A Systems Approach to Fisheries Science and Management: Beyond Management Strategy Evaluation

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ICES CM 2010/R:02 THE EXPLORATION OF THE SEA Delivering more science with fewer resources

A Systems Approach to Fisheries Science and Management: beyond management strategy evaluation

Steve Cadrin, Brian Rothschild, Azure Westwood,

Cate O’Keefe, Greg DeCelles, Emily Keiley and Dan Georgianna

University of Massachusetts, School for Marine Science and Technology, USA

Abstract:

Operations research is typically applied to fisheries science in the form of either adaptive management or ‘management strategy evaluation.’ Adaptive management implements alternative approaches to address specific problems and monitors effectiveness of actions. Management strategy evaluation uses an operating model to simulate fishery and survey data; the data are analyzed by a stock assessment model; assessment results are used for pre‐defined management decisions; management decisions iteratively feed‐back on the operating model; and performance of the harvest control rule is evaluated with respect to stated objectives. A systems approach to fisheries science and management combines the flexibility of adaptive management with the quantitative simulation of management strategy evaluation to provide a more holistic approach in which scientific and administrative investments can be optimized and objectives can be iteratively refined. The last two decades of global fishery management illustrate a series of evolving objectives: 1) avoiding recruitment overfishing; 2) incorporating uncertainty in a precautionary approach; 3) achieving maximum long‐term yield by avoiding growth overfishing; 4) achieving optimal yield for multiple socioeconomic utilities; and 5) considering ecosystem approaches and utilities. Despite the substantial changes in system requirements associated with these developments, investments in fishery science have remained remarkably static, continuing conventions for fishery sampling and resource surveys that were designed in the context of past objectives and obsolete technologies. Application of new technologies are typically evaluated and implemented within the narrow objectives of each program rather than in the broader context of related programs and performance of the entire system. A systems approach to fisheries science and management offers a more strategic tool for maximizing investments in fisheries beyond the evaluation of alternative harvest rules.

Keywords: systems analysis, operations research, management strategy evaluation

Steven X. Cadrin, University of Massachusetts School for Marine Science & Technology, 200 Mill Road, Fairhaven MA 02719 U.S.A. tel: +001 508 910 6358, email: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

Fishery management systems attempt to achieve many objectives with modest operational budgets, so effective fishery science must optimize multiple utilities within ecological and societal constraints. When the environment changes (e.g., climate) or societal values change (e.g., international environmental policies), fishery science and management systems must respond to achieve optimal allocation of limited resources. Systems analysis is an approach that considers all system components and their linkages to evaluate performance toward meeting objectives, identify areas that need improvement, optimize allocation of resources, and even re‐evaluate objectives (Quade and Boucher 1968).

Historical and recent episodes in global fishery management show how objectives evolve. For example, the ICES advisory system illustrates a series of successively refined objectives and increasing demands from monitoring programs, routine stock assessments and fishery management:

 Optimum yield – prior to the 1980s, ICES advice was based on maximizing yield per recruit, by

recommending that fishing mortality (F) be equal to Fmax or F0.1 (Lassen 1999). Yield per recruit analysis requires relatively simple life history information (size at age or growth parameters) and size or age selectivity of the fishery (Thompson and Bell 1934, Beverton and Holt 1957). Stock assessments were primarily required to provide estimates of F, which could be achieved with samples of fishery size or age composition. Management involved size limits for landing fish or gear restrictions, and limiting fishing effort.  Avoiding recruitment overfishing – In the 1980s, the basis of ICES advice was focused on ‘safe biological limits’ determined by the minimum biologically acceptable level of stock size and fishing mortality (Serchuk and Granger 1992). Safe biological limits were typically defined

according to stock‐recruitment estimates and associated F that would allow replacement (Fmed; Sissenwine and Shepherd 1987). Stock assessment was required to provide estimates of a time series of F, stock size (e.g., spawning biomass) and recruitment (e.g., age‐1 abundance), which typically involved a time series of fishery catch‐at‐age estimates as well as indices of relative abundance (fishery catch rates or standardized surveys). Fishery management needed to include rebuilding plans to conserve adequate spawning biomass and associated mid‐term projections.  A precautionary approach – In the late 1990s, uncertainty in limit reference points was incorporated into the ICES advisory framework in the form of precautionary reference points

(Fpa and Bpa; ICES 1998). The precautionary approach required a more formal statistical model to synthesize fishery and survey information and provide measures of precision. The focus on uncertainty also required evaluation of all potential sources of bias (e.g., discarded catch, catchability of abundance indicators, stock identity), which in turn demanded more of fishery monitoring, resource surveys and analytical methods. Fishery management needed to consider risk tolerance.  Achieving maximum long‐term yield – For the past few years, ICES advice has considered long‐ term yield, and 2010 advice is based on achieving maximum sustainable yield (MSY; ICES 2010c).

A MSY‐based advisory system requires a broader understanding of stock and fishery dynamics, often needing to extrapolate beyond observed time series of F and stock size (Brodziak et al. 2008). Fishery management now relies heavily on long‐term projections.  Ecosystem conservation – A parallel development that is independent to the refinement of single‐species advice is more integrated ecosystem‐based advice (ICES 2009a). Implementing integrated ecosystem assessments requires monitoring all biological components of the system, some of which have not been traditionally monitored by fishery science and management systems (ICES 2010a). Management is based on multiple indicators and multiple sets of stakeholders.  Optimal yield for socioeconomic utilities – In addition to requiring expanded consideration of natural components of the system, integrated ecosystem assessment also involves integrated management of all human impacts (ICES 2009c). Management of fisheries in the context of other human uses requires a broadening of the definition of optimum yield, and an investment in social sciences to confront societal tradeoffs (Hilborn 2007).

These successively refined objectives in the ICES advisory system reflect global trends in fisheries science and management. Each new set of objectives influences a wide range of research and monitoring programs that produce data for stock assessment, and they present substantial new challenges for fishery management programs. Each successive change can be viewed as an adaptive revision to address previous system failures. For example, maximizing yield‐per‐recruit ignored the negative feedback of F on stock size, recruitment and total yield, so advice was re‐focused on avoiding recruitment overfishing. The focus on avoiding recruitment overfishing ignored the gains that could be achieved by optimizing long‐term yield, etc.

STRATEGIC ANALYSES IN FISHERIES SCIENCE

Despite the fundamental changes in fishery management objectives that have occurred in the last three decades, allocations of investments in fishery science have remained remarkably static. Traditional monitoring and management programs have been continued, rather than revising the system design to meet the new system requirements. Applications of new technologies are usually slow to develop. When new technologies are applied, they tend to address relatively narrow program objectives, rather than system requirements. Strategic analyses are needed to support decisions about investments and system design (e.g., Rothschild 1973). In fisheries science, strategic analysis of fisheries systems typically takes the form of adaptive management or management strategy evaluation.

Adaptive management (Walters 1986) implements alternative strategies and evaluates how well they meet objectives. The adaptive management cycle (Figure 1) includes: 1) definitions of objectives, including communication with all stakeholders; 2) system description, including subsystems, components and linkages; 3) identification of system failures, including feedback from stakeholders; 4) identification of possible solutions from brainstorming; 5) implementation of alternative system configurations; and 6) monitoring system response (Jones 2005). Although identification of failures,

3 development of alternatives, and implementation of new strategies are common, problems and solutions are often not considered within the entire system, and evaluating effectiveness of alternatives for meeting objectives is rare.

Figure 1. The adaptive management cycle (from Jones 2005).

Management strategy evaluation is a more quantitative approach to evaluating performance of alternative management procedures through simulation before they are implemented (e.g., Cooke 1999). The process of management strategy evaluation is:

1) an operating model is used to simulate fishery and survey data; 2) the data are analyzed by a stock assessment model; 3) assessment results are used for pre‐defined management decisions; 4) management decisions iteratively feed‐back on the operating model; and 5) performance of the harvest control rule is evaluated with respect to stated objectives (Figure 2).

The stock assessment and harvest control rule system can be considered a ‘management procedure’ (Butterworth 2007). An emerging fishery science and management system involves a relatively simple, data‐driven harvest control rule that is implemented over several years and routinely re‐considered through management strategy evaluation every five to ten years. The management procedure approach represents an alternative fishery science and management system that may out‐perform a system that is based on annual stock assessments and policy analyses for meeting management objectives. The ICES system of annual update assessments and less frequent ‘benchmark’ reviews can be viewed as an intermediate between the management procedure approach and annual stock assessments (ICES 2009b).

Management Strategy Evaluation compare outcomes to objectives

Operating Model Fishery Fishery Resource Action Observations Management

Stock Harvest Assessment Policy Management Procedure

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the management strategy evaluation process.

Although the management strategy evaluation concept is typically applied to single‐species stock assessment and fishery management, it can be expanded to evaluate broader ecosystem objectives (Sainsbury et al. 2000). Integrated ecosystem assessments can incorporate all physical and biological components of the ecosystem as well as all human impacts (Levin et al. 2009). Management strategy evaluation has a large role in the development of integrated ecosystem assessment, but the data requirements are greater, and the management procedures are broader (Figure 3).

Marine Human Impacts Ecosystem ‐Fisheries ‐Climate ‐Energy ‐Production… ‐Contaminants… Surveys

Observation,

Actions Management Extractions, Imacts Ocean Ecosystem Status Assessment ‐Models Environmental ‐Indicators Policies ‐Reference Points

Figure 3. Expanded management strategy evaluation for integrated ecosystem assessment.

A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO FISHERIES SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT

Systems analysis combines the open‐mindedness and flexibility of adaptive management with the quantitative simulation of management strategy evaluation to provide a more holistic approach in which scientific and administrative investments can be optimized and objectives can be iteratively refined. Both adaptive management (Figure 1) and management strategy evaluation (Figure 2) have elements of a systems approach to fisheries science. They both emphasize management options, and management strategy evaluation considers estimation error from assessments, but neither typically includes alternative investments in research and monitoring. Typical management strategy evaluations assume that existing data sources and investments will continue, and system performance is based on meeting pre‐defined objectives. A more comprehensive systems view considers alternative scientific investments in coordination with alternative management procedures. A systems approach also re‐ evaluates objectives in a more formal way than the successive development of objectives in global fisheries, described above.

A systems view of fishery management was initially conceived in the context of international management of tuna fisheries (Rothschild 1971). The approach was further developed in a generic

6 sense by Rothschild et al. (1996). The initial stages of systems analysis are conceptual and reflect the elements of adaptive management described above. The conceptual stage is important for determining appropriate scope and extent of the successive quantitative stages. System performance can then be simulated under alternative scenarios of research and monitoring as well as alternative management procedures.

The quantitative stage can evaluate system performance of alternatives and ultimately suggest optimal system configurations for defined objectives. Modeling a fisheries system requires a metric to quantify states and fluxes, similar to the way ecosystem dynamics are modeled using budgets of energy, biomass, carbon or nutrients. Management strategy evaluations can be modeled in units of biomass (or biomass derivatives such as spawning biomass, catch biomass, fishing mortality); states are actual or perceived stock sizes and their status relative to reference points; and fluxes are measured as production, expressed as harvest or catch allocations. More holistic modeling of a fisheries science and management system, in which investments are explicitly modeled and manipulated, requires a conversion of currency from biomass to economic value to facilitate cost‐benefit analyses. In economic currency, states involve the value of resource, or the value of fishery, etc.; and fluxes include the costs of fishing, monitoring, assessment, peer review, management, and enforcement, etc.

Costs and benefits must be evaluated for each subcomponent, as well as the linkages between subcomponents. Operational costs (fishing, monitoring, ecosystem surveys, assessment, quality control, management, enforcement, …) can be estimated using fishery monitoring data and programmatic budgets. Information is also available on the value of utilities (revenue, seafood, employment, ecosystem services, communities…). A greater challenge to confront is the evaluation of ‘hidden costs’ (i.e., risk of undesirable outcomes, costs of inadequate information, …), which are critically important, because the omission of important utilities, system components or hidden costs will lead to inaccurate evaluations and sub‐optimization.

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF NORTEAST U.S. FISHERIES

Similar to the series of refined objectives in the ICES advisory system, the management objectives for U.S. fisheries have evolved over time. The legal basis of the U.S. marine fishery management system is the Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The original Act had three major components: establishing an exclusive economic zone on the continental shelf, forming regional Fishery Management Councils, and mandating national standards for fishery management plans (DOC 1976). The primary management objective was optimum yield, which was defined as “the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as modified by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor.” Similar to contemporary trends in global fisheries management, fisheries systems were focused on short‐term yield and maximizing yield‐per‐recruit.

Two major amendments to the Act revised objectives. The 1996 reauthorization re‐defined optimum yield as “the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor” (DOC 1996). Reflecting global applications of a precautionary approach to fishery

7 management, the focus was on ending overfishing (i.e., F>FMSY) and rebuilding overfished stocks. The most recent reauthorization requires annual catch limits such that overfishing does not occur (DOC 2007). These successive revisions to national fishery management objectives have greatly increased the demands of regional fishery science and management systems.

In response to the changing system requirements associated with the 2007 mandate for annual catch limits, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and the two Fishery Management Councils in the northeast U.S. formed a working group to evaluate the scientific and assessment needs to support the development of annual catch limits for managed fishery resources in the northeast region (NEFSC 2009). The working group identified a limited capacity to accommodate the workload increases associated with the new requirements. The working group’s report illustrates the need for a systematic evaluation of objectives, capacity and performance.

The University of Massachusetts School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) developed a multidisciplinary team to initiate the development of a systems analysis of the fisheries science and management system in the Northeast U.S. The team included fisheries scientists, an economist, a social scientist, systems engineers and graduate students in an interdisciplinary marine science program. Results from the conceptual stage and initial quantitative applications are described by Westwood et al. (2010) and summarized in ICES (2010b).

Five objectives were formed:

1) characterize the existing fishery management system, 2) recommend innovative improvements to the existing system, 3) develop modeling tools to assist fishery stakeholders, 4) gather stakeholder feedback, and 5) evaluate the process and performance of the systems approach.

Major components of the science and management system were identified as well as their linkages (Figure 4). A more detailed model of detailed dynamics within major components, including subcomponents and their linkages, was also developed using Vensim© (www.vensim.com), a systems development, analysis and simulation software (Appendix A). The detailed schematics of system dynamics illustrate the complexity of the system, with investments from multiple federal and state agencies. Modeling the entire system and its important complexities will be the next challenge to confront in this initiative.

Results from initial qualitative iterations suggested that the fishery science and management system could be improved by recognition of the objectives of all stakeholders, by increased responsiveness to their concerns, and by improved monitoring programs. Subsequent quantitative iterations suggested that a real‐time, spatially‐explicit decision support system could help both fishermen and fishery managers. Evaluation and brainstorming the strengths and weaknesses of fishery science and management by different experts within the systems team helped to re‐envision the science and management process in a way that will help it be more effective.

Initial applications of the quantitative stage have been limited to system components associated with the primary problems identified in the conceptual stage. However, even within these subsystem analyses, linkages to other system components were identified to address the problem in the context of broader fishery management objectives. The systems team is in the process of engaging the fishery stakeholder community to inform, test, and refine the modeling tools so they can be used to help improve the science and management process in New England. Several aspects of the systems analysis are being implemented to collect fishery data with greater spatiotemporal resolution to support decisions that are more responsive to changing resource conditions:

Figure 4. Major components and linkages of the Northeast U.S. fishery science and management system.

Bycatch Avoidance ‐ In the U.S. limited access sea scallop fishery, an Annual Catch Limit is enforced for both scallops, and yellowtail flounder. Bycatch of yellowtail flounder in the U.S. sea scallop fishery is a constraint to achieving optimum yield of scallops, and has often forced early closures of these scallop fisheries, resulting in economic losses of over $100 million (U.S.). To address this constraint, SMAST collaborated with the scallop fishing industry to initiate a bycatch avoidance program. About one third of the fleet (122 vessels) participated in the voluntary reporting program. Observer data indicates that the allowable catch of scallops will be caught in 2010, and only 25% of the bycatch allocation will be

9 taken, partly as a result of this bycatch avoidance program. Details on the process, protocols and results are reported by O’Keefe et al. (2010b), and aspects of cooperative behavior and incentives are further developed by O’Keefe et al. (2010a). The systems approach helped lead to a successful solution to this bycatch problem. The objectives was clearly defined as achieving optimum yield in the limited access scallop fishery by confronting yellowtail bycatch. Alternative solutions were developed with stakeholders, including real time, spatially specific data reporting between the fleet and SMAST, which was preferred by fishermen over an alternative that included transferability of individual bycatch allocations. Criteria for performance evaluation were established, including a large portion of the fleet participating in the program and evidence of bycatch avoidance behavior. In future years, the bycatch advisory will be refined using an iterative approach that is responsive to feedback from different stakeholder groups.

Groundfish Sector Analysis ‐ In May 2010, New England groundfish management transitioned to an annual catch limit system with a form of catch shares called sectors. The plan allowed permit holders to form sectors that are allocated a portion of the annual catch limit, with sector allocations (or ‘annual catch entitlement’) being based on individual catch histories. Sectors are authorized to manage their annual catch entitlement, including allocating catch to sector members. Success of the new system for meeting fishery management objectives will rely on accurate and timely monitoring of sector catches to support responsive and effective sector management decisions. The balance of meeting conservation objectives (e.g., avoiding overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks) and achieving optimum yield (e.g., maximum economic benefits from multispecies sector allocations) will require in‐season tactical decisions to obtain catch of resources with relatively large allocations and avoid catch of species with little to no allocation. SMAST formed a partnership with fishing sectors to provide real‐time summaries and analysis of sector monitoring data to support sector management decisions. The objectives of the program are to 1) interact with sector managers to identify the information needed as well as the frequency of analysis and decision making; 2) summarize the most recently collected sector catch and effort data, as well as year‐to‐date information on a regular basis (e.g., weekly); 3) analyze sector catch and effort data to determine spatio‐temporal patterns that can be used to support in‐season sector management decisions; and 4) develop protocols for communication, statistical methods, and decision support that can be applied to other in‐season fishery management systems.

Evaluation of Fishery Management Plan Performance – Evaluation of fishery science and management performance is typically limited to an annual report of stock status. Evaluation of performance with respect to social and economic objectives is rarely conducted within the management system. Ideally a holistic approach would be utilized, assessing the entire management system in the context of all stated objectives. However, to model the entire system in the first iteration is not feasible. The current management system is structured around fishery management plans. Acknowledging the limitations, individual management plans are being analyzed separately, keeping in mind their role in the greater system. The first iteration of this approach utilized the management plan for the northeast U.S. skate complex as a case study (Keiley et al., 2010). The objectives of this project are to describe the existing system, evaluate performance, and recommend improvements to the system. The system can be broadly defined as the inputs (resource), transforming processes (fishery), governing processes (rules

10 and regulations), and outputs (revenue, landings, etc.). Performance indices were identified utilizing the ten National Standards of Fishery Conservation and Management. A description of the system and preliminary results can be found in Keiley et al., (2010). Utilization of a systems approach aided in the identification of changes that may improve the management of the skate complex. Specifically the development of a management strategy that incentivizes the retention of legal species and the avoidance of overfished species through the disaggregation of the management unit and associated catch limits. Gaps in data were also identified. To improve the assessments a relatively inexpensive program aimed at training fishermen in species identification is recommended. The review of the Skate management plan will aid in the evaluation of more complex plans such as the Multispecies and Scallop management plans.

Although these quantitative applications are limited to subsystem components, they demonstrate the effectiveness of a systems approach. Information on economic costs and benefits of scientific investments are needed to model the entire system, but a more comprehensive analysis of the New England fishery science and management system will help to improve and even optimize the utilities produced by scientific investments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The SMAST Systems project is funded by NOAA and the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute. Information on the Northeast U.S. fisheries systems was reported by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Annual Catch Limit Working Group, and Paul Rago’s analysis of information flow for stock assessments formed much of the information diagrammed in Appendix A. Other members of the SMAST Systems Team who contributed to this program are Farhad Azadivar, June Jiao, Lisa Kerr, Tony Wood, Yuying Zhang, Andrea Clain, Michael Fontaine, Nikki Jacobson, Glenn Chamberlain, DJ Kowalske and Fiona Hogan.

REFERENCES

Beverton, R. J. H. and S.J. Holt, S. J. 1957. On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations, Fishery Investigations Series II Volume XIX, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Brodziak J., S.X. Cadrin, C.M. Legault and S.A. Murawski. 2008. Goals and strategies for rebuilding New England groundfish stocks. Fisheries Research 94: 355–366.

Butterworth, D. S. 2007. Why a management procedure approach? Some positives and negatives. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 613–617.

Cooke, J. G. 1999. Improvement of fishery‐management advice through simulation testing of harvest algorithms. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56: 797–810.

DOC (Department of Commerce). 1976. Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. U.S.A. Public Law 94‐265.

DOC (Department of Commerce). 1996. Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as amended through October 11, 1996. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS‐F/SPO‐23.

DOC (Department of Commerce). 2007. Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as amended through January 12, 2007 (May 2007).

Hilborn, R. 2007. Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives. Marine Policy 31 (2007) 153– 158.

ICES. 1998. Report of the Precautionary Approach to Fisheries Management. Copenhagen, 3–6 February 1998. ICES CM 1998/ACFM:10.

ICES. 2009a. ICES Science Plan 2009 – 2013.

ICES. 2009b. Minutes of the Advisory Committee Meeting (ACOM), 1–4 December 2008, ICES HQ. 2008/ACOM:64. 33 pp.

ICES. 2009c. Report of the Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO), 15–21 April 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2009/ACOM:20.

ICES. 2010a. Report of the Working Group on Holistic Assessments of Regional Ma‐rine Ecosystems (WGHAME), 12‐16 October 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2009/RMC:13. 76 pp.

ICES. 2010b. Report of the Working Group on Fishery Systems (WGFS), 12–16 October 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2009/RMC:11. 63 pp.

ICES. 2010c. Report of the Workshop on Implementing the ICES Fmsy framework , 22‐26 March 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:54. 83 pp.

Jones, G. 2005. Is the management plan achieving its objectives?' in G Worboys, M Lockwood & T De Lacey (eds), Protected area management: principles and practice: second edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lassen, H. 1999. Biological reference points based on sustainability in harvested fish stocks under changing productivity levels. Limnologica ‐ Ecology and Management of Inland Waters 29: 218‐ 223.

Levin P.S., M.J. Fogarty, S.A. Murawski and D. Fluharty. 2009. Integrated ecosystem assessments: De‐ veloping the scientific basis for ecosystem‐based management of the ocean. PLoS Biol 7: 23‐28.

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2009. An Evaluation of Scientific and Assessment Needs to Support the Development of Acceptable Biological Catches (ABCs) and Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) for Managed Fishery Resources in the Northeast Region. A White Paper to the NRCC

prepared by NEFSC ACL Working Group with review and consultation with the NEFMC/MAFMC/NERO/NEFSC ACL Working Group, October 2009.

O’Keefe, C., G. DeCelles, S. Cadrin, and D. Georgianna. 2010a. Avoiding bycatch in U.S. Sea Scallop closed areas fisheries. Forthcoming. Papers and Proceedings of the 15th biennial conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics & Trade, Montpellier France, July 2010.

O’Keefe, C.E., G. DeCelles, D. Georgianna, K.D.E. Stokesbury and S.X. Cadrin. 2010b. Confronting the bycatch issue: An incentive‐led approach to maximizing yield in the US sea scallop fishery. ICES CM 2010/P:04.

Quade, E.S. and W.I. Boucher 1968. Systems Analysis and Policy Planning. American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., New York.

Rothschild, B. J. 1971. A systems view of fishery management with some notes on tuna fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 106.

Rothschild, B. J. 1973. Questions of strategy in fishery management and development. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 30: 2017‐2030.

Rothschild, B. J., J. S. Ault, and S. G. Smith. 1996. A system approach to fisheries stock assessment and management. In Stock assessment, quantitative methods and application for small scale fisheries. Edited by V. F. Gallucci, S. B. Saila, D. J. Gustafson and B. J. Rothschild. CRC press.

Sainsbury, K. J., Punt, A. E., and Smith, A. D. M. 2000. Design of operational management strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 731–741.

Serchuk, F.M. and J.R. Grainger. 1992. Development of the basis and form of ICES Fisheries Management Advice; Historical background (1976–1990) and the new form of ACFM Advice (1991 ‐ ?). ICES C.M. 1992/Assess:20.

Sissenwine, M.P. and J.G. Shepherd. 1987. An alternative perspective on recruitment overfishing and biological reference points. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 9: 381‐382.

Thompson, W.F. and F.H Bell. 1934. Biological statistics of the Pacific halibut fishery. (2) Effects of changes in intensity upon total yield and yield per unit of gear. International Fisheries Commission Report, No. 8, 1934.

Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York: Macmillan.

Westwood, A.D., B. Rothschild, S.X. Cadrin, F. Azadivar, Y. Jiao, D. Georgianna, Y. Zhang, A. Wood, E. Keiley, C. O’Keefe and L. Kerr. 2010. A Systems Approach to Informing Fishery Science and Management in New England, USA. In Systems Engineering and Innovation, Proceedings of the International Council on Systems Engineering Symposium (in press).

APPENDIX A. VENSIM MODEL OF NORTHEAST U.S. FISHERIES SYSTEM COMPONENTS

Samples

Surveys survey survey Age- audits Ageing Length Indices at age or size Keys

dealer Landings at age Dealer Allocation to Total landings record by stock area & records stock area by stock area audits gear type

Y port port Port Samples PS Age- Discards at Age sample sample Length audits by stock area & ageing Key gear type

V VTR VTR records audits Total discards

Catch at Age state by stock area State landings landing & gear type audits Discard rate estimates

sector Sector Real-time quota landing monitoring landings audits

NEFSC NEFSC Observers ObsCon Obs. audits Rec. Age- Non-Federal NonFed Length Observers Obs. Key audits Recreational Catch Recreational at Age by harvester landings X

Cooperative Coop. Inform Ecosystems considerations research res. assessments projects audits

Other research Other projects res. audits

Figure 5. Subsystem dynamics within the "Samples" component (VTR: vessel trip reports; adapted from NEFSC 2009)

Surveys

NEFSC State Cooperative surveys

Groundfish - Non-NEFSC SMAST study MA DMF Others? Fall Industry-based fleet Groundfish - Trawl Survey Spring SMAST scallop survey Annual Scallop estuarine seine survey

Shrimp ME-NH Trawl RI DEM Survey Government Clam

Study Fleet

Ecosystem surveys

NEFSC cooperative surveys

Mid-Atlantic Cooperative SNE Yellowtail Squid IBS Supplimental Finfish Monkfish Survey Survey (Council) Flounder Project GoM Cod Assessment Tagging Cod? (pilot) studies

Black Sea Scup Sharks Monkfish Yellowtail Bass

Figure 6. Subsystem components within the "Surveys" component (NEFSC: Northeast Fisheries Science Center; MADMF: Massachusetts Division of Marie Fisheries; RIDEM: Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management; ME‐NH: Maine‐ New Hampshire; SNE: southern New England; IBS: industry‐based survey; GoM: Gulf of Maine; adapted from NEFSC 2009)

Stock Assessments

Northeast Regional Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Coordinating Committee Review Committee (SARC) ASMFC SAW Working NEFSC Groups guides ASMFC NERO Technical New England FMC Committee Assessment Mid-Atlantic FMC peer review

Indices at age or Independent panel to size peer review (~8wks)

Landings at Age Stock Assessment - Model by stock area & Assessment ID, Uncertainty Analysis, gear type Reports Official NEFSC Projection of OFL, ABC review Discards at Age by stock area & gear type

Catch at Age by stock area and gear type

Recreational Catch at Age by harvester

Ecosystem considerations

Figure 7. Subsystem dynamics within the "Stock Assessments" component (ASMFC: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission; NEFSC: Northeast Fisheries Science Center; NERO: Northeast Regional Office; FMC: Fishery Management Council; SAW: stock assessment workshop; OFL: overfishing limit; ABC: acceptable biological catch; adapted from NEFSC 2009).

(DMF's) State fishery agencies National Fish & Fish National Wildlife Foundation Wildlife Plans (FMPs) Plans Fishery Management Fishery Fund Panel MARFIN (NEAMAP) Assessment Program Assessment NE Area Monitoring and Monitoring Area NE broad fishery research scale NE AquaticNuisance Species National Whale Conservation Ad-Hoc Advisory Committees Advisory Ad-Hoc Statistics Program (ACCSP) Program Statistics Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Coastal Atlantic Other research - power plants, power - research Other Regional Advirory Committees, Advirory Regional StandingCommittees, Advisory Commission) Committee, Full Board, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Marine States Atlantic Commission (ASMFC) - (Technical - (ASMFC) Commission Monitoring Regulations Rule Making Rule DEIS/DEA, Public EIS/EA,Comment, Sea Grants (by state) Sea Grants Team (PDT) Team Plan Development Plan FMPs) Full Council Plans (Council (e.g. NEFMC) (e.g. Regional Fishery Regional Oversight Committees Fishery Management Fishery Management Councils Management Advisory Panels Advisory Management NOAA Fisheries Service DoC - Sec. of Commerce Science Centers (e.g. Northeast Centers Science Fishery ScienceFishery Center (NEFSC)) Cooperative Research Cooperative SSC Programs (e.g.NCRP) General Counsel) General Committee (MAFAC) Regional Office - Regional (NERO) (FMAT, Protected Species, Marine Fisheries Advisory

Figure 8. Subsystem dynamics within the "Management" component (SSC: Scientific and Statistical Committee; adapted from NEFSC 2009).