**Marine Fisheries**

**Stock Assessment Improvement Plan**

**Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service**

**National Task Force for Improving Fish Stock Assessments**

Pamela M. Mace (Chair), Norman W. Bartoo, Anne B. Hollowed,

Pierre Kleiber, Richard D. Methot, Steven A. Murawski,

Joseph E. Powers, and Gerald P. Scott

![](media/image1.wmf){width="1.5in" height="1.5048611111111112in"}

**October 2001**

**NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-56**

#### U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald Evans, Secretary

#### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr., USN (ret.), Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere

#### National Marine Fisheries Service

William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

## Contents

List of Illustrations 4

List of Tables 5

Preface 6

Executive Summary 7

I. Introduction 11

Scope of the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan 12

II\. Defining NMFS\' Stock Assessment Mandate 14

A. What is a \"Stock Assessment\" 16

B. The Quality of NMFS\' Assessments 17

C. Changing Demands 17

*Northeast Fisheries Science Center* 18

*Southeast Fisheries Science Center* 19

*Southwest Fisheries Science Center* 20

*Northwest Fisheries Science Center* 20

*Alaska Fisheries Science Center* 21

D. The Credibility of NMFS\' Science 22

E. Implications of the Precautionary Approach 23

F. Implications of the Need to Incorporate Ecosystem Considerations 25

III\. Assessment and Management Strategy Evaluation Needs 27

A. Input Data 27

\(i\) Fishery-dependent data needs 27

\(ii\) Fishery-independent data needs 28

B. Input Data: Minimal and Optimal Requirements 29

C. Stock Assessment Models 34

D. Inventory of the Status of Stock Assessments: Adequacy of Input Data,

Assessment Level, and Frequency of Assessments 35

E. Adequacy of Technology and Infrastructure 36

F. Peer Review of Assessments 36

*Northeast Fisheries Science Center* 37

*Southeast Fisheries Science Center* 38

*Southwest Fisheries Science Ce*nter 38

*Northwest Fisheries Science Center* 38

*Alaska Fisheries Science Center* 39

G. Translation of Stock Assessment Advice into Management Action 39

H. Communication of Assessment Results and Follow-up Evaluations 41

I. Staffing Issues 41

*Education and training* 41

*Time and motion analysis* 42

*Beyond assessment scientists* 44

*Northeast case study* 45

IV\. Resource Requirements 48

A. Programmatic Needs: Responses to questionnaires 48

B. Three Tiers of Assessment Excellence 53

*Tier* 1 - Improve stock assessments using existing data 53

*Tier* 2 - Elevate stock assessments to new national standards of
excellence 54

*Tier* 3 - Next generation assessments 54

C. Timeframes and Relationships Between the Tiers 56

D. Region-Specific Needs to Achieve the Three Tiers of Assessment
Excellence 57

*Northeast Fisheries Science Center* 57

NEFSC current situation 58

NEFSC programs and staffing required to meet the three tiers of
excellence 59

*Southeast Fisheries Science Center* 60

SEFSC current situation 60

SEFSC programs and staffing required to meet the three tiers of
excellence 61

*Southwest Fisheries Science Center* 63

SWFSC current situation - central and western Pacific 64

SWFSC current situation - west coast 65

SWFSC programs and staffing required to meet the three tiers of
excellence 65

*Northwest Fisheries Science Center* 67

NWFSC current situation 67

NWFSC programs and staffing required to meet the three tiers of
excellence 68

*Alaska Fisheries Science Center* 71

AFSC current situation - Gulf of Alaska groundfish 72

AFSC current situation - Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands 73

AFSC programs and staffing required to meet the three tiers of
excellence 74

E. Summary: National Resource Requirements 78

F. The Benefits of Implementing the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan 80

V. Recommendations 82

References 84

Acknowledgments 85

Acronyms 86

Appendix 1. Levels of input data (catch, abundance and life history
parameters),

> assessment methodology, and assessment frequency for the 904 species
>
> listed in the NMFS (1999a) Report to Congress on the
>
> Status of Fisheries of the United States A1

Appendix 2. Summary of the NMFS Science Quality Assurance Program A30

Appendix 3. Executive Summary from the NOAA Fisheries Data Acquisition
Plan A32

Appendix 4. Summary Description of the NMFS Stock Assessment Toolbox A34

Appendix 5. Summary of the Objectives and Scope of the Center for
Independent Experts

> Program A35

Appendix 6. Summary of the Joint NMFS/Sea Grant Graduate Fellowship
Program A37

Appendix 7. Extract from the Executive Summary of the NRC Report on
Improving Fish

Stock Assessments (NRC 1998a) A39

Appendix 8. Executive Summary of the Report to Congress on a Proposed

> Implementation of a Fishing Vessel Registration and Fisheries
>
> Information Management System A43

Appendix 9. Executive Summary of the NMFS Bycatch Plan A46

Appendix 10. Summary of the National Observer Program Initiative A48

Appendix 11. Extract from the NMFS Social Sciences Plan and FY2001
Budget Initiative A50

Appendix 12. Terms of Reference for the NMFS Standing Working Group on
Advanced

> Technologies A52

Appendix 13. Summary of the Fisheries and the Environment (FATE)
Fisheries

Oceanography Initiative A54

Appendix 14. Protected Species Programs, Plans, and Initiatives A55

Appendix 15. Habitat Programs, Plans, and Initiatives A58

Appendix 16. Extract from the Executive Summary of the NRC Report on
Review of

Northeast Fishery Stock Assessments (NRC 1998b) A61

Appendix 17. Executive Summary from \"Technical Guidance on the Use of
Precautionary

Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act\" (Restrepo et al. 1998) A63

Appendix 18. Conclusions and Recommendations from the Executive Summary
of the NRC

Report on Sustaining Marine Fisheries (NRC 1999) A65

Appendix 19. Extract from the Executive Summary of the Ecosystem
Principles Advisory

Panel Report (NMFS 1999b) A69

Appendix 20. Extract from the Executive Summary of the NRC Study on
Improving

> the Use and Collection of Fisheries Data (NRC 2000) A72

Appendix 21. List of Relevant National Marine Fisheries Service
Partnerships A76

Appendix 22. Cooperative Research Programs with the Fishing Industry A84

Appendix 23. Summary of NOAA\'s Ocean Exploration Program A85

Appendix 24. Summary of the Census of Marine Life Program A87

Appendix 25. A Non-exhaustive List of Other Programs and Activities that
Could Provide

Data and Other Inputs to Help Launch Stock Assessments Towards Tier 3
A88

### List of Illustrations

Figure 1. Relationship between availability of information and levels of
uncertainty 23

Figure 2. Theoretical effects of added information on recommended
biological yields 24

Figure 3. Summary descriptions of levels of factors used to classify
stocks in terms

> of input data and assessment status 31

Figure 4. Number of stocks with various levels of input data, assessment
methodology,

> and assessment frequency 33

Figure 5. Time and motion analysis for NMS assessment scientists 43

Figure 6. Schematic showing relative staffing requirements to support
the provision

> of scientific advice for fisheries management 44

Figure 7. Schematic showing relative costs of adding new species to be
assessed 45

Figure 8. Assessment-related staffing levels by type of activity for the

> Northeast Fisheries Science Center 48

Figure 9. Programmatic needs averaged over responses from assessment
scientists

> within each Science Center 49

Figure 10. Impediments to the quality of assessments averaged over
responses

> from assessment scientists within each Science Center 50

Figure 11. Fishery-dependent data needs averaged over responses from
assessment

> scientists within each Science Center 51

Figure 12. Fishery-dependent data needs averaged over responses from
assessment

> scientists within each Science Center 52

Figure 13. Summary of the key features of the three Tiers of Assessment
Excellence 53

Figure 14. Number of stocks assessed by assessment level at the
Northeast Fisheries

> Science Center 58

Figure 15. Summary of FTE requirements by Science Center, Tiers of
Assessment

Excellence, and activity 78

### List of Tables

Table 1. Numbers of fish stocks with various levels of input data,
assessment

> methodology, and assessment frequency 31

Table 2. FTE required to meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence
by type

> of activity for the Northeast Fisheries Science Center 59

Table 3. FTE required to meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence
by type

> of activity for the Southeast Fisheries Science Center 62

Table 4. FTE required to meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence
by type

> of activity for the Southwest Fisheries Science Center 66

Table 5. FTE required to meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence
by type

> of activity for the Northwest Fisheries Science Center 70

Table 6. FTE required to meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence
by type

> of activity for the Alaska Fisheries Science Center 77

Table 7. FTE required to meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence
by type

> of activity for all NMFS Science Centers combined 79

Table 8. Total FTEs required to meet the three Tiers of Assessment
Excellence

> for each Science Center and all Centers combined 80

# Preface

This report argues for greatly increased resources in terms of data
collection facilities and staff to collect, process, and analyze the
data, and to communicate the results, in order for NMFS to fulfill its
mandate to conserve and manage marine resources. In fact, the authors of
this report had great difficulty defining the "ideal" situation to which
fisheries stock assessments and management should aspire. One of the
primary objectives of fisheries management is to develop sustainable
harvest policies that minimize the risks of overfishing both target
species and associated species. This can be achieved in a wide spectrum
of ways, ranging between the following two extremes. The first is to
implement only simple management measures with correspondingly simple
assessment demands, which will usually mean setting fishing mortality
targets at relatively low levels in order to reduce the risk of
unknowingly overfishing or driving ecosystems towards undesirable system
states. The second is to expand existing data collection and analysis
programs to provide an adequate knowledge base that can support higher
fishing mortality targets while still ensuring low risk to target and
associated species and ecosystems. However, defining "adequate" is
difficult, especially when scientists have not even identified all
marine species, and life histories of many target species, and most
associated species is sparse. Increasing calls from the public,
stakeholders, and the scientific community to implement ecosystem-based
stock assessment and management make it even more difficult to define
"adequate," especially when "ecosystem-based management" is itself not
well-defined. In attempting to describe the data collection and
assessment needs for the latter, the authors took a pragmatic approach,
rather than trying to estimate the resources required to develop a
knowledge base about the fine-scale detailed distributions, abundances,
and associations of all marine species. Thus, the specified resource
requirements will not meet expectations of some stakeholders. In
addition, the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan is designed to be
complementary to other related plans, and therefore does not duplicate
the resource requirements detailed in those plans, except as otherwise
noted.

###### **Executive Summary**

-   The Stock Assessment Improvement Plan is the report of the National
    Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) National Task Force for Improving
    Fish Stock Assessments, and is a component of the Science Quality
    Assurance Program. The Task Force consisted of one representative
    from NMFS Headquarters and 1-2 representatives from each of the five
    NMFS Science Centers. The report also addresses recommendations made
    in the National Research Council study on Improving Fish Stock
    Assessments (NRC 1998a).

-   Improvements in stock assessments are required for several reasons,
    including: that management entities are \"managing at the edge\" for
    many species, and therefore require the most accurate and precise
    stock assessments possible; it is no longer permissible to overfish;
    and there are currently increased demands for adopting a
    \"precautionary approach\" and incorporating \"ecosystem
    considerations\" into stock assessments and fisheries management.
    This reports discusses these and other factors that define NMFS\'
    stock assessment mandate.

-   Although the NRC study on Improving Fish Stock Assessments (NRC
    1998a) focused on improving assessment methodology, the Task Force
    agreed that the greatest impediment to producing accurate, precise,
    and credible stock assessments is the lack of adequate input data,
    in terms of the quantity, quality, and type of data available.

-   For most stocks, there is at least basic information on landed catch
    and the size frequency of the catch. However, for more than 40% of
    the 904 stocks listed in the 1999 Report to Congress on the Status
    of Fisheries of the United States (NMFS 1999a), there is no
    fishery-independent or fishery-dependent index of abundance, which
    makes it extremely difficult to conduct a meaningful assessment.
    Other factors, such as the need to prioritize the stocks to be
    assessed, result in a total of about 60% of the stocks (545 stocks)
    lacking assessments sufficient to evaluate stock status relative to
    overfishing. On the other hand, although there are relatively few
    stocks with comprehensive input data, a total of 119 stocks are
    routinely assessed using state-of-the-art age or size structured
    models, some of which may also incorporate spatial and oceanographic
    effects. With a few exceptions, all of the high-valued, high-volume,
    or high-profile species are routinely assessed, while most of the
    unassessed species contribute little or nothing to total landings.

-   Stock assessments conducted by NMFS are rarely, if ever, the product
    of a single individual, and peer review is an integral part of the
    processes related to provision of scientific advice in support of
    fisheries management that are carried out by fisheries scientists
    from within and outside of NMFS. All five Science Centers have
    systems in place for peer review of stock assessments.

-   The most important programmatic needs vary by region, and even by
    species groups within regions. Overall, the two most important needs
    are research vessel surveys designed to produce fishery-independent
    indices of abundance and to collect related information on spatial
    and temporal distributions, associated species, habitat, and
    oceanographic variables; and observer programs that provide
    information on species composition, amounts of each species kept and
    discarded, and fishing effort.

-   Assessment scientists are faced with many demands. Within a given
    year, an individual assessment scientist may be expected to: (i)
    participate in fishery-independent surveys or other field work, (ii)
    provide input and advice on sampling designs for research surveys
    and other fishery-independent data collection activities, (iii)
    spend time on commercial or recreational fishing vessels, (iv)
    provide input and advice on the development of data collection
    objectives and protocols for observer programs and other
    fishery-dependent data collection activities, (v) conduct quality
    control or other preprocessing of data, (vi) conduct stock
    assessments, (vii) conduct research into stock assessment
    methods, (viii) present assessment results to peer review panels and
    constituent groups, (ix) participate on peer review panels, (x)
    participate in fishery management plan development or evaluation
    teams, (xi) defend a stock assessment in a court of law, (xii)
    research and write scientific papers for primary publication, (xiii)
    attend colleagues\' seminars and offer critical review, (xiv)
    conduct formal, written peer reviews of articles submitted for
    publication in scientific journals, (xv) participate on committees
    to advance approaches to stock assessment and fisheries
    management, (xvi) undertake training to stay abreast of new
    methodologies, (xvii) run courses or workshops to train
    others, (xviii) participate in national and international meetings
    and conferences to enhance professional development, and (xix)
    undertake a variable amount of administrative duties depending on
    supervisory level. With limited exceptions, there is insufficient
    scope for individual scientists to focus on just one or a few of
    these activities due to an overall shortage of assessment
    scientists. A survey of assessment scientists indicated that there
    is insufficient time to devote to important activities such as
    research to improve the basis for assessments, professional
    development, and interactions and cooperative research with national
    and international peers. The same is likely to be true for
    individuals involved in data collection, data processing, and data
    management.

-   In fact, staffing needs associated with the production of stock
    assessments go well beyond stock assessment scientists *per se*, who
    represent only the \"tip of the iceberg.\" Far greater numbers of
    staff are needed for deployment in critical data collection
    activities, such as commercial or recreational catch and effort
    data, port sampling for biological data, observer programs, and
    fishery-independent resource surveys. Additional staff are also
    required to process biological samples (e.g. to determine fish ages
    from hard structures, construct age-length keys, develop growth
    curves, construct maturity ogives, and possibly to identify and
    count eggs and larval fish from ichthyoplankton surveys, and to
    examine stomach contents), and to enter, audit, integrate, and
    preprocess data from the myriad of data collection activities.

-   The Task Force defined three Tiers of Assessment Excellence, which
    can be summarized as:

####### Tier 1 - Improve stock assessments using existing data

\(a\) for core species, conduct assessments that are more comprehensive,
more thorough, more timely, better quality-controlled, and better
communicated;

\(b\) for species of currently \"unknown\" status, mine existing
databases of research vessel survey data and/or commercial and
recreational statistics for archival information for new analyses to
evaluate status determination criteria.

***Tier 2 - Elevate stock assessments to new national***

***standards of excellence***

\(a\) upgrade assessments for core species to at least Level 3 \[the
Task Force defined six levels at which assessments are conducted,
ranging from 0 to 5; Level 3 assessments comprise analytical models in
which ages or species are aggregated\];

\(b\) conduct adequate baseline monitoring for all federally-managed
species (including rare species).

####### Tier 3 - Next generation assessments

\(a\) assess all federally-managed species or species groups at a
minimum level of 3, and all core species at a level of 4 or 5 \[size,
age or stage-structured models, possibly including spatial and seasonal
considerations, species associations, and oceanographic effects\];

\(b\) explicitly incorporate ecosystem considerations such as
multispecies interactions and environmental effects, fisheries
oceanography, and spatial and seasonal analyses.

-   A large part of the report specifies region-by-region program and
    staffing requirements needed to meet the three Tiers of Assessment
    Excellence. These are summarized in **Table 8** of the report, which
    is reproduced here.

+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number range  | *   |     |     | ***  | ***  | ***  | ***  | **   |
| CHAPTER*      | **C |     |     | Tier | Tier | Tier | Tier | *All |
| **Activity*** | urr |     |     | 1*** | 2*** | 1+   | 3*** | Tier |
|               | ent |     |     |      |      | 2*** |      | s*** |
|               | *** |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               |     |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | *** |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | In- |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | hou |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | se/ |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | con |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | tra |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | ct/ |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | ot  |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | her |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | *** |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| NEFSC         | 123 | 49  | 16  | 18   | 43   | **   | 25   | 86   |
|               |     |     |     |      |      | 61** |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| SEFSC         | 71  | 30  | 46  | 14   | 42   | **   | 39   | 95   |
|               |     |     |     |      |      | 56** |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| SWFSC         | 80  | 15  | 26+ | 27   | 60   | **   | 66   | 153  |
|               |     |     |     |      |      | 87** |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| NWFSC         | 18  | 33  | 59  | 13   | 74   | **   | 39   | 126  |
|               |     |     |     |      |      | 87** |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| AFSC          | 154 | 122 | 54  | 31   | 66   | **   | 51   | 148  |
|               |     |     |     |      |      | 97** |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| **Summed      | *   | *   | *   | **1  | **2  | **3  | **2  | **6  |
| FTEs**        | *44 | *24 | *20 | 03** | 85** | 88** | 20** | 08** |
|               | 6** | 9** | 1** |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| **\$\$ ( FTE  |     |     |     | *    | *    | *    | *    | *    |
| x \$150K )**  |     |     |     | *\$1 | *\$4 | *\$5 | *\$3 | *\$9 |
|               |     |     |     | 5,45 | 2,75 | 8,20 | 3,00 | 1,20 |
|               |     |     |     | 0K** | 0K** | 0K** | 0K** | 0K** |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+

**Number range CHAPTERTable 8.** Total Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)
required to meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence for each
Science Center and all Centers combined. Estimated current FTEs include
in-house staff, contractors such as observers, and "other," which
includes state government biologists, and employees or contractors
associated with various regional, national and international
Commissions. Numbers should be cumulated across tiers.

-   Among other things, the Task Force recommends that NMFS should
    aggressively pursue a course of action focusing on new budget and
    staffing initiatives to modernize its data collection and assessment
    capabilities. At the minimum, NMFS should attempt to bring stock
    assessment science to at least Tier 2, and should initiate dialog
    both within house and with the public to determine how far-reaching
    and comprehensive Tier 3 should be. This will require hiring or
    contracting considerable numbers of additional qualified staff for
    data collection, data processing, data management, stock
    assessments, and evaluations of alternative management strategies,
    to ensure adequate data and analyses on which to base conservation
    and management decisions, now and into the future.

-   It is also recommended that in order to develop more comprehensive
    and integrated future budget initiatives geared towards modernizing
    fisheries assessments and management, NMFS should prepare an
    umbrella plan that integrates all relevant existing documents on
    these themes; for example, the current Stock Assessment Improvement
    Plan, the NOAA Fisheries Data Acquisition Plan (**Appendix 3**), the
    NMFS Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research (NMFS 2001b), the
    Proposed Implementation of a Fishing Vessel Registration and
    Fisheries Information Management System (**Appendix 8**), the NMFS
    Bycatch Plan (**Appendix 9**), the National Observer Program
    (**Appendix 10**), the Social Sciences Plan (**Appendix 11**), the
    Advanced Technologies Working Group (**Appendix 12**), and relevant
    fisheries oceanography initiatives (e.g. **Appendix 13**).

-   In order to make substantial progress towards collecting the data
    needed to improve stock assessments, particularly next generation
    assessments, it is essential that NMFS continue to foster
    partnerships and cooperative research programs with other federal
    agencies, state agencies, private foundations, universities,
    commercial and recreational fishing organizations and individuals,
    environmental groups, and others with a vested interest in
    collecting similar types of data, although often for different
    purposes. Programs involving cooperative research with the fishing
    industry should continue to be developed and expanded as mechanisms
    for providing data relevant to improving the quality of stock
    assessments.

######## I. Introduction

The Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (SAIP) is the report of the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) National Task Force for
Improving Fish Stock Assessments. It consists of a main document with 8
tables and 15 figures, an Appendix table summarizing the level of
completeness of data collection and stock assessments for each federally
managed stock (**Appendix 1**), and an additional 24 appendices
(**Appendices 2-25**) summarizing other relevant programs, plans and
reviews. The Stock Assessment Improvement Plan is a component of the
Science Quality Assurance Program (**Appendix 2**), which consists of
several other elements including the NOAA Fisheries Data Acquisition
Plan (**Appendix 3**), the Stock Assessment Toolbox (**Appendix 4**),
the Center for Independent Experts (**Appendix 5**), and the NMFS-Sea
Grant Joint Graduate Fellowship Program (**Appendix 6**). The Task Force
consisted of one representative from NMFS Headquarters and 1-2
representatives from each of the five NMFS Science Centers. Additional
input from the Science Centers was obtained via questionnaires
administered to stock assessment scientists and managers of stock
assessment programs. Science Centers were also given the opportunity to
review the contents of the Plan.

This report also draws on the analyses and recommendations of the
National Research Council (NRC) study on Improving Fish Stock
Assessments (NRC 1998a). In order to determine which avenues should be
explored to improve stock assessments, NMFS requested in 1995 that the
NRC undertake a review of the agency\'s current stock assessment methods
and models and make recommendations for alternative approaches. The
objective of the review was to produce an authoritative report that
documented the strengths and limitations of stock assessment methods
relative to the diversity of available data and types of fisheries
management systems. The resulting review (**Appendix 7**) contained ten
recommendations in seven categories for improving stock assessments;
these are numbered and presented in summary form below for easy
reference through the remainder of the current report.

Recommendation #1: How should assessments be conducted and by whom?

Recommendation #2: Development of at least one reliable abundance index
for each stock.

Recommendation #3: Collection of auxiliary biological data such as
natural mortality.

Recommendation #4: More realistic assessments of uncertainty.

Recommendation #5: Analysis of alternative harvest strategies.

Recommendation #6: Development of rigorous evaluation systems including
simulation models.

Recommendation #7: Development of new techniques for stock assessment.

Recommendation #8: More peer reviews.

Recommendation #9: Standardized data collection protocols for commercial
fisheries.

Recommendation #10: Education and training of assessment scientists.

Improvements in stock assessments are required for several reasons,
including (a) that management entities are \"managing at the edge\" for
many species, and therefore require the most accurate and precise stock
assessments possible; (b) it is no longer permissible to overfish; and
(c) there are currently increased demands for adopting a \"precautionary
approach\" and incorporating \"ecosystem considerations\" into stock
assessments and fisheries management. These issues are addressed in
detail in **Section II**, along with other factors that define NMFS\'
stock assessment mandate. **Section III** provides background
information on requirements for conducting assessments and for
evaluating alternative fisheries management strategies. **Section IV**
contains detailed information on qualitative and quantitative resource
requirements for each of the five Science Centers, relative to three
Tiers of Assessment Excellence. As such, it represents the core part of
the report. Recommendations based on the preceding sections of the
report are summarized in **Section V**. Assessment-related information
is tabulated in **Appendix 1**, and an additional 24 Appendices contain
information on other relevant plans, reports, and background documents.
It is anticipated that the current report will provide a foundation for
future initiatives, including budget initiatives, to improve the quality
and quantity of NMFS\' stock assessments.

#### Scope of the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan

The Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (SAIP) is the latest of a series
of plans for enhancing and modernizing NMFS programs for data
collection, information technology, data management, stock assessments,
scientific research, and fisheries management. Although the SAIP is
specifically geared towards stock assessments, when account is taken of
the diverse data needs of stock assessment models and the expectation of
more comprehensive ecosystem-based science and management in the future,
there is considerable scope for overlap or duplication between several
plans. With this in mind, the SAIP was designed to complement plans
already completed at its inception, or otherwise to acknowledge
duplication, and to avoid contradiction. The key complementary plan is
the NOAA Fisheries Data Acquisition Plan (**Appendix 3**), which details
the need for purpose-built fishery research vessels and chartered
days-at-sea to satisfy immediate fishery-independent data collection
needs. Thus, the SAIP does not include the capital and operating costs
of the research vessels, nor chartering costs, nor the permanent vessel
crews, but it does include the scientific staff that would participate
in research surveys. Another important complementary plan is the
Proposed Implementation of a Fishing Vessel Registration and Fisheries
Information Management System (**Appendix 8**), which will provide much
more accurate, complete, and timely information on commercial fisheries
statistics. The core costs of this program are not considered in the
SAIP, but the in-house or contract staff required to collect, manage,
and process the data are included. The NMFS Bycatch Plan (**Appendix
9**), which includes monitoring, data collection, and research, overlaps
to a degree with the SAIP but, since the Bycatch Plan did not develop
specific staff and other resource requirements, duplication should not
be a problem.

One plan with which there is considerable potential for overlap and
duplication is the National Observer Program (**Appendix 10**), which
was initiated subsequent to the commencement of the SAIP. As is evident
in **Section IV** of this report, the most important overall need for
improving stock assessments is for in-house and contract staff for
observer programs for collecting data of relevance to stock assessments,
in both the short- and the long-term. The National Observer Program
examines observer needs from a slightly different perspective. First, it
considers needs for monitoring both commercially-exploited fish species
and protected and endangered species such as marine mammals and sea
turtles, whereas the SAIP only considers that portion of existing and
potential observer programs that could be attributed to obtaining data
of direct relevance to commercially-exploited fisheries stock
assessments. Second, it outlines a five-year plan, whereas the SAIP is
much longer-term. Thus, there is some degree of overlap between the SAIP
and the National Observer Program. The overlap will be quantified and
controlled for as necessary in future budget initiatives.

The SAIP focuses on field biologists who collect data; laboratory
technicians who process biological samples; computer scientists who
audit, manage, and analyze data; and quantitative stock assessment
scientists who develop and run stock assessment models. Another
important fisheries profession not represented in the SAIP is that of
social science (economists, sociologists, and anthropologists). The need
for additional social scientists is detailed in the NMFS Social Sciences
Plan and Budget Initiative (**Appendix 11**).

Capital costs for the purchase of advanced technologies and operating
costs for research and field trials is another activity that is covered
elsewhere (**Appendix 12**), and therefore excluded from explicit
consideration in the SAIP. Also excluded are major infrastructure
associated with increased staffing, particularly new workspace and
buildings that may be required.

In order to further limit the scope of the SAIP and to reduce overlap
with other plans and initiatives, it was also decided not to explicitly
include resource requirements for fisheries oceanography (e.g.
**Appendix 13**), stock assessments and related activities for marine
mammals and sea turtles (**Appendix 14**), habitat-related research and
conservation (**Appendix 15**), and stock assessments and related
activities for Pacific salmon.

In order to develop a comprehensive ecosystem approach to fisheries
stock assessments and management, and to estimate the actual costs of
implementing ecosystem-based management (EBM), all of the
above-mentioned plans, initiatives, and activities should be merged into
an umbrella plan.

######## II. Defining NMFS\' Stock Assessment Mandate

The central importance of stock assessments to NMFS is clear. The NOAA
Fisheries Strategic Plan (NMFS 1997a) describes the agency\'s mission
as:

\"stewardship of living marine resources for the benefit of the Nation
through their science-based conservation and management and promotion of
the health of their environment\"

That document then outlines five \"foundations for stewardship,\" the
first of which is: \"Science, which is of the highest quality, and which
advances our ability to make living marine resource management
decisions.\" The goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan are
reiterated and expanded in the NMFS Strategic Plan for Fisheries
Research (1998c, 2001b). Those which are at least partially addressed by
the current plan are reproduced below. To facilitate cross reference,
the corresponding Fisheries Strategic Plan (FSP) strategy or foundation
number follows each fishery research objective.

GOAL 1: Provide scientifically sound information and data to support
fishery conservation and management. (Ongoing)

Objective 1.1: Periodically assess stocks to ascertain whether changes
in their status due to natural or human-related causes have occurred.
These stock assessments require adequate fishery monitoring and resource
surveys. (FSP Strategy 1.1.1)

Objective 1.2: Use stock assessments to predict future trends in stock
status. Forecasts will take into account projected biological
productivity, climatic information, economic markets, and other social
forces that will affect levels of fishing effort. (FSP Strategy 1.1.2)

Objective 1.3: Determine and reduce the level of uncertainty associated
with stock assessments through improved data collection and advanced
analytical techniques. (FSP Strategy 1.2.1)

Objective 1.4: Use stock assessment workshops, peer reviews, and other
fora to ensure that our information and advice are developed through an
open and collaborative process. (FSP Strategy 1.2.2)

Objective 1.5: Communicate our scientific information and advice, along
with the associated uncertainties, to the Councils, other management
authorities, and the public. (FSP Strategy 1.1.3)

Objective 1.6: Collaborate with the Councils and other management
authorities to explore and develop fishery management regimes and
alternative governance systems that will effectively control
exploitation and promote sustainability. (FSP Strategy 1.1.4)

Objective 1.7: Provide guidelines to assist the Councils in assessing
and specifying maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for managed fisheries.
(FSP Strategy 1.1.5)

Objective 1.8: Work with the Councils to develop objective and
measurable criteria for each managed stock to determine if the stock is
overfished or approaching an overfished condition. (FSP Strategy 2.1.1)

Objective 1.9: For each stock which is overfished or approaching an
overfished condition, we will develop, in collaboration with the
Councils, measures to eliminate or prevent the overfishing. (FSP
Strategy 2.1.2)

Objective 1.12: Support recommendations provided by the National
Research Council \[NRC 1999\] and the Report to Congress \[NMFS 1999b\]
by establishing criteria to define and delineate marine, estuarine, and
riverine ecosystems for management purposes, and identify indicators for
assessing the status and detecting changes in the health of such
ecosystems. (FSP Strategy 7.3.2)

Objective 1.14: Incorporate assessments or indices of climate
variability into stock assessments.

Objective 1.15: Monitor climate change on inter-annual, decadal, and
centennial scales and its impact on currently sustainable fisheries.

GOAL 5: Improve the effectiveness of external partnerships with fishers,
managers, scientists, conservationists, and other interested groups.
(Ongoing)

Objective 5.1: Promote a cooperative network of partners in the
coordination of fisheries research.

Objective 5.2: Develop infrastructure for long-term, continuous working
relationships with partners to address fisheries research issues.

As reported in the first four annual Reports to Congress on the Status
of Fisheries of the United States (NMFS 1997b, 1998b, 1999a, 2001a), the
status relative to overfishing of the majority of the fish stocks
covered by federal Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) is unknown. In
contrast to the first three reports, the NMFS (2001a) report broke
stocks out into \"major\" or \"minor\" categories based on landings.
Thus, even though the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan is mainly based
on information up to January 2000, the following statements are based on
the NMFS (2001a) report, which tabulated information on 905 stocks (as
compared to a slightly different mix of 904 stocks in the 1999 report).
In the 2001 report, 623 of the 905 stocks were recorded as having
unknown status. Although it is often overlooked, most of the 905 stocks
tabulated can be classified as \"minor\" stocks: 618/905 or 68.3% have
recent landings less than 90.74 metric tons (200,000 pounds) annually.
In total, \"minor\" stocks have accounted for only about 0.11% of total
landings in recent years. However, it should be noted that \"minor\"
stocks are often not landed or identified to species, and discarded
catches may not be recorded, particularly where observer programs are
lacking. Whether or not actual removals constitute a risk to the
long-term viability of these species is unknown. Of the 287 \"major\"
stocks, 35.2% are of unknown or undefined status relative to threshold
fishing mortality levels that define \"overfishing,\" while 41.8% are of
unknown or undefined status relative to threshold stock sizes that
define whether a stock is \"overfished.\" While the costs of determining
the status of all 623 stocks in the unknown category may be prohibitive,
additional efforts to obtain the information necessary to assess the
major stocks with unknown status is certainly warranted. In addition,
major stocks of \"known\" status also require special and vigilant
attention because many of them (25.3%) are experiencing overfishing and
many (36.5%) are overfished or approaching an overfished condition. The
need to elevate the level of knowledge of many of the unknown species,
even those of \"minor\" importance, will escalate as fisheries
management progresses towards ecosystem-based management (EBM). Thus,
there is a need to constantly improve both the quality and quantity of
stock assessments.

It is also important to keep in mind that NMFS\' mandate is actually a
dual one of both sustainability and exploitation, which can often create
conflict. The fact that our science is used for regulation means that
stock assessments will often be challenged. Thus, as stated in the NMFS
Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research, \"all of the agency\'s
information must be comprehensive, objective, credible, and effectively
communicated.\"

#### A. What is a \"Stock Assessment?\"

The term \"stock assessment\" is used to describe the processes of
collecting, analyzing, and reporting demographic information for the
purpose of determining the effects of fishing on fish populations. The
production of stock assessments requires quantitative information on the
relative or absolute magnitude of a fish population, estimates of the
total removals due to human activities (due to fishery landings,
discarded bycatch, and cryptic mortality due to encounters with fishing
gear), life history data including rates of growth, average age of the
onset of sexual maturity, maximum longevity, and the proportion of each
age group dying each year due to natural causes, and other factors that
affect stock productivity. These data are combined using simple or
complex mathematical models (NRC 1998a) to derive \"best\" estimates of
vital statistics such as historical and recent trends in the number and
biomass of the resource, recruitment levels (number of small fish
entering the fishery each year), and the fishing mortality rate or the
fraction of the stock alive at the beginning of the year that are killed
by fishing (commonly referred to as the exploitation rate).

The results of stock assessment calculations provide information
necessary to estimate the current abundance and exploitation rates of
resources in relation to predefined goals for these two attributes, also
termed \"status determination criteria.\" If the biomass is determined
to be significantly below a minimum threshold, the stock is in an
\"overfished condition.\" If the current exploitation rate is
significantly higher than a maximum exploitation rate threshold,
overfishing is deemed to be occurring. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) mandates that if stocks are in
an overfished condition or if overfishing is occurring, managers must
implement measures to rebuild the stock and/or to eliminate overfishing.
In addition, assessment results provide the technical basis for setting
the level of biologically acceptable yield for healthy stocks, and the
expected rate of rebuilding for depleted stocks.

The stock assessment evaluation is thus a key element of the fishery
management process since it is used to determine whether additional
regulations are necessary, or if greater fishing opportunities can be
allowed consistent with the objective of sustainable fishing. In
addition to enabling determination of overfishing, stock assessment
results have three additional important purposes: (1) for each managed
stock, a history of estimates of catches, stock sizes and exploitation
rates is used to establish reference levels for the two status
determination criteria; (2) assessment results (biomass, recruitment
levels and exploitation rates) are combined to provide short- (1-2
year), medium- (3-10 year) and sometimes long-term (10+ year)
projections of how fish populations and catches will change over time;
and (3) stock assessment results are typically combined with other
research results or assumptions to evaluate various alternative sets of
management measures proposed by managers to attain specified objectives.
The latter analyses are termed \"alternative management strategy
analyses\" and are important because there are often many different
types of measures that can be used to manage fisheries (e.g. regulating
the characteristics of the gear such as minimum mesh size, or regulating
the amount of effort by fleet sector, area, or season). The selection of
the \"preferred\" set of management measures is often complex and
requires quantitative evaluation since even if one or several options
allow a stock to rebuild to optimal levels, they may have dramatically
different implications for the profitability of fisheries and the
allocation of benefits among competing harvest sectors. Quantitative
stock assessments provide the essential information necessary for the
analyses required in the fishery management process.

The quality of a particular stock assessment (i.e. the accuracy and
precision of stock size and exploitation rate estimates) is directly
related to the quality and completeness of the input data used for the
assessment. No stock assessment is perfect because the information used
is derived from a modest number of observations that are assumed to be
statistically representative of the population as a whole. Elsewhere in
this document (**Sections IIA, IIB**), information on the quality of
data on catches, abundance measures and life history data supporting
stock assessments for all managed or assessed fishery stocks occurring
in EEZ waters is provided. In most cases, the sophistication of the
stock assessment model used to estimate stock size and the accuracy and
precision of the results is directly related to the quality of the
assessment data. It cannot be overemphasized that *improving the quality
of fish stock assessments (consistent with the focus of the NRC report)
primarily involves improving the quality of basic input data on catches,
abundance and life history*, and that these improvements will lead to a
progression through *Tiers of Assessment Excellence*.

The goal of improving fish stock assessments is to allow society to
extract maximum benefits from fish stocks while minimizing the risk that
stocks will become overfished. As assessments are improved, the types of
questions posed by managers will increasingly emphasize multispecies
aspects (technological and biological interactions among stocks and
fisheries), and will require greater temporal and spatial detail to
evaluate fine-scale time/area components of management measures. Thus,
the requirements for the next generation of fish stock assessments will
necessitate continued improvements to data and refinements to models.

In addition to requiring fishery data and selection of appropriate
mathematical models, the process of producing stock assessment, as
practiced by NMFS, involves explicit and intensive QC/QA through a
process known as \"peer review.\" Owing to the implications of stock
assessment results for the ecosystem and the economy, the public must be
assured that data and procedures used by NMFS and its cooperators meet
accepted standards for the production of such analyses. Assessments
undertaken by all of the NMFS Science Centers include an element of peer
review, which involves review of data and calculations by experts
independent of the people responsible for the work being reviewed. In
many cases peer reviews have involved academic researchers, inter-Center
exchanges of personnel, experts hired by fishery industry groups, and
international scientists. An increasing and serious impediment to the
improvement of stock assessments nationwide is the difficulty of
providing for adequate peer review under the burden of increasing
numbers of stock assessments with higher levels of complexity being
produced more frequently, in combination with a relatively small pool of
experts in this specialized area.

#### B. The Quality of NMFS\' Assessments

The stock assessment activities within the National Marine Fisheries
Service have produced strengths and accomplishments that are globally
recognized. The strength of the national assessment activities lies in
the development of periodic stock-wide status determinations for major
species; i.e. those species which are economically most important and
which comprise the majority of the fisheries biomass. The
accomplishments of NMFS scientists in this regard compare favorably with
any national effort worldwide. These assessments have allowed these
important stocks to be monitored effectively. The precision and accuracy
of these assessments has proven to be extremely helpful in management.
These results have also formed the basis for much of the understanding
of fishery population dynamics and the historical trends of these
species.

However, NMFS assessment efforts have been less effective in several
other areas. Specifically, there are many species that are not assessed
even though in many instances some relevant data may exist. While these
species are not economically dominant and do not comprise a high
proportion of the biomass, they often interact ecologically with the
economically important species and they may be significant keystones in
the functioning of the ecosystem. At the present time we have little
understanding of the role of these species either in the ecosystem or in
local economies. There has been a lack of resources to obtain sufficient
data to evaluate these species.

Another limitation to present assessment efforts is the understanding of
the spatial and temporal dynamics of the species. Under what conditions
do fish move into alternative areas of their range and what are the
stimuli? These questions have become important as managers attempt to
provide for the diversity of users of the resources.

#### C. Changing Demands

The demand for stock assessments has shifted both quantitatively and
qualitatively throughout the Nation. Fisheries have expanded to target
heretofore lightly exploited resources, as traditional stocks have been
fully exploited or over exploited, leading to needs for increased
numbers of stocks to be assessed. More detailed and complex regulatory
mechanisms are being devised to distribute the limited resources
equitably between fishing sectors, commercial, recreational, and bycatch
users. In order to evaluate these alternative mechanisms, spatial and
temporal projections of management scenarios are required, taxing the
limits of the available data and the number of assessment scientists.
The MSFCMA has imposed new management requirements that have increased
both the detail and the number of assessments that are to be conducted.
These general changes have manifested themselves in the Nation\'s
fisheries in a variety of ways which are described below for each of the
NMFS Science Centers.

#### Northeast Fisheries Science Center

The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) typically produces stock
assessments, in one form or another, for about 51 managed species/stocks
(**Appendix 1**). Not all of these stocks are managed under Federal FMPs
(e.g. some are managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, ASMFC, or individual states, or under international
agreements). These assessments run the gamut from index-level
assessments using trawl survey information, to stage-based analytical
assessments incorporating multiple abundance indices and catches. During
the past 15 years, stock assessments have been peer-reviewed under the
jurisdiction of the Northeast Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) process.
Typically, the SAW has reviewed about dozen high priority stock
assessments per year, six each in spring and autumn SAW meetings.

The demand for more timely and comprehensive stock assessments has
increased greatly, primarily as a result of the need to respond to
information needs associated with the MSFCMA. The exploitation history
of most of the economically-important stocks of the region has
necessitated stringent rebuilding plans, and managers are requesting
more frequent assessment updates on a wider array of species, and are
considering more complex types of indirect controls on fishing
mortality, including manipulating the temporal and spatial patterns of
fishing.

A major new demand on the assessment process is to increase the
precision of estimates of exploitation rates and stock sizes. For many
resources, fishing rates historically have greatly exceeded standard
biological reference points and stock sizes were considerably below
those considered optimal for sustainable fisheries. Thus, even imprecise
assessments were considered useful enough to give clear advice about the
direction of fishery management and rough indications of the magnitude
of fishing effort reductions required (e.g. in many cases fishing
mortality rates were five times the target levels, and stock biomasses
were 1/5th of the biomasses generating MSY). Management programs
instituted in the mid-1990s have resulted in reduced harvest rates for
species such as haddock, yellowtail flounder, sea scallop, and other
economically-important resources. As a result of these changes, managers
require more precise information to determine the probabilities of
attaining fishing mortality rate targets associated with the harvest
control rules they have adopted. Additionally, because so many of the
region\'s resources were determined to be overfished, 10-year rebuilding
programs are now in effect. Consequently, management requires
medium-term projections to determine which exploitation strategies will
allow attainment of biomass targets with a specific probability.

In addition to the increased demand for precision of analyses, the
requirement for estimates of biomasses and fishing mortality rates or
proxies associated with MSY for all managed species necessitates that
the level of many stock assessments be increased from monitoring of
indices of abundance to greater levels of analytic complexity. This
means that the demands for biological sampling of fishery catches and
abundance indices will increase (e.g. more routine age determinations
for managed stocks). Likewise, managers require more specific
information on all components of fishery catches, and especially fishery
discards, which have historically not been sampled adequately in the
Northeast fisheries. Thus, in addition to increased needs for more
stocks to be assessed, increased quality of assessments means
significantly augmented data collections and biological information to
support improved assessments.

The frequency of stock assessment updates has increased primarily as a
result of the many changes recently incorporated in many of the
region\'s FMPs. Because of reductions in fishing effort, the closure of
large areas of productive fishing grounds, trip limits and other
measures, managers want to know the incremental effect of these measures
on attaining required fishing mortality and biomass targets. Thus, for
example, the New England Fishery Management Council has requested
detailed assessment updates on all managed stocks well in advance of
each new fishing year, so as to determine the suite of new measures
necessary to meet the requirements of the law. This is in strong
contrast to recent history when a small group of important species (e.g.
cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder) were used as \"bellwether\"
indicators of the exploitation of the status of a complex of about 25
managed stocks. Additionally, the MSFCMA requires that stocks that were
historically \"written-off\" as virtually commercially extinct, be
rehabilitated towards sustainable stock levels (e.g. Atlantic halibut,
redfish). Thus, new stock assessments are required to determine the
feasibility and impacts of efforts to do so. Even stocks for which no
commercial uses exist are subject to increased demand for assessments
when their status may be impacted as a result of fishery bycatch (e.g.
barndoor skates).

Management advice based on analytic stock assessments is also
increasingly required to support complex measures accounting for
technological interactions among the region\'s stocks (which are
generally significant) and the increased demand for finer spatial and
temporal scale information supporting area rotation strategies, and
other complex management approaches. Supporting these scales of
management will require improvements in basic information collected from
fishers (e.g. logbook-type data and observer data) and dealers. There is
an important new demand for integration of single species assessment
information to support assemblage management (stock trade-offs).
Managers are also increasingly concerned with the trophic implications
of attempting to increase all managed stocks to B~MSY~ simultaneously,
necessitating more research on biological interactions.

#### Southeast Fisheries Science Center

The fisheries under the research jurisdiction of the Southeast Fisheries
Science Center (SEFSC) are diverse in both the species being exploited
and the fishing sectors prosecuting these fisheries. The fisheries
include a large number of snapper-grouper fisheries, mackerel fisheries,
croakers, shrimp and other invertebrates, sharks, and Atlantic-wide
tunas and billfish. Characteristically, these fisheries involve large
recreational sectors along with the usual commercial sector (in some
instances the recreational sector takes the majority of the catch).
Additionally, there is a large bycatch sector; i.e. bycatch of
commercially and recreationally important species occurs in large
numbers in some fisheries. Interactions between these sectors have
manifested themselves in numerous allocation conflicts.

Another characteristic of southeastern U.S. fisheries is that the
productivity of many of the species being exploited is low, supporting
relatively small catches (there are over 400 species within Southeast
FMPs or international conventions). However, some of the species are
extremely valuable and many are very important to local communities.
Also, in aggregate the species catches are significant and the fisheries
often have the capability to exploit a variety of species, switching
target species as conditions change. These characteristics create unique
dynamics which affect the research and management of these resources.

The Southeast Fisheries Science Center has conducted assessments for the
most important stocks for the last two decades. These assessments have
been reviewed through Stock Assessment Panels of the Councils and
through international scientific working groups within the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Through these
scientific groups the assessment information is integrated into the
scientific advice on Allowable Biological Catch (ABC).

However, there are a number of recent events that have altered the
assessment landscape in the Southeast. First and foremost, several
important stocks have been severely depleted leading to very restrictive
limitations on catch. As the stocks begin to recover, more detailed
regulations such as trip limits, area closures, minimum sizes and bag
limits are being devised to distribute quotas more equitably. Evaluation
of these alternatives require an order of magnitude greater spatial and
temporal details. The evaluation activities require an increasingly
larger proportion of the assessment scientists\' time. Additionally, as
fishers look for new alternatives to replace depleted stocks, they have
begun to target stocks that traditionally have not been exploited. In
many cases, detailed assessments have not been conducted for these
stocks but as fishing pressure has increased, there has been an
increased need to evaluate their status. The ability to do this is
limited by both the available data and the human analytical resources.

Finally, the MSFCMA has shifted the focus of management from limiting
fishing mortality rates under the 602 Guidelines to limiting both the
maximum allowable fishing mortality rate and the minimum allowable stock
abundance. Scientifically, it is easier to estimate the reference
fishing rates than to determine appropriate reference abundance
criteria, especially when data are limited and the species are numerous.
The MSFCMA requirements have shifted the focus to determining abundance
criteria. This requires examination of each stock individually. It is
unclear whether the Southeast Fisheries Science Center has the data or
human resources available to address these issues for all 400+ species
in the southeast and Caribbean.

#### Southwest Fisheries Science Center

On the Pacific coast and in Hawaii demands on the Southwest Fisheries
Science Center (SWFSC) stock assessment scientists have been increasing
significantly due to new FMPs, increasing lawsuits and other pressure
from industry and environmental groups, and new demands to manage
international fisheries for which little data are available. At the same
time, SWFSC resources for this research have diminished and little
funding beyond basic salaries is available.

New FMPs are in place or being developed for coastal pelagic species and
highly migratory species, and increased attention is being demanded for
stock assessments of squid, marlins, swordfish, albacore, groundfish,
sharks, marlins and tropical tunas. Environmental groups are pressing
for increased research on sharks, monk seals, turtles and rockfish.
Marine mammal stock assessments are partially completed for the 38
west-coast species but have not been started for Hawaiian or other U.S.
Pacific waters. A new fishery has developed for near shore rockfish;
coral fisheries are resuming; and California salmon issues are highly
controversial.

A new international agreement on western Pacific Highly Migratory
Species is being developed that will demand a huge and complex stock
assessment effort by the U.S. in collaboration with other fishing
nations. Also, new legislation requires that research be strengthened on
the major international fisheries in which U.S. fishers participate,
harvesting swordfish, tropical tunas, albacore, plus incidentals such as
marlins, mahimahi, opah, wahoo, and others.

#### Northwest Fisheries Science Center

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) engages in assessments of
west coast groundfish and salmon. The demands for accurate assessments
for both groups of species are high and increasing. For groundfish, only
26 of the 82 species have been quantitatively assessed. Of these 26
species, several have experienced severe declines because of overly
optimistic historical harvest rates during a 20-year regime of poor
ocean productivity with inadequate stock assessment information to
adequately monitor and forecast the declines. As of 2001, rebuilding
plans are being developed for seven groundfish species that have
declines below the overfished threshold, and there are concerns that
others of the 60+ species with unknown status may also be in danger. For
salmon, the status of Pacific salmon species on the west coast has been
reviewed under provisions of the Endangered Species Act and 26 of the
populations (Evolutionarily Significant Units) have been listed as
threatened or endangered. A tremendous effort is being mounted by the
NWFSC to develop salmon recovery plans that incorporate all aspects of
human and natural risks to salmon.

Groundfish and salmon are managed according to Fishery Management Plans
developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. Although the NWFSC
has the lead role in coordinating assessment information for both FMPs,
there are major contributions by other NMFS Science Centers and by the
state fishery agencies of California, Oregon and Washington. For salmon,
nearly all of the escapement monitoring and run forecasting is based on
inriver information and is done by the state agencies. This information
is used by the Salmon Technical Team of the PFMC to develop harvest
options for consideration by the PFMC. The Scientific and Statistical
Committee of the PFMC provides reviews of methodology for this work. For
groundfish, shoreside catch monitoring is done by the state agencies
with coordination through the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
(PSMFC) which maintains a centralized database of fisheries data
(PacFIN). In 2001, a coastwide observer program was implemented by NMFS
in collaboration with PSMFC and the states. Most resource surveys are
conducted by NMFS, with the triennial bottom trawl and hydroacoustic
surveys providing a major source of data for most assessments.
Approximately six groundfish stock assessments are conducted each year
by NMFS, state agencies and others. The NWFSC coordinates a stock
assessment review process in conjunction with the PFMC\'s SSC, that
involves external peer-reviewers and public input. These groundfish
assessments have been controversial. The west coast groundfish industry
seeks an increasing role in gathering of relevant stock assessment
information, and in participating in the stock assessment process.

Passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act strengthens the mandate to
improve the west coast stock assessment capability. Assessments need to
be conducted for more of the groundfish species. The level of
uncertainty in groundfish assessments and the current information
indicating low productivity for these species needs to be combined in an
adequately precautionary approach to managing these species. Rebuilding
plans, which are expected to have time horizons longer than 10 years,
need to be developed and subsequently monitored for several long-lived
species. All of these tasks will be extraordinarily difficult given the
lack of a dedicated research vessel for surveying these resources and
the low level of current resource survey efforts. Further, increased
stock assessment effort will primarily result in increased knowledge
about what changes the fish populations have undergone, but knowing what
is only the first step. In order to develop a better understanding of
why changes are occurring, programs need to be developed to investigate
the role of decadal scale changes in ocean climate, and the role of
ecosystem shifts such as the major increase in pinniped abundance that
has occurred off the west coast.

#### Alaska Fisheries Science Center

The Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) stock assessment staff have
experienced increased demands stemming primarily from requests for
information regarding the impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems. These
requests require added activities including (1) development of new
assessments for minor species, (2) development of models that address
predator-prey interactions, and (3) development of models that
incorporate environmental forcing on stock production.

The AFSC produces stock assessments for fish and shellfish in the
Eastern Bering Sea, Aleutians and Gulf of Alaska (**Appendix 1**). These
stocks are managed under Federal Fisheries Management Plans (FMP) or
under international agreements. The North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council (NPFMC) FMP covers 100 species/stocks in the GOA and 127
species/stocks in the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands. In some circumstances
(e.g. Pacific salmon and crab), fish stocks are assessed jointly between
federal and state fishery scientists. The NPFMC has a long tradition of
conservative management of Alaskan fishery resources that includes
bycatch limits to protect weak stocks or prohibited species.

The infrastructure supporting this type of management consists of
complex fisheries-dependent and fishery-independent data collection
programs as well as detailed assessments of core species. The NPFMC
reviews stock assessments for groundfish and crab stocks or stock
complexes on an annual basis. Stock assessments are peer-reviewed by the
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council\'s (NPFMC) Plan Team and
Scientific and Statistical Committee. In addition, AFSC solicits peer
reviews of selected species by outside stock assessment experts. These
review panels evaluate all aspects of the assessment from data
collection to model formulations.

Passage of the MSFCMA in 1996 increased the need for comprehensive
assessment of marine resources in Alaskan waters. The MSFCMA mandated
adoption of overfishing definitions for exploited marine resources
managed under Federal FMPs, and an evaluation of impacts of humans on
essential fish habitat. These two mandates require increased data
collection, data analysis, and impact review. Efforts are currently
underway to increase the frequency and regional coverage of bottom trawl
and Echo Integration Trawl surveys. For some species, new survey methods
and fishery-dependent data collection programs are necessary to develop
indices of stock abundance and catch. Demands for data processing, data
analysis and stock assessment modeling occur as these new sources of
fishery-dependent or fishery-independent data become available.

There is a growing need for the development and implementation of
complex assessment models. Recently, statistical assessment models
(SAMs) have been modified to consider uncertainty stemming from process
and measurement errors. SAMs have also been developed to explore the
impact of temporal trends in predator abundance. These models are used
to explore assumptions regarding predator satiation, natural mortality,
and predator selectivity on uncertainty in estimating biomass.

In recent years, NMFS has experienced a number of challenges to
regulatory decisions based on AFSC assessments. These challenges require
assessment scientists to evaluate a number of alternative harvest
strategies. For example, assessment scientists have been asked to
develop ecosystem based harvest strategies that encompass impacts of
fishing on the structure and function of marine communities. Recent
declines in sea bird and marine mammal populations that share exploited
resources with commercial fishers have triggered interest in designing
harvest strategies for minimizing impacts of fishing on protected
resources. These demands require analysis of marine mammal-fisheries
interactions on finer spatial and temporal scales, and they require
review of more complex management approaches.

**D. The Credibility of NMFS\' Science**

Assessment activities form the apex of the scientific support of
management (**see Section III, I**). The assessment process integrates a
wide array of scientific information and the results are directly
communicated to managers and constituents by the assessment scientists.
These activities are required to fulfill the Agency\'s dual role of
maintaining conservation stewardship responsibilities and the promotion
of optimum usage of resources. This dual role results in a natural
tension between scientists and constituents. The scientific results are
viewed as a constraint on allowable catch and allocation decisions.
Indeed, in the short term they are. This has prompted several external
reviews over the years; for example, the NRC Review of Northeast Fishery
Stock Assessments (NRC 1998b; **Appendix 16**).

Criticism of the science occurs for a variety of reasons. At times,
valid concerns are raised. However, much criticism stems from other
causes, such as lack of understanding of science\'s role in the decision
process by constituents, lack of understanding of scientific methods and
issues by constituents, poor communication of these methods and issues
by the scientists, poor communication of the issues and methods by the
managers to constituents, limited data resources to support the science,
limited resources to support communication efforts, deliberate use of
criticism of the science as a strategy or negotiation tactic to alter or
hinder implementation of unfavorable management decisions, and the
perception that scientists have a limited and unrealistic view of the
status of fisheries resources.

Credibility with fishing constituents often is related to the data
supporting the assessments: constituents argue that the data are of poor
quality, that they are unrepresentative of their direct observations,
and that the assessment scientists are not cognizant of these features.
Hence, the constituents view the scientific opinions as unrealistic.
This is a source of criticism against which scientists of NMFS must
continually be on guard. New scientific perspectives on old problems
must continually be integrated into the assessments. Mechanisms to do
this are through regular, periodic peer-review and scientific program
review processes which are discussed in **Section III F**. These reviews
should make clear to managers and constituents, alike, appropriate
interpretations of existing data for the existing management questions
being asked, limitations of those data, and relative benefits to the
decisions with improvement of the data.

Communication effects on credibility are a difficult problem. NMFS
scientists are presently being asked to communicate and prepare
documents in three arenas: to prepare documents with scientific details
that will communicate to scientists and withstand scientific challenges;
to prepare documents that will communicate to
managers/politicians/lawyers to withstand legal challenges; and to
prepare documents to communicate the nature of the biological and
fisheries issues to lay constituents. Of these three arenas, NMFS
scientists are required to put a disproportionate amount of effort into
the second category. NMFS scientists, in general, probably get the most
career fulfillment from the first and it is in that arena where NMFS
scientist\'s activities overlap with academic scientists. The third
category (preparing documents for lay constituencies) is admittedly
lacking. Communication with constituencies is mostly spoken and often
within the final decision-making process. That atmosphere does not
promote dialog. But beyond that, the three activities require resources:
people (or proportions of people\'s time) and travel. In addition, those
individuals who actually conduct the science are not likely to have
equally good skills in communication in all three arenas. Each arena
poses different challenges, and also offers different degrees of career
fulfillment. Reallocation of a scientist\'s time toward one activity
will often be at the expense of other required activities of the
individual.

Another related credibility issue is that within NOAA. Unfortunately,
credibility of NMFS science within NOAA is often filtered through
constituent interactions rather than through NMFS scientific
interactions. Also, since much of the assessment work results in
regulations and limitations on the public users of fishery resources, it
is hard to develop \"good news\" communications.

Perhaps the best solution to the perceived credibility and communication
problems is a recognition that under existing management frameworks
criticism will continue to exist; that communication to the lay public
(including within NOAA) takes specialized skills and resources; that
NMFS should develop new resources to achieve communication goals; and
that these new resources should not be achieved at the detriment of the
data and assessment bases of the scientific advice.

**E. Implications of the Precautionary Approach**

A major goal of fish stock assessments is to provide scientific advice
on sustainable harvest strategies. In reality, this is a dual goal
involving determination of the harvest strategy that will, on one hand,
approach the maximum long-term average yield, yet, on the other hand,
have a low probability of overfishing and causing depletion of the
resource or other harm to the ecosystem. Maximizing long-term average
yield while at the same time minimizing the risk of overfishing is
impossible without a high level of knowledge about the abundance and
productivity of the resource, especially when one considers the paucity
of knowledge regarding the impact of climate, interactions with other
species, and habitat changes (**Figure 1**).

![](media/image2.wmf)

The precautionary approach is concerned with maintaining a balance
between high yields and low risks of depletion in the face of
uncertainty that is often substantial. In the past, it has been common
to treat uncertainty as a reason to forestall implementation of
restrictive management measures. Although the precautionary approach has
many facets, one of the more important and universal features is that
uncertainty is perceived as a reason to exercise caution by, for
example, scaling back the recommended harvest rate in relation to the
level of uncertainty in estimates of stock abundance and productivity
(**Figure 2**) and to develop other methods, such as marine reserves, to
contribute to safeguarding these resources. Greater uncertainty should
result in greater caution in fishing activities.

![](media/image2.wmf)

Attempts to deal with uncertainty in the context of the precautionary
approach have enlivened the development of limit reference points,
target reference points, harvest control rules, and management
procedures simulation models. Harvest control rules specify the
management action (e.g. a specific fishing mortality) to be implemented
depending on the status of the stock (e.g. the estimated biomass), and
generally include target reference points (to be achieved on average)
and limit reference points (to be avoided with high probability). The
greater the degree of uncertainty in the assessment of stock status or
in the ability to effectively implement management actions, the greater
the difference between targets and limits should be. Models that include
the entire system of observation-assessment-management with the
attendant suite of errors (commonly called management procedures
simulation models) deal with uncertainty in a more comprehensive way and
enable evaluation of the robustness of alternative management
strategies. A previous NMFS Working Group developed technical guidance
on these and related topics as they relate to the development of
definitions of overfishing (Restrepo et al. 1998; **Appendix 17**).

The need to develop precautionary approaches, target and limit reference
points, harvest control rules, management procedures simulation models,
and related methods has added considerably to the duties of stock
assessment scientists and, in many cases, has strained the limits of
available data. In order to implement a precautionary approach, fishery
scientists must deliver to fishery managers a description of this
uncertainty and an assessment of the risks created by overfishing and
other impacts on the stock. It is not adequate to simply report the best
estimate and describe its uncertainty. The analysis must be broadened to
include evaluation of the possible consequences of alternative harvest
strategies given the amount of uncertainty about current and projected
stock status.

**F. Implications of the Need to Incorporate Ecosystem Considerations**

Trends of increasing intensity and specialization of fisheries, and
needs to more fully integrate fisheries and protected species
management, argue for greater attention to ecosystem effects not
addressed by traditional overfishing concepts and stock assessment
models supporting them. Recent legal challenges to NMFS resource
management decisions relative to the National Environmental Protection
Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the MSFCMA illustrate
the growing need for NMFS to develop a comprehensive understanding of
the effects of fishing on marine food webs and the effects of fishing on
marine habitats. In addition, there is currently considerable interest
from the public, stakeholders and the scientific community to move
towards more comprehensive ecosystem-based fisheries stock assessments
and management. Several thorough studies on this topic have recently
been completed, including an NRC report entitled \"Sustaining Marine
Fisheries\" that focused on sustainability in an ecosystem context (NRC
1999; **Appendix 18**).

These issues necessitate the development of a new era in resource
monitoring that requires collection of information on seasonal movements
of fish, the response of fish to oceanographic factors, and trophic
interactions. With added information regarding the functional
relationships governing the spatial and temporal distribution of fish,
ecosystem considerations could be incorporated into stock assessments
by: (1) modifying existing single-species overfishing paradigms and
stock assessment approaches to account for ecosystem attributes, (2)
coupling fully mechanistic \"bottom-up\" models that incorporate the
influence of trophic interactions and oceanographic factors on
recruitment success to stage-based assessment models, and (3) developing
aggregate system models to extract principal properties of marine
ecosystems that can be utilized to develop single species harvest
objectives. While NMFS is actively pursuing research in support of all
three types of models, in the short term modification of existing single
species models will be the most useful tool for providing management
advice to our constituents. These models allow assessment scientists to
modify concepts of growth and recruitment overfishing, maximum
sustainable and economic yields and protected species management to
account for ecosystem attributes such as technological and biological
interactions among assemblages, restricted predator-prey communities, or
shifts in carrying capacity due to decadal scale variability in ocean
conditions.

As our understanding of the mechanisms controlling the productivity of
marine communities improves, NMFS must strive to develop fishing
strategies that ensure sustained community production. Ecosystem
overfishing reference points, based on metrics of biodiversity,
sustainability, and trophic considerations, have been proposed but not
widely applied and typically fail to address the role of natural
disturbance on shifts in community structure. While existing single
species overfishing concepts and modifications have the advantage of a
strong theoretical basis for evaluating choices between alternative
management strategies (including risk assessment) and much practical
use, they do not yet provide guidance on issues such as serial depletion
of economically-valuable stocks, changes in bio-diversity,
habitat-modifying effects of fishing methods, or some trophic impacts of
fishing practices such as \"fishing down the food chain.\" On the other
hand, measures that prevent overfishing of single species partially
serve the objectives of multispecies management by ensuring that no
stock is intentionally overfished. With adequate observer coverage, the
bycatch can be closely monitored and target fisheries can be closed to
protect bycatch species if necessary. The Ecosystem Principles Advisory
Panel report on ecosystem-based fisheries management (**Appendix 19**)
calls for the development of Fisheries Ecosystem Plans. A long-term goal
would be the development of a theoretical basis for defining ecosystem
overfishing. A short term activity in support of these goals would be to
improve our documentation and monitoring of metrics of ecosystems such
as diversity indices, slopes of size or diversity spectra, or average
trophic level. The performance of these indices as predictors or
heuristic reference points for management remains untested, but could be
evaluated retrospectively for candidate situations of obvious ecosystem
overfishing.

Regardless of approach, there appears to be a need to account for
ecosystem implications in a more formal way when looking at the entirety
of fishery management measures applied to systems. There is, then, a
need to develop and implement more widely quantitative models to assist
managers in accounting for ecosystem considerations explicitly when
choosing between alternative management strategies. Nevertheless,
resource management will, in all likelihood, always be driven by the
real or perceived importance to society or the ecosystem of a subset of
exploited and protected species. Rather than substituting for existing
overfishing and assessment modeling concepts, ecosystem considerations
will increasingly be used to evaluate and modify primary management
guidance applied to the important species. In order for ecosystem
overfishing definitions to assume a greater role in resource management,
quantifiable, predictive, and unambiguous assessments of ecosystem
states and fluxes must be developed and evaluated. This implies research
focused on processes and interrelationships, complementing-rather than
replacing-traditional stock assessment and monitoring activities
supporting existing overfishing definitions. In all likelihood, advice
resulting from the explicit incorporation of ecosystem effects will even
further emphasize the need for conservative management of the fishing
capacity of single- and multipurpose fleets, supported by refinements in
the use of technical measures such as marine protected areas and gear
restrictions.

######## III. Assessment and Management Strategy Evaluation Needs

This section provides background information on requirements for
conducting assessments and for evaluating alternative fisheries
management strategies. Topics covered include input data, stock
assessment models, assessment frequency, adequacy of technology and
infrastructure, peer review processes, translation of stock assessment
advice into management action, communication of assessment results and
analyses of alternative management strategies, and staffing issues.

#### A. Input Data

Calibration of stock assessment models requires three essential
categories of data: catch, abundance, and life history characteristics.
These data come from fishery-dependent and fishery-independent sources.
The role of catch data in stock assessment models is to indicate the
magnitude of fishery removals during the time period in which the
surveys have measured a change in abundance. Total catch is determined
from monitoring by port samplers and observers, and mandatory or
voluntary reporting systems. The most reliable indicators of changes in
population abundance are fishery-independent resource surveys (NRC
1998a). In some cases, it is possible to conduct tagging studies,
depletion experiments, or absolutely calibrated surveys that result in
an absolute estimate of stock abundance rather than a relative index
which must be tracked over time. Fishery-dependent data (e.g. logbook
data) can also be used to develop indices of changes in abundance;
however, validation that these fishery-dependent indices are truly
proportional to changes in stock size usually requires comparing the
fishery-dependent index to a fishery-independent survey index. Life
history data (stock structure, growth, reproduction, and natural
mortality rates) indicate the geographic limits of the stock and its
inherent productivity. Inclusion of life history data in stock
assessment models helps assure biologically realistic results which
properly separate fishing mortality from natural changes. With
incomplete data on catch, abundance, or life history characteristics,
the results of assessment models will be less precise because of
uncertainty in the assumptions used in place of the missing data.

The need for improving the collection, management and use of fisheries
data was recognized in a recent report entitled, \"Improving the
Collection, Management, and Use of Marine Fisheries Data\" (NRC 2000;
**Appendix 20**).

**(i) Fishery-dependent data needs**

Fishery-dependent data include the landed catch, at-sea discards,
biological characteristics (age and size composition, sex ratio,
maturity stage) of the catch, fishing effort, and spatial distribution
of catch and effort. Accurate stock assessments require that the total
removals (landed plus discarded catch) be known for all significant
commercial and recreational fishery segments. The primary methods to
obtain these total catch data vary regionally and are strongly
influenced by the scale of typical fishing operations and by the degree
of historical development of federal and state reporting systems.
Methods to track large volume landings by trawl vessels at a few
locations may be ill-suited to estimating total landings by large
numbers of commercial or recreational hook and line fishers individually
landing small amounts of fish at many locations. For example, mandatory
reporting of landed commercial catch by the west coast states provides a
census of total commercial landings. Off Alaska, mandatory observer
programs determine total catch for major species. For recreational
fisheries, statistical sampling procedures are used to estimate total
recreational catch and effort from samples of anglers nationwide.
However, throughout the nation there are gaps in coverage for particular
fishery segments, concerns about under-reporting of total catch or
misreporting of species and the areas in which they were caught, low
levels of sampling coverage, and insufficient statistical and database
capabilities to ensure timely access to well-audited data.

Information on the size and age composition of the catch is needed to
accurately estimate the fishing mortality caused by that catch. These
data are typically obtained by samplers in the fishing ports and by
observers on board fishing vessels. When comparable data are available
for each fishery segment, evaluation of the biological impacts of
different allocations among the segments is facilitated. Furthermore,
size and age data from the fishery contribute information on variability
in recruitment.

Collection of commercial and recreational fishery data faces significant
logistic hurdles due to the need to implement sound statistical sampling
procedures. The potential for bias and inefficiency exists in current
procedures, and the NRC review of stock assessment methods recommends
that a standardized and formalized data collection protocol be
established:

NRC Recommendation #9: \"The Committee recommends that a standardized
and formalized data collection protocol be established for commercial
fisheries data nationwide. The Committee further recommends that a
complete review of methods for collection of data from commercial
fisheries be conducted by an independent panel of experts.\"

One step that has been taken towards addressing this recommendation is
the recent NMFS Report to Congress on a \"Proposed Implementation of a
Fishing Vessel Registration and Fisheries Information Management
System\" (**Appendix 8**), as required under the 1996 reauthorization of
the MSFCMA. The report lays out a plan for implementing a Fisheries
Information System (FIS) by integrating and expanding on the current
regional fisheries cooperative statistics activities in three major
areas: data collection, information management, and institutional
arrangements. However, the plan is to integrate existing activities,
rather than to overhaul the system completely and develop protocols to
be used nationwide. The plan has been submitted to Congress as required,
but to date, it has not been funded.

**(ii) Fishery-independent data needs**

Fishery-independent data include information on the distribution,
abundance, and biology of the species being assessed. A suitable
fishery-independent survey method must either be calibrated to measure
absolute fish abundance, or it must be directly proportional to fish
abundance so that relative trends can be tracked. When the time series
of a survey is short, there is greater value in calibrating the survey
for absolute abundance; however, such estimates are critically dependent
on obtaining good estimates of catchability. As the time series gets
longer, the trend information becomes more useful.

A common survey approach is to use carefully standardized sampling gear
(e.g. trawls, hooks, or pots) to collect hundreds of samples distributed
over the expected range of the stock. Such a resource assessment survey
provides information on distribution and abundance, and provides
specimens for age, growth, genetic stock structure, food habits,
maturity, and other biological studies. However, such methods can be
difficult to standardize completely because fish behavior and gear
performance may vary with habitat and environmental conditions. Other
methods are valuable for directly calibrating such surveys, providing
information from habitats not accessible to the primary sampling tool,
and providing alternative measures of fish abundance. Acoustic methods
have been developed to provide calibrated information on distribution
and abundance, but must be coupled with other sampling tools to collect
biological specimens. Egg and larval methods have been developed to
provide measurements of abundance (spawning biomass) that are not
susceptible to the same types of sampling problems that may affect trawl
surveys. Imaging systems (visual, laser) are an appropriate tool in high
relief nearshore habitats and have been useful in understanding the
interaction between fish and other sampling tools. Mark-recapture
methods, like egg and larval methods, can provide a direct estimate of
absolute abundance but must rely on other tools to measure distribution
and to collect biological specimens. More generally, a single survey
method may not be suitable for the entire age range; for example, a
separate survey may be necessary to provide an index of recruitment. In
many instances, it is likely that at least two survey methods may need
to be deployed in order to provide appropriate input for stock
assessments and projections.

The NRC (1998a) evaluation of stock assessment methods recommended that
each stock assessment contain at least one reliable index of relative
stock abundance, preferably from fishery-independent surveys because
incompletely calibrated fishery-dependent indices can lead to biased
stock assessment results:

*NRC Recommendation #2: \"At the minimum, at least one reliable
abundance index should be available for each stock. Fishery-independent
surveys offer the best choice for achieving a reliable index if designed
well with respect to location, timing, sampling gear, and other
statistical survey design considerations.\"*

Attempts to satisfy this type of recommendation have played a key role
in NMFS\' research planning for several decades. The most recent
document directed specifically at this type of recommendation is the
NOAA Fisheries Data Acquisition Plan (NMFS 1998a; **Appendix 3**), which
calls for a combination of purpose-built fishery research vessels and
chartered days-at-sea to satisfy immediate fishery-independent data
collection needs.

Reliable fishery-independent indices are already available for several
key stocks, primarily in the northeastern United States and Alaska which
have long time series of research survey data. Such indices will become
even more widely available as NMFS and partnering agencies and
institutions acquire additional research platforms, including dedicated
research vessels. But, even with additional resources for research, some
important variables will always be difficult to estimate; for example,
natural mortality, which is a key assessment variable singled out for
attention by NRC (1998a):

*NRC Recommendation #3 (in part): \" \...Greater attention should also
be devoted to including independent estimates of natural mortality in
assessment models.\"*

To obtain reliable independent estimates of natural mortality, the types
of fishery-independent research required are likely to involve extensive
mark-recapture studies and/or collection and analysis of food habitats
data from large numbers of potential predators covering extensive
spatial and temporal scales.

**B. Input Data: Minimal and Optimal Requirements**

The great diversity of data available for the world\'s fisheries has
fostered the development of a wide range of stock assessment modeling
methods that can take advantage of these data. As the scope of the data
and their quality and quantity improves, several improvements in stock
assessment results will accrue. As data become more precise and as the
time series of data become longer, the precision of stock assessment
results should improve, and there should be greater stability in
resulting recommendations on the status and potential yield from the
stock. As more types of data become available, it will be possible to
test and validate model assumptions and reduce the possibility that
model results are biased because of inappropriate assumptions about the
data. Appropriate data are also needed to reliably forecast likely
future conditions of a stock, in addition to obtaining a retrospective
view of a stock\'s history. It has sometimes been argued in the
scientific literature that well-calibrated fishery catch per unit effort
(CPUE) data is an adequate measure of relative stock abundance, and that
useful stock assessments can be based solely on simple models tuned to
such data. While this may be true for some fisheries, there are many
case studies demonstrating that the assumption that commercial CPUE is
directly proportional to resource abundance may lead to large biases in
results, and that such bias is often detected too late and only when
additional sources of data are obtained and included in the assessment.

In each of three major categories of information required as input to
stock assessments; viz, catch, abundance, and life history, the Task
Force defined 5-6 progressively more complete levels of data
availability (**Figure 3**). Such a progression will fit no fishery
perfectly, but gives a general guide to the progression of information
improvement that should be the goal of comprehensive stock monitoring
programs. A balanced development in these three categories of input data
is also beneficial; generally, a stock assessment model will not be able
to fully utilize detailed catch data if there is an inadequate survey
index and lack of key biological data.

####### Levels of catch data

0 --- No catch data.

1 --- Landed catch provides a minimum estimate of fishery removals and
is typically obtained from mandatory landing receipts. In some cases,
particularly recreational fisheries, a statistical sampling program is
used to expand estimates of sampled catch up to the total angling
population.

2 --- Catch size composition provides a measure of the sizes of fish
being impacted by the fishery, and when tracked over time can provide an
index of recruitment to the fishery and total mortality rates.

3 --- Spatial data on catch from logbooks can provide information on
range extensions and contractions, and other changes in stock or fleet
distribution.

4 --- Catch age composition requires the development of age
determination techniques and an investment in the collection and
processing of appropriate samples. The result is much greater stock
assessment accuracy than can be obtained with size composition data
alone.

5 --- Accurate and complete data on total removals (including landed
catch, discards, bycatch in other fisheries, and cryptic mortality
induced by fishing gear contact) will contribute to accurate stock
assessment results. An at-sea observer program can monitor total
removals, cross-check logbook data, and collect site-specific biological
samples. In many fisheries, the relative merits of observer programs for
collecting data on total removals and/or age composition data may
warrant consideration before or instead of investing in a fishery
logbook program.

####### Levels of abundance data

0 --- No abundance data.

1 --- Relative abundance index from fishery catch per unit effort or an
imprecise, infrequent survey. Another Level 1 situation would be a
single survey from which an estimate of absolute abundance has been
made. At this low level of information there will only be a limited
ability to track changes in stock abundance because of uncertainties in
the calibration of the index, or a high level of noise in the data
relative to the magnitude of the expected changes in stock abundance.

2 --- Precise, frequent surveys with age composition will provide more
accurate tracking of changes in stock abundance and the associated age
composition data will enable better estimation of historical and current
levels of recruitment.

3 --- Research surveys with known or estimated catchability, acoustic
surveys with known or estimated target strengths, and
statistically-designed tagging studies can provide estimates of absolute
abundance. This is especially valuable when the time series of the
survey is so short that no trend is detectable.

4 --- Habitat-specific surveys refine the concept of stratified random
surveys so that survey results are more closely associated with
particular habitats. The result is improved knowledge of the
relationship between fish assemblages and habitat features. In addition,
these surveys use alternative methodologies to extend survey coverage
into all relevant habitats.

####### Levels of life history data

0 --- No life history data.

1 --- The size composition of harvested fish provides a simple index of
a stock\'s growth potential and vulnerability to overharvesting.

2 --- Basic demographic parameters such as age, growth, and maturity
rates provide information on productivity and natural mortality.

3 --- Seasonal and spatial patterns of mixing, migration, and
variability in life history characteristics, especially growth and
maturity, provides improved understanding of how a population responds
to its environment.

4 --- Food habits information defines the predator-prey and competitive
relationships within the fish community, thus providing a first step
towards direct estimation of natural mortality rates and
ecologically-based harvest recommendations.

**Figure 3.** Factors used to classify stocks in terms of input data and
assessment status.

The availability of data at these various levels is tabulated in
**Appendix 1** for each of the 904 stocks included in the NMFS (1999a)
Report to Congress on the Status of Fisheries of the United States. The
data are also summarized by individual and combined Science Centers in
**Table 1** and **Figure 4** and discussed in **Section III D**.

**Table 1.** Numbers of stocks with different levels of input data
(catch, abundance and life history parameters), assessment methodology
and assessment frequency for the 904 stocks listed in the NMFS (1999a)
Report to Congress on the Status of Fisheries of the United States. Zero
indicates no information; otherwise, the higher the level, the better
the information. See **Figure 3** and the text for a description of the
levels, **Figure 4** for graphical comparisons, and **Appendix 1** for
the stock-by-stock information.

+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| ## AL     |           |           |           |           |           |
| L REGIONS |           |           |           |           |           |
|  COMBINED |           |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| *         | **Catch** | **Ab      | **Life    | **A       | **A       |
| *LEVELS** |           | undance** | History** | ssessment | ssessment |
|           |           |           |           | Level**   | Fr        |
|           |           |           |           |           | equency** |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **0**     | 95        | 374       | 96        | 545       | 443       |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **0.5**   | 40        | 14        |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **1**     | 555       | 355       | 519       | 153       | 107       |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **2**     | 72        | 125       | 207       | 60        | 129       |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **3**     | 45        | 32        | 69        | 27        | 225       |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **4**     | 71        | 4         | 13        | 111       |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **5**     | 26        |           |           | 8         |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **SUM**   | 904       | 904       | 904       | 904       | 904       |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| ## NE     |           |           |           |           |           |
| FMC, MAFM |           |           |           |           |           |
| C & ASMFC |           |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **0**     | 4         | 1         | 0         | 2         | 7         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **0.5**   | 0         | 0         |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **1**     | 7         | 30        | 9         | 15        | 22        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **2**     | 12        | 22        | 24        | 15        | 18        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **3**     | 8         | 3         | 13        | 3         | 9         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **4**     | 20        | 0         | 10        | 19        |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **5**     | 5         |           |           | 2         |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **SUM**   | 56        | 56        | 56        | 56        | 56        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| ###       |           |           |           |           |           |
| # SAFMC,  |           |           |           |           |           |
| GMFMC, CF |           |           |           |           |           |
| MC, & Atl |           |           |           |           |           |
| antic HMS |           |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **0**     | 0         | 285       | 49        | 278       | 312       |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **0.5**   | 0         | 0         |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **1**     | 384       | 117       | 292       | 85        | 28        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **2**     | 12        | 19        | 68        | 18        | 81        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **3**     | 22        | 1         | 13        | 13        | 1         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **4**     | 1         | 0         | 0         | 28        |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **5**     | 3         |           |           | 0         |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **SUM**   | 422       | 422       | 422       | 422       | 422       |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| #### PFMC |           |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **0**     | 0         | 41        | 1         | 62        | 62        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **0.5**   | 40        | 14        |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **1**     | 26        | 34        | 59        | 2         | 14        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **2**     | 7         | 0         | 27        | 9         | 14        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **3**     | 9         | 18        | 19        | 4         | 19        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **4**     | 26        | 2         | 3         | 32        |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **5**     | 1         |           |           | 0         |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **SUM**   | 109       | 109       | 109       | 109       | 109       |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| #         |           |           |           |           |           |
| ### WPFMC |           |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **0**     | 13        | 13        | 15        | 28        | 28        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **0.5**   | 0         | 0         |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **1**     | 37        | 41        | 0         | 22        | 12        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **2**     | 5         | 3         | 37        | 0         | 6         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **3**     | 3         | 6         | 12        | 7         | 18        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **4**     | 6         | 1         | 0         | 4         |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **5**     | 0         |           |           | 3         |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **SUM**   | 64        | 64        | 64        | 64        | 64        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| ### NPFMC |           |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **0**     | 78        | 34        | 31        | 175       | 34        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **0.5**   | 0         | 0         |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **1**     | 101       | 133       | 159       | 29        | 31        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **2**     | 36        | 81        | 51        | 18        | 10        |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **3**     | 3         | 4         | 12        | 0         | 178       |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **4**     | 18        | 1         | 0         | 28        |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **5**     | 17        |           |           | 3         |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **SUM**   | 253       | 253       | 253       | 253       | 253       |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

#### ![](media/image3.wmf){width="3.779166666666667in" height="8.559027777777779in"}

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### C. Stock Assessment Models

The complexity of assessment methods used for a given stock generally
reflects the availability of data and the value or importance of the
fishery. To indicate the current levels of analysis of the status of
various stocks, two columns were added to **Appendix 1**, one giving a
numerical code that roughly indicates the level of modeling effort/
complexity/ sophistication applied to each species in **Appendix 1** and
the other giving the frequency with which stock assessments are
conducted. To be classified as an assessment, an analysis must produce
some measure of stock or fishery status relative to a benchmark such as
a fishing target or an overfishing limit. The assessment level codes
have the following meanings:

0 --- Although some data may have been collected on this species, these
data have not been examined beyond simple time series plots or
tabulations of catch.

1 --- Either:

> a\) a time series of a (potentially-imprecise) abundance index
> calculated as raw or standardized CPUE in commercial, recreational, or
> survey vessel data, or
>
> b\) a onetime estimation of absolute abundance made on the basis of
> tagging results, a depletion study, or some form of calibrated survey.

2 --- Simple equilibrium models applied to life history information; for
example, yield per recruit or spawner per recruit functions based on
mortality, growth, and maturity schedules; catch curve analysis;
survival analysis; or length-based cohort analysis.

3 --- Equilibrium and non-equilibrium production models aggregated both
spatially and over age and size; for example, the Schaefer model and the
Pella-Tomlinson model.

4 --- Size, stage, or age structured models such as cohort analysis and
untuned and tuned VPA analyses, age-structured production models,
CAGEAN, stock synthesis, size or age-structured Bayesian models,
modified DeLury methods, and size or age-based mark-recapture models.

5 --- Assessment models incorporating ecosystem considerations and
spatial and seasonal analyses in addition to Levels 3 or 4. Ecosystem
considerations include one or more of the following:

> a\) one or more time-varying parameters, either estimated as
> constrained series, or driven by environmental variables,

b\) multiple target species as state variables in the model, or

> c\) living components of the ecosystem other than the target species
> included as state variables in the model.

According to the above scheme, an \"assessment\" is a data analysis at
Level 1 or greater, provided that analysis allows statements about
relative stock or fishery status to be made. The frequency column in
**Appendix 1** give codes defined as follows:

0 --- Never: an assessment has never been conducted.

1 --- Infrequent: the most recent assessment was conducted more than
three years ago.

2 --- Frequent or recent: the most recent assessment was conducted
within the last three years but is not conducted annually.

3 --- Annual or more: assessments are conducted at least annually.

The assessment levels listed above were designed to represent a series
of increasing analytical effort and sophistication. Lower levels are
amenable to use of standardized software, but upper levels, particularly
Level 5, probably require that models be tailored to deal with the
particularities of each stock assessment or group of related
assessments. Such newly crafted models will most likely require
additional types of input data concerning oceanographic conditions,
and/or biological features of various components of the ecosystem,
and/or operational details of the fishing gear. Thus the progression of
assessment levels implies a progression of increasing data needs. In
addition, NRC (1998a) recommends that, where possible, more than one
assessment model should be applied for a given data-set or fish stock:

NRC Recommendation #3 (in part): \"Because there are often problems with
the data used in assessments, a variety of different assessment models
should be applied to the same data; new methods may have to be developed
to evaluate the results of such procedures. The different views provided
by different models should improve the quality of assessment
results\...\"

Another NRC (1998a) recommendation is to develop new techniques for
stock assessment:

NRC Recommendation #7: \"NMFS and other bodies responsible for fisheries
management should support the development of new techniques for stock
assessment that are robust to incomplete, ambiguous, and variable data
and to the effects of environmental fluctuations in fisheries.\"

Development of new computational and analytical techniques is most
likely to take place at the upper end of the list of assessment levels
where it will likely be necessary to craft a wide variety of new
assessment models. However, because these new kinds of models may
require new kinds of data, there may also be a need to develop new
sampling or survey techniques, or to perform experiments. Models that
can incorporate the effects of environmental fluctuations in fisheries
are already under active development, but they suffer from a lack of
understanding of the effects of major environmental regime shifts on
individual species and species interactions. Thus, their predictability
is currently limited. On the other hand, pursuit of this line of
research is likely to be more fruitful than attempts to develop models
that are robust to incomplete or ambiguous data - the extent to which
models can compensate for data deficiencies is extremely limited.

NRC (1998a) also recommended the development of more realistic
assessments of uncertainty:

NRC Recommendation #4: \"The Committee recommends that fish stock
assessments include realistic measures of the uncertainty in the output
variables whenever feasible. Although a simple model can be a useful
management tool, more complex models are needed to better quantify all
the unknown aspects of the system and to address the long-term
consequences of specific decision rules adequately. The implementation
of this recommendation could follow the methods discussed in Chapter 3
\[of NRC 1998a\].\"

While expression of uncertainty is not included in the above definitions
of assessment levels, one would expect that increasing sophistication of
assessment models would go hand in hand with increasing sophistication
in calculating uncertainty, and one would hope that more sophisticated
uncertainty assessments would also be more realistic. To the extent that
more realistic uncertainty assessments incorporate more components of
variation, there is the possibility that they would show wider
confidence bounds. Thus the higher level assessments are not at all
guaranteed to yield tighter uncertainty distributions and consequent
high levels of allowable catch as promised elsewhere. Therefore, it is
important that lower level assessments be accompanied by uncertainty
calculations that are sophisticated and comprehensive enough to make
them as realistic as they are for higher level assessments.

D.  **Inventory of the Status of Stock Assessments: Adequacy of Input
    Data, Assessment**

**Level, and Frequency of Assessments**

The status of input data and assessment analyses for the 904 stocks
listed in the 1999 Report to Congress on the Status of Fisheries of the
United States (NMFS 1999a) is tabulated in **Appendix 1** and summarized
in **Table 1** and **Figure 4**. The first point to note is that for
most stocks, there is at least basic information on landed catch and the
size frequency of the catch. However, for more than 40% of the stocks,
there is no fishery-independent or fishery-dependent index of abundance,
which makes it extremely difficult to conduct a meaningful assessment.
Other factors, such as the need to prioritize the stocks to be assessed,
results in a total of about 60% of the stocks (545 stocks) lacking
assessments sufficient to evaluate stock status relative to overfishing.
Although there are relatively few stocks at the highest levels of each
of the input data categories, a total of 119 stocks are routinely
assessed at Level 4 or higher. Detailed examination of the information
contained in **Appendix 1** shows that most of NMFS\' data collection
and assessment resources have been directed towards those species that
dominate in the catch or have previously been deemed to be overfished.
With a few exceptions, all of the high-valued, high-volume, or
high-profile species are routinely assessed, while most of the stocks
with few input data and analysis are bycatch species that contribute
little or nothing to total landings. In other words, they are usually
relatively unimportant from an economic perspective. Their importance
from an ecological perspective and their biological status with respect
to risk of reproductive failure is generally unknown.

**E. Adequacy of Technology and Infrastructure**

In some respects, the job expected of stock assessment scientists is
impossible: to estimate the numbers and biomass of each harvested
species in the ocean even though they cannot be seen; to determine
demographic parameters such as growth and mortality even though such are
affected by unobservable and complex interactions between species and
with the environment; and to forecast catches and population responses
ahead 1-10 or more years even though incoming recruitment is known to be
highly variable and affected by environmental events that may not yet
have occurred. The difficulty of these tasks necessitates
high-technology solutions. Improved technologies are needed to sample,
survey, or experiment with species of interest in situ, in order to
decrease sampling error, increase sampling intensity, or increase the
area or number of species covered. Such technologies, many of which are
actively being developed at present (**Appendix 12**), include
development of specialized sampling nets and other methods of direct
sampling, multifrequency acoustics, multi-beam acoustics, LIDAR, laser
line scan systems, remotely-operated vehicles equipped with underwater
cameras, and electronic acoustic or satellite tags.

Improvements in fishery-dependent data sampling are also required to
reduce the reporting burden on fishers, reduce reporting errors and
mistranslation of information, and increase the timeliness of
availability of such information. Vessel monitoring systems are already
in use by several fishing fleets, but these are mainly used to record
and monitor vessel location. Several prototype electronic logbook
systems have been developed and tested and, if these can become part of
the standard operating procedures of all major fisheries, they will have
tremendous benefit to fishers, scientists and managers alike. Tools for
remote monitoring of fishing behavior and catch quantity and composition
are under development but complex problems remain to be solved.

The availability of hardware and software for processing the complex and
voluminous data collected by some sampling tools is often a limiting
factor in the implementation of innovative assessment methodologies.
Lack of adequate computing power may also be an obstacle in the stock
assessment and stock projection processes, particularly when realistic
representations of uncertainty are attempted. For example, if
uncertainties in assessment inputs are modeled such that probability
distributions of current status are produced rather than point
estimates, and then future stock or fishery status is projected from
these distributions incorporating uncertainty in future events as well,
the number of iterations required can quickly mount up and bog down
existing computer systems. Thus, proposals for improving stock
assessments need to be linked to advanced technology initiatives and
information technology (IT) planning. In fact, it is now a requirement
that IT staff be included in programmatic planning activities and the
budget formulation process.

The final infrastructure-related concern voiced by the Task Force was
the availability of space to house the additional staff required to
improve stock assessments. Office space is already at a premium in most
NMFS facilities. Any plan to increase on-site staff will also need to
address this issue.

**F. Peer Review of Assessments**

Stock assessments conducted by NMFS are rarely, if ever, the product of
a single individual. Peer review is an integral part of the process
conducted by fisheries scientists from within and outside of NMFS. The
NRC (1998a) recommended that:

***NRC Recommendation #8: \"NMFS conduct (at reasonable intervals)
in-depth, independent peer review of its fishery management methods to
include (1) the survey sampling methods used in the collection of
fishery and fishery-independent data, (2) stock assessment procedures,
and (3) management and risk assessment strategies.\"***

With regards to the three classes of peer reviews listed by the NRC,
NMFS routinely conducts peer reviews of stock assessments and stock
assessment procedures, and occasionally conducts reviews of survey
sampling methods, but rarely conducts reviews of management strategies.
One of the problems that arises is in the interpretation of the word
\"independent.\" To some, it means non-government, or at least non-NMFS.
A more liberal interpretation is simply a review conducted by experts
who have not been directly involved in the work being evaluated. NMFS
Science Centers frequently recruit scientists from other Science
Centers, regional offices, or headquarters to participate in peer
reviews. It is also common to invite state fisheries scientists,
academics and non U.S. nationals to serve as reviewers, particularly now
that the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) has been formed. The CIE
(**Appendix 5**) provides a mechanism for accessing a worldwide pool of
highly-qualified fisheries scientists, statisticians, and other experts.

All five Science Centers have systems in place for the peer review of
stock assessments and sampling methods. These are described briefly
below.

####### Northeast Fisheries Science Center

The current peer review forum for stock assessments conducted in the
Northeast dates back to 1985. At that time a region-wide process was
initiated to subject selected stock assessments to a two-level peer
review. The goals of this process are to assure that scientists
reviewing the assessments are not those responsible for the conduct of
the work, and that experts independent of the process are included.
Although the details of the structure have changed, the Stock Assessment
Workshop (SAW) has been, and continues to be, the main vehicle for
critical evaluation of stock assessment results and the crafting of
management advice in the region.

The SAW consists of two parts: two week-long meetings of the Stock
Assessment Review Committee (SARC), usually conducted in June and
November each year, and formal SAW meetings with the New England and
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils where results of the SARC are
presented and feedback is solicited. Overseeing the process is the SAW
Steering Committee, consisting of the Northeast Regional Administrator,
the Science and Research Director of the Northeast Fisheries Science
Center, and the executive directors of the New England and Mid-Atlantic
FMCs and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). The
steering committee sets the schedule of which stock assessments will be
reviewed at upcoming SARC meetings, and determines the specific \"terms
of reference\" establishing assessment information requirements of
managers. The SARC committee usually consists of about 10 members
selected from the staffs of the Center, ASMFC (member states), the
Councils, and designated outside experts from academia, state agencies,
other NMFS Centers and foreign (usually Canadian) research institutes.

Stock assessments reviewed at the SARC are conducted by standing working
groups (WGs) responsible for the various species: Northern Demersal WG,
Southern Demersal WG, Coastal/Pelagic WG, Invertebrate WG. Stock
assessment methods are addressed by the standing Methods WG. Currently
the chairs of the WGs are NEFSC scientists, but membership consists of
state and academic scientists as well. Some assessments are contributed
to the SARC directly by ASMFC assessment committees. The chair of the
SARC meetings has, in recent years, been selected by the Center for
Independent Experts (CIE; **Appendix** **5**), and has included
individuals from Canada and Scotland in the past two years.

In addition to the SARC/SAW process, which primarily addresses
assessments of state and national importance, stock assessments of
transboundary (international) importance are peer reviewed in additional
fora, including the TRAC (Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee),
a joint U.S.-Canada committee responsible for cod, haddock and
yellowtail flounder on Georges Bank, NAFO (the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Organization), which is responsible for Illex squid and
various other stocks, and NASCO (the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation
Organization), which receives scientific advice from ICES (the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) North Atlantic
Salmon WG.

**Southeast Fisheries Science Center**

As the SEFSC provides quantitative stock assessment advice to three
Fishery Management Councils plus the NMFS Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species Management Division, there are a number of peer-review processes
that are undertaken. Most typically, SEFSC assessments are conducted by
a team of Center scientists. Assessment documents are prepared and
distributed to Council review panel members in advance of review
meetings. The Councils\' stock assessment review panels, which are
typically comprised of regional experts who have not been involved in
the work being evaluated, comment on the adequacy of the assessment and
provide management advice to each Council. In the case of many Atlantic
HMS fisheries, assessments are conducted in an international assessment
working group setting (through ICCAT), with subsequent additional peer
review conducted by ICCAT\'s Standing Committee on Research and
Statistics. Within ICCAT, it is not unusual for the U.S. scientific
delegation to be comprised of scientific representatives of a wide array
of interest groups. It is also common for the U.S. scientific delegation
to be comprised of non-U.S. nationals. For other HMS species (e.g.
coastal sharks), assessments are carried out in a workshop format in
which state fisheries scientists, academics and non-U.S. nationals
participate in the assessment. Further review of any of these
assessments is also undertaken through the Center for Independent
Experts (CIE; **Appendix 5**), if the assessment results appear to raise
controversy.

#### Southwest Fisheries Science Center

The Southwest Fisheries Science Center provides peer review for all its
stock assessments and uses a variety of mechanisms to do so. The choice
of mechanism is often based on the customary approach for the forum
receiving the assessment. For assessments produced by the SWFSC for the
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) a Stock Assessment Review
Panel (STAR Panel) is formed with members chosen from the Council\'s SSC
and other nominated non-NMFS individuals to review and verify the
assessment. For assessments produced by the SWFSC for the Western
Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC), peer review is accomplished
using the Center for Independent Experts (CIE; **Appendix 5**),
currently coordinated through the University of Miami, or other
designated panels. Protected resource stock assessments are peer
reviewed by panels of external reviewers constituted by external
organizations such as the Inter-American tropical Tuna Commission
(IATTC), or the Marine Mammal Commission, or the SWFSC. For SWFSC
assessments presented to international scientific bodies such as the
Interim Scientific Committee for Tunas and Tuna-like Species in the
North Pacific Ocean (ISC) or the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish
(SCTB) of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), either as
finished assessments or as NMFS input for collaborative assessments, the
receiving forum and its scientists provide the peer review.

#### Northwest Fisheries Science Center

The stock assessment review (STAR) process for groundfish assessments
off the U.S. west coast has been developed as a shared responsibility of
the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Pacific Fishery Management
Council. The STAR process helps make groundfish stock assessments the
\"best available\" scientific information and facilitates use of the
information by the Council. The process operates under the direction of
a NMFS Stock Assessment Coordinator and reports primarily through the
Council\'s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). The process has a
detailed calendar, explicit responsibilities for all participants, and
specified outcomes and reports. STAR panels meet in a public setting in
which all interested parties are legitimate meeting participants. This
increases understanding and acceptance of groundfish stock assessment
and review work by all members of the Council family.

The STAR Panel\'s terms of reference concern technical aspects of stock
assessment work. The Panel is expected to identify scenarios that are
unlikely or have a flawed technical basis, while reporting information,
discussions, and disagreements which reflect uncertainty in the
assessment. The Panel operates by consensus and strives for a risk
neutral approach in its reports and deliberations.

STAR Panels normally meet for one week to review two assessments.
Typically 2-3 Panels meet each year, and Panels reviewing transboundary
assessments are informally coordinated with the Canadian stock
assessment review process. Each Panel normally includes a chair, at
least one \"external\" member (i.e. outside the Council family and not
involved in management or assessment of West Coast groundfish), and one
SSC member. In addition to Panel members, STAR meetings will include
representatives from Council technical and advisory committees with
responsibilities laid out in their terms of reference. The STAR\'s SSC
representative attends Council meetings where stock assessments are
discussed to explain the reviews and provide other technical information
and advice.

#### Alaska Fisheries Science Center

The AFSC provides stock assessment advice to the NPFMC on an annual
basis. Stock assessments are reviewed internally for consistency and
accuracy. External technical reviews are conducted by the NPFMC BSAI and
GOA Plan Teams and the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). The
Plan Teams and SSC are composed of scientists who represent federal,
state and academic institutions. The Plan Teams provides a detailed
technical review of the assessment methods and analytical approaches.
The SSC provides a similar level of technical advice and is responsible
for establishing the Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) and Overfishing
Level (OFL) for FMP species. Preliminary assessments are prepared for
the September Council meeting and final assessment documents are
completed in November for Council action in December. Preliminary
assessment documents are required when assessment scientists introduce a
new analytical method, or utilize a new data source in their model. The
preliminary SAFE provides an opportunity for the analyst to incorporate
comments and suggestions from the Plan Teams and Scientific and
Statistical Committee in their final SAFE chapter. In November, the Plan
Team meets to review the final SAFE documents. The Plan Teams prepare
reports documenting their recommendations for ABCs and OFLs and they
compile the SAFE document for distribution at the December Council
meeting.

AFSC schedules detailed reviews of selected assessments on an annual or
semiannual basis. Stock assessment experts are invited to conduct a
thorough review of the methodology used. This review process provides
time for the assessment expert(s) to work one on one with the assessment
scientists. Reports derived from this process are presented to the NPFMC
advisory bodies. This assessment review is similar in scope to the
reviews now provided by the Center for Independent Experts (**Appendix
5**).

**G. Translation of Stock Assessment Advice into Management Action**

The translation of stock assessment advice to management action is where
science and management interface and is an important but often
controversial activity. Conflicts frequently arise over the \"proper\"
roles of scientists and managers. At one extreme, it is argued that
there should be greater separation of the science and the management, in
order to ensure that the science is unbiased. Scientists would then
provide information on stock status in a form such as graphs giving the
probability that current or projected fishing mortalities will be above
or below some benchmark (specified previously by the managers), and
managers would decide what action to take on the basis of this
information. At the other extreme, it is argued that there should be
greater co-mingling of science and management with most if not all
science being specifically focused on management-oriented questions, and
the priorities for science being driven by management priorities. In
reality, scientists provide information on stock status but, because
they have the data, the quantitative skills, and the infrastructure, are
subsequently asked to evaluate the likely outcomes of alternative
management actions with respect to their effect on future stock status.
Stock assessment scientists are frequently members of Plan Development
Teams and related groups that evaluate the effectiveness of alternative
management tactics and strategies in meeting management goals.
Assessment scientists often also evaluate and provide advice on
management benchmarks.

Many of the problems addressed by Plan Development Teams and related
groups are tactical; i.e. short-term measures to solve the immediate
problems of reducing fishing mortality and/or rebuilding stock biomass.
Tactics that are frequently evaluated include size limits, gear
restrictions, closed areas, closed seasons, trip limits, total allowable
catches, limited entry, and restricted days at sea. When fishing
mortality and fishing capacity are under control, and the stock biomass
is near long-term sustainable levels, it is appropriate to conduct
strategic (long-term) analyses of \"optimum\" management strategies.
Such strategies might include constant fishing mortality strategies at
various levels of fishing mortality, constant escapement strategies,
constant catch strategies, alternative strategies that have variable
effects on the bycatch of protected species or nontarget species or
nontarget sizes, pros and cons of permanent closed areas, and the social
and economic implications of alternative fleet configurations. These
types of analyses tend to be conducted only sporadically---typically at
the beginning of development of a new management plan, during major
overhaul of a plan, or as a research topic undertaken by one or more
internal or external scientists on their own initiative.

The process of translating assessment advice to management action is
also where conflicts arise over the \"proper\" amount of influence by,
or interaction with, stakeholders such as the commercial, recreational
and environmental sectors. The process set up by the MSFCMA
theoretically involves public participation at every step. In general,
however, there is relatively little public involvement in the assessment
process itself, possibly because relatively few people have the training
or interest in the technical aspects of the quantitative analyses
conducted. There tends to be considerably greater involvement at the
stage of formulating management actions to improve stock or fishery
status. This mainly takes the form of attendance at Fishery Management
Council meetings and public hearings and, increasingly, by challenging
particular management actions or the stock assessment itself in courts
of law. The problems addressed in these forums also tend to be mainly
short-term and tactical.

It is likely that conflicts could be lessened considerably if more
resources were to be devoted to improving this interface between science
and management. First, more attention should be paid to analyzing the
long-term implications of alternative management strategies, and a
greater array of alternatives should be examined. The NRC (1998a) study
recommended evaluation of a wide array of alternative management
strategies in terms of their robustness to assessment and other errors.

NRC Recommendation #5: \"Precautionary management procedures should
include management tools specific to the species managed, such as
threshold biomass levels, size limits, gear restrictions, and area
closures (for sedentary species)\"

Second, simulation models should be constructed to allow managers and
other stakeholders to evaluate the implications of alternative actions
and strategies themselves. Such models have been in existence for at
least 25 years, but it takes considerable time to program them and to
construct a user-friendly interface, particularly if a wide array of
management alternatives is incorporated. In addition, they may need to
be reprogrammed each time a new stock assessment is conducted. Third,
models for analyzing assessment methods and harvesting strategies
simultaneously, called management procedures simulation models, should
be constructed for each major stock or fishery. The structure of
management procedures simulation models varies but they generally
include an operating model that provides a simulation of a \"true\"
population, a procedure for sampling the true population, an assessment
model that uses the sampled data to produce a \"perceived\" population,
a management model that implements specific harvest rules, and
performance statistics and feedback associated with each of these
components. This is essentially the approach recommended by NRC (1998a).

NRC Recommendation #6: \"Assessment methods and harvesting strategies
have to be evaluated simultaneously to determine their ability to
achieve management goals. Ideally, this involves implementing them both
in simulations of future stock trajectories. For complex assessment
methods, this may prove to be very computationally intensive, and an
alternative is to simulate only the decision rules while making
realistic assumptions about the uncertainty of future assessments.
Simulation models should be realistic and should encompass a wide range
of possible stock responses to management and natural fluctuations
consistent with historical experience. The performance of alternative
methods and decision rules should be evaluated using several criteria,
including the distribution of yield and the probabilities of exceeding
management thresholds\"

This framework is particularly useful for investigating the robustness
of various types of biological reference points and management actions,
but it is extremely labor and computationally intensive.

**H. Communication of Assessment Results and Follow-up Evaluations**

Communication, or the perception of a lack of communication, may be one
of the greatest threats to the credibility of stock assessment science.
Translating complex technical information into formats that a wide array
of constituents can identify with can be extremely time consuming and
not all assessment scientists are equally adept at it. In addition, it
is often not pleasant or rewarding to present assessment results and
evaluations of alternative management strategies to a sometimes hostile
audience with varying agendas and views about the future of the fishery.
Scientists are often accused by one or more sectors (e.g. small-scale
commercial fishers, large-scale commercial fisheries, for-hire
recreational fishers, private recreational fishers, and
environmentalists) of being biased in favor of one or more other
sectors.

Another communication problem affecting the credibility of stock
assessments is the disassociation between the generation and analysis of
fishery-dependent data. A fisher filling out a logbook detailing the
catch at a certain time and place may believe that the size of a
particular catch was more a function of weather or oceanographic
conditions or the way the gear was deployed, rather than actual
abundance, but this information will probably not be conveyed to those
analyzing the data. In addition, fishers may sometimes have an incentive
to under- or over-report catches. And some fishers may provide
incomplete data because, like most people, they simply dislike filling
out forms. Fishers may distrust stock assessment results because (i)
they are aware of the problems inherent in the generation of
fishery-dependent data, and (ii) since fishers are adept at finding
fish, they may have a more optimistic view of the state of the stock
than is implied by the assessment. It is often stated that it is
impossible for a scientist to produce a valid assessment unless s/he
spends time out on the water observing fish and fleet behavior. However,
since individual vessels tend to focus on \"hot spots,\" a few days at
sea would only give a very localized view of a fishery or stock.
Scientists also need to spend time on statistically-designed
fishery-independent surveys to develop a more holistic view of fish
distribution and abundance.

Lack of time to communicate with other groups of constituents is not
just a problem for scientists. All groups of constituents would probably
benefit from participating more in each others activities, but this
would take time away from their own specialty. Assessment scientists
should, however, devote more time and attention to communications about
data deficiencies, to cooperative research with constituents, to
communication of assessment results, and to interactive analysis of the
implications of alternative management tactics and strategies.

**I. Staffing Issues**

#### Education and training

NMFS employs the largest collection of world-renowned fisheries
scientists of any agency, university, or other organization worldwide.
In general, these scientists have strong backgrounds in both biology and
either mathematics or statistics. However, biologists with solid
quantitative skills, or quantitative experts with some biological
background, are relatively rare and the pool of qualified applicants
graduating from appropriate university courses is actually shrinking.
This situation was recognized by NRC (1998a) who recommended that:

NRC Recommendation #10: \"NMFS and other bodies that conduct stock
assessments should ensure a steady supply of well-trained stock
assessment scientists to conduct actual assessments and to carry out
associated research. NMFS should encourage partnerships among
universities, government laboratories, and industry for their mutual
benefit. This can be accomplished by exchanging personnel and ideas and
by providing funding for continuing education at the graduate,
postdoctoral, and professional levels, including elements such as
cooperative research projects and specialized courses, workshops, and
symposia.\"

In fact, NMFS has numerous cooperative programs with academic
institutions (see Data Acquisition Report, NMFS 1998; **Appendix 3**),
provides funding for continuing education of employees, and frequently
organizes topical workshops and specialized courses. However, the
paucity of qualified applicants for advertised stock assessment
scientist positions is evidence that insufficient people are being
encouraged to enter this field and receive appropriate training. A
relatively new program designed to alleviate this problem has been
established jointly by NMFS and NOAA Sea Grant. Each year (beginning in
2000), this program will provide up to three years of funding, mentoring
and summer employment for two Ph.D. candidates in quantitative
assessment-related areas of research, up to a maximum of six students at
any one time (**Appendix 6**).

In addition, NMFS does not have a comprehensive continuing education
program for technical staff, although there have been several attempts
to initiate such programs. As shown below, assessment scientists do not
feel that they have sufficient opportunity to participate in
professional development activities, including training.

#### Time and motion analysis

As detailed in **Sections III G and III H** and elsewhere in this
report, it is evident that there are many other demands placed on
assessment scientists aside from the basic requirement of a background
in biology and mathematics. Within a given year, an individual
assessment scientist may be expected to: (i) participate in
fishery-independent surveys or other field work, (ii) provide input and
advice on sampling designs for research surveys and other
fishery-independent data collection activities, (iii) spend time on
commercial or recreational fishing vessels, (iv) provide input and
advice on the development of data collection objectives and protocols
for observer programs and other fishery-dependent data collection
activities, (v) conduct quality control or other preprocessing of data,
(vi) conduct stock assessments, (vii) conduct research into stock
assessment methods, (viii) present assessment results to peer review
panels and constituent groups, (ix) participate on peer review panels,
(x) participate in fishery management plan development or evaluation
teams, (xi) defend a stock assessment in a court of law, (xii) research
and write scientific papers for primary publication, (xiii) attend
colleagues\' seminars and offer critical review, (xiv) conduct formal,
written peer reviews of articles submitted for publication in scientific
journals, (xv) participate on committees to advance approaches to stock
assessment and fisheries management, (xvi) undertake training to stay
abreast of new methodologies, (xvii) run courses or workshops to train
others, (xviii) participate in national and international meetings and
conferences to enhance professional development, and (xix) undertake a
variable amount of administrative duties depending on supervisory level.
With limited exceptions, there is insufficient scope for individual
scientists to focus on just one or a few of these activities due to an
overall shortage of assessment scientists.

To better understand the allocation of NMFS\' stock assessment
scientists\' time, and to determine whether there is a difference
between the actual and optimal allocation, the Task Force prepared a
questionnaire and administered it to working stock assessment
scientists. Activities commonly undertaken by assessment scientists were
divided into ten categories: (i) the mechanics of stock assessments,
(ii) modeling research to improve stock assessment methodology, (iii)
other (field or related) research to improve stock assessments, (iv)
participation in data collection or data management activities, (v)
provision of scientific advice to Fishery Management Councils and
others, (vi) participation in FMP development, evaluation of the
consequences of alternative management strategies, and other
Council-related activities, (vii) other interactions with constituents,
(viii) professional development including researching and writing
scientific papers, reading scientific journals, attending conferences,
and training, (ix) administrative duties, and (x) other. Assessment
scientists were asked to estimate the percentage of their time roughly
averaged over the previous two years spent in each of these activities,
and also to estimate the ideal percentage allocation of time averaged
across a group of stock assessment scientists, recognizing that there
may be some degree of specialization between individuals. Results are
summarized in **Figure 5** for all respondents combined and separately
for each Science Center except the Northwest (due to a very small sample
size).

![](media/image4.wmf){width="4.563779527559055in"
height="3.002755905511811in"}![](media/image5.wmf){width="3.6208661417322836in"
height="2.498425196850394in"}![](media/image6.wmf){width="3.6271653543307085in"
height="2.5in"}![](media/image7.wmf){width="3.6208661417322836in"
height="2.3909448818897636in"}![](media/image8.wmf){width="3.6145669291338582in"
height="2.4in"}

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

**Figure 5.** Time and motion analysis for NMFS assessment scientists,
averaged over all responding individuals, and individuals within each of
four of the Science Centers (the sample size for the Northwest Center is
too small).

#### 

Overall, about 22% of an average assessment scientist\'s time is spent
on the mechanics of conducting stock assessments, and this seems to be
close to ideal, although there are notable differences between Centers.
The other features of the summarized results that stand out are a desire
to spend less time on data collection and data management activities,
providing scientific advice, FMP development and, in particular,
administrative duties; and more time on modeling and other research and
professional development. This is an important result that supports the
belief of the Task Force that assessment scientists are \"stretched too
thin.\" Production of an assessment and provision of advice are
activities that usually have a critical time horizon associated with
them, whereas research to improve the basis for assessments does not.
Yet, such research is crucial to advance the discipline. Also, in the
hectic world of stock assessments, professional development is almost
perceived as a luxury when, in fact, it is essential for maintaining a
workforce of high caliber, internationally renowned and respected
assessment scientists. Interaction with peers both nationally and
internationally is also essential given the small size of the profession
and the need to have a critical mass to discuss and debate ideas.

#### 

#### Beyond assessment scientists

A wide diversity of staff is required to produce a stock assessment. In
fact, stock assessment scientists just represent the \"tip of the
iceberg\" (**Figure 6**). Far greater numbers of staff are deployed in
critical data collection activities, such as commercial or recreational
catch and effort data, port sampling for biological data, observer
programs, and fishery-independent resource surveys. Additional staff are
required to process biological samples (e.g. to determine fish ages from
hard structures, construct age-length keys, develop growth curves,
construct maturity ogives, and possibly to identify and count eggs and
larval fish from ichthyoplankton surveys and examine stomach contents),
and to enter, audit, integrate, and preprocess data from the myriad of
data collection activities. Support staff such as secretaries,
administrators, and human resource personnel are required to support the
data collection and stock assessment staff and their activities.
Assessment scientists themselves are involved in three primary
assessment-related activities: conducting assessments (using assessment
models), methods research (developing assessment models), and analyzing
management alternatives and providing advice to managers and
constituents based on assessment results (management strategy
evaluations). Relative staffing requirements for assessment-related
responsibilities can be roughly represented by a pyramid, with data
collection activities forming the base of the pyramid, and the
assessments themselves at the apex using information from all lower
levels (**Figure 6**).

Thus, when a new species needs to be assessed, the entire pyramid of
activities needs to be considered. If the existing infrastructure can be
used to collect the basic data for the new species (or basic data are
already being collected but have never been processed), it may only be
necessary to expand slightly on data collection and data management
activities. However, the higher up the pyramid, the less the ability of
the existing infrastructure to absorb new responsibilities (**Figure
7**). If an entirely new program or infrastructure is needed to provide
the basic data for the new species, one or more levels of the pyramid
may require substantial expansion.

**Figure 7.** Schematic showing the relative cost of adding new species
to be assessed. Often the existing infrastructure can be used to collect
the basis data. However, the higher up the pyramid, the less the ability
of the existing infrastructure to absorb new responsibilities.

Current assessment-related staffing requirements by type of activity are
detailed below using the northeast region as a case study.

#### Northeast case study

A careful inventory was conducted for staffing levels expressed as Full
Time Equivalents (FTEs) for all major data collection, research, and
modeling activities of direct relevance to northeast stock assessments.
It should be noted that these analyses apply only to staffing levels and
other resources contributed on the federal side; however, for many of
the region\'s resources, data collection and analyses are undertaken by
staff in state marine fisheries organizations. Totals FTEs by category
are summarized in **Figure 8**.

*Commercial Catch and Biological Sampling:*

(**49 FTEs**; 30 in-house, 19 contract)

Commercial landings data are primarily collected through a network of
NMFS \"port agents\" stationed in major fishing ports throughout the
region, and mandatory dealer and fisher-supplied data. Dealer records
are required for most major regulated species. Port agents assure that
dealer data are entered into computer files and audited. Individual
fishers are required to submit vessel trip reports (VTRs or logbooks),
which are entered into computer files through a central processing
facility located at the Northeast Regional Office in Gloucester,
Massachusetts. In addition to basic data on fishery landings (lbs.),
VTRs are also used to allocate landings to water area fished, which is
an important element when more than one stock of a particular species is
assessed and managed, and for analyses of management strategies
involving measures such as closed fishing areas. Discard data are
requested in VTRs, but the data provided in these self-reported
documents are generally considered unreliable for stock assessment
purposes (although the data have been used in some limited
circumstances). These data collection programs generate information for
activities other than stock assessment (e.g. compliance monitoring,
economics, and management), but without such data, monitoring of the
effects of fishing on the stocks would not be possible.

Biological sampling of landings (length sampling, collection of
structures for subsequent ageing) is also carried out by port agents and
additional sampling staff allocated to the ports. Sampling priorities
are developed by stock assessment scientists, and port agents attempt to
fulfill minimum sample sizes for length and age sampling.

*Recreational Catch and Biological Sampling:*

(**50 FTEs**; 3 in-house, 47 contract)

Recreational fisheries in the Northeast are an important source of
fishing mortality on regulated species such as striped bass, bluefish,
Atlantic cod, winter flounder, scup and black sea bass. Data on the
magnitude of the recreational catch (numbers of fish caught) are derived
from the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistical Survey (MRFSS)
conducted by NMFS. This nationwide survey employs a contractor who
deploys field personnel in a two-phase sampling scheme. The phone survey
element of the program identifies the number of households participating
in recreational fisheries in the region. The intercept portion of the
survey estimates catch numbers and species composition of fishing trips
by anglers. The data are combined to generate estimates of recreational
landings and discards, by species.

Biological sampling of recreational catches is currently limited to
length composition and individual weight data. In several states, the
basic sampling scheme is augmented (increased sample sizes) in order to
provide more precise catch estimates for important species.

In the Northeast region, the contractor utilizes 47 FTEs for the phone
survey and intercept portions of the survey. An additional three FTEs
are required to administer the program and provide statistical oversight
and management.

*Research Vessel Surveys*:

(**15 FTEs**; 8 in-house, 7 contract or volunteers)

Standardized research vessel surveys provide the backbone for stock
assessment activities in the region, and have done so for nearly 40
years. The primary survey activities include spring and autumn bottom
trawl survey series (broad-based multispecies trawling surveys), a
winter bottom trawl survey in the Middle Atlantic and Southern New
England region (primarily providing data for stocks such as summer
flounder, scup, squids, dogfish, and skates), a sea scallop dredge
survey, an hydraulic dredge survey for surfclam and ocean quahog, and a
trawling survey for northern shrimp. These surveys require scientific
personnel equivalent to about 10 person-years to collect data in the
field. Currently this requirement is fulfilled by assigned personnel,
volunteers from various agencies and universities, and stock assessment
staff. In addition to field data collection personnel, about 5 FTEs are
required for data entry and auditing.

Additional research vessel survey data are provided by some states (and
by Canada for transboundary resources). More recently, cooperative
NMFS-fishing industry surveys have been undertaken to increase the
spatial resolution of surveys for sedentary resources (scallop and
surfclam), and to develop approaches to real-time management (squid).
These activities have significantly increased the requirement for at-sea
personnel and for analysts to design the surveys and analyze the
results.

*Sea Sampling*:

(**14 FTEs**; 3 in-house, 11 contract)

Most sea sampling (fishery observer) activities in the Northeast Region
are directed to assessing the impacts of fisheries on marine mammal
populations of the region, including harbor porpoise in relation to sink
gill net fishing. The total sea sampling program includes about 56 FTEs;
however, the majority of the program is focused on monitoring fisheries
interactions with protected species, including marine mammals and sea
turtles. About 25% of the sea sampling program is devoted to sampling
for fishery-related problems (e.g. stock assessment and compliance
monitoring for fished resources). The magnitude of the program is not
sufficient to provide reliable estimates of fishery catches and discards
for all the region\'s fisheries. Consequently, the limited resources of
the fisheries-portion of the sea sampling program have been focused on
several high priority problems: (1) discards of summer flounder in the
Middle Atlantic and Southern New England trawl fishery, (2) estimates of
fishery catches and size composition and bycatches of the sea scallop
dredge fisheries, (3) estimates of finfish bycatches in the northern
shrimp trawl fishery, and (4) monitoring of finfish bycatches in the sea
scallop dredge fishery in an area recently reopened to fishing on
Georges Bank.

*Age and Growth*:

(**11 FTEs**; 8 in-house, 3 contract)

Analyses of year class strength and projections of stock abundance
require measurements of the age-length and age-weight relationships of
fishery resources. Because of high interannual variation in recruitment
survival, the abundance and growth rates of adjacent year classes may
differ greatly. Accordingly, where age-based stock assessments are
performed, age information must be collected each year from the
fisheries and from research vessel abundance surveys.

The NEFSC currently ages about 50,000 individual fish and invertebrates
per year. These ageing studies support priority age-based stock
assessments, depending on which stock assessments need to be updated. In
addition to ageing work, biological studies supporting stock assessments
include validation of ageing structures (e.g. fish otoliths or scales,
clam shells) and factors controlling the rate of growth and onset of
sexual maturity.

*Data Management Services:*

(**5 FTEs**; 4 in-house, 1 contract)

Data management activities (data entry, data auditing, database
maintenance, custom programming for high priority tasks, and support of
data processing activities such as geographical information systems)
requires about five FTEs.

*Stock Assessment Scientists:*

(**28 FTEs**; 23 in-house, 5 contract)

Stock assessment staff include individuals involved in data assembly and
quality control (technical functions), as well as stock assessment model
execution, development of new analytical approaches to stock assessment
methodology, computer programming of models, the provision of management
advice, and peer review of assessment science. These tasks can be
divided into three broad categories describing the general functions of
stock assessment research: (1) conducting stock assessments, (2)
developing and implementing stock assessment methods, and (3) assessment
follow-up activities including analysis of the implications of
alternative management strategies and other scientific input into the
management process. Within the Northeast Region, approximately 16 FTE
are involved in the conduct of stock assessments, four in
methods-related research, and eight in communicating assessment results
and evaluating alternative management strategies. In all cases, no
single individual exclusively performs one of these tasks; rather,
individuals may function in all three areas during part of an assessment
cycle.

Apart from scientists at the NEFSC, other stock assessment professionals
from several states, ASMFC, the two regional Fishery Management
Councils, Canada, and various academic institutions all contribute to
the stock assessment and peer review processes in the Northeast Region.

*Total* (**172 FTEs**)

**Figure 8.** Assessment-related staffing levels by type of activity for
the Northeast Fisheries Science Center. DMS = Data Management Services;
R/V = Research Vessel.

Based on the above, there is a minimum of 172 FTEs involved in various
data collection, data management, data analysis, and communication
functions related to the provision of scientific advice for 59 species
or stocks of fishery resources in the Northeast. On average, this
represents about three staff per assessed species or stock, so that the
minimum additional staffing needed to assess a new species using
existing infrastructure is at least three. However, if entirely new
major programs are required (e.g. a new logbook reporting system, a new
port sampling program, a new observer program, a new type of resource
survey), the Task Force estimated that as many as 20 new staff may need
to be

######## IV. Resource Requirements

**A. Programmatic Needs: Response to questionnaires**

In preparation for addressing the question of resource requirements for
improving stock assessments, the Task Force prepared a questionnaire and
administered it to working stock assessment scientists and to managers
of stock assessment programs. Not surprisingly, programmatic needs
varied by program with, for example, some assessment groups having
reasonable fishery-independent data but poor fishery-dependent data, and
others the reverse. Thus, on average, all types of data commonly
required as input to assessment models are lacking (**Figure 9**).

![](media/image9.wmf){width="7.1in" height="5.5881944444444445in"}

**Figure 9.** Programmatic needs averaged over responses from assessment
scientists within each Science Center. An average response of 1 for a
given Science Center indicates that the lack of a given program is a
major impediment to producing credible assessments and has high priority
for improvement; 2 indicates a major impediment, but not amongst the
highest priorities; 3 indicates adequate for accuracy but not for sample
size; 4 indicates that relatively fine-tuning is needed; and 5 indicates
that the current program is adequate with no real need for improvement.
Thus, for the five stacked histograms combined, a total of five would
represent the worst possible situation and 25 would indicate the best
possible situation. The difference between 25 and the summed histograms
is an overall indication of the need for improving the specified
programs. FI = Fishery-independent; FD = Fishery-dependent.

Overall, the need for fishery-independent indices of relative abundance
is the greatest of all, although less so in the Northeast Center.
Information on target catch appears to be relatively the least
problematic except that the Northeast Center identifies it as its most
important programmatic need (**Figure 9**). Similarly, the lack of a
reliable fishery-independent index is the greatest impediment to
producing high-quality stock assessments, particularly in the southeast,
although less so in the northeast (**Figure 10**).

![](media/image32.wmf)

**Figure 10.** Impediments to the quality of assessments averaged over
responses from assessment scientists within each Science Center. An
average response of 1 for a given Science Center indicates that the
quantity or quality of data and staff resources is a major impediment to
producing credible assessments and has high priority for improvement; 2
indicates a major impediment, but not amongst the highest priorities; 3
indicates adequate for accuracy but not for sample size; 4 indicates
that relatively fine-tuning is needed; and 5 indicates that the current
program is adequate with no real need for improvement. Thus, for the
five stacked histograms combined, a total of five would represent the
worst possible situation and 25 would indicate the best possible
situation. The difference between 25 and the summed histograms is an
overall indication of the need for improving the specified data
collection programs or staffing levels. FI = Fishery-independent; FD =
Fishery-dependent; rec = recreational.

![](media/image54.wmf)On average, lack of adequate data seemed to be
only slightly more of an impediment than staffing levels to the quality
of assessments but again this varies considerably by program. Data and
research needs for recreational fisheries were low in Alaska where such
fisheries are relatively much less important (**Figure 10**). Overall,
observer programs and analyses of biological samples were identified as
the two most important fishery-dependent data needs, with improved
information on recreational catch monitoring and commercial fishing
effort being relatively the least important, although still in need of
substantial improvement (**Figure 11**). Overall, tagging programs and
staff to process biological samples were identified as the two most
important fishery-independent data needs, with training in species
identification and improved understanding of benthic habitat
associations being relatively the least important (**Figure 12**).

**Figure 11.** Fishery-dependent data needs averaged over responses from
assessment scientists within each Science Center. An average response of
1 for a given Science Center indicates that a new or greatly expanded
data collection program of the specified type would greatly enhance the
ability to produce accurate, precise and timely assessments; 2 indicates
that the program would help moderately; 3 indicates that the program
would only help marginally; and 4 indicates that the program would not
help or is irrelevant. Thus, for the five stacked histograms combined, a
total of four would represent the worst possible situation and 20 would
indicate the best possible situation. The difference between 20 and the
summed histograms is an overall indication of the need for improving the
specified data collection programs or staffing levels. econ = economic;
biol = biological; rec = recreational.

![](media/image55.wmf){width="7.170138888888889in" height="7.2in"}

**Figure 12.** Fishery-independent data needs averaged over responses
from assessment scientists within each Science Center. An average
response of 1 for a given Science Center indicates that a new or greatly
expanded data collection program of the specified type would greatly
enhance the ability to produce accurate, precise and timely assessments;
2 indicates that the program would help moderately; 3 indicates that the
program would only help marginally; and 4 indicates that the program
would not help or is irrelevant. Thus, for the five stacked histograms
combined, a total of four would represent the worst possible situation
and 20 would indicate the best possible situation. The difference
between 20 and the summed histograms is an overall indication of the
need for improving the specified data collection programs or staffing
levels. To group main headings (upper case labels) and subheadings
(lower case), it is necessary to read from bottom to top on the y-axis.
Oceanog = oceanographic; assocs = associations; inc = increased.

The general conclusion from these questionnaire summaries is that,
overall, no single activity stands out as being disproportionately
deficient; however, it is equally true that none of the inputs to stock
assessments approach the ideal situation of \"no real need for
improvement.\"

**Figures 9-12** give a qualitative indication of the variation in data
and staffing needs between Science Centers, but the raw data (not
included with this report, but available on request) indicate that there
is greater variability in data and staffing needs between programs than
there is between Centers.

**B. Three Tiers of Assessment Excellence**

The Task Force developed three scenarios to consider in the analysis of
the resources required to improve stock assessments. These are detailed
below and summarized in **Figure 13**.

#### 

**Figure 13.** Summary of the key features of the three Tiers of
Assessment Excellence.

#### 

#### Tier 1 - Improve stock assessments using existing data

*(a) for core species, conduct assessments that are more comprehensive,
more thorough, more timely, better quality controlled, and better
communicated;*

*(b) for species of currently \"unknown\" status, mine existing
databases of research vessel survey data and/or commercial and
recreational statistics for archival information for new analyses to
evaluate status determination criteria.*

Tier 1 essentially addresses the question of what improvements in stock
assessments can be made without initiating new data collection programs.
Although the Task Force agreed that new and/or expanded data collection
programs are of paramount importance to the improvement of stock
assessments, it was concluded that a certain limited amount could be
accomplished even in the absence of new programs. Although most data
collected by NMFS are analyzed in a timely manner, there are many
databases that have not been examined exhaustively. In particular, there
may be considerable unanalyzed data for \"minor\" or non-target species.
In some cases, there may even be historical data that has never been
computerized, thus necessitating \"data-rescue\" operations. One reason
that some data have been left unedited or unanalyzed is simply a lack of
technical and quantitative staff to do the work. Inadequate staffing
levels have also compromised the timeliness, quality and thoroughness of
assessments conducted to date. Thus, the main requirements for Tier 1
are increased staffing levels, particularly database managers,
statisticians, technicians, and assessment scientists.

#### 

#### Tier 2 - Elevate stock assessments to new national standards of excellence

*(a) upgrade assessments for core species to at least Level 3;*

*(b) conduct adequate baseline monitoring for all federally-managed
species (including rare species)*

The focus for Tier 2 is new or expanded data collection and research
initiatives. The task of upgrading assessments for core species to at
least Level 3 would likely be relatively simple if there were adequate
baseline monitoring for all federally-managed species. A key question
is, \"what is \'adequate\'?\" The definition of \"adequate\" will differ
by species or stocks and will depend on their geographic range, extent
of migration, and magnitude of inter-annual variations in stock size and
recruitment. The Task Force agreed, however, that in most cases adequate
coverage would require sampling throughout the range of a species or
stock at least every 1-3 years, and preferably at least every 1-2 years.
For most species, fishery-independent research surveys are the method of
choice; for some species, tagging experiments may be more practical; and
where neither of these are possible, fishery-dependent surveys may
suffice. There are currently very few stocks that can be characterized
as having adequate baseline monitoring (**Appendix 1** and **Table 1**).
In addition, a minimal requirement for conducting ecosystem-based
management and for fully satisfying the standards set forth in the
Sustainable Fisheries Act (e.g. standards associated with bycatch
issues) is that there be adequate baseline monitoring of all commercial
and recreational species and also all associated species, not just
federally-managed species.

#### Tier 3 - Next generation assessments

*(a) assess all federally-managed species or species groups at a minimum
Level of 3, and all core species at a Level of 4 or 5;*

*(b) explicitly incorporate ecosystem considerations such as
multispecies interactions and environmental effects, fisheries
oceanography, and spatial and seasonal analyses*

The Task Force struggled to define reasonable limits to Tier 3. The most
recent Report to Congress on the Status of Fisheries of the United
States (NMFS 2001a) lists 905 federally-managed stocks, most of which
are not routinely monitored, and many of which may not even be
identified to species in commercial or recreational landings. The number
of data collection activities and staff resources required to enable
900+ assessments of stock status to be undertaken on a regular (e.g.
annual) basis is enormous. Additionally, if associated species and other
ecosystem considerations were to be taken into account, the task is mind
boggling. It then becomes necessary to ask the question, what would be
the utility of having 900+ annual assessments; is this a reasonable
long-term objective? Would this substantially enhance fisheries
management, or are there simpler ways of achieving a similar result?
Certainly, it is hard to imagine that 900+ catch quotas would therefore
be set, monitored and enforced simultaneously.

From a management perspective, a more realistic aim would be to manage
only the primary (core) species by catch quotas, effort controls, or
similar high maintenance management methods, and to manage other species
using closed areas (e.g. marine protected areas, MPAs), closed seasons,
gear restrictions and other indirect management measures. From a stock
assessment perspective, a more realistic aim would be to assess groups
of species from within the same fishery or geographic area in an
aggregate Level 3 assessment, but to also have separate
fishery-independent indices of relative abundance that could be
monitored over time to make sure that no individual species was becoming
severely depleted. Nevertheless, it is obvious that any reasonable
attempt to even partially satisfy the objective of assessing all
federally-managed species at a level of 3-5 will require substantial new
or expanded data collection and research initiatives, and staff to
collect, manage, process, and analyze the data, and to communicate the
results.

In essence, Level 4 assessments can be considered \"state- of-the-art,\"
while Level 5 assessments are \"next generation assessments.\" Level 4
stock assessments are the standard to which NMFS Science Centers
currently strive for the stocks of primary importance. Level 4
assessments comprise analytical age, size, or stage-based calculations
that provide relatively precise time series of stock abundance
estimates, estimates of exploitation rates and the distribution of the
exploitation across size or age groups. From such analyses, short- and
medium-term stock and fishery projections and detailed analyses of
alternative management scenarios can ensue.

One goal of the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan is to increase the
proportion of stocks that can be evaluated with Level 4 stock
assessments. This step alone will require a major commitment of
resources to enhance data collection activities and analysis functions.
However, it is important to consider enhancements beyond high quality
single species stock assessments, recognizing longer-term needs of
fishery management and emerging issues related to management of species
assemblages, communities and ecosystems. Clearly, there is increasing
demand for information to allow finer scales of management in space
(geographic distribution) and time (seasonally, monthly, and even
weekly) than are typically provided in Level 4 assessments. In many
cases, these needs are immediate, as managers attempt to manipulate the
spatial and temporal pattern of fishing effort to change exploitation
rates and patterns on individual stocks, to harmonize the management of
co-occurring stocks, and to deal with allocation issues. There is also
growing interest and need for quantitative information on predator-prey
and competitive interactions among managed stocks and associated
species. Assessments incorporating biological interactions will become
increasingly important because of the requirements of the Sustainable
Fisheries Act to maintain all managed stocks near or above biomass
levels that can support MSY. The feasibility of achieving this
simultaneously for all stocks warrants further investigation, as do the
trade-offs between fishery yields and stock sizes that will accrue due
to manipulation of the abundances of interacting species. Such models
are now available in limited situations, primarily as research tools,
but the next generation of assessment models will be required to allow
more detailed management scenario analyses of such trade-offs for a
wider diversity of situations.

Next-generation assessments are also envisaged as providing the
foundation for ecosystem-based management. While considerable work on
incorporating ecosystem considerations into assessment models and
management advice is currently underway, both within and outside of
NMFS, ecosystem science is still in its infancy. Ecosystem research is
also prohibitively expensive and labor-intensive. The U.S. Global Ocean
Ecosystem Dynamics (GLOBEC) program on Georges Bank serves as an
example. Planning for this program was initiated in 1991 with
preliminary studies in 1993, and a full program including broad-scale
monitoring of physical and biological variables and fine-scale
process-oriented studies was conducted over the period 1994-99. During
this period, research vessels were deployed on Georges Bank for about
250 vessel-days per year, with data collection and analysis involving
about 70 scientists, plus support staff, at an overall cost of about \$5
million per year. It is projected to take at least another four years to
process all of the ichthyoplankton samples, analyze the data, and
synthesize the results. Although this program went well beyond simple
monitoring of species and collected considerable physical oceanographic
data as well as investing in new technologies, for practical and
logistic reasons, the program focused only on a few target species: cod
and haddock (primarily only at the egg and larval stages), and two
species of calanoid copepods. Even accounting for the transferability of
knowledge gained from the process-oriented studies and technological
spin-off benefits, a data collection program of this intensity would
hardly be practical if the targeted species included all species
inhabiting Georges Bank.

Thus, the goal of performing frequent individual assessments for all
900+ FMP species, incorporating ecosystem considerations for as many
stocks as possible, and considering the effects on associated non-FMP
species, is probably not realistic. It is highly likely that the cost of
conducting this amount of research would far exceed the landed value of
the fisheries. This would not necessarily mean that the overall benefit
of such research was negative because research on marine ecosystems has
utility beyond simply providing advice on optimal harvest levels.
However, there are many competing priorities for government spending.
Even if this stock assessment improvement plan and related initiatives
are aggressively pursued and actively supported by stakeholders, it is
unlikely that NMFS will ever have sufficient data collection and
analysis capabilities to conduct more than double the number of
assessments currently undertaken per annum, meaning that some species
will probably always be assessed either infrequently or as part of a
larger group. However, with sufficient resources, it will be possible to
also conduct better assessments for the core species. In particular, it
may be feasible to anticipate conducting Level 5 assessments
(incorporating some but not necessarily all elements listed under Level
5) for as many as 4-8 core species per region. Ecosystem-based research
is also likely to yield useful ancillary information about associated
species, as well as improving our understanding of the dynamics of
marine ecosystems.

Another important future consideration for next-generation stock
assessment models is that people and groups influenced by the results of
such models (commercial fishers, recreational fishers, environmental
groups, and managers) will increasingly request greater access to the
data and models themselves, and greater participation in data collection
and analysis functions. In the next generation, user-friendly models to
analyze the implications of alternative management strategies (e.g.
stock projection models simulating the biological and economic
consequences of various patterns of future catches or exploitation
rates) should be developed and made available to the public so that
affected parties can conduct their own analyses of alternative
management scenarios. While all of this is possible with current
technology and agency expertise, the resources required to develop the
necessary interfaces with the public at large are not inconsequential.
Greater flexibility in analysis options should be one of the hallmarks
of next-generation assessment models, as should access to data and
models over distributed computer networks. An important element of
improving NMFS\' stock assessments is planning for and moving forward
with the next-generation of stock assessments immediately, consistent
with these considerations.

In conclusion, models addressing more species, and more detailed
spatial, temporal, environmental and species interactions questions will
require significantly more precise, timely and comprehensive
fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data. Next generation models
will be extremely data-intensive, requiring much-augmented,
comprehensive monitoring data. Gathering and analyzing such data will
require even greater cooperation from harvesters, fish dealers, and
others, more agency staff and funding, and more partnerships and
cooperative research programs with other federal and state government
agencies, academic institutions, private foundations, fishers, and
environmental groups with a vested interest in similar or related data.
Many such partnerships already exist (**Appendix 21**), but many more
are needed. Recent initiatives to develop cooperative research programs
with the fishing industry (**Appendix** **22**) are showing considerable
promise as a mechanism for augmenting existing programs to collect data
of relevance to stock assessments, and a National Cooperative Research
Program is now being developed. It may also be fruitful to pursue
participation in broad-scale programs such as NOAA\'s Ocean Exploration
Program (**Appendix 23**), the Census of Marine Life (**Appendix 24**),
and other initiatives involving science policy, data collection and
scientific research (**Appendix 25**).

**C. Timeframes and Relationships between the Tiers**

Attainment of the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence involves both
short and long-term horizons, which, in turn, are dependent upon other
complementary programs and initiatives being put in place, and the
ability to recruit qualified personnel for the various tasks at hand.

**Tier 1:** With adequate additional trained staff, most useful work
based on existing data will probably have been completed within 3-4
years, by which time new data from Tiers 2 and 3 would hopefully be
beginning to become available for additional species. Tier 1 benefits
will be almost immediately obvious as data on species of currently
\"unknown\" stock status are analyzed; however, moving certain species
from \"unknown\" to \"known\" status may not be the highest priority.
For example, improved analysis of major target stocks, currently
overfished stocks, or new or expanded data collection programs for such
species may take precedence.

**Tier 2:** Contingent on initiation of needed new data collection
programs and appropriate additional staff, benefits would become obvious
within 5-10 years as time series develop to sufficient length to be of
use in stock assessment models. There are also likely to be some
immediate benefits; e.g. immediate improvements in the knowledge of the
fine-scale distribution of some species and assemblages which could
improve management decisions.

**Tier 3:** Next generation assessments represent a long-term (10+
years) objective and investment because considerable research and
development is required and because new time series of consistent data
collection must be initiated. In addition, Tier 3 is dependent upon an
adequate, purpose-built fleet of dedicated research vessels, continued
development of advanced technology that will facilitate sampling of
marine organisms, and development of partnerships and cooperative
research programs with other federal agencies, state agencies, private
foundations, universities, commercial and recreational fishing
organizations and individuals, environmental groups, and others with a
vested interest in collecting similar types of data, although often for
different purposes.

**D. Region-Specific Needs to Achieve the Three Tiers of Assessment
Excellence**

The number of species covered by FMPs differs substantially between
regions. This is less a reflection of regional differences in species
diversity or fishing intensity than it is of regional differences in the
philosophy of which species to include in FMPs. For example, the Gulf of
Alaska groundfish plan includes 100 species, but most of the landings
are comprised of only a dozen or so species; in contrast, in the New
England and Mid-Atlantic regions, less than two dozen of the nearly 200
shelf species are explicitly included in FMPs. For the purposes of
reporting on the status of U.S. fisheries, tracking progress in
conserving or restoring resources, and comparing region-specific needs
and achievements, it would be useful to have greater consistency.
However, for the purposes of this plan, the authors all approached the
question of region-specific needs in a similar way, regardless of
differences in regional philosophies about the degree of inclusiveness.
Core species are those with the highest value, highest volume, or
highest profile. Minor species are those that contribute little or
nothing to landings, but need to be considered in some way in an
ecosystem context, regardless of whether or not they are explicitly
included in FMPs.

Unless otherwise specified, the current and required resources detailed
in this section apply as of January 2000. In some cases, there have been
several staff hired or contracted to perform assessment-related
activities subsequently. These are highlighted in the appropriate
sections.

#### Northeast Fisheries Science Center

The following two sections contain an analysis of the current staffing
and status of assessments in the northeast region relative to defined
assessment levels, and an analysis of the staffing resources necessary
to meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence based on data and
resources currently used in the region. It should be noted that these
analyses apply only to staffing levels and other resources contributed
on the federal side; however, for many of the region\'s resources, data
and analyses are undertaken by staff in state marine fisheries
organizations. Thus, existing and required staffing resources should be
considered minimum.

####### NEFSC current situation

A total of approximately 172 staff involved in stock assessment related
activities within the Northeast region (**Section III, part I** and
**Figure 8**) currently provide advice on 59 managed or otherwise
important species/stocks (**Figure 14**).

**Figure 14.** Number of stocks (N=59) assessed by assessment level at
the Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

The distribution of these stocks is bimodal with respect to \"assessment
level,\" with 24 stocks assessed at Level 3 and above, and 35 stocks at
Level 2 and below. This mix of assessment quality and completeness is
primarily a function of historical interest in various species (e.g.
groundfish, summer flounder, and surfclams), an increasing need for
higher-level assessments to support management programs, and new legal
requirements for population biology data. The situation is not static,
with managers increasingly requesting more frequent assessment updates,
with more extensive \"terms of reference.\"

In particular, stock assessments are now often required to incorporate
discussion and evaluation of \"control rules\" used by management to
meet the requirements of the MSFCMA. These control rules provide
managers with a formulaic approach to scientific advice, pre-specifying
the relationship of target fishing mortality rates to biomass conditions
in the stocks. The construction and testing of control rules makes use
of absolute biomass and fishing mortality rate estimates, or proxies for
these quantities, if adequate approaches can be developed. As part of
this effort, medium term simulations of the performance of control rules
in recovering and maintaining stocks are required so as to evaluate the
efficacy of a proposed control rule in meeting the 10-year or one
generation time constraints imposed by the MSFCMA. Center stock
assessment scientists have been involved in developing proposed control
rule strategies for various species, and in scientific research for
providing realistic simulations of the performance of stocks in relation
to control rule management (e.g. simulating population status in the
medium term using various approaches for determining recruitment
responses). As the need for more complex stock assessments has been
increasing, so has the need to upgrade index-level assessments to
assessments incorporating age/size structure to support sophisticated
simulations of control rule performance.

#### NEFSC programs and staffing required to meet the three tiers of excellence

Based on the current distribution of stock assessment levels, data and
technical limitations, and staffing in data collection and analytical
tasks, the following represents an analysis of augmented staffing levels
required to meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence for Northeast
stock assessments (staffing increases by activity are summarized in
**Table 2**).

**Table 2.** Number range CHAPTERFTEs required to meet the three Tiers
of Assessment Excellence by type of activity for the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center. Numbers of FTEs in each category do not necessarily
reflect the actual number of individuals involved in these activities,
in that some individuals may divide their time between several
activities. Estimated current FTEs include in-house staff, contractors
such as observers, and "other," which includes state government
biologists, and employees or contractors associated with various
regional, national and international Commissions. Follow-up evaluations
include the production of additional assessment outputs, evaluations of
alternative management strategies, and participation in plan development
teams. Numbers should be cumulated across tiers.

+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+
| ***Activity***       | *   |    |    | ***  | **    | *      | *   |
|                      | **C |    |    | Tier | *Tier | **Tier | **T |
|                      | urr |    |    | 1*** | 2***  | 1 +    | ier |
|                      | ent |    |    |      |       | 2***   | 3   |
|                      | *** |    |    |      |       |        | *** |
|                      |     |    |    |      |       |        |     |
|                      | **  |    |    |      |       |        |     |
|                      | *In |    |    |      |       |        |     |
|                      | -ho |    |    |      |       |        |     |
|                      | use |    |    |      |       |        |     |
|                      | /Co |    |    |      |       |        |     |
|                      | ntr |    |    |      |       |        |     |
|                      | act |    |    |      |       |        |     |
|                      | /ot |    |    |      |       |        |     |
|                      | her |    |    |      |       |        |     |
|                      | *** |    |    |      |       |        |     |
+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+
| Commercial Catch &   | 30  | 19 |    |      | 10    | **10** |     |
| Biological Sampling  |     |    |    |      |       |        |     |
+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+
| Recreational Catch & | 47  | 3  |    |      | 5     | **5**  |     |
| Biological Sampling  |     |    |    |      |       |        |     |
+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+
| Observer Programs    | 3   | 11 |    |      | 13    | **13** |     |
+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+
| Fishery-Independent  | 8   | 7  | 10 |      | 5     | **5**  | 2   |
| Surveys              |     |    |    |      |       |        |     |
+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+
| Process Biological   | 8   | 3  | 3  | 5    | 5     | **10** | 5   |
| Samples (age,        |     |    |    |      |       |        |     |
| growth, maturity,    |     |    |    |      |       |        |     |
| etc.)                |     |    |    |      |       |        |     |
+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+
| Data Management &    | 4   | 1  |    | 7    | 2     | **9**  | 5   |
| Preprocessing of     |     |    |    |      |       |        |     |
| Data                 |     |    |    |      |       |        |     |
+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+
| Conduct Assessments  | 13  | 4  | 3  | 2    | 1     | **3**  | 5   |
+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+
| Assessment Methods   | 3   |    |    | 2    | 1     | **3**  | 5   |
| Research             |     |    |    |      |       |        |     |
+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+
| Communication of     | 7   | 1  |    | 2    | 1     | **3**  | 3   |
| Results & Follow-up  |     |    |    |      |       |        |     |
| Evaluations          |     |    |    |      |       |        |     |
+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+
| **Subtotal           | **2 | *  | *  | *    | **3** | **9**  | **1 |
| (Assessment          | 3** | *5 | *3 | *6** |       |        | 3** |
| Scientists)**        |     | ** | ** |      |       |        |     |
+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+
| **Subtotal           | *   | ** | ** | **   | *     | **52** | **1 |
| (Others)**           | *10 | 44 | 13 | 12** | *40** |        | 2** |
|                      | 0** | ** | ** |      |       |        |     |
+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+
| **Total**            | *   | ** | ** | **   | *     | **61** | **2 |
|                      | *12 | 49 | 16 | 18** | *43** |        | 5** |
|                      | 3** | ** | ** |      |       |        |     |
+----------------------+-----+----+----+------+-------+--------+-----+

######### Tier 1: Improve stock assessments using existing data

The intent of upgrading assessments of Tier 1 is to more fully utilize
existing information, to upgrade the synthesis of available data and to
provide information to users on a more timely basis. In order to meet
Tier 1 requirements for Northeast stocks, additional FTEs are required
primarily in data management and synthesis activities (**Table 2**).
Data on species age and growth have been collected and archived, but not
analyzed, for many stocks currently assessed in the \"index level\"
category. A total of five additional FTEs in the Age and Growth activity
will allow more complete biological data for assessments of some of
these stocks. Additionally, this would enable more timely production of
age data.

Improving Tier 1 assessments will also require additional staff to
better archive and extract sea sampling information, and biological
sampling data collected from commercial fisheries. Data management
support is needed to maintain databases and improve access to a wider
array of users. A modest increment in stock assessment and support staff
is required to produce more frequent and improved assessments under this
tier.

######### Tier 2: Elevate stock assessments to new national standards

The major increment in FTEs required under the stock assessment
improvement plan occurs when moving to Tier 2 requirements to upgrade
assessments for core species to at least Level 3 and for providing
adequate baseline assessments for all managed species. In order to meet
these requirements, there needs to be major improvements in the quality
and timeliness of commercial and recreational fisheries data and
required biological sampling. Currently, biological sampling of catches
is concentrated on a few core stocks, and sampling levels are barely
adequate in many other cases. Improvements in the collection,
management, and synthesis of fishery dependent data are needed. Ageing
structures are not currently collected from recreational catches and
this needs to be rectified. Likewise there is no universal sea sampling
program providing routine estimates of discards and bycatch from the
region\'s fisheries, and this needs to be improved. Increased biological
sampling under these programs will require the processing of greater
numbers of ageing structures, and data entry and manipulation. For some
stocks not currently indexed by research vessel survey programs (e.g.
tilefish, deep water fisheries and components too deep for surveying in
current programs) additional types of fishery-independent data are
required and will need to be developed. Additional stock assessment
scientists are required to produce higher quality and more frequent
assessments called for under this requirement.

######### Tier 3: Next generation assessments

Next generation assessments are intended to provide more explicit
accounting for biological and technological interactions, longer-range
predictions and integration of biological and environmental data. A
major component of these assessments will be the incorporation of
feeding data into routine stock assessments and modeling and spatial
dynamic models and data to examine the fine-scale implications of
alternative management strategies. In order to support such
requirements, additional data collections for biological analyses (e.g.
stomach sampling) are required, as well as fishery oceanographic data
bases, geographical information systems, and data management necessary
to support these activities.

#### Southeast Fisheries Science Center

The fisheries under the research jurisdiction of the Southeast Fisheries
Science Center are diverse in both the species being exploited and the
fishing sectors prosecuting these fisheries, including large
recreational sectors and bycatch sectors, as well as commercial
fisheries. In some fisheries, the productivity of many of the species
being exploited is low, supporting relatively small catches (there are
over 400 species within Southeast FMPs or international conventions).
However, some of the species are extremely valuable and many are very
important to local communities. Also, in aggregate the species catches
are significant and the fisheries often have the capability to exploit a
variety of species, switching target species as conditions change. These
characteristics result in unique research and management requirements.

####### SEFSC current situation

The Southeast Fisheries Science Center has unique resource requirements
to achieve each of the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence. This
results largely from the diversity of fishery resources occurring within
the Region. Current stock assessment efforts have focused on a small
number of core species (those of greatest public interest and often of
greatest political importance due to conflict between constituents).
Thus, detailed assessments are conducted on 10-15 stocks, annually.
However, there are a large number of stocks upon which little assessment
work is done other than to monitor catches. The catches of any
individual one of these unassessed stocks is often small and of small
socioeconomic significance; however, in aggregate they are an important
part of the fisheries economic sector and fishing communities.

Fisheries of the southeast are managed by the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and
the Caribbean Fishery Management Council through fishery management
plans on shrimp, reeffish, snapper-grouper, spiny lobsters, coastal
pelagics, red drum, stone crabs, corals and others. The number of FMPs
requiring stock assessment data is increasing. Data collection in
support of assessment of these species comes through the SEFSC efforts
and through joint agreements with the individual states (plus Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and with the Atlantic and Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commissions. Additionally, since the recreational
sector is large in many fisheries (in some cases larger than the
commercial sector), several joint agreements have been made to obtain
recreational catch data from various survey mechanisms.

A major issue that impacts stock assessments in the southeast United
States is bycatch, particularly discarded bycatch resulting from Gulf of
Mexico shrimp trawlers. The mortality resulting from this activity
impacts stocks of fish for which there are directed fisheries, therefore
limiting the production from those fisheries. There are also major
concerns with the impacts of gill-net fisheries on marine mammals, and
hook and release mortality in the substantial recreational fisheries
that exist in the region. Incorporating bycatch estimates into stock
assessments requires a new level of commitment to data collection
through observer programs. Initial ad hoc projects have been conducted
to obtain estimates of bycatch, but the precision is lacking.

The Southeast Fisheries Science Center has the responsibility for
providing the United States scientific support for assessing stocks of
Atlantic tunas, swordfish and billfish in conjunction with the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
of which the United States is a signatory nation. Assessments of the
tuna, swordfish and billfish stocks are conducted jointly with
scientists from various nations. The Southeast Fisheries Science Center
has the responsibility for monitoring catch and scientific data from
throughout the U.S. Atlantic coast and report these to ICCAT. The U.S.
scientists, also, take a lead role in the joint assessment working
groups within ICCAT\'s scientific committee.

####### SEFSC programs and staffing required to meet the three tiers of excellence

######### Tier 1: Improve stock assessments using existing data

The first Tier of Assessment Excellence is a goal of improving
assessments with existing data for both core stocks and those stocks
whose status is largely unknown. The core stocks for which detailed
assessments are currently being conducted can be improved, even with
existing data. Improvements can be achieved largely through more
comprehensive characterization of the uncertainty associated with
various management parameters arising from the assessment.
Characterizing the uncertainty requires stochastic modeling activities
which are time consuming both in their development and in the actual
running of the models. Uncertainty characterization also requires
extended interaction with managers and constituents in order to
appropriately formulate the statistical questions.

The first Tier can be achieved for the \"non-core\" stocks by developing
and organizing the data bases necessary for first pass assessments for
these species. This will require statistical determinations of catch by
size and other relevant strata, the collation of biological data and the
analysis of appropriate survey and catch-effort trend data. In many
cases some data exist within Federal, State and academic institute data
bases on each of these aspects. But it remains to integrate the
information and make \"first-pass\" assessments. These initial
assessments are important for management, as they will allow initial
overfishing/overfished determinations to be made; additionally, the
results will be extremely useful in guiding further scientific
prioritization of data collection activities for these stocks. Due to
the large number of these stocks within the purview of the SEFSC, this
will require increased monitoring by assessment scientists.

######### Tier 2: Elevate stock assessments to new national standards

The second Tier of Assessment Excellence expresses the goal of upgrading
assessments of core species to a level in which dynamic changes in stock
abundance are estimated and monitored over time; and that there should
be a baseline monitoring of all managed species. To achieve this Tier,
expanded data collection activities and extensive monitoring activities
by assessment scientists will be required. Of particular importance is
the need for fisheries-independent data. As noted above, catches for
many stocks are relatively small; therefore, assessments with adequate
levels of precision will require monitoring of appropriate abundance
indices. SEFSC scientists indicate the high importance of developing
fishery-independent indices within their responses to the questionnaire
(**Section IV (A)**). The scientists\' responses also placed emphasis on
observer programs to address important issues of bycatch, discards,
collection of biological data, and collection of better effort data.
Thus, Tier 2 efforts should focus on developing and improving data
collection mechanisms. Fishery independent efforts require extended ship
time which is addressed in other initiatives. However, improvements will
require more than simply conducting more trawl surveys. Extensive
research is needed to explore avenues for monitoring stocks and life
stages of stocks that are not conducive to trawl surveys; for example,
mackerels and other coastal pelagics; billfishes and tunas; and reef
dwelling species. This will require creative interaction between
assessment scientists, survey statisticians, ecologists and
gear-specialists in order to design appropriate survey strategies.
Additionally, second Tier goals will also require improved
characterization of bycatch, discards and other fisheries and biological
data. Observer programs are essential for these activities. Management
of statistically useful observer programs will require the close
cooperation of biologists, assessment scientists, data managers and
program management with the constituents.

######### Tier 3: Next generation assessments

The third Tier of Assessment Excellence expresses a goal of having
minimal assessment levels (dynamic monitoring of abundance - production
modeling) for ALL stocks with all core stocks being addressed by size,
age, sex-structured assessments with possible inclusion of ecosystem
factors. As noted above, the diversity of fishery stocks under SEFSC
purview indicates the importance of ecosystem considerations. What
effect are major ecosystem perturbations such as bycatch or
environmental changes likely to have on species distributions? Can
species shifts be predicted even in a probabilistic sense? Can
management strategies be devised to avoid chances of deleterious
socioeconomic consequences of species shifts? Can management strategies
be devised to achieve short term local objectives of the fishers? These
questions pose important research goals. Steps to achieve these goals
require extensive research, monitoring and data collection activities.
In particular, spatial and temporal scales of data collection will need
to be improved. This will require finer scale information on catches,
survey abundances and oceanographic variability. Additionally, the
monitoring of a large number of stocks (the components of the ecosystem)
is needed to discern patterns of variability.

Specific resource requirements are outlined in **Table 3**. Note that
resource requirements are additive; i.e., requirements for Tier 2 are
additive to those in Tier 1.

+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+
| Number range          | *   |     |     | ***  | *   | **    | *   |
| CHAPTER***Activity*** | **C |     |     | Tier | **T | *Tier | **T |
|                       | urr |     |     | 1*** | ier | 1     | ier |
|                       | ent |     |     |      | 2   | +2*** | 3   |
|                       | *** |     |     |      | *** |       | *** |
|                       |     |     |     |      |     |       |     |
|                       | **  |     |     |      |     |       |     |
|                       | *In |     |     |      |     |       |     |
|                       | -ho |     |     |      |     |       |     |
|                       | use |     |     |      |     |       |     |
|                       | /co |     |     |      |     |       |     |
|                       | ntr |     |     |      |     |       |     |
|                       | act |     |     |      |     |       |     |
|                       | /ot |     |     |      |     |       |     |
|                       | her |     |     |      |     |       |     |
|                       | *** |     |     |      |     |       |     |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+
| Commercial Catch &    | 10  | 2   | 15  |      | 2   | **2** | 3   |
| Biological Sampling   |     |     |     |      |     |       |     |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+
| Recreational Catch &  | 10  | 3   | 25  |      | 2   | **2** | 3   |
| Biological Sampling   |     |     |     |      |     |       |     |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+
| Observer Programs     | 4   | 10  | 4   |      | 22  | *     | 11  |
|                       |     |     |     |      |     | *22** |     |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+
| Fishery-independent   | 8   | 7   |     |      | 2   | **2** | 6   |
| Surveys               |     |     |     |      |     |       |     |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+
| Process Biological    | 15  | 7   |     | 1    | 3   | **4** | 5   |
| Samples (age, growth, |     |     |     |      |     |       |     |
| maturity, etc.)       |     |     |     |      |     |       |     |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+
| Data Management &     | 9   | 1   |     | 7    | 4   | *     | 1   |
| Preprocessing of Data |     |     |     |      |     | *11** |     |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+
| Conduct Assessments   | 8   |     | 2   | 4    | 3   | **7** | 3   |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+
| Assessment Methods    | 1   |     |     | 1    | 2   | **3** | 6   |
| Research              |     |     |     |      |     |       |     |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+
| Communication of      | 6   |     |     | 1    | 2   | **3** | 1   |
| Results and Follow-up |     |     |     |      |     |       |     |
| Evaluations           |     |     |     |      |     |       |     |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+
| **Subtotal            | **1 | **  | **  | *    | **  | *     | **1 |
| (Assessment           | 5** | 0** | 2** | *6** | 7** | *13** | 0** |
| scientists)**         |     |     |     |      |     |       |     |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+
| **Subtotal (others)** | **5 | **3 | **4 | *    | **3 | *     | **2 |
|                       | 6** | 0** | 4** | *8** | 5** | *43** | 9** |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+
| **Total**             | **7 | **3 | **4 | **   | **4 | *     | **3 |
|                       | 1** | 0** | 6** | 14** | 2** | *56** | 9** |
+-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-------+-----+

**Table 3.** Number range CHAPTERFTEs Number range CHAPTERrequired to
meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence by type of activity for
the Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Numbers of FTEs in each category
do not necessarily reflect the actual number of individuals involved in
these activities, in that some individuals may divide their time between
several activities. Estimated current FTEs include in-house staff,
contractors such as observers, and "other," which includes state
government biologists, and employees or contractors associated with
various regional, national and international Commissions. Follow-up
evaluations include the production of additional assessment outputs,
evaluations of alternative management strategies, and participation in
plan development teams. Numbers should be cumulated across tiers.

Number range CHAPTERNote that the above table specifies the labor
resources (FTEs) needed to address the three Tiers of Assessment
Excellence for stock assessment responsibilities. The labor resources
have an associated cost which is not addressed in the table. However, in
addition to the labor costs there will be additional resources needed to
conduct experiments to achieve Tiers 2 and 3. Vessel time on research
vessels will, of course, be important, but this is discussed elsewhere.
Activities which would likely be prominent in achieving Tiers 2 and 3
are archival tagging experiments, stock identification (mtDNA and
microconstituents) and other activities.

#### Southwest Fisheries Science Center

The NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center\'s area of
responsibility encompasses a vast expanse of open ocean and
international waters, including the coastal waters of California, parts
of the Antarctic, and the Hawaiian Islands, and the U.S. Territories of
Guam and American Samoa. The SWFSC is responsible for the research and
management of some of the nation\'s most intriguing species, and is a
major force in the nation\'s effort to build international cooperation
for the stewardship of these species. Research extends over an area of
more than 64.2 million square miles of open ocean - greater than 18
times the size of the U.S. land mass - including 1.8 million square
miles of EEZ. The Southwest Region is home to over 72 protected marine
species, and 153 fishery stocks, of which the status of 101 remains
unknown. In addition to the complexity of the marine ecosystems in this
region, the international and domestic mix of culturally diverse fishing
communities present complex challenges for managing species, conducting
research, and collecting data necessary to ensure sustainable fishing
practices. The collective value of tuna, swordfish, sharks, and billfish
from U.S. Pacific water fisheries exceeds \$1.5 billion annually. Near
shore landings of sardines, mackerel, tuna, rockfish, and flatfish in
California and Hawaii totaled 370 million pounds in 1998 and were valued
at \$173 million. During the same year, aquaculture in the Southwest
Region produced 30 million pounds of fish and shellfish worth \$55.6
million to growers. From the recreational perspective, a quarter of a
million saltwater anglers, 40 annual fishing tournaments, and prized
game fish like marlin, tuna, wahoo, and mahimahi place Hawaii among the
top 10 states adding significantly to the economy from sport fishing.
California, with over a million recreational anglers, ranked second in
the U.S. catching about 23 million pounds of fish.

The SWFSC supports two fishery management councils. The Western Pacific
Fishery Management Council (WPFMC), located in Honolulu, Hawaii, manages
the insular resources in the central and western Pacific. The Pacific
Fishery Management Council (PFMC), located in Portland, Oregon, manages
fishery resources along the U.S. west coast. Both councils manage highly
migratory species.

***SWFSC current situation - central and western Pacific***

The SWFSC has assessment responsibility for 56 species listed in the
FMPs under the jurisdiction of the WPFMC. In terms of domestic and
international market value, \"core\" species include the large pelagic
fishes (tunas and billfish), and in terms of political interest blue
sharks are added to the list. These species readily migrate far beyond
the U.S. EEZ and into waters where they may be caught by fleets of other
countries. Assessments of these stocks cannot be based solely on catch
data within U.S. territorial waters from U.S. domestic fleets. Stock
assessment work must be conducted in an international context, taking
account of all catches that affect the population being assessed. The
two Atlantic coast science centers face a prospect somewhat similar to
the SWFSC in this respect, although assessment-related procedures in the
Atlantic have long been defined by participation in well-established
international agencies, such as ICCAT, that orchestrate collection of
data and workshops involving scientists from member countries who
conduct comprehensive stock assessments. To date there are no comparable
fishery management agencies in the temperate and tropical Pacific beyond
that covered by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in
the eastern tropical Pacific.

In the absence of such management agencies in the central and western
Pacific, it has been necessary for SWFSC scientists to forge their own
cooperative arrangements with fishery scientists in other parts of that
region. This takes considerable time and effort. Various international
cooperative arrangements have operated on a relatively informal basis
for the purpose of assembling fishery data from disparate sources and
conducting stock assessments. Foremost of late is the Standing Committee
on Tunas and Billfish (SCTB) of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community
(SPC) which for core tuna species has been fostering fishery data
collection and high level stock assessments, with the participation of
an international cadre of fishery scientists.

In the past few years, two prongs of diplomatic effort have been
undertaken in the Pacific to formalize comprehensive, international
management agencies for the region or a portion thereof. One, the
Interim Scientific Committee (ISC), has met several times and
established several subcommittees to promote assessment of various
species and to establish a comprehensive fishery data base. The other
effort, dubbed the Multilateral High Level Conference (MHLC), has met
five times, is considerably more comprehensive in its membership than
the ISC, and has the ambitious goal of establishing a fishery monitoring
and management agency by June 2000.

At present, for most of the major fleets harvesting tuna species in the
central and western Pacific (including U.S. fleets), catch and effort
data are available to NMFS (or other) scientists for the purpose of
conducting stock assessments thanks to the work of the SCTB and similar
informal cooperative arrangements. The resolution in time and space is
not always as fine as desired and there are some holes in the data,
particularly catch at size data. Fortunately, good tag return data exist
for the four major tuna species (skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye, and
albacore) which in conjunction with the fishery data have enabled the
high level stock assessments mentioned above. However, as sophisticated
as the assessments have been, they have not had the benefit of regular
survey data or other types of fishery independent abundance indices
because no regular scientific surveys are conducted for pelagic
fisheries in the region. Though scientific observer coverage has been
very poor, it is improving with the observer requirements of the South
Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). Observer coverage on U.S. purse
seine vessels in the region is 23%, and coverage of the Hawaii longline
fleet is less than 5%.

For domestic insular fisheries for demersal fishes and crustaceans, the
data coverage is mixed. Regular abundance index surveys for lobsters
have been conducted in conjunction with release of tagged lobsters. In
addition, there has been occasional observer coverage of the lobster
fleet. Commercial catch/effort data for demersal fish are collected by
the state of Hawaii, but data for significant amounts of
\"recreational\" catch (much of it sold at roadside stands) are not
collected.

The Honolulu Laboratory has seven stock assessment scientists, including
those involved in conducting assessments, methods research, and
follow-up activities such as input to plan development, for the 56
species in the WPFMC FMPs. These scientists are additionally charged
with investigating the magnitude and gravity of interactions between
domestic fisheries and protected species of turtles and sea birds.
Assessment duties for tunas, blue marlin, swordfish, and blue shark are
shared with scientists from other countries and agencies around the
region, but many of the other pelagic species are neglected through
necessity.

####### SWFSC current situation - west coast

The SWFSC has assessment responsibilities for four FMPs under the
jurisdiction of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). Under the
Groundfish FMP, the SWFSC shares assessment responsibilities with the
NWFSC. The SWFSC produces the assessments and the NWFSC provides data
collection and overall coordination for 82 groundfish species, including
over 40 species of rockfish distributed from Southern California to
Canada. Only 26 of the 82 groundfish species have been assessed, and
almost none from central California southward. Five species have been
quantitatively assessed as overfished. This has caused a crisis due to
severely reduced catch allocations. Many unassessed species are thought
to be overfished as well, and there is at least one case where an
unassessed stock may be threatened or endangered.

Under the Salmon FMP, the SWFSC has sole responsibility for assessing
and developing recovery plans for 10 endangered salmon and steelhead
runs from California affecting three species.

Under the Coastal Pelagics FMP, the SWFSC has sole responsibility for
assessing sardine, Pacific and jack mackerel, northern anchovy, and
market squid. This is done in cooperation with the State of California
on an annual basis.

Under the Highly Migratory Species FMP currently being developed, the
SWFSC will have sole responsibility for assessing six tuna and billfish
species caught by fisheries originating from the U.S. west coast. This
will be done using the same agreements and mechanisms described above in
the section on central and western Pacific and will include Mexico.
Additionally, this FMP will include four pelagic shark species. None of
these have been assessed. The complexities of coordinating international
assessments are similar to those discussed for the central and western
Pacific.

The SWFSC is currently assessing the white abalone population which has
been petitioned to be listed as endangered under the Endangered Species
Act. This species needs to be assessed throughout its range, which
requires cooperation with Mexico.

The California recreational fishery bridges FMPs and complicates
management, research and assessment efforts. This fishery is composed of
both commercial passenger fishing vessels and private fishers and
generates effort in millions of days annually. It targets many of the
same species as commercial fleets, and is highly significant
economically.

#### SWFSC programs and staffing required to meet the three tiers of excellence

The SWFSC currently has 24 assessment scientists with a total of 80
staff in the assessment processes (**Table 4**). The SWFSC is aided in
commercial catch, recreational catch and biological sampling by various
state agencies which independently or by contract conduct sampling. The
jump to Tier 1 requires a large increase in stock assessment scientists,
necessitated by the current low staffing of assessment personnel at the
SWFSC. Movement to Tiers 2 and 3 is highlighted by the need for
increases in methods research along with additional assessment capacity.

+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+
| Number range          | *   |    |    | ***  | ***  | ***  | ***  |
| CHAPTER***Activity*** | **C |    |    | Tier | Tier | Tier | Tier |
|                       | urr |    |    | 1*** | 2*** | 1+   | 3*** |
|                       | ent |    |    |      |      | 2*** |      |
|                       | *** |    |    |      |      |      |      |
|                       |     |    |    |      |      |      |      |
|                       | *** |    |    |      |      |      |      |
|                       | In- |    |    |      |      |      |      |
|                       | hou |    |    |      |      |      |      |
|                       | se/ |    |    |      |      |      |      |
|                       | con |    |    |      |      |      |      |
|                       | tra |    |    |      |      |      |      |
|                       | ct/ |    |    |      |      |      |      |
|                       | ot  |    |    |      |      |      |      |
|                       | her |    |    |      |      |      |      |
|                       | *** |    |    |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+
| Commercial Catch &    | 1   | 6  | 5  |      | 4    | *    | 2    |
| Biological Sampling   |     |    |    |      |      | *4** |      |
+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+
| Recreational Catch &  |     |    | 2  |      | 2    | *    | 1    |
| Biological Sampling   |     |    |    |      |      | *2** |      |
+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+
| Observer Programs     | 7   |    |    |      | 7    | *    | 7    |
|                       |     |    |    |      |      | *7** |      |
+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+
| Fishery-independent   | 8   | 1  | 2  |      | 11   | **   | 9    |
| Surveys               |     |    |    |      |      | 11** |      |
+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+
| Process Biological    | 21  | 2  | 2  | 6    | 11   | **   | 14   |
| Samples (age, growth, |     |    |    |      |      | 17** |      |
| maturity, etc.)       |     |    |    |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+
| Data Management &     | 19  | 6  | 3  | 8    | 10   | **   | 15   |
| Preprocessing of Data |     |    |    |      |      | 18** |      |
+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+
| Conduct Assessments   | 12  |    | 1  | 6    | 8    | **   | 10   |
|                       |     |    | 0+ |      |      | 14** |      |
|                       |     |    | \* |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+
| Assessment Methods    | 3   |    | 2  | 2    | 3    | *    | 5    |
| Research              |     |    |    |      |      | *5** |      |
+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+
| Communication of      | 9   |    |    | 5    | 4    | *    | 3    |
| Results and Follow-up |     |    |    |      |      | *9** |      |
| Evaluations           |     |    |    |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+
| **Subtotal            | **2 | *  | *  | **   | **   | **   | **   |
| (Assessment           | 4** | *0 | *1 | 13** | 15** | 28** | 18** |
| scientists)**         |     | ** | 2+ |      |      |      |      |
|                       |     |    | ** |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+
| **Subtotal (others)** | **5 | ** | ** | **   | **   | **   | **   |
|                       | 6** | 15 | 14 | 14** | 45** | 59** | 48** |
|                       |     | ** | ** |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+
| **Total**             | **8 | ** | *  | **   | **   | **   | **   |
|                       | 0** | 15 | *2 | 27** | 60** | 87** | 66** |
|                       |     | ** | 6+ |      |      |      |      |
|                       |     |    | ** |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------------+-----+----+----+------+------+------+------+

**Table 4.** Number range CHAPTERFTEs Number range CHAPTER required to
meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence by type of activity for
the Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Numbers of FTEs in each category
do not necessarily reflect the actual number of individuals involved in
these activities, in that some individuals may divide their time between
several activities. Estimated current FTEs include in-house staff,
contractors such as observers, and "other," which includes state
government biologists, and employees or contractors associated with
various regional, national and international Commissions. Follow-up
evaluations include the production of additional assessment outputs,
evaluations of alternative management strategies, and participation in
plan development teams. Numbers should be cumulated across tiers.

Number range CHAPTER\* A loosely determined number of collaborating
assessment scientists at SPC, CSIRO, NRIFSF and elsewhere.

######### Tier 1: Improve stock assessments using existing data

Moving to the first Tier of Assessment Excellence, improving assessments
with existing data, could be readily achieved by additional SWFSC
scientists for many species. Current data collections, including indices
of abundance and key biological data exist with various sources - state,
federal, and international - and could be prepared for assessment use in
relatively short order. In the Southwest Region, considerable numbers of
species have not yet been assessed or have been inadequately assessed.
These include some high profile species currently fished such as striped
and blue marlins, all of the pelagic sharks caught in the Pacific coast
HMS fisheries, and several tuna species such as skipjack and bigeye
tunas. The rockfishes in central and southern California have large
numbers of unassessed species including some mainstays of the
recreational fishery such as Pacific bonito, vermillion rockfish and
black abalone which are expected to be declared overfished once Tier 1
assessment are completed, or, as in the case of the white abalone move
directly from unassessed to endangered. The jump to Tier 1 requires
appreciable increases in database managers and analysts to retrieve,
audit and preprocess the data; biological technicians to process
archived samples; and stock assessment scientists to conduct
assessments, explore new methodologies appropriate to data-poor
situations, and communicate the results (**Table 4**).

#### *Tier 2: Elevate stock assessments to new national standards*

Moving or upgrading assessments to Tier 2 where dynamic changes in stock
abundance can be assessed and monitored for core species and all managed
species are monitored will require expanded data collection as well as
extensive monitoring by assessment scientists (**Table 4**). SWFSC
scientists are engaged in developing advanced technology survey
methodologies including, for example, ROV strip census, advanced
acoustics, LIDAR strip census and integrated acoustic and net surveys
for krill-sized organisms. These methods, as well as more established
methods, will form the core for fishery-independent data monitoring.
Considerable effort will be focused on providing the basic biological
parameters needed to move assessments to age and size based methods from
current Tier 1 efforts. Genetics will play an important role in
developing early life stage indices from fishery-independent survey
methods such as continuous underway egg and larval sampling for biomass,
which was pioneered at the SWFSC. Coordination of creative interactions
between the various stock assessment specialties will require careful
management.

######### Tier 3: Next generation assessments

Tier 3 moves to the goal of providing basic assessments for all stocks
with core stocks using age/size/sex structured methods and considering
ecosystem effects. To reach this goal for core stocks, extended research
to estimate key biological parameters will be needed. This will require
substantially increased scientific effort (**Table 4**). The SWFSC at
its Pacific Fisheries Environmental Laboratory is engaged in developing
environmental data sets related to decadal climate shifts and shifts in
ocean productivity, and researching methodologies for incorporating
these effects into assessment models. Currently, SWFSC scientists have
provided a management model to the Pacific Council which uses
temperature as a forcing factor for determining harvest guidelines.
Extension of these emerging methods for incorporating ecosystem effects
will require interdisciplinary cooperation and facilitation between
assessment scientists and other disciplines.

#### Northwest Fisheries Science Center

######### NWFSC current situation

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center has lead responsibility for
assessment of west coast groundfish and evaluation of recovery options
for Pacific salmon. The demands for accurate scientific investigations
for both groups of species are high and increasing. Groundfish and
salmon are managed according to Fishery Management Plans developed by
the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). Although the NWFSC has
the lead role in coordinating assessment information for both FMPs,
there are major contributions by other NMFS Science Centers and by the
state fishery agencies of California, Oregon and Washington.

The status of Pacific salmon species on the west coast has been reviewed
under provisions of the Endangered Species Act and 26 populations
(Evolutionarily Significant Units) have been listed as threatened or
endangered. A tremendous effort is being mounted by the NWFSC and the
SWFSC to develop salmon recovery plans that incorporate all aspects of
human and natural risks to salmon. Nearly all of the salmon escapement
monitoring and run forecasting is based on in-river information and is
done by the state and tribal agencies. These results are used by the
Salmon Technical Team (STT) of the PFMC to develop harvest options for
consideration by the PFMC. Because the assessments of salmon are
primarily conducted by other agencies, and because the primary west
coast salmon activity occurs under Protected Species, the salmon
research and monitoring needs are not considered further in this
document.

For groundfish, only 26 of the 82 species have ever been quantitatively
assessed. Of these 26 species, several have experienced severe declines.
Harvest rates, climate, and assessment precision all contributed to this
decline. The default harvest rate during most of the 1990s (35% spawners
per recruit), while conservative by global standards, was overly
optimistic during what has become a 20-year regime of poor ocean
productivity. The precision and frequency of stock assessments did not
allow forecasting the magnitude or duration of the decline in
recruitment until several stocks had already crossed into an overfished
state. As of 2001, rebuilding plans are being developed for seven
groundfish species. Even among the 26 assessed species, there are some
for which there has not been sufficient information to adequately
determine their status with respect to overfishing thresholds. There are
concerns that others of the 60+ species with unknown status may be in
danger of overfishing. Further, some populations of groundfish in Puget
Sound have declined to such low levels that their status was reviewed in
2000 for potential listing under the ESA.

The majority of shoreside groundfish catch monitoring is done by the
state agencies with coordination through the Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission which maintains a centralized database of fisheries
data (PacFIN). Most resource surveys are conducted by NMFS, with the
triennial bottom trawl and hydroacoustic surveys providing a major
source of data for most assessments. Approximately six groundfish stock
assessments are conducted each year by NMFS, state agencies, and others.
The NWFSC coordinates a stock assessment review process in conjunction
with the PFMC\'s SSC, that involves external peer-reviewers and public
input.

Passage of the MSFCMA strengthened the mandate to improve the west coast
stock assessment capability. Assessments need to be conducted for more
of the groundfish species. The level of uncertainty in groundfish
assessments and the current information on low productivity for these
species needs to be combined in a sound precautionary approach to
managing these species. Rebuilding plans, which are expected to take
more than 10 years, need to be developed and subsequently monitored for
several of these long-lived species.

All of these will be extraordinarily difficult given the lack of a
dedicated research vessel for these resources and the low level of
current resource survey efforts. Further, increased stock assessment
effort will primarily tell us what is occurring to these species.
Knowing what is only the first step. In order to develop a better
understanding of why these changes are occurring, programs need to be
developed to investigate the role of decadal scale changes in ocean
climate, and the role of ecosystem shifts such as the major increase in
pinniped abundance that has occurred off the west coast.

####### NWFSC programs and staffing required to meet the three tiers of excellence

The great diversity of habitat, life history, and knowledge for west
coast groundfish defies simple description of the data needs for
improvement. The 82 species have a collective distribution, which spans
1300 miles of coastline and from estuaries out to at least 1500 m bottom
depth. Some species are schooling midwater, others are on the benthic
continental slope, and others are associated with high-relief near shore
habitat. Species with the greatest accumulation of relevant stock
assessment data tend to be those that have historically been targeted by
the trawl fishery and are amenable to either trawl or hydroacoustic
surveys. Species that have the greatest data needs tend to be those that
are associated with high relief habitat and are subject to growing
commercial and recreational hook and line fisheries. Today, only 26 of
the 82 groundfish species have ever been assessed, and many of these
assessments have had insufficient data to allow adequate determination
of the status of the species.

######### Tier 1: Improve stock assessments using existing data

Bringing all west coast groundfish species to a Tier 1 level will
require additional stock assessment, data processing and ecological
staff to make the best use of the limited existing data. Some groundfish
assemblages have no fishery dependent or fishery independent index of
abundance and limited biological sampling from the fisheries.

The Tier 1 focus of stock assessment modelers needs to be on developing
a first-cut assessment for all species so that any overfishing can be
identified and corrected. There are three general areas of improvements.
One area will be in the development and application of relevant
assessment methods for more of the species that do not have sufficient
data to support current data-hungry quantitative assessment methods.
This will require innovative use of stock assessment, biological and
ecological data so that information from better known species can be
used to develop proxies for poorly studied species. A second area of
improvement is the development of assessment modeling protocols that
better quantify and communicate the uncertainty in current assessments.
Such improved models will structure implementation of a more formal
precautionary approach to harvest management. A third area of
improvement is in the spatial integration of fishery and survey
databases, particularly through advances in linkage of fishery logbooks,
landings data, and fishery biological samples.

*Tier 2: Elevate stock assessments to new national standards*

Medium-term improvements in major data sources can lead to substantial
improvements in assessment precision within about 10 years. These
include major programs such as periodic resource assessment surveys,
more comprehensive fishery logbook programs and at-sea monitoring of
total catch, collection of genetic stock structure data for more
species, and evaluation of fish association with particular habitats.
Beyond routine monitoring, survey effort also needs to be devoted to
studies that will improve understanding of how environmental and other
factors affect efforts to standardize surveys. Studies are needed to
investigate bycatch mortality and gear impact studies. Many of these
medium-term efforts are large scale and expensive, but have the greatest
likelihood of significantly improving the accuracy of the assessments
and our ability to conduct assessments for all assemblages of
groundfish. Current efforts are far from meeting Tier 2 assessment needs
because:

1\. The NWFSC has no dedicated fishery research vessel to do
standardized resource assessment surveys or other field research;

2\. Surveys to assess most of the continental shelf rockfish and lingcod
are conducted only triennially, yet several of these species are
overfished and their rebuilding plan calls for a biennial assessment;

3\. A small coastwide observer program to assess bycatch and total
mortality of target species was not implemented until 2001, yet
estimates of discard for some target species range up to 30%;

4\. Fishery monitoring has historically focused on the trawl fleet.
There are no fishery logbooks and insufficient fishery-dependent data
for the hook&line fishery which accounts for the majority of many
nearshore rockfish species catch. Further, there are few if any
fishery-independent data from which to assess the status of these
species.

######### Tier 3: Next generation assessments

Further improvements in assessments can be made by increasing the
frequency and precision of fishery-independent surveys, and by
increasing the number of species for which there is age composition data
from the fishery and surveys. However, major improvements in our ability
to forecast future stock conditions and to provide assurance of
ecologically safe harvest strategies will require qualitatively
different kinds of information. Among these longer term efforts are
recruitment surveys that will directly forecast changes in fish
abundance, climate studies to provide longer-term predictions of average
recruitment levels, and ecosystem studies that will provide better
understanding of the interactions among species and with their habitat.
For west coast groundfish, recruitment surveys are particularly relevant
for species such as whiting which have tremendous variation in
recruitment and recruit to the fishery at a young age. With a
recruitment survey, we can better adjust harvest levels to track these
short-term natural fluctuations in abundance. Recruitment surveys are
also relevant for the very long-lived species that have delayed
recruitment to conventional surveys and the fishery. Here the
recruitment surveys will provide advance notice of longer-term shifts in
abundance caused by shifts in average recruitment levels. Climate
monitoring and fishery-oceanography investigations will help interpret
these shifts in recruitment and further advance predictive capability.
The result of these ecosystem studies will be a better assessment of the
ecological impact of fishing, better understanding of the impact of
factors such as the increased abundance of piscivorous pinnipeds, and
potential adjustment of fishing strategies to obtain the best
multispecies yields from the system.

Specific resource requirements for west coast groundfish are outlined in
**Table 5**. The information labeled \"current\" in **Table 5**
describes the situation in January 2000. A partial step towards meeting
Tier 2 needs occurred in 2001 when the NWFSC received funding to
establish a small west coast groundfish observer program and conduct
coastwide trawl and hydroacoustic surveys.

+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+
| Number range         | *  |     |    | **    | ***  | ***  | ***  |
| C                    | ** |     |    | *Tier | Tier | Tier | Tier |
| HAPTER***Activity*** | Cu |     |    | 1***  | 2*** | 1+   | 3*** |
|                      | rr |     |    |       |      | 2*** |      |
|                      | en |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | t* |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | ** |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      |    |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | ** |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | *I |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | n- |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | ho |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | us |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | e/ |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | co |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | nt |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | ac |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | t/ |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | ot |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | he |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | r* |     |    |       |      |      |      |
|                      | ** |     |    |       |      |      |      |
+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+
| Commercial Catch &   |    |     | 20 |       | 6    | *    |      |
| Biological Sampling  |    |     |    |       |      | *6** |      |
+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+
| Recreational Catch & |    |     | 7  |       | 6    | *    |      |
| Biological Sampling  |    |     |    |       |      | *6** |      |
+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+
| Observer Programs    |    | 25^ |    |       | 31\* | **31 | 12\* |
|                      |    | \#^ |    |       |      | \*** |      |
+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+
| Fishery-independent  | 7  | 2   |    |       | 11   | **   | 10   |
| Surveys              |    |     |    |       |      | 11** |      |
+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+
| Process Biological   |    | 3   | 5  | 1     | 5    | *    | 8    |
| Samples (age,        |    |     |    |       |      | *6** |      |
| growth, maturity,    |    |     |    |       |      |      |      |
| etc.)                |    |     |    |       |      |      |      |
+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+
| Data Management &    | 2  | 1   | 19 | 5     | 4    | *    | 2    |
| Preprocessing of     |    |     |    |       |      | *9** |      |
| Data                 |    |     |    |       |      |      |      |
+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+
| Conduct Assessments  | 6  |     | 5  | 4     | 4    | *    | 4    |
|                      |    |     |    |       |      | *8** |      |
+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+
| Assessment Methods   |    | 1   |    | 1     | 2    | *    | 2    |
| Research             |    |     |    |       |      | *3** |      |
+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+
| Communication of     | 3  | 1   | 3  | 2     | 5    | *    | 1    |
| Results and          |    |     |    |       |      | *7** |      |
| Follow-up            |    |     |    |       |      |      |      |
| Evaluations          |    |     |    |       |      |      |      |
+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+
| **Subtotal           | *  | **  | *  | **7** | **   | **   | *    |
| (Assessment          | *9 | 2** | *8 |       | 11** | 18** | *7** |
| scientists)**        | ** |     | ** |       |      |      |      |
+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+
| **Subtotal           | *  | **3 | ** | **6** | **   | **   | **   |
| (others)**           | *9 | 1** | 51 |       | 63** | 69** | 32** |
|                      | ** |     | ** |       |      |      |      |
+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+
| **Total**            | ** | **3 | ** | *     | **   | **   | **   |
|                      | 18 | 3** | 59 | *13** | 74** | 87** | 39** |
|                      | ** |     | ** |       |      |      |      |
+----------------------+----+-----+----+-------+------+------+------+

**Table 5.** Number range CHAPTERFTEs Number range CHAPTERrequired to
meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence by type of activity for
the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Numbers of FTEs in each category
do not necessarily reflect the actual number of individuals involved in
these activities, in that some individuals may divide their time between
several activities. Estimated current FTEs include in-house staff,
contractors such as observers, and "other," which includes state
government biologists, and employees or contractors associated with
various regional, national and international Commissions. Follow-up
evaluations include the production of additional assessment outputs,
evaluations of alternative management strategies, and participation in
plan development teams. Numbers should be cumulated across tiers.Number
range CHAPTER

Number range CHAPTER1. This table is limited to resources devoted to
stock assessment of groundfish and other marine fish. Significant
additional NMFS and state resources are devoted to work on salmonids.

2\. "Partner" column contains minimum PSMFC and WA, OR, CA personnel
working on groundfish. Many of these are supported through federal
grants, including PacFIN.

3.  The in house staff column represents the total number of positions
    as of January 2000. New funding in FY2001 is allowing development of
    an observer program and expansion in survey and assessment programs.
    Approximately 15-20 Tier 1+2 positions will be filled.

\# includes 25 observers and infrastructure hired in FY 2001

\* excludes 25 observers hired in FY 2001; includes a proposed
additional 30 contract observers (20 in Tier 2 and 10 in Tier 3)

#### Alaska Fisheries Science Center

The Alaska Fisheries Science Center is responsible for Gulf of Alaska,
Bering Sea and Aleutian Island groundfish assessments. The Center
conducts activities in support of these assessments that include fishery
independent and fishery dependent data collection programs, and
fisheries oceanographic studies. The Center is also responsible for
conducting fishery independent surveys and research in support of
Pacific salmon and Alaskan crab assessments.

Alaskan groundfish and crab are managed according to Fishery Management
Plans developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC).
For the Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands region, assessment scientists
currently contribute to thirteen annual groundfish assessments: walleye
pollock, Pacific cod, Atka mackerel, yellowfin sole, Greenland turbot,
arrowtooth flounder, rock sole, flathead sole, other flatfish, Pacific
ocean perch, other rockfish, sablefish and squid and other species. For
the Gulf of Alaska region, 11 assessments are produced annually: walleye
pollock, Pacific cod, Atka mackerel, thornyhead, slope rockfish, pelagic
shelf rockfish, demersal shelf rockfish, arrowtooth flounder, other
flatfish, sablefish and other species. AFSC staff assist in the
development and review of stock assessments for Bering Sea crab stocks.
Staff represent the Center on numerous technical and decision making
boards including the NPFMC Groundfish Plan Teams and Scientific and
Statistical Committee, the North Pacific Anadromous Commission, the
North Pacific Halibut Commission, and international technical committees
dealing with trans-boundary stocks such as Pacific hake and Bering Sea
pollock.

Bycatch limits for several species have been imposed to ensure that
individual species quotas are not exceeded. Species that are designated
as prohibited species include Alaskan crab (e.g. Tanner crab, blue and
red king crab and snow crab), Pacific halibut, and some stocks of
Pacific salmon (chinook, pink, sockeye, chum, coho and steelhead).
Retention for sale of prohibited species is prohibited to dissuade any
targeting by groundfish fishers. Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea Aleutian
Islands groundfish fisheries also have some bycatch and discard of
unmarketable species and small sized fish that is typical of any
multispecies fishery. There is some discard of marketable fish caused by
the NPFMC management system for the groundfish fishery. When bycatch
limits are exceeded for a species, the species can no longer be retained
to discourage further catch of this species.

In-season catch composition is monitored by a major fishery-dependent
data collection program. Catch is monitored by an observer program and
shoreside data collection. Roughly 30,000 observer days (equivalent to
114 FTEs) are expended annually to collect data from the North Pacific
groundfish fishery. All vessels capable of hosting an observer may be
required to do so at the vessel\'s expense. As currently implemented,
vessels over 125 feet length overall (LOA) are required to have an
observer on board at all times when ground-fishing, vessels of 60 to 124
feet LOA are required to have observers on-board 30% of the time, and
vessels under 60 feet LOA are generally exempt from the requirements for
observer coverage. Most of the fishing vessels operating in the Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands exceed the 125 foot limit, while most of the
fishing vessels in the Gulf of Alaska are smaller than 125 feet. The
recreational harvest of groundfish in Alaskan waters is a minor
component of the total catch. Observers collect biological data such as
otoliths, length frequencies, stomach samples and maturity stage for a
variety of species.

Conducting fishery independent surveys in Alaskan waters requires a
major investment of shiptime and personnel. The continental shelves off
Alaska make up about 74% of the total area (2,900,785 km2) of the United
States continental shelf. The region is marked by adverse seasonal
conditions that necessitate sophisticated equipment to ensure the safety
of the crew and the accomplishment of the survey mission.

AFSC stock assessment scientists conduct research to improve the
precision of their assessments, and provide technical support for the
evaluation of potential impacts of proposed fishery management measures.
Research activities are designed to improve the quality of stock
assessments and to expand the scope of assessments to quantify the
ecological impact of fishing on the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea
ecosystems. Stock assessment scientists often serve a dual role acting
as the scientific interface between the Alaska Fisheries Science Center
and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC).

Numerous laws govern the implementation of fisheries in federal waters.
AFSC staff often conduct research to evaluate the impact of fishing to
comply with these legal requirements. The MSFCMA directs NMFS stock
assessment scientists to provide annual status evaluations for all
species managed under the NPFMC FMPs. AFSC stock assessment scientists
also provide analytic assistance on many current fisheries management
issues such as research activities leading to implementation of
precautionary resource management, consultations and Biological Opinions
regarding protected resources, and NEPA impact analyses regarding the
effects of fishing on the marine environment.

The National Standard Guidelines for overfishing state that \"If
environmental changes affect the long-term productive capacity of the
stock or stock complex, one or more components of the status
determination criteria must be re-specified.\" This requirement
necessitates new research on the mechanisms underlying shifts in
production. Studies have demonstrated that several groundfish, crab and
salmon stocks exhibit shifts in production that show marked similarity
to the time scales of distant atmospheric forcing phenomena such as the
El Nino Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. To
determine whether shifts are due to human actions or environmentally
induced shifts in the productive capacity of a stock or stock complex
requires new research to investigate the mechanisms underlying the
apparent response of key species to decadal scale changes in ocean
climate.

Several species protected under the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act are present in the region. Among these, the western stock of Steller
sea lion has been listed as endangered. A tremendous effort is being
mounted by AFSC and the North Pacific Regional Office to develop a
Steller sea lion recovery plan that incorporates all aspects of human
and natural risks to this marine mammal population. Principal prey items
in the sea lion diet include Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and walleye
pollock. These species are also targets of large commercial fisheries.
Efforts are underway to explore methods to reduce the potential for
competition between commercial fisheries and Steller sea lions at
crucial times of the year.

Court challenges underscore the demands on AFSC staff to conduct new
research surveys, process oriented research, and assessment activities
to improve our understanding of the mechanisms underlying recent
declines in the Steller sea lion population and the potential role of
commercial fishing in limiting its recovery. These decisions also
underscore the need for additional staff to evaluate management
alternatives to provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to current
fishing practices.

####### AFSC current situation - Gulf of Alaska groundfish 

Among the 100 groundfish species covered by the GOA FMP of the NPFMC, 67
are assessed at a Level 1 or better (**Appendix 1**). These species have
been the targets of fishery monitoring and resource survey programs that
provide the basic information for quantitative stock assessments. Not
all these assessments have the same level of information and precision.
Of the 67 assessed species, only 8 are assessed using staged base models
(Level 4 or above). In the case of 91 of the 100 species covered by the
FMP, there is insufficient information to determine whether or not the
stocks are overfished or approaching an overfished condition. Some of
these species are targets of developing fisheries.

The 100 groundfish species can be roughly broken into four assemblages
based upon their adult habitat and co-occurrence in the fishery. This
breakout will facilitate discussion of fishery monitoring and resource
survey programs:

1\. Midwater schooling- Walleye pollock, eulachon and squid are amenable
to acoustic survey methods. Walleye pollock supports a midwater trawl
fishery with annual catch near 100,000 mt.

2\. Deep slope (mostly trawlable habitat on shelf break and continental
slope extending out to about 1500m bottom depth) includes primarily
sablefish, dover sole, shortraker and rougheye rockfish, shortspine
thornyheads, longspine thornyheads, Pacific grenadier. This assemblage
supports a valuable trawl fishery, plus sablefish is a target of pot and
hook&line fishers.

3\. Demersal Shelf (mostly trawl caught species on continental shelf and
upper slope, but many species occur over rocky habitat and some species
have significant off-bottom tendencies). This assemblage includes
rockfish species, flatfish, Atka mackerel and Pacific cod. The fishery
is trawl for most species; however, Pacific cod is taken by hook&line
and pot gear.

4\. Pelagic shelf rockfish (mostly in high relief habitat) includes
several of rockfish species.

AFSC current situation - Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands (BSAI)

Among the 145 groundfish species covered by the BSAI FMP of the NPFMC,
133 are assessed at a Level 1 or better (**Appendix 1**). These species
exhibit great diversity in life history traits. Many have been the
targets of fishery monitoring and resource survey programs that provide
the basic information for quantitative stock assessments. Not all these
assessments have the same level of information and precision. Of the 133
assessed species, only 15 are assessed using staged base models (Level 4
or above). In the case of 128 of the 145 species covered by the FMP,
there is insufficient information to determine whether or not the stocks
are overfished or approaching an overfished condition. Some of these
species are the target of developing fisheries.

The 145 groundfish species can be roughly broken into four assemblages
based upon their adult habitat and co-occurrence in the fishery. This
breakout will facilitate discussion of fishery monitoring and resource
survey programs:

1\. Midwater schooling- Walleye pollock, eulachon and squid are amenable
to acoustic survey methods. Walleye pollock supports a midwater trawl
fishery with annual catch near 1,000,000 mt.

2\. Deep slope (mostly trawlable habitat on shelf break and continental
slope extending out to about 1500m bottom depth) includes primarily
sablefish, Greenland turbot, shortraker and rougheye rockfish, and
shortspine thornyheads. This assemblage supports a valuable trawl
fishery, plus sablefish is a target of pot and hook&line fishers.

3\. Demersal Shelf (mostly trawl caught species on continental shelf and
upper slope, but many species occur over rocky habitat and some species
have significant off-bottom tendencies). This assemblage includes
rockfish, flatfish, Atka mackerel, crab and Pacific cod. The fishery for
this assemblage is primarily trawl for most species however, Pacific cod
are taken by hook&line and pot gear, and crab are taken with pot gear.

4\. Pelagic shelf rockfish (mostly in high relief habitat) includes
several of rockfish species.

Three crab stocks are currently listed as overfished: Bering Sea Tanner
crab, Bering Sea snow crab and Saint Mathews Island Blue King Crab.
Rebuilding plans need to be developed and subsequently monitored for
these crab stocks. Building such plans will be difficult given the lack
of life history and stage based information for these resources.
Increased stock assessment effort will primarily elucidate the
underlying factors contributing to recent declines in production.

#### AFSC programs and staffing required to meet the three tiers of excellence

######### Tier 1: Improve stock assessments using existing data

Bringing all Alaskan groundfish and crab species to a Tier 1 level will
require additional stock assessment, data processing and ecological
staff to make the best use of existing data. New personnel identified
under Tier 1 (**Table 6**) would utilize existing fishery dependent and
fishery independent data to facilitate the development of assessments
for several new species and to improve existing assessments to the
extent possible. To accomplish the first part of this objective,
additional staff are needed to construct assessments for species where
historical data is spotty or uncertain. AFSC scientists are exploring
modeling approaches that draw on life history information from similar
species to parameterize first generation assessments for poorly studied
species. Additional assessment scientists could assist in developing
overfishing criteria when information regarding the status of the stock
is missing or intermittent. Assessment scientists and statisticians are
needed to assist in reviewing the sampling design of proposed or
existing fishery independent and fishery dependent sampling programs.
This research effort would require a retrospective analysis of existing
data to evaluate the efficiency of the current data collection program
and to make recommendations for improvements in sampling design.
Additional analytical staff could conduct research to better quantify
and communicate the uncertainty in current assessments. Improved models
will structure implementation of a more formal precautionary approach to
harvest management. A final area of improvement is in the development of
assessment models that fully utilize existing information on top down
(predator/prey) influences on time trends in natural mortality, and
bottom up on marine survival at early life stages in spatially explicit
modes. AFSC is well positioned to advance this type of state-of-the-art
stock assessment. The combination of a long history of data collection
on the food habits of groundfish in the Eastern Bering Sea and Gulf of
Alaska make the development of models that model top down forcing a
realistic goal. Likewise, the long history of fisheries oceanographic
process oriented research supported by the Fisheries Oceanography
Coordinated Investigations provides the necessary knowledge of lower
trophic level forcing required to implement a fully coupled model.

######### Tier 2: Elevate stock assessments to new national standards

Medium-term improvements in major data sources can lead to substantial
improvements in assessment precision within about 10 years. These
include major programs such as periodic resource assessment surveys,
expanding and improving at-sea monitoring of total catch, collection of
genetic stock structure data for more species, and evaluation of fish
association with particular habitats. Beyond routine monitoring,
research should be devoted to studies of factors that may influence
survey standardization, and development of cost-effective survey
technologies that are not susceptible to environmental influences on
standardization.

Additional staff would be required to achieve a Tier 2 level of analysis
for BSAI and GOA groundfish. Tier 2 envisions that assessments of core
species would be upgraded at least Level 3 and would provide adequate
baseline assessments for all managed species. Fishery dependent and
fishery independent data collection are needed to achieve Tier 2. These
staff members would be responsible for compiling and analyzing data for
species currently managed as species groups (e.g. other flatfish, other
rockfish and other species).

*GOA assessment needs to achieve Tier 2*

In the current implementation of the observer program, observers monitor
catch and collect biological information on 70 of the 100 groundfish
species in the Gulf of Alaska. Several minor species are classified into
general categories. Skates are almost always recorded as \"skate
unidentified,\" with very few exceptions between 1990-1998. In the Gulf
of Alaska, at least 80% of the recorded sculpin catch by year is
recorded as \"sculpin unidentified,\" with the remainder of the catch
identified to the genus level. Only small amounts (\<2%) of the sculpin
catch each year were identified to species. Likewise, octopus and squid
are generally not identified to species in the observer database.
Octopus can only be recorded as \"octopus unidentified,\" or \"pelagic
octopus unidentified.\" Eulachon and capelin are recorded to species
more often than sculpins but in 1998, approximately 80% of their catch
was recorded as \"smelt unidentified.\" Monitoring the catch of these
minor species would require additional staff to train and implement an
expanded observer program.

Groundfish populations are routinely monitored by fishery independent
surveys. A longline survey is conducted annually for sablefish. A
gulf-wide trawl survey of the shelf areas of the Gulf of Alaska has been
conducted on a triennial basis since 1984. Current operating plans call
for future surveys to occur on a biennial basis. An acoustic survey of a
major spawning concentration of walleye pollock in Shelikof Strait is
conducted on an annual basis. These surveys provide a calibrated
abundance measure (Level 2 or above) for only 4 species (**Appendix
1**). These surveys provide an index of abundance for 83 species
(**Appendix** **1**). To achieve Tier 2 level analysis additional effort
should be devoted to obtaining and analyzing the life history of
characteristics of species captured in the longline or trawl surveys
(e.g. regional differences in growth, maturity, and habitat
association).

For species such as small soft-bottom roundfishes (sculpins, poachers,
eelpouts, and skates) the existing time series of trawl survey data is
inconsistent because of differing levels of species identification.
Starting in 1999 this problem was nearly eliminated because all survey
vessels had new species identification guides that included photos of
all known species. Species identification has therefore been greatly
increased with very little cost. An existing problem for these species
in the GOA, however, is that they are likely to have very low
catchability by the survey trawls and it is uncertain how well research
vessel CPUE tracks stock size. Assessment of these species could be
improved using auxiliary trawl experiments to measure escapement under
the footrope.

Many species of rockfish are not well sampled because they occur in
areas that are too rough to be sampled with our usual survey nets and,
additionally, some species (e.g. Pacific Ocean perch, northern rockfish,
and dusky rockfish) are extremely patchy and not likely to be well
sampled in the present bottom trawl survey. Considerable work has been
done in attempt to develop a rockfish specific survey, but the best
approach has yet to be developed. To improve the survey assessment of
rockfish we need more research on gear design and sampling techniques.
Once the appropriate technique is developed, it will undoubtedly require
a distinctly different survey design than is now used and could not be
incorporated into the current normal survey operations. Additional work
will be required to develop appropriate techniques for the semi-pelagic
species.

Fishery independent collections of age, length frequency and size at
maturity are obtained for the core species (about 20 species, mostly
rockfish and slope species, split between GOA, AI, and EBS). Expanding
the age collections to include the remaining species would require
collecting otoliths for additional species on surveys and could be
accomplished without a large increase in money or manpower. However,
additional staff would be needed to conduct the age determinations.
Obtaining size at maturity information would require a considerable
increase in research cruises to collect species at a time that is close
enough to spawning so that mature or recently spent fish are easily
recognized. Most survey or research cruises at the AFSC are currently
conducted in the summer, after most species have completed spawning. In
addition, a sampling strategy must be worked out so that a sufficient
number of small and immature fish are collected.

Acoustic-trawl surveys in Alaska conducted by the Resource Assessment
and Conservation Ecology Division (RACE) focus on walleye pollock as a
target species. All aspects of survey design (e.g. area, timing,
sampling intensity, etc.) are devised to assess the distribution and
abundance of pollock. Pollock is ideally suited for acoustic assessment
due to its semi-demersal nature, widespread distribution, and tendency
to form monospecific aggregations. During RACE acoustic-trawl surveys,
other pelagic fish species are encountered in very low numbers. Existing
acoustic data could provide some information on eulachon occurrence
observed during the 1980-1998 winter-spring Shelikof Strait surveys.
Expanding the current acoustic program to routinely monitor eulachon
would require a significant effort, including both staff and vessel
time. Additional trawling would be needed and extended tracklines may be
necessary.

Application of an acoustic-trawl survey approach to other FMP species
(e.g. rockfish, capelin, squid, etc.) has been successful under certain
circumstances, but would require a substantial amount of work (e.g.
literature reviews and feasibility studies) merely to make a good guess
of the resources required. A significant amount of preliminary research
would be necessary to simply estimate the staff and funding necessary to
fund each project.

######### Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands assessment needs to achieve Tier 2

Bering Sea and Aleutian Island groundfish populations are routinely
monitored by fishery independent surveys. A longline survey for
sablefish is conducted in alternate years in either the Bering Sea or
the Aleutian Islands. Groundfish trawl surveys of the Eastern Bering Sea
shelf have been conducted on an annual basis since 1979. Groundfish
trawl surveys are conducted on a triennial basis in the Aleutian Islands
region. Current operating plans call for future surveys of the Aleutian
Islands region on a biennial basis. Acoustic surveys of major spawning
concentrations of walleye pollock near Bogoslof Island are conducted on
an annual basis. An acoustic survey of walleye pollock on the Eastern
Bering Sea shelf has been conducted on a triennial basis since 1979.
These surveys provide a calibrated abundance measure (Level 2 or above)
for 76 species (**Appendix 1**). These surveys provide an index of
abundance (Level 1) for an additional 47 species (**Appendix 1**).

As in the case of the Gulf of Alaska, the existing time series of trawl
survey data for species such as small soft-bottom roundfishes (sculpins,
poachers, eelpouts, and skates) may provide inconsistent results because
of differing levels of species identification. This problem has been
addressed through the addition of new species identification guides
which included photos of all known species. However, as in the GOA, it
is likely that these species have very low catchability by the survey
trawls in the Aleutian Islands region. Assessment of these species could
be improved using auxiliary trawl experiments to measure escapement
under the footrope.

Many species of rockfish are not well sampled by the Aleutian Island
trawl survey because they occur in areas that are too rough to be
sampled with our usual survey nets and, additionally, some species (e.g.
Pacific Ocean perch and northern rockfish) are extremely patchy and not
likely to be well sampled in the present bottom trawl surveys.
Nevertheless, the current Aleutian Island trawl survey does provide an
index of abundance for several rockfish species, and rockfish age data
are collected during the surveys. Additional research is needed to
design a calibrated survey for rockfish.

Staffing needs to expand fishery independent collections of age, length
frequency and size at maturity were discussed in the section on GOA
fishery independent surveys.

During Midwater Assessment and Conservation Engineering (MACE)
acoustic-trawl surveys, other pelagic fish species are encountered in
very low numbers. Existing acoustic data could provide some information
on eulachon occurrence observed during the 1980-1998 winter-spring
Bogoslof Island surveys. Expanding the current acoustic program to
routinely monitor eulachon would require a significant effort -
including both staff and vessel time. Additional trawling would be
needed and extended tracklines may be necessary.

######### Tier 3: Next generation assessments 

A substantial increase in stock assessment staff would be required to
achieve a Tier 3 level of analysis for BSAI and GOA groundfish. Tier 3
assessments would account for both biological and technological
interactions and integration of biological and environmental data that
may lead to more reliable long-range predictions. To accomplish this
goal necessitates the implementation of fisheries oceanographic research
programs for a broad spectrum of species. At the current time AFSC
primarily supports fisheries oceanographic research on walleye pollock.
Likewise, additional staff would be required to provide information on
potential trophic interactions between species. Assessment scientists
would be required to develop a broader spectrum of assessment modeling
tools to address the complex interactions envisioned under Tier 3. In
addition to the complex modeling activities envisioned for core species,
additional stock assessment scientists would be required to conduct
basic assessment functions for all species covered by the FMP.

+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+
| Number range         | *    |    |   | ***  | **    | ***  | *   |
| C                    | **Cu |    |   | Tier | *Tier | Tier | **T |
| HAPTER***Activity*** | rren |    |   | 1*** | 2***  | 1+   | ier |
|                      | t*** |    |   |      |       | 2*** | 3   |
|                      |      |    |   |      |       |      | *** |
|                      | *    |    |   |      |       |      |     |
|                      | **In |    |   |      |       |      |     |
|                      | -hou |    |   |      |       |      |     |
|                      | se/c |    |   |      |       |      |     |
|                      | ontr |    |   |      |       |      |     |
|                      | act/ |    |   |      |       |      |     |
|                      | othe |    |   |      |       |      |     |
|                      | r*** |    |   |      |       |      |     |
+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+
| Commercial Catch &   |      |    | 6 |      |       |      |     |
| Biological           |      |    |   |      |       |      |     |
| Sampling\*           |      |    |   |      |       |      |     |
+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+
| Recreational Catch & |      |    |   |      |       |      |     |
| Biological Sampling+ |      |    |   |      |       |      |     |
+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+
| Observer Programs    | 20   | 1  |   |      | 21    | **   | 10  |
|                      |      | 14 |   |      |       | 21** |     |
+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+
| Fishery-independent  | 63.5 | 1  | 2 |      | 19    | **   | 10  |
| Surveys              |      |    | 7 |      |       | 19** |     |
+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+
| Process Biological   | 21   | 3  | 7 | 7    | 8     | **   | 21  |
| Samples (age,        |      |    |   |      |       | 15** |     |
| growth, maturity,    |      |    |   |      |       |      |     |
| etc.)                |      |    |   |      |       |      |     |
+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+
| Data Management &    | 24.5 | 3  | 3 | 6    |       | *    | 1   |
| Preprocessing of     |      |    |   |      |       | *6** |     |
| Data                 |      |    |   |      |       |      |     |
+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+
| Conduct Assessments  | 10   |    | 3 | 10   | 10    | **   | 2   |
|                      |      |    |   |      |       | 20** |     |
+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+
| Assessment Methods   | 8    | 1  | 3 | 3    | 3     | *    | 4   |
| Research             |      |    |   |      |       | *6** |     |
+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+
| Communication of     | 7    |    | 5 | 5    | 5     | **   | 3   |
| Results and          |      |    |   |      |       | 10** |     |
| Follow-up            |      |    |   |      |       |      |     |
| Evaluations          |      |    |   |      |       |      |     |
+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+
| **Subtotal           | **   | *  | * | **   | *     | **   | **  |
| (assessment          | 25** | *1 | * | 18** | *18** | 36** | 9** |
| scientists)**        |      | ** | 1 |      |       |      |     |
|                      |      |    | 1 |      |       |      |     |
|                      |      |    | * |      |       |      |     |
|                      |      |    | * |      |       |      |     |
+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+
| **Subtotal           | **1  | *  | * | **   | *     | **   | **4 |
| (others)**           | 29** | *1 | * | 13** | *48** | 61** | 2** |
|                      |      | 21 | 4 |      |       |      |     |
|                      |      | ** | 3 |      |       |      |     |
|                      |      |    | * |      |       |      |     |
|                      |      |    | * |      |       |      |     |
+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+
| **Total**            | **1  | *  | * | **   | *     | **   | **5 |
|                      | 54** | *1 | * | 31** | *66** | 97** | 1** |
|                      |      | 22 | 5 |      |       |      |     |
|                      |      | ** | 4 |      |       |      |     |
|                      |      |    | * |      |       |      |     |
|                      |      |    | * |      |       |      |     |
+----------------------+------+----+---+------+-------+------+-----+

**Table 6.** Number range CHAPTERFTEs Number range CHAPTERrequired to
meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence by type of activity for
the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Numbers of FTEs in each category do
not necessarily reflect the actual number of individuals involved in
these activities, in that some individuals may divide their time between
several activities. Estimated current FTEs include in-house staff,
contractors such as observers, and "other," which includes state
government biologists, and employees or contractors associated with
various regional, national and international Commissions. Follow-up
evaluations include the production of additional assessment outputs,
evaluations of alternative management strategies, and participation in
plan development teams. Numbers should be cumulated across tiers.

Number range CHAPTER\* Observer program includes shore-side samplers.

\+ Recreational data not applicable.

**E. Summary: National Resource Requirements**

Current FTEs and FTEs required to achieve the objectives of the three
Tiers of assessment Excellence are summarized by Science Center, Tiers
of Assessment Excellence, and activity in **Figure 15**.

![](media/image56.wmf){width="3.36875in" height="8.525694444444444in"}

**Figure 15.** Summary of FTE requirements

by Science Center, Tiers of Assessment Excellence,

and activity.

Similar but more detailed summaries are provided in **Tables 7** and
**8**. **Table 7** sums the FTE requirements for Tiers 1, 2 and 3 by
major activity for all five NMFS Science Centers combined. Almost three
times as many additional staff are needed to collect, manage and process
data, as compared to additional staff needed to conduct and communicate
stock assessments, to evaluate alternative management strategies, and to
conduct research into assessment methods. By far the greatest overall
need is for observers for Tier 2, particularly in the Southeast,
Northwest and Alaska Science Centers. The second greatest overall need
is for staff to participate in fishery-independent surveys (note,
however, that this is contingent on the acquisition of adequate
Fisheries Research Vessels, as outlined in the NOAA Fisheries Data
Acquisition Plan, NMFS 1998c; **Appendix 3**).

+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Number range        | *   |     |     | *   | *   | *   | *   | *** |
| CH                  | **C |     |     | **T | **T | **T | **T | All |
| APTER***Activity*** | urr |     |     | ier | ier | ier | ier | Ti  |
|                     | ent |     |     | 1   | 2   | 1+2 | 3   | ers |
|                     | *** |     |     | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
|                     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|                     | *** |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|                     | In- |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|                     | hou |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|                     | se/ |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|                     | con |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|                     | tra |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|                     | ct/ |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|                     | ot  |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|                     | her |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|                     | *** |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Commercial Catch &  | 41  | 27  | 46  |     | 22  | **2 | 5   | 27  |
| Biological Sampling |     |     |     |     |     | 2** |     |     |
+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Recreational Catch  | 57  | 6   | 34  |     | 15  | **1 | 4   | 19  |
| & Biological        |     |     |     |     |     | 5** |     |     |
| Sampling            |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Observer Programs   | 34  | 160 | 4   |     | 94  | **9 | 40  | 134 |
|                     |     |     |     |     |     | 4** |     |     |
+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Fishery-independent | 9   | 18  | 39  |     | 48  | **4 | 37  | 85  |
| Surveys             | 4.5 |     |     |     |     | 8** |     |     |
+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Process Biological  | 65  | 18  | 17  | 20  | 32  | **5 | 53  | 105 |
| Samples (age,       |     |     |     |     |     | 2** |     |     |
| growth, maturity,   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| etc.)               |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Data Management &   | 5   | 12  | 25  | 33  | 20  | **5 | 24  | 77  |
| Preprocessing of    | 8.5 |     |     |     |     | 3** |     |     |
| Data                |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Conduct Assessments | 49  | 4   | 23+ | 26  | 26  | **5 | 24  | 76  |
|                     |     |     |     |     |     | 2** |     |     |
+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Assessment Methods  | 15  | 2   | 5   | 9   | 11  | **2 | 22  | 42  |
| Research            |     |     |     |     |     | 0** |     |     |
+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Communication of    | 32  | 2   | 8   | 15  | 17  | **3 | 11  | 43  |
| Results and         |     |     |     |     |     | 2** |     |     |
| Follow-up           |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| Evaluations         |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| **Subtotal          | **9 | **  | *   | **5 | **5 | *   | **5 | *   |
| (assessment         | 6** | 8** | *36 | 0** | 4** | *10 | 7** | *16 |
| scientists)**       |     |     | +** |     |     | 4** |     | 1** |
+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| **Subtotal          | *   | *   | *   | **5 | *   | *   | *   | *   |
| (others)**          | *35 | *24 | *16 | 3** | *23 | *28 | *16 | *44 |
|                     | 0** | 1** | 5** |     | 1** | 4** | 3** | 7** |
+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| **Total**           | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   | *   |
|                     | *44 | *24 | *20 | *10 | *28 | *38 | *22 | *60 |
|                     | 6** | 9** | 1** | 3** | 5** | 8** | 0** | 8** |
+---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

**Table 7.** Number range CHAPTERFTEs Number range CHAPTERrequired to
meet the three Tiers of Assessment Excellence by type of activity for
all NMFS Science Centers combined**.** Numbers of FTEs in each category
do not necessarily reflect the actual number of individuals involved in
these activities, in that some individuals may divide their time between
several activities. Estimated current FTEs include in-house staff,
contractors such as observers, and "other," which includes state
government biologists, and employees or contractors associated with
various regional, national and international Commissions. Follow-up
evaluations include the production of additional assessment outputs,
evaluations of alternative management strategies, and participation in
plan development teams. Numbers should be cumulated across tiers.

**Table 8** summarizes the total FTEs requirements for Tiers 1, 2 and 3
for each Science Center and all Centers combined. In terms of current
in-house staff, contract employees, and others who provide assessment
data (e.g. state government biologists, and employees or contractors
associated with various regional , national and international
Commissions), the Alaska Center is the largest with 330 FTEs, the
Northeast Center is second with 188, the Southeast Center is third with
147, the Southwest Center is fourth with 121, and the Northwest Center
has 110. (These numbers apply to the baseline of January 2000, except
where otherwise noted in **Tables 2-6**; in particular, the Northwest
Center total includes 25 observers hired in FY2001). Considering the sum
of Tier 1 and 2 requirements, the Alaska, Northeast, and Southeast
Centers require additions of about 30-40% to existing staff, whereas the
Southwest Center requires an addition of about 70%, and the Northwest
Center an addition of about 80%. To calculate the approximate costs of
new FTEs to satisfy Tiers 1, 2 and 3, a multiplying factor of \$150,000
per annum was used. This number takes into account salary and benefits,
travel, training, equipment and individual Information Technology needs
(although not the core systems needed for data management and
communications); i.e. the multiplier covers everything except major
infrastructure, particularly new workspace and buildings that may be
required.

+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number range  | *   |     |     | ***  | ***  | ***  | ***  | **   |
| CHAPTER*      | **C |     |     | Tier | Tier | Tier | Tier | *All |
| **Activity*** | urr |     |     | 1*** | 2*** | 1+   | 3*** | Tier |
|               | ent |     |     |      |      | 2*** |      | s*** |
|               | *** |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               |     |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | *** |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | In- |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | hou |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | se/ |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | con |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | tra |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | ct/ |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | ot  |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | her |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
|               | *** |     |     |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| NEFSC         | 123 | 49  | 16  | 18   | 43   | **   | 25   | 86   |
|               |     |     |     |      |      | 61** |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| SEFSC         | 71  | 30  | 46  | 14   | 42   | **   | 39   | 95   |
|               |     |     |     |      |      | 56** |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| SWFSC         | 80  | 15  | 26+ | 27   | 60   | **   | 66   | 153  |
|               |     |     |     |      |      | 87** |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| NWFSC         | 18  | 33  | 59  | 13   | 74   | **   | 39   | 126  |
|               |     |     |     |      |      | 87** |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| AFSC          | 154 | 122 | 54  | 31   | 66   | **   | 51   | 148  |
|               |     |     |     |      |      | 97** |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| **Summed      | *   | *   | *   | **1  | **2  | **3  | 220  | 608  |
| FTEs**        | *44 | *24 | *20 | 03** | 85** | 88** |      |      |
|               | 6** | 9** | 1** |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+
| **\$\$ ( FTE  |     |     |     | *    | *    | *    | *    | *    |
| x \$150K )**  |     |     |     | *\$1 | *\$4 | *\$5 | *\$3 | *\$9 |
|               |     |     |     | 5,45 | 2,75 | 8,20 | 3,00 | 1,20 |
|               |     |     |     | 0K** | 0K** | 0K** | 0K** | 0K** |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+------+------+

**Table 8.** Number range CHAPTERNumber range CHAPTERTotal Full-Time
Equivalents (FTEs) required to meet the three Tiers of Assessment
Excellence for each Science Center and all Centers combined. Estimated
current FTEs include in-house staff, contractors such as observers, and
"other," which includes state government biologists, and employees or
contractors associated with various regional, national and international
Commissions. Numbers should be cumulated across tiers.

The numbers of additional staff indicated in **Tables 2-8** may seem
staggering, but these numbers have been carefully thought through by the
Task Force members. They simply represent the increasing demands being
placed on NMFS to assess more stocks more frequently, and with greater
accuracy, precision and timeliness; to incorporate associated non-target
species and other ecosystem considerations into the analyses; and to
evaluate a wider array of management options on increasingly finer
temporal and spatial scales. In addition, as outlined in the
Introduction, the FTE requirements detailed here are meant to complement
other related NMFS plans such as the Data Acquisition Plan (NMFS 1998a;
**Appendix 3**), which is primarily concerned with the costs of
operating dedicated fishery research vessels and purchasing charter boat
days at sea; the Stock Assessment Toolbox Plan (**Appendix 4**); the
Center for Independent Experts Program (**Appendix 5**); the Proposed
Implementation of a Fishing Vessel Registration and Fisheries
Information Management System (**Appendix 8**); the NMFS Bycatch Plan
(**Appendix 9**); the National Observer Program (**Appendix 10**), the
Social Sciences Plan (**Appendix 11**), the Advanced Technologies
Working Group (**Appendix 12**), and relevant fisheries oceanography
initiatives (e.g. **Appendix 13**). In order to develop a comprehensive
ecosystem approach to fisheries stock assessments and management, and to
estimate the actual costs of implementing ecosystem-based management
(EBM), these and related plans, initiatives and activities should be
merged into an umbrella plan.

**F. The Benefits of Implementing the Stock Assessment Plan**

The benefits of implementing the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan are
numerous and diverse. With adequate additional trained staff, existing
databases can be mined for material to improve analyses for major target
stocks and for currently overfished stocks, and to develop new analyses
for stocks of currently unknown status. The benefits arising from Tier 1
alone will, however, be limited because the most important need is for
new and expanded data collection programs. Ultimately, these will lead
to greater numbers of stocks being assessed with higher frequency, and
greater accuracy, precision and timeliness. Incorporation of ecosystem
considerations into the analyses will facilitate analysis of trade-offs
between harvesting target species and protecting non-target species such
as marine mammals. The enhanced data collection and analysis activities
proposed herein will also result in more accurate projections of future
stock status under various alternative management strategies, and will
enable evaluation of an increasingly wider array of management options
on finer temporal and spatial scales, both of which will improve the
basis for management decisions.

An improved knowledge base, improved ongoing data collection programs,
and more comprehensive models should reduce the frequency of risk-prone
management decisions, which have been common in many regions of the
United States to date. This in turn will enable higher catches on
average, at less risk to fisheries resources. The risk of non-target
marine species becoming rare or extinct should also be considerably
diminished, particularly in comparison to the current situation in which
species could potentially be disappearing without us even being aware of
it.

Overall, implementation of the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan will
result in a greatly improved knowledge base for marine species, and a
better basis for risk-averse management decisions which will result in
fewer depleted or overfished stocks and greater stability and
profitability in the fish harvesting sector. However, it should be noted
that improved knowledge and enhanced stock assessment capability will
not by themselves result in fewer overfished stocks and a more stable
fishing industry; there must be a concomitant commitment to responsible
fisheries management and fisheries policy development.

Another benefit of implementing the SAIP will be to improve relations
between NMFS and other line offices within NOAA, other federal agencies,
state agencies, academia, the commercial and recreational fishing
industries, and environmental groups by promoting cooperative research
and other types of partnerships. NMFS\' own programs and those developed
through such partnerships should also result in spin-offs in terms of
monitoring information and research that can provide input into other
programs; for example, risk and damage assessments. The resulting
database of spatial and temporal distributions of marine species,
associations between species, oceanographic variables, and habitat
relationships will also be an invaluable source of raw material with
which to develop and test hypotheses about population dynamics and
ecosystem structure and function.

######## V. Recommendations

1\. NMFS should aggressively pursue a course of action focusing on new
budget and staffing initiatives to modernize its data collection and
assessment capabilities. As a minimum, NMFS should attempt to bring
stock assessment science to at least Tier 2 (Section IVB), and should
initiate dialog both within house and with the public to determine how
far-reaching and comprehensive Tier 3 should be. This will require
hiring or contracting considerable numbers of additional qualified staff
for data collection, data processing, data management, stock
assessments, and evaluation of alternative management strategies, to
ensure adequate data and analyses on which to base conservation and
management decisions, now and into the future.

2\. In order to improve the credibility of its stock assessment science,
in addition to acquiring the resources needed to produce the best
possible science, NMFS must improve its public image, both with
constituents and within NOAA itself. There appears to be little
awareness that NMFS employs the largest collection of world-renowned
fisheries scientists of any agency, university, or other organization
worldwide, and that fisheries science is a field where new and useful
methodologies have mostly originated within government agencies
(including those of foreign governments), rather than within academia.

3\. NMFS also needs to make fishers, politicians, and the public aware
of the benefits of truly precautionary management which will reduce the
risks of overexploiting fisheries resources and associated species, and
will ultimately lead to greater stability in the fishing industry.

4\. Another avenue of public awareness which NMFS should pursue is to
educate and discuss with interested parties (especially constituents and
congressional aides) the implications of calls to incorporate ecosystem
considerations into fisheries assessment and management. In particular,
NMFS should request input on what different groups of people actually
mean by \"ecosystem considerations,\" and then jointly evaluate the
costs and benefits of adopting such approaches. NMFS needs to work
harder to align public expectation with reality.

5\. NMFS needs to be more proactive in communicating the fact that the
methodologies employed to conduct stock assessments are far less
problematic than is the quality, quantity, and type of data available
for analysis. NMFS needs to seek out and develop cooperative
arrangements with stakeholders to improve the quality, quantity, and
type of data provided.

6\. In order to make substantial progress towards collecting the data
needed to improve stock assessments, particularly next generation
assessments, it is essential that NMFS develop further partnerships and
cooperative research programs with other federal agencies, state
agencies, private foundations, universities, commercial and recreational
fishing organizations and individuals, environmental groups, and others
with a vested interest in collecting similar types of data, although
often for other purposes. Many such partnerships already exist
(**Appendix 21**), but many more are needed. Programs involving
cooperative research with the fishing industry (**Appendix 22**) should
continue to be developed and expanded as mechanisms for providing data
relevant to improving the quality of stock assessments.

7\. In order to enhance progress in the development of new models and
methodologies for conducting stock assessments, performing risk analyses
and stock projections, and constructing multispecies and ecosystem
models, NMFS must free up more time for existing quantitative staff to
pursue such research and engage more fully in professional development
activities which, in turn, implies the need to also hire or contract
additional qualified quantitative staff.

8\. In order to ensure a future supply of quantitative scientists to
perform stock assessments and related activities, NMFS must augment
existing programs that fund graduate study in appropriate fields.

9\. In order to maintain the high caliber of current analytical staff,
NMFS must develop a comprehensive training program to enhance the
quantitative skills of in-house staff.

10\. In order to develop more comprehensive and integrated future budget
initiatives geared towards modernizing fisheries assessments and
management, NMFS should prepare an umbrella plan that integrates all
relevant existing documents on these themes; for example, the current
Stock Assessment Improvement Plan, the NOAA Fisheries Data Acquisition
Plan (**Appendix 3**), the NMFS Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research
(NMFS 2001b), the Proposed Implementation of a Fishing Vessel
Registration and Fisheries Information Management System (**Appendix
8**), the NMFS Bycatch Plan (**Appendix 9**), the National Observer
Program (**Appendix 10**), the Social Sciences Plan (**Appendix 11**),
the Advanced Technologies Working Group (**Appendix 12**), and relevant
fisheries oceanography initiatives (e.g**. Appendix 13**).

######## References

NMFS 1997a. NOAA Fisheries Strategic Plan. National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce. Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS 1997b. Report to Congress on the Status of Fisheries of the United
States. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce.
Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS 1998a. NOAA Fisheries Data Acquisition Plan. National Marine
Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce. Silver Spring,
Maryland.

NMFS 1998b. Report to Congress on the Status of Fisheries of the United
States. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce.
Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS 1998c. NMFS Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research. National Marine
Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce. Silver Spring,
Maryland.

NMFS 1998d. Managing the Nation\'s Bycatch: Programs, Activities, and
Recommendations for the National Marine Fisheries Service. National
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring,
Maryland. 174 p.

NMFS 1999a. Report to Congress on the Status of Fisheries of the United
States. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce.
Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS 1999b. Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management: a Report to Congress by
the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel. National Marine Fisheries
Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, Maryland. 54 p.

NMFS 2001a. Report to Congress on the Status of Fisheries of the United
States. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce.
Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS 2001b. NMFS Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research. National Marine
Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce. Silver Spring,
Maryland. 88 p.

NRC 1998a. Improving Fish Stock Assessments. National Research Council.
National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 177 p.

NRC 1998b. Review of Northeast Fishery Stock Assessments. National
Research Council. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 128 p.

NRC 1999. Sustaining Marine Fisheries. National Research Council.
National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 164 p.

NRC 2000. Improving the Collection, Management, and Use of Marine
Fisheries Data. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 236 p.

Restrepo, V.R., Thompson, G.G., Mace, P.M., Gabriel, W.L., Low, L.L.,
MacCall, A.D., Methot, R.D., Powers, J.E., Taylor, B.L., Wade, P.R. and
Witzig, J.F. (1998) Technical Guidance on the Use of Precautionary
Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-F/SPO-31. 54 p.

######## Acknowledgments

The National Task Force for Improving Fish Stock Assessments would like
to thank the NMFS Science Center assessment scientists who participated
in the questionnaire survey. We are also grateful for the many
insightful comments received from various scientists at the Science
Centers and at NMFS Headquarters during the review period. Lastly, we
thank Allen Shimada (NMFS Office of Science and Technology), Betty
Holmes (NEFSC), and Shelley

Arenas and Dave Stanton (NMFS Scientific Publications Office) for their
help in producing the final report.

######## Acronyms

**ABC** - Allowable Biological Catch

**AFSC** - Alaska Fisheries Science Center

**AI** - Aleutian Islands

**ASMFC** - Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

**BSAI** - Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

**CIE** - Center for Independent Experts

**CPUE** - Catch Per Unit Effort

**CSIRO** - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
(Australia)

**DAS** - Days At Sea

**EBM** - Ecosystem-Based Management

**EBS** - Eastern Bering Sea

**EEZ** - Exclusive Economic Zone

**ESA** - Endangered Species Act

**ESU** - Evolutionarily Significant Units

**FFA** - South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency

**FIS** - Fisheries Information System

**FMC** - Fishery Management Council

**FMP** - Fishery Management Plan

**FRV** - Fishery Research Vessel

**FSP** - Fisheries Strategic Plan

**FTE** - Full-Time Equivalent (applied to numbers of in-house staff or
contractors)

**FY** - Fiscal Year

**GLOBEC** - Global ocean Ecosystem dynamics

**GOA** - Gulf of Alaska

**GOM** - Gulf of Mexico

**HMS** - Highly Migratory Species

**IATTC** - Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

**ICCAT** - International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas

**ICES** - International Commission for the Exploration of the Sea

**ISC** - Interim Scientific Committee for Tunas and Tuna-like Species
in the North Pacific Ocean

**LOA** - Length OverAll

**MFCMA** - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act

**MHLC** - Multi-lateral High Level Conference

**MPA** - Marine Protected Area

**MRFSS** - Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey

**MSFCMA** - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

**MSY** - Maximum Sustainable Yield

**NASCO** - North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization

**NEFSC** - Northeast Fisheries Science Center

**NEPA** - National Environmental Protection Act

**NMFS** - National Marine Fisheries Service

**NOAA** - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

**NRC** - National Research Council

**NRIFSF** - National Research Institute for Far Seas Fisheries

**NWFSC** - Northwest Fisheries Science Center

**OFL** - Overfishing Level

**PDT** - Plan Development Team

**PSMFC** - Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

**ROV** - Remotely Operated Vehicle

**SAFE** - Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation

**SAM** - Statistical Assessment Model

**SARC** - Stock Assessment Review Committee (NEFSC)

**SAW** - Stock Assessment Workshop (NEFSC)

**SCTB** - Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish

**SEFSC** - Southeast Fisheries Science Center

**SFA** - Sustainable Fisheries Act (1996)

**SPC** - Secretariat of the Pacific Community

**SQAP** - Science Quality Assurance Program

**SSC** - Scientific and Statistical Committee

**STAR** - Stock Assessment Review Panel

**SWFSC** - Southwest Fisheries Science Center

**TRAC** - Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee

**VTR** - Vessel Trip Report

**WG** - Working Group

**Appendix 1.** Levels of input data (catch, abundance and life history
parameters), assessment methodology and assessment frequency for the 904
stocks listed in the NMFS (1999a) Report to Congress on the Status of
Fisheries of the United States. See **Figure 3** and the text for a
description of the levels, **Figure 4** for graphical summaries and
**Table 1** for tabular summaries.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Fishery           **Stock**                                **Jurisdiction**   **Catch**   **Abundance**   **Life      **Assessment   **Assessment
  Management Plan**                                                                                           History**   Level**        Frequency**
  ------------------- -------------------- ------------------- ------------------ ----------- --------------- ----------- -------------- --------------
  **Atlantic Sea      Atlantic Sea Scallop                     NEFMC              3           2               2           2              2
  Scallop**                                                                                                                              

  **Atlantic Salmon** Atlantic Salmon                          NEFMC              4           2               3           4              3

  **American          American Lobster                         NEFMC - ASMFC      3           3               3           4              2
  Lobster**                                                                                                                              

  **Northeast         Cod                  Gulf of Maine       NEFMC              4           2               4           4              3
  Multispecies**                                                                                                                         

                                           Georges Bank        NEFMC              4           2               4           5              3

                      Haddock              Georges Bank        NEFMC              4           2               4           5              3

                                           Gulf of Maine       NEFMC              3           2               2           2              1

                      Yellowtail Flounder  Georges Bank        NEFMC              5           2               4           4              3

                                           Southern New        NEFMC              5           2               4           4              3
                                           England                                                                                       

                                           Cape Cod            NEFMC              4           2               4           4              2

                                           Middle Atlantic     NEFMC              4           2               2           2              1

                      American Plaice                          NEFMC              5           2               3           4              2

                      Redfish                                  NEFMC              3           2               2           2              1

                      Witch Flounder                           NEFMC              5           2               3           4              2

                      White Hake                               NEFMC              4           2               3           4              2

                      Pollock                                  NEFMC              4           1               3           4              1

                      Windowpane Flounder  Gulf of Maine /     NEFMC              2           1               3           1              2
                                           Georges Bank                                                                                  

                                           Southern New        NEFMC              2           1               3           1              2
                                           England / Middle                                                                              
                                           Atlantic                                                                                      

                      Winter Flounder      Georges Bank        NEFMC              4           2               3           4              2

                                           Gulf of Maine       NEFMC              2           1               1           1              1

                                           Southern New        NEFMC              4           2               3           4              2
                                           England                                                                                       

                      Silver Hake          Gulf of Maine /     NEFMC              4           1               2           2              1
                                           Northern Georges                                                                              
                                           Bank                                                                                          

                                           Southern Georges    NEFMC              4           1               2           2              1
                                           Bank / Middle                                                                                 
                                           Atlantic                                                                                      

                      Offshore Hake                            NEFMC              1           1               1           0              0

                      Red Hake             Southern Georges    NEFMC              2           1               2           1              1
                                           Bank / Middle                                                                                 
                                           Atlantic                                                                                      

                                           Gulf of Maine /     NEFMC              2           1               2           1              1
                                           Northern Georges                                                                              
                                           Bank                                                                                          

                      Ocean Pout                               NEFMC              1           1               1           1              1

                      Atlantic Halibut                         NEFMC              1           1               1           0              0

  **Monkfish**        Monkfish                                 NEFMC              2           1               2           2              1

  **Summer Flounder,  Scup                                     MAFMC              4           2               2           1              1
  Scup, and Black Sea                                                                                                                    
  Bass**                                                                                                                                 

                      Summer Flounder                          MAFMC              5           2               4           4              3

                      Black Sea Bass                           MAFMC              4           1               2           1              1

  **Atlantic          Bluefish (except                         MAFMC              4           2               3           2              1
  Bluefish**          Gulf of Mexico)                                                                                                    

  **Atlantic Surf     Surf Clam                                MAFMC              2           3               2           3              2
  Clam and Ocean                                                                                                                         
  Quahog**                                                                                                                               

                      Ocean Quahog                             MAFMC              2           1               2           2              2

  **Atlantic          Squid                Illex               MAFMC              3           1               2           3              2
  Mackerel, Squid,                                                                                                                       
  and Butterfish**                                                                                                                       

                                           Loligo              MAFMC              3           1               2           2              2

                      Atlantic Mackerel                        MAFMC              4           3               4           4              1

                      Butterfish                               MAFMC              4           2               3           2              1
                      (Atlantic)                                                                                                         

  **South Atlantic    Golden Crab                              SAFMC              3           1               1           3              2
  Golden Crab**                                                                                                                          

  **South Atlantic    White Shrimp                             SAFMC              1           0               1           3              1
  Shrimp**                                                                                                                               

                      Rock Shrimp                              SAFMC              1           0               1           3              1

                      Brown Shrimp                             SAFMC              1           0               1           3              1

                      Pink Shrimp                              SAFMC              1           0               1           3              1

  **South Atlantic    Jewfish                                  SAFMC              1           1               1           1              1
  Snapper-Grouper**                                                                                                                      

                      Nassau Grouper                           SAFMC              1           1               1           1              1

                      Vermilion Snapper                        SAFMC              3           1               2           3              2

                      Red Porgy                                SAFMC              3           1               2           4              2

                      Gag Grouper                              SAFMC              1           1               2           2              2

                      Red Snapper                              SAFMC              1           1               2           4              2

                      Speckled Hind                            SAFMC              1           1               2           2              2

                      Snowy Grouper                            SAFMC              1           1               2           2              2

                      Warsaw Grouper                           SAFMC              1           1               2           2              2

                      Golden Tilefish                          SAFMC              1           1               2           2              2

                      Black Sea Bass                           SAFMC              2           2               2           4              2

                      Yellowtail Snapper                       SAFMC              1           1               2           2              2

                      Red Grouper                              SAFMC              1           1               2           1              2

                      Black Grouper                            SAFMC              1           1               2           2              2

                      Wreckfish                                SAFMC              3           1               2           4              2

                      Scamp                                    SAFMC              2           2               2           4              2

                      White Grunt                              SAFMC              2           2               2           4              2

                      Greater Amberjack                        SAFMC              2           2               2           4              2

                      Mutton Snapper                           SAFMC              1           1               2           2              2

                      Gray (Mangrove)                          SAFMC              1           1               2           2              2
                      Snapper                                                                                                            

                      Lane Snapper                             SAFMC              1           1               2           2              2

                      Gray Triggerfish                         SAFMC              1           1               2           2              2

                      Queen Triggerfish                        SAFMC              1           1               2           2              1

                      Ocean Triggerfish                        SAFMC              1           1               2           2              1

                      Yellow Jack                              SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Blue Runner                              SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Crevalle Jack                            SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Bar Jack                                 SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Lesser Amberjack                         SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Almaco Jack                              SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Banded Rudderfish                        SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Spadefish                                SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Black Margate                            SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Porkfish                                 SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Margate                                  SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Tomtate                                  SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Smallmouth Grunt                         SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      French Grunt                             SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Spanish Grunt                            SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Cottonwick                               SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Sailors Choice                           SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Blue Stripe Grunt                        SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Hogfish                                  SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Puddingwife                              SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Black Snapper                            SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Queen Snapper                            SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Schoolmaster                             SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Blackfin Snapper                         SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Cubera Snapper                           SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Mahogany Snapper                         SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Dog Snapper                              SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Silk Snapper                             SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Blueline Tilefish                        SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Sand Tilefish                            SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Bank Sea Bass                            SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Rock Sea Bass                            SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Rock Hind                                SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Graysby                                  SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Yellowedge Grouper                       SAFMC              1           0               1           2              2

                      Coney                                    SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Red Hind                                 SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Misty Grouper                            SAFMC              1           0               2           0              2

                      Yellowmouth Grouper                      SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Tiger Grouper                            SAFMC              1           0               2           0              2

                      Yellowfin Grouper                        SAFMC              1           0               2           0              2

                      Sheepshead                               SAFMC              1           0               2           0              2

                      Grass Porgy                              SAFMC              1           0               2           0              2

                      Jolthead Porgy                           SAFMC              1           0               2           0              2

                      Saucereye Porgy                          SAFMC              1           0               2           0              2

                      Whitebone Porgy                          SAFMC              1           0               2           0              2

                      Knobbed Porgy                            SAFMC              1           0               2           0              2

                      Longspine Porgy                          SAFMC              1           0               2           0              2

                      Scup                                     SAFMC              1           0               2           0              2

  **Atlantic Coast    Red Drum                                 SAFMC              2           2               3           4              2
  Red Drum**                                                                                                                             

  **South Atlantic    Fire Corals                              SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0
  Corals^2^**                                                                                                                            

                      Hydrocorals                              SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Octocorals                               SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Stony Corals                             SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Black Corals                             SAFMC              1           0               0           0              0

  **Gulf of Mexico    Stone Crab                               GMFMC              3           1               2           3              2
  Stone Crab**                                                                                                                           

  **Gulf of Mexico    Brown Shrimp                             GMFMC              3           2               3           4              2
  Shrimp**                                                                                                                               

                      Pink Shrimp                              GMFMC              3           2               3           4              2

                      White Shrimp                             GMFMC              3           2               3           4              2

                      Royal Red Shrimp                         GMFMC              1           1               2           1              1

                      Rock Shrimp                              GMFMC              1           1               2           1              1

                      Seabob Shrimp                            GMFMC              1           1               2           1              1

  **Gulf of Mexico    Fire Corals                              GMFMC              1           0               0           0              0
  Corals^3^**                                                                                                                            

                      Hydrocorals                              GMFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Octocorals                               GMFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Stony Corals                             GMFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Black Corals                             GMFMC              1           0               0           0              0

  **Gulf of Mexico /  Spiny Lobster                            SAFMC / GMFMC      2           2               2           4              2
  South Atlantic                                                                                                                         
  Spiny Lobster**                                                                                                                        

  **Gulf of Mexico /  Slipper Lobster                          SAFMC / GMFMC      1           0               1           0              0
  South Atlantic                                                                                                                         
  Spiny Lobster**                                                                                                                        

  **Coastal Migratory King Mackerel        Gulf Group          SAFMC / GMFMC      3           2               3           4              2
  Pelagics of the                                                                                                                        
  Gulf of Mexico and                                                                                                                     
  South Atlantic**                                                                                                                       

                                           Atlantic Group      SAFMC / GMFMC      3           1               3           4              2

                      Spanish Mackerel     Gulf Group          SAFMC / GMFMC      3           2               3           4              2

                                           Atlantic Group      SAFMC / GMFMC      3           1               3           4              2

                      Cobia                                    SAFMC/ GMFMC       2           2               1           4              1

                      Cero                                     SAFMC / GMFMC      1           0               1           1              1

                      Dolphin                                  SAFMC / GMFMC      2           1               2           2              1

                      Little Tunny                             SAFMC / GMFMC      1           0               1           1              0

                      Bluefish (Gulf of                        GMFMC              1           0               1           1              0
                      Mexico only)                                                                                                       

  **Reef Fish         Red Snapper                              GMFMC              5           3               3           4              3
  Resources of the                                                                                                                       
  Gulf of Mexico**                                                                                                                       

                      Nassau Grouper                           GMFMC              1           1               1           1              1

                      Jewfish                                  GMFMC              1           1               1           1              1

                      Vermilion Snapper                        GMFMC              3           1               2           4              2

                      Gag Grouper                              GMFMC              3           2               1           4              2

                      Greater Amberjack                        GMFMC              2           2               1           4              2

                      Gray Triggerfish                         GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Lesser Amberjack                         GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Almaco Jack                              GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Banded Rudderfish                        GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Tomtate                                  GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Pigfish                                  GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Queen Snapper                            GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Mutton Snapper                           GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Schoolmaster                             GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Blackfin Snapper                         GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Cubera Snapper                           GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Gray (Mangrove)                          GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0
                      Snapper                                                                                                            

                      Dog Snapper                              GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Mahogany Snapper                         GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Lane Snapper                             GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Silk Snapper                             GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Yellowtail Snapper                       GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Wenchman                                 GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Goldface Tilefish                        GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Blackline Tilefish                       GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Anchor Tilefish                          GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Blueline Tilefish                        GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Tilefish                                 GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Rock Hind                                GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Speckled Hind                            GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Yellowedge Grouper                       GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Red Hind                                 GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Red Grouper                              GMFMC              3           1               2           4              2

                      Misty Grouper                            GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Warsaw Grouper                           GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Snowy Grouper                            GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Black Grouper                            GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Yellowmouth Grouper                      GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Scamp                                    GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Yellowfin Grouper                        GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Grass Porgy                              GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Jolthead Porgy                           GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Hogfish                                  GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Dwarf Sand Perch                         GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Sand Perch                               GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

  **Gulf of Mexico    Red Drum                                 GMFMC              3           2               3           4              2
  Red Drum**                                                                                                                             

  **Caribbean Spiny   Spiny Lobster                            CFMC               2           1               2           1              2
  Lobster^5^**                                                                                                                           

  **Caribbean Reef    Nassau Grouper                           CFMC               1           1               1           1              1
  Fish^6^**                                                                                                                              

                      Jewfish                                  CFMC               1           1               1           1              1

                      Ocean Surgeonfish                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Doctorfish                               CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Blue Tang                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Frogfish                                 CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Flamefish                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Conchfish                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Trumpetfish                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Scrawled Filefish                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Queen Triggerfish                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Whitespotted                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0
                      Filefish                                                                                                           

                      Ocean Triggerfish                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Black Durgon                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Sargassum                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0
                      Triggerfish                                                                                                        

                      Redlip Blenny                            CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Peacock Flounder                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Yellow Jack                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Blue Runner                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Horse-eye Jack                           CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Black Jack                               CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Bar Jack                                 CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Greater Amberjack                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Almaco Jack                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Longsnout                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0
                      Butterflyfish                                                                                                      

                      Foureye                                  CFMC               1           0               1           0              0
                      Butterflyfish                                                                                                      

                      Spotfin                                  CFMC               1           0               1           0              0
                      Butterflyfish                                                                                                      

                      Banded Butterflyfish                     CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Redspotted Hawkfish                      CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Flying Gurnard                           CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Atlantic Spadefish                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Neon Goby                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Rusty Goby                               CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Royal Gramma                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Porkfish                                 CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Margate                                  CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Tomtate                                  CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      French Grunt                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      White Grunt                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Bluestriped Grunt                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Squirrelfish                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Longspine                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0
                      Squirrelfish                                                                                                       

                      Blackbar Soldierfish                     CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Cardinal Soldierfish                     CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Spanish Hogfish                          CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Creole Wrasse                            CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Yellowcheek Wrasse                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Yellowhead Wrasse                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Clown Wrasse                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Puddingwife                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Pearly Razorfish                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Green Razorfish                          CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Hogfish                                  CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Bluehead Wrasse                          CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Black Snapper                            CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Queen Snapper                            CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Mutton Snapper                           CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Schoolmaster                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Blackfin Snapper                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Gray Snapper                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Dog Snapper                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Mahogany Snapper                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Lane Snapper                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Silk Snapper                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Yellowtail Snapper                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Wenchman                                 CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Vermilion Snapper                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Blackline Tilefish                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Sand Tilefish                            CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Yellow Goatfish                          CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Spotted Goatfish                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Chain Moray                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Green Moray                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Goldentail Moray                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Batfish                                  CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Goldspotted Eel                          CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Yellowhead Jawfish                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Dusky Jawfish                            CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Spotted Trunkfish                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Honeycomb Cowfish                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Scrawled Cowfish                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Trunkfish                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Smooth Trunkfish                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Cherubfish                               CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Queen Angelfish                          CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Rock Beauty                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Gray Angelfish                           CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      French Angelfish                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Sergeant Major                           CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Blue Chromis                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Sunshinefish                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Yellowtail                               CFMC               1           0               1           0              0
                      Damselfish                                                                                                         

                      Dusky Damselfish                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Beaugregory                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Bicolor Damselfish                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Threespot Damselfish                     CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Bigeye                                   CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Glasseye Snapper                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Midnight Parrotfish                      CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Blue Parrotfish                          CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Striped Parrotfish                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Rainbow Parrotfish                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Princess Parrotfish                      CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Queen Parrotfish                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Redband Parrotfish                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Redtail Parrotfish                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Redfin Parrotfish                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Stoplight Parrotfish                     CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      High-hat                                 CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Jackknife-fish                           CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Spotted Drum                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Scorpionfishes                           CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Rock Hind                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Graysby                                  CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Yellowedge Grouper                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Coney                                    CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Red Hind                                 CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Red Grouper                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Misty Grouper                            CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Butter Hamlet                            CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Swissguard Basslet                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Yellowfin Grouper                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Tiger Grouper                            CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Creole-fish                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Greater Soapfish                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Orangeback Bass                          CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Lantern Bass                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Tobaccofish                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Harlequin Bass                           CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Chalk Bass                               CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Caribbean Tonguefish                     CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Sea Bream                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Jolthead Porgy                           CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Sheepshead Porgy                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Pluma                                    CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Seahorses                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Pipefishes                               CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Sand Diver                               CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Sharpnose Puffer                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Porcupinefish                            CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

  **Caribbean Queen   Queen Conch                              CFMC               2           1               1           2              1
  Conch^7^**                                                                                                                             

                      Atlantic Triton's                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0
                      Trumpet                                                                                                            

                      Cameo Helmet                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Caribbean Helmet                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Caribbean Vase                           CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Flame Helmet                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Green Star Shell                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Hawkwing Conch                           CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Milk Conch                               CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Roostertail Conch                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      True Tulip                               CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      West Indian Fighting                     CFMC               1           0               1           0              0
                      Conch                                                                                                              

                      Whelk (West Indian                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0
                      Top Shell)                                                                                                         

  **Caribbean         Sponges                                  CFMC               1           0               1           0              0
  Corals^8^**                                                                                                                            

                      Hydrocorals                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Hydroids                                 CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Soft Corals                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Gorgonian Corals                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Hard Corals                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Black Corals                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Anemones                                 CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Colonial Anemones                        CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      False Corals                             CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Annelid Worms                            CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Other Gastropods                         CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Bivalves                                 CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Cephalopods                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Crustaceans                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Bryozoans                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Feather Stars                            CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Sea Stars                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Brittle and Basket                       CFMC               1           0               1           0              0
                      Stars                                                                                                              

                      Sea Urchins                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Sea Cucumbers                            CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Tunicates                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Green Algae                              CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Red Algae                                CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

                      Seagrasses                               CFMC               1           0               1           0              0

  **WA, OR, CA        Chinook Salmon                           PFMC               4           3               3           4              3
  Salmon**            (Columbia River,                                                                                                   
                      upriver Summer)                                                                                                    

                      Chinook Salmon                           PFMC               4           3               3           4              3
                      (Columbia River,                                                                                                   
                      upriver Spring)                                                                                                    

                      Chinook Salmon                           PFMC               4           3               3           4              3
                      (Columbia River,                                                                                                   
                      Snake River, Spring)                                                                                               

                      Chinook Salmon                           PFMC               4           3               3           4              3
                      (Skagit River,                                                                                                     
                      Spring)                                                                                                            

                      Chinook Salmon                           PFMC               4           3               3           4              3
                      (Skagit River,                                                                                                     
                      Summer / Fall)                                                                                                     

                      Chinook Salmon                           PFMC               4           3               3           4              3
                      (Stillaguamish                                                                                                     
                      River, Summer /                                                                                                    
                      Fall)                                                                                                              

                      Chinook Salmon                           PFMC               4           3               3           4              3
                      (Snohomish River,                                                                                                  
                      Summer / Fall)                                                                                                     

                      Chinook Salmon (Lake                     PFMC               4           3               3           4              3
                      Washington)                                                                                                        

                      Chinook Salmon                           PFMC               4           3               3           4              3
                      (Dungeness River)                                                                                                  

                      Coho Salmon (Strait                      PFMC               4           3               3           4              3
                      of Juan de Fuca)                                                                                                   

                      other Chinook Salmon                     PFMC               4           3               3           4              3
                      stocks                                                                                                             

                      other Coho Salmon                        PFMC               4           3               3           4              3
                      stocks                                                                                                             

                      Sockeye Salmon                           PFMC               4           3               3           4              3

                      Pink Salmon                              PFMC               4           3               3           4              3

                      Chum Salmon                              PFMC               4           3               3           4              3

                      Steelhead                                PFMC               4           3               3           4              3

  **Coastal Pelagic   Pacific (Chub)                           PFMC               3           1               4           4              3
  Species**           Mackerel                                                                                                           

                      Pacific Sardine                          PFMC               3           4               4           4              3

                      Jack Mackerel                            PFMC               1           1               3           0              0

                      Northern Anchovy                         PFMC               3           4               4           4              1

                      Market Squid                             PFMC               2           1               2           0              0

  **WA, OR, CA        Lingcod                                  PFMC               4           1               2           4              2
  Groundfish**                                                                                                                           

                      Pacific Ocean Perch                      PFMC               3           1               2           4              2

                      Bocaccio                                 PFMC               4           1               2           4              2

                      Bank Rockfish                            PFMC               1           1               2           2              1

                      Darkblotched                             PFMC               1           1               2           2              1
                      Rockfish                                                                                                           

                      Silvergrey Rockfish                      PFMC               1           1               2           2              1

                      Canary Rockfish                          PFMC               4           1               2           4              2

                      Shortspine                               PFMC               3           1               1           3              2
                      Thornyhead                                                                                                         

                      Yellowtail Rockfish                      PFMC               4           1               2           4              2

                      Pacific Whiting                          PFMC               5           3               3           4              3

                      Sablefish                                PFMC               4           1               3           4              2

                      Dover Sole                               PFMC               4           1               2           4              2

                      English Sole                             PFMC               3           1               2           4              1

                      Petrale Sole                             PFMC               4           1               2           4              2

                      Chilipepper Rockfish                     PFMC               4           1               2           4              2

                      Shortbelly Rockfish                      PFMC               2           3               2           2              1

                      Longspine Thornyhead                     PFMC               3           1               2           3              2

                      Widow Rockfish                           PFMC               4           1               2           4              2

                      Cowcod                                   PFMC               3           1               2           3              2

                      Pacific Cod                              PFMC               3           1               2           1              1

                      Arrowtooth Flounder                      PFMC               1           1               2           1              1

                      Butter Sole                              PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      Curlfin Sole                             PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      Flathead Sole                            PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      Pacific Sanddab                          PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      Rex Sole                                 PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      Rock Sole                                PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      Sand Sole                                PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      Starry Flounder                          PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      Aurora Rockfish                          PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Black Rockfish                           PFMC               4           1               2           4              2

                      Black-and-Yellow                         PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0
                      Rockfish                                                                                                           

                      Blackgill Rockfish                       PFMC               1           1               2           3              1

                      Blue Rockfish                            PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Bronzespotted                            PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0
                      Rockfish                                                                                                           

                      Brown Rockfish                           PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Calico Rockfish                          PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      China Rockfish                           PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Copper Rockfish                          PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Dusty Rockfish                           PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Flag Rockfish                            PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Gopher Rockfish                          PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Grass Rockfish                           PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Greenblotched                            PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0
                      Rockfish                                                                                                           

                      Greenspotted                             PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0
                      Rockfish                                                                                                           

                      Greenstriped                             PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0
                      Rockfish                                                                                                           

                      Harlequin Rockfish                       PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Honeycomb Rockfish                       PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Kelp Rockfish                            PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Mexican Rockfish                         PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Olive Rockfish                           PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Pink Rockfish                            PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Quillback Rockfish                       PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Redbanded Rockfish                       PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Redstripe Rockfish                       PFMC               1           1               2           2              1

                      Rosethorn Rockfish                       PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Rosy Rockfish                            PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Rougheye Rockfish                        PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Sharpchin Rockfish                       PFMC               1           1               2           2              1

                      Shortraker Rockfish                      PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Speckled Rockfish                        PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Splitnose Rockfish                       PFMC               1           1               2           2              1

                      Squarespot Rockfish                      PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Starry Rockfish                          PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Stripetail Rockfish                      PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Tiger Rockfish                           PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Vermilion Rockfish                       PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Yelloweye Rockfish                       PFMC               1           1               2           2              1

                      Yellowmouth Rockfish                     PFMC               1           1               2           2              1

                      Leopard Shark                            PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      Soupfin Shark                            PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      Spiny Dogfish                            PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      Big Skate                                PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      California Skate                         PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      Longnose Skate                           PFMC               1           0.5             1           0              0

                      Ratfish                                  PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Finescale Codling                        PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Pacific Rattail                          PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Cabezon                                  PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      Kelp Greenling                           PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

                      California                               PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0
                      Scorpionfish                                                                                                       

                      Treefish                                 PFMC               0.5         0               1           0              0

  **Western Pacific   Spiny Lobster (2                         WPFMC              4           2               3           3              3
  Crustaceans**       species)                                                                                                           

                                                               WPFMC              4           2               3           3              3

                      Slipper Lobster                          WPFMC              4           2               3           3              3

                      Kona Crab                                WPFMC              1           1               0           0              0

  **Western Pacific   Pink Corals (3                           WPFMC              0           1               2           1              1
  Corals^11^**        species)                                                                                                           

                                                               WPFMC              0           1               2           1              1

                                                               WPFMC              0           1               2           1              1

                      Gold Corals (4                           WPFMC              0           1               2           1              1
                      species)                                                                                                           

                                                               WPFMC              0           1               2           1              1

                                                               WPFMC              0           1               2           1              1

                                                               WPFMC              0           1               2           1              1

                      Bamboo Corals (2                         WPFMC              0           1               2           1              1
                      species)                                                                                                           

                                                               WPFMC              0           1               2           1              1

                      Black Corals (3                          WPFMC              1           1               0           1              1
                      species)                                                                                                           

                                                               WPFMC              1           1               0           1              1

                                                               WPFMC              1           1               0           1              1

  **Bottomfish and    Pelagic Armorhead                        WPFMC              0           0               0           0              0
  Seamount Groundfish                                                                                                                    
  of the Western                                                                                                                         
  Pacific**                                                                                                                              

                      Seabass (Main                            WPFMC              1           1               2           1              3
                      Hawaiian Islands)                                                                                                  

                      Squirrelfish Snapper                     WPFMC              1           1               2           1              3
                      (Northwest and Main                                                                                                
                      Hawaiian Islands)                                                                                                  

                      Longtail Snapper                         WPFMC              1           1               2           1              3
                      (Northwest and Main                                                                                                
                      Hawaiian Islands)                                                                                                  

                      Silverjaw Jobfish                        WPFMC              1           1               2           0              0

                      Gray Jobfish                             WPFMC              1           1               2           1              3

                      Bluestripe Snapper                       WPFMC              1           1               2           0              0

                      Yellowtail Snapper                       WPFMC              1           1               2           0              0

                      Pink Snapper                             WPFMC              1           1               2           0              0

                      Yelloweye Snapper                        WPFMC              1           1               2           0              0

                      Snapper                                  WPFMC              1           1               2           1              3
                      *Pristipomoides                                                                                                    
                      filamentosus*                                                                                                      

                      Snapper                                  WPFMC              1           1               2           0              0
                      *Pristipomoides                                                                                                    
                      zonatus*                                                                                                           

                      Giant Trevally                           WPFMC              1           1               2           0              0

                      Black Jack                               WPFMC              1           1               2           0              0

                      Thick Lipped                             WPFMC              1           1               2           0              0
                      Trevally                                                                                                           

                      Amberjack                                WPFMC              0           0               2           0              0

                      Blacktip Grouper                         WPFMC              1           1               2           0              0

                      Seabass (Northwest                       WPFMC              1           1               2           1              3
                      Hawaiian Islands)                                                                                                  

                      Lunartail Grouper                        WPFMC              1           1               2           0              0

                      Ambon Emperor                            WPFMC              1           1               2           0              0

                      Redgill Emperor                          WPFMC              1           1               2           0              0

                      Alfonsin                                 WPFMC              0           0               0           0              0

                      Ratfish                                  WPFMC              0           0               0           0              0

  **Western Pacific   Yellowfin Tuna                           WPFMC              2           3               3           5              3
  Pelagics**          (Central Western                                                                                                   
                      Pacific)                                                                                                           

                      Albacore (South                          WPFMC              2           3               3           5              3
                      Pacific)                                                                                                           

                      Albacore (North                          WPFMC              2           3               3           4              2
                      Pacific)                                                                                                           

                      Yellowfin Tuna                           WPFMC              4           3               3           4              3
                      (Eastern Tropical                                                                                                  
                      Pacific)                                                                                                           

                      Skipjack Tuna                            WPFMC              2           4               3           5              3
                      (Central Western                                                                                                   
                      Pacific)                                                                                                           

                      Skipjack Tuna                            WPFMC              4           3               3           4              3
                      (Eastern Tropical                                                                                                  
                      Pacific)                                                                                                           

                      Striped Marlin                           WPFMC              1           1               2           1              3

                      Black Marlin                             WPFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Bigeye Tuna                              WPFMC              4           3               3           4              3
                      (Pacific)                                                                                                          

                      Other tuna relatives [Auxis              WPFMC              1           0               2           0              0
                                           spp]{.underline}.                                                                             

                                           [Scomber            WPFMC              1           0               2           0              0
                                           spp.]{.underline}                                                                             

                                           [Allothunnus        WPFMC              1           0               2           0              0
                                           spp.]{.underline}                                                                             

                      Swordfish (Pacific)                      WPFMC              3           1               3           3              2

                      Pomfret                                  WPFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Sailfish (Pacific)                       WPFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Shortbill Spearfish                      WPFMC              1           0               0           0              0
                      (Pacific)                                                                                                          

                      Wahoo (Pacific)                          WPFMC              1           1               2           1              3

                      Mahimahi (Pacific)                       WPFMC              1           1               2           1              3

                      Pelagic Sharks                           WPFMC              1           1               0           0              0
                      (Pacific)                                                                                                          

                      Blue Marlin                              WPFMC              2           1               3           3              2
                      (Pacific)                                                                                                          

                      Opah                                     WPFMC              1           1               0           1              2

                      Oilfish                                  WPFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Escolar                                  WPFMC              1           0               0           0              0

  **Gulf of Alaska    Western / Central                        NPFMC              4           3               2           5              3
  Groundfish**        Walleye Pollock                                                                                                    

                      Eastern Walleye                          NPFMC              4           3               2           2              3
                      Pollock                                                                                                            

                      Pacific Cod                              NPFMC              5           2               2           4              3

                      Sablefish                                NPFMC              4           2               3           4              3

                      Shortspine                               NPFMC              2           1               2           4              3
                      Thornyhead                                                                                                         

                      Arrowtooth Flounder                      NPFMC              4           1               2           4              3

                      Western Pacific                          NPFMC              4           1               2           4              3
                      Ocean Perch                                                                                                        

                      Central Pacific                          NPFMC              4           1               2           4              3
                      Ocean Perch                                                                                                        

                      Eastern Pacific                          NPFMC              4           1               2           4              3
                      Ocean Perch                                                                                                        

                      Atka Mackerel                            NPFMC              2           1               2           2              3

                      Alaska Plaice                            NPFMC              1           1               1           2              3

                      Butter Sole                              NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Deepsea Sole                             NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Dover Sole                               NPFMC              4           1               2           2              3

                      English Sole                             NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Flathead Sole                            NPFMC              4           1               2           2              3

                      Greenland Turbot                         NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Rex Sole                                 NPFMC              4           1               1           2              3

                      Northern Rock Sole                       NPFMC              4           1               2           2              3

                      Southern Rock Sole                       NPFMC              4           1               2           2              3

                      Sand Sole                                NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Starry Flounder                          NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Yellowfin Sole                           NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Dusky Rockfish                           NPFMC              3           1               2           2              3

                      Yelloweye Rockfish                       NPFMC              4           1               3           2              3

                      Aurora Rockfish                          NPFMC              2           1               1           2              3

                      Blackgill Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Bocaccio                                 NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Chilipepper                              NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Darkblotched                             NPFMC              2           1               2           2              3
                      Rockfish                                                                                                           

                      Greenstriped                             NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3
                      Rockfish                                                                                                           

                      Harlequin Rockfish                       NPFMC              2           1               2           2              3

                      Northern Rockfish                        NPFMC              4           1               2           2              3

                      Pygmy Rockfish                           NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Redbanded Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Redstripe Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Rougheye Rockfish                        NPFMC              2           1               2           2              3

                      Sharpchin Rockfish                       NPFMC              2           1               2           2              3

                      Shortbelly Rockfish                      NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Shortraker Rockfish                      NPFMC              4           1               2           2              3

                      Silvergrey Rockfish                      NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Splitnose Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Stripetail Rockfish                      NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Vermilion Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

                      Yellowmouth                              NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3
                      Rockfish                                                                                                           

                      C-O Sole                                 NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Curlfin Sole                             NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Hybrid Sole                              NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Longhead Dab                             NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Pacific Sanddab                          NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Petrale Sole                             NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Roughscale Sole                          NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Slender Sole                             NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Bering Flounder                          NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Kamchatka Flounder                       NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Black Rockfish                           NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Blue Rockfish                            NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Widow Rockfish                           NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Yellowtail Rockfish                      NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Canary Rockfish                          NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      China Rockfish                           NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Copper Rockfish                          NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Quillback Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Rosethorn Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Tiger Rockfish                           NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3

                      Broad Banded                             NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3
                      Thornyhead                                                                                                         

                      Longspine                                NPFMC              1           1               1           0              3
                      Thornyhead                                                                                                         

                      Blue Shark                               NPFMC              0           0               0           0              0

                      Brown Cat Shark                          NPFMC              0           0               0           0              0

                      Pacific Sleeper                          NPFMC              1           0               0           0              0
                      Shark                                                                                                              

                      Salmon Shark                             NPFMC              1           0               1           0              0

                      Sixgill Shark                            NPFMC              0           0               0           0              0

                      Spiny Dogfish Shark                      NPFMC              1           0               0           0              0

                      Alaska Skate                             NPFMC              0           1               1           0              0

                      Aleutian Skate                           NPFMC              0           1               1           0              0

                      Big Skate                                NPFMC              0           1               1           0              0

                      Flathead Skate                           NPFMC              0           1               1           0              0

                      Longnose Skate                           NPFMC              0           1               1           0              0

                      Roughtail Skate                          NPFMC              0           1               1           0              0

                      Sandpaper Skate                          NPFMC              0           1               1           0              0

                      Starry Skate                             NPFMC              0           1               1           0              0

                      Armorhead Sculpin                        NPFMC              0           1               0           0              0

                      Bigmouth Sculpin                         NPFMC              0           1               0           0              0

                      Blackfin Sculpin                         NPFMC              0           1               0           0              0

                      Dusky Sculpin                            NPFMC              0           1               0           0              0

                      Great Sculpin                            NPFMC              0           1               0           0              0

                      Red Irish Lord                           NPFMC              0           1               0           0              0

                      Ribbed Sculpin                           NPFMC              0           1               0           0              0

                      Roughspine Sculpin                       NPFMC              0           1               0           0              0

                      Spinyhead Sculpin                        NPFMC              0           1               0           0              0

                      Tadpole Sculpin                          NPFMC              0           1               0           0              0

                      Thorny Sculpin                           NPFMC              0           1               0           0              0

                      Yellow Irish Lord                        NPFMC              0           1               0           0              0

                      Octopus *Octopus                         NPFMC              0           0               0           0              0
                      dofleini*                                                                                                          

                      Octopus                                  NPFMC              0           0               0           0              0
                      *Opisthoteuthis                                                                                                    
                      California*                                                                                                        

                      Squid *Berryteuthis                      NPFMC              0           0               0           0              0
                      magister*                                                                                                          

                      Squid *Onychoteuthis                     NPFMC              0           0               0           0              0
                      borealijaponicus*                                                                                                  

                      Capelin                                  NPFMC              0           0               1           0              0

                      Eulachon                                 NPFMC              0           0               1           0              0

                      Rainbow Smelt                            NPFMC              0           0               1           0              0

  **Alaska High Seas  Pink Salmon                              NPFMC              5           2               3           4              3
  Salmon**                                                                                                                               

                      Sockeye Salmon                           NPFMC              5           2               3           4              3

                      Chum Salmon                              NPFMC              5           2               3           4              3

                      Coho Salmon                              NPFMC              5           2               3           4              3

                      Chinook Salmon                           NPFMC              5           2               3           4              3

  **Bering Sea /      Walleye Pollock      Eastern Bering Sea  NPFMC              5           3               2           5              3
  Aleutian Islands                                                                                                                       
  Groundfish**                                                                                                                           

                                           Aleutian Islands    NPFMC              5           1               2           4              3

                                           Bogoslof            NPFMC              5           3               3           4              3

                      Pacific Cod                              NPFMC              5           2               2           4              3

                      Yellowfin Sole                           NPFMC              5           2               3           4              3

                      Greenland Turbot                         NPFMC              5           1               2           4              3

                      Arrowtooth Flounder                      NPFMC              3           2               2           4              3

                      Rock Sole                                NPFMC              5           2               2           4              3

                      Flathead Sole                            NPFMC              3           2               2           4              3

                      Sablefish            Eastern Bering Sea  NPFMC              4           2               3           4              3

                                           Aleutian Islands    NPFMC              4           2               3           4              3

                      Pacific Ocean Perch  Eastern Bering Sea  NPFMC              5           1               2           4              3

                                           Aleutian Islands    NPFMC              5           2               2           4              3

                      Atka Mackerel                            NPFMC              5           1               2           4              3

                      Alaska Plaice                            NPFMC              4           2               2           4              3

                      Northern Rockfish    Eastern Bering Sea  NPFMC              2           2               2           0              2

                                           Aleutian Islands    NPFMC              2           1               2           0              2

                      Sharpchin Rockfish   Eastern Bering Sea  NPFMC              2           2               2           0              2

                                           Aleutian Islands    NPFMC              2           1               2           0              2

                      Shortraker Rockfish  Eastern Bering Sea  NPFMC              2           2               2           0              2

                                           Aleutian Islands    NPFMC              2           1               2           0              2

                      Rougheye Rockfish    Eastern Bering Sea  NPFMC              2           2               2           0              2

                                           Aleutian Islands    NPFMC              2           1               2           0              2

                      Squid Berryteuthis                       NPFMC              0           0               0           1              3
                      magister                                                                                                           

                      Squid Onychoteuthis                      NPFMC              0           0               0           1              3
                      borealijaponica                                                                                                    

                      Longspine Thornyhead                     NPFMC              1           1               1           1              1

                      Shortspine                               NPFMC              1           1               1           2              2
                      Thornyhead                                                                                                         

                      Bering Flounder                          NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Kamchatka Flounder                       NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Arctic Flounder                          NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Butter Sole                              NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      C-O Sole                                 NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      California                               NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3
                      Tonguefish                                                                                                         

                      Curlfin Sole                             NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Deepsea Sole                             NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Dover Sole                               NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      English Sole                             NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Hybrid Sole                              NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Longhead Dab                             NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Pacific Sanddab                          NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Petrale Sole                             NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Rex Sole                                 NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Roughscale Sole                          NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Sand Sole                                NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Slender Sole                             NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Starry Flounder                          NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3

                      Aurora Rockfish                          NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Black Rockfish                           NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Blackgill Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Blue Rockfish                            NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Bocaccio                                 NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Brown Rockfish                           NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Canary Rockfish                          NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Chameleon Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Chilipepper                              NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Copper Rockfish                          NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Darkblotched                             NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1
                      Rockfish                                                                                                           

                      Dusky Rockfish                           NPFMC              2           2               2           0              2

                      Gray Rockfish                            NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Greenstriped                             NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1
                      Rockfish                                                                                                           

                      Harlequin Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Pink Rose Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Pygmy Rockfish                           NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Redbanded Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Redstripe Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Rosethorn Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Rosy Rockfish                            NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Silvergrey Rockfish                      NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Splitnose Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Stripetail Rockfish                      NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Tiger Rockfish                           NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Vermilion Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Widow Rockfish                           NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Yelloweye Rockfish                       NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Yellowmouth Rockfish                     NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Yellowtail Rockfish                      NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1

                      Broad Banded                             NPFMC              1           1               1           0              1
                      Thornyhead                                                                                                         

                      Antlered Sculpin                         NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Armorhead Sculpin                        NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Bigmouth Sculpin                         NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Blackfin Sculpin                         NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Blob Sculpin                             NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Brown Irish Lord                         NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Butterfly Sculpin                        NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Calico Sculpin                           NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Crested Sculpin                          NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Dusky Sculpin                            NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Great Sculpin                            NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Pacific Staghorn                         NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3
                      Sculpin                                                                                                            

                      Plain Sculpin                            NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Red Irish Lord                           NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Ribbed Sculpin                           NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Scissortail Sculpin                      NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Shorthorn Sculpin                        NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Spinyhead Sculpin                        NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Tadpole Sculpin                          NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Thorny Sculpin                           NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Warty Sculpin                            NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Yellow Irish Lord                        NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Alaska Skate                             NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Aleutian Skate                           NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Big Skate                                NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Commander Skate                          NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Deepsea Skate                            NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Golden Skate                             NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Longnose Skate                           NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Mud Skate                                NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Okhotsk Skate                            NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Roughtail Skate                          NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Sandpiper Skate                          NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Starry Skate                             NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      White-Blotched Skate                     NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Whitebrown Skate                         NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Blue Shark                               NPFMC              0           2               1           0              3

                      Pacific Sleeper                          NPFMC              1           2               1           0              3
                      Shark                                                                                                              

                      Salmon Shark                             NPFMC              0           0               0           0              3

                      Sixgill Shark                            NPFMC              0           0               0           0              3

                      Soupfin Shark                            NPFMC              0           0               0           0              3

                      Spiny Dogfish                            NPFMC              0           0               0           0              3

                      Capelin                                  NPFMC              0           0               1           0              3

                      Eulachon                                 NPFMC              0           0               1           0              3

                      Rainbow Smelt                            NPFMC              0           1               1           0              3

                      Octopus Octopus                          NPFMC              0           0               0           0              3
                      dofleini                                                                                                           

                      Octopus                                  NPFMC              0           0               0           0              3
                      Opisthoteuthis                                                                                                     
                      california                                                                                                         

  **Bering Sea /      Blue King Crab       Pribilof Islands    NPFMC              2           1               2           1              3
  Aleutian Islands                                                                                                                       
  King and Tanner                                                                                                                        
  Crabs**                                                                                                                                

                                           Saint Matthew       NPFMC              2           1               2           1              3
                                           Island                                                                                        

                                           Saint Lawrence      NPFMC              2           0               2           0              3
                                           Island                                                                                        

                      Golden King Crab     Aleutians           NPFMC              2           1               1           0              3

                                           Pribilof Islands    NPFMC              2           0               1           0              3

                                           Northern District   NPFMC              2           0               1           0              3

                      Red King             Bristol Bay         NPFMC              2           2               2           4              3

                                           Norton Sound        NPFMC              2           1               2           1              3

                                           Pribilof Islands    NPFMC              2           1               2           1              3

                                           Aleutians           NPFMC              2           1               2           0              3

                      Aleutian Islands                         NPMFC              2           0               1           0              3
                      Scarlet King Crab                                                                                                  

                      Bering Sea Snow Crab                     NPFMC              2           2               2           1              3

                      Tanner Crab          Bering Sea          NPFMC              2           2               2           4              3

                                           Bering Sea Triangle NPFMC              2           0               1           0              3

                                           Bering Sea Grooved  NPFMC              2           0               1           0              3

                                           Eastern Aleutian    NPFMC              2           0               2           0              3
                                           Islands                                                                                       

                                           Eastern Aleutian    NPFMC              2           0               1           0              3
                                           Islands Triangle                                                                              

                                           Eastern Aleutian    NPFMC              2           0               1           0              3
                                           Islands Grooved                                                                               

                                           Adak (Western       NPFMC              2           0               2           0              3
                                           Aleutians)                                                                                    

                                           Western Aleutian    NPFMC              2           0               1           0              3
                                           Islands Grooved                                                                               

  **Alaska Scallops** Alaska Scallops                          NPFMC              1           1               1           1              3

  **Atlantic          Blue Marlin (North                       HMS                1           1               1           3              2
  Billfishes**        Atlantic)                                                                                                          

                      White Marlin (North                      HMS                1           1               1           3              2
                      Atlantic)                                                                                                          

                      Sailfish (West                           HMS                1           1               1           3              1
                      Atlantic)                                                                                                          

                      Spearfish (West                          HMS                1           1               1           1              1
                      Atlantic)                                                                                                          

  **Atlantic Tunas,   Bigeye Tuna                              HMS                3           2               2           4              2
  Swordfish and       (Atlantic)                                                                                                         
  Sharks**                                                                                                                               

                      Albacore (North                          HMS                3           2               2           4              2
                      Atlantic)                                                                                                          

                      Bluefin Tuna (West                       HMS                5           2               3           4              2
                      Atlantic)                                                                                                          

                      Swordfish (North                         HMS                5           2               3           4              2
                      Atlantic)                                                                                                          

                      Sandbar Shark                            HMS                3           1               2           3              2

                      Blacktip Shark                           HMS                3           1               2           3              2

                      Dusky Shark                              HMS                1           1               2           1              2

                      Spinner Shark                            HMS                1           1               2           1              2

                      Silky Shark                              HMS                1           1               2           1              2

                      Bull Shark                               HMS                1           1               2           1              2

                      Bignose Shark                            HMS                1           1               1           1              2

                      Narrowtooth Shark                        HMS                1           1               1           1              2

                      Galapagos Shark                          HMS                1           1               1           1              2

                      Night Shark                              HMS                1           1               1           1              2

                      Caribbean Reef Shark                     HMS                1           1               1           1              2

                      Tiger Shark                              HMS                1           1               2           1              2

                      Lemon Shark                              HMS                1           1               2           1              2

                      Sand Tiger Shark                         HMS                1           1               2           1              2

                      Bigeye Sand Tiger                        HMS                1           1               1           1              2
                      Shark                                                                                                              

                      Nurse Shark                              HMS                1           1               2           1              2

                      Scalloped Hammerhead                     HMS                1           1               2           1              2
                      Shark                                                                                                              

                      Great Hammerhead                         HMS                1           1               2           1              2
                      Shark                                                                                                              

                      Smooth Hammerhead                        HMS                1           1               1           1              2
                      Shark                                                                                                              

                      Whale Shark                              HMS                1           1               1           1              2

                      Basking Shark                            HMS                1           1               1           1              2

                      White Shark                              HMS                1           1               2           1              2

                      Yellowfin Tuna (West                     HMS                3           1               1           2              1
                      Atlantic)                                                                                                          

                      Atlantic Sharpnose                       HMS                3           1               2           3              2
                      Shark                                                                                                              

                      Caribbean Sharpnose                      HMS                1           1               1           1              1
                      Shark                                                                                                              

                      Finetooth Shark                          HMS                1           1               2           1              1

                      Blacknose Shark                          HMS                1           1               2           1              1

                      Smalltail Shark                          HMS                1           1               1           1              1

                      Bonnethead Shark                         HMS                1           1               2           1              1

                      Atlantic Angel Shark                     HMS                1           1               1           1              1

                      Skipjack Tuna (West                      HMS                1           1               1           1              2
                      Atlantic)                                                                                                          

                      Shortfin Mako Shark                      HMS                1           1               2           1              0

                      Longfin Mako Shark                       HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Porbeagle Shark                          HMS                1           1               2           1              0

                      Thresher Shark                           HMS                1           1               2           1              0

                      Bigeye Thresher                          HMS                1           1               2           1              0
                      Shark                                                                                                              

                      Blue Shark                               HMS                1           1               2           1              0

                      Oceanic Whitetip                         HMS                1           1               2           1              0
                      Shark                                                                                                              

                      Sevengill Shark                          HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Sixgill Shark                            HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Bigeye Sixgill                           HMS                1           1               1           1              0
                      Sharks                                                                                                             

                      Iceland Cat Shark                        HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Smallfin Cat Shark                       HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Deepwater Cat Shark                      HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Broadgill Cat Shark                      HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Marbled Cat Shark                        HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Blotched Cat Shark                       HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Chain Dogfish                            HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Dwarf Catshark                           HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Japanese Gulper                          HMS                1           1               1           1              0
                      Shark                                                                                                              

                      Gulper Shark                             HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Little Gulper Shark                      HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Kitefin Shark                            HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Flatnose Gulper                          HMS                1           1               1           1              0
                      Shark                                                                                                              

                      Portuguese Shark                         HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Greenland Shark                          HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Lined Lanternshark                       HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Broadband Dogfish                        HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Caribbean                                HMS                1           1               1           1              0
                      Lanternshark                                                                                                       

                      Great Lanternshark                       HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Smooth Lanternshark                      HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Fringefin                                HMS                1           1               1           1              0
                      Lanternshark                                                                                                       

                      Green Lanternshark                       HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Cookiecutter Shark                       HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Bigtooth                                 HMS                1           1               1           1              0
                      Cookiecutter                                                                                                       

                      Smallmouth Velvet                        HMS                1           1               1           1              0
                      Dogfish                                                                                                            

                      Pygmy Shark                              HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Roughskin Spiny                          HMS                1           1               1           1              0
                      Dogfish                                                                                                            

                      Blainville\'s                            HMS                1           1               1           1              0
                      Dogfish                                                                                                            

                      Cuban Dogfish                            HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Bramble Shark                            HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      American Sawshark                        HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Florida Smoothhound                      HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                      Smooth Dogfish                           HMS                1           1               1           1              0

                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                         

  **NOT IN FMPs**                                                                                                                        

  **None**            Little Skate                             NEFMC / MAFMC      1           1               2           1              1

  **None**            Winter Skate                             NEFMC / MAFMC      1           1               2           1              1

  **None**            Barndoor Skate                           NEFMC / MAFMC      0           1               1           1              0

  **None**            Thorny Skate                             NEFMC / MAFMC      1           1               1           1              0

  **None**            Clearnose (Brier)                        NEFMC / MAFMC      0           1               1           1              0
                      Skate                                                                                                              

  **None**            Rosette (Leopard)                        NEFMC / MAFMC      0           1               1           1              0
                      Skate                                                                                                              

  **None**            Smooth (-tailed)                         NEFMC / MAFMC      0           1               1           1              0
                      Skate                                                                                                              

  ** **               Queen Triggerfish                        GMFMC              1           0               1           0              0

  ** **               Weakfish                                 ASMFC              3           1               2           4              2

  ** **               Spotted Seatrout                         ASMFC              2           1               2           2              1

  ** **               Spot                                     ASMFC              2           1               2           2              1

  ** **               Atlantic Croaker                         ASMFC              2           1               2           2              1

  ** **               Atlantic Menhaden                        ASMFC              4           1               3           4              2

  **ASMFC - Striped   Striped Bass                             ASMFC              4           2               4           4              3
  Bass**                                                                                                                                 

  **ASMFC - Northern  Northern Shrimp                          ASMFC              3           1               2           4              3
  Shrimp**                                                                                                                               

  ** **               Gulf Menhaden                            GSMFC              4           1               3           4              2

  ** **               Black Drum                               GSMFC              2           1               2           2              2

  ** **               Pacific Bonito                           PFMC               2           1               1           0              0

  ** **               California Barracuda                     PFMC               2           1               1           0              0

  ** **               White Seabass                            PFMC               2           1               2           0              0

  ** **               White Croaker                            PFMC               2           1               1           0              0

  ** **               Yellowtail                               PFMC               2           1               1           0              0

  ** **               Giant Squid                              PFMC               1           0               0           0              0

  ** **               Mackerel Scad                            WPFMC              3           1               2           3              2

  ** **               Bigeye Scad                              WPFMC              3           1               2           3              2

  ** **               Pacific Halibut                          PFMC & NPFMC       5           4               3           5              3

  ** **               Rattails                                 NPFMC              1           1               0           0              3

  ** **               Sea Snails                               NPFMC              1           1               0           0              0

  ** **               Bonito (Atlantic)                        HMS                1           0               0           0              0

  ** **               Little Tunny                             HMS                1           0               0           0              0
                      (Atlantic)                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                         

  **UNDER                                                                                                                                
  DEVELOPMENT**                                                                                                                          

  **Tilefish**        Tilefish                                 MAFMC              1           0               2           2              2

  **ASMFC - Atlantic  Atlantic Herring                         ASMFC              4           2               4           4              2
  Herring**                                                                                                                              

  **NMFMC-MAFMC Spiny Spiny Dogfish                            NEFMC MAFMC        2           1               2           3              1
  Dogfish**                                                                                                                              

  ** **               Wahoo                                    SAFMC              1           0               1           0              0

  ** **               Calico Scallops                          SAFMC              1           1               1           0              0
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Appendix 2. Summary of the NMFS Science Quality Assurance Program**

NMFS is charged with the stewardship of living marine resources for the
benefit of the nation through science-based conservation and management.
High quality science provides the foundation upon which NMFS operates to
fulfill its stewardship mission. Fisheries management has become
increasingly more complex through time, creating ever-growing, and
increasingly sophisticated demands on the agency\'s science programs.
Meanwhile, management decisions and the science upon which they are
based have also come under increasing scrutiny from the fishing industry
and environmental groups and, in extreme cases, have become the subject
of law suits.

NMFS, throughout its history, has made consistent investments in
conducting high-quality science. The Office of Science and Technology
and each of the Fisheries Science Centers implement measures to ensure
the quality of their science. The Science Quality Assurance Program
(SQAP) was established to document, formalize and, where appropriate,
standardize these collective efforts. The primary objective of this
process is to ensure that NMFS\' fisheries science is relevant, timely,
objective and accurate. By combining several existing and some new
programs into a coherent plan, the SQAP will provide a comprehensive
examination of science quality issues within NMFS diverse scientific
enterprise. Plan components include:

Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research (see the Introduction to this
document for a summary of the goals and objectives)

This five-year plan outlines measures for meeting the requirements of
the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. Priorities and recent
accomplishments on research areas stipulated by the Act are identified
for each of the Fisheries Science Centers. A new edition of the plan
will be released in early 2002.

Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (this document)

The SAIP is the report of the NMFS National Task Force for Improving
Fish Stock Assessments. The Task Force consists of Headquarters and
Science Center scientists. The plan also addresses recommendations made
in the National Research Council study on Improving Fish Stock
Assessments (NRC 1998).

NOAA Fisheries Data Acquisition Plan (Appendix 3)

This plan outlines a strategy for acquiring the at-sea data needed to
manage the nation\'s living marine resources. Recommendations for the
appropriate blend of research platforms to ensure a consistent supply of
high quality data into the stock assessment process are made.

#### NMFS Fisheries Science Center Accreditation

NMFS Fisheries Science Center Directors and the Office of Science and
Technology will develop a set of standards designed to maintain and
continually improve the high quality of NMFS science, including field
activities, laboratory analyses, data handling and analyses, and
reporting of results.

Fisheries Assessment Computational Toolbox (Appendix 4)

The purpose of FACT is to develop a set of standardized and verified
software for conducting stock assessments. The toolbox allows analysts
to use a variety of assessment models to select options and produce
diagnostics appropriate to a particular resource assessment methodology.
The suite of programs includes modules for data input, formatting and
error checking, and exploratory data analyses for a series of assessment
approaches.

Center for Independent Experts (Appendix 5)

NMFS maintains a pool of qualified scientists from outside the agency
who can aid in the design and review of NMFS scientific endeavors and
products. The core principle is that the CIE pool of experts be composed
of independent (non-NMFS) members having the requisite technical and
scientific expertise to provide impartial and comprehensive comments and
advice.

#### External Independent Studies

Periodic studies by the National Research Council are commissioned by
NMFS to provide an independent scientific examination and research
recommendations on issues of national importance.

NMFS - Sea Grant Joint Graduate Fellowship Program in Population
Dynamics and Marine Resource Economics (Appendix 6)

The program awards fellowships to Ph.D. students to encourage qualified
applicants to pursue careers in population dynamics and stock assessment
methodology or marine resource economics, to foster closer relationships
between academic scientists and NMFS, and to provide real-world
experience to graduate students and accelerate their career development.

CONTACT: Bonnie Ponwith, Office of Science and Technology, National
Marine Fisheries Service.

**Appendix 3. Executive Summary from the NOAA Fisheries Data**

**Acquisition Plan (NMFS 1998a)**

NOAA Fisheries is charged with stewardship of the Nation\'s living
marine resources through science-based conservation and management and
promotion of the health of their environment. At-sea research and
monitoring is the foundation upon which stewardship is based. This
report responds to OMB\'s request for a data acquisition plan to outline
how NOAA Fisheries\' data requirements will be met over the next five
years. The report deals with the interface of three highly dynamic
systems: marine resources and their environment, the science and
technology used to understand and manage them, and the policy arena that
directs management and distributes fiscal resources. Linkages among
these systems are robust; changes in one greatly influence the status of
the others. Good planning is essential to the success of any mission,
but planning for the future in this dynamic environment is particularly
challenging. This Data Acquisition Plan (Plan) describes NOAA
Fisheries\' approach to provide the best possible information upon which
to manage the Nation\'s living marine resources.

The Plan describes the evolution of NOAA Fisheries\' mission, and its
research fleet. Legislation which has influenced the stewardship process
of marine resources, and its impact on data requirements is discussed.
Changes on the horizon, such as management philosophies and impending
technological advances, which will influence the way resources are
researched, monitored and managed in the future are evaluated. All these
factors were considered as the Plan was developed to achieve the
flexibility required to properly manage a dynamic system in a dynamic
environment.

A complex web of diverse data feeds into the resource management
process. The critical importance of fisheries-independent data,
requiring at-sea research is discussed. The Plan covers how decisions
are made on what data are needed, how the criteria for data quality and
quantity are established, and what tools are required to collect data
that meet these criteria in the most cost effective manner. Available
research platforms are evaluated, including NOAA or other fishery
research vessels (FRVs), chartered fishing vessels and university ships.

The Plan discusses several options to meet the data requirements which
were analyzed by a multi-disciplinary team from government agencies,
academic institutions and private industry. They determined that a new
generation of FRVs was needed. The central philosophy of the Plan is to
construct a core fleet of purpose-built, dedicated FRVs, and integrate
them with chartered vessels from the academic and private industry
fleets. Acoustic quieting will reduce behavioral responses of species
targeted in surveys and minimize noise interference to hydroacoustic
signals. The ships must have the speed, power and endurance to allow
acoustic and trawl surveys at the shelf edge. The ships must have
adequate berthing to support a full scientific complement, and be
configured to support laboratories, computers and multi-gear (e.g.,
trawl, longline, oceanographic) capabilities. Further, the ships must be
available for fisheries missions for at least a decade to protect the
integrity of long-term resource surveys. Lastly, their design should
accommodate technology development and mission changes over their
service lives.

At-sea data are now collected by the existing NOAA fleet using 1,877
days at sea (DAS), supplemented by 1,227 DAS of chartered university and
private industry vessels. NOAA Fisheries convened a workshop of stock
assessment and vessel experts to review the requirements for DAS and how
they were determined. The study concluded that 9.3 ship years of FRV
time, supplemented with non-FRV (e.g. fishing vessel, research vessel)
charters, is needed to meet at-sea data requirements. The Plan calls for
the existing fisheries vessels in the NOAA Fleet to be phased out, as
four purpose-built FRVs are constructed deployed and calibrated for
service. NOAA will collaborate with UNOLS and the private sector to
develop a means of meeting the remaining ship needs with chartered
vessels.

An external review of the Plan was performed, and the report was
provided to NOAA Fisheries in May 1998. The report concluded that
construction of a core fleet of purpose-built vessels is a good
approach, that the FRVs, as designed, will be outstanding, will serve
the nation extremely well as the core of a dedicated fisheries fleet for
their full projected lifetime, and that the vessels are not over
specified. Further study of vessel acquisition management, ownership,
and operation was encouraged, and NOAA Fisheries is engaged in those
studies now.

NOAA bears the stewardship responsibility for the largest EEZ in the
world, and to perform that mission, it must have the proper tools. New
legislation, management philosophies and scientific advancements have
created new opportunities to improve fisheries management. Providing
appropriate support will enable NOAA to capitalize on these
opportunities, to the economic benefit of the Nation and integrity of
our ecosystems.

CONTACT: Bonnie Ponwith, Office of Science and Technology, National
Marine Fisheries Service.

**Appendix 4. Summary Description of the NMFS Stock Assessment Toolbox**

A Windows-based desktop application, the Fisheries Assessment
Computational Toolbox (FACT), has been designed to assist fisheries
scientists conducting fisheries stock assessments. The software was
developed at NMFS to facilitate the production of verifiable and
repeatable results from various assessment models. It has been developed
in such a way as to easily accept future enhancements and additional
modeling capabilities. Individual stock assessment models have been
compiled into dynamic link libraries (DLLs) and integrated with a
Windows Interface. The application comes in a zip file that, once
unzipped, will run a setup routine and install all necessary library
files on a user\'s PC. At this time, the application is available for
download from the FACT website:

<http://www.wh.whoi.edu/fact> for authorized users.

FACT began as the Woods Hole Assessment Toolbox (WHAT) with a focus on
enhancing the software being used in the population dynamics branch in
Woods Hole. Since then there have been many contributors to FACT. In an
effort not to redo work that has already been completed, much of the
code comes from individuals or small teams using custom written
programs. The modular approach allows researchers working on method
development to quickly put together new analytical routines. Modules may
consist of single relatively simple assessment methods or complex
systems. FACT allows scientists to take advantage of a Windows-based
interface to view and manipulate their data.

Currently the following assessment models have been incorporated into
the Toolbox: Virtual Population Analysis, (VPA) with retrospective and
bootstrapping capabilities, Age Projection, Yield Per Recruit and
Spawning Biomass per Recruit, Aspic, A Stock Production Model
Incorporating Covariates - a non-equilibrium stock production model,
Aspic Projection, Precautionary Approach and Separable VPA Extended
Survivors Analysis (XSA), and an Age-Structured Production Model (ASPM).
A Delury model and several length-based methods are partially complete
and a VPA-2 Box is under construction at this time. Several additional
models are currently under consideration for future inclusion into the
Toolbox. The package also includes a comprehensive on-line Help and
preliminary graphing capabilities.

FACT has been released to the Steering Committee, and the Population
Dynamics branch in Woods Hole, MA. The site is password protected but
anyone who would like to explore FACT (at his own risk) may obtain the
password by contacting <fact@whsun1.wh.whoi.edu>. The FACT Steering
Committee is currently developing testing procedures that will lead to
an NMFS-approved set of standard assessment tools for use by and other
scientists.

The FACT application has been designed with ease of use, computational
power and speed in mind. Accordingly, a visual front-end has been
developed using Visual Basic 6.0 forms. The majority of the mathematical
and output routines have been written in Visual Fortran 6.0, with a few
routines to accomplish particular tasks written in Visual C++ 6.0. The
software design is one of a modular application within an
object-oriented environment. This design allows for easy modification
and simplified enhancement of the software. The front end consists of
Visual Basic forms that facilitate the inputting of data and the
subsequent processing and outputting of the data. Data may be input
either by reading from a disk file or by user keyboard input. Once the
data have been input, or read in from disk, they may be easily updated
using fields on the various forms. Additionally, they may be viewed
graphically via a built-in graphing utility. Then user then selects a
command button to choose the type of assessment to be done. A series of
windows, menus and options are used to lead the user in the processing
of the data using the selected assessment model.

CONTACT: David Curelli, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National
Marine Fisheries Service.

**Appendix 5. Summary of the Objectives and Scope of the Center for
Independent Experts Program: An Independent System for Peer Review**

As part of its Science Quality Assurance Plan, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) has established a formal system for independent
peer review through a pilot program grant to the University of Miami,
Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (CIMAS).
Within CIMAS, the Center of Independent Experts (CIE) administers the
review process and a formal pool of qualified scientific experts
recruited from outside the Agency. From its inception the pilot program
has focused specifically on external peer review of NMFS\' stock
assessments and related management advice for selected stocks.

NMFS has a long tradition of involving outside experts in the design and
review of scientific programs, stock assessments, and development of new
assessment methodologies. These experts are typically internationally
recognized academics in the United States and elsewhere, as well as
leading government scientists from other countries. They are generally
employed in public and private U.S. universities, with formal programs
of teaching and research in fisheries science, as well as in government
and academic institutions that deal with fisheries research outside the
U.S.

At the core of the concept of a pool of external experts is that the
reports they render be free from any manipulation by the Agency, which
would steer the review in favor of one outcome over another. That is,
expert reviews should be truly independent of any position NMFS may
have. At the same time, it is important to NMFS that the selected
experts will also be acting free from the influence of groups or
organizations with vested interests in the review findings. That is, the
expert\'s views should also be truly independent of any position taken
by concerned constituent groups. Furthermore, it is important to NMFS
that selected experts' posses the depth of knowledge and experience that
will maximize the likelihood of delivering a useful product, i.e., a
product that is more relevant to the Agency\'s mission than is the
typical academic peer criticism. The range of issues represented in the
annual schedule of reviews has focused on cutting-edge science,
applications of new or novel methods, or scientific advice given in
controversial management actions and highly contentious litigation.

In order to accomplish the overarching goal of independent peer review,
and to avoid perceptions of improper influence, it is necessary that a
steering group outside NMFS administer the selection of individual
reviewers with utmost transparency. As currently structured, the CIE
Steering Committee is composed of tenured academics, or senior
researchers, and charged with program oversight. The potential pool of
CIE experts is conceptually the universe of qualified scientists that
may take on review tasks.

The guiding principle is that CIE\'s pool of experts be composed of
independent (non-NMFS) members having the requisite technical and
scientific expertise to provide impartial and comprehensive comments and
advice on subject reviews. To further separate this review process from
even the appearance of any influence from the affected parties, the CIE
Steering Committee selects each reviewer and collects written assurances
of no conflict of interest. For each contracted review, CIE program
staff facilitates expert selection, travel arrangements, distribution of
background materials, and provide intermediate status reports, including
final written reviews, and a complete accounting of distributed funds.

#### Scope of Work

Reviews conducted by the Center of Independent Experts can vary in scope
and duration. Some Members may be asked to carry out short-term
assignments, such as proposal and stock assessment reviews, while others
could be involved in long-term projects such as programmatic reviews and
development, and review of new management methods. The following are
some of the assignments-

-   Review grant proposals.

-   Conduct reviews of stock assessments.

-   Conduct alternative stock assessments.

-   Conduct reviews of scientific programs.

-   Participate in the design of new scientific programs and management
    advice.

These assignments require special skills, knowledge and institutional
granting and grant oversight capabilities generally found only in large
U.S. academic research institutions with international reputations in
the marine sciences. Additionally, CIE reviews focus on highly
specialized scientific activities, including products of fishery
resource assessments and research, and sometimes-controversial issues
including court decisions to which the U.S. Government is a party. This
has contributed to expanding the concept beyond a strict stock
assessment focus into other issues of interest to the Agency. Recent
reviews have included Pacific salmon-coastal watershed habitat
requirements and endangered species listings.

CONTACT: Steve Brown, Office of Science and Technology, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

####  

**Appendix 6. Summary of the Joint NMFS/SEA Grant**

**Graduate Fellowship Program**

#### Introduction

The National Sea Grant College Program Office (NSGO) and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) established a new Graduate Fellowship
Program in Population Dynamics and Marine Resource Economics (Program)
in 1999.

Contingent upon the availability of Federal funds, the Program will
award fellowships, to begin in the summer, to four students each year
who are interested in careers related to 1) the population dynamics of
living marine resources and the development and implementation of
quantitative methods for assessing their status, and 2) the economics of
the conservation and management of living marine resources. Two
fellowships will be awarded each year in each of the above two
disciplines resulting in an anticipated six students per discipline
eventually supported annually by fellowships when the Program reaches
its maximum level three years following its inception.

The fellowships will provide support for up to three years for highly
qualified graduate students working towards a PhD in population dynamics
or related fields of study and for up to two years for highly qualified
graduate students working towards a PhD in marine resource economics,
natural resource economics, or environmental economics. Continued
support after the first year will be contingent upon the availability of
Federal funds and satisfactory performance of the Fellow. In addition to
his/her major professor, each Fellow will be required to work closely
with an expert (mentor) from NMFS who will provide data for the
Fellow\'s thesis, serve on the Fellow\'s committee, and host an annual
summer internship at the participating NMFS facility.

The goals of the Program are to 1) encourage qualified applicants to
pursue careers in a) population dynamics and stock assessment
methodology or b) marine resource economics; 2) increase available
expertise related to a) the population dynamics and assessment of stock
status of living marine resources or b) economic analysis of living
marine resource conservation and management decisions; 3) foster closer
relationships between academic scientists and NMFS; and 4) provide
real-world experience to graduate students and accelerate their career
development.

#### Eligibility

Any student may apply who is a United States citizen. At the time of
application, prospective Population Dynamics Fellows must be admitted to
a PhD degree program in population dynamics or a related field such as
applied mathematics, statistics, or quantitative ecology at a university
in the United States, or submit a signed letter from the university
indicating provisional acceptance to a PhD degree program conditional on
obtaining financial support such as this fellowship. At the time of
application, prospective Marine Resource Economics Fellows must be in
the process of completing at least two years of course work in a PhD
degree program in natural resource economics or a related field at a
university in the United States.

#### Selection Criteria

Selection criteria will include 1) relevant academic ability and
achievement, particularly quantitative skills (35%); 2) demonstrated
research ability in the discipline and appropriateness/importance of
proposed thesis topic (30%); 3) expertise of major professor (20%); and
4) additional relevant experience (15%).

#### Selection

Selection is competitive. A review panel consisting of experts in the
two disciplines and representatives from the NSGO and NMFS will evaluate
and rank the candidates in accordance with the above criteria. The panel
members will provide individual evaluations on each candidate, but there
will be no consensus advice. The Fellowship Program Manager based in
part on the rankings provided by the review panel will select two
Fellows in each discipline. In addition, the Program Manager will give
priority to NMFS Fisheries Science Centers, which do not currently have
Fellows. Accordingly, awards may not necessarily be made to the two
highest-scoring candidates in each discipline.

#### Participating NMFS Facilities

Mentors will be from participating NMFS Science Centers, Laboratories,
or Regional Offices. Each Fellow will be required to work as a summer
intern at the participating NMFS facility either on his/her thesis or on
appropriate related problems. Remuneration for the summer internship
will be part of the annual award. Population Dynamics Fellows will also
be expected to spend 10-20 days at sea per year learning about sampling
techniques and problems, commercial fishing, fishery biology, and local
and regional issues of importance to fisheries management. Fellows may
also work, as necessary, at the participating NMFS facility during some
or all of the academic year at the mutual discretion of mentor, major
professor, and Fellow.

CONTACT: information can be obtained from Dr. Emory D. Anderson, Program
Director for Fisheries, National Sea Grant College Program, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Tel: (301) 7132435 ext. 144,
e-mail: <emory.Anderson@noaa.gov>; from any state Sea Grant program, or
from any participating NMFS facility.

**Appendix 7. Extract from the Executive Summary of the NRC Report on
Improving Fish Stock Assessments (NRC 1998a)**

#### FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee focused its examination on the data that are used in
assessments, model performance, use of harvest strategies, new
assessment techniques, periodic review and quality control of
assessments and assessment methods, and education and training of stock
assessment scientists. The committee based its recommendations on the
results of the simulations and on its collective experience. Caveats
about how the analyses conducted for this study compare to actual stock
assessments are given in Chapter 5. Accomplishing the recommendations of
this report will require concerted and cooperative action by all
interested parties (academic and government scientists, fishery
managers, user groups, and environmental nongovernmental organizations)
to improve the stock assessment process and products.

#### Data Collection and Assessment Methods

The committee concludes that stock assessments do not always provide
enough information to evaluate data quality and to estimate model
parameters, and it recommends a checklist that would promote more
complete data collection for use in stock assessments. The results of
the committee\'s simulations demonstrated that the availability of
continuous sets of data collected by using standardized and calibrated
methods is important for the use of existing stock assessment models.
The best index of fish abundance is one for which extraneous influences
(e.g., changes in gear and seasonal coverage, changes in fishers\'
behavior) can be controlled. The committee recommends that at least one
reliable abundance index should be available for each significant stock.
CPUE data from commercial fisheries, if not properly standardized, do
not usually provide the most appropriate index. Likewise, CPUE data from
recreational fisheries require standardization to serve as a good index
of abundance.

Fishery-independent surveys offer the best opportunity for controlling
sampling conditions over time and the best choice for achieving a
reliable index if they are designed well with respect to location,
timing, sampling gear, and other considerations of statistically valid
survey design. NMFS should support the long-term collection of
fishery-independent data, using either the NOAA fleet or calibrated
independent vessels. Diminishing the quality of fishery-independent data
by failing to modernize NOAA fishery research vessels or by changing
sampling methods and gear without proper calibration could reduce the
usefulness of existing and future data sets.

The simulation study demonstrated that assessments are sensitive to
underlying structural features of fish stocks and fishery practices,
such as natural mortality, age selectivity, catch reporting, and
variations in these or other quantities. Auxiliary information in the
form of indices or survey estimates of abundance, population structure
information, and accurate estimates of other population parameters
(e.g., natural or fishing mortality, growth, catchability) improves the
accuracy of assessments.

Formally reviewed sampling protocols for collection of commercial
fisheries statistics have not been implemented in many geographic
regions. The lack of formalized, peer-reviewed data collection methods
in commercial fisheries is problematic because bias and improper survey
conduct may exist, with unknown impact on data reliability. Greater
attention should be devoted to sampling design based on an understanding
of the statistical properties of the estimators for catch at age and
other factors. Sampling and subsequent analysis should also consider the
issue of systematic biases that emerge with factors such as
misreporting. Formalized sampling protocols have been developed for
recreational fisheries in the form of the Marine Recreational Fisheries
Statistics Survey (MRFSS). MRFSS data and methods, albeit imperfect,
have undergone independent peer review, are readily available, and could
serve as a model for commercial fisheries. The committee recommends that
a standardized and formalized data collection protocol be established
for commercial fisheries nationwide.

## Models

Both harvesting strategies and decision rules for regulatory actions
have to be evaluated simultaneously to determine their combined ability
to sustain stocks. Simulation models should be realistic and encompass a
wide range of possible stock responses to management actions and natural
fluctuations consistent with experience. The committee recommends that
fish stock assessments present realistic measures of the uncertainty in
model outputs whenever feasible. Although a simple model can be a useful
management tool, more complex models are needed to better quantify the
unknown aspects of the system and to address the long-term consequences
of specific decision rules adequately. Retrospective analyses performed
by the committee showed that persistent over- or underestimation can
occur over a number of years of assessment, regardless of which model is
used. The committee recommends the use of Bayesian methods both for
creating distributions of input variables and for evaluating alternative
management policies. Other methods for including realistic levels of
uncertainly in models also should be investigated.

In the simulations, model performance became erratic as more variability
or errors were introduced to data sets. Newer modeling methods offer
promise for reducing bias in key parameter estimates, although using
mathematically sophisticated assessment models did not mitigate poor
data quality. Different assessment models should be used to analyze the
same data to help recognize poor data and to improve the quality of
assessment results. Results from such comparisons can be used to direct
survey programs to improve data quality and to assess the degree of
improvement in data achieved over time. Greater attention should also be
devoted to including independent estimates of natural mortality and its
variability in assessment models. Further simulation work of this kind
is also needed to determine whether the simulation results and the
conclusion based on these results remain the same over multiple
replications.

The committee believes that single-species assessments provide the best
approach at present for assessing population parameters and providing
short- term forecasting and management advice. Recent interest in
bringing ecological and environmental considerations and multi-species
interactions into stock assessment should be encouraged, but not at the
expense of a reduction in the quality of stock assessments.

### Harvest Strategies

Although the committee did not evaluate alternative harvest strategies,
it believes that assessment methods and harvest strategies should be
evaluated together because harvest strategies can affect stock
assessments and the uncertainty inherent in stock assessments should be
reflected in harvest strategies. Despite the uncertainty in stock
assessments, fishery scientists may be able to identify robust
management measures that can at least prevent overfishing, even if they
cannot optimize performance. Conservative management procedures include
management tools specific to the specific to the species managed, such
as minimum biomass levels, size limits, gear restrictions, and area
closures (for sedentary species). Management procedures by which the
allowable catch is set as a constant fraction of biomass (used for many
U.S. fisheries) generally perform better than many alternative
procedures. However, errors in implementation due to assessment
uncertainties could result in substantial reductions in long-term
average harvests in some years if biomass estimates are highly
uncertain. Assessment methods and harvest strategies need to be
evaluated simultaneously to determine their ability to achieve
management goals. Application of risk adjusted reference points (based
on fishing mortality or biomass) would immediately lead to reduced total
allowable catch and thus create an economic incentive for investment in
improved data gathering and assessment procedures to reduce the
coefficient of variation of biomass estimates.

There are at least four alternatives to harvesting a constant fraction
of exploitable biomass that may result in levels of total mortality that
are consistent with maintaining a fish stock. First, target fishing
mortality can be reduced as a stock decreases in size to reduce risks.
Second, a minimum biomass level can be established, below which fishing
would be halted (this is done for some U.S. fisheries). Third, the size
of fish captured can be increased by changing requirements for harvest
gear. This restriction might allow smaller fish to escape and spawn, but
could be ineffective if harvesters apply more effort to larger fish.
Finally, geographic areas can be closed to limit mortality for sedentary
species if the distribution of organisms is well known and if the
fishing mortality in other areas is not increased. Area closures have
been implemented or proposed for many fisheries worldwide in the form of
marine reserves and sanctuaries.

### New Approaches

NMFS and other organizations responsible for fisheries management should
support the development of new techniques that can better accommodate
incomplete and variable data and can account for the effects of
environmental fluctuation on fisheries. Such techniques should allow the
specification of uncertainty in key parameters (rather than assuming
constant, known values), should be robust to measurement error, and
should include the ability to show the risks associated with estimated
uncertainty.

A few prominent recommendations for new approaches emerged from the
study. Scientists that depend on assessments should:

-   incorporate Bayesian methods and other techniques to include
    realistic uncertainty in stock assessment models;

-   develop better assessment models for recreational fisheries and
    methods to evaluate the impacts of the quality of recreational data
    on stock assessments;

-   account for effects of directional changes in environment variables
    (e.g. those that would accompany climate change) in new models; and

-   develop new mean to estimate changes in average catch ability,
    selectivity, and mortality over time, rather than assuming that
    these parameters remain constant.

The results from the simulation exercise should be sobering to
scientists, managers, and the users of fishery resources. The majority
of the estimates of exploitable biomass exceeded true values by more
than 25%; assessments that used accurate abundance indices performed
roughly twice as well as those that use faulty indices. A disturbing
feature of the assessment methods is their tendency to lag in their
detection of trends in the simulated population abundance over time. For
example, some methods with some types of data consistently overestimate
exploitable biomass during periods of decreasing simulated abundance and
underestimate exploitable biomass during periods of increasing simulated
abundance.

Although no stock assessment model was free from significant error in
the simulations, it is also true that few of the models failed
consistently. Hence, the message of this report is not that stock
assessment models should not be used, but rather that data collection,
stock assessment techniques, and management procedures need to be
improved in terms of their ability to detect and respond to population
declines. The simulation results and some actual fishery management
examples suggest that overestimation of stock biomass and overfishing of
a population can occur due to inaccurate stock assessments and that the
overestimation can persist over time. The committee believes that the
two most important management actions to mitigate this problem are: (1)
to model and express uncertainty in stock assessments explicitly, and
(2) to incorporate uncertainty explicitly into management actions such
as harvesting strategies.

The absence of adequate data is the primary factor constraining accurate
stock assessments. The differences between estimated and true values
derived from the simulated data were most likely not introduced by any
mistakes made by the analysts. Rather, the large differences that
occurred under some scenarios were primarily the results of poor data
and model mis-specification steaming from incomplete knowledge of the
true situation by the analysts. The surplus production and delay
difference models did not include the ability to account for changes
over time in key parameters for the simulated populations. The simulated
data sets were better structured for analysis by age-structured methods;
hence, these kinds of models performed better. When they did not perform
well, it was generally because the models used biased information (e.g.,
the fishery CPUE index) or did not account for changes in selectivity
and catchability over time. Had the analysis been told about these data
features, it is likely that they could have compensated for them and
obtained better assessments. Some of the newer models appear to be able
to achieve such compensation through the introduction of process errors.
Nevertheless, modeling will never be able to provide estimates that are
as accurate as direct knowledge obtained by measurement and
experimentation. Thus, if future stock assessments are to avoid some of
the past problems, management agencies must devote the necessary
resources to monitor and investigate fish populations in a stable
research environment that fosters creative approaches.

### Peer Review

It is imperative that stock assessment procedures and results be
understood better and trusted more by all stakeholders. One means to
achieve such trust is to conduct independent peer review of fishery
management methods and results including (1) the survey sampling methods
used in data collection, (2) stock assessment procedures, and (3) risk
assessment and management strategies. When applied properly to stock
assessments, peer review yields an impartial evaluation of quality of
assessments as well as constructive suggestions for improvement. Such
reviews are most beneficial when conducted periodically, for example,
every 5 to 10 years, as new information and practices develop. In
addition, a complete review of methods for collection of data from
commercial fisheries should be conducted in the near future by an
independent panel of experts, which could lead to the adoption of formal
protocols.

### Education and Training

Reduction in the supply of stock assessment scientists would endanger
the conduct of fishery assessments by the federal government, interstate
commissions, and international management organizations and would hinder
progress in the development and implementation of new stock assessment
methods. NMFS and other bodies that conduct and depend on fish stock
assessments should cooperate to ensure a steady supply of well-trained
stock assessment scientists by using mechanisms such as personnel
exchanges among universities, government laboratories, and industry and
by funding stock assessment research activities. The training of stock
assessment scientists should endow them with skills in applied
mathematics, fisheries biology, and oceanography. Education of fisheries
scientists should be organized and executed in such a way that it
complements and augments the NMFS research mission and leads to improved
management strategies for fisheries in the future.

Appendix 8. Executive Summary of the Report to Congress on a Proposed
Implementation of a Fishing Vessel Registration and Fisheries
Information Management System

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), fishery management
councils, and states rely on fishery data to make decisions regarding
the stewardship of the Nation\'s living marine resources. Citizens of
the United States also rely on fishery statistics to make decisions
regarding their participation, investment in, and use of commercial and
recreational fisheries. In addition, fishery statistics can be used to
measure how effectively governmental agencies are meeting stewardship
goals and objectives. The quality of resource stewardship decisions and
the predictability of the outcomes are strongly dependent on the quality
of the data being used.

Given the increasing complexity of fisheries management, the current
state of fisheries statistics needs to be greatly improved. Despite some
regional successes, it is clear that the current overall approach to
collecting and managing fisheries information needs to be rethought,
revised, and reworked. The quality and completeness of fishery data are
often inadequate. Data are often not accessible in an appropriate form
or a timely manner. Methods for data collection and management are
frequently burdensome and inefficient. These drawbacks result in the
inability to answer some of the most basic questions regarding the state
of the Nation\'s fisheries, such as: How many vessels and people
participate in various fisheries? Do our policy decisions improve the
economic and biological sustainability of our fisheries - by how much?
How are different people (harvesters, consumers, coastal residents,
non-consumptive users) affected by these stewardship decisions? An
ability to answer these kinds of questions is essential to sound
resource stewardship. Simply put, to manage fisheries at local, state,
regional, or national levels requires a much better fisheries
information system than the one in place.

To address these shortcomings, the 1996 amendments to the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act required NMFS
to \"develop recommendations for implementation of a standardized
fishing vessel registration and information management system\" to
improve the state of our fisheries statistics programs. This Report to
Congress provides the recommendations for implementation of this
\"System.\"

The benefits of such a system would be seen on several levels. At the
most basic level, answers to fishery performance questions similar to
those above would be immediately available. The ability to evaluate the
status of all managed fish stocks would be enhanced. Scientists working
with fishery data would be freed of the inordinate amount of time now
spent on searching for, cleaning, checking, and reconciling data prior
to use. Fishery participants would have an enhanced ability to make
decisions on their participation and production. The entire system would
be more efficient in the collection of data and the delivery of useful
information to those who need it. Just as a business requires data on
raw materials, inventory, cash flow, employees, product quality, and
capital investments to be successful, this fisheries statistics system
is designed to deliver the analogous decision-making information to
those who manage and depend on the Nation\'s living marine resources for
their livelihood, food or recreation.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act required that the system be implemented on a
regional basis. Since several major regional information systems already
exist or are being planned, NMFS recommends creating a system that
improves, expands and integrates ongoing regional activities under a
nationwide \"umbrella.\"

As specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the system will have two main
components. The first component, the Vessel Registration System (VRS)
will enable fisheries managers to uniquely identify every US vessel
engaged in commercial and recreational for-hire fishing. To implement
the VRS component of the system, NMFS recommends utilizing a system
already being developed by the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard). The
Vessel Information System (VIS), includes nearly all of the information
needed for the VRS and is based on combining data from the Coast Guard
vessel documentation and state vessel numbering files into one Coast
Guard database. A pilot implementation of the VIS, with data from two
states and the Coast Guard, is now on-line and undergoing testing. State
participation in the VIS is currently voluntary. However, an expansion
of this system to require coastal states and territories to participate
would fulfill the requirements for a VRS as set forth in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act in the least costly and least burdensome manner.
The modifications to the Coast Guard VIS that would allow it to serve as
the VRS include:

-   Requiring that coastal states and territories participate on the VIS

-   The placement of a Hull Identification Number (HIN) on all
    undocumented vessels participating in commercial or charter fishing
    that did not have one upon manufacture

-   Creation of a "charter fishing" endorsement and principal use
    category

A new separate system to include recreational vessels in the VRS is not
recommended. However, since pleasure craft are already in the VIS,
conditionally including them in the VRS is recommended. The
recommendation is contingent on there being no additional costs or
burdens to participants or the state numbering agencies to include VIS
pleasure craft in VRS. Otherwise, the net benefits of inclusion would no
longer outweigh the costs.

The VRS design requirement includes obtaining the identity of the owner
and operator of each fishing vessel at the time of registration, but
vessel operator data changes frequently over time. Several resource
management agencies, regional statistics planning groups and industry
members suggested that tracking vessel performance over time without
information regarding the operator, and in some cases the crew was
insufficient to meet their needs. During development of the VRS
proposal, it became clear that better data on fisherman, in addition to
fishing vessels, was an important design criterion for many
stakeholders. While many federal and state permitting and licensing
programs contain information on vessel operators, there is no
universally accepted means to identify fishermen across fisheries or
states. More frequently than not, fishery performance data are not
linked to the operator. While various regional statistics planning
efforts have identified this issue for resolution, there has yet to be a
consensus on how to do this. NMFS proposes that the regional statistics
be asked to continue to investigate the development of a regional
operator identifier that would be included as part of the catch
information.

The second component, the Fisheries Information System (FIS), will be
implemented by integrating and expanding on the current regional
fisheries cooperative statistics activities. Some of these regional
activities are well developed, while others are in the early stages of
implementation. Present control and management of these regional
programs will remain local. The FIS will simply link and harmonize the
data from these programs to each other to form a virtual national
system. FIS implementation details are addressed under three major
areas: Data Collection; Information Management; and Institutional
Arrangements.

Under the recommended FIS, regional detail data would continue to be
collected locally with minor adjustments in content, coverage, and
quality control as required to meet both the Act\'s requirements and
regional requirements. Access to data will be controlled regionally to
ensure a balance in the need for access to data with the confidentiality
constraints under which they were collected. Routine summaries of
detailed data will be made available for the most frequent uses of data.
Reciprocity agreements to satisfy multiple state and federal data
submission and user access requirements are recommended. Adoption of
common codes or creation of bridges between coding systems is
recommended.

Using the unique vessel identifier from the VRS/VIS as a link, the FIS
will associate with each vessel a record of its fishing activities,
including landings, fishing location, gear used, time periods of
fishing, and other data recorded in the regional data collection
systems. In addition, data in the VRS/FIS system will be available as
necessary to assist in the issuance of permits and for other systems
requiring vessel and ownership data so that an applicant will not have
to submit identifying information more than once.

Resolution of issues arising the states, the marine fisheries
commissions, and federal agencies (including NMFS) concerning the
development of agreements, policies, regulations, and laws to collect
and share information, or concerning budgets and planning for
cooperative development of the System, will be jointly resolved by the
System partners. Statistical committees and work groups, plus an annual
statistics meeting of all System partners, are proposed for bringing
together the relevant parties. These groups would:

-   Facilitate coordination of data sharing among states, regions and
    NMFS, where such outcomes support fisheries stewardship; and

-   Facilitate consensual formulation of regional and national policies
    concerning data collection and management.

> The plan relies on existing regional statistics, industry advisory and
> marine fisheries policy groups to facilitate solutions rather than the
> creation of new entities.
>
> Section 410(a)(5) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the Report
> to Congress provide for "funding (subject to appropriations) to assist
> appropriate state, regional or tribal entities and marine fisheries
> commissions" for implementing activities associated with the Report.
> The total cost for the nationwide VRS/FIS system is projected to be
> \$51.9 million. This is the total incremental cost of implementing the
> system over and above current funding levels, and was derived through
> an extensive consultative process with the states, Regional Fishery
> Management Councils, and Marine Fisheries Commissions. Overall, \$43.1
> million are for data collection, integration and harmonization, \$7.2
> million for information technology and management and \$1.7 million
> for institutional infrastructure costs. Eighty percent of these costs
> are annually recurring, with full implementation phased in over a
> period of 5-7 years. The totals include \$23.7 million to fix or
> redesign data collection programs to fill gaps in current needs,
> including state-level commercial trip ticket systems, \$3.4 million
> for data quality and data integration improvements, \$6.8 million for
> economic and sociocultural data collection, and \$1.7 million for
> improvements in state/federal information management communication and
> computer technology. Three legislative/regulatory considerations
> associated with VRS/FIS implementation are recommended: 1) implement a
> fisheries statistics confidentiality sunset provision of 10 years
> coincident with the next Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization; 2)
> create a temporary VRS/FIS System liaison office within the Office of
> Management and Budget to obtain any Paperwork Reduction Act approvals
> coincident with VRS/FIS implementation in a comprehensive and
> expedited manner; and 3) strike prohibitions on collecting economic
> and financial fisheries statistics data in the Magnuson-Stevens Act
> coincident with its next reauthorization.
>
> CONTACT: Mark Holliday, Office of Science and Technology, National
> Fisheries Service.
>
> **Appendix 9. Executive Summary of the NMFS Bycatch Plan**

Bycatch\--defined as fishery discards, retained incidental catch, and
unobserved mortalities resulting from a direct encounter with fishing
gear\--has become a central concern of the commercial and recreational
fishing industries, resource managers, scientists, and the public, both
nationally and globally. Bycatch concerns stem from the apparent waste
that discards represent when so many of the world\'s marine resources
either are utilized to their full potential or are overexploited. These
issues apply to fishery resources as well as to marine mammals, sea
turtles, seabirds, and other components of marine ecosystems.

Congress has responded to these concerns by increasing requirements of
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act , and, most
recently, the Sustainable Fisheries Act[^1] to reduce or eliminate
bycatch. The Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act
highlighted the need for bycatch management in fishery management plans
by requiring that *conservation and management measures shall, to the
extent practicable, minimize bycatch and to the extent that bycatch
cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch*. Globally,
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization\'s Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries, to which the United States is a signatory,
also emphasizes bycatch reduction.

The national goal of the National Marine Fisheries Service\'s bycatch
plan activities is to implement conservation and management measures for
living marine resources that will minimize, to the extent practicable,
bycatch and the mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. Inherent in
this goal is the need to avoid bycatch, rather than create new ways to
utilize bycatch.

Responding to these issues and increasing regulatory requirements, in
1992 the U.S. commercial fishing industries initiated a series of
workshops to develop strategies to reduce bycatch and to increase the
industries and the public\'s understanding of bycatch issues. Their
recommendations, as well as those from recreational fishing and
environmental groups and the public, have prompted the National Marine
Fisheries Service to prepare this plan, clearly articulating the
agency\'s objectives, priorities, and strategies regarding bycatch. This
plan includes national and regional bycatch objectives; specific
recommendations concerning data collection, evaluation, and management
actions necessary to attain the objectives; and an assessment of the
state of knowledge about bycatch in the nation\'s marine fisheries. The
last of these is intended to serve as a benchmark for measuring progress
in bycatch reduction.

Because there are little data available on the retained incidental and
unobserved mortality components of bycatch, the assessment of bycatch
focuses on the availability of quantitative discard estimates from the
nation\'s fisheries, the significance of those discards to the health of
fishery and protected stocks, and progress in addressing bycatch issues
associated with each of the fisheries evaluated. Some quantitative
information on finish discards was available for about half of the
species or species groups; the availability of such estimates is
disproportionate among regions of the country and among fisheries within
regions.

Review of bycatch reduction efforts completed or under way indicates
that successful programs share common characteristics that form the
basis for the following seven national objectives in this plan:

1.  Determine the magnitude of bycatch and bycatch mortality.

2.  Determine the population, ecosystem, and socioeconomic impacts of
    bycatch and bycatch mortality.

3.  Determine whether current conservation and management measures
    minimize bycatch to the extent practicable and, if not, select
    measures that will.

4.  Implement and monitor selected bycatch management measures.

5\. Improve communications with all stakeholders on bycatch issues.

5.  Improve the effectiveness of partnerships with groups and
    individuals external to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

7\. Coordinate NMFS activities to effectively implement this plan.

To accomplish these objectives, recommendations are made in the
following six areas:

1.  bycatch monitoring and data collection programs;

2.  research on the population, ecosystem, and socioeconomic effects of
    bycatch;

3.  research to increase the selectivity of fishing gear and to increase
    the survival of fish and protected species that are inadvertently
    encountered by fishing gear;

4.  incentive programs for fishermen to improve bycatch performance;

5.  analysis of the implications of conservation and management measures
    for bycatch; and

6.  exchange of information and development of cooperative management
    approaches.

Recommended actions in the six areas range from developing strategies
for a long-term integrated scientific approach to the collection of
biological, economic, and social data to providing information that will
help define the benefits and cost associated with managing bycatch. The
plan does not attempt an intra-regional needs prioritization. Instead,
it suggests a seven-step decision-making research and management.

The development of this plan has brought into focus the fact that there
is a multifaceted and complex set of problems associated with bycatch
that affects nearly all aspects of fishing operations. Regionally, the
causes and implications of bycatch share some characteristics, but often
differ since the status of exploitations of resources and the way
fisheries are prosecuted and managed can vary substantially. Bycatch
management can be accomplished with a wide variety of measures,
depending on the specific characteristics of fisheries. As a result, no
single solution to the "bycatch problem" exists. Rather, fishermen,
managers, scientists, conservationists, and other interest groups must
work together to craft a balanced approach to addressing bycatch-one
that will promote the sustainability of our nation's living marine
resources.

CONTACT: Mark Chandler, Office of Science and Technology, National
Marine Fisheries Services.

### Appendix 10. Summary of the National Observer Program

**Program Goal**: To build a national observer program for the
collection of high quality fisheries, environmental, and socioeconomic
data from commercial and recreational fishing vessels to assess impacts
on marine resources and fishing communities and to monitor compliance
with marine resource laws and regulations.

#### Summary of Problem

An expansion of NMFS observer programs is needed to meet the agency\'s
immediate observer coverage requirements as mandated by existing laws,
regulations, fishery management plans, ESA section 7 consultations, and
court decisions. NMFS must also establish observer programs in fisheries
that are being managed with inadequate data on total catch, have a
significant bycatch and/or discard of finfish or shellfish, have
suspected incidental takes of protected species, or have rebuilding
plans in place. NMFS must ensure that all data are of high quality and
collected according to a rigorous sampling design, and that observers
are safe, adequately trained, fairly compensated, and supported.

This proposal outlines a plan for meeting the critical information needs
of the agency for the management of US commercial and recreational
fisheries over the next five years, by placing sufficient observers on
fishing vessels to meet target observer coverage levels. Achieving the
objectives of this proposal will provide the data to meet the **Build
Sustainable Fisheries** goals to eliminate and prevent overfishing and
overcapitalization by improving stock assessments and predictions,
reduce interactions between fisheries and protected species, and ensure
compliance with environmental laws and regulations. By monitoring
bycatch of nontarget species, including marine mammals, sea turtles, and
sea birds, it will also contribute to reducing the probability of
extinction and depletion of these species, meeting the objectives of the
**Recover** **Protected Species** initiative.

The Kammer Report recognizes that NMFS observer programs assist in
contributing important data necessary to manage, adhering to regulatory
requirements, and strengthening relationships with state partners, and
recommends additional funding for observers.

**Approach**

NMFS has developed 40 Fishery Management Plans to manage domestic
fishery stocks, under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Another nine Plans are currently under
development. Observers are currently deployed to collect fishery
dependent data in only 11 of the fisheries identified within these
plans. NMFS also has responsibility for monitoring an additional 25
Category I and II state and federal fisheries under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, yet currently has coverage in only 7 of these fisheries.
For fisheries that do have observer coverage, but levels are generally
not adequate to determine the full extent of fisheries impacts. Low
coverage levels result in incomplete implementation of sampling
methodologies and, hence, may result in sampling biases.

In some cases, limited observer data or lack of observer coverage has
resulted in fishery closures or restrictions on fishing effort. In other
cases, NOAA has adopted a precautionary management approach in the
absence of complete data - an approach that may be underutilizing a
fishery\'s full capacity.

#### Program Highlights

Expansion of the National Observer Program would:

-   Initiate observer coverage in key fisheries to monitor catch,
    bycatch of protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals,
    prohibited finfish, and environmental parameters associated with
    commercial and recreational fishing - approximately 4,000 additional
    sea days are planned.

-   Improve the quality of data collected by observers through better
    coordination and consistency of NMFS observer program policies and
    procedures.

-   Modernize data collection and dissemination technologies, as
    recommended by the National Research Council\'s report, Improving
    the Collection, Management, and Use of Fisheries Management Data.

-   Develop better outreach and communication programs to facilitate
    fishery cooperation and fishermen\'s involvement in observer program
    activities.

-   Investigate and prosecute noncompliance with fishery regulations as
    verified by observers.

#### Partnerships

Regionally, NMFS observer programs work closely with marine resource
agencies in all coastal states, federal agencies such as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Coast Guard, state educational
institutions and the National Sea Grant College Program, regional
Fishery Management Councils and interstate fisheries commissions, state
marine resource agencies, the fishing industry, observer service
providers, and non-governmental organizations.

The partners currently work together to manage fishery resources and
monitor impacts of commercial fisheries on marine resources. However,
the partners are limited by both funding and employees to sufficiently
monitor the vast number of commercial and recreational fishing vessels
that operate in U.S. waters. Additional resources are required to build
the partnerships that will promote the establishment of priorities for
fisheries observer programs.

CONTACT: Vicki Cornish, Office of Science and Technology, National
Marine Fisheries Service.

**Appendix 11. Extract from the NMFS Social Sciences Plan and FY2001
Budget Initiative**

#### Background

ST1 staff were asked by the Science Board to assess the staffing
requirements for augmenting a social sciences capability within the
Agency, and to develop alternatives for implementing the program. Based
on Science Board guidance, site visits were made to each NMFS region to
determine current versus minimum FTE needs within each region.
\"Minimum\" was defined as the level needed to ensure that NMFS meets
its legal responsibilities under Executive Order 12866, the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (including
adherence to national standards), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the
National Environmental Policy Act. The assumption was that current
staffing levels (and data collection activities) are not sufficient to
keep pace with increasing responsibilities and intensified scrutiny of
the Agency\'s sociocultural and economic analyses. FTE requirements are
broken out between a) economists and b) sociologists and
anthropologists. In some regions, requirements above the minimum were
also identified, with an \"ideal\" or optimal program including staff to
conduct long term socio-cultural and economic research that goes above
the minimum requirements to enhance the credibility of the resulting
analyses.

Two broad functions for social science staff were identified: (1)
management support (e.g. conduct and review of RIRs/RFAs/SIAs/National
Standard 8 analyses) and (2) applied research (modeling efforts and
related data collection planning and oversight). Models and analyses
developed by the research component relate directly to analysis needed
to evaluate and support management decisions. It was noted in each
region that socio-cultural and economic analyses are needed on a variety
of issues, and that social science staff can contribute to all aspects
of the Agency\'s mandates, not just fishery management decisions. For
example, all regions have significant responsibilities for protected and
endangered species, and habitat-related issues are becoming more
prominent. In identifying staff requirements, NMFS social scientists
took into account the range of analyses that would be needed to
adequately satisfy the Agency\'s ability to develop and evaluate
policies associated with the commercial and recreational fisheries
harvest sectors, the processing and wholesaling sector, the trade and
retail sectors, endangered and protected species, habitat, and hatchery
and aquaculture activities. In addition, all regions recognize that NMFS
must now also consider the effect of any actions on impacted human
communities.

#### Findings

Table 1 presents aggregate minimum social staff requirements by region.
The specific requirements of both the minimum and ideal requirements
from each of the five NMFS regions follow this summary; the individual
descriptions are summarized in terms of the key needs and issues in each
region, and contain more detail regarding the areas of specialty and the
desired mix of FTEs by graduate degree (Ph.D.s, Master\'s). In each
region, evaluation of minimum requirements indicated the need to more
than double social science staff. In the Northwest, where there is
currently only one economist, an even larger increase is needed.

  ----------- ----------- -------------- -------------- -------------------------------- -------------- ------------ -------------
              **Current   **Additional                  **Additional                                    **Total      **Ratio of
              Staff**     Economists**                  Sociologists/Anthropologists**                  Additional   New/Current
                                                                                                        FTEs**       FTEs**

                          **Mgt.         **Research**   **Mgt. Support**                 **Research**                
                          Support**                                                                                  

  **NEFSC**   8           7              5.5            3                                3              18.5         2.3

  **SEFSC**   6           3.5            8              1.5                              1.5            14.5         2.42

  **SWFSC**   7           4              8              3                                3              18           2.57

  **NWFSC**   1           7              15             2                                5              29           29

  **AFSC**    6           5              7              1                                3              16           2.67

  **Total**   28          26.5           43.5           10.5                             15.5           96           
  ----------- ----------- -------------- -------------- -------------------------------- -------------- ------------ -------------

The direct cost of hiring these FTEs is approximately \$9.6M. However,
it was noted by all regional social science staff that it is unrealistic
to expect that this number of staff could or should be hired all at once
(i.e., in FY01). First, it is doubtful that qualified staff could be
found to fill these positions all at once. Second, FTEs are based on the
assumption that core data needs are fully met. The current quality and
quantity of NMFS sociocultural and economic data cannot support an
immediate full program development (data needs of approximately \$5.5M
per year were identified). These FTE requirements should be considered a
mid-term goal for program development.

CONTACT: Amy Buss-Gautam, Office of Science and Technology, National
Marine Fisheries Service

**Appendix 12. Terms of Reference for the NMFS National Standing Working
Group on Advanced Technologies**

**(Approved January 11, 2001)**

**Agency Needs**

With increasing demands for accurate, precise, and timely information
upon which to base assessments of living marine resources, it is
incumbent upon NMFS to encourage and play an active role in the
development, evaluation, and implementation of promising technological
innovations. By establishing the Advanced Technology Working Group
(ATWG), the NMFS Science Board recognizes the need for the agency and
its scientists to demonstrate leadership in the ongoing process of
improving the quality of assessments of the abundance and dynamics of
living marine resources through refinement of existing techniques and
implementation of improved methods. This process should also focus on
improved characterization and understanding of the environments in which
our living marine resources exist and assessment of the impact of
fishing activities on these environments, and address needs for sampling
over a broad range of temporal and spatial scales.

#### Mission

**Promote the Use of Advanced Technologies for Improved Characterization
and Assessment of Living Marine Resources and their Environment by:**

-   Identifying potential new technologies, innovative uses of existing
    technologies, and approaches which involve combination of
    technologies, and facilitating and leading research and development
    leading to implementation of these technologies.

-   Fostering communication and collaboration regarding development of
    new technologies and appropriate application of existing
    technologies within NMFS and between NMFS and its partners.

#### Composition

-   One or more scientists from each of the five NMFS Science Centers

-   One representative from NMFS Headquarters

-   Other participants which may be nominated by the Science Board

-   Experts from other government offices, universities, and the private
    sector to be invited on an ad hoc basis.

-   Subcommittees will be established as necessary to address specific
    areas of interest and report back to the working group.

#### Responsibilities

**1)** **Identify critical needs for advanced technology and provide
research and development leadership by:**

-   Developing and prioritizing technological solutions by coordinating
    with scientists involved in stock assessment, ecosystem monitoring
    and other research activities.

-   Tracking and examining related efforts outside the agency (e.g.,
    other NOAA offices, NASA, DOD, NRO, FWS, EPA, ONR, industry,
    international organizations) to capitalize on and seek collaboration
    with these other efforts.

-   Monitoring and evaluating NMFS research activities which involve
    technological innovation.

-   Identifying requirements for technical assistance and training
    related to the greater application of advanced technologies.

-   Investigating appropriate methods to mitigate the impediments
    associated with obtaining classified data and technology.

-   Preparing recommendations on how advanced technologies can be
    modified, expanded, and/or improved to support agency stewardship
    responsibilities.

-   Sponsoring, encouraging, and participating in research and
    development on advanced sampling methodology.

**2) Identify costs and funding opportunities for technological
innovation by:**

-   Evaluating the costs and benefits of proposed (applications of)
    technologies.

-   Developing appropriate budget initiatives

-   Assisting in the development of new funding opportunities in
    collaboration with other organizations.

**3)** **Improve awareness of agency needs for advanced technologies and
new advances in technology by:**

-   Preparing and delivering an annual briefing to the NMFS Science
    Board apprizing it of cutting-edge survey techniques and
    opportunities for collaboration and/or budget initiative
    development.

-   Preparing presentations, briefings, and talking points for agency
    management and Congress.

-   Developing and maintaining a website for outreach, coordination of
    working group activities, and cataloging of germane research and
    development expertise and activities.

**4)** **Provide consultative advice on technology issues**

CONTACT: William Karp, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine
Fisheries Service

**Appendix 13. Summary of the Fisheries and the Environment (FATE)
Fisheries Oceanography Initiative**

Knowledge of decadal and basin-scale climate variability and its impacts
on fisheries productivity is essential to effective fisheries
management. Sudden shifts in climate regime, as seen recently in the
North Pacific, have immediate and major impacts on fisheries
productivity. The Fisheries and the Environment (FATE) program will
provide the information necessary to effectively adapt management to
mitigate the ecological, social and economic impacts of major shifts in
the productivity of natural resources in the North Pacific, Bering Sea
and Hawaiian Islands. Through the implementation of common observing
strategies in widespread regions, it will be possible to invoke
comparative analyses to evaluate the response of marine fish to
different types of climate forcing. Towards this goal, FATE will provide
indicators of ecological and oceanographic change at the population and
ecosystem level and local to ocean-basin scales. The indicators,
computed on annual or shorter frequencies, will provide early warnings
of major shifts in the productivity of key stocks as well as monitoring
current year trends in ocean conditions, fish production and ecosystem
dynamics. While the initiative is based on an ecosystem approach, it
will target a suite of commercially important species including
groundfish, coastal pelagics and highly migratory fishes.

The program has two essential elements. One is a broad-scale
observational program based on ecological indicators - there can be no
indicators without measurements, and no useful forecasts without the
observations to confirm them. From an array of moored instruments, NOAA
will develop fields of mixed layer depth (MLD) and temperature (MLT),
surface and subsurface currents, salinities and fronts to support
fisheries predictions. Basin-scale habitats will be monitored for
changes in atmospheric and oceanic conditions. Biophysical indicators
will also be derived from existing measurement programs such as NMFS
stock assessment surveys, NOAA and NASA satellites, NBDC buoys, coastal
C-MAN and tide stations, and ships of opportunity. Measurements will be
enhanced through additional shipboard surveys, moorings, and aerial
surveys.

The other essential element is the development of coupled
regional-to-basin scale biophysical models. The vision is to use these
coupled models to simulate potential impacts of climate change and
climate variability on marine resources. Contrasting model predictions
with key ecological indicators will allow critical evaluation of model
assumptions and parameterizations in a manner similar to most stock
assessment models. The iterative process of prediction, comparison and
evaluation will improve the capability of NMFS scientist to provide
advice regarding ecosystem considerations in fisheries management.

FATE activities will be initiated in early 2002, with a phased approach
depending on the level of funding received. Activities will be conducted
through partnerships between NOAA and collaborating state, federal and
academic institutions.

CONTACT: Ned Cyr, Office of Science and Technology, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

#### Appendix 14. Protected Species Programs, Plans, and Initiatives

In 1998 F/PR attempted to develop a national marine mammal abundance
survey plan as part of its annual allocation of funding for stock
assessments. This had two parts: (1) coming up with a scientific
rationale or process for deciding how often all the various surveys had
to be done (survey interval), and (2) putting together a list of all
recent surveys with their cost, assigning each a proposed interval, and
a schedule looking out 5 years with the purpose of estimating annual
costs, and facilitating scheduling (moving surveys from one year to the
next when there wasn\'t enough money in a given year). The first part
was completed and was published by Wade and DeMaster (1999). For various
reasons, the second part was never completed. Much of the funding was
subsequently transferred permanently but large shortfalls in the program
remain. We currently allocate about \$2M for stock assessments on an
annual or multi-year basis. Below are three recent budget initiatives to
improve protected resources stock assessment capabilities.

#### A. FY 2002 Initiative: Sustainable Fisheries Requirements for Protected Species

***1. Desired outcome:*** To gather reliable and precise estimates of
protected species abundance and distribution, as well as
fisheries-related mortality, to help ensure recovery of species listed
under the ESA and implementation of Sections 117 and 118 of the MMPA.
Recovery of species listed under the ESA and conservation marine mammals
pursuant to the MMPA depends upon reliable, precise estimates of
distribution and abundance. Imprecise estimates increase the probability
that species will be misclassified under the ESA/MMPA resulting in
potentially significant economic loss to fisheries (and the Nation) or
alternatively, increasing the risk of extinction for protected species.

***2. Summary Initiative Description:*** RPS Stock Assessments and
Mortality Estimation or \"Know Your Resources:\" Currently the status of
over 200 protected and at-risk marine species is unknown. This
initiative would launch a comprehensive effort to conduct adequate stock
assessments for these species to provide, for the first time, the
information needed to determine the most effective conservation efforts.
Additional observer coverage is included to estimate fishery-related
injury and mortality. The initiative includes additional funding needed
to operate and maintain current and new FRVs serving the RPS program.

***3. Brief Description of Initiative:***

[Stock Assessment]{.underline}: The major objectives of the MMPA and ESA
are to prevent the extinction and decline of species and to make sure
populations remain healthy enough to be functioning elements of their
ecosystem. One of the most significant impacts on marine mammal and sea
turtle stocks is death from entanglement and drowning in fishing gear.
This is a particular issue of concern in those cases where the marine
mammal stocks are endangered or threatened or where little is known
about their status. Wise management of protected resources depends on
knowing the trends of animal populations. At present, population trends
are based on surveys that count animals. The results of these surveys
are essential to understand the impacts of human activities on marine
mammal stocks and to the development of appropriate conservation
measures for fisheries. Unfortunately, the level of assessment is
inadequate for the majority of species.

[Observer Program]{.underline}: Commercial fishing is exempt from the
MMPA prohibitions on incidentally killing marine mammals if the fishery
is properly monitored and observed to validate the level of take. This
requires that NMFS implement a statistically valid monitoring program
for all 30 fisheries of concern (i.e. Category I and II fisheries). The
MMPA requires that plans be put in place (Take Reduction Plans) to
reduce the mortality of marine mammals in those fisheries where the take
exceeds a biologically acceptable level. Four plans are in place that
affects 6 fisheries. This means we need to develop new fishing
technologies to reduce gear impacts and we need to find ways to keep
fishing gear and marine mammals away from each other. It also means that
we must educate fishermen on ways they can avoid marine mammals while
still allowing them to catch fish.

#### B. FY 2002 Strategic Theme: Improving Assessments through New Technologies

**1. Desired Outcome:** Gathering reliable and precise estimates of
protected species abundance and distribution to help ensure recovery of
species listed under the ESA and implementation of Sections 117 and 118
of the MMPA.

**2. Brief Description of Theme:** Recovery of species listed under the
ESA and conservation marine mammals pursuant to the MMPA depends upon
reliable, precise estimates of distribution and abundance. Imprecise
estimates increase the probability that species will be misclassified
under the ESA/MMPA resulting in potentially significant economic loss to
fisheries (and the Nation) or alternatively, increasing the risk of
extinction for protected species.

Considerable progress has been made in the development of assessment
techniques over the past decades; examples of current and potentially
useful assessment methods by major taxon are shown in the attached
Table. However, much remains to be done; because of ESA/MMPA mandates
and limited funding, surveys receive higher priority for funding than do
the development of techniques supporting the surveys. As a result,
methods development receives virtually no direct funding.

Within this theme, we propose funding solely for the development of
techniques to improve assessments for all Protected Species taxa
(cetaceans, pinnipeds, turtles, and fish) under the NMFS mandate. With
these funds, NOAA will be able to capitalize on recent advances in
survey technologies based partly on investments made by the Department
of Defense, Energy, and others by developing and testing more accurate
and/or less expensive methods for assessing populations of protected
species.

C. FY2003 Initiative: Improve and Modernize Stock Assessment Techniques
for the Recovery of Endangered Large Whales

There are currently 23 stocks of 8 species of large whale listed as
Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or
depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). During the past
30years, only one stock, the Eastern North Pacific Gray Whale, has been
removed from the ESA's List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
because it was deemed recovered. [A number of additional whale stocks
may have also recovered, but stocks assessment information to confirm
this is lacking.]{.underline} This initiative will provide the
information to scientifically determine whether other populations have
recovered. If this determination is true, it has significant
ramifications. If these stocks have not yet recovered, the information
collected and techniques implements will improve the precision of our
understanding of population recovery needs. In either case we would
continue to monitor and protect these stock as required under the MMPA.

With the exception of North Atlantic Right Whales (\$2.1M), North
Pacific Right Whales (\$200K), North Atlantic humpbacks (\$42k), and
North Pacific humpbacks (\$45K), there are no NOAA base funds to assess
the status of large whales relative to their recovery under the MMPA and
ESA. Basic information necessary to make a prognosis of a population's
recovery, such as abundance estimates and trends ( *how many whales are
there today and are their populations increasing or decreasing ?),*
population structure (*how many discrete stocks are there and how many
males, females and juveniles in each stock?),* and knowledge of their
habitat (*what are the environmental conditions essential for the
population)* is lacking. This information can be acquired with
relatively small, focused, investments in stock assessment.
Specifically, we will improve stock assessment techniques through
traditional survey methods (photo-identification, aerial photogrammetry,
ship-based survey) and innovative technologies such as acoustics,
genetics, and satellite telemetry for 5 large whale species.

#### Reference

Wade, P.R. and DeMaster, D.P. 1999. Determining the optimum interval for
abundance surveys for management. Pgs 53-66 in Marine Mammal Survey and
Assessment Methods, Garner, G.W, Amsturp, S.C., Laake, J.L., Manly,
B.F.J., McDonald, L.L., and Robertson, D.G. (eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam.

CONTACT: Phil Williams, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

######## Appendix 15. Habitat Programs, Plans, and Initiatives

**A. The Habitat Research Plan of the National Marine Fisheries
Service**, by Gordon W. Thayer, James P. Thomas, K.V. Koski (1996)

#### Abstract

A responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is to
develop the necessary understanding, using basic and applied research
and literature syntheses, to help conserve, protect, and restore
habitats of living marine resources. The NMFS National Habitat Program
has developed a Habitat Research Plan to direct and conduct research and
transfer results to management components within NMFS involved in permit
reviews, development of the habitat sections of Fishery Management Plans
and protected species Recovery Plans, and development of restoration
options and plans as part of the Natural Resources Damage Assessment
claims. The plan also is designed to develop the necessary expertise to
accomplish or oversee the restoration, creation, or acquisition of
habitat to benefit living marine resources. This plan provides guidance
in four areas - ecosystem structure and function, effects of
alterations, development of restoration methods, and development of
indicators of impact and recovery. The plan emphasizes a fifth area -
the need for syntheses and timely scientific information to managers.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), an agency of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is the principal steward
of living marine resources (LMRs) in the U.S. Resource viability depends
in part on habitat protection, maintenance, and restoration. Habitat
loss to pollution and development is among the greatest long-term
threats to the future viability of U.S. fisheries. NMFS has established
a National Habitat Program whose goal is to conserve, protect, and
restore the valuable habitats needed to sustain marine and anadromous
communities. In the past, the conservation, protection, and restoration
of habitat has been accomplished by reviewing licensing, permitting, and
legislative and administrative activities that affect LMR and habitats;
coordinating with Regional Fishery Management Councils on Fishery
Management Plans; and conducting habitat-related research.

NMFS is restructuring the National Habitat Program to meet current and
evolving demands and responsibilities relative to managing habitats and
fisheries and protecting threatened and endangered species in coastal
and estuarine areas. NMFS has created a coordinated research guidance
plan and approach to support its habitat-related mandates as part of the
program. The Habitat Research Plan (HRP) was developed with input from
scientific and management personnel at both headquarters and field
levels. The plan (1) provides a framework to conduct coastal and
estuarine research and transfer results to those management components
involved in permit reviews, development of the habitat sections of
Fishery Management Plans and protected species Recovery Plans, and
development of restoration options and plans as part of the Natural
Resources Damage Claims; and (2) develops the necessary expertise within
NMFS to identify habitat impacts and accomplish and oversee the
restoration, creation, or acquisition of habitat for the benefits of
living marine resources. This paper briefly describes the agency\'s HRP.

B. Linking Fish Productivity to Habitat (1997)

#### Executive Summary

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) as
amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 contains essential fish
habitat (EFH) provisions and mandate a supporting research effort. The
provisions require a program of research that will provide information
to describe and identify EFH, to identify and evaluate actual and
potential adverse effects on EFH (including both fishing-related and
non-fishing related impacts), and to develop methods and approaches to
conserve and enhance EFH. The ultimate goal of the research described is
to link fish productivity to habitat. In concept this not only provides
for the management of marine habitat via its protection, restoration and
maintenance, but also advances our objectives to provide sustainable
fisheries.

Research will focus on: 1) enhanced biological sampling to complete life
history distributions and abundances of fisheries species; 2)
characterization and relating of benthic habitats to the distributions
and abundances of fisheries species; 3) identification of habitat
properties that contribute most to survival, growth, and productivity;
4) determination of habitat properties important in recruitment; 5)
determination and evaluation of adverse effects on habitat from point
and non-point sources, harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, endocrine
disrupting chemicals, and pathogens; 6) identification of impacts of
fishing gear on habitat of managed species; 7) testing of harvest
refugia concept for selected areas and managed species; and 8)
development of new methods and approaches for restoration of degraded
habitats. This research is to be collaborative with other elements of
NOAA (e.g. OAR, NOS, NESDIS), other federal and state agencies, and
academic institutions, particularly where those agencies and
institutions have needed strengths complimentary to those of NMFS.

C. NOAA/USGS Joint Initiative on Effects of Fishing Activities on
Benthic Habitat (1999)

#### Recommendations

A key issue facing the long-term sustainability of our coastal and
marine living resources is the potential effect of fishing activities on
benthic habitats. Field surveys indicate that certain fishing practices
may cause significant changes to habitat structure and function. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) are partnering in a national initiative to
conserve marine fisheries by assessing the relationship between benthic
habitats and sustainable fisheries and recommending appropriate
management strategies. The partners have unique capabilities that are
essential for assessing the effects of fishing activities on benthic
habitat. NOAA\'s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible
for managing our Nation\'s marine fisheries, including the regulation of
fishing practices and provides a national expertise in biological
assessments. NOAA\'s National Undersea Research Program (NURP) has
unique technologies, including submersibles and underwater robots that
are necessary for direct observations of seabed habitat structure and
biological assemblages. NOAA\'s National Ocean Service (NOS) is
responsible for developing coastal charts and for the stewardship of
coastal resources. NOS also conducts research and monitoring on, and
promotes sustainable management of, the nation's coastal ecosystems. The
U.S. Geological Survey\'s Geological Division has particular strength
and responsibility for regional seabed morphologic mapping and for
subsequent interpretation of geologic character and processes. This
initiative focuses on relating the biological and physical effects of
fishing (e.g., dredging scars, trawl door marks) to the geological
characteristics of benthic habitats (e.g., morphology, geochemistry,
bioturbation, sediment stability, history and prediction of change). The
partnership addresses these issues by directing research towards the
most critical problems through dedicated initiatives and effective
leveraging of the partners\' resources. Two recommendations follow:

1\. IT IS RECOMMENDED that, within the next 6 months, NOAA and USGS
develop an implementation plan to jointly plan and undertake activities
under the following themes:

A. Determine the Effects of Fishing Gear on Seabed Habitats.

B. Identify and Map Benthic Habitat Characteristics and the Extent of
Fishing Impacts.

To facilitate this initiative a program team will be established to
develop priorities and implementation plans for the projects under this
initiative. The program team will consist of representatives from the
USGS and NOAA, headquarters and field. This team will report to senior
management in both agencies through the NOAA/USGS Coordination Group.
Further, the programmatic framework of this initiative will be reviewed
and revised via a series of workshops to be held within the next 6
months, which will strengthen and refine the planned research elements
by including appropriate additional elements of the two agencies. A
specific approach and workplan with priorities for research tasks and
products will be developed from these workshops. Lastly, a national
meeting is planned every other year to communicate and review results of
benthic habitat studies supported by the two agencies and their
partners, and to reassess program direction. The second national meeting
(the first developed the foundation of this initiative) is being planned
for November 12-14, 2002, as a symposium on the Effects of Fishing
Activities on Benthic Habitat to be held in Tampa, Florida.\"

2\. IT IS RECOMMENDED that NOAA and USGS commit the necessary resources
to meet the minimal priorities identified in this initiative. The body
of this initiative identifies a number of key regional projects with
preliminary estimates of needed resources. While the major priority
needs in each region have been identified, a full programmatic review is
needed to develop a fully integrated program. This is now being
addressed based on the workshops identified above.

CONTACT: James Thomas, Office of Habitat Conservation, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

**Appendix 16. Extract from the Executive Summary of the NRC Report on
Review of Northwest Fishery Stock Assessments**

**(NRC 1998b)**

#### RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

The committee recommends that the National Marine Fisheries Service take
the following actions to improve the Northeast stock assessments:

1.  Improve the collection, analysis, and modeling of stock assessment
    data as detailed in Chapter 3. Such improvements could include
    evaluations of sample size, design, and data collection in the
    fishery and the surveys; the use of alternative methods for data
    analysis; consideration of a wider variety of assessment models; and
    better treatment of uncertainty in forecasting;

2.  Improve relationships and collaborations between NMFS and harvesters
    by providing, for example, an opportunity to involve harvesters in
    the stock assessment process and using harvesters to collect and
    assess disaggregated catch per unit effort data;

3.  Continue to educate stock assessment scientists through short-term
    exchanges among NMFS centers so that each center can keep abreast of
    the latest improvements in stock assessment technologies being used
    at other NMFS fishery science centers and other organizations in the
    United States or elsewhere;

4.  Ensure that a greater number of independent scientists from academia
    and elsewhere participate in the Stock Assessment Review Committee
    (SARC) process; where necessary, pay competitive rates for such
    outside participation to ensure that a sufficient number of the best
    people are involved in the review;

5.  Increase the frequency of stock assessments. As the New England
    Fishery Management Council intensifies its management of the
    Northeast fishery, stock assessments may have to be performed more
    frequently than every three years (the current timing);

6.  Consider a wider range of scenarios (e.g., recruitment, individual
    growth, survival, sub- stock structure, ecosystem, data quality,
    compliance with regulations, long-term industry response) in
    evaluating management strategies;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
7.  Investigate the effects of specific management actions, such as
    closed areas and days at sea limitations, on fishing mortalities and
    related parameters;

8.  Work toward a comprehensive management model that links stock
    assessments with ecological, social and economic responses, and
    adaptation for given long-term management strategies. This involves
    input from the social sciences (economics, social and political
    science, operations research) and from a wider range of natural
    sciences (ecology, genetics, oceanography) than traditionally is the
    case in fisheries management.

The committee has not explicitly considered the costs of implementing
these recommendations, which may require either additional resources or
a reprogramming of existing resources.

The committee concludes that stock assessment science is not the real
source of contention in the management of New England groundfish
fisheries. Comments at a public hearing held by the committee support
this conclusion. Many speakers suggested that the social and economic
concerns created by strong management measures and lack of participation
in the management process were the more important concerns. Traditional
fishery science has a major role to play in fisheries management, but
sound stock assessment clearly is not the only consideration.

The New England Fishery Management Council will be facing critical
decisions, depending on the recovery or non-recovery of groundfish
stocks. A long-term management strategy will be needed to decide the
rate of rebuilding required reaching particular targets. Without sound
stock assessment, targets and rebuilding rates cannot be set, nor can
the effectiveness of the regulatory actions be measured. However, stock
assessment in the narrow sense of estimating status and dynamics of fish
populations is not sufficient for rational fisheries management.

What constitutes a good management approach will vary over time,
location, and components of the fish stock. To obtain the information
necessary to design effective institutional and regulatory frameworks,
it is essential that management draw on stock assessment, oceanography,
ecology, economics, social and political science and operations
research. Only when a more comprehensive approach is taken, with
long-term management strategies based on data and insight from the
various fields, properly accounting for the uncertainties surrounding
data and theory, can fishery management provide for high continuing
yield of food and health of stocks, while considering the needs of
people dependent upon the fisheries.

**Appendix 17. Executive Summary from \"Technical Guidance on the Use of
Precautionary Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act\" (Restrepo et
al. 1998)**

The 1998 Guidelines for National Standard 1 (Optimum Yield) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 50 CFR Part
600, state*: \"In general, Councils should adopt a precautionary
approach to specification of OY*.\" Because of the technical nature of
the task, NMFS convened a panel of scientists to provide technical
guidance on specifying OY that is consistent with the Guidelines (NSGs).
The technical guidance is contained in this document.

The precautionary approach implements conservation measures even in the
absence of scientific certainty that fish stocks are being
overexploited. In a fisheries context, the precautionary approach is
receiving considerable attention throughout the world primarily because
the collapse of many fishery resources is perceived to be due to the
inability to implement timely conservation measures without scientific
proof of overfishing. Thus, the precautionary approach is essentially a
reversal of the \"burden of proof.\"

The precautionary approach in fisheries is multifaceted and broad in
scope. The discussions in this document are not so broad in scope, and
are limited to providing guidance to managers and scientists for
specifying OY and for developing reference points to guide management
decisions.

A common element in the application of the precautionary approach to
fisheries management worldwide is the definition of \"limits\" intended
to safeguard the long-term productivity of a stock. Several
international agreements and documents that deal with the precautionary
approach identify maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels as a minimum
standard for defining management limits. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
encompasses this concept in that it constrains OY to be no greater than
MSY.

The NSGs identify two limits for fishery management (referred to as
\"thresholds\") that are necessary to maintain a stock within safe
levels, capable of producing MSY: A maximum fishing mortality threshold
(MFMT) and a minimum stock size threshold (MSST). The MFMT and MSST are
intended for use as benchmarks to decide if a stock or stock complex is
being overfished or is in an overfished state. In the NSGs, these two
limits are intrinsically linked through an \"\'MSY Control Rule\" that
specifies how fishing mortality or catches could vary as a function of
stock biomass in order to achieve yields close to MSY. If the maximum
fishing mortality limit is reduced as biomass decreases, then the
minimum stock size limit decreases (although the MSST cannot become
lower than 2 of the equilibrium biomass under a constant-fishing
mortality MSY control rule). Thus, the shape of the MSY control rule is
an important consideration for developing status determination criteria
for overfishing.

A default MSY control rule is recommended in Section 2 of this document.
Noting that Councils have considerable flexibility in defining the shape
of the MSY control rule for each stock under their jurisdiction, and
that different control rule shapes pertain to different management
objectives, the recommended default could be used in the absence of more
specific analyses. The default makes use of estimates of the constant
fishing mortality rate resulting in MSY, F~MSY~, and of the
corresponding average spawning biomass, B~MSY~. The limit F, MFMT, is
set equal to F~MSY~ at higher stock sizes; if the stock decreases much
below B~MSY~, the limit F is reduced proportionately (the reduction
starts at a fraction of B~MSY~ related to the level of natural
mortality). It is anticipated that estimates of F~MSY~ and B~MSY~ will
be either unavailable or unreliable for many stocks. For this reason,
Section 2 also presents a discussion of useful proxies.

Another common element in the application of the precautionary approach
to fisheries management worldwide is the specification of \"targets\"
that are safely below limits. Setting OY at its limit (MSY in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act) would not normally be precautionary because there
could be a high probability of exceeding the limit year after year.
Under the precautionary approach, the target should be set below the
limit taking uncertainty and other management objectives into
consideration. Development of control rules requires communication
between fisheries managers, scientists, industry and the public. If
performance criteria for target control rules can be defined, then a
range of alternative control rules can be developed and evaluated in
terms of precautionary behavior and other desirable economic or
operational characteristics for management, once precautionary
constraints have been met.

Control rules are pre-agreed plans for making management decisions based
on stock size. The pre-agreed nature of the measures ensures that
management actions are implemented without delay, and it is possible to
respond rapidly to changing conditions. As with MSY control rules,
Councils have considerable flexibility in defining targets. Section 3
presents a recommended default target control rule that could be used in
the in the absence of more specific analyses. The default sets the
target fishing mortality rate 25% below the default limit proposed in
Section 2. The 25% reduction constitutes a safety margin that may not
perform well for all stocks in terms of preventing overfishing. The
performance of the default target can only be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis and will depend on (a) the accuracy and precision of
stock size, B~MSY~ and F~MSY~ estimates, (b) natural variability in
population dynamics, and (c) errors in the implementation of management
regulation. Age-structured deterministic models suggest that, for a
large combination of life history parameters, the recommended default
can result in high stock sizes (around 130% of B~MSY~) at the expense of
relatively small foregone yields (achieving around 95% of MSY). It is
recognized that no single policy can fully address all of the
considerations to be encountered in the wide variety of fisheries
subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Nevertheless, the default target
will be useful in variety of situations and should at least serve to
encourage development of more suitable policies for individual
fisheries.

The default target control rule may not be applicable for many stocks
that are already below the MSST (i.e. that are already overfished). In
such cases, the NSGs require that special plans be implemented to
rebuild the stocks up to the B~MSY~ level within a time period that is
related to the stock's productivity. The document does not propose a
default rebuilding plan, because the time to rebuilding may depend on
each stock's current level of depletion. Instead, the document presents
the four key elements that should be considered in rebuilding plans: An
estimate of B~MSY,~ a rebuilding time period, a rebuilding trajectory,
and a transition from rebuilding to more optimal management. The default
target control rule may be adapted into a rebuilding plan for each
overfished stock, for example, by allowing only a very low fishing
mortality when the stock is below the MSST in order to rebuild the stock
within the rebuilding time period.

This document also discusses a number of special considerations, such as
changes in the selectivity of fishing gear, mixed-stock situations,
changes in productivity due to the environment, and the appropriateness
of various proxies for MSY-related parameters. One consideration of
particular importance relates to setting limits and targets for data
poor stocks, i.e. those having very limited information. While the
document provides defaults for these cases as well, it is imperative to
improve the ability to make informed decisions through enhanced data
collection and analyses.

Specification of MSY control rules, status determination criteria, and
precautionary target control rules is a challenging exercise. Key to
this process is communication between managers, scientists, users and
the public. In the face of conflicting objectives (avoiding overfishing
while achieving high long-term yields), it is essential to understand
the trade-offs associated with alternative control rules and the
importance of the weights assigned to the different objectives or
performance criteria. Simulation frameworks can facilitate the necessary
interaction. In addition, simulation tools should be used to examine the
performance of management systems as a whole, including data collection,
assessments, control rules, and implementation of management tactics.

**Appendix 18. Conclusions and Recommendations from the**

**Executive Summary of the NRC Report on Sustaining Marine Fisheries
(NRC 1999)**

#### Conclusions

Many populations and some species of marine organisms have been severely
overfished. There are widespread problems of overcapacity: there is much
more fishing power than needed to fish sustainably. Fishing affects
other parts of the ecosystem in addition to the targeted species, and
those effects are only now beginning to be understood and appreciated.
Other human activities, such as coastal development, have adverse
effects on marine ecosystems as well. The effects of these human
activities, combined with ecosystem effects of fishing, may well be more
serious in the long term than the direct effects of fishing on targeted
species. Although societies have been concerned about the effects of
fishing on particular populations and species for centuries, recent
recognition of the ecosystem effects of fishing has resulted in part
from research on ecosystem approaches and has led to calls for the
adoption of ecosystem approaches to fishery management to achieve
sustainability at a high level of productivity of fish and of ecosystem
goods and services.

The committee concludes that a significant overall reduction in fishing
mortality is the most comprehensive and immediate ecosystem-based
approach to rebuilding and sustaining fisheries and marine ecosystems.
The committee\'s specific recommendations, if implemented, would
contribute to an overall reduction in fishing mortality in addition to
providing other protective measures.

The committee recommends the adoption of an ecosystem-based approach for
fishery management whose goal is to rebuild and sustain populations,
species, biological communities, and marine ecosystems at high levels of
productivity and biological diversity, so as not to jeopardize a wide
range of goods and services from marine ecosystems, while providing
food, revenue, and recreation for humans. An ecosystem-based approach
that addresses overall fishing mortality will reinforce other approaches
to substantially reduce overall fishing intensity. It will help produce
the will to manage conservatively, which is required to rebuild depleted
populations, reduce bycatch and discards, and reduce known and as-yet-
unknown ecosystem effects. Although this approach will cause some
economic and social pain at first, it need not result in reduced yields
in the long term because rebuilding fish populations should offset a
reduction in fishing intensity and increase the potential sustainable
yields. Reducing fishing effort in the short term is necessary to
achieve sustainable fishing. The options lie in deciding how and when to
reduce effort so as to reduce economic and social disruption. The
options, however, can be exercised only if decisions are made before the
resources are depleted.

Adopting a successful ecosystem-based approach to managing fisheries is
not easy, especially at a global or even continental scale. That-is why
the committee recommends incremental changes in various aspects of
fishery management. The elements of this approach, many of which have
been applied in single- species management, are outlined below. They
include assignment of fishing rights or privileges to provide
conservation incentives and reduce overcapacity, adoption of risk-averse
precautionary approaches in the face of uncertainty, establishment of
marine protected areas, and research.

When overfishing (including bycatch) has been effectively eliminated,
other human activities will be the major threat to fisheries and marine
ecosystems. Although those effects are not a major focus of this report,
they cannot be totally separated from fishing, and mechanisms involving
cross-sectoral institutional arrangements will be needed to protect
fisheries and marine ecosystems.

**Recommendations**

The following are recommendations to achieve the broad goals and
approach outlined above. Appropriate actions need careful consideration
for each fishery and each ecosystem.

**Conservative Single-Species Management**

Managing single-species fisheries with an explicitly conservative,
risk-averse approach should be a first step toward achieving sustainable
marine fisheries. The precautionary approach should apply. A moderate
level of exploitation might be a better goal for fisheries than full
exploitation, because fishing at levels believed to provide the maximum
long-term yield tends to lead to over-exploitation. Many species are
overfished and their productive potential is impaired, even without
considering the ecosystem effects of fishing for them. Expanding
fisheries to include previously unfished or lightly fished species, such
as deep-sea species, is unlikely to lead to large, sustainable increases
in marine capture fisheries. Therefore, the committee recommends that
management agencies adopt regulations and policies that strongly favor
conservative and precautionary management and that penalize overfishing,
as called for in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976 and the 1996 amendments to that act, often
referred to as the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996.

As described in Chapter 5, the committee\'s recommendation for more
conservative and precautionary management requires that the concept of
maximum sustainable yield be interpreted in a broader ecosystem context
to take account of species interactions, environmental changes, an array
of ecosystem goods and services, and scientific uncertainty. This step,
although important, will not by itself sustain marine fisheries and
ecosystems at high levels of productivity.

**Incorporating Ecosystem Considerations into Management**

Fishery Management should take account of known and probable goods and
services of marine ecosystems that are potentially jeopardized by
fishing. The aim is to sustain the capacity of ecosystems to produce
goods and services at local to global scales and to provide equitable
consideration of the rights and needs of all beneficiaries and users of
ecosystem goods and services.

**Dealing with Uncertainty**

Fisheries are managed in an arena of uncertainty that includes an
incomplete understanding of and ability to predict fish population
dynamics, interactions among species, effects of environmental factors
on fish populations, and effects of human actions. Therefore, successful
fishery management must incorporate and deal with uncertainties and
errors. The committee recommends the adoption of a precautionary
approach in cases of uncertainty. Management should be risk-averse.
Although research and better information can reduce uncertainty to a
degree, they can never eliminate it.

Many problems that fishery managers face are issues concerning long-term
versus short-term goals and benefits. Uncertainty in stock assessments
and in future allocations of those stocks has led to an emphasis on
short-term benefits at the expense of long-term solutions. Uncertainties
over shares when allocations allow open competition can compel
individuals to adopt a short-term horizon for decisions related to
fishing effort and investment. Management incentives and institutional
structures must counteract these responses to uncertainty that
jeopardize sustainability. This is especially true when stock
assessments are uncertain, which makes it harder for managers to hold
the line on conservation.

**Reducing Excess Fishing Capacity and Assignment of Rights**

Excess fishing capacity (fishing capacity is the ability to catch fish
or fishing power) and overcapitalization (capitalization, related to
capacity, is the amount of capital invested in fishing vessels and gear)
reduce the economic efficiency of fisheries and usually are associated
with overfishing. Substantial global reductions in fishing capacity are
the highest priority to help reduce overfishing and to deal with
uncertainty and unexpected events in fisheries. Overcapacity is
difficult to manage directly, and usually evolves in management regimes
that encourage unrestricted competition for limited resources.
Consequently, managers and policy makers should focus on developing or
encouraging socioeconomic and other management incentives that
discourage overcapacity and that reward conservative and efficient use
of marine resources and their ecosystems.

At the core of today\'s overcapacity problem is the lack of, or
ineffective, definition and assignment of rights in most fisheries. In
addition, subsidies that circumvent market forces have contributed
significantly to the overcapacity problem in many fisheries. Therefore,
the committee recommends for many fisheries a management approach that
includes the development and use of methods of allocation of exclusive
shares of the fish resource or privileges and responsibilities (as
opposed to open competition) and the elimination of subsidies that
encourage overcapacity. A flexible and adaptive approach is essential
and careful attention must be given to equity issues associated with
such approaches. The committee recommends experimental approaches to
community-based fishery management including the development of virtual
communities. This would include research into the establishment of
management groups in which participation is based on shared interests in
a fishery and its associated ecosystem, with diminished emphasis on
where participants live or their direct financial interest.

**Marine Protected Areas**

Where they have been used, marine protected areas-where fishing is
prohibited have often been effective in protecting and rebuilding
ecosystems and populations of many (but not all) marine species. They
often lead to increases in the numbers of fish and other species in
nearby waters. Importantly, they can provide a buffer against
uncertainty, including management errors. Permanent marine protected
areas should be established in appropriate locations adjacent to all
U.S. coasts. It will be important to include highly productive
areas-that is, areas in which fishing is good or once was-if this
management approach is to produce the greatest benefits.

Protected areas will make the most effective contribution to the
management of species and ecosystems when they are integrated into
management plans that cover the full life cycles and geographic ranges
of the species involved. Smaller, fixed protected areas will be most
effective for species with life stages that are spent in close
association with fixed topography, such as reefs, banks, or canyons. For
other species, the degree of effectiveness of protected areas will be
related to the importance of fixed topography in various stages of their
lives. Wholly or largely pelagic species move according to ocean
currents or other factors that are not necessarily related to fixed
topographic structures and are thus likely to benefit less from small
protected areas.

The design and implementation of marine protected areas should involve
fishers to ensure that they believe the resulting systems will protect
their long- term interests and to improve operational integrity. Because
attempts to develop marine protected areas in the United States have
been strongly opposed by some fishers, the broad involvement of users is
a key strategy. Current theory and experience make clear that marine
protected areas must be established over a significant portion of the
fishing grounds to have significant benefits. Recent calls for
protecting 20 percent of potential fishing areas provide a worthwhile
reference point for future consideration, and emphasize the importance
of greatly expanding the areas currently protected.

Marine protected areas are not alternatives to other techniques of
fishery management and to the other recommendations in this report. They
should be considered as only one of a suite of important ecosystem
approaches to achieve sustainable fisheries and protect marine
ecosystems. For marine protected areas to be most successful as
fishery-management tools, their intended purposes must be clearly
defined.

**Bycatch and Discards**

Bycatch and discards add to fishing mortality and should be considered
as part of fishing activities rather than only as side effects.
Estimates of bycatch should be incorporated into fishery-management
plans and should be taken into account in setting fishing quotas and in
understanding and managing fishing to protect ecosystems and nonfished
ecosystem components. Reducing fishing intensity on target species can
reduce bycatch, often with no long-term reduction in sustainable yield.
In some cases, technological developments and careful selection of
fishing gear (e.g. bycatch-reduction devices) can be effective in
reducing bycatch, and those options should be encouraged, developed, and
required where appropriate. More information is needed on discards and
on bycatch and their fate (i.e. whether bycatch is retained or discarded
and whether discards survive or die).

**Institutions**

Effective fishery management requires structures that incorporate
diverse views without being compromised by endless negotiations or
conflicts of interest. The committee recommends developing institutional
structures that promote:

-   effective and equitable reduction of excess capacity,

-   sustainable catches of targeted species,

-   expansion of the focus of fishery management to include all sources
    of environmental degradation that affect fisheries,

-   consideration of the effects of fishing on ecosystems,

-   development and implementation of effective monitoring and
    enforcement, and

-   the collection and exchange of vital data.

To achieve these goals, the spatial and temporal scales at which the
institutional structures operate should better match those of important
processes that affect fisheries. Participation in management should be
extended to all parties with significant interests in marine ecosystems
that contain exploited marine organisms. Institutions should allocate
shares in or rights to fisheries, rather than allowing openly
competitive allocations. The clear explication of management goals and
objectives is a prerequisite to achieving effective and equitable
management.

#### Information Needs 

Better understanding is needed of the structure and functioning of
marine ecosystems, including the role of habitat and the factors
affecting stability and resilience. This includes attempting to
understand mechanisms at lower levels of organization (i.e. populations
and communities), long-term research and monitoring programs,
development of models that incorporate unobserved fishing mortality and
environmental variability (e.g. El Nino events) into fishery models,
multispecies models, and trophic models. More research is also needed on
the biological effects of fishing, such as the alteration of gene pools
and population structures as a consequence of fishing. More research is
needed on the conditions under which marine protected areas are most
effective, and marine protected areas themselves should be used as
research tools as well as for conservation.

More information is needed on the effects and effectiveness of various
forms of rights-based management approaches and other management
regimes, on the way people behave in response to different economic and
social incentives, and on barriers to cooperation and sharing of
information. The committee recommends research into the roles of
communities in fisheries management, including the use of
community-based quotas and other assignments of rights to communities,
and explorations into the feasibility of granting management
responsibilities to those engaged in a particular fishery, regardless of
their geographical community ("virtual communities").

The need for more information should not be used as an excuse for
inaction; that excuse has contributed significantly to current problems.
Enough is known to begin taking action now.

**Appendix 19. Extract from the Executive Summary of the Ecosystem
Principles Advisory Panel Report (NRC 1999b)**

Ecosystem-based management can be an important complement to existing
fisheries management approaches. When fishery managers understand the
complex ecological and socioeconomic environments in which fish and
fisheries exist, they may be able to anticipate the effects that fishery
management will have on the ecosystem and the effects that ecosystem
change will have on fisheries. However, ecosystem-based management
cannot resolve all of the underlying problems of the existing fisheries
management regimes. Absent the political will to stop overfishing,
protect habitat, and support expanded research and monitoring programs,
an ecosystem-based approach cannot be effective.

A comprehensive ecosystem-based fisheries management approach would
require managers to consider all interactions that a target fish stock
has with predators, competitors, and prey species; the effects of
weather and climate on fisheries biology and ecology; the complex
interactions between fishes and their habitat; and the effects of
fishing on fish stocks and their habitat. However, the approach need not
be endlessly complicated. An initial step may require only that managers
consider how the harvesting of one species might impact other species in
the ecosystem. Fishery management decisions made at this level of
understanding can prevent significant and potentially irreversible
changes in marine ecosystems caused by fishing.

Recognizing the potential of an ecosystem-based management approach to
improve fisheries management, Congress requested that the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) convene a panel of experts to: 1) assess
the extent to which ecosystem principles are currently applied in
fisheries research and management; and 2) recommend how best to
integrate ecosystem principles into future fisheries management and
research. In response, NMFS created the National Marine Fisheries
Service Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (Panel).

**The Future of Ecosystem Approaches in U.S. Fisheries Management**

Fisheries scientists and managers are beginning to grasp the potential
of ecosystem-based fishery management to improve the sustainability of
fisheries resources. Given the depressed state of many U.S. fisheries,
this awareness must be expanded and actions taken to implement this
approach. Our management recommendations and research actions provide a
pragmatic framework within which to apply the ecosystem Principles,
Goals, and Policies. The success of this approach depends on full
implementation of measures already underway as a result of the passage
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA)
(NMFS 1996), particularly the essential fish habitat (EFH) requirements
and strengthened national standards. The recommendations contained in
this report provide the required next steps.

While some of the recommended actions can start immediately, we believe
that legislation is required to implement measures like the FEP. Given
that legislative processes may require three to five years to enact the
proposed regulations, we recommend interim actions by the Secretary of
Commerce to develop demonstration FEPs and to encourage voluntary
adoption by management Councils of the Principles, Goals, and Policies
proposed herein. We also are aware that these new tasks will require
additional human and financial resources for full implementation.

The benefits of adopting ecosystem-based fishery management and research
are more sustainable fisheries and marine ecosystems, as well as more
economically-healthy coastal communities. We have identified the actions
required to realize these benefits. We urge the Secretary and Congress
to make those resources available.

#### Summary of Recommendations

Fisheries management and policy recommendations are directed toward
Congress for implementation by NMFS and the Councils. Interim measures
and research recommendations are directed toward the Secretary of
Commerce for implementation by NMFS and other appropriate agencies.

Develop a Fisheries Ecosystem Plan (FEP)

Require each Council to develop an FEP for the ecosystem(s) under its
jurisdiction. The FEP is an umbrella document containing information on
the structure and function of the ecosystem in which fishing activities
occur, so that managers can be aware of the effects their decisions have
on the ecosystem, and the effects other components of the ecosystem may
have on fisheries.

Each FEP should require the Councils to take, at least, the following
eight actions:

1.  Delineate the geographic extent of the ecosystem(s) that occur(s)
    within Council authority, including characterization of the
    biological, chemical, and physical dynamics of those ecosystems, and
    "zone" the area for alternative uses.

2.  Develop a conceptual model of the food web.

3.  Describe the habitat needs of different life history stage for all
    plants and animals that represent the "significant food web" and how
    they are considered in conservation and management measures.

4.  Calculate total removals-including incidental mortality-and show how
    they relate to standing biomass, production, optimum yields, natural
    mortality, and trophic structure.

5.  Assess how uncertainty is characterized and what kind of buffers
    against uncertainty are included in conservation and management
    actions.

6.  Develop indices of ecosystem health as targets for management.

7.  Describe available long-term monitoring data and how they are used.

8.  Assess the ecological, human, and institutional elements of the
    ecosystem which most significantly affect fisheries, and are outside
    Council/Department of Commerce (DOC) authority. Included should be a
    strategy to address those influences in order to achieve both FMP
    and FEP objectives.

##### Measures to Implement FEPs

The following are general recommendations to ensure effective
development and implementation of FEPs:

1.  Encourage the Councils to apply ecosystem Principles, Goals, and
    Policies to ongoing activities.

2.  Provide training to Council members and stuff.

3.  Prepare guidelines for FEPs.

4.  Develop demonstration FEPs.

5.  Provide oversight to ensure development of and compliance with FEPs.

6.  Enact legislation requiring FEPs.

##### Research Required to Support Management

> Require and provide support for NMFS and other appropriate agencies to
> initiate or continue research on three critical research themes which
> will provide the information necessary to support ecosystem-based
> fisheries management. Theses themes are:

1.  Determine the ecosystem effects of fishing.

2.  Monitor trends and dynamics in marine ecosystems (ECOWATCH).

3.  Explore ecosystem-based approaches to governance.

> CONTACT: David Detlor, Office of Science and Technology, National
> Marine Fisheries Service.

Appendix 20. Extract from the Executive Summary of the NRC Study on
Improving the Collection, Management, and Use of Marine Fisheries Data
(NRC 2000)

**FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS**

**Broader Data Collection, Use, and Management**

The committee believes that all the participants in fisheries management
should take actions to improve the collection, management, and use of
fisheries data. The committee developed the following recommendations to
Congress, NMFS, the regional councils, interstate commissions, and
commercial and recreational fishermen with the objective of improving
fisheries data and thereby fisheries management.

#### Recommendations to Congress

The U.S. Congress affects fisheries science and policy in two primary
ways. First, Congress is the architect of the centerpiece of federal
fisheries legislation, the Magnuson-Stevens Act. At present, Congress is
formulating legislation to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act, whose
funding authority expires on October 1, 2000. The committee recommends
several ways in which the reauthorization could improve fisheries data
collection, management, and use in the United States.

Second, Congress appropriates funding for NMFS, the regional councils,
and interstate and international commissions to carry out their
activities related to fisheries science and management. The committee
highlights several items for which additional funding could improve
fisheries data collection, management, and use and, consequently,
fisheries management. Funding for more capable research vessels and for
planning a Fisheries Information System are recent examples of positive
congressional steps toward modernization of fisheries data.

Fisheries management is based on ad hoc methods of data collection
developed over the past 25 years that may no longer lead to the best
management. Congress should support and encourage NMFS to reevaluate its
systems of data collection, management, and use, and to conduct research
to increase the effectiveness of these activities. Another important
need is for a fishery-by-fishery analysis of the costs and benefits
associated with data collection and fisheries management.

In the most recent reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Congress
requested that NMFS develop a preliminary design for a Fisheries
Information System. The committee believes that such a system could
improve and standardize the management of U.S. marine fisheries data and
thereby help managers understand regional trends and how they fit into
the national context. The committee believes that the Fisheries
Information System should be funded on an experimental basis for a fixed
term, perhaps 10 years, with quantifiable and measurable objectives that
can be evaluated at the end of that period.

Congress should continue to support the acquisition and calibration of
new NMFS fishery research vessels that are more effective in data
collection and handling than the vessels currently available in the
aging NMFS fleet. The so-called \"fish for research\" programs used by
NMFS and regional fishery management councils have proven to be a useful
means of involving commercial fishermen in research and sampling.
Congress should continue to support such programs, with the details of
implementation left to the discretion of regional councils.

Congress should amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act to limit the
confidentiality of commercial data. By providing better access to
commercial data, such a step would help managers and scientists better
understand the biology, sociology, and economics of fisheries. Sunset
periods on confidentiality are logical outcomes of the public ownership
of marine fish resources and the public trusts responsibilities of NMFS
and the regional councils in fisheries management. The proprietary
periods may vary by data type (e.g. they may be shorter for fishing
locations than for economic data) and by specific fishery, and these
periods should be determined cooperatively between fishery managers and
stakeholders. As part of the effort to gather and disseminate needed
data, Congress should lift the prohibitions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act
on collection of economic data (Sec. 303\[b\]\[7\] and 402\[a\]).

#### Recommendations to NMFS

NMFS has many, in some cases conflicting, responsibilities. NMFS and the
regional fishery management councils often suffer from a credibility
problem and are more or less continuously engaged in conflicts with
commercial and recreational fishermen and environmental advocates who
disagree with fishery management plans or other aspects of fisheries
management. These conflicts range from criticism voiced in regional
council meetings and other public meetings to legal challenges to
fishery management plans approved by the councils and NMFS. Some of
these conflicts are probably unavoidable results of the dynamics of the
regulator-regulated relationship between NMFS and fishermen and their
different perceived objectives--such conflict is to be expected.
Nevertheless, NMFS and fishermen do share a fundamental objective: the
long-term sustainable use of marine living resources and the acquisition
of whatever data are necessary to achieve this objective. NMFS and
fishery stakeholders should work together to resolve their conflicts to
achieve \"win-win\" solutions. Conflicts might be reduced by greater
cooperation between NMFS and fishermen in data collection, so that NMFS
develops trust in data from commercial and recreational fisheries and
fishermen become confident that NMFS provides accurate data and
assessments.

NMFS should continue to explore more cost-effective ways of obtaining
the fisheries data it needs, including implementing new remote sensing
techniques (e.g., hydro-acoustics); implementing electronic logbooks and
vessel monitoring systems; increasing observer coverage where needed;
developing adaptive sampling in appropriate fisheries; and, especially,
finding ways to improve commercial data to make it more useful for stock
assessments and finding ways to estimate recreational catch more quickly
to allow in-season management of recreational fisheries. NMFS also
should consider creating mechanisms to obtain advice from commercial and
recreational fishermen related to specific data collection policies and
procedures. This could be accomplished through a combination of national
meetings to discuss national -level policies and regional meetings to
discuss data collection in specific fisheries, possibly through each
regional council\'s scientific and statistical committee.

The Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) should be
fully funded and include all coastal states and territories that request
inclusion. NMFS should invest in research related to MRFSS and
investigate new ways to enlist recreational fishermen in data collection
for routine monitoring and special studies, but only if the agency
intends also to fund implementation of the results of the research. It
appears that MRFSS funding and staff levels are adequate only to
maintain the existing survey and conduct a minimal amount of research,
the results of which are not always implemented in a timely manner. Some
recommendations have been implemented (e.g., changes in variance
estimates), whereas others remain to be implemented (e.g., retention of
previously contacted anglers in subsequent surveys).

NMFS should standardize the data sets and protocols included in the
proposed Fisheries Information System, using the standards for spatial
and other data established by the Federal Geographic Data Committee. The
agency should consider moving away from proprietary data management
software to software that is available from many vendors and for which
data access and analysis routines can be written easily.

NMFS should evaluate the success of commercial data management firms in
providing real-time value-added data products for specific operational
purposes, and should determine ways to encourage such entrepreneurial
activities. At the same time, NMFS should endeavor to obtain useful data
from such sources.

The committee identified a number of data collection activities that
merit special attention from fishery scientists with both NMFS and the
academic community:

-   Developing methods for evaluating the ecological benefits of fish
    stocks and their role in marine ecosystems.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Determining how to minimize changes in the relationship of actual
    abundance to indices of abundance (e.g., survey, commercial, or
    recreational catch per unit effort) and misreporting when management
    systems are changed.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Testing adaptive sampling for data collection for both NMFS and
    industry.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Linking environmental, economic, and social data, as well as climate
    forecasts, to stock assessments.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Improving understanding of the functioning of marine ecosystems
    affected by fishing activities by studying important non-target
    species to determine their feeding habits, their distribution, and
    their prey and predators.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Gaining a greater understanding of the economic and social
    motivations of fishermen so that data from commercial and
    recreational fisheries can be interpreted correctly.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Validating procedures for determining fish ages and identifying
    stocks.

**Recommendations to Regional Fishery Management Councils**

Regional councils should be more proactive and innovative in developing
mechanisms within fishery management plans that encourage NMFS to work
more effectively with commercial and recreational fishermen in data
collection. Councils should play a major role in promoting greater use
of data from commercial and recreational fisheries by including programs
for collecting and using such data in fishery management plans, and
working with NMFS to design appropriate mixtures of data collection
approaches (e.g., vessel monitoring systems, observers, logbooks). The
design and implementation of fishery management plans should include
consideration of how data quality might be enhanced and whether data of
the required accuracy and precision are available or could be collected
in a cost-effective manner. If sufficient data quality is unlikely to be
achievable at a reasonable cost for a particular type of management,
councils should consider alternative, less data-intensive management
systems. Councils should give serious consideration to new \"fish for
research\" programs that could engage fishermen in data collection and
research. Councils should obtain the data needed to conduct in-season
management of recreational fisheries or, conversely, manage recreational
fisheries conservatively enough so that in-season data are not
necessary. They should work with NMFS to improve outreach to commercial
and recreational fishermen, and should encourage independent review of
data collection and stock assessments on a regular basis.

#### Recommendations to Interstate Commissions

Interstate commissions should find ways to increase the standardization
of state survey data used in federal stock assessments, consistent with
important state uses of the data. Commissions should work with NMFS and
the states to create and maintain regional databases, and coordinate
them through the proposed Fisheries Information System.

#### Recommendations to Commercial Fishermen

Commercial fishermen are a critical source of data about the fish stocks
they depend on, and more generally, about marine ecosystems. Under most
existing management systems, however, commercial fishermen have many
incentives to misreport catch data and few incentives to provide
accurate and complete data. Although the extent of misreporting is hard
to quantify, anecdotal evidence suggests that it does occur. Many
improvements in fisheries management will require active participation
of commercial fishermen in data collection, including more extensive
cooperation in sampling and a reduction in misreporting of commercial
data. Commercial fishermen should work with NMFS to obtain accurate and
precise measures of the relative abundance of fish stocks, both through
commercial data and research surveys. Commercial fishermen could help
improve both and it would be to their benefit to do so-the fish stocks
on which they depend are more likely to be sustained if both fishermen
and managers share the same accurate view of the abundance of fish
stocks.

#### Recommendations to Recreational Fishermen

Recreational fishermen presently play a relatively small and passive
role in data collection, although the interest of anglers in
participating in fish-tagging studies have been well demonstrated
through the efforts of the American Littoral Society and others to tag
sportfish. Angler organizations should increase their cooperation with
NMFS and academic scientists to assist in routine data collection and
scientifically designed, targeted studies, in order to improve the
recreational catch data that are needed in stock assessments. Although
scientifically designed tagging studies demand careful implementation,
they are crucial to the accurate assessment of fish mortality and
movement. Angler assistance is particularly important in fisheries that
have a significant recreational component, such as the summer flounder
fishery.

**CONCLUSION**

The future of fisheries management will be based on complementary data
from fishery-independent surveys, commercial fishermen, and recreational
fishermen. A particular need is to improve the quality of data from
commercial and recreational fisheries, so that stock assessment
scientists can be justifiably confident about using such data in their
models. Commercial and recreational sources could provide large
quantities of data important for stock assessments and for understanding
the social and economic aspects of marine fisheries, but these data are
not always useful in their present form. The sustainable use of marine
fish resources, and concomitant protection of marine environments, will
require new levels of commitment by the public and their representatives
in Congress and federal and state governments to fund and carry out
appropriate data collection and management.

**Appendix 21. List of Relevant National Marine Fisheries Service
Partnerships**

######### **Academic Institutions**

-   Auburn University

-   Albion College

-   Bethune-Cookman College

-   Boston University

-   Bridgeport Aquaculture High School

-   California State University (Chico, Humboldt, Long Beach, Monterey
    Bay, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Cape Fear Community College

-   Central Connecticut University

-   College of the Atlantic

-   College of Charleston

-   Colorado State University

-   Columbia University

-   Cornell University

-   Coastal Carolina University

-   Dartmouth University

-   Dillard University

-   Duke University

-   East Carolina University

-   East Tennessee State University

-   Eckerd College

-   Fairfield University

-   Florida A&M University

-   Florida Atlantic University

-   Florida Institute of Technology

-   Florida International University

-   Florida Marine Research Institute

-   Florida Memorial College

-   Florida State University

-   Hampton University

-   Harvard University

-   Hawaii Preparatory Academy

-   Iona College

-   Iowa State University

-   Jackson State University

-   Kutztown University

-   Louisiana State University

-   Marine Biological Laboratory (Woods Hole)

-   Massachusetts Institute of Technology

-   McNeese State University

-   Monmouth University

-   Montana State University

-   North Carolina State University

-   Nova Southeastern University

-   Old Dominion University

-   Oregon Health & Science University

-   Oregon State University

-   Rutgers University

-   St. Georges School, RI

-   St. Mary\'s College, CA

-   Savannah State University

-   Sonoma State University

-   State University of New York (Stony Brook)

-   Texas A&M University

-   Texas Tech University

-   The Sound School, CT

-   Universidad Metropolitana, Puerto Rico

-   University of Alaska

-   University of California (Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, San Diego, Santa
    Barbara, Santa Cruz)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   University of Charleston

-   University of Colorado

-   University of Connecticut

-   University of Delaware

-   University of Florida

-   University of Hawaii

-   University of Idaho

-   University of Kansas

-   University of Maine

-   University of Maryland

-   University of Massachusetts

-   University of Miami

-   University of Minnesota

-   University of New Hampshire

-   University of North Carolina

-   University of Puerto Rico

-   University of Rhode Island

-   University of South Alabama

-   University of South Florida

-   University of Southern Mississippi

-   University of Tennessee

-   University of Texas

-   University of Virginia

-   University of West Florida

-   University of Washington

-   University of Western Carolina

-   Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences

-   Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

-   William and Mary (College of)

-   Worcester Polytechnic Institute

-   Yale University

######### **Federal Agencies**

-   Yale University

-   Bonneville Power Administration

-   National Aeronautical and Space Administration

-   National Research Council

-   National Science Foundation

-   Regional Fishery Management Councils (8)

-   Smithsonian Institute

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   American Museum of Natural History

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

-   U.S. Department of Agriculture

-   U.S. Department of Commerce

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   U.S. Department Of Defense

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Civil Applications Committee

-   Navy

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Naval Research Laboratory

-   Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center

-   Naval Postgraduate School

-   Office of Naval Research

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   U.S. Department of Energy

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Brookhaven National Laboratory

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Oak Ridge National Laboratory

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   U.S. Department of the Interior

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Bureau of Reclamation

-   Fish and Wildlife Service

-   Geological Survey

-   Minerals Management Service

-   National Park Service

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   U.S. Department of State

-   U.S. Department of Transportation

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Coast Guard

-   Maritime Administration

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-   U.S. Marine Mammal Commission

> ***State Agencies***

-   Alabama Department of Natural Resources

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Alaska Beluga Whale Committee

-   Alaska Department of Fish and Game

-   Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

-   Alaska North Slope Borough

-   Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   California Dept. of Water Resource

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Interagency Ecological Program

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   California Dept. of Fish and Game Commission

-   California Health Department

-   Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

-   Connecticut-New York Long Island Sound Habitat Restoration Committee

-   Delaware Department of Fish and Game

-   Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council

-   Florida Department of Environmental Protection

-   Florida Department of Natural Resources

-   Florida Fish and Wildlife Resources Commission

-   Georgia Department of Natural Resources

-   Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

-   Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program

-   Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism

-   Long Island Sound Lobster Mortality Working Group

-   Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources

-   Idaho Department of Fish and Game

-   Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

-   Maine Department of Marine Resources

-   Maine Water Resource Resources Authority

-   Maryland Department of Natural Resources

-   Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources

-   Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources

-   New Hampshire Fish and Game Department

-   New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

-   New Jersey Fish, Game and Wildlife

-   New York Department or Environmental Protection

-   North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources

-   North Carolina Department of Transportation

-   North Carolina Maritime Museum

-   North Carolina Sea Grant

-   North Carolina Shellfish Sanitation

-   North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

-   Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

-   Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

-   Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources

-   Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team

-   Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

-   South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

-   South Carolina Marine Resources Department

-   South Florida Water Management District

-   Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

-   Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources

-   Virginia Marine Resources Commission

-   Virginia Marine Science Museum

-   Virginia Sea Grant Consortium

-   Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

-   Washington State Board of Technical & Community Colleges

-   Waterford East Lyme Shellfish Commission

> ***Fishing Vessels***

-   Alaska Draggers Association, Al Burch, F/V Hazel, Lorraine, Hickory
    Wind

-   At-Sea Processors Association, Trevor McCabe, F/V Katie Ann

-   Einar Peterson, Tim Cosgrove, F/V Vesteraalen

-   Groundfish Forum Inc., John Gauvin, F/V American No. 1

-   Fisherman's Marketing Association (Fishing vessels determined by
    bid)

-   Ocean Prowler Partnership, F/V Ocean Prowler

-   Morning Star LP, David Stanchfield, F/V Morning Star

-   Trident Seafoods,Jim McManus, F/V Aldebaran, Arcturus, Dominator

> ***Industry***

-   AIRSTAR Communication

-   American Bureau of Shipping

-   Aquaseed, Inc.

-   Aquatic Farms, Hawaii

-   ARIS Corporation

-   Atlantic Offshore Lobster Association

-   Bandon Pacific Seafoods

-   Beaufort Fisheries, Inc.

-   Bornstein's Seafoods

-   Browning-Ferris Industries Inc.

-   Cedar Island Marina, CT

-   C&C Technologies

-   Coastal Biomarine

-   Daybrook Fisheries Inc.

-   Downeast Lobster Association

-   Destron-Fearing

-   Fisherman's Marketing Association

-   Fishing Family Assistance Centers (New Bedford & Gloucester)

-   Florida Power and Light (St. Lucie Power Plant)

-   Garden State Seafood Association

-   Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association

-   Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Development Foundation

-   Hallmark Seafoods

-   International Gamefish Association

-   Jersey Coast Anglers Association

-   Johnson Controls

-   Kaman Aerospace Corp.

-   Lotek Marine Technologies Inc.

-   Makai Animal Clinic

-   Maine Lobster Association

-   Midwater Trawlers Association

-   Monroe County Commercial Fisherman's Association

-   National Geographic Ocean Futures

-   Natural Resources Consultants Inc.

-   NET Systems Inc.

-   North Carolina Power Company

-   North Carolina Coastal Federation, Inc.

-   Ocean Imaging Co.

-   Ocean Technology Foundation

-   Omega Protein Inc

-   Pacific Shrimp, Inc.

-   Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative

-   Pyrcon, Inc.

-   Reed Mariculture

-   Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association

-   Science Applications International Corporation

-   Scientific Fisheries Systems, Inc.

-   Sea World of Texas

-   Seafood Processor's Association

-   Simrad Inc.

-   Sunbeam Sport Fishing Fleet

-   Virginia Power Company

-   Washington Fish Growers Association

-   World Services, Inc.

***Private & Non-Profit Organizations***

-   American Fisheries Society

-   American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists

-   Audubon Society

-   Bald Island Conservation

-   Center for Marine Conservation

-   Chelonia, Inc.

-   Children's Hospital

-   Coastal conservation Association

-   COMPASS-COMunication PArtnership for Science and Sea

-   Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education

-   Dolphin Ecology Project, Florida Keys

-   Environmental Defense Fund

-   Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment

-   Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute

-   Heinz Center

-   Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute

-   Jekyll Island Authority

-   Karen Beasley Sea Turtle Rescue & Rehabilitation Center

-   Marine Fish Conservation Network

-   Monterey Bay Aquarium

-   Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

-   Mote Marine Laboratory

-   Nags Head Dolphin Watch

-   National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

-   National Aquarium in Baltimore

-   National Geographic Society

-   National Fisheries Institute

-   Natural Resources Defense Council

-   Nature Conservancy

-   New England Aquarium

-   Pacific Aquaculture Caucus

-   Pacific Ocean Conservation Network

-   Reef Environmental Education Foundation

-   Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Marine

-   Savannah Science Museum

-   Sierra Club-National Marine Fisheries & Habitat Commission

-   The Dolphin Project

-   Whale Acoustics, WY

-   Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

-   World Wildlife Fund

> ***Indian Nations & Groups***

-   Quilleute Tribe

-   Nez Perce Tribe

-   Northwest Indian Fish Commission

-   Suquamish Tribe

-   Yakama Indian Nation

-   Northwest Indian College

***International Agencies & Academic Institutions***

-   Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC)

-   Australia

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSRIO)

-   James Cook University

-   Murdoch University

-   South Australia Fisheries Department

-   University of New England

-   University of Queensland

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Brazil

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   National Institute for Research on the Amazon

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Canada

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   British Columbia Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks

-   Dalhousie University

-   Department of Fisheries and Oceans

-   McGill University

-   Queens University

-   University of New Brunswick

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chile

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Instituto de Fomento Pesquero

-   Unversidad de Concepcion

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   China

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Overseas Fisheries Development Council

-   Chinese Academy of Sciences

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Denmark

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Danish Institute of Marine Fisheries

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   France

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   IFREMER

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ghana

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fisheries Laboratory

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Grand Cayman Island

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Cayman Turtle Farm

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Greece

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   National Centre for Marine Research

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ireland

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Marine Institute of Ireland

-   University of Cork

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Israel

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Limnological and Oceanographic Society

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Italy

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   University of Padua

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Japan

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fisheries Agency of Japan

-   Hokkaido University

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Mexico

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Centro de Investigacion Cientifica y de Edcacion Superior de
    Ensenada (CICESE)

-   Instituto Nacional de la Pesca (INP)

-   Investigaciones Mexicanas de la Corriente de California (IMECOCAL)

-   Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Morocco

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fisheries Research Institute

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Mozambique

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fisheries Research Institute

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   New Zealand

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

-   University of Otago

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Nigeria

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Institute for Oceanography & Marine Research

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Norway

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Akvaforsk

-   Institute of Marine Research (Bergen)

-   University of Bergen

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Portugal

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Unviersidade da Maderia

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Russia

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Pacific Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography (TINRO)
    Laboratory

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Senegal

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Center for Research in Oceanography

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   South Africa

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sea Fisheries Institute of South Africa

-   Natal Sharks Board

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Spain

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Instituto Espanol de Oceanografia

-   Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentaction

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Taiwan

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   National Taiwan University

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   United Kingdom

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Medical Research Center (Edinburg)

-   Natural Environment Research Council

-   Southampton University

-   University of Cambridge

-   University of Durham

-   University of Oxford

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ukraine

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ukraine Southern Scientific Research Institute of Marine Fisheries
    and Oceanography (YUGNIRO)

***International -- Commissions***

-   Commission for the conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
    (CCAMLR)

-   Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)

-   Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC)

-   International Council for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)

-   International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)

-   International Institute for Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET)

-   International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC)

-   International Whaling Commission (IWC)

-   North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC)

-   North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES)

-   Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO)

-   Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Oceanic Fisheries Program
    (SPC)

-   South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency

-   The World Bank

-   United Nations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

-   Development Program

-   Development Organization

-   Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   United States -- South African Bilateral Commission

> CONTACT: Bonnie Ponwith, Office of Science and Technology, National
> Marine Fisheries Service.

**Appendix 22. Cooperative Research Programs**

**with the Fishing Industry**

Increasingly, there is interest among fishers to participate more
directly in the collection of information relevant to the status of
exploited fishery resources. Traditionally, information collected from
fishing operations has been utilized to characterize catches, discards
and fishery-dependent abundance indices based on CPUE. However,
improvements in technology to monitor fishing gear performance and to
collect and transmit near real-time information on ship location and
other positional and catch data present new opportunities to reevaluated
fishers\' roles in this process. Several pilot cooperative research
projects have already been successfully completed and a number of new
regionally-based projects are currently in progress, particularly in the
northeastern U.S. A National Cooperative Research Program is currently
under development.

**Fishery-Dependent Data**

Fishery catch data are a key component of stock assessments because
these data document minimum mortalities attributable to fishing,
biological characteristics of the harvested species and, if taken in
time series, trends in relative catch rates and representation of strong
and weak year classes. When combined with indices of abundance, they
represent a critical element of stock assessments. Collection and
analysis of fishery-dependent data remain problematic since it requires
a distributed data collection system that must take census and sample
data representing numerous fleets, gear types, ports, and target
species. Millions of dollars are expended by federal, state and private
entities to document fishery catches. Additional data on the discard
patterns of fisheries need to be collected from fishing operations to
document these mortalities. Traditional methods of paper logbooks, port
samplers and hierarchical data systems are problematic because of the
time-delays inherent in assembling these data and in the inevitable
problems of data accuracy and completeness. Increasingly, managers
require more timely information on patterns of catch and relative
abundance on a stock-by-stock basis, at increasingly finer scales in
time and space (e.g. in support of time/area restrictions on fisheries).
Given this need, there is growing consensus to utilize electronic data
collection and transmission systems aboard fishing vessels to improve
the accuracy and timeliness of such data for fishery stock assessment
and management purposes, where feasible. Programs are underway in all
regions to test the feasibility of electronic data collection and data
transfer systems and, where tested, there seems to be broad-based
support by fishers and fishing groups.

**Fishery-Independent Surveys**

Most fishery independent survey data are currently collected using
either government research vessels or those chartered to the government
to collect data in survey mode. The key consideration in developing time
series of fisheries independent survey data is to assure that changes in
survey catches are not the result of changes in gear efficiency or other
operational concerns. There is a substantial unmet need, particularly in
some regions, to survey stocks not covered by existing programs.
Additionally, improvements in the precision of surveys and increases in
spatial coverage may be necessary to support some management needs.
Fishers are interested in assuming some of these responsibilities,
particularly if the issues of survey comparability can be addressed. New
technologies offer the ability to document the spatial coverage, bottom
contact and other characteristics of towed and fixed gears, thereby
offering the potential of addressing some of the gear standardization
issues. Increasing fisher involvement in standardized surveys can
improve the comprehensiveness of information available for stock
assessment, and narrow the basis for disputes regarding stock status.
Given the increasing availability of technology to monitor gear
performance, and the increasing willingness of fishers to be involved in
surveying activities, there appears to be a role for utilizing fishing
vessels to improve fishery-independent indices in certain prescribed
situations.

CONTACT: Steve Murawski, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National
Marine Fisheries Service.

######## Appendix 23. Summary of NOAA\'s Ocean Exploration Program

Purpose:

Specifically designed to involve the diverse research community beyond
NOAA as well as participants from many NOAA Line Offices, the Ocean
Exploration program endeavors to address a growing national interest in
exploring unknown regions, processes, and life within the global ocean
as well as an increasing awareness of the oceans\' importance to our
environment and quality of life.

Ocean Exploration is the search and systematic investigation of the
oceans for the purpose of discovery. NOAA\'s Ocean Exploration Program
seeks to bring the best of our nation\'s ocean scientists to our ocean
frontiers to discover new species, ocean processes, cultural antiquities
and artifacts, and biological and mineral resources. The Program is
about discovery-based science which promotes the collaboration of
multi-partners and multi-disciplines and endorses an ethic of ocean
stewardship and educational outreach.

In June 2000, a U.S. panel of ocean scientists, explorers, and educators
convened to create history\'s first National Strategy of Ocean
Exploration. Their report, \"Discovering Earth\'s Final Frontier: A U.S.
Strategy for Ocean Exploration,\" is a responsible plan to undertake new
activities in ocean exploration. NOAA is embarking on this new strategy
through its Ocean Exploration Program, and desires to partner with
public, private, and academic ocean exploration programs outside of
NOAA.

The discovery of living and nonliving ocean resources has the potential
to provide great benefit to people the world over. New anti-inflammatory
drugs are already being produced from deep-sea organisms. The relatively
recent discovery of hydrothermal vent communities within the oceans has
resulted in key knowledge about geological processes and plate
tectonics.

Developments in biotechnology, telemetry, microcomputers and materials
science now permit ocean scientists to aspire to the achievements of
astronauts and the space program in our ability to go where we\'ve not
gone before. Like true explorers, we can now immerse ourselves in new
places with new technologies to study and benefit from the undersea
frontier.

Objectives:

By developing coordinated field campaigns aboard NOAA and other partner
vessels, NOAA will embark upon several oceanic expeditions. By employing
a full array of modern ocean technology, these explorations will survey,
characterize, and define diverse marine environments. These innovative
expeditions have the potential to rewrite oceanography and marine
biology textbooks. Ocean Exploration presents possibilities for new
solutions to problems we may face as we move into the 21st century.

In 2002, the regions of exploration include:

-   Gulf of Mexico

-   North Pacific off of CA, OR, WA and AK

-   Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

-   South Atlantic Bight

-   Gulf of Maine

-   Polar regions

The expeditions will weave together five science themes integral to
ocean research, which were developed by NOAA scientists and reflect the
core science requirements articulated by the U.S. Panel on Ocean
Exploration, as follows:

-   Finding New Ocean Resources

-   Exploring Ocean Acoustics

-   Documenting America\'s Maritime Heritage

-   The Census of Marine Life

-   Exploring New Frontiers

Also a vital program component is educational outreach. Ten percent of
all funds dedicated to the Ocean Exploration Program will go to
education and outreach products. This financial commitment builds on the
investments already made via NOAA\'s existing education programs and
partnerships, and it provides the vehicle for bringing ocean discovery
to the forefront of the public\'s imagination.

CONTACT: Margot Bohan, Office of Ocean Exploration, NOAA.

######## Appendix 24. Summary of the Census of Marine Life Program

The Census of Marine Life (CoML) initiative, formalized in 1997, is an
international research program aiming at assessing and explaining the
diversity, distribution, and abundance of marine organisms throughout
the world\'s oceans. This ambitious goal is to be reached by stimulating
well-coordinated dedicated regional research efforts that together
provide significant new information on patterns and processes of marine
life on a global scale.

The decade-long global program of research was begun with developmental
funding largely from private foundations and input from a variety of
international workshops resulting in a scientific plan that addresses
three questions: What lived in the oceans? What lives in the oceans?
What will live in the oceans? NMFS researchers collaborating in CoML
pilot projects are expected to deliver new information having direct
relevance to SAIP objectives.

The first CoML objective is to focus on the historical composition of
the oceans by attempting to identify and reconstruct species complexes.
The intent is to develop baseline time series of population abundance
and decline before human influences. This is consistent with NMFS\'
efforts to improve fisheries-independent data and to examine historical
population trends.

The second question addresses what presently lives in the ocean and is
the focus of new \"pilot projects.\" These will demonstrate the
feasibility of achieving a worldwide census of marine life based on new
technologies to gather synoptic and synchronous measurements over large
ocean areas.

The forward-looking question focuses on modeling ecosystem dynamics and
comports well with SAIP\'s Tier 3 (Next Generation Assessments). In
out-years, NOAA\'s mandate to begin managing ecosystems, rather than
single species, has potential for strong synergies with the CoML.

In FY 2001, first-time external (non-NOAA) funding supports three pilot
projects:

-   *Pilot Census of Marine Life in the Gulf of Maine* will describe the
    distribution and abundance of individual taxa, relationships of
    these to each other and to the physical environment, and diversity
    of organisms \[NEFSC\].

-   *Tagging of Pacific Pelagics* (TOPP) project will employ electronic
    tags to quantify and improve knowledge of how key ecological species
    in the North Pacific utilize the pelagic environment \[SWFSC and
    NWFSC\].

-   *Pacific Ocean Salmon Tracking* (POST) program shares the objectives
    of TOPP, but for all marine life stages of Pacific salmon in the
    North Pacific \[SWFSC\].

NMFS/CoML researchers are expected to receive dedicated funding from the
NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration, beginning in FY 2002. Dedicated field
activities are scheduled to begin in FY 2003.

Additionally NMFS scientists will participate in the international
program:

*Patterns and Processes of the Ecosystems of the Northern Mid-Atlantic*.
This effort contributes to the description and understanding of patterns
of distribution, abundance, and trophic relationships of marine life
inhabiting the deep waters of the mid-oceanic North Atlantic, and
attempts to elucidate and model ecological processes causing variability
in these patterns by employing advanced technology and new systematic
studies \[NEFSC\].

CONTACT: Stephen K. Brown, Office of Science and Technology, National
Marine Fisheries Service.

**Appendix 25. A Non-Exhaustive List of Other Programs and Activities
that Could Provide Data and Other Inputs to Help Launch Stock
Assessments Towards Tier 3**

-   The Oceans Commission, which was set up by the Oceans Act of 2000
    (S.2327; Public Law 106-256) and is charged with assessing existing
    and planned ocean-related facilities and technologies, reviewing
    existing and planned ocean and coastal activities and opportunities,
    and recommending changes to U.S. law to improve management,
    conservation, and use of ocean resources.

-   The GLOBal ocean ECosystems dynamics program (GLOBEC). Contact:
    <Michael.Fogarty@noaa.gov>

-   Various Global Climate Change Initiatives. Contacts:
    <Suzanne.Bolton@noaa.gov>

-   Report of the National Task Force for Defining and Measuring Fishing
    Capacity, by J.M. Ward, T. Brainerd, S. Freese, P. Mace, M.
    Milazzo, D. Squires, J. Terry, E. Thunberg, M. Travis, J. Walden.
    Study currently under review. Contact: John M. Ward, Office of
    Science and Technology, NMFS; John.M.Ward@noaa.gov

-   Identifying harvest capacity and overcapacity in federally managed
    fisheries: a preliminary and qualitative report. Office of Science
    and Technology and Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. March 2001.
    Contact: <John.M.Ward@noaa.gov>

-   United States National Plan of Action for the Conservation and
    Management of Sharks. National Marine Fisheries Service, National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.
    February 2001. URL
    http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/Final%20NPOA.February. 2001.pdf

-   The FWS/NOAA Aquatic Nuisances Program. URL
    <http://anstaskforce.gov/ansrpt-exec.htm>

[^1]: *The Sustainable Fisheries Act amended the Magnuson Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act and renamed it the Magnuson Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act.*