LAGC IFQ Report
Jonathon Peros, NEFMC Staff, Scallop PDT Chair Council Meeting – Danvers, MA September 22, 2016 1
Outline of Presentation 1. Review 2016 scallop survey results and current PDT tasking
– Update - no Council action required 2. Review draft management measures in Framework 28 – Update - no Council action required
2
Summary of 2016 survey results Successful survey season – 6 separate surveys of the resource 1.VIMS dredge survey of MA, NLS, and CA II 2. SMAST intensive survey of CA I and NLS 3. WHOI HabCam v4 survey of the Northern Edge 4. Habcam group v3 survey of ET 5. NEFSC dredge of GB and Habcam v4 of MA and GB 6. ME DMR/UMaine survey of the NGOM
PDT Meeting August 30/31 (Doc.#6) Very high level findings: 1. Total biomass expected to increase. 2. Overall lack of incoming recruitment observed throughout the resource. 3
VIMS surveys 3 Surveys conducted from early
May to late June (MA, NLS, CA II) Continued use of stratified random sampling design to increase precision 659 dredge tows (450 MAB, 109 in NLCA and 100 in CA II) Sampling intensity of SH:MW ~5,000 samples in MA and ~1,000 samples for both the NLS and CA II Slower growth rates in ET Closed and southern portion of NLS No strong signals of incoming recruitment. 4
SMAST survey 2 industry funded intensive
surveys at 1.5 nm grid (CA I and NLS) Surveys covered 549 stations during two cruises in June Large, Small, and DSC cameras DSC estimates used in 2016 NLS – average shell height, total average biomass, and exploitable average biomass all increased from 2015. Slower growth rates in the southern portion. CA I – Majority of biomass in survey (including exploitable biomass) in the no access “sliver” area.
5
WHOI HabCam v4 survey of the
Northern Edge in partnership with Lund’s Fisheries Area included Northeast Reduced Impact Habitat Management Area, the Northeast Habitat Management Area, and eastern Georges Shoal. Data suggests up to five cohorts of scallops within the footprint of the survey. The majority of the biomass in the eastern Georges Shoal area was considered to be exploitable. 6
Habcam Group Survey of ET AA using HabCam v3. July 9 – July 15 F/V Kathy Marie ~720 miles of transects, ~10,000
annotated images (1/200) Highest concentrations of animals were observed in the southern portion of the ET closed area. The majority of potential recruitment in the 51-75mm range. Mean length frequency in the area was 79mm.
7
NEFSC Survey Three legs from May - June 152 dredge tows on Georges
Bank HabCam v4 coverage of GB and MA, over 5 million images taken, estimates based on ~100,000 manually annotated (1/50) Issue during Leg 1 Lack of incoming recruitment Extremely high densities in Nantucket Lightship (40+ per square meter)
Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries – Robert Johnson
Photo Credit: NEFSC
8
9
10
Updates, Status, Caveats 2016 survey estimates have not been finalized. Several updates since Aug. PDT meeting, including SH/MW in NLS S, and modified SAMS area boundaries in NLS. PDT has not reviewed estimates of exploitable biomass. Updated LPUE model in FW28. Additional exploration: Survey estimates in areas of
extremely high density (dredge efficiency, HabCam, and combining survey estimates).
PDT meeting next Thursday in Boston, MA to discuss
estimates and initial results of SAMS model runs.
11
Closed Area II and Extension 2016 VIMS CA II Survey Scallop Catch
Majority of biomass is in CA II S AA Majority of pre-recruits ( 5.5% of PL in recent FY, ~9.5% of PL in FY2016
28
FY 2016 ACL 81.3 million lbs
29
“Spatial Management” FY 2016 Proj. Landings 46.9 million lbs (56% of ACL) 30
Status Quo 5.5% of ACL 81.3 million lbs
“Spatial Management” 5.5% of Proj. Landings 46.9 million lbs
LACG Quota ~4.4 million lbs
LACG Quota ~2.5 million lbs 31
Spatial Mgmt. Options in FW 28: Alternative 1 – No Action LACG IFQ allocation based on 5.5% of the ACL. Alternative 2 – Allocations Based on Spatial Management LAGC IFQ allocation based on 5.5% of the Projected Landings. AP Motion in support of Alternative 2. Committee Motion in support of Alternative 2. Tab 4, Doc.3, Page 5 32
Management Uncertainty Buffer for the LAGC IFQ Component Issue separated from spatial management in the
development of alternatives. The PDT cited IFQ carryover as a potential source of management uncertainty, and reviewed available data. Considered 5%, 10%, 20% (Doc.3, p.9) Committee motion in support of spatial management also
moved these measures to Considered But Rejected. AP supported moving to Considered But Rejected. 33
4. Potential Modifications to Closed Area I Scallop Access Areas FW28 - Focus on
expanding CA I AA to cover areas with exploitable scallops (“sliver”) Awaiting OHA2 Final Rule Specifications – CA I is NOT being currently considered for access in FW28 AP and Committee Support for “Option #2” – Expanding CA I AA to include the HMA area to the north.
34
Current Status, No Action
35
No Action, Council Preferred OHA2
36
Option 1, extend boundary to include “sliver”
37
Option 2, expand CA I AA to former HMA
38
What’s next? PDT will refine basic projection run and develop other
alternatives based on Committee tasking PDT meetings scheduled in September/October to develop alternatives and complete analyses New this year: October 13 joint PDT/AP meeting in Boston Mid-October Scallop Committee – October 17 SSC Meeting on October 18 to recommend OFL and ABC Early-November AP and Cmte review and select preferred alternative – November 2 and 3 Final Council Action – Nov. 15-17, Newport, Rhode Island FW28 implementation in April 2016 39
Outline of Presentation 1. Review 2016 scallop survey results and current PDT tasking
– Update - no Council action required 2. Review draft management measures in Framework 28 – Update - no Council action required
2
Summary of 2016 survey results Successful survey season – 6 separate surveys of the resource 1.VIMS dredge survey of MA, NLS, and CA II 2. SMAST intensive survey of CA I and NLS 3. WHOI HabCam v4 survey of the Northern Edge 4. Habcam group v3 survey of ET 5. NEFSC dredge of GB and Habcam v4 of MA and GB 6. ME DMR/UMaine survey of the NGOM
PDT Meeting August 30/31 (Doc.#6) Very high level findings: 1. Total biomass expected to increase. 2. Overall lack of incoming recruitment observed throughout the resource. 3
VIMS surveys 3 Surveys conducted from early
May to late June (MA, NLS, CA II) Continued use of stratified random sampling design to increase precision 659 dredge tows (450 MAB, 109 in NLCA and 100 in CA II) Sampling intensity of SH:MW ~5,000 samples in MA and ~1,000 samples for both the NLS and CA II Slower growth rates in ET Closed and southern portion of NLS No strong signals of incoming recruitment. 4
SMAST survey 2 industry funded intensive
surveys at 1.5 nm grid (CA I and NLS) Surveys covered 549 stations during two cruises in June Large, Small, and DSC cameras DSC estimates used in 2016 NLS – average shell height, total average biomass, and exploitable average biomass all increased from 2015. Slower growth rates in the southern portion. CA I – Majority of biomass in survey (including exploitable biomass) in the no access “sliver” area.
5
WHOI HabCam v4 survey of the
Northern Edge in partnership with Lund’s Fisheries Area included Northeast Reduced Impact Habitat Management Area, the Northeast Habitat Management Area, and eastern Georges Shoal. Data suggests up to five cohorts of scallops within the footprint of the survey. The majority of the biomass in the eastern Georges Shoal area was considered to be exploitable. 6
Habcam Group Survey of ET AA using HabCam v3. July 9 – July 15 F/V Kathy Marie ~720 miles of transects, ~10,000
annotated images (1/200) Highest concentrations of animals were observed in the southern portion of the ET closed area. The majority of potential recruitment in the 51-75mm range. Mean length frequency in the area was 79mm.
7
NEFSC Survey Three legs from May - June 152 dredge tows on Georges
Bank HabCam v4 coverage of GB and MA, over 5 million images taken, estimates based on ~100,000 manually annotated (1/50) Issue during Leg 1 Lack of incoming recruitment Extremely high densities in Nantucket Lightship (40+ per square meter)
Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries – Robert Johnson
Photo Credit: NEFSC
8
9
10
Updates, Status, Caveats 2016 survey estimates have not been finalized. Several updates since Aug. PDT meeting, including SH/MW in NLS S, and modified SAMS area boundaries in NLS. PDT has not reviewed estimates of exploitable biomass. Updated LPUE model in FW28. Additional exploration: Survey estimates in areas of
extremely high density (dredge efficiency, HabCam, and combining survey estimates).
PDT meeting next Thursday in Boston, MA to discuss
estimates and initial results of SAMS model runs.
11
Closed Area II and Extension 2016 VIMS CA II Survey Scallop Catch
Majority of biomass is in CA II S AA Majority of pre-recruits ( 5.5% of PL in recent FY, ~9.5% of PL in FY2016
28
FY 2016 ACL 81.3 million lbs
29
“Spatial Management” FY 2016 Proj. Landings 46.9 million lbs (56% of ACL) 30
Status Quo 5.5% of ACL 81.3 million lbs
“Spatial Management” 5.5% of Proj. Landings 46.9 million lbs
LACG Quota ~4.4 million lbs
LACG Quota ~2.5 million lbs 31
Spatial Mgmt. Options in FW 28: Alternative 1 – No Action LACG IFQ allocation based on 5.5% of the ACL. Alternative 2 – Allocations Based on Spatial Management LAGC IFQ allocation based on 5.5% of the Projected Landings. AP Motion in support of Alternative 2. Committee Motion in support of Alternative 2. Tab 4, Doc.3, Page 5 32
Management Uncertainty Buffer for the LAGC IFQ Component Issue separated from spatial management in the
development of alternatives. The PDT cited IFQ carryover as a potential source of management uncertainty, and reviewed available data. Considered 5%, 10%, 20% (Doc.3, p.9) Committee motion in support of spatial management also
moved these measures to Considered But Rejected. AP supported moving to Considered But Rejected. 33
4. Potential Modifications to Closed Area I Scallop Access Areas FW28 - Focus on
expanding CA I AA to cover areas with exploitable scallops (“sliver”) Awaiting OHA2 Final Rule Specifications – CA I is NOT being currently considered for access in FW28 AP and Committee Support for “Option #2” – Expanding CA I AA to include the HMA area to the north.
34
Current Status, No Action
35
No Action, Council Preferred OHA2
36
Option 1, extend boundary to include “sliver”
37
Option 2, expand CA I AA to former HMA
38
What’s next? PDT will refine basic projection run and develop other
alternatives based on Committee tasking PDT meetings scheduled in September/October to develop alternatives and complete analyses New this year: October 13 joint PDT/AP meeting in Boston Mid-October Scallop Committee – October 17 SSC Meeting on October 18 to recommend OFL and ABC Early-November AP and Cmte review and select preferred alternative – November 2 and 3 Final Council Action – Nov. 15-17, Newport, Rhode Island FW28 implementation in April 2016 39
