NORTHEAST REGION COORDINATING COUNCIL SPRING 2018 MEETING May 15-16, 2018 Hotel Providence – Providence, RI Meeting Briefing Book Table of Contents (hyperlinked) Page(s) NRCC Spring 2018 Meeting Agenda …………………..……..….……….……...…….…………... 1-3 2017 NRCC Fall Meeting Action Items ………………….….......................................……………. 4-5 Research and Management Tracks: Definitions and Processes (NRCC Assessment WG)…………… 6-7 Management and Research Track Strawman Schedules (NRCC Assessment WG)………………… 8-9 Evaluation of Methods and Control Rules for Index-Based Stocks…………………………………. 10 Application of State-Space Models…………………………… …………………………………….. 11 Proposed Alternate Assessment Schedule for 2018-2019 (in relation to MRIP data arrival) ……….. 12 Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel Draft Charter ……………………………………………………… 13-15 NEFMC Program Review Report (Extracts)………………………………………………………… 16-30 MRIP Discussion: Commercial and Recreational Allocations by FMP………………..……………. 31-32 Aquaculture Correspondence with Manna Fish Farms…………………………………………….. 33-49 Aquaculture Presentation for the NRCC…………………………………………………………….. 50-66 VTR Update: GARFO and Southern Species Additions………………………………………………. 67-68 GARFO Unmanaged Species Report………………………………………………………………….. 69-70
Transcript
NORTHEAST REGION COORDINATING COUNCIL
SPRING 2018 MEETING May 15-16, 2018
Hotel Providence – Providence, RI
Meeting Briefing Book Table of Contents (hyperlinked)
Page(s) NRCC Spring 2018 Meeting Agenda …………………..……..….……….……...…….…………... 1-3 2017 NRCC Fall Meeting Action Items ………………….….......................................……………. 4-5 Research and Management Tracks: Definitions and Processes (NRCC Assessment WG)…………… 6-7 Management and Research Track Strawman Schedules (NRCC Assessment WG)………………… 8-9 Evaluation of Methods and Control Rules for Index-Based Stocks…………………………………. 10 Application of State-Space Models…………………………… …………………………………….. 11 Proposed Alternate Assessment Schedule for 2018-2019 (in relation to MRIP data arrival) ……….. 12 Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel Draft Charter ……………………………………………………… 13-15 NEFMC Program Review Report (Extracts)………………………………………………………… 16-30 MRIP Discussion: Commercial and Recreational Allocations by FMP………………..……………. 31-32 Aquaculture Correspondence with Manna Fish Farms…………………………………………….. 33-49 Aquaculture Presentation for the NRCC…………………………………………………………….. 50-66 VTR Update: GARFO and Southern Species Additions………………………………………………. 67-68 GARFO Unmanaged Species Report………………………………………………………………….. 69-70
2018 SPRING NRCC MEETING AGENDA Hotel Providence – 139 Mathewson Street, Providence RI 02903
The conference call line will be available on an as-needed basis. Members should inform NRCC coordinators if anyone will be calling in for a particular agenda item.
All times are approximate
Tuesday, May 15 0900-0910 1. Welcome, Introductions, Announcements
(Pentony, Hare, Gilbert)
0910-1200 (Break as needed) 2. Long-term Assessment Prioritization Progress and Other General Assessment
Topics (Note: the NRCC will review/finalize the assessment schedule on Day 2) Discussion leader: NEFSC
• Update on Progress of the NRCC Assessment Working Group 1. Review suggested process and definitions for management track
and research track 2. Review strawman schedules for the two tracks 3. Present plan for forming future NRCC research working groups
• Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP)-impacted Assessments: Discuss strategies for MRIP management track assessments including timing (e.g., draft alternative schedule) and process for these assessments (apply new management track process?)
1200-1300 Lunch 1300-1400 3. Report on Differences in Discard and Landing Estimates
Discussion leaders: Lanning/Simpkins • GARFO and NEFSC will provide an update on coordinated efforts to
align methodologies, where possible.
1400-1445 4. Discuss and Refine Current List of Analytical Tools
Discussion leader: Simpkins
1445-1615 5. Discuss Where Various Datasets are Stored and the Feasibility of Developing a
Single Warehouse Discussion leader: Beal/ACCSP
1
1615-1700 6. Update on Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel (NTAP)
Discussion leaders: Identified below • Review NTAP Charter (Stockwell) • Review NTAP engagement in Bigelow trawl survey performance
(NEFSC)
1700 Adjourn Day 1 1800 Cocktails and Dinner at Andino’s, 171 Atwells Ave
(http://andinosprovidence.com) • Located 0.6 miles (13-minute walk) from hotel • Complimentary valet parking available • Cocktails at 6pm, followed by dinner at 7pm
Wednesday, May 16 0830-1000 7. Formalize Assessment Schedules
Discussion leader: NEFSC • Consider modifications and approval of proposed assessment schedules,
based on discussions from yesterday. • Discuss strategies for MRIP management track assessments
1000-1015 Break 1015-1030 8. NEFMC Program Review
Discussion leader: Nies • Discuss results of the independent review of the NEFMC, specifically
recommendations that relate to NRCC activities 1030-1115 9. Review of NRCC: Current Process and Procedures
Discussion leader: Pentony • Discuss thoughts on NRCC: How do we think the NRCC is functioning
Discussion leader: Gilbert • Status of permitted and proposed Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) water
aquaculture projects • Update on status of developing a regulatory process for aquaculture in
EEZ waters
1215-1315 Lunch 1315-1415 12. Updates on Fall 2017 Action Items
Discussion leaders: Identified below • Update on forming a standing committee between NEFMC, MAFMC, and
SAFMC to discuss straddling and moving stocks through the Council Coordination Committee process (Nies/Moore)
• Update on continued development on the 2018 Climate Workshop (Hare) • Status of funding opportunities for coastwide deepwater species longline
survey (Hare) • Update on vessel trip report instructions and incorporation of species
codes for species that are landed but not reported (Gouveia) • Update on 508 Compliance (Weinberg/Gilbert)
1415-1515 13. Meeting wrap up
• Complete any unfinished discussions or unresolved new business • Review action items and assignments • Identify Fall 2018 (NEFMC host) meeting date • Adjourn meeting
1515 Meeting adjourns
3
NRCC Fall Meeting 2017 Action Items November 15-16, 2017 Hyatt Place Inner Harbor, Baltimore, MD
1. Finalize membership for the Cod Stock Structure Working Group Lead: NEFSC Appointees needed: working group members Next step(s): working group formation process Due date(s): Decision by NRCC Deputies January 2018
2. Develop a 5 year assessment schedule and draft language to define research and management tracks for assessments
Lead: NRCC Assessment Working Group Appointees needed from Next step(s): Provide draft schedule, rationale behind schedule, and definitions two weeks prior to Spring NRCC meeting Due date(s): Spring 2018 NRCC meeting
3. Review VTR reporting instructions to make sure they include species codes for species that are being landed but not reported
Lead: GARFO Appointees needed from Next step(s): send to SAFMC counterparts for review Due date(s): ASAP
4. Joint presentation to explain where the various datasets are stored and the
feasibility of developing a single data warehouse Lead: ASMFC Appointees needed from GARFO, NEFSC Next step(s): Include discard data Due date(s): Presentation at Spring NRCC meeting
5. Form a standing committee between the NEFMC, MAFMC, and SAFMC to discuss straddling and moving stocks
Lead: NEFMC, MAFMC Appointees needed from Next step(s): Being handled in the CCC process Due date(s): TBD
Color code key: ASMFC MAFMC NEFMC NEFSC GARFO NRCC
4
6. Continue development on the 2018 Climate Workshop Lead: NEFSC Appointees needed from Next step(s): involve South Atlantic counterparts in discussions Due date(s): Hopefully provide update at next NRCC meeting
7. Identify funding opportunities for a coastwide deepwater species longline survey Lead: NEFSC Appointees needed from MAFMC; Dr. Moore will work with Dr. Hare Next step(s): Due date(s): TBD
8. Provide update on 508 compliance
Lead: GARFO, NEFSC Appointees needed from Next step(s): Due date(s): Spring 2018 NRCC Meeting
9. Put together an initial list of analytical tools in the region Lead: NEFSC Appointees needed from Next step(s): distribute list to group for review Due date(s): TBD
10. Report out to NRCC explaining the differences in the discard and landing estimates Lead: GARFO working with the NEFSC Appointees needed from Next step(s): Due date(s): Next NRCC meeting
Spring 2018 NRCC (NEFSC host) –May 15-16, 2018 Fall 2018 NRCC (NEFMC host) – TBD
5
Process Thoughts – NRCC Assessment WG sub-group – April 2018
MANAGEMENT TRACK - Routine, scheduled, updated advice for management - designed to be simpler, quicker, more efficient than benchmarks. However there is a strong interest in providing some flexibility to allow assessments to improve over time, without requiring a benchmark for every step along the way.
3 Tiers of peer review for management track assessments Tier 1: Direct delivery (e.g., similar to past process for most data and assessment updates)
● data/information quality assurance process within NEFSC, direct delivery from NEFSC to PDT-FMAT/full SSC, no peer review beyond whatever SSC may provide at their meeting
● limited to no opportunity for public engagement, other than perhaps at SSC meeting
Tier 2: Expedited peer review (e.g., similar to past process for previous operational assessments) ● reviewers – small panel of SSC members review and approve before submission to PDT-
FMAT/full SSC ● brief peer review (1-2 h max), with this expedited review, several to many assessments could be
reviewed in one combined peer review meeting (like we have done for groundfish operational assessments in recent years)
● public engagement provided during public review meeting with public comment periods
Tier 3: Enhanced peer review (e.g., more extensive than previous operational assessments) ● reviewers – small panel of SSC members with additional external experts if/as needed; external
reviewers nominated by SSC and confirmed by NRCC Deputies ● substantial peer review (1/2 to 1 full day) ● public engagement provided during public review meeting with public comment periods
Management Track Process ideas: Step 1: Exploration – Data come in, assessment leads do initial exploratory work to determine how complex they think an assessment should be (in some instances this could just reflect the level of complexity requested by the management client)
Step 2: AOP – Some reasonable time after data have arrived and exploration has occurred, convene AOP to review plans for all management track assessments for the year. The AOP considers changes (and Plan B as appropriate) suggested and approves those changes (and Plan B) as well as recommends level of peer review (i.e., Tiers 2-3 above). The AOP recommendations for peer review are binding, but can be later reconsidered by the AOP, particularly if extent of changes to assessment alters over time (e.g., more or less substantial changes are needed, indicating a different level of peer review).
Step 3: Assessment – Assessment lead carries out assessment within scope of changes allowed/agreed to by the AOP. If substantial alteration is needed or desired in terms of the scope of changes to an assessment, the AOP would need to be consulted for reconsideration of peer review recommendation.
Step 4: Peer review – Schedule and convene expedited and enhanced management track peer reviews, seeking to combine peer reviews as appropriate for efficiency (e.g., conduct several expedited peer reviews in one session and/or a few enhanced peer reviews in one week).
6
RESEARCH TRACK – Complex scientific efforts focused either on (a) assessments of individual stocks with comprehensive evaluation of new data streams and model changes or (b) research topics/issues that apply to assessments of several stocks. Generally speaking, applied scientific efforts in the fish stock assessment arena lie along a continuum from “research” to “research track” to “management track,” with each step informing the next and getting closer to directly informing management decisions. Generic “research” may be designed to inform the research track, but typically is not designed to directly inform the management track. Research track efforts, on the other hand, are designed to directly inform future management track assessments, but may not immediately inform management decisions. Research track efforts can inform management track assessments by, among other things, (a) direct examination and development of an assessment, (b) tackling analytical, data, or other issues facing multiple assessments, or (c) developing information or tools that could aid managers in applying management track results in making decisions (e.g., risk policy work, etc.). Management track efforts are designed to directly and immediately inform management decisions.
2 Types of Research Track Efforts Stock-specific research track assessments – Similar to past benchmarks; could cover 2 stocks like now. Topical research track efforts – Cover a common topic/issue that could be applied across several stock assessments; for example “examining control rules for index-based assessments,” “applying state space models.” One research topic would be covered per event, and a topical event would require as much time as a stock-specific research track assessment of 2 stocks.
Research Track process Step 1: Scoping – Center (or ASMFC) assessment lead(s) assigned and reach out to stakeholders and academics, and consult existing sets of research recommendations (e.g., from past assessments) to identify research needs to inform a given research track effort.
Step 2: Working group – Form research track working group to develop and implement research plan based on scoping. Research plan should indicate which outputs will be applied, and how, to future management track assessments. This is most critical for research topics, where the terms of reference at the start should clearly indicate what outputs will inform future management track assessments, and how they would do so. Given the potential long-term nature of research track efforts, in some cases a “steering committee” to guide work may be established initially. For stock-specific research track assessments, likely will wish to form a formal stock assessment working group in addition to, or instead of, a broader research steering committee. Those working groups could be formed following a process similar to past SAW working group protocols.
Step 3: Research – Steering committee and/or working group carry out research and compile results to inform research track effort, incorporating public planning, data, and analytical meetings as appropriate.
Step 4: Comprehensive peer review ● reviewers – panel including CIE panel and an SSC member ● comprehensive peer review (1.5-3 days) ● substantial opportunity for public engagement – e.g., scoping process, research meetings,
assessment data and model meetings; peer review open to public and public comment allowed Step 5: Translate to Management – Apply research track outputs or findings to future management track assessments, as indicated in initial research plan.
7
Stock Jurisdiction FMP Category Mean Biology Yrs b/w assmts 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027River herring ASMFC Non-federal 2.47 3.33 5 2023-2027 2028-2032Shad ASMFC Non-federal 2.34 2.67 5 2020-2024 2025-2029Striped bass - Gulf of Maine / Cape Hatteras ASMFC Non-federal 2.25 1.33 2 2019-2021 2021-2023 2023-2025 2025-2027 2026-2027Northern shrimp - Gulf of Maine ASMFC Non-federal 1.06 3.50 4 2019-2021 2023-2025 2027-2028Sturgeon ASMFC Non-federal 1.06 3.50 4 2023-2027 2027-2031American lobster - Gulf of Maine / Georges Bank ASMFC Non-federal 2.03 1.33 5American lobster - Southern New England ASMFC Non-federal 2.00 1.33 5Jonah crab ASMFC Non-federal 2.16 2.00 NA No specifications 2026-2030Bluefish - Atlantic Coast MAFMC / ASMFC Bluefish 3.00 2.67 2 2019-2021 2020-2022 2023-2025 2025-2027 2027-2029Black sea bass - Mid-Atlantic Coast MAFMC / ASMFC Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass 1.83 2.33 2 2017-2018 2019-2021 2020-2021 2022-2024 2024-2026 2025-2028 2028-2030Scup - Atlantic Coast MAFMC / ASMFC Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass 2.02 2.33 2 2018-2020 2020-2021 2022-2024 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Summer flounder - Mid-Atlantic Coast MAFMC / ASMFC Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass 3.35 2.33 2 2017-2018 2019-2021 2022-2024 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Atlantic mackerel - Gulf of Maine / Cape Hatteras MAFMC Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish 2.38 2.33 2 2019-2021 2022-2024 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Butterfish - Gulf of Maine / Cape Hatteras MAFMC Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish 2.00 3.33 2 2018-2020 2021-2023 2023-2025 2025-2027 2027-2029Longfin inshore squid - Georges Bank / Cape Hatteras MAFMC Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish 2.13 3.33 2 2018-2020 2021-2023 2023-2025 2025-2027 2027-2029Northern shortfin squid - Northwestern Atlantic Coast MAFMC Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish 2.50 3.67 2 2018-2020 2021-2023 2023-2025 2025-2027 2027-2029Atlantic surfclam - Mid-Atlantic Coast MAFMC Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog 1.44 0.83 4 2018-2020 2021-2024 2024-2027Ocean quahog - Atlantic Coast MAFMC Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog 1.44 0.33 6 2018-2020 2021-2026 2027-2029Golden Tilefish - Mid-Atlantic Coast MAFMC Tilefish 2.09 1.67 2 2018-2020 2021-2023 2023-2025 2025-2027 2027-2029Blueline Tilefish-Mid-Atlantic Coast MAFMC Tilefish 1.22 NA NA 2018Spiny dogfish - Atlantic Coast MAFMC / NEFMC Spiny Dogfish 2.35 1.33 2 2019-2021 2021-2023 2023-2025 2025-2027 2027-2029Goosefish - Gulf of Maine / Northern Georges Bank NEFMC / MAFMC Monkfish 1.38 2.33 4Goosefish - Southern Georges Bank / Mid-Atlantic NEFMC / MAFMC Monkfish 1.50 2.33 4Red deepsea crab - Northwestern Atlantic NEFMC Deep-Sea Red Crab 1.16 2.00 4 2020-2022 2023-2026 2027-2029Sea scallop - Northwestern Atlantic Coast NEFMC Atlantic Sea Scallop 1.13 2.33 1 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Atlantic herring - Northwestern Atlantic Coast NEFMC Atlantic Herring 2.81 2.78 2 2019-2021 2021-2023 2023-2025 2025-2027 2027-2029Eastern GB Cod TRAC NEFMC/TRAC Northeast Multispecies/TRAC 1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Eastern GB Haddock TRAC NEFMC/TRAC Northeast Multispecies/TRAC 1 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Yellowtail flounder - Georges Bank [TRAC] NEFMC/TRAC Northeast Multispecies/TRAC 1.56 2.67 1 2018-2020 2020-2022 TRAC2021 2022-2024 TRAC2023 2024-2026 TRAC2025 2026-2028 TRAC2027 2028-2030American plaice - Gulf of Maine / Georges Bank NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 1.50 2.33 2 2018-2020 2020-2022 2022-2024 2023-2025 2026-2028 2028-2030Atlantic cod - Georges Bank NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 2.81 2.33 2 2018-2020 2020-2022 2022-2024 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Atlantic cod - Gulf of Maine NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 2.63 2.33 2 2018-2020 2020-2022 2022-2024 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Haddock - Georges Bank NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 1.97 2.33 2 2018-2020 2020-2022 2022-2024 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Haddock - Gulf of Maine NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 2.25 2.33 2 2018-2020 2020-2022 2022-2024 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Windowpane - Gulf of Maine / Georges Bank NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 1.81 2.67 2 2018-2020 2020-2022 2022-2024 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Windowpane - Southern New England / Mid-Atlantic NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 0.94 2.67 2 2018-2020 2020-2022 2022-2024 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Winter flounder - Georges Bank NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 2.67 2.33 2 2018-2020 2020-2022 2021-2023 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Winter flounder - Gulf of Maine NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 2.06 2.33 2 2018-2020 2020-2022 2021-2023 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Winter flounder - Southern New England / Mid-Atlantic NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 2.29 2.33 2 2018-2020 2020-2022 2021-2023 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Witch flounder - Northwestern Atlantic Coast NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 2.31 1.33 2 2018-2020 2020-2022 2022-2024 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Yellowtail flounder - Cape Cod / Gulf of Maine NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 1.66 2.33 2 2018-2020 2020-2022 2022-2024 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Yellowtail flounder - Southern New England / Mid-Atlantic NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 1.88 2.67 2 2018-2020 2020-2022 2022-2024 2024-2026 2026-2028 2028-2030Acadian redfish - Gulf of Maine / Georges Bank NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 1.19 1.00 4 2018-2020 2021-2022 2023-2026 2027-2029Atlantic halibut - Northwestern Atlantic Coast NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 1.56 1.33 4 2018-2020 2021-2024 2025-2028Atlantic wolffish - Gulf of Maine / Georges Bank NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 0.94 2.33 4 2018-2020 2020-2022 2023-2026 2027-2029Ocean pout - Northwestern Atlantic Coast NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 1.88 2.00 4 2018-2020 2020-2022 2023-2026 2027-2029Pollock - Gulf of Maine / Georges Bank NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 1.44 2.00 4 2018-2020 2021-2022 2023-2026 2027-2029White hake - Gulf of Maine / Georges Bank NEFMC Northeast Multispecies 1.44 2.00 4 2018-2020 2020-2023 2024-2027 2028-2030Red hake - Gulf of Maine / Northern Georges Bank NEFMC Small Mesh Multispecies 0.88 3.33 4 2018-2020 2021-2024 2025-2028Red hake - Southern Georges Bank / Mid-Atlantic NEFMC Small Mesh Multispecies 1.44 3.33 4 2018-2020 2021-2024 2025-2028 MEAN SDSilver hake - Gulf of Maine / Northern Georges Bank NEFMC Small Mesh Multispecies 1.00 3.67 4 2018-2020 2021-2024 2025-2028 21.3 4.0Silver & Offshore hake - Southern Georges Bank / Mid-Atlanti NEFMC Small Mesh Multispecies 1.38 3.67 4 2018-2020 2021-2024 2025-2028 20.9 10.4Barndoor skate - Georges Bank / Southern New England NEFMC Northeast Skate Complex 1.71 3.00 2Clearnose skate - Southern New England / Mid-Atlantic NEFMC Northeast Skate Complex 1.71 3.00 2 3.9 1.1Little skate - Georges Bank / Southern New England NEFMC Northeast Skate Complex 2.04 5.00 2 2.7 1.8Rosette skate - Southern New England / Mid-Atlantic NEFMC Northeast Skate Complex 1.25 NA 2Smooth skate - Gulf of Maine NEFMC Northeast Skate Complex 2.13 3.00 2 5.5 1.9Thorny skate - Gulf of Maine NEFMC Northeast Skate Complex 2.42 3.00 2 4.1 2.8Winter skate - Georges Bank / Southern New England NEFMC Northeast Skate Complex 2.04 3.00 2
Evaluation of Methods and Control Rules for Index-Based Stocks Background Some stocks in the region do not have sufficient information available to conduct traditional age-based stock assessments while other stocks have had age-based approaches rejected due to diagnostic issues, typically retrospective patterns, resulting in index-based assessments. The latter situation will be the focus for this research track topic. A number of index-based approaches currently are used with little ability to justify the use of one approach over another. This is inefficient and confusing to the public. All of the approaches ignore a large amount of information, especially age-structure, and many of these stocks currently do not have reference points due to the subjective nature of setting them in these situations. Guidelines for how to deal with missing or incomplete data, for example a survey that did not occur in a region, are lacking, requiring ad hoc decisions on a case-by-case basis. The simplicity of the data needs and calculations lends to on-the-fly calculations and applications, but there are many hidden assumptions in these simple methods that should be understood before application. The large number of index-based methods that produce different catch advice for a given dataset creates the potential for the perception of cherry-picking. For all these reasons, a research track is needed to explore systematically the issues posed by index-based assessments for stocks that have had traditional age-based assessments rejected. Research Focus/Goals The goal of this research track is to provide guidelines for immediate use in management track assessment of index-based stocks. The approach for the research track will combine closed-loop simulation testing with case studies that examine the impact of different guidelines on actual data. The simulation testing will require generating data that causes retrospective patterns in traditional stock-assessment, something that is often not done in testing of index-based approaches. A rigorous testing environment also allows full examination of the hidden assumptions in the index-based assessments and potential biases in management advice that could arise. Systematic evaluation across a wide range of situations would allow for development of guidelines of when, and when not, to apply certain index-based approaches and diagnostics that could indicate if the approach was meeting assumptions or not. Such an approach could also focus future research on the types of information most needed to distinguish among potential sources of bias, leading to improvement in the assessment advice. These simulations would also serve as a test bed for index-based methods that are developed in the future. Application of the index-based approaches to current age-based stocks would also allow comparison of the trade-offs between the simpler index-based models and the more complex age-based approaches. The utility of always conducting one or more index-based assessments as a backstop to age-based assessments could be explored as well in a cost-benefit analysis. How best to meet the risk policies of each Council when a stock is assessed using an index-based approach would be a major focus of this research track.
10
Application of State-Space Models Background State-space models are a relatively new approach to stock assessment that are being used by ICES but have not been applied much in the US. These models explicitly account for process (model) error in addition to the usual measurement (sampling) error by integrating over all possible values of non-observed variables. This requires advanced statistical techniques and computing power that were not readily available until recently. The release of the Template Model Builder software now allows relatively easy application of these advanced statistical techniques in stock assessment. The purpose of this research track is to explore the application and use of state-space models across a wide range of stocks in the Greater Atlantic Region.
The state-space modeling approach is particularly well suited to statistical testing of whether inclusion of a parameter in the model is justified. This is much more difficult in traditional integrated assessment models, such as ASAP, due to the large number of parameters and common use of penalty terms to constrain the model parameters. Testing for significance of environmental covariates is more straightforward in state-space models than traditional stock assessments for this reason as well.
Research Focus/Goals The NEFSC has been developing expertise in this field, as demonstrated by Miller et al. 2016 (CJFAS 73: 1261-1270), development of alternative models in the herring and summer flounder benchmark assessments, and holding a recent week-long Template Model Builder workshop. However, more than just statistical and programming skill is needed for application to fishery management issues. The details of how to integrate this approach with current management practices is an important topic that requires working through a number of examples to ensure that the model results can be used to provide the desired management advice. We need to ensure that model results can be used to supply OFL, ABC, ACL etc. and other requirements of the US management system and the Councils’ risk policies. The research track would allow all members of NRCC to understand how the models work and how to incorporate the new aspects in management.
While state-space models can exhibit retrospective patterns, as demonstrated during the 2013 ICES sponsored workshop in Boston, they are typically smaller than traditional stock assessment models for the same data. Due to its fewer parameters, the state-space approach has more flexibility to add parameters to address potential causes of retrospective patterns and test their significance. This additional flexibility and statistical rigor does come at the cost of mechanistic explanation of why certain patterns occur and relies on either unbiased data or the ability to explicitly model the bias in the data. How best to model the covariances of parameters is an open area of research with these models that will be explored in the research track. Simulation testing of control rule performance, including specification of the OFL CV if needed, using closed-loop feedback and development of guidelines for how to evaluate, present, and use the results of state-space models for stock assessments in the region are the main components of the research track. Stocks evaluated during this research track could use the state-space modeling approach directly in management track assessments, while stocks not evaluated may use this approach in future assessments with additional review.
11
Proposed alternative assessment schedule for 2018-2019 in relation to MRIP data arrival
Topic 1. SARC-66. This SARC is scheduled for Nov. 27-30, 2018 to carry out an independent peer review of summer flounder and striped bass benchmark assessments. For this review to take place as scheduled, new MRIP data must be available by July 1, 2018 in a form that is documented and ready for analysis by assessment scientists, preferably in the same format as previously provided. If this cutoff date is missed by any more than one work week, then the assessment WGs will not have enough time to complete their work, and the SARC will be rescheduled to mid-late January 2019. December is not feasible, given Council meetings and holidays. The approved assessment TORs will remain the same, whether or not SARC-66 is rescheduled. Topic 2. Operational Assessments (OA) of Other Stocks to Incorporate MRIP Data. Stocks currently proposed for this OA review include black sea bass, bluefish, scup, GOM cod, and GOM haddock. If SARC-66 takes place in late Nov. 2018, as currently scheduled, the OA’s can be scheduled for mid-late April, 2019. This will allow time for assessment development in response to changes associated with MRIP data and to adjust to any “lessons learned” during SARC-66 about how MRIP can impact the assessments. If SARC-66 is delayed until Jan. 2019, then the OA’s will need to be pushed back from April to mid-late May, 2019. Any OA’s that are reviewed in the early part of 2019 will not include 2018 catch data. Topic 3. Other assessments in 2019. Operational Assessments of NE groundfish will be due for review in the latter part of 2019. GOM cod and haddock will have been updated during the MRIP OAs in early 2019, but there likely will be interest in having those assessments updated with additional commercial catch and survey data in late 2019 – this may be a topic for NRCC discussion and clarification. Several additional groundfish stocks have recreational catch components, but to a lesser degree. As needed and appropriate, the groundfish OAs for stocks such as GB cod, Pollock, and winter flounder stocks may also be modified to include the new MRIP data.
12
Charter for Northeast U.S. Trawl Advisory Panel Draft 4/25/18 Section 1: Panel Purpose The Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel (NTAP) is established to bring commercial fishing, fisheries science, and fishery management professionals together to identify concerns about regional research survey performance and data, to identify methods to address or mitigate these concerns, and to promote mutual understanding and acceptance of the results of this work among their peers and in the broader community. Section 2: Objectives There are three primary areas of focus: understanding the existing NOAA/NEFSC trawl survey gear performance and methodology, evaluating the potential to complement or supplement this and other regional research surveys, and improving understanding and acceptance of NOAA/NEFSC trawl survey data quality and results. Understanding the trawl gear performance and methodology Including but not limited to: • Survey design (station selection, temporal and spatial considerations) • Survey operations • Sweep efficiency/selectivity • Fish behavior effects on trawl performance (e.g. herding/avoidance) • Vertical distribution effects on trawl performance • Day/night differences in trawl performance • Current effects on trawl performance Evaluate the potential to complement or supplement current NEFSC surveys Included but not limited to: • Inter-calibrations between industry vessels and NOAA FS/V Henry B. Bigelow and FS/V Pisces. This would allow industry partners to supplement survey activity and be better positioned to perform the survey in the event that the Bigelow is not available. • Increased trawl survey station density using industry vessels. This effort may improve precision of indices for species that are presently at low abundance. • New industry-based surveys to supplement/complement existing research trawl surveys. This might include fixed-gear surveys in untrawlable habitat or a dedicated trawl survey for bottom-tending species. • Inter-calibration among the established regional research surveys: NEFSC Ecosystem Survey, Northeast Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) and the Massachusetts and Maine-New Hampshire state research surveys. Improving understanding and acceptance of NEFSC trawl survey data quality and results: Included but not limited to: • Developing routine reporting products and distribution
13
• Explaining similarities and differences between research survey and commercial trawl operations • Identifying preferred routine, near real-time research survey data types and format • How to reconcile perceptions derived from survey data trends and commercial catch per unit of effort • Best practices for keeping peers informed about the panel’s work and results Section 3: Organizational Structure The NTAP is a joint advisory panel of the New England Fishery Management Councils (NEFMC) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). It is composed of Council members, fishing industry, academic, and government and non-government fisheries experts who shall provide advice and direction on the conduct of trawl research. The MAFMC is designated as the lead organization for administering the panel. The NTAP shall report directly to the Fishery Management Councils (FMC’s) and the NTAP’s recommendations will be forwarded by the FMC’s to the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) only upon the approval of both FMC’s. The NEFSC is committed to the serious consideration of all recommendations brought forth through this process and will strive to implement them, although it is possible that not all recommendations will be enacted due to fiscal or statutory requirements. Section 4: Membership The NTAP will consist of 20 members drawn from the NEFMC and MAFMC, industry experts, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), non-federal scientists and NEFSC: • two fishery management council members from each Council (4) • up to three fishery stakeholder representatives appointed by each Council (6) • 2 academic and non-academic scientists appointed by each Council (4) • 2 members from the ASMFC (2) • 4 staff members of the NEFSC (4) Minor deviations for this composition plan may be permitted if both Co-Chairs approve. Each fishery management council shall be responsible for making council, fishery stakeholder and scientific nominations. The Science and Research Director of the NEFSC shall recommend four NEFSC staff members for Panel membership. Key areas of expertise that will be important in success of the panel include: • Gear design and construction • Trawl gear efficiency • Trawl mensuration • Fish behavior • Fishery acoustics • Survey statistics and stock assessment
14
Section 5: Panel Leadership The panel will be co-chaired by representatives of the NEFMC and MAFMC who will be jointly responsible for conducting meetings and for coordinating with NEFSC to ensure that summaries and other products from meetings are produced and distributed. Section 6: Panel/Membership Longevity The NTAP shall operate at the discretion of the FMC’s and is contingent upon the availability of funding. Panel membership will be reviewed by the co-chairs annually or at any time that the primary focus areas are modified. The co-chairs shall also appoint and annually review the NTAP working group membership. Section 7: Meetings The NTAP and or NTAP Working Group shall hold in-person meetings two to three times annually. If the NTAP determines that more frequent meetings are warranted, scheduling of additional meetings is subject to budget availability. Additional panel business may be conducted through teleconferences or electronic communications, but any decisions made by the NTAP must be made in a public forum. All in-person meetings shall be announced through established fishery management council processes. For a meeting that develops formal recommendations, at least 10 members are required to constitute a quorum. This total must include at least half of the designated representatives from each Council, the NEFSC, and the ASMFC. NEFMC/MAFMC representatives: 4 of 7 required for quorum ASMFC representatives: 1 of 2 required for quorum NEFSC representatives:2 of 4 required for quorum Total representatives: 10 of 18 required for quorum Section 8: Panel Organizational Support Travel costs, staff support and administrative costs associated with panel operations shall be financially supported funds made available to the MAFMC. Panel activities including communications, meeting and venue scheduling, meeting equipment support shall be supported by staff of the MAFMC. Travel cost reimbursement for non-federal government members of the NTAP shall be coordinated through the MAFMC.
NEFSC staff shall be responsible for the development of a draft agenda for approval by the co-chairs. Meeting summaries and/or reports shall be the responsibility of NEFSC staff. Analytical support will be provided by the NEFSC as needed.
Extracts from the New England Fishery Management Council Program Review Report, May 3, 2018. Full report available at: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/Final_ProgramReview_Report_050318.pdf
Commercial and Recreational Allocation Decisions Category: N = not based on catch history, Y = based on catch history. Note: B = based on time before regulations impacted catch, L = based on longest time period, NE = based on a time period, but no explanation provided for given years, R = based on most recent time period, RE = removed allocation, SQ = retained current allocations (status quo).
FMP Regulation Fishery/Stock Allocation Ratio (C:R)
Category / Note Basis for Allocation Decision
Management mechanism for
changes
Mid
-Atla
ntic
Fis
hery
Man
agem
ent C
ounc
il
Atlantic Bluefish
Am. 1 (2000)
Bluefish 17 : 83 Y/B Average landings 1981-89 (most recent years prior to regulations that may have impacted landings). Note: If 17% of the Total Allowable Landings (TAL) was less than 10.5 M lbs., then the quota could be increased up to 10.5 M lbs. if the recreational sector was anticipated to land less than 83% of the TAL for the upcoming year. The transfer stipulation is intended to provide higher commercial fishing opportunities when possible.
Amendment (currently under development) *Complementary Commission action required
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish
Am. 11 (2011)
Atlantic mackerel
93.8 : 6.2 Y/NE Amendment 11 designated an allocation for the recreational mackerel fishery that corresponds to recreational landings from 1997-07 times 1.5.
Framework currently under develop would shift from a recreational allocation to a set-aside using recent harvest.
Tilefish Am. 6 (2017)
Blueline tilefish
27 : 73 Y/R Median catch 2009-2013. Most recent 5 years but excluded 2014 because of significant increase in commercial catch. Recreational catch history was based on Delphi process conducted by the Council.
Framework, if within ranges considered in Am. 6; otherwise Amendment
Summer Flounder,
Am. 2 (1993)
Summer flounder
60 : 40 Y/B Average landings 1980-89. This time period because it had reliable recreational landings data (1980+) but
occurred before the stock declined to its lowest historical levels (1990). The states deemed the years used for allocation purposes fair and equitable.
Am. 8 (1996)
Scup 78 : 22 Y/B Average catch 1988-92. Years prior to 1988 were not used because of problems with the data, while changes in regulations in early 1993 suggested not using that year’s data.
Black sea bass 49 : 51 Y/B Average landings 1983-92. Years prior to 1983 were not used because of problems with the data, while changes in regulations in early 1993 suggested not using that year’s data.
Allocation was based catch from 2001-06. These years were selected because they maintain the (then) current catch ratios, and do not unduly burden either sector.
Framework adjustment (?) - “The proportions will be reviewed consistent with the periodic assessment cycle, and if determined necessary, changes can be implemented through a framework action.”
Gulf of Maine haddock 72.5 : 27.5
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
April 10, 2018 LN# 201827 Alan Risenhoover, Director Office of Sustainable Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service 1315 East-West Highway, 14th Floor Silver Spring, MD 20910 Dear Alan: The information on aquaculture presented at the February CCC meeting was very interesting and indicates that the Administration is very serious about moving forward to expand and integrate aquaculture into the fisheries business community. The Councils are uniquely situated to develop the process and procedures for aquaculture in Federal waters in an open and transparent manner. The Council has identified EFH, EFH-HAPCs, Coral HAPCs, MPAs, SMZs, Spawning SMZs, and Allowable Fishing Zones to protect important resources while allowing fishing. Where aquaculture ventures choose to operate can have serious impacts to fishing operations and habitat. With that in mind, the South Atlantic Council is interested in developing an Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for our area of jurisdiction. As you know well, our current resources in terms of funding and staffing preclude this effort. Recognizing that funding is available for aquaculture and that NMFS is currently considering aquaculture-related needs, we wanted to provide you with our request for funding to hire a temporary staff person for 3 years to work with the Council, States, and NMFS to develop an Aquaculture FMP for Federal waters. The budget shown below outlines the costs for salary, benefits, equipment, office, overhead, and the following activities:
1. Scoping – in person; 3 scoping meetings in NC, 2 in SC (1 in Charleston), 2 in GA, and 3 in FL; cost in year 1
2. AP Input – use existing species and Habitat APs at their regular meetings but add ½ day to agenda for aquaculture; cost in years 1, 2 and 3
3. Public Hearings – in person; 3 public hearings in NC, 2 in SC (1 in Charleston), 2 in GA, and 3 in FL; cost in year 3
4. Staff attendance at AP, SSC, and Council meetings; years 1-3 5. Other travel – 6 trips (3 day/2 nights) in years 1-3; figure half flying to DC and half
driving in our region
SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston SC 29405 Call: (843) 571-4366 | Toll-Free: (866) SAFMC-10 | Fax: (843) 769-4520 | Connect: www.safmc.net Charlie Phillips, Chair | Captain Mark Brown, Vice Chair Gregg T. Waugh, Executive Director
48
Please feel free to contact Gregg Waugh of the Council staff if there are any other questions or if you need any additional information. Still digging,
Charlie Phillips, Chair South Atlantic Fishery Management Council cc: Council Members and Staff Jack McGovern and Rick DeVictor Monica Smit-Brunello PROPOSED BUDGET TO DEVELOP SAFMC AQUACULTURE FMP: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Salary $75,000 Salary $77,250 Salary $79,567 Benefits* $26,100 Benefits* $27,200 Benefits* $28,000 Travel** $15,586 Travel** $12,561 Travel** $18,703 Supplies $4,000 Supplies $250 Supplies $250 Meeting Room $1,800
Meeting Room $0
Meeting Room $2,070
Overhead $24,497 Overhead $23,452 Overhead $25,718 Total $146,983 Total $140,713 Total $154,308 Grand Total $442,004 *Retirement, FICA, Health, Leave Acct., Life, LTC, STD, LTD based on single insurances and leave accrual at year-3 values **AP, SSC, Council, PH, Other
49
Aquaculture in Federal Waters
NRCC Mtg.May16, 2018
Providence, RI
Emily GilbertFishery Policy Analyst
Kevin MadleyGARFO Aquaculture Coordinator
50
Atlantic EEZ aquaculture operations
• Two USACE permits have been provided for current Atlantic EEZ aquaculture operations (pilot scale). Both are blue mussel operations.
• Approx. 8 miles off Cape Ann is an blue mussel longline operated by Salem State U.
• The second is in Nantucket Sound but as of yet has placed no gear in the water.
51
Atlantic EEZ aquaculture proposals
• Manna Fish Farms (MFF)• 8 miles off Shinnecock Inlet, NY• Interest in striped bass, steelhead trout, and integrated shellfish and macroalgae, if permitted.• Submitted applications to USACE and NY DOS. Deemed incomplete; now working through requests for
additional information (including an alternative siting analysis).• Requested the NMFS assess applicability of DOC regulations restricting possession and harvest of striped
bass in the EEZ. • MFF has initiated discussions with NY and ASMFC. (Jim Gilmore and Bob Beal among others) 52
Atlantic EEZ aquaculture proposals
Stakeholders have also contacted NMFS over the past two years seeking guidance on processes to permit EEZ operations, such as:• Tuna farming off NJ and NY• Blue mussel farming off RI and MA• Oyster farming off RI, MA and ME• Kelp farming off RI, MA and ME
Additionally:• NC has requested NOAA, MAFMC, and SAFMC develop a permit process for aquaculture in the
EEZ• SAFMC has expressed interest and begun plans for an aquaculture FMP in the future
53
WPFMC requests aquaculture program
• Since 2008, the WPFMC has made several recommendations to NMFS for an aquaculture program.
• The WPFMC recommended amending the five regional fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs) to establish a management program for aquaculture fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
• NMFS, with a hired contractor, is preparing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of a proposed Pacific Islands Region aquaculture management program and alternatives.
54
Gulf of Mexico Aquaculture FMP
55
Gulf of Mexico Aquaculture FMP Guidance
56
Gulf of Mexico Aquaculture FMP litigation
•Environmental groups and fishing groups filed lawsuit claiming environmental risk, fishing livelihood risks, and federal agencies don’t have authority to create an FMP for aquaculture under MSA
•Judge heard final briefs a couple of months ago; judgement expected soon.
57
Sen. Wicker bill
• National legislation has been drafted for aquaculture in the EEZ. Lead sponsor is Sen. Wicker (R-MS). Now shopping for co-sponsors.
• Includes provision to manage aquaculture outside the MSA.
• Proposes NOAA be lead agency on creation and mgmt. of the permitting process. No new or changed permits.
• Fish Councils would be designated review/consultation in the defined process.
Next Steps • Decide preferred path for EEZ aquaculture mgmt. and permitting path for the Atlantic• Aquaculture Committee revival in NEFMC and creation in ASMFC and MAFMC?• Working group among NEFMC, MAFMC, ASMFC?• Compare the Gulf Plan for Aquaculture and the planned PIRO PEIS
60
Background
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 1261
NEFMC Aquaculture Policy
• Introduction• Background• Administrative Process
• Phase 1 – Pre-application and Review• Application• Coordination• Notice• Public Meeting• Council Review• Council Findings
• Phase 2 – Formal Application• EPA, NMFS, US Coast Guard, and others
• Phase 3 – FMP Amendment and Framework Adjustment
62
NEFMC Policy
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 14
This policy sets forth NEFMC’s authority under the MSA and the key objectives in facilitating the permitting of offshore aquaculture. The policy objectives include:
(1) The NEFMC will address those issues that are clearly germane to theCouncil’s fishery management role and will work with other federal agenciesinvolved in aquaculture to identify and minimize or eliminate areas of potentialoverlap.
(2) The NEFMC will position itself as a point of contact for aquaculturedevelopers, to provide information and federal permit application materials,and to provide recommendations to developers which may help avoid projectsor elements of those projects that would otherwise pose conflicts with theCouncil’s management activity.
(3) The NEFMC will seek advice and guidance from representatives of boththe aquaculture and fishing industries, the conservation community and otherresource management agencies in formulation of aquaculture managementstrategies so as to minimize or eliminate the potential for use conflicts.
63
NMFS SERO Aquaculture FMP Guidance
Current mid-Atlantic project proponents are using the Gulf Aquaculture Plan as guidance for:Baseline Environmental Surveys; and possibly,Genetic Requirements
Guidance can be reviewed at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/aquaculture/
64
Benefits of this Approach for Northeast
•Clear, consistent guidance and process for applicants•Clear, consistent criteria for review and approval of applications•1-stop shop for applicants
• All relevant agencies coordinated• Council PEIS covers NEPA for permitted activities
•Limits and conditions developed by Council• Maintain consistency with Council intent• Ensure consideration of wild harvest fisheries• Public process for development and future changes
65
Comparison of NEFMC Aquaculture Policy with the
Gulf FMP for Aquaculture•Clear, consistent guidance and process for applicants•Clear, consistent criteria for review and approval of applications•1-stop shop for applicants
• All relevant agencies coordinated• Council PEIS covers NEPA for permitted activities
•Limits and conditions developed by Council (MSY, OY)• Maintain consistency with Council intent• Ensure consideration of wild harvest fisheries• Public process for development and future changes
66
Species/Group Scientific Name NESPP3 VTRAnchovies Family Engraulidae 686 ANCHArgentines Family Argentinidae 171 ARGT
Greeneyes Family Chlorophthalmidae 139 GRENHalfbeaks Family Hemiramphidae 164 HALFHerrings and Sardines Family Clupeidae 167 HSNSRound herring Etrumeus teres 166 HRRDScaled sardine Harengula jaguana 169 SARSCAtlantic thread herring Opisthonema oglinum 174 HRATSpanish sardine Sardinella aurita 172 SARSPLanternfish Family Myctophidae 660 LANTPearlsides Family Sternoptychidae 252 HATCHSand Lances Family Ammodytidae 206 SANDSilversides Family Atherinopsidae 363 SILNSCusk-Eels Order Ophidiidae 253 CSKEELAtlantic Saury Scomberesox saurus 319 SAURYAtlantic Chub Mackerel Scomber colias 215 MACCBullet Mackerel Auxis rochei 131 MACB
Unmanaged Finfish Top 25 March 19, 2018 Unmanaged Finfish Species Annual Landings, 2013-2017 Report Run on: 2018-03-19 For data reported through 2018-03-18
Top 25 Unmanaged Finfish Species Annual Landings, 2013-2017
Species Common Name
Species
Code 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Live
Pounds
OTHER FISH 526 4,116,515 4,740,194 1,995,532 1,363,152 125,878 12,341,271
