1 / 19

Managing Lower Trophic Level Species in the Mid-Atlantic Region

Managing Lower Trophic Level Species in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Forage Fish Workshop Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Raleigh, North Carolina 11 April 2013 E. D. Houde. Northwest Atlantic Coastal and Shelf Ecosystems. Productive Coastal Zone Major Productive Estuaries

yaphet
Télécharger la présentation

Managing Lower Trophic Level Species in the Mid-Atlantic Region

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Managing Lower Trophic Level Species in the Mid-Atlantic Region Forage Fish Workshop Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Raleigh, North Carolina 11 April 2013 E. D. Houde

  2. Northwest Atlantic Coastal and Shelf Ecosystems Productive Coastal Zone Major Productive Estuaries Connected to Southern New England and Georges Bank Connected to South Atlantic shelf ecosystems Bounded by the Gulf Stream Strongly seasonal

  3. Productivity of NW Atlantic Shelf Ecosystems Primary Production Productivity on a par with Southern New England and Georges Bank Chlorophyll a NEFSC Ref Doc 12-07

  4. Candidate MA Forage Species Species Fished Retained Discarded BycatchBycatch ___________________________________________________________________ Butterfish yes yesyes Atl. mackerel yes no yes Longfin squid yes yesyes Illex squid yes yesyes Atl. herring yes ? yes Atl. Menhaden yes no yes River herrings no no ? yes Sand lance no nono Round herring no no yes Sardines no no ? Anchovies no no ? Who are the Major Predators?

  5. MAFMC SSC ESC “Definition

  6. Regular info input to OFL/ ACL/ABC process Address in Primary fishery Get data, be precautionary Increase buffer to OFL proxy Apply Regular ABC Control Rules Mild increase to OFL buffer Treat as NS 1 Ecosystem Component species Stop, Apply Regular ABC Control Rules NEW N Is this a forage stock? Y N Is the stock retained in a fishery? Y Y Is this a bycatch only fishery? N Are there adequate biomass data? N N Are there adequate catch (landings) data? Y (Use B proxies) Y Are stock catch (landings, or B proxies) <, =, or > PP threshold? > N Is there an accepted stock assessment/ w/OFLs? <, = Y Y N N Does SA consider predation at all? Are Landings (catch) stable? Y N Does SA include predation directly (M2)? Decrease to OFL buffer Y

  7. Managed Forage Species Modified Council Risk Policy forage Can the MAFMC Develop a Forage Policy?

  8. North Pacific Council Ecological Considerations for Forage Groundfish FMPs have a forage category as part of the ecosystem component (EC) of the fishery (8 families and 1 order); directed federal fisheries prohibited with 2% (fish on board) bycatch cap for this EC forage group M2 (predation mortality) term incorporated in stock assessments (where possible); increasing number of multi-species assessment models being developed PDTs and SSC evaluate trends in M due to predation when setting ABC for target species (may reduce ABC below max allowed if warranted) Increased biomass thresholds for commercially-important prey species to insure adequate forage for Stellar sea lions (reduced fishing as biomass thresholds are approached); Time/area restrictions to avoid local depletion Ecosystem Considerations Report appended to groundfish and crab SAFE documents Established system OY cap for BSAI (85% of sum of MSYs for managed species) and GOA groundfish fisheries (95% of sum of MSYs for managed species) Most recently developed Arctic FEP which includes system level cap=zero

  9. PFMC Coastal Pelagics Species (CPS) FMP • Includes Pacific sardine, chub mackerel, northern anchovy, jack mackerel, market squid, and krill (euphausids) • Council banned harvest of krill in west coast EEZ (to prevent directed fishery development) in 2006 • Sardine and chub mackerel are actively managed, others are “monitored” species

  10. PFMC: Amendment 13 (Sept 2011) to CPS FMP • Modified existing harvest control rules to include ABC buffer relative to OFL through a combination of scientific advice from SSC and a policy determination of the Council (based on Council risk tolerance) • Amendment 13 maintained default harvest control rules for monitored stocks (ABC equals 25% of OFL/MSY)

  11. CPS Harvest Control Rules • Contain “cutoff” biomass reference points • Cut-off is defined as biomass level below which directed fishing is prohibited • Pacific sardine cutoff is 150,000 mt (or three times the overfished threshold); the control rule also contains environmental parameters to explicitly adapt harvest levels in response to environmental variability

  12. Coastal Pelagic Species: PFMC Managed Species Control Rule • OFL = Biomass x Fmsy x Distribution • ABC = Biomass x Buffer x Fmsy x Distribution • ACL ≤ ABC General Harvest Control Rule • HG = (Biomass – Cutoff) x Fraction x Distribution • ACT = HG or ACL, whichever is less • MAXCAT also is defined The Harvest Control Rule Assures that Exploitation Rate Declines Continuously as Biomass Declines

  13. PFMC FEP Initiative 1 • Council proceeding with development of FEP Initiative 1 – protection for un-fished forage species • Objective is to prohibit development of new directed fisheries on forage species until Council has adequate opportunity to assess the science relating to any proposed fishery and any potential impacts to existing fisheries and communities • Developed inventory of un-fished forage species and currently authorized gears and fisheries in US west coast EEZ

  14. SSC National Workshop IV: EBFM and Forage Fish Issues • Need better ways to estimate forage biomasses • Need better ways to estimate predator demand • Determining M2 is important • Ecosystem forage buffers vs single-species buffers?

  15. For consideration • Indicators and reference points • Are there any rules of thumb, e.g., F < M, Biomass threshold, hockey-stick (Restrepo, Lenfest) rules, appropriate F and B levels. • Can predator demand be indexed from stock assessments of predators? • What indices of ecosystem state are available that are indicative of predator demand and prey availability? • Can energetics modeling be useful to estimate demand? • What about ecosystem modeling? Strategic or tactical? • What decisions and regulations could be implemented by managers in the short term?

  16. Leave one third for the birds Cury et al. 2011

  17. Atlantic Menhaden

  18. Chesapeake Bay Integrated Biomass Size Spectrum (combined 1997 and 1999 data) Y = -1.03 X – 2.73 phytoplankton mesozooplankton Log2A (abundance) Fish larva Zooplanktivorous small fish Piscivorous large fish 2 mm 2 m 20 m 200 m 20 cm 20 mm Organism Size

  19. Menhaden: Allocation and EBFM Bluefish Commercial Fishery Predators/Piscivores Striped Bass Weakfish Osprey What is a “Fair” Allocation Plan? Can Humans Cause “Localized Depletion?” Recreational Striped Bass Fishing

More Related