|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK + PDF PAPERBACK PDF BOOK PDF CHAPTERS Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 13
Experience with Cooperative Research in
the United States
Cooperative research is not a new idea or practice in fisheries manage-
ment. State and federal cooperation, collaboration between universities and
government, and information collection by fishermen all have long histo-
ries. Cooperative research with fishermen as a priority activity and as a tool
to increase constituent support for agency programs has received increased
emphasis since the mid- to late 1990s.
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF HISTORY
Cooperative research has a history that parallels that of fisheries research
and has evolved along with the agencies and institutions of fisheries sci-
ence. One of the first fish research vessels was the Grampus, a fishing schoo-
ner converted in 1886 to the work of Spencer F. Baird and his fledgling
research station at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Although Baird and the
Commission of Fish and Fisheries acquired a government vessel dedicated
exclusively to fisheries research in 1882, the management agency in its early
days relied on information provided by fishermen as well as that gathered
by its own scientists. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration (NOAA) historian William Royce, Baird gathered nongovern-
mental scientists and naturalists to join him in studying fish and fishing at
the U.S. Marine and Biological Laboratory in the 1870s. While scientists
pursued research in natural history and biology, the commission described
the fisheries themselves. As fisheries science developed as a profession from
13
OCR for page 14
14 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MAHNE FISHERIES SERVICE
1900 into the 1950s, the commission and its successor, the Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries, continued to work with fishermen and their vessels from
shrimp fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico to the sardine fleet off California
to halibut schooners in Alaska.
One of the early programs was a joint research effort between scientists
at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center in Miami, Florida, and recre-
ational and commercial fishermen who partnered in tagging sailfish, blue
marlin, white marlin, swordfish, bluefin, and yellowDin tuna. From its in-
ception in 1954 to the late 1990s, the program engaged more than 34,000
participants. In Alaska there is a long history of partnerships with industry,
beginning with vessel charters as early as the 1950s, and expanding later to
surveys and gear research. As fisheries stopped developing and expanding
in the 1980s, and as managers imposed more stringent regulations, coop-
erative projects on gear development, biological surveys, observer programs,
and catch statistics continued with renewed importance.
One example of an early effort at gear development was the turtle
excluder device (TED). Requirements to include TEDs in southeast shrimp
trawls for protection of sea turtles were imminent in the late 1980s. A TED
developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) appeared to
be effective in excluding sea turtles from trawls while retaining the majority
of harvested shrimp. Sea Grant conducted extensive demonstrations of this
gear with fishermen, only to be met with opposition. The gear proved to be
too cumbersome. To solve this problem, Sea Grant conferred with industry
leaders, seeking a more acceptable device from within the fishery. Various
devices had been designed for the exclusion of jellyfish that sometimes
clogged nets and made it impossible to pull trawls. Sea Grant worked with
fishermen to modify these jellyfish excluders for application to deflection
of sea turtles from trawls. Funding was appropriated through various Sea
Grant programs to evaluate their efficiency. Using the University of Georgia's
RV Georgia BulldLog, pair towed evaluations were conducted in an area with
heavy concentrations of sea turtles. Environmental organizations, commercial
fishermen, and government personnel participated in the investigations. A
number of trial TEDs were shown to be highly effective in excluding turtles
from trawls. Sea Grant then conducted extensive outreach to include
numerous demonstrations of the prototype TEDs aboard commercial
vessels during shrimp operations. This gear was ultimately accepted by
industry, the environmental community, and NMFS and is still in use today.
The lessons learned from the experience of that controversy were ap-
plied in subsequent development of gear to exclude finflsh from shrimp
OCR for page 15
EXPERIENCE WITH CO OPERA TIVERESEAR CHIN THE UNITED STATES 15
trawls. A more collaborative approach that engaged industry from the outset
was somewhat successful, though still it took many years. In that case,
collaboration among NMFS, the Southeast Fishery Development Founda-
tion, fishermen, conservation representatives, Sea Grant, and state agencies
resulted in several designs for bycatch reduction devices that have been
tested and brought into development in shrimp fisheries in the Gulf and
South Atlantic.
Another early gear development program that fishermen initiated was
the invention of the Medina panel to release dolphins from purse seine
nets. Ideas for employing gear technology and fishing operations to reduce
dolphin mortality were developed by the yellowDin tuna fleet in the eastern
Pacific Ocean and eventually were integrated into management measures
that govern the entire fishery. Large yellowDin tuna often associate with
certain species of dolphins. Tuna purse seine fishermen take advantage of
that association by locating dolphins visually and then inspecting the herds
(primarily by helicopter) to see if a sufficiently abundant tuna school is
swimming beneath them. The tuna and dolphins are herded and captured
together in the net, but prior to retrieving the net and the tuna, the fisher-
men attempt to release dolphins by the backdown procedure, in which the
vessel puts its engines in reverse, causing submersion of the corkline at the
end of the net due to water drag through the fine-meshed net there (the
Medina panel). Crew members stand by in small boats near the net in case
their assistance is needed. Most of the dolphins are released unharmed,
although some do die during the fishing operation. The backdown proce-
dure is an invention of tuna fishermen, born largely of their own interests
in avoiding dolphin bycatch and public concern.
The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) is respon-
sible for monitoring the incidental dolphin mortality, studying its causes,
and providing training and support to fishermen to encourage adoption of
fishing techniques that minimize incidental mortality. Dolphin mortality
has been reduced by 97 percent since 1986 (from 133,000 in 1986 to less
than 3,300 in 19951. A combination of major and minor technological
developments, training in the use of the methodology, conscientious
decision making by the fishermen, and regulatory pressure to improve per-
formance have all contributed to the reduction in mortality. This process
took many years, has been costly, and was not without some unintended
impacts. The resulting restrictions on fishing operations resulted in some
economic impacts but have not been severe enough to prevent continua-
tion of a substantial purse seine fishery on tuna associated with dolphins.
OCR for page 16
16 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
However, the refusal of certain tuna companies to purchase tuna with the
intentional setting of nets on tuna associated with dolphin herds has had
the result that some purse seine vessels increase their setting of purse seine
nets on tuna associated with floating objects (as an alternative). This has
resulted in an increase in bycatch of a range of animals (Hall, 19981.
The IATTC has contributed to the reduction of dolphin mortality by
providing a dolphin safety gear program to the fleet, by conducting work-
shops, and by providing general education to the fleet of the causes of
incidental mortality. The fishermen have contributed to the success of the
program through their ideas and experiments on safe fishing techniques
and by their careful diligence during fishing operations. This is an excellent
example of how cooperative effort has resulted in achieving a goal (reduc-
tion of dolphin mortality) but led to other unintended consequences due
to the changes in gear or fishing practice.
There were few examples of recreational fishermen participating in
cooperative research in the case studies presented to the committee. Recre-
ational fishermen have been key participants in tagging studies. They have
conducted the majority of tagging and retrieval studies for billfish. In the
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, the recreational and charter industries
participated in research on snapper discards and helped establish artificial
reefs in the Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic.
In the remainder of this chapter a series of case studies are presented
illustrating examples and aspects of cooperative research in the United
States. These case studies represent only a small sampling of cooperative
research projects conducted in the United States. The committee did not
attempt to provide balance by region, type of research, or type of partici-
pants involved. Examples and case studies selected were those that either
were familiar to the committee members or were described by presenters to
the committee and illustrated important points related to various phases of
cooperative research projects along with important lessons learned.
NEW ENGLAND AND MID-ATLANTIC SCALLOPS SURVEYS
Atlantic sea scallops, once one of the highest-value species landed in
northeast fisheries, have been overfished since the early 1990s. Intense regu-
lation of the fishery since 1994, combined with large closed areas to protect
groundfish, had reduced both the amount of time and the areas that were
available to scalloping. As open areas became depleted, further limiting
fishing opportunities, fishermen became curious about scallop populations
OCR for page 17
EXPERIENCE WITH COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE UNITED STATES 17
in the closed areas. Attempts by industry to get permits for experimental
fishing and by scientists to conduct resource surveys coincided with the
NMFS's interest in expanding its own survey capability in the region. The
desire for more and better information brought the parties to the table to
design a cooperative survey of closed areas.
In 1994 the New England Fishery Management Council limited entry
to the fishery, restricted effort through days at sea per vessel, reduced crew
size, and increased the gear mesh size. At the same time, four areas on
Georges Bank were closed to protect depleted groundfish stocks, eliminat-
ing all fishing, including dredging for scallops.
Despite the restrictions on effort, landings continued to decline. By
1996 a stock assessment on Georges Bank and in the Atlantic Bight indi-
cated sea scallops were overfished in both areas and were at a low popula-
tion level. Further restrictions cut allowable days at sea. As scallopers were
moved out of areas on Georges Bank, pressure built on the remaining open
areas and on mid-Atlantic populations. As a result, additional areas in the
mid-Atlantic were closed to scallop fishing. Scientists and managers pre-
dicted that in order to meet the requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries
Act, days at sea would have to be cut even further well below what skip-
pers said would cover the costs of a trip.
Meanwhile, in the groundfish closure areas on Georges Bank, the scal-
lop populations prospered. In the first 20 months of the groundfish clo-
sures, sea scallop biomass within those areas tripled. These closed areas
became the object of curiosity and scrutiny as scallopers had an increasingly
difficult time finding productive beds. As other areas in the mid-Atlantic
became depleted and the number of days at sea were cut shorter, fishermen
wanted information on the condition and abundance of scallops in the
closed areas.
There were several attempts by fishermen to acquire experimental fish-
ing permits that would allow entry into the closed areas, but the applica-
tions were judged to have incomplete or inadequate detail and/or scientific
methodology. None were approved. A subsequent Government Account-
ing Office investigation of the permit process revealed confusion and lack
of clarity in the expectations of the participants. Eventually, a formal pro-
posal by the Center for Marine Science and Technology (CMAST) of the
University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth to conduct dredge surveys of
scallops in Closed Area II was approved for the 1998 season.
The industry's objective for the survey was straightforward. It wanted
to know if there were sufficient scallops of a large enough size to warrant
. .
OCR for page 18
18 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
opening up the groundfish closed areas to scalloping. The research objec-
tives for the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) were more com-
plex. While the NEFSC also wanted an estimate of abundance, using com-
mercial vessels to tow the dredges required a means of accounting for the
highly varied "footprint" of the bottom gear. Because every vessel and every
tow differ, a way had to be figured out to correlate the data from one vessel
with the others to provide consistent, reliable results. Furthermore, in order
to extrapolate absolute abundance from estimates of relative abundance, an
idea of the efficiency of the dredge tows was needed. NMFS also had to get
some idea of how much bycatch of flounder and other groundfish occurred
during scalloping.
The CMAST application for an experimental fishing permit was ap-
proved to allow ''fishing'' in the closed area by the research dredges. CMAST
provided researchers, the industry provided vessels and dredges, and the
NEFSC provided electronic equipment and the survey design. From the
science center's point of view, the purpose of the project was to calibrate the
guidance and action of the NMFS dredge and commercial dredges as a first
step in testing the feasibility of using commercial vessels to do surveys.
Participating fishermen were compensated by being allowed to retain
and sell 10,000 pounds of scallops per vessel-trip. Fishermen also did not
have to count the days working on the project against their days-at-sea
allocation. The NEFSC supported the salary of a postdoc at CMAST, and a
portion of the proceeds of the sale of the scallops also went to the University
of Massachusetts, Dartmouth. A portion of pooled proceeds was used to
cover expenses of the participating vessels and the cost of observers.
The NEFSC worked with CMAST and the scallopers on the design of
the survey and approaches for addressing potential problems, including
developing criteria for selecting participating vessels. The effort to shape a
design that would calibrate the industry vessels with each other, and in turn
with the NOAA research vessel, required application of substantial tech-
nology as well as the operational knowledge of the fishermen.
The survey went forward in August and September 1998 using six
vessels, each sampling 100 stations in a two-week period (one every three
square nautical miles). In a series of layered experiments, each vessel per-
formed about 300 tows of 10 minutes each. The first major experiment was
to estimate the relative density of scallops in the closed areas and, by calcu-
lating the average "footprint" of a tow, to extrapolate to the total area. The
second major effort was to study the relative efficiency of the dredge by
going back and forth over the same plot multiple times, keeping track of
OCR for page 19
EXPERIENCE WITH COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE UNITED STATES 19
the take of scallops each time and of each pass in relation to the total. The
project also looked at the scale and patchiness of scallop beds, the rate at
which dragging filled the dredge, and tows designed to determine when the
scallop dredge actually stopped fishing during haulback.
Controversy arose during data analysis because there was no agreement
at the outset on the timing of peer reviews and release of the data. Another
difference of opinion among participants related to estimating scallop den-
sity relative to tow efficiency and how a model would be used to adjust for
repeated tows over the same area. The difference was an estimate of 40
percent efficiency from NEFSC and 16 percent from CMAST. Translated
into the abundance estimate, the gap was between 30 million and 60 mil-
lion scallops. The scientific and statistical committee of the fishery man-
agement council and the stock assessment review committee for scallops
reviewed the information and accepted the 40 percent efficiency estimate.
Once the pilot was completed successfully and confirmed that the com-
mercial dredge and the NOAA research survey dredge could be calibrated
to show consistent results, the NEFSC moved into the second phase of the
project. The objectives were to assess the number and size of scallops in the
remaining two areas that had been closed since 1994 (Closed Area I and
Nantucket Lightship). The other major objective of the second cooperative
survey was to evaluate the amount of bycatch in the scallop dredges.
A joint survey was conducted between August 6 and September 1,
1999, in Closed Area I, a triangle of water approximately 40 miles south-
east of Cape Cod, and in the Nantucket Lightship area, a rectangle about
30 miles south of Nantucket. Two scallopers were chosen by lottery to
participate in the biomass estimate portion of the survey, and two other
fishing vessels were chosen by lottery to participate in the bycatch portion
of the experiment. The industry also provided crews. Scallopers used their
allocated days at sea and retained for sale 14,000 pounds of sea scallop
meats from their 10-day trips, a value of about $80,000. Vessels only had to
count days at sea actually used in the survey tows.
As with the 1998 project, the NEFSC was responsible for the survey
design, the industry provided platforms and crews, and the Virginia Insti-
tute of Marine Studies provided researchers and other scientific assistance.
Conclusions
Results of this cooperative research not only showed an abundance of
scallops of large size, but the intensity and scale of information it was able
OCR for page 20
20 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
r, -
to generate about scallops, their habitat, and the other species associated
with them in the closed areas allowed managers to devise bycatch reduction
measures that enabled additional openings, resulting in landings of scallop
meats worth approximately $36 million. This case study demonstrates how
incentives can be built into the collection of information to create positive
feedback for the industry and at the same time maintain scientific credibil-
ity of the survey methodology and data analysis.
THE WEST COAST MESH SIZE STUDY, ENSURING RIGOR
AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The West Coast Groundfish Mesh Size Study was conducted during
the late 1980s through the early 1990s off the coasts of Oregon, Washing-
ton, and California. A major impetus for the study was the finding that the
predominant management tool being used to regulate the fishery (indi-
.. . . . Tic . .. . ,, . . .,% ,
vlaual-specles trip quotas, or trip limits was causing slgm~lcant and ln-
creasing discarding of otherwise marketable fish and that substantial dis-
carding of below-market-sized fish was also occurring (Pikitch, 1986;
Pikitch et al., 1988; Pikitch, 19911. The fishing industry advocated that
mesh size research be conducted to evaluate whether new mesh size regula-
tions could replace or diminish reliance on trip limits and reduce discard
levels. This case study focuses on the development of an experimental de-
sign for the field component of the research project conducted in 1988.
At the project's inception, an advisory group was established and in-
cluded members from industry, scientists and managers from state and fed-
eral agencies, and scientists from academia. While a small research team
spearheaded the project and managed and performed daily tasks, all major
decisions were made via consensus of the advisory group, which met nu-
merous times during the course of investigations. The diversity of interests
represented in the advisory group shaped a research agenda designed to
meet the highest scientific standards while minimizing costs and maximiz-
ing the chance that the results of the study would actually be applied in the
management of the fishery. Thus, from the outset, it was clear that the
standards applicable to the West Coast Groundfish Mesh Size Study were
broader than those applied to typical scientific research projects.
A great deal of time and effort was employed to establish an experi-
mental design that would meet all the criteria needed to meet overall project
objectives. An early design constraint agreed to by all participants was that
OCR for page 21
EXPERIENCE WITH CO OPERA TIVERESEAR CHIN THE UNITED STATES 21
all work would be conducted aboard commercial fishing vessels operating
under commercial fishing conditions (i.e., using normal commercial gear
deployed under customary conditions and fishing grounds and for usual
durations). This design element was selected to ensure realism and, ulti-
mately, the utility of the results for management purposes. Another advan-
tage of the use of these vessels was reduction in cost. Not only did the
survey provide data based on realistic conditions by using these vessels, it
did so at a much lower cost than if a government research vessel had been
chartered.
All parties agreed on the need for scientific rigor. The methods used to
evaluate experimental design options were subjected to several levels of peer
1 · · r 1 · 1 1 · · ~ ·
review, 1nclu( sing 1ntormal reviews oy tne investigators peers in aca( Rena
and NMFS, formal review by the Pacific Fishery Management Council's
(PFMC) scientific advisory committees, and ultimately submission and
publication in a refereed science journal (Bergh et al., 19901. Initially, with
`~ 1 · rid · · · .
convenience ant ~ rlshlng ettlclency as primary consl( aerations, a ( resign in
which each vessel would fish with a single mesh size during a given trip was
advocated by the fishing industry. Calculations performed by the scientific
team members demonstrated that the number of trips needed to detect a
significant difference of the magnitude expected was prohibitively high
under the requested scenario. Thus, while this scenario passed scientific
muster, it failed to meet other standards of feasibility and cost efficiency.
An alternative, albeit less convenient design, was considered whereby each
vessel would change mesh sizes every tow according to a predetermined
randomized pattern. The number of trips needed under the alternative sce-
nario was an order of magnitude less than that required by the original
design. With the advantages of the alternative design far outweighing itS
disadvantages, it was adopted via a consensus of the parties.
Another key design element was the use of volunteer fishing vessels
that were exempt from trip limits while engaged in cooperative research
fishing trips. The trip-limit waiver was facilitated by the multistakeholder
advisory committee and ensured that fishing trips would be scientifically
productive (i.e., not terminated prematurely as a result of attainment of
trip quotas) and also served as a powerful financial incentive for fishermen
to cooperate. As noted above, the use of volunteer vessels, while demanding
much more time and effort to coordinate on the part of the research team
than using vessel charters or chartering a government research vessel, greatly
reduced the costs of conducting the study. In addition, by involving a much
OCR for page 22
22 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
greater fraction of the fleet than would a single-vessel charter or govern-
ment charter, this design element contributed to both the realism and ac-
ceptance of the results by a broad segment of the industry.
The detailed findings of the field studies are provided by Pikitch (1991,
1992) and Pikitch et al. (19901. The results demonstrated that an increase
in mesh size would greatly reduce the catch (and hence the discard) of small
unmarketable fish. For example, discards were approximately half as
numerous for catches obtained using 114-mm (4.5-inch) mesh codends
than for catches obtained using 76-mm (3.0-inch) mesh codends (Pikitch
et al., 19901. Based largely on this work, the PFMC voted to increase
minimum regulated mesh size for bottom trawls from 76 mm to 1 14 mm
in 1991.
Conclusions
First, it is clear that a partnership among stakeholders, including scien-
tists, industry, and regulators (in this case in the form of an advisory com-
mittee) was essential to the success of the study. The partnership ensured
the scientific integrity, practicality, and cost effectiveness of the experimental
design and facilitated ready application of the results to alter management
practices. The advisory committee also paved the way for obtaining the
needed waiver of regulations and obtaining volunteer vessel participation.
The focus on experimental design also proved to be essential. Results of the
analyses performed led to adoption of an experimental protocol that made
for efficient use of resources and allowed sufficient sampling effort to be
deployed. The ready adoption of the results by managers to change regula-
tions was not a "lucky coincidence" but rather a critical objective of the
study from the outset which led to the adoption of several key design
constraints.
This case study also illustrates the "higher standard" to which coopera-
tive research projects can be held relative to other scientific projects. In the
case of the West Coast Groundfish Mesh Size Study, a scientifically valid
experimental design was a necessary criterion for success, but that in itself
was insufficient. From the outset, practicality, acceptability, cost effective-
ness, and utility were key design criteria. In this example, faithful adher-
ence to these criteria in development of the experimental design led not
only to a successful research project but also to a rapid and successful man-
agement outcome.
OCR for page 23
EXPERIENCE WITH CO OPERA TIVERESEAR CHIN THE UNITED STATES 23
WEST COAST VOLUNTEER LOGBOOK PROGRAM
One ofthe most important elements of any partnership is a clear under-
standing of expectations among parties. The following case study illustrates
that, while cooperation can produce benefits, it can also create significant
problems, particularly if it is not adequately funded and suffers from
conflicting expectations about the responsibilities and priorities among the
parties.
Although the West Coast groundfish trawl fishery adopted minimum
mesh size regulations, the fishery continued to discard significant portions
of the catch due to economic and regulatory constraints. In particular, high
levels of regulatory discarding were occurring in the shelf slope trawl
groundfishery due to trip limits and harvest quotas set by the PFMC.
Decreasing stock estimates of the slope trawl DTS (dover sole, thornyheads,
sablefish) fishery, combined with fleet overcapacity, were resulting in tight-
ening trip limits. Managers assumed that rates of regulatory discarding
would change and possibly increase as fishermen responded to these limits.
Groundfish allocation issues were also contributing to increasing attention
to the trawl fishery and its discard practices. Discard rates used by the
PFMC in estimating optimum yields and trip limits were based on a study
conducted by Pikitch et al. (1988) during the mid-1980s, before significant
reductions in quotas and trip limits. Management believed it was critical to
update discard estimates. The PFMC and NMFS's Northwest Fisheries
Science Center (NWFSC) began discussing management alternatives,
including mandatory observer programs or full retention harvest regula-
tions. In 1995 the Oregon Trawl Commission (OTC), which represents
Oregon-based groundfish and shrimp trawlers, agreed to collaborate with
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODF&W) to conduct a
cooperative pilot program to update estimates of discard rates and test
approaches for developing comprehensive at-sea data collection programs.
The primary science and industry cooperators were ODF&W; OTC;
Oregon; and to a lesser extent other West Coast shelf and slope trawl vessel
owners, skippers, and crews who volunteered their time and effort.
The initial project had three primary objectives: (1) develop approaches
to efficiently organize and administer a comprehensive trawl groundfish
data collection program; (2) scientifically estimate trawl fleet slope bycatch
and discard rates for all federally managed species; and (3) improve onboard
biological sampling. Associated with these goals were 19 subobjectives and
34 tasks (Saelens, 19951. An important project criterion was to obtain sci-
OCR for page 24
24 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
entifically valid data using methods that did not interfere with the normal
course of fishermen and vessel operations and behavior. A key set of
subobjectives was to obtain representative data of the entire fleet by placing
observers on over 10 percent of the trawl fleet and enhanced logbooks on
20-40 percent of trawl vessels. A key expectation was that different data
sources could be collectively used to improve scientific analysis of catch and
discards. These data included: (1) enhanced logbooks maintained by op-
erators of vessels; (2) fish ticket weights generated by processors and col-
lected by shore-based ODF&W personnel; (3) catch and discards data and
biological samples collected by observers; and (4) biological samples col-
lected by industry.
Project concepts were codeveloped by ODF&W and OTC. ODF&W
developed a proposal that was submitted to OTC for approval. The OTC
received permission by its constituents to levy an additional tax of 0.5% on
exvessel groundfish revenues to pay for the program. ODF&W hired
observers, developed the enhanced logbooks, and developed methods and
protocols for collecting data and biological samples. ODF&W was also
responsible for collecting and maintaining raw data and obtaining experi-
mental fishing permits. The OTC was expected to help market the pro-
gram and locate cooperating voluntary vessels, which received no direct
compensation except caps and jackets for skippers and crew. It was ex-
pected that federal scientists would analyze the data, given that ODF&W
did not have adequate scientific staff. The first year of the project (Phase I)
was expected to be a learning process in order to improve methods and
protocols. It was expected that data and findings would be shared with
industry, the public, and managers during the course of the study.
Difficulties during Phase I exceeded managers' expectations. The first
proposal by ODF&Wwas rejected by OTC because of perceived high costs.
As a result, the project was rewritten as "bare bones," which retained most
objectives but cut staffsupport. Managers received additional funding from
ODF&W and the NWFSC, but the funds were used to expand the project
to the shelf trawl fisheries and for increased participation from California
and Washington. No additional funds were used to support administrative
or analytical staff or to compensate participating vessels. Project managers
and the OTC encountered problems enlisting the cooperation of an ad-
equate number of vessels, and there was confusion regarding the respective
responsibilities of OTC and ODF&W. This problem compounded efforts
to maintain regularly scheduled trips and to fully employ scientific
OCR for page 25
EXPERIENCE WITH CO OPERA TIVERESEAR CHIN THE UNITED STATES 25
observers. Turnover among observers was high, which resulted in increased
. . .
ac Ministrative costs.
By 1996, stock problems were increasing among some shelf grouncl-
fish species, which expanded focus on the shelf portion ofthe stucly. Project
managers were being pressured to release preliminary clata. Managers, how-
ever, were reluctant to provide clata, given the project's problems, limited
number of observations, ancl lack of scientific review ancl analysis.
ODF&W then received complaints that project managers were cleliber-
ately withholding findings for political reasons. In response, project man-
agers felt compelled to release summaries of the raw clata at public meetings
that received significant press coverage. Rather than resolve scientific ques-
tions, the release of clata that were not scientifically validated heightened
management tensions. Although the project limped along for the next year
ancl a half, there was little management support. The project never achieved
its vessel coverage objectives. There was also no final report publishecl. A1-
though some of the clata have been used by NWFSC scientists to update
discard rates for selected species, collectively the project clata could not be
used to scientifically determine trawl discard rates for all federally managed
shelf ancl slope species. Some of the administrative en cl clata collection
methods developed during the study were integrated into the federally
funded grounclfish observer program instituted in 2001.
Conclusions
The clata enhancement project was designed to address a politically
contentious clata ancl science problem. The OTC ancl ODF&W clemon-
stratecl leadership in attempting to address this problem. The study did
produce useful administrative methods ancl protocols, ancl generally posi-
tive relationships were experienced between fishermen ancl observers. This
helped smooth the transition into a newly instituted mandatory observer
program (Bernstein ancl Iuclicello, 20001. However, the project did not
achieve many of its objectives. The project's administrative problems height-
enecl political tensions ancl created the impression, however false, that the
project was designed to produce biased clata in favor of the trawl fishery. In
retrospect, it is clear that the project was overly ambitious, unclerfunclecl,
ancl suffered from conflicting expectations about responsibilities ancl
. . .
prlorltles.
OCR for page 26
26 COOPERATIVE ~S~CHIN THE NATIONAL M~NEFISHEMES SERVICE
REDUCING SEABIRD BYGATCH IN THE
ALASKA LONGLINE FISHERIES
The participation of environmental groups in cooperative research can
serve to provide momentum for policy choices based on results and for
promoting similar research in other regions. Following successful conclu-
sion of a seabird bycatch study in Alaska, the Audubon Living Oceans
Program helped initiate a similar project in Hawaii.
The incidental mortality of seabirds in longline fisheries is a serious
conservation issue worldwide. In Alaska the presence of an endangered
species of seabird, the short-tailed Albatross (Diomed~ea all~atr?~s), heightens
the importance of that issue. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (USFWS) Biological Opinion, any mortality over six short-tailed
Albatrosses within a two-year period (two in the halibut fishery and four in
the rest of the groundfish fisheries) would trigger a Section 7 consultation
mandated by the Endangered Species Act. The result could be an interrup-
tion or even a closure of Alaska's $300 million longline industry. The Bio-
logical Opinion requires that mitigation measures be used in these fisheries
and that research be done to test the effectiveness of these measures. In
1996 the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) passed
regulations mandating certain seabird deterrent techniques for longliners.
Then, in 1999, Washington Sea Grant began a cooperative research project
that resulted in recommendations to refine and improve these mitigation
measures. The revised measures then became required conditions for
longlining, as per new regulations subsequently passed by the NPFMC.
This cooperative research project lasted two years (1999 and 2000)
and involved two fleets: the catcher-processor fleet targeting Pacific cod
and the catcher-vessel fleet fishing under individual fishing quotas (IFQs)
for sablefish. Along with Washington Sea Grant, three other institutions
collaborated on this project: the University of Washington, USFWS, and
NMFS. Two fishing associations also collaborated: the IFQ vessels all were
members of the Fishing Vessel Owners Association, and the Pacific cod
vessels all were members of the North Pacific Longline Association. Work-
ing fishermen collaborated in two ways: they identified possible deterrents
at the beginning of the project and decided along with the program direc-
tor which of those would be most suitable for testing, and they tested these
deterrents on their vessels using experimentally rigorous tests while actively
fishing under typical conditions. Observers trained and certified by the
NMFS collected data aboard the participating vessels.
OCR for page 27
EXPERIENCE WITH CO OPERA TIVERESEAR CHIN THE UNITED STATES 27
The use of commercial vessels in the seabird deterrent survey was in
the tradition of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and
its use of this kind of vessel for halibut stock surveys. Rather than incur the
investment of its own vessel and its maintenance and operations, the IPHC
has for many decades chartered working fishing vessels as a more cost-
effective way of having an oceangoing platform from which to gather data
in a standardized format.
Conclusions
The use of working fishing vessels accomplished two goals. Not only
did it provide a realistic setting for the testing of bird deterrents, it also kept
costs down. No money was spent on vessel charters. The incentive for fish-
ermen to participate was to receive free observer time, something they nor-
mally pay for. All the government had to pay for was the cost of each
observer, a small fraction of a vessel charter, and a much smaller fraction of
a government research vessel charter. In this regard, this research was simi-
lar to the West Coast Groundfish Mesh Size Study.
The initial seabird deterrent regulations passed in 1996 by the NPFMC
derived from anecdotal information from fishermen and from seabird de-
terrence regulations from other parts of the world. The results of the coop-
erative research in 1999 and 2000 clearly identified the most effective tech-
niques for deterrence and also showed that some of the former regulations
were ineffective. The resultant regulations are both simpler and more spe-
cific than the previous regulations. For a full report of this research, see
Melvin et al. (20011.
COOPERATIVE FINFISH RESOURCE ABUNDANCE SURVEY IN
THE MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT
Communication is important at all stages of cooperative projects, par-
ticularly in creating clear expectations at the outset. A critical aspect is when
and how results of cooperative projects are communicated. A successful
project in the Mid-Atlantic Bight was put at risk by premature release of
r
1ntormatlon.
In a January 2001 meeting, Rutgers University suggested to NMFS
that fishing vessels towing alongside research vessels in the finflsh resource
abundance surveys might be able to provide supplemental data on diver-
sity, age composition, and abundance of fish within the survey area. An
OCR for page 28
28 COOPERATIVE RESEAR CHIN THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
ancillary benefit of the proposed cooperative research was that fishermen
would have more confidence in the NMFS survey if they were involved in
the research and were able to compare the catch data and observations on
their vessels with those on the research vessel when towing "side by side." A
survey protocol was developed by Rutgers University and the NEFSC.
The first cooperative survey was conducted and resulted in the comple-
tion of 37 side-by-side tows. A report was prepared by Rutgers University
and released in August 2001 after the NEFSC completed its peer review.
The report stated that side-by-side tows could be an important part of the
survey in the future but that the observations of a single experiment must
be repeated in multiple experiments before the results could be considered
reliable. A second side-by-side survey was planned for the fall 2001, and as
a result, 59 additional side-by-side tows were scheduled for September
2001. A report was submitted to NEFSC by Rutgers University in lanuary
2002.
During 2001 a newspaper reporter interviewed fishermen and scien-
tists participating in the cooperative survey prior to the official release of all
data and conclusions and wrote a critical article. In 2002 attempts to ar-
range for additional cooperative surveys (this time as augmentations to the
NMFS survey) failed when fishermen were informed that the NMFS spring
2002 trawl survey had already commenced. Finally, in August 2002, repre-
sentatives of the fishing industry, Rutgers University, and the NEFSC
agreed to perform further cooperative survey efforts in 2003. Specifically, it
was decided that side-by-side tows would not be as useful as survey aug-
mentation.
Conclusions
The case study illustrates how the premature release of information to
the media can erode trust and put cooperative research efforts at risk of
failure. The basis of a cooperative research project is trust, and it must be
earned by all participants in the project.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
cooperative resear
