PROVIDENCE, RI - The independent peer review of groundfish biological reference points and trawl survey issues is complete and the findings are public.

    In short, the review panel concluded that the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's work is "scientifically sound," but a significant amount of "uncertainty" underlies all biomass modeling, so fishery managers should "be adaptive" in their management approach.

    How these findings will influence the outcome of groundfish Amendment 13 was still unknown at press time in late March. Fishermen and fishery managers throughout the region were continuing to digest the panel's comments and were strategizing about what to do next.

    The New England Fishery Management Council called a special one-day meeting for April 15 to further deliberate biological reference points. Stakeholders on all sides were combing through the peer review documents, attempting to assess the ramifications of the five-member panel's advice (see panel details, next page).

    The panel's conclusions were formally presented to the New England council at a March 4-6 meeting in Providence, where panel Chairman Andrew Payne of Lowestoft, England provided a summary of the reports produced by the other four panelists, all world class scientists.

    Recognizing that people were going to try to use what he said to "justify their own position," Payne was steadfastly professional throughout his presentation, refusing to be backed into a corner even during an intense follow-up question-and-answer session.

    The panel made numerous important statements, but two general conclusions boiled to the surface, one regarding the trawl survey and the other regarding biological reference points.

	(Click the thumbnail to see full-size view in separate window.)

    On the survey end, the panel determined that the Northeast Fisheries Science Center should continue using trawl survey data for groundfish stock assessments - unadjusted - "because their use is scientifically justifiable at the current status of scientific knowledge."

    However, the panel also believed that if the survey gear protocol remained controversial, then an experiment, "limited to a few objectives," should be undertaken.

    Last September's trawl survey observation cruise, where commercial fishermen onboard the Albatross IV witnessed how the survey net performed with mismatched warps, tested too many things at once, the panel concluded.

    "We found that all of the fishermen's concerns were worthy of consideration, but the data shown to us were confounding," said Payne. "They (the Albatross crew and center scientists) had too much to do in that time."

    Above and beyond all else, the panel believed it was essential for the science center to maintain its long-term data set for groundfish, which Payne said ranked in "the upper echelon" in the world "in terms of coverage and duration."

    "The continuity of the time series is paramount," he said. "You have a huge and extremely valuable long-term data set. You must not compromise that data set."

    As for biological reference points, the peer review panel concluded that a certain degree of uncertainty surrounds all projections, regardless of the model used to calculate the numbers.

    "We are concerned that the Bmsy targets are very uncertain. This is not unique to you. It is common throughout the world of fisheries," said Payne.

    Bmsy, the biomass at maximum sustainable yield (MSY), is achieved under a constant fishing mortality rate (F) equal to Fmsy.

    The panel called the science center's choice of models for generating the 2002 Reference Point Working Group report "scientifically sound."

    The report, officially called the Final Report of the Working Group on Re-Evaluation of Biological Reference Points for New England Groundfish, is controversial because it contains extremely high biomass reference points for several species - some at levels never seen in the past.

    Once a Bmsy is adopted, managers must take steps to cut back fishing effort to rebuild fish stocks to that Bmsy level, which can result in very severe restrictions.

    "We can align ourselves with the current estimates, yes. The science underpinning those is sound," said Payne.

    But, he added, "Do not assume we are recommending historically high values. The highest level in the time series may not be achievable anymore. The environment has changed."

    Payne emphasized that "we don't want all the blame for reduced stocks to be on the environment. Fishing was an essential part of the downturn."

    Yet he said the panel recognized that reaching the highest figure ever recorded for a species "in a system that has changed" may not be doable.

    "All we can do is advise caution," he said.

    If the council decides to adopt the working group's Bmsy reference points, the peer review panel said "the potential costs of adopting an erroneous value of Bmsy need to be evaluated."

    "The panel was unanimous on this point," said Payne.

    Given the existing uncertainty, the panel said that using an "adaptive" management approach "to control biomass is eminently sensible."

    "I think what we're trying to say is be adaptive to what's happening in the system," said Payne. "We are advocating a way-point system where you set an interim target and then you evaluate (a ways down the road) and reset your target at that stage. From a scientific perspective, one can easily defend the setting of an intermediate biomass target."

    Payne further explained, "The risk to a stock is greater with a phased approach than with an initial painful cut. I think that's obvious. (So) if a stock is in a really bad state, a phased reduction might not be the way to go. But if a stock is in a low phase, perhaps a phased reduction could be accepted."

    The peer review chairman also addressed a point that surfaces repeatedly in the Northeast given the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act's mandate to fully rebuild all overfished stocks.

    Payne said, "It is doubtful that the question of whether all 19 stocks can be moved simultaneously towards Bmsy through single-species management can be answered easily. Single-species MSYs are not good indicators of multispecies MSY."

    Pushed hard by New England council members for a bottom line conclusion from the peer review panel, Payne said, "Perhaps the Northeast Fisheries Science Center can refine the procedures in the future, but I think you have enough data on which to act.

    "We do not believe that conducting re-analyses will vastly affect the information you have before you."

    Payne was peppered with questions from everyone in the room. But even when needled for responses to bolster positions one way or the other, Payne remained consistent in his responses and maintained an impeccable air of diplomacy toward all stakeholders.

    Several people asked whether it was appropriate to assume that Bmsy would "take care of itself" as long as the council managed the fishery at the appropriate Fmsy level. Fmsy is the fishing mortality level that will get you to maximum sustainable yield.

    "We certainly agree with that," said Payne.

    Council member Doug Hopkins of Connecticut asked Payne for an explanation of "adaptive management." Hopkins said there seemed to be two points of view. Some supported setting high Bmsy levels as recommended by the Reference Point Working Group and then lowering those numbers at a later point if they proved to be too high.

    The other alternative, explained Hopkins, is to set reference points low and then raise them later if it's determined that stocks aren't rebuilding to the necessary level.

    Payne couldn't offer any guidance on this point.

    "It would be unfair to say we've come down on one side of the fence or the other," said Payne. "This is a management and policy decision."

    Asked whether the panel found evidence that the science center had taken into account ecosystem management concepts, Payne said, "No, we didn't see it taken into consideration in the documents, but this is not surprising. This is an emerging science. Ecosystem management is extremely complex and it's in its early stages. I would advise any move toward multispecies management."

    Asked about the effects of predation on stock rebuilding, Payne said, "A growth of any predator is going to have an affect on the overall system."

    And asked about whether he thought "the law outstripped our ability of science to predict" stock rebuilding levels, Payne said, "It is not really within bounds for me to comment on US law."

    While many New England council members focused their questions on biological reference points, North Carolina fisherman Jimmy Ruhle, serving as the Mid-Atlantic council liaison during the March meeting when Payne made his presentation, centered his comments on trawl survey gear.

    Ruhle expressed concern over the panel's conclusion that "there is no reason to replace the current survey series or design."

    Stunned by this statement, Ruhle, who's chairing a working group of fishermen, scientists, and council members involved with redesigning the survey, said, "This (existing) survey was designed as a trawl survey for groundfish, but now it's used for lots of species, even some pelagics. I recognize the species I'm concerned with will never be truly sampled with the net we have now."

    Ruhle added, "We do not have confidence in the gear for some species. We have tremendous confidence in the people at the science center. We just don't have it in the gear."

    The peer review panel acknowledged that "species poorly sampled in surveys may not be appropriate for assessment on the basis of survey data."

    Payne added, "Other means must be looked at to try to assess them."

    According to Payne, the most critical point is to not "undermine what the survey is good at" or compromise the long-term time series.

    However, he said, "I believe the setting up of the working group to evaluate the survey is a crucial step in the right direction."

    Ruhle asked, "Is there flexibility in upgrading the gear without losing the time series?"

    Payne indicated that there was.

    "Changing the gear is just one of a number of things that can be altered in a survey. We ourselves (at Payne's research facility in England) are getting a new ship, which brings in a lot of noise to the system. My experience worldwide is you've got to prepare yourselves in advance for the changes."

    Payne thanked everyone for the "privilege" of chairing the groundfish peer review.

    He admitted the job was extremely challenging since panel members were given little lead-time to prepare for the meeting.

    "It was a massive amount of documentation," he said. "It was easy to read, just very voluminous. I don't think there was any information that was not supplied to us."

    Payne clearly was pleased with the performance of Don Perkins of the Gulf of Maine Aquarium, who was pulled in to serve as the moderator and facilitator of the meeting's three-day open session in early February.

    This decision to use a moderator, said Payne was a "masterstroke" by meeting organizers.

    "It made my job much easier and it allowed those who attended the meeting to feel like their concerns would be addressed by the reviewers."

    And finally, while all the reviewers were critical of some aspects of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's work, Payne had high praise for the caliber of scientists who work at this facility.

    "The center has a large number of competent people I'd give my eye teeth for," he said.