Steve GiordanoNOAA Chesapeake Bay Office

MASC WorkshopNovember 13, 2008

A shared vision — a system with abundant, diverse populations of living resources, fed by healthy streams and rivers, sustaining strong local and regional economies, and our unique quality of life.

Restore, enhance and protect the finfish, shellfish and other living resources, their habitats and ecological relationships to sustain all fisheries and provide for a balanced ecosystem.

Preserve, protect and restore those habitats and natural areas that are vital to the survival and diversity of the living resources of the Bay and its rivers.

Achieve and maintain the water quality necessary to support the aquatic living resources of the Bay and its tributaries and to protect human health.

Develop, promote and achieve sound land use practices which protect and restore water-shed resources and water qual-ity, maintain reduced pollu-tant loadings for the Bay and its tributaries, and restore and pre-serve aquatic living resources.

Promote individ-ual stewardship and assist individ-uals, community-based organiza-tions, businesses, local govern-ments and schools to under-take initiatives to achieve the goals and commitments of this agreement.

PreambleLiving Resource

Protection & Restoration Goal

Vital Habitat Protection &

Restoration Goal

Water Quality Protection &

Restoration GoalSound Land Use

Stewardship & Community Engagement

Chesapeake 2000 Goals Overall Logic Framework

Stewardship & engagement supports

other 4 goals

Soundland use supports

water quality, habitat & living resource

goals

Waterquality supports living

resource goal &human health

Vital habitatsupports livingresource goal

Living resourcegoal is driving element

of vision

General flow of effect

This logic framework sets the context in which strategies for implementing all pillar keystones must be set.

Fisheries Management in Chesapeake BayFisheries Management in Chesapeake Bay

25-30 Managed Species25-30 Managed Species

• Some managed by states (MDNR, VMRC, PRFC) individually.

• Some managed by bi-state FMPs

• Most managed under ACFCMA (ASMFC) or Magnusen-Stevens (MAFMC, NEFMC, SAFMC)

For ASMFC and ‘Council’ species, appropriate targets, andthresholds are determined by multi-state or federal committees.

GOALProtect, restore, and manage the use of coastal and ocean resources through an ecosystem approach to management.

EXPECTED LONG-TERM OUTCOMES1. Healthy and productive coastal and marine ecosystems that benefit society2. A well-informed public that acts as a steward of coastal and marine ecosystems

PAST APPROACH• Individual species• Small spatial scale• Short-term perspective• Humans: independent of

ecosystem• Independent coastal & ocean

resource management• Management not integrated

with science

PAST APPROACH• Individual species• Small spatial scale• Short-term perspective• Humans: independent of

ecosystem• Independent coastal & ocean

resource management• Management not integrated

with science

FUTURE APPROACH• Ecosystems• Multiple scales• Long-term perspective• Humans: integral part of

ecosystem• Integrated coastal & ocean

resource management• Management integrated with

science – adaptive management

FUTURE APPROACH• Ecosystems• Multiple scales• Long-term perspective• Humans: integral part of

ecosystem• Integrated coastal & ocean

resource management• Management integrated with

science – adaptive management

Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management

Menhaden

Striped Bass

Bluefish

Weakfish

Bay Anchovy

Plankton

Spot/Croaker

Current Management Process Future Management Process

Striped Bass

Weakfish

Bluefish

Menhaden

EBFM Pillar Strategy Goals

1. Address C2K Commitments while Implementing Sustainable Ecosystem-based Planning Process (= implementation of FEP for CB)

2. Build the necessary ‘Infrastructure’ to implement EAM in CB Monitoring Modeling Assessment Management Policy Development Decision-Support Tool Development Adaptive Management

Fisheries Ecosystem Plan (FEP)• Guidance for Ecosystem Approach to Managing Fisheries and

Related Resources• Recommendations

– Ecosystem-based Approaches to Management– Required Research and Monitoring

• Fisheries Mgt. Planning and Coordination Workgroup Guidance• Strategy for Incremental Implementation of Ecosystem-based

Management• Ecosystem-based Fishery Management Plans• Endorsed by the Chesapeake Bay Executive Committee

Overarching EBFM Strategy: FEP Implementation

Outcome 4: Adaptive

Management Cycle

Monitoring Needs/Recommendations - FEP

Develop a comprehensive suite of integrated, broad-scale, fishery-independent and fishery-dependent surveys

Translate single species monitoring into a multispecies context (e.g., food habit data)

Estimate parameters for specific single and multispecies assessment models

Implement a trip ticket system for commercial catch estimation

Develop recreational monitoring programsDesign and implement an onboard fisheries observer

programDevelop and implement a truly integrated online

fisheries data management system

Monitoring Needs/Recommendations - STAC

Monitor and assess fish stock status and trends in abundance and spatial distribution of target and forage species

Perform multispecies and trophic analyses to characterize food web interactions – particularly predator-prey and lower trophic levels such as producer-consumer

Increase understanding of habitat in relation to spatial distributions and abundance of fish species

Life History dataGrowth ratesAge at maturity/maturity scheduleFecundityNatural mortalityPartial recruitment scheduleLongevity

Abundance dataAbsolute total abundanceRelative abundance indices for exploited portions of the stockCatch per unit effort

Exploitation dataFishing mortality rates derived from catch-curve analysesExploitation fraction from catch-survey (Collie-Sissenwine)

Management Data and Information Needs

Other stock assessment metricsStock age/size structureSex ratiosMigration patternsAnnual recruitment indices

Other minimum data requirementsLife history and reproductive characteristicsAnnual indices and trends of juvenile recruitmentAnnual indices and trends of age-1 and older fishAnnual estimates and trends in stock age composition

Extended/Multispecies/Habitat data requirementsCritical habitatSpatial and temporal distributionStock identificationAge-specific natural mortality ratesTrophic interactions

Management Data and Information Needs

Existing Monitoring Surveys - Maryland

Survey Target Spp. (Life Hx stage)

Gear(s) Location Duration

Shad & Herring Alosa (A) Pound/Fyke nets Nanticoke River 19 yrs

Shad & Herring Alosa (A) Hook & Line Susquehanna River 24 yrs

Shad & Herring Alosa (J) Beach Seine Chester River 1 yr

Upper Bay Trawl Survey

Perch and Catfish (all)

7.6m trawl Elk to Potapsco Rivers 5

Fisheries Ind/Dep Fyke

Perch and Catfish MDNR & Comm. Fyke

Bush, Gunpowder, & Choptank, Nanticoke

5-17 yrs

Striped Bass – spawning

Striped bass (A) Exp. Gill net Upper Bay & Potomac River

21 yrs

Striped Bass – beach seine

Striped bass (YOY) Beach seine Upper Bay, Potomac, Choptank, Nanticoke

53 yrs

Striped Bass Adult Striped bass (A) Recreational hook & line

Upper & Middle Bay 4 yrs

MD Shoal Water Trawl Survey

Multi-spp. & blue crabs

16 ft Otter trawl Pax & major Eastern Shore Rivers

29 yrs

‘Chesapeake Finfish Program’ Surveys – MDNR

Existing Monitoring Surveys – MD (cont.)

CHESFIMS (Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Independent Monitoring Survey)

University of Maryland Chesapeake Biological Laboratory

Targets juvenile benthopelagic fishesMultispecies surveyChesapeake Bay mainstemMid-water trawlIn operation for more than five years

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Abundance of Age 1+ Crabs (Millions)

Exp

loit

ati

on

fra

cti

on

annual exploitation fraction

target exploitation fraction = 0.46

threshold exploitation fraction = 0.53

Overfishing

Harvest Rate too High

Overfished

Abundance

too Low

1999

200420002001

2002

2006

2007

20052003

Figure 4. The control rule used to manage the Chesapeake Bay blue crab fishery. An abundance of 86 million age 1+ crabs represents the overfished threshold. In 2007, abundance was above the overfished threshold and the exploitation rate was above the overfishing threshold.

y = 0.0835x + 25.813

R2 = 0.87

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Crab Abundance (Millions of Crabs)

Bay

wid

e H

arve

st (

Mill

ions

of P

ound

s)

Figure 7. The relationship between the total abundance of crabs measured in the Bay-wide winter dredge survey (WDS), and the subsequent year’s harvest in pounds. Based on this relationship, the 2007 harvest is predicted to be 48.7 million pounds with a possible range of 32.3 to 65.1 million pounds. The lowest total abundance of crabs was observed in 2001. The highest abundance and the largest harvest during this time period was recorded in 1993. 95% Prediction intervals for harvest

Predicted annual harvest

Observed annual harvest

Predicted 2008 harvest (49 million lbs)

Observed 2007 harvest (43.5 million lbs)

Existing Monitoring Surveys - VirginiaSurvey Target Spp. (Life

Hx stage)Gear(s) Location Duration

Shad & Herring Alosa (A) Staked gill net James, York, and Rappahannock Rivers

9 yrs

Shark Longline Sharks (all) Long line Lower Bay & Oceanside 24 yrs

VIMS Trawl Multi spp. juveniles

Otter trawl Virginia mainstem & major tribs

52 yrs

Striped Bass YOY beach seine

Striped bass and bluefish

Beach seine James, York, and Rappahannock Rivers

40 yrs

Eel YOY surveys American eel Irish eel ramp James, York, and Rappahannock Rivers

6 yrs

Striped Bass – monitoring & tagging

Striped bass (A) Exp. Gill net & Pound net

James and Rappahannock Rivers

19 yrs

Existing Monitoring Surveys – Virginia

ChesMMAP/Multispecies (Chesapeake Bay Multispecies Monitoring and Assessment Program)

Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceTargets benthopelagic fishesMultispecies surveyChesapeake Bay mainstemBottom trawlIn operation since 2002

Chesapeake Fish Stock Monitoring Workshop

Convened in Spring 2006 by fisheries, managers, academics, CRC, and NOAA

More than 50 years of fish stock monitoring in CBHistorically little cross-jurisdictional or cross-program coordination Multispecies and ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries

management requires coordinated comprehensive data setsRequire an inter-jurisdictional monitoring infrastructure

Workshop Goal:

to reach a consensus on how to proceed with planning and development of “a fishery-independent monitoring plan which, if implemented, will provide scientists and managers with Bay-wide data required (now and into the future) to assess and manage fish stocks in the Chesapeake region.”

Chesapeake Fish Stock Monitoring Workshop

Objective:

To begin development of a coordinated bay-wide fisheries-independent monitoring program which:

1. Will be the basis for developing Chesapeake Bay-wide stock assessments (including multispecies and spatially explicit assessments)

2. Can support coast-wide interstate assessments

3. Will provide managers with data to make informed management decisions

1. Fisheries resources

2. Non-fisheries resources

Chesapeake Fish Stock Monitoring Workshop

Consensus Recommendations: General Surveys – Multispecies, Multihabitat Fishery-

independent Surveys are needed for effective Single species assessment & management Multispecies assessment & management Ecosystem-based fisheries management

Coordinated, Cross-boundary fish monitoring surveys in the Mainstem and the tributaries Deep (> 20 ft.) Shallow (~ 8 – 20 ft.) Littoral (< 8 ft. including better shoreline habitat coverage)

Special Surveys of key species not accessible to standard survey gears Include mandated surveys (ASMFC)

Chesapeake Fish Stock Monitoring Workshop

Consensus Recommendations (cont.): Coordinating Committee of regional scientists and managers to provide

oversight and to advise on Data required Data quality Adequacy of survey design

Administration and Survey Management to assure that surveys are dependably administered, coordinated, funded, and conducted Survey design and standards Personnel training Gear acquisition, certification, and maintenance Sample processing guidelines Data management & distribution Jurisdictional coordination Public outreach and finance

Lessons Learned from Programs Outside the Bay

Fishery-independent monitoring should always be coordinated with resource managers and assessment scientists

Successful programs consistently produce timely and relevant information and decision support tools to managers

Generally, collect as much information (collateral) as possible from surveys

A solid comprehensive survey provides the basis for cooperative supplemental research and analyses, enhancing the value of the survey and its data products

What is needed to achieve the vision?

A comprehensive Bay-wide ecosystem approach to monitoring and management

Collaborate among NOAA, other federal partners, Watershed and Bay resource management agencies, and academia to collect and analyze data

Refine and better coordinate current fisheries monitoring programs

Integrate monitoring of fisheries and other ecosystem elements (e.g., WQ, habitat, water column/benthic production and community structure, hydrodynamic regime)

Better coordinate future investments to achieve science recommendations

The Biogeographic Assessment Process

Individual Biogeographic Data Layers

Example Integrated BiogeographicAnalyses*

Products to Aid MPA Management

Imagery

Bathymetry

Bottom Type

Oceanography

Human Stressors

Species Distributions(many layers) C

ombi

ne B

ioge

ogra

phic

Lay

ers

for

Ana

lysi

sSpecies Richness

Threatened Habitats

Evaluate current MPAboundaries relative to biological resources

Explore options for protecting additionalareas

Evaluate Alternative Management Strategies

Ana

lytic

al P

rodu

cts

to m

eet M

anag

emen

t O

bjec

tives

Analytical Products to Support Management Objectives

Applied Ecosystem Assessment: HCMPCB Pilot IEA surveys – Rhode River

SSS and other acoustic classification and mapping methods provide base data layers for biogeographic information system

Once groundtruthed, benthic cover and structure classifications were used to inform stratified living resource monitoring based on habitat characteristics

Habitat Assessment/Fisheries UtilizationHabitat Assessment/Fisheries Utilization• Stratified random trawl sampling to determine the abundance and diversity of demersal fish communities within and among habitat types mapped by the HCMP

• Randomly selected sites were stratified by habitat and distance from the river mouth

• seasonal and diurnal temporal components are included

• Developing models of habitat affinity and available suitable habitat

• 35 day trawls and 33 night trawls completed during the summer of 2008.

Habitat Assessment/Fisheries UtilizationHabitat Assessment/Fisheries Utilization•Stratified random seine sampling to determine the abundance and diversity of demersal and pelagic fish communities within and among shoreline habitat types mapped by the HCMP

• Randomly selected sites were stratified by habitat and distance from the river mouth

• seasonal and diurnal temporal components are included

• Developing models of habitat affinity and available suitable habitat

• 30 day and 15 night seines completed during the summer of 2008

• Bonus study of hardened v. natural shoreline

For more information…

http://noaa.chesapeakebay.net

Steve GiordanoNOAA Chesapeake Bay Office410 Severn Ave, Suite 107Annapolis, MD 21403Tel: 410.267.5647Fax: 410.267.5666steve.giordano@noaa.gov