management. In his current APPENDIX APPENDIX C: Biographies A: Details of on Expert Case Panel Studies Members 13

role as national Senior Scientist for Stock Assessments, he strives to improve assessment methods, including bringing more ecosystem and environmental information into the assessments, and to improve communication of the role that assessments serve in supporting sustainable fisheries. Steven Murawski is a Professor at University of South Florida and currently serves as Director of the Center for Integrated Analysis and Modeling of Gulf Ecosystems (C-IMAGE). He earned his PhD in Fisheries Biology from University of Massachusetts Amherst. Prior to becoming a professor, he served various positions within NOAA/ National Marine Fisheries Service for over thirty years, including the role of Chief Science Advisor. Dr. Murawski s current research involves understanding the impacts of human activities on the sustainability of ocean ecosystems. He has developed approaches for understanding the impacts of fishing on marine fish complexes exploited in mixed-species aggregations. Additionally, his work on impacts of marine protected areas and other management options has formed the scientific basis for regulation. Such assessments can help inform investments to rebuild the Gulf of Mexico from effects of the oil spill, loss of juvenile nursery areas, nutrient enrichment, overfishing and other factors. In addition to his science activities, Dr. Murawski is a USA Delegate and formerly a vice-president of the International Council for the Exploration of the SEA (ICES), a twenty-nation organization dedicated to increasing understanding of ocean ecosystems in the convention area, which includes the United States, Canada and eighteen European countries. Joseph Powers currently serves as a Professor of Stock Assessment in the School of the Coast and Environment, Louisiana State University. He earned his PhD in Fisheries Science from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He has over thirty years of experience in conducting population dynamics studies, scientific stock assessments, in communicating results to constituents and managers, and serving as a fisheries manager. Dr. Powers has served as Senior Stock Assessment Scientist of the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Acting Southeast Regional Administrator for NMFS, Deputy Science Director SEFSC and Miami Laboratory Director, NMFS-SEFSC. Dr. Powers has been the lead US scientist conducting stock assessments for Atlantic tuna and billfish species for ICCAT. Additionally, Dr. Powers served as the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics of ICCAT (1998-2002). His research interests continue to be the modeling of robust sustainable management procedures, integrating ecosystem factors into stock assessments, risk analysis in decision making and the role of scientific investigations in fisheries management policy. André Punt is a Professor and the Director of the School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington. He obtained his PhD in Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town. After graduating, he spent two years as a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Washington working primarily on fishery assessment in New Zealand, before taking an appointment as a Senior Research Scientist with CSIRO Marine Research in Hobart, Australia. Dr. Punt s research interests include methods for conducting fisheries and marine mammal stock assessments, specifically the use of Bayesian methods for parameter estimation and the use of the Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) approach to assess the performance of decision rules and stock assessment methods. He has been involved in the development of the MSE approach since 1988 and has applied it in diverse settings, including for groundfish species off Australia, South Africa and the US as well as for prawns off northern Australia and coral trout on Australia s Great Barrier Reef. He is involved in the provision and review of scientific management advice for the Pacific and North Pacific Fishery Management Councils and has been a member of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission since 1990. Victor Restrepo is Vice President, Science, at International Seafood Sustainability Foundation and currently serves as Chair of the ISSF Scientific Advisory Committee and as a member of the ISSF Board of Directors. Dr. Restrepo holds a PhD in Population Dynamics from the University of Miami. Previously, he worked with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Dr. Restrepo has also served as the Chief of the NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division in the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, where he acted as head scientist of the USA Delegation to ICCAT. He has also spent time as a Population Dynamics Expert at ICCAT, as an Associate Professor at the University of Miami and as an IPA Research Specialist at the NMFS Office of Science and Technology in Silver Spring, USA. He has attended numerous scientific meetings of ICCAT, IOTC, IATTC, WCPFC, ICES, NAFO, FAO and US. Eric Schwaab is one of the National Aquarium s Senior Vice Presidents and its Chief Conservation Officer. Prior to joining the National Aquarium, Schwaab served in several leadership capacities at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration including acting Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Management and head of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Prior to his service at NOAA, Schwaab was the Deputy Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, where he had also been Director of the Maryland Forest Service, Director of the Maryland Forest, Wildlife and Heritage Service, and APPENDIX APPENDIX C: Biographies A: Details of on Expert Case Panel Studies Members 14

Director of the Maryland Fisheries Service. Schwaab has also served as the Resource Director for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. He holds an undergraduate degree in Biology from McDaniel College and a Masters Degree in Geography and Environmental Planning from Towson University, and has pursued advanced leadership training through Harvard University s Kennedy School of Government. He was a member of the U.S. Department of Commerce Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee from 2005 to 2010. APPENDIX APPENDIX C: Biographies A: Details of on Expert Case Panel Studies Members 15

aqua.org