[PPT] - Deirdre Boelke, NEFMC Staff, Scallop PDT Chair Inshore Scallop PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Deirdre Boelke, NEFMC Staff, Scallop PDT Chair

Inshore Scallop Workshop February 22-23, 2016

1

SLIDE 2

Outline of Presentation

1. Who is the scallop fishery today?

2. General fishery trends

3. Estimates of landings per unit of effort (LPUE)

4. Landings by meat weight size categories

5. Trends in fishing location and biomass

2

SLIDE 3

1. Who is the scallop fishery today?

Limited Access

 About 340 vessels (310 FT, 50 are FT small dredge);100% active  Average vessel length is 79 feet and 750 horsepower  About 40% from MA, 25% from NJ, 25% from VA/NC  About 40 also have LAGC IFQ permit, 27 have NGOM and 112 have

incidental permit

Limited Access General Category

 In 2008 about 280 IFQ permits, now about 200 (2014)  Average vessel length is 56 feet and 450 horsepower  # active vessels has declined from about 200 to 115 (2014)  About 45 active vessels in New England and 60 in Mid-Atlantic

3

SLIDE 4

2. Scallop landings by permit type

(2015 not complete – through August 2015)

4

SLIDE 5

2. Fishery Allocations

5

Year LA FT DAS LA FT AA IFQ (mil lbs.) CA1 CA2 NL HC ETA Del 2010 38 72,000 2.5

pen
pen
pen

2011 32 72,000 3.2

pen
pen
pen
pen

2012 34 72,000 3.4

pen*
pen
pen
pen
pen*

2013 33 26,000 2.4

pen**
pen
pen
pen
2014

31 24,000 2.4

pen
pen
pen***

2015 30.86 51,000 3.0

pen

* Delmarva trips converted to CA1 by emergency action ** FW25 allows unused CA1 trips to be carried to future fishing year when CA1 reopens *** LA vessels give choice to take Delmarva trip or 5 DAS

SLIDE 6

2.Scallop landings by area

(2015 not complete)

LA – Top

2013 and 2014 – less access area effort

LAGC – Bottom

Very little in access areas in 2012 and 2013, majority of catch to date from AA in 2015

6

SLIDE 7

2.Scallop landings by area

(2015 not complete)

LA – Top

2013 and 2014 – less access area effort

LAGC – Bottom

Very little in access areas in 2012 and 2013, majority of catch to date from AA in 2015

7

SLIDE 8

2. Distribution of

active LA permits and landings by homeport state

8

SLIDE 9

LAGC - Some consolidation in MA region. And some occurred in both regions before ITQ program in effect (2008 and 2009).

9

2. Distribution of

active LAGC permits and landings by homeport state

SLIDE 10

Preliminary info on IFQ transfers

 About 1% of the total IFQ allocations were transferred in the

2010-2011 fishing years

 Transfers increased to 5.1% in 2012 and back near 1.6% in 2013  Leasing activity was very extensive.  32% of the total annual scallop IFQ leased out to vessels with

different owners (0.8 million lb. in 2010 to 1.0 million lb. in 2012).

 If leasing between vessels with the same owner is included, the

total increases to 1.0 million lb. in 2010 and 1.4 million lb. in the 2012 (About 45% of total).

 In 2012, Massachusetts became the main state with net leasing

f IFQ from other states (figures next silde).

10

SLIDE 11

Net leasing by primary State 2010-2012 only

11

SLIDE 12

LA vessels with LAGC IFQ permits

 About 40 LA vessels also have LAGC IFQ permits  These vessels had to qualify under the same criteria  These vessels are prohibited from leasing or buying

quota

12

SLIDE 13

3. Landings per unit of Effort (LPUE)

PDT Analyzed LPUE several ways:

1. Estimates of average trip length

2. Estimates of open area LPUE: reported landings / trip length

includes steaming time

3. Estimates of catch rate per 24 hours - based on individual tow data from observer data

removes the effect of steaming time – most direct way to

evaluate and compare catch rates

13

SLIDE 14

Average trip length

LA – Top

Open area trip length pretty stable- average lower in 2013

LAGC – Bottom

Slow increase in open areas

14

SLIDE 15

Estimate of Open Area LPUE LA landings per month / LA DAS used

15

SLIDE 16

Estimate of open area LAGC LPUE by region (catch / trip length per 24 hours)

Data support input that changes in LAGC LPUE vary by region

16

SLIDE 17

Comparison of Open Area LPUEs

Increase and then decrease for both fisheries LA LPUE is roughly 4 times greater than LAGC, but that ratio has declined slightly over time

17

SLIDE 18

Estimate of Open Area LPUE per tow from Observer Data by region

Issues with per trip comparisons – the steaming time and trip lengths very different for these fleets – GC has possession limit. PDT looked at per tow basis - All observed tows from 2006-2015 used to calculate pounds per hour per permit and area

18

SLIDE 19

Average catch per hour

GB – Top

Similar trends Peak in 2010 for LA and 2012 for GC

Avg. LPUE for LA is 2-

3x LACG LPUE when steaming time removed

MA – Bottom

Increase for LA from 2006-2011 then decline, same for GC but not as extreme

19

SLIDE 20

Normalized LPUE for comparison

LPUE relative to the max LPUE for that fishery and area

GB – Top

GC LPUE has increased more from 2006 to max in 2012, and dropped more compared to LA

MA – Bottom

GC LPUE has dropped less than LA

20

SLIDE 21

4. Landings by meat weight category

Total fishery by area - increases in u10 and 11-20 count increases open area catch rates

21

SLIDE 22

Size Category by permit and area

Dealer data broken into the same 3 regions

LA - Top

U10 and 11-20 still strong in MA, but lower on GB

LAGC – Bottom

U10 lower in MA in recent years

22

SLIDE 23

5. Trends in fishing location - VTR

23

613

Area 514 Area 521 Area 613

SLIDE 24

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)

VMS data 2007-2015 filtered by speed (4.5 knot cut off) (Applegate) Summarized to points at 1 minute intervals and binned into 3 minute squares for each fishery. Total estimate of days fished by the fleet PDT evaluated degree of

verlap and relative

importance of overlap

24

SLIDE 25

25

SLIDE 26

Fishery Overlap – in days fished

Identifies where overlaps occurs each year – but not the extent or importance of the overlap in terms of total landings for that fleet.

26

SLIDE 27

Total Fishery Overlap by Region (open and AA)

27

SLIDE 28

Open Area Fishery Overlap by Region

28

SLIDE 29

Fishery Overlap in LAGC fished areas only

29

SLIDE 30

Contribution of overlap – % caught in that location

Days fished per cell / total days fished that year per fishery

30

Overlap LA Contribution GC Contribution

SLIDE 31

Effort and biomass by distance from shore

PDT estimated the amount of effort and scallop biomass in each 10 nautical mile zone

31

SLIDE 32

32

All scallop weights from NEFSC dredge survey (2000-2014)

Heatmap based on bivariate kernel smoothing methods

Most biomass is found in 50-60 nm zone from shore and again at 100+ miles (CA2)

SLIDE 33

33

Scallop effort by 10 nm zones from shore

Majority of LAGC effort 10-50 miles from shore,

verlap primarily

between 30-50 miles. Fishery is constrained by closed areas and cannot always access areas with high biomass.

SLIDE 34

In Summary

 There has been some consolidation in the LAGC fishery

since ITQ program, particularly in the Mid-Atlantic.

 During the last 5 years total landings, revenues, and catch

rates increased, and then decreased for both fleets.

 Normalized LAGC catch rates have dropped more than LA

catch rates in the Channel, and LA catch rates have dropped more than LAGC have dropped in the MA.

 Areas of overlap and their relative importance to each

fishery vary from year to year, but there are likely a handful

f areas that consistently light up.

 For example, while the area of overlap in the Channel is not

very large (in nm2), those relatively small areas represent 50-75% of the total area GC vessels fish in the Channel.

 So now what?

34

SLIDE 35

Special thanks to several PDT members that spent a substantial amount of time on these analyses while working

n other Scallop PDT work.
Mr. Benjamin Galuardi, NMFS, APS
Dr. Demet Haksever, NEFMC
Dr. Dvora Hart, NEFSC

Questions?

35