Final Action Michelle Bachman, NEFMC Staff, Habitat PDT Chair - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Final Action Michelle Bachman, NEFMC Staff, Habitat PDT Chair

NEFMC Meeting June 16-18, 2015

Purpose: Take final action on Omnibus EFH Amendment 2

 Select final alternatives for:

 Georges Bank habitat – note that the Committee

updated their recommendation on June 1

 Gulf of Maine spawning and Georges Bank spawning

 Other sections of the document were approved in April  Submit the action to the National Marine Fisheries Service

for approval

2

Materials:

1.

DEIS – Georges Bank sections of Volume 3

2.

Habitat Committee summary (June 1)

3.

Memo from Exec. Director on Ctte. pref. alternative (June 10)

4.

Correspondence

June 1, 2015 Georges Bank Analysis 3

Mobile bottom- tending gear closures Measures same as existing CAII groundfish area

Alternative 9 – approved for analysis in April

Overlaps groundfish SAP Area Scallop access in future?

4

7

Combines elements of 7 and 9; recommended

• n June 1

Measures for Alt 9 mortality closure

June 1, 2015 8

Gears allowed Gears excluded  Pot gear for lobsters or hagfish  Pelagic longline gear or pelagic hook-and-line gear, or harpoon gear  Pelagic midwater trawl gear, with bycatch limits  Tuna purse seine gear outside

• f the portion of CA II known

as the Habitat Area of Particular Concern  Groundfish trawls west of 67° 20’ W (in E. U.S./CAN SAP)  Scallop dredges fishing as part

• f an access fishery?

 Non-pot fixed gears, including demersal longlines and gillnets  Hook and line gear for groundfish  Hydraulic clam dredges  Groundfish trawls east of 67° 20’ W (outside of SAP)  Scallop dredges fishing on a day at sea

Measures for Committee Alternative Reduced Impact Habitat Mgmt. Area*

June 1, 2015 9

Gears allowed Gears excluded  Fixed gears including traps, longlines, gillnets (perhaps different restrictions were intended east vs. west of 67° 20’?)  Pelagic longline gear, pelagic hook-and- line, harpoons  Recreational gears  Mid-water trawls  Purse seines  Scallop dredges fishing as part of an access fishery  Groundfish trawls west of 67° 20’ W (in

• E. U.S./CAN SAP)

 Hydraulic clam dredges  Groundfish trawls east

• f 67° 20’ W

 Scallop dredges fishing

• n a day at sea

*as interpreted by staff

Georges Bank/Great South Channel region

GB region within US EEZ – 50,273 km2 Hatched and crosshatched areas currently closed to MBTG – 8,780 km2 Mortality and habitat closures combined – 18,102 km2

10

Comparison of area sizes

Alternative 1 Alternative 7 Alternative 8 Alternative 9 Committee Alternative Total Area = 3,162 km2 habitat closures

• CAIN EFH 1,937 km2
• CAIS EFH 584 km2
• CAII EFH 641 km2

Total area = 10,801 km2 habitat and mortality combined

• CAI 3,939 km2
• CAII 6,862 km2

Total Area = 1,303 km2

• EFH South,

278 km2

• Georges

Shoal 2, 1,025 km2 Total Area = 4,788 km2

• N. Georges,

4,788 km2 Total Area = 1,949 km2

• Western,

900 km2

• Eastern,

607 km2

• Mortality,

443 km2 Total area = 2,075

• GS2, 1,025

km2

• Eastern,

700 km2

• RI HMA,

350 km2

11

Dominant sediment type (SASI grid)

Substrate Area, km2 Low energy High energy M S G C B M S G C B No action EFH Closed Area I EFH N (607, #1)

• 4%
• 2% 82% 12% <1%
• 2,028

Closed Area I EFH S (263, #1)

• <1% 92%

7% 1%

• 617

Closed Area II EFH (1,175, #1) 1% 1% <1%

• <1% 32% 53% 12% <1%

650 No action groundfish Closed Area I GF (2,628, #1)

• 2%
• 1% 81% 14%

2% <1% 4,063 Closed Area II GF (2,904, #1) <1% 5% 1%

• 1% 84%

8% 2% <1% 6,826 Habitat management areas EFH South (195, #7)

• 1% 53% 38%

8% 1% 277 Georges Shoal 2 (277, #7)

• 66% 17% 16%
• 1,039

Northern Georges (3,229, #8) 2% 16% 1%

• <1% 43% 25% 13% <1%

4,808 Western area (429, #9)

• 43% 25% 30%

1% 895 Eastern area (517, #9)

• <1%
• <1% 58% 32%

9% 1% 611 Mortality area (1,099, #9)

• <1% <1%
• <1% 19% 61% 19%

1% 435 Georges Bank/GSC region (17,663, n/a) 2% 21% 1% <1%

• 1% 64%

8% 3% <1% 48,992

12

Seabed vulnerability, data support, dominant substrate

15

Dominant sediment type

Sediment stability

June 1, 2015 Georges Bank Analysis 17

Alternative 1 Alternative 7

• Alt. 8

Alternative 9 CAI N Habitat CAI S Habitat CAII Habitat EFH South Georges Shoal 2 Northern Georges Western MBTG Eastern MBTG Mortality Closure 0.63 1.45 0.11 0.52 2.51 0.65 0.54 0.59 0.05 Stable Unstable Stable Stable Unstable Stable Stable Stable Stable

Overlap with designated EFH for benthic species and lifestages

• Modifiers (slight/moderate) are relative to each management area
• Thus, a moderate proportion of the N. Georges area is designated

for juvenile cod and haddock, but the area overlaps more designations overall because it is so large

• Of the six areas, Georges Shoal 2 has the lowest overlap with

designated EFH

Species and lifestage EFH South Georges Shoal 2 Northern Georges Western Area Eastern Area Mortality Closure Atlantic cod juvenile Full Moderate Moderate High High High Haddock juvenile High None Moderate Slight High High Total score 68 47 72 60 69 79 Count of species represented (out of 23) 17 13 23 18 16 20 Count of designations represented (out of 43) 25 19 41 27 25 33

June 1, 2015 18

Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat

 Caveats

 Conclusions are preliminary right now  The amount of fishing effort authorized in the Mortality

Closure or Reduced Impact HMA (Committee preferred) will have substantial bearing on the degree of adverse impacts minimization achieved.

 Effort displacement into other vulnerable habitat types

will need to be considered – complex issue.

 Current status as a habitat closure that has led to

benthic habitat recovery matters in terms of estimating impacts.

June 1, 2015 19

Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat

 Estimated ranking of alternatives from most to least

adverse effects minimization:

 Alternative 8 (Northern Georges HMA) – DEIS highly

positive (+++)

 Alt 1/No Action – DEIS positive (++)  Alternative 9 – not in DEIS  Committee preferred alternative (similar to Alternative 9

in the east, and less adverse effects minimization in the west)

 Alternative 7 – DEIS slightly positive (+)

DEIS: 3 ++, 4++, 5 --, 6A +++, 6B -

June 1, 2015 20

Juvenile groundfish hotspots (unweighted)

Species and season Alt 1 Alt 7 Alt 8 Alt 9 Ctte Yellowtail (Summer & Fall) 1 1 1 Red hake (Fall) 12 26 9 4 Haddock (Fall) 8 7 2 2 Winter flounder (Summer) 5 1 14 7 7 American plaice (Fall) 1 Windowpane (Fall) 2 Total 26 1 50 19 14

June 1, 2015 21

Juvenile cod distribution

June 1, 2015 22

<15 cm

Impacts to large mesh groundfish

June 1, 2015 28

Species Alternative 1/No Action Alternative 7 Alternative 8 Alternative 9 Committee pref. Cod Positive Negative Highly Positive Slightly Negative Slightly Negative Haddock Highly Positive Highly Negative Positive Negative Negative Winter flounder Positive Negative Highly Positive Positive Slightly Positive Windowpa ne flounder Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Yellowtail flounder Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Considering only juvenile cod, haddock, winter flounder, yellowtail flounder, and windowpane flounder, the Committee’s preferred alternative would have mixed (impacts when compared to No Action. This assessment is preliminary and the conclusions may change upon review of additional data.

Revenue by gear type and area

Alternative 9 MBTG Closure, 2005 - 2012 Alternative 9 MBTG Closure, 2008 - 2012 Alternative 9 MBTG Closure, 2010 - 2012

Bottom Trawl Clam Dredge Longline Midwater Trawl Other Gear Pot SAP Trawl Scallop Dredge

Graphs by Area and years

Western and Eastern Areas Mortality Area

29

MBTG revenue by gear and area – VTR 2010-2012

Western area Vessel Size Mean Rev Median Rev SD Rev Max Rev Min Rev Indv # trip

• Bot. trawl

L 1,606,851 1,595,582 50,322 1,661,852 1,563,119 68 880

• Bot. trawl

OTHER 156,550 149,903 27,352 186,613 133,135 15 96 Clam drg. ALL 595,306

• 2

59 SAP trawl ALL 112,597 123,802 53,483 159,590 54,400 24 129

• Scal. drg.

L 870,492 1,018,994 647,439 1,430,778 161,703 36 51

• Scal. drg.

OTHER 32,243 45,770 28,044 50,959

• 5

4 Mortality area Vessel Size Mean Rev Median Rev SD Rev Max Rev Min Rev Indv # trip

• Bot. trawl

L 337,524 292,548 106,788 459,443 260,581 58 534

• Bot. trawl

OTHER 20,803 21,597 10,576 30,959 9,853 12 56 SAP Trawl ALL 72,391 70,695 45,725 118,940 27,537 20 95

• Scal. drg.

L 1,884,799 978,545 2,193,115 4,385,799 290,053 36 50

• Scal. drg.

OTHER 116,059 97,604 119,583 243,796 6,776 3 4

June 1, 2015 30

Preliminary economic impacts of Alt. 9

June 1, 2015 31

• Clam fishery: negative in ST and LT vs. Alt 1. - closes areas

currently open to fishing, and opens areas that would not be fishable to the clam industry given PSP closure

• Scallop fishery: depends on management of the mortality
• closure. Substantial revenue from open part of area (VMS and

VTR) and substantial biomass of scallops within this area. Highly positive vs. Alt. 1 if extensive access allocated, lesser magnitude if fishing allocated at reduced rate

• Groundfish fishery: positive short-term impacts and negative

long term impacts when compared to the no action Alternative 1.

• The ultimate magnitude and sign of the impact of Alternative

9 when compared to no action across all fisheries will depend greatly on the impact on the scallop fishery

Scallop Resource and Fishery Analyses

 Biological Impacts

• survey and fishery information, research on recruitment and larval

production from closed areas, discussion of potential impacts of density dependence on growth, reproduction success, and mortality from predators

 Spawning Measures

• Seasonal shell height / meat weight variation from observer data and

model generated estimates from RSA seasonal survey in CA1 and CA2

 Economic Impacts

• ST and LT yield potential – based on mean and median estimates of

scallop biomass from dredge survey

• SAMS Analysis – model based projection of scallop biomass and catch

How changes in closed areas fit with overall area rotation program. Three separate runs completed for 2015-2027

• Public comments – more work on potential distributional impacts and

more recent trends in GOM (2013 and 2014)

32

Biological Impacts - Highlights

 DEIS Conclusion: Generally Neutral

constraints in place that limit fishing overall and areas will remain closed to scallop fishery until future action considers opening them.

 Scallop PDT Conclusions:

 Impacts of closed areas on increased spawning success and yield

are currently uncertain and variable.

 If there is no spawning advantage from high density closed areas

then net loss in yield, but if increased fertilization success in open areas from closures then beneficial impacts.

 Closed areas may help prevent overfishing but there does not seem

to be strong evidence that they directly increase scallop recruitment success on GB.

 With a greater understanding of these linkages Council could

consider specific closures to increase scallop recruitment in future action, but not a primary goal of OHA2.

33

Spawning Measures - Highlights

 GOM – little overlap with scallop resource so

minimal impacts on scallop resource either way

 CA1 and CA2 closed in Feb1-April 15 – meat weights

appear to be lower in Feb and March and ascending in April and May to the max weights in June/July

 Seasonal closures reduce flexibility – so while there

could be some benefit if closed when meat weights are lower (Feb and March), effort patterns could shift in other areas and season with different impacts on mortality

34

Spawning Measures - Highlights

35

Left: Hennen and Hart (2012) Below: RSA Final Report (CFF 2013)

Economic Impacts - Highlights

 GB/GSC

• ST and LT Yield – direct way to compare yield potential per area
• SAMS – evaluate how changes in closed areas impact overall allocations –

more realistic

 Background – Scallop specifications are complex

• 3 types of areas in this region: open, closed, scallop access areas
• Scallop FMP OFL = Fmsy (0.38) in all areas combined. Since F=0 in closed

areas F in other areas can be set higher to compensate, but other constraints

1.

• verall F limit of ACT = 0.28 to account for uncertainty

2.

F in open areas cannot exceed 0.38 (Fmsy) to prevent localized overfishing

3.

Scallop densities are not uniform - not always possible to replace all yield that may be inside a closed area, especially if very productive

36

Economic Impacts – Highlights (cont.)

• If current EFH closures lifted short-term gains in yield from

biomass in those areas (Table 9 in recent memo ~4,500 mt or 10 mil lbs.

• f potential yield for 3 existing EFH areas if fished at Fmsy)
• But potential yield does not simply convert to available catch

due to other constraints in setting allocations

• 3 separate SAMS runs developed to show how area rotation

system comes into play



long term landings are higher when closures do not overlap productive areas (No closure run is ~107 million pounds ($ 722 mil) higher than No Action for all years (2015-2037), or ~$32 mill per year (6% of total revenues)



losses of yield within closures can be compensated for to some degree, but not always pound for pound

37

38

Area Long-term yield (mean) Long-term yield (median) Biomass 2013* Short-term yield CAII North (all area north of scallop access area within CAII closure (subset

• f Alt 1)

1,254 536 8,630 2,589

CAI-N Habitat Closure (subset of Alt 1)

601 42 4,841 1,452

CAI-S Habitat Closure (subset of Alt 1)

29 11 1,658 497

All Current Habitat Closures on GB (CAII north, CAIN and CAIS) (Does not include NL)

1,884 589 15,129 4,538

Northern Edge HMA (Alts 3 and 4)

1,214 502 7,433 2,230

EFH Extended 1 HMA (Alt 6A)

1,858 800 11,519 3,456

EFH Extended 2 HMA (Alt 6B)

825 324 4,493 1,348

Georges Shoal 2 MBTG HMA (Alt 7)

2 3 1

EFH South MBTG HMA (Alt 7)

23 10 440 139

Northern Georges MBTG HMA (Alt 8)

2,829 1,211 13,654 4,317

Western Area (MBTG closure, Alt 9)

52 8 22 6

Eastern Area (MBTG closure, Alt 9)

158 75 1,674 419

Mortality closure (Alt 9)

1,126 479 11,978 2995

Eastern Habitat Management Area – larger than Alternative 9

258 135 3,376 844

Reduced Impact Habitat Management Area – smaller than Alternative 9

1,079 419 10,617 2,654

39

Analysis of Committee Preferred Alternative

Estimates of Long-term Yield Potential (based on mean and median recruitment from federal dredge survey 1979-2013)

40

25 210 260 825 1,214 1,858 1,884 2,829 Alt 7 Alt 9 Cmte Pref Alt 6b Alt 3 and 4 Alt 6a Alt 1 Alt 8

Mean LY yield (mt)

Overall impacts similar to Alt 9

 Western MBTG HMA closures included in either Alt 7 or Alt 9 do

not have impacts on scallop fishery – very low scallop yield areas

 Eastern MBTG HMA closures do not contain much scallop yield

either - low impact LT, Cmte Pref has higher ST impact than Alt9

(Cmte Pref Alt contains 258 mt (mean LT yield), which is more than the eastern areas in Alt 7 (23 mt) and Alt 9 (158 mt). LT about 100 mt more than Alt9 eastern area and about 400mt difference in ST).

 Reduced Impact HMA closures in Alt 9 and Cmte Pref are similar

in terms of LT yield potential, but Cmte Pref has lower ST yield

 Unclear how scallop fishery would actually access the RIHMA

(How often? Lower fishing mortality rate? Seasonal restrictions?) But expectation is that some of that yield potential would become landings, maybe not as much as presented in tables due to other constraints.

41

42

Alt Area Proportion of total potential Long-term yield (mean) Proportion of total potential Long-term yield (median) Proportion of total short-term biomass (2013) Proportion of total short-term potential yield

• Alt. 1

(No Action) All Current Habitat Closures

• n GB (CAII north, CAIN and

CAIS) (Does not include NL)

7.5% 2.4% 13.4% 18.2%

• Alt. 7

Georges Shoal 2 MBTG HMA (Alt 7)

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

EFH South MBTG HMA (Alt 7)

0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.6%

• Alt. 8

Northern Georges MBTG HMA (Alt 8)

11.3% 4.8% 12.1% 17.3%

• Alt. 9

NEW EFH Western Area (MBTG closure, Alt 9)

0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NEW EFH Eastern Area (MBTG closure, Alt 9)

0.6% 0.3% 1.5% 1.7%

NEW Reduced Impact HMA (Alt 9)***

4.5% 1.9% 10.6% 12.0%

Alternative 9 **** (net access portion)

0.8% 0.3% 1.5% 1.7%

Final Cmte Rec. for Pref Alt. On GB EFH South MBTG HMA (Alt 7)

0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.6%

Eastern Habitat Management Area – larger than Alternative 9

1.0% 0.5% 3.0% 3.4%

Reduced Impact Habitat Management Area *** (smaller than Alternative 9)

4.3% 1.7% 9.4% 10.6%

Final Cmte Recommendation **** (net access portion)

1.1% 0.5% 3.4% 4.0%

Scallop VMS 2006-2014 vs. female lobsters >100mm 2005-2014 fall trawl survey

June 1, 2015 43

Georges Bank and GSC Eastern Georges Bank

1982-2014 lobsters >=100mm:

• 54% central CAII
• 43% CAII access area
• 3% CAII habitat closure

CFF seasonal bycatch survey – lobster catches by area (total in black)

June 1, 2015 45

46

Spawning Alternatives – Gulf of Maine

 Framework 53’s cod protection measures became the

‘new’ no action beginning May 1, 2015

 Are there other time/area closures necessary for

spawning protection in addition to what was implemented via Framework 53?

 Alternative 3 - Massachusetts Bay Area, which has different

restrictions vs. the overlapping cod protection closures.

 Closures of thirty minute blocks in April, which were removed

via Framework 53.

51

DEIS Spawning Alternatives: GOM

 Alternative 1 (No Action)

 Western GOM and Cashes Ledge (year-round)  Sector Rolling Closures: April, May, June  Common Pool Rolling Closures: March–June, October, and November  Gulf of Maine Cod Spawning Protection Area - ‘Whaleback’: April 1 – June

30

 Alternative 2

 Sector Rolling Closures: April, May, June  MA Bay Cod Spawning Closure – November 1 – January 31  Gulf of Maine Cod Spawning Protection Area -‘Whaleback’ (April 1 – June

30)

 Option 1 would restrict commercial gears  Option 2 would restrict commercial and recreational gears

 Alternative 3

 MA Bay Cod Spawning Closure – November 1 – January 31  Intended to be used in conjunction with the Alternative 1 (No Action)

52

Gulf of Maine Spawning: Preferred Alternatives

 Committee preferred:

 Framework 53 cod protection zones  Framework 53 spawning area (i.e. Whaleback

Area)

 Alternative 3: Massachusetts Bay area

 Council preferred: Alternative 1/No Action  Other alternatives: Alternative 2

53

GARFO Comment Letter: Summary

Concerns regarding FW 53 cod measures as adequate to meeting objectives of OHA2:

April closures proposed for opening historically important for spawning activity and Gulf

• f Maine cod are concentrated in this area.



Reduce spawning protection for four other groundfish stocks: winter flounder, yellowtail flounder, plaice, and haddock in the Gulf of Maine



Effort shift could compromise the benefits from the FW 53 closures during December and January Analysis indicates that FW 53 will protect an additional 35 percent of the winter spawning biomass and 8 percent less of the spring spawning biomass.



Framework 53 provides spawning protection during the winter, which the status quo measures do not provide.



“Available information does not indicate whether the winter or spring spawning biomass is more important relative to overall contribution to cod recruitment.” (FW 53 Analysis)



“However, some analysis indicates that the winter spawning component may be much smaller than the spring component, although the reasons for this are unknown.” (FW 53 Analysis)



The available GOM cod spawning research suggests that once a specific spawning aggregation is lost, there is little indication that the aggregation could recolonize.” (FW 53 Analysis). Assessment Update in September 2015 for all 20 groundfish stocks

58

DEIS Spawning Alternatives: GB/SNE

 Alternative 1 (No Action)

 Seasonal Closure (May)  Closed Area I, Closed Area II, and Nantucket Lightship Closed Area

(year-round)

 Alternative 2

 Closed Area I, Closed Area II ( Feb. 1 – Apr. 15)

 Alternative 3

 Closed Area I North and Closed Area II ( Feb. 1 – Apr. 15)

 Alternatives 2 and 3

 Option A (commercial gear), Option B (commercial and

recreational), Option C (exemption for scallop dredges)

59

GB/SNE Spawning: Preferred Alternatives

 Committee preferred:

 Closed Area I North and Closed Area II, Feb 1 – Apr 15

 Closed to selected commercial and recreational gears (Option B),

exemption for sea scallop dredges (Option C)

 Council preferred:

 Closed Area I and Closed Area II, Feb 1 – Apr 15

 Closed to selected commercial and recreational gears (Option B)and

Council did not weigh in on sea scallop dredge exemption

 Other alternatives: Alternative 1/No action; closure

to selected commercial gears only (Option A)

60