A comparable Mid-Atlantic segment should be carried
out during the 1982-1983 period at a cost of $175K (based
on the URI cost estimate).

International Trade .
(Import and Export and Foreign Market Data)

It was indicated previously that some of the U.S. im-
port and export data (for the major species) needs to be
disaggregated and that companion price data needs to be
generated. In addition, it was indicated that data on
world catches (volume and value), exports (volume and
value), and imports (volume and value) by species/by
country needs to be generated (for the major species).
FAO data only contain volume data on catches and are
frequently delayed. It is estimated that to generate the
disaggregated U.S. data would require additional fund-
ing of $25K/year. To obtain disaggregated data on the
value and volume of world catches and international
trade flows would be $100K in 1981 and $20K thereafter.

Extension of NMFS Weight-Out System to Mid-
Atlantic

It is currently planned to extend the complete NMFS
port pool system’ into the New York, Maryland, Dela-
ware, and Virginia areas. Such a system will be capable
of providing data on individual vessel catches, effort,

and revenues. It is estimated that the cost of this system ”

will be small since the personnel are already available.

Table 3 presents a summary of projects, the funding
required, and the project timing if the projects were done
on a contract basis for the generation of needed economic
data on the commercial sector.

II-2 RECREATIONAL SECTOR

The purpose of this section is to outline the economic
data needed on recreational fishing, to achieve the stated
objective of maximizing net economic and social benefits
from using fisheries resources. Unlike the commercial
sector, however, there have only been limited previous
efforts to examine data needs in recreational fishing
(Centaur, 1979).

This probably results both from the difficulty in mea-
suring recreational benefits and the lagged response to
growing evidence that recreational landings are a sub-
stantial portion of landings in numerous fisheries. Much
of the research and data collection currently being un-
dertaken is directed to the question of:

1) Are recreational fisheries an important source of
fishing mortality, and

2) What is the appropriate methodology to. measure
recreational benefits?

Current data collection in many respects is thus more
developmental in nature and there are less “accepted
procedures”.

A. Significance of Recreational Landings

The first issue that management faces is determining
whether the catch of recreational fishermen is substan-
tial enough to merit inclusion in an FMP. The data that
is needed here is simply the total catch of sport-
fishermen by species and area. These figures can be com-
pared with the commercial figures to detrmine the ex-
tent of the recreational fishery.

Currently, Human Sciences Research, Inc., under con-
tract with NMFS, has undertaken a creel and phone sur-
vey designed to estimate the total catch of recreational
fishermen for all species except shellfish. The creel inter-
view estimates catch/fisherman and the phone survey
determines total fishermen. Providing the species ac-
counts for more than about 10 percent of total catch of
recreational fishermen, reliable estimates of the total
recreational catch by species will be determined.

The total numbers of New England recreational
fishermen interviewed in this process is roughly 9000, the
total phone interviews is roughly 28,000, and the total
cost of the effort is roughly $175,000. The survey is
expected to be continued in 1980.

In the Mid-Atlantic, the creel interviews number
about 9000, the phone interviews about 17,000, and the
cost is roughly $150,000. The survey is expected to be
continued in 1980.

B. Net Economic Benefits

Net-economic benefits from recreational fishing and
data needed to assess them is classified and discussed
with four major classifications: .

is increased consumer satisfaction when prices fall or
catches rise; .

ii. increased profits to producers when efficiency or
output is increased;

iii. increased employment of idle resources (e.g., labor
or capital) deriving from management decisions;

iv. reduced costs of enforcing management decisions.

1. Consumer Benefits

The usual economic measure of net consumer benefits
is the difference between what consumers would be
willing to pay and what they do pay for it (Freeman,
1979). If only five metric tons of haddock are landed and
ex-vessel prices rise to-say $1.20/lb., there is evidence
that some people are willing to pay $1.20/lb. for fish.
When landings are large and price drops to $.40/lb.,
those individuals that are willing to pay $1.20/b. obtain
a surplus of $.80/lb. Price and landings data are needed
to determine the relationship between willingness to pay
and landings.

For recreational fishermen, however, no observable
market exists to determine the price of the fish. This
forces researchers to find ways to infer the value of the
fish. There are various- methods to determine the
willingness to pay, ranging from asking people what they
are willing to pay to catch and consume a fish to in-




PREFACE

This document is the result of studies originating within the North-
east Fishery Management Task Force. The Task Force, organized in 1979
by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and
funded by the NMFS, seeks to promote discussion and dialogue on the
major issues of fishery management and to explore the effects of various
fishery management alternatives.

Composed of representatives from the fishing industry, Regional
Fishery Management Councils, federal and state agencies, academic in-
stitutions, and general public, the Task Force will operate in three phases.
The first phase will assemble background information for identifying and
analyzing management options. The second phase will examine this
background information to determine the data requirements, regulatory
measures, administrative procedures, and enforcement methods
associated with each management option. The third phase will critically
review the various options for application to specific fisheries, particularly
the Atlantic demersal finfish fishery.

This document is one of eight developed under Phase I operations,
all of which are being issued in the NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-F/NEC series. This document and six others functionally serve as
appendixes to the eighth and leading document for Phase I operations—
“Overview Document of the Northeast Fishery Management Task Force,
Phase I.”

Jon A. Gibson, Coordinator
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC series


atqeottddy 30N - YN

*T°E°S woT]90g UT puMos oq TTT Bere oTdoa eILP YoRs Jo suOTadTxIOSep paTTeIaq

(1939 ‘Quea;z20dut ysow puosas

Z-T ‘qauezz0dut sow st [-1 poyuer wazt ‘-a°T) ueydAy 2933e xOquNU Aq pazeoTpUT ST T Azoboqeo AgyFoTAd utyyTM Guyyuer aatyeTar ‘TeTeyoeu repun

€ € € € € € € £ £ € £ €
z z z z z z z z z z z z
T z € I z z T £ £ T € wL-T
T z z z z z T € z z z z
z z z z z z z € z z z z
z z@ z z@ z z z € z z z z
z z z z z z z € z@ z z z
z z z z z z z z z z z z
€ € € € € £ € £ 7 £ £ €
€ £ € € £ € £ € € £ € £
YN WN WN z z z WN z z WN WN z
uN WN Ww € € € uN € € ww WN €
uN WN WN z z z WN z z WN WN z
YN WN YN € € € ww € € WN YN £
YN WN YN € € € YN € € YN WN €
WN uN WN z z z WN z z WN WN z
ww WN VN T 1 T uN Tv T WN WN ¥b-1
T £ z z z z t z z z z z
z € T z z z z z z z z z
z € T z z z z z z Zz z z
z £ z z z z z z z z z z
z € z z z z z z z z z z
z € z z z z z z z z z z
z £ z z z z z z z z z z
t T t T Tv 1 T T T T T ¥€-1
T 1 T T T T T Tv T T T 2-1
€ € z € € € £ € £ € € €
€ £ z € € £ £ € € € € €
z z z z z z z z z z z z
z z z z z z z z z z z z

ot T T T T T T T T T T ¥9-T
T T T Tv T T T T I 1 T ¥S-T
T T T T T T Tv I T Tv 1 sI-T

pInbs = nos. Bowens —“ysty Xepunoya SMTe ~ usty yreus  Burazoi  ystsboq ystyettL Ter9x9ew

ues50 3 “anid 19430 -79940G 3 peus
weTo 3ans OTH 3 “Uy

vorday o1,UUTIY-PLAL 10] sergio Bye,
ZBL

santea Teang{nD
eyed OTUOUCDT TeD0T

eyed yexTeH UbTeT0g
uoTyonpozg ubtTar0a

sdtyg ubjazog 03 szozsuez,
sqz0dxg

s3z0duy

abesn Tetx3snpur
uotadunsuod “3sur/*3seu
votadumsucp ewoH

USTa WbneD ‘osx JO SoTeS
soTastzajzoerzey) vadotdug
JuowfoTaua

spur -ddng zo sotwoucog pattezsd
spur 3xoddng ur sernztpuedxg
sbuTureg 9 S3s0D
uopzTSodwop ¥ azts Is9TE
Ayqoedep butssasorg

szey) eedotdug Burssao0rg
jusuhopdug Butsseoorg

sMoTd 2ONpord

s3s09 but} 9 butsseoorg
soya ‘sz0sse00z4 T3qUMN
seotzd 9 YoTIOnpord

qx0334 3 sburpuet
suoT}eraptsuoy AyTOedeD
soT}sTza39e7eYO TeINATN
soustzedkg 9 uoT3eonpa ‘aby
uoTanqTz3sTa ¥ TeAeT suooUT
juowfot awa

sbutuxeg 3 $3809

AzoRUaAUT TASS PeT1e 390
zea 3 STESSeA JO TeqUN

ssbory OTdoE Red

+

12


MON aeak/y07$ S86T-Z86T
Mon MOOTS T86T
man reak/3s$ S86T-T86T
MON #ISLTS €86T-7286T
MON *X0STS 786T-T86T
SAWN etTqrssod
Xq papuny aq oL se uoos sy
man xeok/¥Ss Se6T-pe6t
MON ASLS €86T-Z86T
MON zeek/AG$ S86T-E86T
SHAN pepung ~0ps T86T-O86T
MON. reek/ASs S86T-€86T
MeN moss @86T-T86T
MON reehk/AS$ S861 -Z86T
SAWN popung weps T86T-O86T
@oIn0S pez tnbsy potisd
butTpunz butpung

*soeqeutjse TN uo pesed,y
SMOTA SpPIL pue yoReD PTI0m e3epdn

waysks

SMOTI OpeAL pue YyoReD PTTOM YSTTqeIsST
eqed

paqeberbbestq 4y1o0dxg/jazodwI -s'n
eazy OTJUeTIW-PIW

- Tepow euTzeW yndqno/gndur

pueTbug mon
uzZeY4ZION - TepoW euTIeEW yndynO/3ndut

uo-ppy uoTIdumsuog TeUOTANITIySUI
pue jueineqssy ‘alloy TeUCTIEN

2ojDeg Bbutsseo01rg
oTqUeTIW-PTH Z0F Apnjs 3500 ezepdn

toqoesg butsse0idg
OTQURTIV-PTW ZOJ sbutTureg/3soD

toj4oeg butsses07d
pueTbuq men zoz shutuzeg/qso9 eqepdn

21039eg butTssas0Ig
pueTbug mon r0y shutuzeg/qsoo

&Apnjs 3809 OTjueTIW-PTW JO ejepdna
STOSSEA OTIULTIV-PTW AOJ shuyureg/7soD
-a'°N - Apnas 3s09 jo ajepdn

STessoa pueTbuq MeN TOF shutureq/4soD

oelord

10}09G [BlOIaUIWIOZ) UO Bye] SIIMIOUOI Surysixy JUawaTddnsg 04
saoinog duipuny pue ‘paimbay surpung ‘syeforg jo Areuiwing

8 °198L

13


Complementary research and data gathering
programs are conducted by the states. For example,
biological data typically collected by the Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries include: abundance indices
of finfish in state waters, recruitment estimates of winter
flounder, lobster catch and effort data, and various
biological parameters of near shore shellfish populations.
The states of Rhode Island and Maine conduct similar
routine data acquisition programs.

The states very often provide additional, specific
research on species of particular local economic impor-
tance. For example, Maine Division of Marine Resources
has become the primary agency for herring research (of a
basic biological nature) in New England. In addition,
Maine conducts specific research on the distribution and
abundance of shortnose sturgeon and northern shrimp.
Research by the State of Rhode Island has focused on in-
digenous bay scallop populations as well as other
shellfish and crustacean populations. Of specific interest
to Massachusetts have been anadramous species and in-
digenous flounder populations.

All states have cooperated closely with NMFS to

provide for the collection of fisheries statistics through ©

both routine and special sampling of landings from
various fisheries. Additionally, Maine, Massachusetts,
and Rhode Island have committed their resources to
augmenting NMFS research survey cruises, by providing
intensified, complementary coverage in state waters.
Although not specifically noted here, states in the Mid-
Atlantic region also conduct research of specific regional
interest, as well as provide data and information on
fisheries conducted in that area.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Combs, E., “Export and Domestic Market Opportunities
for Underutilized Fish and Shellfish.” Report prepared for
U.S, Dept. of Commerce, 1970.

2. Dunham, W. and J. Mueller, “The Economic Impact of a
Reduction in Shrimp Landings under Regulated and
Unregulated Programs.” Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin, Univ: of Maine, 1976.

3. Georgianna, D., P. Greenwood, R. Ibara and R. Ward,
“Estimated Fish Processing Capacity in Massachusetts and
New Hampshire.” Report prepared for NMFS, 1978.

4. Grigalunas, T., “‘An Input-Output Model for Southern New
England Marine Region.” Unpublished, 1980.

5. McConnell, K..and L. Nicholson, ‘‘A Description of the New
England Headboat Fleet.” Report prepared for New
England Fishery Management Council, 197.

6. Nicholson, L. and Ruais, R. P., “Description of the Recrea-
tion Fisheries for Cod, Haddock, Pollock, and Silver Hake
off the Northeast Coast of the U.S.” Report prepared for
New England Fishery Management Council, 1979.

7. Noetzel, B. and J. Norton, “Cost and Earnings in the
Boston Large Trawler Fleet.” NMFS Working Paper Series,
NO7, 1969.

8. Rorholm, N., H. C. Lampe, N. Marshal and J. Farrell,
“Economic Impact, of Marine Orientated Activities—A
Study of the Southern New England Marine Region.” Agr.
Exp. Bulletin 396, 1967.

10

9. Siegel, R., J. Mueller and B. Rothschild, “A Linear

Programming Decision Model to Determine Harvesting
Capacity: A Multiple Species Fishery.” Fisheries Bulletin,
1979.
10. Smith, L. and S. Peterson, “New England Fishing,
Processing, and Distribution.” Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution Technical Report, 1979.


© labor income in the processing sector
© regional income

© consumer benefits

* enforcement costs

All of these are evaluated in both an aggregate and dis-
aggregate (distribution aspects) mode.

These are fundamental economic performance in-
dicators and generally robust with respect to changes in
objectives. That is, it would still be necessary for these
data to be collected even if there were substantial
variations in objectives. In essence then, there is an im-
plicit recognition that by regulating the available flow of
raw material (fish) to the industry, the Councils are
operating in the mode of. industrial management.
Therefore, it is imperative that the Councils have a clear
understanding of the current net financial position of
various segments of the industry and that systems be es-
tablished for monitoring the changes in the financial
position of the industry in the future. Clearly, manage-
ment strategy selection should be influenced by such
knowledge.

Given this situation and a knowledge of various
methodologies that will be necessary to evaluate all of
the performance indicators, the staffs of the Region, the
Center, the Council, and several academicians ranked
the various data topics for the commercial sector for the
major fisheries. This ranking appears in Table 1 for the
New England area,

The ranking was done in such a fashion so as to
preclude evaluation across data areas in an absolute
sense. This can be illustrated in Table 1 which contains
the data priorities for the New England area. The Table
is structured with the principal data topic areas listed
down the side and the fisheries across the top. Values of
from 1 to 3 were assigned to each data area for each
fishery reflecting data that is very important (1) to data
that is not very important (3). Within data category 1,
the data that is the most important were marked with an
asterisk. However, in any given category, there is no
attempt to establish priorities across data elements. In
othef, words, for the Atlantic groundfish fisheries both
cost earnings data for the harvesting and processing sec-
tors are ranked “1*”. This is based on the Council’s
desire to determine net income impacts in both these
sectors. However, the Council did not assign relative
weights, at this time, to these two indicators, and thus
no further ranking by the group was deemed ap-
propriate.

Required Data — Mid-Atlantic

In the Mid-Atlantic area, the following FMP’s are
either being prepared or are expected to be prepared:*

© Atlantic Mackerel

® Tilefish

¢ Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog
© Squids

* Other Flounder

* Bluefish

© Dogfish

© American and Hickory Shads and River Herring
* Shark

© Butterfish

° Fluke

¢ Scup

* Sea Basses

*It is recognized that this listing may change in the
future.

To date, the Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Plan, the
Atlantic Squid Plan, the Mackerel Plan, and the Butter-
fish Plan have been implemented.

In the Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog FMP, the
evaluative criteria used are essentially the same as those
used in the New England Plans. In the Regulatory
Analyses (as distinct from the FMP’s) for Squid,
Mackerel, and Butterfish, the economic criteria listed
previously were utilized.

Given the fact that many of the fisheries in the Mid-
Atlantic are less developed than those in New England
(except for Surf Clams) and some are “more recreational
than commercially exploited”, the priority listing of the
various topic areas differed somewhat from the Mid-
Atlantic area. These are listed in Table 2. Again, there
was no attempt to rank the items across a particular
category.

The next section contains summary statements re-
garding the general availability of the data topic areas
required to conduct the appropriate analyses for the New
England and Mid-Atlantic areas.

B. Available Data—New England

Generally, the socioeconomic data that are either
available or unavailable in New England are consistent
across fisheries. That is, the data gathering/storage
systems that are in place in New England collect similar
data for all of the fisheries. Thus, the discussion below on
the availability of data in the various data topic areas
will not be fishery specific.

1.0 Commercial Harvesting Sector
1.1 Number of Vessels & Gear

1.2 Detailed Vessel Inventory Data have been
available under the NMFS Weight-Out trip ticket
reporting system and from the NMFS annual vessel
survey, except that data have not been available for
boats under five net tons. Also, the Northeast
Regional Information System (NERIS), a permit
system recently developed for vessels harvesting
groundfish, herring, and tuna, contains informa-
tion describing vessel characteristics. Vessel
characteristics data are available on a continuing
basis. The NMFS Weight-Out system enables a


TIL.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 2.0... cece cece eee tent n een e nes 1
Economic Data Needs and Availability ............. 2.0.00. 0 1
1.Commercial Sector 1.0.0.0... cece eee eee eee ene nee 1
2. Recreational Sector ...........0.. cece cues 6
Biological Data Needs for Fishery Management . . 7
Bibliography .......0 02... ccc eee eee e eee ee - 10

Tables. ...... 0. cece eee eee ee -il
1. Data priorities for New England Region a
2. Data priorities for Mid-Atlantic Region ............0cceccueee 12
3. Summary of projects, funding required, and funding sources to

supplement existing economics data on commercial sector . - 13
Figure 2.0... ccc cece cece eee eee eee 14
1. Generalized fisheries biological information flow diagram ......... 14

Oo!




semngny ey ut ebueyo Aeu Hut4stT stTyz 3ey} peztuboooer st 4L

aTqeottddy 30N - WN

“Teg UOTIOeS UT pUNOZ aq TTTM Pere OTdoq eIepP YOwS jo suOTIdTIOSap petted

-Apnqgs Aqqsnput etbuts

-queqzodut ezow auoseq ucos Aew 4nq ‘3ueqzrodutun ATJUEZIND
-queqzodut ysou eyz exe ySTZe}se Ue YITM pexZeU seeTe OTdoZ eVep ssoyy T Atohezeo AQTA0TAd uTYIIM

T T T T T T T
z z z z z z z
z z z z z z@ z
T z z z z z z
T T T T T T T
€ € ¥* ¥* € € €
T z z z z@ z z
aT pas aT aT aT aT aT
T z ra z z z z
T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T
WN WN Pry ¥e z z @
WN YN ae ae z 2@ z
WN WN ae ae z z@ z
WN YN ee ae T T T
YN YN ae ae T T T
WN YN ae ** T T T
WN WN +e “ T T T
aT al aT al aT aT aT
T z z z z z z
al aT aT aT aT aT aT
al +T aT aT aT aT *T
aT aT aT aT aT aT al
aT aT aT aT al pas aT
aT aT aT aT aT aT al
aT aT aT al al aT aT
aT aT al aT aT aT aT
z c z z z z z
z z z z z z z
aT aT aT aT al aT aT
aT aT aT al aT aT aT
aT «1 aT «0 aT aI aT
aT «TL aT aT al al aT
«1 aT aT aT aT al aT
xxeqerQ Butz sdoTTeos ‘OxeH SxeH  usTFped YOOTTOd seTreysta
pay Pes 22430 ~FPATTS , oTQUeTIW

uolday puelsugq Man J0j sarong B1eq,

Teh

santea Tean3{nND
eqeq OTWOUCDg TeD07

eyed JeyreW ubtTer0g
uoTqonporg ubtez0g

sdtys ubjexz0g 03 sraysuez,
s320dxq

s310duy

ebesn TeTz3snpuT
uoTydumsuoD -4suUI/*4soW
uot jdumsuop suoq

usta qybnep -osy Jo sates
soTystzeqoereyD seXoTdugq
quoukotT dug

“pur ‘ddng jo sotTwoucog pettezed
*pur 3a20ddng ut sernqtpuedxg
sbuTuzeg 3 S3s0D
UOTZTSOdMUOD ¥ BZTS ETA
Ayyordep butssesorg

saeyo eehoTdug Butsses01g
queuXoTdug Hutssaes01g

SMOOTH JONpOTG

s3s0p Buta ¥ buTssesor1g
‘oe ‘szosses0zg TSqUNN
seotid ¥ uoTIONpoId

qazoj3a 3 s6utpuet
suoT}eraeptsuop Aqtoedep
soT4sTreyzoereYD Teznz {ND
aouetzedxg ¥ uoTzeonpg ‘aby
uoTyNqTz4STd 3 Tae swooUT
queudojTdug

sbuyureg % S}S0D

AzojVUsAUT [esse peTtezeq
zee 3 STessea JO TequNN

xxxxeoly OTdOL e7ed

pret

eee

+e

*

setzysnpuy 320ddng ‘umop ut sexnqtpuedxg

ANMNTANORDAHANAMTNONAANMNTNORANMAAMTNAN
AAA RAK HH ANNNNNANNM MMMM MME TIM MNNHNHOO

i


I. INTRODUCTION

As part of the Northeast Fishery Management Task
Force’s overall effort to provide a forum for the discus-
sion of issues and options under FCMA,\this report
attempts to identify the general categories of-economic
and biologic data needs required for fisheries manage-
ment. The discussion in this paper is organized in the
following manner:

1 [The objectives established for the major fisheries in
the Northeast by the New England and Mid-
Atlantic are identified. “]

2. [Performance indicators that can be used as surro-
gates for measuring the attainment of the objectives
are identified.

3. (Based on the identified performance indicators,
priorities were established for the general data
categories required. {It should be stressed that an ob-
vious critical step in the above process is not dis-
cussed in this paper. That critical step is a detailed
discussion of the methodologies that would be used
for conducting the analysis, for the methodologies

vA

thus identified would provide guidance for the data .

requirement. Since these methodologies are to be a
topic of another paper, they are not discussed here.
Rather, based on the authors’ knowledge of the
methodologies, the data needs and priorities were es-
tablished in this document.

4. (The general availability of the necessary data
elements are discussed-

5. T¥inally, a description of projects that should be un-
dertaken for collecting data in the deficient areas are
identified.{

It is important to point out that it is not the purpose of
this paper to present a detailed evaluation of specific
data elements currently being collected, or the programs
under whose purview the collection is made, but rather a
strategic planning paper outlining general areas of data
needs and their current availability. The “specifics” on
the above were well known to the authors and, when ap-
propriate, are discussed. Obviously, the specifics on the
current data base colored the general discussion
presented here.

It is also necessary to point out that biological and
economic data needs are not always independent. For
example, a biologist who wishes to predict what next
year’s catch will probably be requires some information
on the effect of price on catch. Likewise, an economist
who wishes to predict next year’s profits should under-

stand the effect of population size on producer’s costs.
There is a mutual use in many of the separate data
elements that should be recognized. Thus, many of the
data are inputs into more than oné objective.

IIl-1 ECONOMIC DATA NEEDS AND
AVAILABILITY

COMMERCIAL SECTOR

A. Required Data—New England

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(FCMA) of 1976 gives the Secretary of Commerce the
authority to manage fisheries out to 200 miles off the
U.S. coastline. The Act established eight Regional
Fishery Management Councils, two of which are in the
Northeast Region—the New England Council located in
Peabody, MA and the Mid-Atlantic Council head-
quartered in Dover, DE. The primary function of the
Councils is to prepare fishery management plans
(FMP’s) for those marine fisheries the Councils deem
important and which are covered by the Act—(an excep-
tion would be tunas.)

In the New England area, the following FMP’s are in
the process of being prepared or are anticipated to be
prepared in the near future:
¢ Herring
* Cod, Haddock and Yellowtail Flounder*

* Pollock*

* Ocean Perch* e
© Silver Hake*

* Scallops

¢ Red Crab

*May be combined into an Atlantic Demersal Plan

Generally, the main objective stated in the plans
developed under the auspices of the New England Coun-
cil is to maximize the net economic and social benefits
from the use of these resources. The criteria utilized in
evaluating the various strategies for attaining this objec-
tive included:

© net income to the harvesting sector
© employment in the harvesting sector
* labor income in the harvesting sector
© net income in the processing sector
© employment in the processing sector


2ZE/869-002—1868 1391440 ONILNIYd ANSWNYSAOD 'S'Ny

*@ATIPAT@SUOD 003

3t Aouaypotzzaut oTwouoda-o1g
JO TeISqTT 003 3Zy Hutystzzss0
eTqQTssod buyATduy Juaew7tnz998r
UT SUOTZETIBA 02 aATRTSUaS

UT SI cumtaqy{Tynba yoo3s w3zaz
-buoT a3owo1d 03 [oI3UOD 310330
6butjoedsez aotape septacig

*seTbaqe13s Juowebeuew
patztoeds Aq pattdwt szoedut
DTwoUuCss/OTBOTOTG JO uot?
-2}peiad w1ra3-Huot smotte ‘wa A
Aq pessaippe satbaje14s 1vak
burmMoTTOJ/quazind 03 [TeuCTIIppy

“satba3er3s uoTze10
3801 /UOTIEZTTTGQeIS YRS waz
-240Ys JO UOTReDTJTOAadS SMOTIW
*se30Nb yozed srvek
quazmms jo ebuez worz butTAInsaez
@ZTs yOOIS siead 3xaUu satytoeds

"aZztTs umututw uaATb

® aaatyor 03 ‘sher ysauw Jo uot
~JeOTZTOVdS smoTTe ‘ARTATROeTAS
butyzoedsaz uotzewsOzUT uaATO
*Aiqua ye abe/azts

jo uotjouny e se AroysTz ayy 03
pTeté [e303 aaTZeTaI SaTztOeds

T?POW
uotjonporg sntding —

T3Ppon
p————— T3ATeuy orweudg —

“WeIFBIP MOT UOIJWULIOJUT [BOIZoToIg sateysy paztpesouer) “| aN3Ly

S}USUIBAOW YD09S/YSTA

uot 3eauT Taq
_—_——/uotzeredag 49035

- 310334
vary Aq yo3yea—

“bard aybtem/yybuey —

Wda

Tapow 3Inz99y 3z9ed pletx

GaLIVdWI SAIODLVULS LNIWSIOWNYW

SANOINHOAL LNAWSSaSSY

Pebe-ze-yoze9

*48sq quewytnz09y —J

---Se90Tpul souepunqy—
“bara dub FeM/uabuaT —
yj bua7/aby— but by —4

(3ubtTem 93 yybuaT)
suotT3enbg y3moin

seqtseieg ‘sotTaue9
‘soTlQewoydiow
‘SOTASTIaW /butTbbey

310334 TeTo18uNI0D

yo3eD TeToreuM0D

t— Aaains [assaa yoreesoy

AAtTeyow Teangen—J

SASATWNW ONILYOddns

Wiwd gO saounos


a aa

\

008
a

aii

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-6

This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of
preliminary results, interim reports, or special purpose information; and
has not raceived complete formal review, editorial control, or detailed

editing.

Northeast Fishery Management
Task Force

Economic and Biological
Data Needs
For Fisheries Management,
with Particular Reference
to the New England
and Mid-Atlantic Areas

Guy D. Marchesseault', Joseph J. Mueller?,
and lvar E. Strand, Jr.3 ¢

1New England Fishery Management Council, Suntaug Bidg., 5 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906
2Northeast Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, Federal Bidg., 14 Elm St., Gloucester, MA 01930
3Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Richard A. Frank, Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service
Terry L. Leitzetl, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries.

Northeast Fisheries Center
Woods Hole, Massachusetts

December 1980



2.6

27

3.0
3.1
3.2

3.3
3.4

3.5

3.6
3.7

Processing Employee Characteristics Few data
are available on this data area. This is currently
viewed as a low priority item.

Processing Capacity This is another example of
an information item as opposed to a data item.
Currently, the NMFS has a contract developing in-
formation on processing capacity for
Massachusetts (Georgiana, et al.). The Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute recently completed
another study (Smith and Peterson). These studies
will have to be expanded for other areas and up-
dated appropriately. In addition, since alternative
methodological procedures may be deemed more
appropriate than those used in these studies, it is
probable that cost data will be required. This is due
to the fact that species capacity estimates are
required, and since these are multiple product
plants, some optimization modeling would be
necessary to generate the estimates. The NMFS is
funding a study that will be initiated in July, 1980,
the purpose of which is to estimate the cost struc-
ture of various types of fresh fish processing plants.
The study will be completed by July 1, 1981.

Commercial Party Boat Sector
Fleet Size and Composition

Costs and Earnings The New England Council
has had two studies completed on the fleet size and
composition, and on the cost and earnings of the
commercial party boat sector. These studies must
be updated as appropriate. The NERIS also con-
tains information on the number and physical
characteristics of the groundfish party and charter
boats.

Expenditures in Support Industries

Detailed Economics of Support Industries
Currently, only the Southern New England marine
region (Callaghan, 1976; Rorholm, 1966;
Grigalunas, 1979) geographic areas have been
studied at the level of detail required to track
through the indirect and induced impacts
associated with the commercial aspects of
recreational fishery. This is necessary data because
the Council is concerned with regional impacts of
the plans.

Employment The New England Council has had
two studies completed on the commercial party
boat sector which contained data on employment
(McConnell and Nicholson, 1979, and Nicholson
and Ruais, 1979). These studies must be updated as
appropriate.

Employee Characteristics

Sales of Recreationally Caught Fish No data are
currently available on either topic area. It is
generally accepted that a considerable portion of
the recreationally caught fish are sold. This is es-
pecially true for species such as cod.

4.0 Consumption
4.1 Home Consumption

4.2 Restaurant and Institutional Consumption
There are essentially no disaggregated data
available for this topic area. The NMFS is under-
taking a national study, in conjunction with the
Department of Agriculture, that should determine
the disposition and consumption patterns for
various species. The information is important for
conducting impact analyses of FMP’s.

4.3 Industrial Usage Only limited data have been
compiled on this topic area.

5.0 International Trade

5.1 Imports and Exports Import and export data are
obtained monthly from the Bureau of Census. In
addition, the Market News Branch collects import
data from the Regional Customs District and
publishes on a daily basis. However, a more
detailed breakdown by species is required.

5.8 Transfers to Foreign Processing Vessels No data
are currently available on this topic area since no
transactions have taken place on the East Coast.

5.4 Foreign Production

5.5 Foreign Market Data Only limited harvesting
sector data are available through FAO. Some
special studies have been completed on foreign
markets (Coombs, 1979). This data is important in
order to ascertain the impacts of alternative
TALF’s and/or fee system on U.S. market develop-
ment.

6.0 Local Economies

6.1 Local Economic Data As stated in 3.4 only the
Southern New England Marine Region has been
studied at the level of detail required to track
through the indirect and induced impacts
associated with direct impacts on the fishing in-
dustry. It is understood that an effort is underway
at the University of Maine to disaggregate the
State of Maine input/output model to separate out
fisheries. At the present time the status of the
Maine project is unknown.

6.2 Cultural Values Limited data are available.

Available Data—Mid-Atlantic

Data availability for the Mid-Atlantic differs from
New England mainly with respect to the harvesting sec-
tor. Compehensive data for catch and effort are generally
unavailable because the NMFS port pool system has not
in the past extended to the Mid-Atlantic region. This
problem has been corrected somewhat. The coverage of
all of New Jersey by the port pool system began in 1978.
Coverage of the principal ports in other states also began
in 1978. However, the extent of the coverage is not as


1.3

14

15

1.6
1.7

1.8

determination to be made of the number of vessels
and gear involved in the fisheries.

Cost and Earnings Periodic cost and earnings
studies have been conducted of various fleet sectors
in the New England area in the past (see Noetzel
and Norton, 1965; Dunham and Mueller, 1975;
Holmsen, 1977). However, they were not systematic
across fleet sectors. These should be continued on a
periodic basis.

A cost model should be developed where changes
in prices, and input costs can be used to provide up-
dated cost and earnings figures continuously. The
future periodic cost and earnings studies can then
be used to calibrate the model. The specifics of an
ongoing study are detailed in Section D.

Employment on Vessels Employment data for in-
dividual vessels is available through the NMFS’s
annual survey and NERIS file. The total employ-
ment in any particular fishery in any month can be
ascertained by linking the NMFS annual vessel
survey file and the NMFS weight-out file. In es-
sence, a system has been developed to link the files

“together under various pre-specifications desired.

This system is currently available to the Council
staff and to NMFS staff. :

Income Level and Distribution Through the
NMFS weight-out file, a determination can be
made, on either a monthly or annual basis of the
gross incomes of the various fleet sectors. However,
because of the current absence of current cost data
on the vessels as was stated above, no determina-
tion can currently be made of the net income dis-
tribution (except for scallop dredge vessels for
which a cost model was recently developed by
NMFS/NEFC).

Age, Education, and Experience

Cultural Characteristics Limited data are
available on both these topic areas. At the present
time they are felt to be sufficient.

Capacity Consideration The general approach
that has been taken in the New England Region is
that capacity is defined in an economic sense. That
is, it is a determination of expected output to be
produced during a particular period of time, given
expected commodity prices, factor costs, and factor
productivity. In fact, ‘‘capacity considerations” are
not a data topic area, but rather an empirical deter-
mination. The data required to make such a deter-
mination for a particular fishery include the
cost/earnings data above. Various studies have
been completed the last few years that are useful
from a methodological sense (Siegel, Mueller,
Rothschild, 1979; Smith and Peterson, 1979).
However, the cost data alluded to previously are
necessary to use the Siegel, Mueller, Rothschild
model.

1.9

2.0
21
2.2
2.3

2.4

2.5

Landings and Effort Landings data are collected
continuously via the NMFS port pool system from
the principal ports in New England and through
the NERIS logbook system (for surf clams and tuna
only). The landings at the principal ports are es-
timated to account for about 85% of the total New
England landings. Effort data, in terms of days at
sea and days fishing, are collected through the
same systems. It should be stressed that these are
landings data, not catch data. The two differ by the
amount of discards. Ex-vessel price data are
derived from the landings data, since both total
catch and total revenues are reported.

There has been concern expressed the last two
years over the integrity of the data collected
through the port pool system, due to misreporting
associated with the quotas. At this time, there has
not been a systematic evaluation of the magnitude
of this problem. As of October 1, 1979, the logbook
system was extended to cover the groundfish
vessels. In essence, there will be parallel systems in
existence. It is believed that the NMFS will even-
tually phase out the port pool system once the
validity of the new system has been established: No
information is currently available as to the specific
methods and procedures that will be used to
evaluate the new system or a precise timetable as to
when the phaseout will begin.

Processed Production
Production and Prices
Number of Processors

Processing Employment Currently the NMFS
conducts a voluntary annual survey of all
processing plants. Approximately 95% of the plants
surveyed provide responses. These surveys provide
data on the number of processors, the annual
production (on a volume and revenue basis), and
average monthly employment. Processor prices are
derived prices from the production data. While no
formal evaluation of the data has ever been carried
out, it is felt that for most species these data are ac-
curate,

Processing and Marketing Costs Very little data
are currently available on processing and
marketing costs. This is a high priority data area
necessary to evaluate net benefits of regulation and
development actions.

Product Flows This is not technically a data area,
but rather information derived from an analysis of
imports, landings, production, and exports. In
order to more adequately develop information in
this area, more data is needed on input sources and
product conversion factors. It may be particularly
important to have this information on planning
expansion of markets for traditional species and
developing markets for underutilized species.








ferring it by relating travel and fishing expenses to fish
caught. There can be wide divergences between the
benefit estimates obtained by the different methods
(Heberlein and Bishop). It is generally regarded that
some variety of the travel cost method yields the most
accurate measure although basic research is still
analyzing this point.

Accepting the conventional wisdom that a version of
the travel cost method is best, one needs the folllowing
information:

1. Sportfishing trip expenses including measures of the
opportunity cost of time, variable expenses of the
equipment, travel expenses, etc.;

2. Number of trips taken per year;

Number, weight and species caught and expected to
be caught;

Hours fishing, travel time, trip duration, party size;
Experience of the fishermen;
Gear used and location fished;

Population that fishes, i.e., the percent of the total
population engaged in fishing.

Currently, Human Sciences Research, Inc. is also ob-
taining many of these data cited above. This data should
provide the basis of a baseline estimate of consumer
benefits associated with sportfishing. It must be
recognized, however, that the estimate may have to be
updated in the future to account for changes in consumer
preferences or, possibly, changes in the art of measuring

. benefits. The data should also provide an excellent
description of socio-economic characteristics of the
sportfishing population.

°

nee Fe

2. Producers’ Benefits

There are two distinct producers’ benefits arising from
recreational fishing. The first arises is one treats the in-
dividual sportfisherman as both the producer and con-
sumer of sportfish. The producer element in this
framework would be addressed in the previous consumer
section because it is difficult to treat them separately.
Thus, the Human Sciences Research data will be used to
develop measures of. producers’ benefits, where
producers are viewed as individual sportfishermen.

The second form of producers’ benefits arise from
profits generated in the commercial charter and head-
boat fisheries. Aspects of data needed and available for
this group has been discussed in section II.B.1.0.
Reiterating those comments, there are two studies in
New England on the fleet size, composition, costs and
earnings of the commercial party boat sector. NERIS
also contains information on the number and physical
characteristics of party and charter boats.

3. Regional Benefits.

Regional benefits are normally considered the income
and employment generated as the result of management
decisions. The underlying assumption is that the region

being considered: has idle resources and that some
percentage of the income and employment generated by
a decision will result in use of these idle resources.

One attempts to determine total economic activity
generated and this requires some form of an input-
output model. The discussion presented in the commer-
cial sector on input-output models is applicable here. An
example of an analysis is contained in Economic Activi-
ty Associated with Marine Recreational Fishing (Cen-
taur).

The input-output model combined with data obtained
by Human Sciences Research would be sufficient to es-
timate regional impacts of management decisions.

4. Regulatory Benefits

One area of management relates to the cost of enforc-
ing regulatory decisions. License fees, creel limits, and
seasonal closures are among the numerous methods that
are used to limit the harvest of recreational fishermen.
The cost of enforcing these regulations should be con-
sidered when making the choice of which type of
management tool to use.

There are, to the best of our knowledge, no studies that
adequately address this aspect of management. It is an
area for which some information should be developed
after appropriate data collection. One could expect such
a study to cost less than 50 K.

I BIOLOGICAL DATA NEEDS
FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT

A. Introduction

As noted in previous sections, various fishery
management plans (FMP) either have been developed or
are currently under development by the New England
and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils.
Although the need or motivation for fishery management
is most often associated with economic or social con-
siderations, the scope of management is highly depen-
dent upon our knowledge of the biology of the resource
and our operational understanding of how the fishery is
prosecuted. For many plans, objectives relating to the
harvesting and utilization of the subject stock or stocks
of fish have been adopted, and management measures to
achieve those objectives either have been or are in the
process of being identified. While it is probable that
objectives will differ among FMPs according to the
economic and social context of the fishery, our un-
derstanding of the biological parameters of the resource
and operationa! characteristics of the fishery will very
often constrain the set of objectives which are
meaningful and achievable.

This discussion of biological data needs in fishery
management will, therefore, include those types of data
which support the definition of management objectives,
permit the identification of consistent management


C. Integrative Analysis =

Although fishery management techniques employing
various categories of biological data are discussed
elsewhere in this volume (Sissenwine and Kirkley,
Fishery Management Techniques: A Review), a brief
overview of the relationship between biological data in-
puts, analytical techniques, management objective
definition, and strategy design is provided below and il-
lustrated in Table 4.

Various techniques are presently used to assess the
status of fish stocks and, where possible, predict the con-
sequences of various levels of harvest. Basic biological
data supporting the analysis of fish species include infor-
mation on natural mortality, the relationship between
length and age, and the relationship between length and
weight. These data support a technique known as yield
per recruit analysis (Y/R). This level of analysis
provides information, on the expected yield of an in-
dividual fish over its average life in the fishery. Ad-
ditionally, the technique provides information on
relative expected yield from the fishery over time as a
function of the age at which fish are initially subject to
capture. Objectives supported by this analysis would in-
clude increasing yield per recruit, and could be achieved
through the specification of a minimum size or an ap-
propriate mesh.

Data on the catch of a-species in a fishery are useful to
biological analysis at two levels. First, simple catch
data, when combined with data on applied effort, can be
used to support surplus production analysis of the
fishery. Surplus production models provide insight into
the level of effort that should be applied in order to
achieve the maximum long-term yield from a fishery.
This type of analysis supports objectives which identify
long-term stock abundance goals. Practical limitations
to this approach, including effort standardization
problems and insensitivity to non-equilibrium con-
ditions, exist and are thoroughly discussed in the
fisheries literature.

When data on the age composition of catches and es-
timates of recent fishing mortality rates exist, the
technique of cohort analysis may be used to estimate the
strengths of past recruiting year classes and evaluate the
cohort structure of the population over time. The
technique is useful for investigating possible
stock/recruitment relationships. Moreover, when com-
bined with estimates of current recruitment (typically
from research survey data), the technique serves as the
basis for estimating the short-term impact of catch on
stock size. This level of analysis supports objectives
which call for the short-term stabilization or restoration
of stocks.

As our understanding of the mechanisms which con-
trol recruitment, the variability in natural mortality,
migratory and seasonal behavior, species interactions,
and other important biological parameters improve for
the stocks under management, more demanding objec-
tives become appropriate. As we are better able to track
populations through time and predict the biological con-

sequences of various harvesting strategies, multiple-year
objectives sensitive to industry growth and economic
trends will become increasingly meaningful.

Finally, a major obstacle confronting the development
of fishery management programs, particularly on a
multiple-year basis, is the treatment of uncertainty in
biological and economic parameters in the identification
and evaluation of management strategies. Whether this
uncertainty is associated with our ability to measure
critical parameters or to predict change in them as a
result of the application of management measures, it is
essential that the decision-maker be aware of both the
level and nature of risks which may be associated with
the selection of a management option. From a biological
and operational perspective, key data are being
scrutinized to provide a basis for structuring the impact
of uncertain variables into the management analysis
process. Correspondingly, techniques are being
developed to handle uncertainty in key parameters on a
continuing basis, and translate this uncertainty into
useful management information.

D. Regional Data Collection Programs—An Overview

In the Northeast region biological and operational
data of potential use to the development of fishery
management programs are being principally collected by
either the National Marine Fisheries Service or ap-
propriate state agencies. Both NMFS and the various
state agencies have data collection programs which ad-
dress the collection of fisheries statistics, as well as basic
information relating to the biology/ecology of various
marine species.

For more than 100 years NMFS has collected,
assembled and published fishery statistics on the volume
and value of catch, employment, processing and other
data on the fisheries of the U.S. The data collected range
from annual surveys to monthly summaries to detailed
fishery trip records.

However, in the New England and Mid-Atlantic
regions the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center also con-
ducts major research programs on fishery resource abun-
dance, species composition, age structure, and the en-
vironment which supports these resources. Major NMFS
programs include:
© Assessment of the distribution, abundance, produc-

tivity and harvestable surplus of fishery resources in

the Northeast region.

© Assessment of productivity of food chains in relevant
marine ecosystems.

© The impact of pollutants on the marine environment,
and on the behavior, physiology and biochemistry of
marine organisms.

* Analysis of the specific physical and chemical environ-
ment of the northwest Atlantic, and how it affects
fishery production.

© Gear research.


NOAA FORM 25-13 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

(1-78: BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
1. NOAA ACCESSION NUMBER 2 R iS 'S 00008 NUMBER
NOAA=81022604 Bi
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE Northeast Fishery Management Task Force, 5 2008 ee
Economic and Biological Data Needs for Fisheries Management, Dec _1980
with Particular Reference to the New England and Mid-Atlantic .
Areas
7. autHoris) Guy D, Marchesseault, Joseph J. Mueller, and Ivar E, |8 REPORT NO.
Strand, Jr. (New England Fish, Manage. Council, Saugus, MA) NOAA~TM~NMFS=F/NEC~6
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROJECT/TASK NO.
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Woods Hole, MA, 02543 TT, CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Northeast Fisheries Center
12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS: 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD
Same COVERED

Tech. Memo.

TA.

1§. PUBLICATION REFERENCE
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC~6, December 1980, 17 p, 1 fig, 5 tab.

16. ABSTRACT

The general categories of economic and biologic data needs required for fisheries
management are identified. They are discussed in the following manner: (1) The
objectives established for the major fisheries in the Northeast by the New England
and Mid-Atlantic are identified: (2) Performance indicators that can be used as
surrogates for measuring the attainment of the objectives are identified; (3) Based
on the identified performance indicators, priorities were established for the general
data categories required; (4) The general availability of the necessary data elements
are discussed; and (5) A description of projects that should be undertaken for
collecting data in the deficient areas are identified, (Sinha ~ OEIS)

17, KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

7A. DESCRIPTORS

*Fisheries, *Management, *Data, Economics, Planning, Biolo
? By

178. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN-ENDED TERMS

United States Northeast, Data needs

17¢. COSAT! FIELD/GROUP,

8A
18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS 21. NO. OF PAGES
(This report) 18 p
Released for distribution: UNCLASSIFIED -
20. SECURITY CLASS |22. PRICE
(This report)
a LA GUHA UNCLASSIFIED

NOAA FORM 25-13 (1-78) ae ALL PREVIOUS EDITIONS.







comprehensive as in New England at the present time. It
is expected that the coverage will be extended during the
early 1980's.

C. Data Deficiencies

The principal categories of commercial data which are
of high priority for FMP’s (and thus the focal point of
this document) and in which important deficiencies
exist, are listed below.

New England
* Cost and Earnings for the Harvesting Sector
© Cost and Earnings for the Processing Sector
© Cost and Earnings for the Retail Sector
¢ Input Sources for the Processing Sector
* Consumption Data
© Imports
* Data on Local Economies
© Foreign Market Data
Mid-Atlantic
In addition to those above, the following are needed:
* Complete Vessel Landing Data
“e Complete Vessel Effort Data

D. Data Collection Plan :

The purpose of this section is to provide an
identification of the ongoing and/or planned projects,
and their estimated cost for the major studies/program
that will be required in order to correct the data deficien-
cies cited previously. A suggested timetable for project
implementation for planned projects is also provided.

It is felt that it is very premature at this time to dis-
cuss the specific methodologies and levels of precision in
the data collection plan.

Cost and Earnings for the Harvesting Sector

An NMFS study was initiated in 1980, the purpose of
which is to develop a financial simulation model for the
otter trawl fleet in New England. The basic approach
being“used is an engineering one where cost profiles are
being constructed for each vessel over 5 tons for various
ports. (Previous attempts at direct collection of cost
earnings data have been difficult.) By linking the finan-
cial simulator with the NMFS weight-out file, annual in-
come statements and cash flows will be generated. The
initial project would have a duration of 2 years (1980-
1981); the cost would be approximately $43K.
Thereafter, the cost model would be updated at an an-
nual cost of $5K. A cost model for the scallop dredge
vessels has recently been developed by NMFS and New
England Council staff. Such systems would be extended
to the Mid-Atlantic area in the 1981/1982 period at an
initial cost of $50K. It is expected that the Mid-Atlantic

study will draw upon the ongoing Mid-Atlantic study of
socio-economic characteristics of the fisheries of the
Mid-Atlantic.

Cost and Earnings for the Processing Sector

An NMFS funded study will be initiated in July of
1980, the purpose of which would be to generate pro for-
ma financial statements for processing plants in New
England. As in the harvesting sector study, an
engineering approach would be used and a general finan-
cial simulator would be developed. The initial period
(1980-1981) cost will be approximately $40K. The model
will be updated each year at an annual cost of about
$5K. (The previous studies done on the processing sector
(Georgiana, et al.; Smith-Peterson) do not contain the
necessary data. to generate the financial analysis
needed.)

The study would begin in the Mid-Atlantic area in
1982-1983 period. The first year cost would be ap-
proximately $50K. Again, the Mid-Atlantic segment will
draw upon the ongoing Mid-Atlantic Inventory study.

Consumption Data

Since the fish and shellfish that are landed in New
England and Mid-Atlantic ports are consumed
nationwide, it is clear that a national rather than a
regional approach is the most appropriate here in order
to determine consumer impacts of management
regulations. Such a study would be aimed at deter-
mining the quantities consumed and relevant price paid
by species at home and in restaurants by various groups,
and by the industrial sector.

Such a study is now in the planning stages jointly with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which conducts
similar surveys for agricultural products.

The timing and costs of the national survey will large-
ly be a function of the timing of the Agricultural survey
and the increased costs to the Agricultural survey for in-
cluding fishery products.

Input-Output Models

In order to determine the indirect and induced im-
pacts of various regulatory/developmental activities,
data on local economies are required. Most of the
existing national and local input-output models do not
have various fisheries sectors disaggregated. Two studies
that did were the University of Rhode Island Southern
New England Marine Studies (1965 and 1979). A com-
panion study is needed to be undertaken for Northern
New England. Certainly, some of the cost/earning data
that will be generated from the harvesting sector and
processing sector studies will be useful here. The
northern New England study should be initiated in 1981.
Based on the recently completed URI study, the
Northern New England study would take two years
(1981-1982) at a cost of $150K. It is understood that an
attempt is underway to disaggregate the State of Maine
Input-Output model at considerably less cost. The
results of this endeavor are currently unknown.


measures, or provide a basis for evaluating biological im-
pacts of management options. Three categories of rele-
vant “biological” data supporting fishery management
are identified below, and the implications of the
availability of such data to the development of a
management system are discussed. .

B. Classes of Biological /Operational Fishery Data

Basic Descriptive Data Biological data in this category
are typically collected independently of a fishery
management program; although, such data are essential
to the initial development of management programs.
These data may include descriptions of stocks, habitats,
spawning and migratory behavior, generalized spatial
and temporal interspecies relationships and trophic
relationships, the generalized age structure of the
fishable stock, and natural periodicity in population
abundance. Data of this type have traditionally been
gathered in the interest of basic scientific inquiry;
although, species specific research interests at all levels
have been focused by considerations for the economic
significance of the resource.

Data in this category provide management agencies
with a basis for launching management programs. These
data assist in delineating the management unit and
identifying problem areas arising from the manner in
which the fishery is being exploited. Although cause and
effect relationships influencing the distribution, abun-
dances, and availability of species under consideration
can likely only be qualitatively inferred from these data,
management objectives addressing basic conservation
principles can be meaningfullly defined. That is, an
objective to increase the probability of future successful
recruitment may be reasonably addressed with manage-
ment measures calling for the closure of spawning or
nursery areas. It is recognized that a management
program based upon such descriptive biological data
could be expected to exert only loose control on the
fishery, and objectives incorporating specific biological
or economic goals could not be defined.

Analytical Biological Data Data in this category
provide management with the first quantitative basis for
analyzing cause and effect relationships, defining
biological optimality, and evaluating short-term
economic impacts. These data typically are collected in
support of a higher level of management decision-
making through the. use of standard fishery analysis
techniques (generalized equations describing growth,
production, and population change over time). Included
in this category are data on length at age, length/weight
relationships, estimates of natural and fishing mortality,
and the way in which fish recruit to the fishable stock
(i.e., are subject to being caught). Also included are

catch and effort data from the commercial sector of the
fishery, catch data from the recreational sector, annual
indices of relative abundance (typically from research
surveys) and length frequency data from recreational
fishing, and commercial and research survey operations.

These data support the overall assessment of the
resource and provide insight into MSY, the long-term
relationship between production and exploitation (a
function of applied effort), variation in annual recruit-
ment to the fishable stock and the expected short-term
impact of various catch or effort based management
scenarios. Such information allows for the establishment
of management objectives which contain specific
biological goals. Such goals may include a desired
spawning stock size or range, an appropriate long-term
average level of catch, or an appropriate level of
exploitation. Various management measures consistent
with these objectives might include controls on catch
(quotas) to achieve stock rebuilding or stock
maintenance, controls on effort to encourage long-term
stability or increased average harvest from the fishery, or
controls on harvesting practices (size of retention by gear
or cull size) to enhance productivity and the probability
of reproductive success.

Operational Data Data on various aspects of the
operation of a fishery are essential to both the design and |
analysis of management strategies. While this category
of data supports both biological and economic analyses,
certain kinds of operational data are of particular impor-
tance in estimating key biological parameters, and in
correctly specifying the transition between management
action (measures implemented at the industry level) and
the expected or desired biological effects (consistent with
the management objectives). Data in this category in-
clude seasonal, geographical catch and _ by-atch
patterns, effective effort (sensitive to technological and
efficiency changes), gear selectivity and efficiency, gear-
induced mortality, and gear-related impacts on the
habitat.

The multispecies character of many of the commercial
fisheries in the Northeast makes species or stock specific
management unrealistic. Because management mea-
sures are typically applied at the industry level, their
design must simultaneously address the expected effec-
tiveness in achieving the objectives for the target
species/stock, as well as the expected impacts on other
co-harvested or optionally harvested species/stock(s).
Data in this category are essential in analyzing the broad
spectrum of biological, economic, and social impacts
resulting from the implementation of a fishery manage-
ment system in a multi-species industry context. Possi-
ble controls on catch, effort, gear, area or season all
require detailed data on operational characteristics and
fishery practices ‘in their design and mode of implemen-
tation. Operational considerations relating to the defini-
tion of management units are discussed separately in
this volume (Marchesseault and Anderson, The Defini-
tion of Fishery Management Units).