Deirdre Boelke, NEFMC Staff

1

Council MeetingSeptember 23, 2019

Outline of presentation

1. Review draft discussion document on spawning of Atlantic herring on Georges Bank (Cmte motion #1).

2. Update on MSE Debrief.3. Committee input on 2020 Priorities (Cmte Motion #2).

2

Graham Sherwood, Ashley Weston, Aaron Whitman, GMRI

3

Herring AP/Committee MeetingSeptember 10, 2019

Scope of Contract 2019 priority; solicited a contract to help fast track topic. In early May GMRI awarded contract – 6 month timeline. Review historical and current scientific research and other

relevant info about offshore spawning of At. Herring. Aug 5 – Draft analyses presented to PDT. Sept 10 – Summarized available data to AP and Cmte. Post Sept Council meeting – finalize report in October.

Agenda Today – Review work to date, provide input, discuss potential next steps.

4

Draft Outline of discussion document Review of herring biology, spawning and management (coming) Building a consensus (A model for inferring spawning areas

based on ‘consensus’ from diverse sources)

Consideration of existing maps and datasets:

1. DMR/MDMF dockside monitoring2. Trawl surveys3. Larval distribution4. Diet Database5. Egg EFH6. Historical spawning areas

Industry interviews PDT research recommendations

5

A model for inferring spawning areas from diverse sources (DeCelles et al., 2017)

6

Sources of data for consensus analysis

7

Data Source

197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018

ME DMR PortsideMass DMF Portside

Trawl surveys

Larval surveys

Food Habits Database

1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

6,446 tows with herring larvae - location, date, size (2,371 tows with larvae < 9mm)

2,725 fish - location, date, maturity stage, GSI

>650,000 stomachs - location, date, presence of herring eggs (113 positive for herring eggs)

17,529 fish (from 583 trips)- location, date, maturity stage, GSI (Areas 1B, 2 and 3 only)

46,242 tows - location, date, maturity stage (focus on fall survey)

1. DMR Dockside Monitoring Data

• 1971 – 2018 (17,529 records of individual herring from Areas 1B, 2 and 3 only – from 583 unique trips)

o GSIo Maturity stageo Locationo Date

2-D kernel density estimate of male and female R + U herring (1971 – 2018)

8

9

DMR - Heatmap of mean GSI values by month and year (both sexes)

10

Defining regions (DMR data)

Georges BankNantucket

Shoals/GSCSouthern New England

11

Heatmap of 90th quantile of GSI values by month and year by area for males and females

2. NMFS Trawl Survey Data

• 1987 – 2018 (46,242 records of individual herring; 17,364 fall, 28,878 spring)

o Maturity stageo Locationo Date

12

2-D kernel density estimate of male and female Ripe + Ripe and Running stage

herring (Fall:1987 – 2018)

13

2-D kernel density estimate of male and female Ripe + Ripe and Running stage herring by decade

FALL TRAWL SURVEY

14

2-D kernel density estimate of male and female Ripe and Running only stage herring by decade

FALL TRAWL SURVEY

15

2-D kernel density estimate of male and female Ripe and Running stage herring (1987 – 2018)

SPRING TRAWL SURVEY

3. Herring Larval Distribution (<9mm)

16

2-D kernel density estimate of larval herring (<9mm) abundance by sample (1971 – 2017)• 1971 – 2017

Sampling programs have changed (EcoMon1992-present).

• Over 13,000 tows in total dataset; over 6,000 with herring larvae; and 2,371 with larvae <9mm.

• Herring larval samples observed in all 12 months, highest freq. of <9mm larvae in Oct/Nov.

17

2-D kernel density estimate of larval herring (<9mm) abundance by sample (by decade)

4. NMFS Food Habits Database

1973-2017, about 650,000 samples.

Only 113 stomachs had positive ID For herring eggs (10 hauls).

Mostly haddock and cod, few from pollock, YT, WF, and sculpin.

18

Location of herring eggs observed in diet

5. EFH for Herring Eggs EFH Omnibus II (2018) Text: Inshore and offshore benthic

habitats in the GOM and on GB and NS in depths of 5 – 90 meters on coarse sand, pebbles, cobbles, and boulders and/or macroalgae. Eggs adhere to the bottom, often in areas with strong bottom currents, forming egg “beds” that may be many layers deep.

Map: Omnibus II expanded No Action Egg map (right) to include areas with small larvae.

This analysis used original EFH map because more focused on egg beds (Omnibus I).

19

Omnibus I: Amendment 5 to the FMP for Atlantic herring (NEFMC 2013)

20

Significance of egg beds

NEFMC (2013) Sherwood et al (2017)

6. Historical spawning grounds

21

Olsen et al (1977) Fishing and Petroleum Interactions on Georges Bank

22

Overholtz et al (NEFSC 2004)(more general so not used in overlap analysis)

23

Building a Consensus

24

Overlap between spawning indicators from multiple sources

25

Overlap between spawning indicators from multiple sources

26

Overlap between spawning indicators from multiple sources (consensus areas: 3 or more sources)

27

Overlap between spawning indicators from multiple sources by decade

28

How do these areas overlap with footprint of the fishery?

Fishing locations with ripe and running adult herring from DMR dockside data

29

Herring revenue maps (2007-2017)With “Improved” fishing location information

$/0.25 km2

DePiper 2014 and Benjamin et al (2018)

Industry interviews

Some key takeaways:

• General view: spawning too variable to pinpoint exact location and time

• Spawning condition herring are relatively rare in catch. This agrees with data…

30

GSI

418 of 17,529 (2.4%) had GSI values greater than 0.3

Interviewed under 10 representatives from mid-water trawlers

DMR Portside data

Other interview takeaways:• Areas fished are not conducive to spawning; they believe herring

spawn in shoal water (i.e., along northern edge) from Aug-Nov.

• Many would like to see more sampling to better identify spawning including tagging, otolith work and surveys utilizing multiple gears with industry involved.

• Some fears that herring have shifted towards Canadian waters.

• One group raised issue of haddock; haddock are mixed in with catch and likely preying upon eggs.

• Abundance of river herring was also a concern; competition for resources

• They believe that small fish are present.

3131

32

Analysis Highlights (from authors):

• Multiple data sources were reviewed and analyzed and all pointed towards spawning in two locations along northern edge of Georges Bank; one in the west (Nantucket Shoals/Great South Channel) and one in the east (Northern Flank).

• Spawning takes place primarily between September and October (all years and all areas).

• Spring spawning is not important.• Industry interacts minimally with spawning grounds (mostly in

the east).

Herring PDT has not reviewed the draft report – in October.

33

Research Recommendations (PDT)

• Developed by the Herring PDT (which includes all members of the ASMFC TC)

1. Enhancing portside sampling – most cost effective2. At-sea collection of spawning data – need to evaluate

feasibility first3. Fishery independent survey – more expensive, 5 years or so,

but data from entire area and season.

• Herring stock at low abundance, may not be representative of stock at larger size.

AP/Cmte Meeting – Sept 10 (Doc. #2) Cmte Motion 1 – initiate an action to protect spawning

herring with several area, season, and gear sub-options. Figure 3.3 (left) and Figure 3.1 (right)

34

AP/Cmte Discussion Impressed with amount and quality of data. Consensus areas have limited overlap with fishery -

Is that a “win/win” or does that mean action not warranted? What is the problem being addressed by this action?

Is the goal to protect spawning adults or herring egg beds? If the latter would/should other fisheries be considered?

Would there be default closure dates only? Or would a monitoring system be developed in this action?

If this motion passes at the Council level, does work begin right away, how does that impact 2020 priorities?

If Council does not act, what is Commission expected to do? Are they more or less limited in measures they can consider?

35

Consensus spawning areas with reference areas

36Longitude

Lati

tude

Consensus spawning areasPrevious GF closed areasHabitat management areasLocalized depletion closure (proposed in A8)

Proposed clam dredge exemption areas

37

Consensus spawning areasPrevious GF closed areasHabitat management areasLocalized depletion closure (proposed in A8)

38

Scope of Debrief 2019 priority; solicit feedback on MSE Process. Collect perceptions, pros/cons, lessons learned to help

inform future Council decisions on use of MSE as a process.

Agenda Today – Review input to date and collect new input.39

Phase Purpose TimelinePlanning Develop purpose and goal, work

plan, Council approvalApril - June

Gathering feedback

Public comments, PDT input, AP/Cmte input, Council input

July - Sept

Reporting Compile input, finalize report,final report to Council

Oct - Dec

Background

40

• Atlantic herring managed since 2007 with harvest control rules (HCR), revised several times.

• In 2015, Council initiated A8 to consider HCRs that better account for herring’s role in ecosystem.

• Council hoped to implement a “long-term” control rule in 2018 to be used to develop 2019-2021 specs.

• A. Herring was assessed to be near carrying capacity; uncertainties suggested actual biomass may be lower.

• Managers hoped MSE could help: Test assumptions and uncertainties, Provide greater upfront discussion of objectives, and Quantify tradeoffs of alternatives.

Did the A8 MSE process accomplish this?

Amendment 8 MSE Process

• Six phases of A8 MSE• Timing • Who should be

included/invited? • MSE related education• Format of meetings• Presentation of results

41

1. Was the purpose and need clear?2. General education sufficient?3. Utility of 6 phases of MSE process?4. Use of open invitation workshops?5. Utility of MSE results?6. How well Council integrated the

MSE?7. Utility of MSE in balancing

tradeoffs?8. Benefits, if any, in using MSE?9. How the MSE process compared to

more normal Council process?10. Other comments

Gathering Feedback

42

SSC Meeting - March 2017. Staff paper with lessons learned (CJFAS - Feeney et al., 2019) PDT - Meeting August 5. Range of input, not consensus. Public - Nine public letters. NEFSC, herring fishery (3),

environmental NGOs (2), other interested public (3). AP/Cmte - Meeting Sept. 10. Individual input using post-it notes

followed by large group discussion. Diverse input. Today – any input from Council members not on the Herring

Committee or public that have not yet shared ideas.

Highlights of input to date

43

Was Herring FMP the “right” plan to start with? Too political, too controversial, science too uncertain.

Education – Overall good job for our first try; but still too technical and challenging for public to fully engage. Could require participants to attend webinar in advance.

Timing – Too rushed overall, especially latter stages (identifying final range of alternatives and selecting final measures).

- 2018 assessment created additional challenges.- Should Council have delayed and slowed process down? - Addition of localized depletion in A8 another challenge.

Highlights of input to date

44

Participation – Open vs. Invite only- Some felt input was unbalanced; did every idea from workshop have

to be analyzed? Better communicate how workshop input will feed into Council process. Others felt completely open forum was critical for this action.

- Are MSE style workshops really needed? NEFMC process very open and transparent already – don’t fix if nothing broken.

- Hybrid of approaches may be useful to explore. Perhaps open for some phases, and use of focus groups for other phases.

- Participation of Council members at meetings – range of ideas discussed, attendance likely important to listen and learn.

Presentation of Results – Good efforts made, but still very complex. Could try some non-scientific presenters. Improvements over time, repeat exposure helpful. Data limitations impacted utility of results (i.e. predator metrics).

Costs/Benefits – (+) Elevated importance of objectives; liked having impact analysis earlier; more user groups considered; helped identify unknowns; (-) attracted less vested stakeholders; tight timeline drove process; some felt final alternative did not balance tradeoffs appropriately.

Should Herring MSE be updated? If so, when? Despite all the costs and negative input, all AP/Cmte/public members at 9/10 meeting supported updating the Herring MSE. Noted that data constraints will still limit MSE analyses.

45

Highlights of input to date

46

47

Herring Update Assessment (June 2020) Herring Specifications 2021-2023 (June – Nov)__________________________________________On the list already as potential items:

1. Adjust measures that potentially inhibit OY in mackerel fishery (i.e. increase herring possession limits, modify seasonal closure of Area 1B)

2. Consider measures to protect spawning on GB.

New ideas discussed:1. Coordinated action with MAFMC on RH/S catch caps.2. PDT had several suggestions/reminders – Cmte does not recommend

adding any.

Other: Implementation of A8, FW6, IFM; general coordination with MAFMC/ASMFC; RSA Program Review (potential).