Deirdre Boelke (Herring PDT Chair)

Herring AP/Committee WebinarJune 9, 2020

1

Webinar Instructions

Using Computer Audio:(Once you have joined the webinar)

• In “Audio” settings box, select the microphone and speaker options that correspond with your computer.

2

Using Phone Audio:(Once you have joined the webinar)

In “Audio” settings box, select “Phone call.”

Then, using your phone, call the number provided here. Enter the Access Code/Audio PIN numbers when prompted.

3

Webinar Instructions

How to talk:(Once you have joined the webinar)

If you would like to talk, click “Raise hand” button.

After being called on, make sure you are unmuted (red = muted, green = unmuted).

You can also let us know if you’d like to speak by stating so in the “Questions” box, here.

How to ask a technical question: Type your question here. We will type a response to you or

whole group if applicable.4

Webinar Instructions

GTW on iPhone/iPad

The “raise hand” and mute/unmute functions work the same if you are using the GoToWebinar app on an iPhone or iPad.

5

“Raise hand” will be GRAY when hand is down, shaded BLUEwhen hand is raised

Microphone will be GRAY when muted, shaded BLUE when unmuted

Other protocol: The Committee or AP Chair will state when it is time

to ask questions or comment, generally after presentations or motions.

We will handle questions/discussion by the convening body first, followed by others (incl. public).

People with “raised hands” will generally be called in the order their hand was raised.

If you have audio problems, you may type a question, which staff or chair will read. Do not type other questions or comments.

Any motions will be voted on by roll call.

6

Webinar Instructions

Any technical problems during the call – type in question box first, then call Rachel at (978) 465-0492 ext110.

7

Introductions and Audio Test

8

Herring Advisory Panel (2020-2022)

Bert Jongerden (Chair), ME John-Paul Bilodeau, ME Beth Casoni, MA Jeff Kaelin, NJ Ray Kane, MA Zach Klyver, ME

Meghan Lapp (Vice-Chair), RI David Mussina, MA Gerry O’Neill, MA James Ruhle, RI MaryBeth Tooley, ME Frank Wetmore, MA

Herring Committee Members

Peter Kendall (Chair) Rick Bellavance, RI (Vice Chair) Vincent Balzano, ME Peter deFur (MAFMC) Emily Gilbert NMFS) Peter Hughes (MAFMC) Patrick Keliher/Melissa Smith, ME

Matt McKenzie, CT Dan McKiernan/Melanie Griffin, MA Scott Oslzewski, RI John Pappalardo, MA Cheri Patterson, NH Terry Stockwell, ME Ritchie White, NH (ASMFC)

AP Agenda (Cmte)

9

Any revisions?

8:40 AM (1:40 PM) Develop Framework 8 – herring specs for 2021-2023 and adjust measures that potentially inhibit the mackerel fishery Review initial PDT analysis and develop range of alternatives.

BREAK 10:15 AM (3:00 PM) Develop Framework 7 - protect spawning of Atlantic

herring on Georges Bank. Review initial PDT analysis and develop initial range of alternatives.

11:30 AM (4:15 PM) Other Business (1) Brief review of NROC/MARCO/RODA fishery dependent data project and request for feedback (AP only); (2) Introduction of the Executive Order on promoting Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth).

Upcoming Meetings

June 11 – NEFSC stakeholder call about draft assessment (9:30 AM start)Join the webinar : meet.google.com/mkk-dhea-mwnJoin by phone: +1 315-924-2075 PIN: 366 767 816#

June 22 – NEFSC Peer Review of Atlantic herring management track assessment (10:00 AM start)

Join the webinar: Google Meet: https://meet.google.com/pmf-mnsg-utxJoin by phone: + 1 650-980-7092 PIN: 892 051 266#

June 23-25 – NEFMC June meeting (via webinar)Late July – PDT to develop specificationsEarly August – SSC to review OFL and ABCSept Council – Approve Framework 8 (2021-2023 specs and mackerel issue)

10

Relevant documents3. Draft Framework 84. Draft PDT memo

PurposeReview PDT analyses and develop alternatives for mackerel issue

11

Framework 8

GOAL 1 - Manage the Atlantic herring fishery at long-term sustainable levels consistent with the MSA. Objective – set specifications for 2021-2023 to prevent overfishing etc.

GOAL 2 - Consider adjustments to the herring plan that potentially inhibit the mackerel fishery from achieving OY.Objectives - 1) consider an increase in the incidental herring possession limit up to 40,000 pounds; and 2) modify the seasonal closure of Area 1B, which is currently closed January through April.

12

Specification related alternatives – not focus of today’s meeting OFL and ABC (No Action, and updated ABC)Management uncertainty (No Action, 3-year, 5-year and 10-year

average of Canadian weir catch)Border transfer (0mt, up to 250mt)______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Management area sub-ACLs and seasonal sub-ACL divisions Research set-aside (done through 2021 – address timing?)Fixed gear set-aside (no changes?)River herring/shad sub-ACLs (no changes?)______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Carryover (FW6 prevented FY2018 and FY2019)

13

PDT Memo – Document #4

1. Current regulations related to declaring into the herring and/or mackerel fisheries.

2. Current and previous incidental possession limits in the herring and mackerel fisheries – review of in-season actions – summary of catches vs ACLs.

3. Summary of the relationship between menhaden and herring.4. Input on potential range of alternatives

Attachment 1 – Incidental trip limit analysisAttachment 2 – Area 1B - Monthly herring and mackerel maps

14

1. Fishery Declarations (Table 1, p.3)

Vessels must declare through VMS (codes on right).

If vessel is DOF for herring fishery, it may not harvest, possess or land herring on that trip.

Herring vessels must submit daily catch report and pre-landings notification via VMS.

HER Herring Trip HMS Herring Trip with Mackerel and/or Squid Retention IHM Illex Squid Trip with Herring and Mackerel Retention LHM Longfin Squid Trip with Herring and Mackerel Retention MAC Mackerel Trip MAH Mackerel Trip with Herring Retention MAS Mackerel Trip with Squid Retention MHS Mackerel Trip with Herring and Squid Retention

15

2. Incidental Possession limits

Table 3 – In-season AMs that have been triggered to date (2012-2019) (p.5).Almost 20 actions total – most when sub-ACL harvested in the herring plan,

2 in mackerel plan were RH/S catch cap related.

Table 4 – Herring and Mackerel catch vs. ACL

16

HERRING MACKEREL92% of sub-ACL (2,000 lb.) Step 1 – 90% of total ACL (40,000 lb.)

95% of total ACL (2,000 lb.) Step 2 – 98% of total ACL (5,000 lb.)

17

3. Menhaden and herring- ASMFC Ecological Reference Point Working Group- Are herring food limited? Could look at larval dataset – unable to access with COVID-19.

4. Initial input on range of alternativesAttachment 1 – Tools to help identify incidental catch alternatives

(1. Estimated number of trips after sub-ACLs harvested; 2. average herring catches per trip during the year; and 3. herring landings and overall trip value)

Attachment 2 – Monthly maps to help identify Area 1B alternatives (Herring and mackerel revenue maps before and after Area 1B seasonal closure)

18

Herring trips remaining after sub-ACL closure (75%-92%)

19

92%

Herring trips remaining after sub-ACL closure (75%-92%)

20

92%

Weekly average herring trip landings by area (2016-2019)

Figure 3, p.13

21

Area 1A Area 1B

Area 2 Area 3

Average herring landings compared to total trip value by area (2016-2019)

Figure 4, p.15

22

Area 1A Area 1B

Area 2 Area 3

Total value per pound of herring caught by area (2016-2019)

Figure 5, p.17

23

Area 1A Area 1B

Area 2 Area 3

4.5 Potential Mackerel measures (p.25 of FW8)

4.5.1.1 Increase the incidental herring catch limitOption A - No Action (2,000 lb.)Option B – 40,000 lb.Option C - value based on analysis in Attachment 1Option D – Two-step approach like mackerel planOption E – increase limit but only when herring ACL above ??4.5.1.2 Areas with increased possession limitAll areas, Areas 1B, 2 and 3 only, Areas 2 and 3 only, Area 2 only?4.5.1.3 Modify management uncertainty buffer

24

See PDT comments in margin of FW8 on pages 25-26.

These options are not in FW8 – here to get the conversation started.Not practical to evaluate large number of options and area sub-options.

4.5 Potential Mackerel measures (p.25 of FW8)

4.5.2 Modify seasonal closure of Area 1BNo Action – maintain closure Jan-AprEliminate seasonal closure in that areaModify seasonal closure based on analyses in Attachment 2

25

These options are not in FW8 – here to get the conversations started.

26

27

Average herring and mackerel landings in JANUARY

Figure 6, p.19And Figures 7-17 also.

HER2008-2013

MAC2008-2013

MAC2014-2018

HER2014 -2018

28

Average herring and mackerel landings in MAYFigure 10, p.23

HER2008-2013

HER2014 -2018

Monthly Herring and Mackerel Effort - Summary Jan – Mar both herring and mackerel effort mostly in Area 2, and some on GB.Herring effort transitions to Area 3 and Area 1A in May through summer, while

mackerel effort slows.Before Area 1B seasonally closed in 2014 there was some herring and mackerel

fishing in that area in Jan-April, but not large amounts. In May when Area 1B now reopens pulse of herring effort in that area that was

not there before the area seasonally closed.By November, herring fishing moves inshore around Cape Cod, as well as

mackerel in more recent years. Late in the year herring effort more concentrated in SNE, with some herring and

mackerel effort around Cape Cod.

29

Purpose of today’s meeting for Framework 8

Review PDT analyses (Memo on FW8 – Document #4).Recommend mackerel related alternatives for further consideration (See Section

4.5 of FW8 – p.25-27 – Document #3).Recommend additional PDT analyses, if needed.

QUESTIONS / MOTIONS ?

30

31

Relevant documents5. Draft Framework 76. Draft PDT memo

PurposeReview PDT analyses and develop initial alternatives

32

Framework 7 (Doc. #5 and #6)

GOAL - Protect spawning adults of Atlantic herring and/or Atlantic herring egg mats to increase overall herring biomass.

Objective - Consider similar measures that are in Area 1A for other spawning components of this resource (i.e. Georges Bank and Nantucket Shoals).

33

PDT Memo – Document #6PDT has 2 questions related to goals and objectives.1. How much protection is desired? Is the goal to protect some,

most, all? More discussion could help inform alternatives.2. Protect spawning fish from harvest or act of spawning by

reducing disturbance/interaction? Assume more the former.

Tasking Items:1. Herring egg mats (Attachment 1)2. Default closure dates (Attachment 2)3. Input on potential range of alternatives

34

1. Herring Egg Mats (Attachment 1)Herring PDT consulted with the Habitat PDT.EFH Source document primary source of info (Stevenson and Scott, 2005).Table 1 has habitat characteristics of Atlantic herring egg life stage.Females deposit eggs in mats on seafloor in primarily gravel areas on GB with

strong tidal currents in 5-90m depths. Habitat structure (emergent flora and fauna) are important for hatching success.Egg EFH map based on observations from the 1970s.Egg incubation is temperature dependent, varies 10-15 days in this region.Fishing effects – no direct studies on herring eggs – but many studies on physical

effects on seabed structures and fauna. Can infer effects: disturbance/ detachment of eggs; and settlement of resuspended sediment on eggs, but strong currents in these areas.

35

2. Default closure date (Attachment 2)

PDT replicated the gonadal somatic index (GSI) timing analysis developed for ASMFC GOM spawning closures.

GB does not have the same level of pre-spawning fishing activity and sampling as GOM, but sufficient samples exist to inform calculation of default closure.

Same assumptions using data from GB herring trips only from 1998-2019.

36

2. Default closure date (Attachment 2)

GOM data showed that approximately 25% of fish have begun to spawn when mean GSI30 reaches 23.

Distribution of observed female GSI30 values somewhat higher on GB than GOM, but value still relevant for GB.

2.5 to 5 weeks is the length of time between when 25% of fish have begun to spawn and when 25% have yet to spawn.

ASMFC selected 6 weeks to ensure low probability of fishery interaction with spawning.

37

Figure 7.Predicted mean date closure threshold reached

Sept 14 – 10 days earlier than GOM. PDT discussed two possible alternatives:

Option 1 – Sept 14 - Oct 25 (6 weeks)Option 2 – Sept 7 – Nov 1 (8 weeks)

PDT added 8-week option to address interannual variability and inability to conduct in-season adaptive closures.

An additional two weeks could be added to either option to address protection of herring egg mats (reduce potential impacts of fishing to increase hatching success).

38

39

Figure 1. Areas of overlap between multiple data sources

3. Initial input on potential alternativesGB Spawning Discussion Document (NEFMC, 2019)

Figure 5Option 1 – areas where 3 or more data

layers overlap (EGB and WGB) (Fig. 2) (Could expand by 25% for interannual variability)

Option 2 – based on spawning adult data sets only by decade (Fig. 3)

Option 3 – area that incorporates Option 1 and 2 recognizing spawning areas vary over time (Fig 5).

Could use seabed form or sediment grain size to inform alternatives (Fig. 6)

40These options are not in FW7 – here to get the conversation started.

General PDT input on FW7 (p.10)1. The areas and seasons adopted may not capture all the among and within year variability,

so a review in several years would be useful to potentially adjust boundaries and/or seasons. The spawning closures in the GOM have taken over a decade to refine.

2. After IFM implementation there may be improved data on spawning of Atlantic herring on GB. However, this would require specific training and collection of spawning specific data are not currently planned. More resources would be needed to expand current protocols.

3. The action could include alternatives that are not complete closures to herring fishing, instead a “tolerance” of spawning fish would be allowed. However, a 20% tolerance was in place in the GOM, but that measure was problematic to enforce and was removed.

4. While it may be possible to target juvenile fish in the water column above spawning adult fish closer to the bottom, at this time the PDT does not plan to develop those alternatives in this action due to potential concerns about enforceability.

5. Given the low stock size of herring, data collected now and previously at lower stock sizes may not be representative of the stocks spawning behavior when it is rebuilt.

41

Purpose of today’s meeting for Framework 8

Review PDT analyses (Memo on FW8 – Document #4).Recommend mackerel related alternatives for further consideration (See Section

4.5 of FW8 – p.25-27 – Document #3).Recommend additional PDT analyses, if needed.

QUESTIONS / MOTIONS ?

42

43

“Removing Barriers to American Fishing”Recently signed by President—promoting seafood competitiveness and

economic growth in USSection 4 requests regional Councils to identify actions that could “reduce

burdens on domestic fishing and increase production within sustainable fisheries…”

Request is that Councils identify potential actions within 180 days or EO (i.e. due November 8th)

Sec. of Commerce and Presidential assistants will evaluate recommendations from all Councils and how they might be implemented

Today’s goal: Motion recommending actions to Council

45

Criteria for Recommendations

Recommended actions may include: changes to regulations, orders, guidance documents, or other similar agency actions.Must be consistent with requirements of M-S Act, ESA, MMPA, etc.Could be larger issues, such as those raised in recent priorities

discussions.Could be administrative actions that make fishery operate more

efficiently

46

Issues that have come up in the past

47

In 2018 two other Executive Orders (EOs) about eliminating or revising regulations.For Herring the Council recommended three – note the purpose of those

EOs was different. 1. Restrictions on possession limit once sub-ACL reached.2. 6-hour prelanding VMS reporting requirement.3. Prohibition on operational discards in GF closed areas.

Next StepsCouncil will discuss at its June meeting and decide how to respond. Still unclear what happens after DOC considers recommended

actions from regional Councils—for example, the link between recommended actions and changes actually being made.Councils will need to propose how actions would be initiated after

DOC reviews list of recommendationsCouncil priorities discussion will occur in December—current work

priorities will continue as planned aside from discussion or recommendations today.

Any ideas to forward?

48