Deirdre Boelke NEFMC Council Staff Four Points - Wakefield, MA - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Deirdre Boelke NEFMC Council Staff

1

Four Points - Wakefield, MA September 18/19, 2018

2

• 1. Review 2018 Atlantic herring benchmark assessment
• 2. Review public comments on Amendment 8 (A8)
• 3. Discuss final preferred alternatives for A8
• 4. Discuss 2019-2021 specifications – including potential

independent NMFS action for FY2019

• 5. Initial discussion of 2019 herring work priorities
• 6. Other business

Meeting Agenda

3

• 1. Tasking memo from Committee Chair
• 2. Staff presentation
• 3. 2018 assessment summary (SAW 65)
• 4. A8 decision document (and other documents online)
• 5. Summary of A8 public comments
• 6. PDT memo #1 – updated analyses
• 7. PDT memo #2 – upcoming herring actions and timelines
• 8. 2019-2021 specifications planning document
• 9. Draft herring work priorities for 2019
• 10. Correspondence

Meeting Materials

4

• 1. Review Amendment 8 (A8) alternatives (10 slides)
• 2. Review public comments on A8 (10 slides)
• 3. Review decision document (15 slides)
• 4. Review PDT memo #1 (10 slides)

1.0 Introduction and Background 2.0 Description of Alternatives 3.0 Affected Environment 4.0 Impacts of Alternatives 8 Appendices

Outline of Presentation Contents of Amendment 8

5

• 1. To account for the role of Atlantic herring within the

ecosystem, including its role as forage;

• 2. To stabilize the fishery at a level designed to achieve
• ptimum yield;
• 3. To address localized depletion (LD) in inshore waters

(this goal added after initial scoping).

Amendment 8 has two parts:

• Part 1 – Considering different methods to set overall

catch limits (ABC control rule)

• Part 2 – Considering measures to address potential

localized depletion and user conflicts

Amendment 8 goals

6

Part 1: Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rules

• A formula for setting annual catch limits.
• Ten alternatives considered for control rule.
• Two alternatives for ABC timeframe (3 years same catch or

3 years ABC varies annually).

• Council reviewed draft range of alternatives and analysis in

September 2017.

• Declined to identify preferred alternative; approved that

portion of document for public hearings.

Range of ABC CR Alts.

7

Part II: Measures to address potential LD and user conflicts

8

“Localized depletion is a reduction of population size, independent of the overall status of the stock, over a relatively small spatial area as a result of intensive fishing. Problem statement – “…..concerns with concentrated, intense commercial fishing of Atlantic herring in specific areas and at certain times that may cause detrimental socioeconomic impacts on other user groups (commercial, recreational, ecotourism) who depend upon adequate local availability of Atlantic herring to support business and recreational interests both at sea and on shore….”

LD and user conflict alternatives

Alt 1. No Action (no MWT gear in Area 1A Jun-Sep) Alt 2. 6nm closure in Area 114 (Jun-Aug) or (Jun-Oct) Alt 3. Extend Area 1A prohibition of MWT gear year-round Alt 4. 12 nm prohibition of MWT gear Alt 5. 25 nm prohibition of MWT gear Alt 6. 50 nm prohibition of MWT gear Alt 7. Prohibit MWT gear in five 30-minute squares Alt 8. Revert boundary between Areas 1B/3 Alt 9. Remove seasonal closure of Area 1B

9

Alts 4-7 have seasonal and spatial sub-options Year-round or Jun-Sept Areas 1B, 2 and 3

• r

Areas 1B and 3

Council approved range and analysis in December 2017 NO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

LD and user conflict Alternatives 2-7

10

Alt.3 Alt.2 Alt.7 Alt.4 = 12nm Alt.5 = 25nm Alt.6 = 50nm

Alternative 8

Current Boundary – purple Pre-Amendment 1 – black GREEN is proposed boundaries. Area 1B currently closed Jan-April. If open all year, effort may spread out and reduce user conflicts in late spring-fall.

11

Alternative 9

One possible clarification needed

 Alternative 2 – waters within 6nm in thirty minute square 114

would be closed to all vessels fishing for herring, regardless of gear type or herring permit type.

 Need to clarify intent  GF regulations allow use of a single pelagic gillnet to catch herring

for bait (i.e. tuna vessel catching bait). If those vessels also have

• pen access herring permits would this restriction apply to them?

 Potential clarification

If adopted, Alternative 2 would not impact vessels that possess herring solely for its use as bait, this measure is limited to vessels fishing for herring with purse seine, MWT or bottom trawl.

12

13

14

• Received during May-June, 2018.
• 439 comments received (75 oral, 364 written).
• 492 people gave input via individual/small group

comments.

• 5% submitted both oral & written comments.
• 3% signed more than one letter.
• 10% had also commented during public scoping in 2015.
• 78% people commented on behalf of themselves or their

business.

• 71% from New England (30% CT, 27% MA).

Overview of commenters

15

• 17,151 people signed two large form letters

from eNGOs (also organized form letters during scoping).

Overview of commenters

Signers Personal comments Demographics From U.S. From New England Pew Environment Group 15,630 1,754 99.6% 94% Ocean River Institute 1,521 402 98% 8%

16

Fishermen 98 (20%) Herring, lobster 34 Tuna, groundfish, recreational, etc. 64 Non-governmental organization 76 (15%) Environmental - national/regional 17 Environmental - local 32 Commercial fisheries 9 Other fishing interests 18 Scientist 49 (10%) Government 33 (7%) Other** 39 (8%) Unknown 197 (40%) T

• tal

492 (100%)

* excluding the two large form letters

Stakeholder type of commenters*

** fishery support services, ecotourism, other interested public

17

• Need flexibility given 2018 Atlantic herring assessment.
• Current processes are sufficient to account for herring’s

role in the ecosystem.

• Atlantic herring recruitment and abundance are more

influenced by environmental factors.

• More conservative management would prevent achieving
• ptimum yield in the fishery.
• Localized depletion is poorly defined and scientifically

unproved.

• Herring migrates too much for localized depletion to occur.
• There may be unintended consequences of additional

restrictions; shifting effort to other gear types, areas and seasons may do nothing to resolve the concerns that prompted A8.

General support for No Action

18

• Need precaution given 2018 Atlantic herring assessment.
• Need to ensure enough supply of herring to benefit

predators and all fisheries that depend on herring.

• Concerned about river herring and shad depletion:
• Federal fishery undermines inland restoration efforts;
• Unfair that A. herring fishery catches RH/S as bycatch

while directed RH/S fisheries are prohibited in most areas.

• Localized depletion by, and/or user conflicts with, midwater

trawl vessels is occurring.

• Hope for more herring nearshore.
• Some saw A8 as a matter of fairness, wanting smaller-scale

(predator) fisheries to survive.

General support for taking action

19

Alternative People supporting

• n behalf of (#)

Comments (#) Group Self Oral Written Atlantic Herring ABC Control Rule No Action 3 14 4 12 Alternative 1 1 1 1 1 Alternative 2 73 85* 6 76* Alternative 3 1 1 Alternative 4A Alternative 4B Alternative 4C Alternative 4D Alternative 4E 19 3 2 7 Alternative 4F 19 3 2 7 Setting three-year ABCs No Action/Alternative 1 7 11 4 4 Alternative 2 5 45 1 6 FMP framework provisions

* Also supported by two large form letters

Support for control rule alternatives

20

Alternative People supporting

• n behalf of (#)

Comments (#) Group Self Oral Written No Action/Alternative 1 2 11 3 7 Alternative 2 1 1 Alternative 3 17 53 4 19 Alternative 4 31 2 1 14 Alternative 5 34 78 4 44 Alternative 6 82 277* 6 306* Alternative 7 20 5 2 12 Alternative 8 Alternative 9 3 7 2 7

* Also supported by two large form letters

Support for localized depletion alternatives

• Most supporting Alt. 1 also supported Alt. 9.
• Some supported Alt. 3 combined with one of Alts. 4-7.
• Some supported Alt. 4, 5 or 6.
• No support for seasonal sub-options – support year-round.
• Spatial sub-options - support for including Area 2, or part.

21

Modifying alternatives (8 comments)

ABC Control Rule Timeframe

• Rather than predetermine whether annual TACs are set on a

constant or varying catch level, allow the Council to use either approach. Localized Depletion

• Protect the Great South Channel from localized depletion (e.g.,

add area blocks in Alternative 7 to the east and south).

• Revise Alternative 6 (50 nm buffer) by setting:
• The southwestern boundary of the 50 nm buffer at the

New England/Mid-Atlantic jurisdictional line, and

• Eliminate the upper "sliver" adjacent to herring

management Area IA.

• Anticipating effort shifts, add scale restrictions for converting

to purse seining.

22

Other alternatives/tasks (28 comments)

Atlantic herring spawning protections

• In waters south of Provincetown, MA and on Georges Bank.
• Halt the Atlantic herring fishery immediately when there are

“signs of eggs”.

• Expand herring spawning data collection.

Atlantic herring gear restrictions

• Eliminate midwater trawls and purse seines.
• Given the 2018 assessment, take emergency action to halt

pair trawl fishing.

• Levy a fee for fishing with midwater trawl inshore “and use

that money to help our local fisherman the same way the federal government uses federal money to help the farmers in the Midwest.”

23

Other alternatives/tasks (28 comments)

Permits

• Allow haddock permit holders to possess haddock caught by

the herring fleet at little or no cost, and have those landings

• f haddock count against their permits, and not the haddock

bycatch cap. At a minimum, allow haddock “to be used in a way that is inoffensive to groundfishermen” (e.g. donating it to food banks). Atlantic herring catch setting process

• Task SSC with providing guidance on choosing a control rule.
• Task PDT with an annual Atlantic herring status review; adjust

catch if needed.

• Revise the Council Risk Policy to explicitly address the risk of
• verfishing the forage base.

24

• 23 comments on the A8 DEIS and MSE (2+ pages) (E.g. including

results of current assessment, more time to use MSE to develop alternatives, etc.). PDT examining how DEIS may be improved.

• Three comments on ideas for research needs.
• Herring migration, potentially defining sub-stocks,
• Increase Federal sampling of the fishery.
• Investigate localized depletion issues.
• Improve diet data for assessments.
• Evidence of networks of stakeholders: 239 (54%) written

comments have eight versions of repeated text.

Other

25

Selecting preferred alternatives and supporting rationale

1.

Supported by Amendment 8 analyses

2.

Show how measures are consistent with Magnuson Stevens Act and National Standard Guidance

3.

Supported by input from public comments

4.

Other?

26

Amendment 8 Analyses – ABC CR

 Pages 10-13 of decision document  Long-term impacts – MSE decision tables and web

diagrams for many “metrics” or variables.

 Short-term impacts –

1) estimate SSB, catch and revenue for four different biomass levels from the past; 2) estimate fishing mortality, probability of overfishing and catch for 2016-2019; and 3) updated estimates of projections for 2019-2021 using new assessment results (new analysis in PDT memo – Doc. #6).

27

A8 high-level findings – ABC CR

 The eight operating models developed help evaluate variability, but may

not reflect the full range of possibilities.

 Herring resource – similar performance, low positive and positive

compared to No Action.

 However, other factors likely have even greater influence on herring

biomass; there is high variability in the system and current conditions not likely to persist regardless of control rule.

 Predators - This system is complex, linkages not very strong because

complex food web and many predators are generalists. Neutral to low positive imapcts, overall magnitude of the differences is small, especially in the long-term.

 Protected species – Low negative overall in terms of bycatch

interactions, neutral to low positive compared to No Action from forage perspective, if more herring available. Tern metric showed some differences in the long-term, but all generally positive.

28

A8 high-level findings – ABC CR

 Impacts on bycatch and EFH – Generally neutral impacts.  Human communities

Herring/Mackerel/Lobster - Generally, high net revenues have benefits, but high variability assumed bad. Net revenue lowest for Alt 2, similar for Alt 1 and 3, and Alt. 4 in-between, but depends on state of resource. Predator fisheries and Ecotourism – Expected to fair better with more herring to sustain predators. Performance of tuna and dogfish metrics change little across alternatives, tern production highest for Alt. 2. Fishing communities – If catches decease could have negative impacts on herring fishing communities, but if a CR helps continued, sustainable harvest of herring long-term, positive benefits for herring fishery and other users in the community.

29

A8 high-level findings – ABC timeframe

 Overall, there may be slightly low negative impacts on the

herring resource when ABC is set at the same level for three years (Alt1).

 But the differences are very minor and are not expected

to outweigh the low positive impacts on the herring fishery in the short term from more stable catches.

30

Amendment 8 Analyses – LD

 Pages 14-18 of decision document  Not a straightforward issue, data limitations and

challenging to identify if and how other fisheries impacted by the removal of herring alone.

 Analysis: role of herring as forage, fishery footprint maps,

• verlap analysis,

VTR correlation analysis, description of possible effort shifts, summary of literature.

31

A8 high-level findings – LD

 No Action - not possible to determine direct impacts in

isolation of other measures – many changes in this FMP and no direct research available.

 Herring fishery overlap with other users has dropped

substantially since Amendment 1 (2007).

 Herring fishery based on concentrated removals, regardless of

gear type.

 Effort shifts difficult to predict – impacts somewhat uncertain.

32

LD Economic Impact Considerations

• What were the herring/mackerel landings/revenue from an

area/season?

• How likely are effort shifts: to other gear types, areas or

seasons?

• How likely would a closure hamper harvesting OY?
• What degree of overlap has existed with other user groups?

A8 Impact Categories: Many issues to consider and balance – very complex

33

NEFMC’s Risk policy (Nov. 2014)

Recognizing that all fishery management is based on uncertain information and that all implementation is imperfect, it is the policy of the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) to weigh the risk of overfishing relative to the greatest expected overall net benefits to the Nation.

 Four strategic approaches to be taken into account: 1)

Probability of undesired outcome and negative impacts;

2)

Cumulative effects of addressing risks at all levels;

3)

Stability in the face of uncertainty and variability in system;

4)

Analysis based decisions using methods that consider tradeoffs, ability to detect signal from noise, and dynamic process that allows review and modification.

 Use of MSE is ultimate track to provide risk-based analysis

evaluating tradeoffs with respect to net benefits to the Nation.

34

Enforcement Committee Input

 Reviewed LD alternatives in November 2016.  Thirty minute square blocks easier to enforce than contour

lines.

 The 12, 25, and 50 contour line alternatives encompass

increasingly larger areas, and are proportionately harder to

• enforce. Suggestion to replace curving lines with points to

approximate the contours so easier to plot for compliance and enforcement.

 Cmte did not formally review Alternatives 8 and 9 because those

were developed after their meeting on Amendment 8.

35

Magnuson Stevens Act

 Pages 19-23 of decision document.  Worksheets developed from National Standard Guidelines –

preferred alternatives should be consistent with all requirements.

 ABC CR – National Standards 1, 2, 6, and 8 most relevant.  LD and user conflicts – National Standards 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10.  If you have a preferred alternative, explain how it is consistent with

these requirements.

36

Public comments

 Pages 24-27 of decision document and summary of

comments document.

 Already summarized input earlier.  If you have a preferred alternative, public comments

can be used to express Council rationale.

37

AP/Committee recommendations

38

• Alt. #

Alternative name Rationale 2.1.1 ABC control rule Be as specific as possible. 2.1.2 Setting 3-year ABCs 2.2 Potential LD and user conflicts

39

 Final 2018 Atlantic herring assessment released in

August 2018, after the Draft EIS submitted, and after the public comment period ended.

 PDT has updated analyses to be included in Final EIS.

• 1. Affected Environment (pages 2-7 of memo)
• 2. Short-term impacts of ABC CR (pages 8-21)
• 3. Biological impacts of No Action ABC CR (p.22)

40

Affected Environment

1.

Data sources and updates through 2017

2.

Updates to the model.

3.

Recruitment has been well below average recently.

4.

Stock status

5.

Reference points and projections

41

Short-term impacts

1.

Single year – before focused on lower left panel with “high” biomass, now more appropriate to focus on upper left panel “medium 1986” – 2018 estimate of biomass just below 0.5 SSB/SSBmsy.

2.

3-year projections (2016-2019) – same as before

3.

3-year projections (2019-2021) - new

42

Short-term impacts – annual yield

43

(0.5) (2.0) SSB/SSBmsy (0.16) (1.24)

 Because updated estimate of biomass is no longer “well above

Bmsy” the PDT developed updated analyses.

 Included both ABC timeframe alternatives (stable catch for 3

years vs. annual ABC that varies over 3 years).

 Tables 5 and 6 have projection results.  Note the “interim” alternative has been adjusted to account

for increasing biomass over 3-year time period (Table 7).

44

45

Figure 10

46

Figure 12 – Tradeoff web diagram