Dr. Rachel Feeney/Deirdre Boelke Council Staff Herring AP/Cte - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• Dr. Rachel Feeney/Deirdre Boelke

Council Staff

1

Herring AP/Cte meetings August 16-17, 2016

2

• 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 optimum yield;

• 3. To address localized depletion in inshore waters.

Amendment 8 goals

• 1. Develop and implement an Acceptable Biological

Catch (ABC) control rule that manages Atlantic herring within an ecosystem context and addresses the goals of Amendment 8.

A8 objective

3

Amendment 8 timeline

ABC control rule Localized depletion 2016 Jan. Council approved developing measures via MSE Cte tasked PDT with background analyses Apr - May MSE workshop #1 Cte/Council approved problem statement June AP/Cte/Council review and approve outcomes PDT tasking cont. July - Aug MSE technical work, updates at Cte/Council mtgs AP/Cte review PDT work, develop measures Sep-Oct Develop measures Nov Dec MSE workshop #2 2017 Jan Council approve range of alternatives TBD MSE peer review; impacts analysis; public hearings; final action 2018 TBD Implementation

ABC Control Rule Management Strategy Evaluation

4

Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE)

5

• Council is developing alternatives via management

strategy evaluation, involving:

• Discussion about the objectives/desired
• utcomes of the control rule.
• Technical analysis to test how the control rules

may/may not achieve objectives. prior to approving the Range of Alternatives.

• In June, Council approved the objectives, metrics and

control rules to be evaluated (input from workshop/PDT/AP/Cte).

6

MSE next steps

June

• MSE technical work underway

Mid-Nov.

• MSE technical work complete

Early Dec.

• MSE workshop #2
• Review outcomes
• Recommend MSE iteration
• Recommend alternatives

Mid-Dec.

• Potential MSE iteration
• Herring PDT mtg
• Review outcomes
• Develop alternatives

Early Jan.

• Herring AP/Cte mtgs
• Review outcomes
• Develop alternatives

Jan 24-26

• Council mtg – approve alternatives range

7

• Many variants of biomassed based and constant

catch control rules were recommended and will be evaluated using eight herring operating models.

• Will evaluate assumptions about uncertainties

(recruitment, natural mortality, growth, etc.).

• Outputs will be evaluated with predator models

that are being developed (marine mammals, birds, groundfish, tuna).

• Communicating the results will be challenging.

What to expect

Localized Depletion

8

Localized depletion - definition

9

From Scoping document: “...when harvesting takes more fish than can be replaced either locally or through fish migrating into the catch area within a given time period.”

January PDT tasking

10

• 1. Forage needs
• 852K mt eaten by predators, 2009-

2013 annual average

• Need not estimated
• 2. Footprint of the Atlantic herring and

predator fisheries

• Provided heat maps by month, gear
• Herring catch off back side of Cape
• Commercial striped bass fishery in MA
• Limited tuna and whale data

January PDT tasking

11

• 3. Relationships between catches of herring

and predators

• Preliminary statistical work (stat area,

week) found few relationships

• 4. Potential midwater trawl closures
• PDT didn’t have time to explore
• 5. Cod and herring in Ipswich Bay
• Data limitations
• 6. Analytical ideas from public scoping
• Some answered, research needed

Localized depletion – problem statement

12

April 2016 Council motion (17/0/0): “Scoping comments for Amendment 8 identified 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. The Council intends to further explore these concerns through examination of the best available science on localized depletion, the spatial nature

• f the fisheries, reported conflicts amongst users of the

resources and the concerns of the herring fishery and

• ther stakeholders.”

March PDT tasking

13

• 1. Overlay “heat maps” of herring effort with

management boundaries.

• 2. Describe herring catch from the specific 30 min

squares (around Cape), by season/month, 2000-.

• 3. Determine where/when herring fishing intensifies

within 6 & 12 nm of shore; analyze midwater trawl trips (catch, tow duration).

• 4. Determine if the Study Fleet habitat suitability

model could help understand localized depletion.

• 5. Compare private rental/charter striped bass catch

per trip on “back side of Cape”(0-3 mi from shore) to herring catches.

• 6. Describe tuna fishery CPUE over time.

TASK 1 - Map herring fishery

14

TASK: “Make zoomed in heat maps of herring effort

• verlaid with all current and proposed spatial regulations to

better identify the importance of areas to the fishery and potential impacts of measures developed through Amendment 8, such as:

• groundfish closed areas (with 15 mi move along),
• distances 12, 30, 50 mi from shore,
• stat areas, 30-min squares,
• herring management areas,
• bathymetry (100 fathom or 200 m depth),
• ASMFC spatial regulations (spawning closed areas),
• RH/S bycatch cap areas, and haddock AM areas.”

TASK 1 - Map herring fishery

15

• Interactive map developed in collaboration with the

GARFO GIS office.

• Fishery locations mapped with the

VTR-observed model.

• Given numerous regulations, fishing locations

should not be confused as measures of abundance.

• Maps still under development
• Herring catch by month uploaded soon
• Explanations of regulations.
• Provide feedback!

http://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html? id=5d3a684fe2844eedb6beacf1169ca854

TASK 1 - Map herring fishery

16

TASK 2 – Specific 30-min squares

17

TASK: “Identify herring catch from the following 30- minute squares, by season or month back to 2000: 99, 100, 114, 115, and 123. Calculate the percent of the total Atlantic herring stock area that these 30-minute squares comprise.” Note: Model estimates landings, not catch

TASK 2 – Specific 30-min squares

18

TASK 2 – Specific 30-min squares

19

Herring landings 2000 - 2009

TASK 2 – Specific 30-min squares

20

Herring landings 2010 - 2015

TASK 2 – Specific 30-min squares

21

Square 114-only, 2000 - 2015

2000-2009 2010-2015 Month Kept (mt) Share Kept (mt) Share 1 3,959 5.63% 13,089 22.65% 2 1,999 3.68% 3,510 13.34% 3 469 1.74% 1,072 5.80% 4 877 4.50% 1,168 18.53% 5 2,956 5.19% 6,331 31.20% 6 0.00% 125 0.28% 7 18 0.01% 530 0.75% 8 31 0.02% 2,913 3.83% 9 629 0.50% 4,606 6.94% 10 4,024 3.33% 62 0.10% 11 13,573 16.57% C C 12 20,564 39.74% 1,702 5.85%

c = confidential

TASK 2 – Specific 30-min squares

22

These 30-minute squares comprise <0.5% of the total Atlantic herring stock area. Within each herring management area, these squares comprise <2% of the stock area they reside within, with the exception of the squares within Area 1B. Discussion

• Square 114 is currently split by Areas 1B and Area 3. The

January-April Area 1B closure became effective in 2014. Thus, these data would not necessarily be representative of future time series, given this closure.

• Herring sub-ACL distribution has shifted over time.
• Area boundaries shifted in 2007.
• Size of a square irrelevant to the impacts of potentially

closing it, since fish and fishing not evenly distributed.

• Be cautious of unintended consequences of area closures.

TASK 3 – Herring effort inshore

23

TASK: “Within both 6 and 12 miles from shore, examine herring effort, including the amount of catch. Identify areas (e.g., Ipswich Bay, Nantucket Shoals) where herring fishing seasonally intensifies.

• a. Determine and compare midwater trawl trip

catches over time in each area, considering variation in tow-specific catches (accounting for tow time, number of tows, and trip duration).

• b. Determine if, over the time of intensified fishing,

catches could only be maintained by longer tows, more tows and/or longer trips, thereby indicating local depletion (e.g., F much higher than F set for entire stock).”

TASK 3 – Herring effort inshore

24

• For schooling, pelagic fish, CPUE should not be used to

indicate fishery impacts on abundance, particularly in discrete geographic areas.

• A decline in CPUE does not necessarily mean localized

depletion.

• T
• w time should not be used to estimate the density of a

herring school

• There have been an insufficient number of midwater trawl

tows in discrete areas (e.g., Ipswich Bay 6 or 12-miles from shore) to make scientifically robust conclusions regarding CPUE.

TASK 3 – Herring effort inshore

25

Month Within 6 nm Within 12 nm Kept (mt) Share Kept (mt) Share 1 27,775 56.33% 38,307 77.69% 2 7,190 30.69% 10,908 46.56% 3 1,065 7.54% 2,140 15.14% 4 732 13.37% 1,296 23.67% 5 2,007 13.17% 3,756 24.66% 6 1,755 5.17% 4,782 14.09% 7 3,208 5.42% 9,496 16.05% 8 8,368 12.83% 22,586 34.63% 9 5,407 9.21% 17,183 29.25% 10 11,475 22.99% 31,035 62.17% 11 2,845 23.42% 6,126 50.42% 12 18,315 70.46% 22,276 85.70% TOTAL 90,142 21.84% 169,891 41.17%

Landings by all gear types, 2010 - 2014

Share >20% highlighted

TASK 3 – Herring effort inshore

26

Landings by midwater trawl, 2010 - 2014

Share >20% highlighted

Month Within 6 nm Within 12 nm Kept (mt) Share Kept (mt) Share 1 20,053 52.54% 28,855 75.60% 2 5,072 26.24% 8,028 41.53% 3 448 4.06% 1,192 10.81% 4 576 12.33% 1,024 21.90% 5 1,853 12.73% 3,504 24.08% 6 83 0.37% 110 0.49% 7 227 0.59% 413 1.07% 8 991 2.83% 2,273 6.49% 9 1,830 4.70% 4,423 11.36% 10 8,310 22.99% 22,141 61.26% 11 2,258 20.50% 5,309 48.20% 12 12,967 66.83% 16,326 84.15% TOTAL 54,667 18.90% 93,600 32.35%

TASK 4 – Study Fleet habitat model

27

TASK: “Determine if the Study Fleet habitat suitability model could be useful to understanding localized depletion.”

Image courtesy of Manderson

TASK 4 – Study Fleet habitat model

28

Study Fleet

• Program began in 2002.
• Fully-functioning tow-by-tow data collection by 2010.
• Herring fishery participation has mostly been in Area

2 small-mesh bottom trawl vessels.

• Since 2013, 8-14 midwater trawl vessels.
• Several trips in Area 3 in 2015.

Habitat suitability modeling

• Models developed for mackerel and butterfish,

informed by real-time data from satellites, radar, Study Fleet, etc.

TASK 4 – Study Fleet habitat model

29

Using habitat suitability modeling for Amendment 8

• Such modeling tools do not yet exist for Atlantic herring;

couldn’t be developed within the timeline of Amendment 8.

• A Study Fleet-informed temperature habitat suitability model

may be useful to understand the distribution of herring (or their predators), predicting where fish are likely to occur.

• However, it would not inform localized depletion questions, as

it is unable to measure a response in a population to removals; it only predicts where fish are likely to occur given a habitat model (temperature).

• This type of model could inform bycatch monitoring or

avoidance.

TASK 5 – Striped bass data

30

TASK: “The MRIP charter and private rental data include intercept site. Look at catch per trip for striped bass from private rental and charter intercept sites on Back side of Cape (0-3 mi from shore); compare to herring catches.”

TASK 5 – Striped bass data

31

Data challenges/assumptions

• MRIP staff interview fishermen at “intercept sites” as

fishermen complete their trip, typically at a boat ramp.

• On outer Cape Cod particularly, towns can be adjacent to

Cape Cod Bay, Nantucket Sound, and/or the Atlantic Ocean.

• No catch location data, but category of location (ocean, bay,

sound, river, etc.).

• PDT assumed trips occur on back side of Cape if:
• The intercept occurred in one of the outer Cape Cod

towns (Provincetown, Truro, Eastham, Wellfleet, Orleans, Chatham);

• Fishing did not occur in a river, bay or sound; and
• Striped bass was the target fishery.

TASK 5 – Striped bass data

32

Striped Bass Trips

• 360 MRIP recreational fishing trips targeting striped bass met

these criteria between 2008 and 2014.

• 76% of the trips occurred in June to August.
• The number of trips actually occurred to the east of Cape Cod

may be lower. Herring Trips

• Used herring fishery data from 12 mi off Cape in Area 114.
• 139 trips, 2008-2014.
• 10% occurred June-August.

Of the 360 recreational striped bass trips, there were 67 that occurred within +/- one week of just nine of the 139 commercial herring trips (Table 8). Of those nine herring trips, just one had striped bass trips occur both prior to (n=1) and following (n=2) the herring trip.

TASK 5 – Striped bass data

33

Discussion

• There are and insufficient number of striped bass trips

with the MRIP data and commercial herring trips likely co-

• ccurring to the east of Cape Cod to make scientifically

robust conclusions about correlations.

• During 2008-2014, there is some overlap between these

fisheries, but relatively few herring trips have occurred in June-August (10%), when the striped bass trips most common (76%).

• Periodic/migratory nature of herring fishery and lack of

spatial striped bass data make it difficult to draw conclusions about localized depletion.

TASK 6 – Bluefin tuna CPUE

34

TASK: “Describe catch per unit effort in the tuna fishery

• ver time.”

TASK 6 – Bluefin tuna CPUE

35

Fishery overview

• Majority of permits are recreational (75% in 2015).
• Majority of landed weight is commercial (87% in 2015).

~90% of commercial landings

TASK 6 – Bluefin tuna CPUE

36

Commercial CPUE – data insufficient

• Most fishermen are not required to report tuna trips with no

landings (common).

• No

Vessel Trip Report requirement for HMS permits.

• Partial overlap between HMS and VTR if trip also uses VTR-

required permits.

• Trip reporting required for pelagic longliners (8% of 2015

landings).

• Any CPUE calculations would be complicated by

management history (bag limit changes). A robust estimate is not possible under current reporting requirements.

TASK 6 – Bluefin tuna CPUE

37

Recreational CPUE

• Large Pelagics Survey interviews charter, private, and

party boat bluefin tuna fishermen, Maine to Virginia.

• Includes data from zero-landings trips.
• SEFSC calculates CPUE for 3 size classes:
• Only calculated annually and fishery-wide.
• Each class has specific daily catch limits, fishery

closures.

• Relative abundance indices are modeled

considering number of anglers, gear, hours fished, area, time, etc.

TASK 6 – Bluefin tuna CPUE

38

Recreational CPUE – “Large BFT” (>177 cm SFL)

Source: Lauretta and Brown (2015)

TASK 6 – Bluefin tuna CPUE

39

Recreational CPUE – Discussion

• Abundance generally fits with the CPUE, with

the exception of the Large School size class in recent years, likely due to the northerly shift in LPS samples to areas where these fish are likely less abundant.

• Large and Small School CPUE and indices have

less inter-annual change since min-2000s and are generally lower than in the 1990s.

TASK 6 – Bluefin tuna CPUE

40

Recreational CPUE – Discussion

• Canadian indices have been increasing while the U.S. has

remained relatively constant in recent years. There is no scientific consensus about what may be driving this divergence.

• Possible factors/hypotheses include:
• A northerly shift due to climate change and/or shifts

in prey availability.

• U.S. rod and reel fishery may be hampered due to

large volumes of dogfish eating bait.

• The LPS as a survey tool has undergone several

changes in administration and survey design.

• Changing regulations influence catchability.

Developing the range of potential measures

41

A8 – DRAFT Purpose and Need (Sect.3.2)

42

Need Purpose

To provide guidance to the SSC regarding how to specify an annual ABC to account for scientific uncertainty, stock status, and the Council’s risk tolerance to maintain a sustainable Atlantic herring stock that includes consideration of herring as a forage species. Propose a long-term ABC control rule for the Atlantic herring fishery that may explicitly account for herring’s role in the ecosystem and to address the biological and ecological requirements

• f the Atlantic herring

resource. To address concerns raised: 1.) by the Amendment 4 lawsuit that NMFS did not sufficiently consider the environmental impacts of alternate ABC control rules in Amendment 4; and 2.) by the SSC during the development of the 2013- 2015 Atlantic herring specifications, when the SSC was asked by the Council to examine some alternative control rules that recognize the special ecosystem status of herring as important forage. To minimize possible detrimental biological impacts or 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. Propose measures to address potential localized depletion of Atlantic herring.

Amendment 8 – Purpose and Need

Purpose 1 – Long-term ABC control rule that may explicitly account for herrings role in the ecosystem

a) Guidance for SSC to set annual ABC b) Address concerns raised by the SSC and in a previous lawsuit

Purpose 2 – Address potential localized depletion

a) Minimize possible detrimental biological or socioeconomic impacts on other user groups who depend on herring

43

Jan 2016 Council Motion

44

Motion: T

• ask the Herring Committee to discuss a range of

alternatives in Amendment 8 that includes proposals identified at scoping and at the January 13, 2016 Herring Committee meeting. Specific examples from scoping include the following alternatives:

• analysis of a year round inshore buffer area in herring management area

1A

• analysis of a 12 mile inshore buffer year round south of herring

management Area 1A

• analysis of a 35 mile inshore buffer year round south of herring

management Area 1A

• analysis of a year round PS/FG only area with a 50 mile inshore buffer

south of 1A

• analysis of the proposal to close 30 min squares 99, 100, 114, 115, 123

year round

The motion carried on a show of hands (8/7/1).

Ideas from Scoping

45

Topic People commenting (#) Comments (#)

NGO Other Oral Written

Midwater trawl restrictions

Expand Area 1A closure to year-round (YR) Inshore closure YR throughout New England Buffer off Cape Cod and RI (30 or 50 miles) Ban midwater trawls

7 3 7 1 82 242 116 15 42 98 56 16

Other area restrictions

2 2 4

Lower Annual Catch Limits

4 4

Promote use of fixed gear

1 1

Ban commercial herring fishing

1 2

Create day or trip limits inshore

1 1

Limit capacity of seiners’ carrier vessels

1 1 2

August 2016 AP and Cmte Discussion

• From scoping, which alternatives should be

included for consideration in A8? Any additional tweaks or modifications necessary?

• Are there any that should not be considered in

A8? Any dead ends?

• Are there other ideas that should be included

for consideration?

46