Fishery Trends
Deirdre Boelke, NEFMC Staff, Scallop PDT Chair
Inshore Scallop Workshop February 22-23, 2016 1
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
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
2. Scallop landings by permit type (2015 not complete – through August 2015)
4
2. Fishery Allocations Year
LA FT DAS
LA FT IFQ AA (mil lbs.)
2010
38
72,000
2011
32
2012
CA1
CA2
NL
HC
ETA
Del
2.5
--
--
open
--
open
open
72,000
3.2
open
open
--
open
--
open
34
72,000
3.4
open*
open
open
open
--
open*
2013
33
26,000
2.4
open**
open
open
open
--
--
2014
31
24,000
2.4
--
open
open
--
--
open***
2015
30.86
51,000
3.0
--
--
--
open
* 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
5
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
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
2. Distribution of active LA permits and landings by homeport state
8
2. Distribution of active LAGC permits and landings by homeport state LAGC - Some consolidation in MA region. And some occurred in both regions before ITQ program in effect (2008 and 2009). 9
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 of IFQ from other states (figures next silde). 10
Net leasing by primary State 2010-2012 only
11
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
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
Average trip length LA – Top Open area trip length pretty stable- average lower in 2013
LAGC – Bottom Slow increase in open areas
14
Estimate of Open Area LPUE LA landings per month / LA DAS used
15
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
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
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
Average catch per hour GB – Top Similar trends Peak in 2010 for LA and 2012 for GC Avg. LPUE for LA is 23x LACG LPUE when steaming time removed
MA – Bottom Increase for LA from 2006-2011 then decline, same for GC but not as extreme 19
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
4. Landings by meat weight category Total fishery by area - increases in u10 and 11-20 count increases open area catch rates
21
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
5. Trends in fishing location - VTR Area 514
613
Area 521
Area 613 23
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 overlap and relative importance of overlap 24
25
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
Total Fishery Overlap by Region (open and AA)
27
Open Area Fishery Overlap by Region
28
Fishery Overlap in LAGC fished areas only
29
Contribution of overlap – % caught in that location Days fished per cell / total days fished that year per fishery
Overlap
LA Contribution
GC Contribution
30
Effort and biomass by distance from shore PDT estimated the amount of effort and scallop biomass in each 10 nautical mile zone
31
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)
32
Scallop effort by 10 nm zones from shore
Majority of LAGC effort 10-50 miles from shore, overlap primarily between 30-50 miles. Fishery is constrained by closed areas and cannot always access areas with high biomass.
33
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 of 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
Special thanks to several PDT members that spent a substantial amount of time on these analyses while working on other Scallop PDT work.
Mr. Benjamin Galuardi, NMFS, APS Dr. Demet Haksever, NEFMC Dr. Dvora Hart, NEFSC
Questions? 35
Inshore Scallop Workshop February 22-23, 2016 1
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
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
2. Scallop landings by permit type (2015 not complete – through August 2015)
4
2. Fishery Allocations Year
LA FT DAS
LA FT IFQ AA (mil lbs.)
2010
38
72,000
2011
32
2012
CA1
CA2
NL
HC
ETA
Del
2.5
--
--
open
--
open
open
72,000
3.2
open
open
--
open
--
open
34
72,000
3.4
open*
open
open
open
--
open*
2013
33
26,000
2.4
open**
open
open
open
--
--
2014
31
24,000
2.4
--
open
open
--
--
open***
2015
30.86
51,000
3.0
--
--
--
open
* 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
5
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
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
2. Distribution of active LA permits and landings by homeport state
8
2. Distribution of active LAGC permits and landings by homeport state LAGC - Some consolidation in MA region. And some occurred in both regions before ITQ program in effect (2008 and 2009). 9
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 of IFQ from other states (figures next silde). 10
Net leasing by primary State 2010-2012 only
11
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
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
Average trip length LA – Top Open area trip length pretty stable- average lower in 2013
LAGC – Bottom Slow increase in open areas
14
Estimate of Open Area LPUE LA landings per month / LA DAS used
15
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
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
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
Average catch per hour GB – Top Similar trends Peak in 2010 for LA and 2012 for GC Avg. LPUE for LA is 23x LACG LPUE when steaming time removed
MA – Bottom Increase for LA from 2006-2011 then decline, same for GC but not as extreme 19
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
4. Landings by meat weight category Total fishery by area - increases in u10 and 11-20 count increases open area catch rates
21
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
5. Trends in fishing location - VTR Area 514
613
Area 521
Area 613 23
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 overlap and relative importance of overlap 24
25
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
Total Fishery Overlap by Region (open and AA)
27
Open Area Fishery Overlap by Region
28
Fishery Overlap in LAGC fished areas only
29
Contribution of overlap – % caught in that location Days fished per cell / total days fished that year per fishery
Overlap
LA Contribution
GC Contribution
30
Effort and biomass by distance from shore PDT estimated the amount of effort and scallop biomass in each 10 nautical mile zone
31
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)
32
Scallop effort by 10 nm zones from shore
Majority of LAGC effort 10-50 miles from shore, overlap primarily between 30-50 miles. Fishery is constrained by closed areas and cannot always access areas with high biomass.
33
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 of 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
Special thanks to several PDT members that spent a substantial amount of time on these analyses while working on other Scallop PDT work.
Mr. Benjamin Galuardi, NMFS, APS Dr. Demet Haksever, NEFMC Dr. Dvora Hart, NEFSC
Questions? 35
