FAQ for GOA-IERP
July 17th Webinar
Station Grid:
1.) Can we get all these stations done in the allotted sampling time?
Yes, given the level of sampling proposed in the UTL. The amount of stations
and area sampled would change if the MTL and LTL components needed to
expand on what is currently proposed.
2.) Can the station grid be extended or moved?
Yes, to an extent. However, the core areas identified in the UTL need to be
sampled in order to address our hypotheses and accomplish our objectives.
3.) Should we be doing a grid or transects?
A gridded design are ideal for fisheries-related work and transects are ideal for
physical and biological oceanography. We are open to suggestions on how
both components could be accommodated.
Sampling Logistics and Procedures:
1.) What are the sampling seasons and who is involved?
We have requested that the LTL component lead a survey during spring for
both areas in 2012 and 2013 or find an equivalent way to generate data for
spring conditions, egg and larvae distributions.
LTL, MTL, and UTL will be performing a pilot study during summer 2011 in
the eastern GOA, with a possible leg change.
LTL, MTL, and UTL will sample both areas (eastern and central GOA) once
during summer, and once during fall in 2012 and 2013 by the same vessel
with a cruise leg change (Seward?).
It is expected that LTL, MTL, and UTL are on the same vessel during summer
and fall sampling to reduce costs (unless otherwise feasible within budgets).
2.) What ships will be used?
With the exception of the Oscar Dyson in fall 2013, all of our field surveys
will occur on a chartered commercial trawler, comparable to the Sea Storm
(BSIERP/BASIS) and the Great Pacific (GLOBEC).
The LTL is responsible for the spring survey or equivalent data
The MTL is responsible for nearshore surveys, and identifying and
quantifying forage of age-0 target species.
3.) How many berths are available on the charter for each component?
We have provided 3 slots on each of our cruises for personnel from the LTL
and forage components on chartered vessels and 6 births on Oscar Dyson.
4.) How long is each cruise and what are the hours of operation?
In 2011 and 2012, our budget allows for 30-35 day charters during summer
and fall. 24-h operations are not planned for UTL sponsored charters;
therefore field sampling will occur during daylight/dusk hours
During fall 2013, we will have the Dyson for a 45 day survey where 24-h ops
are possible
5.) How much time is allotted for each component level?
We allocated enough time for a bongo and NORPAC tow and for a CTD drop
to 200m at each station. This allows for water collection, primary production
experiments, etc.
We anticipate that UTL trawling will take 1.5 hours, 30 min tows and 30 min
to set and retrieve gear, processing will be completed underway
6.) What technical support can we expect from the ships?
Whoever proposes to do the oceanography and zooplankton collections would
need to provide their own sampling gear and have access to an oceanographic
winch. An adequate power source and sufficient deck space will be a
requirement in the vessel RFP. Otherwise, expect no technical support from
commercial fishing vessel aside from mechanical issues associated with ship
equipment.
Lower Trophic Component
1.) Will the timing of the seasonal components be sufficient to capture the eggs and
larvae in the spring and subsequently the young-of-the-year in the summer and
fall?
This may be an issue in that transport in the dominant currents is sufficient
enough to move passive particles around the GOA by fall, and the transport
varies from year to year.
Stations may need to be more spread out to account for this, and such
decisions will be made collectively during the planning year.
2.) How are adults from bottom trawl survey going to be integrated?
We do not know spawning distributions for many fish, and they cannot be
gleaned from larval distributions. Bottom trawl survey data is all that there is
for some of these fish, and it is better than nothing. The evaluation of bottom
trawl survey data will be part of the retrospective analysis.
3.) Who will take on the cost of UTL species ID for eggs/larvae stages collected in
the spring survey?
The LTL will
Forage Component
1.) Not well defined, what is their role?
As we it, their role is to provide estimates of forage for each of the five age-0
target species captured on surveys, and address competition by forage fish
2) Is the forage component doing separate surveys in the nearshore?
Yes
Modeling Component
1.) Confusion on fully integrated, proposal does not suggest this, RFP does, which is
correct?
Agree that this can mean addressing change in all trophic levels without full
two way coupling. Method has been successful at informing management by
examining influential environmental and biological processes within each life
history stage. We considered full integration unrealistic given the level of
funding and the complexities of the GOA. NPRB should clarify their
intentions during the webinar.
2.) What is the vision for how IBM model informs multispecies model? What is the
level of detail for spatial structure?
May be possible to use one of existing end-to-end models, such as Atlantis,
for GOA. However, we suggested the development of a series of models that
would inform each other. These include biophysical model (e.g. ROMS-NPZ),
and single-species IBMs that can be checked against new and existing data.
These models can be used to provide indices of LTL variability and combined
with information on habitat suitability to develop indices of recruitment
success. We also made some suggestions on a multi-species model which was
based on an existing MSASA model. This was only an example of one
approach to answer the questions on recruitment variability for the five key
groundfish species and eastern-central GOA differences.
Budget
1.) Funding is too limiting to accomplish what is required. Can we provide list of
what is absolutely necessary, such as the level of sampling resolution at each
station?
Yes, we will during the webinar. However, we will be cautious not to be as
prescriptive in what we perceive our needs are during the webinar. It is
ultimately up to the proposers to decide what the strongest arguments are for
providing the information most needed to accomplish the objectives set forth
in the UTL proposal.
2.) Could propose different levels of sampling resolution by season, more in spring,
less in fall. Is this a possibility?
3.) Will NPRB allow flexibility in the limitations of money allocated per each field
season?
Yes, but you cannot spend more than is allocated in a given year, only carry-
over money not used in a field year to a later field year.
4.) Did you estimate cost to sample 100+ stations and analyze the data?
Our 100+ field stations and personnel estimates were based on
BASIS/GLOBEC/OCC surveys.
Issues Noted:
1.) FOCI Sampling:
Issue with FOCI not sampling larval sablefish, have only caught young-of-
the-year. This could be a spatial issue and not a gear issue however
Some egg data for sablefish, could shoot for more sampling off the break
which might encounter more sablefish.
No rockfish to species identification.
Questions Generated From:
Jeff Napp, Janet Duffy-Anderson, Matt Wilson (station location, sampling)
Sarah Hinckley, Buck Stockhausen (IMB species modeling)
Russ Hopcroft, Ken Koyle, Suzanne Strom (LTL budget, sampling)
Sandra Parker-Stetter, John Horne (MTL role)
Sarah Gaichas (modeling, connectivity)
Russ Hopcroft, Jeff Napp, Phyllis Stabeno (LTL limitations, requirements)