A Microsoft Access database, described in detail below, was developed to organize the review and to identify in detail the gear types and habitat features evaluated by each study. In addition to identifying gear types and features, the database included fields to code for basic information about study location and related research; study design, relevance and
appropriateness to the vulnerability assessment; depth and energy environment; whether recovery of features is addressed; and substrate types found in the study area. Analysts interacted with the database via a form (Figure 2). Table 14 summarizes each of the fields. Most studies were read and coded by a single team member initially, and then the coding was reviewed by one or more additional team members at a later time. The process of coding the database was somewhat iterative, as the matrix-based approach, SASI model implementation, and literature review were developed contemporaneously. For example, each study’s high/low energy coding was reviewed and updated as necessary when the depth threshold for the unstructured model grid was adjusted.
The database is intended to serve as a legacy product, so some features are coded but not used in the current analysis. For example, if prey feature susceptibility and recovery matrices are developed in the future, the database could be queried to determine the studies relevant to each S/R evaluation. The long-term intention is to create new records in the database as additional gear impacts studies are published.
4 For readers familiar with NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-181, this review builds
on but is distinct from that report and subsequent updates, and includes many of the same studies.
For easy reference, a list of citations by study number is provided on the last page of this document (Table 94). Nearly 100 studies are evaluated, although additional literature referenced in the previous section on feature descriptions was used in some cases to inform recovery scores, and not all of the studies are used equally to inform the matrix-based vulnerability assessment.
Table 14 – Literature review database fields
Database field Coding options Purpose of coding Coding guidelines
Study design Choice of: observational, comparative, or experimental
The design of a particular study influences the way in which analysts might interpret the results.
Observational refers to studies where fished sites were characterized in terms of the distribution and status of habitat features, without an unfished reference site for comparison. Comparative refers to studies that assessed impacts to otherwise similar fished and unfished areas. Experimental refers to studies that either: evaluated the experimental use of fishing gear in comparison with an unfished control, or used a before-after control-impact design to study the effects of either experimental use of fishing gear or actual fishing effort.
Study relevance Choice of: (1) Similar gears or habitats but geographically remote study area (2) Geographically similar (though non-NE) study area, similar
gears/habitats (3) Study area overlaps with NE area (incl. CA side of Georges) and uses similar gears (4) Study performed in NE area with NE gears
This field was intended to provide some indication of the types of studies considered; although the results of those receiving a higher score were weighted explicitly during evaluation of susceptibility and recovery.
All studies used or observed the effects of gears similar to those used in the Northeast U.S. in similar habitats. A score of (1) would indicate that the study met these basic criteria. A score of (4) would indicate that they study was conducted in Northeast U.S. waters and evaluated the impacts of Northeast U.S. gear types. Values of (2) and (3) fall between these two extremes.
Study
appropriateness (to Vulnerability Assessment)
Choice of: study (1) tangentially supports, (2) supports, or (3) is perfectly aligned with the vulnerability assessment
This field was intended to provide some indication of how well the study fit the gear impacts/feature/substrate assessment approach. Studies with higher appropriateness values were more straightforward to incorporate into the matrix-based assessment.
Regardless of relevance, studies that specifically examine the effects of particular gear types on particular habitat components should receive the highest appropriateness values. Studies that are more general, perhaps aggregating multiple gear types or impacts, or that do not provide clear information on the substrate, depth, or energy, would receive lower values.
Gear type, multiple gear types checkbox
One or more of the following: generic otter trawl, shrimp trawl, squid trawl, raised footrope trawl, New Bedford scallop dredge, surfclam/ocean quahog dredge, lobster trap, deep-sea red crab trap, demersal longline, sink gill net
The susceptibility and recovery of features estimated in the matrix assessment was disaggregated by gear type. Therefore, an understanding of which gear types were used to create the impacts studied was key to the assessment.
Multiple gear types could be checked as applicable, with details summarized in the comments section. If the study area was subject to the impact of two or more gear types and these could not be fully distinguished, the multiple gear types checkbox was selected.
Database field Coding options Purpose of coding Coding guidelines Energy Choice of: (1) high author
stated, (2) high inferred, (3) low author stated, (4) low inferred, or (5) not specified
Feature recovery was assumed to vary by environmental energy, so it was important to know what type of environment a particular study occurred in.
Energy environment was determined based on the shear stress and depth criteria for high and low energy used in the SASI model
Depth Choice of four ranges: (1) 0-50m, (2) 51-100m, (3) 101-200 m, (4) deeper than 200m
Depth information helped to determine energy environment and also relates to feature distributions.
Additional space was provided to input minimum and maximum study depths.
Location Text box Gives a better sense for the study environment than the relevance column alone
Space to indicate where the study was conducted.
Related studies Text box Allows analyst to compare results easily between studies at the same or similar sites, or to review studies done by the same or similar authors
Space to indicate if the study was directly related to other studies reviewed (i.e. a follow up study, or a similar study in the same area conducted by the same group of authors).
Recovery
addressed True/false Estimates of recovery times were based on study results whenever possible, and absent results to draw from, on
descriptions of the features themselves
‘True’ indicates that the study addressed the recovery of habitat components from disturbance. Deep-sea corals True/false The MSRA allows for explicit protection of
deep-sea corals independent of Essential Fish Habitat impacts. While some cold- water coral species are found in shallower areas and are included in the matrix-based assessment as a biological habitat component, other studies were specific to deep-sea species; this code allowed those deep-sea coral studies to be easily distinguished.
‘True’ indicates that the study referred to any deep-sea coral species, whether impacts to corals are evaluated separately or if they are simply mentioned as a biological habitat component in the study area. In the Northeast, deep-sea corals include five Anthozoan orders: Scleratinia (stony corals), Alcyonacea (soft corals), Antipatharia (black corals), Gorgonacea (sea fans), and Pennatulacea (sea pens). Substrate Choice of: clay-silt,
muddy-sand, sand, granule-pebble, cobble, boulder, rock outcrop,
The spatial grid on which habitat sensitivity and fishing effort are overlaid is based on dominant (modal) substrate data, so the substrate present in a particular study area was key to determining to which grid cells the study results applied.
This section indicates when a particular substrate type was present in the study area.
Geological habitat components
True/false for overall evaluation and for each feature, 256 character text boxes for impacts
Geological habitat components indicates that fishing gear effects on non-living seafloor structures were evaluated as part of the study
‘Geological’ was checked when the study assessed impacts to substrate subclasses or features. Checkboxes in this section indicated when impacts to and/or recovery of specific geological habitat features were evaluated. There was an additional checkbox for geochemical effects. A text box was used to summarize gear impacts.
Database field Coding options Purpose of coding Coding guidelines Biological habitat
components True/false for overall evaluation and for each feature, 256 character text boxes for species and impacts
Biological habitat components indicates that fishing gear effects on living seafloor structures were evaluated as part of the study
‘Biological’ was checked if fishing impacts to the various biological features were studied. Checkboxes in this section indicated when impacts to and/or recovery of specific biological habitat features were evaluated. A text box was used to summarize gear impacts and another text box was used to list particular species.
Prey habitat
components True/false for overall evaluation and for each feature, 256 character text boxes for species and impacts
Prey habitat components indicates that fishing gear effects on prey were evaluated as part of the study
‘Prey’ was checked if prey features were mentioned in the study. Checkboxes in this section were used to indicate when impacts to and/or recovery specific prey features was evaluated. A text box was used to summarize gear impacts and another text box was used to list particular species.
General
comments 256 character text box Provide additional information to help analysts understand study design. This section was used to note any details about gear used, provide additional information about the study methods, or to state caveats as to the usefulness of the study for the Vulnerability Assessment.