A case study on cooperative adaptive fisheries management and research: 25 years of university-Agency collaboration in puerto rico

Journal of Fisheries science and Technology Special issue - 2015 36 • NHA TRANG UNIVERSITY A CASE STUDY ON COOPERATIVE ADAPTIVE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH: 25 YEARS OF UNIVERSITY-AGENCY COLLABORATION IN PUERTO RICO J. Wesley Neal1 ABSTRACT Integration of university-based research with agency-based resource management is a cost-effective means to provide the scientific knowledge required for effective conservation. This paper describes the cooperative relationships developed over 25 years between the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) and several research universities in the continental USA as they relate to freshwater reservoir fisheries. Puerto Rico has few native freshwater species and all are diadromous. Dams eliminated these species from reservoirs and upstream reaches, and nonindigenous fishes were introduced into reservoirs to create sport fisheries. The fish communities created were unique, with representative species from three continents and both temperate and tropical climates. This combination posed significant management challenges for DNER, which began collaboration with university scientists in 1991 to address these challenges. This cooperative approach has shaped fisheries management over the past quarter century, and the factors that have led to the success of the collaboration are discussed. Keywords: Adaptive management, freshwater fisheries, Puerto Rico, collaboration 1 Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, MS 39762, USA Tel: 1-662-325-4768, fax: 1-662-325-8726, peter.allen@msstate.edu I. INTRODUCTION Effective conservation and ecosystem management must be soundly based on scientific knowledge (Christensen et al. 1996). In fisheries management, this entails accurate data on the organisms, their habitats, and socioeconomic outcomes associated with management activities (Krueger and Decker 1999). Unfortunately, management entities often lack the comprehensive data required to make informed decisions, and must therefore manage resources with the best information available and accept a certain degree of uncertainty in the outcomes (Neal et al. 2008). Such decisions can be difficult, especially when the objectives are contentious, alternative management actions are limited, and the response of the resource is difficult to predict (Lyons et al. 2008). In recent years there has been increasing pressure for resource management agencies to adopt an adaptive management approach (Halbert 1993). Adaptive management is a systematic process for improving resource management by learning from management outcomes (Johnson 1999). Adaptive management is more than simply tracking and changing management in the face of failed policies; it is instead an exploration of management alternatives based on a current state of knowledge, and reevaluating alternatives as new information becomes available. Although resource management agencies can engage in adaptive management unilaterally, collaboration with research scientists can greatly improve and accelerate the adaptive process. Collaboration of this type is particularly valuable when management agencies lack the time, personnel, Journal of Fisheries science and Technology Special issue - 2015 NHA TRANG UNIVERSITY • 37 equipment, or expertise to conduct needed research. This manuscript explores how management entities and university researchers can collaborate to improve the adaptive process. The cooperative relationships developed over the past 25 years between the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) and the author via several research universities in the continental USA provides a case study of how a cooperative approach has helped shaped fisheries management over the past quarter century in Puerto Rico. II. MAIN CONTENTS 1. What is adaptive fisheries management? Natural fisheries are dynamic systems with a great deal of associated uncertainty. Managing fish communities in this uncertain environment can be challenging, as managers rarely have enough information to make the best possible decisions for the resource. However, managers can reduce uncertainty and the consequences of wrong decisions by using an adaptive approach. Adaptive management is a systematic approach for dealing with this uncertainty. It can be thought of as a nine step, iterative process that begins with (1) identifying fisheries issues and defining the problem (Figure 1). For explanation purposes, let’s assume our problem is that the size of fish harvested has been declining due to overfishing. Once the problem has been defined, goals and objectives (2) are set that describe a reasonable resolution to the problem (i.e., what would the fishery look like without the problem?). Perhaps the fishery in question used to have a mean length at harvest of 400 mm and now the mean length at harvest is only 310 mm. In this case, our goal could be to restore mean length at harvest to 400 mm. Figure 1. A conceptual model of adaptive management demonstrating the iterative process for refining management strategies. Adapted from DSC (2013) Journal of Fisheries science and Technology Special issue - 2015 38 • NHA TRANG UNIVERSITY But how do we get there? Most good managers will have ideas for management actions that would increase mean length at harvest, but how is the “best” action selected? Using available data, the linkages between objectives and several proposed actions can be modeled (3). For example, we could compare the theoretical fisheries response to several different minimum length restrictions using yield-per-recruit models. We could then select the most appropriate action from the model (4). If we had high confidence in the model outcome we may decide to design and implement the action (5) at the full-scale; however, lower model confidence might warrant a pilot study or additional research. Let’s suppose that we feel confident that a 320 mm minimum length limit will increase mean length at harvest to our objective without a significant reduction in yield. At this stage it is critical that we design and implement a monitoring plan for the management action (6). Assessment is at the heart of adaptive management, as it allows the manager to measure efficacy of management actions using specified performance indicators and allows for mid-course corrections to achieve desired outcomes. These data are analyzed and evaluated (7) against the original objectives, the current understanding is communicated to relevant parties (8), and management strategies are adapted (9). At this point, it may be appropriate to redefine the problem, reestablish goals and objectives, develop new models with new information, or time to try a different management action or implement the action at another scale. For example, suppose the 320 mm minimum length limit protected too many fish, yielding a mean length at harvest of 430 mm, but yield decreased by 30%. A less restrictive minimum size might be more appropriate. Successful adaptive management is dependent on clear linkages among information, actions, and results, as well as a strong climate of trust among partners. The term adaptive implies flexibility, and the people and institutions involved must be flexible, innovative, and responsive to new data and experience. When all of these factors are met, the holistic adaptive management approach is much more effective that traditional single-species and trial-and-error management. 2.University’s role in adaptive management When one examines the adaptive management process, it is quickly apparent that it is quite similar to the research approach known as the scientific method. This is, of course, by design. Adaptive management takes a scientific approach to addressing fisheries management issues. The key difference is the incorporation of management actions. Whereas the goal of science to a researcher is to understand, the goal of science in adaptive management is to improve the ability to conserve, manipulate, multiply, or otherwise manage a resource. That is not to say that research scientists cannot conduct applied research and make management recommendations, but it does imply that research scientists should not necessarily manage resources. Fisheries management, by definition, takes into consideration much more than ecology and population dynamics, including political, economic, and sociocultural considerations (Krueger and Decker 1999), so it is best that scientists stay out of the political fray to remain objective. Conversely, managers are often not fully equipped to conduct the science necessary for adaptive management. There can be many limiting factors, not the least of which is time. Managing natural resources Journal of Fisheries science and Technology Special issue - 2015 NHA TRANG UNIVERSITY • 39 and their stakeholders is a full-time job, and research takes time. Research also takes resources, in terms of personnel, specialized equipment, and focused expertise. Research institutions, particularly universities, usually exceed management agencies in terms of available technology and expertise, with capabilities ranging from advanced genetic analysis to complex economic and ecological modeling expertise. Thus, there is tremendous opportunity for universities and fisheries managers to collaborate. Another reason for collaboration is the development and education of students, which are arguably the most important product of the university system. Particularly for graduate-level degrees, students in science majors are expected to design and conduct research projects. In fisheries, most of these projects have components that can be applied to management of natural systems. These projects can easily be designed to provide data directly applicable to the adaptive management process. Further, the student receives training that is applicable to management issues that he or she may face in the future. In other words, collaboration between universities and management agencies produces more qualified and prepared future management biologists. 3. Successful adaptive management in Puerto Rico The island of Puerto Rico offers a unique perspective on the collaborative relationship between research and management. This is partly due to the unique nature of the freshwater fisheries. Because of the island’s relatively young age, only seven native species are routinely collected in freshwater systems in Puerto Rico, and all are reliant on a connection to estuarine or marine systems for at least some portion of their lives (Erdman 1984). These native freshwater species are generally excluded from reservoirs and upper reaches or extirpated shortly after impoundment because they require unimpeded movement between the freshwater and marine environment (Erdman 1984). As a result, reservoir fish communities in Puerto Rico have been created using nonindigenous species introduced from various parts of the world (Neal et al. 2004; Neal et al. 2008), including black bass and sunfishes (Centrarchidae), catfishes (Ictaluridae), and threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense of North American origin, African tilapia (Cichlidae), and South American butterfly peacock cichlids Cichla ocellaris (Cichlidae). The combination of species from disparate geographic origins and associated lack of co-evolution of fishes in Puerto Rico reservoirs has resulted in novel fish communities, with many species outside of their climactic norms. This presented a considerable challenge to those in charge of managing these unique communities. 4. Resource Management Timeline Early Management Environment Neal et al. (2004) characterized the history of fish stocking activities in Puerto Rico into four phases. The prehatchery phase consisted primarily of limited introductions from the USA to rivers and earliest reservoirs (1910s) on the island. The construction of a fish hatchery on the Maricao River in 1937 gave rise to the short-lived coldwater phase, with primary emphasis on trout species (Salmonidae) into high altitude rivers. The futility of these introductions was quickly realized, and the early warmwater phase began with generous species introductions and supplementation without significant evaluation to support it. Research during this early management period was composed primarily of creel surveys to collect data such as effort, harvest, Journal of Fisheries science and Technology Special issue - 2015 40 • NHA TRANG UNIVERSITY travel costs, and attitudes. More sophisticated sample gears, such as electrofishing technology, were not available and directed fish sampling using gill nets was infrequent. Fishing tournaments began growing in popularity during the 1980’s and became a major component of reservoir fisheries by the 1990’s. Some tournament data on effort and catch were collected sporadically, generally on an opportunistic basis, but consistent monitoring of reservoir tournaments did not begin until the 1990’s. Supplemental stocking was a common management strategy, although stockings were conducted without evaluation of natural year-class strength or stocking success, and were primarily driven by availability of hatchery fish and in response to requests from fishing clubs. Hatchery production was minimal during the early 1990’s. The earliest fishing regulations in Puerto Rico were ratified in 1936, although they primarily addressed marine resources. Very few regulations were enacted for reservoir fisheries over subsequent decades. When harvest restrictions were finally implemented in 1984, they did not include minimum length limits and allowed relatively liberal harvest of largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides (12 per day) and butterfly peacock cichlids (8 per day). Although no official minimum length limits existed in Puerto Rico, angling clubs established and enforced a 305-mm length limit for largemouth bass in tournaments (Waters 1999; Ozen and Noble 2000). Creel limits were modeled after temperate reservoir regulations and were not evaluated on their ability to prevent overexploitation of tropical populations (Lilyestrom and Churchill 1998). No license or permit was required for basic recreational fishing privileges in Puerto Rico, partly because there was no state match requirement tied to Wallop-Breaux funds as there was in U.S. states. Era of Research-Based Management Beginning in 1990, management priorities shifted and focus on reservoir fisheries began to increase. Part of the impetus for the shift was the increasing importance of recreational bass fishing, combined with Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration monies being redistributed to freshwater resources. The first big step was the creation of reservoir management stations. These stations employed full-time management biologists, and provided the public with an access ramp, picnic and camping facilities, and some educational programming. Guajataca and Lucchetti Reservoirs were the first to receive management stations in the early 1990’s, followed by La Plata Reservoir in 2004, and Cerrillos Reservoir in 2006. The addition of on-site management biologists greatly improved DNER’s ability to monitor and manage reservoir fisheries, as did the enactment of the new Fisheries Law in 1998. This legislation allowed the development of the first comprehensive and modern fisheries regulations, which were approved in 2004. At this same time, DNER began to seek out research-based approaches to management via university researchers in the USA. The first cooperative reservoir research project was initiated in 1991 with North Carolina State University, and this collaboration continued for more than a decade until the principal investigator (PI), Dr. Richard L. Noble, decided to retire. During this period, sampling technology and design flourished, including the very important addition of electrofishing capabilities. The author was a young graduate student on the North Carolina State collaboration, and after graduation and joining the faculty at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, became the PI on a new cooperative agreement with Puerto Rico in 2005. Both the PI and the cooperative agreement transferred to Journal of Fisheries science and Technology Special issue - 2015 NHA TRANG UNIVERSITY • 41 Mississippi State University in 2008, where the pursuit of applied fisheries research continued. At the time of this manuscript, this collaborative relationship between DNER and academia had endured for a quarter century. Research studies conducted during this collaboration have been broad ranging, including studies on age and growth, mortality, abundance, reproduction, hydrology, stocking, and genetics. Neal et al. (2008) provided a review of key accomplishments during much of this relationship that need not be repeated here. Instead, the factors that made the relationship effective should be examined. The following keys to success have been instrumental in the cooperative relationship between DNER and university researchers over the past 25 years. a. Research must be applied in nature. The end goal must be to produce management recommendations. Both entities must have a shared purpose, similar goals, and an understanding of what needs to be achieved. University researchers must also consider other products of the collaboration, such as production of quality students and publications, but the PI and students must be relentlessly aware of the deliverables, namely data, models, and management recommendation directly applicable to management. b. Collaborators must agree that science is the proper tool making management decisions. Fisheries and wildlife management is becoming increasingly politicized (Organ et al. 2012). Pressure from both internal and external forces often cause management agencies to forego the best management practice defined by science for a less scientifically defensible alternative. Failure to listen to science not only leads to less successful management, it also sabotages the adaptive process and seeds distrust within the cooperative partnership. c. In-house capabilities of agency must be limited. Obviously, management agencies that have a substantial research division are less reliant on university researchers. However, this luxury is not afforded to most management entities, which simply do not have the time, personnel, resources, flexibility, or expertise to conduct the rigor of research required for adaptive management. Universities can fill this need, often at much lower expense, because many universities have the infrastructure and personnel already in place. d. University must have appropriate expertise and experience. Conversely, not all research institutions have the required expertise to answer all management questions. For example, although Puerto Rico has substantial local university expertise on marine biology, freshwater fisheries expertise is currently lacking and DNER must go off-island for freshwater fisheries research. In the USA, state management agencies usually collaborate with universities within their state. However, agencies may choose to go to out-of-state universities on particularly contentious issues because the objectivity of local researchers may be threatened by their proximity to the issue. e. Roles of collaborators must be clear. The charge of the university can include collection of data, modeling populations or systems, interpretation of data, and recommendation of management options. In many cases, the management agency may also perform some or all of these roles. However, a very important distinction must always be clear – the agency is the primary entity responsible for management, not the university. Conflict can arise quickly from within the collaboration or from outside public stakeholders if this distinction appears to be blurred. Although the university may conduct Journal of Fisheries science and Technology Special issue - 2015 42 • NHA TRANG UNIVERSITY research within a system to explore potential management effects, it must be clearly a research project and not a usurpation of agency authority. This confusion can be avoided with proper communication and agency representation during activities that could be misconstrued as “management.” f. Support must be available. This may seem like an obvious requirement, but often potential collaborations fail because financial support is unavailable or unreliable. The sources of financial support may come directly/ indirectly from the management agency, but third party funding can be obtained as well. For example, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration has supported collaborative research in Puerto Rico for many years, but funding has diminished somewhat in recent years and alternative funding avenues may be needed to maintain collaboration. Further, there are set costs of long-distance research, such as housing and laboratory rental, vehicle costs, sampling equipment, travel, and minimum personnel costs. Larger research projects with multiple studies are more economical, as these set costs can be distributed across several studies. Although overall cost may increase slightly, cost per study can decrease dramatically, providing more return on investment. In-kind support, such as personnel and equipment, also can be critical to successful cooperative research as it can keep overall costs low. This collaborative approach to adaptive management benefits both management entity and university, and certainly benefits the resource being managed. Adherence to the six guidelines above will strengthen cooperative research and management, thereby safeguarding long-term relationships between collaborators. Further, these guidelines promote objectivity, trust, and, importantly, science-based decision-making. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research collaborations discussed herein were funded via the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources through Sport Fish in Restoration Projects F-16, F41, F53R, and F69. References 1. Christensen N. L., Bartiska A. M., Brown J. H., Carpenter S., D’Antonio C., Francis R.,Franklin J. F., MacMahon J. A., Noss R. F., Parsons D. J., Peterson C. H., Turner M. G., Woodmansee R. G. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 6: 665-691. 2. DSC (Delta Stewardship Council). 2013. The Delta Plan: Ensuring a reliable water supply for California, a healthy Delta ecosystem, and a place of enduring value. ( Accessed 20 February 2015. 3. Erdman D. S. 1984. Exotic fishes in Puerto Rico. In: Courtenay WR, Stauffer Jr. JR (eds) Distribution, biology and management of exotic fishes, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA pp. 162-176. 4. Halbert C. L. 1993. How adaptive is adaptive management? Implementing adaptive management in Washington state and British Columbia. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 1:261-283. 5. Johnson B. L. 1999. The role of adaptive management as an operational approach for resource management agencies. Conservation Ecology, 3(2):8. Journal of Fisheries science and Technology Special issue - 2015 NHA TRANG UNIVERSITY • 43 6. Krueger C. C., Decker D. J. 1999. The process of fisheries management. In: Kohler CA, Hubert WA (eds) Inland fisheries management in North America, 2nd edition, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA pp. 31-60. 7. Lyons J. E., Runge M. C., Laskowski H. P., Kendall W. L. 2008. Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and adaptive management. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72:1683-1692. 8. Neal J. W., Lilyestrom C. G., Lopez-Clayton D. 2008. Tropical reservoir fisheries in Puerto Rico: adaptive management through applied research. In: Allen MS, Sammons S, Maceina MJ (eds) Balancing fisheries management and water uses for impounded river systems, American Fisheries Society Symposium 62, Bethesda, Maryland, USA pp. 681-697. 9. Neal J. W., Noble R. L., Lourdes-Olmeda M., Lilyestrom C. G. 2004. Management of tropical freshwater fisheries with stocking: the past, present, and future of propagated fishes in Puerto Rico. In: Nickum MJ, Mazik PM, Nickum JC, and MacKinlay DD (eds), Propagated fish in resources management, American Fisheries Society Symposium 44, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA pp 197-206. 10. Organ J. F., Geist V., Mahoney S. P., Williams S., Krausman P. R., Batcheller G. R., Decker T. A., Carmichael R., Nanjappa P., Regan R., Medellin R. A., Cantu R., McCabe R. E., Craven S., Vecellio G. M., Decker D. J. 2012. The North American model of wildlife conservation. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 12-04. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.