northeast region coordinating council
NORTHEAST REGION COORDINATING COUNCIL Spring 2016 MEETING May 10-11, 2016 Portland Regency – Portland, ME
Meeting Briefing Book Table of Contents (hyperlinked)
Page(s) NRCC Spring 2016 Meeting Agenda …………………..……..….……….……...…….…………... 2015 NRCC Fall Meeting Action Items ………………….….......................................…………… Draft Assessment Schedule and Assessment History……………………………………………..….. Letter from NEFMC regarding developing approaches for when an analytical assessment is not accepted………………………………………………………………………………………………… NEFSC and NEFMC correspondence regarding Federal sea scallop survey request………………….
1
2-3 4 5-7 8-10 11-13
2016 SPRING NRCC MEETING AGENDA Portland Regency—Portland, ME
All times are approximate Tuesday, May 10 1300-1310 1. Welcome, introductions, modifications and additions to agenda, announcements (Bullard, Karp, Gilbert) 1310-1340 2. Discard Methodology Review Discussion leader: Lanning Update from GARFO on MAFMC and NEFMC feedback to presentations offered at recent Council meetings. 1340-1615 (Break as needed) 3. Stock Assessment Priority Setting: Scheduling and Specific Assessment Topics Discussion leader: Karp Revised Stock Assessment Process: i. Discuss progress on process changes, discussions at the Councils, and continuing efforts to reach out for input to improve the process (Simpkins) ii. Discuss interest in a more formal approach to alternatives when an update fails (Kellogg/McNamee) Update on cod stock structure review (Simpkins) Review Assessment Schedule (Weinberg) i. Update, as needed, previously established 2017 and 2018 schedules 1615-Day 1 Wrap Up; Prep for Day 2 Discussions 1630-Adjourn Day 1 1845: Dinner at Walter’s 2 Portland Sq (located ~ 0.6 miles from the hotel) http://waltersportland.com/ Wednesday, May 11 0930-1000 4. Survey Issues Discussion leader: Karp What are expected impacts from the Bigelow’s recent generator problems? Is there a chance the spring survey will be cancelled? Update from Center on NEFMC’s request to conduct scallop surveys on commercial vessels (See July 2015 correspondence in briefing packet)
2
1000-1015 5. Aquaculture Policy in the Region Discussion leader: Moore/Robins 1015-1030 6. Skinning and Filleting Regulations as they apply to both New England and MidAtlantic Species Discussion leader: Moore 1030-1050 7. SBRM and Lobsters Discussion leader: Pentony Break 1050-1100 1100-1145 8. Coordination of the MAFMC’s ecosystem approach to fisheries management initiative and the NEFMC’s ecosystem-based fisheries management initiative Discussion leader: Simpkins How to provide and use scientific advice from these processes and single stock assessments? 1145-1230 9. Management of Shifting Species Discussion leader: Nies How will Councils and ASMFC address jurisdictional issues as species move? 1230-1245 10. Meeting wrap up Complete any unfinished discussions or unresolved new business Review action items and assignments Confirm October 11-12, 2017 Fall meeting date (ASMFC host) and identify Spring 2017 (GARFO host) meeting date Adjourn meeting
3
NRCC Fall Meeting 2015 Action Items November 17-18, 2015
Hotel Providence, Providence, RI
Color code key: ASMFC MAFMC NEFMC NEFSC GARFO NRCC
1. Discard Methodology Peer Review TORs Lead: GARFO, NEFSC Appointees need from GARFO (APSD), NEFSC Next step(s): Distribute for input and review (Councils and SSCs) CIE review planning Due date(s): January 2016 2. MSE Development Including Herring Case Study Lead: NEFSC Participants invited from GARFO, NEFSC, NEFMC, MAFMC, ASMFC Next step(s): Due date(s): Participant list by December 31, 2015 3. MSA Section 313 Working Group Lead: MAFMC Appointees needed from MAFMC, NEFMC, ASMFC Next step(s): On hold Due date(s): 4. Revise SAW WG Guidelines Lead: NEFSC Next step(s): Distribute for to NRCC Due date(s): December 31, 2015 5. Cod Stock Structure Review Lead: NEFSC Participants: NEFSC, NEFMC, GARFO Next Steps: Agree on plan for moving issue forward Due Date: Spring NRCC Meeting Mid-term Call – February 17, 2016 2-4pm Spring 2016 NRCC (NEFMC host) – May 10-11, 2016 Fall 2016 NRCC (ASMFC host) – October 11-12, 2016
4
2015: 1st half Scup SARC 60, June 2-5 , might be done with incomplete 2014 data Bluefish - SARC 60 June 2-5 , might be done with incomplete 2014 data
2015: 2nd half
(20 Groundfish Stocks, Operational Assessment, Sept.14-18; AOP: July 22??) (ASMFC - Lobster peer review - June 2015) (Scallop Survey Methods- March 17-19, New Bedford) (Herring, Operational Assessment, April; AOP: Dec.2014) (TRAC - EGB cod, EGB haddock, GB YT - July 7-9, St. Andrews, Canada) (Protected species: Program Review - April 13- ,2015 ) (Updates: BlkSeaBass [data update],Fluke, surfclam [data update], Dog, skates, OQ [data update] ) ( Mackerel [data update], butterfish [data update], tilefish [data update], squids [data update] )
2016: 1st half
2016: 2nd half SARC 61, July 19-21
Surfclam -
Black sea bass - SARC 62, Nov. 29 - Dec. 2 Witch Flounder - SARC 62
Black sea bass stock structure TOR-1 (SSC review) (ASMFC - Weakfish) (Monkfish - Operational Assessment -Date TBD Spring)
(Cumul. Discard Methodology - Nov. 7-9, Gloucester MA))
(TRAC - EGB cod, EGB haddock data update, GB YT - July 12-14, Woods Hole)
(Research Topic: Retrospective Patterns)
(Ecosystem Applications, Management, Habitat : Program Review - June 6-10) (Assessment Updates: skates, summer flounder ) (Data Updates: mackerel, black sea bass, bluefish, ocean quahog, dogfish , surfclam, butterfish, tilefish ,longfin and shortfin squid, scup) 2017: 1st half Ocean Quahog -
SARC 63, Date TBD, possibly March
2017: 2nd half Mackerel - SARC 64 or in TRAC
Cod stock structure -
SARC 63.
N. shrimp, halibut, GB haddock, monkfish, cod - possibilities
(some fraction of the 20 Groundfish Stocks, Operational Assessment, Date: TBD) (TRAC - EGB cod, EGB haddock, GB YT - Date TBD) (ASMFC - Sturgeon)
(MRIP transition) (FDDV) (Economics and Social Sciences : Program Review - Date TBD) (Assessment Updates: skates )
(Data Updates: hakes, mackerel, summer flounder, black sea bass, bluefish, ocean quahog, surfclam, dogfish, butterfish, tilefish ,longfin and shortfin squid, scup)
2018: 1st half Scup -
2018: 2nd half SARC 65, mid-July (pick 2 of 3) Assessments with MRIP
Bluefish -
SARC 65, mid-July (pick 2 of 3)
Dogfish -
SARC 65, mid-July (pick 2 of the 3)
More Assessments using MRIP (fluke, BSB, striped bass -- pick 2 of 3)
Multispecies Groundfish Model
(TRAC - EGB cod, EGB haddock, GB YT - Date TBD) (Assessment Updates: skates ) (Data Updates: mackerel, summer flounder, black sea bass, bluefish, ocean quahog, surfclam, dogfish, butterfish, tilefish ,longfin and shortfin squid, scup) Key:
Italics = Under consideration, but not officially scheduled. "( )" = not in the SARC process. Cells filled with gray = work completed.
~/sarc/boilerplate/Schedule-worksheet-assessments(date).xls 3/29/2016
5
Completed by end of 2016
Benchmark Count
Stock Last Benchmark Yr
1 SURFCLAM, Atlantic 2 BLACK SEA BASS 3 FLDR, WITCH 4 SCUP 5 BLUEFISH 6 FLDR, YELLOWTAIL, GB 7 BUTTERFISH 8 TILEFISH 9 SCALLOPS, SEA 10 HADDOCK‐GOM 11 COD, GB 12 COD, GOM 13 WHITE HAKE 14 FLDR, SUMMER 15 FLDR, YELLOWTAIL, SNE 16 HERRING, Atlantic 17 FLDR, WINTER, GB 18 FLDR, WINTER, GOM 19 FLDR, WINTER, SNE 20 GOOSEFISH, N 21 GOOSEFISH, S 22 MACKEREL, Atlantic 23 OFFSHORE HAKE 24 POLLOCK 25 RED HAKE, N 26 RED HAKE, S 27 SILVER HAKE, N 28 SILVER HAKE, S 29 SPINY DOGFISH 30 SQUID, LONGFIN 31 OCEAN QUAHOG 32 FLDR, AM. PLAICE 33 FLDR, WINDOWPANE, GOM/GB 34 FLDR, WINDOWPANE, SNE 35 FLDR, YELLOWTAIL, CC 36 HADDOCK‐GB 37 HALIBUT, Atlantic 38 OCEAN POUT 39 RED CRAB, Deepsea 40 REDFISH 41 SKATE, BARNDOOR 42 SKATE, CLEARNOSE 43 SKATE, LITTLE 44 SKATE, ROSETTE 45 SKATE, SMOOTH 46 SKATE, THORNY 47 SKATE, WINTER 48 WOLFFISH 49 SQUID, SHORTFIN 50 HADDOCK ‐ EGB
2016 2016 2016 2015 2015 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2013 2013 2013 2013 2012 2012 2011 2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2005 ‐‐
Scheduled for Future
Bench, Update or Data Update or Update Data Update
Years from Last Process 2016 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 11
Last Update
SAW61 SAW62 SAW62 SAW60 SAW60 TRAC SAW58 SAW58 SAW59 SAW59 SAW55 SAW55 SAW56 SAW57 SAW54 SAW54 SAW52 SAW52 SAW52 SAW50 SAW50 TRAC SAW51 SAW50 SAW51 SAW51 SAW51 SAW51 TRAC SAW51 SAW48 GARM GARM GARM GARM GARM GARM GARM DataPoor GARM DataPoor DataPoor DataPoor DataPoor DataPoor DataPoor DataPoor DataPoor SAW42 TRAC
2016 2016 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2015 2015 2015 2014 2014 2016 2016 2016 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2015 2016 2016
SchedulingforNRCC‐k
6
Benchmark
Years from 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Update or Data Stock Status (based on NOAA SIS/ FSSI) Update
"Light Gray " = under consideration
Overfishing
2017 N N 2017 2017 N 2017 N 2017 2017 N 2017 N N 2017 N 2017 2017 2017 N 2017 2017 N 2017 2017 N 2017 N N N 2017
2017
Overfished N N Y
Y N N
Y
Y N N N N
Y Y
Y Y
N YN Y N Y
Y
Y N N U U
2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 2018 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017
Y U
U U N N N N N N N N N
U
Y N Y
Y N Y Y U N N N N N N Y N Y U
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
COD, EGB CUSK SHRIMP, NORTHERN EEL, American HAGFISH HORSESHOE CRAB LOBSTER, American MENHADEN, Atlantic RIV. HERRING/SHAD SALMON, ATLANTIC SHAD, American STRIPED BASS STURGEON, Atlantic TAUTOG WEAKFISH
~/sarc/boiler…/SchedulingWORK‐k.xlsx (support doc in Early call sent to NRCC)
‐‐
TRAC
2016 2015
2017
2014
2
SAW58
1
2015
1
ASMFC
1
2012
3
ASMFC
3
2013
3
SAW57 ASMFC
2016
2016 2017 2018 2017 2015
1 2017 2016
2016
0
ASMFC
0
4/4/2016
SchedulingforNRCC‐k
7
New England Fishery Management Council 50 W ATER STREET
|
NEW BURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950
|
PHONE 978 465 0492
|
FAX 978 465 3116
E.F. “Terry” Stockwell III, Chairman | Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 12, 2016
TO:
Dr. Russell Brown, Deputy Science and Research Director, NEFSC
FROM:
Thomas Nies, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
2016 Monkfish Assessment
Thank you for your memo that identifies several options for analyses that would support monkfish catch advice during the period 2017-2019. Your memorandum raises several process issues that need to be carefully considered and discussed. The current format of the Operational Assessment, as described by a draft NRCC paper prepared in 2011, is that the Operational Assessment updates a baseline assessment model that was previously reviewed and approved at a benchmark assessment. Should the lead assessor expect that the model will fail, advice was to be provided on how stock status might be evaluated (“Should the baseline model fail when applied in the operational assessment, provide guidance on how stock status might be evaluated. Should an alternative assessment approach not be readily available, provide guidance on the type of scientific and management advice that can be.”). This is commonly referred to as Plan B. Note that the draft NRCC paper does not charge the assessment scientist with recommending catch advice, as that is the purview of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). During the Assessment Oversight Panel meeting for the 2015 Groundfish Operational Assessments, the Panel questioned whether a Plan B could be developed at an operational assessment, given the possible complexity of such an approach. The approach of lead assessment scientists appeared to be to suggest how catch advice could be developed (such as by using recent average catches), rather than identify the indicators of stock status that could be used in the absence of an approved model. This does not seem consistent with the original intention of the operational assessments, and may cause confusion between the roles of the assessment and the SSC. The proposal in your memorandum appears to create a different type of Operational Assessment than what was originally envisioned by the NRCC. It is not a benchmark, but it is also not an update of an approved benchmark. It is somewhat striking that for GB yellowtail flounder, a benchmark meeting was scheduled to identify an empirical method to replace the analytic assessment, but for monkfish - a far more valuable species – a different approach is being proposed. It is also troubling that this is being advocated before the research that calls into
8
question the current ageing methods has even been completed, let alone reviewed and published. It is not even certain that the analytic method using the (presumably) invalid ageing method would be rejected if reviewed – it was only last year that an Operational Assessment review chose to accept the herring assessment when the expectation was that it would be rejected. I think what is needed is a more systematic approach to a problem we are very likely to encounter again. We should create a toolbox of empirical assessment approaches that can be applied when an analytic assessment is not accepted. This toolbox should include a comprehensive review of the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and factors that should be considered before applying it to a specific stock. For example, swept area biomass approaches may not be appropriate for a stock that is known to be rarely caught by the trawl survey. This toolbox should be peer reviewed in advance of its use. It need not be static – as new approaches are developed, they could be added after reviews by a smaller panel, such as an. If we had fully adopted the research track approach, developing this toolbox would be a candidate for such a meeting, but perhaps we can incrementally get to the same place. Once the toolbox is developed, it could be a ready resource should an assessment fail. In the case of an Operational Assessment, the review panel would first review the baseline assessment model. Should it be rejected, the review panel would then only need to approve the application of one of the approaches from the empirical toolbox. This would seem to be a simpler process than an individual review of an empirical approach that would be independently developed for each stock. Alternatively, when a benchmark is performed, a preliminary evaluation could be made on what empirical approach to use if the analytic model fails in the future. With respect to this year’s monkfish assessment, I think we can make this approach fit with your suggested Option 2 and start the development of the empirical toolbox. The assessment would first consider the baseline model, with the ageing deficiencies highlighted. Assuming that model is rejected, the review panel would review alternate approaches to evaluating stock status. These would be narrowly focused on monkfish, but would identify the general strengths and weaknesses of each so that the assembling of a more general toolbox could begin. Then one would be selected for determining monkfish stock status. By “determining stock status” I do not necessarily mean a determination on overfishing/overfished, but a more general determination of recent trends in the data. For example, are the survey indices increasing? Is the length structure in the survey changing? Is the range of the stock in the survey changing? What about the catch – is the size frequency of the catch changing? These data would help inform the SSC deliberations as they develop catch advice. This monkfish meeting would be the first planned step towards creating the empirical toolbox, as an alternative to squeezing in a research track review of empirical approaches this year. With respect to the candidate TORs for Option 2 presented in your memo, they do not seem complete. These TORs seem to focus only on how to provide catch advice, rather than information that may indicate the status of the stock. Please see below for our recommendations. Further, we encourage the use of public working group meetings to develop the approaches that will be considered at the assessment meeting. Please contact me if you have questions.
2
9
NEFSC candidate terms of reference: 1. Review index-based methods for adjustments to catch advice as applied to other species. 2. Apply index-based adjustment methods to monkfish for northern and southern management areas. 3. Provide advice on appropriate adjustments to existing monkfish TACs. NEFMC candidate terms of reference: 1. Update catch estimates from all sources including landings and discards. Characterize the uncertainty in these sources of data. 2. Update fishery-independent indices used as inputs in the last assessment model, and any additional indices or data not used in last assessment model. Characterize uncertainty and any bias in these sources of data. 3. Summarize sources of data, model, and reference point uncertainty relevant to setting Acceptable Biological Catch limits based on the existing SCALE model. 4. Update biological reference points as needed and evaluate stock status to determine if the stock is overfished and if overfishing is occurring. Provide estimates of uncertainty. 5. Should the baseline model fail, identify alternative methods for evaluating the condition of the stock. Characterize the strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives and recommend the one most suitable for application to monkfish. 6. Review index-based methods for adjustments to catch advice as applied to other species. Characterize their expected performance for the northern and southern monkfish management areas.
3
10
New England Fishery Management Council 50 W ATER STREET
|
NEW BURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950
|
PHONE 978 465 0492
|
FAX 978 465 3116
E.F. “Terry” Stockwell III, Chairman | Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director
July 6, 2015
Dr. William Karp Science and Research Director Northeast Fisheries Science Center 166 High Street Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026 RE: Federal Sea Scallop Survey Dear Bill: The Council met on June 16-18, 2015 in Newport, RI. One of the agenda items included a summary of findings from the recent Sea Scallop Survey Methodologies Peer Review presented by Dr. Paul Rago on your staff. The Council appreciates the efforts taken by the Center to host this important meeting and overall it seems the review provided useful technical advice about the various technologies used to survey the scallop resource in this region. During his presentation Dr. Rago reviewed several dozen summary findings from the peer review. The Council passed a motion based on a recommendation from the Scallop Oversight Committee related to one specific finding pertaining to the potential use of multiple vessel platforms to conduct the federal scallop survey. Ms. Tooley moved and Mr. Terry Alexander seconded: that the Council support the finding from the Scallop Survey Peer Review that there is no compelling advantage in using both dredge and Habcam gears on the same vessel for the federal survey. A joint integrated federal survey using two vessels could result in a better survey with improved coverage. The Council requests the center consider conducting the federal dredge survey on commercial vessels. The motion carried on a show of hands (14/0/3). The Council requests the Center consider the pros and cons related to potentially using multiple vessels for the federal scallop survey. For example, would it be more cost effective to use commercial vessels for the dredge component of the federal survey, and would that enable additional dredge stations to improve the overall precision of the federal dredge survey. At this time the Council does not have specific suggestions for the other findings from the peer review; however it is supportive of identifying the best way to integrate the other findings into the process. The Council encourages additional efforts to incorporate these findings. My staff is
11
available to discuss these issues further and work with the Center to help identify potential ways to further integrate the findings from the peer review. Please contact me if you have questions. Sincerely,
Thomas A. Nies Executive Director
12
13
Meeting Briefing Book Table of Contents (hyperlinked)
Page(s) NRCC Spring 2016 Meeting Agenda …………………..……..….……….……...…….…………... 2015 NRCC Fall Meeting Action Items ………………….….......................................…………… Draft Assessment Schedule and Assessment History……………………………………………..….. Letter from NEFMC regarding developing approaches for when an analytical assessment is not accepted………………………………………………………………………………………………… NEFSC and NEFMC correspondence regarding Federal sea scallop survey request………………….
1
2-3 4 5-7 8-10 11-13
2016 SPRING NRCC MEETING AGENDA Portland Regency—Portland, ME
All times are approximate Tuesday, May 10 1300-1310 1. Welcome, introductions, modifications and additions to agenda, announcements (Bullard, Karp, Gilbert) 1310-1340 2. Discard Methodology Review Discussion leader: Lanning Update from GARFO on MAFMC and NEFMC feedback to presentations offered at recent Council meetings. 1340-1615 (Break as needed) 3. Stock Assessment Priority Setting: Scheduling and Specific Assessment Topics Discussion leader: Karp Revised Stock Assessment Process: i. Discuss progress on process changes, discussions at the Councils, and continuing efforts to reach out for input to improve the process (Simpkins) ii. Discuss interest in a more formal approach to alternatives when an update fails (Kellogg/McNamee) Update on cod stock structure review (Simpkins) Review Assessment Schedule (Weinberg) i. Update, as needed, previously established 2017 and 2018 schedules 1615-Day 1 Wrap Up; Prep for Day 2 Discussions 1630-Adjourn Day 1 1845: Dinner at Walter’s 2 Portland Sq (located ~ 0.6 miles from the hotel) http://waltersportland.com/ Wednesday, May 11 0930-1000 4. Survey Issues Discussion leader: Karp What are expected impacts from the Bigelow’s recent generator problems? Is there a chance the spring survey will be cancelled? Update from Center on NEFMC’s request to conduct scallop surveys on commercial vessels (See July 2015 correspondence in briefing packet)
2
1000-1015 5. Aquaculture Policy in the Region Discussion leader: Moore/Robins 1015-1030 6. Skinning and Filleting Regulations as they apply to both New England and MidAtlantic Species Discussion leader: Moore 1030-1050 7. SBRM and Lobsters Discussion leader: Pentony Break 1050-1100 1100-1145 8. Coordination of the MAFMC’s ecosystem approach to fisheries management initiative and the NEFMC’s ecosystem-based fisheries management initiative Discussion leader: Simpkins How to provide and use scientific advice from these processes and single stock assessments? 1145-1230 9. Management of Shifting Species Discussion leader: Nies How will Councils and ASMFC address jurisdictional issues as species move? 1230-1245 10. Meeting wrap up Complete any unfinished discussions or unresolved new business Review action items and assignments Confirm October 11-12, 2017 Fall meeting date (ASMFC host) and identify Spring 2017 (GARFO host) meeting date Adjourn meeting
3
NRCC Fall Meeting 2015 Action Items November 17-18, 2015
Hotel Providence, Providence, RI
Color code key: ASMFC MAFMC NEFMC NEFSC GARFO NRCC
1. Discard Methodology Peer Review TORs Lead: GARFO, NEFSC Appointees need from GARFO (APSD), NEFSC Next step(s): Distribute for input and review (Councils and SSCs) CIE review planning Due date(s): January 2016 2. MSE Development Including Herring Case Study Lead: NEFSC Participants invited from GARFO, NEFSC, NEFMC, MAFMC, ASMFC Next step(s): Due date(s): Participant list by December 31, 2015 3. MSA Section 313 Working Group Lead: MAFMC Appointees needed from MAFMC, NEFMC, ASMFC Next step(s): On hold Due date(s): 4. Revise SAW WG Guidelines Lead: NEFSC Next step(s): Distribute for to NRCC Due date(s): December 31, 2015 5. Cod Stock Structure Review Lead: NEFSC Participants: NEFSC, NEFMC, GARFO Next Steps: Agree on plan for moving issue forward Due Date: Spring NRCC Meeting Mid-term Call – February 17, 2016 2-4pm Spring 2016 NRCC (NEFMC host) – May 10-11, 2016 Fall 2016 NRCC (ASMFC host) – October 11-12, 2016
4
2015: 1st half Scup SARC 60, June 2-5 , might be done with incomplete 2014 data Bluefish - SARC 60 June 2-5 , might be done with incomplete 2014 data
2015: 2nd half
(20 Groundfish Stocks, Operational Assessment, Sept.14-18; AOP: July 22??) (ASMFC - Lobster peer review - June 2015) (Scallop Survey Methods- March 17-19, New Bedford) (Herring, Operational Assessment, April; AOP: Dec.2014) (TRAC - EGB cod, EGB haddock, GB YT - July 7-9, St. Andrews, Canada) (Protected species: Program Review - April 13- ,2015 ) (Updates: BlkSeaBass [data update],Fluke, surfclam [data update], Dog, skates, OQ [data update] ) ( Mackerel [data update], butterfish [data update], tilefish [data update], squids [data update] )
2016: 1st half
2016: 2nd half SARC 61, July 19-21
Surfclam -
Black sea bass - SARC 62, Nov. 29 - Dec. 2 Witch Flounder - SARC 62
Black sea bass stock structure TOR-1 (SSC review) (ASMFC - Weakfish) (Monkfish - Operational Assessment -Date TBD Spring)
(Cumul. Discard Methodology - Nov. 7-9, Gloucester MA))
(TRAC - EGB cod, EGB haddock data update, GB YT - July 12-14, Woods Hole)
(Research Topic: Retrospective Patterns)
(Ecosystem Applications, Management, Habitat : Program Review - June 6-10) (Assessment Updates: skates, summer flounder ) (Data Updates: mackerel, black sea bass, bluefish, ocean quahog, dogfish , surfclam, butterfish, tilefish ,longfin and shortfin squid, scup) 2017: 1st half Ocean Quahog -
SARC 63, Date TBD, possibly March
2017: 2nd half Mackerel - SARC 64 or in TRAC
Cod stock structure -
SARC 63.
N. shrimp, halibut, GB haddock, monkfish, cod - possibilities
(some fraction of the 20 Groundfish Stocks, Operational Assessment, Date: TBD) (TRAC - EGB cod, EGB haddock, GB YT - Date TBD) (ASMFC - Sturgeon)
(MRIP transition) (FDDV) (Economics and Social Sciences : Program Review - Date TBD) (Assessment Updates: skates )
(Data Updates: hakes, mackerel, summer flounder, black sea bass, bluefish, ocean quahog, surfclam, dogfish, butterfish, tilefish ,longfin and shortfin squid, scup)
2018: 1st half Scup -
2018: 2nd half SARC 65, mid-July (pick 2 of 3) Assessments with MRIP
Bluefish -
SARC 65, mid-July (pick 2 of 3)
Dogfish -
SARC 65, mid-July (pick 2 of the 3)
More Assessments using MRIP (fluke, BSB, striped bass -- pick 2 of 3)
Multispecies Groundfish Model
(TRAC - EGB cod, EGB haddock, GB YT - Date TBD) (Assessment Updates: skates ) (Data Updates: mackerel, summer flounder, black sea bass, bluefish, ocean quahog, surfclam, dogfish, butterfish, tilefish ,longfin and shortfin squid, scup) Key:
Italics = Under consideration, but not officially scheduled. "( )" = not in the SARC process. Cells filled with gray = work completed.
~/sarc/boilerplate/Schedule-worksheet-assessments(date).xls 3/29/2016
5
Completed by end of 2016
Benchmark Count
Stock Last Benchmark Yr
1 SURFCLAM, Atlantic 2 BLACK SEA BASS 3 FLDR, WITCH 4 SCUP 5 BLUEFISH 6 FLDR, YELLOWTAIL, GB 7 BUTTERFISH 8 TILEFISH 9 SCALLOPS, SEA 10 HADDOCK‐GOM 11 COD, GB 12 COD, GOM 13 WHITE HAKE 14 FLDR, SUMMER 15 FLDR, YELLOWTAIL, SNE 16 HERRING, Atlantic 17 FLDR, WINTER, GB 18 FLDR, WINTER, GOM 19 FLDR, WINTER, SNE 20 GOOSEFISH, N 21 GOOSEFISH, S 22 MACKEREL, Atlantic 23 OFFSHORE HAKE 24 POLLOCK 25 RED HAKE, N 26 RED HAKE, S 27 SILVER HAKE, N 28 SILVER HAKE, S 29 SPINY DOGFISH 30 SQUID, LONGFIN 31 OCEAN QUAHOG 32 FLDR, AM. PLAICE 33 FLDR, WINDOWPANE, GOM/GB 34 FLDR, WINDOWPANE, SNE 35 FLDR, YELLOWTAIL, CC 36 HADDOCK‐GB 37 HALIBUT, Atlantic 38 OCEAN POUT 39 RED CRAB, Deepsea 40 REDFISH 41 SKATE, BARNDOOR 42 SKATE, CLEARNOSE 43 SKATE, LITTLE 44 SKATE, ROSETTE 45 SKATE, SMOOTH 46 SKATE, THORNY 47 SKATE, WINTER 48 WOLFFISH 49 SQUID, SHORTFIN 50 HADDOCK ‐ EGB
2016 2016 2016 2015 2015 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2013 2013 2013 2013 2012 2012 2011 2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2009 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2005 ‐‐
Scheduled for Future
Bench, Update or Data Update or Update Data Update
Years from Last Process 2016 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 11
Last Update
SAW61 SAW62 SAW62 SAW60 SAW60 TRAC SAW58 SAW58 SAW59 SAW59 SAW55 SAW55 SAW56 SAW57 SAW54 SAW54 SAW52 SAW52 SAW52 SAW50 SAW50 TRAC SAW51 SAW50 SAW51 SAW51 SAW51 SAW51 TRAC SAW51 SAW48 GARM GARM GARM GARM GARM GARM GARM DataPoor GARM DataPoor DataPoor DataPoor DataPoor DataPoor DataPoor DataPoor DataPoor SAW42 TRAC
2016 2016 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2015 2015 2015 2014 2014 2016 2016 2016 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2015 2016 2016
SchedulingforNRCC‐k
6
Benchmark
Years from 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Update or Data Stock Status (based on NOAA SIS/ FSSI) Update
"Light Gray " = under consideration
Overfishing
2017 N N 2017 2017 N 2017 N 2017 2017 N 2017 N N 2017 N 2017 2017 2017 N 2017 2017 N 2017 2017 N 2017 N N N 2017
2017
Overfished N N Y
Y N N
Y
Y N N N N
Y Y
Y Y
N YN Y N Y
Y
Y N N U U
2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 2018 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017 N 2017
Y U
U U N N N N N N N N N
U
Y N Y
Y N Y Y U N N N N N N Y N Y U
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
COD, EGB CUSK SHRIMP, NORTHERN EEL, American HAGFISH HORSESHOE CRAB LOBSTER, American MENHADEN, Atlantic RIV. HERRING/SHAD SALMON, ATLANTIC SHAD, American STRIPED BASS STURGEON, Atlantic TAUTOG WEAKFISH
~/sarc/boiler…/SchedulingWORK‐k.xlsx (support doc in Early call sent to NRCC)
‐‐
TRAC
2016 2015
2017
2014
2
SAW58
1
2015
1
ASMFC
1
2012
3
ASMFC
3
2013
3
SAW57 ASMFC
2016
2016 2017 2018 2017 2015
1 2017 2016
2016
0
ASMFC
0
4/4/2016
SchedulingforNRCC‐k
7
New England Fishery Management Council 50 W ATER STREET
|
NEW BURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950
|
PHONE 978 465 0492
|
FAX 978 465 3116
E.F. “Terry” Stockwell III, Chairman | Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 12, 2016
TO:
Dr. Russell Brown, Deputy Science and Research Director, NEFSC
FROM:
Thomas Nies, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
2016 Monkfish Assessment
Thank you for your memo that identifies several options for analyses that would support monkfish catch advice during the period 2017-2019. Your memorandum raises several process issues that need to be carefully considered and discussed. The current format of the Operational Assessment, as described by a draft NRCC paper prepared in 2011, is that the Operational Assessment updates a baseline assessment model that was previously reviewed and approved at a benchmark assessment. Should the lead assessor expect that the model will fail, advice was to be provided on how stock status might be evaluated (“Should the baseline model fail when applied in the operational assessment, provide guidance on how stock status might be evaluated. Should an alternative assessment approach not be readily available, provide guidance on the type of scientific and management advice that can be.”). This is commonly referred to as Plan B. Note that the draft NRCC paper does not charge the assessment scientist with recommending catch advice, as that is the purview of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). During the Assessment Oversight Panel meeting for the 2015 Groundfish Operational Assessments, the Panel questioned whether a Plan B could be developed at an operational assessment, given the possible complexity of such an approach. The approach of lead assessment scientists appeared to be to suggest how catch advice could be developed (such as by using recent average catches), rather than identify the indicators of stock status that could be used in the absence of an approved model. This does not seem consistent with the original intention of the operational assessments, and may cause confusion between the roles of the assessment and the SSC. The proposal in your memorandum appears to create a different type of Operational Assessment than what was originally envisioned by the NRCC. It is not a benchmark, but it is also not an update of an approved benchmark. It is somewhat striking that for GB yellowtail flounder, a benchmark meeting was scheduled to identify an empirical method to replace the analytic assessment, but for monkfish - a far more valuable species – a different approach is being proposed. It is also troubling that this is being advocated before the research that calls into
8
question the current ageing methods has even been completed, let alone reviewed and published. It is not even certain that the analytic method using the (presumably) invalid ageing method would be rejected if reviewed – it was only last year that an Operational Assessment review chose to accept the herring assessment when the expectation was that it would be rejected. I think what is needed is a more systematic approach to a problem we are very likely to encounter again. We should create a toolbox of empirical assessment approaches that can be applied when an analytic assessment is not accepted. This toolbox should include a comprehensive review of the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and factors that should be considered before applying it to a specific stock. For example, swept area biomass approaches may not be appropriate for a stock that is known to be rarely caught by the trawl survey. This toolbox should be peer reviewed in advance of its use. It need not be static – as new approaches are developed, they could be added after reviews by a smaller panel, such as an. If we had fully adopted the research track approach, developing this toolbox would be a candidate for such a meeting, but perhaps we can incrementally get to the same place. Once the toolbox is developed, it could be a ready resource should an assessment fail. In the case of an Operational Assessment, the review panel would first review the baseline assessment model. Should it be rejected, the review panel would then only need to approve the application of one of the approaches from the empirical toolbox. This would seem to be a simpler process than an individual review of an empirical approach that would be independently developed for each stock. Alternatively, when a benchmark is performed, a preliminary evaluation could be made on what empirical approach to use if the analytic model fails in the future. With respect to this year’s monkfish assessment, I think we can make this approach fit with your suggested Option 2 and start the development of the empirical toolbox. The assessment would first consider the baseline model, with the ageing deficiencies highlighted. Assuming that model is rejected, the review panel would review alternate approaches to evaluating stock status. These would be narrowly focused on monkfish, but would identify the general strengths and weaknesses of each so that the assembling of a more general toolbox could begin. Then one would be selected for determining monkfish stock status. By “determining stock status” I do not necessarily mean a determination on overfishing/overfished, but a more general determination of recent trends in the data. For example, are the survey indices increasing? Is the length structure in the survey changing? Is the range of the stock in the survey changing? What about the catch – is the size frequency of the catch changing? These data would help inform the SSC deliberations as they develop catch advice. This monkfish meeting would be the first planned step towards creating the empirical toolbox, as an alternative to squeezing in a research track review of empirical approaches this year. With respect to the candidate TORs for Option 2 presented in your memo, they do not seem complete. These TORs seem to focus only on how to provide catch advice, rather than information that may indicate the status of the stock. Please see below for our recommendations. Further, we encourage the use of public working group meetings to develop the approaches that will be considered at the assessment meeting. Please contact me if you have questions.
2
9
NEFSC candidate terms of reference: 1. Review index-based methods for adjustments to catch advice as applied to other species. 2. Apply index-based adjustment methods to monkfish for northern and southern management areas. 3. Provide advice on appropriate adjustments to existing monkfish TACs. NEFMC candidate terms of reference: 1. Update catch estimates from all sources including landings and discards. Characterize the uncertainty in these sources of data. 2. Update fishery-independent indices used as inputs in the last assessment model, and any additional indices or data not used in last assessment model. Characterize uncertainty and any bias in these sources of data. 3. Summarize sources of data, model, and reference point uncertainty relevant to setting Acceptable Biological Catch limits based on the existing SCALE model. 4. Update biological reference points as needed and evaluate stock status to determine if the stock is overfished and if overfishing is occurring. Provide estimates of uncertainty. 5. Should the baseline model fail, identify alternative methods for evaluating the condition of the stock. Characterize the strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives and recommend the one most suitable for application to monkfish. 6. Review index-based methods for adjustments to catch advice as applied to other species. Characterize their expected performance for the northern and southern monkfish management areas.
3
10
New England Fishery Management Council 50 W ATER STREET
|
NEW BURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950
|
PHONE 978 465 0492
|
FAX 978 465 3116
E.F. “Terry” Stockwell III, Chairman | Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director
July 6, 2015
Dr. William Karp Science and Research Director Northeast Fisheries Science Center 166 High Street Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026 RE: Federal Sea Scallop Survey Dear Bill: The Council met on June 16-18, 2015 in Newport, RI. One of the agenda items included a summary of findings from the recent Sea Scallop Survey Methodologies Peer Review presented by Dr. Paul Rago on your staff. The Council appreciates the efforts taken by the Center to host this important meeting and overall it seems the review provided useful technical advice about the various technologies used to survey the scallop resource in this region. During his presentation Dr. Rago reviewed several dozen summary findings from the peer review. The Council passed a motion based on a recommendation from the Scallop Oversight Committee related to one specific finding pertaining to the potential use of multiple vessel platforms to conduct the federal scallop survey. Ms. Tooley moved and Mr. Terry Alexander seconded: that the Council support the finding from the Scallop Survey Peer Review that there is no compelling advantage in using both dredge and Habcam gears on the same vessel for the federal survey. A joint integrated federal survey using two vessels could result in a better survey with improved coverage. The Council requests the center consider conducting the federal dredge survey on commercial vessels. The motion carried on a show of hands (14/0/3). The Council requests the Center consider the pros and cons related to potentially using multiple vessels for the federal scallop survey. For example, would it be more cost effective to use commercial vessels for the dredge component of the federal survey, and would that enable additional dredge stations to improve the overall precision of the federal dredge survey. At this time the Council does not have specific suggestions for the other findings from the peer review; however it is supportive of identifying the best way to integrate the other findings into the process. The Council encourages additional efforts to incorporate these findings. My staff is
11
available to discuss these issues further and work with the Center to help identify potential ways to further integrate the findings from the peer review. Please contact me if you have questions. Sincerely,
Thomas A. Nies Executive Director
12
13
