Briefing Book

JUNE 2017 MEETING AGENDA June 6-8, 2017 Hilton Norfolk The Main 100 East Main St. Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone 757-763-6200

Tuesday, June 6th 9:00 a.m. Council Convenes 9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. SARC Presentation – Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Assessments Jim Weinberg - NEFSC

9:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Specifications (Tab 1) – Develop recommendations for 2018- 2020 specifications 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Excessive Shares Amendment (Tab 2) – Approve scoping document 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. Lunch 1:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. Lobster Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Framework (Tab 3) GARFO Staff – Discuss alternatives 1:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. Risk Policy Framework – First Meeting (Tab 4) – Review and approve options for potential revision to current MAFMC Risk Policy and ABC Control Rules 2:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. Climate Velocity Over the 21st Century and Its Implications for Fisheries Management in the Northeast U.S. (Tab 5) James Morley – Rutgers – Review climate-velocity-driven species distribution projections for 2020 through 2100. – Identify potential propriety species for adaptation of fisheries management to climate change 3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Cooperative Research in the Mid-Atlantic (Tab 6) – Review of NEFSC Cooperative Research and response to MAFMC request – Jon Hare - NEFSC – Mid-Atlantic Council approach to collaborative research

1 Wednesday, June 7th 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish Committee, Meeting as a Committee of the Whole - Specifications (Tab 7) (King, McMurray, Bullard, Hughes, Heins, deFur, Nolan, Baum, Mann, Michels, Nowalsky, Shiels, Winslow; NE Reps: Tooley, Reid) – Review fishery performance and make recommendations for 2018-2020 specifications, including butterfish cap 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Shad/River Herring (RH/S) Committee, Meeting as a Committee of the Whole (Tab 8) Winslow, Shiels, McMurray, Baum, Michels, Slacum, deFur, Hughes, Nowalsky, Batsavage, King, Nolan, O’Reilly, Bullard, Beal; NE Reps: Stockwell, Tooley, Reid) – Review RH/S cap operation and RH/S progress update – Make recommendations for RH/S cap amount modification if necessary 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. Lunch 1:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish Committee, Meeting as a Committee of the Whole – Squid Amendment (Tab 9) (King, McMurray, Bullard, Hughes, Heins, deFur, Nolan, Baum, Mann, Michels, Nowalsky, Shiels, Winslow; NE Reps: Tooley, Reid) – Review alternatives, public comments, and staff recommendations – Select preferred alternatives and adopt amendment 3:30 p.m. Council Convenes 3:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Law Enforcement Reports – NOAA Office of Law Enforcement – U.S. Coast Guard 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Data Modernization in the Northeast Region (Tab 10) Barry Clifford – NMFS and Mike Cahall - ACCSP

5:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. Habitat Update (Tab 11) – EFH review progress – Mid-Atlantic fish habitat assessment project Thursday, June 8th 9:00 a.m. Council Convenes 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Business Session Committee Report (Tab 12) – SSC Committee – Ecosystems & Ocean Planning Committee Executive Director’s Report (Tab 13) Chris Moore – Review and approve SOPP revision regarding paid parental leave Science Report Rich Seagraves

2 Organization Reports (Tab 14) – NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Office – NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center – NOAA Office of General Counsel – Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Liaison Reports (Tab 15) – New England Council – South Atlantic Council – Regional Planning Body Continuing and New Business

APRIL 2017 MOTIONS

Chub mackerel Move that staff enhance the scoping document based on Council comments today and move forward with the scoping process. King/DiLernia Motion passes by consent

Golden Tilefish Move to establish the golden tilefish specifications (ACTs, TALs, and Quotas) for 2018, 2019, and 2020 as specified in the tables below. Council: Heins/deFur (17/0/0/1) - Recusal by Laurie Nolan Motion carries

Resulting ACT, TAL, and quotas under current process

Resulting ACTs, TALs, and Quotas under the process described under Framework 2 (where discards are directly subtracted from the specific fishery sector generating them to derive sector specific TALs)

Note: all other catch and landings limit components are identical than those under the above Table. NA = Not Applicable.

Blueline Tilefish Move that we set the ABC for 2018 at 87,031 pounds, with ACLs/ACTs/TALs per the table below: Heins/Nolan (18/0/0) Motion carries

Specification Recreational Commercial

ABC 87,031 lbs (39.48 mt)

ACLs 63,533 lbs 23,498 lbs (28.82 mt) (10.66 mt)

ACTs 63,533 lbs 23,498 lbs (28.82 mt) (10.66 mt)

TALs 62,262 lbs 23,263 lbs (28.24 mt) (10.55 mt)

Hudson Canyon Sanctuary Proposal Move the MAFMC send a letter commenting on the proposal of the Hudson Canyon to become a marine sanctuary. The letter should state that following a review of the proposal documents and a briefing by the sponsors of the proposal, the Council cannot support the proposal and recommends the proposal be denied. DiLernia/Hughes (15/2/2) Motion carries

Move to refer the above motion to the EOP Committee. McMurray/deFur (4/12/3) Motion fails

Industry Funded Monitoring (IFM) Amendment Move that the Council adopt option 4 provided to the Council today, to take action on the Omnibus Part of the Amendment (consistent with New England recommendations for modifications to the preferred alternative), but require future IFM to be considered via a full separate amendment (no frameworks). King/O’Reilly (4/15/0) Motion fails

Move that the Council adopt option 2 provided to the Council today, to move forward with action on the omnibus and mackerel portions of the document. Shiels/McMurray (4/15/0) Motion fails

4 HMS – Law Enforcement Move that the Council recommend HMS partition the HMS Party/Charter permit into two permits: Party/Charter No Sale (pure recreational) and Party/Charter Sale (mixed recreational/commercial).

Party/Charter Sale would require operators to supply their United States Coast Guard safety inspection decal number to acquire a permit. This would allow recreational fishermen with no intention to sell HMS fish to avoid the United States Coast Guard safety inspection decal and the associated costs in passing inspection, while still more clearly identifying the universe of vessels with commercial transactions. Moved by consent with 1 abstention

Move that the Council recommend HMS require logbook or vessel trip report (VTR) reporting for HMS Charter/Headboat and General Category permits so there is a more uniform 2-ticket system (vessel and dealer reports) for tracking HMS sales (do so in a way that avoids duplicate reporting). Moved by consent with 1 abstention

JOINT MEETING WITH ASMFC SUMMER FLOUNDER, SCUP, AND BLACK SEA BASS BOARD MAY 10, 2017 – ALEXANDRIA, VA

Main Motion Move to select alternative 2 from Section 3.0 for Addendum XXIX and preferred alternative 2 from Section 5 for Framework 10. Board: Motion made by Dr. Pierce and seconded by Mr. Baum. Council: Motion made by Mr. Baum and seconded by Ms. Nolan.

Motion to Substitute Motion to substitute alternative 1 for alternative 2. Board: Motion made by Mr. Reid and seconded by Mr. Alexander. Motion fails for lack of majority (4 in favor, 5 opposed, 3 abstentions). Council: Motion by Mr. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Mann. Motion fails.

Main Motion Move to select alternative 2 from Section 3.0 for Addendum XXIX and preferred alternative 2 from Section 5 for Framework 10. Board: Motion made by Dr. Pierce and seconded by Mr. Baum. Motion carries (9 in favor, 1 opposed, 2 abstentions) Council: Motion made by Mr. Baum and seconded by Ms. Nolan. Motion carries (20 in favor).

Move to approve Addendum XXIX as modified today. Board: Motion made by Mr. Hasbrouck and seconded by Mr. Baum. Motion carries (Roll Call Vote: In Favor – MA, RI, NY, NJ, DE, MD, VA, NC, NMFS, USFWS; Opposed – CT; Abstentions – PRFC).

Move to submit Framework 10 to NMFS for approval. Council: Motion made by Mr. Heins and seconded by Mr. deFur. Motion carries (19 in favor, 1 abstention).

Main Motion Motion to accept the staff recommendations to provide direction to move forward with the draft amendment. Council: Motion made by Mr. DiLernia and seconded by Mr. King. Motion amended. Board: Motion made by Mr. Hasbrouck and seconded by Mr. Reid. Motion amended.

Motion to Amend Motion to amend to drop landings flexibility (Alternative 4B) from the staff recommendations. Board: Motion made by Mr. Bush and seconded by Mr. O’Reilly. Motion carries (8 in favor, 2 opposed, 2 abstentions). Council: Motion made by Mr. Batsavage and seconded by Mr. Hughes. Motion fails due to lack of majority (9 in favor, 9 opposed, 2 abstentions).

Motion to accept the staff recommendations to provide direction to move forward with the draft amendment. Council: Motion by Mr. DiLernia and seconded by Mr. King. Motion carries (16 in favor, 3 opposed). Board: Motion by Mr. Hasbrouck and seconded by Mr. Reid. Motion carries (8 in favor, 3 opposed, 1 abstention).

Task the TC to review the recreational black sea bass MRIP harvest estimates over time (5 years? 10 years?) to identify highly variable state/wave/mode (other?) combinations that contribute to harvest volatility. Generate a methodology to “smooth” problematic harvest estimates along with criteria that determine when smoothing is appropriate to avoid an ad-hoc approach. The TC should consider some or all of the following: high and low estimates, PSEs, preliminary vs. final estimates and regulatory changes. Board: Motion made by Mr. Gilmore and seconded by Mr. Clark. Motions carries unanimously.

Main Motion For 2017, move to close the recreational black sea bass fishery in wave 6 (November 1-December 31) in state waters for the states of Massachusetts through New Jersey and maintain all other management measures from 2016. Board: Motion made by Dr. Pierce and seconded by Mr. Bullard. Motion substituted.

Motion to Substitute Move to substitute: For 2017, impose a 5-fish possession limit for recreational black sea bass in wave 6 in state waters for RI through NJ and maintain all other management measures for 2017. Board: Motion made by Mr. Ballou and seconded by Mr. Alexander. Motion carries (9 in favor, 2 opposed, 1 abstention).

Main Motion as Substituted For 2017, impose a 5-fish possession limit for recreational black sea bass in wave 6 in state waters for RI through NJ and maintain all other management measures for 2017. Motion made by Mr. Ballou and seconded by Mr. Alexander. Motion carries (Roll Call Vote: In Favor – MA, RI, CT, DE, MD, PRFC, VA, NC, NMFS; Opposed – NY, NJ; Abstentions – NH, USFWS). 5

Move to initiate an addendum for 2018 recreational black sea bass management with options as recommended by the Working Group and Plan Development Team. Options for regional allocations shall include approaches with uniform regulations (e.g., number of days) and other alternatives to the current North/South regional delineation (MA-NJ/DE-NC) such as those applied for summer flounder, i.e., one-state regions. Board: Motion made by Dr. Pierce and seconded by Mr. Clark. Motion carries (12 in favor, 1 opposed).

Tabled Motion from February 2017 Move to allow an experimental 2018 January/February (wave one), recreational, federally permitted for‐hire fishery for black sea bass with a 15 fish per person possession limit, a suspended minimum size limit, and a zero-discard policy to allow for barotrauma, and a mandatory trip reporting requirement. Board: Motion made by Mr. Heins and seconded by Mr. Reid. Motion substituted. Council: Motion made by Mr. DiLernia and seconded by Mr. King. Motion substituted.

Motion to Substitute Move to substitute initiate a framework/addendum to allow a 2018, and beyond, Jan/Feb black sea bass recreational fishery with the vessel participating being require to obtain a letter of authorization from GARFO. Also, a 15 per person possession limit, no min size, zero discard policy, and require a call in and call out process and mandatory trip reporting. The fishery closes when the quota is met. Board: Motion made by Mr. Gilmore and seconded by Mr. O’Reilly. Motion carries. (10 in favor, 3 opposed). Council: Motion made by Mr. DiLernia and seconded by Mr. Nowalsky. Motion carries (13 in favor, 2 opposed.

Main Motion as Substituted Move to initiate a framework/addendum to allow a 2018, and beyond, Jan/Feb black sea bass recreational fishery with the vessel participating being require to obtain a letter of authorization from GARFO. Also, a 15 per person possession limit, no min size, zero discard policy, and require a call in and call out process and mandatory trip reporting. The fishery closes when the quota is met. Board: Motion carries (11 in favor, 2 opposed). Council: Motion carries (13 in favor, 2 opposed).

Main Motion Move the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board recommend to the ISFMP Policy Board that the state of New Jersey be found out of compliance for not fully and effectively implementing and enforcing Addendum XXVIII to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan if the State does not implement the following measures by May 21, 2017:

• Shore mode for Island Beach State Park only: 17-inch minimum size limit; 2-fish possession limit and 128-day open season. • Delaware Bay only (west of the colregs line): 18-inch minimum size limit; 3-fish possession limit and 128-day open season. • All other marine waters (east of the colregs line): 19-inch minimum size limit; 3-fish possession limit and 128-day open season

The implementation of these regulations is necessary to achieve the conservation goals and objectives of the FMP to end overfishing of the summer flounder stock. In order to come back into compliance, the state of New Jersey must implement all of the measures listed above as contained in Addendum XXVIII to the Summer Flounder FMP. Board: Motion made by Dr. Pierce and seconded by Mr. Ballou. Motion carries (9 in favor, 1 opposed, 2 abstentions).

Move to approve today the following measures for 2017 NJ summer flounder recreational fishery based on conservation equivalency:

• Shore mode for Island Beach State Park only: 16-inch minimum size limit; 2-fish possession limit and 104-day open season (May 25-Sept 5) • Delaware Bay only (west of the colregs line): 17-inch minimum size limit; 3-fish possession limit and 104-day open season (May 25-Sept 5) • All other marine waters: 18-inch minimum size limit; 3-fish possession limit and 104-day open season (May 25-Sept 5) Board: Motion made by Mr. Baum and seconded by Mr. O’Reilly. Motion fails (Roll Call Vote: In Favor – NJ, DE, PRFC, VA; Opposed – MA, RI, CT, NY, MD, NC, USFWS; Abstentions – NMFS).

Move to approve the following measures for 2017 NJ summer flounder recreational fishery based on conservation equivalency:

• Shore mode for Island Beach State Park only: 16-inch minimum size limit; 2-fish possession limit and 104-day open season (May 25-Sept 5)

• Delaware Bay only (west of the colregs line): 17-inch minimum size limit; 3-fish possession limit and 104-day open season (May 25-Sept 5) • All other marine waters: 18-inch minimum size limit; 3-fish possession limit and 104-day open season (May 25-Sept 5)

This is subject to the review and approval of the Technical Committee and subsequent Board consideration and approval. Motion made by Mr. Borden and seconded by Mr. Clark. Motion carries (11 in favor, 1 opposed).

The above agenda items may not be taken in the order in which they appear and are subject to change as necessary. Other items may be added, but the Council cannot take action on such items even if the item requires emergency action without additional public notice. Non-emergency matters not contained in this agenda may come before the Council and / or its Committees for discussion, but these matters may not be the subject of formal Council or Committee action during this meeting. Council and Committee actions will be restricted to the issues specifically listed in this agenda. Any issues requiring emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that arise after publication of the Federal Register Notice for this meeting may be acted upon provided that the public has been notified of the Council’s intent to take final action to address the emergency. The meeting may be closed to discuss employment or other internal administrative matters. 6 MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY COUNCIL - SPECIES STOCK STATUS (AS OF MAY 25, 2017) STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA REBUILDING PROGRAM / SPECIES Overfishing Overfished OVERFISHING OVERFISHED STOCK STATUS Fthreshold ½ BMSY

Most recent benchmark assessment was Summer 69 F35%MSP=0.31 Yes No 2013. Most recent assessment update was Flounder million lbs 2016.

96.23 Most recent benchmark assessment was Scup F40%MSP=0.22 No No million lbs 2015.

Black 10.7 F40%MSP=0.36 No No Most recent assessment update was 2016. Sea Bass million lbs

111.7 Most recent benchmark assessment was Bluefish F35%SPR=0.19 No No million lbs 2015.

Most recent benchmark assessment was Illex Squid Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2006; not able to determine current (short finned) exploitation rates or stock biomass.

Most recent benchmark assessment was Longfin 46.7 Unknown Unknown No 2010; not able to determine current Squid million lbs exploitation rates. Most recent benchmark assessment was Atlantic Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2010; not able to determine current Mackerel exploitation rates or stock biomass.

FProxy=2/3M 50.3 Most recent benchmark assessment was Butterfish No No =0.81 million lbs 2014. STATUS DETERMINATION CRITERIA REBUILDING PROGRAM / SPECIES Overfishing Overfished OVERFISHING OVERFISHED STOCK STATUS Fthreshold ½ BMSY

a b Most recent benchmark assessment was Surfclam F/Fthreshold = 1 SSB/SSBthreshold = 1 No No 2016.

Ocean c d Most recent benchmark assessment was F/Fthreshold = 1 SSB/SSBthreshold =1 No No Quahog 2017.

10.46 Golden F38%MSP=0.310 No No Most recent assessment update was 2017. million lbs Tilefish

Blueline Most recent benchmark assessment was 0.302 246.6 million lbs Yes No Tilefish 2013.

Spiny Dogfish 175.6 Most recent assessment update was 2015. (Joint mgmt FMSY=0.2439 million lbs No No Most recent benchmark assessment was with NEFMC) Female SSB 2010. NFMA - Monkfish NFMA & 1.25 kg/tow Most recent benchmark assessment was (Joint mgmt SFMA SFMA - Unknown Unknown 2010. Most recent operational assessment with NEFMC) FMAX=0.2 0.93 kg/tow was in 2016. (autumn trawl survey)

SOURCES: Office of Sustainable Fisheries - Status Report of U.S. Fisheries; SAW/SARC, SEDAR, and TRAC Assessment Reports. a Fthreshold is calculated as 4.136 times the mean F during 1982 - 2015 b SSBthreshold is calculated as SSB0/4 c Fthreshold is 0.019 d SSBthreshold is calculated as 0.4*SSB0 Stock Size Relative to Biological Reference Points (as of May 25, 2017) 250% 229% 225% 210% 200% 174% 175% 163%

150% NotOverfished 127% 128% 125% 106% Bmsy Rebuilt 100% 85% 89% 82% 75% 58%

½ Bmsy 50% Overfished Threshold

Overfished 25%

* Year of the data used to determine stock size.

NOTE: Unknown Bmsy - Illex squid, Atlantic mackerel, and monkfish (NFMA & SFMA). NOTE: Of the 14 stocks managed by the Council, 7 are above Bmsy, 4 are below Bmsy, and 3 are unknown. Fishing Mortality Ratios for MAFMC Managed Species (As of May 25, 2017)

1.50 occurring

1.25 is Overfishing

Overfishing 1.00 threshold msy F 0.75

current / 0.50 F not occurringnot 0.25 is Overfishing

0.00

* Year of the data used to determine fishing mortality.

NOTE: Unknown - Illex squid, Longfin squid, Atlantic mackerel, and monkfish (NFMA and SFMA). Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901 Phone: 302-674-2331 ǀ FAX: 302-674-5399 ǀ www.mafmc.org Michael P. Luisi, Chairman ǀ G. Warren Elliott, Vice Chairman Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director

MEMORANDUM

Date: May 24, 2017

To: Council

From: Jessica Coakley and José Montañez, Staff

Subject: Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Specifications (2018-2020)

The following are included for consideration by the Council on the above subject:

1) May 2017 SSC Report – See Committee Report Tab 2) Surfclam Staff Memo dated April 28, 2017 3) Quahog Staff Memo dated April 28, 2017 4) Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Performance Report 5) Atlantic Surfclam Fishery Information Document 6) Ocean Quahog Fishery Information Document 7) Atlantic Surfclam Summary Report of SAW/SARC 61 8) Ocean Quahog Summary Report of SAW/SARC 63

More detailed Atlantic Surfclam SAW/SARC 61 and Ocean Quahog SAW/SARC 63 Reports are available at the following website: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/reports.html

Page 1 of 1 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901 Phone: 302-674-2331 ǀ FAX: 302-674-5399 ǀ www.mafmc.org Michael P. Luisi, Chairman ǀ G. Warren Elliott, Vice Chairman Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director

MEMORANDUM

Date: April 28, 2017

To: Chris Moore, Executive Director

From: Jessica Coakley and José Montañez, Staff

Subject: Surfclam Management Measures (2018-2020)

Executive Summary

The Atlantic surfclam resource in the US exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring in 2015 (NEFSC 2016). The Atlantic surfclam stock was assessed and peer reviewed in July 2016 at Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 61). In addition to the stock assessment reports, the Northeast Fishery Science Center (Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017) has provided a data update that provides more recent fishery data available. These reports can be referenced for additional detail and are available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18.

Last year, specifications were developed for 2017-2018, with the expectation that a new stock assessment could allow 2018 measures to be revised as needed. This year, staff recommend specifications be set for 3 years (2018-2020) based on the new assessment. The staff recommendation for acceptable biological catches (ABCs) for 2018, 2019, and 2020 is 29,363 mt each year. The fishery management plan specifies that the annual catch limit (ACL) equals the ABC. Staff recommend an annual catch target (ACT) = 29,363 mt and a commercial quota of 26,218 mt (3.4 million bushels) for each year, 2018, 2019, and 2020. This is the same ACT and commercial quota that was implemented for the 2014-2018 fishing years. Staff recommend the surfclam minimum size be suspended in 2018, but also recommend that the Council consider the issue of large numbers of small clams appearing in the landings from the Delmarva area.

Introduction

The Magnuson Stevens Act requires each Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to provide, among other things, ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for ABC, preventing overfishing, and maximum sustainable yield. The Council's catch limit recommendations for the upcoming fishing year(s) cannot exceed the ABC recommendation of the SSC. In this memorandum, information is presented to assist the development of measures for the Council to consider for the 2018-2020 fishery for surfclams. The SSC will recommend an ABC for the surfclam fishery that addresses scientific uncertainty. Based on the SSC recommendations, the Council will make recommendations for ACLs, ACTs, and other implemented measures, and provide those recommendations to the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator.

Page 1 of 10

Review of SSC Recommendations for Fishing Years 2014-2018

In May 2013, the SSC recommended ABCs for surfclam for fishing years 2014-2016 based on the stock assessment from SAW 56 (February 2013). The SSC recommended that the assessment be considered Level 3 (SSC-modified overfishing limit (OFL) probability distribution) because it provided an acceptable OFL estimate, included estimates of pertinent life history parameters, and explicitly incorporated a substantial amount of available data and also permits uncertainty in input parameters. At that time, the SSC concluded the reference points were proxies (not internally estimated) and the uncertainty estimates of the OFL in the assessment could not be used directly to represent all key sources of uncertainty. The SSC considered surfclam to be a “typical” stock and applied the Council’s risk policy to generate ABCs assuming the uncertainty around the OFL is lognormally distributed with a CV=100%. The SSC met in May 2016 and recommended ABCs for 2017-2018 using the same approaches to extend the fishing year specification until a new stock assessment could be conducted.

OFL ABC Biomass P Year (mt) (mt) (mt) (overfishing) 2014 81,150 60,313 886,251 36% 2015 75,178 51,804 813,077 33% 2016 71,512 48,197 792,205 32% 2017 69,925 44,469 739,359 29% 2018 70,102 45,524 757,738 30%

At that May 2016 meeting, the SSC noted the principle sources of scientific uncertainty identified in May 2013 still applied:

a) The F = M foundation for establishing OFL; b) Estimates of M used in the assessment are uncertain; c) Uncertainty over the scales at which regional replenishment occurs and the potential impact of localized depletion; d) Absolute biomass is not known, and biomasses are currently scaled to presumed abundance in 1999 to develop reference points; and, e) Uncertainty in the fishing mortality rates (F), as identified by the SARC external review panel (Houde, et al. 2013). In particular, the comparison of catch to the scaled abundance (see point c above) introduces unquantified uncertainty in estimates of F. Also, incidental mortality estimates, which are used, in part, to generate fishing mortality rates are poorly described and are not current.

Stock Status and Biological Reference Points

The Atlantic surfclam stock assessment was peer reviewed and approved for management at SAW 61 (NEFSC 2016, 2017). A statistical catch at age and length model called SS3 was used and incorporated age and length structure, and was conducted as two assessment area pieces and then combined (NEFSC 2016, 2017). More detailed descriptions of the stock assessment are available in the SAW 61 documents (i.e., summary, report, SARC panel reviews) available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw.

Page 2 of 10

New SAW 61 biological reference points were developed and revised from the prior SAW. The new reference points are ratios rather than absolute values. This approach allows for conclusions about the status of the surfclam stock despite substantial uncertainty in the actual biomass of the stock.

• SSB/SSBTarget = 2 is the new biomass target (or SSBMSY-Proxy), where SSBTarget is calculated as SSB0/2, • SSB/SSBThreshold = 1 is the new minimum stock size threshold which defines overfished status, where SSBThreshold is calculated as SSB0/4, • F/FThreshold = 1 is the new fishing mortality threshold which defines overfishing, where Fthreshold is calculated as 4.136 times the mean F during 1982-2015.

The Atlantic surfclam stock was not overfished in 2015 (NEFSC 2016). Based on recommended reference points for the whole stock which use spawning stock biomass (SSB), estimated SSB2015/SSBThreshold = 2.54 (probability overfished < 0.01). Overfishing did not occur in 2015 (NEFSC 2016). Based on new recommended reference points, estimated F2015/FThreshold = 0.295 (probability overfished < 0.01).

Basis for 2018-2020 ABC Recommendation

Staff recommend measures be developed for 3-years.

Projections from the SAW 61 report (NEFSC 2016) provided estimates of OFLs for 2018-2020 (NEFSC 2016). If the SSC considered surfclam to be a typical stock and applied the previous methods that include an SSC-modified OFL probability distribution and an assumed lognormal OFL distribution with a CV = 100%, the ABCs would be calculated as given here.

OFL ABC SSB/SSBThreshold P Year (mt) (mt) (ratio) (overfishing) 2018 74,859 60,623 2.9 40% 2019 74,260 60,138 3.0 40% 2020 74,131 60,034 3.2 40%

However, staff does not recommend using the prior approaches to determine the OFL and ABC because the absolute estimates of spawning stock biomass, fishing mortality, and recruitment, are not considered reliable based on this assessment, and there is additional uncertainty due to combining these estimates for the northern and southern areas to produce whole stock estimates.

The assessment results are robust with respect to stock status, and suggest that the current catch levels are reasonable. Therefore, staff recommends setting the ABC based on maintaining catch levels that allow for the 26,218 mt quota which has been in place since 2004. Staff recommend an ABC = 29,363 each year for 2018-2020, which is the commercial quota of 26,218 mt plus an additional 12% for incidental mortality. Since 2010, the fishery has landed between 68% and 72% of the total commercial quota, and Page 3 of 10

the fishery has not landed 100% of the quota since 2003. The industry has indicated they are market limited.

Staff Recommended

ABC SSB/SSBThreshold P Year OFL (mt) (mt) (ratio) (overfishing) 2018 29,363 Not Not possible to provide 2019 Specified1 29,363 2020 29,363

Other Management Measures

Catch and Landings Limits

In the FMP, the ABC=ACL=TAC and the Council specifies an ACT that accounts for management uncertainty and other relevant factors (Figure 1). Discards are assumed to be zero; however, there is an incidental fishing mortality rate of 12% that applies to landings (commercial quota).

Management uncertainty is comprised of two parts: uncertainty in the ability of managers to control catch and uncertainty in quantifying the true catch (i.e., estimation errors). Because this is an ITQ fishery, and clams cannot be landed without cage tags, the implementation uncertainty is generally considered to be insignificant.

Catch is defined as the sum of landings, a 12% incidental mortality applied to landings, and discards (which are assumed to be 0). The ACL is equal to the ABC as prescribed in the FMP.

Staff recommend the ACT for each year of 2018-2020, be set at 29,363 mt, which results in a commercial quota of 26,218 mt (3.40 million bushels). This is the same ACT and commercial quota that was implemented for the 2014-2018 fishing years.

1 OFL cannot be specified given current state of knowledge. Page 4 of 10

Figure 1. Atlantic surfclam catch limit structure.

Surfclam Minimum Size

In the regulations it states that, "Upon recommendation of the MAFMC, the [NMFS] Regional Administrator [RA] may suspend annually, by publication in the Federal Register, the minimum shell- length standard, unless discard, catch, and survey data indicate that 30 percent of the surfclams are smaller than 4.75 inches (12.065 cm) and the overall reduced shell length is not attributable to beds where the growth of individual surfclams has been reduced because of density dependent factors."

Each year an analysis of the size composition of the landings is developed to inform the RA regarding minimum size regulations. The report titled, "Estimated Proportion of Undersized Surfclam Landings for 2016” (Hermsen 2016), indicates that:

An estimated 14.4% of the coast wide surfclam landings to date in 2016 were undersized. The lower and upper 95% confidence intervals (CI) for this estimate were 13.5% and 15.3%. However, it should be noted that there are regional differences. In the Delmarva statistical areas, the estimated percent of undersized clams in the landings is 31.3% (95% CI of 30.0-31.8%), New Jersey is 10.7% (95% CI of 10.6-10.7%), and Georges Bank is 8.7% (95% CI of 8.6-8.8%).

Staff recommend continued suspension of the minimum shell-length standard for 2018 given that the coastwide 30% threshold for suspension was not triggered. However, the Council should carefully review this information next year and consider issues related to the large numbers of undersized clams that are appearing in the landings in the Delmarva area.

Page 5 of 10

Small Surfclam Areas

The regulations state that, the "[NMFS] Regional Administrator [RA] may close an area to surfclams and ocean quahog fishing if he/she determines, based on logbook entries, processors' reports, survey cruises, or other information, that the area contains surfclams of which: (i) Sixty percent or more are smaller than 4.5 inches (11.43 cm); and (ii) Not more than 15 percent are larger than 5.5 inches (13.97 cm) in size."

The last time this provision was applied was during the 1980's with three area closures (Atlantic City, NJ, Ocean City, MD, and Chincoteague, VA), with the last of the three areas reopening in 1991.

An analysis of surfclam size distribution has been provided by the NEFSC (Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017). Because the commercial fishing gear selects for larger clams and does not sample small clams well, fishery-dependent data would not be representative of the proportions at size in an area. The fishery-independent clam survey conducted by the NEFSC uses a dredge design which captures smaller surfclams, has randomly selected stations within each survey strata, and provide a sample of the proportions of small (<4.5 inches), large (> 4.5 inches and <5.5 inches), and extra-large clams (>5.5 inches) in the sampling strata. Stations within each strata that were candidates for the criteria listed in the regulations (see i and ii above) from the 2011, 2012-2014, and 2015-2016 clam surveys were mapped (Figures 2, 3, and 4).

In addition, industry has indicated that in 2015 they implemented two large, voluntary closures off Ocean City, MD and Point Pleasant, NJ (250 square miles) to protect small surfclams and to maximize their use of the resource. Details on the location of these closures have not been provided by industry and are unknown.

This information is presented so the Council can monitor changes in the distribution of surfclam size composition over time and determine if a closure is appropriate. Staff recommend the Council continue to monitor these spatial differences in the fishery.

Page 6 of 10

Figure 2. 2011 NEFSC Clam survey stations where surfclams sampled met the small clam area criteria. Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017.

Page 7 of 10

Figure 3. 2012-2014 NEFSC Clam survey stations where surfclams sampled met the small clam area criteria. Note: Although the selectivity was corrected for the new survey vessel/dredge used starting in 2012, this may not be exactly comparable to 2011 (Figure 1). Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017.

Page 8 of 10

Figure 4. 2015-2016 NEFSC Clam survey stations where surfclams sampled met the small clam area criteria. Note: Although the selectivity was corrected for the new survey vessel/dredge used starting in 2012, this may not be exactly comparable to 2011 (Figure 1). Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017.

Page 9 of 10

References

Hennen, Dan. Personal Communication. March 15, 2017. NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543.

Hermsen, Jay. 2016. Estimated Proportion of Undersized Surfclam Landings for 2016. NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Region Fisheries Office report dated August 30, 2016.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2016. 61st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (61st SAW) Assessment Summary Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 16-13; 26 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2017. 61st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (61st SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 17-05; 466 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543- 1026, or online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications.

Page 10 of 10 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901 Phone: 302-674-2331 ǀ FAX: 302-674-5399 ǀ www.mafmc.org Michael P. Luisi, Chairman ǀ G. Warren Elliott, Vice Chairman Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director

MEMORANDUM

Date: April 28, 2017

To: Chris Moore, Executive Director

From: Jessica Coakley and José Montañez, Staff

Subject: Ocean Quahog Management Measures (2018-2020)

Executive Summary

The ocean quahog resource in the US exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring in 2016 (NEFSC 2017). The ocean quahog stock was assessed and peer reviewed in February 2017 at Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 63). These reports are available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18.

Last year, specifications were developed for 2017-2018, with the expectation that a new stock assessment could allow 2018 measures to be revised as needed. This year, staff recommend specifications be set for 3 years (2018-2020) based on the new assessment. The staff recommendation for acceptable biological catches (ABCs) for 2018, 2019, and 2020 is 25,924 mt each year. The fishery management plan specifies that the annual catch limit (ACL) equals the ABC. Staff recommend a non-Maine fishery ACT (annual catch target) of 25,400 mt with a Maine ACT of 524 mt for each year, 2018, 2019, and 2020; combined these are equal to the ABC=ACL. This results in a commercial quota of 24,190 mt (5.3 million bushels) and a quota for the Maine quahog fishery of 499 mt (100,000 Maine bushels). These are the same quotas that have been implemented since 2005.

Introduction

The Magnuson Stevens Act requires each Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to provide, among other things, ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for ABC, preventing overfishing, and maximum sustainable yield. The Council's catch limit recommendations for the upcoming fishing year(s) cannot exceed the ABC recommendation of the SSC. In this memorandum, information is presented to assist the development of measures for the Council to consider for the 2018-2020 fishery for ocean quahogs. The SSC will recommend an ABC for the ocean quahog fishery that addresses scientific uncertainty. Based on the SSC recommendations, the Council will make recommendations for ACLs, ACTs, and other implemented measures, and provide those recommendations to the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator.

Review of SSC Recommendations for Fishing Years 2014-2018

In May 2013, the SSC met to recommend ABCs for ocean quahog for fishing years 2014-2016. The SSC recommended the ocean quahog assessment be considered Level 4 (OFL cannot be specified given current state of knowledge) and noted, “that the survey and assessment model provides reliable information on the trends in stock biomass. As a result, given the information on catches, it is possible to develop indices of relative exploitation that likely provide reliable indications of the trend in exploitation. In contrast, the SSC deemed the OFL to be non-credible because few recruitment pulses have been observed in the survey, due to the extreme longevity of quahog, and it appears to be incompatible with the observed stock dynamics. The SSC also determined that the species has an “atypical” life history.” The SSC also, “deemed that it lacked credible scientific information on which to base a change in ABC.”

The SSC recommended setting an ABC equivalent to status quo (26,100 mt) for 2014-2016. It was noted that, “It is the SSC’s expectations that catches will remain relatively unchanged during this period. Moreover, the SSC wishes to recommend to the Council, in the strongest possible terms that a benchmark assessment be conducted that focuses on establishing credible biological reference points for a species that is extremely long lived and has a highly uncertain recruitment pattern.”

OFL ABC Biomass P Year (mt) (mt) (mt) (overfishing) 2014 26,100 2015 26,100 Not 2016 26,100 Not possible to provide Specified1 2017 26,100 2018 26,100

At that May 2013 meeting, the SSC stated that the principle sources of scientific uncertainty are: a) The fishing mortality rate reference point is deemed to be non-credible, both because of the species to which quahogs were compared were inappropriate and because the details of the calculations of spawning-per-recruit for any particular level were poorly justified. b) Forecasts over 40-50 years were provided to SSC. Although these forecasts were not used in the ABC determination, the SSC notes that forecasts over this duration should be continued. c) It is not known whether the low recent recruitments were reflective of a change in underlying stock productivity or a consequence of the life history of a long-lived species with highly uncertain recruitment. d) The nature of historical recruitments is poorly known. e) The SSC notes that it identified other substantial sources of uncertainty in its report in 2010.

At that May 2016 meeting, the SSC noted the principle sources of scientific uncertainty identified in May 2013 applied.

1 OFL cannot be specified given current state of knowledge.

Stock Status and Biological Reference Points

The ocean quahog stock assessment was peer reviewed and approved for management at SAW 63 (NEFSC 2017). A statistical catch at age and length model called SS3 was used and incorporated length structure, and was conducted as two assessment area pieces and then combined (NEFSC 2017). More detailed descriptions of the stock assessment are available in the SAW 63 documents (i.e., summary, report, SARC panel reviews) available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw.

New SAW 63 biological reference points were developed and revised from the prior SAW. The new reference points are ratios rather than absolute values. This approach allows for conclusions about the status of the ocean quahog stock despite substantial uncertainty in the actual biomass of the stock.

• SSB/SSBTarget = 1.25 is the new biomass target (or SSBMSY-Proxy), where SSBTarget is calculated as 0.5*SSB0, • SSB/SSBThreshold = 1 is the new minimum stock size threshold which defines overfished status, where SSBThreshold is calculated as 0.4*SSB0, • F/FThreshold = 1 is the new fishing mortality threshold (FMSY-Proxy) which defines overfishing, where FThreshold is 0.019.

The ocean quahog stock was not overfished in 2016 (NEFSC 2017). Based on recommended reference points for the whole stock which use spawning stock biomass (SSB), estimated SSB2016/SSBThreshold = 2.04 (probability overfished < 0.01). Overfishing did not occur in 2016 (NEFSC 2017). Based on new recommended reference points, estimated F2016/FThreshold = 0.207 (probability overfished < 0.01).

Basis for 2018-2020 ABC Recommendation

Staff recommend measures be developed for 3-years.

Projections from the SAW 63 report provided estimates of OFLs for 2018-2020 (NEFSC 2017). If the SSC considered ocean quahog to be an atypical stock and applied an SSC-modified OFL probability distribution and an assumed lognormal OFL distribution with a CV = 100%, the ABCs would be calculated as given here.

OFL ABC SSB/SSBThreshold P Year (mt) (mt) (ratio) (overfishing) 2018 61,647 44,729 2.0 35% 2019 63,642 46,177 2.0 35% 2020 63,116 45,795 2.0 35%

However, staff does not recommend using this approach to determine the OFL and ABC because the absolute estimates of spawning stock biomass, fishing mortality, and recruitment, are uncertain. The SARC 63 reviewers agreed, “that the focus on trends and ratios in the assessment, especially for assessing stock status, was appropriate. First, almost all of the information on biomass scale was from the priors on survey catchability and there is reason to believe that the depletion estimates of catchability (q) are not equivalent to catchability during the survey. Second, sensitivity and retrospective analyses show that the model’s estimates of trends in biomass and fishing mortality were much more stable than the estimates of absolute values.”

The assessment results are robust with respect to stock status, and suggest that the current catch levels are reasonable. Therefore, staff recommends setting the ABC based on maintaining catch levels that allow for the current quota levels for the Maine and non-Maine fisheries. Staff recommend an ABC = 25,924 mt each year for 2018-2020, which is the current commercial quota plus an additional 5% for incidental mortality. Since 2005, the fishery has landed between 56% and 67% of the total commercial quota, and hasn’t been close to landing the entire quota since 1998 (99% of quota landed). The industry has indicated they are market limited.

Staff Recommended

ABC SSB/SSBThreshold P Year OFL (mt) (mt) (ratio) (overfishing) 2018 25,9243 Not 4 Not possible to provide 2019 Specified2 25,924 2020 25,9244

Other Management Measures

Management uncertainty is comprised of two parts: uncertainty in the ability of managers to control catch and uncertainty in quantifying the true catch (i.e., estimation errors). Because this is an ITQ fishery, and ocean quahogs cannot be landed without cage tags, the implementation uncertainty is generally considered to be insignificant.

Catch is defined as the sum of landings, a 5% incidental mortality applied to landings, and discards (which are assumed to be 0). The ACL is equal to the ABC as prescribed in the FMP.

Staff recommend a non-Maine fishery ACT of 25,400 mt, and a Maine ACT of 524 mt. This results in a commercial quota of 24,190 mt (5.3 million bushels) and a quota for the Maine quahog fishery of 499 mt (100,000 Maine bushels). These are the same quotas that have been implemented since 2005.

2 OFL cannot be specified given current state of knowledge. 3 25,400 mt for non-Maine fishery and 524 mt for Maine fishery.

Figure 1. Ocean quahog catch limit structure.

References

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2017. 63rd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (63rd SAW) Assessment Summary Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 17-09; 28 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications.

Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Advisory Panel Fishery Performance Report (FPR) May 2017

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Surfclam and Ocean Quahog (SCOQ) Advisory Panel met on April 18, 2017 in-person in Philadelphia, PA to review updates to the surfclam and ocean quahog fishery information documents and revise the 2017 fishery performance report based on advisor perspectives on these fisheries.

Council Advisors: Thomas Alspach, Thomas Dameron, Peter Himckak, Samuel Martin, Joseph Myers, and David Wallace.

Public: Thomas Hoff.

Staff and Council Members: Jessica Coakley (Staff), Peter DeFur (SCOQ Committee Chair), and José Montañez (Staff).

Surfclam and Ocean Quahog

Quotas

The advisors would like to see status quo quotas for the upcoming fishing years; the stability in the quota translates into stability in the fishery and market.

Critical Issues (not in any priority order)

A critical current challenge to the surfclam and ocean quahog fishery is the New England Council's Omnibus Habitat Amendment which has the potential to ban bottom tending mobile gear (including clam dredges) from high energy sand environments, where the surfclam and ocean quahogs fishery is the only fishery being prosecuted. This action has the potential to impact the spatial distribution of the fishery, which will result in biological impacts as well as social and economic impacts. It also impacts the Mid-Atlantic Council's ability to manage its jurisdictional fishery for surfclam and ocean quahogs. The industry needs the support of the Council and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in addressing these concerns. The Mid-Atlantic Council needs to be more involved in habitat issues (and other issues) that are being proposed through the New England Council process.

The Council is developing an excessive shares amendment to adopt an excessive share regulation, potentially as a percent cap, on individual transferrable quotas (ITQ) ownership. This is a concern for industry because it could interfere with the efficient operation of industry plants and fleets, because of issues related to possible divestment or limitations on further consolidation because of the high volume needed to be lucrative in this fishery. The industry is also concerned because NMFS has indicated that this issue must be addressed before other pressing issues, such as the mixed clam harvesting issue, can be addressed through an amendment action.

The mixing of surfclams and ocean quahogs, because of increased co-occurrence, during harvesting operations is an issue from a regulatory perspective. Regulations do not allow flexibility or a minimal tolerance for mixing, and could result in violations and fines if a few of the other species are mixed in with the landings. The industry would like the Council to address this issue.

Market Issues

For surfclams and ocean quahogs, there are occasional landings in Ocean City, MD. It used to be significant but is no longer. Cape May and Wildwood, NJ are no longer significant. Most of the fleet is fishing out of Pt. Pleasant and Atlantic City, NJ, Oceanview, NY, Hyannis, MA (surfclams only), and New Bedford, MA. Vessels have been moving North and shifting effort. For more details, see the Surfclam and Quahog Fishery Information Documents.

For Maine quahogs, the quahogs have increased to sizes larger than the preferred small size for the market, which explains the decline in the catch rates and prices for Maine quahogs. This fishery could be due to a large set of clams that have grown out of marketable size, or the markets have changes.

Trucking costs and the distance needed to travel to harvest clams has put greater economy on scale and location. Fuel prices declined and stabilized in recent years giving some relief to industry participants.

The cost of complying with regulatory function has generally increased. The Cost Recovery process has been implemented and is a source on increased costs to the industry.

Vessels built after July 2013 and over 79 feet in length will need to be “classed,” and then subsequently kept in that class by inspections. This has created significant cost considerations that could be many times greater than what it construction cost prior to 2013 (2-3 times greater). Operations and inspection costs have also increased. This will result in vessels being kept in operation much longer than they should be.

The push to comply with global food safety requirements/initiatives and sustainability certification lead to additional costs. The global food safety ratings are being required by buyers, and if not satisfied could lead to buyers choosing not to use specific suppliers. The surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries are presently Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certificated for Federal surfclam and non-Maine ocean quahogs (see MSC website for details). Some of the larger clients of processors are demanding the MSC certification. Many of the processors are undergoing chain of custody audits to enable use of MSC logo.

The seafood imported into the US needs to be compliant with hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) but may not have to meet the third-party audits, which makes the domestic seafood more expensive. During a recertification process, it becomes more stringent than the initial certification ("keep raising the bar"); the facility could be found not compliant.

Increasing foreign imports and foreign competition puts a constraint on price, and the price cannot be increased to absorb all the additional costs and still be competitive in the market place. The

2 limit in demand for clams in the market is driven by many market factors including foreign seafood competition, other products in the marketplace (chicken, etc.), shifting toward healthier market products (e.g., clam sushi, etc. versus a fried or cream based product), and competition with other ingredients, as clams typically are not a center of the plate product. The overall retail market demand has been steady.

If just comparing landed value of surfclams and ocean quahogs to landed value of other fish seafood products, you would tend to underestimate the total economic value of that fishery. There is limited information on the multipliers for this industry. There is a large multiplier from the shucking plant to further processing. A study has been completed by SCeMFiS to examine these factors in more detail.

Environmental and Ecological Issues

Many species (including surfclams and ocean quahogs) are moving toward the poles or into deeper waters. This movement is temperature driven. Historically, about half the quota for quahogs used to be taken in the area off the Southern area. The surfclams are increasing in these Southern areas, possibly because of the faster growth rates for surfclams settling when compared to quahogs. Some of the Southern beds that used to be quahog beds now have surfclam recruitments, which is contributing to mixing of species during harvesting operations (see Critical Issues section).

The natural shift in the stocks distribution northwards has driven the movement of the fishery. For more details, see the Surfclam Fishery Information Document.

There are proposed spatial closures that are being considered to address bottom tending mobile gear impacts on habitat (see Critical Issues section). The spatial area for the fishery is small and the gear impacts are considered to be minimal and temporary in nature, due to the high energy sand environments.

Energy Issues

Advisors ask the Council to provide the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) all relevant data on surfclam and ocean quahog habitat and highlight the devastating effect a BP like disaster would have on our fishery if oil and gas leases were given out in the waters to the south [in Mid-Atlantic] that are now under consideration.

The clam advisors are concerned about the BOEM wind farm leasing process and potential impacts to historically important fishing areas. The industry wants opportunities to engage with developers on wind array siting relative to the most productive clam fishing beds. Siting is critical in terms of ensuring reasonable fishing access.

General Fishing Trends

The landings per unit effort (LPUE) is not indicative of stock abundance because it only reflects the fishing occurring in a few ten-minute squares (see Fishery Information Documents). The LPUE

3 has leveled off in recent years. The LPUE continues to be high on Georges Bank and there are 6 permitted vessels (4 currently fishing) in the open portion of the Georges Banks closed area.

Industry have voluntarily implemented closed areas for small surfclams to maximize use of the resource.

The industry was comfortable with a maximum OY of 3.4 million bushels for surfclams in terms of production. For ocean quahogs a maximum OY of 6 million bushels is reasonable in terms of production. Landings for quahogs have been below the OY range because of demand for quahogs.

Also of Interest

The clam fishery is the first fishery doing electronic reporting on a per vessel and trip basis (“e- Clams”) and this voluntary program is being used by nearly all vessels. It is still being evaluated and tested by NMFS, so both paper and electronic logs are being used and matched. The information should be available in more real time once implemented.

A new vessel Seawatcher II has just been launched (159 feet) and another processor is close to signing contracts to build another vessel.

Science and Research Initiatives

The Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCeMFiS) is an industry, university, and National Science Foundation (NSF) supported research center and has several completed, ongoing and recently funded research projects:

• SCeMFiS, with contributions from NMFS NEFSC, has completed research into data corrections for the breakage of clams in survey mode. This research was taken up because of the additional breakage since switching over to an industry vessel for surveys. If any size clam, large or small, experienced disproportionate breakage the age demographic of the population would not be accurately represented in the assessment. The final report is available on the SCeMFiS website: http://scemfis.org/. • SCeMFiS has completed the fabrication of a dredge for the collection of juvenile (pre- recruit size) ocean quahog and surfclams. The new Dameron-Kubiak dredge, to be used for selectivity sampling typically conducted during survey operations, has been tested by the NEFSC, NMFS, and found to improve selectivity experiments. The final report is available on the SCeMFiS website. • SCeMFiS has evaluated an area management strategy for the surfclam fishery as one of its projects. The final report is available on the SCeMFiS website. • SCeMFiS has funded ocean quahog recruitment and life history dynamics research. This research does not agree with the long-held belief that major quahog recruitment events appear to be separated by decades, that ocean quahogs are relatively unproductive with infrequent recruitment thus vulnerable to overfishing and potential contribution of recruitment to stock biomass and productivity is unknown. The Dameron – Kubiak

dredge has shown regular recruitment from the last 60 years down to 10 years of age where the dredge efficiently captures animals. (Recruitment of the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica): size and age structure in collections with the Dameron-Kubiak dredge in summer 2014. A final report to Industry Advisory Board (IAB) of the SCeMFiS project number: 2014-02- RM-VIMS is now on the SCeMFiS website. Ongoing studies of age structure from 60 – 180 years of age show regular recruitment with lower reports of very old animals probably due to natural mortality. Major recruitment events appear to be more by chance of larval survival and the fact that the stock is near carrying capacity. A publication has been developed and is available on the SCeMFiS website. • SCeMFiS has funded a surfclam and ocean quahog assessment team made up of Drs. Daphne Munroe, Eric Powell and Roger Mann. The team will attend meetings of the Invertebrate Subcommittee, SAW and MAFMC SSC and support the academic commitment to the ocean quahog benchmark assessments. The team will provide new information through the Invertebrate Subcommittee process on historical and recent recruitment to address SSC concerns. The SCeMFiS team will interface with and provide support to the NMFS assessment team during the assessment process with the goal of reducing uncertainty in the assessment process. • SCeMFiS has generated GIS layers for the Nantucket and Georges Bank Closed Areas in response to fishing restrictions by the creation of Habitat Management Areas in the regions. The surfclam fishery is seeking an exemption because the bottom type occupied by surfclams is primarily sand and so is not the type of bottom identified as important habitat for protection under the closure. Information on bottom type, however, is spotty relative to the scale of the closed areas and the locations potentially fishable using hydraulic dredges. The SCeMFiS team will analyze NMFS survey data and data from the fishing fleet operating in the NS/GB region to provide improved differentiation between habitat of concern and high-energy sands supporting surfclam production. These analyses will provide information on sub-regions in the HMAs supporting live market-size surfclams and regions of complex habitat as evidenced by the presence of un-towable bottom, location of reported dredge damage (by inference bottom with boulders or other obstructions), and locations where the survey dredge caught cobbles, rocks, and boulders. • At the April 27, 2017 SCeMFiS Industry Advisory Board meeting an ocean quahog project was funded to validate estimation procedures for an age-at-length key. This research will provide the basis for development of an age-dependent assessment model and a better understanding of the uncertainties and an improved ability to manage risk and achieve maximum sustainable yield from the ocean quahog biomass. • At the April 27, 2017 SCeMFiS Industry Advisory Board meeting a survey of surfclams southeast of Nantucket was funded. The surfclam fishery southeast of Nantucket remains outside of the area surveyed by NEFSC due to shallow depths, strong tides and bottom topography that makes operation of a large survey vessel intractable. The objective is to survey the active fishery area and provide information to the EFH discussion on surfclam stock status, habitat and economic impact to the local fleet. • At the April 27, 2017 SCeMFiS Industry Advisory Board meeting a project was funded to evaluate alternative approaches to risk-based catch advice. Methods for risk based catch advice will be reviewed to evaluate the alternative control rules for determining Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) for shellfish fisheries. Results can inform a subsequent management strategy evaluation tailored to Mid-Atlantic shellfish stocks.

• At the April 27, 2017 SCeMFiS Industry Advisory Board meeting an ocean quahog project was funded to support population modeling to interpret population age frequencies. The project will address the concerns that the present model tends to underestimate asymptotic abundance and that the present model cannot interpret New Jersey and Long Island ocean quahogs because growth rates vary over the time history of the population. This project will build on previous SCeMFiS funded work by Roger Mann and Sara Pace and will be supported by additional data provided by a S-K grant to Mann.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Atlantic Surfclam Information Document – April 2017

Note: The Atlantic surfclam stock was assessed and peer reviewed in July 2016. In addition to the stock assessment reports, the Northeast Fishery Science Center (Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017) has provided a data update that provides more recent fishery data available. The following summarizes some of the information from the stock assessment and data update, but not all; the full reports can be referenced for additional details and are available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18.

Management System

The Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic surfclam (Spisula solidissima) became effective in 1977. The FMP established the management unit as all Atlantic surfclams in the Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The FMP is managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as the Federal implementation and enforcement entity. The primary management tool is the specification of an annual quota, which is allocated to the holders of allocation shares (Individual Transferable Quotas - ITQs) at the beginning of each calendar year as specified in Amendment 8 to the FMP (1988). In addition to the Federal waters fishery, there is a small fishery prosecuted in the state waters of New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. The FMP, including subsequent Amendments and Frameworks, is available on the Council website at: http://www.mafmc.org.

Basic Biology

Information on Atlantic surfclam biology can be found in the document titled, “Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Surfclam, Spisula solidissima, Life History and Habitat Requirements” (Cargnelli et al. 1999). An electronic version is available at the following website: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh. Additional information on this species is available at the following website: http://www.fishwatch.gov. A summary of the basic biology is provided below.

Atlantic surfclams are distributed along the western North Atlantic Ocean from the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Hatteras. Surfclams occur in both the state territorial waters (≤ 3 mi from shore) and within the EEZ (3-200 miles from shore). Commercial concentrations are found primarily off New Jersey, the Delmarva Peninsula, and on Georges Bank. In the Mid-Atlantic region, surfclams are found from the intertidal zone to a depth of about 60 meters (197 ft), but densities are low at depths greater than 40 meters (131 ft).

The maximum size of surfclams is about 22.5 cm (8.9 inches) shell length, but surfclams larger than 20 cm (7.9 inches) are rare. The maximum age exceeds 30 years and surfclams of 15-20 years of age are common in many areas. Surfclams are capable of reproduction in their first year of life, although full maturity may not be reached until the second year. Eggs and sperm are shed directly into the water column. Recruitment to the bottom occurs after a planktonic larval period of about three weeks. 1

Atlantic surfclams are suspension feeders on phytoplankton, and use siphons which are extended above the surface of the substrate to pump in water. Predators of surfclams include certain species of crabs, sea stars, snails, and other crustaceans, as well as fish predators such cod and haddock.

Status of the Stock

The Atlantic surfclam stock assessment was peer reviewed and approved for use by management at Stock Assessment Workshop 61 (SAW 61; July 2016). A statistical catch at age and length model called Stock Synthesis was used. Reports on “Stock Status,” including assessment and reference point updates, SAW reports, and Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) panelist reports are available online at the NEFSC website: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw.

New reference points were developed for SAW 61 which are more justified scientifically. The new biomass reference points and measures of stock biomass are ratios rather than absolute biomass in weight. This approach allows for conclusions about the status of the surfclam stock despite substantial uncertainty in the actual biomass of the stock.

The Atlantic surfclam stock was not overfished in 2015 (Figure 1; NEFSC 2016). Based on recommended reference points for the whole stock which use spawning stock biomass (SSB), estimated SSB2015/SSBThreshold = 2.54 (probability overfished < 0.01). For surfclam, SSB is almost equal to total biomass. Trends expressed as the ratio SSB/SSBThreshold are more reliably estimated than SSB. For the whole stock, relative SSB (SSB/SSBThreshold) declined during the last fifteen years but is still above the target.

Overfishing did not occur in 2015 (Figure 2; NEFSC 2016). Based on new recommended reference points, estimated F2015/FThreshold = 0.295 (probability overfished < 0.01). Trends expressed as the ratio F/FThreshold are more reliably estimated than absolute fishing mortality rates. For the whole stock the trend in relative F (F/FThreshold) generally increased during the last fifteen years (despite recent declines in the south) but is still below the threshold.

Trends expressed as the ratio of recruitment (R) and mean recruitment in an unfished stock (R0) are more reliably estimated than absolute recruitment (Figure 3; NEFSC 2016). The trend in relative recruitment is measured using the ratio R/R0. Recruitment generally increased over the last decade, and in 2015 R/R0 was 0.57 in the north, 0.97 in the south, and 0.75 for the stock as a whole, indicating recruitment in 2015 was about 57%, 97% and 75% of the maximum long term average in the three regions. These recruitment patterns are probably normal in a surfclam stock at relatively high biomass and with low fishing mortality. Recruitment for the whole stock is measured as the geometric mean of R/R0 in the northern and southern areas and is more uncertain than estimates for either area.

Figure 1. Trends in relative spawning stock biomass (SSB/SSBThreshold) for the whole Atlantic surfclam stock during 1984-2015 (NEFSC 2016). The solid line shows estimates from this assessment with approximate 50, 80, 90, and 95th percentile lognormal confidence intervals in shades of grey. The green short-dash line at SSB/SSBThreshold = 2 is the management target. The red long-dash line at SSB/SSBThreshold = 1 is the level that defines an overfished stock.

Figure 2. Trends in relative fishing mortality F/FThreshold for the whole Atlantic surfclam stock 1984- 2015 (NEFSC 2016). The solid line shows estimates from this assessment with approximate 50, 80, 90, and 95th percentile lognormal confidence intervals in shades of grey. The solid line at F/FThreshold = 1 is the new fishing mortality threshold reference point.

Figure 3. Trends in relative recruitment (R/R0 for age zero recruits) for the whole Atlantic surfclam stock during 1984-2015 (NEFSC 2016). The solid line shows estimates from this assessment with approximate 50, 80, 90, and 95th percentile lognormal confidence intervals in shades of grey. The horizontal line is mean recruitment in an unfished stock.

Description of the Fishery and Market

The commercial fishery for surfclam in Federal waters is prosecuted with large vessels and hydraulic dredges. Surfclam landings and commercial quotas are given in Table 1 and Figure 4. The distribution of the fishery has changed over time, as shown in Figures 5-9, with a shift to increased landings in Southern New England and Georges Bank areas.

Figures 10-12 provide the distribution of surfclam landings, fishing effort, and landings per unit effort (LPUE) in “important” ten minute squares (TMSQ). Important means that a square ranked in the top 10 TMSQ for total landings during any five-year period (1980-1984, 1985-1989, 1990- 1994, 1995-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2016). Data for 2016 are incomplete and preliminary, and is included in the last time block.

Additional information of the length composition of port sampled surfclams, and their associated sample sizes by area, are available in the stock assessment reports and data update (Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017) at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18.

Table 1. Federal surfclam quotas and landings: 1998-2018. Landings for state waters are approximated as total landings - EEZ landings and may not accurately reflect state landings.

Total Landings EEZ EEZ EEZ Quota Year (mt meats; Landings Landingsa % Harvested ('000 bu) includes (mt meats) ('000 bu) state waters)

1998 24,506 18,234 2,365 2,565 92%

1999 26,677 19,577 2,539 2,565 99%

2000 31,093 19,788 2,566 2,565 100%

2001 31,237 22,017 2,855 2,850 100%

2002 32,645 24,006 3,113 3,135 99%

2003 31,526 24,994 3,241 3,250 100%

2004 26,463 24,197 3,138 3,400 92%

2005 22,734 21,163 2,744 3,400 81%

2006 25,779 23,573 3,057 3,400 90%

2007 27,091 24,915 3,231 3,400 95%

2008 25,038 22,510 2,919 3,400 86%

2009 22,396 20,065 2,602 3,400 77% 2010 19,941 17,984 2,332 3,400 69% 2011b 20,044 18,839 2,443 3,400 72% 2012b 18,393 18,054 2,341 3,400 69% 2013b 18,924 18,551 2,406 3,400 71% 2014c 18,834 18,227 2,364 3,400 70% 2015c 18,478 18,154 2,354 3,400 69% 2016c 14,123e 17,885e 2,319e 3,400 68%e 2017d NA NA NA 3,400 NA 2018d NA NA NA 3,400 NA a 1 surfclam bushel is approximately 17 lb. b The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended an overfishing limit (OFL) for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 of 129,300 mt, 114,00 mt, 102,300 mt, and 93,400 mt, respectively, and an acceptable biological catch (ABC) of 96,600 mt (2011-2013). c For 2014-2016, the SSC recommended an OFL of 81,150 mt, 75,178 mt, 71,512 mt, respectively, and an acceptable biological catch (ABC) of 60,313 mt, 51,804 mt, and 48,197 mt, respectively. d For 2017-2018, the SSC recommended an OFL of 69,925 mt and 70,102 mt, respectively, and an acceptable biological catch (ABC) of 44,469 mt and 45,524 mt, respectively. e Preliminary, incomplete 2016 data. Source: NMFS clam vessel logbook reports. Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017.

Port and Community Description

When Amendment 13 to the FMP was developed, the Council hired Dr. Bonnie McCay and her associates at Rutgers University to describe the ports and communities that are associated with the surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. The researchers did an extensive job characterizing the three main fisheries (non-Maine ocean quahog, Maine ocean quahog, and surfclam). The McCay team characterizations of the ports and communities are based on government census and labor statistics and on observations and interviews carried out during the late 1990s and in the fall of 2001. The description of the fishing gear, areas fished, etc. are fully described in Amendment 13. Communities from Maine to Virginia are involved in the harvesting and processing of surfclams and ocean quahogs. Ports in New Jersey and Massachusetts handle the most volume and value, particularly Atlantic City and Point Pleasant, New Jersey, and New Bedford, Massachusetts. There are also landings in Ocean City, Maryland, and the Jonesport and Beals Island areas of Maine.

Additional information on "Community Profiles for the Northeast US Fisheries" can be found at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/socialsci/communityProfiles.html.

Figure 4. Surfclam landings (total and EEZ) during 1965-2015, and preliminary 2016. Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017.

Figure 5. Surfclam stock assessment regions and NEFSC shellfish survey strata. The shaded strata are where surfclams are found. Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017.

Figure 6. Surfclam landings from the US EEZ during 1979-2015, and preliminary 2016, by stock assessment region. Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017.

Figure 7. Nominal landings per unit effort (LPUE in bushels landed per hour fished) for surfclam, by region, during 1981-2015, and preliminary 2016. LPUE is total landings in bushels divided by total fishing effort. Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017.

Figure 8. Average surfclam landings by ten-minute squares over time, 1981-2000. Only squares where more the 5 kilo bushels were caught are shown. Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017.

Figure 9. Average surfclam landings by ten-minute squares over time, 2001-2015, and preliminary 2016. Only squares where more the 5 kilo bushels were caught are shown. Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017.

Figure 10. Annual surfclam landings in "important" ten minute squares (TNMS) during 1980-2016 based on logbook data. Important means that a square ranked in the top 10 TNMS for total landings during any five-year period (1980-1984, 1985- 1989, ..., 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2016). Data for 2016 are incomplete and preliminary. To protect the privacy of individual firms, data are not plotted if the number of vessels is less than 2. Instead, a "^" is shown on the x-axis to indicate where data are missing. The solid dark line is a spline intended to show trends. The spline was fit too all available data, including data not plotted. Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017. 11

Figure 11. Annual surfclam effort (hours y-1) in "important" ten minute squares (TNMS) during 1980-2016 based on logbook data. Important means that a square ranked in the top 10 TNMS for total landings during any five-year period (1980-1984, 1985-1989, ..., 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2010- 2016). Data for 2016 are incomplete and preliminary. To protect the privacy of individual firms, data are not plotted if the number of vessels is less than 2. Instead, a "^" is shown on the x-axis to indicate where data are missing. The solid dark line is a spline intended to show trends. The spline was fit too all available data, including data not plotted. Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017. 12

Figure 12. Annual surfclam LPUE (bu h-1) in "important" ten minute squares (TNMS) during 1980-2016 based on logbook data. Important means that a square ranked in the top 10 TNMS for total landings during any five-year period (1980-1984, 1985-1989, ..., 2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2010- 2016). Data for 2016 are incomplete and preliminary. To protect the privacy of individual firms, data are not plotted if the number of vessels is less than 2. Instead, a "^" is shown on the x-axis to indicate where data are missing. The solid dark line is a spline intended to show trends. The spline was fit too all available data, including data not plotted. Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017.

Federal Fleet Profile

The total number of vessels participating in the surfclam fishery has remained relatively stable from 2007 through 2016, and has ranged from 32 vessels in 2008 to 42 vessels in 2012 (Table 2). The average ex-vessel price of surflcams reported by processors was $13.25 in 2016, slightly higher than the $12.61 per bushel seen in 2015. The total ex-vessel value of the 2016 federal harvest was approximately $31 million, slightly higher than $30 million in 2015. Industry has described several factors that have affected their industry. Major users of clam meats have reduced their purchases from industry and stopped advertising products like clam chowder in the media. Industry members reported that imported meat from Canada and Vietnam contributed to an oversupply of clam meats in the marketplace. The costs to vessels harvesting clams has increased due to the rising costs of insurance; industry has also indicated price of diesel fuel in conjunction with distance traveled to fish is a big factor determining trip cost. Trips harvesting surfclams have increased in length as catch rates have declined. The distribution of LPUE in bushels per hour over time is shown in Figures 7 and 12-14.

Processing Sector

Even though this document describes the surfclam fishery, the information presented in this section regarding the processing sector is for both surfclams and ocean quahogs as some of these facilities purchase/process both species. In 2016, there were 9 companies reporting purchases of surfclams and/or ocean quahogs from the industrial fisheries outside of Maine. They were distributed by state as indicated in Table 3. Employment data for these specific firms are not available. In 2016, these companies bought approximately $31 million worth of surfclam and $22 million worth of ocean quahogs.

Area Closures

Areas can be closed to surfclam fishing if the abundance of small clams in an area meets certain threshold criteria. This small surfclam closure provision was applied during the 1980's with three area closures (off Atlantic City, NJ, Ocean City, MD, and Chincoteague, VA), with the last of the three areas reopening in 1991. Industry has indicated that in 2015 they implemented two large, voluntary closures off Ocean City, MD and Point Pleasant, NJ (250 square miles) to protect small surfclams and to maximize their use of the resource. Details on the location of these closures have not been provided by industry and are unknown.

Fishing areas can also be closed for public health related issues due to environmental degradation or the toxins that cause parayltic shellfish poisoning (PSP). PSP is a public health concern for surfclams. PSP is caused by saxitoxins, produced by the alga Alexandrium fundyense (red tide). Surfclams on Georges Bank were not fished from 1990 to 2008 due to the risk of PSP. There was light fishing on Georges Bank in years 2009-2011 under an exempted fishing permit and LPUE in that area was substantially higher (5-7 times higher) than in other traditional fishing grounds. The Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office reopened a portion of Georges Bank to the harvest of surfclam and ocean quahogs beginning January 1, 2013 (77 FR 75057, December 19, 2012) under its authority in 50 CFR 648.76. Harvesting vessels must adhere to the adopted testing protocol from the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. 14

Figure 13. Average surfclam landings per unit effort (LPUE; bu. h-1) by ten-minute squares over time, 1981-2000. Only squares where more the 5 kilo bushels were caught are shown. Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017.

Figure 14. Average surfclam landings per unit effort (LPUE; bu. h-1) by ten-minute squares over time, 2001-2015 and preliminary 2016. Only squares where more the 5 kilo bushels were caught are shown. Source: Dan Hennen Pers. Comm., NEFSC 2017.

Table 2. Federal fleet profile, 2007 through 2016.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Harvesting BOTH surfclams & ocean 9 8 8 12 12 13 7 7 6 8 quahogs

Harvesting only 24 24 28 22 24 29 33 31 31 30 surfclams

Total Vessels 33 32 36 34 36 42 40 38 37 38 Source: NMFS clam vessel logbooks.

Table 3. Companies that reported buying surfclams and ocean quahogs (from NMFS surfclam/ocean quahog dealer report database) in 2016.

Number of MA Other Companies 7 2

References

Cargnelli, L., S. Griesbach, D. Packer, and E. Weissberger. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Surfclam, Spisula solidissima, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-142.

Hennen, Dan. Personal Communication. March 15, 2017. NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Ocean Quahog Information Document - April 2017

Note: The ocean quahog stock was assessed and peer reviewed in February 2017. The following summarizes some of the information from the stock assessment, but not all; the full assessment reports can be referenced for additional details and are available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18.

Management System

The Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) became effective in 1977. The FMP established the management unit as all ocean quahog in the Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The FMP is managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), in conjunction with NMFS as the Federal implementation and enforcement entity. The primary management tool is the specification of an annual quota, which is allocated to the holders of allocation shares (Individual Transferable Quotas - ITQs) at the beginning of each calendar year as specified in Amendment 8 to the FMP (1988). In addition to the Federal waters fishery, there is a small fishery prosecuted in the state waters of Maine. The FMP, including subsequent Amendments and Frameworks, is available on the Council website at: http://www.mafmc.org.

Basic Biology

Information on ocean quahog biology can be found in the document titled, “Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Ocean Quahog, Arctica islandica, Life History and Habitat Requirements” (Cargnelli et al. 1999). An electronic version is available at the following website: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh. Additional information on this species is available at the following website: http://www.fishwatch.gov. A summary of the basic biology is provided below.

The ocean quahog is a bivalve mollusk distributed in temperate and boreal waters on both sides of the North Atlantic Ocean. In the Northeast Atlantic, quahogs occur from Newfoundland to Cape Hatteras from depths of about 8 to 400 meters. Ocean quahogs further north occur closer to shore. The US stock resource is almost entirely within the EEZ (3-200 miles from shore), outside of state waters, and at depths between 20 and 80 meters. However, in the northern range, ocean quahogs inhabit waters closer to shore, such that the state of Maine has a small commercial fishery which includes beds within the state's territorial sea (< 3 miles). Ocean quahogs burrow in a variety of substrates and are often associated with fine sand.

Ocean quahogs are one of the longest-living, slowest growing marine bivalves in the world. Under normal circumstances, they live to more than 100 years old. Ocean quahogs have been aged well in excess of 200 years. Growth tends to slow after age 20, which corresponds to the size currently harvested by the industry (approximately 3 inches). Size and age at sexual maturity are variable and poorly known. Studies in Icelandic waters indicate that 10, 50, and 90 percent of female ocean quahogs were sexually mature at 40, 64 and 88 mm (1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 inches) shell length or approximately 2, 19 and 61 years of age. Spawning occurs over a protracted interval 1

from summer through autumn. Free-floating larvae may drift far from their spawning location because they develop slowly and are planktonic for more than 30 days before settling. Major recruitment events appear to be separated by periods of decades.

Based on their growth, longevity and recruitment patterns, ocean quahogs are relatively unproductive and able to support only low levels of fishing. The current resource consists of individuals that accumulated over many decades.

Ocean quahogs are suspension feeders on phytoplankton, and use siphons which are extended above the surface of the substrate to pump in water. Predators of ocean quahogs include certain species of crabs, sea stars, and other crustaceans, as well as fish species such as sculpins, ocean pout, cod, and haddock.

Status of the Stock

The ocean quahog stock assessment was peer reviewed and approved for use by management at Stock Assessment Workshop 61 (SAW 63; February 2017). A statistical catch at length model called Stock Synthesis was used. Reports on “Stock Status,” including assessment and reference point updates, SAW reports, and Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) panelist reports are available online at the NEFSC website: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw.

The ocean quahog was not overfished in 2016 (Figure 1; NEFSC 2017). Based on SAW/SARC- 63 reference points from the 2017 assessment for the stock, estimated SSB2016/SSBThreshold = 2.04 (probability overfished < 0.01), where SSB is spawning stock biomass.

Overfishing did not occur in 2016 (Figure 2; NEFSC 2017). Based on SAW/SARC-63 reference points, estimated F2016/FThreshold = 0.246 (probability overfishing < 0.01), where F is fishing mortality rate.

There is little information about annual recruitment variability for ocean quahog. Model estimated recruitment has been stable and near unfished recruitment levels since 2000 (NEFSC 2017).

Figure 1. Trends in relative spawning stock biomass (SSB/SSBThreshold) for the whole ocean quahog stock during 1982-2016 (NEFSC 2017). The solid line shows estimates from this assessment with approximate 50, 80, 90, and 95th percentile lognormal confidence intervals in shades of grey. The green short-dash line at SSB/SSBThreshold = 1.25 is the management target. The red long-dash line at SSB/SSBThreshold = 1 is the level that defines an overfished stock.

Figure 2. Trends in relative fishing mortality F/FThreshold for ocean quahog stock 1982-2016 (NEFSC 2017). The solid line shows estimates from this assessment with approximate 50, 80, 90, and 95th percentile lognormal confidence intervals in shades of grey. The solid line at F/FThreshold = 1 is the new fishing mortality threshold reference point. 3

Description of the Fishery and Market

The commercial fishery for ocean quahog in Federal waters is prosecuted with large vessels and hydraulic dredges, and is very different from the small Maine fishery prosecuted with small vessels (35-45 ft) targeting quahogs for the local fresh, half shell market. Ocean quahog landings and commercial quotas are given below in Table 1 and Figure 3.

Table 1. Federal Ocean Quahog Quotas and Landings: 1998 - 2018. EEZ EEZ EEZ Quota Year Landings Landingsa % Harvested ('000 bu) (mt meats) ('000 bu)

1998 17,897 3,946 4,000 99%

1999 17,381 3,832 4,500 85%

2000 14,723 3,246 4,500 72%

2001 17,069 3,763 4,500 84%

2002 17,947 3,957 4,500 88%

2003 18,815 4,148 4,500 92%

2004 17,655 3,892 5,000 78%

2005 13,635 3,006 5,333 56%

2006 14,273 3,147 5,333 59%

2007 15,564 3,431 5,333 64%

2008 15,727 3,467 5,333 65%

2009 15,710 3,463 5,333 65% 2010 16,289 3,591 5,333 67% 2011b 14,332 3,160 5,333 59% 2012b 15,864 3,497 5,333 66% 2013b 14,721 3,245 5,333 61% 2014c 14,498 3,196 5,333 60% 2015c 13,639 3,007 5,333 56% 2016c 9,542e 2,104e 5,333 39% e 2017d NA NA 5,333 NA 2018d NA NA 5,333 NA a 1 ocean quahog bushel is approximately 10 lb. b The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended an overfishing limit (OFL) for 2011-2013 = 34,800 mt, and an acceptable biological catch (ABC) = 26,100 mt. c For 2014-2016, the SSC did not recommend an OFL. They recommended a constant ABC of 26,100 mt, for 2014-2016. d For 2017-2018, the SSC did not recommend an OFL. They recommended a constant ABC of 26,100 mt, for 2017-2018. e Preliminary 2016 data. Source: NMFS clam vessel logbook reports (NEFSC 2017).

The distribution of the fishery has changed over time, with the bulk of the fishery from 1980- 1990 being prosecuted off the Delmarva, to now being prosecuted in more Northern areas (Figures 3). Surfclams on Georges Bank were not fished from 1990 to 2008 due to the risk of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP).1

Figure 3. Landings for ocean quahogs by region during 1980-2016 (NEFSC 2017). Regions from north to south are abbreviated with MNE for Maine, GBK for Georges Bank, SNE for Southern New England, LI for Long Island, NJ for New Jersey, DMV for Delmarva, and SVA for Southern Virginia.

Port and Community Description

1 See Area Closure section for additional information.

quahogs, which are hand shucked or steam-shucked and processed into fried, canned, and frozen products.

Additional information on "Community Profiles for the Northeast US Fisheries" can be found at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/socialsci/communityProfiles.html.

Federal Fleet Profile

The total number of vessels participating in the ocean quahog fisheries outside the state of Maine has experienced a downward trend as the fisheries moved beyond a market crisis in 2005 where major users of clam meats reduced their purchases from industry and stopped advertising products like clam chowder in the media. Industry members reported that imported meat from Canada and Vietnam contributed to an oversupply of clam meats in the marketplace. The costs to vessels harvesting clams has increased due to the rising costs of insurance; industry has also indicated price of diesel fuel in conjunction with distance traveled to fish is a big factor determining trip cost. Trips harvesting quahogs have also increased in length as catch rates have declined steadily. The 30 or so vessels that reported landings during 2004 and 2005 has consolidated over time into fewer vessels. The Maine ocean quahog fleet numbers started to decline when fuel prices soared in mid-2008, and a decline in the availability of smaller clams consistent with the market demand (i.e., half-shell market), and totaled 8 vessels in 2016 (Table 2).

Table 2. Federal Fleet Profile, 2007 through 2016.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non-Maine Vessels Harvesting BOTH 9 8 8 12 12 13 7 7 6 8 surfclams & ocean quahogs Non-Maine Vessels Harvesting only ocean 8 10 7 9 7 6 9 9 10 9 quahogs Total Non-Maine 17 18 15 21 19 19 16 16 16 17 Vessels Maine Ocean Quahog 24 22 19 15 13 12 11 9 8 8 Vessels Source: NMFS clam vessel logbooks.

The average ex-vessel price of non-Maine ocean quahogs reported by processors in 2016 was $7.17 per bushel, a few cents higer than the 2015 price ($7.12 per bushel). In 2016, about 3.0 million bushels of non-Maine ocean quahog, almost identical to 2015. The total ex-vessel value of the 2016 federal harvest outside of Maine was approximately $22 million, slightly higher than the $21 million in 2015.

In 2016, the Maine ocean quahog fleet harvested a total of 36,760 Maine bushels, a 68% decrease from the 121,373 bushels harvested in 2006, and an 12% decrease from the prior year (2015; 41,611 bushels). Average prices for Maine ocean quahogs have declined substantially over the past 10 years. In 2003, there were very few trips that sold for less than $37.00 per Maine bushel, and the mean price was $40.66. Prices have since been lower; industry has indicated it was the result of aggressive price cutting. In 2016, the mean price was $31.90 per Maine bushel. The value of the 2016 harvest reported by the purchasing dealers totaled $1.18 million, a decrease of 76% when compared to 2003.

Processing Sector

Even though this document describes the ocean quahog fisheries, the information presented in this section regarding the processing sector is for both surfclams and ocean quahogs as some of these facilities purchase/process both species. In 2016, there were 9 companies reporting purchases of surfclams and/or ocean quahogs from the industrial fisheries outside of Maine. They were distributed by state as indicated in Table 3. Employment data for these specific firms are not available. In 2016, these companies bought approximately $22 million worth of ocean quahogs and $31 million worth of surfclams.

Area Closures

Fishing areas can also be closed for public health related issues due to environmental degradation or the toxins that cause PSP. PSP is a public health concern for surfclams. PSP is caused by saxitoxins, produced by the alga Alexandrium fundyense (red tide). Surfclams on Georges Bank were not fished from 1990 to 2008 due to the risk of PSP. There was light fishing on Georges Bank in years 2009-2011 under an exempted fishing permit. The Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office reopened a portion of Georges Bank to the harvest of surfclams and ocean quahogs beginning January 1, 2013 (77 FR 75057, December 19, 2012) under its authority in 50 CFR 648.76. Harvesting vessels must adhere to the adopted testing protocol from the National Shellfish Sanitation Program.

Table 3. Companies that reported buying ocean quahogs and surfclams (from NMFS surfclam/ocean quahog dealer report database) in 2016.

Number of MA Other Companies 7 2

References

Cargnelli, L., S. Griesbach, D. Packer, and E. Weissberger. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Ocean Quahog, Arctica islandica, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-148.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 16-13

61st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (61st SAW)

Assessment Summary Report

by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 16-13

61st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (61st SAW) Assessment Summary Report

by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center

NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts November 2016 Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Documents

This series is a secondary scientificseries designed to assure the long-term documentation and to enable the timely transmission of research results by Center and/or non-Center researchers, where such results bear upon the research mission of the Center (see the outside back cover for the mission statement). These documents receive internal scientific review, and most receive copy editing. The National Marine Fisheries Service does not endorse any proprietary material, process, or product mentioned in these documents. All documents issued in this series since April 2001, and several documents issued prior to that date, have been copublished in both paper and electronic versions. To access the electronic version of a document in this series, go to http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/. The electronic version is available in PDF format to permit printing of a paper copy directly from the Internet. If you do not have Internet access, or if a desired document is one of the pre-April 2001 documents available only in the paper version, you can obtain a paper copy by contacting the senior Center author of the desired document. Refer to the title page of the document for the senior Center author’s name and mailing address. If there is no Center author, or if there is corporate (i.e., non-individualized) authorship, then contact the Center’s Woods Hole Labora- tory Library (166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026). Information Quality Act Compliance: In accordance with section 515 of Public Law 106- 554, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center completed both technical and policy reviews for this report. These predissemination reviews are on file at the NEFSC Editorial Offic This document may be cited as:

63rd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (63rd SAW)

Assessment Summary Report

by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 17-09

63rd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (63rd SAW) Assessment Summary Report

by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center

NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts March 2017 Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Documents

This series is a secondary scientific seriesdesigned to assure the long-term documentation and to enable the timely transmission of research results by Center and/or non-Center researchers, where such results bear upon the research mission of the Center (see the outside back cover for the mission statement). These documents receive internal scientific review, and most receive copy editing. The National Marine Fisheries Service does not endorse any proprietary material, process, or product mentioned in these documents. All documents issued in this series since April 2001, and several documents issued prior to that date, have been published electronically. To access the electronic version of a document in this series, go to http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/. The electronic version is available in PDF format to permit printing of a paper copy directly from the Internet. If you do not have Internet access, please contact the senior Center author of the desired document. Refer to the title page of the document for the senior Center author’s name and mailing address. If there is no Center author, or if there is corporate (i.e., non- individualized) authorship, then contact the Center’s Woods Hole Laboratory Library (166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026). Information Quality Act Compliance: In accordance with section 515 of Public Law 106-554, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center completed both technical and policy reviews for this report. These predissemination reviews are on file at the NEFSC Editorial Office. This document may be cited as:

TU/PSUIFBTU3FHJPOBM 4UPDL"TTFTTNFOU8PSLTIPQ TU4"8

"TTFTTNFOU4VNNBSZ3FQPSU

by WKH1RUWKHDVW)LVKHULHV6FLHQFH&HQWHU Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 1

VW1RUWKHDVW5HJLRQDO 6WRFN$VVHVVPHQW:RUNVKRS VW6$: $VVHVVPHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUW

E\WKH1RUWKHDVW)LVKHULHV6FLHQFH&HQWHU

NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts 1RYHPEHU201 Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Documents

7KLVVHULHVLVDVHFRQGDU\VFLHQWL¿FVHULHVdesigned to assure the long-term documentation and to enable the timely transmission of research results by Center and/or non-Center researchers, where such results bear upon the research mission of the Center (see the outside back cover for WKHPLVVLRQVWDWHPHQW 7KHVHGRFXPHQWVUHFHLYHLQWHUQDOVFLHQWL¿FUHYLHZDQGPRVWUHFHLYH copy editing. The National Marine Fisheries Service does not endorse any proprietary material, process, or product mentioned in these documents. All documents issued in this series since April 2001, and several documents issued prior to that date, have been copublished in both paper and electronic versions. To access the electronic version of a document in this series, go to http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/. The electronic version is available in PDF format to permit printing of a paper copy directly from the Internet. If you do not have Internet access, or if a desired document is one of the pre-April 2001 documents available only in the paper version, you can obtain a paper copy by contacting the senior Center author of the desired document. Refer to the title page of the document for the senior Center author’s name and mailing address. If there is no Center author, or if there is corporate (i.e., non-individualized) authorship, then contact the Center’s Woods Hole Labora- tory Library (166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026). Information Quality Act Compliance: In accordance with section 515 of Public Law 106- 554, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center completed both technical and policy reviews for WKLVUHSRUW7KHVHSUHGLVVHPLQDWLRQUHYLHZVDUHRQ¿OHDWWKH1()6&(GLWRULDO2I¿FH This document may be cited as:

1RUWKHDVW )LVKHULHV 6FLHQFH &HQWHU VW 1RUWKHDVW 5HJLRQDO 6WRFN $VVHVVPHQW :RUNVKRS VW 6$: $VVHVVPHQW 6XPPDU\ 5HSRUW US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 1; p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/ Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Outcome of the Stock Assessment Review Meeting ...... 2 Glossary ...... 3 A. SURFCLAM ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR 2015 ...... 12 Status of the Stock ...... 12 Projections...... 12 Catches ...... 12 Stock Distribution ...... 13 Landings ...... 13 Data and Assessment ...... 13 Spawning Stock Biomass ...... 13 Fishing Mortality ...... 14 Recruitment ...... 14 Biological Reference Points ...... 14 Special Comments ...... 15 References ...... 15 Tables ...... 16 Figures...... 20 Appendix: Terms of Reference ...... 24

61st SAW ii Assessment Summary Report SAW-61 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT

Introduction The 61st SAW Assessment Summary Report contains summary and detailed technical information on one stock assessment reviewed during July 19-21, 2016 at the Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) by the 61st Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC-61): Atlantic surfclam (Spisula solidissima). The SARC-61 consisted of three external, independent reviewers appointed by the Center for Independent Experts [CIE], and an external SARC chairman from the MAFMC SSC. The SARC evaluated whether each Term of Reference (listed in the Appendix) was completed successfully based on whether the work provided a scientifically credible basis for developing fishery management advice. The reviewers’ reports for SAW/SARC-61 are available at website: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/saw/ under the heading “SARC 61 Panelist Reports.” An important aspect of any assessment is the determination of current stock status. The status of the stock relates to both the rate of removal of fish from the population – the exploitation rate – and the current stock size. The exploitation rate is the proportion of the stock alive at the beginning of the year that is caught during the year. When that proportion exceeds the amount specified in an overfishing definition, overfishing is occurring. Fishery removal rates are usually expressed in terms of the instantaneous fishing mortality rate, F, and the maximum removal rate is denoted as FTHRESHOLD. Another important factor for classifying the status of a resource is the current stock level, for example, spawning stock biomass (SSB) or total stock biomass (TSB). Overfishing definitions, therefore, characteristically include specification of a minimum biomass threshold as well as a maximum fishing threshold. If the biomass of a stock falls below the biomass threshold (BTHRESHOLD) the stock is in an overfished condition. The Sustainable Fisheries Act mandates that a stock rebuilding plan be developed should this situation arise. As there are two dimensions to stock status – the rate of removal and the biomass level – it is possible that a stock not currently subject to overfishing in terms of exploitation rates is in an overfished condition; that is, has a biomass level less than the threshold level. This may be due to heavy exploitation in the past, or a result of other factors such as unfavorable environmental conditions. In this case, future recruitment to the stock is very important and the probability of improvement may increase greatly by increasing the stock size. Conversely, fishing down a stock that is at a high biomass level should generally increase the long-term sustainable yield. Stocks under federal jurisdiction are managed on the basis of maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The biomass that produces this yield is called BMSY and the fishing mortality rate that produces MSY is called FMSY. Given this, federally managed stocks under review are classified with respect to current overfishing definitions. A stock is overfished if its current biomass is below BTHRESHOLD and overfishing is occurring if current F is greater than FTHRESHOLD. The table below depicts status criteria.

61st SAW 1 Assessment Summary Report BIOMASS

B BMSY Overfished, overfishing is Not overfished, overfishing is F = F <= occurring; reduce F, adopt and occurring; reduce F, rebuild TARGET F>F F THRESHOLD follow rebuilding plan stock MSY EXPLOITATION Overfished, overfishing is not RATE F

Fisheries management may take into account scientific and management uncertainty, and overfishing guidelines often include a control rule in the overfishing definition. Generically, the control rules suggest actions at various levels of stock biomass and incorporate an assessment of risk, in that F targets are set so as to avoid exceeding F thresholds.

Outcome of Stock Assessment Review Meeting Text in this section is based on SARC-61 Review Panel reports (available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/saw/ under the heading “SARC-61 Panelist Reports”).

The Atlantic surfclam stock assessment was accepted by the SARC-61 panel. In 2015 overfishing was not occurring and the stock was not overfished. Population projections suggest that the population is unlikely to become overfished and that overfishing is unlikely to occur by 2025. Nine of the ten assessment Terms of Reference were met. The assessment was based on the Stock Synthesis III model (SS3). Commercial LPUE values show mostly declining trends, appearing to contradict increasing survey trends. Stock depletion may be real at a local level, but the limited coverage of the fishery suggests that the LPUE trends are not indicative of the stock as a whole. The Panel endorsed the redefinition of the BRPs based on relative stock status. The new BRPs can be used to provide catch limit advice. The Panel noted that the fishing mortality threshold calculation uses an estimate of FMSY. This value was derived from a simulation study, the details of which were not discussed by the Panel at the review meeting. The assessment did not determine whether the surfclam resource should be considered as one unit stock throughout the species’ range in US federal waters or if regional stocks should be recognized. However, not meeting this ToR did not impact the overall acceptability of the assessment. Due to the importance of the clam survey in this assessment, the Panel recommends caution in making any changes to the gear and survey vessel.

61st SAW 2 Assessment Summary Report Glossary

ADAPT. A commonly used form of population. ASPM is similar to the NOAA computer program used to optimally fit a Fishery Toolbox applications ASAP (Age Virtual Population Assessment (VPA) to Structured Assessment Program) and SS2 abundance data. (Stock Synthesis 2). ASAP. The Age Structured Assessment Availability. Refers to the distribution of Program is an age-structured model that uses fish of different ages or sizes relative to that forward computations assuming separability taken in the fishery. of fishing mortality into year and age Biological reference points. Specific values components to estimate population sizes for the variables that describe the state of a given observed catches, catch-at-age, and fishery system which are used to evaluate its indices of abundance. Discards can be status. Reference points are most often treated explicitly. The separability specified in terms of fishing mortality rate assumption is relaxed by allowing for fleet- and/or spawning stock biomass. The specific computations and by allowing the reference points may indicate 1) a desired selectivity at age to change smoothly over state of the fishery, such as a fishing time or in blocks of years. The software can mortality rate that will achieve a high level also allow the catchability associated with of sustainable yield, or 2) a state of the each abundance index to vary smoothly with fishery that should be avoided, such as a time. The problem’s dimensions (number of high fishing mortality rate which risks a ages, years, fleets and abundance indices) stock collapse and long-term loss of are defined at input and limited by hardware potential yield. The former type of reference only. The input is arranged assuming data is points are referred to as “target reference available for most years, but missing years points” and the latter are referred to as “limit are allowed. The model currently does not reference points” or “thresholds.” Some allow use of length data nor indices of common examples of reference points are survival rates. Diagnostics include index F , F , and F , which are defined later fits, residuals in catch and catch-at-age, and 0.1 MAX MSY in this glossary. effective sample size calculations. Weights are input for different components of the B0. Virgin stock biomass, i.e., the long-term objective function and allow for relatively average biomass value expected in the simple age-structured production model type absence of fishing mortality. models up to fully parameterized models. BMSY. Long-term average biomass that ASPM. Age-structured production models, would be achieved if fishing at a constant also known as statistical catch-at-age fishing mortality rate equal to FMSY. (SCAA) models, are a technique of stock Biomass Dynamics Model. A simple stock assessment that integrate fishery catch and assessment model that tracks changes in fishery-independent sampling information. stock using assumptions about growth and The procedures are flexible, allowing for can be tuned to abundance data such as uncertainty in the absolute magnitudes of commercial catch rates, research survey catches as part of the estimation. Unlike trends or biomass estimates. virtual population analysis (VPA) that tracks the cumulative catches of various year Catchability. Proportion of the stock classes as they age, ASPM is a forward removed by one unit of effective fishing projection simulation of the exploited effort (typically age-specific due to

61st SAW 3 Assessment Summary Report differences in selectivity and availability by present. The decline is defined by survival -z age). curves such as: Nt+1 = Nte

Control Rule. Describes a plan for pre- where Nt is the number of animals in the agreed management actions as a function of population at time t and Nt+1 is the number variables related to the status of the stock. present in the next time period; Z is the total For example, a control rule can specify how instantaneous mortality rate which can be F or yield should vary with biomass. In the separated into deaths due to fishing (fishing National Standard Guidelines (NSG), the mortality or F) and deaths due to all other “MSY control rule” is used to determine the causes (natural mortality or M) and e is the limit fishing mortality, or Maximum Fishing base of the natural logarithm (2.71828). To Mortality Threshold (MFMT). Control rules better understand the concept of an are also known as “decision rules” or instantaneous mortality rate, consider the “harvest control laws.” following example. Suppose the Catch per Unit of Effort (CPUE). instantaneous total mortality rate is 2 (i.e., Z Measures the relative success of fishing = 2) and we want to know how many operations, but also can be used as a proxy animals out of an initial population of 1 for relative abundance based on the million fish will be alive at the end of one assumption that CPUE is linearly related to year. If the year is apportioned into 365 days stock size. The use of CPUE that has not (that is, the 'instant' of time is one day), then been properly standardized for temporal- 2/365 or 0.548% of the population will die spatial changes in catchability should be each day. On the first day of the year, 5,480 avoided. fish will die (1,000,000 x 0.00548), leaving 994,520 alive. On day 2, another 5,450 fish Exploitation pattern. The fishing mortality die (994,520 x 0.00548) leaving 989,070 on each age (or group of adjacent ages) of a alive. At the end of the year, 134,593 fish stock relative to the highest mortality on any [1,000,000 x (1 - 0.00548)365] remain alive. age. The exploitation pattern is expressed as If we had instead selected a smaller 'instant' a series of values ranging from 0.0 to 1.0. of time, say an hour, 0.0228% of the The pattern is referred to as “flat-topped” population would have died by the end of when the values for all the oldest ages are the first time interval (an hour), leaving about 1.0, and “dome-shaped” when the 135,304 fish alive at the end of the year values for some intermediate ages are about [1,000,000 x (1 - 0.00228)8760]. As the 1.0 and those for the oldest ages are instant of time becomes shorter and shorter, significantly lower. This pattern often varies the exact answer to the number of animals by type of fishing gear, area, and seasonal surviving is given by the survival curve distribution of fishing, and the growth and mentioned above, or, in this example: migration of the fish. The pattern can be -2 changed by modifications to fishing gear, Nt+1 = 1,000,000e = 135,335 fish for example, increasing mesh or hook size, Exploitation rate. The proportion of a or by changing the proportion of harvest by population alive at the beginning of the year gear type. that is caught during the year. That is, if 1 Mortality rates. Populations of animals million fish were alive on January 1 and decline exponentially. This means that the 200,000 were caught during the year, the number of animals that die in an "instant" is exploitation rate is 0.20 (200,000 / at all times proportional to the number 1,000,000) or 20%.

61st SAW 4 Assessment Summary Report FMAX. The rate of fishing mortality that limits are referred to as thresholds. In much produces the maximum level of yield per of the international literature (e.g., FAO recruit. This is the point beyond which documents), “thresholds” are used as buffer growth overfishing begins. points that signal when a limit is being approached. F0.1. The fishing mortality rate where the increase in yield per recruit for an increase Landings per Unit of Effort (LPUE). in a unit of effort is only 10% of the yield Analogous to CPUE and measures the per recruit produced by the first unit of relative success of fishing operations, but is effort on the unexploited stock (i.e., the also sometimes used a proxy for relative slope of the yield-per-recruit curve for the abundance based on the assumption that F0.1 rate is only one-tenth the slope of the CPUE is linearly related to stock size. curve at its origin). MSFCMA. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery F10%. The fishing mortality rate which Conservation and Management Act. U.S. reduces the spawning stock biomass per Public Law 94-265, as amended through recruit (SSB/R) to 10% of the amount October 11, 1996. Available as NOAA present in the absence of fishing. More Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-23, generally, Fx%, is the fishing mortality rate 1996. that reduces the SSB/R to x% of the level Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold that would exist in the absence of fishing. (MFMT, FTHRESHOLD). One of the Status FMSY. The fishing mortality rate that Determination Criteria (SDC) for produces the maximum sustainable yield. determining if overfishing is occurring. It will usually be equivalent to the F Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Plan corresponding to the MSY Control Rule. If containing conservation and management current fishing mortality rates are above measures for fishery resources, and other F provisions required by the MSFCMA, THRESHOLD, overfishing is occurring. developed by Fishery Management Councils Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST, or the Secretary of Commerce. BTHRESHOLD). Another of the Status Generation Time. In the context of the Determination Criteria. The greater of (a) National Standard Guidelines, generation ½BMSY, or (b) the minimum stock size at time is a measure of the time required for a which rebuilding to BMSY will occur within female to produce a reproductively-active 10 years of fishing at the MFMT. MSST female offspring for use in setting maximum should be measured in terms of spawning allowable rebuilding time periods. biomass or other appropriate measures of productive capacity. If current stock size is Growth overfishing. The situation existing below BTHRESHOLD, the stock is overfished. when the rate of fishing mortality is above Maximum Spawning Potential (MSP). F and when fish are harvested before MAX This type of reference point is used in some they reach their growth potential. fishery management plans to define Limit Reference Points. Benchmarks used overfishing. The MSP is the spawning stock to indicate when harvests should be biomass per recruit (SSB/R) when fishing constrained substantially so that the stock mortality is zero. The degree to which remains within safe biological limits. The fishing reduces the SSB/R is expressed as a probability of exceeding limits should be percentage of the MSP (i.e., %MSP). A low. In the National Standard Guidelines, stock is considered overfished when the

61st SAW 5 Assessment Summary Report fishery reduces the %MSP below the level age or size at which recruitment is measured specified in the overfishing definition. The may correspond to when the young fish values of %MSP used to define overfishing become vulnerable to capture in a fishery or can be derived from stock-recruitment data when the number of fish in a cohort can be or chosen by analogy using available reliably estimated by a stock assessment. information on the level required to sustain Recruitment overfishing. The situation the stock. existing when the fishing mortality rate is so Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). The high as to cause a reduction in spawning largest average catch that can be taken from stock which causes recruitment to become a stock under existing environmental impaired. conditions. Recruitment per spawning stock biomass Overfishing. According to the National (R/SSB). The number of fishery recruits Standard Guidelines, “overfishing occurs (usually age 1 or 2) produced from a given whenever a stock or stock complex is weight of spawners, usually expressed as subjected to a rate or level of fishing numbers of recruits per kilogram of mature mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fish in the stock. This ratio can be computed stock or stock complex to produce MSY on for each year class and is often used as an a continuing basis.” Overfishing is index of pre-recruit survival, since a high occurring if the MFMT is exceeded for 1 R/SSB ratio in one year indicates above- year or more. average numbers resulting from a given Optimum Yield (OY). The amount of fish spawning biomass for a particular year class, that will provide the greatest overall benefit and vice versa. to the Nation, particularly with respect to Reference Points. Values of parameters food production and recreational (e.g. BMSY, FMSY, F0.1) that are useful opportunities and taking into account the benchmarks for guiding management protection of marine ecosystems. MSY decisions. Biological reference points are constitutes a “ceiling” for OY. OY may be typically limits that should not be exceeded lower than MSY, depending on relevant with significant probability (e.g., MSST) or economic, social, or ecological factors. In targets for management (e.g., OY). the case of an overfished fishery, OY should Risk. The probability of an event times the provide for rebuilding to B MSY. cost associated with the event (loss Partial Recruitment. Patterns of relative function). Sometimes “risk” is simply used vulnerability of fish of different sizes or to denote the probability of an undesirable ages due to the combined effects of result (e.g. the risk of biomass falling below selectivity and availability. MSST). Rebuilding Plan. A plan that must be Status Determination Criteria (SDC). designed to recover stocks to the BMSY level Objective and measurable criteria used to within 10 years when they are overfished determine if a stock is being overfished or is (i.e. when B < MSST). Normally, the 10 in an overfished state according to the years would refer to an expected time to National Standard Guidelines. rebuild in a probabilistic sense. Selectivity. Measures the relative Recruitment. This is the number of young vulnerability of different age (size) classes fish that survive (from birth) to a specific to the fishing gears(s). age or grow to a specific size. The specific

61st SAW 6 Assessment Summary Report Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB). The total TAC. Total allowable catch is the total weight of all sexually mature fish in a stock. regulated catch from a stock in a given time period, usually a year. Spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSB/R or SBR). The expected lifetime Target Reference Points. Benchmarks contribution to the spawning stock biomass used to guide management objectives for for each recruit. SSB/R is calculated achieving a desirable outcome (e.g., OY). assuming that F is constant over the life span Target reference points should not be of a year class. The calculated value is also exceeded on average. dependent on the exploitation pattern and Uncertainty. Uncertainty results from a rates of growth and natural mortality, all of lack of perfect knowledge of many factors which are also assumed to be constant. that affect stock assessments, estimation of Stock Synthesis (SS). This application reference points, and management. provides a statistical framework for Rosenberg and Restrepo (1994) identify five calibration of a population dynamics model types: measurement error (in observed using a diversity of fishery and survey data. quantities), process error (or natural SS is designed to accommodate both age population variability), model error (mis- and size structure and with multiple stock specification of assumed values or model sub-areas. Selectivity can be cast as age structure), estimation error (in population specific only, size-specific in the parameters or reference points, due to any of observations only, or size-specific with the the preceding types of errors), and ability to capture the major effect of size- implementation error (or the inability to specific survivorship. The overall model achieve targets exactly for whatever reason) contains subcomponents which simulate the Virtual Population Analysis (VPA) (or population dynamics of the stock and cohort analysis). A retrospective analysis of fisheries, derive the expected values for the the catches from a given year class which various observed data, and quantify the provides estimates of fishing mortality and magnitude of difference between observed stock size at each age over its life in the and expected data. Parameters are sought fishery. This technique is used extensively which will maximize the goodness-of-fit. A in fishery assessments. management layer is also included in the model allowing uncertainty in estimated Year class (or cohort). Fish born in a given parameters to be propagated to the year. For example, the 1987 year class of management quantities, thus facilitating a cod includes all cod born in 1987. This year description of the risk of various possible class would be age 1 in 1988, age 2 in 1989, management scenarios. The structure of SS and so on. allows for building of simple to complex Yield per recruit (Y/R or YPR). The models depending upon the data available. average expected yield in weight from a Survival Ratios. Ratios of recruits to single recruit. Y/R is calculated assuming spawners (or spawning biomass) in a stock- that F is constant over the life span of a year recruitment analysis. The same as the class. The calculated value is also dependent recruitment per spawning stock biomass on the exploitation pattern, rate of growth, (R/SSB). and natural mortality rate, all of which are assumed to be constant.

61st SAW 7 Assessment Summary Report 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 45

35 44 39 34 38 40 36 33 43 37 31 27 32 26 28 29 30 22 42 24 21 20 19 16 18 25 23 41 5 9 17 13 6 10 1 15 40 2 14 7 8 11 12 4 73 39 74 3 76 69 75 72 38 71 70 65 68 37 67 66 61 64 36 63 62

Figure 1. Offshore depth strata sampled during Northeast Fisheries Science Center bottom trawl research surveys. Some of these may not be sampled presently.

61st SAW 8 Assessment Summary Report 71 70 69 68 67 45

76 75 88 39 86 90 24 21 22 84 89 23 87 25 82 44 79 85 26 76 83 73 80 81 77 78 75 74 70 72 27 29 71 69 43 67 28 68 38 66 65 30 64 32 62 63 31 57 42 61 60 56 59 50 58 47 53 51 34 35 54 33 45 48 52 41 46 55 37 36 37 38

75 74 73 72 71

45 47 40 3 41 1 6 2 39 4 41 9 5 8 12 7 36 14 13 11 10

40 16 44 15 17

42 18 20 19 43 21 23 39 22 24 25 35 26

Figure 2. Inshore depth strata sampled during Northeast Fisheries Science Center bottom trawl research surveys. Some of these may not be sampled presently.

61st SAW 9 Assessment Summary Report Figure 3. Statistical areas used for reporting commercial catches.

61st SAW 10 Assessment Summary Report Figure 4. Northeast Fisheries Science Center clam resource survey strata, along the east coast of the US.

61st SAW 11 Assessment Summary Report A. ATLANTIC SURFCLAM ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR 2016

Status of the Stock: The Atlantic surfclam (Spisula solidissima) stock was not overfished in 2015. Based on recommended reference points for the whole stock, estimated SSB2015/SSBThreshold = 2.54 (probability overfished < 0.01, Table A1 and Figure A1). For surfclams, spawning stock biomass (SSB) is almost equal to total biomass.

Overfishing did not occur in 2015. Based on new recommended reference points, estimated F2015/FThreshold = 0.295 (probability overfished < 0.01, Table A1 and Figure A1).

Model and supplemental results indicate that spawning stock biomass (SSB) is high and fishing mortality (F) rates for surfclam are low relative to the new biological reference points. Point estimates are uncertain, but sensitivity and other analyses show that trends in SSB and F in the northern (Georges Bank) and southern areas (S. New England to Virginia) are estimated with acceptable precision. Estimates for the whole stock (northern area + southern area) are more uncertain, but are sufficient for determining stock status. Supplemental analyses such as catch curves, exploitation rates from catch and swept-area biomass, and the total area fished were consistent with model results and also indicate that stock biomass is high and fishing mortality rates are low. There is no indication that overfishing or overfished conditions occurred on the whole stock during 1984-2015.

Based on the previous reference points from SAW-56 (2013), SSB2015/SSBThreshold = 2.4 (probability overfished < 0.01). Based on the previous reference points, F2015/FThreshold = 0.06 (probability overfishing < 0.01).

Projections: Projections for the whole stock are from separate deterministic projections for the northern and southern areas that are combined. Recruitment estimates in the projections are from the spawner-recruit relationship in the assessment model for each area. Confidence intervals are based on uncertainty in recruitment and the stock size in 2015. Results suggest overfishing and overfished stock conditions are unlikely during 2016-2025 at status-quo or quota catch levels (Table A2). Additional projection runs in the assessment report assuming lower recruitment also indicate that overfishing and overfished stock conditions are unlikely to occur. Catch levels at the FThreshold exploitation level are summarized below.

Projected catches (landings + 12%) at the OFL fishing level (details in Table A2). Low2 High2 Year Mean1 Median1 CV 95% 95% 2016 87,892 75,126 0.61 29,278 263,854 2017 88,243 75,432 0.61 29,394 264,908 2018 87,709 74,832 0.61 29,081 264,532 2019 87,316 74,281 0.62 28,639 266,210 2020 87,511 74,110 0.63 28,309 270,519 1 Medians not exactly equal to values in Table A2 due to statistical assumptions in calculating confidence intervals. 2 Bounds on 95% lognormal Confidence Interval

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 12 A. Atlantic surfclam

Stock Distribution: The federal surfclam resource in the EEZ (3-200 nm from shore) covered by this assessment is composed of the northern (Georges Bank) and southern (Southern New England to Virginia) areas. Surfclams are also found in state waters including the Gulf of Maine. They occur from the intertidal zone out to about 70 m depth. The southern area is further broken down into regions of particular interest: Southern New England, Long Island, New Jersey, Delmarva, and Southern Virginia, from north to south.

Landings: Fisheries data for 1982-2015 are from mandatory logbook reports and considered relatively accurate (Table A1 and Figure A3). Landings have not reached the current quota (26,218 mt) since it was set in 2004 because of limited markets. EEZ landings peaked during 1973-1974 at about 33 thousand mt, fell substantially to about 14 thousand mt during 1978-1979, increased and then varied between 18 and 25 thousand mt during 1985-2015.

Surfclam landings and fishing effort shifted north after 1979 as catch rates in the south declined. Landings were mostly from the Delmarva region during 1979-1980 and mostly from the New Jersey region since 1981. Long Island region landings were modest but increased after 2000. Southern New England landings increased substantially after 2008. There were no landings from Georges Bank during 1981-1982 and 1990-2008 but they increased to appreciable levels during 2009-2015 with the reopening of areas closed because of PSP (paralytic shellfish poisoning) risk. Landings per unit effort (LPUE) in the Delmarva and New Jersey regions are at all-time lows and catches there are composed of relatively small clams that are not favored by processors (see Special Comments).

Data and assessment: Stock Synthesis assessment model SSB and F estimates for the northern and southern areas were combined. Stock Synthesis model estimates for each region were based on commercial catch and size composition data as well as abundance indices, age, size and biological data from NEFSC clam surveys. The Stock Synthesis model for the northern area started in 1984 while the model for the southern area started in 1982. Estimates for the entire stock unit start in 1984 (Figures A1-A2 and A4). The two areas are modeled separately because of differences in survey data availability over time, fishing history, recruitment patterns and biological parameters. Cooperative field experiments to estimate capture efficiency and size selectivity are used as prior information in modeling and in supplementary analyses. A new NEFSC survey using a commercial fishing vessel and modified commercial dredge replaced the previous survey which was carried out during 1982-2011. The new survey was carried out in the southern area during 2012 and 2015 and in the northern area (Georges Bank) during 2013. Although earlier NEFSC clam surveys began in the 1960s, they were not considered in this stock assessment due to differences in survey methods.

Spawning stock biomass: Trends expressed as the ratio SSB/SSBThreshold are more reliably estimated than SSB. For the whole stock, relative SSB (SSB/SSBThreshold) declined during the last fifteen years but is still above the target (Table A1, Figure A1 and see Special Comments). Although absolute model estimates of SSB are highly uncertain and should not be used, estimated total SSB2015 = 46,355 thousand mt (95% confidence interval = 14,822 to 144,974 thousand mt). Relative SSB for the whole stock is measured as the geometric mean of the SSB/SSBThreshold in the north and south (Table A1 and Figure A1; see Special Comments).

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 13 A. Atlantic surfclam Fishing mortality: Trends expressed as the ratio F/FThreshold are more reliably estimated than absolute fishing mortality rates. For the whole stock the trend in relative F (F/FThreshold) generally increased during the last fifteen years (despite recent declines in the south) but is still below the threshold (Table A1, Figure A2 and see Special Comments). Although absolute model estimates of F are highly uncertain and should not be used, estimated F2015=0.0091 (95% confidence interval = 0.003 to 0.029).

Recruitment: Trends expressed as the ratio of recruitment (R) and mean recruitment in an unfished stock (R0) are more reliably estimated than absolute recruitment (Table A1 and Figure A4). The trend in relative recruitment is measured using the ratio R/R0. Recruitment generally increased over the last decade, and in 2015 R/R0 was 0.57 in the north, 0.97 in the south and 0.75 for the stock as a whole, indicating recruitment in 2015 was about 57%, 97% and 75% of the maximum long term average in the three regions. These recruitment patterns are probably normal in a surfclam stock at relatively high biomass and with low fishing mortality. Recruitment for the whole stock is measured as the geometric mean of R/R0 in the northern and southern areas and is more uncertain than estimates for either area.

Biological reference points: New reference points were developed in this assessment which are more justified scientifically (Tables A3 and A4). The new biomass reference points and measures of stock biomass are ratios rather than absolute biomass values in mt. For example, the ratio SSB2015/SSBThreshold=2.54 in Tables A3 and A4 means that spawning stock biomass in 2015 was 2.54 times the SSBThreshold. This approach allows for conclusions about the status of the surfclam stock despite substantial uncertainty in the actual biomass of the stock.

According to the new reference points, the stock would be considered overfished if SSBcurrent/SSBThreshold was less than one. The new BMSY proxy is SSBTarget =½ SSB0 and the new biomass threshold is SSBThreshold = SSBTarget/2 = SSB0/4, where SSB0 is mean unfished spawning biomass estimated by assessment models. The stock would be considered overfished if SSB fell below SSB0/4. See Table A4 for details.

According to the new reference points, overfishing would be occurring if fishing mortality was larger than the threshold fishing mortality rate (FThreshold) producing an Fcurrent/FThreshold ratio greater than 1.0. The new FThreshold reference point for the whole stock is trend based and calculated as 4.136 times the average F during 1982-2015 for the whole stock where the years included in calculating the average are fixed (Table A3 and A4; see assessment report for details). See Table A4 for details.

MSY is unknown. The proxy FMSY=0.12 was estimated based on management strategy evaluation (MSE) analysis but not used directly for status determination due to problems estimating F.

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 14 A. Atlantic surfclam Special Comments:

There is additional uncertainty about stock size measured as SSB/SSBThreshold, recruitment (R/R0) and projected trends for the whole stock due to combining uncertain biomass or recruitment estimates for the northern and southern areas. However, stock status conclusions for biomass in this assessment were robust because stock size was relatively high and the stock would not have been overfished based on trends from either area.

There is also uncertainty in F/FThreshold due to combining results from different models for the northern and southern areas. However, the determination that F < FThreshold is relatively certain because supplemental analyses show that F is low in both areas and overfishing would not have occurred using trends from either area.

No retrospective pattern or adjustments were required for spawning stock biomass or fishing mortality trends. There were changes in estimates of absolute biomass for the entire time series compared with earlier assessments, but no retrospective patterns in trends.

Landings per unit effort (LPUE) are low for the fishery as a whole and in the important southern area where fishing is concentrated, but relatively high in the northern area on Georges Bank. Survey and other data indicate that the LPUE trend is not indicative of the trend in the resource as a whole. The fishery operates in a small portion of the total stock area (approximately 1%). Surfclam density is relatively high on the fishing grounds, but most of the stock biomass is located outside in areas that are not fished.

Ecosystem analyses suggest that surfclam habitat is decreasing in shallow coastal portions of the Delmarva region (Weinberg 2005) and possibly increasing in the New Jersey and Long Island regions. The net effects on total habitat area and carrying capacity are unknown. Co-occurrence of surfclams and ocean quahogs in deep water habitat has increased in recent years.

Stock structure was considered in the current and last assessments but consensus was not reached on whether or not to split the current stock between the northern and southern areas. However, stock definitions are unlikely to affect management, yield, or biological risk in the near term as long as fishing mortality rates remain low and biomass is high.

References

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2013. 56th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (56th SAW) Assessment Report. NEFSC Ref. Doc. 13-10. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/.

Weinberg, J. R. 2005. Bathymetric shift in the distribution of Atlantic surfclams: response to warmer ocean temperature. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 62: 1444-1453.

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 15 A. Atlantic surfclam Table A1. Catch and status table for Atlantic surfclam. MSY is unknown. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Min1,2 Max1,2 Mean1,2 Whole stock Landings3 23,573 24,915 22,510 20,065 17,984 18,839 18,054 18,551 18,227 18,154 6,396 33,761 19,847 w/discard & incidental3,4 26,401 27,905 25,210 22,473 20,142 21,100 20,221 20,777 20,415 20,334 7,164 37,812 23,169 5 SSB/SSBThreshold 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 6.4 4.0 6 F/FThreshold 0.26 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.15 0.32 0.24 7 Recruitment (R/R0) 0.66 0.56 0.60 0.63 0.43 0.33 0.54 0.59 0.65 0.75 0.16 2.37 0.81 North Landings3 0 0 0 11 1,311 2,388 3,580 4,403 3,236 4,074 7 4,403 2,002 w/discard & incidental3,4 0 0 0 12 1,468 2,675 4,010 4,931 3,624 4,563 8 4,931 2,242 5 SSB/SSBThreshold 3.5 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.7 4.0 6 F/FThreshold 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.19 0.31 0.41 0.33 0.45 0.00 0.45 0.08 7 Recruitment (R/R0) 0.77 0.38 0.30 0.31 0.14 0.20 0.29 0.52 0.55 0.57 0.14 3.10 0.92 South Landings3 23,573 24,915 22,510 20,053 16,672 16,450 14,474 14,148 14,992 14,081 13,186 24,994 19,812 w/discard & incidental3,4 26,401 27,905 25,210 22,461 18,674 18,425 16,211 15,846 16,791 15,771 7,164 37,812 22,553 5 SSB/SSBThreshold 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.3 7.4 4.2 6 F/FThreshold 0.33 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.35 0.36 0.32 0.30 0.30 0.27 0.17 0.39 0.27 7 0.56 0.82 1.19 1.26 1.34 0.54 1.02 0.67 0.78 0.97 0.17 5.31 0.94 Recruitment (R/R0) 1 Summary statistics for landings and catch during 1965-2015 (Whole stock and South) or 1984-1990 & 2009-2015 (North, excluding years with no fishing) 2 Summary statistics for SSB, F and recruitment during 1984-2015 3 Landings, discards, incidental and catch are mt meats 4 Incidental = landings + 12%; Discards zero except 1979-1993 in south 5 SSBThreshold = mean unfished SSB / 4 (separate values for the North , South and Whole stock) 6 FThreshold = mean F during 1982-2015 x 4.136 (same reference point used for all areas, always calculated using 1982-2015 mean) 7 R0 is mean recruitment for an unfished stock in each area

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 16 A. Atlantic surfclam Table A2. Projections for Atlantic surfclams based on “status quo” catches (catch = landings + 12% = 20,333 mt per year during 2015), “quota” (catch = 26,218 mt quota + 12% = 29,363 mt per year) and F=FThreshold harvest levels during 2016-2025. FThreshold was not calculated for the northern area because the limited exploitation history prevents calculation of FThreshold. Each simulation started in 2015 at SSB levels listed in Table A4. South North Whole stock Year Status Status Status Quota F=F Quota F=F Quota F=F Quo Threshold Quo Threshold Quo Threshold

SSB/SSBThreshold 2016 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 2017 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2018 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 2019 3.5 3.5 3.4 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.1 3.1 3.0 2020 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 2021 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.2 2022 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.3 2023 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.4 2024 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.5 2025 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5

F/FThreshold 2016 0.23 0.33 1.00 0.36 0.53 0.90 2017 0.22 0.32 1.00 0.37 0.55 0.90 2018 0.22 0.32 1.00 0.38 0.56 0.90 2019 0.22 0.31 1.00 0.39 0.57 0.90 2020 0.22 0.31 1.00 0.39 0.58 0.90 NA 2021 0.21 0.31 1.00 0.38 0.57 0.90 2022 0.21 0.30 1.00 0.37 0.55 0.90 2023 0.20 0.30 1.00 0.36 0.54 0.90 2024 0.20 0.29 1.00 0.35 0.52 0.90 2025 0.20 0.29 1.00 0.34 0.50 0.90 Catch (Landings + 12%) 2016 15,771 22,610 68,725 4,562 6,753 6,444 20,333 29,363 75,169 2017 15,771 22,610 69,447 4,562 6,753 5,917 20,333 29,363 75,364 2018 15,771 22,610 69,332 4,562 6,753 5,527 20,333 29,363 74,859 2019 15,771 22,610 68,981 4,562 6,753 5,279 20,333 29,363 74,260 2020 15,771 22,610 68,931 4,562 6,753 5,201 20,333 29,363 74,131 2021 15,771 22,610 69,328 4,562 6,753 5,288 20,333 29,363 74,615 2022 15,771 22,610 70,044 4,562 6,753 5,503 20,333 29,363 75,547 2023 15,771 22,610 70,914 4,562 6,753 5,793 20,333 29,363 76,707 2024 15,771 22,610 71,818 4,562 6,753 6,113 20,333 29,363 77,931 2025 15,771 22,610 72,684 4,562 6,753 6,431 20,333 29,363 79,115

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 17 A. Atlantic surfclam Table A3. Atlantic surfclam. Comparison of SAW56 (NEFSC 2013) and SAW61 (this 2016 assessment) biological reference points and reference point calculations for 2015. Note, that point estimates of 2015 biomass and fishing mortality rate are not reliable, but the ratios relative to the thresholds are sufficiently reliable. See Table A4 for additional details.

Reference point SAW56 (2013) New SAW61 (2016) Definitions M (proxy = 4.136 times the mean F F Threshold natural mortality rate) during 1982-2015

BTarget B1999 /2 SSB0 / 2

BThreshold B1999 / 4 SSB0 / 4

Values in this 2016 assessment 1 FThreshold 0.15 See Table A4 1 F2015 0.009 See Table A4

F2015/FThreshold 0.06 0.295 Overfishing? No No 2 SSBTarget 38,153 2.00 2 SSBThreshold 19,076 1.00 2 SSB2015 46,356 -- 2 SSB2015/SSBThreshold 2.43 2.54 Overfished? No No

1 Fishing mortality for fully recruited size groups. 2 Biomass (SSB) measured in thousand mt for SAW56 (2013) overfishing definition and as SSB/SSBThreshold for new SAW61 (2016) overfishing definition.

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 18 A. Atlantic surfclam Table A4. Detailed calculations for surfclam 2015 status determination using new reference points.

Estimate North South Whole stock Biomass details Absolute estimates (not reliable) 1

SSB2015 (1000 MT) 4,816 41,539 -- Mean recruitment unfished stock 9,549 52,003 -- (SSB0, 1000 MT)

SSBThreshold = SSB0/4 (1000 MT) 2,387 13,000 -- Biomass ratios to measure trends (more reliable) 2 SSB2015/SSBThreshold ratio 2.02 3.20 2.54

SSBThreshold ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00

SSBTarget ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 Overfished No No No (SSB2015 ratio < 1)?

At or above target (SSB2015 ratio >= 2)? Yes Yes Yes Fishing mortality details Absolute estimates (not reliable) 3,4

-1 5 F2015 (y ) 0.014 0.008 0.0091

Mean 1982-2015 F (y-1) -- -- 0.00744 6 Fthreshold 0.0308 Trend estimates expressed as F/FThreshold (more reliable)

F/FThreshold 0.45 0.27 0.295

Overfishing (F > FThreshold)? No No No 1 Estimates in MT from assessment models only to show calculations 2 “Whole stock” is the geometric mean of estimates on same line for north and south 3 F estimates only to show calculations 4 North and south from assessment model 5 North and south from assessment model; “whole stock” from catch/mean available abundance 6 Mean 1982-2015 F for entire stock x 4.136

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 19 A. Atlantic surfclam Figure A1. Trends in relative spawning stock biomass (SSB/SSBThreshold) for the whole Atlantic surfclam stock during 1984-2015. The solid line shows estimates from this assessment with approximate 50, 80, 90, and 95th percentile lognormal confidence intervals in shades of grey. The green short-dash line at SSB/SSBThreshold = 2 is the management target. The red long-dash line at SSB/SSBThreshold = 1 is the level that defines an overfished stock.

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 20 A. Atlantic surfclam

Figure A2. Trends in relative fishing mortality F/FThreshold for the whole Atlantic surfclam stock 1984-2015. The solid line shows estimates from this assessment with approximate 50, 80, 90, th and 95 percentile lognormal confidence intervals in shades of grey. The solid line at F/FThreshold = 1 is the new fishing mortality threshold reference point.

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 21 A. Atlantic surfclam

Figure A3. Landings for Atlantic surfclams by region during 1979-2015. Regions from north to south are abbreviated with GBK for Georges Bank, SNE for Southern New England, LI for Long Island, NJ for New Jersey, DMV for Delmarva, and SVA for Southern Virginia.

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 22 A. Atlantic surfclam

Figure A4. Trends in relative recruitment (R/R0 for age zero recruits) for the whole Atlantic surfclam stock during 1984-2015. The solid line shows estimates from this assessment with approximate 50, 80, 90, and 95th percentile lognormal confidence intervals in shades of grey. The horizontal line is mean recruitment in an unfished stock.

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 23 A. Atlantic surfclam

Appendix: Stock Assessment Terms of Reference for SAW/SARC-61, July 19-21, 2016 (File version: 12/18/2015)

A. Atlantic surfclams 1. Estimate catch from all sources including landings and discards. Map the spatial and temporal distribution of landings, discards, fishing effort, and gross revenue, as appropriate. Characterize the uncertainty in these sources of data.

2. Present the survey data being used in the assessment (e.g., indices of relative or absolute abundance, recruitment, state surveys, age-length data, etc.). Use logbook data to investigate regional changes in LPUE, catch and effort. Characterize the uncertainty and any bias in these sources of data. Evaluate the spatial coverage, precision, and accuracy of the new clam survey.

3. Determine the extent and relative quality of benthic habitat for surfclams in the Georges Bank ecosystem to refine estimates of stock size based on swept area calculations.

4. Quantify changes in the depth distribution of surfclams over time. Review changes over time in surfclam biological parameters such as length, width, and growth.

5. Estimate annual fishing mortality, recruitment and stock biomass (both total and spawning stock) for the time series (integrating results from TOR 3, as appropriate) and estimate their uncertainty. Include a historical retrospective analysis to allow a comparison with previous assessment results and previous projections.

6. State the existing stock status definitions for “overfished” and “overfishing”. Then update or redefine biological reference points (BRPs; point estimates or proxies for BMSY, BTHRESHOLD, FMSY and MSY) and provide estimates of their uncertainty. If analytic model-based estimates are unavailable, consider recommending alternative measurable proxies for BRPs. Comment on the scientific adequacy of existing BRPs and the “new” (i.e., updated, redefined, or alternative) BRPs, particularly as they relate to stock assumptions.

7. Evaluate stock status with respect to the existing model (from previous peer reviewed accepted assessment) and with respect to any new model or models developed for this peer review. a. When working with the existing model, update it with new data and evaluate stock status (overfished and overfishing) with respect to the existing BRP estimates. b. Then use the newly proposed model and evaluate stock status with respect to “new” BRPs and their estimates (from TOR-5).

8. Develop approaches and apply them to conduct stock projections. a. Provide numerical annual projections (five years) and the statistical distribution (e.g., probability density function) of the OFL (overfishing level) (see Appendix to the SAW TORs). Consider cases using nominal as well as potential levels of uncertainty in the model. Each projection should estimate and report annual probabilities of exceeding threshold BRPs for F, and probabilities of falling below threshold BRPs for biomass. Use a sensitivity analysis approach in which a range of assumptions about the most important uncertainties in the assessment are considered (e.g., terminal year abundance, variability in recruitment). b. Comment on which projections seem most realistic. Consider the major uncertainties in the assessment as well as sensitivity of the projections to various assumptions. c. Describe this stock’s vulnerability (see “Appendix to the SAW TORs”) to becoming overfished, and how this could affect the choice of ABC.

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 24 Appendix – Terms of Reference

9. Evaluate the validity of the current stock definition. Determine whether current stock definitions may mask reductions in sustainable catch on regional spatial scales. Make a recommendation about whether there is a need to modify the current stock definition.

10. Review, evaluate and report on the status of the SARC and Working Group research recommendations listed in most recent SARC reviewed assessment and review panel reports. Identify new research recommendations.

Appendix to the SAW Assessment TORs: Clarification of Terms used in the SAW/SARC Terms of Reference

On “Overfishing Limit” and “Acceptable Biological Catch” (DOC Nat. Stand. Guidel. Fed. Reg., v. 74, no. 11, 1-16-2009):

Acceptable biological catch (ABC) is a level of a stock or stock complex’s annual catch that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of [overfishing limit] OFL and any other scientific uncertainty…” (p. >,QRWKHUZRUGV2)/$%&@

ABC for overfished stocks. For overfished stocks and stock complexes, a rebuilding ABC must be set to reflect annual catch that is consistent with schedule of fishing mortality rates in the rebuilding plan. (p. 3209)

NMFS expects that in most cases ABC will be reduced from OFL to reduce the probability that overfishing might occur in a year. (p. 3180)

ABC refers to a level of ‘‘catch’’ that is ‘‘acceptable’’ given the ‘‘biological’’ characteristics of the stock or stock complex. As such, [optimal yield] OY does not equate with ABC. The specification of OY is required to consider a variety of factors, including social and economic factors, and the protection of marine ecosystems, which are not part of the ABC concept. (p. 3189)

On “Vulnerability” (DOC Natl. Stand. Guidelines. Fed. Reg., v. 74, no. 11, 1-16-2009):

“Vulnerability. A stock’s vulnerability is a combination of its productivity, which depends upon its life history characteristics, and its susceptibility to the fishery. Productivity refers to the capacity of the stock to produce MSY and to recover if the population is depleted, and susceptibility is the potential for the stock to be impacted by the fishery, which includes direct captures, as well as indirect impacts to the fishery (e.g., loss of habitat quality).” (p. 3205)

Interactions among members of a SAW Assessment Working Group:

Anyone participating in SAW assessment working group meetings that will be running or presenting results from an assessment model is expected to supply the source code, a compiled executable, an input file with the proposed configuration, and a detailed model description in advance of the model meeting. Source code for NOAA Toolbox programs is available on request. These measures allow transparency and a fair evaluation of differences that emerge between models.

One model or alternative models:

The preferred outcome of the SAW/SARC is to identify a single “best” model and an accompanying set of assessment results and a stock status determination. If selection of a “best” model is not possible, present alternative models in detail, and summarize the relative utility each model, including a comparison of results.

61st SAW Assessment Summary Report 25 Appendix – Terms of Reference 3URFHGXUHVIRU,VVXLQJ0DQXVFULSWV LQWKH 1RUWKHDVW)LVKHULHV6FLHQFH&HQWHU5HIHUHQFH'RFXPHQW &5' 6HULHV

&OHDUDQFH FUXVWDFHDQVWKH6RFLHW\IRU0DULQH0DPPDORJ\¶V $OOPDQXVFULSWVVXEPLWWHGIRULVVXDQFHDV&5'V JXLGHWRQDPHVRIPDULQHPDPPDOVWKH%LRVFLHQFHV PXVWKDYHFOHDUHGWKH1()6&¶VPDQXVFULSWDEVWUDFW ,QIRUPDWLRQ6HUYLFH¶VJXLGHWRVHULDOWLWOHDEEUHYLDWLRQV ZHESDJHUHYLHZSURFHVV,IDQ\DXWKRULVQRWDIHGHUDO DQGWKH,62¶V ,QWHUQDWLRQDO6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ2UJDQL]D HPSOR\HHKHVKHZLOOEHUHTXLUHGWRVLJQDQ³1()6& WLRQ JXLGHWRVWDWLVWLFDOWHUPV 5HOHDVHRI&RS\ULJKW)RUP´,I\RXUPDQXVFULSW )RULQWH[WFLWDWLRQXVHWKHQDPHGDWHV\VWHP$ LQFOXGHVPDWHULDOIURPDQRWKHUZRUNZKLFKKDVEHHQ VSHFLDOHIIRUWVKRXOGEHPDGHWRHQVXUHWKDWDOOQHFHV FRS\ULJKWHGWKHQ\RXZLOOQHHGWRZRUNZLWKWKH VDU\ELEOLRJUDSKLFLQIRUPDWLRQLVLQFOXGHGLQWKHOLVW 1()6&¶V(GLWRULDO2I¿FHWRDUUDQJHIRUSHUPLVVLRQ RIFLWHGZRUNV3HUVRQDOFRPPXQLFDWLRQVPXVWLQFOXGH WRXVHWKDWPDWHULDOE\VHFXULQJUHOHDVHVLJQDWXUHVRQ GDWHIXOOQDPHDQGIXOOPDLOLQJDGGUHVVRIWKHFRQ WKH³1()6&8VHRI&RS\ULJKWHG:RUN3HUPLVVLRQ WDFW )RUP´ )RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQ1()6&DXWKRUVVKRXOGVHH 3UHSDUDWLRQ WKH1()6&¶VRQOLQHSXEOLFDWLRQSROLF\PDQXDO³0DQX 2QFH\RXUGRFXPHQWKDVFOHDUHGWKHUHYLHZSUR VFULSWDEVWUDFWZHESDJHSUHSDUDWLRQUHYLHZDQGGLV FHVVWKH(GLWRULDO2I¿FHZLOOFRQWDFW\RXZLWKSXEOLFD VHPLQDWLRQ1()6&DXWKRU¶VJXLGHWRSROLF\SURFHVV WLRQQHHGV±IRUH[DPSOHUHYLVHGWH[W LIQHFHVVDU\ DQG DQGSURFHGXUH´ORFDWHGLQWKH3XEOLFDWLRQV0DQXVFULSW VHSDUDWHGLJLWDO¿JXUHVDQGWDEOHVLIWKH\DUHHPEHGGHG 5HYLHZVHFWLRQRIWKH1()6&LQWUDQHWSDJH LQWKHGRFXPHQW0DWHULDOVPD\EHVXEPLWWHGWRWKH (GLWRULDO2I¿FHDV¿OHVRQ]LSGLVNVRU&'VHPDLO 2UJDQL]DWLRQ DWWDFKPHQWVRULQWUDQHWGRZQORDGV7H[W¿OHVVKRXOG 0DQXVFULSWVPXVWKDYHDQDEVWUDFWDQGWDEOHRI EHLQ0LFURVRIW:RUGWDEOHVPD\EHLQ:RUGRU([FHO FRQWHQWVDQG LIDSSOLFDEOH OLVWVRI¿JXUHVDQGWDEOHV DQGJUDSKLFV¿OHVPD\EHLQDYDULHW\RIIRUPDWV -3* $VPXFKDVSRVVLEOHXVHWUDGLWLRQDOVFLHQWL¿FPDQX *,)([FHO3RZHU3RLQWHWF VFULSWRUJDQL]DWLRQIRUVHFWLRQV³,QWURGXFWLRQ´³6WXG\ $UHD´DQGRU´([SHULPHQWDO$SSDUDWXV´³0HWKRGV´ 3URGXFWLRQDQG'LVWULEXWLRQ ³5HVXOWV´³'LVFXVVLRQ´³&RQFOXVLRQV´³$FNQRZO 7KH(GLWRULDO2I¿FHZLOOSHUIRUPDFRS\HGLWRI HGJPHQWV´DQG³/LWHUDWXUH5HIHUHQFHV&LWHG´ WKHGRFXPHQWDQGPD\UHTXHVWIXUWKHUUHYLVLRQV7KH (GLWRULDO2I¿FHZLOOGHYHORSWKHLQVLGHDQGRXWVLGH 6W\OH IURQWFRYHUVWKHLQVLGHDQGRXWVLGHEDFNFRYHUVDQG 7KH&5'VHULHVLVREOLJDWHGWRFRQIRUPZLWKWKH WKHWLWOHDQGELEOLRJUDSKLFFRQWUROSDJHVRIWKHGRFX VW\OHFRQWDLQHGLQWKHFXUUHQWHGLWLRQRIWKH8QLWHG PHQW 6WDWHV*RYHUQPHQW3ULQWLQJ2I¿FH6W\OH0DQXDO7KDW 2QFHERWKWKH3') SULQW DQG:HEYHUVLRQVRI VW\OHPDQXDOLVVLOHQWRQPDQ\DVSHFWVRIVFLHQWL¿F WKH&5'DUHUHDG\WKH(GLWRULDO2I¿FHZLOOFRQWDFW PDQXVFULSWV7KH&5'VHULHVUHOLHVPRUHRQWKH&6( \RXWRUHYLHZERWKYHUVLRQVDQGVXEPLWFRUUHFWLRQVRU 6W\OH0DQXDO0DQXVFULSWVVKRXOGEHSUHSDUHGWR FKDQJHVEHIRUHWKHGRFXPHQWLVSRVWHGRQOLQH FRQIRUPZLWKWKHVHVW\OHPDQXDOV $QXPEHURIRUJDQL]DWLRQVDQGLQGLYLGXDOVLQWKH 7KH&5'VHULHVXVHVWKH$PHULFDQ)LVKHULHV6RFL 1RUWKHDVW5HJLRQZLOOEHQRWL¿HGE\HPDLORIWKH HW\¶VJXLGHVWRQDPHVRI¿VKHVPROOXVNVDQGGHFDSRG DYDLODELOLW\RIWKHGRFXPHQWRQOLQH 5HVHDUFK&RPPXQLFDWLRQV%UDQFK 1RUWKHDVW)LVKHULHV6FLHQFH&HQWHU 1DWLRQDO0DULQH)LVKHULHV6HUYLFH12$$ :DWHU6W :RRGV+ROH0$

0(',$ 0$,/

3XEOLFDWLRQVDQG5HSRUWV RIWKH 1RUWKHDVW)LVKHULHV6FLHQFH&HQWHU

7KHPLVVLRQRI12$$¶V1DWLRQDO0DULQH)LVKHULHV6HUYLFH 10)6 LV³VWHZDUGVKLSRIOLYLQJPDULQHUHVRXUFHV IRUWKHEHQH¿WRIWKHQDWLRQWKURXJKWKHLUVFLHQFHEDVHGFRQVHUYDWLRQDQGPDQDJHPHQWDQGSURPRWLRQRIWKH KHDOWKRIWKHLUHQYLURQPHQW´$VWKHUHVHDUFKDUPRIWKH10)6¶V1RUWKHDVW5HJLRQWKH1RUWKHDVW)LVKHULHV 6FLHQFH&HQWHU 1()6& VXSSRUWVWKH10)6PLVVLRQE\³FRQGXFWLQJHFRV\VWHPEDVHGUHVHDUFKDQGDVVHVV PHQWVRIOLYLQJPDULQHUHVRXUFHVZLWKDIRFXVRQWKH1RUWKHDVW6KHOIWRSURPRWHWKHUHFRYHU\DQGORQJWHUP VXVWDLQDELOLW\RIWKHVHUHVRXUFHVDQGWRJHQHUDWHVRFLDODQGHFRQRPLFRSSRUWXQLWLHVDQGEHQH¿WVIURPWKHLUXVH´ 5HVXOWVRI1()6&UHVHDUFKDUHODUJHO\UHSRUWHGLQSULPDU\VFLHQWL¿FPHGLD HJDQRQ\PRXVO\SHHUUHYLHZHG VFLHQWL¿FMRXUQDOV +RZHYHUWRDVVLVWLWVHOILQSURYLGLQJGDWDLQIRUPDWLRQDQGDGYLFHWRLWVFRQVWLWXHQWVWKH 1()6&RFFDVLRQDOO\UHOHDVHVLWVUHVXOWVLQLWVRZQPHGLD&XUUHQWO\WKHUHDUHWKUHHVXFKPHGLD

12$$7HFKQLFDO0HPRUDQGXP10)61(7KLVVHULHVLVLVVXHGLUUHJXODUO\7KHVHULHVW\SLFDOO\LQFOXGHVGDWDUHSRUWVRI ORQJWHUP¿HOGRUODEVWXGLHVRILPSRUWDQWVSHFLHVRUKDELWDWVV\QWKHVLVUHSRUWVIRULPSRUWDQWVSHFLHVRUKDELWDWVDQQXDOUHSRUWV RIRYHUDOODVVHVVPHQWRUPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPVPDQXDOVGHVFULELQJSURJUDPZLGHVXUYH\LQJRUH[SHULPHQWDOWHFKQLTXHVOLWHUDWXUH VXUYH\VRILPSRUWDQWVSHFLHVRUKDELWDWWRSLFVSURFHHGLQJVDQGFROOHFWHGSDSHUVRIVFLHQWL¿FPHHWLQJVDQGLQGH[HGDQGRUDQQRWDWHG ELEOLRJUDSKLHV$OOLVVXHVUHFHLYHLQWHUQDOVFLHQWL¿FUHYLHZDQGPRVWLVVXHVUHFHLYHWHFKQLFDODQGFRS\HGLWLQJ

1RUWKHDVW)LVKHULHV6FLHQFH&HQWHU5HIHUHQFH'RFXPHQW7KLVVHULHVLVLVVXHGLUUHJXODUO\7KHVHULHVW\SLFDOO\LQFOXGHVGDWD UHSRUWVRQ¿HOGDQGODEVWXGLHVSURJUHVVUHSRUWVRQH[SHULPHQWVPRQLWRULQJDQGDVVHVVPHQWVEDFNJURXQGSDSHUVIRUFROOHFWHG DEVWUDFWVRIDQGRUVXPPDU\UHSRUWVRIVFLHQWL¿FPHHWLQJVDQGVLPSOHELEOLRJUDSKLHV,VVXHVUHFHLYHLQWHUQDOVFLHQWL¿FUHYLHZDQG PRVWLVVXHVUHFHLYHFRS\HGLWLQJ

5HVRXUFH6XUYH\5HSRUW IRUPHUO\)LVKHUPHQ¶V5HSRUW 7KLVLQIRUPDWLRQUHSRUWLVDUHJXODUO\LVVXHGTXLFNWXUQDURXQGUHSRUWRQ WKHGLVWULEXWLRQDQGUHODWLYHDEXQGDQFHRIVHOHFWHGOLYLQJPDULQHUHVRXUFHVDVGHULYHGIURPHDFKRIWKH1()6&¶VSHULRGLFUHVHDUFKYHV VHOVXUYH\VRIWKH1RUWKHDVW¶VFRQWLQHQWDOVKHOI7KLVUHSRUWXQGHUJRHVLQWHUQDOUHYLHZEXWUHFHLYHVQRWHFKQLFDORUFRS\HGLWLQJ

722%7$,1$&23

$1<86(2)75$'(25%5$1'1$0(6,1$1<1()6&38%/,&$7,21255(3257'2(6127,03/<(1'256( 0(17 Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 1

SE/PSUIFBTU3FHJPOBM 4UPDL"TTFTTNFOU8PSLTIPQ SE4"8

"TTFTTNFOU4VNNBSZ3FQPSU

E\WKH1RUWKHDVW)LVKHULHV6FLHQFH&HQWHU Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 1

UG1RUWKHDVW5HJLRQDO 6WRFN$VVHVVPHQW:RUNVKRS UG6$: $VVHVVPHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUW

E\WKH1RUWKHDVW)LVKHULHV6FLHQFH&HQWHU

NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts 0DUFK Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Documents

7KLVVHULHVLVDVHFRQGDU\VFLHQWL¿FVHULHVdesigned to assure the long-term documentation and to enable the timely transmission of research results by Center and/or non-Center researchers, where such results bear upon the research mission of the Center (see the outside back cover for WKHPLVVLRQVWDWHPHQW 7KHVHGRFXPHQWVUHFHLYHLQWHUQDOVFLHQWL¿FUHYLHZDQGPRVWUHFHLYH copy editing. The National Marine Fisheries Service does not endorse any proprietary material, process, or product mentioned in these documents. All documents issued in this series since April 2001, and several documents issued prior to that date, have been SXEOLVKHG HOHFWURQLFDOO\. To access the electronic version of a document in this series, go to http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/. The electronic version is available in PDF format to permit printing of a paper copy directly from the Internet. If you do not have Internet access, SOHDVHFRQWDFW the senior Center author of the desired document. Refer to the title page of the document for the senior Center author’s name and mailing address. If there is no Center author, or if there is corporate (i.e., non- individualized) authorship, then contact the Center’s Woods Hole Laboratory Library (166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026). Information Quality Act Compliance: In accordance with section 515 of Public Law 106-554, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center completed both technical and policy reviews for WKLVUHSRUW7KHVHSUHGLVVHPLQDWLRQUHYLHZVDUHRQILOHDWWKH1()6&(GLWRULDO 2IILFH This document may be cited as:

1RUWKHDVW )LVKHULHV 6FLHQFH &HQWHU UG 1RUWKHDVW 5HJLRQDO 6WRFN $VVHVVPHQW :RUNVKRS UG 6$: $VVHVVPHQW 6XPPDU\ 5HSRUW US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 1; p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/ TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 1 Outcome of Stock Assessment Review Meeting ...... 2 Glossary ...... 3 A. OCEAN QUAHOG ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR 2017 ...... 12 State of Stock ...... 12 Projections ...... 12 Stock Distribution ...... 12 Landings ...... 12 Data and Assessment ...... 13 Spawning Stock Biomass ...... 13 Fishing Mortality ...... 13 Recruitment ...... 13 Biological Reference Points ...... 13 Special Comments ...... 14 References ...... 14 Tables ...... 15 Figures ...... 20 Appendix ...... 25

L SAW-63 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT

Introduction

The 63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report contains summary and detailed technical information on one stock assessment reviewed during February 19-21, 2017 at the Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) by the 63rd Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC-63): Ocean quahog. The SARC-63 consisted of three external, independent reviewers appointed by the Center for Independent Experts [CIE], and an external SARC chairman from the MAFMC SSC. The SARC evaluated whether each Term of Reference (listed in the Appendix) was completed successfully based on whether the work provided a scientifically credible basis for developing fishery management advice. The reviewers’ reports for SAW/SARC-63 are available at website: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/saw/ under the heading “SARC 63 Panelist Reports.”

An important aspect of any assessment is the determination of current stock status. The status of the stock relates to both the rate of removal of fish from the population – the exploitation rate – and the current stock size. The exploitation rate is the proportion of the stock alive at the beginning of the year that is caught during the year. When that proportion exceeds the amount specified in an overfishing definition, overfishing is occurring. Fishery removal rates are usually expressed in terms of the instantaneous fishing mortality rate, F, and the maximum removal rate is denoted as FTHRESHOLD.

Another important factor for classifying the status of a resource is the current stock level, for example, spawning stock biomass (SSB) or total stock biomass (TSB). Overfishing definitions, therefore, characteristically include specification of a minimum biomass threshold as well as a maximum fishing threshold. If the biomass of a stock falls below the biomass threshold (BTHRESHOLD) the stock is in an overfished condition. The Sustainable Fisheries Act mandates that a stock rebuilding plan be developed should this situation arise.

As there are two dimensions to stock status – the rate of removal and the biomass level – it is possible that a stock not currently subject to overfishing in terms of exploitation rates is in an overfished condition; that is, has a biomass level less than the threshold level. This may be due to heavy exploitation in the past, or a result of other factors such as unfavorable environmental conditions. In this case, future recruitment to the stock is very important and the probability of improvement may increase greatly by increasing the stock size. Conversely, fishing down a stock that is at a high biomass level should generally increase the long-term sustainable yield. Stocks under federal jurisdiction are managed on the basis of maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The biomass that produces this yield is called BMSY and the fishing mortality rate that produces MSY is called FMSY.

Given this, federally managed stocks under review are classified with respect to current overfishing definitions. A stock is overfished if its current biomass is below BTHRESHOLD and overfishing is occurring if current F is greater than FTHRESHOLD. The table below depicts status criteria.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 1 A. Ocean Quahog BIOMASS

B B THRESHOLD THRESHOLD MSY MSY Overfished, overfishing is Not overfished, overfishing is F = F <= occurring; reduce F, adopt and occurring; reduce F, rebuild TARGET F>F F THRESHOLD follow rebuilding plan stock MSY EXPLOITATION Overfished, overfishing is not RATE F

Outcome of Stock Assessment Review Meeting

Text in this section is based on SARC-63 Review Panel reports (available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/saw/ under the heading “SARC-63 Panelist Reports”).

SARC 63 concluded that the ocean quahog stock is neither overfished nor did it experience overfishing in 2012-2016, the period since the last benchmark assessment. Outcomes based on the new SS3 model, the previous KLAMZ model, and empirical analyses all supported the conclusion. The Panel agreed that the focus on trends and ratios, especially for assessing stock status, was appropriate. The Panel also concluded that the SAW WG had reasonably and satisfactorily completed all tasks specified in the ToRs. Fishery-independent survey results indicate that the northward shift in ocean quahog landings probably is a response of the fishery to declining abundance in the southern subregions. These declines in the south were indicated by decreasing commercial effort and LPUE. The fishery is now concentrated off Long Island where 70-80% of landings were recorded during 2005-2015. Commercial LPUE indices were not used in the assessment, and the Panel agreed that this was appropriate because of the small proportion of the stock area fished. The Panel noted the mismatch between the broad spatial scale of the stock assessment for status determination vs the smaller spatial scales at which demographic differences likely occur, and encourages more research on this topic.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 2 A. Ocean Quahog Glossary

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 3 A. Ocean Quahog differences in selectivity and availability by present. The decline is defined by survival -z age). curves such as: Nt+1 = Nte

Control Rule. Describes a plan for pre- where Nt is the number of animals in the agreed management actions as a function of population at time t and Nt+1 is the number variables related to the status of the stock. present in the next time period; Z is the total For example, a control rule can specify how instantaneous mortality rate which can be F or yield should vary with biomass. In the separated into deaths due to fishing (fishing National Standard Guidelines (NSG), the mortality or F) and deaths due to all other “MSY control rule” is used to determine the causes (natural mortality or M) and e is the limit fishing mortality, or Maximum Fishing base of the natural logarithm (2.71828). To Mortality Threshold (MFMT). Control rules better understand the concept of an are also known as “decision rules” or instantaneous mortality rate, consider the “harvest control laws.” following example. Suppose the instantaneous total mortality rate is 2 (i.e., Z Catch per Unit of Effort (CPUE). = 2) and we want to know how many Measures the relative success of fishing animals out of an initial population of 1 operations, but also can be used as a proxy million fish will be alive at the end of one for relative abundance based on the year. If the year is apportioned into 365 days assumption that CPUE is linearly related to (that is, the 'instant' of time is one day), then stock size. The use of CPUE that has not 2/365 or 0.548% of the population will die been properly standardized for temporal- each day. On the first day of the year, 5,480 spatial changes in catchability should be fish will die (1,000,000 x 0.00548), leaving avoided. 994,520 alive. On day 2, another 5,450 fish Exploitation pattern. The fishing mortality die (994,520 x 0.00548) leaving 989,070 on each age (or group of adjacent ages) of a alive. At the end of the year, 134,593 fish stock relative to the highest mortality on any [1,000,000 x (1 - 0.00548)365] remain alive. age. The exploitation pattern is expressed as If we had instead selected a smaller 'instant' a series of values ranging from 0.0 to 1.0. of time, say an hour, 0.0228% of the The pattern is referred to as “flat-topped” population would have died by the end of when the values for all the oldest ages are the first time interval (an hour), leaving about 1.0, and “dome-shaped” when the 135,304 fish alive at the end of the year values for some intermediate ages are about [1,000,000 x (1 - 0.00228)8760]. As the 1.0 and those for the oldest ages are instant of time becomes shorter and shorter, significantly lower. This pattern often varies the exact answer to the number of animals by type of fishing gear, area, and seasonal surviving is given by the survival curve distribution of fishing, and the growth and mentioned above, or, in this example: migration of the fish. The pattern can be N = 1,000,000e-2 = 135,335 fish changed by modifications to fishing gear, t+1 for example, increasing mesh or hook size, Exploitation rate. The proportion of a or by changing the proportion of harvest by population alive at the beginning of the year gear type. that is caught during the year. That is, if 1 million fish were alive on January 1 and Mortality rates. Populations of animals 200,000 were caught during the year, the decline exponentially. This means that the exploitation rate is 0.20 (200,000 / number of animals that die in an "instant" is 1,000,000) or 20%. at all times proportional to the number

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 4 A. Ocean Quahog FMAX. The rate of fishing mortality that limits are referred to as thresholds. In much produces the maximum level of yield per of the international literature (e.g., FAO recruit. This is the point beyond which documents), “thresholds” are used as buffer growth overfishing begins. points that signal when a limit is being approached. F0.1. The fishing mortality rate where the increase in yield per recruit for an increase Landings per Unit of Effort (LPUE). in a unit of effort is only 10% of the yield Analogous to CPUE and measures the per recruit produced by the first unit of relative success of fishing operations, but is effort on the unexploited stock (i.e., the also sometimes used a proxy for relative slope of the yield-per-recruit curve for the abundance based on the assumption that F0.1 rate is only one-tenth the slope of the CPUE is linearly related to stock size. curve at its origin). MSFCMA. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery F10%. The fishing mortality rate which Conservation and Management Act. U.S. reduces the spawning stock biomass per Public Law 94-265, as amended through recruit (SSB/R) to 10% of the amount October 11, 1996. Available as NOAA present in the absence of fishing. More Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-23, generally, Fx%, is the fishing mortality rate 1996. that reduces the SSB/R to x% of the level Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold that would exist in the absence of fishing. (MFMT, FTHRESHOLD). One of the Status FMSY. The fishing mortality rate that Determination Criteria (SDC) for produces the maximum sustainable yield. determining if overfishing is occurring. It will usually be equivalent to the F Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Plan corresponding to the MSY Control Rule. If containing conservation and management current fishing mortality rates are above measures for fishery resources, and other F provisions required by the MSFCMA, THRESHOLD, overfishing is occurring. developed by Fishery Management Councils Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST, or the Secretary of Commerce. BTHRESHOLD). Another of the Status Generation Time. In the context of the Determination Criteria. The greater of (a) National Standard Guidelines, generation ½BMSY, or (b) the minimum stock size at time is a measure of the time required for a which rebuilding to BMSY will occur within female to produce a reproductively-active 10 years of fishing at the MFMT. MSST female offspring for use in setting maximum should be measured in terms of spawning allowable rebuilding time periods. biomass or other appropriate measures of productive capacity. If current stock size is Growth overfishing. The situation existing below BTHRESHOLD, the stock is overfished. when the rate of fishing mortality is above Maximum Spawning Potential (MSP). F and when fish are harvested before MAX This type of reference point is used in some they reach their growth potential. fishery management plans to define Limit Reference Points. Benchmarks used overfishing. The MSP is the spawning stock to indicate when harvests should be biomass per recruit (SSB/R) when fishing constrained substantially so that the stock mortality is zero. The degree to which remains within safe biological limits. The fishing reduces the SSB/R is expressed as a probability of exceeding limits should be percentage of the MSP (i.e., %MSP). A low. In the National Standard Guidelines, stock is considered overfished when the

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 5 A. Ocean Quahog fishery reduces the %MSP below the level age or size at which recruitment is measured specified in the overfishing definition. The may correspond to when the young fish values of %MSP used to define overfishing become vulnerable to capture in a fishery or can be derived from stock-recruitment data when the number of fish in a cohort can be or chosen by analogy using available reliably estimated by a stock assessment. information on the level required to sustain Recruitment overfishing. The situation the stock. existing when the fishing mortality rate is so Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). The high as to cause a reduction in spawning largest average catch that can be taken from stock which causes recruitment to become a stock under existing environmental impaired. conditions. Recruitment per spawning stock biomass Overfishing. According to the National (R/SSB). The number of fishery recruits Standard Guidelines, “overfishing occurs (usually age 1 or 2) produced from a given whenever a stock or stock complex is weight of spawners, usually expressed as subjected to a rate or level of fishing numbers of recruits per kilogram of mature mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fish in the stock. This ratio can be computed stock or stock complex to produce MSY on for each year class and is often used as an a continuing basis.” Overfishing is index of pre-recruit survival, since a high occurring if the MFMT is exceeded for 1 R/SSB ratio in one year indicates above- year or more. average numbers resulting from a given spawning biomass for a particular year class, Optimum Yield (OY). The amount of fish and vice versa. that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to Reference Points. Values of parameters food production and recreational (e.g. BMSY, FMSY, F0.1) that are useful opportunities and taking into account the benchmarks for guiding management protection of marine ecosystems. MSY decisions. Biological reference points are constitutes a “ceiling” for OY. OY may be typically limits that should not be exceeded lower than MSY, depending on relevant with significant probability (e.g., MSST) or economic, social, or ecological factors. In targets for management (e.g., OY). the case of an overfished fishery, OY should Risk. The probability of an event times the provide for rebuilding to BMSY. cost associated with the event (loss Partial Recruitment. Patterns of relative function). Sometimes “risk” is simply used vulnerability of fish of different sizes or to denote the probability of an undesirable ages due to the combined effects of result (e.g. the risk of biomass falling below selectivity and availability. MSST). Rebuilding Plan. A plan that must be Status Determination Criteria (SDC). designed to recover stocks to the BMSY level Objective and measurable criteria used to within 10 years when they are overfished determine if a stock is being overfished or is (i.e. when B < MSST). Normally, the 10 in an overfished state according to the years would refer to an expected time to National Standard Guidelines. rebuild in a probabilistic sense. Selectivity. Measures the relative Recruitment. This is the number of young vulnerability of different age (size) classes fish that survive (from birth) to a specific to the fishing gears(s). age or grow to a specific size. The specific

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 6 A. Ocean Quahog Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB). The total TAC. Total allowable catch is the total weight of all sexually mature fish in a stock. regulated catch from a stock in a given time period, usually a year. Spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSB/R or SBR). The expected lifetime Target Reference Points. Benchmarks contribution to the spawning stock biomass used to guide management objectives for for each recruit. SSB/R is calculated achieving a desirable outcome (e.g., OY). assuming that F is constant over the life span Target reference points should not be of a year class. The calculated value is also exceeded on average. dependent on the exploitation pattern and Uncertainty. Uncertainty results from a rates of growth and natural mortality, all of lack of perfect knowledge of many factors which are also assumed to be constant. that affect stock assessments, estimation of Stock Synthesis (SS). This application reference points, and management. provides a statistical framework for Rosenberg and Restrepo (1994) identify five calibration of a population dynamics model types: measurement error (in observed using a diversity of fishery and survey data. quantities), process error (or natural SS is designed to accommodate both age population variability), model error (mis- and size structure and with multiple stock specification of assumed values or model sub-areas. Selectivity can be cast as age structure), estimation error (in population specific only, size-specific in the parameters or reference points, due to any of observations only, or size-specific with the the preceding types of errors), and ability to capture the major effect of size- implementation error (or the inability to specific survivorship. The overall model achieve targets exactly for whatever reason) contains subcomponents which simulate the Virtual Population Analysis (VPA) (or population dynamics of the stock and cohort analysis). A retrospective analysis of fisheries, derive the expected values for the the catches from a given year class which various observed data, and quantify the provides estimates of fishing mortality and magnitude of difference between observed stock size at each age over its life in the and expected data. Parameters are sought fishery. This technique is used extensively which will maximize the goodness-of-fit. A in fishery assessments. management layer is also included in the model allowing uncertainty in estimated Year class (or cohort). Fish born in a given parameters to be propagated to the year. For example, the 1987 year class of management quantities, thus facilitating a cod includes all cod born in 1987. This year description of the risk of various possible class would be age 1 in 1988, age 2 in 1989, management scenarios. The structure of SS and so on. allows for building of simple to complex Yield per recruit (Y/R or YPR). The models depending upon the data available. average expected yield in weight from a Survival Ratios. Ratios of recruits to single recruit. Y/R is calculated assuming spawners (or spawning biomass) in a stock- that F is constant over the life span of a year recruitment analysis. The same as the class. The calculated value is also dependent recruitment per spawning stock biomass on the exploitation pattern, rate of growth, (R/SSB). and natural mortality rate, all of which are assumed to be constant.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 7 A. Ocean Quahog 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 45

35 44 39 34 38 40 36 33 43 37 31 27 32 26 28 29 30 22 42 24 21 20 19 16 18 25 23 41 5 9 17 13 6 10 1 15 40 2 14 7 8 11 12 4 73 39 74 3 76 69 75 72 38 71 70 65 68 37 67 66 61 64 36 63 62

Figure 1. Offshore depth strata sampled during Northeast Fisheries Science Center bottom trawl research surveys. Some of these may not be sampled presently.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 8 A. Ocean Quahog 71 70 69 68 67 45

75 74 73 72 71

45 47 40 3 41 1 6 2 39 4 41 9 5 8 12 7 36 14 13 11 10

40 16 44 15 17

42 18 20 19 43 21 23 39 22 24 25 35 26

Figure 2. Inshore depth strata sampled during Northeast Fisheries Science Center bottom trawl research surveys. Some of these may not be sampled presently.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 9 A. Ocean Quahog Figure 3. Statistical areas used for reporting commercial catches.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 10 A. Ocean Quahog Figure 4. Northeast Fisheries Science Center clam resource survey strata, along the east coast of the US.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 11 A. Ocean Quahog A. OCEAN QUAHOG ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR 2017

Status of the Stock: The ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) stock was not overfished in 2016. Based on SAW/SARC-63 reference points from the 2017 assessment for the stock, estimated SSB2016/SSBThreshold = 2.04 (probability overfished < 0.01; Table A1 and Figure A1), where SSB is spawning stock biomass. The US EEZ stock extends from the US/Canadian border to Cape Hatteras and is modeled as two areas (northern and southern, defined below).

Overfishing did not occur in 2016. Based on SAW/SARC-63 reference points, estimated F2016/FThreshold = 0.246 (probability overfishing < 0.01; Table A1 and Figure A2), where F is fishing mortality rate.

Model results and empirical analyses indicated that SSB was high and F’s rates were low relative to the reference points. Sensitivity analyses indicate that trends in SSB and F were estimated with acceptable precision. Exploitation rates from catch and swept-area biomass were consistent with model results and also indicated that stock biomass was high and fishing mortality rates were low. There is no indication that overfishing or overfished stock conditions occurred during 1982-2016.

Based on the previous reference points from SAW/SARC-48 (2009), SSB2016/SSBThreshold = 2.33 (probability overfished < 0.01), and F2016/FThreshold = 0.207 (probability overfishing < 0.01).

Projections: Recruitment in the projections was assumed equal to recruitment in the two areas in the last year of the assessment model when total recruitment was representative of the historical average. Confidence intervals were based on uncertainty in both recruitment and the stock size in 2016. Results indicate overfishing is unlikely during 2017-2067 at status quo or quota catch levels. Overfished conditions did not result during 2017-2067 under any of the projection scenarios (Table A2). Additional projection runs in the assessment report that assume lower recruitment also indicate that overfishing and overfished stock conditions are unlikely to occur even if recruitment declines to negligible levels during the projection period.

Stock Distribution: In the western Atlantic, ocean quahog is found from Cape Hatteras to Newfoundland from depths of 20 to 100 m or more. The federal ocean quahog resource in the US EEZ is assessed in two areas, northern and southern. The northern area is Georges Bank. The southern area is Southern New England to Cape Hatteras. Ocean quahog in the Gulf of Maine is not included in the assessment model, but stock assessment results for that area are presented in the assessment report.

Landings: Fisheries data for 1982-2016 were from mandatory logbook reports and are considered accurate (Table A1 and Figure A3). Except for 1996-1998 landings have not reached the quota (current quota = 24,190 mt) because of limited markets. EEZ landings peaked during 1989-1992 at 22 thousand mt, fell to 17 thousand mt during 1998-2004, and dropped to about 15 thousand mt during 2006-2016. Landings in the small Maine fishery ranged from 387 mt in 2002 to 125 mt in 2015.

Ocean quahog landings and fishing effort have shifted north through time as catch rates in the south declined (Figure A3). Landings were mostly from the Delmarva and New Jersey regions during 1980-1991 and then shifted to Long Island and Southern New England. The Long Island 63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 12 A. Ocean Quahog region provided 70-80% of ocean quahog landings during the last three years. There were no landings from Georges Bank in most years during 1990-2012 and they remain low, despite the reopening in 2013 of areas that were closed previously because of the risk of paralytic shellfish poison (PSP). Despite declines in the southernmost regions, landings per unit effort (LPUE) for the fishery as a whole has been relatively constant.

Data and assessment: A Stock Synthesis model was used for the first time in an ocean quahog assessment to estimate biomass and fishing mortality based on commercial catch and size composition data, fishery independent abundance indices, and size and biological data from NEFSC clam surveys. The Stock Synthesis model used data starting in 1982 (Figures A1-A2 and A4). The model treated recruitment, selectivity, and catchability separately in the northern and southern areas. The model had two areas because of differences in biological parameters, fishing history, recruitment patterns, and survey timing. The model was informed by estimates of capture efficiency and size selectivity from cooperative field experiments. Abundance indices were derived from two resource surveys. A new survey using a commercial fishing vessel and modified commercial dredge replaced the previous survey which was carried out during 1982-2011 using a smaller dredge. The new survey was conducted in the southern area during 2012 and 2015 and in the northern area (Georges Bank) during 2013 and 2016. Although earlier NEFSC clam surveys began in the 1960s, they were not considered in this stock assessment due to differences in survey methods.

Spawning stock biomass: Relative SSB (SSB/SSBThreshold) has been stable and above the threshold level (Table A1, Figure A1). Estimated total SSB2016 = 3.3 million mt (95% confidence interval = 2.5 to 4.3 million mt) and the SSB2016/SSBThreshold = 2.04.

Fishing mortality: Relative F (F/FThreshold) has been stable and is below the threshold (Table A1, Figure A2). Estimated F2016=0.005 (95% confidence interval = 0.003 to 0.006) and the F2016/FThreshold = 0.246.

Recruitment: There is little information about annual recruitment variability for ocean quahog. Model estimated recruitment has been stable and near unfished recruitment levels since 2000 (Figure A4, see Special Comment).

Biological reference points: New reference points were developed in this assessment based on management strategy evaluation (MSE; Table A3). They are presented as ratios. For example, the ratio SSB2016/SSBThreshold=2.04 in Table A3 means that spawning stock biomass in 2016 was 2.04 times the SSBThreshold. Ratios are more robust to uncertainty in estimating biomass.

According to the reference points in the 2017 assessment, the stock would be considered overfished if SSBcurrent/SSBThreshold was less than 1. The new BMSY proxy is SSBTarget = 0.5*SSB0 and the new biomass threshold is SSBThreshold = 0.4*SSB0, where SSB0 is mean unfished spawning biomass estimated by assessment models. The stock would be considered overfished if SSB fell below 0.4*SSB0. See Table A3 for details.

According to the new reference points, overfishing would be occurring if fishing mortality was larger than the threshold fishing mortality rate (FThreshold) producing an Fcurrent/FThreshold ratio greater than 1.0. The proxy FMSY=0.019 is the new FThreshold reference point for the stock. It is based on a 63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 13 A. Ocean Quahog management strategy evaluation analysis, rather than a proxy used for long-lived rockfish (Table A3). MSY proxy, based on applying the FMSY proxy to the Bmsy proxy, was 73,298 mt (Table A3).

Special Comments

The broad conclusions of the assessment model (Stock Synthesis) were supported by empirical analyses and the previous assessment model (KLAMZ).

Estimates of absolute biomass for the entire time series were similar to earlier assessments. Despite uncertainty about scale, no retrospective adjustments were required for spawning stock biomass or fishing mortality trends.

Initial work with tree models and environmental variables to predict ocean quahog locations and density were promising. However, more work is required to determine the spatial precision of these predictions and how they might be used in future assessments, or surveys.

True recruitment is difficult to estimate in the ocean quahog assessment because there is no age composition data and growth is highly variable. The model estimates a strong peak in recruitment in the mid-1990s because of the abundance of small quahogs in recent length compositions. However, the estimate is uncertain and the actual year class strength will not be known for several decades (Figure A4). Periodic, large recruitment events are common in bivalves,

There are substantial opportunities to improve the clam/quahog survey that would improve its precision and utility in the stock assessment. Work is underway to examine this issue.

It is recognized that the assessment considers the stock at large spatial scales and there is scope for better understanding of demographic processes at smaller spatial scales not now captured in the model. Considerable value may be added to the assessment through research that addresses these mismatches between the spatial scale of the assessment and that of population processes and fishery operations.

References

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2009. 48th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (48th SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 09-15; 834 p.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 14 A. Ocean Quahog Table A1. Catch and status table for ocean quahog.

1,2 1,2 1,2 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Min Max Mean

Whole stock 3 Landings 15,564 15,727 15,710 16,289 14,332 15,864 14,721 14,498 13,639 9,542 9,542 22,477 17,250 w/discard & 3,4 incidental 16,342 16,513 16,496 17,103 15,049 16,657 15,457 15,223 14,321 10,019 10,019 23,601 18,112 5 SSB 3,140 3,154 3,170 3,188 3,205 3,224 3,241 3,257 3,273 3,287 3,123 4,027 3,304 6 SSB/SSBThreshold 1.95 1.96 1.97 1.98 1.99 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 1.94 2.19 2.04 F 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.006 0.005 7 F/FThreshold 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.20 0.33 0.27 8 Recruitment (R/R0) 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 2.73 1.07 1Summary statistics for landings and catch: 1980-2016 2Summary statistics for SSB, F and recruitment during 1980-2016 3Landings, discards, incidental and catch are mt meats (2016 landings are partial) 4Incidental = landings + 5%; Discards zero 5SSB in thousand mt meats 6 SSBThreshold=0.4*SSB0 7 FThreshold= FMSY proxy= 0.01855 8 R0 is mean recruitment for an unfished stock

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 15 A. Ocean Quahog - Tables

Table A2. Projections for ocean quahog based on “status quo” catches (catch = landings + 5% = 13,807 mt per year), “quota” (catch = 24,190 mt quota + 5% = 25,400 mt per year) and OFL (Catch at F§FThreshold harvest levels) during 2017-2067. SSB/SSBThreshold < 1 indicates overfished and F/FThreshold > 1 indicates overfishing. Each simulation started in 2016 at SSB listed in Table A3. Biomass units are in mt meats.

Year Status Quo Quota OFL Status Quo Quota OFL Status Quo Quota OFL

SSB SSB/SSBThreshold F/FThreshold 2017 3299930 3299930 3299930 2.049 2.049 2.049 0.251 0.416 1.027 2018 3310860 3302630 3270880 2.055 2.050 2.031 0.249 0.415 1.027 2019 3320590 3304210 3241460 2.061 2.051 2.012 0.248 0.413 1.026 2020 3329230 3304800 3211770 2.067 2.052 1.994 0.246 0.412 1.025 2021 3336870 3304480 3181920 2.071 2.051 1.975 0.245 0.410 1.024 2022 3343620 3303360 3152030 2.076 2.051 1.957 0.243 0.409 1.023 2023 3349560 3301530 3122190 2.079 2.050 1.938 0.242 0.407 1.021 2024 3354780 3299070 3092500 2.083 2.048 1.920 0.240 0.406 1.019 2025 3359330 3296060 3063050 2.085 2.046 1.901 0.239 0.404 1.016 2026 3363300 3292570 3033920 2.088 2.044 1.883 0.237 0.402 1.010 2027 3366730 3288660 3005160 2.090 2.042 1.866 0.235 0.400 1.004 2028 3369690 3284380 2976850 2.092 2.039 1.848 0.233 0.398 0.997 2029 3372210 3279790 2949030 2.093 2.036 1.831 0.233 0.398 0.997 2030 3374350 3274920 2921730 2.095 2.033 1.814 0.233 0.400 0.998 2031 3376150 3269820 2895010 2.096 2.030 1.797 0.234 0.401 1.000 2032 3377630 3264530 2868870 2.097 2.027 1.781 0.234 0.403 1.002 2033 3378840 3259070 2843350 2.098 2.023 1.765 0.234 0.404 1.004 2034 3379790 3253480 2818470 2.098 2.020 1.750 0.234 0.405 1.006 2035 3380530 3247780 2794230 2.099 2.016 1.735 0.234 0.406 1.007 2036 3381060 3242000 2770640 2.099 2.013 1.720 0.234 0.406 1.008 2037 3381430 3236160 2747710 2.099 2.009 1.706 0.234 0.407 1.009 2038 3381630 3230270 2725440 2.099 2.005 1.692 0.234 0.407 1.010 2039 3381700 3224360 2703830 2.099 2.002 1.678 0.234 0.408 1.010 2040 3381650 3218430 2682860 2.099 1.998 1.665 0.234 0.408 1.011 2041 3381490 3212500 2662550 2.099 1.994 1.653 0.233 0.408 1.011 2042 3381230 3206580 2642870 2.099 1.991 1.641 0.233 0.409 1.011 2043 3380890 3200690 2623820 2.099 1.987 1.629 0.233 0.409 1.011 2044 3380480 3194820 2605390 2.099 1.983 1.617 0.233 0.409 1.011 2045 3380010 3188990 2587560 2.098 1.980 1.606 0.233 0.410 1.011 2046 3379480 3183210 2570320 2.098 1.976 1.596 0.233 0.410 1.011 2047 3378900 3177470 2553670 2.098 1.973 1.585 0.232 0.410 1.011 2048 3378280 3171780 2537580 2.097 1.969 1.575 0.232 0.411 1.011 2049 3377620 3166160 2522040 2.097 1.966 1.566 0.232 0.411 1.011 2050 3376940 3160590 2507040 2.096 1.962 1.556 0.232 0.411 1.011 2051 3376230 3155090 2492560 2.096 1.959 1.547 0.232 0.411 1.011 2052 3375500 3149660 2478580 2.095 1.955 1.539 0.232 0.412 1.011 2053 3374750 3144290 2465100 2.095 1.952 1.530 0.232 0.412 1.010 2054 3373990 3138990 2452090 2.095 1.949 1.522 0.231 0.412 1.010 2055 3373210 3133760 2439550 2.094 1.945 1.514 0.231 0.412 1.010 2056 3372430 3128600 2427450 2.094 1.942 1.507 0.231 0.412 1.010 2057 3371640 3123520 2415790 2.093 1.939 1.500 0.231 0.413 1.010 2058 3370850 3118500 2404550 2.093 1.936 1.493 0.231 0.413 1.010 2059 3370050 3113560 2393710 2.092 1.933 1.486 0.231 0.413 1.009

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 16 A. Ocean Quahog - Tables

Year Status Quo Quota OFL Status Quo Quota OFL Status Quo Quota OFL

SSB SSB/SSBThreshold F/FThreshold 2060 3369260 3108690 2383260 2.092 1.930 1.479 0.231 0.413 1.009 2061 3368460 3103890 2373200 2.091 1.927 1.473 0.230 0.413 1.009 2062 3367660 3099160 2363500 2.091 1.924 1.467 0.230 0.413 1.009 2063 3366870 3094490 2354150 2.090 1.921 1.461 0.230 0.413 1.009 2064 3366080 3089900 2345140 2.090 1.918 1.456 0.230 0.413 1.008 2065 3365290 3085380 2336460 2.089 1.915 1.450 0.230 0.413 1.008 2066 3364510 3080920 2328100 2.089 1.913 1.445 0.230 0.413 1.008

Table A2 continued. Projections for ocean quahog based on “status quo” catches (catch = landings + 5% = 13,807 mt per year), “quota” (catch = 24,190 mt quota + 5% = 25,400 mt per year) and OFL (Catch at F§FThreshold harvest levels) during 2017-2067. SSB/SSBThreshold < 1 indicates overfished and F/FThreshold > 1 indicates overfishing. Each simulation started in 2016 at SSB listed in Table A3. Biomass units are in mt meats.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 17 A. Ocean Quahog - Tables

Table A3. Ocean quahog. Comparison of SAW-48 (NEFSC 2009) and SAW-63 (this 2017 assessment) biological reference points and reference point calculations for 2016. This comparison uses the current model for both columns, but the different reference point definitions from SAW-48 and SAW-63. Biomass units are mt meats.

New SAW63 SAW48 (2013 SAW48 (2017 (2017 Reference point computed computed computed values) values) values)

Definitions

F proxy = F proxy = MSY F MSY F proxy = F45% 0.019 (from MSY F45% MSY MSE)

FThreshold Same as FMSY Same as FMSY Same as FMSY

BTarget B1978/ 2 SSB1982/ 2 SSB0/ 2

BThreshold B1978* 0. 4 SSB1982* 0. 4 SSB0*0. 4

Values

MSYproxy 73,298

FMSY 0.022 0.022 0.019 FThreshold

Fterminal 0.005 0.005 0.005

Fterminal/FThreshold 0.227 0.207 0.246 Overfishing? No No No

B0 3,460,000 3,525,900 4,027,200

BTarget 1,730,000 1,762,950 2,013,585

BThreshold 1,384,000 1,410,360 1,610,868

Bterminal 2,960,000 3,287,300 3,287,300

Bterminal/BThreshold 2.14 2.33 2.04 Overfished? No No No

Note: The SAW-48 reference points were originally defined in terms of fishable biomass while those for SAW-63 in 2017 are defined in SSB. Here both columns are SSB to allow for direct comparison.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 18 A. Ocean Quahog - Tables

Table A4. Projected ocean quahog catch (landings + incidental mortality) at the over fishing limit in selected years, with mean, median, coefficient of variation (CV), and approximate upper and lower 95% lognormal confidence limits (UCI, LCI).

Year Mean Median CV LCI UCI 2017 65293 64702 0.135 50173 84969 2018 64755 64167 0.135 49760 84269 2019 64225 63642 0.135 49352 83580 2020 63693 63116 0.136 48849 83048 2021 63138 62573 0.136 48423 82324 2026 60410 59846 0.138 46152 79072 2041 52689 52202 0.136 40410 68700 2066 45066 44785 0.113 36138 56199

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 19 A. Ocean Quahog - Tables

Figure A1. Trends in relative spawning stock biomass (SSB/SSBThreshold) for the whole ocean quahog stock during 1982-2016. The solid line shows estimates from this assessment with approximate 50, 80, 90, and 95th percentile lognormal confidence intervals in shades of grey. The green short-dash line at SSB/SSBThreshold = 1.25 is the management target. The red long-dash line at SSB/SSBThreshold = 1 is the level that defines an overfished stock.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 20 A. Ocean Quahog - Figures

Figure A2. Trends in relative fishing mortality F/FThreshold for ocean quahog stock 1982-2016. The solid line shows estimates from this assessment with approximate 50, 80, 90, and 95th percentile lognormal confidence intervals in shades of grey. The solid line at F/FThreshold = 1 is the new fishing mortality threshold reference point.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 21 A. Ocean Quahog - Figures

Figure A3. Landings for ocean quahogs by region during 1980-2016. Regions from north to south are abbreviated with MNE for Maine, GBK for Georges Bank, SNE for Southern New England, LI for Long Island, NJ for New Jersey, DMV for Delmarva, and SVA for Southern Virginia.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 22 A. Ocean Quahog - Figures

Figure A4. Trends in relative recruitment (R/R0 for age zero recruits) for the whole ocean quahog stock during 1982-2016. The solid line shows estimates from this assessment with approximate 50, 80, 90, and 95th percentile lognormal confidence intervals in shades of grey. The horizontal line is mean recruitment in the unfished stock (R0). The recruitment time series is probably not reflective of true recruitment to the stock (see Special Comments).

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 23 A. Ocean Quahog - Figures

Figure A5. Distribution of projected catch (landings + incidental mortality) at the Overfishing Limit (OFL) from 2017-2066 for ocean quahog in eight example years.

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 24 A. Ocean Quahog - Figures

Appendix: Stock Assessment Terms of Reference for SAW/SARC-63, Feb. 19-21, 2017

A. Ocean quahog 1. Estimate catch from all sources including landings and discards. Map the spatial and temporal distribution of landings, discards, and fishing effort, as appropriate. Characterize the uncertainty in these sources of data.

2. Present the survey data being used in the assessment (e.g., indices of relative or absolute abundance, recruitment, state surveys, length data, etc.). Use logbook data to investigate regional changes in LPUE, catch and effort. Characterize the uncertainty and any bias in these sources of data. Evaluate the spatial coverage, precision, and accuracy of the new clam survey.

3. Describe the relationship between habitat characteristics (e.g., benthic, pelagic, and climate), survey data, and ocean quahog distribution, and report on any changes in this relationship.

4. Evaluate age determination methods and available data for ocean quahogs to potentially estimate growth, productivity, and recruitment. Review changes over time in biological parameters such as length, width, and condition.

5. Estimate annual fishing mortality, recruitment and stock biomass (both total and spawning stock) for the time series (integrating results from TOR 4, as appropriate) and estimate their uncertainty. Include a historical retrospective analysis to allow a comparison with previous assessment results and previous projections.

8. Develop approaches and apply them to conduct stock projections. a. Provide numerical annual projections (5 – 50 years) and the statistical distribution (e.g., probability density function) of the OFL (overfishing level), including model estimated and other uncertainties. Consider cases using nominal as well as potential levels of uncertainty in the model. Each projection should estimate and report annual probabilities of exceeding threshold BRPs for F, and probabilities of

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 25 A. Ocean Quahog - Appendix

falling below threshold BRPs for biomass. Use a sensitivity analysis approach in which a range of assumptions about the most important uncertainties in the assessment are considered (e.g., terminal year abundance, variability in recruitment). b. Comment on which projections seem most realistic. Consider the major uncertainties in the assessment as well as sensitivity of the projections to various assumptions. c. Describe this stock’s vulnerability (see “Appendix to the SAW TORs”) to becoming overfished, and how this could affect the choice of ABC.

9. Review, evaluate and report on the status of the SARC and Working Group research recommendations listed in most recent SARC reviewed assessment and review panel reports. Identify new research recommendations.

Appendix to the SAW Assessment TORs:

Clarification of Terms used in the SAW/SARC Terms of Reference

On “Acceptable Biological Catch” (DOC Nat. Stand. Guidel. Fed. Reg., v. 74, no. 11, 1-16- 2009):

ABC for overfished stocks. For overfished stocks and stock complexes, a rebuilding ABC must be set to reflect the annual catch that is consistent with the schedule of fishing mortality rates in the rebuilding plan. (p. 3209)

NMFS expects that in most cases ABC will be reduced from OFL to reduce the probability that overfishing might occur in a year. (p. 3180)

On “Vulnerability” (DOC Natl. Stand. Guidelines. Fed. Reg., v. 74, no. 11, 1-16-2009):

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 26 A. Ocean Quahog - Appendix

direct captures, as well as indirect impacts to the fishery (e.g., loss of habitat quality).” (p. 3205)

Participation among members of a SAW Assessment Working Group:

One model or alternative models:

63rd SAW Assessment Summary Report 27 A. Ocean Quahog - Appendix 3URFHGXUHVIRU,VVXLQJ0DQXVFULSWV LQWKH 1RUWKHDVW)LVKHULHV6FLHQFH&HQWHU5HIHUHQFH'RFXPHQW &5' 6HULHV

&OHDUDQFH FUXVWDFHDQVWKH6RFLHW\IRU0DULQH0DPPDORJ\¶V $OOPDQXVFULSWVVXEPLWWHGIRULVVXDQFHDV&5'V JXLGHWRQDPHVRIPDULQHPDPPDOVWKH%LRVFLHQFHV PXVWKDYHFOHDUHGWKH1()6&¶VPDQXVFULSWDEVWUDFW ,QIRUPDWLRQ6HUYLFH¶VJXLGHWRVHULDOWLWOHDEEUHYLDWLRQV ZHESDJHUHYLHZSURFHVV,IDQ\DXWKRULVQRWDIHGHUDO DQGWKH,62¶V ,QWHUQDWLRQDO6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ2UJDQL]D HPSOR\HHKHVKHZLOOEHUHTXLUHGWRVLJQDQ³1()6& WLRQ JXLGHWRVWDWLVWLFDOWHUPV 5HOHDVHRI&RS\ULJKW)RUP´,I\RXUPDQXVFULSW )RULQWH[WFLWDWLRQXVHWKHQDPHGDWHV\VWHP$ LQFOXGHVPDWHULDOIURPDQRWKHUZRUNZKLFKKDVEHHQ VSHFLDOHIIRUWVKRXOGEHPDGHWRHQVXUHWKDWDOOQHFHV FRS\ULJKWHGWKHQ\RXZLOOQHHGWRZRUNZLWKWKH VDU\ELEOLRJUDSKLFLQIRUPDWLRQLVLQFOXGHGLQWKHOLVW 1()6&¶V(GLWRULDO2I¿FHWRDUUDQJHIRUSHUPLVVLRQ RIFLWHGZRUNV3HUVRQDOFRPPXQLFDWLRQVPXVWLQFOXGH WRXVHWKDWPDWHULDOE\VHFXULQJUHOHDVHVLJQDWXUHVRQ GDWHIXOOQDPHDQGIXOOPDLOLQJDGGUHVVRIWKHFRQ WKH³1()6&8VHRI&RS\ULJKWHG:RUN3HUPLVVLRQ WDFW )RUP´ )RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQ1()6&DXWKRUVVKRXOGVHH 3UHSDUDWLRQ WKH1()6&¶VRQOLQHSXEOLFDWLRQSROLF\PDQXDO³0DQX 2QFH\RXUGRFXPHQWKDVFOHDUHGWKHUHYLHZSUR VFULSWDEVWUDFWZHESDJHSUHSDUDWLRQUHYLHZDQGGLV FHVVWKH(GLWRULDO2I¿FHZLOOFRQWDFW\RXZLWKSXEOLFD VHPLQDWLRQ1()6&DXWKRU¶VJXLGHWRSROLF\SURFHVV WLRQQHHGV±IRUH[DPSOHUHYLVHGWH[W LIQHFHVVDU\ DQG DQGSURFHGXUH´ORFDWHGLQWKH3XEOLFDWLRQV0DQXVFULSW VHSDUDWHGLJLWDO¿JXUHVDQGWDEOHVLIWKH\DUHHPEHGGHG 5HYLHZVHFWLRQRIWKH1()6&LQWUDQHWSDJH LQWKHGRFXPHQW0DWHULDOVPD\EHVXEPLWWHGWRWKH (GLWRULDO 2IILFH DV HPDLO DWWDFKPHQWV RU LQWUDQHW 2UJDQL]DWLRQ GRZQORDGV7H[WILOHVVKRXOGEHLQ0LFURVRIW:RUG 0DQXVFULSWVPXVWKDYHDQDEVWUDFWDQGWDEOHRI WDEOHVPD\EHLQ:RUGRU([FHO DQG JUDSKLFV ILOHV FRQWHQWVDQG LIDSSOLFDEOH OLVWVRI¿JXUHVDQGWDEOHV PD\ EH LQ D YDULHW\ RI IRUPDWV -3* *,) ([FHO $VPXFKDVSRVVLEOHXVHWUDGLWLRQDOVFLHQWL¿FPDQX 3RZHU3RLQWHWF VFULSWRUJDQL]DWLRQIRUVHFWLRQV³,QWURGXFWLRQ´³6WXG\ $UHD´DQGRU´([SHULPHQWDO$SSDUDWXV´³0HWKRGV´ 3URGXFWLRQDQG'LVWULEXWLRQ ³5HVXOWV´³'LVFXVVLRQ´³&RQFOXVLRQV´³$FNQRZO 7KH(GLWRULDO2I¿FHZLOOSHUIRUPDFRS\HGLWRI HGJPHQWV´DQG³/LWHUDWXUH5HIHUHQFHV&LWHG´ WKHGRFXPHQWDQGPD\UHTXHVWIXUWKHUUHYLVLRQV7KH (GLWRULDO2I¿FHZLOOGHYHORSWKHLQVLGHDQGRXWVLGH 6W\OH IURQWFRYHUVWKHLQVLGHDQGRXWVLGHEDFNFRYHUVDQG 7KH&5'VHULHVLVREOLJDWHGWRFRQIRUPZLWKWKH WKHWLWOHDQGELEOLRJUDSKLFFRQWUROSDJHVRIWKHGRFX VW\OHFRQWDLQHGLQWKHFXUUHQWHGLWLRQRIWKH8QLWHG PHQW 6WDWHV*RYHUQPHQW3ULQWLQJ2I¿FH6W\OH0DQXDO7KDW 2QFHWKH :HE YHUVLRQ RI WKH &5' LV UHDG\ VW\OHPDQXDOLVVLOHQWRQPDQ\DVSHFWVRIVFLHQWL¿F WKH (GLWRULDO 2IILFHZLOO FRQWDFW\RXWRUHYLHZDQG PDQXVFULSWV7KH&5'VHULHVUHOLHVPRUHRQWKH&6( VXEPLW FRUUHFWLRQV RU FKDQJHV EHIRUH WKH GRFXPHQW 6W\OH0DQXDO0DQXVFULSWVVKRXOGEHSUHSDUHGWR LVSRVWHGRQOLQH FRQIRUPZLWKWKHVHVW\OHPDQXDOV $QXPEHURIRUJDQL]DWLRQVDQGLQGLYLGXDOVLQWKH 7KH&5'VHULHVXVHVWKH$PHULFDQ)LVKHULHV6RFL 1RUWKHDVW5HJLRQZLOOEHQRWL¿HGE\HPDLORIWKH HW\¶VJXLGHVWRQDPHVRI¿VKHVPROOXVNVDQGGHFDSRG DYDLODELOLW\RIWKHGRFXPHQWRQOLQH 5HVHDUFK&RPPXQLFDWLRQV%UDQFK 1RUWKHDVW)LVKHULHV6FLHQFH&HQWHU 1DWLRQDO0DULQH)LVKHULHV6HUYLFH12$$ :DWHU6W :RRGV+ROH0$

0(',$ 0$,/

3XEOLFDWLRQVDQG5HSRUWV RIWKH 1RUWKHDVW)LVKHULHV6FLHQFH&HQWHU

722%7$,1$&23

$1<86(2)75$'(25%5$1'1$0(6,1$1<1()6&38%/,&$7,21255(3257'2(6127,03/<(1'256( 0(17

Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Excessive Shares Amendment Scoping Guide http://www.mafmc.org/actions/scoq-excessive-shares-amendment

July 2017 Prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC or Council)

WHAT IS SCOPING? Scoping is the process of identifying issues, potential impacts, and reasonable alternatives associated with the issue at hand. It provides the first and best opportunity for the public to make suggestions or to raise issues and concerns as development of an amendment begins. This is the public’s opportunity to inform the Council about changes observed in the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog fisheries, actions that the public believes should or should not be taken in terms of management and regulation, or any other concerns the public has about these fisheries. Your comments early in the amendment development process will help us identify management issues and develop effective alternatives that address issues of public concern in a thorough and appropriate manner. No management measures have yet been analyzed for their effectiveness or impacts. Please comment on which kinds of management measures may or may not be useful or practical, and explain your rationale. Please also comment on any other issues you believe should be addressed in the amendment. The list of relevant issues may be expanded as suggestions are offered during the scoping process.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council is seeking public input for the development of an “Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Excessive Shares Amendment” to the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog (SCOQ) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This amendment will consider two issues: 1) excessive shares and 2) FMP goals and objectives. As such, options to ensure that no individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of the SCOQ Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) privileges will be considered. In addition, in this action, the goals and objectives for the SCOQ FMP will be reviewed and the Council may consider revisions to those goals and objectives. This excessive share action was identified as a priority in the Council’s 2017 Implementation Plan to ensure the FMP is consistent with National Standard Guidelines under the MSA,1 and the Council is now seeking public input to inform development of an amendment (http://www.mafmc.org/strategic- plan). The purpose of revisiting the goals and objectives in the SCOQ FMP is to support the Council’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan and 2017 Implementation Plan (http://www.mafmc.org/strategic-plan). The Council would like your comments on the range of issues and information that should be considered, including comments related to the excessive shares issue in the SCOQ ITQ fisheries and goals and objectives of the FMP, as well as any other issues that might be of concern to you regarding management of the SCOQ fisheries.

WHY IS THIS ACTION BEING PROPOSED?

Excessive Shares National Standard 4 (NS4) states that “… If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (a) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (b) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (c) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.” 1 In 1990, Amendment 8 to the SCOQ FMP implemented an ITQ management program that did not include a specific cap or measures which limit the maximum amount of shares (e.g., percentage) that could be owned by a single entity. The Council is required to develop measures which specifically define what constitutes an excessive share in the SCOQ ITQ program to be consistent with NS4. This could be expressed as a percent cap or other measure. Goals and Objectives The Council is undergoing a process to review and possibly revise goals and objectives for all their managed fisheries and FMPs. The Council initiated a process to consider revised goals and objectives for the SCOQ FMP in support of the 2014-2018 Strategic Plan and 2017 Implementation Plan (http://www.mafmc.org/strategic-plan). This initiative will allow the Council to revisit and possibly “refresh” FMP goals and objectives to ensure that they are consistent with today’s fishery and management issues. Feedback from scoping meetings will provide additional focus and a starting point for the Council’s discussion of revised goals and objectives at the October Council meeting. This

1 http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/national_standards/.

2 discussion is separate from the Excessive Shares Amendment discussion. The issue was included in the Excessive Shares Amendment to take advantage of efficiencies in timing and other resources. Current FMP objectives The current SCOQ FMP objectives were adopted in 1988 through Amendment 8 to the SCOQ FMP, which established an ITQ system for the SCOQ fisheries. 1. Conserve and rebuild Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog resources by stabilizing annual harvest rates throughout the management unit in a way that minimizes short term economic dislocations. 2. Simplify to the maximum extent the regulatory requirements of clam and quahog management to minimize the government and private cost of administering and complying with regulatory, reporting, enforcement, and research requirements of clam and quahog management. 3. Provide the opportunity for industry to operate efficiently, consistent with the conservation of clam and quahog resources, which will bring harvesting capacity in balance with processing and biological capacity and allow industry participants to achieve economic efficiency including efficient utilization of capital resources by the industry. 4. Provide a management regime and regulatory framework which is flexible and adaptive to unanticipated short term events or circumstances and consistent with overall plan objectives and long term industry planning and investment needs.

WHAT APPROACHES MAY BE CONSIDERED?

The amendment is likely to consider a variety of approaches to ensure that no individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of the SCOQ ITQ privileges. These could include, but would not be limited to:

• A specific percent (%) cap on the amount of ITQ shares an individual, corporation, or other entity could acquire. • Other approaches that could be used to provide a measurable definition of what constitutes an excessive share. The amendment may also consider revisions to some or all of the current management objectives for the FMP (described above). Questions to consider when providing comments on the FMP Goals and Objectives are:

• Are the existing objectives appropriate for managing the surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries? • Are there any objectives that appear outdated or do not reflect the way these fisheries are managed today? If so, how could they be updated? • Is the intent of each objective clear? If not, how could they be reworded or clarified? • Should any new goals and/or objectives be added? • What else should the Council consider during the process of reviewing the objectives for the SCOQ FMP?

3 A draft Environmental Assessment will be developed for public comment and used by the Council to evaluate any proposed measures. The Council will consider the biological and socio-economic impacts of any management measure before making a final decision. STAKEHOLDER INPUT

The Council would like your input on the range of issues and information that should be considered during development of this amendment, including the specific issues identified in this document, as well as any other issues that might be of concern to you regarding the SCOQ fisheries.

LEARN MORE Find additional information and background documents about the amendment at: http://www.mafmc.org/actions/scoq-excessive-shares-amendment.

THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

4 GET INVOLVED

ATTEND A SCOPING HEARING Public scoping hearings will be held on the following dates:

Date and Time Location Monday July 10, Hilton Garden Inn Providence Airport 2017, 6:30 p.m. 1 Thurber Street, Warwick, RI 02886. Telephone: (401) 734-9600. Tuesday July 11, Webinar 2017, 6:30 p.m. This meeting will be conducted via webinar accessible via the internet from the Council’s website, http://www.mafmc.org. Members of the public may also attend in-person at the Council office address (see below) for this webinar meeting, if they contact the Council by July 7, 2017. Wednesday July 12, The Grand Hotel 2017, 6:30 p.m. 1045 Beach Avenue, Cape May, NJ 08204. Telephone: (609) 884-5611. Monday July 17, Ocean Pines Branch Library 2017, 6:00 p.m. 11107 Cathell Road, Berlin, MD 21811. Telephone: (410) 208-4014.

SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: In addition to providing comments at any of the scoping hearings, you may submit written comments by 11:59 PM, Eastern Standard Time, on July 21, 2017. Written comments may be sent by any of the following methods: 1. ONLINE at http://www.mafmc.org/comments/scoq-excessive-shares-amendment-scoping 2. EMAIL to [email protected] 3. MAIL to Dr. Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, Delaware 19901 4. FAX to (302) 674-5399 Please include “SQOQ Excessive Shares Amendment Scoping Comments” in the subject line if using email or fax or on the outside of the envelope if submitting written comments. All comments, regardless of submission method, will be compiled into a single document for review and consideration by the Council.

5 WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? After the initial phase of information gathering and public comment, the Council will evaluate potential management alternatives for inclusion in the amendment. The Council will then develop a draft amendment, incorporating the identified management alternatives, for public review. The Council will also prepare draft environmental analyses as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and subject those analyses to review and comment by the public as appropriate. Finally, the Council will choose preferred management measures for submission with the appropriate environmental analyses to the Secretary of Commerce for publishing of a proposed and then final rule, both of which have additional comment periods. While there are many opportunities for public comment in the process, this scoping comment opportunity is particularly important for assisting the Council in establishing the overall focus and direction of the Amendment.

Current phase of development Council NMFS

Identifcation of Development of Amendment priority issues and Draft Amendment Scoping Initiated development of & environmental draft alternatives analyses

Selection of Submission to Public Comment on Review of Public Preferred Secretary of Draft Amendment Comments Management Commerce Measures

Publication of Public Comment on Publication of Final Implementation Proposed Rule Proposed Rule Rule

Lobster Pot Fishery in the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) Action Plan

Councils: New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils Fishery: All Fishery Management Plans (FMP) Title of Action: SBRM Omnibus Framework Adjustment Goal: The goal of this action is to better meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement for FMPs to establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery. This action would reduce potential sources of bias in sampling and discard estimates for the New England and Mid-Atlantic lobster pot fleets, as soon as practical, while minimizing the administrative burden on these vessels. Background: The SBRM uses Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) to identify how many fishing vessels are active in a fleet and determine the amount of fishing activity occurring throughout the year. The Federal lobster permit does not require a vessel to submit VTRs. However, many lobster pot vessels do submit VTRs as a condition of another Federal permit. These vessels may not be a truly representative cross section of the overall lobster pot fleet in Federal waters. Although this discrepancy was identified in the SBRM Omnibus Amendment, increased observer coverage assigned to the New England lobster pot fleet in 2015 highlighted the limitations of the current process. In October 2015, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), States, Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), and Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) convened a workshop on several issues related to lobster observers, including the potential impact of this selection criteria. The workshop led to the development of an expanded SBRM lobster sampling frame that uses permit information and dealer data to identify all active lobster pot vessels, regardless of whether the vessels submit VTRs. This would ensure that all trips made by vessels with Federal lobster permits are in the sampling frame for the lobster pot fleets. As a result, it provides a more representative sample of the fishery, which in turn would result in less potential for bias in estimates of bycatch in lobster pot gear. This also spreads the burden of carrying an SBRM observer over more vessels and so reduces the inconvenience on any single vessel. However, analysis within the SBRM Omnibus Amendment specifically states the Amendment would not apply to vessels with only a lobster permit that do not submit VTRs. Although the expanded sampling frame is widely agreed to be an improvement to the process, this language in the SBRM Omnibus Amendment means that the public may not have been able to adequately foresee and comment on the potential application of SBRM observer coverage to the entire universe of Federal lobster pot vessels. As a result, we continue to use the original, more narrow lobster sampling frame until a more permanent solution can be implemented. This action would clarify that the Councils intend for the SBRM process to monitor bycatch of federally managed or protected species from the entire lobster pot fleet. This is effectively equivalent to simply removing the conflicting sentence from the SBRM Omnibus Amendment. This action would allow the NEFSC to include fishing activity and catch data (e.g., trip length, date, pounds kept, port of landing, etc.) for all active lobster pot vessels in the annual SBRM analyses, and to assign Northeast Fishery Observer Program (NEFOP) coverage to any Federal lobster pot vessel, regardless of whether the vessel is required to submit VTRs. The precise method for identifying active lobster vessels may be adjusted in the future without additional Council action; for example, if the ASMFC modifies reporting requirements for lobster vessels. Proposed Actions/Solutions/Alternatives: • No Action. • Stipulate the SBRM New England and Mid-Atlantic lobster pot fleets include all active vessels that fish with this gear in Federal waters. (This could be accomplished using the expanded sampling frame already devised, and could be modified in the future without further Council action to better reflect the lobster fleet.) • Require all Federal lobster vessels to submit VTRs for all trips. (This may not be consistent with the proposed goal of this action.) Likely Impacts: This action would be administrative. It would simply clarify the Councils’ intent for the SBRM analyses to incorporate all active federally-permitted lobster pot vessels regardless of whether they submit VTRs; effectively removing the conflicting sentence from the SBRM Omnibus Amendment. This action would not increase or decrease the total number of observer sea days assigned to the New England or Mid-Atlantic lobster pot fleets, but would spread coverage over a larger number of vessels. This action is not anticipated to add any additional reporting requirements for lobster vessels, and vessels with a Federal lobster permit are already required to carry an observer if requested. Vessels must provide accommodation, but are not required to pay for NEFOP observers. Therefore, this action is not anticipated to result in any changes to the operation of the lobster pot fisheries, including where, when, or how vessels fish. Applicable Laws and Regulations: • NEPA Analysis o (EIS/EA/CE/SIR) – mainly an administrative action Magnuson-Stevens Act Yes Administrative Procedure Act Yes Regulatory Flexibility Act Likely certified Paperwork Reduction Act Unlikely, unless expanding VTR Coastal Zone Management Act Unlikely, action is administrative Endangered Species Act Unlikely, action is administrative Marine Mammal Protection Act Unlikely, action is administrative E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) Likely E.O. 12630 (Takings) Unlikely, legal review will confirm E.O. 13132 (Federalism) Unlikely, legal review will confirm Essential Fish Habitat Unlikely, action is administrative

Information Quality Act Yes

Responsibility: NMFS agreed to take the lead role in drafting the framework adjustment and associated analysis to address this issue. The Councils will be consulted on the scope and provide review and comment on a draft and final action. Agency Name Responsibility NMFS GARFO SFD Douglas Potts Coordinate writing, analysis, and rulemaking NMFS GARFO NEPA Marianne Ferguson Analysis and review NEFMC [TBD, if needed] MAFMC [TBD, if needed] NEFSC Susan Wigley Implement changes to SBRM process

Timeline: • June 2017 – Councils review draft omnibus framework action and review/approve draft action plan, proposed purpose and need, and proposed alternatives for consideration (first framework meeting). • August/September 2017 – Councils take final action. • Fall/Winter – GARFO completes any remaining analysis and rulemaking. • April 2018 – 2018 NEFOP observer year begins, using sea day schedule based on new sampling frame.

Omnibus Framework to Modify the Mid-Atlantic Council’s Risk Policy and ABC Control Rule Framework

Background Information

Introduction

The 2006 Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) included new requirements for ACLs and AMs and other provisions designed to prevent and end overfishing (16 U.S.C. §1853(a)(15)). While U.S. marine fishery management policy has always been science based, the MSRA also sought to strengthen the role of scientific advice regarding avoiding overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks. Significant was the new requirement for all councils to specify annual catch limits (hard quotas) for each of its managed fisheries. The revised legislation also redefined the role of the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) by requiring that the councils "develop annual catch limits for each of its managed species that may not exceed the fishing level recommendations of its scientific and statistical committee.” Consequently, the "advice" received from the SSC on acceptable biological catch (ABC) was transformed into a binding constraint on catch limits which the Council may not exceed.

To bring the Council’s FMPs into compliance with the new MSRA requirements (and the revised National Standard 1 guidance that followed), in 2010 the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) approved an Omnibus Amendment which implemented mechanisms to specify ABC, annual catch limits (ACLs), and accountability measures (AMs) for all managed resources contained within six Council Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). Specifically, the Omnibus Action: (1) Established ABC control rules, (2) Established a Council risk policy (a variable needed for the ABC control rules), (3) Established ACL(s), and (4) Established a system of comprehensive accountability, which addresses all components of the catch. In addition, the Omnibus Amendment contemplated a Council review of the ABC Control Rules after five years of implementation in cooperation with its SSC. The purpose of this framework action is to provide for a review of the ABC control rule framework and Council risk policy established in 2010 and to recommend any changes, as appropriate.

Description of Current ABC Control Rule framework and Risk Policy

The Council worked with its SSC to develop an approach to derive ABCs through a set of four levels, which has been applied to each of the managed resources since implementation of the Omnibus Amendment (a complete description of the ABC levels is given in Appendix i). The levels are based on the information available to assess the stock as well as other relevant information. In general, higher levels contain assessments with greater detail and lower scientific uncertainty while lower levels have less robust assessments with higher associated scientific uncertainties. When a new stock assessment completes peer-review for any of the managed resources, the SSC is responsible for determining to which level the assessment should be assigned. Then the processes described within each level are used to calculate ABC. For the upper levels, this applies a distribution of the overfishing limit (OFL) and a probability of overfishing based on the Council’s risk policy. For the lowest level, alternative types of approaches have been applied to derive ABC (based primarily on average catch or other data limited approaches). In the NS1 Guidelines response to comment 42 (74 FR 3191; January 16, 2009), it was stated, “The SSC must recommend an ABC to the Council after the Council advises the SSC what would be the acceptable probability that a catch equal to the ABC would result in overfishing. This risk policy is part of the required ABC control rule.” As such, the Council adopted a formal risk policy which defines the Council’s tolerance for overfishing for its managed resources.

Under the current risk policy, the Council’s acceptable probability of overfishing for a given stock is conditional on current stock biomass relative to Bmsy (see Figure1). The stock replenishment threshold defined as the ratio of B/BMSY = 0.10, was utilized to ensure the stock does not reach low levels from which it cannot recover. The probability of overfishing is 0 percent if the ratio of B/BMSY is less than or equal to 0.10. The probability of overfishing increases linearly for stock defined as typical as the ratio of B/BMSY increases, until the inflection point of B/BMSY = 1.0 is reached and a 40 percent probability of overfishing is utilized for ratios equal to or greater than 1.0. Probability of overfishing increases linearly for stock defined as atypical as the ratio of B/BMSY increases, until the inflection point of B/BMSY = 1.0 is reached and a 35 percent probability of overfishing is utilized for ratios equal to or greater than 1.0. The SSC determines whether a stock is typical or atypical each time an ABC is recommended. In general, an atypical stock has a life history strategy that results in greater vulnerability to exploitation, and whose life history has not been fully addressed through the stock assessment and biological reference point development process.

typical atypical 45

10 Probability of Overfishing of Probability 5

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 B/Bmsy

Figure 1. Current MAFMC Risk Policy.

Proposed evaluation of ABC control rule and risk policy.

Since the development and implementations of its ABC control rule framework, the Council and NMFS have funded management strategy evaluations designed to evaluate the efficacy of a range of ABC control rules (Wiedenmann et al 2016). Published results from this work and the general model formulations developed through this research will be used specifically to evaluate the Council’s current ABC control rule and risk policy. This work will be conducted in cooperation with the OFL CV Subgroup of the SSC and Dr. John Wiedenmann (Rutgers University). The elements of the risk policy and ABC control rules to be evaluated are described below.

1. Maintain current risk policy but increase P* to 0.45 when the B/Bmsy ratio exceeds 1.0.

Under this option, the Council would assume a higher level of risk (P=0.45) in cases where the stock biomass was greater than the Bmsy target biomass. Otherwise the variable P* conditioned on stock biomass would be maintained.

2. Eliminate the variable P* which is currently a function of stock biomass (i.e., maintain constant P* = 0.4).

Under this alternative, a constant P* of 0.4 would be maintained regardless of current stock biomass. The current ramping of the P* conditioned on biomass is an attempt to prevent stocks from being overfished by reducing the probability of overfishing as stock size falls below Bmsy. This feature of the risk policy is not a mandatory requirement of the MSRA.

3. If biomass is greater than ½ Bmsy but less than or equal to Bmsy, maintain constant p*=0.4. If biomass exceeds Bmsy, then ABC would be specified based on P*=0.45. As per the MSRA, if stock biomass falls below ½ Bmsy a rebuilding plan is triggered (the rebuilding plan then governs ABC specification).

Under the current risk policy, the maximum P* is 0.4. This option would maintain a constant P*=0.4 when B is less than or equal to Bmsy and constant p*=0.45 when B is greater than Bmsy.

4. Eliminate the typical/atypical distinction in the ABC control rule.

This measure was implemented by the Council reflecting the Council’s lower risk tolerance for species whose life histories make them more vulnerable to over-exploitation. Under this option, the P*would be the same for all species regardless of their life histories. This option could be implemented in conjunction with either a fixed or variable P*. The typical/atypical distinction could be eliminated because presumably a species vulnerability to over-exploitation is already addressed in the biological reference points selected for that species.

5. Codify Additional Elements of the ABC Control Rule Framework.

Under the current ABC control rule framework, the SSC has the option of specifying the coefficient of variation (CV) for the OFL in one of three ways: accept the CV of the OFL as calculated in the assessment, accept the OFL CV as modified by the assessment working group, or modify the OFL CV based on SSC expert judgement. The OFL CV selected by the SSC has a direct influence on the magnitude of the resulting ABC calculation within P* approach adopted by the Council. All things equal, the buffer between the ABC and OFL increases as uncertainty about the OFL increases (i.e., the ABC decreases as uncertainty as reflected in the OFL CV increases). Under this option, the Council, in conjunction with the SSC OFL CV Subgroup, will develop a set of objective criteria which will be used to identify the appropriate OFL CV for a given species/stock assessment.

Appendix i MAFMC ABC Control Rule Framework

The SSC shall review the following criteria, and any additional relevant information, to assign managed stocks to a specific control rule level when developing ABC recommendations. The SSC shall review the ABC control rule level assignment for stocks each time an ABC is recommended. The ABC may be recommended for up to 3 years for all stocks, except for 5 years for spiny dogfish. The SSC may deviate from the control rule methods or level criteria and recommend an ABC that differs from the result of the ABC control rule calculation; however, any such deviation must include the following: A description of why the deviation is warranted, description of the methods used to derive the alternative ABC, and an explanation of how the deviation is consistent with National Standard 2.

(a) Level 1 criteria. (1) Assignment of a stock to Level 1 requires the SSC to determine the following:(i) All important sources of scientific uncertainty are captured in the stock assessment model; (ii) The probability distribution of the OFL is calculated within the stock assessment and provides an adequate description of the OFL uncertainty; (iii) The stock assessment model structure and treatment of the data prior to use in the model includes relevant details of the biology of the stock, fisheries that exploit the stock, and data collection methods; (iv) The stock assessment provides the following estimates: Fishing mortality rate (F) at MSY or an alternate maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) to define OFL, biomass, biological reference points, stock status, OFL, and the respective uncertainties associated with each value; and (v) No substantial retrospective patterns exist in the stock assessment estimates of fishing mortality, biomass, and recruitment.

(2) Level 1 ABC determination. Stocks assigned to Level 1 by the SSC will have the ABC derived by applying acceptable probability of overfishing from the MAFMC's risk policy found in §648.21(a) through (d) to the probability distribution of the OFL.

(b) Level 2 criteria. (1) Assignment of a stock to Level 2 requires the SSC to determine the following: (i) Key features of the stock biology, the fisheries that exploit it, and/or the data collection methods for stock information are missing from the stock assessment; (ii) The stock assessment provides reference points (which may be proxies), stock status, and uncertainties associated with each; however, the uncertainty is not fully promulgated through the stock assessment model and/or some important sources of uncertainty may be lacking; (iii) The stock assessment provides estimates of the precision of biomass, fishing mortality, and reference points; and (iv) The accuracy of the minimum fishing mortality threshold and projected future biomass is estimated in the stock assessment using ad hoc methods.

(2) Level 2 ABC determination. Stocks assigned to Level 2 by the SSC will have the ABC derived by applying acceptable probability of overfishing from the MAFMC's risk policy found in §648.21(a) through (d) to the probability distribution of the OFL.

(c) Level 3 criteria. (1) Assignment of a stock to Level 3 requires the SSC to determine that the stock assessment attributes are the same as those for a Level 2 assessment listed in §648.20(d)(1) through (4), except that the stock assessment does not contain an estimated probability distribution of OFL or the stock assessment provided OFL probability distribution is judged by the SSC to not adequately reflect uncertainty in the OFL estimate.

2) Level 3 ABC determination. Stocks assigned to Level 3 will have ABC derived by one of the following two methods: (i) The SSC will derive the ABC by applying the acceptable probability of overfishing from the MAFMC's risk policy found in §648.21(a) through (d) to an SSC- adjusted OFL probability distribution. The SSC will use default levels of uncertainty in the adjusted OFL probability distribution based on literature review and evaluation of control rule performance; or, (ii) If the SSC cannot develop an OFL distribution, a default control rule of 75 percent of the FMSY value will be applied to derive ABC.

(d) Level 4 criteria. (1) Assignment of a stock to Level 4 requires the SSC to determine that none of the criteria for Levels 1-3 found in §648.20(a) through (c) were met.

(2) Level 4 ABC determination. Stocks assigned to Level 4 will have ABC derived using control rules developed on a case-by-case basis by the SSC based on biomass and catch history and application of the MAFMC's risk policy found in §648.21(a) through (d).

Annual and Final Progress Report Template

Information in this first section is standard and can be copied from previous reports:

NOAA Award Number –

NAOAR__#NA15OAR4310122

Time Period Addressed by this report –

May 01, 2016 to April 30, 2017

Project Title –

Climate velocity over the 21st century and its implications for fisheries management in the Northeast U.S.

Principal Investigator(s) - Include institution, email address, and phone number

Malin Pinsky – Assistant Professor, Rutgers University Department of Ecology, Evolution, & Natural Resources; (848) 932-8242; [email protected]

Richard Seagraves – Senior Scientist, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (302) 526-5259; [email protected]

Project Team Members - Any additional team members who are not the lead PIs working on this project- please note graduate students and postdocs.

James Morley – Postdoc, Rutgers University; (717) 858-2584; [email protected]

Project Goal- Describe your project’s goal social media style using 140 characters or less

Our research will inform the marine resource management community about the rate, magnitude, and uncertainty surrounding future changes in fish distribution.

Geographical Location of Study –

The continental shelf of the northeast U.S., from Cape Hatteras, NC to the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank

Annual and Final Progress Report Template

Partners - List any partners collaborating on the project including NOAA, other federal agencies, academia, non-governmental organizations, private sector, etc.

NOAA NEAMAP (VIMS) MAFMC Dr. Thomas Frölicher, ETH Zürich

End User(s) – If applicable, list the end users you are working with on this project who will directly benefit from the project results and deliverables.

Rich Seagraves (PI on the project) is Chief Scientist on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and we have designed our research so as to be useful to the MAFMC. Further, we are presenting results to council members of the MAFMC in June of 2017 and will fine tune output from our analysis based on their feedback. We are also working in association with the National Marine Fisheries Service, specifically individuals that are involved with NOAA’s climate change and ecosystem based fisheries management initiatives.

Matching Funds/Leveraging - List any matching funds and/or activities/research being leveraged for this project.

A related project has been funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts to expand the methods to other regions in the US (outside the northeast US).

Research Objectives - Provide one paragraph on the objective of the project

The purpose of our research is to inform the marine resource management community about the rate, magnitude, and uncertainty surrounding future distribution changes that are likely to occur as a result of climate change in the 21st century. We will also project changes in suitable habitat area for important resource species within the Northeast region as a result of climate change. Ultimately, species with robust projections that are predicted to be sensitive to climate change can be identified for proactive management.

Research Approach and Methodology - Provide information on the methodological framework, models used, theory developed and tested, project monitoring and evaluation criteria, etc. (Limit 2 pages)

Annual and Final Progress Report Template We are calibrating statistical models of species distribution using data from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s annual bottom trawl survey, as well as other surveys in the region. The models include habitat variables such as bottom temperature, seafloor rugosity, depth, and sediment grain size. Species distributions are then projected forward using output from a set of 13 IPCC-class global climate models. Temperature projections from climate models are being downscaled to ¼ degree latitude × longitude resolution based on a regional climatology derived from the Simple Ocean Data Assimilation (SODA) product. The delta method is being used to project temperatures forward, which is a standard way to incorporate finer-spatial scale climatology onto the relatively course scale of climate projection models. We summarize results for distribution projections under two scenarios for future climate, which are expressed in terms of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). RCPs provide standardized scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions, land use change, and other processes that affect global warming. We examine projected responses to a “mitigation” (RCP4.5) and a “business-as-usual” (RCP8.5) climate change scenario, with the latter scenario representing more intense global warming. Projected distribution changes for a given species represent directional shifts in the predicted mean center of biomass. These changes occur when the areas of overlap between preferred temperatures and bathymetry shift across the seascape. Uncertainty in distribution projections arise from multiple factors including differences in carbon emissions scenarios and uncertainty among the 13 climate projection models.

The information below should be updated annually. If this is the final report, it should include information from the entire project, not just specific reporting periods.

Accomplishments - Research Results and Findings - Include the most recent findings from this reporting period that resulted from your research. (Limit 2 pages)

We have focused in this reporting period on 1) improving the temperature projections that we use, 2) improving the quality of the statistical models, and 3) improving the quantification of uncertainty in the species distribution projections. In particular, we now use the Simple Ocean Data Assimilation product, which is consistently available around North America in all months. This availability of data is a substantial improvement over our previous use of the bottom trawl survey temperatures, which were only available in certain seasons (e.g., spring and fall in the Northeast U.S.).

Annual and Final Progress Report Template We have also improved the sophistication of our bias correction for the CMIP5 climate projections. Whereas previously we only bias corrected the mean temperature, we now bias correct both the mean and the standard deviation of the projections. This step has taken longer than expected, however, which has delayed our final analyses of species distribution shifts. We investigated a variety of methods for fitting the statistical species distribution models in order to improve their accuracy across a wide range of species. We now include sediment grain size and depth as additional spatial predictors of species distribution and abundance. For uncertainty quantification, we have developed a new method for sampling from uncertainty around the smooth fits for Generalized Additive Models (GAMs). We have also developed a species distribution model based on Boosted Regression Trees, for comparison against GAMs. We will use these methods alongside quantification of uncertainty from the choice of Global Climate Model (GCM), the choice of emissions scenario, the time period, and the year.

Accomplishments - Deliverables produced – Include deliverables produced during this reporting period (e.g., workshop, whitepapers, website, outreach activities, tools, etc.) and/or future work developed based on project results. (Limit 2 Pages)

We have developed the data infrastructure for hosting and visualizing the species distribution projections on the OceanAdapt website (http://oceanadapt.rutgers.edu). However, the projections are not finished and so have not been posted online.

Highlights of Accomplishments – Include a bulleted list of up to five accomplishments. Accomplishments should be written in a narrative form, 2-3 sentences each.

• We have developed a high resolution climatology and downscaled temperature projections for the continental shelves of North America. • We have fit statistical thermal envelope models for each species of interest. • We have developed the methods for quantifying ecological and climate uncertainty in our projections.

Significant Deviations from Proposed Workplan - Provide information on changes to the project, if any (e.g., shift in priorities following consultation with program manager, delayed fieldwork due to late arrival of funds, obstacles encountered during the course of the project that have impacted outcome delivery) (one paragraph)

Annual and Final Progress Report Template

None to date

List of completed, peer and non-peer reviewed publications, white papers, or reports (with internet links if possible) - For peer-review publications, list either published or in press, but not “in review”.

None to date

List website addresses relevant to the project for further information (if available)

List of presentations/seminars, photos, or other visuals related to project - If you wish to share these items, please upload them as an attachment with the annual progress report.

Dr. Malin Pinsky presented to the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council in June, 2016.

Dr. Jim Morley presented at the Fisheries Forum in Monterey, CA in May, 2017. There was substantial interest in using the projections for climate adaptation in fisheries management.

For Final Report please include - PowerPoint slide summarizing project and major accomplishments (should be in .pptx format)

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901 Phone: 302-674-2331 ǀ FAX: 302-674-5399 ǀ www.mafmc.org Michael P. Luisi, Chairman ǀ G. Warren Elliott, Vice Chairman Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director

MEMORANDUM

Date: May 23, 2017

To: Council

From: Chris Moore

Subject: Cooperative Research in the Mid-Atlantic

The Council will address two cooperative research agenda items on Tuesday, June 6, from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. Briefing materials for these topics are listed below.

Review of NEFSC Cooperative Research and response to MAFMC request – Jon Hare, NEFSC 1. Northeast Cooperative Research Program Review: Northeast Fisheries Science Center Summary and Response 2. 2016 Review Action Table 3. Supplemental: The full report is available on the June 2017 Council Meeting page and at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/coopresearch/ncrp-program-review/2016-review-report- ncrp.pdf

Mid-Atlantic Council Approach to Collaborative Research 1. Letter to Bill Karp Regarding Cooperative Research, August 2016 2. Collaborative Research Committee Meeting Summary, February 2016 3. Staff Memo: RSA Program Issues, August 2014

Page 1 of 1

Northeast Cooperative Research Program Review

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Summary and Response

March 2017

ACRONYMS

ACCSP: Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program ASMFC: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission COTR: Contracting Officer's Technical Representative CRB: Cooperative Research Branch DMS: Data Management Systems EM: Electronic Monitoring ER: Electronic Reporting eVTR: Electronic Vessel Trip Report FDDV: Fisheries Dependent Data Visioning Project FLDRS: Fisheries Logbook Data Recording System FMRD: Fishery Monitoring Research Division FSB: Fisheries Sampling Branch GARFO: Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office ICIC: IC Independent Consulting IT: Information Technology MAFMC: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council MREP: Marine Resource Education Program NCRP: Northeast Cooperative Research Program NEFMC: New England Fishery Management Council NEFSC: Northeast Fisheries Science Center NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service RSA: Research Set-Aside SCemFIS: Science Center for Marine Fisheries VERS: Vessel Electronic Reporting System VTR: Vessel Trip Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) under took an independent review of the Northeast Cooperative Research Program (NCRP) in July 2016 with the objective to assess its internal management and coordination. The review was conducted by IC Independent Consulting (ICIC). The reviewer was tasked to evaluate the effectiveness and success of the NCRP in three primary areas: 1) high quality science; 2) effective engagement; and 3) integration within NEFSC scientific programs; and provide recommendations to enhance the program.

The review examined 150 documents and interviewed 98 people throughout the Northeast United States, including NCRP staff, fisheries managers, scientists, academia, and the fishing industry. The program review was completed in September 2016, culminating in the delivery of a final report to the NEFSC. The review was complimentary of the work done by the NCRP, and in particular the success of the Study Fleet, development of electronic vessel trip reporting technology, enhanced biological sampling opportunities, and industry-based survey collaborations.

The review report is available on the NEFSC webpage, providing details and recommendations for improving the NCRP in five themes: 1) increase the usage of NCRP data products and services; 2) consider separating out the Research Set Aside Program (RSA) from the NCRP; 3)improve communication about the roles and function of the NCRP both internally and externally; 4) develop organizational structure within the NCRP to better deal with the geographically dispersed nature of staff; and 5) explore synergies between the Cooperative Research Branch (CRB) and the Fisheries Sampling Branch (FSB, which manages the observer programs in the NE) within the newly created Fishery Monitoring and Research Division (FMRD).

The NEFSC formed a cross-divisional working group from over a dozen different programs within the NEFSC to discuss the review results and compile a response on how we propose to move forward. This response to the review contains their feedback, as well as some preliminary review of some parts of the report by the Greater Regional Atlantic Fisheries Office (GARFO), the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC).

The NEFSC has listed twenty four (24) action items as a result of the review (Appendix A). Work in response to those action items has already begun and will continue through the upcoming years. We are confident that the recommendations made in the report, as well as the feedback expected in the proposed working groups and regular engagement will even further improve and effectively convey the mission and objectives of the NCRP.

INTRODUCTION

The National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries) has engaged in funding collaborative research with stakeholders in the Northeast and mid- Atlantic since 1999, primarily through the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Northeast Cooperative Research Program (NCRP). The NCRP has formalized and expanded cooperative research between commercial fishing industries, scientists and managers with the goals of enhancing the data upon which fishery management decisions are made, and improving communication and collaboration among partners. This program has provided significant opportunities for NOAA Fisheries to develop collaborative relationships with the fishing industry and to begin to foster trust and mutual learning among the various players in the fisheries communities and science and management agencies.

The NEFSC began an independent review of the NCRP in July, 2016 with the objective to assess internal management and coordination of the NCRP. By focusing on the progress, performance, achievements, and lessons learned since the NEFSC began managing the program in 2006, the intent was that the review would provide specific recommendations that would inform future program enhancements. The review was carried out by Steven Kennelly of IC Independent Consulting (ICIC), through a contract with the NEFSC. The contractor was asked to evaluate the effectiveness and success of the NCRP in the following areas and provide recommendations on how to improve performance as appropriate:

1. High Quality Science: a. Evaluate the effectiveness of and barriers to delivering high quality, accessible, and timely data and research results to NEFSC scientists, research partners and stakeholders, which meet expectations and supports the NEFSC’s science mission. Particular emphasis should be placed on projects designed to improve the resolution, accuracy and efficiency of data collection in support of the stock assessment process, supporting essential ecosystem and climate observing programs, and improving integration with other regional and national programs. b. Evaluate the relative importance among the various research areas within the cooperative research program portfolio to meet NEFSC priorities and stakeholder needs.

2. Effective engagement: a. Evaluate the effectiveness of engagement with stakeholders and partners, and responding to constructive comments and suggestions from these constituents. b. Evaluate the effectiveness of engagement with the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, Atlantic States Fisheries Management Council, the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, commercial and recreational fishing organizations, and other stakeholders in setting priorities, coordinating Council cooperative research projects, communicating results and tracking progress and performance relative to research projects. c. Evaluate program communications and outreach to internal and external constituents within the context of the NEFSC’s broader outreach and communication efforts.

3. Integration within NEFSC scientific programs: a. Evaluate the ongoing coordination with all programs throughout the NEFSC to ensure responsiveness to science and outreach needs, and support and participation of NEFSC scientists in cooperative research program activities, in setting research priorities, reporting back research results, and public engagement. b. Evaluate the effectiveness of coordination with NEFSC leadership to ensure that program priorities are aligned with, and responsive to NEFSC priorities. c. Evaluate current program resources and capacities, including staffing levels and skillsets, to identify program strengths and limitations. Building off the recommendations in the Science Plan, provide guidance on staffing levels and resources to meet cooperative research needs.

The review examined approximately 150 documents and interviewed 98 people throughout the Northeast United States, including NCRP staff, fisheries managers from the GARFO, scientists from the NEFSC and other universities and agencies, members of the fishing industry, staff and members of both the Mid- Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils, and state fisheries staff. The program review was completed in September 2016, culminating in the delivery of a final report to NEFSC leadership.

Overall, the review was highly complimentary of the work that has been done to date by the NCRP, in particular highlighting the success of: • the Study Fleet, • development of electronic vessel reporting technology, • enhanced biological sampling opportunities, and • industry-based survey collaborations such as the ongoing Gulf of Maine Longline Survey.

The report describes the exemplary services currently offered by the NCRP despite its’ small size and credits them with establishing good industry relationships. In fact it commends the NCRP staff in that industry offered them glowing praise.

The review report provides specific recommendations for improving the NCRP. These recommendations fell into five major themes:

1. Increase the usage of NCRP data products and services;

2. Examine the organizational structure and the administrative oversight provided by the NCRP for the Research Set-Aside Program;

3. Improve communications about the roles and functions of the NCRP both internally and externally;

4. Develop organizational structure within the NCRP to better deal with the geographically dispersed nature of program staff; and

5. Explore synergies between the Cooperative Research Branch (CRB) and Fisheries Sampling Branch (FSB) within the newly created Fisheries Monitoring and Research Division (FMRD).

In reviewing and responding to the final report, the NEFSC created a cross-divisional working group which included representation from 11 of the research branches within the NEFSC plus staff from the Research Communications Branch, the NEFSC Directorate and the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO). A diverse working group was necessary to properly address the integration and communication themes highlighted in the review.

NEFSC RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS

While the review was specific to the NCRP, we note that the issues highlighted are not unique within the NEFSC. Improvements in communication, integration with internal and external partners, and data collection systems as well as the need for additional staffing resources and organizational structure are all areas that have been highlighted in other recently completed NEFSC Program Reviews and internal strategic planning exercises. To this end, many of the issues affecting the NCRP are shared across many programs and are areas that the NEFSC is working to address through a variety of initiatives, including:

● Internal Communications: In 2015, the NEFSC convened a series of internal working groups that were charged with developing recommendations to improve overall organizational performance in several areas including internal communications. Four working groups were formed, with about 10 NEFSC staff each, and tasked with identifying the goals, challenges, and solutions for each area. Among the areas examined by the Internal Communications Working Group were 5

communications across branches and divisions and the communication of scientific results. Each working group presented their results to the Directorate and at an All Hands meeting at the NEFSC.

● External Communications: The NEFSC has been working on an external research communications strategy with an outside consulting firm; the final report with a strategy and implementation plan was delivered in January 2017 XXXX.

● Advancements in Fisheries-Dependent Data Collections: In 2013, the NEFSC and GARFO jointly began a formal effort to modernize and streamline fisheries-dependent data systems throughout the Greater Atlantic Region. Since that time, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC)/Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) has joined the effort, which identified ACCSP as the location for a data warehouse that would serve all data users. The goal of Fisheries Dependent Data Visioning (FDDV) Project is to adapt our data collection systems to meet the current and future needs of fisheries science and management. This work continues.

● Long-term Labor Planning: The NEFSC is developing a 2021 Labor Plan that will help guide future workforce decisions to address the priorities outlined in the NEFSC’s 2016-2020 Strategic Science Plan and science program review implementation recommendations, such as this review. This workforce visioning process will be updated in each successive year to incorporate new information, new assumptions, and other annual guidance.

In the summary below, we have highlighted the major recommendations of the NCRP Review, in each of the five themes. Many of the recommendations in the NCRP Review report were not explicit, but rather identified general areas of concerns and offered example solutions. Specific recommendations from the review report are presented with a response to each recommendation; where applicable, specific action items are identified to address the review recommendations. Appendix A provides a summary of the action items and highlights the responsible NEFSC divisions as well as target completion dates.

Theme 1: Increase the usage of NCRP data products and services

The Review recommended that: More scientists in the NEFSC need to recognize the value of cooperative research and more fully consider techniques to incorporate industry-based data. More effort should be spent to increase the awareness of NCRP products and services across the NEFSC to improve the understanding of what the NCRP does and, could potentially do in an effort to increase the number of scientific collaborations. To address this, it is recommended that the NEFSC convene a series of workshops to provide an overview of current and potential NCRP’s industry-based data-gathering operations, and develop smaller working groups to guide the use of existing data and design future studies. This workshop will also include external speakers that present the value of cooperative research.

NEFSC response: While the products generated by NCRP over the years are voluminous, the review found that there was a belief among many internal and external contacts that little of the NCRP products have been directly integrated into stock assessments, and by extension have had minimal impact on fisheries management decisions. This perception is contributing to the overall distrust of the regional stock assessment process

and compromising the future effectiveness of the NCRP. Several recommendations addressed these concerns.

Convening a workshop to familiarize all NEFSC staff with the work conducted by the NCRP is an excellent starting point. The workshop will outline the history of the program, including funding patterns by research theme, list of projects completed, documentation of the uses of the resulting products, and metadata on the available data sets from these projects. Of most significance, the workshop will provide a definitive, and inclusive, process to guide future projects, including how to most effectively engage the fishing industry and cooperative research partners. The goal of the workshop will be to facilitate responsiveness to future scientific needs across all divisions and branches

The workshop would lead to the creation of small working groups to maximize the use of NCRP products and propose future projects for the NCRP. Outreach to industry partners would occur early in the development of projects to ensure both an understanding of the project as well as allow inclusion of their perspective.

Action Item 1a: The NEFSC will convene workshops to communicate the value of cooperative research and improve awareness and integration of NCRP products and services.

The Review recommended that: The stock assessment working groups should explore uses of the existing Study Fleet data via advanced statistical techniques that might address concerns regarding the representativeness of the data and sampling design.

NEFSC response: Future applications of the Study Fleet will require engagement from multiple branches in the NEFSC, through the working groups mentioned above, to match the intended use to the data and the sampling design. Involvement of NEFSC stock assessment staff and other relevant science branches will help to ensure and promote the utility and use of the data collected by the NCRP.

Action Item 1b: The NEFSC will ensure that every science Division has cross-cutting activities with the NCRP and is detailed in the NEFSC 2021 Labor Planning.

The Review recommended to: Improve the quality and ease of access of NCRP products to stock assessment analysts as well as others within the NEFSC.

NEFSC response: The NEFSC has already begun to make historical data easier to access by all NEFSC scientists by creating dedicated analytical datasets. These datasets have been documented to help scientists understand the database tables and fields. Existing data sets include both haul level data collected by NCRP Study Fleet partners, and sub-trip level vessel data submitted by non-Study Fleet industry members intending to report via Electronic Vessel Trip Report (eVTR) in lieu of paper Vessel Trip Report (VTR).

The eVTR portal was intended to allow vessel owners and operators to view and edit the data they have submitted. The NEFSC is working to improve this application, in addition to developing tools to help industry visualize their data. Broader public access will by necessity have to be restricted to analytically derived trends and distribution displays that are at spatial and temporal scales that do not disclose confidential data. Ongoing internal collaborations across NEFSC branches are making progress on

increasing access and use, but additional resources, both computing and personnel, are needed to accelerate the process and will likely be the focus of workshop discussions, external collaborations, and inclusion of cross-cutting labor planning.

Action Item 1c: The NEFSC will ensure that the Data Management System Division has cross-cutting activities with the CRB and is detailed in the NEFSC 2021 Labor Planning.

The Review recommended to: Continue to improve and expand electronic reporting (ER) tools for the fishing industry.

NEFSC response: The NEFSC recognizes the benefits of electronic reporting and is continuing to develop tools for the fishing industry. Specifically, the FDDV Project is working towards a system that will provide a single unique trip identifier for each fishing trip in the region and protocols for reporting, storage, and support of electronically reported data. This unique identifier will facilitate linking among the many databases where information is stored and allow improved quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) measures. The increased speed of data availability and reduced QA/QC data issues will allow scientists to respond to inquiries more efficiently. Through the FDDV further adoption of ER tools by the fishing industry are being explored. Continued development of ER must include full collaboration with industry to ensure the practicality of use and to incorporate design elements and additional data that is useful for industry and will incentivize accurate reporting.

The satellite-telemetry electronic data collection system currently transmits oceanographic data from Study Fleet vessels and provides an example of how automated electronic transmissions of fisheries- dependent data could work. Oceanographic data has been reported in real-time from more than a dozen Study Fleet boats. Data from approximately 1500 hauls were reported to NEFSC servers within minutes of the gear landing on deck. While this system is currently independent of all other data transfer/upload operations, it could play an integral role in the process of ship-to-shore transfer of data in the future. These types of transmission mechanisms should be considered as part of the FDDV Project, though additional resources, both computer and personnel, would be required to implement this approach for eVTR.

Action Item 1d: The NEFSC will continue to support and emphasize FDDV; continue to develop and support electronic data transfer from fishing vessels.

Theme 2: Examine the organizational structure and administrative oversight provided by the NCRP for the Research Set-Aside Program.

The review concluded that the research set-aside (RSA) programs are valuable and well-administered, but several areas of improvements were identified to improve the RSA programs as well as the overall efficiency of the NCRP.

The Review recommended to: Remove management of the research set aside (RSA) program from NCRP to free up time to focus on the core NCRP products: development of industry-based data collection systems.

NEFSC response: 8

The NCRP Review was not a comprehensive review of the RSA programs - it was only evaluated with respect to the NCRP activities. For this reason, recommendations that arise from the NCRP Review will be used to further evaluate RSA improvement options, working closely with our regional partners at the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils, GARFO, the fishing industry, and research communities.

In January 2017, at a NEFMC Executive Committee meeting, the NEFMC, NEFSC, and GARFO agreed to conduct a comprehensive review of RSA programs. The NEFSC will examine the results of that review before pursuing detailed recommendations presented in the NCRP review.

Action Item 2a: The NEFSC will work with the Council(s) and GARFO to further evaluate improvements to the RSA programs. The NEFSC will engage in this joint comprehensive review of RSA programs.

The Review recommended that: Final decisions on funding and the tracking of RSA project performance should be overseen by a formal committee (or board) with appropriate industry and government representation and independently chaired.

NEFSC response: The report concluded that project decision making authority and project tracking should be transferred from NOAA Fisheries to an external, independent committee. There are legal and practical limitations associated with this recommendation. Foremost, RSA programs are Federal grant programs and final funding decisions reside with the Federal government. Further, grant program requirements must be overseen by the Federal Program Officer and the Department of Commerce. Although this recommendation cannot be adopted, there may be ways to increase input on project funding and tracking from a formal committee.

Action Item 2b: The NEFSC will develop a joint work plan with the Council(s) and GARFO to further evaluate how awards are made and tracked within the RSA programs.

The Review recommended that: The detailed tracking of the performance of RSA projects requires greater scrutiny, transparency and accountability.

NEFSC response: The NEFSC recognizes the importance of strong oversight to ensure RSA projects remain accountable for their proposed research and set aside award. There are several procedures in place to oversee research and compensation fishing to ensure accountability. Foremost, there are grant reporting requirements that award recipients must follow. They are required to submit progress reports every 6 months and a final report within 90 days of the conclusion of their grant. These reports provide updates on project activities such as, field research activities, compensation fishing, and any unforeseen issues that may have affected the project. Reports are reviewed by RSA program staff and NMFS staff with subject matter expertise to ensure the applicant is operating consistent with their research proposal. Final reports provide a detailed account of the research effort, and include results, analysis, and conclusions. RSA compensation fishing trip reports are audited for reporting compliance and data quality by NMFS. Information on RSA projects is available on the NCRP website (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/coopresearch/projects_search_setup.html). This searchable database allows visitors to view final reports (or see when the report is due) and award information.

Action Item 2c: The recommendation to improve tracking of the performance of the projects and increase transparency and accountability will be discussed as part of the joint RSA review.

The Review recommended that: RSA projects should be funded more strategically by partitioning of money for several years for long-term survey-type work – instead of the current 1-2 year life cycle of most projects, as well as trying to synchronize the timing of various funding processes.

NEFSC response: RSA programs have moved from single year to two (and three for herring) year awards in recent years. This helps to stabilize funding for projects that have long-term or ongoing objectives and increases the ability for managers and others that may benefit from research results to plan around these projects. Although there are clear benefits in making longer-term awards, there are some sacrifices; primarily, reductions in the amount of resources available to respond to emerging issues and to make near-term decisions. Extending awards beyond the quota specification cycle would need to be deliberated with the applicable Council, General Counsel Northeast Section, the Federal Acquisition Law Division, and GARFO. In addition, increasing the current grant duration may entail a change to fishery management plans and/or implementing regulations. Partitioning set asides to address specific program priorities would need to be supported by the Council and would likely require a change to the FMP and/or implementing regulations. Partitioning set-asides has been discussed in the past by the Council, but was not approved. Based on the NCRP review, we will revisit this discussion with the Council. Synchronizing the timing of RSA solicitations with other funding opportunities is difficult. The RSA competitions and awards are based on each respective fishing year. The goal is to have RSA awards made by the start of the fishing year so grant recipients can begin partnering with the fishing industry to harvest the award. Shifting this goal to focus on the timing of other funding opportunities could undermine compensation fishing opportunities, which are critical to the success of these programs.

Action Item 2d: The recommendation to adjust the funding life-cycle will be further discussed in the joint RSA Program review.

Theme 3: Improve communications about the roles and functions of the NCRP both internally and externally

The review found that both within the NEFSC and among external partners, there is a lack of awareness and understanding of the role of the NCRP, the products and services they can provide, and how the data collected are used by NEFSC scientists.

The Review recommended to: Better define and communicate what is meant by ‘cooperative research’ and the roles and functions of the NCRP and clarify that NCRP is part of the NEFSC and that the work done through the NCRP should be feeding directly into the NEFSC science products.

NEFSC response: We agree there is a need to better define and communicate what ‘cooperative research’ means and the roles and functions of the NCRP. Within the scope of this NCRP Review, cooperative research is restricted to the following:

● NEFSC-led projects that collaborate with industry (Study Fleet, Gulf of Maine Longline Survey, survey catchability work, etc.); ● NEFSC-funded activities coordinated by other groups (Marine Resource Education Program (MREP), Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCemFis), etc.); and, ● NEFSC coordinated activities where research is funded externally and conducted by other groups (RSA, etc.).

While beyond the scope of the NCRP review, it is also worth highlighting that other branches within the NEFSC conduct cooperative research activities using their program funds. Examples of this non-NCRP cooperative research include the 50 year shark tagging program, significant protected species research relating to fishery interactions and socio-economic studies used to evaluate the implications of regulatory options. Additionally, there is cooperative research that is conducted outside the NEFSC among various partners (e.g., collaborations between academic universities and the fishing industry), but similar to the non-NCRP NEFSC cooperative research, are beyond the scope of the NCRP Review.

Within the NEFSC, there needs to be better communication about the type and availability of NCRP data. This is not just the responsibility of the NCRP; other branches within the NEFSC have used NCRP funds to conduct cooperative research and these groups have a shared responsibility to provide documentation of these projects. Additionally, users of the data would communicate back to the NCRP about how the data are being used (i.e. stock assessments and publications). Furthermore, it is important to clarify and communicate to external partners how the NCRP data are used, and where applicable, show how the data are incorporated into assessments. Several specific recommendations were made to improve the general familiarity of the NCRP. We have listed additional recommendations below in internal and external communications, realizing some recommendations relate to both.

Opportunities to leverage existing resources (funding, staff, and equipment) within other branches of the NEFSC to support NCRP activities will be explored. This has been an effective model used to collect oceanographic data and conduct the Gulf of Maine Longline Survey. These cross-branch collaborations also assist with the integration of NCRP products and ensure that there is a demonstrated scientific use for the data collected.

The Review recommended to: Increase the awareness of NCRP products and services across the NEFSC to improve the understanding of what the NCRP does and, more importantly, could potentially do, in an effort to increase the number of scientific collaborations. Specifically, convene a NEFSC workshop to provide an overview of current and potential NCRP’s industry-based data-gathering operations.

NEFSC Response: Within NEFSC, we agree there is a need to increase the awareness of NCRP products and services across the NEFSC. There also needs to be an increase in willingness to use data collected as part of cooperative research. As noted above, this lack of understanding is not limited to the NCRP. Recent NEFSC internal focus groups made a series of recommendations to address internal and external communications needs within the NEFSC, including those of NCRP:

● Improve visibility and transparency of NEFSC research and products to better connect knowledge to action and inform internal and external audiences, including the media. ● Identify and track NEFSC products (data, publications, reports, and advice) in order to strategically manage our human and physical resources. 11

To further foster increased awareness of scientific research and projects within NEFSC, the Executive Board is considering reinstating the internal NEFSC Science Symposium on a regular basis to provide scientists throughout NEFSC an opportunity to present their work and learn more about the research being conducted at the NEFSC. Additionally, the NEFSC Lunchtime Seminar Series (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/woodshole/seminar-public.html), NEFSC Science Spotlights (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/news/spotlights.html), and/or other communication tools provide opportunities to highlight the work being done by the various branches could give the staff ample opportunities to learn about the NCRP activities.

A specific suggestion from the review report is for NCRP to host a workshop. As highlighted under Theme 1, the workshop would help better communicate the roles of NCRP, the data available through NCRP, and to identify potential cross-division activities and projects.

Action Item 3a: The NEFSC should increase opportunities for cooperative research to be presented to staff of the NEFSC, by NCRP staff and other project collaborators, on at least a biennial basis.

The Review recommended to: Improve the understanding of the NCRP’s work by external stakeholders to ensure that those parts of the NCRP’s data sets that contribute to science and/or management are adequately communicated to all appropriate stakeholders. Specifically: improve MREP curriculum to promote NCRP success stories where cooperative research products have contributed to science and/or management; develop a better web presence including video interviews, regular email newsletters to constituent lists, etc.; and, expand the size and geographic range of the Study Fleet and NCRP activities and seek to broaden cooperative research activities to include more industry participants.

NEFSC response: The review recommended that the NEFSC develop and implement an effective communication and outreach strategy and engage regularly with research partners to review ongoing collaborations and identify new opportunities. Much recent effort has been expended on improving our external communications for all areas of the NEFSC from a larger, more centralized perspective. All of these efforts have implications for NCRP. Progress to date includes:

● The NEFSC hired a contract social media specialist to expand the visibility of our programs. Current efforts include use of Twitter and Facebook (via GARFO and NOAA Fisheries HQ Communications staff), media mailings, web articles, etc. ● NEFSC is working on an External Communications Strategy with an outside consulting firm (Kearns & West); the final report with a strategy and implementation plan is expected in January 2017. ● Discussions are underway to make better utilization of GARFO port agents for external communications.

The report notes that ‘cooperative research’ means different things to different people and is perceived by some as an income generator, while others consider it a means to influence management and science. Several steps will be taken to help clarify the role of NCRP and combat the notion that there's an "in" group that get to participate while everyone else is in the "out" group. External communications need to emphasize that NCRP is part of the NEFSC and the work done through the NCRP feeds directly into the NEFSC science products. Specifically, more can be done to show how the NCRP works with external 12

partners and how the products produced through these collaborations is incorporated into NEFSC research. Internal workshops and seminars (as noted above) as well as various for a such as port meetings, industry workshops, industry conferences/trade shows, regular presentations and discussions at Fishery Management Council meetings and with Council Staff, and collaborating with our cooperative research partners can help in this regard. These efforts will be coordinated between NCRP, Research Communications Branch and scientific staff. Lastly, clarifying and communicating what NCRP does and why it was established will help reduce the misperceptions concerning NCRP. Other suggestions include:

● Routinely update the NCRP web site to include more timely information, video interviews/podcasts, increase visibility via regular email newsletters/outreach to constituent lists, etc. ● Use various communication tools and strategies to reach external audiences, including web articles about the NCRP and its various programs and success stories, social media, communication with port agents, in-person meetings with fishermen on their turf or in a neutral setting. ● Expand the Marine Resource Education Program (MREP). The MREP has done great work in reaching out to our stakeholders to help them understand the process and our science. NEFSC can do more to improve/expand the MREP curriculum, and to highlight successful use of NCRP products in science and management. ● More widely publicize study fleet success stories. One example: Pilot Studies Test Bottom- Mounted Temperature Loggers, Weather Stations on Fishing Boats.

As noted in a previous program review, maintaining a productive working relationship with fishermen requires a substantial time commitment from scientists. Increasing interactions with intermediaries, such as state scientists, industry cooperative groups, local non-profit research organizations, and GARFO port agents, will help alleviate the time commitment of the NEFSC scientist while continuing to maintain connections with the fishing industry. Expansion of the Study Fleet program will be considered during the NEFSC NCRP workshops. Subsequent expansion efforts will be done in a planned manner and closely aligned with addressing identified research priorities.

Action Item 3b: Expand the Cooperative research curriculum in the Marine Resource Education Program (MREP) to focus on the role of the NCRP, ongoing projects, and recent success stories.

Action Item 3c: Using a variety of outreach tools (NCRP website, press releases, social media, email lists, tradeshows), NEFSC will provide more timely information about ongoing NCRP projects and success stories, video interviews/podcasts. CRB will engage in regular meetings with Social Media specialist and GARFO port agents, and reference the results noted in the NEFSC External Communication Strategy.

Action Item 3d: CRB will update the NCRP website to include a list of NCRP projects, with metadata summarizing how the information from these projects has been used in science and management applications, and listing project contacts.

Action Item 3e: The NEFSC will re-establish regular reports from the NCRP at the MAFMC and NEFMC meetings.

Theme 4: Develop organizational structure within the NCRP to better deal with the geographically dispersed nature of program staff 13

This theme highlighted the geographic dispersion of the NCRP staff, flat organizational structure, large reliance on contract staff and lack of direct supervisions as contributors to a) a lack of research prioritization and alignment with the NEFSC’s Directorate, and b) difficulties with communication, team- building and training opportunities. In the summer of 2016, the NEFSC underwent a reorganization which included moving the NCRP from a research program reporting directly to the NEFSC Directorate, to the more formal division/branch structure used elsewhere in the NEFSC. The NCRP is now operated out of the Cooperative Research Branch (CRB) which has been placed in the newly created FMRD. As both the FMRD and CRB mature, the organizational issues are expected to improve.

The NEFSC has initiated a long-term (through 2021) labor planning process that seeks to align the labor force with the NEFSC Strategic Science Plan. This process is intended to highlight staffing shortfalls and plan for improvements/investments in this area.

The Review recommended to: Develop a research prioritization process where cooperative research projects are properly prioritized, designed, mentored, or overseen in conjunction with NEFSC scientists.

NEFSC response: A formal prioritization process aligned with the NEFSC Strategic Science Plan is a critical component of CRB function. Integrating advice from program staff and end users throughout the NEFSC, and engaging our external partners and industry collaborators, will improve cooperative research products. Developing a process for cooperative research prioritization and planning is highlighted in Theme 1. Development of a research prioritization process is likely to improve integration of cooperative research products in a broad array of NEFSC programs, enhancing program impacts. This will be a priority as both FMRD and CRB structure develop.

The Review recommended to: Improve the supervision of contract staff.

NEFSC Response: Flat organizational structure and a lack of direct supervision have been identified as creating challenges related to communication, and staff engagement in the CRB. These issues are certainly exacerbated by the limited number of Federal employees in the CRB and existing workloads. Presently there is no supervisory structure within branch contractor ranks. Developing this structure in the contract staff is possible within the existing contract framework and would alleviate the supervisory burden on Federal employees and improve the coordination of contract staff. The GARFO has developed an approach in the port sampling program involving a Federal employee program manager overseeing several contractor leads that then supervise and coordinate activities of additional contract staff. A similar structure could be developed within the CRB contract staff by creating a supervising contractor who would provide oversight and prioritization of the work of all contract staff in CRB. The number of supervisory positions will depend on the final structure of the CRB which will be addressed through the NEFSC’s long-term labor planning exercise.

Action Item 4a: Explore creating supervisory contract positions within the CRB, which can be further evaluated through standing up the new Division (FMRD) structure and NEFSC labor planning for 2021.

The Review recommended to: 14

Provide training and career development opportunities to contract staff to include mentoring by senior NEFSC scientists and possible integration of research duties with part-time Masters or PhD program.

NEFSC Response: Training and career development opportunities exist at the NEFSC and are available to contract staff, though NEFSC can do a better job of highlighting and encouraging these opportunities. The existing labor contractor provides annual funding for technical training for staff members (e.g., computer languages, statistical courses) that is directly related to the scope of their duties. These resources have allowed contractors to improve technical skills and enhance their contribution to program goals.

Action Item 4b: NEFSC Branch Chiefs and Division Chiefs will work with the contract staff COTR and Staff Advisory Council at the NEFSC to ensure that mentoring and training opportunities are understood, offered, and designed within the scope of acceptable contract activities.

The Review recommended to: Centralize Cooperative Research Branch Federal employees to the extent practicable, even if on a rotating basis.

NEFSC response: The CRB presently has three Federal employees directly involved in branch administration, though Federal staff in other branches are actively engaged in CRB activities. The three Federal employees are distributed throughout the region. Independent of distribution, this small staff may not provide critical mass in regards to program function. This is likely exacerbated by the distance between these individuals. As the NEFSC is exploring and planning for facility recapitalization efforts and implementing a long term work force vision we recognize the advantages of further developing an effective cohesive and integrated center for cooperative research.

Action Item 4c: To the extent possible, as additional Federal employees are hired within CRB, they should be located in a facility common to either their supervisor or direct reports.

Action Item 4d: In lieu of relocation, which is not favored, the two senior CRB Federal employees should host the other at their facility for a couple of days each month. This would encourage the exchange of ideas and help bridge gaps in communication.

The Review recommended to: Develop a succession plan for the Cooperative Research Branch.

NEFSC response: Institutional knowledge is critical to carrying programs forward during transitions. Succession planning would be beneficial. It is incumbent on existing staff to document information necessary to carry the CRB forward. Through the NEFSC’s long-term labor planning exercise, transitioning many of the contract positions into Federal positions would help stabilize the CRB labor force and facilitate the transfer of institutional knowledge.

Action Item 4e: The FMRD and NEFSC will consider succession plan for CRB in the 2012 labor planning process.

The Review recommended to: 15

Improve the structure of the Cooperative Research Branch by creating teams based either on geography (New England vs. Mid-Atlantic), field services (commercial vs. recreational), or functional responsibilities (outreach, field support).

NEFSC response: We believe the CRB would benefit from improved organizational structure. As highlighted earlier, the NEFSC’s long-term labor planning exercise is currently underway. A primary component of this exercise will be to strategically plan the future of CRB labor force. This exercise will focus on the structure of the CRB, both with respect to products and services it will deliver and how best to staff the Branch (Federal positions, contract labor; number of junior, professional, and supervisory staff).

Action Item 4f: The FMRD will consider organizational structure and strategic geographic placement of CRB staff in the 2021 labor planning process.

The Review recommended to: Develop a stronger presence in the Mid-Atlantic by locating at least one Federal employee in the region that could a) oversee regional cooperative research projects including continued collaborations within the recreational sector and b) improve the coordination of research priorities with the MAFMC.

NEFSC response: Through the NEFSC’s long-term labor planning exercise, consideration will be given to expanding the scope of CRB engagement in the Mid-Atlantic region and the labor needed to support that will be evaluated. Coordination with fishery management councils will continue to be undertaken by senior staff (division and branch chiefs). Technical level staff (Federal employees and contractors) are positioned to engage at the PDT and FMAT levels and this will be encouraged and expanded.

The Review recommended to: Develop the capacity for additional analytical support within the branch.

NEFSC response: Currently the CRB includes two contract staff members dedicated to analysis and data auditing, as well as a third contract staff member who is a software programmer. The existing staff are insufficient to meet the current analytical and technical demands on the CRB. Additional analytical and technical staff would improve CRB capabilities in this area, though this also needs to be considered within the larger context of the FMRD structure, which is further explored in Theme 5.Through the NEFSC’s long-term labor planning exercise, consideration will be given to expanding the analytical and technical capacity of the CRB with consideration of the synergies that could be explored within the FMRD and with other Divisions.

Action Item 4g: In the short term, CRB would explore opportunities and resource availability to bring on temporary analytical support through a post-doctoral position.

Theme 5: Explore synergies between the CRB and FSB within the newly created FMRD

In an effort to improve overall NEFSC organizational structure, a newly created FMRD was created in June 2016. The FMRD focuses on the collection and use of information from commercial and recreational 16

fisheries to inform fisheries science and management and fills data gaps to complement fishery independent surveys through the utilization of commercial and recreational fishing platforms. The FMRD includes both the CRB and Fisheries Sampling Branch (FSB), both of which work closely with fishing industries to collect, process, and manage fishery dependent data, and utilize industry platforms to obtain data in support of stock assessments and ecosystem based fishery management. Since the NEFSC began managing the NCRP in 2006, it has existed as a science program reporting directly to the NEFSC Directorate. With the NEFSC reorganization the NCRP has been moved within the CRB. The review report highlighted several ways in which synergies could be explored, some of which are mentioned below.

The Review recommended the: Development of a vessel database containing the characteristics of fishing vessels that would be available for research.

NEFSC response: There is considerable utility in developing a database, or at a minimum – a list, of vessels operating in the Northeast United States who are cooperative and supportive of furthering the science mission of the NMFS. Given the expansive reach of the FSB operations, both in terms of geography and the number of vessels, the FSB staff have intimate knowledge of which vessels might be good candidates for cooperative research opportunities. Leveraging this knowledge to support the CRB expansion efforts would be beneficial.

Action Item 5a: The FMRD will explore the development of a database to contain information on commercial fishing vessels suited for cooperative research projects.

The Review recommended the: Use of the Fisheries Logbook Data Recording System (FLDRS) information to assist in identifying key locations and times for observer deployment.

NEFSC response: Although this is a creative idea, the NEFSC does not readily agree that FLDRS could help with observer placement. The FSB has access to databases with similar information (e.g., Vessel Trip Report and Vessel Monitoring System), although the observer providers and observers do not have that direct access. Additionally, within the groundfish fishery, FSB uses the Pre-Trip Notification System (PTNS) to dynamically assign observer coverage proportional to fishing effort. Efforts are underway to expand the capability of the PTNS to support other fisheries.

Action Item 5b: A FMRD representative will engage with the FDDV, which is a project to modernize, integrate, standardize, adapt, and reduce redundancies with fisheries dependent data collections, keeping the utility and applications of FLDRS and PTNS in mind.

The Review recommended to: Combine FLDRS electronic reporting (ER) and electronic monitoring (EM) technology into a next-generation audit-type fisheries-dependent data collection system.

NEFSC response: Under the audit-type model EM video data are used to validate the self-reported data provided by vessel captains using electronic logbooks such as FLDRS. Several regional EM projects are currently utilizing FLDRS to collect haul-by-haul catch data, including audit-type applications in the Northeast groundfish 17

fishery. Efforts are currently underway at the GARFO to link EM and ER data, though linkages that are more direct should be explored under the FDDV Project. The NEFSC, in conjunction with its regional partners and through the FDDV, will continue to explore opportunities to advance ER and EM linkages.

Action Item 5c: FMRD will ensure that considerations of existing and evolving ER are included in EM developments.

The Review recommended to: Explore opportunities to share support services to include administrative, information technology (IT), field and safety training and outreach support.

NEFSC response: The FMRD is currently exploring ways to better distribute analytical, IT, administrative and communications support throughout the Division as part of the NEFSC’s long-term labor planning exercise. Steps have already been taken to utilize the existing safety training programs developed by FSB to provide regular training to CRB staff. Additionally, both FSB and CRB are in regular contact regarding regional fisheries issues that may affect each of the branches. Through the NEFSC’s long-term labor planning exercise the NEFSC will continue to explore a combined services approach in the new FMRD structure, especially in areas on which efficiencies can be capitalized.

Action Item 5d: The NEFSC will ensure that cross-cutting activities, including administrative, IT, safety, and outreach support with the CRB, is detailed in the NEFSC 2021 Labor Planning.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

We greatly appreciate the willingness of our many regional partners to participate in the NCRP review process. The review report has provided the NEFSC with a solid foundation with which to begin to better align our cooperative research efforts with the NEFSC’s Strategic Science Plan for 2016-2021. We look forward to collectively working together to continue to strengthen our connections with the fishing industry and better integrating our cooperative research products and services into regional fisheries science and management efforts.

The NCRP is a critical component of building pivotal relationships with the fishing industry, building trust, and offering opportunities for inclusion in managing our marine resources. This review will be used to focus NCRP objectives and refine its mission. It will be used as a reference, milestone marker, and a basis to expand discussions. The NCRP staff has strong skills, character, passion, and dedication to the program and with added resources, direction, and NEFSC support, will improve not only their work environment, but also the benefits to industry, science, and fisheries management.

18 Appendix A. Summary of major NEFSC action items and schedule Action Major theme Action description NEFSC Divisions Deadline number The NEFSC will convene workshops to communicate the value of cooperative research and 1a FMRD Spring 2017 improve awareness and integration of NCRP products and services. The NEFSC will ensure that every science Division has cross-cutting activities with the NCRP 1. Increase the usage 1b FMRD, Directorate Spring/Summer 2017 and is detailed in the NEFSC 2021 Labor Planning. of NCRP data The NEFSC will ensure that the Data Management System Division has cross-cutting activities products and services 1c FMRD, Directorate Spring/Summer 2017 with the CRB and is detailed in the NEFSC 2021 Labor Planning. The NEFSC will continue to support and emphasize FDDV; continue to develop and support 1d FMRD, Directorate Spring/Summer 2017 electronic data transfer from fishing vessels. The NEFSC will work with the Council(s) and GARFO to further evaluate improvements to FMRD, Directorate, 2a the RSA programs. The NEFSC will engage in this joint comprehensive review of RSA Spring/Summer 2017 2. Examine the external partners organizational programs. structure and the The NEFSC will develop a joint work plan with the Council(s) and GARFO to further evaluate FMRD, Directorate, 2b Spring/Summer 2017 administrative how awards are made and tracked within the RSA programs. external partners oversight provided by The recommendation to improve tracking of the performance of the projects and increase FMRD, Directorate, the NCRP for the 2c Spring/Summer 2017 Research Set-Aside transparency and accountability will be discussed as part of the joint RSA review. external partners Program The recommendation to adjust the funding life-cycle will be further discussed in the joint RSA FMRD, Directorate, 2d Spring/Summer 2017 Program review. external partners

The NEFSC should increase opportunities for cooperative research to be presented to staff of 3a FMRD, Directorate 2018 the NEFSC, by NCRP staff and other project collaborators, on at least a biennial basis.

Expand the Cooperative research curriculum in the Marine Resource Education Program FMRD, external 3b Fall 2017 (MREP) to focus on the role of the NCRP, ongoing projects, and recent success stories. partners 3. Improve communications about Using a variety of outreach tools (NCRP website, press releases, social media, email lists, the roles and functions tradeshows), NEFSC will provide more timely information about ongoing NCRP projects and FMRD, OMI, external of the NCRP both 3c success stories, video interviews/podcasts. CRB will engage in regular meetings with Social Ongoing partners internally and Media specialist and GARFO port agents, and reference the results noted in the NEFSC externally External Communication Strategy. CRB will update the NCRP website to include a list of NCRP projects, with metadata 3d summarizing how the information from these projects has been used in science and FMRD, OMI Fall 2017 management applications, and listing project contacts. The NEFSC will re-establish regular reports from the NCRP at the MAFMC and NEFMC 3e Directorate Fall 2017 meetings. Explore creating supervisory contract positions within the CRB, which can be further 4a evaluated through standing up the new Division (FMRD) structure and NEFSC labor planning FMRD Spring 2017 4. Develop for 2021. organizational NEFSC Branch Chiefs and Division Chiefs will work with the contract staff COTR and Staff structure within the 4b Advisory Council at the NEFSC to ensure that mentoring and training opportunities are FMRD, Directorate Summer 2017 NCRP to better deal understood, offered, and designed within the scope of acceptable contract activities. with the geographically To the extent possible, as additional Federal employees are hired within CRB, they should be 4c FMRD Ongoing dispersed nature of located in a facility common to either their supervisor or direct reports. program staff In lieu of relocation, which is not favored, the two senior CRB Federal employees should host 4d the other at their facility for a couple of days each month. This would encourage the exchange FMRD Ongoing of ideas and help bridge gaps in communication. The FMRD and NEFSC will consider succession plan for CRB in the 2012 labor planning 4e FMRD Spring 2017 process. The FMRD will consider organizational structure and strategic geographic placement of CRB 4f FMRD Spring 2017 staff in the 2021 labor planning process. In the short term, CRB would explore opportunities and resource availability to bring on 4g FMRD Spring/Summer 2017 temporary analytical support through a post-doctoral position. The FMRD will explore the development of a database to contain information on commercial 5a FMRD, DMS Fall 2017 5. Explore synergies fishing vessels suited for cooperative research projects. between the Cooperative Research A FMRD representative will engage with the FDDV, which is a project to modernize, FMRD, DMS, Branch (CRB) and 5b Ongoing integrate, standardize, adapt, and reduce redundancies with fisheries dependent data Directorate Fisheries Sampling collections, keeping the utility and applications of FLDRS and PTNS in mind. Branch (FSB) within FMRD will ensure that considerations of existing and evolving ER are included in EM FMRD, DMS, external the newly created 5c Ongoing developments. Fisheries Monitoring partners and Research Division FMRD, DMS, OMI, 5d The NEFSC will ensure that cross-cutting activities, including administrative, IT, safety, and Ongoing (FMRD) Directorate outreach support with the CRB, is detailed in the NEFSC 2021 Labor Planning.

19 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901 Phone: 302-674-2331 ǀ FAX: 302-674-5399 ǀ www.mafmc.org Richard B. Robins, Jr., Chairman ǀ Lee G. Anderson, Vice Chairman Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director

August 5, 2016

Dr. William A. Karp Science and Research Director NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center 166 Water Street Woods Hole, MA 02543

Dear Bill:

Over the past two years the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has been evaluating its role in cooperative research. As you know, the Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program was the Council’s primary mechanism for generating funds to support cooperative research in the Mid- Atlantic from 2001 until 2014. In 2014, the Council voted to suspend the RSA program in response to a range of issues, including enforcement violations, administrative issues, limitations on Council involvement in selection of projects, and dissatisfaction with some project outcomes. These concerns are outlined in detail in the briefing materials from the August 2014 Council meeting (http://www.mafmc.org/s/Tab-06_RSA.pdf).

We recognize that changes have been made to remedy some of these issues, but the Council remains undecided as to the continuation of the RSA program. For this reason, the Council initiated a thorough investigation of alternative options for supporting cooperative research in the Mid-Atlantic, including revising RSA or replacing it with an entirely new Council-managed program. To guide this review process, the Council established the following objectives:

1) Facilitate scientific research that addresses the Council’s research priorities; 2) Provide opportunities primarily for fishing industry involvement in research projects and ensure that opportunities for participation are appropriately communicated; 3) Establish a thorough and uniform process for the scientific review of research results; 4) Promote the use of cooperative research products in management decisions; 5) Communicate research results to the public and to appropriate management partners; and 6) Promote effective administration and enforcement.

The Council is concerned that the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s requirements pertaining to research programs are not being met in the Mid-Atlantic. The Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act created Section 318 (16 U.S.C. § 1867), which requires the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Regional Fishery Management Councils, to establish a program to address needs identified under the Act. Section 318 specifies that this program should be implemented on a regional basis and that it should be developed and conducted through partnerships among federal and state managers, scientists, educational institutions, and fishing industry participants (including commercial charter or recreational vessels for gathering data).

At the February 2016 meeting, the Council agreed that the first step in the development of a long- term cooperative research program in the Mid-Atlantic should be collaboration with NMFS/NEFSC to expand and enhance existing cooperative research initiatives carried out under the umbrella of the NEFSC’s Northeast Cooperative Research Program (NCRP). During this meeting, you expressed strong support for the proposed approach and agreed that there is a need for improved coordination between the NEFSC and regional fishery management councils concerning cooperative research activities.

We understand that the NEFSC is currently reviewing its Cooperative Research Program. In the revision to that program we ask that you (1) consider our cooperative research objectives, (2) help us improve communication and coordination between the Council and NEFSC regarding cooperative research priorities and activities, and (3) expand NCRP cooperative research in the Mid-Atlantic region.

Thank you for your consideration of these requests and recommendations and for your willingness to help us improve cooperative research in the Mid-Atlantic. We look forward to working with you and your staff to address these important issues.

Sincerely,

Christopher M. Moore, PhD. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

cc: Rick Robins Lee Anderson Mike Luisi John Bullard Collaborative Research Committee Meeting Summary

February 9, 2016

The Collaborative Research Committee met to discuss preliminary alternatives for the Council’s long- term involvement in collaborative research. The Council suspended the RSA program in 2014 and is considering whether to reactivate the program and/or pursue an alternative form of involvement in collaborative research.

Discussion Staff presented four broad approaches for consideration by the Committee. These approaches include (1) coordinating with NOAA/NEFSC to improve existing initiatives under the Northeast Cooperative Research Program; (2) managing independent, Council-funded CR projects on a permanent basis; (3) exploring the potential development of a Mid-Atlantic collaborative research consortium; and (4) reactivation of the Research Set-Aside program.

Two approaches were considered but rejected -

• Approach 2 - The Assistant Regional Administrator indicated that continuation of a Council- funded research program is not a viable long-term option for the Council. While GARFO has allowed both the Mid-Atlantic and New England Councils to fund short-term CR programs, there are a number of issues that would lead them to oppose a proposal to continue on a long-term basis. • Approach 3 - Development of a collaborative research consortium was not extensively discussed by the Committee. The general consensus was that the existence of a research consortium would be beneficial to the region and the Council’s managed fisheries but that funding constraints make this option impractical and the Council is not in a position to initiate development of such an organization.

The two remaining approaches both involve coordinating collaborative research efforts through NMFS/NEFSC (as opposed to funding independent research initiatives.)

Approach 1 – This option would involve coordinating with NMFS/NEFSC to improve and expand the scope of existing research activities carried out in the Mid-Atlantic region as part of the NEFSC’s Northeast Cooperative Research Program. The Committee was generally supportive of the actions laid out under this approach. Dr. Karp agreed that there is a need for improved coordination between the NEFSC and regional fishery management councils concerning cooperative/collaborative research activities. Because Approach 1 is not linked with a specific source of funding, some Committee members expressed concern that without the fund-generating capacity of the RSA program, the Council will be limited in its ability to influence new research projects in the region.

Approach 4 - Committee members had mixed opinions regarding renewal of the RSA program.

• A number of Committee members and members of the public noted that RSA enables the Council to conduct valuable research that would not otherwise be possible, as well as offering social benefits and economic opportunities. There were concerns that the Council would not be able to find an alternative funding source that could replace RSA. Some felt that the RSA concept was worth keeping but that the Council should consider a range of alternative program designs to replace the current auction-based program. • Other Committee members expressed concern that the structure of the RSA program makes it inherently vulnerable to abuse. It was noted that a number of programmatic and enforcement changes were implemented to address these concerns in 2014, but because these changes were only in place for a short time before the Council suspended the program, it is unclear whether they would address the Council’s concerns. • Another concern is that the program has not historically produced consistently high-quality scientific data. While some projects, such as NEAMAP, have been very valuable to the Council, others have been of little use to the Council. It was noted that this has little to do with the design of the RSA program and that it could be addressed by improving the Council’s priority setting process and revising administrative procedures. • Some Committee members felt that the RSA program is inherently unfair (creating haves and have nots) and should not continue.

Committee Recommendation The Committee recommended a hybrid approach which would combine elements of Approaches 1 and 4. This would involve retaining RSA as an option for future consideration but moving forward with steps to improve coordination with NEFSC and identify opportunities for more NCRP research in the Mid- Atlantic. While Approach 1 is not linked to a specific source of funding, improving coordination with NEFSC would be beneficial if the Council decides to renew the RSA program in the future. The Committee recommended establishing a technical working group with participants from MAFMC, NEFSC, and GARFO to develop an action plan and craft options for Council consideration at a meeting later in 2016. The working group will explore options for addressing MAFMC collaborative research needs more effectively through NCRP research activities as well as options for reconfiguring RSA.

Mid‐Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901 Phone: 302‐674‐2331 ǀ Toll Free: 877‐446‐2362 ǀ FAX: 302‐674‐5399 ǀ www.mafmc.org Richard B. Robins, Jr., Chairman ǀ Lee G. Anderson, Vice Chairman Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director

MEMORANDUM

Date: July 30, 2014

To: Chris Moore

From: Rich Seagraves

Subject: RSA Program Issues

As per your request, I have reviewed the NMFS response (attachment 1) to the September 25, 2012 Council letter (attachment 2) to John Bullard requesting changes to the way the RSA Program is conducted and administered. In the course of that review, I have outlined a number of outstanding issues that still need to be addressed relative to the RSA program that should be considered by the Council when making a determination on the level of RSA specification for 2015 and beyond.

Costs/Benefits of the program

The Mid-Atlantic Council created the Research Set-Aside Program through Framework Adjustment 1 to the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass FMP, Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish FMP, Bluefish FMP and Tilefish FMP. The first research projects funded under this program began in 2002 and the program has continued annually since then. Over the course of its 13 year history, the RSA Program has funded 41 research projects at a total cost of $16,321,643 (Tables 1 - 3). While there were projects which produced tangible results that were subsequently incorporated into the Council’s management programs (four studies on black sea bass escape vent size/configuration and discard reduction, summer flounder mesh selectivity, and NEAMAP), there were also a number of projects which, after completion, failed to pass peer review and could not be used for science or management purposes.

The fact that a number of RSA Projects failed scientific review after completion raised major concerns about the process by which RSA Proposals were vetted and the oversight of the projects as they were being conducted. Some of these concerns have been addressed through inclusion of our SSC in the scientific review of proposals prior to funding. However, considering the costs associated with administration and enforcement, as well as the value of the RSA quota, it’s probable that the program costs have far outweighed the benefits to the Council and public.

Page 1 of 5

RSA Program Originally Established to Regain the Public Trust

One of the original objectives of the RSA Program was to foster collaboration between the scientific community (from both government and academia), the fishing community, and the general public. The EA for the RSA program states:

Commercial fishermen seek to maximize the revenue from their harvests, and will operate their vessels and deploy their gear in such a way as to best accomplish this end. Scientists, conversely, are bound by the "scientific method," and seek to gain information and verify its accuracy through rigorous experimental procedures. Management programs based on this information may then be questioned by the public, and lack credibility in their eyes. The Mid-Atlantic Council has developed the research set- aside program to address these concerns. Without the active cooperation of the fishing public, most management programs are destined to fail, as it is chiefly through the actions of commercial and recreational user groups that humans interact with and affect fisheries resources.

Discussion

One of the issues identified during the Council’s Visioning Project was the lack of public trust in the auction conducted by NFI. Under the current program, successful RSA applicants are given a grant in the form of fish and the vast majority of RSA awarded fish are then sold at auction through an agreement with NFI to fund the proposed research. The NFI charges a fee for their services (12.5 %) and numerous stakeholders raised concerns about this process including the requirement that bidders must join NFI to participate in the auction. It should be recognized by Council members and the public that the NFI auction operates outside of the control of the Council process and is a private business agreement between NFI and the grant recipients.

The RSA program (as it has evolved into its current form) has tended to decouple the harvest of the RSA quota from the actual research as a result of the NFI auction process. For example, although the two projects funded for 2014 (NEAMAP and BSB Trap Survey) are collaborative efforts using commercial fishing vessels as sampling platforms, the fact remains that the actual harvest of the RSA quota to generate the funds required to pay for the research is conducted independently from the actual research. Although the auction model tends to increase the value of any given amount of RSA quota, this development (separation of auction from researchers) contravenes the objective of collaboration between scientists and the public. Direct compensation fishing to fund the research has met with limited success because the RSA quota only has greater intrinsic value relative to the general fishery quotas when the fishery is closed or other fishery restrictions are in place (i.e., trip limits, seasonal closures, etc.).

Reporting and Enforcement

In its 2012 letter to the RA, the Council requested that NMFS include in the reporting call-in system a requirement for vessels to call-in to the IVR system at least one hour prior to landing RSA quota. In addition, the Council requested that NMFS implement a notification system via email or other real-time communication mechanism to alert law enforcement personnel about activities related to the RSA program.

Page 2 of 5

According to NMFS personnel, a better IVR system is being implemented this year. However, in regard to the real-time notification of RSA activities to law enforcement, it is unclear to what degree this has been implemented beyond procedures that were already in place prior to 2012. For example, the 2009 programmatic review of the RSA Program indicated that real-time notification of law enforcement relative to RSA vessel activity was already in place. This calls into question the effectiveness of this measure since this practice was adopted in or around 2009 and serious non-reporting violations associated with the RSA Program occurred in the following years.

Discussion

The public perception that the RSA Program has created an easily exploited mechanism to allow for illegal harvest has done little to regain the public trust in the RSA program or any of the RSA research. In fact, tracking and enforcing the RSA quota has been difficult and a major source of controversy since inception of the RSA Program. A 2009 Programmatic Review of the MAFMC Research Set-Aside Program noted the following concerning monitoring and enforcing the RSA quota:

Allegations of misreporting landings have been made. All RSA users must declare into a trip by calling an interactive federal phone system and obtain a trip number. The VTR serial number must be faxed or emailed to the state before the trip is begun. When the trip is over, a vessel must call-out on the federal system. New York also requires charter/party boats harvesting RSA to fax to the state a sheet containing each angler's name, how many fish they caught, how many pounds they weighed, and showing the progression of every trip and the use of the poundage allowed by the vessel. However, the allegation is that fishermen are not reporting all the RSA quota of Summer Flounder (Fluke) and Scup in various locations in Long Island, when law enforcement presence is lacking when fishermen land their catch. If the vessel is fishing during closed periods, and law enforcement is present, the fishermen can simply present their EFP and not receive a violation.

These allegations have been numerous. To-date, little hard evidence exists and enforcement actions have been limited due to inadequate shore side monitoring, but various scenarios and situations have been reported to NMFS, New York State authorities, and explained to RSA staff during public meetings. Enforcement monitoring has begun and at least 2 cases are currently being investigated.

The dispersed and diffuse nature of the large number of landing locations (commercial docks and recreational marinas) and characteristics of marine fisheries in New York makes shore side monitoring of RSA quota landings extremely difficult. In addition, the following factors contribute to scenarios where RSA landings are not fully accounted for.

 Unintended financial incentives to not report all RSA quota landings exist under current RSA program policies.  Current policy for recreational landing reporting is not verifiable through dealer reporting requirements as in commercial fishing regulations.  Monitoring and enforcement capacity in both State and Federal agencies is inadequate to verify all RSA landings and ensure full accountability and transparency.

Page 3 of 5

Obviously, hard evidence of abuse and non-reporting by vessels involved in the RSA Program now exists. Logan Gregory (NMFS OLE) presented a report to the Council at its June 2014 meeting on recent enforcement activities in New York which resulted in four convictions involving federally permitted vessels and dealers engaged in the unlawful landing of summer flounder related to the RSA Program (see below for more details). Since then, two more guilty pleas have occurred for similar charges (see attachment 3) and Mr. Gregory noted that up to 70 additional subpoenas related to this investigation throughout the state of New York are pending. Clearly, non-reporting and abuse of the RSA has been and remains a major problem.

Illegal/unreported landings associated with the RSA Program jeopardize FMP compliance with National Standard 1

All FMPs, amendments and frameworks developed by the Council must contain analyses which demonstrate FMP compliance with the ten National Standards (NS) as outlined in Section 301(a) of the MSFCMA. Foremost among the national standards is NS1 which requires that all FMPs prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. The EA for the Amendment that created the RSA program contained the following language with respect to compliance with NS1:

In order to comply with the SFA requirements, the Mid-Atlantic Council specifies annual harvest quotas for each species that limit fishing to the required levels. This framework action works within the parameters of the annual quotas by specifying that research set-asides be subtracted from the quota for each species, and not taken in addition to annual quotas. Hence, this framework action is consistent with National Standard 1.

In addition, section 5.3.2 (Biological Impacts section) of the EA contained the following language relative to compliance with NS1:

The biological impacts of harvesting the annual quotas for each species are analyzed in the specification packages submitted to NMFS each year. The set-asides enabled by this framework action will always be deducted from and not in addition to the Total Allowable Landings that are set for each species. Hence the biological impacts resulting from the harvest of set-aside quantities will always be fully accounted for.

Discussion

The EA completed for Framework 1 that created the RSA Program correctly states that specification of research set-aside quota is deducted from the TAL (and not added to it), and therefore harvest of RSA quota is consistent with National Standard 1. However, no serious consideration was given in the original analysis of the potential for abuse of the program resulting in significant quota harvest overages due to unreported harvest. Recent enforcement efforts in New York related to abuse of the RSA program revealed that significant quantities of summer flounder were being taken illegally under the “cover” of RSA quota amounts acquired through the RSA program (see attachment 3).

One of the primary issues with the summer flounder stock assessment has been the persistent retrospective pattern in estimation of fishing mortality – that is, summer flounder stock assessments

Page 4 of 5

have generally underestimated recent fishing mortality rates. This phenomenon could be largely explained by unreported fishing mortality (landings) of the type associated with the recently uncovered illegal landing of summer flounder in NY associated with the RSA Program.

The exact total amount of summer flounder harvested illegally in NY is still unknown but the effect could be a substantial quota overage of the total ACL established for the summer flounder fishery. In an enforcement briefing of the Council on ongoing enforcement activities in NY in June 2014, it was noted that the known illegal harvest of summer flounder exceeds 50% of the annual quota allocation for the State of New York, and the illegal harvest estimate is likely to increase substantially as the investigation in that state continues to unfold. Quota overages of this magnitude are not trivial and may approach or exceed levels that would be considered violations of National Standard 1. As such, the real and potential quota overages resulting from illegal activities related to the RSA Program may place the Council’s FMPs in direct violation of National Standard 1 if the overages have resulted in overfishing. This situation has arisen as a direct result of the inability of NMFS to adequately track, monitor and enforce the quota landed under the RSA Program.

Staff Recommendation:

Given the controversial nature of the RSA Program and the uncertainty that exists with respect to adequately tracking RSA landings as well as the enforcement and science issues, staff recommend that the Council specify RSA amounts at zero for 2015 for all RSA species. A hiatus in the RSA Program will allow adequate time for a thorough review of the RSA Program and determination of when and how it should be resumed.

Page 5 of 5

Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 3

NOAA HOME WEATHER OCEANS FISHERIES CHARTING SATELLITES CLIMATE RESEARCH COASTS CAREERS Search NMFS Site . . .

Law Enforcement Home About Our Office Priorities Compliance Assistance Newsroom FAQ

RSA Violations Re sult in Arre st, Guilty Plea for Ne w York Fishe rm an

In July 2010, agents for NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement initiated an investigation into Research Set-Aside (RSA) violations. On April 11, 2014, the investigation culminated in a guilty plea by a Levittown, New York, fisherman to mail fraud, wire fraud, and falsifying federal records.

Anthony Joseph pled guilty in federal district court to one count of mail fraud, two counts of wire fraud, and one count of falsifying federal records. Though the final sentence is up to the Court, the defendant has agreed to pay between $629,000 and $692,000 in combined fines and forfeitures. He also agreed to multiple sentence conditions, including relinquishment of his New York State summer flounder permit, a ban on participation in the RSA program, and a lifetime ban from possessing a NOAA operator’s permit. At a future sentencing hearing, the Court will decide what other penalties, if any, will be imposed. NOAA special agents uncovered research In all, OLE agents determined that Joseph filed 158 false fishing logs and was set-aside violations of unreported fluke complicit in the submission of 167 false dealer reports. These violations led to valued at nearly $625,000. criminal charges, and he also violated provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

“Accurate reporting on submitted fishing logs and dealer reports is the foundation for sound and sustainable management of our fisheries,” said Special Agent Todd Smith. “In this instance, the offending party committed more than 300 violations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We are hopeful results like this will serve as a deterrent to future fraud and abuse in the fishing industry.”

Joseph capitalized by purchasing set-asides for summer flounder and underreporting the total catch. He used two cooperating dealers to file false federal dealer reports that matched the reports filed from his fishing vessel.

“The ability to catch and sell fish from a limited set-aside quota of fish to help fund scientific research should be considered a privilege that not all fishermen can participate in,” said Research Set-Aside Program Logan Gregory, Special Agent in Charge of the Office of Law Enforcement’s Northeast Division. “The unlawful non-reporting of this privileged opportunity not only undermines the The RSA program was established as accurate management of the quota, but the introduction of these fish into commerce also a mechanism to fund research and affects the profitability of these fish for those fishermen who comply with the regulations.” compensate vessel owners through the sale of fish harvested under a OLE special agents spent nearly 2 years working to break down this illicit, highly organized research quota or research days at scheme to catch and land illegal fluke. Agents’ observations of the individual in a public sea. area over the course of several months provided solid evidence of the illegal activity. Agents worked with the Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section to obtain and While using set-aside days or quota, execute search warrants leading to the documentation of more than 290,000 pounds of vessels are often allowed to do so in unreported catch worth nearly $625,000. more opportune ways than the general fleet, for example, with Special Agent Matt Gilmore noted that “[T]his is another successful example of the exemptions from trip limits, some systematic identification and exposure of individuals exploiting the RSA program and seasonal closures, or other jeopardizing a public marine resource. This will benefit both commercial and recreational restrictions that would otherwise users throughout Long Island.” apply. This marks the second RSA case since August 2013 that has resulted in a guilty plea by a fisherman abusing the program. The work of OLE special agents has prompted NOAA to revise program requirements for 2014 to ensure accurate reporting and a level the playing field for honest fishermen.

Story by John Thibodeau, communications specialist for NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement. To contact him, please call 301- 427-8234 or email [email protected]. Table 1. Summary of Mid‐Atlantic RSA Funded Projects Since Inception in 2002.

# of YEAR PROJECTS TOTAL

2002 3 $215,331 2003 5 $699,087 2004 3 $868,169 2005 3 $1,471,709 2006 4 $1,358,612 2007 4 $2,052,987 2008 3 $722,759 2009 3 $1,761,570 2010 3 $1,722,276 2011 3 $1,288,444 2012 3 $1,385,104 2013 2 $1,350,801 2014 2 $1,424,794 TOTAL 13 41 $16,321,643 NOAA :: Northeast Fisheries Science Center :: Northeast Cooperative Research Program ... Page 1 of 4 Table 2.

Projects Search Results

New Search Add Criteria Home

Year Funding Project Category Fishery Title Funding State Organization Principal Source Level Investigator 2013 M. Atlantic- IBS-Inshore Data collection & analysis in $1,120,000 VA Virginia Institute of Chris RSA support of single & multispecies Marine Science Bonzek & stock assessments in the Mid- Robert Atlantic & Southern New Latour England: Northeast Area Monitoring & Assessment Program Near Shore Trawl Survey, 2013 2013 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Black Sea Industry Based Survey on Black $230,801 RI Cockeast Fisheries, Laura RSA Bass Sea Bass Utilizing Ventless Inc. Skrobe, Traps Captain Charles Borden, Najih Lazar, & Steve Cadrin 2012 M. Atlantic- IBS-Inshore Data collection & analysis in $922,759 VA Virginia Institute of Chris RSA support of single & multispecies Marine Science Bonzek & stock assessments in the Mid- Robert Atlantic & Southern New Latour England:Northeast Area Monitoring & Assessment Program Near Shore Trawl Survey, 2012 2012 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Black Sea Industry Based Survey on Black $212,044 RI Cockeast Fisheries, Laura RSA Bass Sea Bass Utilizing Ventless Inc. Skrobe Traps 2012 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Scup Fishery Independent Scup $250,301 RI Cockeast Fisheries, Laura RSA Survey of Hard Bottom Areas in Inc. Skrobe Southern New England Waters 2011 M. Atlantic- IBS-Inshore Data Collection and Analysis in $859,060 VA Virginia Institute of RSA Support of Single and Marine Science Multispecies Stock Assessments in the Mid-Atlantic: Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program Nearshore Trawl Survey, 2011 2011 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Scup 2011 Fishery Independent Scup $207,600 RI Charles Borden RSA Survey of Hard Bottom Areas in Southern New England Waters 2011 M. Atlantic- Resource Black Sea Understanding the effects of $221,784 VA National Fisheries RSA Dynamics Bass fishing on the size, age, and sex Institute distribution of black sea bass (Centropristis striata) during the spawning season 2010 M. Atlantic- Conservation Squid - A Method to Reduce Butterfish $524,024 NY Cornell RSA Engineering-Trawl Butterfish Retention in The Offshore Cooperative Loligo Squid Fishery Through Extension The Use Of a Bycatch Reduction Device (BRD) Adapted to Pre-Existing Gear.

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/coopresearch/projects_search_results.html?year=All&funding=... 7/29/2014 NOAA :: Northeast Fisheries Science Center :: Northeast Cooperative Research Program ... Page 2 of 4 Table 2.

Year Funding Project Category Fishery Title Funding State Organization Principal Source Level Investigator 2010 M. Atlantic- IBS-Inshore Data Collection and analysis in $991,952 VA Virginia Institute of Christopher RSA support of single and multi- Marine Science F. Bonzek, species stock assessments in the James Mid-Atlantic: Northeast Area Gartland, J. Monitoring and Assessment David Program Nearshore Trawl Lange, Program, 2010 to Robert J. 2012. FINAL REPORT Latour, Ph.D. 2010 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Scup 2010 Fishery Independent Scup $206,300 RI Charles Borden RSA Survey of Hard Bottom Areas in Southern New England Waters FINAL REPORT 2009 M. Atlantic- Discard Mortality Summer Evaluation of Summer Flounder $376,650 NY Cornell RSA Flounder Discard Mortality in the Bottom Cooperative Trawl Fishery Part II: A Study Extension of the Offshore Winter Fishery 2009 M. Atlantic- IBS-Inshore Data Collection and Analysis in $1,264,582 VA Virginia Institute of Christopher RSA Support of Single and Marine Science F. Bonzek, Multispecies Stock Assessments James in the Northeast Area Gartland, J. Monitoring and Assessment David Program Near Shore Trawl Lange, Program FINAL REPORT Robert J. Latour, Ph.D. 2009 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Scup 2009 Fishery Independent Scup $120,338 RI Charles Borden RSA Survey of Hard Bottom Areas in Southern New England Waters FINAL REPORT 2008 M. Atlantic- Discard Mortality Summer Discard Mortality in the $148,719 VA National Fisheries Kenneth RSA Flounder Summer Flounder Fishery: A Institute Able, New Approach to Thomas Evaluation FINAL REPORT Grothues, and Eleanor Bochenek 2008 M. Atlantic- IBS-Inshore Data collection and analysis in $481,500 VA Virginia Institute of Christopher RSA support of single and Marine Science Bonzek multispecies stock assessments in the Mid-Atlantic: Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program Near Shore Trawl Program FINAL REPORT 2008 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Scup 2008 Fishery Independent Scup $92,540 RI Charles Borden Laura RSA Survey of Hard Bottom Areas in Skrobe Southern New England Waters FINAL REPORT 2007 M. Atlantic- Conservation Squid Bycatch Reduction and Gear $522,749 VA National Fisheries Eric Powell RSA Engineering-Trawl Fishery Development in the Mid- Institute Atlantic: Evaluation of Optimal Codend Mesh Size in the Loligo Fishery FINAL REPORT 2007 M. Atlantic- Discard Mortality Summer Evaluation of Summer Flounder $284,800 NY Cornell Emerson RSA Flounder Discard Mortality in the Bottom Cooperative Hasbrouck Trawl Fishery FINAL Extension REPORT 2007 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Development of a Supplemental $1,165,676 VA National Fisheries Eric Powell RSA Finfish Survey Targeting Mid- Institute Atlantic Migratory Species FINAL REPORT 2007 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Scup 2007 Fishery Independent $79,762 RI Charles Borden Laura RSA Survey of Selected Hard Skrobe

Year Funding Project Category Fishery Title Funding State Organization Principal Source Level Investigator Bottom areas in Southern New England FINAL REPORT 2006 M. Atlantic- Conservation Black Sea An Evaluation of Size $76,540 VA Virginia Institute of David RSA Engineering-Other Bass Selectivity and Relative Marine Science Rudders and Efficiency of Black Sea Bass, Robert Centropristis strata Habitat Pots Fishers Equipped with large Mesh Panels. FINAL REPORT 2006 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Development of a Supplemental $874,017 VA National Fisheries Eric Powell RSA Finfish Survey Targeting Mid- Institute Atlantic Migratory Species FINAL REPORT 2006 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Scup 2006 Fishery Independent $86,364 RI Charles Borden Laura RSA Survey of Selected Hard Skrobe Bottom areas in Southern New England FINAL REPORT 2006 M. Atlantic- Recreational Summer Evaluating Size and Bag Limits $321,691 NJ Fisheries Cons. Eleanor RSA Flounder in the Summer Flounder Trust Bochenek Recreational Fishery FINAL REPORT 2005 M. Atlantic- Conservation Squid Loligo Squid Mesh Selectivity $563,367 VA National Fisheries Sarah King RSA Engineering-Trawl Fishery Study to Reduce Bycatch of Institute Juvenile Loligo Squid and other Species FINAL REPORT 2005 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Development of a Supplemental $822,563 VA National Fisheries Eric Powell RSA Finfish Survey Targeting Mid- Institute Atlantic Migratory Species FINAL REPORT 2005 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Scup 2005 Fishery Independent $85,779 RI Charles Borden Laura RSA Survey of Selected Hard Skrobe Bottom areas in Southern New England FINAL REPORT 2004 M. Atlantic- Conservation Black Sea Evaluation of the Effect of Vent $110,825 NY Cornell Emerson RSA Engineering-Other Bass Size and Shape on Black Sea Cooperative Hasbrouck Bass Behavior and Escapement Extension from Pot Gear FINAL REPORT 2004 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Development of a Supplemental $704,692 VA National Fisheries Eric Powell RSA Finfish Survey Targeting Mid- Institute Atlantic Migratory Species FINAL REPORT 2004 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Scup Fishery Independent Scup $52,652 RI Charles Borden Laura RSA Survey of Selected Areas in Skrobe Southern New England Waters FINAL REPORT 2003 M. Atlantic- Conservation Squid - Loligo Squid: Extension of $174,541 VA National Fisheries Daniel RSA Engineering-Trawl Scup Gear Modification Study Institute Cohen Through Scup Migratory Season FINAL REPORT 2003 M. Atlantic- Conservation Summer Effects of Increasing Mesh Size $40,320 RI University of David RSA Engineering-Trawl Flounder in the Summer Flounder Fishery Rhode Island Beutel in Southern New England Inshore Rhode Island Waters FINAL REPORT 2003 M. Atlantic- Discontinued Black Sea Effect of Vent Size on Sex $0 Wizard Enterprises RSA Bass Ratios of Black Sea Bass Retained in the Coastal Pot Fishery 2003 M. Atlantic- Discontinued Scup Bycatch Characterization and $0 RI University of RSA Reduction from Codend Mesh Rhode Island Size Increases in the Directed

Year Funding Project Category Fishery Title Funding State Organization Principal Source Level Investigator Bottom Trawl Northern - Inshore Scup Fishery 2003 M. Atlantic- IBS-Pilot Development of a Supplemental $484,226 VA National Fisheries Eric Powell RSA Finfish Survey Targeting Mid- Institute Atlantic Migratory Species FINAL REPORT 2002 M. Atlantic- Conservation Black Sea The Effect of Circle and Square $57,069 VA Virginia Institute of Robert RSA Engineering-Other Bass Escape Vents on Discard Marine Science Fisher Reduction in the Black Sea Bass Trap Fishery FINAL REPORT 2002 M. Atlantic- Conservation Black Sea Evaluation of Catch Efficiency $43,079 RI W. Gell Laura RSA Engineering-Other Bass - Scup and Size Selectivity of Inshore Skrobe New England Fish Pots for Black Sea Bass and Scup as a Function of Escape Vent Size FINAL REPORT 2002 M. Atlantic- Conservation Squid Loligo Squid Gear Modification $115,183 VA National Fisheries Eric Powell RSA Engineering-Trawl Fishery Study FINAL REPORT Institute www.nefsc.noaa.gov NMFS Search Link Disclaimer webMASTER Privacy Policy (File Modified Mar. 25 2013)

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/coopresearch/projects_search_results.html?year=All&funding=... 7/29/2014 Table 3. Mid-Atlantic Research Set-Aside Program - Frequently Asked Questions

Vessel Participation and Eligibility

1. How does the Mid-Atlantic Research Set Aside (RSA) Program generate funds to support research?

Recipients of RSA grants partner with fishing vessel owners who harvest RSA quota, and they either agree to share the proceeds from the sale of the RSA quota after it has been landed or the vessel owner may purchase the opportunity to harvest RSA quota outright from the grant recipient before it has been harvested. Most of the RSA quota under the Mid- Atlantic RSA program is obtained outright by the vessel owner through the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) RSA auction, although both arrangements occur.

2. What is the NFI RSA auction and why does NOAA Fisheries allow RSA quota to be auctioned off to the highest bidder?

The NFI RSA auction was created as a way to connect grant recipients with vessel owners interested in participating in the RSA program, and has become an established service used by Mid-Atlantic RSA grant recipients to secure the funds needed to support their research. The terms and conditions of the NFI RSA auction are determined by NFI and the RSA grant recipient, and is not a process authorized or directed by NOAA Fisheries. The exchange of RSA quota for money is not unique to the NFI RSA auction; all of the RSA programs depend on this exchange between the grant recipient and the industry partners. The NFI RSA auction is simply a more structured service to facilitate this exchange. Each RSA grant recipient is free to determine the most efficient approach for his/her project, and none are bound to use the NFI RSA auction.

3. Why does NOAA Fisheries allow vessels harvesting Mid-Atlantic RSA quota to catch more than other vessels, and to fish during closures when other vessels can’t?

These effort control exemptions provide additional fishing opportunities to participating vessels, which adds value to RSA quota. Without the added value generated by these additional fishing opportunities, there is little incentive to vessels to participate in the program. If the RSA quota is not harvested, funds cannot be generated to support the research projects.

4. Why does compensation fishing happen independently from the research? Isn’t the RSA program supposed to be a cooperative research program that brings the science and fishing communities together? Doesn’t this decoupling undermine the intent of the program?

The harvest of RSA quota may or may not occur in conjunction with research activities, although typically these activities occur separately. This decoupling of the compensation

U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service

fishing from the research is not new, and was anticipated when the Mid-Atlantic RSA Program was created under Framework 1 in 2001. Decoupling these activities allows greater flexibility for the types of research projects that may be supported, particularly for projects that are conducted in a manner that is not conducive to harvesting commercial quantities of fish, such as surveys and tagging studies, or projects targeting species with relatively low value. In keeping with the intent of the program, the selected projects are cooperative research studies that closely involve the fishing industry, research community, and other stakeholders.

5. Who decides which vessels get to catch Mid-Atlantic RSA quota?

Vessel participation is largely determined by the grant recipient. RSA grant recipients are responsible for working with the fishing industry to harvest their RSA quota award. In practice, they partner directly with the vessel owner, and/or they use the servide provided by the NFI RSA auction. Although the grant recipient identifies the vessels, NOAA Fisheries reviews vessel histories to ensure they do not conflict with the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) exempted fishing permit (EFP) sanction policy. If the vessel has previous violations that conflict with this policy, they are not authorized to participate in the program. In addition, state authorities have discretion when considering whether to grant waivers from state regulation.

6. Can a private angler harvest RSA quota?

Theoretically, it is possible that a private angler could catch RSA quota. However, without regulation waivers, there is no incentive for a private angler to do so. NOAA Fisheries supports the Council’s position that authorizing private anglers would be extremely difficult to monitor and enforce and, therefore, has no intention of providing any exemptions to private anglers for the purpose of harvesting RSA quota.

7. How many vessels are involved in harvesting Mid-Atlantic RSA quota?

In recent years, 100-150 vessels annually engage in Mid-Atlantic RSA compensation fishing. This relatively high number of vessels is due to the large volume of fish awarded under this program, the diversity of awarded species, and the diversity of the fleet harvesting the RSA quota. The number of vessels is constrained by the NOAA Fisheries regional vessel cap policy, which restricts the number of vessels that can participate in compensation fishing at any given time.

8. Why does NOAA Fisheries limit the number of vessels that can harvest Mid-Atlantic RSA quota?

NOAA Fisheries limits the number of vessels that can participate in the RSA program to improve program oversight and enforcibility. Currently, the number of vessels that can participate in a project is limited to 50 vessels per project. However, flexibility to exceed this cap has been provided at the request of grant recipients, given sufficient justification.

U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service

Exempted Fishing Permits and Reporting Requirements

9. What is an exempted fishing permit (EFP)?

An EFP waives Federal fishing regulations. To facilitate RSA compensation fishing, federally permitted vessels harvesting RSA quota are issued EFPs to exceed possession limits and to fish during quota closures. EFPs contain explicit terms and conditions that must be followed. EFPs must be signed by both the vessel owner or operator and the principal investigator to ensure that they agree to the terms and conditions of the EFP. They are subject to fines and/or sanctions if the terms and conditions are not followed.

10. Do EFPs affect state fishing regulations?

No; EFPs only waive Federal fishing regulations. State waivers must be obtained directly through the state. NOAA Fisheries coordinates with the applicable states to ensure they are aware of the EFPs that are issued.

11. What are the requirements that must be followed when a vessel is on a Mid-Atlantic RSA compensation fishing trip?

All vessels harvesting RSA quota have additional reporting requirements. The vessel operator must notify NOAA Fisheries prior to departing on an RSA compensation fishing trip to establish his intent to harvest RSA quota, and to identify when and where the vessel will land. Prior to landing, the vessel operator must report the amount of RSA quota on board, and when and where it is going to be landed. After landing, a final report must be submitted, which includes the exact amount of RSA quota landed, the state where the fish were landed, and the vessel trip report serial number.

12. What does NOAA Fisheries do to make sure a vessel adheres to the RSA reporting requirements?

NOAA Fisheries has recently adopted a set of quality assurance procedures to audit and validate RSA reported data to identify potential reporting errors or cases of non-compliance. All RSA trip reports are processed through these audits. If an aspect of the report conflicts with an audit, it will be flagged and then investigated to determine the appropriate course of action, including vessel outreach, referral to the Office of Law Enforcement, or potential revocation of compensation fishing privileges.

The Office of Law Enforcement also has near-real time access to RSA data, including information on when and where a vessel is landing, and how much RSA quota the vessel has on board. Using this information, they will be able to determine if a vessel has met the reporting requirements.

U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service

13. What happens if a vessel does not follow the program reporting requirements?

If a vessel operator does not follow the RSA reporting requirements, the vessel will be removed from the RSA program. We are currently revising the RSA compliance policy to better articulate when compensation fishing privileges will be revoked for failing to follow program requirements, which includes outreach procedures to the vessel operator, owner, and grant recipient notifying them of program compliance problems.

14. Does NOAA Fisheries conduct a background check on vessel compliance history prior to allowing them to harvest RSA quota?

Yes. NOAA Fisheries has an EFP sanction check policy that is used to vet vessels that are put forward by the grant recipient to harvest RSA quota. If a vessel conflicts with the criteria outlined in this policy, the vessel will not be authorized to harvest RSA quota.

Enforcement

15. What is NOAA Fisheries doing to improve RSA program oversight and compliance in light of the recent Mid-Atlantic RSA enforcement actions?

NOAA Fisheries has overhauled RSA program monitoring and oversight procedures in response to these enforcement actions and in response to requests from the Council. This includes more robust trip audit and matching procedures, development of a more explicit policy for revoking compensation fishing privileges, and more advanced data sharing and data analysis capabilities with the Office of Law Enforcement. In addition to more effective vessel oversight, these new procedures will enable more detailed and comprehensive analysis to evaluate program performance and to identify program areas of concern.

16. Would these violations have happened if the new oversight procedures had been in place?

The new reporting requirements, in conjunction with the new oversight procedures, would have made it much more difficult and risky for these violations to be carried out. Specifically, we are now requiring that vessels provide more detailed trip information (e.g., vessel landing time and location, the amount of RSA quota onboard prior to landing) and there are new procedures in place that will enable us to more effectively audit and reconcile vessel trip and dealer reports. All of this information will be available to the Office of Law Enforcement and their state partners to monitor vessel activity, and to intercept vessels to confirm compliance and validate reported data.

17. How does enforcement keep track of RSA vessel activity?

NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement has near-real time access of all RSA trip data via a web-based application. This system allows enforcement to monitor vessel activity. In the near future, audits and reports can also be generated through this new system. In addition, regional office staff will notify the Office of Law Enforcement of vessel reporting compliance issues that are identified through quality assurance procedures.

U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service

18. What if a vessel decides to take an RSA compensation fishing trip but does not report at all?

If a vessel does not submit any RSA trip report, they are not considered to be on an RSA compensation fishing trip, and would be subject to all applicable regulation, including the regular possession limit and season closures.

19. What else could be done to increase RSA program oversight and compliance?

The recent program adjustments in response to the RSA enforcement actions and requests from the Council will significantly bolster oversight of RSA compensation fishing activity. There were additional measures considered during the development of these procedures that were not adopted for various reasons, including dealer specific authorizations and reporting requirements, and controls on landing time and location. NOAA Fisheries expects that these adjustments that were made to improve oversight and compliance will be effective. However, NOAA Fisheries will continue to examine all of the RSA programs to improve program performance and oversight, which includes working closely with the Councils, state partners, fishing industry, and the cooperative research community.

RSA Quota Monitoring

20. How does NOAA Fisheries track Mid-Atlantic RSA quota?

Vessel reports, in conjunction with dealer reports, are used to monitor and track RSA quota. Commercial RSA quota landings reported by the vessel are deducted from the commercial landings, by state, to ensure RSA landings are not applied against state commercial quotas. If an RSA or dealer report is flagged through the audit process, the issue will be investigated in accordance with quality assurance procedures to ensure accurate monitoring reports.

21. What does NOAA Fisheries do to make sure a vessel does not catch more than the amount of fish they purchased at the NFI RSA auction?

NOAA Fisheries provides weekly reports to grant recipients and state partners to ensure they are apprised of reported RSA compensation fishing activity. However, NOAA Fisheries does not dictate the specific arrangements between the grant recipient and partnering vessel, and how much RSA quota each vessel is allowed to catch. Consequently, NOAA Fisheries monitors all trips to ensure vessels operate in accordance with the program requirements, and that the overall project award is not exceeded, but not how much fish each vessel is allowed to catch.

22. Does RSA catch count against state quotas?

No. RSA catch is in addition to the state quota, and does not reduce the amount of fish that may be harvested in that state. The RSA quotas are “taken off the top” during the quota setting process so that overall catch is within scientifically sound catch limits. NOAA Fisheries works very closely with the states to ensure RSA catch is accounted for properly,

U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service

including sending weekly reports and posting RSA catch data on our regional office website. The recently adopted monitoring procedures will further enhance the ability to properly account for RSA quota landings to ensure they are applied properly.

23. Does NOAA Fisheries allocate Mid-Atlantic RSA quota to vessels?

No. NOAA Fisheries awards RSA quota to successful applicants to carry out a research project. Grant recipients are responsible for arranging which vessels will harvest their grant award and how much quota each vessel gets. NOAA Fisheries does not dictate the agreements between the grant recipient and industry partner.

However, NOAA Fisheries monitors every RSA trip to ensure compliance with program requirements and to ensure that the overall quota award is not exceeded. If the overall RSA quota award is exceeded, it could result in fines and/or sanctions for the vessel and the grant recipient, and could affect future funding decisions.

24. What is the responsibility of the researcher when it comes to the harvest of Mid-Atlantic RSA quota?

The grant recipient is responsible for managing vessels harvesting RSA quota, and to ensure vessels do not exceed the RSA quota award. The RSA Federal Funding Opportunity that solicits research proposals clearly states that the principal investigator must have effective safeguards in place to ensure an RSA quota award is not exceeded.

25. What are the specific requirements for researchers?

The grant recipient must submit a formal request to NOAA Fisheries requesting authorization for the vessels they’ve partnered with to conduct compensation fishing. The grant recipient must sign all EFPs to acknowledge the terms and conditions of the permit. The grant recipient must also ensure all program requirements are distributed to their partner vessels. Failure to meet these requirements could impact future funding decisions.

26. Why doesn’t NOAA Fisheries require dealers to report Mid-Atlantic RSA quota separate from non-RSA catch? Wouldn’t this help track RSA quota, and improve program oversight?

NOAA Fisheries considered implementing a regulation that would require a dealer to explicitly identify RSA quota purchases. However, it was decided that this requirement would have marginal benefit, and that there are more effective ways to match RSA vessel reports with dealer reports using RSA trip audit procedures. The primary concern with an RSA dealer regulation is that data quality would likely be poor, and that enforceability would be difficult given the dependency between the vessel and the dealer.

U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service

MEMORANDUM

Date: 5/24/2017

To: Council

From: Jason Didden

Subject: MSB Specifications and Monitoring Committee Summary

Related to the June 2017 Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Specifications agenda item, several documents are included in this tab, as described below. A running underlined page number (bottom right) has been superimposed on the tab for ease of reference.

Page Item 2 Monitoring Committee Summary and Staff Recommendations 5 Fishery Performance Reports 15 Staff ABC Memo for SSC 21 Fishery Information Document (Summarizes Catch)

The SSC findings regarding MSB are provided under the Committee Reports tab. A variety of detailed background documents used by the SSC are available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc- meetings/2017/may-17-18. A summary of the current regulations for MSB fisheries is available at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/infodocs/msbinfosheet.pdf.

1 May 2017 MSB Monitoring Committee Summary and Staff Recommendations

Introduction

The Mackerel-Squid-Butterfish (MSB) Monitoring Committee (MC) met via webinar on May 23, 2017 to consider recommendations regarding MSB specifications and associated management measures. MC and staff recommendations are the same unless otherwise noted. Attendees included:

Monitoring Committee Jason Didden (MAFMC) Charles Adams (NMFS NEFSC) Doug Christel (NMFS GARFO) Lisa Hendrickson (NMFS NEFSC) Jay Hermsen (NMFS GARFO) Kiersten Curti (NMFS NEFSC)

Other Purcie Bennett-Nickerson (Pew) Katie Richardson (NMFS NEPA) Katie Almeida (Town Dock) Corey Endres

Summary

Mackerel

The SSC did not change the currently-set multi-year Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) for mackerel (2016-2018). The current specifications are summarized in the table below and no action is required.

Table 1. Mackerel Specifications 2016-2018.

The MC noted two issues that warrant at least close tracking by the Council. First, the appropriateness of the Canadian deduction is contingent on the Canadian quota. If the Canadian quota changes, there may be cause to change the Canadian deduction, but there is no information currently available that they will change their quota. Second, recreational catch has been increasing and in 2016 was substantially above the 683 mt recreational allocation, at 1589 mt. While the underage in the commercial fishery means that no accountability measures have been triggered, if the commercial fishery nears its quota (appears more possible in 2017 than 2016) then a 2017 ACL overage would appear likely if the recreational catch stays level or increases, and would trigger accountability measures. The higher 2017 landings to date may indicate higher mackerel availability, increasing the chance of an ACL overage in 2017. The regulations state that if the mackerel Annual Catch Limit (ACL) is exceeded and the recreational fishery causes the overage, then given the unknown status of mackerel a pound for pound payback would be required. Management measures could be developed to avoid future overages, but most recreational catch has been in state waters in recent years so federal recreational measures may have minimal effect.

At this point the MC is flagging this issue as one that could cause an ACL overage and disruption of the mackerel fishery, depending on the outcome of the fishery in 2017 and beyond, and the ongoing assessment. The Council could increase the recreational allocation now proactively via specifications if it wants to have more certainty of avoiding an ACL overage in 2018 (this is allowed under the current regulations). The Council may also want to begin discussions with the relevant states (MA, NH, and ME) about possible ways to limit recreational mackerel catch in state waters should such restrictions appear warranted in the near future.

Illex

The SSC set the ABC for Illex at 24,000 mt for 2018-2020, the same as since 2012. The MC found no rationale to recommend any changes to the Illex specifications. ABC would equal 24,000 mt; IOY = DAH = DAP = 22,915 mt to account for discards (historical average). All other regulatory measures would also remain the same (closure thresholds, trip limits, etc.).

Longfin Squid

The SSC set the ABC for longfin squid at 23,400 mt for 2018-2020, the same as since 2012. Lisa Hendrickson recalculated discards since 2007 (the initiation of Trimester management) including data through 2016 and found discards to be 2% of catch. The MC recommends using this slightly lower percentage for discards so ABC would equal 23,400 mt; IOY = DAH = DAP = 22,932 mt to account for discards. All other regulatory measures would also remain the same (closure thresholds, trip limits, etc.).

Butterfish

The SSC set the ABC for butterfish at 17,801 mt (2018), 27,108 mt (2019), and 32,063 mt (2020). The MC recommended the same basic management system be used to control butterfish landings with several modifications. First, the MC recommended using a lower Annual Catch Target (ACT) buffer in 2018 (5%) and 2019 (7.5%). 2020 would be 10% like the current ACT buffer. With a smaller directed fishery quota, there is less chance for an unusual result with butterfish discarding during directed butterfish fishing, so less of an ACT buffer is necessary. Other discards and landings appear well controlled and/or accounted for. The MC also recommended lowering the ad-hoc post-primary directed fishery closure reserve from 1,411 mt to 1,000 mt. Previous analysis from 2013 when butterfish fishing was more limited suggested that if constrained to landing at 5,000 pounds per trip, less than 700 mt would be landed, so setting aside 1,000 should suffice to avoid overages. Finally the MC also recommended that staff investigate if new Page 3 of 4

observer data suggests an update to the 11.4% previously assumed for discarding in a directed butterfish fishery would be appropriate. Subsequent analysis revealed that the number of observed butterfish trips with over 25,000 pounds of retained butterfish (same as previous approach) has gone from 5 to 16 (11 new trips in 2014-2016). These trips had a 1% discard ratio and lower the overall discard ratio to 3.1%. Based on the MC input to examine this data (a recommendation could not be made since the MC did not have the analysis on the call), staff recommends using this updated 3.1% value for possible discarding in a directed butterfish fishery. Accordingly, the table below summarizes the recommended butterfish specifications. All other measures would remain the same.

2018 2019 2020

ABC (SSC) 17,801 27,108 32,063

ACT Buffer 890 2,033 3,206

ACT Buffer % 5.0% 7.5% 10.0%

ACT 16,911 25,075 28,857 Landings or "Domestic Annual Harvest (DAH)" 12,006 19,917 23,581

Assumed discards in butterfish fishing (3.1%) 384 637 754 These amounts total to the ACT Assumed other discards (highest from cap years) 637 637 637 Butterfish Cap (longfin discards) 3,884 3,884 3,884 Close primary directed at this amount, i.e. with 1,000 mt left; go to 5,000 pound trip limit 11,00618,91722,581

Like the SSC, the MC discussed whether the butterfish cap was still necessary. J. Didden noted that the Council could begin an action to remove the cap, but with a hard cap on the primary source of butterfish discards removed, the MC would be likely to recommend a higher ACT buffer given the higher uncertainty for discards without the real-time control of butterfish discards. Also, the cap generally serves the purpose of reducing bycatch to the extent practical in the longfin squid fishery, leaving more butterfish for potential landings.

The MC also discussed whether there was concern about the higher 2019 and 2020 ABCs given recent poor recruitment, but given the SSC and MC will review these ABCs each year the MC did not see a reason to diverge (lower) from the ABC recommendations of the SSC for 2019-2020.

Page 4 of 4

2017 Mackerel-Squid-Butterfish (MSB) Advisory Panel (AP) Fishery Performance Reports (FPRs)

The Mackerel-Squid-Butterfish (MSB) Advisory Panel (AP) met May 1, 2017 to develop the Fishery Performance Reports (FPRs) below. These FRPs do not represent a consensus but rather a summary of the perspectives and ideas that were raised at the meeting.

The meeting was conducted via internet webinar and facilitated by Jason Didden, the MSB Fishery Management Plan (FMP) coordinator. The MSB advisors who participated were:

Katie Almeida Peter Kaizer Joseph Gordon Peter Moore Greg DiDomenico Jim Gartland Meade Amory Vito Calomo Jeff Reichle Peter Kaizer Emerson Hasbrouck Chris Roebuck Rob Ruhle

Other attendees included:

Gray Redding Purcie Bennett-Nickerson Scott Curatolo-Wagemann Jay Hermsen Howard King Doug Christel Tara Froehlich Peter Hughes Lou Goodreau Dave Secor

THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

The fishery performance reports’ primary purpose is to contextualize catch histories for the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) because of the potential importance of catch histories for considering Acceptable Biological Catches (ABCs) in cases of fisheries with high levels of assessment uncertainty. The goal is to record information about fishery conditions and characteristics that may influence catches. A series of trigger questions was posed to the AP. The questions are based on the discussion and results of the 2011 fishery performance meeting that focused on 2010 and prior catches. The meeting seeks to generate discussion of direct observations by knowledgeable individuals involved in the fisheries in some fashion, especially as related to factors that may have influenced catches. The trigger questions were:

1. Are you aware of market issues that influenced MSB catches? For example: Fish prices, fuel prices, overall economy, etc… 2. Are you aware of environmental/ecological issues that influenced MSB catches? For example: Weather, sea temperature, climate, etc… 3. Are you aware of management issues that influenced MSB catches? For example: management induced effort shifts, management prohibiting directed fishing, etc… 4. Are you aware of other fishing behavior issues that influenced MSB catches? For example: refrigerated sea water (RSW) vs. at-sea freezing activity, vessels focusing on other fisheries, etc… 5. What other issues/concerns does the AP wants to highlight? For example: lack of U.S. mackerel allocation, forage concerns, calibration issues, fishery conflicts, regulatory concerns, etc… The charge to the AP was thus to provide input on factors that may have influenced catch levels over time as well as any other observations and ideas that could prove useful to the SSC and/or Council as specifications for 2018 and beyond are considered. For organizational purposes, the summary is broken down by species and several thematic categories (per the above trigger questions). Some general points were also raised by AP members, as noted immediately below. Like the fishery- specific summaries, these do not reflect a consensus but rather a summary of the various ideas presented by the AP members. Many ideas are carried forward from last year. Staff noted that some management issues raised by the AP are out of the scope of specifications and/or this call, and that individuals should write to the Council or talk to their Council members to have such issues considered by the Council.

General

-The AP appreciates the Biological Updates provided by the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) as a concise summary of what is known (or not known) about the status of each of the species.

-Spiny Dogfish abundance could be severely impacting MSB and other fisheries, in terms of predation, interference (loading nets), and/or as an ecological barrier (e.g. maybe mackerel or squid won't go into areas with high dogfish concentrations). As dogfish have come back it seems like everything else has gone down and this issue should be an important component of ecosystem management.

-Consumption of forage stocks by marine mammals likely dwarfs mortality from fishing.

-Need to keep looking at consumption issue – try to build connections between fishery management plans.

-Shifting of thermal habitat suitability is likely impacting the distribution and/or productivity of MSB species. This is being looked at for mackerel in the upcoming mackerel assessment collaboratively with industry.

-There is concern that effort has shifted North/inshore – consideration of possible impacts is warranted.

-Regulations impact opportunities for all fisheries, including new National Monument – see discussions in species’ sections below.

-It would be useful to get discard info as #s of fish, in addition to weight, to better understand impacts.

-The Council should direct the SSC to consider forage needs though a forage-based ABC control rule. AP Member Pam Gromen could not attend but requested the following be added to the report: With the upcoming SSC meeting, one request I have is a fuller discussion/write-up of the ecological considerations term of reference, so we understand what ecological factors were part of the assessment model (if any). In terms of the role of squid, mackerel, and butterfish as forage, it would be helpful to understand if/how the resulting ABC accounts for predator needs. What is the confidence in providing adequate prey for predators in the ABC recommendation? What are sources of uncertainty in meeting forage demands? Is biomass being maintained at a level above Bmsy in the long term as suggested by NS1 guidelines? While this may seem redundant from last year, I think it is important to recognize the forage policy goal in the EBFM Guidance Document, the shortcomings of current practices and the steps that will need to be taken to realize the policy goal.

Mackerel

The key points (not consensus positions) were:

Market Issues -Mackerel prices are sufficient to stimulate directed activity if fish are available. -Price is mostly driven by world prices/demand/supply.

Environmental/Ecological Issues -Availability is the primary driver for catches, and availability is likely highly variable and highly sensitive to external environmental factors, making catch a poor indicator of stock status. Fishery not even looking much given low availability and other issues (see regulatory issues below). Water was too warm in spring (throughout range). -Can't catch what's not here - and mackerel that did appear in 2014-2016 were north. Can't hurt a stock that's not here - need to figure out where it is (ctenophore research, Labrador Current, etc.). The fish are not gone, just not swimming here.

-Both availability and the size of fish have been low in recent years, both offshore and inshore. The size issue appears to apply to other forage species like Atlantic Herring and Illex, possibly due to warming waters - see Ohlberger 2013, Kingsolver & Huey 2008, Conover et. al. 2002, Forster et. al. 2012). -There’s been a lack of mature mackerel. Some of the advisors have provided size information to the NEFSC. 1999/2000 seemed to be a turning point, with small mackerel dominating catches since. Spawning must be taking place somewhere given age-1s…the question is what happens to them? -Would be useful to see long-term consumption trends. We don’t have knowledge base to set aside fish for ecosystem services at this time. -The low landings and Canadian assessment should give pause for concern and warrant consideration of a further lowering of the ABC. If a shift north was the primary issue Canadian landings should have remained strong. -Canadian landings are inshore purse seine, so the animals may be offshore in deep water and not encountered in Canadian fishery. -The survey appears to have no connection to landings. More science needs to be conducted to figure out what is really going on with mackerel, including communicating with Iceland about mackerel's recent abundance there. -Based on the size of mackerel seen in Canada (larger) and U.S. (smaller) and presumed migration pattern (Canada to U.S.), it appears that the Canadian and U.S. stocks are different (fish don't shrink). -If catches that are occurring are concentrated in few times/locations then Council should look at impacts of that catch pattern – are the catches that are still occurring preventing recovery of mackerel (i.e. allowing high-volume fishing on spawning fish). What information is available re: mackerel spawning? -Would be useful to look at distribution trends over time. i.e. impacts of climate shifts & ecosystem changes.

Management Issues & Management Induced Effort Shifts -Herring management limits mackerel fishing : -Annual herring gear closures in Gulf of Maine (1A) limit ability to explore/catch in that area. MWT cannot fish in 1A from Jun 1-Sept 30. -Georges Bank Haddock AM closed Georges Bank herring fishing October 22 2015-April 30, 2016. -Herring 1A Closed Oct 18, 2016, 1B Closed Nov 18, 2016. -Had good runs in late 2014/2015/2016 which had been rare. -The observer call-in requirements may limit opportunistic fishing. -Need to leave some amount of mackerel quota so that fishery can capitalize on availability when it occurs. There is a concern that once a quota is reduced it will never be restored given the current state of mackerel science. Recent catches of mackerel should not be used as an indicator of what the catch should be next year.

Other Fishing Behavior Issues -In recent years much of the mackerel catch has been retained incidental catch from herring fishing.

-With relatively high fuel prices, high catches of mackerel will only occur if fish are abundant (gas price not as substantial recently). Economics will self-regulate this fishery and the fishery has not impacted the mackerel stock.

Other Issues for Council/SSC Consideration as Appropriate -Despite reluctance by the Canadians, joint research should be pushed and U.S. research should proceed where appropriate relative to the 2010 TRAC recommendations (especially on the influence of environmental factors and on mackerel's stock structure). -In terms of buffering against U.S. ACL overages, management uncertainty buffer seems excessive given the monitoring that occurs in the mackerel fishery and the apparently low level of mackerel discarding. -There is concern about what exactly an MSE (Management Strategy Evaluation that generated ABC/quota) means and consists of. -Specifications should consider allowing a roll-over of unused quota in a similar fashion as occurs with Atlantic Herring. -Council should consider increasing the mesh size (or requiring square mesh codends) to allow more fish to get to spawning size/age. -Concern about uncertainty in general. -Concern that catch of small fish not allowing sufficient number of fish to reach spawning maturity.

THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Illex Squid

The key points (not consensus positions) were:

Market Issues -Price and demand are mostly dependent on S. Atlantic (e.g. Falkland Islands) landings and international market, which drive world trade prices and/or demand for U.S. Illex. Availability must to be sufficient to overcome any market/fuel price issues to drive interest in fishing for Illex for most vessels. Strong dollar may impact price/sales/demand. -Demand drives the fishery and participation. Market demand for Illex was robust in 2016.

Environmental/Ecological Issues -Availability changes from year to year and also very quickly within a year (waves of squid “come up onto the bank” in an unpredictable fashion). Understanding migration is key to understanding Illex, and we don't fully understand the migration behavior. Real-time assessment would be optimal. -2016 was a late season with relatively low availability and small size, especially early in season. Some vessels dropped out given low initial landings. -The recent low landings and decline in indices should give the SSC some pause for concern.

Management Issues & Management Induced Effort Shifts Deep-Sea Coral measures may impact ability of vessels in fishery to operate.

Other Fishing Behavior Issues -For refrigerated sea water vessels to participate, they need high densities to fish to drive participation because they have to return to the dock within two days of starting to put Illex in the tank due to spoilage issues.

Other Issues for Council/SSC Consideration as Appropriate

-Research should continue into how to determine Illex productivity. Current management is not sensitive to actual Illex productivity or impact of fishery on the stock. The fishing community should be an integral part of this effort, which should proceed in a very methodical fashion. "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Proceed carefully before you make any changes. -Summer & fall longfin closures can lead to discarding of longfin in the Illex fishery. A higher incidental limit for Illex vessels during longfin closures or a more gradual slowing of longfin fishing could avoid regulatory longfin discarding. The new higher limit in 2014 is better but may not totally solve this problem. -Concern was reiterated about re-entry of latent permits. Entry of latent effort could disrupt smooth operation of the fishery. [Staff noted there is an amendment looking at this.]

Longfin Squid

The key points (not consensus positions) were:

Market Issues -Recent ex-vessel prices are sufficient to drive increased effort if squid are available. 2016 prices were very good and fuel prices have been relatively low. The international market will currently take whatever the U.S. can produce so no demand glut factor exists. -High effort in summer can cause closures and high landings volume/gluts. Concern by at least one advisor that it is being exacerbated by high capacity.

Environmental/Ecological Issues -Longfin squid has variable productivity and availability both within a year and between years and between inshore and offshore. -Weather not cited as unusual issue for 2016/2017. Low availability causing low 2017 landings to date. -Dogfish continue to make some areas unfishable and are a reason why landings can turn off. The restraint on the dogfish fishery correlates with lower squid landings.

Management Issues & Management Induced Effort Shifts -Scup, Tilefish, and Fixed/Mobile Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs) have made Longfin squid fishing more difficult/less profitable, likely leading to somewhat less effort overall. Recent modifications to scup GRAs have been helpful for flexibility. -The mistaken April 2012 closure may have substantially impacted 2012 Trimester 1 landings because landings were on the upswing immediately prior to the closure.

-Annual landings would have been higher in some recent years if not for the Trimester 2 closures. Any seasonal closures likely depress annual landings (there were no seasonal closures in 2013/2015 and 3 weeks in August 2014). 2016 landings may have been substantially higher if the summer closure had not occurred.

-The 2 1/8” mesh requirement may be harming productivity and causing the relatively low landings in recent years (landings have been lower since 2007). Squid that go through 2 1/8” are marketable and likely have high mortality. 2 1/8 may appear practicable for fishery but may be increasing squid mortality and is unlikely to allow substantial escapement of other fish. Should be examined in detail. Multiple AP members questioned the value of the 2 1/8” mesh. Some fishery participants would prefer 1 7/8” year round. -2 1/8” mesh should be extended to the summer trimester 2 fishery. Use of strengtheners reduces effective mesh sizes – consider eliminating the use of strengtheners. Consider impact of strengtheners on retention/bycatch and the use of square-mesh. Some advisors voiced concern that a net without a strengthener could not withstand pressure during towing/splitting, and going to a 2-inch mesh only would require much stronger/larger twine…that type of material might not currently exist. A larger strengthener may or may not be feasible depending on vessel configuration and fishery, and could be much more inconvenient for some vessels.

-Need to find out if landing more squid (normal trimester plus Trimester 1 roll-over) in summer is negatively impacting fall/winter productivity. Staff notes that this issue is being evaluated in the squid amendment.

-There was concern about what the new VMS reporting requirements are being used for. Staff noted they were used for Trimester 2 monitoring in 2016.

Other Fishing Behavior Issues -Some vessels have been focusing on other species (other quotas increased or fisheries more valuable - e.g. scallops; some vessels were retrofitted for pelagic fishing). Several participants have left the fishery and those vessels are unlikely to return.

Other Issues for Council/SSC Consideration as Appropriate -Research should continue into how to determine longfin productivity. Current management is not sensitive to actual longfin productivity or impact of fishery on the stock. The fishing community should be an integral part of this effort, which should proceed in a very methodical fashion. -The lack of proper NMFS notification for the 2012 Trimester 2 longfin closure needs to continue to be avoided in the future. -Concern was reiterated about reentry of latent permits. Entry of latent effort could disrupt smooth operation of the fishery. [Staff noted there is an amendment looking at this.] -The issue of additional flexibility between trimesters was raised again, and staff noted that this is an issue being considered in the squid amendment. Related concerns that were voiced included: -Need to consider fairness and access issues. For example, there is a smaller group of vessels that can access state waters in NY. -Want quota caught, but do it right way – higher effort in spawning areas not good for fishery. -There are times of substantial local directed recreational effort and catch, which may not be reflective of overall abundance. Recreational catch is likely very small compared to the overall quota. Sense that recreational fishery is increasing. See more squid tackle in stores. There is also a traveling recreational contingent that uses social media/internet to spread the word about varying local availability. 2014 spring fishery in MA drove towns to enact regulations to address high participation. May be approaching a level that needs to be accounted for.

-Concern was voiced over area of catch issues, but staff noted this will be an issue addressed in detail in an upcoming action later this year or next year. The Council should consider near-shore buffer area, especially for rolled-over squid.

Butterfish

The key points (not consensus positions) were:

Market Issues -Low butterfish availability/abundance resulted in low landings in the 1990s and it has been very difficult to re-establish a market. It might take several years to re-establish export markets, but there are some indications that demand may be higher than anticipated. Traditional export food markets want fish caught in December- March (fat/roe/feed issues). -Boats have been increasing fresh butterfish production relatively slowly so as to not crash the price. Fresh market has been absorbing surprising quantity of fish without price dropping. -It is too early to determine how the markets will respond to U.S. butterfish in the long run. Fishery is totally market driven. -Early 2017 fishery was by a few vessels; the processor restricted landings. Low prices made it difficult for most to justify targeting butterfish. Good size but low fat content in early 2017 fish. 2017 could have been much higher already but processing any butterfish is still a speculative activity given the market. Export fish need to be either frozen at sea or brought in in refrigerated seawater to keep product quality high. -No major changes observed in butterfish availability by participants from 2016 to early 2017. -Dogfish continue a major problem. -Overall mentality is still to avoid butterfish - focus has been on longfin squid given good 2016 longfin squid fishery/prices. -Spring 2016 NEAMAP age 1s were 2nd highest ever. -Vessels landing at Lund’s typically retain butterfish as bycatch and low 2017 landings at Lund’s not surprising given slow longfin squid fishery so far in 2017.

Environmental/Ecological Issues -For 2016/2017 weather, typical mix of good and bad weather. -Abundance has been relatively high in the last few years compared to the early 2000s, both inshore and offshore. -Some advisors indicated that precaution is warranted given butterfish’s important role in the ecosystem as part of the forage base and given butterfish catches have been very low compared to recent projection results (and possible future catches). -Some advisors noted that butterfish’s role as forage is already accounted for in the conservative reference point currently used for butterfish, which was specifically recommended in a paper (Patterson 1992) looking at harvest of forage species. -There remains some concern about the age structure of butterfish. What is age range of recent butterfish catches?

Management Issues & Management Induced Effort Shifts -Mesh requirement is holding landings back and causing regulatory discards. Need an analysis of any

discards to determine cause – regulatory discarding may be a primary cause of discarding. The 2,500 pound trip limit for using <3-inch mesh was causing regulatory discarding. If you are out squid fishing and happen to come across some butterfish, having to discard does not make any sense. Focused butterfish fishing will probably use 3-inch mesh anyway. Less than 3-inch mesh is probably targeting something else and hitting butterfish incidentally - why not keep? Note: Effective May 26, 2016, moratorium permits can retain up to 5,000 pounds butterfish with under 3” mesh. 5,000 pound limit is still likely to drive regulatory discards, a much higher limit would be necessary to totally eliminate regulatory discards. Staff noted they have plans to do this analysis after a couple of years at the higher trip limit. An advisor suggested using caution when using discard reason or species targeted to analyze bycatch due to observer protocols. Need a better way to communicate changes to regulations – for example retention limit for butterfish – there remains a lot of confusion about what you can do with butterfish.

Other Fishing Behavior Issues -Lower 2015/2016 catches not surprising given few participants and developmental phase of fishery and low prices compared to other species, especially given strong squid market in 2016. -Poor longfin squid fishing and/or herring/mackerel fishing pushed the vessels that did butterfish in early 2017 into it as an alternative fishery.

Other Issues for Council/SSC Consideration as Appropriate -Concern about focusing on 1-year of data to project out 3-years for 3-year specifications for a relatively short- lived species. -For short lived, tightly schooling fish you need a targeted & dedicated survey - this is how the rest of the world assesses these kinds of stocks. -Some but not all advisors think butterfish should qualify for an exemption to ACLs. -Looking at only the Bigelow’s area sample misses a substantial amount of butterfish habitat. -The need for a discard cap on the longfin squid fishery appears questionable given the current butterfish ABC. -The ability to balance quotas (and increase butterfish landings if a substantial part of the discard cap has not been used) late in the year is important since good quality butterfish start being available in December. (Framework 8 allows this and it was used in 2014). -Cornell is examining mesh issues – preliminary data suggest 8cm square mesh and 8cm T-90 mesh could be productive for eliminating small butterfish. More information should be available in final report (still pending). -Squid trawl network still providing information on butterfish availability – negative reports are very important for operation of the avoidance network. (Network also provides bycatch updates for river herring/shad, yellowtail flounder, and windowpane flounder).

MEMORANDUM

Date: May 5, 2017

To: Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director

From: Jason Didden

Subject: Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) ABCs

Summary

This memo supports the May 2017 SSC meeting for: -Review of ongoing mackerel multiyear specifications (2016-2018) -Setting Illex Squid, longfin squid, and butterfish specifications for up to three years (2018- 2020)

Introduction

The Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA) as currently amended requires each Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to provide, among other things, ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for acceptable biological catches (ABCs). The SSC recommends ABCs to the Council that address scientific uncertainty such that overfishing is unlikely to occur per the Council’s risk policy. The Council's ABC recommendations to NMFS for the upcoming fishing year(s) cannot exceed the ABC recommendation of the SSC. As such, the SSC’s ABC recommendations form the upper limit for catches of Council-managed species.

Once the SSC meets and decides on the ABCs, the Squid-Mackerel-Butterfish Monitoring Committee will meet to discuss if changes to other management measures should be recommended per the ABCs from the SSC and other management considerations. These measures include Annual Catch Limits (ACLs), Annual Catch Targets (ACTs), and Accountability Measures (AMs). Based on the SSC’s and Monitoring Committee’s recommendations, the Council will make recommendations to the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator. Based on NMFS’ evaluation of the Council’s recommendations, NMFS will publish a Proposed Rule for specifications and then a Final Rule, which may change from the Proposed Rule based on public comment.

Page 1 of 6

Illex Squid, Longfin Squid, and Butterfish

Illex squid, longfin squid, and butterfish are currently in the final year of multi-year specifications for 2015-2017, and will need ABC recommendations for 2018 and beyond. Mackerel is in year two of multi-year specifications (2016-2018) and the SSC will be reviewing its previous 2018 recommendation, which may be found at http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2015/may-13-14. The NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center provided assessment updates for butterfish and longfin squid as well as data updates for mackerel and Illex squid, which are posted to http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18. That same web page also has a staff informational document for the Advisory Panel and the Advisory Panel Fishery Performance Report, as well as links to previous assessments and related documents.

Atlantic Mackerel

Staff recommends no modifications be made to the mackerel multi-year ABC of 19,898 metric tons (mt). Though low, catch has remained relatively consistent from 2011-2016 and early 2017 landings are above 2016 at the same point in the year. NEFSC spring bottom trawl indices continue to vary considerably from year to year. An assessment is underway, and results should be available for review in May 2018 for setting future mackerel specifications.

Butterfish

Summary

-The status of butterfish is not overfished and no overfishing is occurring according to the recent assessment update (data through 2016).

-For 2018-2020, staff recommends an ABC of 24,500 mt, based on projections that use a 100% coefficient of variation (CV) for uncertainty and an average probability of overfishing of 0.34. This is consistent with the Council’s pending risk policy modifications.

-The projections are being impacted by a very low recruitment estimate in 2016. The 2012 recruitment was estimated to be similarly low initially but the estimate increased with additional data. However, there appears to be a long term downward trend in recruitment and biomass as estimated by the assessment.

-Fishery participants on the Advisory Panel (AP) reported no observations of marked changes in butterfish abundance. Other AP members advised caution given the forage role of butterfish.

-Seafreeze staff (the largest harvester/processor of butterfish) reported that they limited early 2017 landings because of market uncertainty affecting their ability to sell additional fish at a profit.

Page 2 of 6

Regulatory Review

The 2017 ABC for butterfish is 30,922 mt, which translates into a domestic landings quota of 20,652 mt after management uncertainty and discards are accounted for. The directed fishery operates under a limited access system. The primary directed commercial fishery could close at 19,241 mt in 2017, after which point a smaller scale fishery is allowed.

Biological Reference Points, Stock Status, and Projections

A butterfish assessment update is posted to the SSC meeting page. The spawning stock biomass (SSB) was estimated to be at 64,376 mt in 2016, which is 141% of the accepted biomass reference point (SSBMSYproxy = 45,616 mt). Overfishing is not occurring (F was 94% below the reference point) and the stock is not overfished. The 2016 recruitment was estimated to be the lowest in the time series, which reduced projections in 2017 down to 33,720 mt (74% of the reference point and 48% lower than 2016). While a very low initial terminal 2012 recruitment was revised upward with additional data, there is a long term downward trend in estimated biomass and recruitment since about 2000.

Catch and Landings

The fishery declined in the 1990s due to lack of availability and market forces. Landings from 2005-2012 were strongly restricted by regulations. In 2013, a limited re-establishment of a directed fishery began. Landings have been low relative to the substantially higher quota implemented in 2015, though early 2017 landings are higher. Discards are controlled through a cap on the longfin squid fishery and are accounted for in directed butterfish fishing as well.

OFL/ABC Recommendations

OFL – The updated assessment suggests an OFL of 28,628 mt for 2018, which is also recommended by staff.

ABC

Staff finds it unlikely that the butterfish stock is/will be half its 2016 size in 2017. Factors supporting this conclusion include the initial underestimate of 2012 recruitment, good availability reported by the fishery, low fishing mortality, and typical butterfish bycatch in the longfin squid fishery early in 2017. However, staff notes the long-term decline in abundance and recruitment in the assessment. The assumption of average recruitment pushing the stock up quickly in projections may also be problematic. As such, a reduction in the ABC seems like a reasonable precaution, and staff recommends a constant ABC of 24,500 mt for 2018-2020, which would be consistent with the pending update to the Council’s risk policy allowing averaging of overfishing probabilities (P*s). The projection details are available on the SSC meeting webpage. They use a 100% CV and average to a 34% probability of overfishing for the 3 years, with a maximum probability of overfishing of 43% in 2018. Chasing apparent drastic declines in estimated recruitment or rapid increases in predicted recruitment does not seem appropriate for this naturally variable fishery given our inability to predict recruitment changes. Page 3 of 6

Longfin Squid

Summary

-The status of longfin squid is currently “unknown” with respect to fishing mortality rates and "not overfished" according to the recent assessment update (data through 2016). The last benchmark assessment considered the stock to be “lightly exploited” and no major changes in exploitation were apparent in the update.

-For 2018-2020, staff recommends extending the current multi-year ABC specification of 23,400 mt previously set for 2015-2017 by the SSC.

-Changes in biomass, catch, and the ratio of catch to biomass (“exploitation indices”) appear consistent with the variability observed in the last assessment.

Regulatory Review

The 2017 ABC for longfin squid is 23,400 mt which results in a quota of 22,445 mt after discards are subtracted. There is a recreational fishery but no catch estimates are available and recreational catch is believed to be minor relative to the ABC. The commercial fishery operates under limited access and the directed fishery closes based on weekly monitoring. The annual quota is divided up into 3 four-month trimesters 43% (Trimester 1 Jan-April) - 17% (Trimester 2 May-Aug) - 40% (Trimester 3 Sept-Dec). There is a 1 7/8" minimum mesh required in Trimester 2 and a 2 1/8" mesh at other times. There is a butterfish discard cap which can close the longfin squid fishery, but the current cap does not appear to be constraining (several bycatch avoidance efforts have commenced since implementation of the cap). The Council is currently considering reducing latent capacity in the fishery and reducing the catch that can occur in Trimester 2. Plan provisions allow Trimester 2 to increase to 25.5% of the annual quota if catches in Trimester 1 are low, and directed fishing still occurs at a smaller scale once the fishery “closes.” See http://www.mafmc.org/actions/squid-capacity-amendment for details.

Biological Reference Points, Stock Status, and Projections

A longfin squid assessment update has been posted to the SSC meeting page. Like the most recent benchmark for longfin squid (2010), the update notes there are no reliable estimates of current fishing mortality rates but a Bmsy target of 42,405 mt was accepted along with a Bthreshold of ½ of the target = 21,203 mt. The Bmsy target was derived assuming that the 1976-2008 median biomass estimate represents 90% of the stock’s carrying capacity "K" (SAW/SARC 42 concluded that the stock appears "lightly exploited") and the Bmsy target is ½ of K. The spawning stock biomass (SSB) was estimated to be at 73,762 mt in 2016, which is 174% of the accepted biomass reference point target (SSBMSYproxy = 42,405 mt).

Page 4 of 6

Catch and Landings

Since full domestication of the fishery (1987), landings have varied approximately ± 10,000 mt from a 15,000 mt median. The fishery information document available at http://www.mafmc.org/council-events/2017/may-2017-ssc-meeting details this landings history. There was a relative landings decline from 1994-2010 and a relative increase from 2010-2016.

OFL/ABC Recommendations

OFL – An overfishing level likely cannot be determined.

ABC

Given the recent exploitation indices in the assessment update appear to vary within a range consistent with the benchmark assessment, staff recommends setting a new 2018-2020 multi-year ABC specification of 23,400 mt (the same as since 2012). This is based on the catch in the year with the highest observed exploitation fraction (catch divided by the estimated biomass) during a period of apparent relatively light exploitation (1976-2009) according to the 2010 longfin squid assessment.

Illex Squid

Summary

-The status of Illex is currently “unknown” with respect to both fishing mortality rates and stock size.

-For 2018-2020, staff recommends extending the current multi-year ABC specification of 24,000 mt previously set for 2015-2017 by the SSC.

-Landings have been low recently, but this fishery is highly variable.

-NEFSC indices for number per tow have been close to the long-term median in recent years.

Page 5 of 6

Regulatory Review

The 2017 ABC for Illex is 24,000 mt which results in a U.S. DAH of 22,915 mt after discards are subtracted. There is no recreational fishery. The fishery operates under limited access and the directed fishery closes at 95% of its quota. Incidental trips limits would be allowed if the directed fishery closes.

Biological Reference Points, Stock Status, and Projections

The Illex stock was most recently assessed at SARC 42 (2006). The SARC 42 report included data through 2004. There are no reliable estimates of stock biomass or fishing mortality rate.

Catch and Landings

Landings vary within a wide range. The fishery information document available at http://www.mafmc.org/council-events/2017/may-2017-ssc-meeting details the landings history. Landings have been relatively low for the years 2013-2016 but there have been similar periods before (1999-2003).

OFL/ABC Recommendations

OFL – An overfishing level cannot be determined.

ABC

For 2018-2020, staff recommends extending the current multi-year ABC specification of 24,000 mt previously set by the SSC. This was based on the observation that landings of 24,000-26,000 MT do not appear to have caused harm to the Illex stock based on indices and landings in years following years when landings were in the range of 24,000 mt-26,000 mt.

Page 6 of 6

20 MSB AP Informational Document - APRIL 2017 Prepared by Jason Didden, MAFMC Staff

**Note – Historical catches and indices are available in the Assessment Updates and/or Data Updates provided by NMFS’ Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), and posted at http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18. This document focuses on the market and vessel participation data not included in the Data Updates.

Butterfish - not overfished, no overfishing based on 2016 data as analyzed in recent assessment update (http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18). But very low 2016 recruitment suggests lower (48% lower) 2017 biomass…

12,000

10,000 Landings (mt) 8,000

6,000

4,000 Landings . (mt) 2,000

0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 1. U.S. Butterfish landings. Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

8,000,000 7,000,000 Value ($) 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 vessel value ($) .

- 2,000,000

Ex 1,000,000 0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 2. U.S. Butterfish ex-vessel revenues (nominal) Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 Price ($) vessel vessel price ($/mt) .

- 400

Ex 200 0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 3. U.S. Butterfish ex-vessel prices (Nominal) Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000 Price ($) vessel price ($/mt) . ($/mt) price vessel - 500 Ex 0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 4. U.S. Butterfish ex-vessel prices (Producer Price Index adjusted, 2016 dollars) Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports 2

22 Current Butterfish Landings (Blue = 2017 to date, Orange = 2016)

Figure 5. 2017 Landings to Date (April 22, 2017) source: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/reports_frame.htm

23 2017 Butterfish Discard Cap for the Longfin Squid Fishery to Date

Figure 6. 2017 Butterfish/Loligo Cap to Date (April 27, 2017) source: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/reports_frame.htm

2016 Butterfish Discard Cap for the Longfin Squid Fishery

Figure 7. 2016 Butterfish/Loligo Cap source: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/reports_frame.htm

Table 1. 2016 Atlantic butterfish landings (mt) by state (more than 10 Metric Tons)

*Since states with low landings are not included, Percent column may not total 100% State Metric_Tons Percent RI 630 53% NY 246 21% MA 146 12% CT 78 7% NJ 75 6% Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK

25 Table 2. Vessels active in various annual butterfish landing ranges (pounds per vessel) Vessels Vessels Vessels Vessels YEAR 50,000 - 10,000 - 1,000 - 200,000+ 200,000 50,000 10,000 1982 29 31 35 107 1983 9 33 67 111 1984 41 35 47 100 1985 11 36 52 122 1986 7 14 52 113 1987 8 38 40 86 1988 4 15 54 86 1989 7 29 40 99 1990 1 22 58 110 1991 5 15 45 96 1992 7 25 32 90 1993 12 30 36 108 1994 6 20 40 124 1995 3 11 63 141 1996 6 15 86 129 1997 6 12 77 169 1998 2 14 69 153 1999 2 10 72 143 2000 1 9 54 159 2001 4 6 72 130 2002 0 3 46 123 2003 0 0 20 115 2004 0 0 23 95 2005 0 1 11 90 2006 0 1 24 86 2007 0 3 36 95 2008 0 1 22 99 2009 0 2 17 83 2010 0 1 37 81 2011 0 2 36 92 2012 0 1 38 87 2013 1 1 46 82 2014 2 4 47 77 2015 3 6 36 83 2016 2 9 39 81 Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

26 Mackerel (overfished/overfishing status unknown – benchmark assessment results anticipated in late 2017)

60,000

50,000 Landings (mt) 40,000

30,000

20,000 Landings (mt) 10,000

0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 8. U.S. Mackerel landings. Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

25,000,000

20,000,000 Value ($)

15,000,000

10,000,000 vessel value ($) -

Ex 5,000,000

0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 9. U.S. Mackerel ex-vessel revenues (nominal) Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

27 800 700 Price ($) 600 500 400 300 vessel price ($/mt) - 200 Ex 100 0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 10. U.S. Mackerel ex-vessel prices (Nominal) Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

1,000 900 800 Price ($) 700 600 500 400 300 200 vessel vessel price ($/mt) - 100 Ex 0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 11. U.S. Mackerel ex-vessel prices (Producer Price Index adjusted, 2016 dollars) Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

28 Current Mackerel Landings (Blue = 2017 to date, Orange = 2016)

Figure 12. 2017 Landings to Date (April 22, 2017) source: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/reports_frame.htm

29 2017 RH/S Cap for the Mackerel Fishery to Date (Blue = 2017 to date, Orange = 2016)

Figure 13. 2017 Mackerel/RH/S Cap to Date (April 26, 2017) source: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/reports_frame.htm

Table 3. 2016 Atlantic Mackerel landings (mt) by state (more than 10 Metric Tons) *Since states with low landings are not included, Percent column may not total 100% State Metric_Tons Percent MA 4,529 84% RI 504 9% ME 169 3% NJ 139 3% NY 21 0% Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

Table 4. Vessels active in various annual mackerel landing ranges (pounds per vessel) Vessels Vessels Vessels Vessels 1 YEAR 100,000 - 50,000 - 10,000 - mil + 1mil 100,000 50,000 1982 0 10 10 43 1983 0 10 5 26 1984 0 11 14 29 1985 0 12 10 28 1986 1 10 5 37 1987 1 15 8 31 1988 2 20 8 40 1989 6 17 8 27 1990 6 16 7 39 1991 13 18 1 38 1992 9 17 13 48 1993 0 16 11 55 1994 2 27 14 44 1995 4 24 11 50 1996 7 45 15 53 1997 6 30 20 46 1998 9 16 6 39 1999 6 15 9 36 2000 5 3 0 26 2001 5 3 2 20 2002 12 3 1 22 2003 14 6 5 23 2004 18 6 1 14 2005 16 12 4 15 2006 21 12 5 10 2007 16 12 2 20 2008 15 5 1 17 2009 15 6 6 18 2010 10 9 2 13 2011 0 3 3 17 2012 3 9 1 9 2013 4 3 3 13 2014 6 5 1 13 2015 5 9 10 12 2016 3 14 9 26 Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

31 Illex Squid (overfished/overfishing status unknown –possible benchmark assessment in 2018-2019, but need additional growth and maturity data)

30,000

25,000 Landings (mt) 20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000 Landings . (mt)

0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 14. U.S. Illex landings. Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

20,000,000 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 Value ($) 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 vessel value ($) . - 4,000,000 Ex 2,000,000 0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 15. U.S. Illex ex-vessel revenues (nominal) Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

32 1,200

1,000

800

600

400 Price ($) vessel vessel price ($/mt) . - 200 Ex 0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 16. U.S. Illex ex-vessel prices (Nominal) Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

1,200

1,000

800

600

400 Price ($) vessel price ($/mt) . ($/mt) price vessel - 200 Ex 0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 17. U.S. Illex ex-vessel prices (Producer Price Index adjusted, 2016 dollars) Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

33 Illex Landings (Blue = 2016, Orange = 2015)

Figure 18. 2016 (Blue)/2015(Orange) Illex Landings source: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/reports_frame.htm

Table 5. 2016 Atlantic Illex landings (mt) by state (more than 10 Metric Tons)

State Metric_Tons Percent RI 4720.08 71% NJ 1756.63 26% NA 183.48 3% MA 21.31 0%

34 Table 6. Vessels active in various annual Illex landing ranges (pounds per vessel)

Vessels Vessels Vessels Vessels YEAR 500,000 100,000 - 50,000 - 10,000 - + 500,000 100,000 50,000

1982 7 7 0 10 1983 1 8 7 11 1984 4 15 4 6 1985 2 6 4 3 1986 8 6 4 3 1987 7 10 2 1 1988 3 3 1 2 1989 8 5 1 3 1990 12 3 0 1 1991 12 1 1 0 1992 16 1 0 1 1993 19 3 1 3 1994 21 7 5 8 1995 24 5 2 7 1996 24 5 6 4 1997 13 9 2 0 1998 25 4 1 3 1999 6 9 2 10 2000 7 7 0 2 2001 3 4 1 2 2002 2 3 1 1 2003 5 6 1 2 2004 23 5 2 0 2005 10 10 2 2 2006 9 8 1 2 2007 8 2 1 0 2008 12 4 0 0 2009 10 3 1 1 2010 12 3 0 6 2011 17 4 2 0 2012 8 3 2 2 2013 5 4 3 5 2014 5 3 2 2 2015 3 0 1 1 2016 4 3 3 2 Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

35 Longfin Squid (formerly known as Loligo) (2017 Assessment Update, using 2016 data, pending ASAP)

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

Landings (mt) Landings . (mt) 5,000

0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 19. U.S. Longfin landings. Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

60,000,000

50,000,000

40,000,000

30,000,000

20,000,000 Value ($) vessel value ($) . - 10,000,000 Ex

0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 20. U.S. Longfin ex-vessel revenues (nominal) Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

36 3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500 Price ($) 1,000 vessel price ($/mt) . -

Ex 500

0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 21. U.S. Longfin ex-vessel prices (Nominal) Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

Price ($) 1,000 vessel price ($/mt) . -

Ex 500

0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 22. U.S. Longfin ex-vessel prices (Producer Price Index adjusted, 2016 dollars) Source: Unpublished NMFS dealer reports

37 Recent Longfin Squid Landings

Figure 23. 2017 Landings to Date (April 22, 2017) (Blue = 2017, Orange = 2016) source: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/reports_frame.htm

Figure 24. 2016 (Blue)/2015(Orange) Landings

Table 7. 2016 Atlantic Longfin landings (mt) by state (more than 10 Metric Tons) *Since states with low landings are not included, Percent column may not total 100% State Metric_Tons Percent RI 10,329 57% NY 2,839 16% MA 2,082 11% NJ 1,988 11% CT 758 4% NA 114 1% NC 17 0%

Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK

39 Table 8. Vessels active in various annual longfin landing ranges (pounds per vessel) Vessels Vessels Vessels Vessels YEAR 100,000 - 50,000 - 10,000 - 500,000+ 500,000 100,000 50,000

1982 0 14 16 88 1983 1 64 36 108 1984 1 41 48 111 1985 2 44 34 89 1986 1 56 44 98 1987 3 39 44 103 1988 11 65 35 95 1989 15 68 51 83 1990 11 52 47 108 1991 17 54 34 107 1992 17 48 31 67 1993 21 73 32 92 1994 24 74 26 77 1995 15 79 40 96 1996 8 68 37 93 1997 13 87 55 65 1998 18 86 46 91 1999 18 85 36 119 2000 13 96 46 97 2001 12 65 44 84 2002 13 90 32 69 2003 8 64 25 59 2004 15 63 27 52 2005 19 62 19 46 2006 16 76 24 47 2007 16 44 30 68 2008 10 58 18 78 2009 8 52 26 64 2010 3 45 22 65 2011 7 55 32 46 2012 8 75 38 41 2013 10 56 20 37 2014 12 60 27 55 2015 13 49 21 50 2016 19 74 35 46

Source: unpublished NMFS dealer reports

MEMORANDUM

Date: May 24, 2017

To: Council

From: Jason Didden

Subject: Annual RH/S Progress and Cap Review

In 2015 the Council set a river herring/shad (RH/S) cap of 82 mt (180,779 pounds) for 2016-2018. No action is needed at this time for the RH/S cap. Staff recommends no changes because work is ongoing on the mackerel benchmark assessment and a river herring update. The Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Monitoring Committee (MC) discussed the RH/S cap during its 5/23/17 call. The MC noted the cap appears to be functioning as intended, and staff relayed reports from industry that they ceased herring/mackerel fishing in some areas in early 2017 to avoid hitting RH/S caps. The MC also reiterated its previously-voiced concerns:

The MC noted that its perspective has not substantively changed from last year: given the lack of stock abundance information, a variety of cap options are likely justifiable as long as the Council clearly describes its rationale related to controlling incidental RH/S catch/bycatch - in situations like RH/S where biologically-based catch limits are unavailable, setting the cap is a policy choice. The MC noted that for any cap (and especially a constant cap), because it is not directly tied to RH/S abundance, possibilities exist that it may either become very hard for the fishery to avoid RH/S if their abundances increase, or if RH/S abundances decrease the fishery will not have to work hard to avoid RH/S because there will not be many RH/S around. The first situation would suggest that a cap increase may be warranted while the second would suggest a cap reduction may be warranted. Without better assessment information it is not possible to quantitatively determine the appropriateness of such changes however.

In October 2014, the Council approved a list of questions to form the basis of an annual RH/S Progress Review. The RH/S Committee has requested that additional state indices and bycatch information be added to this report. Staff is still investigating the additional bycatch information in other fisheries, and has not yet been able to determine the timing for obtaining the various state surveys, though many will be integrated into the ongoing river herring assessment. Staff notes that the October 2016 White Paper included many relevant state survey indices Page 1 of 14

(http://www.mafmc.org/s/Tab02_RHS.pdf). Staff will provide additional information at a future Council meeting regarding the additional state indices and bycatch information.

1. How has the Atlantic mackerel RH/S cap performed?

A review of cap performance (http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/Mackerel_RHS/Mackerel_RHS.htm) indicates that a relatively small percentage of the RH/S cap was caught in 2014-2016. 2017 RH/S cap amounts have been higher but have not caused a closure. The cap was set in a way that closures would be expected unless the fishery can avoid RH/S better than in the past. As there have been no closures related to the RH/S cap so far, the cap may have resulted in lower RH/S catch than would have occurred without the cap. Low mackerel landings have contributed to the low RH/S estimates, but the cap has been scaled down over time as the mackerel quota has been reduced to maintain incentive to avoid RH/S. Due to the overlap in the Atlantic Herring and mackerel fisheries, their RH/S cap catches cannot be added together to produce a total catch across caps - RH/S on a trip with both Atlantic herring and mackerel can count against both the Atlantic herring and mackerel RH/S caps. Because the cap amounts were set considering this circumstance, double counting is not a problem for monitoring. The Monitoring Committee has not found any operational issues with the cap, other than noting that the recent low observer coverage and high RH/S catch variability means precision may be low:

(A 2016 update for this table should be available by the Council meeting.)

THIS SECTION LEFT BLANK

Page 2 of 14

2. What has recent coastal RH/S catch been?

The ASMFC annual fishery management plan reviews are available at http://www.asmfc.org/species/shad-river-herring . Catch figures for 2012-2014 from those reports (all “Table 2”) are provided below. (The 2016 FMP Review has not been posted). Incidental catch estimates through 2015 are provided in Appendix 2 (the data tables for a 2016 update have not been finalized).

Page 3 of 14

Table 2. Shad and RH in-river commercial and ocean bycatch landings (in pounds) provided by states, jurisdiction and NOAA Fisheries for 2015.

Page 4 of 14

3. What levels of observer coverage have been achieved in relevant fisheries?

The revised SBRM prioritization procedures determine year to year observer coverage generally based on where discards of federally-managed species most occur, and available funding. In recent years this process has led to fewer midwater trips being observed (but more small mesh bottom trawl trips). The Omnibus Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment is seeking to supplement SBRM coverage through a variety of options, but has been delayed pending the results of an electronic monitoring pilot project. The table below was developed for the Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment and describes planned and realized coverage levels for the relevant fleets as pertaining to RH/S caps. For 2017-2018 the proposed updated seadays are: SMBT – MA: 1,381 (higher); SMBT – NE: 1,946 (higher); Purse Seine – MA: 7 (similar); Purse Seine – NE: 21 (similar); MWT – MA: 13 (lower); MWT – NE: 40 (lower).

4. Was a cap set for RH/S for the following year?

Caps were previously set for 2014 and 2015, and in 2015 the Council set a cap of 82 mt (180,779 pounds) for 2016-2018. If the Atlantic mackerel fishery catches 95 percent of the RH/S cap (77.9 mt), the directed mackerel fishery will be closed and vessels will be limited to a 20,000-lb incidental catch trip limit for the remainder of the fishing year.

Page 5 of 14

5. Was the cap based on recent catch or more directly tied to RH/S population dynamics?

The cap was originally based on catch ratios expanded up to the mackerel quota. Given the low RH/S cap catches and low mackerel quota, the Council has reduced the RH/S cap in recent years. With the current 82 mt mackerel cap, in order to catch the mackerel quota the fishery must maintain a RH/S catch rate around the median value for 2005-2012.

6. What progress has been made on aligning cap operation with the Atlantic herring fishery’s cap?

Given the degree of alignment created by the current estimation procedures and the potential for the Councils to disagree on year to year cap amounts even if a joint framework was established, it is not clear to staff that there likely would be substantial gains from moving from the status quo cap setting procedures. If a cap was based on a biologically-derived amount, then more explicitly aligning the caps may be more important. See previous memo on this topic at http://www.mafmc.org/s/Tab16_ED-Report.pdf for additional background. If the Councils could agree on an area/gear cap that matched the SBRM then a joint cap could be theoretically feasible.

7. What other RH/S coordination with other management partners has occurred (NMFS, NEFMC, ASMFC, states, NGOs, academia, TEWG, etc.)?

The TEWG continues to actively keep a variety of parties engaged in RH conservation issues. The summary from the last TEWG meeting is available at https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/riverherring/tewg/sept_2016_tewg_meet ing_summary_final.pdf. A presentation on Using genetic markers to assess bycatch impacts on river herring may be of particular interest: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/riverherring/tewg/habitat/hasselman_an d_palkovacs_-_using_genetic_markers_to_assess_bycatch_impacts_on_river_herring.pdf.

The Omnibus Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment has also served to maintain a high level of collaboration among NMFS, the MAFMC, and the NEFMC on RH/S issues even though the goals of that Amendment are broader than just RH/S issues. Work on the IFM Amendment is on hold from the MAFMC perspective.

8. How has the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) been involved?

There have been preliminary discussions with the SSC regarding a working group to evaluate the feasibility of developing a biologically-based cap. The ASMFC currently has assessment updates scheduled for river herring in 2017 and shad in 2018. Embedding an SSC member in those updates may be one way to assist the SSC in becoming more familiar with RH/S data, which could assist in any SSC efforts to develop a biologically-based cap (Kiersten Curti (NEFSC, Mackerel Lead) is involved in the river herring assessment update.)

Page 6 of 14

9. What other actions have been taken by the Council that could affect RH/S?

The primary work from staff over the last year that could affect RH/S involves the TEWG, the Omnibus Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment, and the Council’s re-evaluation of the RH/S stock in fishery question. Council staff has also promoted the existing RH/S voluntary bycatch programs (SMAST/Cornell) through communication with industry. Another issue that has come up repeatedly in TEWG discussions is that members of the public with diverse perspectives believe that a one-stop database of RH/S run strength trends would be very helpful to contextualize news reporting of runs in particular areas. Council staff has been re-engaging with NEFSC staff about ways to support this project.

10. What information is available on RH/S abundance trends?

RH/S are scheduled to undergo assessment updates in 2017/2018 respectively. Benchmarks are scheduled for five years after the updates, though if new data or modeling improvements suggest a benchmark would be appropriate sooner, then sooner is also a possibility for benchmarks. Waiting until after 2020 for benchmarks should allow some of the improvements in data collection being worked on through the TEWG to be useful for an assessment. Also, if state moratoria and/or RH/S catch caps have had positive impacts there would be more time to observe those impacts. The ASMFC does provide selected run counts in its FMP reviews, provided below for 2012-2016. Numerous state indices are available in the October 2016 Stock in a Fishery decision document - http://www.mafmc.org/s/Tab02_RHS.pdf. Staff is evaluating the timing of updating state survey data but the assessment update will review much of that information.

THIS SECTION LEFT BLANK

Page 7 of 14

Page 8 of 14

Page 9 of 14

Page 10 of 14

Table 3. American shad and river herring passage counts at select rivers along the Atlantic coast in 2015.

Page 11 of 14

Table 3. American shad and river herring passage counts at select rivers along the Atlantic coast in 2016.

Page 12 of 14

Available NMFS survey and incidental catch information is available in Appendices 1 and 2. Updated NEAMAP indices are provided below.

NEAMAP ALEWIFE

SPRING

FALL

Page 13 of 14

NEAMAP BLUEBACK

SPRING

NEAMAP Am SHAD

SPRING

Page 14 of 14

APPENDIX 1. NEFSC TRAWL SURVEYS

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 APPENDIX 2. HIGHLIGHTS OF UPDATED RH/S CATCH ANALYSES

These analyses update the RH/S catch analyses performed for Amendment 14, using the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology to extrapolate total catch based on observer and landings data. An Excel spreadsheet with the results has been posted to http://www.mafmc.org/briefing/october-2016, and several tables and figures that summarize data from that spreadsheet are included below.

Background

Total catch of river herring (alewife and blueback herring) and hickory and American shad (RHS) was quantified by fleet. Fleets included in the analyses were those sampled by the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) and were stratified by area fished (Mid-Atlantic versus New England), time (year and quarter), gear group, and mesh size.

Region fished was defined using Statistical Areas for reporting commercial fishery data. The Mid-Atlantic region included Statistical Areas greater than 600, and New England included Statistical Areas 464 through 599.

Figure 1. NMFS Statistical Areas.

10 Gear groups included in the analyses were: bottom trawls, paired midwater trawls, single midwater trawls, gillnets, dredges, handlines, haul seines, longlines, pots/traps, purse seines, scallop trawl/dredge, seines and shrimp trawls. Bottom trawls and gillnets were further stratified into the following mesh categories:

Mesh categoryBottom TrawlGillnet small mesh ≤ 3.5mesh < 5.5 medium3.5 < mesh < 5.5 --- large mesh ≥ 5.55.5 ≤ mesh < 8 x-large --- mesh ≥ 8

SM-BT = Small Mesh Bottom Trawl P-MWT = Paired Mid-Water Trawl MM-BT = Medium Mesh Bottom Trawl SM-GN = Small Mesh Gillnet LM-BT = Large Mesh Bottom Trawl LM-GN = Large Small Mesh Gillnet S-MWT = Single Mid-Water Trawl XLM-GN = Extra Large Small Mesh Gillnet

For bottom trawl fleets, mesh category was determined for trips with missing mesh information based on the primary species caught. For gillnets, trips with missing mesh information were assumed to come from the large mesh category.

Single and paired midwater trawls were split into separate fleets because the majority of both mackerel and herring landings during 2005-2010 were from paired midwater trawls, and the total catch-to-kept ratios varied between midwater trawl types.

The combined ratio method (Wigley et al 2007) is the standard discard estimation method implemented in NEFSC stock assessments and was used in this analysis to quantify annual RHS incidental catch and the associated precision (CV) across all fleets.

Estimates for the midwater trawl fleets are only provided beginning in 2005 because these estimates are most accurate as a result of improved sampling methodologies.

For each trip, NEFOP data were used to calculate a total catch to kept (t/k) ratio, where t represents the total (retained+discarded) catch of an individual species (e.g., alewife, American shad) and k is the kept weight of all species. The t/k ratios were expanded using a raising factor to quantify total incidental catch. With the exception of the midwater trawl fleets, total landed weight of all species (from the dealer database) was used as the raising factor. VTR data were used as the expansion factor for the MWT fleets.

For additional information on the methodology, please see Appendix II of MSB Amendment 14 (http://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/53e3d61be4b0e88e72d231f5 /1407440411701/AppendicesFEISFinal.pdf).

11 Table 1. Percent Observer Coverage of Mid-Atlantic Trips Mid-Atlantic Percent Trips Covered SM-BT MM-BT LM-BT S-MWT P-MWT SM-GN LM-GN XLM-GN Other 1989 1% 2% 0% no vtr trips no vtr trips 0% 0% no vtr trips 0% 1990 1% 5% 0% no vtr trips no vtr trips 0% 0% 0% 0% 1991 2% 6% 0% no vtr trips no vtr trips 0% 0% no vtr trips 0% 1992 1% 4% 0% no vtr trips no vtr trips 0% 0% no vtr trips 0% 1993 0% 7% 0% no vtr trips no vtr trips 0% 0% no vtr trips 0% 1994 0% 5% 0% 2% 68% 97% 2% 85% 0% 1995 1% 1% 1% 0% 66% 74% 5% 25% 0% 1996 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 43% 3% 10% 0% 1997 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 25% 1% 11% 0% 1998 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 15% 2% 5% 0% 1999 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 2000 1% 1% 0% 3% 1% 4% 0% 1% 0% 2001 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 4% 0% 1% 1% 2002 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 1% 2003 1% 7% 0% 0% 3% 3% 0% 1% 1% 2004 5% 23% 2% 2% 3% 1% 0% 3% 2% 2005 5% 23% 1% 5% 5% 1% 0% 5% 2% 2006 4% 7% 1% 11% 3% 2% 0% 2% 1% 2007 4% 19% 3% 1% 2% 2% 0% 2% 1% 2008 3% 12% 2% 47% 5% 1% 0% 2% 2% 2009 7% 19% 2% 19% 12% 1% 0% 3% 2% 2010 8% 46% 5% 27% 15% 1% 1% 6% 2% 2011 10% 26% 4% 133% 50% 1% 0% 3% 1% 2012 5% 15% 3% 11% 18% 0% 0% 3% 1% 2013 10% 21% 5% 2% 6% 1% 0% 2% 1% 2014 11% 25% 7% 2% 0% 2% 1% 5% 2% 2015 10% 25% 5% 6% 4% 14% 3% 9% 2%

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

12 Table 2. Percent Observer Coverage of New England Trips New England Percent Trips Covered SM-BTMM-BT LM-BTS-MWTP-MWTSM-GN LM-GN XLM-GN Other 19891%3%0% no vtr trips no vtr trips 0%0%0%0% 19901%1%0% no vtr trips no vtr trips 0%0%0%0% 19912%8%0% no vtr trips no vtr trips 0%0%0%0% 19921%1%0% no vtr trips no vtr trips 0%0%0%0% 19930%7%0% no vtr trips no vtr trips 0%0%0%0% 19940%2%0%0%8%0%0%4%0% 19951%2%0%1%18%0%1%2%0% 19961%4%0%0%0%0%1%2%0% 19971%4%0%0%0%0%1%2%0% 19980%1%0%0%0%22%1%1%0% 19990%0%0%0%1%15%1%2%0% 20000%7%1%2%0%0%1%3%1% 20010%6%1%0%0%6%1%1%0% 20022%14%1%0%0%0%1%1%0% 20032%15%2%1%3%0%4%6%0% 20045%56%4%9%10%6%12%18%1% 20056%132%11%16%20%0%10%16%1% 20063%12%6%5%4%0%2%3%1% 20073%8%6%11%5%3%2%8%1% 20082%9%7%33%19%11%2%5%1% 20098%10%8%21%30%16%3%4%0% 20108%22%11%51%49%0%16%29%0% 20119%13%19%41%35%0%24%25%0% 20126%8%19%25%53%0%24%18%0% 201310%11%15%15%29%0%18%14%0% 201414%10%19%20%32%0%27%25%0% 201512%11%15%4%5%0%24%18%0%

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13 Table 3. Percent of 2005-2015 incidental catch of river herring and shad (alewife, blueback herring, American shad and hickory shad) by region, fleet and quarter for the dominant gears. (Table 3 of Amendment 14 Appendix 2) BT = Bottom Trawl MWT = Mid-Water Trawl BT Gillnet Paired Single MWT Total MWT Grand Total Area fished Quarter sm med lg sm lg xlg MA 1 3%0%0%0%1%0%19%4%24%28% MA 2 2%0%0%0%1%0%1%0%2%4% MA 3 4%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%5% MA 4 2%0%0%0%1%0%1%0%1%3% MA 11%1%0%0%2%0%21%5%26%40% NE 1 8%0%1%0%1%0%3%1%4%13% NE 2 5%0%1%0%1%0%4%3%7%14% NE 3 7%0%0%0%2%0%5%1%6%15% NE 4 5%0%0%0%1%0%9%2%11%18% NE 25%0%2%0%5%0%20%7%28%60% Total 36%1%2%0%7%0%41%12%54%100%

Table 4. Percent of 2005-2015 incidental catch of American and hickory shad by region, fleet and quarter for the dominant gears. (Table 4 of Amendment 14 Appendix 2) BT Gillnet Paired Single MWT Total MWT Grand Total Area fished Quarter sm med lg sm lg xlg MA 1 4%1%0%0%4%0%5%1%5%14% MA 2 3%0%0%0%3%0%0%0%0%7% MA 3 7%0%0%0%2%0%0%0%0%9% MA 4 2%1%0%0%3%0%0%0%0%6% MA 16%2%1%1%11%0%5%1%6%37% NE 1 5%0%2%0%3%0%1%0%1%11% NE 2 4%0%2%0%5%0%2%1%2%13% NE 3 5%0%1%0%11%0%2%1%3%21% NE 4 4%0%2%0%7%0%4%1%5%18% NE 18%0%7%0%26%0%8%3%12%63% Total 34%2%8%1%38%0%14%4%17%100%

Table 5. Percent of 2005-2015 incidental catch of river herring (alewife and blueback herring) by region, fleet and quarter for the dominant gears. (Table 5 of Amendment 14 Appendix 2) BT Gillnet Paired Single MWT Total MWT Grand Total Area fished Quarter sm med lg sm lg xlg MA 1 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 23% 5% 28% 31% MA 2 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% MA 3 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% MA 4 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 3% MA 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 6% 31% 41% NE 1 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 4% 14% NE 2 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 4% 9% 14% NE 3 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 1% 6% 14% NE 4 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 2% 12% 18% NE 27% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 23% 8% 31% 59% Total 37% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 48% 14% 62% 100%

14 Table 6. Species-specific total annual incidental catch (mt) and the associated coefficient of variation across all fleets and regions. Midwater trawl estimates were only included beginning in 2005. Total RHS represents the sum of the four river herring and shad species (alewife, American shad, blueback herring and hickory shad). (Table A1 of Amendment 14 Appendix 2)

Alewife American shad Blueback herring Herring NK Hickory shad Total RHS Catch CV Catch CV Catch CV Catch CV Catch CV Catch CV 1989 44 0.49 229 0.98 38 0.42 18 1.13 0 311 0.73 1990 102 0.85 45 0.34 170 0.45 681 0.59 0 317 0.37 1991 149 0.44 176 0.25 285 0.40 266 0.51 39 0.00 649 0.23 1992 66 0.43 169 0.28 1,191 0.42 786 0.39 0 1,426 0.36 1993 381 2.42 211 1.00 746 0.28 136 4.83 0 1,338 0.76 1994 6 0.30 110 0.64 240 0.87 58 0.47 1 0.82 357 0.53 1995 8 0.61 127 0.38 348 0.44 100 1.23 1 0.64 485 0.34 1996 704 1.14 65 0.39 2,800 2.09 451 0.39 222 1.04 3,791 1.75 1997 49 1.36 66 0.61 1,594 0.69 90 5.09 21 1.25 1,730 0.64 1998 146 1.47 161 0.23 77 1.52 228 2.08 480 0.72 863 0.55 1999 6 1.16 82 0.41 359 0.60 3,457 0.74 209 0.94 656 0.44 2000 113 0.81 264 0.77 110 0.45 71 0.78 2 0.76 490 0.47 2001 190 0.84 68 0.39 310 0.32 3 0.44 330 0.27 898 0.30 2002 4 3.35 44 0.40 269 0.33 124 1.88 2 0.83 319 0.28 2003 388 1.43 60 0.54 527 0.56 26 1.17 19 0.85 994 0.63 2004 163 0.64 53 0.36 232 0.46 237 0.74 402 1.13 850 0.57 2005 404 0.40 94 0.28 255 0.34 29 0.58 27 0.34 781 0.27 2006 79 0.83 78 9.73 191 0.66 268 1.10 25 0.78 373 2.08 2007 544 0.71 79 0.56 188 1.42 357 0.91 17 0.90 827 0.79 2008 159 0.42 74 0.29 539 0.56 1,669 0.50 6 0.80 778 0.40 2009 154 0.26 107 1.99 195 0.30 352 0.66 12 0.79 468 0.50 2010 135 0.19 61 0.16 132 0.20 107 0.32 1 0.59 329 0.15 2011 97 0.34 103 0.12 28 0.30 126 0.28 0 0.77 228 0.16 2012 174 0.24 77 0.16 249 0.31 92 0.30 1 0.55 500 0.21 2013 239 0.33 73 0.41 29 0.46 75 0.69 0 0.76 342 0.26 2014 84 0.14 63 0.19 30 0.25 77 0.44 1 0.39 177 0.11 2015 124 0.31 46 0.15 82 0.48 40 0.75 2 0.77 255 0.23

15 RH/S Annual Incidental Catch (mt) 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Total RH/S

Figure 2. Annual RH/S All Dominant Gears/Areas

RH/S Catch (mt) SMBT and Mid-Water Trawl 700.00

600.00

500.00

400.00

300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

SMBT Mid-Water Trawl (S&P)

Figure 3. RH/S Catch (mt) by Small Mesh Bottom Trawl (SMBT) and Mid-Water Trawl (Pair and Single)

16 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901 Phone: 302-674-2331 ǀ FAX: 302-674-5399 ǀ www.mafmc.org Michael P. Luisi, Chairman ǀ G. Warren Elliott, Vice Chairman Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director

MEMORANDUM

Date: 5/25/17

To: Council

From: Jason Didden

Subject: Squid Amendment Tab

Please find the following items to support final Council action on the Squid Amendment:

- Staff Recommendations - Public Hearing Summaries - Written Comments - Public Hearing Document

A running underlined page number in the bottom right hand corner has been added for referencing purposes.

An Advisory Panel meeting is scheduled for Friday, June 2, 2017. The results of that meeting will be forwarded to the Council as soon as possible.

Page 1 of 1

MEMORANDUM

Date: 5/25/17

To: Council

From: Jason Didden

Subject: Squid Amendment Staff Recommendations

After reviewing the available information and comments, Council staff’s recommendations for the Squid Amendment are described below.

Staff Recommends Longfin Limited Access Requalification: 1B - 1997-2015/10,000 pounds best year

Rationale: The 2016 Landings were 86% of the annual quota and the Trimester 2 fishery closed very early (June 27, 2016), demonstrating the potential problems of excessive/increasing participation creating a race to fish/derby fishing. Given 2015 landings were 53% of the total quota and 85% of Trimester 2, a further reduction in directed permits beyond 1B (i.e. more than 40%) would likely raise concerns about the resulting fleet’s ability to achieve Optimum Yield on an ongoing basis. If 1B is implemented and the resulting fleet has ongoing/frequent issues with early closures/derby fishing, the Council could consider a Tiered Limited Access system in the future. In addition, very few vessels would be impacted in terms of butterfish landings. Given the general intent and opportunity to rebuild a directed butterfish fishery, staff recommends that the current combined longfin squid/butterfish permit be separated, with all current moratorium vessels retaining their ability to target butterfish when the butterfish fishery is open.

Staff is neutral on Longfin Sub-Alternative 2B – Longfin Permit Swap

Rationale: Allowing entities with multiple vessels to swap a permit from a re-qualifying moratorium vessel to a linked non-requalifying moratorium vessel (subject to upgrade restrictions) will still result in elimination of a moratorium vessel and allow some mitigation of impacts for individuals holding multiple moratorium permits. The resulting fleet will be somewhat more active in the squid fishery than if 2B was not selected. If selected, the Council should specify that the business relationships linking multiple permits together should have existed prior to May 26, 2017, and should include some level of common ownership among vessels.

Page 1 of 3

Staff Recommends Longfin Sub-Alternative 2C – Guaranteed Limited Access Incidental Permit for non-requalifiers.

Rationale: If the Council establishes a limited access incidental permit (via 3B or 3C), 2C will provide that permit to non-requalifying moratorium permit holders and recognize their historic participation that originally qualified them for a moratorium permit.

Staff Recommends Incidental Limited Access Alternative 3C – 1997-2013/5,000 pounds best year

Rationale: There are currently about 1,400 incidental squid/butterfish permits. Given recent targeting at the incidental level, it appears reasonable to limit such access. A total of 5,000 pounds is only two incidental trips. If 3C was implemented it would result in approximately 325 qualifiers. In addition, 2C could add another 159 current but non-requalifying moratorium vessels to this number. If chosen, staff recommends a requirement that a vessel would also have had to possess a federal moratorium and/or incidental squid/butterfish permit at some point during 1997-2013 (a typical provision for limited access qualification).

Staff Recommends Alternative 3E – Make the open-access longfin squid incidental trip limit 500 pounds

Rationale: While average landings by vessels that would not qualify for an incidental permit are low (less than 100 pounds), a higher incidental trip limit will minimize regulatory discards. If landings under this trip limit become substantial, the limit could be reduced in the future.

Staff Recommends Alternative 4C - Reduce the maximum T1 to T2 rollover of longfin squid quota to 25% beyond the original T2 quota. The initial T2 quota in 2016 was approximately 8.4 million pounds- the maximum after rollover under 4C would be about 10.5 million pounds in T2;

Staff Recommends 4E - Implement a 500-pound trip limit for all longfin squid permits when the T2 quota is predicted to be reached.

Rationale (4C plus 4E): Available information suggests that some additional caution is warranted in Trimester 2 even though the “optimal” amount of Trimester 2 squid catch/effort cannot be determined. This information includes the negative relationship between effort and subsequent longfin landings per unit effort, complex longfin spawning behavior, the higher longfin squid egg mop bycatch in Trimester 2, and the apparent susceptibility of longfin squid eggs to premature hatching from mechanical disturbance in the late phases of development, with subsequent high post-hatching mortality (based on lab studies). An evaluation of fishery performance under any new measures should be undertaken after 2 years of implementation. While the dynamic nature of squid productivity makes it difficult to quantitatively determine how limiting catch/effort in Trimester 2 may impact future abundance, staff’s recommendation is informed by the precaution suggested by the Council’s Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management goal, “to manage for

Page 2 of 3

ecologically sustainable1 utilization of living marine resources while maintaining ecosystem productivity, structure, and function.”

Per a public comment and request from MADMF, staff recommends allowing trips with at least 5,000 pounds of whiting (combined red, white, silver) to possess up to 1,500 pounds of squid during Trimester 2 closures, and allowing trips with at least 10,000 pounds of whiting to possess up to 2,500 pounds of squid during Trimester 2 closures. Given the dual targeting of squid and whiting at times it is hard to disentangle bycatch from co-directing, but analysis of 2013-2015 whiting and squid landings in June-August suggest that a 500 pound Trimester 2 closure trip limit could cause additional regulatory discarding in the whiting fishery, and the above allowances would minimize such events. Staff will provide additional detail at the Council meeting.

Staff does not recommend Alternative 4F – Splitting Trimester 2 in half

Rationale: Splitting Trimester 2 may spread out squid effort/catch in time and space, which is generally preferred for a short-lived species. It may also increase squid availability for NJ participants during the late summer. However, this alternative could also extend impacts to spawning/eggs temporally, and closing an active squid fishery in the first half of the period risks not being able to catch the other half of the quota later in Trimester 2.

Staff Recommends 5A – No action on Illex permits.

Rationale: Given the very low recent Illex landings, removing potential participants would likely raise concerns about the resulting fleet’s ability to achieve Optimum Yield on an ongoing basis.

1 Ecologically sustainable utilization is defined as utilization that accommodates the needs of present and future generations, while maintaining the integrity, health, and diversity of the marine ecosystem. Page 3 of 3

MEMORANDUM

Date: 5/24/17

To: Council

From: Jason Didden

Subject: Squid Hearing Summaries and Comments

Nine hearings for the Squid Amendment were held from April 24, 2017 to May, 11, 2017 between Portland, Maine and Newport News, Virginia with one also available via webinar. The input of the public at each hearing is summarized below. Each hearing also included an overview presentation by Jason Didden (MAFMC staff) and question and answer periods. Attendees are listed along with any affiliation if provided. Some name spellings may be approximations depending on handwriting clarity.

Written comments were accepted from April 3 through May 18, 2017 and are included after the public hearing summaries.

1. April 24, 2017, 5:00 – 7:00 PM: The Greater Ocean City Chamber of Commerce, 12320 Ocean Gateway, Ocean City, MD21842, 410-213-0144.

Attendees: Howard King (Hearing Officer) Merritt Campbell Jr. (Southern Connections Seafood OC) Zack Greenberg (Pew Charitable Trusts) Purcie Bennett-Nickerson (Pew) George Topping (F/V Rita Diane) Wes Townsend (MAFMC) Josh O’Connor (NOAA) Jeff Eutsler (F/V Tony and Jan)

Summary:

George Topping: We already qualified so why do we have to re-qualify. We need the flexibility in case what we’re doing now takes a downturn. This is like what they did with scallops. Have the boats in New England been in it before? If yes then why do you want to take it away from them either? It sounds like just a few people want it all. Where does all this stop? How will you Page 1 of 19

get young people involved? I need to be able keep this as an option, and I’ve maintained my tracking device as required so I can keep my permit. Taking any more options away will put us out of business. What happens to small businesses that depend on these permits – this is another nail in our coffin. I support no action. People up north just want it all. Three licenses in Maryland aren’t going to hurt anything. While I strongly support no action, 2C should be selected if the Council does this. Wouldn’t it be better to have a larger mesh size than change the Trimester 2 quotas? How did the fishery go so far over given our reporting?

Jeff Eutsler:: Why in the world do you want to take a man’s permit from him especially when there’s no problem with the resource? I already lost my herring permit. I worked hard for my permits. We depend on every little bit. A few big guys just want everything. It’s not how the fishery was made. Just shut it down for everybody if you need to. 300 boats is nothing. There used to be 35 draggers in Ocean City and there’s just a few now. If you take that permit that’s my livelihood. I don’t have anything to fall back on. If I qualified why would you take it away? It would be like me taking your Masters degree away from you. We’ve just been doing other things for a few years to make a living and why would you take away my chance to make a living with squid if I need to? Is the fishery broken? If it is then shut it down totally. This will set a precedent and us little boats will be out of it. A boat with no permits is worthless. While I strongly support no action, 2C should be selected if the Council does this. While I prefer no action across the board, if you’re going to make me re-qualify, smaller boats (incidental) should have to qualify based on 3C (2,500) pounds and use 3E for open access. My son in law is learning fishing now and the boat needs it permits to be viable. If you give someone a quota let them catch it and close it when it’s caught if necessary (4D maybe).

Merritt Campbell Jr: There are 3 vessels potentially impacted in Ocean City/MD. If you went with the lowest threshold it would reduce our fleet from 3 to 2. I don’t want any taken away from Ocean City. This seems to be a fish grab by the large producers. In all sense of fairness our licenses should not be devalued. Business plans depend on the value of our licenses. I support no action for requalification. The government has an agenda to do away with latent licenses but latent licenses have no effort. I’m in favor of no action on behalf of the Maryland interests. While I strongly support no action, 2C should be selected if the Council moves forward.

Purcie Bennett-Nickerson (Pew): The fishery last year was concentrated in a small area that catches higher mops and I’m not surprised catches are down this year. There is also a bycatch concern for summer flounder and summer flounder depend 56% on longfin squid for prey south of Martha’s Vineyard. If not included an area closure should be frameworkable. If there’s no spawning closure you need to be serious about Trimester 2. We support 4B and 4D. They caught 6 million pounds on incidental trip limits last summer. The Council should consider squid’s role as forage given the Council’s new ecosystem policy.

Page 2 of 19

2. April 25, 2017, 5:00-7:00 PM: Holiday Inn by the Bay, 88 Spring St., Portland, ME04101, 207-775-2311.

Attendees: Howard King (Hearing Officer) Maggie Raymond Willie Viola Terry Alexander Allison Lorenc (Conservation Law Foundation (CLF))

Summary:

Terry Alexander: It’s a slippery slope to take away moratorium permits that people have qualified for in the past. I don’t know of any Council ever that has done that – and if this goes through none of our limited access permits will be safe. I’ve been against this action since I heard about it. If we’re gonna go down this road use 1B, the most liberal qualifying so most would re-qualify. Even 1B is a pretty good whack in terms of permits. People qualified or paid good money for permits and now you’re going to take it away?

Historically, the 383 boats that qualified for moratorium permits were fishing in similar areas, and the ~125 vessels active currently can’t be doing any more damage in Trimester 2 than the historically active vessels did back in the day. Does the observer data support that bycatch in Trimester 2 is a problem? What discards we do have are regulatory discards. I would support 4C, reducing the rollover and not support splitting the Trimester 2 quota because you never know if you’ll find the squid later.

Maggie Raymond: We paid a lot of money for larger vessels with squid permits and groundfish days at sea. I’m in the process of reactivating a squid permit and prefer no action for longfin squid or the most liberal requalification period. I don’t understand the rationale for the Council going forward given the fishery has generally only caught 50% of the quota recently – there is squid available for people to get into the fishery. You could increase the Trimester 2 quota if closures in that Trimester are an issue. It would be helpful to have all the historical motions that are relevant to this action in one place.

For Trimester 2, this is a lot of political stuff.

Willie Viola: If most fishermen recommend no action for longfin squid permitting will the Council go with no action? I prefer 1A, no action.

Allison Lorenc (CLF): We support a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach and have significant interest in this action due to longfin squid’s role as a critically-important forage species particularly off Nantucket. The area south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket is a known spawning ground and this action should include a spawning closure in that area and such a closure should be frameworkable. Due to the short lifespan of squid it is especially important to ensure sufficient recruitment from one season to the next and natural mortality is already high Page 3 of 19

and a closure could help avoid recruitment overfishing. 18 million pounds of squid were taken in Trimester 2 2016, much off Nantucket. Some fishermen are hitting squid hardest when they are aggerating inshore for spawning and most vulnerable, dragging up mops and pre-spawned squid. Lab studies shown that egg mops disturbed in late development die in 2-5 days. There is no rational justification for allowing fishing practices to disturb critical spawning phases. We believe fishermen telling you that concentrated inshore fishing can lead to localized depletion. That creates a problem for both natural predators who have difficulty locating prey and for fisherman who rely on abundant populations of those predators. Additionally bycatch is a major problem averaging 34% in Trimester 2 and a spawning closure could reduce/eliminate bycatch for some key species. If a spawning closure is not included the Council needs to limit catch in Trimester 2. We support Alternatives 4B and 4D. Excessive fishing needs to be avoided to protect productivity and allow for sufficient spawning. With this Amendment it’s time for the Council to execute its commitment to an ecosystem approach. (CLF also provided written comments).

THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK

Page 4 of 19

3. April 26, 2017, 5:00-7:00 PM: Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Annisquam River Marine Fisheries Station, 30 Emerson Ave, Gloucester, MA 01930, 978-282-0308.

Attendees: Howard King (Hearing Officer) Russ Sherman (boat owner) Tom Testaverde Katharine Deuel (Pew) Caleb Gilbert (NOAA) Jared Silva (MADMF) Erica Fuller (EJ) Chris Callahan Christine Sherman Alyson Pitts (NOAA)

Summary:

Tom Testaverde: I recommend no action (1A) on longfin squid requalifying or 1B at the most. I feel like you are just taking more and more away from the fishermen that could need it in the future. Closing squid to 250 or 500 pounds will cause regulatory discarding when whiting fishing so I recommend no action on changes to the closure trip limit. If you do lower it (which I’m not recommending), allow an exemption for vessels possessing at least 10,000 pounds of whiting. Has there been any thought of increasing the mesh size? We use 3-inch mesh and all of what comes on board is good squid.

Russ Sherman: It seems like rationalizing is inevitable but those that have participated should be left in the mix. My philosophy is to be inclusive. The little guy always seems to get his head chopped off. I qualify under all alternatives, but would prefer no action, 1A. I understand putting a mark on permits that have never been used. I don’t think heavy action should be taken against only incidental permits, so recommend status quo. They are not causing any problem. If you were going to do something in Trimester 2, go with 4C if you have to do something. It’s not as radical as completely eliminating the rollover and goes along with optimum yield.

Katharine Deuel (Pew): Squid is an important forage fish. According to NOAA squid represent 12.5% of cod diet in the NW Atlantic and 43% in the Gulf of Maine. We are concerned about the impact of trawl gear on pre-spawn squid and mops, and effects on future population of squid and support 4B (eliminate rollover). This will also help bycatch issues for summer flounder, striped bass, black seabass, and scup. We also support 4D to make Trimester 2 closures a real closure for directed fishing. We also support area closures south of Martha’s Vineyard/Nantucket and making those closures frameworkable.

Erica Fuller (Earth Justice): We support 4B and 4D for the reasons already given and we are concerned about localized depletion. All forage stocks should have some spawning protections. We don’t support any TAC above 8.4 million pounds in Trimester 2. The 2,500 pound post- closure trip limit allows directed fishing after the closure. We would also like the Council to find ways to increase observer coverage - for most other fisheries a discard rate like longfin squid has would be irresponsible. I hope that moving forward NEFOP won’t be the only kind of observer coverage for this fishery.

Page 5 of 19

4. May 2, 2017, 5:00-7:00 PM: Congress Hall, 200 Congress Place, Cape May, NJ 08204, 609-884-8421.

Attendees: Peter Hughes (Hearing Officer) Michelle Peabody (Blue Harvest) Eleanor Bochenek (Rutgers) Katie Almeida (Town Dock) Zack Greenberg (Pew) Brady Lybarger David Wiscott (F/V Susan L) Jack Burke (F/V Susan) Jake Wiscott (Marie III) Jeff Reichle (Lunds Fisheries) Wayne Reichle Harold Meyers (F/V Jessica Heather) Sam Martin (ACF) Greg DiDomenico

Summary:

Jeff Reichle: You have to define entity carefully for the permit swap option to determine connectivity. We support 1B or 1C – there has been plenty of notice with the multiple control dates. If we make a change in the Trimesters you could easily have a situation where you catch the whole quota. 400 permits is just too many. We want to include as many boats as we can but we can’t keep all the current permits. We’re totally against 1D and 1E…1E is ridiculous. Anyone who hasn’t squid fished each year will have a hard time qualifying. Shifting fish have made it hard to stay a mixed fishery vessel. Consolidation in other fisheries like scallops could create a bigger problem so some action is necessary…so we support 1B or 1C. I think we also need to go with either 3B or 3C or the issue we had in summer 2016 could get worse.

Greg DiDomenico: GSSA will submit written comments, but one thing we’ve tries to get across is that we’re looking to keep those who have been historically active in the fishery and there is no justification for moving historical vessels who built this fishery out of the fishery. Catching spawning squid doesn’t mean they haven’t spawned because they spawn over an extended time period.

Sam Martin: I agree with supporting flexibility – we would support 1B or 1C. We would support the permit swap 2B because we put so much capital in vessels and if you’re losing a vessel and can move the permit within the size criteria we’d be in support of moving it once to maintain flexibility. We realize you have to decide which fishery you’re in and you may lose it if you stay in one too long, but 1B/1C maintain some flexibility. We support 3B or 3C for limited access incidental permits. It seems like the Trimester 2 overage was from post-closure landings not the quota and I’d be more concerned that it never really shuts down and millions more pounds are caught, but we’re not in the Trimester 2 fishery. Overall no action on Trimester 2 issues but you Page 6 of 19

might need to refine what an incidental permit is. We recommend no action regarding Illex – they are not catching the quota and it is hard to enter this fishery.

Brady Lybarger: I could support 1B or 1C. There should be a limit to keep landings from getting too high after a Trimester 2 closure. I would support 3B and 3D. Limiting overages in Trimester 2 may smooth catch out throughout the year.

Michelle Peabody (Blue Harvest): We support no action for longfin permit changes since this is a lightly exploited fishery. If the Council does more forward with requalification we support 2B and 2C.

David Wiscott: I support 1A and maybe 1B. We shouldn’t be punished for trying to survive as a business and targeting what’s most profitable for a time and then having other permits taken away. Boats that have been in multiple fisheries but not squid for a while shouldn’t have their permits taken away. Is there a way we can set up a system to let squid achieve optimum biomass like scallops? If high-grading is going on after a Trimester 2 closure you are killing even more squid than you think - To me it makes more sense to give a little to maybe get a lot and perhaps even some of the spikes out.

Katie Almeida (Town Dock): We’ll be supporting most likely 1B or possible 1C and probably 2B and 2C. The summer fishery is super important to us and fishermen in Point Judith see 2016 as a freak event and we are supporting no action at this point, with revisiting this question if similar overages occur in the future.

THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK

Page 7 of 19

5. May 3, 2017, 5:00-7:00 PM: DoubleTree by Hilton Tinton Falls, 700 Hope Road, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724, 732-544-9300.

Attendees: Tom Baum (Hearing Officer) Zack Greenberg (Pew) Mike Besa (NJ Resident) Gary Stone (NJ Resident) Paul Eidman (Anglers Conservation Network) Jim Lovgren (FD Coop) Thomas Anderson (F/V Amber ???? FD Coop) Hans Myklebust (F/V Capt Capen Swaggy B) Michael Cuccia (Manasquan R. Tuna Club)

Summary:

Jim Lovgren: I support 1C, using the control date. I support the creation of a limited access incidental permit and moving the open access incidental to 500 pounds. In Pt. Pleasant we have not had much access to the fish for 7 years. 10,000 pounds is a fair threshold, only four 2,500 pound landings. I can see where the swap option could help a few participants. I support allowing non-requalifiers to get an incidental permit (2,500 pounds).

For Trimesters, I support no action for changing the rollover – when the squid show up you need to catch them. I support 4F, splitting the Trimesters, because it could allow NJ to have some access later in the summer. Limiting participants will partially solve the Trimester 2 issue. Need a minimum of 1,000 pounds post-closure to allow some access for historical NJ boats after closures in July/Aug.

New York is the main culprit in terms of state-only post-closure landings. I support 3C and 3E to limit post-closure landings. I don’t think that the aging data is right – we would be seeing egg mops offshore if there was a big spawn offshore to populate the inshore fishery.

I support 5A No action for Illex. They are nowhere near their quota.

Gary Stone: I support 1C – if you can’t show that much landings that’s pretty sad. I spend my summer in RI because there hasn’t been squid west since Hurricane Sandy. If you can’t show 10,000 pounds I don’t think you deserve to be squid fishing. Last year they said we’d catch squid in September but we only had a couple of trips before one “blow” ended things. Goundfish boats have been showing up out of nowhere squidding. I support 3C and 3E to limit post-closure landings.

For Trimesters, I support 4A no action for changing the rollover – there is plenty of bottom that doesn’t get touched and there are fewer squid participants now. A net with a lot of squid mops

Page 8 of 19

won’t fish and the squid have moved on, so we’ll move out of those areas or fish lightly with drop sweeps on our own. We don’t want to be bothered by mops either.

Tom Anderson: I agree 1C. I don’t want to get closed out of a fishery because they may be back here next year. With other cuts we’re running out of options. I support 3C and 3E to limit post- closure landings.

Hans Myklebust: I vote 1C also. It would be nice if squid showed up off NJ to be able to go for them. 10,000 pounds is fair. I support 3C and 3E to limit post-closure landings. 4A No action for trimester changes. I support 5A No action for Illex.

Mike Besa: My concern is squid spawning and I think you should eliminate the rollover (4B) and go with 4D because it’s hurting spawning.

THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK

Page 9 of 19

6. May 4, 2017, 6:00-8:00 PM: Webinar; a listening station was available at Virginia Marine Resources Commission, 2600 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor, Newport News, VA 23607, (757) 247– 2200.

Attendees: Rob O’Reilly (Hearing Officer) Lisa Bonnie Brady Purcie Bennet Nickerson Bonnie Brady Meghan Lapp Meade Amory Zack Greenberg Doug Christel Asa DK

Summary:

Mead Amory indicated via messages “We would prefer 1B to Longfin Requalification with 2B Alt and no to 2C idea.” “We would prefer 4A for Longfin T2.” “We prefer 5B for the Illex Squid Requalification.” He indicated he would provide additional written comments.

Meghan Lapp noted that the temporal analysis for connectivity between April-September and October-March does not necessarily align with the inshore vs. offshore fisheries.

THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK

Page 10 of 19

7. May 8, 2017, 5:00-8:00 PM: University of Rhode Island, Corless Auditorium, Watkins Building, 218 Ferry Rd., Narragansett, RI401-874-6222.

Attendees: Howard King (Hearing Officer) Meghan Lapp (Seafreeze) Jonathan Knight (Superior Trawl) Ryan Labriole (F/V Karen Elizabeth) Dale Stoutenburgh (SeaFresh) Katie Almeida (Town Dock) Robert Morris (Save Our Bay Can Chlorine) Steve Follett (F/V Heather Lynn) Donald Fox (F/V Lightning Bay) Walter Anoushian (NOAA) Conor McManus (RIDEM) Anthony Cherry (Pew) Sherman Butler (Fishery News) Eric Lundvall (F/V Estrella Domar) Brian Curry (MV Fisherman’s Preservation Trust)

Summary:

Don Fox, Lightning Bay: I would opt for 1B and I have no opinion on Alternative Set 2 now. The Trimester 2 limitation Alternatives are a knee jerk reaction to 2016, what we call Squidnado. I support no action for changes to Trimester 2. I support 5A, no action for changes to Illex permitting – it’s unnecessary.

Steve Follett: I go for 1B for longfin. I support no action for changes to Trimester 2. I support 5A, no action for changes to Illex permitting. They are not catching the quota and we’ve already had so many options taken away.

Robert Morris: I don’t think you need to do anything. They are not catching the quota. Why do we work on these when they are spawning? Can you move Trimester 3 quota in Trimesters 1 or 2? Your cutting small boats out of it. I support no action on any additional permit restrictions. Chlorine and habitat issues are the real problem that the Council should address. I support 5A, no action for changes to Illex permitting. It’s just about increasing the value of some permits.

Katie Almeida: Representing Town Dock, we are going to support 1B and will submit written comments. We support no action for changes to Trimester 2. 2016 was an anomaly. If it happens several more times then something would need to be done. Eliminating latent permits will also help reduce pressure on Trimester 2. We support 5A, no action for changes to Illex permitting.

Page 11 of 19

Meghan Lapp: Representing SeaFreeze, we support 1C because it protects historic participants and uses the control date. If you’re going to set a control date you should use it. The patterns in landings do not support that effort in one Trimester is negatively impacting landings in the next effort. Lab studies may not be a good indicator of what actually happens to disturbed squid in the wild. If longfin is going to requalify at 10,000 pounds, if Illex requalifies it should have a higher threshold because it’s a tonnage fishery.

Eric Lundvall: F/V Estrella Domar, I’m supporting 1C.

Several fisherman thought that there is not a strong correlation between landings/effort from one Trimester to another and the difference in timing between the statistical analysis and trimesters makes it of questionable value. Other factors like storms were cited as more likely to have an impact.

Brian Curry: A lot of concern about Trimester 2 came about because of the intense effort on spawning squid near Nantucket/Martha’s Vineyard. I recommend any alternative that would reduce pressure on Trimester 2.

Jonathan Knight: I support no action for changes to Trimester 2.

Ryan Labriole: I support no action for changes to Trimester 2. I support 5A, no action for changes to Illex permitting. I don’t see a need to take away options – there’s no quota being caught.

Eric Lundvall: I support no action for changes to Trimester 2. I support 5A, no action for changes to Illex permitting.

THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK

Page 12 of 19

8. May 9, 2017, 4:30 – 7:00 PM: Doubletree by Hilton Cape Cod – Hyannis, 287 Iyannough Rd., Hyannis, MA 02601, 508-771-1700.

Attendees: Howard King (Hearing Officer) Meghan Lapp (Seafreeze) Katie Almeida (TownDock) Jeff Carlson (Town of Nantucket) Morgan Callahan (PEW) Bill Duffy (NOAA) Chris Pistel Cate O’Keefe (MADMF) Jared Silva (MADMF) Jeannie Pau (Conservation Law Foundation) Pete Kaizer (MSB AP Member) Carl Bois Brian Curry (Stellwagen Bank Charters) Andrew Walsh (F/V Tradition) Patrick Skayne (F/V Sadie 5) Mort Terry Bob DeCosta (Albacore Charters) Cam Gammill (Billfish Tackle) Brian Borgeson (Absolute Sportfishing) Tobias Glidden (Nantucket Glidden Seafood) Dan Farnham (Bluewater Fish) Dan J. Farnham (Gabby G. Fisheries) Steplte White

Summary:

***12 Individuals supported 4B and 4D***

Andy Walsh: I prefer no action. On butterfish, what will happen if I don’t requalify based on squid and have substantial butterfish landings. It needs to be discussed further and evaluated. There should be additional consideration for butterfish. If the Council does anything besides no action then I support 2B. I support no action on changing Trimester 2 quotas because it can only go to less than a quarter of the total. This Amendment will address the issue of post-closure landings and I would support 4D or 4 E. I’m against splitting Trimester 2 because we may have two very short seasons when no one takes a day off, creating safety issues.

Brian Curry: You should separate the butterfish license so people can keep it – this Amendment was not designed to impact butterfish fishing. If the Council does anything besides no action

Page 13 of 19

then I support 2B. NOAA information indicates concern already about habitat impacts and mop disturbance.

Bob DeCosta: This fishery needs to be further controlled by selecting an action alternative for longfin squid requalification. I support 3C and 3E. I would wholeheartedly support 4B. Squid are spawning on the backside of Nantucket and that 15-19 million pounds came out of a very small area loaded with squid mops. These squid are there to spawn and need to be left alone so the eggs have a chance to hatch. When was the last time they caught the whole quota? Maybe the quota is unrealistic? They have not caught the quota since it was raised so maybe that biological information is incorrect. Trimester 2 needs to be a hard TAC with a 250-pound post- closure trip limit (4D and definitely no more than 500 pounds) after it closes to avoid ongoing directed fishing for the good of the fishery not just us. You can’t take it all out of one Trimester and one area – that’s not how the fishery was designed. The squid mops in our area are getting pummeled. If you want to catch more than 8.4 million pounds of squid do it somewhere else – it needs to be spread out. To raise Trimester 2 because of a quota that has never been caught is ludicrous. The majority of Trimester 2 has been caught out of one little area. We haven’t seen small squid in years but have seen much more local effort in the same time period. If you stick to the 8.4 million pounds and the fishery is like it was last year they’ll be done by the 15th of June and then squid can spawn successfully.

Dan Farnham: I support reducing the permits and will submit written comments on specific alternatives.

Brian Borgeson: If you had hard TACs I would support no action because you are just going to corporate boats by eliminating vessels. I don’t want to create regulatory discards with the post- closure trip limit – there should be some consideration of bycatch. I don’t want to see commercial guys get whacked. No other fisheries fail to hit their quota like squid.

Cam Gammill: You create a quota for a reason – you should stick to your rule/quota. I strongly support 4B and 4D to limit targeting after a closure.

Pete Kaizer: A split quota would continue negative impacts on squid mops for a longer period of time. Multiple scientists have stated that trawling will cause high egg mortality. I support 4B/4D. The Council originally set Trimester 2 knowing its importance for spawning and actually considered an even lower percentage. 4B/4D would go back to the original Trimester intent. It has been disturbing to us that we have not seen juvenile squid in several years.

Carl Bois: The reason why I was supporting 4B/4D is because it will give the mops some time to hatch.

John Haran: Representing Sector 13: We’re finding mops from Maine down to the mid-Atlantic and the State of Massachusetts is investigating squid mop viability after catch and we should wait for that science.

Page 14 of 19

Jeff Carlson: Speaking in my role working as Natural Resources Coordinator for the Town of Nantucket. I’m supporting 4B and 4D for the same reasons as others. There’s too many unknowns besides knowing that Trimester 2 is a major spawning event and that aggregate should be protected as much as possible until other science is in. That’s the most sensible action to take for the preservation of the fishery in the long term. If new science suggests there are no impacts we can adjust again later. Once it’s gone we’re not getting it back because the difficulty in the timing is too great.

Dan J. Farnham, Jr: I’m in favor of no action regarding Trimester 2. These are short lived species that will die shortly after spawning so we should be able to catch them when they’re there. I would be in favor of splitting the Trimester 2 quota to spread catch out and avoid gluts in the market. I believe that state limits should mirror federal limits during closures. I’m in favor of Illex requalification (5B) to remove latent permits. I’d be OK with 5A but understand the concerns of those who are dependent on the Illex fishery.

Jeannie Pau presented comments for the Conservation Law Foundation that were similar as presented at the Portland, ME meeting by CLF staff and in written comments by CLF supporting 4B and 4D.

Chris Pistel – in my charter operation I have also seen a lack of juvenile squid in the areas I fish (e.g. Monomy Shoals). Something has changed.

THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK

Page 15 of 19

9. May 11, 2017, 5:00-7:00 PM: Hyatt Place Long Island/East End, 431 East Main St., Riverhead, NY 11901, 631-208-0002.

Attendees: Laurie Nolan (Hearing Officer) Mark Phillips (F/V Illusion) Vic Vecchio (NOAA Fisheries) Mike Fallon (F/V Josephine) Bruce Beckwith (com. fisherman) Ryan Fallon (F/V Josephine) Paul Beckwith (com. fisherman) Jerry Wallace (F/V Nightmoves) Dave Aripotch (F/V Caitlin & Mairead) Norman Jamison (F/V Elizabeth) Bonnie Brady (LICFA) W Reed (F/V Providence) Hank Lackner (com. fisherman) Bob Makis (F/V Terri Sue) Richard Jones (Pontos Fisheries) John BergLin (F/V Mark Elizabeth) Arthur Kretchmer (com. fisherman) Katie Almeida (Town Dock) Donald Ball (com. fisherman) Scott Berglin Chuck Weimar (com. fisherman) Tara Froehlich (Cornell) Kevin Maguire (com. fisherman) John Davi (com. fisherman) Bill Grimm (Inlet Seafood) John Windels Michael Aur (com. fisherman) Charlie O’Connell John Maniscalco (NYSDEC)

Summary:

Room count for Alternative Set 1: 1A = 3; 1B = 1 , 1C = 0 ; 1D = 5; 1E = 13. Regarding Illex, 15 participants supported no action. 28 individuals supported no action for changes to Trimester 2; 1 person supported 4F only.

Dave Aripotch: Taking care of new entrants will take care of the Trimester 2 issues. I like 1E. Some of us have been squid boats all along and taken out of other species. We have squid, scup, and whiting. People don’t realize all of Carlos’s boats off Nantucket and those from Maine and New Hampshire that are entering like they are. I keep watching my permits get devalued. I’m working harder and harder to make ends meet. There were a lot of guys that were squidding last summer that were never squidding before. You have to limit it somewhat and eliminate those guys. Squid is all we have. Who’s controlling the show the processors? You have to do something meaningful. It’s fine for a guy to catch a carton or two but don’t throw the dedicated squid boats under the bus. Squid is becoming an escape valve for the sector guys. You should consider a Tiered system like the vessel participation chart in the document then everyone will be happy. I don’t want to be shut down in a few weeks again in the summer.

Don’t let boats swap (2B) it will just help the big guys/processors and add more scallop effort.

I’m worried that an incidental limited access permit group would demand a separate allocation. I’m against handing out new permits until all this is settled. Keep the current small boats but don’t add new. I’m for 3C and non-requalifying incidental boats should go to a zero trip limit.

Page 16 of 19

For Trimesters, I’m in favor of 4A – no changes – we should also not split it in case we have a chance to catch it.

Dogfish are like locusts and it’s getting worse each year offshore.

It should be investigated why Cholera Banks has not produced squid since Hurricane Sandy.

Hank Lackner: I couldn’t agree more with Dave (Aripotch). We’ve lost pretty much everything we had. We have to use the control date. Anything else shouldn’t be on the table. Back in the day a lot of us had groundfish and scallop permits and you had to make a choice. People should have to choose scallops or squid. I am 100% in favor of 1E – the rest don’t represent full time anything. We’re not all equal – we should set up Tiered access based on performance. Permits should not be all the same. Remember longfin squid and Illex are not the same and should be treated differently. Remember this is a fishery already at overcapacity – we caught the summer quota in 5 weeks. Maybe we should do something just for the summer.

For future reference, can you bin catch that came out of Nantucket so we know what was caught there in 2016? You have to look at 2016 if you’re looking at closed areas.

I’m not in favor of 2B but would support 2C - it seems fairest. 2B is just a way of circumventing/ cheating this process.

I’m worried that an incidental limited access permit group would demand a separate allocation. It should never be allocated its own TAC, and if we can’t ensure that then I’m against a new limited access permit.

For Illex, I support 5F because it’s a tonnage fishery.

Don Ball: I’m not in favor of 1E. I’d go with 1B. With the rollover, I’d like to see a trip limit in Trimester 2, I don’t want to go from unlimited to 250 pounds – a 30,000 pound trip limit would be good in Trimester 2. Don’t go below 2,500 pounds with the incidental.

Mark Phillips: I would support 1E – I don’t think it’s realistic because it won’t get past the Council. I’d go with 1C otherwise but would prefer to have a higher qualifier: 100,000 or 200,000 pounds…anything ending in 2013. Our biggest problem is the scallop boats because they have so much free time and so much money they can do whatever they want. I’ve watched the scallopers destroy fluke fishing, we had a nice thing with our fluke in VA/NC – the true fishermen got hurt. I’ve been bumped out of a lot of fisheries. With incidental permits, I don’t want to see another situation like with scallops where we create a new group who wants a bigger piece of the pie. Regarding Trimester 2, I’m in favor of 4A – no action. There was plenty of squid available in other places last summer – I had substantial catches on Georges Bank and was getting hauls of 200-300 pounds of squid with a 6.5 square inch bag. The marks I saw on George’s put everything around Nantucket to shame – you’d have been scared to tow very long with a squid rig. Page 17 of 19

John Davi: Why are you putting pressure on fisherman for a species that is so short lived? I support 1A, no requalification. They got boxed out of other fisheries and they’re doing the same thing to other guys. I understand their situation with more and more guys doing it there’s less to go around. I support 3E with a 500 pound open access permit to take care of some of the small guys. There could be a maximum catch for the group at 500-pounds, but don’t totally cut them out.

Bill Grimm: Why wasn’t a Tiered approach considered? Why are the qualifiers so low if you’re trying to address latent effort? The Council/NMFS encouraged us to go into squid because it was underutilized. Then they took groundfish and scallops away and now the scallopers are being let back in we have to concentrate on that – I prefer 1E. Why can’t we rollover squid if we don’t hit a winter quota? Regarding Trimester 2, what the statisticians aren’t looking at is since we stopped catching dogfish, it’s been impossible to fish offshore because it’s full of dogfish. Sometimes we just can’t fish. So people have gone scup fishing and the GRAs also make it difficult to access the squid grounds and that has impacted effort. The dogfish correlation is key to consider if you want to understand what you’re seeing. Squid are laying eggs in plenty of areas where we can’t or don’t fish.

Arthur Kretchmer: I prefer 1A.

Chuck Weimar: I would go for 1E. The Council should have been very aware in 2012 that there was a major shift in effort. Now we have all this extra effort and we depend on squid all the time. All the other fisheries and these low qualifiers are an insult to the people that have been squidding for 25 years. A lot of us developed the market. I’m opposed to the one-time swap to slide more permits in. I support 1E but think it should be higher. I’m not in favor of 2B – it’s never been an option before. How does this affect butterfish? With Trimester 2, you get years where Hurricanes drastically affect squid availability. If you delay quota access you may miss a lot of squid if they take off. We’ve been fishing this for many years and last year was the best year ever so we can’t be doing too much damage.

Bill Reed – I fish out of Shinnecock/Hampton Bays and you have them separate but it’s just one port. I’m in favor of 1E. 50,000 pounds is not a huge number but I think you should drop your 2 worst years in case your boat sank. I’d hate to have 2 dud years because a vessel sank count for qualifying. Last year the Trimester 2 quota was caught so quickly that by the time the squid were in our neck of the woods it was closed. They show up in early July. I’m in favor of 2C. Regarding Trimester 2 I’m in favor of 4F only, no other changes to Trimester 2. There’s no doubt there was a super heavy concentration of squid to the east last year. Once it closed and went to 2,500 pounds there wasn’t much effort there. With the egg mops, it’s a newer problem and we haven’t been given a chance to address it – I think if you give us a chance we can get our nets around/over the eggs – we’re asking for a fair chance to catch it cleaner first. Also, maybe mops are more resilient in the wild and the lab studies are not relevant in terms of their mortality from disturbance.

Victor M. – If you bought a boat in the middle of a qualification period, it’s not fair to average the years before you had the boat if they are zeros. I’d go with 1E if it wasn’t such a long time period or don’t count years before I acquired a vessel.

Page 18 of 19

John BergLin: 2B is opening up a can of worms, opening the door to splitting any other permits.

Charlie O’Connell: I’m a new boat owner. I think I’m for 3C. If you move us to 3D or 3E you’ve killed us. If we don’t get 2,500 pounds you’ve killed us in our first year. Take out new folks we don’t recognize.

Tom Pilsburg – I recommend 4A for Trimester 2 – this question should be moot because if we are getting rid of 40% of the permits and we should see what happens with that first.

THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK

Page 19 of 19

23 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE GREATER ATLANTIC REGIONAL FISHERIES OFFICE 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276

MAY 2 2 2017

Dr. Christopher M. Moore Executive Director Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street Suite 201 Dover, DE 19901

Dear Chris:

I offer the following comments for consideration by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council as it prepares to take final action on the squid capacity amendment at the June 7, 2017, meeting.

Before taking final action, I encourage the Council to more fully consider the potential interactions and consequences of the complete set of measures it might adopt. As I note below, I am concerned that some of the Council's decisions may require more consideration relative to the objectives of the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and the National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

The original qualification criteria for a limited access longfin/butterfish moratorium permit adopted by the Council in Amendment 5 to the FMP allowed vessels to qualify based on landings of longfin squid or butterfish during a 30-day period from August 1981-August 1993. Unlike Amendment 5, this action relies exclusively upon longfin landings to re-qualify existing longfin/butterfish moratorium permits. As a result, this action could void moratorium permits from some vessels that may have originally qualified with butterfish landings. Some of those vessels may have targeted butterfish since first issued the permit, particularly in the last year or two under higher butterfish quotas and an improving market for butterfish. Accordingly, a vessel could lose its ability to target butterfish because it does not have sufficient longfin squid landings to re-qualify under the proposed alternatives. This appears to be inconsistent with Objectives 2 and 3 of the FMP in that it could inhibit the growth of the domestic commercial butterfish fishery and would reduce the freedom and flexibility of vessels targeting butterfish. Further, the capacity issues driving the development of new limits on the number of longfin squid permits do not apply to butterfish considering recent landings trends and substantially higher quotas. Given these potential inconsistencies with the FMP's objectives in this action, the Council should more fully consider and evaluate ways to preserve opportunities for vessels to target and land butterfish. For example, the Council might separate the longfin and butterfish permit, leaving a stand-alone butterfish permit that is unaffected by this action, or change the butterfish possession limit for the squid/butterfish incidental permit.

24 As noted in the public hearing document, vessels likely to re-qualify under the proposed Illex requalification alternatives have the potential capacity to fully harvest available quotas based upon their best landing years. However, since peaking in 2004, the Illex fishery has not been able to fully harvest available quotas. Available data do not suggest that more vessels are entering the fishery in recent years, with participation in the fishery close to historic lows in 2016. The Council should ensure that it has a very clear rationale and supporting analysis for reducing the number of Illex permits through this action.

It is important to ensure that measures promote the safety of human life at sea. By eliminating quota rollover into Trimester 2, Alternative 4B may reduce opportunities for smaller vessels to fish inshore during the summer months, potentially resulting in some of these vessels fishing farther offshore during Trimesters 1 or 3. Similarly, by splitting the Trimester 2 quota in half, Alternative 4F may inadvertently enhance the existing potential for a derby fishery during Trimester 2 by creating two derby fisheries during years of high abundance. As you know, derby fisheries enhance concerns about vessel safety.

Finally, I strongly support measures that aim to help protect spawning squid, decrease negative impacts to egg mops, and reduce excessive bycatch of other species during Trimester 2. The combined effect of other alternatives proposed in this action, such as reducing latent longfin effort (Alternative 1) , creating a limited access incidental longfin permit (Alternatives 3B and C), and reducing longfin possession limits once the Trimester 2 quota is caught (Alternatives 3D and E and 4D and E), would likely achieve such protections during Trimester 2. I suggest that the Council consider how the combination of alternatives that the Council may select in this action would achieve both the FMP and action objectives outlined by the Council, including protecting spawning squid and egg mops and reducing the bycatch of other species, without resulting in other unintended consequences.

Thank you for considering these comments. My staff are available to discuss these comments with your staff, if you have questions regarding this letter.

Sincerely,

John K. Bullard Regional Administrator cc: Michael Luisi, Council Chairman

2 25 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (617) 626-1520 David E. Pierce, PhD Director fax (617) 626-1509 Charles D. Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lieutenant Governor Matthew A. Beaton May 18, 2017 Secretary George N. Peterson, Jr. Commissioner Dr. Christopher Moore, Executive Director Mary-Lee King Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council Deputy Commissioner

800 North State St., Suite 201 Dover, DE 19901

Dear Chris I would like to thank the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council for holding hearings in Massachusetts on the proposed Squid Capacity Amendment and for considering comments from our constituents and from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF). Longfin squid (squid) is an important marine fishery resource for the state. Over the past five years (2012-2016), the average ex-vessel value of squid landings in this state was over $2 million dollars. This is an important source of revenue for our fishermen, especially the trawlers and weir fishermen that rely on this spring and early summer fishery as an important piece of their annual fishing portfolio, and our seafood dealers who are responsible for processing and distributing this fish to consumers in Massachusetts and across the globe. Squid are also becoming an increasingly important recreational species taken with rod and reel, and the resource provides seasonal forage opportunities for numerous species that occur in our inshore waters.

Trimester 2 Longfin Squid Alternatives I begin this comment letter by focusing on the Trimester 2 Longfin Squid Alternatives proposed in this Amendment. Most Massachusetts landings occur in Trimester 2 when longfin squid are in state waters and nearshore federal waters. The federal management of the Trimester 2 fishery critically impacts Massachusetts fishermen and fishing industry. DMF has supported past Council and NMFS management actions by enacting regulations that complement federal trip limits. DMF also commented on these matters at last year’s September 13 Advisory Panel meeting in Warwick RI. With regards to the alternatives presented, DMF supports “trimming” the Trimester 2 fishery by reducing the potential for rollovers from Trimester 1 and enacting a substantial reduction in incidental the trip limit after the Trimester 2 quota is reached. DMF supports Alternatives 4C and 4E. Alternative 4C reduces the total amount of quota that may be rolled over from Trimester 1 to Trimester 2 from up to 50% of the Trimester 2 quota to up to 25%; and Alternative 4E reduces the incidental trip limit after the Trimester 2 quota is taken from 2,500 to 500 pounds. I request the Council analyze and consider an exemption to Alternative 4E based on public hearing testimony at one of the Massachusetts hearings. Multiple vessel owners who are active in the Cultivator Shoal whiting fishery requested maintaining the existing 2,500 pound incidental trip limit for the small-mesh exempted fishery on Cultivator Shoals. I believe this may

26 be appropriate if historic catches confirm there is a substantial bycatch of longfin squid. As this fishery occurs throughout the summer – including after the Trimester 2 longfin squid quota may have been taken – reducing their incidental limit may result in unnecessary discarding of squid. The Amendment states that the proposed Trimester 2 management proposals are being considered due to concerns that the “longfin squid stock may be negatively impacted by excessive effort in T2, which occurs on the inshore spawning grounds, does not allow sufficient spawning and/or hatching from egg mops.” This rationale is largely speculative and inconclusive. Squid are a semelparous, sub-annual species that exhibit complex spawning behavior and spawn across a large geographic area. Neither precise analysis exists demonstrating the density and distribution of squid egg mops in the inshore or nearshore waters, nor has there been a conclusive study that bottom trawling is having a negative impact on squid mops and eventual recruitment. In Massachusetts alone squid egg mops have been found by DMF’s spring and fall trawl surveys throughout all of our waters. This indicates that summertime inshore spawning is not localized within one discrete area, but likely occurs throughout much of the inshore waters of the northeast. Potential bottom trawl interactions with squid mops are limited in many of these areas because of existing regulations (e.g., area closures), the presence of fixed fishing gear, and un- towable bottom. Considering these factors and the continued success of this fishery, I conclude there is demonstrative anecdotal evidence that a sufficient amount of spawning occurs inshore despite Trimester 2 fishing pressure. Additionally, the Amendment indicates this fishing activity may cause recruitment failure and negatively impact wintertime offshore fishing opportunities. There is an obvious historic negative correlation between LPUE in the summertime fishery and LPUE in the wintertime fishery. However, the current underutilization of the available wintertime quota is likely not driven by Trimester 2 fishing activity. Table 6 in the Amendment demonstrates that the Trimester 1 and Trimester 3 quotas have been underutilized during most of the last 10 years despite substantial fluctuation in Trimester 2 landings. Moreover, the Council’s 2016 Longfin Squid Performance report indicates there are numerous factors – primarily driven by management and market – that are influencing wintertime squid fishing activity. Environmental factors may also contribute to underutilization of the winter quotas. Long-term trends in ocean warming may be altering the wintertime distribution of squid making them less aggregated on the shelf edge and thereby less catch-able to the offshore trawl fleet. I understand the controversy that has ensued in recent years with increased summer-time trawling and landings especially in waters south of the Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket (“the Islands”). It remains to be seen if this recent spike in effort is an anomaly or a continued trend. In 2016, the Trimester 2 fishery landed 18.7 million pounds of squid, the highest amount seen in the last decade. These 2016 landings exceeded the initial 8.4 million pound quota by 120% and the revised 12.6 million pound quota (accounting for Trimester 1 rollover) by 50%. There was continued directed fishing for longfin squid after the quota was filled with considerable effort concentrated in a band of near shore federal waters just south of the Islands. This exacerbated local concerns with numerous complaints about the biological and ecological impacts of the nearshore and inshore fishery and prompted substantial user group conflicts in Massachusetts. The continued directed fishing effort after the quota was closed was driven by two factors. First, a large abundance of squid remained available south of the Islands. Second, given the ex- vessel value of longfin squid, trawlers could profitably target this abundance under the 2,500-lbs. incidental trip limit during single-day trips. This continued fishing effort was in direct conflict with the purpose of the incidental trip limit which is to accommodate a bycatch.

27 By simply reducing the trip limit after the quota is taken to a level that does not incentivize directed fishing, management of the Trimester 2 fishery will improve, and the user group conflicts surrounding this fishery will be reduced. For these reasons, DMF strongly supports reducing the rollover potential from no more than 50% of the Trimester 2 quota to no more than 25% and the implementation of a 500-pound incidental trip limit once the Trimester 2 quota is taken. There is a reasonable biological basis for allowing some rollover from Trimester 1 to Trimester 2. Squid spawn year round and there are two major spawning cohorts: an offshore winter spawning cohort and an inshore summer spawning cohort. Those fish available in Trimester 2 include fish that could have been caught in Trimester 1. So, rolling over quota from Trimester 1 to Trimester 2 is reasonable and should not impact overall health of this quota- managed resource. However, the amount of quota being rolled over may be contributing to substantial user group conflicts. By reducing the amount of quota that may be rolled over from Trimester 1 to Trimester 2, these conflicts will be reduced without substantially impacting the commercial fishery. If the rollover is reduced to 25%, the maximum available quota for Trimester 2 will be 10.6 million pounds. This quota limit is consistent with Trimester 2 landings during most of the past 10-year time series. Maintaining some amount of rollover will also provide an added benefit. Historically, our inshore summertime fluke fishery opened in mid-June and stayed open past Labor Day weekend, allowing 10-plus weeks of fishing opportunities for inshore draggers and rod and reel fishermen. However, with the substantial reduction in our fluke quota over the past two years, we are projecting our fishery will only last 4-5 weeks in 2017. If the quota available to the Trimester 2 longfin squid fishery is unduly constrained by a rollover reduction and taken by early June, trawl fishermen may be displaced to the fluke fishery. This may result in our quota being taken earlier than anticipated, further impacting the fishermen who rely on this quota. DMF does not support Alternative 4F. Splitting the Trimester 2 quota is problematic. The squid fishery occurs at times and in places where and when a population of squid is densely aggregated; then fishing wanes as the squid catches decline or squid disperse. If the quota is split, there is a strong likelihood that the quota will not be utilized because the fleet may be forced to tie up for weeks resulting in unnecessary inefficiencies for the fleet. Furthermore, when the fishery would re-open, fishermen may not be able to re-locate the aggregations.

Longfin Squid Permit Requalification DMF strongly prefers proposed Alternatives 1A and 3A. We neither support any of the proposed longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit requalification measures, nor do we support any measure to limit access to the incidental longfin squid permit. The Council should maintain status quo federal permitting regulations for these fisheries. The Amendment indicates that the permitting measures are being proposed because, “there is considerable latent effort” and the “activation of latent permits in the squid fisheries could lead to excessive fishing effort in a shortened season…as well as increased catch of non-target species if racing to fish continues.” This rationale is insufficient to take such severe actions to limit access to the longfin squid fishery. The longfin squid quota is underutilized and has been for 20 years. While there has been an uptick in participation in recent years, this is likely driven by anomalous conditions whereby there are large near-shore abundances of squid. I do not believe this is a harbinger of large-scale activation of latent effort, but rather a limited response to near-shore availability. Additionally,

28 this increase in activity only brings us back to participation levels similar to the late 1990s and early 2000s (a period when the quota was still largely underutilized). The first management objective for this fishery, as described in the FMP, is to enhance the probability of successful recruitment. The most recent stock assessment indicates that longfin squid are not overfished and the stock is considered to be “lightly exploited.” Moreover, landings data demonstrate that the annual quota set based on this stock assessment has not been taken in the past 10 years. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the management system is providing successful recruitment opportunities. The subsequent management objectives in the FMP are to promote the growth of the US commercial fishery and provide freedom and flexibility to all harvesters. The proposed permitting measures are inconsistent with these management objectives. Such severe reductions in the number of permits held should only be pursued if there is a clear biological need to reduce capacity and potential effort. For longfin squid, this impetus does not exist. Our fishermen need the flexibility to be able to move between fisheries and target species when they are abundant and healthy. The flexibility to move between fisheries ensures that these businesses and the shore-side infrastructure supporting them can survive when other stocks need to be rebuilt. Additionally, moratorium permits are sold as packages and requalification would impact the value of permit portfolios. These requalification proposals substantially disadvantage a segment of active permit holders by limiting their flexibility and their permit portfolio value and are being proposed without sufficient biological cause. Moreover, I am especially concerned that Massachusetts fishermen are disproportionately affected by the moratorium requalification proposal, particularly compared to other states with a similar sized permit holder population. Under the most liberal moratorium permit requalification proposal (1B), Massachusetts would lose approximately 50% of its active moratorium squid permits (33 of the state’s 67 moratorium squid permits would be eliminated). The most conservative is even more extreme; only 12 permit holders would remain in Massachusetts, accounting for an 82% loss of active permits. However, under the most conservative requalification proposal (1E), Rhode Island only losses 32% of its active permits, less than we would under the most liberal proposal (1B), and New York only losses 50% of its active permits, about the same as Massachusetts under the most liberal proposal (1B). I also note that the moratorium permit is a dual longfin squid and butterfish permit. However, butterfish landings are not being utilized as a requalification criterion. Despite having butterfish landings, some vessels would lose access to both resources under the requalification proposals. The Amendment indicates that under the most conservative requalification proposal (1E) 101 of the non-requalifying vessels had butterfish landings with 32 having more than 10,000 pounds (2014-2016) and under the most liberal option 17 of the non-requalifying vessels had butterfish landings with four (4) having more than 10,000 pounds during this time series (2014- 2016). While the Amendment provides a cursory analysis, we do not believe this has been given appropriate attention by the Council and should be further considered before any action is taken. Despite our strong objections to the requalification of the moratorium permit, we recognize that the Council is considering action. We advise that if the Council does take action to limit permit access, you take a tempered approach. If any requalification alternative is selected, we strongly support the Council also adopt alternatives 2B and 2C. Under requalification, this will provide the most flexibility and access to historic squid harvesters. Our concern regarding the need for biological impetus to prompt this type of management action also applies to the Council’s proposals to establish the incidental permit as a moratorium permit. The incidental permit was designed to allow vessels to retain a reasonable quantity of longfin squid taken as a bycatch in other small-mesh fisheries. Limiting access to this permit not

29 only limits the ability of certain vessels to land this bycatch, it encourages the regulatory discarding of a healthy stock. If there are concerns regarding the catching of quota by vessels participating in a directed squid fishery under the authority of an incidental permit, then there are alternative management measures that may be implemented to address this (e.g., limits, proportion of catch). If the incidental permit is made limited entry, DMF would advise the Council to also approve an open access limit at 500 pounds (Alternative 3E). This limit is nominal enough to sufficiently limit directed fishing and will allow for vessels without a moratorium or incidental permit to land some quantity of squid that may be taken as a bycatch. Whatever open access trip limit is adopted it should be consistent with the trip limit for Trimester 2 once the quota is taken. DMF also supports keeping the incidental limit at 2,500 pounds when a trimester is open. Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely yours,

David E. Pierce, PhD Director

cc: Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission George E. Peterson, Jr. Daniel McKiernan Jared Silva Melanie Griffin Catherine O’Keefe

30 To who it may concern,

I am opposed to converting the squid management plan, or ANY additional fishery management plans, to limited access fisheries. This has already been proven (with groundfish and scallop) to make a handful of stakeholders very well off, while leaving the majority of fishermen and any new entrants to the fishery at the mercy of market conditions that should not be part of this business. The limited access management approach is not justifiable; it causes excessive and unnecessary financial burden on most fishermen, particularly in a fishery which is already robust. In my opinion, as an owner operator who fishes in multiple fisheries, going to limited access hurts small businesses and provides no more protection for the species for which they are developed to protect. Sincerely, Jason Amaru FV Joanne A III Cape Cod

31 32

-----Original Message----- From: Dave Aripotch [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:57 PM To: Squid Cc: Brady, Bonnie Subject: Squid Capacity Amendment

Mr Jason Didden,

I would like to comment on the squid amendment. I am a full time long fin squid fisherman,and have been since 1985. Before that I fished for squid with my 35 foot dragger out of Montauk, and participated in the early joint ventures for long fin squid. I want to see at a minimum alternative 1E for the requalification of long fin squid permits. I actually feel the number should be much higher,like 100000 lbs or more per year. Maybe an alternative to this could be a tiered system , and add a multiplying factor in as was done with sea scallop IFQ. So the longer you participated in the fishery,the more access you would have in the future. as a full time squid fisherman, it seems to me that squid is seen as a pressure relief for other fisheries. this is not fair to long time squid fishermen such as myself and most of the bigger draggers in Montauk. The reality of the 50000 lb criteria is that thats 20 x 2500 lb trips. Pretty unfair to the full-time long time squid fishermen. There are obviously a lot of displaced ground fish vessels looking to go squid fishing now that they are out of business because of catch scams. Don’t forget, these were a lot of the same boats that screwed the Southern New England and Mid Atlantic Groundfish boats out of that fishery. Its criminal that they now feel like they want my fishery! As far as requalification of Longfin Incidental and Open Access , I support alternative 3 C. ITs not right that people are allowed to take the permit off the boat during times of a closure to participate in an unlimited state watewr squid fishery. If they want the federal squid permit,they live by the federal rules. State boats is a different matter. I don’t have a problem with state boats being allowed to participate in the state fishery, but if they have the squid permit on the boat,it should stay on throughout the year.

Alternative set 4 ) I support alternative 4A. If the latent effort, and Johny come lately problem is addressed, this will not be an issue. I actually do not think this is or ever was a problem,but because of the added effort last June south of the Vineyard and Nantucket, It was deemed to be a problem. We’ve been towing on those beaches for squid since the min 70s ,and it would stand to reason that this has had little to no detrimental effect to the Longfin Squid population.

Alternative Set 5 ) i don’t have an Illex permit, but I know some of the boats that do. They should be protected. Maybe a tiered system, or a multiplying factor. The longer you’ve done it , the more access you have.

Thank You for taking my comments on this squid amendment. I know everyone feels like there losing, but please think of the long term squid fishermen. We were told to stay away from ground fish. We were told to invest because long fin squid was an underutilized species. Please give my comments some consideration. Thank You, Dave Aripotch , Fishing Vessel Caitlin & Mairead, Federal Fisheries Permit # 321025 , P.O Box 1036,Montauk,New York, 11954

33 RE: Written comments on the Squid Amendment- Measures to Reduce Latent Squid Fishery Permits and Modify Trimester 2 Longfin Squid Management

To MAFMC Council members,

My name is Don Ball. I have been the Captain and Owner of a 45' commercial fishing vessel for over forty years out of Montauk, NY.

• I fish over 200 days a year, along with 15-20 other boats who fish this same way. We are what’s known as “The Day Boat Fleet”. We make day trips and unload our catch daily. • I am not a big squid player, BUT squid is big for me. • I feel we should keep the number of permitted vessels in check. We need to stop non traditional squid boats from entering this fishery. I support the idea of addressing latent effort.

I support Alternative 1C - 1997-2013/10,000 pounds best year . This alternative includes the control date of 2013 and thirteen years of landings. This alternative allows the traditional active squid permit holders to continue fishing for squid, while addressing latent effort and removing 44% of latent permits.

I support Alternative 2C - Automatic Incidental for Non-requalifiers. This alternative allows some landings to continue for those who did not not qualify, and will reduce possible discards.

I support Alternative 4F - Split T2 in half. I support Alternative 5A - No Action - No changes would be made to the Illex moratorium permits.

What is going to happen to our Butterfish permits? That is equally important to me. I catch both longfin squid and butterfish at the same time.

In closing, please consider the livelihoods of most of the fisherman, not just a handful of bigger players with bigger mouths.

Thank you,

Don Ball F/V Kammy B Montauk, NY

34 To MAFMC Council members,

My name is Paul J Beckwith, I am a commercial fisherman out of Montauk,NY.

I support Alternative 1C-1997-2013 10,000 pounds best year. I feel that this will adequately address the latent permits without adversely affecting active permit holders that use their permits.I think the council also needs to take into account that butterfish landings will not count and that permits that do not re qualify will also loose their permit to land butterfish even though they might have substantial landings.I feel this is unfair since it is a squid/butterfish permit. I support Alternative 2C-automatic incidental for non-requalifiers. I support Alternative 4F-Split T2 in half,I think this will keep the entire T2 quota from being landed in a short period of time and not allowing permit holders from all geographic areas a chance to utilize the resource. I also support Alternative 5A-no action.

Thank You, Paul J Beckwith F/V ALLISON & LISA Montauk,NY

35 My name is Bruce Beckwith. I own and operate the FV Allison & Lisa out of Montauk, NY. I fish with my son and have nine grandsons who might want to fish and squid fish in the future. I have fished my whole life. I started fish dragging in Montauk in the early 1960's with my uncle. My family has fished in Montauk for multiple generations. I would like to comment on the squid amendment. I feel that since the current coast wide quota on squid has not been harvested in recent history. I see no reason to eliminate any current moratorium squid permit holders. As long as any permit holder can qualify for alternative 1C I feel this alternative is sufficient to reduce latent effort in the squid fishery at this time. I would also like to comment on alternative 4-F split T-2. I would choose this alternative so that the squid fishery south of Long Island will not be closed early do to high catch volume of squid in early spring. My moratorium squid, butter fish and all state and Federal permits are very important to me and my son and family. 25-30 % of my income comes from squid fishing. I am not concerned with the current or future monetary value of my permits at this time. Only the value that they allow me to continue my way of life and to support myself and my family. I would like my son and grandsons to be able to fish in the future and pursue the fishing way of life. and to continue their heritage. You cannot put a price on that. I would ask the council to use cautious consideration in its decision on this amendment and any other future Federal Fisheries regulations or new qualifiers. Your decision could have a devastating effect on those fishermen who don't have the access to year round squid fishing,

Sincerely, Bruce Beckwith Owner/operator FV Allison & Lisa

May 18, 2017

By Electronic Mail

Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201 Dover, DE 19901

Re: Squid Amendment Comments

Dear Dr. Moore:

The Conservation Law Foundation appreciates this opportunity to comment on the forthcoming Squid Amendment to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (“FMP”) (“Squid Amendment”). Squid are a vital part of the New England marine ecosystem, serving as forage for many valuable commercial fish species as well as marine mammals and diving birds.

As part of this Amendment process, we urge the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (“Council”) to reevaluate the management of longfin squid in Trimester 2 (May-August) due to concerns about the productivity of the stock in light of excessive fishing pressure from commercial inshore trawl vessels in spawning areas. Specifically we urge the Council to:

1) select alternative 4B to eliminate roll-over of longfin squid quota from Trimester 1 to Trimester 2 (all uncaught Trimester 1 quota would go to Trimester 3); 2) select alternative 4D to implement a 250-pound trip limit for all longfin squid permits when Trimester 2 closes; and 3) adopt a 12-mile (based on 10-minute squares) longfin squid spawning closure south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket during Trimester 2. If this closure is not adopted as part of the Squid Amendment, the Council should initiate a trailing action to establish time-area management during squid spawning.

A. Better Trimester 2 Management of Longfin Squid Stocks is Necessary to Protect Vulnerable Spawning Populations.

Longfin squid play an important role in the ecosystem as both predator and prey. For example, they are prey for and attract recreational fishery species such sea bass, flounder, and

37 Conservation Law Foundation

bluefish.1 They are also the basis of local baitfish industries, which sell forage fish to recreational fishermen. Squid live less than a year and gather inshore to spawn throughout the summer months (Trimester 2) where they lay eggs in masses called “mops.”2

Currently, the longfin squid fishery allows commercial inshore trawling, resulting in catch of both squid that have not yet spawned and egg mops during Trimester 2. In addition, the FMP allows for the rollover of excess Trimester 1 quota into Trimester 2, and an incidental possession limit of 2500 pounds during Trimester 2, which put further fishing pressure on vulnerable spawning squid populations. Commercial trawling vessels also employ nets with small mesh sizes, which have a high volume of bycatch.3

B. Current Trimester 2 Management Is Not Consistent with the Objectives of the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish FMP.

There must be an amendment to the Trimester 2 management of longfin squid because current management is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the FMP.

Objective 1 of the FMP is to enhance the probability of successful recruitment to the fisheries.4 Yet, instead of protecting the spawning areas during spawning season, current Trimester 2 management allows trawling in sensitive areas during crucial periods for reproduction. The Council has estimated that from 2007 to 2015, squid mops accounted for 0.3% of the total catch in Trimester 2, which means that an average of 26,809 pounds of eggs were removed each year from the ecosystem.5 This estimate does not reflect the total negative impact on the eggs as additional mops are likely damaged by trawlers as they move across the ocean floor. Lab studies have shown that disturbances as minor as a strong current result in premature hatching and low hatchling survival rates.6 Not only does the trawling remove and damage eggs but also it risks removing squid that have not finished spawning, further decreasing the probability of successful recruitment.

1 US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NMFS-NE-193 Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Longfin Inshore Squid, Loligo pealeii, Life History and Habitat Characteristics 2 (2d ed. 2005). 2 Id. at 2-3. 3 National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Sustainable Fisheries, Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Information Sheet (2016). 4 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAMFC), Amendment 16 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan 43 (2016), available at https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/2016/September/16msbamend16ea.pdf [hereinafter Amendment 16]. 5 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAMFC), Measures to Reduce Latent Squid Fishery Permits and Modify Trimester 2 Longfin Squid Management: Public Hearing Document – April 2017 55 (2017) [hereinafter Public Hearing Document]. 6 E.A.G. Vidal, F.P. DiMarco, J.H. Wormuth, & P.G. Lee, Optimizing Rearing Conditions of Hatchling Loliginid Squid, 140 Mar. Biol. 117 (2002); Public Hearing Document, supra note 5, at 42-43.

38 Conservation Law Foundation

Current management is also inconsistent with FMP Objective 4: Provide marine recreational fishing opportunities, recognizing the contribution of recreational fishing to the national economy,7 and Objective 6: Minimize harvesting conflicts among U.S. commercial, U.S. recreational, and foreign fishermen.8 Inshore commercial trawling has detrimental effects on local recreational fisheries in several ways. First, the bycatch often consists of important recreational fish species, and removal of these recreationally valuable species reduces the value rather than promoting the value of the recreational fishery. Secondly, inshore trawling vessels remove longfin squid from the area, which in turn, has detrimental impacts on predator species. Without prey species such as the longfin squid to attract predatory game fish, the recreational fishery will also fail to attract recreational fishermen. Local baitfish industries suffer, as well, when they are no longer able to catch the same abundance and volume of longfin squid. These are especially significant concerns in light of the recreational fishery’s annual $1.3 billion contribution to the New England economy.9 While it may be efficient for the draggers to trawl inshore during Trimester 2, it is not necessary to their ability to prosecute their fishery successfully. The same can not be said for place-based recreational fisheries south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.

C. Current Trimester 2 Management Is Not Consistent with the Council’s Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Policy.

The Council adopted the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (“EAFM”) Guidance Document in 2016, which aims to move beyond single-species assessment and towards management frameworks that incorporate ecosystem considerations.10 Through the EAFM Guidance Document, the Council adopted a policy to “support the maintenance of an adequate forage base in the Mid-Atlantic to ensure ecosystem productivity, structure and function and to support sustainable fishing communities.”11

Studies on forage species suggest that monitoring and responding to recruitment declines is crucial to maintaining healthy forage stocks, and that more conservative management should be used because of the “important role [forage species] play in the transfer of energy in marine food webs.”12 Current Trimester 2 management of the longfin squid, a key forage species, fails to monitor and anticipate recruitment declines, particularly as the rollover quotas and high incidental possession limits encourage increased fishing pressure on squid during their spawning season.

7 Amendment 16, supra note 4, at 44. 8 Id. 9 US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries Economics of the United States 2014 71 (2014). 10 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Guidance Document 4 (2016). 11 Id. at 5-6. 12 Id. at 6.

39 Conservation Law Foundation

D. Current Trimester 2 Management is Not Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Each FMP that the Council implements must comply with the 10 National Standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (“MSA”).13 Current Trimester 2 management fails to comply with National Standards 6 and 9.

First, current management fails to meet National Standard 6, which requires the FMP to take into account and allow for variations among and contingencies in fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.14 Longfin squid are particularly susceptible to changing environmental conditions, and populations fluctuate accordingly. The 2010 Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop assessment of the longfin squid stock suggested that the current approach to setting quotas may fail to protect the stock in periods of low productivity. A better approach would be to enforce adequate spawner escapement from each seasonal fishery to ensure sufficient recruitment.15

However, current Trimester 2 management not only threatens successful recruitment in subsequent seasons by allowing inshore trawling but also risks overharvesting the stock in periods of low productivity by permitting rollover of quota into Trimester 2 and a high incidental possession limit. These management practices fail to adequately account for variations in stock productivity, which may fluctuate based on uncontrollable environmental conditions. Again, the current practices seem more driven by convenience and efficiency than necessity. Too much is at stake with this critical forage species to support taking such risk-prone management approaches at that critical time of year.

Current management also fails to comply with National Standard 9, which requires the FMP to minimize bycatch.16 The permitted mesh net sizes of the commercial trawling vessels in the longfin squid fishery is 1.75 inches, which captures many other species besides the targeted squid. Since 2007, more than one-third of the total catch on average has been consistently thrown back into the ocean, unlikely to survive.17 Commercial trawling has negative impacts not only on the longfin squid stock but also on non-target species and certainly looks to be one of the dirtier fisheries in New England. Attention needs to be immediately turned to reducing this unacceptable bycatch.

13 16 U.S.C. § 1851. 14 Id. 15 Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Reference Document 11-01, 51st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (51st SAW): Assessment Summary Report 34 (2010). 16 16 U.S.C. § 1851. 17 Public Hearing Document, supra note 5, at 50.

40 Conservation Law Foundation

E. Recommendations

To address the FMP inadequacies described above, we strongly urge the Council to incorporate the following three elements into its final decision on the Squid Amendment: eliminating quota rollover into Trimester 2 (Alternative 4B), reducing the incidental possession limit to 250 pounds (Alternative 4D), and adopting an inshore spawning closure.

i. The Council should adopt Alternative 4B: Eliminate roll-over of longfin squid quota from Trimester 1 to Trimester 2 (all un-caught Trimester 1 quota would go to Trimester 3)18 and Alternative 4D: Implement a 250-pound trip limit for all longfin squid permits with higher initial trip limits when the Trimester 2 quota is predicted to be reached.19

The current quota rollover and incidental possession rules were used in 2016 to increase the specified Trimester 2 quota of around 8 million pounds to 18 million pounds in landings—more than double the original specified quota.20 These alternatives Conservation Law Foundation urges the Council to adopt will reduce fishing pressure and ensure that landings more accurately reflect the Trimester 2 quota set by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They will also protect the longfin squid forage stock particularly in periods of low productivity, maintain or increase productivity for future use and benefit, and enhance recreational fisheries in the summer without reducing the overall annual quota, all of which are goals of an effective ecosystem-based fishery management approach.

ii. The Council should implement a Longfin Squid Spawning Closure Area within 12 miles from shore.

Creating a spatial and temporal closure for longfin squid south of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard during Trimester 2 is necessary and beneficial for the species. This location is particularly vulnerable because: 1) large groups of longfin squid gather inshore to spawn,21 2) a significant proportion of squid is caught inshore during Trimester 2,22 and 3) the area has traditionally been a favored destination for recreational fishers, who have no adverse impacts on the squid population, spawning activity, or squid mop development. An inshore closure would increase successful recruitment and increase the localized abundance of squid. This, in turn, will attract predatory game fish, enhance the recreational fishery, and maintain a healthy stock without reducing the overall Trimester 2 or annual quota for longfin squid.

* * * *

18 Id. at 18. 19 Id. 20 Id. at 34. 21 US Department of Commerce, supra note 1, at 25. 22 Lisa Hendrickson, Briefing Document at 7-11, available at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/57d05a5cd2b8579f7b325373/1473272416569/ LHendricksonDocs.pdf.

41 Conservation Law Foundation

Conservation Law Foundation urges the Council to continue its commitment to ecosystem- based management of the longfin squid fishery. The longfin squid’s susceptibility to variations in environmental conditions further highlights the need for the Council to take conservative measures that protect the resource for the long-term use and benefit of all stakeholders involved.

For the foregoing reasons, Conservation Law Foundation strongly encourages the Council to select Alternatives 4B and 4D when it takes its final action on the Squid Amendment, and to adopt a squid spawning closure south of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard in Trimester 2. This management approach would be consistent with the MSA, the Council’s EAFM Guidance Document, and the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments

Sincerely,

MEGAN M. HERZOG Staff Attorney (617) 850-1727 [email protected]

42 In reference to the new squid amendment proposal I would like to suggest a no action alternative at this time. Although I believe I would qualify under almost all of the options I don't understand why this amendment is needed at this time considering that the yearly quota has not been exceeded for as long as I can remember. As for latent permits fishermen need as many permits as are available to them as NMFS and the Mid Atlantic Council continue to cut quotas for no apparent reason it gives them options to keep the business going. Fishermen pay large amounts of money to get these permits only to find out that they will be stripped of them. I know first hand about this as my general category scallop and herring permit were both taken from me for not meeting new amendment criteria

John Curzake

43 It is time for state and federal fisheries management officials to open their eyes to managing fish stocks through protecting forage. Its so stupid to let mackerel squid and herring be harvested at the levels they are when you are trying to rebuild a stock. In the case of squid, the draggers since the 70’s have taken advantage of lax and underfunded marine law enforcement and routinely go way inshore (off Osterville, Centerville and Hyannis and rape the resource. This damages the squid eggs. Please smarten up and do the right thing. Protect our forage.

Todd Eadie F/V Blue Sky 375 Chestnut St Hudson, Ma. 01749 508-314-5534

COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY CAPT. PAUL EIDMAN [email protected] TINTON FALLS NJ 07753 732 614 3373

2017 COMMENTS FOR SQUID MEETING TINTON FALLS (MAY 3RD 2017)

1. Squid are very important forage to many species that matter to me and the State of NJ like Striped Bass and Bluefish including ones you might not think of like summer flounder. A healthy abundant squid population is critical to Atlantic economies and ecosystems. We need to leave enough in the water to ensure healthy populations for future generations.

2. In recent years, there has been an increase on squid fishing during summer spawning. Fact: over 18 million pounds of squid were caught last summer during the spawning season. A lot of that catch is occurring in southern New England, within 10 miles of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard. I am concerned this escalation may not be sustainable, because squid are being targeted before they have reproduced and trawling is occurring over their egg mops on the ocean floor.

I'm also very concerned about bycatch, since a nearly a third of what is caught is being tossed overboard dead – including species I care about like striped bass, American Shad, Alewife and Blueback herring, and more. So, we are both taking the food from and directly killing migratory predators that matter to me in NJ.

3. For these and other reasons, I support a summer closure south of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard to protect the resource and reduce bycatch of key species, while still allowing industry to catch their full quota. This is about common sense management. I understand the buffer zone was removed from the Amendment, but the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council should make sure they can still add it in later if they want.

4. At the very least the Council needs to get serious about limiting squid fishing while they are spawning. I support Alternative 4B because there shouldn’t be rollover of quota into the spawning season and Alternative 4D to implement a 250-pound trip limit after they hit the quota. Limiting catch during spawning and when there are important species being taken as bycatch is important for securing the future of the United States and the State of NJ seafood and fishing.

Thank you for your consideration, Paul

45 Gabby G Fisheries Inc. PO Box 2242 Montauk, NY 11954

05/17/2017

Dr. Christopher Moore Executive Director, MAFMA 800 North State Street, Suite 201 Dover, DE 19901

To Whom It May Concern,

This letter is in regards to the MAFMC request for comment on the proposed Squid Amendment to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. I am writing on behalf of Gabby G Fisheries, the owner of the fishing vessel Gabby G a 105ft trawler that employs 12 people and is active in the longfin squid, illex squid, scup and whiting fisheries in Mid-Atlantic and Southern New England waters.

The reduction of capacity in the longfin squid fishery is necessary in order to prevent the overexploitation of the stock and early closures that was experienced in 2016. This should be done with a requalification that would remove latent and newly active permits from the fishery. I believe that this fishery would be best managed under a tiered system because there are two different sectors in this fishery, the high volume offshore fleet and the lower volume inshore fleet. A tiered approach would have allowed for the lower initial requalification criteria so as not to cut out the smaller scale inshore fleet and held them to a lower trip limit. This system would also have prevented a marginally active boat from exponentially increasing effort as is the case of several boats with fewer than 10,000lbs of landings prior to the 2013 control date now catching hundreds of thousands of pounds in recent years. Unfortunately since the council has not decided to use a tier system I must choose to support what I view are the best of the alternatives. I would like to see the following alternatives approved by the council.

Alternative 1D-25,000lbs best year from 2003-2013 Alternative 2A-No Action Alternative 3C- 5000lbs of landings from 1997-2013 Alternative 3D- New open access incidental limit of 250lbs Alternative 4F- split Trimester 2 quota in half, maintain the full rollover from Trimester 1 and any uncaught quota from the first half of Trimester 2 would roll into the second half. Alternative 5A-I do not see the need to requalify the illex squid fishery at this time, the stock is not over exploited, nor has there been a recent increase in effort. I would argue that by-catch issues should continue to be monitored and if need be requalitfication could be revisited at a later date.

Thank you for your time,

Daniel J. Farnham Gabby G Fisheries INc.

46 47 My name is Jeffrey Foresman. I am a charter boat captain and operate between Chatham to Nantucket, spending close to 100 days per year fishing the waters east of Nantucket.

In years of late, since 2010 roughly, it has been clear something has changed in the striped bass fishery, as well as bluefish. Noticeably, the volume of fish present in the area has changed. Far fewer fish take up summer residency. And the overall state of health of the striper population still occupying these waters does not appear vibrant as in year's past. Fish often appear unusually thin, sickly looking, and rarely any forage in stomaches, specifically squid.

The lack of forage is central to what I believe is negatively impacting the species in this region and forcing population relocation.

I support action on 4B and 4D.

The squid population needs less fishing pressure in the second term/trimester, not more. Especially being the time at which it spawns.

This will benefit both the squid species and the recreational striped bass fishery which has great importance to the tourist industry. At the same time, these actions would not deny the commercial sector any of its total annual quota.

It makes good sense.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Jeff Foresman

F/V Whole Hog Harwich, MA

48 49 50 51 52

www.gardenstateseafood.org Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director [email protected] 609-675-0202

May 18, 2017

Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901

Comments: Squid Capacity Amendment

Dear Dr. Moore:

Please accept these comments on behalf of the Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)The GSSA membership is comprised of commercial fishermen, vessel owners, seafood processors and associated businesses in the State of New Jersey.

Alternative Set 1: Longfin squid moratorium permit requalification alternatives.

We support Option 1C (1997-2013 / 10,000 pounds best year). This option uses the control date and results in 169 of 383 (44%) of existing permits no longer qualifying for the fishery. We believe that this limitation of the fleet is justified and will help in avoiding a situation in the future of too many boats entering the fishery while still allowing a fleet capable of catching the squid resource. We feel strongly that this option allows for the historical participants to retain access in the fishery without the risk of a significant increase in potential fishing effort.

53 Alternative Set 2: Longfin squid moratorium permit requalification sub- alternatives.

We support option 2B – Longfin swap. This option allows an entity that is currently issued more than one longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit a one- time opportunity to swap re-qualifying moratorium permits among vessels owned by that same entity that currently have longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits. If a vessel is eligible for this it must stay within the constraints of the current permit upgrade restrictions.

We can also support alternative 2C. This option provides for an automatic incidental permit for non-qualifiers. If a vessel that currently has been issued a moratorium longfin squid/butterfish permit does not re-qualify as a result of this amendment, it would automatically be issued a limited access incidental permit if the Council makes the current open access incidental permit a limited access permit. It is important for the Council to ensure that the 2500 pound incidental limit is restricted to one landing per 24 hour period.

Alternative Set 3: Longfin squid incidental and open access alternatives.

We support option (3C) 5000 pound qualifier. This would allow vessels landing 2500 pounds incidentally more than once during any qualifying year to remain in the fishery and would also eliminate another 50 permits. It may be prudent for the Council to select one of these alternatives in order to keep a handle on incidental effort into the future. Limiting the pool of these permits would help to balance future opportunities for harvesters, during all three trimesters, by helping to ensure that persistent incidental catches during closed periods have only a limited opportunity to significantly exceed any trimester quota’s harvest. We believe it is important for the Council to specify that the 2500 pound incidental limit is restricted to one landing per 24 hour period.

We support alternative 3D. A 250 pound possession limit should be sufficient to reduce regulatory discards in the open access fleet. Again, the Council should be clear that this is a 24 hour possession limit with only one landing opportunity per day.

Alternative Set 4: Longfin squid Trimester 2 (T2) alternatives.

We have not taken a position on this alternative set as we believe the Council should use this amendment solely to address latent effort in the fishery.

54 Alternative Set 5: Illex squid moratorium permit requalification alternatives.

We support alternative 5A; no action. The document tells us that there are only 64 active Illex permits with another 15 in CPH and that 4 vessels derived +25% of their revenue from Illex making this fishery important to a significant number of vessels. Since less than one-third of the TAC was caught in 2016 we believe it is premature to reduce the potential of this fleet to catch the Illex quota at this time. In addition we would ask the Council to consider that as vessels and industry participants dwindle over time a small fleet could become so small that the effectiveness is no longer viable to support a fishery or dockside infrastructure.

Sincerely,

Gregory P. DiDomenico

Gregory P. DiDomenico Executive Director Garden State Seafood Association

55 56 57 58 Sportfishing is much better for the economy that commercial fishing. PROTECT FORAGE SPECIES such as squid.

Allen Hinman

59 • I fish over 200 days a year, along with 15-20 other boats who fish this same way. We are what’s known as “The Day Boat Fleet”. We make day trips and unload our catch daily. • I am not a big squid player, BUT squid is big for me. • I feel we should keep the number of permitted vessels in check. We need to stop non traditional squid boats from entering this fishery. I support the idea of addressing latent effort.

I support Alternative 2C - Automatic Incidental for Non-requalifiers. This alternative allows some landings to continue for those who did not not qualify, and will reduce possible discards.

I support Alternative 4F - Split T2 in half. I support Alternative 5A - No Action - No changes would be made to the Illex moratorium permits.

What is going to happen to our Butterfish permits? That is equally important to me. I catch both longfin squid and butterfish at the same time.

In closing, please consider the livelihoods of most of the fisherman, not just a handful of bigger players with bigger mouths.

Thank you,

John Holden F/V Pontos Montauk, NY

60 PUBLIC COMMENT ON FEDERAL REGISTER

I NOTE THE 9 HEARINGS YOU ARE HAVING ARE ALL IN SITES WHERE MANY FISH PROFITEERS OPERATE SO THAT YOU WILL GET A SLANTED PUBLIC COMMENT INSTEAD OF OPENING UP THIS TAKING OF THESE SPECIES TO ALL AMERICANS. YOU AER PURPOSELY SLANTING THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK YOU GET, WHICH IS DISHONEST TOTALLY. YOU NEED TO HOLD HEARINGS INLAND BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE OWN THOSE FISH TOO. THIS IS NOT JUST FOR FISH PROFITEERS TO CONTINUE MAKING BIG MONEY AND DECIMATIGN OUR SEAS SO THAT YOU STARVE ALL MAMMALS IN THE OCEA. THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON. WE NEED FAIR HEARINGS, NOT SLANTED ONES. YOU ARE PURPOSELY HOLDING SLANTED, BIASED HEARINGS IN SLANTED, BIASED SITES. THAT IS DISHONEST CORRUPT FAT CAT SWAMP BUREAUCRACY AT WORK. THIS COMMETN IS FOR THE PUBOC RECORD. PLEASE RECEIPT. JEAN PUBLIEE GET RID OF THE COCCUPRITOIN IN THESE FEDERAL AGENCIES WILL YOU. PLEASE RECEIPT. JEAN PUBLIEE [email protected], ALL 325 MILLION AMERICANS OWN THESE FISH.

61 Recind the amendment that allows unharvested quota from trimester one to be transferred to trimester two ! Revert back to the original regulations in 2007 that state that any roll over from trimester one goes directly to trio three & that trimester two is 17% of the total annual quota ! Rescind the amendment is easier then making a new rule ! Again go back to the original reg from 2007 ! 17% of the total quota is trimester 2 & unharvested quota from trimester one again goes directly to trimester three as was decided by a conservationally minded council back in 2007 ! No brainer !

[Pete Kaizer]

Sent from my iPhone

62 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 3:20 PM To: Squid Subject: capacity amendment

Dr. Chris Moore and all council members, First, I would like to thank the council for taking the time to address the latent effort issue in the squid fisheries. Unfortunately, not all is good with this very complicated amendment. The range of alternatives are way to liberal . The underlying problems in the squid fishery are only marginally being addressed, by looking at zero participation (10,000lbs for a best year, is the same as ZERO participation, in a FULL time squid fishermans mind). BYCATCH caps have been forgotten . Another problem is certain items are being looked at before the results of a reduced fleet have been documented. The council must remember as they make their decision, 95% of loligo landings come from 109 boats. These are the vessels that need protection. They will be badly hurt by any decision other than 1E..... Second, we established a control date and it should be used... Third. The squid fishery is controlled by BYCATCH.. The industry is probably going to take a cut in butterfish next year, and this will impact boats. Any future cuts could devastate the fishery with too many participants..Yellowtail flounder is an issue to the east, as is windowpane flounder in all areas. River herring are always learking in the background, as well as every other species in the mid-Atlantic. and don't forget turtles, sturgeon and marine mammals. The fishery CAN NOT handle too many boats with so little bycatch tolerances.. Most of the alternatives indicate that all boats have the same level of dependancy on Loligo squid.. that couldn't be further from the truth.. We are all not equal and nor should the permits be. I BEG THIS COUNCIL TO REVISIT the reduced fleet and implement a tiered system based on participation. Especially if any alternative but 1E is chosen. I noticed an item in the amendment for a one time permit swap..I am totally against that. That is a way to ADD latent effort, not reduce it. In fact, I got to thinking, maybe the council should consider, if a boat posses a scallop permit, it should have to choose between the scallop permit and the squid permit, similar to what groundfish boats had to do years ago. Just a thought ?

Trimester 2 of 2016 could not exemplify overcapacity any better.

Before the council makes any decisions on changing the incidental trip limit lets see how a reduced fleet works.. We can always come back and revisit it. Many boats will be hurt by this change, but it may be necessary should we repeat 2016. The reduced fleet may very well solve a lot of the issues south of the vineyard and nantucket. lets not jump the gun, due to an anomoly of a year. As far as the rollover goes from trimester 1 to 2. I am in favor of status quo.

Illex Illex squid is a tonnage fishery and the only alternative that remotely reflects that is option 5F.. The control date must be used here as well.. Thanks, Hank Lackner

63 Just a note to thank the council for providing two meetings in new jersey, this is an important fishery for both Cape May, and the northern jersey ports, and we in the north appreciate not having to drive 2 hours for a hearing, thanks, Jim Lovgren

64 Please vote to protect the local squid population. thank you Roy Lucadema

65 Email to: [email protected]

May 18, 2017

Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901 By Email: [email protected] / RE: Squid Amendment Comments

Dear Dr. Moore:

On behalf of the 250 employees of our family-owned, vertically-integrated seafood processing facility and the company-owned and independently-owned commercial fishing vessels and crew working to support us here in the port of Cape May, I am writing to provide our comments on the Council’s Squid Amendment. Thank you for the opportunity to make these recommendations to the Council. Our comments follow the order of the issues outlined in the April 2017 Public Hearing Document. We appreciate the Council holding a public hearing on the amendment, in Cape May, on May 2.

Alternative Set 1: Longfin squid moratorium permit requalification alternatives

Our preferred alternative is 1C (1997-2013 / 10,000 pounds best year) – this option uses the control date and results in 169 of 383 (44%) of existing permits no longer qualifying for the fishery; most of which have not fished in recent years according to the analysis in the document. We could also support 1B (1997-2015 / 10,000 pounds best year), which results in 159 permits no longer qualifying for the fishery (42%), allowing an additional 10 boats to qualify. We believe that either of these options are fair and will help in avoiding a situation in the future of too many boats chasing too few fish such that it could be difficult for anyone to be successful in the fishery.

We are opposed to the Council supporting alternative 1E (1997-2013 / 50,000 pound average), however, which would result in 290 vessels not qualifying for the directed fishery (a 75% reduction in current permits!) Restricting the fleet to this extent could cause significant supply problems for shoreside facilities and docks throughout our area and is too harsh to be fair to many existing permit holders with significant landings history in recent years. Some of these vessels have been unable to have big squid years since access to the inshore, summer resource has been limited by state permitting restrictions.

Alternative Set 2: Longfin squid moratorium permit requalification sub-alternatives

We can support alternative 2B – Longfin swap – which allows an entity that is currently issued more than one longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit a one-time opportunity to swap re-qualifying moratorium permits among vessels owned by that same entity that currently have longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits. Our understanding is that this regulatory change is being suggested to assist one fishing family in the region, although other entities may also seek to utilize this swapping opportunity. We support this change but the swap must be within the constraints of the current permit upgrade restrictions to be fair to other permit holders.

66 Lund’s Fisheries to MAFMC on Squid Amendment May 18, 2017

We can also support alternative 2C – which provides for an automatic incidental permit for non- qualifiers. If a vessel that currently has been issued a moratorium longfin squid/butterfish permit does not re-qualify as a result of this amendment, it would automatically be issued a limited access incidental permit if the Council makes the current open access incidental permit a limited access permit. We can support this regulatory change although it is important for the Council to ensure that the 2500 pound incidental limit is restricted to one landing per 24 hour period, which we believe to be the intent.

Alternative Set 3: Longfin squid incidental and open access alternatives

Two alternatives (3B & 3C) would create a new limited-access longfin squid permit ‘that cannot be reacquired if dropped’. We support limiting access to incidental catch permits in the fishery, to allow an equitable sharing of the resource between directed and incidental catches. Both alternatives use the control date (1997-2013), which is our preferred approach; one with a 2500 pound qualifier and one with a 5000 pound qualifier.

We support the 5000 pound qualifier (3C) as this would allow vessels landing 2500 pounds incidentally more than once during any qualifying year to remain in the fishery and would also eliminate another 50 permits. It may be prudent for the Council to select one of these alternatives in order to keep a handle on incidental effort into the future. Limiting the pool of these permits would help to balance future opportunities for harvesters, during all three trimesters, by helping to ensure that persistent incidental catches during closed periods have only a limited opportunity to significantly exceed any trimester quota’s harvest. As noted above, we believe it is important for the Council to ensure that the 2500 pound incidental limit is restricted to one landing per 24 hour period.

Two other alternatives (3D & 3E) would establish the open-access incidental trip limit at 250 and/or 500 pounds. Based on the discussion in the document, it appears as if most of these catches are <100 pounds. Consequently, we support alternative 3D as it seems as if the 250 pound possession limit should be sufficient to reduce regulatory discards in the open access fleet. Again, the Council should be clear that this is a 24 hour possession limit with only one landing opportunity per day.

Alternative Set 4: Longfin squid Trimester 2 (T2) alternatives

We are taking no position on this alternative set as we believe the Council should use this amendment solely to address latent effort in the fishery.

Alternative Set 5: Illex squid moratorium permit requalification alternatives

Thank you for your attention to and consideration of our comments and concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide you with any additional information.

With best regards,

Jeff Reichle

Jeffrey B. Reichle President

Dr. Chris Moore Executive Director Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201 Dover, DE, 19901

Dear Executive Director Moore,

On behalf of Audubon’s one million members, we urge you to create a buffer zone and reduce catch and bycatch during squid summer spawning in ecologically important area south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, as catch in these areas have doubled in recent years. Squid are an essential component to the ocean food web, critical to the diet of seabirds and other marine wildlife. Squid are also important to keeping fisheries, the seafood industry and tourism thriving on the Atlantic Coast.

Longfin squid is an extremely important forage prey for seabirds. Audubon has compiled a list of “Priority Forage-Dependent Seabirds” and Atlantic Flyway birds, including Northern Gannet (climate endangered), Black-capped Petrel (federally endangered), Audubon’s Shearwater (on the North American Bird Conservation Initiative watch list), Bermuda Petrel (federally endangered), Atlantic Puffin (IUCN vulnerable) and Atlantic Puffin with squid just before feeding it Brown Booby, all rely on longfin squid for their diet. to its chick. Photo by Derrick Z. Jackson

These measures will not eliminate squid fishing, but adjust the fishing efforts at certain times of year to protect critical habitat for squid spawning, growth and migration. Responsibly managing the longfin squid fishery will also boost other economically important fisheries, including summer and winter flounder, scup, black seabass, blueback herring and striped basses, which all feed on squid in the spring and summer months.

Please keep the Squid Amendment moving forward without delay and pass spawning area protections for longfin squid. We respectfully urge you to support the following:

1. Implementation, as part of this amendment, of a longfin squid spawning closure south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket to limit catch of pre-spawned squid, damage and bycatch of squid mops, bycatch of predator species, and impacts to the health of the Nantucket Shelf ecosystem. 2. Selection of preferred Alternative 4B to eliminate the rollover of longfin squid quota to these spawning areas during the summer months. 3. Selection of preferred Alternative 4D to reduce the “incidental” trip limit to 250-pounds after the summer quota is reached, to effectively stop directed fishing

A healthy squid population supports diverse and abundant predator populations, a healthy marine ecosystem, a robust fishing economy, and sustainable U.S. seafood. Please protect this valuable resource and the marine ecosystem and coastal economy it supports.

Sincerely,

Karen Hyun Director of Coastal Policy National Audubon Society 68 April 27, 2017

Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE, 19901

Dear Dr. Moore,

I write this letter as public comment on the proposed amendments to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. My name is Matthew Peabody, I am the Captain of the F/V Blue Cove and am a full time fisherman in Federal trawl fisheries and the Atlantic Sea Scallop fishery. I am also a 3rd generation trawl fisherman. My vessel holds a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium and incidental permit. I write to you with great concerns on the options to reduce and requalify the current longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits in a stock that can most likely afford fluctuations in fishing effort.

A reduction in available licenses will increase the value of the licenses that remain. This will place a high cost burden on new entrants and make it difficult for young fishermen to enter the fishery. There are very few fisheries left that a young fisherman can hope to enter as a boat owner and an increasingly poor outlook in the future of many fisheries in US Water. The squid fishery in conjunction with the black sea bass, scup, and summer flounder fisheries are a commercial group that still allow affordable entry but are managed by limited permits. Currently, a vessel can use a combination of these permits from season to season to build a profitable trip. If longfin squid permits are further reduced it retracts from a vessels ability to adapt to fluctuating stocks.

The proposed amendment to reduce latent effort comes at a time when the squid fishery is stable while other stocks are rebuilding or can’t afford additional effort. The longfin squid fishery has positive assessment reports as not being overfished and is “lightly exploited”. The quota has not been fully obtained since 1994. The squid market has seen a positive trend in dock-side value in the past 10 years. Reports by the Advisory Panel state that the international market will currently take whatever the US can produce and that no glut factor exists. The positive stock assessments and optimistic outlook of foreign markets make longfin squid a fishery that can stabilize the fishing community if effort is controlled appropriately.

In addition to the barriers that a permit reduction will cause to the younger generation, obstacles will also be placed on those fishermen that must diversify their fishing effort as climate changes and species-specific stocks react. The Magnuson-Stevens Act guides the Council to consider socioeconomic impacts when establishing limited entry systems. One of the most effective ways to assist harvesters in these ever changing times is to allow flexibility to move between fisheries. The North East Fisheries Science Center’s vulnerability assessment

69 reports that approximately half of the species assessed will be negatively impacted by climate change. Longfin squid however, are expected to be positively impacted as a result of a changing climate. This gives management the option to allow movement of fishing effort from species in negatively impacted fisheries to those that can handle flexibility, such as longfin squid. It is my opinion that competition within the market should determine market share and sales volume. Reducing permits does not allow fair competition among the seafood industry.

For the above reasons I ask the Council to consider the following:

• Option 1.A- No action and; • 2.A-No action to the reduction in the available Longfin Squid Moratorium and Incidental Permits. o This will allow competition within the market to determine market share and sales volume as the fishery progresses and to not limit access to the fishery to existing permit holders. o This option results in a flexible fleet that can fully harvest the squid quota but it remains limited to the ABC in any given year. • If 1.A is not approved I support option 2C- Automatic incidental for non- qualifiers. • I support Alternative 4C-Reduce the roll-over to Trimester 2 and 4E- 500-pound post T2 closure limit and 4F-Split T2 in half. o These options will provide addition the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan al protection during the spawning season, while providing permit flexibility.

According to the public hearing document all of the options outlined in 1,2, and 5 will not impact the status of the stock. However, if any options to reduce permits are selected it will have a negative impact on “non-qualifiers” by creating a loss in fishing access to current and future fishermen as well as devaluing existing permits. I ask the Council to allow fishermen the flexibility to compete in the market and to adjust to fluctuating fisheries by keeping permits available and affordable in the future.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Matthew K Peabody and Rachael Peabody

70 The full list of commenters, including 1,214 personal additions, is available at http://www.mafmc.org/briefing/june-2017

The Pew Charitable Trusts presents this document on behalf of 13,074 U.S. residents.

Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201 Dover, DE 19901

Dear Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council members and staff:

Thank you for your commitment to managing forage fisheries, as outlined in your “Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries Management Guidance Document.” Please act now to create a buffer zone and reduce catch and bycatch during squid summer spawning in the ecologically important area south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket.

I’m concerned about escalating squid fishing taking place directly south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, one of the major spawning areas for longfin squid in the region. There is no scientific certainty about the size of the longfin squid population. A cautious approach to management is essential to its future.

Furthermore, it’s unacceptable that for every 2 pounds of longfin squid landed, 1 pound of other species is discarded dead. Millions of pounds of ecologically and economically important predators like summer flounder, striped bass, black sea bass, and bluefish are lost every year as bycatch.

Please keep the Squid Amendment moving forward without delay and pass spawning area protections for longfin squid. I respectfully urge you to support the following:

2. Selection of preferred Alternative 4B to eliminate the rollover of longfin squid quota to these spawning areas during the summer months.

3. Selection of preferred Alternative 4D to reduce the “incidental” trip limit to 250-pounds after the summer quota is reached, to effectively stop directed fishing.

Sincerely,

May 17, 2017

Chairman Mike Luisi Executive Director Chris Moore MSB Committee Chairman Howard King Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201 Dover, Delaware 19901

RE: Public Comment on Measures to Modify Trimester 2 Longfin Squid Management in the Squid Amendment to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (April 2017)

Dear Chairman Luisi, Executive Director Moore, and Committee Chairman King:

We are writing on behalf of the Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) to provide comments on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s (Council) Squid Amendment to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (MSB FMP). This amendment contains alternatives that could proactively conserve and manage longfin squid during their spawning season (Trimester 2). Longfin squid is one of the most important and ubiquitous forage species in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and a critical food source for many Council- managed species including summer flounder, scup, bluefish, and black seabass. It is also important prey for other ecologically and economically important species including striped bass, bluefin tuna, whales, birds, sharks, crabs, and dolphins. The spawning protections recommended allow for sustainable harvest while simultaneously safeguarding squid’s role as forage. This would be a significant step towards a comprehensive ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) that will contribute to productive fisheries and a healthy Northeast Large Marine Ecosystem (NLME).

Specifically, the Council should modify its current management measures for Trimester 2 to eliminate rollover of longfin squid catch, close an incidental catch loophole, and create an inshore spawning closure by taking the following actions at its June 2017 meeting:

1. Select as preferred alternatives: (1) Alternative 4B to eliminate roll-over of longfin squid quota from Trimester 1 to Trimester 2 (all un-caught Trimester 1 quota could go to Trimester 3); and (2) Alternative 4D to adopt a 250-pound trip limit for all longfin squid permits when Trimester 2 quota is caught; and 2. Adopt a 12 mile (based on 10 minute squares) longfin squid spawning closure south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket during Trimester 2. A 12-mile closure would limit catch of pre-spawned squid, damage to and bycatch of squid mops, bycatch of important predator species, and other detrimental impacts to the Nantucket Shelf Ecosystem. If this closure is not adopted as part of the

Squid Amendment, the Council should immediately initiate a trailing action to establish time-area management during squid spawning.

* * * Modifications to Trimester 2 longfin squid management are necessary to reduce avoidable harm to longfin squid and their predators, protect ecologically important species caught as bycatch in the longfin squid fishery, and fulfil the Council’s commitment to an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Alternative 4B and 4D limit catch during spawning in Trimester 2 to reduce catch of pre-spawned squid, damage to squid eggs, and bycatch of important species. Additionally, spawning closures have been shown to benefit species such as longfin squid that form large spawning aggregations.1 A spawning closure south of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard will help prevent localized depletion of spawning squid and protect the predators and ecosystem of the Nantucket Shelf. In 2016, the Council committed to an ecosystem approach to management of forage species that considers the important role they play in the transfer of energy in marine food webs2 Changes to Trimester 2 management that reduce catch and close the area south of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard during spawning are important first steps towards this approach for one of the most important forage species in the region.

I. Measures to Modify Trimester 2 Longfin Squid Management Select as preferred alternatives: (1) Alternative 4B to eliminate roll-over of longfin squid quota from Trimester 1 to Trimester 2 (all un-caught Trimester 1 quota would go to Trimester 3); and (2) Alternative 4D to adopt a 250-pound trip limit for all longfin squid permits when Trimester 2 quota is caught

A primary objective of the Squid Amendment is to “[r]e-evaluate the management of longfin squid in Trimester 2.” The public information document states that the MAFMC “is considering this action because the productivity of the longfin squid stock may be negatively impacted if excessive fishing effort in Trimester 2, which occurs on the inshore spawning grounds, does not allow sufficient spawning and/or hatching form eggs.” Understanding and ameliorating effects of targeting squid in spawning grounds is central to effective management because of their very short life cycles, and because their aggregating behavior during spawning makes them an easy target for high-volume small-mesh fisheries. Trimester 2 extends from May 1 through August 30 during peak longfin squid spawning. To provide greater limits on squid catch during spawning, the Council should entirely eliminate rollover quota from Trimester 1 into Trimester 2 (Alternative 4B) and decrease the incidental possession limit to 250 pounds to prevent continued directed fishing once the quota is reached (Alternative 4D).

Squid fishing during spawning has numerous negative impacts on squid and their mops, as well as on ecologically and economically important predator species and non-target species. Catch during the months of May, June, and July has been heavy and increasing in the last several years. Despite the fact that the fishery has not hit its annual quota since 2005, NMFS closed Trimester 2 six times in the last ten years (July 2008, August 2009, August 2011, July 2012,

1 2014. H. M. J. van Overzee, A. D. Rijnsdorp. Effects of fishing during the spawning period: implications for sustainable management. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries. p. 1. 2 2016, MAFMC EAFM Guidance Document, p. 5-9. 2

August 2014, and June 2016) and the Trimester 2 quota – which includes rollover quota from Trimester 1 – has been exceeded five of those six times.3 Given the significant uncertainty about the size of this highly variable population,4 the importance of longfin squid to the marine ecosystem demands careful management when setting catch limits.

The 2016 squid fishing season demonstrates why this Council should impose greater control over the commercial longfin squid fishing during spawning. Last year (2016), the Trimester 2 quota was set at 8,412,840 pounds, however, under the regulations up to fifty percent of the Trimester 2 quota was eligible to be rolled over from Trimester 1 into Trimester 2. With the rollover, the Trimester 2 quota increased by 4,206,420 million pounds to 12,619,260 million pounds. Ultimately, catch reached 90 percent of the 12,619,260 quota just two months after the beginning of Trimester 2, and NOAA Fisheries was forced to shut down the fishery to further directed fishing on June 27, 2016.5 Unfortunately, the incidental possession limit of 2500 pounds allowed for an additional 6,117,735 pounds of squid catch during the remainder of Trimester 2, resulting in a whopping 18,737,013 million pounds of squid caught during spawning in Trimester 2 in 2016. This total is more than double (222 percent to be exact) the original Trimester 2 quota of 8,412,840 pounds.

Trimester 2016 Longfin quota With rollover % of quota caught (pounds) with incidental 2,500 pound trips Trimester 1 (Jan-Apr) 21,276,813 12,228,889 (58%)

Trimester 2 (May- 8,412,840 (4,206,420) 12,619,260 18,737,013 (222%) Aug) Trimester 3 (Sept- Remainder 8,997,660 (29%) Dec) (30,965,902) Total 49,482,696 39,963,925 (81%)

The best available science demonstrates that intense fishing (bottom trawling) on spawning squid has negative impacts on squid and the marine ecosystem. Alternatively, limiting squid fishing during Trimester 2 with a hard cap (Alternative 4B), and implementation of a 250 pound incidental possession limit (Alternative 4D), will decrease catch of pre-spawned squid, limit removal and destruction of mops, reduce bycatch of economically and ecologically important species, and protect the predators of one of the most important forage species along our Atlantic Coast. The Council’s commitment to thoughtful and ecologically driven management demands greater control over the squid fishing in Trimester 2.

A. Minimize Bycatch of Other Economically and Ecologically Important Species

Reduced squid fishing in Trimester 2 would benefit an array of economically and ecologically important species. Overall, current bycatch in the squid fishery is approximately 35

3 April 2017, MAFMC Squid Amendment and Public Hearing Document, p. 34. 4 2015 MAFMC, J. Didden. Longfin Squid Informational Document, p.2. 5 June 24, 2016. Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery. Longfin Squid Trimester II Quota Harvested. Longfin Squid catch limited to 2,500 lb per trip or day Effective Date: 00:01 hr, June 27, 2016. 3

percent on observed trips (33 percent in Trimester 1, 35 percent in Trimester 2, and 36 percent in Trimester 3). This longfin fishery dumped an average of approximately 12.8 million pounds of bycatch annually from 2007-2015. 6 In 2016 there were approximately 21.5 million pounds of wasted sea life.7 Bycatch may be even higher on unobserved trips.8 This high level of bycatch of economically and ecologically important species is wasteful and inconsistent with National Standard 9.9

Notably, bycatch during Trimester 2 from nearshore habitat has a different species composition than other Trimesters with a greater impact on juvenile and pre-spawning fish and on managed species that are important to this Council and its constituents.10 For example, most of the bycatch of striped bass, black sea bass, summer and winter flounder, and scup happens in Trimester 2.11 In addition, there is significant bycatch of blueback herring in Trimester 2 – the most imperiled stock of the river herring and shad (RHS) stock complex.12 In the absence of a mortality cap for river herring and shads, similar to the cap in the mackerel fishery, estimates of incidental catch in the squid fishery indicate over 100,000 pounds of RHS are dumped every year (equivalent to half of the RHS cap in the mackerel fishery).13 Finally, an average of 26,809 pounds of squid mops are caught as bycatch during Trimester 2.

Numerous species with increased catch in Trimester 2 would benefit from changes to Trimester 2 management:

 Blueback herring – The most imperiled river herring species (blueback herring) is caught as bycatch in the longfin squid fishery. Studies suggest that “mitigating bycatch on the southern New England fishing grounds [Long Island Sound, and the waters south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket] may benefit recovery efforts for . . . genetic stocks that have experienced the greatest declines in spawning adult abundances.”14 More blueback herring were caught during

6 2015 MAFMC, J. Didden. Longfin Squid Informational Document, Table 6, p. 34: and Table 13, p. 50. There is an average of 23,814,364 pounds of squid taken annually from 2007-2015. The average bycatch is 35 percent, making the 23,814,364 pounds of squid only 65 percent of total catch, making 36,637,483 the total catch, and the 35 percent of catch that is bycatch is 12,823,119. 7 2015 MAFMC, J. Didden. Longfin Squid Informational Document, Table 6, p. 34: and Table 13, p. 50. There was 39,963,925 pounds of squid taken in 2016. The average bycatch is 35 percent, so the 39,963,925 pounds of squid is only 65 percent of the total catch, making the total catch 61,482,962, and the 35 percent of catch that is bycatch is 21,519,037. 8 1984. B. E. Wahlen, T. D. Smith. Observer effect on incidental dolphin mortality in the Eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery. Fishery Bulletin, Vol 83, NO.4; NOAA. C. H. Faunce, S. Barbeaux. Deployment and observer effects as evidenced from Alaskan groundfish landings reports. 9 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(9) National Standard 9: “Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.” 10 See fn 4 at Table 19, p. 55 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 2015 Hasselman, D. J., et al. Genetic stock composition of marine bycatch reveals disproportional impacts on depleted river herring genetic stocks. 4

Trimester 2 than any other trimester,15 and approximately 18,737 pounds of imperiled blueback herring were dumped in Trimester 2 of 2016.16  Summer flounder – Squid are 56 percent of the annual diet for summer flounder that live in southern New England waters.17 Summer flounder inhabit inshore areas of Massachusetts during the warmer periods of the year.18 Historically “the population summering in Massachusetts coastal waters face[d] an intensive offshore otter trawl fishery in the winter and spring.”19 They are now also facing increased fishing inshore during the summer as Nantucket Shoals (the waters south and southeast of Nantucket) is known as one of the best summer flounder fishing spots in the Northwest Atlantic.20 The summer flounder fishery is currently facing a 41 percent cut in quota to prevent the stock from becoming overfished. Meanwhile, approximately 281,055 pounds of summer flounder were thrown overboard dead in Trimester 2 in 2016.21  Black seabass - Black seabass spawn in the waters of the Nantucket Shelf from mid-May to the end of June.22 Approximately 206,107 pounds of black sea bass were thrown overboard in Trimester 2 in 2016. 23  Striped bass - Adult striped bass migrate through the area off Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket during summer months while there is heavy squid fishing in that 24 area. Approximately 318,529 pounds of striped bass were taken as bycatch in Trimester 2 in 2016.25 Additionally, the 2016 Atlantic striped bass stock assessment indicates that female spawning stock biomass (SSB) has been in decline since 2004. It is estimated that if fishing pressure remains constant, there is a good chance the stock can become overfished (39 percent chance for 2016 and a 20 percent chance in 2018).26  Winter flounder – Stock biomass for winter flounder is unknown but based on the 2015 stock assessment the stock is overfished. Recruitment and overall stock productivity has been declining since 1981. “The stock did not meet its rebuilding target in 2014, in part due to low recruitment. … Heavy fishing pressure, habitat degradation, and low genetic variability hinder winter flounder recovery.”27 Approximately 262,381 pounds of winter flounder were discarded in Trimester 2 in 2016.28  Scup – Scup form in schools near the bottom making them particularly susceptible to bycatch in bottom trawl nets. In southern New England, scup

15 See fn 4 at Tables 18, p. 54; Table 19, p. 55; and Table 20, p. 56. 16 See fn 4 at Table 6, p. 34; Table 19, p. 55. 17 Bowman, R. et. al. Food of Northwest Atlantic Fishes and Two Common Species of Squid, p. 1. 18 Mass. Dept. of Energy and Env. Species Profile – Fluke. 19 Id. 20 Mar, 2016, Fee, Jim. On The Water. Nantucket Shoals is home to some of the best fluke fishing in the Northeast. 21 See fn 4 at Table 6, p. 34; Table 19, p. 55. 22 Mass. Dept. of Energy and Env. Species Profile – Black Sea Bass. 23 See fn 4 at Table 6, p. 34; Table 19, p. 55. 24 Mass. Dept. of Energy and Env. Species Profile - Striped Bass. 25 See fn 4 at Table 6, p. 34; Table 19, p. 55. 26 ASMFC Species Profile – Striped Bass. 27 ASMFC Species Profile – Winter Flounder. 28 See fn 4 at Table 6, p. 34; Table 19, p. 55. 5

spawn from May to August, with the peak level of activity typically in June.29 Bycatch of scup increases significantly in Trimester 2 (May-August) and accounted for 11% of all Trimester 2 discards from 2007-2015. Approximately 1,199,169 pounds of scup were discarded in Trimester 2 last year.30

B. Reduce Risks to Longfin Squid from Targeted Fishing During Spawning

The management adjustments to Trimester 2 recommended above will reduce risks to the longfin resource (removal of pre-spawned squid, bycatch and damage to squid mops, and evidence of fishing leading to decline). Targeted fishing on short-lived longfin squid during spawning could have detrimental impacts on the species. Little is known about stock biomass at any given point in time.31 The most recent stock assessment (2010) was unable to determine whether the stock was experiencing overfishing (no threshold reference point for fishing mortality) because there is no clear relationship between catch and biomass estimates.32 However, their short lifespan makes them highly susceptible to recruitment overfishing33 and New England Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) analysis demonstrates a significant correlation between intense squid fishing from April through September in one year, and decreased catch the following October through March.34 Current catch of squid is less than half of what it was this time last year,35 and based on peer-reviewed science that demonstrates a causal link between fishing rates and annual abundance, it is reasonable to conclude that this decline is a consequence of the extraordinarily high catch during spawning last summer. The MSB FMP states that an objective of the Squid Plan is to “prevent destructive exploitation of squid species.”36

i. Bottom Trawling in Trimester 2 Damages Mops

Bottom trawling over squid mops is detrimental to paralarvae survival as bycatch. For example, from 2007-2015 there was an average of 26,809 pounds of direct mop bycatch during Trimester 2.37 Even this number is likely an underestimate as egg biomass is not recorded consistently by all fishery observers and observers are only required to record egg biomass in the cod end of the net, and not the biomass also caught in the wings and/or other parts of the net. In comparison, there is a negligible amount of mop bycatch in Trimesters 1 (January 1st through April 30th) and Trimester 3 (September 1st through December 31st).38 Alarmingly, in 2016 mop bycatch increased to 56,211 pounds during Trimester 2, more than double the nine-year average, and for similar reasons this is likely and underestimate.

29 Mass. Dept. of Energy and Env. Species Profile – Scup. 30 April 2017, MAFMC Squid Amendment and Public Hearing Document, Table 6, p. 34; Table 19, p. 55. 31 1994, G.J. Pierce, A. Guerra, Stock assessment methods used for cephalopod fisheries, Fisheries Research. V. 21: 255-281, 256. 32 2015 MAFMC, J. Didden. Longfin Squid Informational Document, p.2. 33 See fn 32.. 34 See fn 4 at p. 42. 35 GARFO longfin squid landings report. 36 Oct. 1981.MAFMC, NMFS, NAFMC, and SAFMC. Amendment #3 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries. p. 6. 37 See fn 4 at Table 19, p. 55. 38 See fn 4 at Table 18, p. 54, and Table 20, p. 56. 6

Squid are strategic when placing mops on the ocean floor and newly hatched squid paralarvae require specific temperatures, pH, current speed (dissolved oxygen), and food availability for survival. Dislodged mops also have increased vulnerability to predation and beach strandings. When mops are dislodged, they can drift to areas of warmer temperatures which increase paralarvae mortality. Temperature is the most important abiotic factor impacting embryonic development in squid.39 Cephalopods are poikilothermic, meaning their metabolism increases as temperatures rise. This can directly influence egg development rates and premature hatching. 40 Temperature affects yolk absorption rate in embryonic squid.41 Premature hatching results in high mortality of paralarvae because of incomplete absorption of the outer yolk sack42 and decreased size of hatchings.43 Additionally, squid embryos in less than ideal temperature conditions experience suppressed metabolism and greater incidents of malformations with deleterious effects on embryo survival and growth.44 Often they are not fully developed, have diminished swimming ability, cannot feed, and do not survive. Not only does this demonstrate that dislodged mops are at risk because they can drift to warmer waters and experience increased paralarvae mortality, it raises serious concerns about the impact of increased temperatures associated with climate change on global squid populations.

Dislodged mops are also exposed to changes in pH and decreased dissolved oxygen that can cause increased mortality. Cephalopods eggs and paralarvae are extremely sensitive to pH changes effecting animal health and survival.45 New research on the California market squid suggests that squid probably select egg habitat based on current speed because embryos benefit from being ventilated and require a certain amount of dissolved oxygen caused by moving waters.46 Dislodged eggs that settle in areas of low current and low dissolved oxygen will likely have increased mortality.47 Finally, lab studies have demonstrated that mechanical disturbance itself can cause premature hatching and high paralarvae mortality rates.48

II. Adopt a 12 mile longfin squid spawning closure south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket during Trimester 2. A 12 mile closure would limit catch of pre- spawned squid, damage to and bycatch of squid mops, bycatch of important predator species, and other detrimental impacts on the Nantucket Shelf Ecosystem. If this closure is not adopted as part of the Squid Amendment, the Council should immediately initiate a trailing action to establish time-area management during squid spawning

39 2011. R. Villanueva et al. Factors influencing the embryonic development and hatchling size of the oceanic squid Illex coindetii following in vitro fertilization. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 407: 54– 62, 60. 40 E. Vidal, M. Lesser. Advances in Marine Biology. Advances in Cephalopod Science: Biology, Ecology, Cultivation and Fisheries. Volume 67. P. 10-11. 41 Id. 42 April 2017, MAFMC Squid Amendment and Public Hearing Document, p. 43. 43 See fn 40, at 54. 44 2012. R. Rosa, et. al. Ocean Warming Enhances Malformations, Premature Hatching, Metabolic Suppression and Oxidative Stress in the Early Life Stages of a Keystone Squid. 45 See fn 41 at. p. 12. 46 Unpublished. M. Navarro. Does current speed matter? A close look at embryo respiration of the market squid, Doryteuthis (formally Loligo) opalescens. (Attached). 47 Id. 48 See fn 4 at p. 43. 7

A spatial and temporal closure that prohibits fishing up to 12 miles from shore south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket during Trimester 2 is necessary because there is significant concentrated effort on spawning squid in that place and time. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) scientists studied the amount of effort and corresponding landings along the east coast.49 The data from that study showed very concentrated effort and significant landings in the area south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket from April through September for the 2007-2015 timeframe.50 Fishermen reports, and the staff presentation at the June 2016 MAFMC Council meeting show that squid boats trawl back and forth across that area from April through September catching millions of pounds of squid and non-target species.51 The amendment initially proposed several time-area closures, one of which was a 12 mile longfin squid spawning closure south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket during Trimester 2.52 This spawning closure would not decrease the amount of squid that can be harvest annually or in Trimester 2. It would simply ensure that catch has the least ecological impact, consistent with the EAFM policy the Council has adopted. The dispersal of effort and catch away from spawning grounds will protect spawning longfin squid and egg mops for the benefit of the population and the future of the squid fishery. It will protect populations of predators that rely on squid and the fishermen and fishing communities that value healthy predator populations and marine ecosystem.

Figure 1. Cumulative landings (percent of metric tons by ten nautical mile squares, left panel) and effort (percent of days finished by ten nautical mile squares) for bottom trawl trips with greater than 500 pounds of longfin squid landings in April through September during 2007-2015. The Boundary of the study area is shown in blue.53

49 Lisa Hendrickson Analysis and Presentation for the MSB FMP Advisory Panel meeting on cumulative longfin squid landings and effort from April - September from 2007-2015. 50 Id. 51 MAFMC June 2016 Council meeting, Staff Presentation by Jason Didden on the Squid Capacity Amendment. 52 MAFMC June 2016 Council meeting, Staff memo, Briefing tab 4 for the Squid Capacity Amendment, p. 3. 53 See fn 51 at p. 11. 8

A. The Nantucket Shelf Region is Ecologically Important

The Nantucket Shelf includes the waters of Vineyard Sound, Nantucket Sound, Nantucket Shoals, the continental shelf south of Martha’s Vineyard, the Great South Channel, and Georges Bank.54 “[T]hese areas form part of a large, shallow, coastal shelf eco-region that is characterized by a common geological origin, extremely dynamic sedimentary environment, tidally well mixed water, high biological productivity, and unique ecological features.”55 The area is one of the most biologically productive places along the Atlantic Coast and vital for feeding, spawning, migration, and as nursery grounds for countless biologically and economically important marine species. Essential forage species like Atlantic herring and squid spawn on Nantucket Shelf all summer, as do other commercially and ecologically important predator species like summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. Other important fish like striped bass, winter flounder, and the imperiled blueback herring and American shad migrate through this area at various times of the year.

The biologically rich nature of this marine ecoregion also makes it one of the most fertile fishing grounds on the East Coast. Squid are much easier to catch when they aggregate to spawn. Every year bottom trawlers in the industrial squid fishery concentrate off the southern shores of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard during summer months to catch squid as they aggregate. The fishing is so intense in the summer that boats are crowded together dragging nets back and forth across the shelf. 56 These otter trawls scrape the bottom of the ocean with large nets with mesh that can be as small as 1 7/8 inches in the summer, scooping up almost everything they encounter.57 The trawl gear damages habitat, disrupts deposited eggs and spawning fish, and takes an average of approximately 12.8 million pounds of bycatch annually from 2007-2015. 58 In 2016 there were approximately 21.5 millions of pounds of wasted sea life.59 The effects of this are wasted resources, and negative impacts to the squid population and the populations of many non-target species inevitably caught as bycatch in these small mesh nets. For all these reasons, spawning closures south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, and decreased catch during Trimester 2 are necessary for the health of the squid population and on the predators that rely on them as an important food source.

B. Spawning Closures Have Proven Effective Elsewhere

54 2016, Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies. Towards an Ocean Vision for the Nantucket Shelf Region.p. 1-3. 55 Id. 56 June 2016 MAFMC Council meeting on Squid Capacity Amendment. Presentation by Jason Didden. See minutes 28:23 and 28:27. 57 Greater Atlantic Region of NOAA Fisheries. Mackerel, squid, butterfish - commercial/gear. 58 2015 MAFMC, J. Didden. Longfin Squid Informational Document, Table 6, p. 34: and Table 13, p. 50. There is an average of 25,429,320 pounds of squid taken annually. The average bycatch is 35 percent, 25,429,320 only 65 percent of total catch, 35 percent of catch is 13,692,711. 59 2015 MAFMC, J. Didden. Longfin Squid Informational Document, Table 6, p. 34: and Table 13, p. 50. There was 39,963,925 pounds of squid taken in 2016. The average bycatch is 35 percent, 25,429,320 only 65 percent of total catch, 35 percent of catch is 21,519,037. 9

There are several domestic and global examples of seasonal squid spawning closures used to protect against jeopardizing the reproductive period of females, lifetime fecundity, and the size of the next generation. Several examples are provided below.

i. California Market Squid Closures

The market squid is California’s largest fishery both by landings and by revenue.60 Similar to the Atlantic longfin squid fishery, an international market for squid and declining squid production in other parts of the world led to increased demand and rapid growth in the number of boats harvesting squid and the amount of squid being harvested.61 Also similar to the Atlantic longfin squid, there is little known about market squid population dynamics, the size of the resource, and other biological information.62 The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) recognized the market squid as an integral part of the marine food web as forage for otters, three seal species, six marine mammals, and nineteen species of fish. To ensure sustainable fishing and protect against resource damage and ecological effects, the Department implemented several management adjustments including year-round weekend closures from the US-Mexico border to the California-Oregon border in the California market squid (Loligo opalescens) fishery beginning noon Friday through noon Sunday.63 These closures are implemented to “allow for two days of uninterrupted spawning in areas where squid are being harvested. This provides protection to the resource by allowing spawning to occur and egg cases deposited without disturbance from the fishery.”64

ii. South African spawning closures

There has been a squid spawning closure in South Africa since 1988. This measure closes the entire squid fishery (loligo v. reynaudii) for the month of November to protect females at the height of the spawning season to allow squid to mate and spawn for an undisturbed period.65 Scientists have very limited information on the stock, and there is minimal understanding about the impacts of this closure on the overall population, but they assume that closures that ensure “mating squid and eggs are free from disturbance and damage” could only have “a positive effect on egg production, hatching success and eventually recruitment.”66 It is suggested that once a biomass assessment is possible for the stock “action such as extending the closed season or closing the fishery all together for an extended period of time, could be taken at various predetermined levels of biomass” to improve stock management.67

iii. Tasmanian spawning closures in Great Oyster Bay

60 State of California Market Squid Fishery Management Plan. p. 1. 61 Id. 62 Id. at p. 2. 63 Id. at p. 2, 64. 64 Id. at 64. 65 2010, C. j. Augustyn, M. R. Llpinski, W. H. H. Sauer, Can the Loligo squid fishery be managed effectively? A synthesis of research on Loligo vulgaris reynaudii. South African journal of Marine Science. 12:1, 903-918, 904-5. 66 Id. at 909. 67 Id. at 916. 10

A third example of a squid spawning closure occurs in Tasmania. Tasmania has two, two- week, spawning area closures in Great Oyster Bay area to prevent fishing during squid spawning. Scientists conducted research about the effectiveness of these closures which demonstrate that “[a] dramatic and significant increase in the density of newly laid eggs occurred during the first closure.”68 “During the first of the two closures, densities of eggs increased six-fold, suggesting that either the closure provided protection to the spawning aggregation or promoted an increase in spawning activities.”69 Although the study acknowledges difficulties in the research, (no control site and an inability to demonstrate a direct cause and effect because there is no way to know whether the fishing alters reproductive behaviors or simply reduced spawners) the authors states “it must be stressed that the closure was successful in providing protections to spawning individuals.” The study suggested that “[f]uture work needs to assess to what degree the fishing activity actually modifies the reproductive behavior, or if it simply removes spawning individuals.”70 In conclusion, the study states: “In the absence of biomass estimates for southern calamari the use of closures appears to be the best management approach to limiting effort on spawning aggregations under a precautionary management approach.”

The Council faces a similar situation in Southern New England with Atlantic longfin squid. Although a different species, their lifecycles and reproductive patterns are nearly identical (live 6-8 months, females produce several batches of eggs). Like in Tasmania, although overfishing may not be occurring, there are no biomass reference points and an overfished status cannot be determined.71 The waters south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket have been identified as an important spawning ground for squid and a responsible ecosystem approach to management would implement spawning closures immediately to ensure protections for spawning squid, egg masses, and a robust future squid fishery. Spawning protections do not prevent fishing - they ensure that fishing is appropriate both spatially and temporally.

C. If a 12-mile Inshore Spawning Closure is not Adopted In the Squid Amendment, the Council Should Immediately Initiate a Trailing Action

If the Council fails to adopt spawning closures in the Squid Amendment, it should immediately initiate a framework action to develop a spawning closure south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. Federal regulations state that with appropriate justifications, economic and biologic analysis, and advanced notice to the public, the Council may use a two-meeting framework process at any time make adjustments to management measures within the MSB FMP.72 Spawning closures are an enumerated adjustment to management that may be done via framework action.73 There is ample justification and biological and economic analysis supporting spawning closures for longfin squid.

68 2002, N. Moltschaniwskyi, G. Pecl, J. Lyle. An assessment of the use of short-term closures to protect spawning southern calamari aggregations from fishing pressure in Tasmania, Australia. Bulletin of Marine Science, 70(1): 501-514, 508. 69 Id. at 501. 70 Id. at 509. 71 2015 MAFMC, J. Didden. Longfin Squid Informational Document, p.2. 72 50 CFR §648.25. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States, Atlantic Mackerel, squid, butterfish framework adjustments to management measures. 73 Id. 11

The Council should implement effective management over the intense and uncontrolled squid fishing during Trimester 2. Concentrated fishing in this ecologically rich area known for its importance to spawning, egg laying, and migration for countless ecologically and economically important and imperiled species is simply illogical and against the Council’s commitment to taking an ecosystem approach to fisheries management.

I. Recommended Measures Are Consistent with the Council’s Ecosystem Approaches To Fisheries Management Guidance Document

The Council’s recently adopted EAFM Guidance Document recommends conservative management of forage and low trophic level species because of their value to overall ecosystem health. The Guidance Document notes that special safeguards are necessary to protect heavily exploited forage stocks because of the important role they play in the transfer of energy in marine food webs.74 Specifically, the guidance states “It shall be the policy of the Council to support the maintenance of an adequate forage base in the Mid-Atlantic to ensure ecosystem productivity, structure and function and to support sustainable fishing communities.”75 Such special safeguards, based on the best available science,76 should be implemented in Trimester 2 (May 1- September 30) when longfin squid are spawning.

Ultimately, the management measures selected must adequately address the essential forage role of squid in the stability of predator populations and the balance of other trophic interactions in the marine food web. To be consistent with its new EAFM Guidance Document and its commitment to managing forage species as prey to ensure sustainable fisheries, the Council should make adjustments to management during Trimester 2 (Alternatives 4B and 4D) and adopt a 12-mile inshore spawning closure that limits catch of longfin squid during Trimester 2. These measures will ensure a healthy longfin squid stock and safeguard ecosystem productivity, structure, and function.

II. Conclusion

Pew greatly appreciates the Council’s ongoing attention and commitment to a robust forage base and its Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries Management policy. The combination of hard cap on the Trimester 2 quota and 250 pound incidental possession limit during Trimester 2 and a spawning closure in the longfin squid fishery south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket will ensure meaningful protections for longfin squid, one of the most important forage species in the Northeast Large Marine Ecosystem. The Council’s efforts on the Squid Amendment are commendable and we look forward to contributing further to protecting forage and supporting the Council’s EAFM initiative to preserve our ocean resources.

74 2016, MAFMC EAFM Guidance Document, p. 5-9. 75 Id. 76 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(2) National Standard 2: “Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.” 12

Sincerely,

Peter Baker Purcie Bennett-Nickerson Director, U.S. Oceans Northeast Senior Associate, U.S. Oceans Northeast The Pew Charitable Trusts The Pew Charitable Trusts [email protected] [email protected]

84 Navarro, Michael

Does Current Speed Matter? A close look at embryo respiration of the market squid, Doryteuthis (formerly Loligo) opalescens

Summary of Talk (Extended Abstract): Market squid lay and attach their egg capsules to the soft sediments of the seafloor (McGowan 1954). The habitat where egg beds have been observed has been characterized as sandy with temperature ranging from 11-12 °C (California Department of Fish and Game Report 2000). However this characterization does not seem adequate to explain why squid spawn in relatively small areas compared to the large areas of sandy habitat available (personal observation). Embryos respond to aeration and the availability of O2 affects their development rate (Chaffee and Strathmann 1984) and hatching success (Fields 1965, Vidal et al. 2002). Because the embryos are concentrated and fixed to the bottom sediments, there is the potential that the egg bed could deplete O2 from the seawater available to them. This PBI course project will use a case study to investigate the possibility that 1) egg beds need aeration to survive and if so 2) what is the minimum current speed (velocity) needed for survival.

Before I could explore the O2 demand of an egg bed, I first needed to estimate the O2 demand for a single embryo. Oxygen consumption is related to egg volume (Strathmann and Chaffee 1984) and I used three sources in the literature (Fields 1965, Hurley 1976, Macewitz et al. 2004) to estimate a mean integrated volume of an embryo during the embryogenesis to equal 2.78 μL -1 -1 (Figure 1). Based on a general invertebrate egg O2 consumption rate = 2 μL O2 hr * 10 μL -1 (Strathmann and Chaffee 1984), I calculated that a squid embryo consumes 1.724 μL O2 hr . In -1 -1 addition to this estimate, I converted Hurley’s (1976) estimate of 2.5 μL O2 hr * mg of squid -1 paralarvae (dry weight) to be equivalent to a squid embryo consuming 1.563 μL O2 hr . In the -1 presentation, I only used the 1.724 μL O2 hr rate but both will be explored here.

Once I determined the O2 consumption rate for squid embryos, I used the measurements of a squid egg bed that was collected by McGowan (1954) in La Jolla submarine canyon as a case study. The egg bed was 1.6 * 106 m2 in area 1 m in height (Figure 2) and the egg capsule density was 5 * 104 m2(Okutani and McGowan 1969). The investigators calculated there to be 8.32 × 9 12 10 egg capsules and embryos 1.76 × 10 . McGowan (1954) did not observe any embryo mortality. Egg beds of this magnitude have been observed recently (http://www.sunray- productions.com/squid.html) and at other geographic locations (California Department of Fish and Game Report 2000).

Embryogenesis lasts from three to nine weeks and is inversely related to temperature (Isaacs et al. 2004, Zeidberg personal communication). Mortality could occur if the residence time of the external (to the embryos) seawater is long enough for the embryos to consume all the available O2. Because I was only interested in the maximum residence time, I chose to make my calculation assuming that the external seawater was supersaturated with O2. I estimated O2 supersaturation to equal 276 μmol/kg based on the temperature of 12.6 C that was measured by McGowan (1954) and a salinity of 33.5 PSU (www.sccoos.org). Then, I estimated the maximum residence time (Tmax) for seawater of the egg bed using the equation Tmax= C/(M*E), C=external seawater O2 concentration, M=O2 consumption rate, and E=embryos per volume of

85 egg mass (Strathmann and Chaffee 1984). I calculated the residence time to equal 2.23 hours (This value corrects and calculation error, 3.5 hr, made in the presentation). This is a surprising finding to me because it infers that seawater over McGowan’s (1954) egg bed must have been ventilated at least every 2.23 hours over the 5 weeks of embryogenesis because all the embryos that were observed were alive. This infers that currents were a regular component of system. I estimated the minimum velocity (umin) of current required to ventilate the egg bed making the assumption that the velocity was horizontal and unidirectional along the axis of the bed. To estimate umin, I made the assumption that the axes of McGowan’s (1954) egg bed were not equal (Figure 2). I estimated that the axis of the egg bed that extended from shallow to deep to be no more than 200 m. This differs from my presentation but it is a more accurate approximation because it is based off of my observations of egg beds in La Jolla submarine canyon earlier this year (http://www.sunray-productions.com/squid.html). To make my estimate, I used the equation umin=L/ Tmax where L=length of egg bed axis in direction of flow (Strathmann and Chaffee 1984). I calculated the minimum velocity that would have been required to keep the egg bed alive as was observed by McGowan (1954). Therefore to reach umin, the flow would have to be from the deep to the shallow along the shorter of the two axes. I -1 calculated umin=2.49 cm sec .

As discussed earlier, I calculated the embryo O2 consumption rates two ways. Above I discussed -1 -1 my calculation using the 1.724 μL O2 hr rate but what about the 1.563 μL O2 hr rate? Using the lower O2 consumption rate increases the residence time to 2.46 hr and decreases the umin to -1 2.26 cm sec . Although it is certain that an accurate O2 consumption rate will improve the accuracy of any of these calculations, both methods produced results that were similar. It seems that my calculations are most sensitive to length of axis in direction of the flow and the flow direction variables. In summary, this investigation is novel because, previously, characterization of market squid egg beds has focused on seawater temperature and substrate type. In this review and unfortunately not talked about in the presentation, I gathered insight into potential adaptive strategies of market squid when they are laying their egg capsules. 1) To some degree, market squid probably select habitat based on current speed because their embryos benefit by being ventilated. 2) Using my model, when market squid have found an area with appropriate current characteristics, they may actively place egg capsules in a manner that reduces the length of axis to flow so that the overall ventilation is enhanced. If these characterizations of squid egg beds are correct, then it may be an important finding to understand why squid “disappear” during ENSO events (Vojkovich 1998, Zeidberg and Hamner 2002). Is it possible that the mechanism for why squid “disappear” is because they migrate to “unfished” areas in the north that have enough current to support their eggs?

Figure 1. Embryo volume based on measurements taken from scientific photographs or drawings that included a length scale bar. X-Axis = the stage in development based on time (d) during embryogenesis. Y-Axis = Volume (μL). Color indicates the research paper source; Red = Macewitz et al. 2004, Blue = Fields 1965, Orange = Hurley 1976. Shape indicates the stage of during embryogenesis; Square = Pre-embryo, Circle = Embryo, Triangle= 1-day post hatch.

Figure 2. Egg bed of La Jolla submarine canyon using the observed area from McGowan (1954) and short axis length observation (http://www.sunray-productions.com/squid.html). The red arrow indicates the direction of umin being in the same direction as the 200 m axis.

87 Literature Cited

California Department of Fish and Game Preliminary Report (2000) Abundance and distribution of market squid egg cases among fished areas of California. Unpublished. 5 pp.

Chaffee C, Strathmann RR (1984) Constraints on egg masses. I. Retarded development within thick egg masses. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 84:73-83.

Fields WG (1965) The structure, development, food relations, reproduction, and life history of the squid, Loligo opalescens, Berry. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 131. 108 pp

Hurley AC (1976) Feeding behavior, food consumption, growth, and respiration of the squid Loligo opalescens raised in the laboratory. Fishery Bulletin 74:176-182.

Isaac G, Neumeister H, Gilly WF (2004) The effects of temperature on early life stages of the California Squid (Loligo opalescens). Unpublished. 15 pp.

Macewitz BJ, Hunter JR, Lo NCH, LaCasella EL (2004) Fecundity, egg deposition, and mortality of market squid (Loligo opalescens) Fisheries Bulletin 102:306-327.

McGowan JA (1954) Observations on the sexual behavior and spawning of the squid, Loligo opalescens, at La Jolla, California. California Department of Fish and Game 40: 47-54.

Okutani T, McGowan JA (1969) Systematics, distribution, and abundance of the epiplanktonic squid (Cephalopoda, Decapoda) larvae of the California current, April, 1954-March 1957. Bullettin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Univiversity of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 14:89 pp.

Strathmann RR, Chaffee C (1984) Constraints on egg masses. II. Effect of spacing, size and number of eggs on ventilation o fmasses of embryos in jelly, adherent groups, or thin-walled capsules. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 84:85-93.

Vidal EAG, DiMarco FP, Wormuth JH (2002) Optimizing rearing conditions of hatchling lolignid squid. Marine Biology 140:117-127.

Vojkovich M (1998) The California fishery for market squid (Loligo opalescens). CalCOFI Report 39: 55-60.

Zeidberg LD, Hamner WM (2002) Distribution of squid paralarvae, Loligo opalescens (Cephalopoda:Myopsida), in the Southern California Bight in the three years following the 1997-1998 El Nino. Marine Biology 141:111-122.

88 May 18, 2017

To Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council

I am not a fan of requalifiers , it is usually done to get people out and let new ones in. I have been kicked out of fisheries that I was in to make room for other people with no previous history.

I was the only boat from New York that was involved in the Illex joint ventures and went to most of the meeting and was assured I qualified yet when all said and done I didn’t yet boats that lied about Illex being mixed in with Loligo were given permits.

Eleven boats were bumped on herring permits to 55,000 lbs to allow the Voyager and a west coast boat into the fishery, this was done by changing the requalifying dates. Because I was herring fishing this also hurt my groundfish days at sea and quota.

Because of the above reasons I support 1C 1997-2013 10,000 lb qualifier although I would prefer a higher poundage.

My biggest concern is the latest effort by scallopers to get in the fishery. They had no problem kicking fishing boats out of scalloping but because they have time and money they want it all.

I am also against a new 2500 pound permit for boats with no history. These limited permits have a history of creating more problems, look at the Cape Cod Hook Association, who got special treatment on cod and then on qualifying years, they’re biggest business now is getting money from environmental groups and selling quota to true fishermen. Then we have the day scallopers who have created their own special category and think they deserve special treatment, 400 pound of scallops was supposed to be a bycatch and boats like me that would catch it 2 or 3 times a year got bumped to 40 pounds a trip. If you do the math 400 scallops at $10 a pound equals $4000, 2500 pounds of large squid at $1.60 equals $4000. This would be a perfect supplement to the day scallopers at the expense of other boats.

Thank you,

F?V Illusion

Mark S Phillips

210 Atlantic Ave

Greenport NY 11944

89 Dr. Moore,

I would like to take a moment of your time to offer my opinion on a part of the longfin squid amendment that is coming up for committee vote next week. I am a fisherman from Cape Cod. I have spent most of my life on the water around the Cape and Islands. I have run commercial groundfish boats, commercial BFT boats and am now running a charter boat and a headboat out of Harwich. I am in favor of option 4B and either 4D or 4E.

I have heard much discussion about the science of egg mops, etc. I am an engineer by degree and not a biologist, so I have no background to stand on to agree with or refute the science. However, I have observations from fishing over the last two decades or more while fishing on Nantucket and Monomoy shoals. I have seen a serious reduction in the amount of squid, both large and small, that I have seen going thru the rips while I am out there fishing. I know both Bluefish and Striped Bass have yearly ups and downs. I have certainly seen reductions in the availability of both fish in my area over the last few years. However, my comment is not a direct result of reduced target fish availability. From the vantage point of the tower on my boat, I get to see what bait may be going thru the rip while I am out fishing. It is here that I see the huge reduction in squid. Even if both the Bass and Bluefish were not present, I should still see signs of squid in the rips. I do not know the reason for this, although I find the large harvest in T2 near Nantucket via a technique that also impacts the eggs of the squid to be a reasonable likely cause. It is for this reason that I would strongly urge T2 catch be limited (at least in the area of Nantucket and the Vineyard). I have no personal observations to offer regarding other areas. I believe option 4B and 4D present the most significant way to do this and return to longfin squid catch levels comparable to those back when I was seeing abundant squid in the rips.

As an engineer, coming into a broken system, I always ask: “What has changed?” I think that this is a good question to ask as we look to the future of not only the squid fishery but also the fisheries that depend on squid as forage. If it’s not the total cause, a take reduction in the critical T2 period should at least ease the pressure to a point that the affected fisheries remain viable in the area. I know I have lost customers due to the decline in bass. I worry that we will get to a point that bass will no longer come looking around the SE coast of the Cape. I urge you to vote for 4B and 4D when this comes to a committee vote.

Thank you for your time,

Capt. Chris Pistel

Chris Pistel Contractor office: 1 (781) 332-1930 [email protected]

90 Please consider the moratorium on permits for longfin and ilex squid so our populations can be protected and spawning can be continued.

Thank you, Nancy Rappaport Nantucket, MA

91 As a recreational catch and release fisherman conserving our squid population is important to me and the mid-Atlantic economies and ecosystems. Bass, fluke and bluefish often regurgitate squid as I release them and you need to leave enough in the water to support a healthy sport fishery.

Stewart Rosen 917-923-9995

92 Please eliminate the harvest of squid inshore (Nantucket Sound, areas near Nantucket, MV and east). Squid plays an essential role as forage for almost all other pelagic species which recreationally and commercially hold much for value to the public than the squid fishery alone.

Sincerely, Darren Saletta Chatham, Ma

93 May 18, 2017 100 Davisville Pier North Kingstown, RI 02852

Squid Amendment Comments

1. Longfin Squid Moratorium Permit Requalification Alternatives (Alternative Set 1): We support Alternative 1C, a 1997-2013 with 10,000 lbs best year requalifier. This alternative will protect historic participants over a long time series, while using the 2013 control date set by the Council to protect historic participation from new effort.

2. Longfin Squid Moratorium Permit Requalification Sub-Alternatives (Alternative Set 2): We do not support Alternative 2C (or related 3B and 3C alternatives), an automatic incidental 2,500 lb permit for non-requalifiers. Creating such a permit will create and encourage a substantial directed 2,500 lb fishery, which the Council identified as a problem in 2016 for various reasons. According to the analysis set forth in the document, out of the current 383 moratorium permits, 375 (Alternative 3B) or 325 (Alternative 3C) could qualify for a limited access incidental 2,500 lb permit. This would create a large new user group category that would potentially lead to conflict between the two permit categories in the future. If the Council chooses an alternative such as 1C, a long time series with a low qualifier, all historic participation will be captured without the need to create a new potentially problematic permit category.

3. Longfin Squid Trimester 2 Alternatives (Alternative Set 4): We support taking no action on the Trimester 2 quota and/or rollover. We cannot support 4D, a 250 pound post Trimester 2 incidental limit, which would be unworkable.

4. Illex Moratorium Permit Requalification Alternatives (Alternative Set 5): Illex is a high tonnage fishery, much more so than longfin squid. Therefore, any requalification for illex must be at a higher threshold than a longfin alternative of 10,000 lbs. Since there is nominal difference in number of qualifiers between Alternatives 5D, 5E or 5F, i.e. a 50,000, 100,000 or 200,000 lb best year qualifier from 1997-2013, we could support any of these options.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

94 SALMON FALLS TRAWLER, INC. PO Box 287, South Berwick, ME 03908 207-384-4854

April 27, 2017

Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL:

Dear Dr. Moore:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED SQUID AMENDMENT

Our company owns a limited access long finned squid permit that we have been trying to activate for several years. We have not been able to activate the permit due to difficulties finding a vessel that was consistent with the length, horsepower, tonnage requirements for replacement vessels. Recently, the National Marine Fisheries Service removed the tonnage requirement for permit transfers and we are currently in the process of transferring that permit to a vessel. The permit has significant long finned squid landings every year from 1995 to 2002.

We do not understand how the Mid Atlantic Council or the National Marine Fisheries Service can justify a requalification of long finned squid permits when the catch has consistently been, on average, half of the quota. This fact is not consistent with any argument that the fishery suffers from overcapacity.

We support a no action vote by the Council on the squid amendment. Otherwise, we will experience a serious financial loss in the purchase price for this permit, as well as the ability to continue with our fishing plans.

Sincerely, M. Raymond

Maggie Raymond Owner

95 Good morning. I attended the Hearing last night at the URI, Corless Auditorium. I would like to comment on some of the key points of the discussion last night.

Concerning the Longfin Squid Moratorium alternatives (Set 1); I favor 1B

Concerning the Trimester 2 (T2) Alternatives; I favor 4A.

Set 5: Illex squid moratorium alternatives; I favor 5A.

Thank you

Regards, Dale Stoutenburgh SeaFresh USA

96 97

May 15, 2017 Dr. Chris Moore Executive Director Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street Suite 201 Dover, DE 19901

Dear Dr. Moore,

I’m writing to provide our comments on MAFMC’s Squid Amendment. We at the Town Dock support the following alternatives:

1B: 1997-2015/10,000 pounds best year for the Longfin moratorium permit requalification. Using the 1997-2015 time period would requalify both historical participants and some recently active participants, but in the end will prevent an influx of new participants from entering the fishery in the future.

3A: No Action. The current open access incidental permits and associated trip limits would remain as they are.

4A: No Action. We are not in favor for any changes to Trimester II at this time. We believe that the summer fishery of 2016 was an anomaly and will not be the new normal for the summer fishery. We think that pressure will be taken off the Trimester II fishery by moving forward with a limited access fishery as there will be some vessels that will not requalify and it will prevent any increase in participants to the fishery in general.

5A: No Action. At this time we do not see the need to take any action in the Illex fishery. It has far fewer participants in the largest landings category and the number of vessels has recently decreaced. Far fewer vessels participate in this fishery than they do in the Longfin fishery.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Amendment.

Sincerely,

Katie Almeida Fishery Policy Analyst The Town Dock: P.O. Box 608; 45 State St Narragansett, RI 02882 PH: 401-789-2200 FAX: 401-782-4421 Website: www.towndock.com

98 99

To: Dr. Chris Moore and all Council Members

From: Chuck Weimar F/V Rianda S. Montauk NY

I would like to thank the council for addressing the latent effort situation in the squid fisheries. We are squid fishermen and have been since 1980 when we developed the fishery when it was considered an underutilized species. There was very little domestic market for squid then.

We organized and participated in numerous joint ventures with the Japanese, Italians, Spanish in the hope of building a domestic infrastructure that could process US caught squid. While we were working to build this new mid Atlantic US fishery, it cost us dearly in the groundfish and scallop fisheries. Having limited history of landings, consequently our permits for the groundfish and scallop fisheries have been taken.

While this council is considering alternatives for the squid amendment, I would like to urge the council to consider our long term participation in this fishery. Overcapicity is the big problem in this fishery now and will get much worse if not addressed in this amendment.

The control date of 2009 should have been kept, but was changed to 2013. The 2013 control date should be used to protect the historical participations. In August of 2014, the fishery was closed with red hot fishing due to overcapacity. In 2015 and 2016, overcapacity also took over the fishery. In 2016, the fishery closed June 26th leaving our traditional July and August fishery closed. A lot of the smaller boats have always traditionally heavily depended on this summer fishery. With the overcapacity situation now, the entire trimester 2 fishery has been turned on its head.

100 We implore this council to use 2013 control date and explore other alternatives, such as for example ITQs based on historical participation over the long term. We have been filling out VTRs since June of 1994. Everyone has their landings. There is no grey area with this approach. Another option is a tiered system with 20 years of VTR data used for landing history.

The present alternatives in this amendment do not address the historical participants. The only alternative in this amendment that is even close is 1E which is what I would personally support. It is a sad day in America when the traditional small boat fishery is not considered. We are all not the same. I should qualify for the 1E alternative but where does that leave our small traditional fishery? Please consider this.

I am in favor of status quo for the rollover from tri-semester 1 to tri-semester 2.

Please consider the following points:

• When this amendment is all said and done, no matter what the limit should never go below 2500 lbs. for anyone. If this amendment starts producing huge regulatory discards of squid, it will be incomprehensible to the fishery that we have developed over the past 37 years. • The present overcapacity in the fishery is a huge threat in the bycatch fishery butterfish, river herring etc. • I do not know where this one time permit swap came from in the amendment but in all the other fisheries that my permits have been taken away, I was never offered a onetime permit swap. Why now? There is already a serious overcapacity situation that needs to be addressed. • Before changing any incidental trip limits in this amendment, I think that we should see how the dust settles after the amendment is implemented. There may not be a need for it. • The reduced fleet fishery should address a lot of the current problems of overcapacity.

As far as illex moratorium permit in this amendment, I would support 5A for no action. I have not participated in illex fishery for some years. The annual quota is

101 not harvested. If action is taken other than 5A, please consider a tiered permit or incidental permit with up to 50,000 lbs. per trip so I do not lose another permit.

Thank you for consideration of the above items.

Sincerely

Chuck Weimar F/V Rianda S Montauk NY

102 Dr. Moore;

I work for two family owned vessels that currently hold longfin squid moratorium permits, F/V Ocean State and F/V Emilia Rose. I am not sure either vessel will meet the re-qualification alternatives, but I would vote for option "b. 1997-2013, 10,000-pound best year threshold". I feel this earlier control date would "weed out" some of the latent permits that have recently come into play, but the lower threshold might allow at least one of my families vessels to continue to hold a permit.

I would vote for option "a. 1997-2013, 2,500-pound best year threshold" for the limited access permits. I would vote for option "b. 500 pounds" for new open access permits.

I am not sure what has been discussed for current moratorium vessels that do not re-qualify. I would like to see maybe a tier 2 or Class B permit be created for these vessels. If one of these permits would be allowed something like 5000 lbs/day 10000 lbs/trip limits it would allow these vessels and crews an opportunity to make a decent wage while not encouraging the use of latent permits.

Thank you for your time,

Joshua Westcott

BS Ocean Engineering

103

May 18, 2017

Mr. Mike Luisi, Chairman Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Suite 201, 800 North State St. Dover, DE 19901

RE: Squid Amendment Comments

Dear Chairman Luisi and Dr. Moore,

Wild Oceans’ mission is to promote a broad, ecosystems approach to fisheries management that reflects our expanding circle of concern for all marine life and the future of fishing. We believe that prey species that we fish for, like longfin squid, should be managed in a manner that safeguards critical links between predators and prey. Preserving the food web is essential to the long-term success of fisheries. The role of longfin squid as prey for a wide variety of commercially and recreationally- important fish predators is well documented.1 We are pleased that through the Squid Amendment to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (MSB FMP), the Council is investigating excessive, concentrated fishing effort during Trimester 2 of the longfin squid fishery and has proposed alternatives to safeguard aggregations of longfin squid during this critical period of spawning. The inshore Trimester 2 fishery occurs on the only known longfin squid spawning grounds,2 and these spawning grounds may contribute significantly to overall annual egg production. We support Alternative 4B, elimination of the quota rollover from Trimester 1 to Trimester 2, in combination with Alternative 4D, imposing a 250-pound trip limit for vessels with longfin squid permits once Trimester 2 closes. Together, these two alternatives will be most effective in controlling fishing effort in the second trimester. As discussed in the Squid Amendment Public Hearing Document and also in the recent longfin squid stock assessment update, the longfin squid stock is composed of two primary seasonal cohorts, hatched in the

1Using food habits data from NEFSC bottom trawl surveys, Moustahfid et al (2009) identified 15 species that prey on longfin inshore squid: the spiny dogfish, smooth dogfish, winter skate, Atlantic cod, pollock, silver hake, red hake, spotted hake, weakfish, bluefish, summer flounder, fourspot flounder, goosefish, sea raven and Atlantic mackerel. [Moustahfid, H., Tyrrell, M.C. and Link, J.S., 2009. Accounting explicitly for predation mortality in surplus production models: an application to longfin inshore squid. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 29(6), pp.1555-1566.] 2 Longfin Inshore Squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii) Stock Assessment Update for 2017, p. 5. P.O. BOX 258 • WATERFORD, VA 20197 WWW.WILDOCEANS.ORG 104 summer and in the winter, each highly dependent on the other for productivity. Excessive fishing pressure on one cohort could result in recruitment overfishing with serious implications for not only the squid fishery but for dependent predators and the fishermen that target them. Fishing during Trimester 2 targets the winter-hatched cohort, but the current practice of rolling over part of the Trimester 1 quota with a potential 50% increase in Trimester 2 quota puts the summer-hatched cohort in jeopardy because fishing during this time period removes some squid before they have fully spawned.3 We also note the higher bycatch of squid egg mops in the longfin squid fishery during Trimester 2, when compared with discard data from Trimester 1 and Trimester 3 (See Tables 18-20 in the Public Hearing Document). It is logical to assume that squid eggs dislodged and passed through a trawl net or discarded once brought aboard will suffer from decreased viability, further reducing stock productivity. While we support no rollover of quota into Trimester 2, we do have concerns about increasing fishing effort during the winter season as a result of rolling over quota into Trimester 3. Researchers (Moustahfid et al 2009, Staudinger 20064) have found patterns of increased consumption by longfin squid predators in winter months when these fish retreat, along with squid, to warmer waters of the outer shelf and slope during the colder months of the year. We respectfully ask the Council to enlist the help of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center to monitor trends in predator consumption of longfin squid in order to adjust management strategies if necessary to protect these important predator-prey interactions. Finally, we reiterate our support for exploring the localized depletion issue around Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Sound that was brought to the attention of the Council by the angling community from this region. We are disappointed that buffer zone alternatives designed to address this problem were removed from further analysis and consideration in the Squid Amendment and urge the Council to initiate a plan of action to revisit the topic this year. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Pam Lyons Gromen Executive Director

Jason Didden, Fishery Management Specialist

3 See Squid Amendment Public Hearing Document, p. 42. 4 Staudinger, M.D., 2006. Seasonal and size-based predation on two species of squid by four fish predators on the Northwest Atlantic continental shelf. Fishery Bulletin, 104(4), p.605.

105 Hello As an off shore fisherman, we have noticed the squid are becoming more & more scarce , and when we are able to attract them, their smaller & smaller, to small for bait,I'm not sure what the regulations are,,but I've never seen so many squid trawlers (14) one day lined up harvesting, squid at the Hudson Canyon ,

Dave Young

106 Comments Below Submitted Via Council's Web Portal

Name City State Sector Group Comments Representing if applicable Dave Aripotch Montauk N.Y. Commercial There has to be a mechanism to protect the historical participants of this fishery. The boats that are fishing for squid are 99% from New Jersey , New York , and Rhode Island. The ground fish fleet is decimated because of catch shares. Fluke have been all but taken away from us , sea bass are a sad joke, and now too are the scup being fished for by more boats than ever. How about giving the boats that have depended on these fisheries a break ? The powers that be screwed us out of the ground fishery, and now they want to screw us out of the squid fishery. Its a joke to think your going to put more limitations on the summer squid fishery if your not going to do something about all the newcomers into the fishery. Just get rid of the latent effort, and the summer squid fishery will take care of itself,as it has for the last 35 or 40 years! BY NMFS own admission,they have said that seeing as squid is an annual species, it is probably impossible to overfish. Im sick and tired of being the "pressure relief valve" for all other fisheries. The ground fish fleet got what it wanted, which was eliminateing guys like me that did it historically for a certain part of each year. They got just what they wanted,and now realize they can't afford to do it either because the insane demands they agreed to to get the enviroscums blessing made it largely unprofitable. So now after I got screwed out of that I should let these people suck up my squid fishery? Somebody better get it together and put an end to this madness. As far as Illex, I don't have an Illex permit so I don't have an opinion on that fishery,just like the ground fish fleet that never went squid fishing shouldn't have anything to say about the long fin squid fishery.

Thank You, Dave Aripotch < F/V Caitlin & Mairead Montauk, New York

107 Name City State Sector Group Comments Representing if applicable Arnold Ulrich Wood- NJ Recreational Hudson River Squid are very important forage to many species of fish off of the State of Ridge Fishermen's NJ. A healthy abundant squid population is critical to Atlantic economies Association and ecosystems. We need to leave enough in the water to ensure healthy populations for future generations. Stop the overharvesting of squid.

Thank You

Arnold Ulrich 164 Jefferson Street Wood-Ridge, NJ, 07075

JIM NEWFOUN N J Recreational Please do not allow the harvesting of squid during the breeding season. DESTEPHANO DLAND We must protect this important species. Carl Sheppard Beach NJ Commercial Beach Haven During the past 35 years, and up until 2005, when we went out to the Haven Charter Fishing canyons off New Jersey, the squid population would show up on our Association bottom sounders as a solid line from the 40 fathom line out to the continental shelf, with only occasional breaks. About 12 years ago that started to change. This changes appears to have been synchronous with the point in time when the boats that used to fish Georges Bank were refitted for squid and came down to New Jersey waters. Now, when you run to the canyons, you will see occasional patches of squid, seldom more than 200' in breadth. Something has changed. The tuna no longer stay around, as the pickings are slim. Timothy Doolan Bayonne NJ Recreational, Please use all of your power to protect squid stocks. Squid are an Environmental essential part of the marine ecosystem. Without them many fisheries would collapse. William Filce Hillside NJ Recreational Me ! Use common sense , which is lacking in all sectors of our government . The oceans are dying & being raped while you play a violin. Try to save something , you let the silver hake get wiped out in the NY bight . That was one of the biggest goofs you made WAKE UP !!!! Save something besides your jobs !! Stewart Rosen Hoboken NJ Recreational I am a catch and release recreational fisherman, fishing about 50 days annually. We need to protect our resources, particularly those which our game fish feed on. A healthy squid population is needed and you need to conserve this important forage fish. The recreational fishery contributes much more to the economy than the commercial fishery.

108 Name City State Sector Group Comments Representing if applicable Ralph Carl Leonardo Nj Recreational, Leonardo I have lived on the water all my life, I have never seen such disregard by Environmental taxpayers both state national as well as foreign interest groups, looking to take what association , they can for a fast profit. sandy hook bay We had better control of our oceans without limits 30 years ago you are anglers taking out the breeder fluke and handing the males to the commercial association boats for your own benefit, now squid, first it was the herring, then the bunker, now you have ruined the veins of mackerel to leave the main body of fish eating whatever they can, Just look where the whales are the offshore body of baits are wiped out, no whiting, no tautog, minimal sea bass, scarce ling or brown hake and cod ! When will the insanity stop, I vow to remove everyone who supports these greedy tactics from their offices if they do not stop soon the ocean is not owned by you. You guys are just doing a bang up job I see you learned a lot in your accounting classes in college , how can you even consider not protecting what we do have such as squid let the other countries take their own stock, we need to feed America first You better take a cold hard look at the decimation of the food chain, no baitfish means no big fish, then you will complain there no fish available, The squid need immediate protection as well as all other bait fish which feed the main fish that we consume for food as well as health. Feel free to contact me on this issue Thank you, And God help us, Sincerely Ralph,

Rick Wisz Lakewood NJ Recreational Individual Whales in are bays and sounds looking for food and dying do to the lack of squid in the ocean. DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE SQUID SHORTAGE>

109 Name City State Sector Group Comments Representing if applicable Joan Rall Nantucket Massachu Environmental I am a private citizen enjoying all of Nantucket's natural charms. setts I endorse Alternatives 4B and 4D for protecting Nantucket's waters and limiting the catch during spawning season.

Thank you.

Joan Rall Victoria Pickwick Siasconset, Ma. Environmental Peter Kaizer's I support 4B & 4D to protect Nantucket's fishery & return fish to their Recommendatio historic fidelity geographic spawning grounds. ns & Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Bruce Peters Chatham MAS Recreational Capeshores I write to ask that no further expansion of mobile gear squid fishing in Charters Nantaucket sound be allowed. Further I would ask ALL small mesh mobile gear fishing be restricted to OUTSIDE of the 3 mile line. The impacts of mobile gear on the reproductive processes of the squid have not be fully understood to date, and as a result no further expansion of the mobile gear squid fishery should be allowed. In fact current efforts should be curtailed or temporarily suspended until these impacts on the squid mops and reproductive processes can be fully evaulated. Lastly, the recreational striped bass, black bass, bluefish, summer flounder and other viable recreational fisheries are severely impacted by the increased targeting of this critical forage base food supply. It is past time we fail to consider the impacts of forage species to a resource. Respectfully submitted , Captain Bruce Peters

John Berglin Hampton NY Commercial F/V Mary I support option 1E of the plan to reduce latent squid permit entry, I Bays Elizabeth believe there is president for this action. In the past scallop, ground fish, herring, mackerel, tile and monk fisheries to name some but not all have benefited from control dates and similar plans. This plan should not be watered down by permit swapping or any devises that have not been used in previous actions. It is the right action to take now.

110 Name City State Sector Group Comments Representing if applicable Arthur Gasbarro Nantucket MA Recreational, Dear Council Members: Environmental I am writing to express my SUPPORT for Alternatives 4B & 4D. Based on my 20+ years spending countless days on the waters south of Cape Cod, I am sure that a greater level of protection for the squid mops will benefit all stakeholders.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Capt. Arthur D. Gasbarro, PE

111 Name City State Sector Group Comments Representing if applicable Cormac Collier Nantucket MA Environmental Nantucket Land May 18, 2017 Council Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201 Dover, DE 19901

To Whom it May Concern,

The Nantucket Land Council is a non-profit 501 c 3 environmental organization with over 1500 members. Our mission is to promote and protect the natural resources of Nantucket and its surrounding waters. We have read the proposed Amendment to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan and have the following comments.

We support the proposed alternatives 4B and 4D relating to the Longfin Squid Trimester 2. These changes will positively influence the long term viability of the squid fishery. Limiting the impacts to the squid fishery during the spawning season is critical to a healthy marine ecosystem, particularly to those elements that are so closely entwined and dependent on a sustainable squid population.

We look forward to the successful passage of these alternatives and the continued protection of our marine resources.

Sincerely,

Cormac Collier Executive Director Deborah Lewis Chestnut ma Recreational It is very important to reduce the number of commercial boats depleting hill the squid population. The lack of squid has radically changed fishing on Nantucket , which I would like to see preserved for generations to come

112 Name City State Sector Group Comments Representing if applicable Joseph Gilbert Stonington CT Commercial I am the owner of F/V Regulus and I am invested in and depend on the commercial Longfin and Illex squid fisheries and hold a moratorium permit for Longfin and Illex. Directed squid fishing has been an important part of my overall fishing business especially during the the winter months as it supplements crew income during times when we are not participating in other fisheries. We invested in the squid fishery for this reason a long time ago and we have already qualified for moratorium permits. I feel I should not have to re-qualify now again. There is no need to set new control dates in the squid fisheries as there already is an appropriate number of vessels in the squid fishery. This is evidenced by the fact that the quota is not reached in every year or trimester, especially during T1 and T3 when we typically fish. Vessels that direct fishing efforts on the underutilized quota of T1 and T3 should not be penalized because of increased effort during T2. The concerns of fishery participants are mostly centered around recent increased efforts during Trimester 2. I do not participate in the T2 directed squid fishery. Therefore, I support no action as to Alternative Sets 1, 2, and 5 and do not support the re-qualification of moratoriums permits for Longfin or Illex. Changes to Trimester 2 management is the most appropriate action to address the concerns of fishery participants. I support Alternative 4B with regards to changes in Trimester 2 management. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Vivian Weisner New York NY Recreational Please endorse actions to prevent detaching squid mops from ocean floor which endangers proper gestation of squid and death of juveniles in pod.

Elizabeth Trillos Nantucket MA Other We have fished on Nantucket for over 50 years and have seen the changes that have occurred over this time. Our waters need to be protected. Squid, is an important part of the food chain in our environment. Would you visit an area where you can't find breakfast, lunch, or dinner, stay there, return or most importantly feel it's a good place for procreation? Well guess what fish have the same instincts as you and they're also more attuned to the environment than humans. I urge you to support 40 D and 40 B susan Stokes Newbury MA Recreational I wish to endorse 4B and 4D.

113 Name City State Sector Group Comments Representing if applicable CLARK NANTUCK MA Recreational I HAVE WITNESSED GREAT NUMBERS OF COMMERCIAL FISHING WHITCOMB ET BOATS JUST OFF THE WEST END OF NANTUCKET IN JUNE. THESE BOATS ARE NETTING LARGE AMOUNTS OF SQUID. THIS AREA IS HOME TO STRIPED BASS & BLUEFISH WHICH ARE DEPENDENT ON SQUID FOR THEIR SUSTENANCE. OVERFISHING THE SQUID WILL HAVE A HUGE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE TWO SPORT FISH THAT PEOPLE COME TO NANTUCKET TO FISH FOR. MANY OF THE FISH CAUGHT ARE RELEASED BACK INTO THE WATER. IT IS VITAL THAT THE SQUID STOCKS BE PROTECTED. PLEASE PASS THE SQUID AMENDMENT. Morgan Raith Nantucket MA Recreational, The Town of I am endorsing Alternatives 4B and 4D on behalf of the Town of Environmental Nantucket Nantucket. If other coastal communities in MA have seasonal or year- round protection of spawning grounds, Nantucket should too. Temporarily limiting access to the spawning grounds around Nantucket will lead to long-term benefits for the fishery as a whole. Robert C Memphis TN Recreational We need to have protections are in place for squid in Nantucket's waters Foehring AND limiting the catch amounts during the spawning season are vital to the sustainability of critical bait fish for this region. Outside economic concerns should not trump the need to protect the resource.

114 Name City State Sector Group Comments Representing if applicable Eric Lundvall SAUNDER Rhode Commercial F/V ESTRELA Dear Council Members, STOWN Island DOMAR , POINT JUDITH, The following are my choices from the range alternatives for the Squid RHODE ISLAND Amendment.

Longfin Squid Moratorium Permit Requalification Alternatives: 1C - 1997- 2013/10,000 pound best year. This would be the fairest alternative that would cover historical and present day participants.

Longfin Squid Moratorium Permit Requalification Sub-Alternatives: 2B - Longfin Swap and 2C Automatic incidental for non-requalifiers.

Longfin Squid Incidental and Open Access Alternatives: 3C Limited access Incidental 1997-2013 pounds best year. 3D- 250 pound open access trip limit.

Longfin Squid Trimester 2("T2") Alternatives: 4A- NO ACTION. Any other alternatives would have a devastating economic impact on vessels and shore side infrastructure.

Illex Squid Moratorium Permit Requalification Alternatives: 5A No action.

Thank you for taking my comments into consideration.

Eric Lundvall,

F/V Estrela Domar , Point Judith, Rhode Island Justine Paradis Nantucket MA I've lived on Nantucket island for my entire life, and I support the amendment to take appropriate steps to manage industrial fishing practices near the coast. This seems consistent with other strategies along the east coast. Given the amount of bycatch associated with industrial squid fishing, it seems irresponsible not to manage this. I care about the future of our fisheries and hope the state takes action by adopting the amendment.

115 Name City State Sector Group Comments Representing if applicable Charles Morici Montauk New York Commercial F/V ACT I, My name is Charles Morici, Jr., I am the owner/operator of the fishing MONTAUK, NY vessel Act I, permit #310153, documentation #554626, out of Montauk, NY. My feeling is that the full-time squid permit should NOT be 50,000 lbs./year to qualify. This fishery is NOT over-fished. I would be in favor of 10,000 lbs./year being the qualifying weight. Many small boats depend on this fishery to make their livelihood. I find that it would be extremely damaging if these vessels were eliminated out of this fishery due to high qualifying numbers that maybe unattainable for those participants. Thank you for your time and utmost consideration to this crucial matter.

Adam Atwood Nantucket Ma Recreational Please recognize that we need the natural resources of the sea to feed our fishery. There is a direct connection between the take of these trawlers offshore of Nantucket and the delcine in our catches here. We deserve the same protection as the rest of the East Coast. Charles Etzell East Ny Commercial Independent I support the status quo. We rarely catch our quota . It is absurd to hampton fishermen consider harsh qualifying criteria. As fisheries get healthier quotas should increase hence lowering effort on squid. Please do not cut smaller independent fishermen out of the loligo fishery. Thank you Charles Etzel John Nantucket MA Recreational Depleting the squid population in Nantucket waters will have a deleterious Copenhaver effect on recreational fishing in our great waters. Squid are an important food source for Striped bass, Bluefish and other recreational fish. Trawling for squid in inshore waters should be severely restricted, not to mention the bycatch issues.

John Copenhaver Matthew Fee Nantucket MA Recreational Vice Chair Please provide the same protections to the waters around Nantucket as Nantucket Board the rest of the state enjoys. Our local economy relies on the sport fishing of Selectman industry, and the loss of squid and bait fish over the last few years has hurt our economy. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

116 Name City State Sector Group Comments Representing if applicable Leslie Forbes Nantucket Ma I endorse Alternatives 4B and 4 D. I believe the research that shows how important it is to leave squid mops undisturbed.

It is only by geographic accident that waters off Nantucket do not receive the same protection of the squid industry during the critical reproduction season as the rest of Massachusetts.

Please keep the ocean fishery in balance and adopt Alternatives 4B and 4D. Nancy Gillespie Nantucket MA Environmental I would like to go on record in support of Alternatives 4B and 4D in the Squid Amendment document. I believe that it is essential to protect our natural habitat and allow squid the chance to spawn successfully and recover, via the closures proposed by Nantucketers. Thank you for your consideration. All Kovalencik Nantucket MA Let's save our sound Janice Plourde Nantucket MA Other I am a private citizen, a resident of Nantucket. I am not a commercial or residential fisherman. I am asking that you please endorse Alternatives 4B and 4D as it pertains to the Mid-Atlantic Council vote. Thank you

117 Name City State Sector Group Comments Representing if applicable Peter Kaizer Nantucket Mass Commercial, Fisheries rep for Very simple ! Revert back to 2007 when trimesters were implemented & Recreational Nantucket mass. decided upon from a conservationally minded council that stated that any Advisory panel rollover from trimester one would roll over to trimester three so as to for squid prevent any irreversible damage to the major squid spawning event that mackerel occurs in trimester two . At this point in time this is extremely important butterfish since scientist have spoken out against the extreme mortality that occurs when the squid mops are mechanically detached from the bottom due to the bottom trawlers , it's the gear type that is allowed that is the problem . The allowance of the 2500 lb daily limit was a disaster with excessive by catch discards of not only predator fish but also small squid which would have been the harvestable squid for trimester one instead those squid were eliminated , not exactly the road map to a sustainable fishery ! Reduce the daily trip limit to 250 lbs so as to not promote the devastation of the squid mops which are critical to the sustainability of this fishery ! Unfortunately this seems to be following a pattern of turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to a decision where the outcome of last year was based on financial principles & not logical biological principles . We have seen in recent years the use of time and area spawning closures not only in the USA BUT THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES realized the importance to protect spawning events . When in doubt we should use a precautionary approach and at all cost protect this spawning event ! The cost of mitigation could be priceless if the wrong decisions are made ! michae decker east New York Commercial f/v braedon in set 1 i fully support 1-e but would like to see 1-d to for a limit of about hampton michael f/v 20,000 lbs. if you did a tier system for mackerel why not squid? donald t sarah ann Miller Siasconset MA Recreational Please provide a three mile protection for Nantucket

118 Name City State Sector Group Comments Representing if applicable David Bossi Siasconset MA Recreational I guess there are a couple of concerns. First is that the thought of allowing draggers to scrape the bottom at the very time the spawn working to hatch just makes no sense at all when the Fisheries Management Council is tasked with maintaining a sustainable fishery. Having lived through and been involved in the entirely successful management of sea scallops I just look at the squid management and have to shake my head in wonder.

Second, I have to wonder why, if 90% of the rest of Massachusetts enjoys protection of their squid breeding grounds, is Nantucket left off that list? It makes no sense given the declining cod and stripper catches in our waters.

Please give careful consideration to applying lessons learned fro helping other species recover to this important food source.

119 SQUID AMENDMENT ATLANTIC MACKEREL, SQUID, AND BUTTERFISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Measures to Reduce Latent Squid Fishery Permits and Modify Trimester 2 Longfin Squid Management

Public Hearing Document – April 2017

120 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In this Amendment to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (MSB FMP) the Council considers measures to reduce latent (unused or minimally used) longfin and Illex squid permits and also measures to modify how Trimester 2 (T2) (May-August) of the longfin squid fishery is managed. The objectives of this action are to: A. Consider the appropriate number of vessels in the directed longfin squid and Illex squid fisheries and design appropriate management measures for permitted vessels. The Council is considering this action because there is considerable latent effort in both fisheries - a relatively small portion of vessels with limited access (“moratorium”) squid permits account for the majority of landings in most years, and the Council is concerned that activation of latent permits in the squid fisheries could lead to excessive fishing effort in a shortened season on these semeparous, sub-annual species, as well as increased catch of non-target species if racing to fish increases due to shortened seasons. B. Re-evaluate the management of longfin squid in Trimester 2 (T2). The Council is considering this action because the productivity of the longfin squid stock may be negatively impacted if excessive fishing effort in T2, which occurs on the inshore spawning grounds, does not allow sufficient spawning and/or hatching from egg mops.

After reviewing Advisory Panel and other public comments, the Council developed a range of alternatives and associated analyses described in this document. The Council plans to select from the alternatives described in this document at its June 2017 Council meeting. The Council will consider comments received during public hearings and a written comment period in April and May 2017. During the selection of alternatives, the Council can also modify the alternatives pending sufficient information and rationale. The Council will then recommend the selected alternatives to NOAA Fisheries. Assuming the Council recommends some action alternatives, NOAA Fisheries will then publish a proposed rule along with an Environmental Assessment for public comment. After considering public comments on the proposed rule, NOAA Fisheries will publish a final rule with implementation details. This document first provides general background and describes the alternatives. It then describes the environment and the fisheries that may be affected, and concludes with information about the likely impacts from the alternatives under considerations. An overview of the alternatives is provided in the table below. Some alternatives may be combined with other alternatives, as detailed in Section 5.

2 121 Table 1. Summary of Alternatives. 1 Alternative Alternative Summary of Alternative Set/Issue

1A - No action. No changes would be made to longfin/butterfish moratorium permits.

Requalify current longfin squid/butterfish permits if they landed at least 1B - 1997-2015/10,000 10,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2015. Permits in “Confirmation of pounds best year Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Requalify current longfin squid/butterfish permits if they landed at least 1C - 1997-2013/10,000 Set 1: Longfin 10,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of pounds best year Squid Moratorium Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings. Permit Requalification Alternatives Requalify current longfin squid/butterfish permits if they landed at least 1D - 2003-2013/25,000 25,000 pounds in any year from 2003-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of pounds best year Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Requalify current longfin squid/butterfish permits if they landed at least 1E - 1997-2013/50,000 50,000 pounds on average during 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of pounds average Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1 Some alternatives may be combined with other alternatives, as detailed in Section 5.

3 122 Table 1 (continued)

Issue Alternative Summary of Alternative 2A - No action. No additional requalification options would be selected.

An entity that is currently issued more than one longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit has a one-time opportunity to swap re-qualifying 2B - Longfin Swap Set 2: Longfin moratorium permits among vessels owned by that same entity that currently Squid Moratorium have longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits. Permit Requalification Sub- Alternatives If a vessel that currently has been issued a moratorium longfin 2C - Automatic incidental squid/butterfish permit does not re-qualify, it would automatically be issued a for non-requalifiers limited access incidental permit if the Council makes the current open access incidental permit a limited access permit.

The current open access incidental permits and associated trip limits would 3A - No action remain as they are.

Create a new limited-access incidental longfin squid permit that cannot be reacquired if dropped. Qualification years would be from 1997-2013 and 3B - Limited access require landings of at least 2,500 pounds in any one year. The initial trip limit Incidental 1997-2013/2,500 would be 2,500 pounds. This permit would also allow incidental catch of Illex pounds best year and butterfish at the designated incidental trip limit (currently 10,000 pounds for Illex and 600 pounds for butterfish). Set 3: Longfin Squid Incidental and Open Access Create a new limited-access incidental longfin squid permit that cannot be Alternatives reacquired if dropped. Qualification years would be from 1997-2013 and 3C - Limited access require landings of at least 5,000 pounds in any one year. The initial trip limit Incidental 1997-2013/5,000 would be 2,500 pounds. This permit would also allow incidental catch of Illex pounds best year and butterfish at the designated incidental trip limit (currently 10,000 pounds for Illex and 600 pounds for butterfish).

3D - 250 pound open Make the open-access longfin squid incidental trip limit 250 pounds. access trip limit 3E - 500 pound open access Make the current open-access longfin squid incidental trip limit 500 pounds. trip limit

4 123 Table 1 (continued)

Issue Alternative Summary of Alternative 4A - No action No changes to Trimester 2 management would be made. 4B - Eliminate roll-over to Eliminate roll-over of longfin squid quota from T1 to T2 (all un-caught T1 Trimester 2 quota would go to T3).

Reduce the maximum T1 to T2 rollover of longfin squid quota to 25% of the 4C - Reduce roll-over to original T2 quota. The initial T2 quota is approximately 8.4 million pounds, so Trimester 2 the maximum after rollover would be about 10.5 million pounds in T2.

Set 4: Longfin Squid Trimester 2 4D - 250-pound post T2 Implement a 250-pound trip limit for all longfin squid permits when T2 closes. (“T2”) Alternatives Closure trip limit

4E - 500-pound post T2 Implement a 500-pound trip limit for all longfin squid permits when T2 closes. Closure trip limit

Split the Trimester 2 quota, with half available May 1, and the additional half 4F - Split T2 in half available July 1. Open access incidental and post-closure trip limits would remain as status quo or as specified in other alternatives in this action.

5A - No action No changes would be made to Illex moratorium permits.

Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 10,000 5B - 1997-2015/10,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2015. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit pounds best year History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 10,000 5C - 1997-2013/10,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit pounds best year History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings. Set 5: Illex Squid Moratorium Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 50,000 Permit 5D - 1997-2013/50,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit Requalification pounds best year History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings. Alternatives

Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 100,000 5E - 1997-2013/100,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit pounds best year History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 200,000 5F - 1997-2013/200,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit pounds best year History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

5 124 2.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ABC Acceptable Biological Catch ACL Annual Catch Limit ACT Annual Catch Target ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission or Commission B Biomass CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPH Confirmation of Permit History CV coefficient of variation DAH Domestic Annual Harvest DAP Domestic Annual Processing EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 F Fishing Mortality Rate FMP Fishery Management Plan FR Federal Register GB Georges Bank GOM Gulf of Maine IOY Initial Optimum Yield M Natural Mortality Rate MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (as currently amended) MSB Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MT (or mt) Metric Tons (1 mt equals about 2,204.62 pounds) NE Northeast NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OFL Overfishing Level PBR Potential Biological Removal SARC Stock Assessment Review Committee SAW Stock Assessment Workshop SNE Southern New England SSC Scientific and Statistical Committee T1 Trimester 1 T2 Trimester 2 T3 Trimester 3 US United States VTR Vessel Trip Report

Notes: "Mackerel" refers to "Atlantic mackerel" unless otherwise noted. Longfin refers to "longfin squid.”

6 125 3.0 CONTENTS, TABLES, AND FIGURES 3.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 2.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... 6 3.0 CONTENTS, TABLES, AND FIGURES ...... 7 3.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 7 3.2 LIST OF TABLES ...... 8 3.3 LIST OF FIGURES ...... 9 4.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 10 4.1 OBJECTIVES ...... 10 4.2 REGULATORY AUTHORITY ...... 11 4.3 FMP HISTORY AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ...... 11 4.4 MANAGEMENT UNIT AND GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE ...... 12 5.0 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ...... 13 5.1 ALTERNATIVE SET 1: LONGFIN SQUID MORATORIUM PERMIT REQUALIFICATION ALTERNATIVES ...... 13 5.2 ALTERNATIVE SET 2: LONGFIN SQUID MORATORIUM PERMIT REQUALIFICATION SUB-ALTERNATIVES ...... 15 5.3 ALTERNATIVE SET 3: LONGFIN SQUID INCIDENTAL AND OPEN ACCESS ALTERNATIVES ...... 16 5.4 ALTERNATIVE SET 4: LONGFIN SQUID TRIMESTER 2 (“T2”) ALTERNATIVES ...... 18 5.5 ALTERNATIVE SET 5: ILLEX SQUID MORATORIUM PERMIT REQUALIFICATION ALTERNATIVES ...... 20 5.6 CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS ...... 22 6.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 22 6.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 22 6.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 24 6.3 HUMAN COMMUNITIES AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ...... 25 6.4 PROTECTED SPECIES ...... 39 7.0 IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ...... 42 7.1 Managed Resources ...... 42 7.2 Habitat ...... 44 7.3 Protected Resources ...... 46 7.4 Non-Target Resources...... 49 7.5 Socioeconomic Impacts ...... 59 7.5.1 ALTERNATIVE SET 1: LONGFIN SQUID MORATORIUM PERMIT REQUALIFICATION ALTERNATIVES ...... 59 7.5.2 ALTERNATIVE SET 2: LONGFIN SQUID MORATORIUM PERMIT REQUALIFICATION SUB-ALTERNATIVES ...... 65 7.5.3 ALTERNATIVE SET 3: LONGFIN SQUID INCIDENTAL AND OPEN ACCESS ALTERNATIVES ...... 66 7.5.4 ALTERNATIVE SET 4: LONGFIN SQUID TRIMESTER 2 (“T2”) ALTERNATIVES ..... 68

7 126 7.5.5 ALTERNATIVE SET 5: ILLEX SQUID MORATORIUM PERMIT REQUALIFICATION ALTERNATIVES ...... 73 8.0 LITERATURE CITED AND SELECTED BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS ...... 79

3.2 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Alternatives. (Summary Impacts to Be Added) ...... 3 Table 2. Recent Illex Landings by State ...... 28 Table 3. Principal Port States (PPST) of Actively-Permitted Illex Moratorium Permit Vessels (2016) ...... 29 Table 4. Numbers of Federally-Permitted Vessels by percent dependence on Illex landings during– 2016 ...... 29 Table 5. Numbers of vessels that actively fished for Illex squid, by landings (lbs) category, during 1982-2016...... 30 Table 6. Longfin Fishery Performance Since 2007, When Trimesters Were Implemented (2007) ...... 34 Table 7. Longfin Squid Landings (mt), by State, during 2014-2016...... 35 Table 8. Top longfin squid ports in rank of descending ex-vessel value, for ports that averaged at least $25,000 in landed longfin squid during 2014-2016...... 36 Table 9. Principal Port States (PPST) of Actively-Permitted Longfin Squid/Butterfish Moratorium Permit Vessels (2016) ...... 37 Table 10. Dependence on Longfin Squid by Federally-Permitted Vessels – 2016 and 2013 ...... 37 Table 11. Numbers of vessels that actively fished for Longfin squid, by landings (lbs) category, during 1982-2016...... 38 Table 12. Species Protected Under the ESA and/or MMPA that may occur in the Affected Environment of the MSB fisheries. Marine mammal species (cetaceans and pinnipeds) italicized and in bold are considered MMPA strategic stocks.1 ...... 40 Table 13. Coverage and discard summary Longfin Squid Fishery - NEFOP Observer Bottom Trawl Data (including Twin, Haddock Separator, Ruhle, and Large Belly Mesh Trawls)...... 50 Table 14. Approximate Trimester Overall Discard Percentages - NEFOP Observer Trawl Data...... 50 Table 15. 2007-2009 Discard Data From Trips >40% Longfin. Species with >10,000 pounds estimated annual discards...... 51 Table 16. 2010-2012 Discard Data From Trips >40% Longfin. Species with >10,000 pounds estimated annual discards...... 52 Table 17. 2013-2015 Discard Data From Trips >40% Longfin. Species with >10,000 pounds estimated annual discards...... 53 Table 18. 2007-2015 Data From Trips >40% Longfin – Trimester 1. Species with discard ratios ≥ 0.1 pounds discarded for 100 pounds longfin retained...... 54

8 127 Table 19. 2007-2015 Data From Trips >40% Longfin – Trimester 2. Species with discard ratios ≥ 0.1 pounds discarded for 100 pounds longfin retained...... 55 Table 20. 2007-2015 Data From Trips >40% Longfin – Trimester 3. Species with discard ratios ≥ 0.1 pounds discarded for 100 pounds longfin retained...... 56 Table 21. Principal Port States (PPST) of Currently-Active Longfin Vessels ...... 60 Table 22. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 1B...... 61 Table 23. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 1C...... 62 Table 24. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 1D...... 63 Table 25. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 1E...... 64 Table 26. Principal Port States (PPST) of Currently-Active Illex Vessels ...... 73 Table 27. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 5B ...... 74 Table 28. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 5C ...... 75 Table 29. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 5D ...... 76 Table 30. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 5E ...... 77 Table 31. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 5F ...... 78

3.3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Illex squid landings in NAFO Subareas 5 and 6, between the Gulf of Maine and Cape Hatteras, NC during 1963-2016...... 26 Figure 2. Nominal Ex-Vessel Revenues for Illex landings during 1982-2016...... 26 Figure 3. Inflation-adjusted ex-vessel Prices for Illex landings during 1982-2016...... 27 Figure 4. Distribution of landings (mt) from bottom trawl trips with Illex landings > 4.536 mt (10,000 lbs), by ten-minute square, during 2008-2011 and 2012-2015...... 28 Figure 5. Longfin Squid Landings in NAFO Subareas 5 and 6 during 1963-2016...... 31 Figure 6. Nominal Longfin Ex-Vessel Revenues Dealer Data ...... 32 Figure 7. Inflation adjusted Longfin Prices ...... 32 Figure 8. Distribution of landings (mt) from bottom trawl trips with longfin squid landings by trimester and ten-minute square, during 2008-2011...... 33 Figure 9. Distribution of landings (mt) from bottom trawl trips with longfin squid landings by trimester and ten-minute square, during 2012-2015...... 33 Figure 10. Butterfish Catch in U.S. Waters ...... 39 Figure 11. Negative Relationship Between Effort (days fished) in the longfin squid fishery during April-September and October-March LPUE (landings per unit effort) (top) and vice versa (bottom) during 1982-2015...... 44

9 128

4.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Both the Illex and longfin squid fisheries are managed based on annual quotas, but since 2007, the longfin squid fishery has also been subject to trimester-based quotas of 43% (T1: Jan-Apr), 17% (T2: May-Aug) and 40% (T3: Sep-Dec), respectively. Landings from the longfin squid (longfin) and Illex squid (Illex) bottom trawl fisheries are highly variable, but during 2012-2016, landings generated average nominal ex-vessel revenues of $33.0 million for longfin and $5.5 million for Illex. On average during these time periods, the longfin fishery landed 59% of its annual quota and the Illex fishery landed 29% of its quota. However, seasonal longfin fishery closures have suppressed annual landings. Since 2007, T1 has only closed due to attaining the T1 quota during April of 20072. T2 has closed in July of 2008, August of 2009, August of 2011, July of 2012, August of 2014, and June of 2016. Additionally, a relatively small portion of the moratorium permits during 2012-2016 accounted for most of the landings in each fishery. Also, during peak landings in 2016 the longfin squid fishery landed up to 3.5 million pounds in a week, which means that the vessels that fished in 2016 alone have the capacity to land the entire annual quota in approximately 14 weeks (though the Trimester allocations would spread catch out temporally). Likewise, in 2011 the Illex fishery caught as much as 4.5 million pounds in a week, which means that the vessels that fished in 2011 alone have the capacity to land the entire annual quota in approximately 11 weeks. Based on these observations fishery participants requested that the Council consider removing latent permits from the directed fishery to ensure access to the quota for the participants that have been active in the fishery and have come to depend on access to the squid fisheries. This is the focus of most of the alternatives in this action (generally Sets 1, 2, 3, and 5). Other alternatives (generally Set 4) address a concern raised by some fishery participants and other interested parties that the productivity of the longfin squid stock may be negatively impacted if excessive fishing in T2, which occurs on the spawning grounds, does not allow sufficient spawning and/or hatching of longfin squid egg mops which are attached to the seabed and vegetation. These concerns relate to both overall productivity of the stock and the availability of longfin in localized areas.

4.1 OBJECTIVES Aligned with the issues identified in the Introduction, the objectives of this action are to:

A. Consider the appropriate number of vessels in the directed longfin squid and Illex squid fisheries and design appropriate management measures for permitted vessels. The Council is considering this action because there is considerable latent effort in both fisheries - a relatively small portion of vessels with limited access (“moratorium”) squid permits account for the majority of landings in most years, and the Council is concerned that activation of latent permits in the squid fisheries could lead to excessive fishing effort in a shortened season on these semeparous, sub-annual species, as well as increased catch of non-target species if racing to fish increases.

B. Re-evaluate the management of longfin squid in Trimester 2 (T2). The Council is considering this action because the productivity of the longfin squid stock may be negatively impacted if

2 An April 2012 closure of the longfin squid fishery was due the fishery’s attainment of the butterfish bycatch cap. The butterfish bycatch cap is tracked here: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/ButterfishMortalityCapReport/butterfish_cap.htm 10 129 excessive fishing effort in T2, which occurs on the inshore spawning grounds, does not allow sufficient spawning and/or hatching from egg mops.

4.2 REGULATORY AUTHORITY As discretionary provisions of FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) states that any FMP may establish a limited access system for the fishery in order to achieve optimum yield if, in developing such system, the Council and the Secretary take into account— (A) present participation in the fishery; (B) historical fishing practices in, and dependence on, the fishery; (C) the economics of the fishery; (D) the capability of fishing vessels used in the fishery to engage in other fisheries; (E) the cultural and social framework relevant to the fishery and any affected fishing communities; (F) the fair and equitable distribution of access privileges in the fishery; and (G) any other relevant considerations.

As discretionary provisions of FMPs the MSA also allows restriction of fishing by time/season. Both limited access and seasonal management have been previously incorporated into the MSB FMP and this action would modify the existing provisions.

4.3 FMP HISTORY AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Management of the MSB fisheries began through the implementation of three separate FMPs (one each for mackerel, squid, and butterfish) in 1978. The plans were merged in 1983. Over time a wide variety of management issues have been addressed including stock rebuilding, habitat conservation, bycatch minimization, and limiting participation in the fisheries. The history of the plan and its amendments can be found at http://www.mafmc.org/fisheries/fmp/msb. The management goals and objectives, as described in the current FMP are listed below. 1. Enhance the probability of successful (i.e., the historical average) recruitment to the fisheries. 2. Promote the growth of the U.S. commercial fishery, including the fishery for export. 3. Provide the greatest degree of freedom and flexibility to all harvesters of these resources consistent with the attainment of the other objectives of this FMP. 4. Provide marine recreational fishing opportunities, recognizing the contribution of recreational fishing to the national economy. 5. Increase understanding of the conditions of the stocks and fisheries. 6. Minimize harvesting conflicts among U.S. commercial, U.S. recreational, and foreign fishermen.

11 130 4.4 MANAGEMENT UNIT AND GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE The management unit (fish stock definition) for the MSB FMP is all Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), longfin inshore squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii ),3 Northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus), and Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) under U.S. jurisdiction in the Northwest Atlantic, with a core fishery management area from Maine to North Carolina.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3 For longfin squid there was a scientific name change from Loligo pealeii to Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii. To avoid confusion, this document will utilize the common name “longfin squid” or just “longfin” wherever possible, but this squid is often referred to as "Loligo" by interested parties. 12 131 5.0 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

5.1 ALTERNATIVE SET 1: LONGFIN SQUID MORATORIUM PERMIT REQUALIFICATION ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives in this set could be selected in addition to alternatives in other sets or on their own if no action is selected for other sets. This action would not allow new entrants to qualify for a moratorium permit. The Council would only choose one action alternative within this set.

Alternative 1A. No action. No changes would be made to longfin/butterfish moratorium permits. The existing system of longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits and incidental permits would remain in place. In 2016 there were approximately 286 vessels with active moratorium permits and approximately another 97 that had their permits/histories held in Confirmation of Permit History4 (CPH). There were approximately 1,500 incidental permits in 2016. A summary of regulations for these permits may be found at https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/info.html.

Alternative 1B. Requalify current longfin squid/butterfish permits if they landed at least 10,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2015. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Rational: The general rationale for the longfin squid moratorium permit alternatives is that an influx of entrants may dilute the amount of quota available to those vessels that have become dependent on longfin squid fishing, so latent permits should be removed. This option would include a long qualifying period and a low threshold to enable more vessels to requalify; only the least active vessels would be impacted by this alternative. For example, 10,000 pounds could be landed in just four trips at the current incidental trip limit, so any vessels that would not re-qualify would have had very low activity during the re-qualification period. 2016 is not included due to the influx of effort in 2016. Catch data is most accurate after 1997 due to permitting and reporting requirements.

Alternative 1C. Requalify current longfin squid/butterfish permits if they landed at least 10,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

4 A CPH is required when a vessel that has been issued a limited access permit has sunk, been destroyed, or has been sold to another person without its permit history. Possession of a CPH allows maintaining of the landings history of the permit without owning a vessel.

13 132 or those entering after the control date5 year would be impacted by this alternative. For example, 10,000 pounds could be landed in just four trips at the incidental trip limit, so any vessels that would not re-qualify would have had very low activity during the re-qualification period. Using the control date excludes the newest entrants (or re-entrants) into the directed fishery (entry of new participants may dilute quota availability). Catch data is most accurate after 1997 due to permitting and reporting requirements.

Alternative 1D. Requalify current longfin squid/butterfish permits if they landed at least 25,000 pounds in any year from 2003-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Rational: The general rationale for the longfin squid moratorium permit alternatives is that an influx of entrants may dilute the amount of quota available to those vessels that have become dependent on longfin squid fishing, so latent permits should be removed. This option would include a more recent qualifying period that ends at the recent control date year and has a moderately low requalifying threshold. For example, 25,000 pounds could be landed in ten trips at the incidental trip limit or 1-2 directed trips, so any vessels that would not re-qualify would have had relatively low activity during the re-qualification period. Beginning in 2003 means qualifying participation would have to be relatively recent. Using the control date excludes the newest entrants (or re-entrants) into the directed fishery (entry of new participants may dilute quota availability). A start date of 2003 was based on 2003 being a break point in the numbers of active vessels and 2003 being a long enough time period to encompass a range of squid fishery conditions.

Alternative 1E. Requalify current longfin squid/butterfish permits if they landed at least 50,000 pounds on average during 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Rational: The general rationale for the longfin squid moratorium permit alternatives is that an influx of entrants may dilute the amount of quota available to those vessels that have become dependent on longfin squid fishing, so latent permits should be removed. This option would include a higher landings threshold for directed fishing, but still considers a relatively long time period. A 50,000- pound average threshold means that qualifying vessels would have spent more effort directing on longfin squid than those that qualify under the lower threshold options. Using the control date excludes the newest entrants (or re-entrants) into the directed fishery (entry of new participants may dilute quota availability). Catch data is most accurate after 1997 due to permitting and reporting requirements.

5 The current control date for the longfin squid fishery is May 16, 2013. 14 133 5.2 ALTERNATIVE SET 2: LONGFIN SQUID MORATORIUM PERMIT REQUALIFICATION SUB-ALTERNATIVES

2B or 2C could be selected if an action alternative from Set 1 is selected. Alternatives in this set could also be selected in addition to alternatives from Sets 3, 4, and 5. 2C would only apply if either 3B or 3C is selected. Within the action alternatives in this set, the Council could select both 2B and 2C or just one.

Alternative 2A. No action. No additional requalification options would be selected.

Alternative 2B. An entity that is currently issued more than one longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit has a one-time opportunity to swap re-qualifying moratorium permits among vessels owned by that same entity that currently have longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits. All histories would remain the same for all vessels, and the swap would have to occur between vessels that are within the 10% length - 20% horsepower upgrade restrictions. The swap could occur during the re-qualification implementation period, and the baseline of the vessel from which the re-qualified permit came would be the baseline of the final re-qualified permit.

Rational: This would help maximize potential fishing opportunities and associated revenue for entities that have been issued multiple moratorium permits on separate vessels. Allowing a one-time permit swap among vessels would allow an entity to place a moratorium permit on a vessel that would be more likely to target squid based on other permits issued to that vessel. For example, a vessel issued moratorium squid permit and a limited access full-time Atlantic sea scallop permit is likely to concentrate fishing efforts on sea scallops due to the higher potential fishing revenue associated with the scallop fishery. This alternative may also mitigate the loss of a permit for entities that own multiple permits. Ultimately, the same number of permits would be removed from the fishery if 2B is selected, but this option could help entities that are losing one or more permits to balance their permit suites across vessels.

Alternative 2C. If a vessel that currently has been issued a moratorium longfin squid/butterfish permit does not re-qualify, it would automatically be issued a limited access incidental permit if the Council makes the current open access incidental permit a limited access permit (see Alternatives 3B and 3C).

Rational: This alternative addresses the historical participation of vessels that qualified for the original longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit, but would not have landings to re-qualify for a moratorium permit or a limited access incidental permit. Their historical participation would allow them a higher level of access than the proposed lower open access trip limits by qualifying them for the new limited access incidental permit.

15 134 5.3 ALTERNATIVE SET 3: LONGFIN SQUID INCIDENTAL AND OPEN ACCESS ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives in this set could be selected in addition to alternatives in other sets or on their own if no action is selected for other sets. Within the action alternatives in this set, the Council could select either 3B or 3C, possibly combined with either 3D or 3E.

Alternative 3A. No action. The current open access squid/butterfish incidental permit and associated trip limits would remain as they are, which allow 2,500 pounds of longfin squid, 10,000 pounds of Illex squid, and 600 pounds of butterfish.

Alternative 3B. Create a new limited-access incidental longfin squid permit that cannot be reacquired if dropped. Qualification years would be from 1997-2013 and require landings of at least 2,500 pounds in any one year. Possession of a commercial squid permit at some point during the qualification period could also be required6 but has not been specified to date. The trip limit would be 2,500 pounds. There would be no vessel upgrade baselines associated with this incidental permit.

Rational: The current open access incidental permit can be dropped and added at any time within a year, allowing vessels to access Federal waters at times with the permit, and fish above Federal limits in some state waters at other times without the permit. Making the permit a limited access permit that could not be dropped and re-issued at any time would eliminate this loophole and help restrict landings after Trimester closures, especially T2. The qualification threshold would be low – the equivalent of only one incidental trip limit so that most vessels would qualify and would be minimally impacted besides closing the loophole. The initial possession limit would be 2,500 pounds per trip. If Alternative 2C is also selected, a vessel that currently has been issued a moratorium longfin squid/butterfish permit but does not re-qualify under this amendment would automatically be issued this limited access incidental permit

Alternative 3C. Create a new limited-access incidental longfin squid permit that cannot be reacquired if dropped. Qualification years would be from 1997-2013 and require landings of at least 5,000 pounds in any one year. Possession of a commercial squid permit at some point during the qualification period could also be required7 but has not been specified to date. The initial trip limit would be 2,500 pounds. There would be no vessel upgrade baselines associated with this incidental permit.

6 This has not been explicitly addressed by the Council yet but is a standard practice with most limited access qualifications. 7 This has not been explicitly addressed by the Council yet but is a standard practice with most limited access qualifications. 16 135 in some state waters at other times without the permit. Making the permit a limited access permit that could not be dropped and re-issued at any time would eliminate this loophole. The qualification threshold would be low – the equivalent of only two incidental trip limits so that most vessels would qualify and would be minimally impacted besides closing the loophole. The initial possession limit would be 2,500 pounds per trip. If Alternative 2C is also selected, a vessel that currently has been issued a moratorium longfin squid/butterfish permit but does not re-qualify under this amendment would automatically be issued this limited access incidental permit

Alternative 3D. Reduce the open-access longfin squid incidental trip limit to 250 pounds.

Rational: This option would reduce the current open access incidental trip limit from 2,500 pounds to reduce incentives to target longfin squid under this incidental permit, particularly after a trimester quota is caught. Landings following the closure of T2 in June 2016 resulted in a harvest that was about 50% higher than the quota. However, this alternative would allow some post-closure landings for open access permit holders to minimize regulatory discards.

Alternative 3E. Reduce the open-access longfin squid incidental trip limit to 500 pounds.

Rational: This option would reduce the current open access incidental trip limit from 2,500 pounds to reduce incentives to target longfin squid under this incidental permit, particularly once a trimester quota is caught. Landings following the closure of T2 in June 2016 resulted in landings that were about 50% higher than the quota. However, this Alternative would allow some post-closure landings for open access permit holders to minimize regulatory discards.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

17 136 5.4 ALTERNATIVE SET 4: LONGFIN SQUID TRIMESTER 2 (“T2”) ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 4A. No action. The annual quota is divided among three 4-month trimesters, with the initial Trimester 2 (T2, May through August) allocation set at 17% of the annual quota (8.4 million pounds in 2017). Trimester 1 (T1) is allocated 43% of the annual quota (21.3 million pounds) and Trimester 3 (T3) is initially allocated 40% of the annual quota (19.8 million pounds). Any underages for T1 that are greater than 25 percent are reallocated to Trimesters 2 and 3 (split equally between both trimesters) of the same year. The reallocation is limited, such that T2 may only be increased by 50 percent (i.e. to a maximum of 12.6 million pounds under the current annual quota); the remaining portion of the underage is reallocated to T3. Any underages for T1 that are less than 25 percent of the T1 quota are applied to T3 of the same year. Any overages for T1 and T2 are subtracted from T3 of the same year. Also, the trip limit in Federal waters after a Trimester closure is 2,500 pounds.

Alternative 4B. Eliminate roll-over of longfin squid quota from T1 to T2 (all un-caught T1 quota would be rolled-over to T3).

Rational: The productivity of the longfin squid stock may be negatively impacted if excessive fishing in T2 does not allow sufficient spawning and/or hatching from the species’ egg “mops,” which are attached to the seabed. In addition, fishery observer data from the NEFOP indicate that certain other commercial and recreationally fished species, including scup, striped bass, summer flounder, winter flounder, and black sea bass have had relatively higher bycatch rates during T2 than during T1 and T3.

Alternative 4C. Reduce the maximum T1 to T2 rollover of longfin squid quota to 25% of the original T2 quota. The initial T2 quota (17% of annual quota) is approximately 8.4 million pounds, so the maximum T2 quota after rollover would be 10.5 million pounds.

Rational: The productivity of the longfin squid stock may be negatively impacted if excessive fishing in T2 does not allow sufficient spawning and/or hatching from egg “mops” that are attached to the seabed. In addition, fishery observer data from the NEFOP indicate that certain other commercial and recreationally fished species, including scup, striped bass, summer flounder, winter flounder, and black sea bass have had relatively higher bycatch rates during T2 than during T1 and T3.

Alternative 4D. Implement a reduced 250-pound trip limit for all longfin squid permits when the directed T2 fishery closes.

18 137 Rational: Substantial landings have occurred after T2 closures in recent years at the current 2,500 pound trip limit. Catch following the closure of Trimester II in June 2016 resulted in harvest that was about 50% higher than the quota. The productivity of the longfin squid stock may be negatively impacted if excessive fishing in T2 does not allow sufficient spawning and/or hatching from egg “mops” that are attached to the seabed. In addition, fishery observer data from the NEFOP indicate that certain other commercial and recreationally fished species, including scup, striped bass, summer flounder, winter flounder, and black sea bass have relatively higher bycatch rates during T2 than during T1 and T3. Input from the MSB AP indicated that a lower post-closure trip limit will reduce targeting of longfin squid after the directed fishery closes.

Alternative 4E. Implement a reduced 500-pound trip limit for all longfin squid permits when the directed T2 fishery closes.

Rational: Substantial landings have occurred after T2 closures in recent years at the current 2,500 pound trip limit. Catch following the closure of Trimester II in June 2016 resulted in harvest that was about 50% higher than the quota. The productivity of the longfin squid stock may be negatively impacted if excessive fishing in T2 does not allow sufficient spawning and/or hatching from egg “mops” that are attached to the seabed. In addition, fishery observer data from the NEFOP indicate that certain other commercial and recreationally fished species, including scup, striped bass, summer flounder, winter flounder, and black sea bass have relatively higher bycatch rates during T2 than during T1 and T3. Input from the MSB AP indicated that a lower post-closure trip limit will reduce targeting of longfin squid after the directed fishery closes.

Alternative 4F. Split the Trimester 2 quota, with half available May 1- June 30, and the additional half available July 1-August 31. Open access incidental and post-closure trip limits would remain as status quo or as specified in other alternatives in this action (see above).

Rational: Rapid landings in some recent years have caused a market glut of squid in T2 according to AP members, which lowers product quality and prices. This alternative would force longfin squid fishing to be spread out over a longer time period in T2.

19 138 5.5 ALTERNATIVE SET 5: ILLEX SQUID MORATORIUM PERMIT REQUALIFICATION ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 5A. No action. No changes would be made to Illex moratorium permits.

Alternative 5B. Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 10,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2015. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Rational: The general rationale for the Illex squid moratorium permit alternatives is that an influx of entrants may dilute the amount of quota available to those vessels that have become dependent on Illex squid fishing, so latent permits should be removed. This option would include a long qualifying period and a low threshold to enable more vessels to requalify; only the least active vessels would be impacted by this alternative. For example, 10,000 pounds could be landed in just one trip at the current incidental trip limit, so any vessels that would not re-qualify would have had very low activity during the re-qualification period. Catch data is most accurate after 1997 due to permitting and reporting requirements.

Alternative 5C. Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 10,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Rational: The general rationale for the Illex squid moratorium permit alternatives is that an influx of entrants may dilute the amount of quota available to those vessels that have become dependent on Illex squid fishing, so latent permits should be removed. This option would include a relatively long qualifying period that ends at the recent control date8 year. 10,000 pounds could be landed in just one trip at the incidental trip limit, so any vessels that would not re-qualify would have had very low activity during the re-qualification period. Using the control date excludes newest entrants (or re- entrants) into the directed fishery (entry of new participants may dilute quota availability). Catch data is most accurate after 1997 due to permitting and reporting requirements.

8 The current control date for the Illex fishery is August 2, 2013. 20 139 Alternative 5D. Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 50,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Rational: The general rationale for the Illex squid moratorium permit alternatives is that an influx of entrants may dilute the amount of quota available to those vessels that have become dependent on Illex squid fishing, so latent permits should be removed. This option would include a moderately low qualification threshold to identify vessels that have been somewhat more active in the fishery than the lowest thresholds. Using the control date excludes newest entrants (or re-entrants) into the directed fishery (entry of new participants may dilute quota availability). Catch data is most accurate after 1997 due to permitting and reporting requirements.

Alternative 5E. Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 100,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Rational: The general rationale for the Illex squid moratorium permit alternatives is that an influx of entrants may dilute the amount of quota available to those vessels that have become dependent on Illex squid fishing, so latent permits should be removed. This option would include a moderately high qualification threshold to identify vessels that have been more active in the fishery. Using the control date excludes newest entrants (or re-entrants) into the directed fishery (entry of new participants may dilute quota availability). Catch data is most accurate after 1997 due to permitting and reporting requirements.

Alternative 5F. Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 200,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Rational: The general rationale for the Illex squid moratorium permit alternatives is that an influx of entrants may dilute the amount of quota available to those vessels that have become dependent on Illex squid fishing, so latent permits should be removed. This option would include a relatively high qualification threshold to identify vessels that have been most active in the fishery. Using the control date excludes newest entrants (or re-entrants) into the directed fishery (entry of new participants may dilute quota availability). Catch data is most accurate after 1997 due to permitting and reporting requirements.

21 140 5.6 CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

The Council considered the possibility of granting vessels from Maine new longfin squid permits based on a request from the State of Maine related to a higher abundance of longfin squid off Maine in some recent years. However, the MSA does not allow measures that discriminate against residents of different states, and it does not appear fair to take permits from some current permit holders and give new permits to residents of just one state. Residents from Maine can purchase permits that could allow directed fishing on longfin squid. In addition, adding new participants generally runs counter to the primary latent permit reduction objective of this action.

The Council also considered adding to the scope of the Amendment by looking at buffer areas south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket to resolve a user conflict that has developed there due to longfin squid fishing just outside Massachusetts state waters during the T2. Ultimately the Council decided to potentially consider this issue in a separate action, and it was added as a possible deliverable in the Council’s 2017 Implementation Plan (http://www.mafmc.org/strategic-plan/). This approach allows the current Amendment to proceed in an efficient fashion and for the buffer area issue to be addressed separately. In addition, some of the possible measures in this Amendment could indirectly address this user conflict issue by limiting overall squid catch/effort in T2 - addressing the issue of the overall catch/effort in T2 first will allow a better assessment of whether additional buffer areas are appropriate.

The Council also considered allowing a permit swap option for Illex similar to Alternative 2B for longfin squid, but decided that the public request for a permit swap option was specific to longfin squid and not needed or appropriate for Illex squid.

6.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The affected environment consists of those physical, biological, and human components of the environment that are or will be meaningfully connected to commercial longfin and Illex fishing operations, and are described below.

6.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The managed resources inhabit the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem, which has been described as including the area from the Gulf of Maine south to Cape Hatteras, extending from the coast seaward to the edge of the continental shelf, including the slope sea offshore to the Gulf Stream. The continental slope includes the area east of the shelf, out to a depth of 2000 m. Four distinct sub-regions comprise the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Region: the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, the Mid-Atlantic Bight, and the continental slope. The areas of interest in this action include the Mid-Atlantic Bight and the continental slope. The Mid-Atlantic Bight is comprised of the sandy, relatively flat, gently sloping continental shelf from southern New England to Cape Hatteras, NC. The continental slope begins at the continental shelf break and continues eastward with increasing depth until it becomes the continental rise. The continental shelf slopes gently from shore out to between 100 and 200 km offshore where it transforms to the slope at the shelf break (100-200 m water depth), continuing eastward with increasing

22 141 depth until it becomes the continental rise, and finally the abyssal plain. The width of the slope varies from 10-50 km, with an average gradient of 3-6°; however, local gradients can be nearly vertical. The base of the slope is defined by a marked decrease in seafloor gradient where the continental rise begins. The slope is cut by at least 70 large canyons between Georges Bank and Cape Hatteras and numerous smaller canyons and gullies, many of which may feed into the larger canyon systems. On the slope, silty sand, silt, and clay predominate. A “mud line” occurs on the slope at a depth of 250- 300 m, below which fine silt and clay-size particles predominate. Localized coarse sediments and rock outcrops are found in and near canyon walls, and occasional boulders occur on the slope because of glacial rafting. Sand pockets may also be formed because of downslope movements. Submarine canyons are not spaced evenly along the slope, but tend to decrease in areas of increasing slope gradient. Canyons are typically “v” shaped in cross section and often have steep walls and outcroppings of bedrock and clay. The canyons are continuous from the canyon heads to the base of the continental slope. Some canyons end at the base of the slope, but others continue as channels onto the continental rise. Larger and more deeply incised canyons are generally significantly older than smaller ones, and there is evidence that some older canyons have experienced several episodes of filling and re- excavation. Canyons can alter the physical processes in the surrounding slope waters. Fluctuations in the velocities of the surface and internal tides can be large near the heads of the canyons, leading to enhanced mixing and sediment transport in the area. More information on the physical properties of the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem and the submarine canyon environments relevant to this action can be found in the NOAA Technical Memo “Characterization of the Fishing Practices and Marine Benthic Ecosystems of the Northeast U.S. Shelf, and an Evaluation of the Potential Effects of Fishing on Essential Fish Habitat” (Stevenson et al. 2004, available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm181/.)

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

23 142

6.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 6.2.1 Description of the Managed Resources in the FMP

Atlantic mackerel is a semi-pelagic/semi-demersal (may be found near the bottom or higher in the water column) schooling fish species primarily distributed between Labrador (Newfoundland, Canada) and North Carolina. Additional life history information is detailed in the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) document for the species, located at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/. The status of Atlantic mackerel is unknown with respect to being overfished or not, and unknown with respect to experiencing overfishing or not. Recent results from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Spring Trawl survey (the spring survey catches the most mackerel) are highly variable, and are graphed in the “NEFSC Biological Update” that is created as part of the annual quota setting process. These are available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meeting-documents/ (see May 2016 Meeting Materials). Atlantic mackerel has a stock assessment scheduled for 2017. Acceptable Biological Catches (ABCs) are set by the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to avoid overfishing given the best available science. See http://www.mafmc.org/ssc for details on how ABCs are set for this species.

Atlantic butterfish is a semi-pelagic/semi-demersal schooling fish species primarily distributed between Nova Scotia, Canada and Florida. Additional life history information is detailed in the EFH document for the species, located at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/. The status of butterfish is not overfished (above target biomass) with no overfishing occurring according to a recently accepted assessment (NEFSC 2014, available at: http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1403/). Butterfish has a stock assessment update scheduled for 2017. ABCs are set by the Council’s SSC to avoid overfishing given the best available science. See http://www.mafmc.org/ssc for details on how ABCs are set for this species.

Longfin squid is a neritic (from the shore to the edge of the continental shelf), semi-pelagic schooling cephalopod species primarily distributed between Georges Bank and Cape Hatteras, NC. Additional life history information is detailed in the EFH document for the species (Jacobson 2005), located at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/. Information about the fishery, management and life history is presented in Arkhipkin et al. (2015). Based on a new biomass reference point from the 2010 stock assessment, the longfin squid stock was not overfished in 2009, but overfishing status was not determined because no overfishing threshold was recommended (though the assessment did describe the stock as “lightly exploited’). The most recent stock assessment document (NEFSC 2011) is available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/reports.html. Longfin squid relative abundance and biomass indices from the NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys are highly variable, and are graphed in the “NEFSC Biological Update” that is created as part of the annual quota setting process. These are available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meeting-documents/ (see May 2016 Meeting Materials). Longfin squid has a stock assessment update scheduled for 2017, which should be posted by May 1, 2017 to http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18. Acceptable Biological Catches (ABCs) are set by the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee to avoid overfishing given the best available science. See http://www.mafmc.org/ssc for details on how ABCs are set for this species.

Illex squid is an oceanic, semi-pelagic schooling cephalopod species distributed between Newfoundland and the Florida Straits. Additional life history information is detailed in the EFH document for the species (Hendrickson and Holmes 2004), located at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/. Information about the fishery, management and life history is presented in Arkhipkin et al. (2015). The status of Illex is unknown with respect to being overfished and is unknown with respect to overfishing.

24 143 Illex squid relative abundance and biomass indices from the NEFSC fall bottom trawl surveys are highly variable, and are graphed in the “NEFSC Biological Update” that is created as part of the annual quota setting process. These are available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meeting-documents/ (see May 2016 Meeting Materials). ABCs are set by the Council’s SSC to avoid overfishing given the best available science. See http://www.mafmc.org/ssc for details on how ABCs are set for this species. 6.3 HUMAN COMMUNITIES AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT This section describes the socio-economic importance of the MSB fisheries, with a focus on the squid fisheries. Recent Amendments to the MSB FMP contain additional information about the MSB fisheries, especially demographic information on ports that land MSB species. See Amendments 11 and 14 at http://www.mafmc.org/msb/ for more information or visit NMFS’ communities page at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/socialsci/community_profiles/. In general, the MSB fisheries saw high foreign landings in the 1970s followed by a domestication of the fishery, and domestic landings have been lower than the peak foreign landings. The current regulations for the MSB fisheries are summarized by NMFS at https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/info.html, and detailed in the Federal Register at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?c=ecfr&SID=1e9802ffddb05d0243d9c657fade956c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=50:12.0.1.1.5&i dno=50.

6.3.1 Atlantic Mackerel

US commercial landings of mackerel increased steadily from roughly 3,000 metric tons (mt) in the early 1980s to greater than 31,000 mt by 1990. US mackerel landings declined to relatively low levels 1992-2000 before increasing in the early 2000s. The most recent years have seen a significant drop-off in harvest. Additional information on this fishery can be found in the specifications’ Environmental Assessment, available at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/2014/November/14msb2015174specspr.html. The most recent Advisory Panel (AP) Fishery Information Document and AP Fishery Performance Report (available at http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2016/may-25-26) also have recent details on fishery performance.

6.3.2 Illex Squid

International fleets fished Illex in U.S. waters prior to elimination of foreign fishing. Development of the domestic Illex squid bottom trawl fishery began in 1982, as the U.S. industry developed the appropriate technology to catch and process squid in large quantities, and became solely domestic in 1987. The figure below illustrates the foreign fishery and the development of the domestic fishery relative to the current and recent quotas. The 2016 landings data are preliminary and may be incomplete.

25 144

Illex Landings in U.S. Waters Total U.S. EEZ Landings (Includes Foreign) Landings Quotas

U.S. Domestic Landings

vs current quota 40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

Metric Tons 15,000

10,000

5,000

0 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Figure 1. Illex squid landings in NAFO Subareas 5 and 6, between the Gulf of Maine and Cape Hatteras, NC during 1963-2016.

The figures below show ex-vessel revenues (nominal) and ex-vessel prices (inflation adjusted) for Illex squid from 1982-2016 based on dealer data from the Northeast Commercial Fisheries Database.

20,000,000 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 Value ($) 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 vessel value ($) . - 4,000,000 Ex 2,000,000 0

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 2. Nominal Ex-Vessel Revenues for Illex landings during 1982-2016.

26 145 1,200

1,000

800

600

400 Price ($) vessel price ($/mt) . ($/mt) price vessel - 200 Ex

0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 3. Inflation-adjusted ex-vessel Prices for Illex landings during 1982-2016.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

27 146 The Illex fishery takes place near the shelf break (Fig. 4 from Hendrickson 2016) during June- September/October, when the species is available to the U.S.bottom trawl fishery.

Figure 4. Distribution of landings (mt) from bottom trawl trips with Illex landings > 4.536 mt (10,000 lbs), by ten-minute square, during 2008-2011 and 2012-2015.

In recent years most Illex landings have occurred in Rhode Island and New Jersey ports (see table below). Further breakdowns of landings by port may violate data confidentiality rules.

Table 2. Recent Illex Landings by State YEAR NJ RI Other/NA Total 2014 3,786 4,668 313 8,767 2015 394 2,009 19 2,422 2016 1,757 4,720 208 6,685

There were approximately 79 vessels with Illex moratorium permits in 2016, but 15 of them are in Confirmation of Permit History (CPH). Of the 64 vessels with active permits, their principal port states are listed below.

28 147 Table 3. Principal Port States (PPST) of Actively-Permitted Illex Moratorium Permit Vessels (2016) PPST Vessels

NJ 24 MA 12 RI 9 VA 7 NC 4 NY 4 CT 3 MD 1

A key driver for this amendment has been the concern by industry that additional participation by new entrants may reduce the income of vessels that have become dependent on the squid fishery. Table 4 describes the dependence on the Illex squid fishery for federally-permitted vessels in terms of the proportion of ex-vessel revenues from Illex squid in 2016 and in 2013 (last squid specifications EA).

Table 4. Numbers of Federally-Permitted Vessels by percent dependence on Illex landings during– 2016 Number of Vessels Number of Vessels Percent Dependence in Each in Each on Illex Dependency Dependency Category in 2016 Category in 2013 1%-5% 7 9 5%-25% 4 5 25%-50% 4 2 More than 50% 0 0

29 148 Table 5. Numbers of vessels that actively fished for Illex squid, by landings (lbs) category, during 1982-2016.

Vessels Vessels Vessels Vessels YEAR 500,000 100,000 - 50,000 - 10,000 - + 500,000 100,000 50,000

30 149 6.3.3 Longfin Squid

International fleets fished longfin squid in U.S. waters prior to elimination of foreign fishing. Development of the domestic longfin squid bottom trawl fishery began in the early 1980s as the U.S. industry developed the appropriate technology to catch and process squid in large quantities, and became solely domestic in 1987. The figure below illustrates the foreign fishery and the development of the domestic fishery relative to the current and recent quotas. The 2016 landings data are preliminary and may be incomplete especially for landings from vessels with state-only permits.

Longfin Landings in U.S. Waters 45,000 Total U.S. EEZ Landings (Includes Foreign)

40,000 US Quotas

35,000 U.S. Domestic Landings

30,000 vs Current Quota

25,000

20,000

Metric Tons 15,000

10,000

5,000

0 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Figure 5. Longfin Squid Landings in NAFO Subareas 5 and 6 during 1963-2016.

31 150 The figures below show ex-vessel revenues (nominal) and ex-vessel prices (inflation adjusted) for longfin squid from 1982-2016 based on dealer data from the Northeast Commercial Fisheries Database.

60,000,000

50,000,000 Value ($) 40,000,000

30,000,000

20,000,000 vessel value ($) . - 10,000,000 Ex

0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 6. Nominal Longfin Ex-Vessel Revenues Dealer Data

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

Price ($) 1,000 vessel price ($/mt) . -

Ex 500

0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Figure 7. Inflation adjusted Longfin Prices

32 151 The bottom trawl fishery for longfin squid follows the species’ seasonal inshore/offshore migration patterns; generally offshore during T1 and T3 and inshore during T2 (Figs. 8 and 9 from Hendrickson 2016).

Figure 8. Distribution of landings (mt) from bottom trawl trips landing at least 2,500 pounds longfin squid by trimester and ten-minute square, during 2008-2011.

Figure 9. Distribution of landings (mt) from bottom trawl trips landing at least 2,500 pounds longfin squid by trimester and ten-minute square, during 2012-2015.

33 152 There is a strong seasonal aspect to longfin squid landings due to availability to the inshore and offshore fisheries and due to trimester-based quota allocations. Quotas for Trimesters 1-3 are 43%, 17% and 40% of the annual quota, respectively. Since implementation of trimester-based quota management, in 2007, the fishery has been closed due in-season quota attainment during every year except 2010, 2013 and 2015 (Table 6). The T1 and T2 quotas have been allowed to roll-over within a year with certain constraints. Since 2010, underages for T1 that are greater than 25% are reallocated to Trimesters 2 and 3 (split equally between both trimesters) of the same year. However, since 2011 the T2 quota may only be increased by 50% from rollover and the remaining portion of the underage is reallocated to T3. Any underages for T1 that are less than 25% of the T1 quota are applied only to T3 of the same year. Any overages for T1 and T2 are subtracted from T3 (or the annual quota) of the same year. Since 2007, T1 has only closed due to attaining the T1 quota during April of 20079. T2 has closed in July of 2008, August of 2009, August of 2011, July of 2012, August of 2014, and June of 2016. While directed fishing at the post-closure trip limit of 2,500 pounds does occur, annual landings are partially suppressed in years when seasonal closures occur. While the Trimester allocations are based on historical catch and were primarily developed to optimize fishery operation, they do serve a biological purpose of spreading catch throughout the year, which is an important consideration given the short lifecycle of longfin squid (NEFSC 2011). The squid population is composed of overlapping micro- cohorts and avoiding excessive mortality on any one cohort reduces the chances of recruitment overfishing. The Trimester with the most landings varies from year to year, but T2 had the most landings in 2014, 2015, and 2016.

Table 6. Longfin Fishery Performance Since 2007, When Trimesters Were Implemented (2007) Commercial % of Quota Quota Commercial T3 Year Landings Quota T1 Quota T1 Land T1% T2 Quota T2 Land T2% T3 Land (mt) (pounds) Landings (mt) Quota (pounds) Landed 2007 17,000 37,478,540 12,354 27,235,875 73% 15,632,318 15,487,194 99% 6,225,260 3,332,360 54% 8,391,050 2008 17,000 37,478,540 11,406 25,145,896 67% 16,093,745 8,405,764 52% 6,180,220 8,097,587 131% 8,595,268 2009 19,000 41,887,780 9,307 20,517,964 49% 17,892,717 7,390,668 41% 7,072,429 7,150,991 101% 5,975,911 2010 18,667 41,153,642 6,913 15,240,538 37% 17,696,506 3,131,395 18% 14,276,968 4,891,607 34% 6,783,709 2011 19,906 43,885,166 9,556 21,067,349 48% 18,871,570 7,887,388 42% 11,190,664 9,798,321 88% 3,377,556 Annual 2012 22,220 48,986,656 12,820 28,263,228 58% 21,065,169 5,291,094 25% 12,490,290 17,503,595 140% 5,461,598 2013 22,049 48,609,666 11,183 24,654,265 51% 20,902,027 1,658,898 8% 12,394,388 6,150,773 50% 16,628,444 2014 22,049 48,609,666 12,063 26,594,331 55% 20,674,951 7,331,327 35% 12,262,111 12,766,685 104% 6,488,956 2015 22,445 49,482,696 11,928 26,296,707 53% 21,276,813 5,404,923 25% 12,619,260 10,734,681 85% 10,211,533 2016 22,445 49,482,696 18,127 39,963,925 81% 21,276,813 12,228,889 57% 12,619,260 18,737,013 148% 8,997,660

9 An April 2012 closure of the longfin squid fishery was due the fishery’s attainment of the butterfish bycatch cap. The butterfish bycatch cap is tracked here: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/ButterfishMortalityCapReport/butterfish_cap.htm 34 153 Longfin Squid Landings, Annual and by Trimester 50,000,000

45,000,000

40,000,000

35,000,000

30,000,000

25,000,000

20,000,000

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 T1 Landings T2 Landings T3 Landings

Annual Landings Annual Quota

Figure 10. Longfin Squid Fishery Landings by Year and Trimester Since 2007.

In recent years most longfin squid landings have occurred in Rhode Island ports, with New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut also contributing (Table 7). The top ports are listed in Table 8.

Table 7. Longfin Squid Landings (mt), by State, during 2014-2016. YEAR CT MA NJ NY RI Other/NA Total

2014 610 1,104 1,265 2,332 6,650 102 12,063 2015 597 855 1,201 1,932 7,287 56 11,928 2016 758 2,082 1,988 2,839 10,329 132 18,127

35 154

Table 8. Top longfin squid ports in rank of descending ex-vessel value, for ports that averaged at least $25,000 in landed longfin squid during 2014-2016. Port POINT JUDITH RI NORTH KINGSTOWN RI MONTAUK NY CAPE MAY NJ HAMPTON BAYS NY NEW BEDFORD MA NEW LONDON CT BARNSTABLE MA STONINGTON CT BOSTON MA SHINNECOCK NY POINT PLEASANT NJ FALMOUTH MA HYANNIS MA HAMPTON VA BELFORD NJ WOODS HOLE MA POINT LOOKOUT NY EAST HAVEN CT BABYLON NY NEWPORT RI

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

36 155 Approximately 383 vessels had longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits during 2016?, but 97 of them were in Confirmation of Permit History (CPH), leaving 286 active permits for vessels in the following states. Table 9. Principal Port States (PPST) of Actively-Permitted Longfin Squid/Butterfish Moratorium Permit Vessels (2016) PPST Vessels

NJ 74 MA 67 RI 49 NY 36 VA 23 NC 15 CT 10 ME 7 MD 3 AK 1

NH 1

A key driver for this amendment has been the concern by industry that additional participation by new entrants may reduce the income of vessels that have become dependent on the squid fishery. Table 10 describes the dependence on the longfin squid fishery for federally-permitted vessels in terms of the proportion of ex-vessel revenues from longfin squid in 2016 and in 2013 (last squid specifications EA) Table 10. Dependence on Longfin Squid by Federally-Permitted Vessels – 2016 and 2013

Number of Vessels Number of Vessels Percent Dependence in Each in Each on Longfin Dependency Dependency Category in 2016 Category in 2013

1%-5% 80 49 5%-25% 79 68 25%-50% 64 35 More than 50% 42 31

37 156 Table 11. Numbers of vessels that actively fished for Longfin squid, by landings (lbs) category, during 1982-2016.

Vessels Vessels Vessels Vessels YEAR 500,000 100,000 - 50,000 - 10,000 - + 500,000 100,000 50,000

6.3.4 Butterfish During the period 1965-1976, US Atlantic butterfish landings averaged 2,051 mt. From 1977-1987, average US landings doubled to 5,252 mt, with a historical peak of slightly less than 12,000 mt landed in 1984. Since then US landings have declined sharply. Low abundance and reductions in Japanese demand for butterfish probably had a negative effect on butterfish landings in the 1990s-early 2000s but regulations kept butterfish catches low from 2005-2014 and a directed fishery has been slow to develop with expanded quotas since 2015. Additional information on this fishery can be found in the specifications’ Environmental Assessment at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/2014/November/14msb2015174specspr.html. The most recent Advisory Panel (AP) Fishery Information Document and AP Fishery Performance Report (available at http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2016/may-25-26) also have recent details on fishery performance. Annual catch, landings, discards, and quotas are summarized in the figure below.

38 157 Butterfish Catch in U.S. Waters

45,000 Most Landings Foreign Until 1978 Total Catch (Inc Discards) 40,000 Total Landings

35,000 Discards

US Landing Quotas 30,000

25,000

20,000 Metric Tons

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Figure 10. Butterfish Catch in U.S. Waters

6.4 PROTECTED SPECIES

There are numerous species of fish, marine mammals, and sea turtles which inhabit the environment within the management unit of this FMP and are afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (i.e., for those designated as threatened or endangered) and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. A subset of the species identified in Error! Reference source not found. table below are known to have the potential to interact with gear types (i.e., bottom otter trawls) considered in this amendment. Additional details on the interactions of these species with bottom otter trawls will be added to the Environmental Assessment for this action, and the most recent specifications Environmental Assessment (2016, available at https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/regs/2016/January/16msb2016specspr.html) can also be consulted for additional information. See also the protected resources impacts section, below.

39 158 Table 12. Species Protected Under the ESA and/or MMPA that may occur in the Affected Environment of the MSB fisheries. Marine mammal species (cetaceans and pinnipeds) italicized and in bold are considered MMPA strategic stocks.1 Potentially affected by this Species Status action? Cetaceans North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Endangered No Humpback whale, West Indies DPS (Megaptera Protected (MMPA) No novaeangliae)2 Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) Endangered No Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Endangered No Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Endangered No Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus Endangered No Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Protected (MMPA) Yes Pilot whale (Globicephala spp.)3 Protected (MMPA) Yes Beaked whales (Ziphius and Mesoplodon spp) Protected (MMPA) No Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) Protected (MMPA) No Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) Protected (MMPA) No Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) Protected (MMPA) Yes Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) Protected (MMPA) Yes Short Beaked Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) Protected (MMPA) Yes Atlantic Spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis) Protected (MMPA) No Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) Protected (MMPA) No Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)4 Protected (MMPA) Yes Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Protected (MMPA) Yes Sea Turtles Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered Yes Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) Endangered Yes Green sea turtle, North Atlantic DPS (Chelonia mydas)5 Threatened Yes Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), Northwest Atlantic Threatened Yes Ocean DPS Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) Endangered No Fish Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) Endangered No Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) Endangered Yes Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) Gulf of Maine DPS Threatened Yes New York Bight DPS, Chesapeake Bay DPS, Carolina DPS Endangered Yes & South Atlantic DPS Cusk (Brosme brosme) Candidate Yes Pinnipeds Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) Protected (MMPA) Yes Gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) Protected (MMPA) Yes Harp seal (Phoca groenlandicus) Protected (MMPA) Yes Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) Protected (MMPA) Yes Critical Habitat North Atlantic Right Whale6 ESA (Protected) No Northwest Atlantic DPS of Loggerhead Sea Turtle ESA (Protected) No 1 A strategic stock is defined under the MMPA as a marine mammal stock for which: (1) the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be

40 159 Potentially affected by this Species Status action? listed as a threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; and/or (3) is listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA, or is designated as depleted under the MMPA (Section 3 of the MMPA of 1972). 2 On September 8, 2016, a final rule was issued revising the ESA listing status of humpback whales (81 FR 62259). Fourteen DPSs were designated: one as threatened, four as endangered, and nine as not warranting listing. The DPS found in U.S. Atlantic waters, the West Indies DPS, is delisted under the ESA; however, this DPS is still protected under the MMPA. 3There are 2 species of pilot whales: short finned (G. melas melas) and long finned (G. macrorhynchus). Due to the difficulties in identifying the species at sea, they are often just referred to as Globicephala spp. 4 This includes the Western North Atlantic Offshore, Northern Migratory Coastal, and Southern Migratory Coastal Stocks of Bottlenose Dolphins. See Waring et al. (2016) for further details. 5 On April 6, 2016, a final rule was issued removing the current range-wide listing of green sea turtles and, in its place, listing eight green sea turtle DPSs as threatened and three DPSs as endangered (81 FR 20057). The green sea turtle DPS located in the Northwest Atlantic is the North Atlantic DPS of green sea turtles; this DPS is considered threatened under the ESA 6Originally designated June 3, 1994 (59 FR 28805); Expanded on January 27, 2016 (81 FR 4837)..

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

41 160

7.0 IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

7.1 Managed Resources The mackerel, butterfish, and Illex stocks are unlikely to be adversely or positively impacted by any of the alternatives. The fishing that results from the status quo or any of the action alternatives should continue to be limited to the Acceptable Biological Catches (ABC) from the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee per the risk policy of the Council, which mandates the use of the best available scientific information to avoid overfishing. There is substantial interaction with butterfish in the longfin squid fishery, but discarding in that fishery is directly limited through a discard cap with in-season management that is not proposed to change in this action. Regardless of any alternatives that are chosen, the sustainable management of these stocks will continue. While any fishing will lower the population of a stock compared to zero fishing, sustainable management should have a positive impact on these MSB stocks by avoiding overfishing, and overall sustainable management should continue for the mackerel, butterfish, and Illex stocks under any of the no action or action alternatives because catch will be limited to the ABC to avoid overfishing. For longfin squid, any of the permitting alternatives, from Alternative Sets 1, 2, and 5 should still result in a fleet that can fully harvest the squid quotas (see socioeconomic impact discussion in Section 7.5), but will be limited to the ABC in any given year. Therefore, the action alternatives in Alternative Sets 1, 2 and 5 should have no change in impacts compared to no action (i.e. the positive impacts from sustainable management should persist). However, the action alternatives in Alternative Sets 3 and 4 will have additional impacts compared to no action and are described in more detail below. Analyses conducted by NEFSC staff indicate a significant negative correlation (p = 0.0014), during 1983-2015, between effort (days fished on trips landing more than 40% longfin squid) during April- September and longfin squid landings-per-unit-effort (LPUE, mt per day fished) during the following October-March (Fig. 10). A similar significant negative correlation (p < 0.0001) was found between effort and LPUE for the October-March and April-September fishing periods, respectively. Ageing studies indicate that these two time periods represent the two primary seasonal cohorts; summer-hatched squid are taken in the winter fishery and vice versa (Brodziak and Macy 1996; Macy and Brodziak 2001). The negative relationship between the two seasonal cohorts is especially evident during 1983-1999 when in-season closures and the related trip limits were not in effect. Additional reasons for considering effort restrictions during T2 related to the life history of squid include: -The potential susceptibility of squid to recruitment overfishing due to their short-lived (sub- annual), semelparous life history and highly variable interannual abundance levels (Pierce and Guerra 1994); -The T2 fishery operates on highly aggregated spawning squid (which exhibit complex communal mating and spawning behaviors) (Shashar and Hanlon 2013); - Females can lay multiple egg clutches over a period of weeks, so harvesting them before they are able to deposit all of their eggs reduces future recruitment; - Longfin squid egg mops are attached to the seabed (or vegetation, rocks and other fixed surfaces) presumably so that embryonic development occurs in waters with temperatures

42 161 adequate for normal embryonic development and with adequate food supplies for hatchlings. The T2 fishery dislodges egg mops during bottom trawling and has higher squid egg mop bycatch than during T1 and T2 (see non-target impact section, Tables 18-20); and -Lab studies have demonstrated that squid eggs that hatch prematurely have very high mortality rates due to incomplete absorption of the outer yolk sac and that mechanical disturbance can easily cause premature hatching (Adelman et al. 2013, Boletzky and Hanlon 1983, Hanlon 1990, Jones and McCarthy 2013, Vidal 2002, Vidal 2014). These reasons, considered together with the NEFSC effort and LPUE analysis, suggest that excessive effort during T2 would have a negative impact on the relative abundance of the subsequent Oct-March cohort of longfin squid. Since the most recent assessment found that the longfin squid stock is “lightly exploited” the overall impact is likely low. A pending assessment update will be integrated into the final analysis for this action. To the degree that effort during T2 is having a negative impact on the squid stock, Alternatives 3B and 3C may have positive impacts because they should reduce directed fishery effort and catch following closures by limiting Federally-permitted vessels from fishing in state waters after closures. Alternatives 3D and 3E would likely have similar positive impacts by limiting overall effort and catch. The greatest reduction to T2 effort/catch would occur by combining Alternatives 4B and 4D. This would eliminate T1 to T2 rollover and reduce catch after a T2 closure by reducing the trip limit to 250 pounds. Alternative 4C (reducing T1 to T2 rollover) and Alternative 4E (post-closure trip limit of 500 pounds) would also limit effort/catch in T2 but not as much. 4F (splitting T2 in half) would slow landings in T2 but not appreciably affect overall effort/catch. It is not possible to currently identify the optimal level of T2 landings/effort, only to identify that excessive effort in T2 appears likely to suppress overall productivity.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

43 162

Figure 11. Negative Relationship Between Effort (days fished) in the longfin squid fishery during April-September and October-March LPUE (landings per unit effort) (top) and vice versa (bottom) during 1982-2015.

7.2 Habitat

The current impact on habitat/EFH by the MSB fisheries has been well described in previous analyses, including Amendments 9 (EFH), 14 (Monitoring), 16 (Deep Sea Corals), and various annual

44 163 specifications analyses. The MSB Fisheries do predominantly use bottom-trawling; Amendment 9 summarized Stevenson et al. 2004’s findings on bottom-trawling’s habitat impacts as:

“In studies examining the effect of bottom otter trawling on a variety of substrate types, it was demonstrated that the physical effects of trawl doors contacting the bottom produced furrows and some shifts in surface sediment composition, although there is a large variation in the duration of these impacts. Typically the more dynamic environment and less structured bottom composition, the shorter the duration of impact. This type of fishing was demonstrated to have some effects on composition and biomass of benthic species in the effected areas, but the directionality and duration of these effects varied by study and substrate types.”

Because of previous efforts to reduce impacts to habitat10 and the focus of the MSB fisheries on sand/mud bottoms, the impact of no action, i.e. the continuance of the MSB fisheries, is likely a continuing low negative.

Alternatives in Alternatives Sets 1 and 5 should have minimal impacts because they primarily impact who can catch squid rather than how much overall effort occurs. Alternative 2b allows a one-time permit swap and would reduce the number of vessels effectively eliminated from the squid fishery, but because of the limited application (both vessels must have now-current moratorium permits and be owned by the same entity) and baseline limitations, 2b is unlikely to substantially change effort (but still could activate some additional effort). 2c allows non-requalifying longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels a higher incidental trip limit than might occur otherwise, but the overall effect with adding 2b and/or 2c to an action alternative from Set 1 would still be to further restrict access. Again, these alternatives are going to impact who catches squid, not the overall amount of squid effort, which is controlled by availability and the overall quota.

Because the action alternatives in Set 3 and 4 may reduce bottom-trawling effort in the longfin squid fishery, those alternatives may have positive impacts on habitat. However since effort may just shift to other times of the year (from T2 to late in T3) due to the potential limitations from those Alternatives (if longfin squid are available later in the year), the impact is likely low. The action Alternatives in Alternative Set 4 could also transfer some effort from inshore to offshore as T2 fishing is generally inshore while fishing late in T3 is generally offshore. Offshore substrates tend to be in lower energy environments where bottom trawling can have more impacts, but since T3 has not closed or been constrained by the quota since the implementation of Trimesters in 2007, reserving more quota for T3 is unlikely to impact actual effort or habitat impacts in T3.

10 In Amendment 9 the Council determined that bottom trawls used in MSB fisheries do have the potential to adversely affect EFH for some federally-managed fisheries in the region and closed portions of two offshore canyons (Lydonia and Oceanographer) to squid trawling. Subsequent closures were implemented in these and two other canyons (Veatch and Norfolk) to protect tilefish EFH by prohibiting all bottom trawling activity. The Council has also limited bottom trawling near known areas of dee-sea corals via Amendment 16 to the MSB FMP. 45 164

7.3 Protected Resources

No Action

The MSB fisheries use a mix of gear types, some of which may have protected species interactions. Impacts of the No Action to Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) protected species and Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species are discussed below.

No Action Impacts: MMPA Protected Species

The MSB FMP fisheries do overlap with the distribution of marine mammals (cetaceans and pinnipeds). As a result, marine mammal interactions with bottom or mid-water trawl gear are possible (see section 6.4); however, ascertaining the risk of an interaction and the resultant potential impacts of the No Action on cetaceans and pinnipeds are difficult and somewhat uncertain, as quantitative analysis has not been performed. However, we have considered, to the best of our ability, available information on marine mammal interactions with commercial fisheries, of which, the MSB FMP is a component (Waring et al. 2014, 2015, 2016). Aside from several large whale species (e.g., North Atlantic right, humpback, and fin), harbor porpoise, and several stocks of bottlenose dolphin, there has been no indication that takes of any other marine mammal species in commercial fisheries has exceeded potential biological removal (PBR) thresholds, and therefore, gone above and beyond levels which would result in the inability of each species population to sustain itself (Waring et al. 2014, 2015, 2016). Although several species of large whales, harbor porpoise, and several stocks of bottlenose dolphin have experienced levels of take that have resulted in the exceedance of each species PBR, take reduction plans have been implemented to reduce bycatch in the fisheries affecting these species (Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP), effective January 1, 1999 (63 FR 71041); Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan (BDTRP), effective April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24776)). These plans are still in place and are continuing to assist in decreasing bycatch levels for these species. Although the information presented in Waring et al. (2014, 2015, 2016) is a collective representation of commercial fisheries interactions with non-ESA listed species of marine mammals, and does not address the effects of the MSB FMP specifically, the information does demonstrate that to date, operation of the MSB FMP, or any other fishery, has not resulted in a collective level of take that threatens the continued existence of marine mammal populations (aside from those species noted above).

In conjunction with the above, additional analysis on the impacts of the operation of fisheries in the northeast region have also been conducted by NMFS, pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, for ESA-listed species of marine mammals. Specifically, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion in 2013, concluding that the operation of the MSB FMP, in addition to six other FMPs, may adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA listed species of marine mammals. Since issuance of this Opinion, there has been no indication that these fisheries have changed in any significant manner (e.g., increases in gear quantity and soak/tow time, new areas fished) such that there are new interaction risks to listed marine mammal species that have not already been considered by NMFS to date. Taking the latter into consideration, and the fact that the No Action will retain status quo

46 165 operating conditions, we do not expect interactions with listed marine mammal species to go above and beyond that which has already been considered by NMFS to date under the No Action (NMFS 2013; Waring et al. 2014; Waring et al. 2015; Waring et al. 2016). As a result, the No Action, and the resultant fishing behavior under this Alternative, is not, as concluded by NMFS, expected to result in interaction levels that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA listed species of marine mammals.

Based on this information, and the fact that there is continual monitoring of marine mammal species bycatch, and that voluntary measures exist that reduce serious injury and mortality to marine mammal species incidentally caught in trawl fisheries (see the Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Strategy, section 6.4.1.1), it is not expected that the No Action will introduce any new risks or additional takes to marine mammal species that have not already been considered by NMFS to date and therefore, is not expected to affect the continued existence of marine mammal species. For these reasons, the no action is expected to have low negative impacts on marine mammal species, similar to past years.

No-action Impacts: ESA Listed Species

The MSB FMP fisheries do overlap with ESA listed species distribution. As a result, ESA listed species interactions with bottom or mid-water trawl gear are possible (see section 6.4); however, ascertaining the risk of an interaction and the resultant potential impacts of the No Action on ESA- listed species (i.e., species of sea turtles, whales, and sturgeon) are difficult and somewhat uncertain, as quantitative analysis has not been performed. However, we have considered, to the best of our ability, how the fishery has operated in regards to listed species since 2013, when NMFS issued a Biological Opinion (Opinion) on the operation of seven commercial fisheries, including the MSB FMP (NMFS 2013). Specifically, we have focused on available information on ESA-listed species interactions with commercial fisheries, of which, the MSB FMP is a component (NMFS 2013; see section 6.4). The Opinion issued on December 16, 2013, included an incidental take statement authorizing the take of specific numbers of ESA listed species of sea turtles, Atlantic salmon, and Atlantic sturgeon. The MSB FMP is currently covered by the incidental take statement authorized in NMFS 2013 Opinion.

The 2013 biological opinion concluded that the MSB fisheries may affect, but not jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA listed species. The No Action will retain status quo operating conditions in the MSB FMP and therefore, changes in fishing effort or behavior would not be expected. As a result, the No Action is not expected to result in the introduction of any new risks or additional takes to ESA listed species that have not already been considered and authorized by NMFS to date (NMFS 2013). Further, the MSB FMP has not resulted in the exceedance of NMFS authorized take of any ESA listed species from 2013 to the present. Thus as concluded in the NMFS 2013 Opinion, No Action / the Status Quo is not expected to result in levels of take that would jeopardize the continued existence of ESA listed species. For these reasons, the no action is expected to have low negative impacts on ESA-listed species, similar to past years.

47 166 Action Alternatives

Impacts to protected resources should generally follow impacts to effort. As effort is increased, negative impacts increase, and as effort decreases, negative impacts should decrease. Substantial shifts in effort spatially or temporally my also cause impacts.

Alternatives in Alternatives Sets 1, 2, and 5 should have minimal impacts because they primarily impact who can catch squid rather than how much overall effort occurs. Alternative 2b allows a one- time permit swap but because of the limited application (both vessels must have now-current moratorium permits and be owned by the same entity) and baseline limitations, 2b is unlikely to substantially change effort (but still could activate some additional effort). 2c allows non-requalifying longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels a higher incidental trip limit than might occur otherwise, but the overall effect would still be to restrict participation from the status quo. Alternative Sets 1, 2, and 5 are thus unlikely to substantially affect overall effort in the squid fisheries (availability and the overall quota control overall effort), so they are likely to result in similar impacts (i.e., low negative) to protected species as provided in and compared to the No Action alternative.

The action alternatives in Alternative Sets 3 and 4 would likely reduce effort in T2 in some years by reducing the T2 quota and/or by more effectively limiting landings/effort once the T2 directed fishery closes. Due to rollover provisions described previously, any reduction in catch in T2 results in more quota being available in T3. The abundance and availability of longfin squid are highly variable - the fishery intensifies when squid are abundant/available and wanes when longfin squid are not abundant/available. It is not currently possible to predict which part of the season may be particularly productive due to the species’ inherent variability. If squid are not unusually available in T3, then the overall effect would be a reduction in longfin squid effort (primarily bottom otter trawl), with that reduction taking place in T2, probably during June, July, and/or August (there has never been a May closure). This would benefit protected resources, but the benefit would be low due to only partially reducing the fishery in T2, and because the no-action only has low negative impacts to being with (see above).

A slightly more complicated situation arises if more quota is available in T3 and longfin squid are relatively available for harvest in T3. The fishery would start as usual in September, and could close at some point. However, the fishery, with rollover into T2 (2010-2016) or without rollover into T2 (2007-2009) has never closed at all in T3 under the Trimester system so the T3 quota has not been limiting. Other constraints on the operation of the fleet (squid availability, weather, fuel costs, other regulations, etc.) have limited longfin squid effort in T3. An increase to a quota that has not been limiting should not change the operation of the fishery; if simply having quota available was going to drive up effort in T3, then that effort increase should already have occurred.

48 167 instead of closing sometime in December, the fishery would remain open in December. Again, this is only theoretical since the fishery has never closed at all during T3 despite the availability of quota. Thus the final result in this low probability scenario would be to shift effort from June/July/August to December. This shift would not be expected to negatively impact any protected species, since the highest observed longfin squid interactions with sea turtle, small cetacean, and pinniped species are observed during the months of September and October, when the fishery is expected to be open regardless due to the fresh T3 quota being available on September 1. Observed Atlantic sturgeon interactions with vessels targeting longfin squid were greatest during T2, so there could be benefits to Atlantic sturgeon from reduced T2 effort.

Because squid effort is primarily driven by availability, it is not expected that lowering the T2 quota would cause a substantial relative shift in effort earlier in the Trimester as fishermen anticipate a possible early closure. If squid are available effort will be high (e.g. 2012 and 2016).

The reductions in T2 landings being considered are designed to increase the overall productivity of the longfin squid stock. This could have indirect benefits to protected resources that eat squid, primarily small cetacean and pinniped species.

7.4 Non-Target Resources

The MSB fisheries would continue to have impacts on non-target species under the “no action” Alternative. This Amendment only addresses the squid fisheries so this public hearing document focuses solely on the squid fisheries. Previous analyses have shown that the Illex fishery has very low bycatch of commercially fished species but some bycatch of swordfish (incidental retention of up to 15 swordfish are allowed per trip depending on a vessel’s permits, landings, and gear - http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/compliance/guides/documents/comm_compliance_guide_qr_sword fish.pdf). Given the low level of discards in the Illex fishery, and given the Illex alternatives may impact who catches Illex squid more than the overall effort in the Illex fishery, negligible impacts are expected on non-target resources from Alternative Set 5.

As described in the tables below, the longfin squid fishery does discard a substantial quantity of catch, with a variety of discarded species. Because discards have been previously reduced to the extent practicable (Scup Gear Restricted Areas, the Butterfish Discard Cap, mesh increases, voluntary avoidance programs, etc.) and discards are considered in the management of other fisheries, the no action impact is low negative for non-target species.

Northeast Fishery Observer Program data for 2016 were not yet fully available when this document was compiled, so the analysis of observer data uses 2015 data as a terminal year. 2016 data is undergoing analysis and will be presented during public hearings and to the Council in June 2017 to the degree practicable. Trips that retained (i.e., the estimated kept weight of longfin squid) greater than 40% longfin squid by weight account for more than 90% of longfin squid landings, so that definition was used to define directivity for observed trips included in the following analyses. The longfin squid

49 168 fishery has had 3%-8% of its landings observed (by weight) and overall discard rates (including longfin squid discards) were approximately 31%-40% by weight during 2007-2015, improving in more recent years. The discard rate is similar across Trimesters, though different species are discarded at different rates in different Trimesters (see tables below). In Tables 15-20, the “observed catch” and “observed discarded” are not fishery-raised estimates – just cumulative totals of what observers recorded for the particular time period and/or Trimester. Discard ratios from those totals and average landings are used to produce rough discard estimates for the longfin squid fishery in different time periods (Tables 15-17) for species that had at least 10,000 pounds of annual discards estimated. This is the last column in those tables but readers are strongly cautioned that while this is a reasonable approach for a quick, rough, and relative estimate given the available data, it is highly imprecise and does not follow the protocol used for official discard estimates. Tables 18-20 describe the different discard ratios between trimesters for species with discard ratios of at least 0.1 pounds discarded per 100 pounds longfin squid retained, for data summed from 2007-2015.

Table 13. Coverage and discard summary Longfin Squid Fishery - NEFOP Observer Bottom Trawl Data (including Twin, Haddock Separator, Ruhle, and Large Belly Mesh Trawls). Trips > 40% Longfin % Landings Observed % Overall Discarded 2007-2009 3% 40% 2010-2012 8% 34% 2013-2015 7% 31%

Table 14. Approximate Trimester Overall Discard Percentages - NEFOP Observer Trawl Data.

Overall Discard Percentage 2007-2015 Tri 1 33% Tri 2 35% Tri 3 36%

50 169 Table 15. 2007-2009 Discard Data From Trips >40% Longfin. Species with >10,000 pounds estimated annual discards. Rough annual discards Percent of Pounds (pounds) based on 24 Observed Observed % of total particular Discarded per NESPP4 Common Name million pounds of squid Catch Discarded discards species 100 pounds landings (average 2007- discarded longfin retained 2009) 511 295,226 273,885 15% 93% BUTTERFISH 11.7 2,807,025 3521 179,861 179,418 10% 100% DOGFISH, SPINY 7.7 1,838,836 8020 169,176 168,533 9% 100% SQUID, SHORT-FIN 7.2 1,727,281 5090 204,661 165,370 9% 81% HAKE, SILVER (WHITING) 7.1 1,694,857 1520 147,690 134,196 7% 91% HAKE, RED (LING) 5.7 1,375,365 6602 122,270 116,333 6% 95% HAKE, SPOTTED 5.0 1,192,285 3660 102,672 102,189 6% 100% SKATE, LITTLE 4.4 1,047,324 1270 74,181 74,013 4% 100% FLOUNDER, FOURSPOT 3.2 758,550 2120 198,423 63,787 4% 32% MACKEREL, ATLANTIC 2.7 653,744 3295 89,677 62,011 3% 69% SCUP 2.6 635,544 3670 48,934 48,745 3% 100% SKATE, WINTER (BIG) 2.1 499,584 8010 2,385,899 44,187 2% 2% SQUID, ATL LONG-FIN 1.9 452,869 1219 58,136 39,159 2% 67% FLOUNDER, SUMMER (FLUKE) 1.7 401,339 1685 26,812 26,661 1% 99% HERRING, ATLANTIC 1.1 273,243 3511 24,808 23,101 1% 93% DOGFISH, SMOOTH 1.0 236,760 4180 22,715 22,016 1% 97% BASS, STRIPED 0.9 225,644 8009 24,973 20,379 1% 82% SCALLOP, SEA 0.9 208,859 1200 17,955 17,434 1% 97% FLOUNDER, WINTER (BLACKBACK) 0.7 178,681 1670 16,508 16,508 1% 100% HERRING, NK 0.7 169,189 7010 15,585 15,585 1% 100% CRAB, LADY 0.7 159,724 8171 13,685 13,685 1% 100% SEAWEED, NK 0.6 140,257 1539 14,127 13,346 1% 94% HAKE, WHITE 0.6 136,777 230 31,815 13,256 1% 42% BLUEFISH 0.6 135,855 3350 14,615 11,167 1% 76% SEA BASS, BLACK 0.5 114,449 124 18,730 10,110 1% 54% MONKFISH (GOOSEFISH) 0.4 103,621 3420 10,421 9,964 1% 96% SEA ROBIN, STRIPED 0.4 102,121 3680 9,007 8,946 0% 99% SKATE, BARNDOOR 0.4 91,689 3650 8,437 8,437 0% 100% SKATE, NK 0.4 86,471 1880 10,424 7,272 0% 70% DORY, BUCKLER (JOHN) 0.3 74,530 3720 6,925 6,868 0% 99% SKATE, CLEARNOSE 0.3 70,386 6600 11,031 6,524 0% 59% HAKE, NK 0.3 66,860 7110 5,782 5,775 0% 100% CRAB, JONAH 0.2 59,185 8030 5,754 4,984 0% 87% SQUID, NK 0.2 51,082 7270 6,676 4,934 0% 74% LOBSTER, AMERICAN 0.2 50,563 1250 4,490 4,470 0% 100% FLOUNDER, SAND DAB (WINDOWPANE) 0.2 45,816 7240 4,494 4,467 0% 99% CRAB, HORSESHOE 0.2 45,784 3460 4,206 4,206 0% 100% DOGFISH, CHAIN 0.2 43,103 900 3,850 3,661 0% 95% CROAKER, ATLANTIC 0.2 37,522 1220 3,557 3,531 0% 99% FLOUNDER, WITCH (GREY SOLE) 0.2 36,193 3400 3,398 3,394 0% 100% SEA ROBIN, NORTHERN 0.1 34,783 6867 3,150 3,150 0% 100% SPONGE, NK 0.1 32,282 6623 2,927 2,927 0% 100% BOARFISH, DEEPBODY 0.1 29,993 4380 3,189 2,842 0% 89% TAUTOG (BLACKFISH) 0.1 29,123 5080 2,774 2,596 0% 94% WHITING, BLACK (HAKE, OFFSHORE) 0.1 26,610 6649 2,438 2,438 0% 100% MACKEREL, NK 0.1 24,988 5260 1,982 1,939 0% 98% FISH, NK 0.1 19,870 1477 1,880 1,880 0% 100% HADDOCK 0.1 19,269 7120 1,761 1,757 0% 100% CRAB, ROCK 0.1 18,006 8280 1,724 1,710 0% 99% STARFISH, SEASTAR,NK 0.1 17,529 7150 1,535 1,535 0% 100% CRAB, SPIDER, NK 0.1 15,734 3640 1,470 1,470 0% 100% SKATE, ROSETTE 0.1 15,063 3474 1,396 1,329 0% 95% SHAD, AMERICAN 0.1 13,617 3430 1,318 1,318 0% 100% SEA ROBIN, ARMORED 0.1 13,506 6865 1,275 1,275 0% 100% CRAB, SPECKLED, NK 0.1 13,067 1551 1,267 1,267 0% 100% HAKE, RED/WHITE MIX 0.1 12,982

51 170 Table 16. 2010-2012 Discard Data From Trips >40% Longfin. Species with >10,000 pounds estimated annual discards.

Rough annual discards Percent of Pounds Discarded (pounds) based on 22 Observed Observed % of total particular NESPP4 Common Name per 100 pounds million pounds of squid Catch Discarded discards species longfin retained landings (average 2010- discarded 2012) 511 664,802 614,920 19% 92% BUTTERFISH 11.5 2,524,854 3521 469,942 465,140 15% 99% DOGFISH, SPINY 8.7 1,909,859 6602 331,978 325,371 10% 98% HAKE, SPOTTED 6.1 1,335,970 5090 492,892 324,927 10% 66% HAKE, SILVER (WHITING) 6.1 1,334,145 8020 612,187 292,523 9% 48% SQUID, SHORT-FIN 5.5 1,201,094 3295 229,724 154,620 5% 67% SCUP 2.9 634,868 3660 152,673 149,586 5% 98% SKATE, LITTLE 2.8 614,197 8010 5,456,177 98,146 3% 2% SQUID, ATL LONG-FIN 1.8 402,984 7010 65,299 65,299 2% 100% CRAB, LADY 1.2 268,115 1520 68,843 63,528 2% 92% HAKE, RED (LING) 1.2 260,843 1270 60,168 60,168 2% 100% FLOUNDER, FOURSPOT 1.1 247,049 3400 47,683 47,587 1% 100% SEA ROBIN, NORTHERN 0.9 195,390 1219 101,108 43,480 1% 43% FLOUNDER, SUMMER (FLUKE) 0.8 178,529 3511 56,069 39,691 1% 71% DOGFISH, SMOOTH 0.7 162,969 3670 35,348 33,415 1% 95% SKATE, WINTER (BIG) 0.6 137,202 4180 27,172 26,551 1% 98% BASS, STRIPED 0.5 109,020 8009 29,784 26,438 1% 89% SCALLOP, SEA 0.5 108,553 124 41,740 25,293 1% 61% MONKFISH (GOOSEFISH) 0.5 103,853 8171 24,568 24,568 1% 100% SEAWEED, NK 0.5 100,877 1880 51,832 22,429 1% 43% DORY, BUCKLER (JOHN) 0.4 92,094 1200 20,067 19,720 1% 98% FLOUNDER, WINTER (BLACKBACK) 0.4 80,969 230 68,399 18,367 1% 27% BLUEFISH 0.3 75,414 3420 18,231 17,809 1% 98% SEA ROBIN, STRIPED 0.3 73,124 3350 29,046 17,147 1% 59% SEA BASS, BLACK 0.3 70,404 3474 16,362 14,098 0% 86% SHAD, AMERICAN 0.3 57,884 3640 14,051 14,051 0% 100% SKATE, ROSETTE 0.3 57,692 1670 13,292 11,580 0% 87% HERRING, NK 0.2 47,549 7270 14,622 10,884 0% 74% LOBSTER, AMERICAN 0.2 44,690 1477 10,359 10,359 0% 100% HADDOCK 0.2 42,536 1220 10,384 10,357 0% 100% FLOUNDER, WITCH (GREY SOLE) 0.2 42,525 3680 9,405 9,405 0% 100% SKATE, BARNDOOR 0.2 38,616 1685 52,363 8,688 0% 17% HERRING, ATLANTIC 0.2 35,672 1250 8,593 8,516 0% 99% FLOUNDER, SAND DAB (WINDOWPANE) 0.2 34,967 3720 8,586 8,488 0% 99% SKATE, CLEARNOSE 0.2 34,851 3460 8,340 8,340 0% 100% DOGFISH, CHAIN 0.2 34,244 6600 9,732 8,136 0% 84% HAKE, NK 0.2 33,406 2120 14,397 6,583 0% 46% MACKEREL, ATLANTIC 0.1 27,030 6739 6,493 6,493 0% 100% RAY, BULLNOSE 0.1 26,658 3650 6,421 6,421 0% 100% SKATE, NK 0.1 26,363 4380 6,296 6,079 0% 97% TAUTOG (BLACKFISH) 0.1 24,958 7110 6,301 5,988 0% 95% CRAB, JONAH 0.1 24,588 5260 5,001 4,931 0% 99% FISH, NK 0.1 20,247 8018 4,663 4,663 0% 100% SQUID EGGS, ATL LONG-FIN 0.1 19,146 1120 4,657 4,657 0% 100% HERRING, BLUEBACK 0.1 19,122 10 5,314 4,432 0% 83% ALEWIFE 0.1 18,197 1551 3,981 3,981 0% 100% HAKE, RED/WHITE MIX 0.1 16,346 1230 3,655 3,655 0% 100% FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL 0.1 15,007 7120 3,477 3,477 0% 100% CRAB, ROCK 0.1 14,276 6867 2,839 2,839 0% 100% SPONGE, NK 0.1 11,658 3430 2,781 2,781 0% 100% SEA ROBIN, ARMORED 0.1 11,420 6860 2,502 2,502 0% 100% ANCHOVY, NK 0.0 10,274

52 171 Table 17. 2013-2015 Discard Data From Trips >40% Longfin. Species with >10,000 pounds estimated annual discards.

Rough annual discards Percent of Pounds (pounds) based on 26 Observed Observed % of total particular Discarded per NESPP4 Common Name million pounds of squid Catch Discarded discards species 100 pounds landings (average 2013- discarded longfin retained 2015) 511 711,378 388,391 14% 55% BUTTERFISH 7.5 1,961,493 6602 291,774 285,881 10% 98% HAKE, SPOTTED 5.6 1,443,785 8020 345,605 248,680 9% 72% SQUID, SHORT-FIN 4.8 1,255,908 3660 215,948 212,661 8% 98% SKATE, LITTLE 4.1 1,074,003 3521 200,535 199,510 7% 99% DOGFISH, SPINY 3.9 1,007,585 5090 284,782 172,782 6% 61% HAKE, SILVER (WHITING) 3.4 872,602 8010 5,294,139 145,931 5% 3% SQUID, ATL LONG-FIN 2.8 736,997 1520 128,942 120,556 4% 93% HAKE, RED (LING) 2.3 608,844 3511 87,893 81,839 3% 93% DOGFISH, SMOOTH 1.6 413,313 3295 191,291 80,550 3% 42% SCUP 1.6 406,800 3670 76,811 73,796 3% 96% SKATE, WINTER (BIG) 1.4 372,692 1270 54,519 54,419 2% 100% FLOUNDER, FOURSPOT 1.1 274,833 8171 52,459 52,459 2% 100% SEAWEED, NK 1.0 264,934 3400 48,075 47,870 2% 100% SEA ROBIN, NORTHERN 0.9 241,757 1219 93,060 40,047 1% 43% FLOUNDER, SUMMER (FLUKE) 0.8 202,251 3730 39,677 39,616 1% 100% SKATE, LITTLE/WINTER, NK 0.8 200,072 3350 46,672 37,747 1% 81% SEA BASS, BLACK 0.7 190,636 1477 37,397 37,389 1% 100% HADDOCK 0.7 188,824 7010 36,173 36,173 1% 100% CRAB, LADY 0.7 182,683 3650 35,176 34,821 1% 99% SKATE, NK 0.7 175,856 2150 51,692 32,705 1% 63% MACKEREL, CHUB 0.6 165,171 8009 27,958 21,605 1% 77% SCALLOP, SEA 0.4 109,113 3720 18,986 18,188 1% 96% SKATE, CLEARNOSE 0.4 91,856 124 26,011 17,360 1% 67% MONKFISH (GOOSEFISH) 0.3 87,671 1880 32,482 15,998 1% 49% DORY, BUCKLER (JOHN) 0.3 80,795 1200 16,130 15,867 1% 98% FLOUNDER, WINTER (BLACKBACK) 0.3 80,134 230 24,502 13,583 0% 55% BLUEFISH 0.3 68,600 1250 12,197 12,165 0% 100% FLOUNDER, SAND DAB (WINDOWPANE) 0.2 61,437 3420 10,946 10,403 0% 95% SEA ROBIN, STRIPED 0.2 52,539 3474 9,146 9,113 0% 100% SHAD, AMERICAN 0.2 46,022 3680 8,992 8,992 0% 100% SKATE, BARNDOOR 0.2 45,413 3460 8,301 8,301 0% 100% DOGFISH, CHAIN 0.2 41,923 7120 8,284 8,281 0% 100% CRAB, ROCK 0.2 41,823 4180 8,633 7,999 0% 93% BASS, STRIPED 0.2 40,399 1660 7,614 7,614 0% 100% HERRING, ROUND 0.1 38,450 6626 7,391 7,391 0% 100% BEARDFISH 0.1 37,327 10 7,183 7,079 0% 99% ALEWIFE 0.1 35,749 4060 7,013 6,881 0% 98% SPOT 0.1 34,753 3640 6,670 6,670 0% 100% SKATE, ROSETTE 0.1 33,687 6867 6,059 6,059 0% 100% SPONGE, NK 0.1 30,597 7110 5,977 5,621 0% 94% CRAB, JONAH 0.1 28,386 3430 5,144 5,144 0% 100% SEA ROBIN, ARMORED 0.1 25,977 6871 4,839 4,839 0% 100% JELLYFISH, NK 0.1 24,436 2120 10,084 4,490 0% 45% MACKEREL, ATLANTIC 0.1 22,673 1551 4,837 4,461 0% 92% HAKE, RED/WHITE MIX 0.1 22,530 1220 4,453 4,445 0% 100% FLOUNDER, WITCH (GREY SOLE) 0.1 22,450 1670 4,491 4,431 0% 99% HERRING, NK 0.1 22,378 5260 4,482 4,429 0% 99% FISH, NK 0.1 22,365 8018 4,397 4,397 0% 100% SQUID EGGS, ATL LONG-FIN 0.1 22,204 2210 4,311 4,237 0% 98% MENHADEN, ATLANTIC 0.1 21,396 7270 5,705 4,028 0% 71% LOBSTER, AMERICAN 0.1 20,345 6739 3,118 3,118 0% 100% RAY, BULLNOSE 0.1 15,744 7150 3,092 3,092 0% 100% CRAB, SPIDER, NK 0.1 15,614 7240 3,527 3,039 0% 86% CRAB, HORSESHOE 0.1 15,345 1230 2,926 2,838 0% 97% FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL 0.1 14,335 1539 2,944 2,097 0% 71% HAKE, WHITE 0.0 10,588 3310 2,046 1,992 0% 97% SCAD, ROUGH 0.0 10,058

53 172 Table 18. 2007-2015 Data From Trips >40% Longfin – Trimester 1. Species with discard ratios ≥ 0.1 pounds discarded for 100 pounds longfin retained.

Pounds Percent of Discarded per Observed Observed % of total particular NESPP4 Common Name 100 pounds Catch Discarded discards species longfin discarded retained 3521 510,585 510,135 18% 100% DOGFISH, SPINY 10.7 511 558,052 488,395 18% 88% BUTTERFISH 10.2 8020 624,425 347,156 13% 56% SQUID, SHORT-FIN 7.3 5090 371,955 239,345 9% 64% HAKE, SILVER (WHITING) 5.0 6602 170,857 161,285 6% 94% HAKE, SPOTTED 3.4 1520 135,773 122,830 4% 90% HAKE, RED (LING) 2.6 8010 4,901,760 117,440 4% 2% SQUID, ATL LONG-FIN 2.5 1270 96,348 96,187 3% 100% FLOUNDER, FOURSPOT 2.0 3295 203,756 73,089 3% 36% SCUP 1.5 2120 208,599 66,803 2% 32% MACKEREL, ATLANTIC 1.4 3400 60,558 60,538 2% 100% SEA ROBIN, NORTHERN 1.3 8171 55,628 55,628 2% 100% SEAWEED, NK 1.2 1219 102,543 52,179 2% 51% FLOUNDER, SUMMER (FLUKE) 1.1 3670 42,676 42,378 2% 99% SKATE, WINTER (BIG) 0.9 3660 32,961 31,720 1% 96% SKATE, LITTLE 0.7 124 38,477 27,050 1% 70% MONKFISH (GOOSEFISH) 0.6 3350 37,078 24,278 1% 65% SEA BASS, BLACK 0.5 3420 24,225 23,960 1% 99% SEA ROBIN, STRIPED 0.5 230 65,454 23,881 1% 36% BLUEFISH 0.5 1880 43,708 23,165 1% 53% DORY, BUCKLER (JOHN) 0.5 1685 64,032 20,606 1% 32% HERRING, ATLANTIC 0.4 3511 19,211 18,813 1% 98% DOGFISH, SMOOTH 0.4 1220 17,052 17,006 1% 100% FLOUNDER, WITCH (GREY SOLE) 0.4 3680 16,276 16,215 1% 100% SKATE, BARNDOOR 0.3 1539 12,255 11,356 0% 93% HAKE, WHITE 0.2 3474 11,357 10,220 0% 90% SHAD, AMERICAN 0.2 1670 9,233 9,233 0% 100% HERRING, NK 0.2 3460 9,197 9,197 0% 100% DOGFISH, CHAIN 0.2 3640 7,723 7,723 0% 100% SKATE, ROSETTE 0.2 7110 6,939 6,715 0% 97% CRAB, JONAH 0.1 3430 6,468 6,468 0% 100% SEA ROBIN, ARMORED 0.1 6600 11,121 4,971 0% 45% HAKE, NK 0.1 8009 5,126 4,550 0% 89% SCALLOP, SEA 0.1 1551 3,981 3,981 0% 100% HAKE, RED/WHITE MIX 0.1 7120 3,246 3,246 0% 100% CRAB, ROCK 0.1 1477 2,666 2,658 0% 100% HADDOCK 0.1

54 173 Table 19. 2007-2015 Data From Trips >40% Longfin – Trimester 2. Species with discard ratios ≥ 0.1 pounds discarded for 100 pounds longfin retained.

Pounds Percent of Discarded per Observed Observed % of total particular NESPP4 Common Name 100 pounds Catch Discarded discards species longfin discarded retained 3660 228,422 224,849 13% 98% SKATE, LITTLE 7.6 3295 248,446 190,212 11% 77% SCUP 6.4 511 169,514 145,604 9% 86% BUTTERFISH 4.9 3521 142,253 137,814 8% 97% DOGFISH, SPINY 4.6 7010 114,113 114,113 7% 100% CRAB, LADY 3.8 3670 102,599 100,252 6% 98% SKATE, WINTER (BIG) 3.4 3511 104,187 85,030 5% 82% DOGFISH, SMOOTH 2.9 5090 96,766 68,538 4% 71% HAKE, SILVER (WHITING) 2.3 8010 3,019,577 53,231 3% 2% SQUID, ATL LONG-FIN 1.8 8020 51,249 51,131 3% 100% SQUID, SHORT-FIN 1.7 4180 52,476 50,565 3% 96% BASS, STRIPED 1.7 1219 81,696 43,910 3% 54% FLOUNDER, SUMMER (FLUKE) 1.5 1200 43,051 42,180 2% 98% FLOUNDER, WINTER (BLACKBACK) 1.4 3730 37,811 37,810 2% 100% SKATE, LITTLE/WINTER, NK 1.3 8171 34,715 34,715 2% 100% SEAWEED, NK 1.2 3650 33,851 33,717 2% 100% SKATE, NK 1.1 3350 39,838 31,565 2% 79% SEA BASS, BLACK 1.1 3400 27,120 26,889 2% 99% SEA ROBIN, NORTHERN 0.9 6602 23,315 22,677 1% 97% HAKE, SPOTTED 0.8 1270 18,318 18,307 1% 100% FLOUNDER, FOURSPOT 0.6 3720 19,218 18,265 1% 95% SKATE, CLEARNOSE 0.6 1250 17,623 17,519 1% 99% FLOUNDER, SAND DAB (WINDOWPANE) 0.6 1520 13,834 11,344 1% 82% HAKE, RED (LING) 0.4 2150 16,173 10,619 1% 66% MACKEREL, CHUB 0.4 4380 10,088 9,472 1% 94% TAUTOG (BLACKFISH) 0.3 3420 9,907 9,429 1% 95% SEA ROBIN, STRIPED 0.3 8018 8,874 8,874 1% 100% SQUID EGGS, ATL LONG-FIN 0.3 6867 8,200 8,200 0% 100% SPONGE, NK 0.3 7120 7,038 7,036 0% 100% CRAB, ROCK 0.2 7270 9,652 7,013 0% 73% LOBSTER, AMERICAN 0.2 4060 7,014 6,882 0% 98% SPOT 0.2 6739 6,876 6,876 0% 100% RAY, BULLNOSE 0.2 7150 4,988 4,988 0% 100% CRAB, SPIDER, NK 0.2 2120 6,769 4,024 0% 59% MACKEREL, ATLANTIC 0.1 7110 3,670 3,670 0% 100% CRAB, JONAH 0.1 10 3,447 3,347 0% 97% ALEWIFE 0.1 5260 3,249 3,249 0% 100% FISH, NK 0.1 230 21,265 3,143 0% 15% BLUEFISH 0.1 1670 2,997 2,996 0% 100% HERRING, NK 0.1 1120 2,619 2,595 0% 99% HERRING, BLUEBACK 0.1 6871 2,317 2,317 0% 100% JELLYFISH, NK 0.1 6882 2,197 2,197 0% 100% SHELL, NK 0.1 3474 2,057 2,036 0% 99% SHAD, AMERICAN 0.1 7240 2,442 1,952 0% 80% CRAB, HORSESHOE 0.1 8280 1,648 1,648 0% 100% STARFISH, SEASTAR,NK 0.1 8050 1,603 1,603 0% 100% SEA URCHIN, NK 0.1 8009 2,656 1,514 0% 57% SCALLOP, SEA 0.1

55 174 Table 20. 2007-2015 Data From Trips >40% Longfin – Trimester 3. Species with discard ratios ≥ 0.1 pounds discarded for 100 pounds longfin retained.

Pounds Percent of Discarded per Observed Observed % of total particular NESPP4 Common Name 100 pounds Catch Discarded discards species longfin discarded retained 511 943,841 643,197 20% 68% BUTTERFISH 12.6 6602 551,849 543,623 17% 99% HAKE, SPOTTED 10.7 5090 513,614 355,195 11% 69% HAKE, SILVER (WHITING) 7.0 8020 451,294 311,450 10% 69% SQUID, SHORT-FIN 6.1 3660 209,909 207,866 6% 99% SKATE, LITTLE 4.1 3521 197,500 196,119 6% 99% DOGFISH, SPINY 3.8 1520 195,869 184,106 6% 94% HAKE, RED (LING) 3.6 8010 5,214,879 117,593 4% 2% SQUID, ATL LONG-FIN 2.3 1270 74,203 74,105 2% 100% FLOUNDER, FOURSPOT 1.5 8009 74,933 62,358 2% 83% SCALLOP, SEA 1.2 1477 46,431 46,431 1% 100% HADDOCK 0.9 3511 45,372 40,788 1% 90% DOGFISH, SMOOTH 0.8 3295 58,490 33,880 1% 58% SCUP 0.7 1219 68,065 26,598 1% 39% FLOUNDER, SUMMER (FLUKE) 0.5 124 42,973 25,268 1% 59% MONKFISH (GOOSEFISH) 0.5 2150 36,572 23,139 1% 63% MACKEREL, CHUB 0.5 1880 49,925 21,960 1% 44% DORY, BUCKLER (JOHN) 0.4 1670 22,061 20,290 1% 92% HERRING, NK 0.4 230 37,997 18,182 1% 48% BLUEFISH 0.4 1685 16,218 15,420 0% 95% HERRING, ATLANTIC 0.3 3650 15,546 15,325 0% 99% SKATE, NK 0.3 3720 13,956 13,956 0% 100% SKATE, CLEARNOSE 0.3 3640 13,455 13,455 0% 100% SKATE, ROSETTE 0.3 3670 15,819 13,326 0% 84% SKATE, WINTER (BIG) 0.3 7270 16,448 12,612 0% 77% LOBSTER, AMERICAN 0.2 3474 13,489 12,283 0% 91% SHAD, AMERICAN 0.2 3400 11,478 11,424 0% 100% SEA ROBIN, NORTHERN 0.2 3460 10,906 10,906 0% 100% DOGFISH, CHAIN 0.2 6600 15,919 10,772 0% 68% HAKE, NK 0.2 1200 10,834 10,722 0% 99% FLOUNDER, WINTER (BLACKBACK) 0.2 3350 13,417 10,219 0% 76% SEA BASS, BLACK 0.2 3680 9,730 9,730 0% 100% SKATE, BARNDOOR 0.2 1660 7,613 7,613 0% 100% HERRING, ROUND 0.1 7110 7,450 6,999 0% 94% CRAB, JONAH 0.1 10 7,862 6,976 0% 89% ALEWIFE 0.1 6626 6,953 6,953 0% 100% BEARDFISH 0.1 1250 6,968 6,944 0% 100% FLOUNDER, SAND DAB (WINDOWPANE) 0.1 7240 6,921 6,897 0% 100% CRAB, HORSESHOE 0.1 8030 15,206 6,881 0% 45% SQUID, NK 0.1 5260 6,393 6,268 0% 98% FISH, NK 0.1 1230 6,135 6,032 0% 98% FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL 0.1 1551 6,100 5,724 0% 94% HAKE, RED/WHITE MIX 0.1 6871 4,942 4,942 0% 100% JELLYFISH, NK 0.1 3420 5,466 4,788 0% 88% SEA ROBIN, STRIPED 0.1 1539 5,476 4,684 0% 86% HAKE, WHITE 0.1 6623 4,604 4,604 0% 100% BOARFISH, DEEPBODY 0.1 4180 4,492 4,449 0% 99% BASS, STRIPED 0.1 2120 7,536 4,033 0% 54% MACKEREL, ATLANTIC 0.1 5080 4,861 3,975 0% 82% WHITING, BLACK (HAKE, OFFSHORE) 0.1 900 7,852 3,869 0% 49% CROAKER, ATLANTIC 0.1 2210 3,598 3,383 0% 94% MENHADEN, ATLANTIC 0.1 7120 3,237 3,233 0% 100% CRAB, ROCK 0.1 6867 3,194 3,194 0% 100% SPONGE, NK 0.1 6649 3,211 3,190 0% 99% MACKEREL, NK 0.1 6739 2,895 2,895 0% 100% RAY, BULLNOSE 0.1 7010 2,758 2,758 0% 100% CRAB, LADY 0.1 6860 2,672 2,561 0% 96% ANCHOVY, NK 0.1

56 175 Similar to protected resources, impacts to non-target species should generally follow impacts to effort. As effort is increased, negative impacts increase, and as effort decreases, negative impacts should decrease. Substantial shifts in effort spatially or temporally my also cause impacts.

Alternatives in Alternatives Sets 1 and 2 should have minimal impacts because they primarily impact who can catch squid rather than how much overall effort occurs. Action Alternatives in Alternative Set 1, by reducing the number of directed longfin squid permits, could reduce the race to fish which may have some low positive impacts for non-target species (fishermen may fish more carefully). Alternative 2b allows a one-time permit swap but because of the limited application (both vessels must have now-current moratorium permits and be owned by the same entity) and baseline limitations, 2b is unlikely to substantially change effort (but still could activate some additional effort). 2c allows non- requalifying longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels a higher incidental trip limit than might occur otherwise, but the overall effect would still be to restrict participation from the status quo. Alternative Sets 1 and 2 are thus unlikely to substantially affect overall effort in the squid fisheries (availability and the overall quota control overall effort), so they are likely to result in approximately similar impacts (i.e., low negative) to non-target species as described for and compared to the No Action alternative above.

The action alternatives in Alternative Sets 3 and 4 would likely reduce effort in T2 in some years by reducing the T2 quota and/or by more effectively limiting landings/effort once the T2 directed fishery closes. Due to rollover provisions described previously, any reduction in catch in T2 results in more quota being available in T3. The abundance and availability of longfin squid are highly variable - the fishery intensifies when squid are abundant/available and wanes when longfin squid are not abundant/available. It is not currently possible to predict which part of the season may be particularly productive due to the species’ inherent variability. If squid are not unusually available in T3, then the overall effect would be a reduction in longfin squid effort (primarily bottom otter trawl), with that reduction taking place in T2, probably during June, July, and/or August (there has never been a May closure). This would benefit non-target species, but the benefit would be low due to only partially reducing the fishery in T2, and because the no-action has low negative impacts (see above).

A slightly more complicated situation arises if more quota is available in T3 and longfin squid are relatively available for harvest in T3. The fishery would start as usual in September, and could close at some point. However, the fishery, with rollover into T2 (2010-2016) or without rollover into T2 (2007-2009) has never closed at all in T3 so the T3 quota has not been limiting. Other constraints on the operation of the fleet (squid availability, weather, fuel costs, other regulations, etc.) have limited longfin squid effort in T3. An increase to a quota that has not been limiting should not change the operation of the fishery; if simply having quota available was going to drive up effort in T3, then that effort increase should already have occurred.

In the apparently unlikely event that higher quota in T3 did lead to higher effort, since closures are most likely to occur at the end of the year (when the greatest possible fishing time has elapsed since the start of T3), a higher T3 quota would mean that the most likely change to the fishery would be that instead of closing sometime in December, the fishery would remain open in December. Again, this is only theoretical since the fishery has never closed at all during T3 despite the availability of quota.

57 176 Thus the final result in this low probability scenario would be to shift some effort from June/July/ August to December.

From the tables above, several species which have high T2 discard rates would experience positive discard impact differentials (higher to lower rates) from effort shifting from T2 to T3 including little skate, scup, lady crab, winter skate, smooth dogfish, striped bass, summer flounder, winter flounder, and black sea bass. Species which have high T3 discard rates would experience negative discard impact differentials (lower to higher rates) from effort shifting from T2 to T3 including butterfish, hakes, fourspot flounder, scallops, and haddock.

Overall impacts on non-targets from the action alternatives in Sets 3 and 4 are thus likely to be low- positive because in some years the transferred quota from T2 to T3 will not be used due to low availability later in the year in some years, which means that over time overall catch/effort will likely be somewhat lower with the action alternatives in Sets 3 and 4. However in any given year, the species with higher relative T3 discard rates may have low negative impacts and the species with higher T2 rates would have additional benefits. 3B, 3C, 3D and 3E would likely have lower chances of limiting effort and causing the effort reductions/shifts described above. The greatest reduction to or shift from T2 effort/catch would occur by combining 4B and 4D. This would eliminate T1 to T2 rollover and reduce catch after a T2 closure by reducing the trip limit to 250 pounds. 4C (reducing T1 to T2 rollover) and 4E (post-closure trip limit of 500 pounds) would have similar but lesser effects.

4F (splitting T2 in half) would slow landings in T2 but may not appreciably affect overall effort/catch.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

58 177 7.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

Since all of the alternatives have varying degrees of socioeconomic impacts, they are each addressed separately.

7.5.1 ALTERNATIVE SET 1: LONGFIN SQUID MORATORIUM PERMIT REQUALIFICATION ALTERNATIVES

1A. No action. No changes would be made to longfin/butterfish moratorium permits.

Under no action, there would continue to be socioeconomic benefits to those who participate in the longfin squid fishery. Participation in the longfin squid fishery is described in Section 6. It is possible that an influx of effort could occur. This would benefit the new entrants but dilute the amount of quota available to existing participants. In 2016 there were approximately 286 vessels with active permits and approximately another 97 that had their permits/histories held in CPH. In 2016 there were 106 of these vessels that derived at least 25% of their revenues from longfin and 42 that derived at least 50% of their revenues from longfin, so there are a number of vessels that appear quite dependent on the longfin squid fishery. Additional closures due to higher effort would be most likely to impact those vessels most. The distribution of the 286 active vessels by principal port are described in the table below.

From 1997-2015 Federal Moratorium vessels accounted for approximately 74% of longfin squid landings, with the rest caught by vessels with incidental or state-only permits (vessels can be in both categories over the course of a year).

59 178 Table 21. Principal Port States (PPST) of Currently-Active Longfin Vessels PPST Vessels NJ 74 MA 67 RI 49 NY 36 VA 23 NC 15 CT 10 ME 7 MD 3 AK 1

NH 1

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

60 179 1B. Requalify current longfin squid/butterfish permits if they landed at least 10,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2015. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Of the 383 moratorium permits that are active or in CPH, 269 had some landings in the qualifying period, and 224 would requalify, 24 of which are in CPH. Of the 200 active requalifying permits, their principal ports are identified in the table below.

Table 22. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 1B. PPST Requalifying_Ve ssels NJ 57 RI 47 MA 34 NY 33 VA 11 CT 8 NC 5 ME 3 MD 2 Of the 159 vessels that would not requalify most had no landings in the last 3 years (2014-2016). 32 did have landings in 2014-2016, but only 6 had total landings greater than 20,000 pounds over that time period (full range of 18 pounds to 237,181pounds) and would be most likely to be impacted if they were restricted by an incidental trip limit. Most of the landings that would be affected were from 2016 (after the qualifying period). The sum of the qualifying vessels best years catches from 1997- 2015 equals 62,420,514 pounds. 17 of the non-requalifying vessels also had butterfish landings 2014- 2016, with 4 vessels landing over 10,000 pounds of butterfish (overall range 31 pounds to 51,353 pounds).

Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a positive impact on re-qualifiers because they would have more secure access to the squid quota and the value of their permit would likely increase. Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a negative impact on non-re-qualifiers because they would lose directed fishing access to the squid quota and would lose the value of their permit. Permits are generally sold as packages (Federal and state) so it is difficult to determine the value of just the squid permit, but staff’s research and discussions with individuals involved in permit transactions suggests the added value of a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit may be in the range of $25,000-$75,000 depending on the history associated with the permit. At this threshold and year range, there are few vessels that would be impacted in terms of their recent landings pattern.

61 180 1C. Requalify current longfin squid/butterfish permits if they landed at least 10,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Of the 383 moratorium permits that are active or in CPH, 265 had some landings in the qualifying period, and 214 would requalify, 23 of which are in CPH. Of the 191 active requalifying permits, their principal ports are identified in the table below.

Table 23. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 1C.

PPST Requalifying_Ve ssels NJ 54 RI 46 NY 32 MA 31 VA 10 CT 8 NC 5 ME 3 MD 2

Of the 169 vessels that would not requalify most had no landings in the last 3 years (2014-2016). 42 did have landings in 2014-2016, and 16 had total landings greater than 20,000 pounds over that time period (full range of 18 pounds to 522,748 pounds) and would be most likely to be impacted if they were restricted by an incidental trip limit. The sum of the qualifying vessels best years catches from 1997-2015 equals 61,859,629 pounds. 26 of the non-requalifying vessels also had butterfish landings 2014-2016, with 6 vessels landing over 10,000 pounds of butterfish (overall range 6 pounds to 51,353 pounds).

62 181

1D. Requalify current longfin squid/butterfish permits if they landed at least 25,000 pounds in any year from 2003-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Of the 383 moratorium permits that are active or in CPH, 244 had some landings in the qualifying period, and 164 would requalify, 17 of which are in CPH. Of the 147 active requalifying permits, their principal ports are identified in the table below.

Table 24. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 1D.

PPST Requalifying_V essels RI 43 NJ 35 NY 30 MA 22 CT 7 VA 5 NC 3 ME 2

Of the 219 vessels that would not requalify most had no landings in the last 3 years (2014-2016). 70 did have landings in 2014-2016, and 25 had total landings greater than 20,000 pounds over that time period (full range of 6 pounds to 522,748 pounds) and would be most likely to be impacted if they were restricted by an incidental trip limit. The sum of the qualifying vessels best years catches from 1997-2015 equals 55,232,223 pounds. 46 of the non-requalifying vessels also had butterfish landings 2014-2016, with 9 vessels landing over 10,000 pounds of butterfish (overall range 1 pounds to 77,538 pounds).

Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a positive impact on re-qualifiers because they would have more secure access to the squid quota and the value of their permit would likely increase. Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a negative impact on non-re-qualifiers because they would lose directed fishing access to the squid quota and would lose the value of their permit. Permits are generally sold as packages (Federal and state) so it is difficult to determine the value of just the squid permit, but staff’s research and discussions with individuals involved in permit transactions suggests the added value of a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit may be in the range of $25,000-$75,000 depending on the history associated with the permit. At this threshold and year range, there is a moderate number of vessels that would be impacted in terms of their recent landings pattern, more than with 1B or 1C.

63 182

1E. Requalify current longfin squid/butterfish permits if they landed at least 50,000 pounds on average during 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Of the 383 moratorium permits that are active or in CPH, 265 had some landings in the qualifying period, and 93 would requalify, 5 of which are in CPH. Of the 88 active requalifying permits, their principal ports are identified in the table below.

Table 25. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 1E.

PPST Requalifying_Ve ssels RI 33 NY 18 NJ 16 MA 12 CT 4 VA 3 ME 1 NC 1

Of the 290 vessels that would not requalify most had no landings in the last 3 years (2014-2016). 128 did have landings in 2014-2016, and 70 had total landings greater than 20,000 pounds over that time period (full range of 6 pounds to 1,125,768 pounds) and would be most likely to be impacted if they were restricted by an incidental trip limit. The sum of the qualifying vessels best years catches from 1997-2015 equals 49,154,718 pounds. 101 of the non-requalifying vessels also had butterfish landings 2014-2016, with 32 vessels landing over 10,000 pounds of butterfish (overall range 1 pounds to 95,362 pounds).

Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a positive impact on re-qualifiers because they would have more secure access to the squid quota and the value of their permit would likely increase. Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a negative impact on non-re-qualifiers because they would lose directed fishing access to the squid quota and would lose the value of their permit. Permits are generally sold as packages (Federal and state) so it is difficult to determine the value of just the squid permit, but staff’s research and discussions with individuals involved in permit transactions suggests the added value of a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit may be in the range of $25,000-$75,000 depending on the history associated with the permit. At this threshold and year range, there is a relatively high number of vessels that would be impacted in terms of their recent landings pattern, more than with 1B, 1C, or 1D.

64 183 7.5.2 ALTERNATIVE SET 2: LONGFIN SQUID MORATORIUM PERMIT REQUALIFICATION SUB-ALTERNATIVES

2A. No action. No additional requalification options would be selected.

By not allowing the limited permit swap afforded under 2B, owners of vessels may have a less efficient fleet than under 2B. Assuming that the Council moves forward with a new limited access incidental longfin permit, not granting current moratorium permits that do not requalify for a moratorium permit a new limited access incidental longfin permit will be a negative for those vessels that would not otherwise qualify based on their landings.

2B. An entity that is currently issued more than one longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit has a one-time opportunity to swap re-qualifying moratorium permits among vessels owned by that same entity that currently have longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits. All baselines and histories would remain the same for all vessels.

It cannot currently be determined how many vessels this might apply to. Owners of multiple vessels with longfin/butterfish moratorium permits who would not re-qualify all of their existing permits for the directed longfin/butterfish moratorium permit could realize some benefit by being able to somewhat re-balance their permit portfolio on their vessels. Thus there would likely be a low-positive socioeconomic benefit compared to no action for such entities by increasing the efficiency of their longfin squid permit. Alternative 2B would reduce the number of vessels effectively eliminated from the squid fishery, but because of the limited application (both vessels must have now-current moratorium permits and be owned by the same entity) and baseline limitations, 2B is unlikely to substantially change overall effort. For this alternative, it was reported that the squid permit would be moved from a vessel already engaged in other fisheries (e.g. scallops and/or monkfish) so there would not be indirect effects related to increasing effort in other fisheries in such cases (only less of a decrease in active squid permits than would otherwise occur). This is not possible to confirm and it is theoretically possible that permit rebalancing could lead to additional effort in other fisheries. However, because of the limited instances where permits could be swapped and the baseline limitations, such indirect effects would be expected to be minimal.

65 184 2C. If a vessel that currently has been issued a moratorium longfin squid/butterfish permit does not requalify, it would automatically be issued a limited access incidental permit if the Council makes the current open access incidental permit a limited access permit.

For the longfin squid requalification options, approximately 159-290 vessels would not requalify. In those cases, approximately 150 vessels would not even meet the proposed criteria for the incidental permit and without this option could have to obtain the proposed open access permit, which is proposed to have a 250-500 pound trip limit versus the 2,500 pound trip limit that the limited access incidental permit is proposed to have. For those 150 vessels, this option would provide a benefit both in terms of the possibility of landing squid at a higher level, and because the incidental permit would have some value. Because they have not been landing squid at substantial levels and the current incidental permit is open access, the benefits are not possible to quantify.

7.5.3 ALTERNATIVE SET 3: LONGFIN SQUID INCIDENTAL AND OPEN ACCESS ALTERNATIVES

3A. No action. The current open access incidental permits and associated trip limits would remain as they are.

Under no action, individuals who switch between having and not having an incidental permit to target longfin squid in Federal or state waters as the optimal case for their situation could continue to do so. Conversely, less restricted fishing in state waters after a Federal closure reduces the available quota later in the season for Federal moratorium permit holders. New participants could also acquire incidental permits to land up to 2,500 pounds of longfin squid without cost.

3B. Create a new limited-access incidental longfin squid permit that cannot be reacquired if dropped. Qualification years would be from 1997-2013 and require landings of at least 2,500 pounds in any one year. The initial trip limit would be 2,500 pounds. This permit would also allow incidental catch of Illex and butterfish at the designated incidental trip limit (currently 10,000 pounds for Illex and 600 pounds for butterfish).

With these criteria, there would be approximately 375 Federally-permitted vessels that would qualify for a new limited-access incidental longfin squid permit. Currently state-only licensed vessels may also apply. Since the proposed trip limit is the same as the best year qualification threshold, requiring this permit should not limit current participants’ fishing compared to no action. It would create a cost to new participants who wanted/needed to purchase a limited access permit from an existing holder to

66 185 catch the proposed 2,500 pound trip limit. It also would create a cost to dropping the incidental permit to fish in state waters when Federal waters close, which is the primary point of this alternative. Staff will add additional information about the extent of this issue before public hearings.

3C. Create a new limited-access incidental longfin squid permit that cannot be reacquired if dropped. Qualification years would be from 1997-2013 and require landings of at least 5,000 pounds in any one year. The initial trip limit would be 2,500 pounds. This permit would also allow incidental catch of Illex and butterfish at the designated incidental trip limit (currently 10,000 pounds for Illex and 600 pounds for butterfish).

With these criteria, there would be approximately 325 Federally-permitted vessels that would qualify for a new limited-access incidental longfin squid permit. Currently state-only licensed vessels may also apply. Since the proposed trip limit is half of the best year qualification threshold, requiring this permit should not limit participants’ fishing compared to no action. It would create a cost to new participants who wanted/needed to purchase a limited access permit from an existing holder to catch the proposed 2,500 pound trip limit. It also would create a cost to dropping the incidental permit to fish in state waters when Federal waters close, which is the primary point of this alternative. Staff will add additional information about the extent of this issue before public hearings.

3D. Make the open-access longfin squid incidental trip limit 250 pounds.

Because the qualification threshold for a new limited-access incidental longfin squid permit would be low (2,500 pounds or 5,000 pounds in any one year 1997-2013), only vessels with minimal landings would not qualify for the new limited-access incidental longfin squid permit. Therefore this alternative should not affect current substantial participants because they would get at least the new limited-access incidental longfin squid permit. This permit would address truly incidental, small scale catch. Of current federally-permitted vessels that would not qualify for the proposed limited access incidental permit but had some longfin squid landings, their average longfin squid trip landing during the qualification period was 71 pounds if a 2,500 pound threshold is used (471 vessels) and 74 pounds if a 5,000 pound threshold is used (520 vessels).

3E. Make the current open-access longfin squid incidental trip limit 500 pounds.

67 186 current federally-permitted vessels that would not qualify for the proposed limited access incidental permit but had some longfin squid landings, their average longfin squid trip landing during the qualification period was 71 pounds if a 2,500 pound threshold is used (471 vessels) and 74 pounds if a 5,000 pound threshold is used (520 vessels).

7.5.4 ALTERNATIVE SET 4: LONGFIN SQUID TRIMESTER 2 (“T2”) ALTERNATIVES

4A. No action. The annual quota is divided among three 4-month trimesters, with the initial T2 (T2, May through August) allocation set at 17% of the annual quota (8.4 million pounds in 2017-2018). Any underages for T1 that are greater than 25 percent will be reallocated to Trimesters 2 and 3 (split equally between both trimesters) of the same year. The reallocation is limited, such that T2 may only be increased by 50 percent; the remaining portion of the underage will be reallocated to T3. Any underages for T1 that are less than 25 percent of the T1 quota will be applied to T3 of the same year. Any overages for T1 and T2 will be subtracted from T3 of the same year. This means that the post- rollover T2 quota can be as high as 12.6 million pounds (8.4 plus (half of 8.4) = 12.6). Also, the trip limit in Federal waters after a Trimester closure is 2,500 pounds.

4B. Eliminate roll-over of longfin squid quota from T1 to T2 (all un-caught T1 quota would go to T3).

68 187 benefits from reduced squid fishing cannot be quantified. The analyses above regarding negative correlations between squid fishing effort in one time period and catch per unit of effort in the subsequent time period do suggest that limiting catch in T2 will have a general positive effect on future squid abundance in the following winter however, and spreading out catch throughout the year to some degree is advisable given the short-lived and overlapping micro-cohort characteristics of longfin squid. There is not sufficient assessment information available however to suggest what the optimum amount in each Trimester should be in terms of maximizing productivity. Because of the higher encounter rate with squid egg mops in the summer, negative impacts to productivity from fishing may be greater during T2.

Compared to 4C, this alternative would have more impacts, both in terms of potential immediate lost revenues and potential future gains. Impacts would be additive to 4D/4E/4F.

4C. Reduce the maximum T1 to T2 rollover of longfin squid quota to 25% of the original T2 quota. The initial T2 quota is approximately 8.4 million pounds, so the maximum after rollover would be about 10.5 million pounds in T2.

Compared to the no action, this could reduce the available quota in T2 but increase the available quota in T3. However, squid are highly mobile and availability can be fleeting, so there is no guarantee that squid not caught in T2 would be available for harvest in T3. Currently approximately 4.2 million pounds of longfin squid can be rolled over from T1 to T2. If half of that squid can no longer be rolled- over, at 2016 prices that could amount to approximately $2.6 million in lost revenues in years with roll-over and sufficient T2 squid abundance/availability if the squid cannot be caught later in the year. This is a real possibility due to the variable nature of squid abundance and availability. If more squid can be caught later in the year, then this alternative would result in a transfer in revenues from the smaller vessels that tend to fish inshore in the summer to those vessels that are active late in the year, which are generally the larger offshore vessels. If catching less squid in any given T2 leads to increased squid productivity (through there being more squid to spawn or better hatching of eggs due to less bottom trawling on spawning grounds), there could be benefits related to higher future commercial catches, improved recreational opportunities (fishing/whale-watching), or additional ecosystem services via squid’s role in the ecosystem. However, since the quantitative relationships between catching roll-over squid and the general abundance/productivity of squid are not known, these possible benefits from reduced squid fishing cannot be quantified. The analyses above regarding negative correlations between squid fishing effort in one time period and catch per unit of effort in the subsequent time period do suggest that limiting catch in T2 will have a general positive effect on future squid abundance in the following winter however, and spreading out catch throughout the year to some degree is advisable given the short-lived and overlapping micro-cohort characteristics of longfin squid. There is not sufficient assessment information available however to suggest what the optimum amount in each Trimester should be in terms of maximizing productivity. Because of the higher encounter rate with squid egg mops in the summer, negative impacts to productivity from fishing may be greater during T2.

69 188 Compared to 4B, this alternative would have less impacts, both in terms of potential immediate lost revenues and potential future gains. Impacts would be additive to 4D/4E/4F.

4D. Implement a 250-pound trip limit for all longfin squid permits with higher initial trip limits when the T2 quota is predicted to be reached.

Compared to the no action, this alternative would reduce revenues in T2 in some years when T2 closes. Directed fishing at a 2,500 pound trip limit does occur after closures and can lead to substantial T2 quota overages. For example, in T2 of 2016, an additional 6.1 million pounds of longfin squid beyond the quota were caught post-closure when the federal limit was 2,500 pounds, generating approximately $8 million in ex-vessel sales. While preliminary, about 99% of T2 landings in 2016 after the closure date occurred on trips greater than 250 pounds and could be impacted by this alternative. However, the same productivity concerns about rolling over squid into T2 would apply to T2 quota overages, as the result is the same (more squid caught). In addition, Council staff received multiple reports from some fishery participants about high-grade discarding of squid post-closure at the 2,500 pound trip limit during T2 of 2016, which could further reduce future productivity. A disproportionate number of 2,500 pound trips during the closure supports that some amount of high-grade discarding was occurring.

Based on consensus input from the Council’s Advisory Panel, it is expected that substantially less directed fishing would occur in Federal waters if the trip limit is reduced to 250 pounds. If more squid can be caught later in the year, then this alternative would result in a transfer in revenues from the smaller vessels that tend to fish inshore in the summer to those vessels that are active late in the year, which are generally the larger offshore vessels. If catching less squid in any given T2 leads to increased squid productivity (through there being more squid to spawn or better hatching of eggs due to less bottom trawling on spawning grounds), there could be benefits related to higher future commercial catches, improved recreational opportunities (fishing/whale-watching), or additional ecosystem services via squid’s role in the ecosystem. However, since the quantitative relationships between catching roll-over squid and the general abundance/productivity of squid are not known, these possible benefits from reduced squid fishing cannot be quantified. The analyses above regarding negative correlations between squid fishing effort in one time period and catch per unit of effort in the subsequent time period do suggest that limiting catch in T2 will have a general positive effect on future squid abundance in the following winter however, and spreading out catch throughout the year to some degree is advisable given the short-lived and overlapping micro-cohort characteristics of longfin squid. There is not sufficient assessment information available however to suggest what the optimum amount in each Trimester should be in terms of maximizing productivity. Because of the higher encounter rate with squid egg mops in the summer, negative impacts to productivity from fishing may be greater during T2. Compared to 4E, this alternative would have more impacts, both in terms of potential immediate lost revenues and potential future gains. Impacts would be additive to 4B/4C/4F.

70 189

4E. Implement a 500-pound trip limit for all longfin squid permits with higher initial trip limits when the T2 quota is predicted to be reached.

Compared to the no action, this alternative would reduce revenues in T2 in some years when T2 closes. Directed fishing at a 2,500 pound trip limit does occur after closures and can lead to substantial T2 quota overages. For example, in T2 of 2016, an additional 6.1 million pounds of longfin squid beyond the quota were caught post closure when the federal limit was 2,500 pounds, generating approximately $8 million in ex-vessel sales. While preliminary, about 97% of T2 landings in 2016 after the closure date occurred on trips greater than 500 pounds and could be impacted by this alternative. However, the same productivity concerns about rolling over squid into T2 would apply to T2 quota overages, as the result is the same (more squid caught). In addition, Council staff received multiple reports from some fishery participants about high-grade discarding of squid post-closure at the 2,500 pound trip limit during T2 of 2016, which could further reduce future productivity. A disproportionate number of 2,500 pound trips during the closure supports that some amount of high-grade discarding was occurring.

Based on consensus input from the Council’s Advisory Panel, it is expected that substantially less directed fishing would occur in Federal waters if the trip limit is reduced to 500 pounds. If more squid can be caught later in the year, then this alternative would result in a transfer in revenues from the smaller vessels that tend to fish inshore in the summer to those vessels that are active late in the year, which are generally the larger offshore vessels. If catching less squid in any given T2 leads to increased squid productivity (through there being more squid to spawn or better hatching of eggs due to less bottom trawling on spawning grounds), there could be benefits related to higher future commercial catches, improved recreational opportunities (fishing/whale-watching), or additional ecosystem services via squid’s role in the ecosystem. However, since the quantitative relationships between catching roll-over squid and the general abundance/productivity of squid are not known, these possible benefits from reduced squid fishing cannot be quantified. The analyses above regarding negative correlations between squid fishing effort in one time period and catch per unit of effort in the subsequent time period do suggest that limiting catch in T2 will have a general positive effect on future squid abundance in the following winter however, and spreading out catch throughout the year to some degree is advisable given the short-lived and overlapping micro-cohort characteristics of longfin squid. There is not sufficient assessment information available however to suggest what the optimum amount in each Trimester should be in terms of maximizing productivity. Because of the higher encounter rate with squid egg mops in the summer, negative impacts to productivity from fishing may be greater during T2. Compared to 4D, this alternative would have less impacts, both in terms of potential immediate lost revenues and potential future gains. Impacts would be additive to 4B/4C/4F.

71 190

4F. Split the T2 quota, with half available May 1, and the additional half available July 1. Open access incidental and post-closure trip limits would remain as status quo or as specified in other alternatives in this action.

Compared to the no action, splitting the T2 quota should not have a substantial impact on overall squid catch since the time frame when catch would be shifted is minimal (perhaps by a month from June to July within T2). However, Council staff received multiple reports from some fishery participants about fish spoilage during the 2016 T2 season because processors could not keep up with landings. A split T2 could slow the pace of landings and avoid such spoilage. However, the amount of spoilage and any possible benefits to avoiding such spoilage cannot be quantified with the available information.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

72 191 7.5.5 ALTERNATIVE SET 5: ILLEX SQUID MORATORIUM PERMIT REQUALIFICATION ALTERNATIVES

5A. No action. No changes would be made to Illex moratorium permits.

Under no action, there would continue to be socioeconomic benefits to those who participate in the Illex squid fishery. Participation in the Illex squid fishery is described in Section 6. It is possible that an influx of effort could occur. This would benefit the new entrants but dilute the amount of quota available to existing participants. In 2016 there were approximately 64 vessels with active permits and approximately another 15 that had their permits/histories held in CPH. From 2014-2016 there were 4 of these vessels that derived at least 25% of their revenues from Illex, so there are some vessels that appear somewhat dependent on the Illex squid fishery. Closures due to higher effort would be most likely to impact those vessels most. The distribution of the 64 active vessels by principal port are described in the table below.

Table 26. Principal Port States (PPST) of Currently-Active Illex Vessels PPST Vessels

NJ 24 MA 12 RI 9 VA 7 NC 4 NY 4 CT 3 MD 1

From 1997-2015 Federal Moratorium vessels accounted for approximately 93% of Illex squid landings, with almost all of the rest caught by vessels with incidental permits (this is an offshore fishery, state-only landings are minimal).

73 192 5B. Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 10,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2015. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Of the 79 moratorium permits that are active or in CPH, 49 had some landings in the qualifying period, and 38 would requalify, 5 of which are in CPH. Of the 33 active requalifying permits, their principal ports are identified in the table below.

Table 27. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 5B PPST Requalifying_Ve ssels NJ 17 RI 5 MA 4 NC 2 NY 2 VA 2 CT 1

Of the 41 vessels that would not requalify most had no landings in the last 3 years (2014-2016). 7 did have landings in 2014-2016, but none had more than 20,000 pounds total. The sum of the qualifying vessels best years catches from 1997-2015 equals 77,540,354 pounds.

Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a positive impact on re-qualifiers because they would have more secure access to the squid quota and the value of their permit would likely increase. Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a negative impact on non-re-qualifiers because they would lose directed fishing access to the squid quota and would lose the value of their permit. Permits are generally sold as packages (Federal and state) so it is difficult to determine the value of just the squid permit, but staff’s research and discussions with individuals involved in permit transactions suggests the added value of an Illex moratorium permit may be in the range of $25,000-$75,000 depending on the history associated with the permit. At this threshold and year range, there is a relatively low number of vessels that would be impacted in terms of their recent landings pattern.

74 193 5C. Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 10,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Of the 79 moratorium permits that are active or in CPH, 47 had some landings in the qualifying period, and 37 would requalify, 5 of which are in CPH. Of the 32 active requalifying permits, their principal ports are identified in the table below.

Table 28. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 5C PPST Requalifying_Ve ssels NJ 17 RI 5 MA 3 NC 2 NY 2 VA 2 CT 1

Of the 42 vessels that would not requalify most had no landings in the last 3 years (2014-2016). 8 did have landings in 2014-2016, but only 1 had more than 20,000 pounds total (About 92,000 pounds). The sum of the qualifying vessels best years catches from 1997-2015 equals 77,448,424 pounds.

Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a positive impact on re-qualifiers because they would have more secure access to the squid quota and the value of their permit would likely increase. Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a negative impact on non-re-qualifiers because they would lose directed fishing access to the squid quota and would lose the value of their permit. Permits are generally sold as packages (Federal and state) so it is difficult to determine the value of just the squid permit, but staff’s research and discussions with individuals involved in permit transactions suggests the added value of an Illex moratorium permit may be in the range of $25,000-$75,000 depending on the history associated with the permit. At this threshold and year range, there is a relatively low number of vessels that would be impacted in terms of their recent landings pattern.

75 194 5D. Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 50,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Of the 79 moratorium permits that are active or in CPH, 47 had some landings in the qualifying period, and 35 would requalify, 5 of which are in CPH. Of the 30 active requalifying permits, their principal ports are identified in the table below.

Table 29. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 5D PPST Requalifying_V essels NJ 17 RI 5 MA 2 NC 2 VA 2 CT 1 NY 1

Of the 44 vessels that would not requalify most had no landings in the last 3 years (2014-2016). 8 did have landings in 2014-2016, but only 1 had more than 20,000 pounds total (About 92,000 pounds). The sum of the qualifying vessels best years catches from 1997-2015 equals 77,425,081 pounds.

Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a positive impact on re-qualifiers because they would have more secure access to the squid quota and the value of their permit would likely increase. Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a negative impact on non-re-qualifiers because they would lose directed fishing access to the squid quota and would lose the value of their permit. Permits are generally sold as packages (Federal and state) so it is difficult to determine the value of just the squid permit, but staff’s research and discussions with individuals involved in permit transactions suggests the added value of an Illex moratorium permit may be in the range of $25,000-$75,000 depending on the history associated with the permit. At this threshold and year range, there is a relatively low number of vessels that would be impacted in terms of their recent landings pattern.

76 195 5E. Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 100,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Of the 79 moratorium permits that are active or in CPH, 47 had some landings in the qualifying period, and 34 would requalify, 4 of which are in CPH. Of the 30 active requalifying permits, their principal ports are identified in the table below.

Table 30. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 5E PPST Requalifying_V essels NJ 17 RI 5 MA 2 NC 2 VA 2 CT 1 NY 1

Of the 45 vessels that would not requalify most had no landings in the last 3 years (2014-2016). 8 did have landings in 2014-2016, but only 1 had more than 20,000 pounds total (About 92,000 pounds). The sum of the qualifying vessels best years catches from 1997-2015 equals 77,374,216 pounds.

Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a positive impact on re-qualifiers because they would have more secure access to the squid quota and the value of their permit would likely increase. Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a negative impact on non-re-qualifiers because they would lose directed fishing access to the squid quota and would lose the value of their permit. Permits are generally sold as packages (Federal and state) so it is difficult to determine the value of just the squid permit, but staff’s research and discussions with individuals involved in permit transactions suggests the added value of an Illex moratorium permit may be in the range of $25,000-$75,000 depending on the history associated with the permit. At this threshold and year range, there is a relatively low number of vessels that would be impacted in terms of their recent landings pattern.

77 196 5F. Requalify current Illex moratorium permits if they landed at least 200,000 pounds in any year from 1997-2013. Permits in “Confirmation of Permit History” (CPH) could requalify if they have the required landings.

Of the 79 moratorium permits that are active or in CPH, 47 had some landings in the qualifying period, and 33 would requalify, 4 of which are in CPH. Of the 29 active requalifying permits, their principal ports are identified in the table below.

Table 31. Principal Port States (PPST) of Requalifying Vessels for 5F PPST Requalifying_V essels NJ 17 RI 5 MA 2 VA 2 CT 1 NC 1 NY 1

Of the 46 vessels that would not requalify most had no landings in the last 3 years (2014-2016). 9 did have landings in 2014-2016, but only 1 had more than 20,000 pounds total (About 92,000 pounds). The sum of the qualifying vessels best years catches from 1997-2015 equals 77,263,237 pounds.

Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a positive impact on re-qualifiers because they would have more secure access to the squid quota and the value of their permit would likely increase. Compared to the no-action, this alternative would have a negative impact on non-re-qualifiers because they would lose directed fishing access to the squid quota and would lose the value of their permit. Permits are generally sold as packages (Federal and state) so it is difficult to determine the value of just the squid permit, but staff’s research and discussions with individuals involved in permit transactions suggests the added value of an Illex moratorium permit may be in the range of $25,000-$75,000 depending on the history associated with the permit. At this threshold and year range, there is a relatively low number of vessels that would be impacted in terms of their recent landings pattern.

78 197 8.0 LITERATURE CITED AND SELECTED BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Adelman, W.J., Jr., Arnold, J.M., and Gilbert, D.L. 2013. Squid as Experimental Animals. Springer Science & Business Media, N.Y., NY.

Arkhipkin, Alexander, I., Paul G. K. Rodhouse, Graham J. Pierce, Warwick Sauer, Mitsuo Sakai, Louise Allcock, Juan Arguelles, John R. Bower, Gladis Castillo, Luca Ceriola, Chih-Shin Chen, Xinjun Chen, Mariana Diaz-Santana, Nicola Downey, Angel F. González, Jasmin Granados Amores, Corey P. Green, Angel Guerra, Lisa C. Hendrickson, Christian Ibáñez, Kingo Ito, Patrizia Jereb, Yoshiki Kato, Oleg N. Katugin, Mitsuhisa Kawano, Hideaki Kidokoro, Vladimir V. Kulik, Vladimir V. Laptikhovsky, Marek R. Lipinski, Bilin Liu, Luis Mariátegui, Wilbert Marin, Ana Medina, Katsuhiro Miki, Kazutaka Miyahara, Natalie Moltschaniwskyj, Hassan Moustahfid, Jaruwat Nabhitabhata, Nobuaki Nanjo, Chingis M. Nigmatullin, Tetsuya Ohtani, Gretta Pecl, J. Angel A. Perez, Uwe Piatkowski, Pirochana Saikliang, Cesar A. Salinas-Zavala, Michael Steer, Yongjun Tian, Yukio Ueta, Dharmamony Vijai, Toshie Wakabayashi, Tadanori Yamaguchi, Carmen Yamashiro, Norio Yamashita & Louis D. Zeidberg. 2015. World squid fisheries. Rev. in Fish. Sci. & Aquacult., 23:2, 92-252.

Beanlands, G.E. and Duinker, P.N. (1984) ‘An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment’, Journal of Environmental Management, 18: 267-277.

Boletzky Sv, Hanlon RT. 1983. A review of the laboratory maintenance, rearing and culture of cephalopod molluscs. Mem Natl Mus Vic 44:147–187

Christensen, D.J., W.J. Clifford, P.G. Scarlett, R.W. Smith, and D. Zachea. 1979. A survey of the 1978 spring recreational fishery for the Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, in the Middle Atlantic region. NMFS Sandy Hook Lab Report No. 78-43. 22 p.

Chetrick, Joel. 2006. Record Six-Month Exports of U.S. Frozen Mackerel to EU Eclipse 2005 Sales. FAS Worldwide. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Available online at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/fasworldwide/2006/10-2006/EUMackerel.pdf. Cross, J.N., C.A. Zetlin, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and C. McBride. 1999. Essential fish habitat source document: Butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus, life history and habitat characteristics, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NE-145. 50 p.

Ecosystem Assessment Program (EAP). 2009. Ecosystem Assessment Report for the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 09- 11; 61 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0911/crd0911.pdf.

Hanlon RT. 1990. Maintenance, rearing and culture of teuthoid and sepioid squids. In: Gilbert DL, Adelman Jr WJ, Arnold JM (eds) Squid as experimental animals. Plenum Press, New York, pp 35–62.

79 198 Hendrickson, L. 2016. Report to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council: Fishery and Survey Data Updates Regarding the Northern Shortfin Squid (Illex illecebrosus) and Longfin Inshore Squid (Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii) stocks through 2015. 29 pp.

Hendrickson, L. C., and E. M. Holmes. Essential fish habitat source document: northern shortfin squid, Illex illecebrosus, life history and habitat characteristics, 2nd Ed. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE- 191.Iglesias, José, Fuentes, Lidia, Villanueva, Roger, Editors. 2014. Cephalopod Culture. Springer Netherlands. Chapter: Vidal, Erica et al. Loligo vulgaris and Doryteuthis opalescens.

Jacobson, L.D. 2005. Essential fish habitat source document: Longfin inshore squid, Loligo Pealei , life history and habitat characteristics (2nd edition) NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS NE-193. 52 p.

Johnson, M.R., C. Boelke, L.A. Chiarella, P.D. Colosi, K. Greene, K. Lellis-Dibble, H. Ludemann, M. Ludwig, S. McDermott, J. Ortiz, D. Rusanowsky, M. Scott, J. Smith 2008. Impacts to marine fisheries habitat from nonfishing activities in the Northeastern United States. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE- 209, 328 p.

Jones, Nicholas, and McCarthy, Ian, Editors. 2013. Aquaculture rearing techniques for the common cuttlefish Sepia officinalis and the Atlantic bobtail squid Sepiola atlantica. SEAFARE project (project number 2009-1/123). Work Funded under the European Union Atlantic Area Transitional Programme (2007-2013).

Lenfest 2012. Pikitch, E. et al. 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp. Available at: http://www.oceanconservationscience.org/foragefish/.

Leos 1998. The Biological CCharacteristics fo the Monterey Bay Squid Catch and the Effect of a Two-Day-Per-Week Fishing Closure. CalCOFI Report, Volume 39.

MAFMC 2008. Amendment 9 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/fisheries/fmp/msb.

MAFMC 2010. Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/fisheries/fmp/msb.

MAFMC 2014. Report of May 2014 SSC, available at http://www.mafmc.org/s/SSC-2014-May- Report.pdf.

Miller T., Adams, C., and Rago, P. 2013. Feasible Bounds on Historic Butterfish Stock Size and Fishing Mortality Rates from Survey and Catch Data. Report to the MAFMC SSC. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2013/april-may.

Miller, T. and G. Shepard. 2011. Summary of Discard Estimates for Atlantic Sturgeon. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Population Dynamics Branch, August 2011.

80 199

Moltschaniwskyj et al 2002. An assessment of the use of short-term closures to protect spawning southern calamary aggregations from fishing pressure in Tasmania, Australia, Bulletin of Marine Science, 2002, vol. 71 (pg. 501-514).

Murawski S.A. and G.T. Waring. 1979. A population assessment of butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus, in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Tran. Am. Fish. Soc. 108(5): 427-439.

NEFSC 2004. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2004. Report of the 38th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (38th SAW): advisory report. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 04-04; 24 p. Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/.

NEFSC 2005. 42nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (42nd SAW): 42nd SAW assessment summary report. US Dep Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 06-01; 61 p. Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0601/.

NEFSC 2010. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2010. 49th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (49th SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 10- 01; 383 p. Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/

NEFSC 2011. 51st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (51st SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 11-01; 70 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/

NEFSC. 2014. 58th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (58th SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 14-04; 784 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1404/.

NMFS. 1994. Report of 17th NEFSC Stock Assessment Workshop. NEFSC, Woods Hole Lab. Ref. Doc. 94-03.

NMFS. 1996. Draft Report of the 20th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop, Northeast Fishery Science Center. Woods Hole, MA.

NMFS. 1996. Report of the 21th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop, Northeast Fishery Science Center. Woods Hole, MA. June 1996.

NMFS. 1998. Guidelines for Regulatory Analysis of Fishery Management Actions. Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Revised April 15, 1998.

NMFS. 1999. Report of the 29th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop, Northeast Fishery Science Center. Woods Hole, MA. June 1999.

81 200 NMFS 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-145. Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm145/tm145.pdf.

NMFS. 2001. Report of the 34th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop, Northeast Fishery Science Center. Woods Hole, MA. June 1999.

NMFS 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Minimizing Impacts of the Atlantic Herring Fishery on Essential Fish Habitat. NOAA/NMFS NE Regional Office, Gloucester, MA, 273 pp.

NMFS 2012. Year-end Butterfish Mortality Cap Report for the 2011 Fishing Year. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/meeting_materials/SSC/2012-05/3-2011-Butterfish-Cap- Report%28May%202012%29.pdf.

NMFS 2013. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATION BIOLOGICAL OPINION. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the Continued Implementation of Management Measures for the Northeast Multispecies, Monkfish, Spiny Dogfish, Atlantic Bluefish, Northeast Skate Complex, Mackerel, Squid/Butterfish, and Summer Flounder/Scup/Black Sea Bass Fisheries [Consultation No. F/NER/2012/01956].

NMFS 2014. Northeast Fisheries Observer Program: Incidental Take Reports. Omnibus data request + supplemental data for 2013 from http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/take_reports/nefop.html.

Okutani, T. 1977. Stock assessment of cephalopod resources fished by Japan. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization Fish. Tech. paper No. 173. 62 p.

Overholtz, W.J. 1989. Density-dependent growth in the Northwest Atlantic stock of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus). J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. (9):115-121.

W.J. Overholtz, J.A. Hare & C.M. Keith (2011): Impacts of Interannual Environmental Forcing and Climate Change on the Distribution of Atlantic Mackerel on the U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf, Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 3:1, 219-232

Patterson, K. (1992). Fisheries for small pelagic species: an empirical approach to management targets. Reviews in Fish and Fisheries 2:321-338.

Pierce and Guerra 1994. Stock Assessment Methods Used for Cephalopod Fisheries. Fisheries Research. Elsevier. Shashar, Nadav and Hanlon, Rodger. 2013. Spawning behavior dynamics at communal egg beds in the squid Doryteuthis (Loligo) pealeii. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 447 (2013) 65–74. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roger_Hanlon/publication/275163046_Spawning_behavior_dyna mics_at_communal_egg_beds_in_the_squid_Doryteuthis_Loligo_pealeii/links/56b216fd08aed7ba3fed b656.pdf?origin=publication_list.

Stevenson D, Chiarella L, Stephan D, Reid R, Wilhelm K, McCarthy J, Pentony M. 2004. Characterization of the fishing practices and marine benthic ecosystems of the Northeast U.S. Shelf, and an evaluation of the potential effects of fishing on essential fish habitat.

82 201 Woods Hole (MA): National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-181. 179 p.

TRAC 2010. Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC). TRAC Summary Report (TSR). Available online at: http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/trac/tsr.html.

Vidal, Erica. 2002. Optimizing rearing conditions of hatchling loligbid squid. Marine Biology. January 2002.

Vidal, Erica, Editor. 2014. Advances in Marine Biology Volume 67. Advances in Cephalopod Science: Biology, Ecology, Cultivation, and Fisheries. Elsevier Academic Press. London, UK.

Waring, G. 1975. A preliminary analysis of the status of the butterfish in ICNAF subarea 5 and statistical area 6. International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. Res. Doc. 74/74, Dartmouth, Canada.

Wiedenmann, J. 2015. Application of data-poor harvest control rules to Atlantic mackerel. Report to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 52pp. Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc- meetings/2015/may-13-14.

THIS IS THE END OF THE DOCUMENT

83 202 Fisheries Dependent Data Visioning Project

The Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) continue work on the Fisheries Dependent Data Visioning (FDDV) project which is the development of a future‐state data collection program that promotes more timely and accurate data collections while also achieving efficiencies in reporting programs that will result in a reduction of reporting burden to the fishing industry.

In order to fulfil this endeavor, we embarked upon a process that included wide spread collaboration with NMFS staff, state partners, fishery management councils and commissions, non‐governmental organizations, as well as fishing harvesters, dealers, and representatives. From this process, we developed a synthesized document of recommendations that would serve as the basis to developing a more robust and integrated data collection program. It was recommended that we focus on data streams, to build flexible systems that can adapt to changing needs, uses, and technology, to require the use of electronic Vessel Trip Reports (eVTR), to reduce redundant data collection and processing, to improve data quality and timeliness, and to improve access to data.

In order to improve data quality and access to data, the agency has begun collaborating with ACCSP to coordinate our collective modernization efforts. Our shared vision is to create a data structure that can support both Federal and State data that will result in more comprehensive data, will produce more consistent and reliable data products based on standardized codes, will be easier to access, and that will expedite access to trip level data. To that end, it is intended to have ACCSP serve as the data repository for all Federally collected data sets which will enable us to provide a consolidated, comprehensive, and consistent data set for all fisheries dependent data associated with a fishing trip.

Over the last two years, we developed an analysis of system requirements, designed business process models, developed a high level implementation plan, and designed data validation services. We have now moved into the development phase and have begun work on designing some critical aspects of the system. Those aspects include the adoption of the universal Trip ID which will be used to electronically integrate the various system components and data streams. We continue to work in identifying solutions as to how the Trip ID will be propagated into each of the independent data streams. We have also begun to design and develop the Trip Management System (TMS). TMS will be used to generate the Trip ID and will also serve as the hub of the system that will facilitate the exchange of information with other data streams such as eVTR, dealer landings, Pre‐Trip Notification System (PTNS), Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) trip activity codes, Northeast Fisheries Observer Program data, etc. Through the use of TMS, we intend to reduce data collection redundancy and inefficiencies while also lessoning the burden to industry by reducing the need to use numerous reporting systems.

The implementation of the FDDV is a complex project in that it involves information technology issues that require IT solutions. It also involves issues that relate to fishing industry business practices of which some will require regulatory action. And thus, the FDDV is not a project that can be completed simply by designing and building a new computer application. We need to address certain business practices that make integrated reporting challenging such as the adoption of eVTR because electronic reporting is an integral component of an integrated reporting system.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Review Redo Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT) “Data Meeting with Invited Experts” Summary of Recommendations

On March 28-30, 2017, the EFH Redo FMAT invited experts from the Northeast Fishery Science Center and several state agencies to provide their expertise and assist the FMAT in developing recommendations for improving EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) text and map designations.

Overall Recommendations

❖ Broad scale maps should be used to support EFH consultation activities. ❖ Text designations should be improved by defining specific habitat requirements and ecosystem factors that link to the Council Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) goals. ❖ Different methods for mapping EFH and HAPC using trawl survey data, integrating federal survey data with inshore state surveys, and using environmental and oceanographic data, should be evaluated and tested. ❖ The utility of habitat models for mapping EFH and HAPCs, or filling in gaps in maps based on trawl survey data, should be explored and evaluated. ❖ Improving EFH designations (maps and text descriptions) is a higher priority in nearshore areas. Due to differences in the data sources, developing EFH maps for inshore and offshore environments will likely require different approaches ❖ Greater use of HAPCs as a tool for focusing management attention on nearshore habitats most at risk from coastal development activities is recommended.

N ear- t e r m E F H Recommendations ( 1 . 5 - 2 y e a r s )

❖ To support the EFH consultation process and trigger consultations on non-fishing activities when they are appropriate, the EFH map designations should continue to be broad and encompass the full range of habitats used by a species/life stage in time and space throughout the year. ❖ Text designations should be enhanced and further refined to include more detailed information regarding habitat requirements (e.g., depth, temperature, and salinity ranges, substrate associations) that determine whether EFH exists in a specific location. ❖ Including additional ecosystem-related information in the text designations (e.g., primary prey, species interactions) would link EFH designations more explicitly with Council EAFM management goals. ❖ State data (e.g. ACFHP Habitat Matrix details), and other important details which better describe nearshore habitat use should be added to EFH text designations. ❖ Habitat vulnerabilities, if important for certain life stages, should be addressed in the EFH Review report but not be included in the EFH text designations.

❖ Data collected during egg and larval surveys (e.g. GLOBEC, ECOMON, etc.) should be evaluated and used to enhance maps and text designations. ❖ Designation approaches should be developed for subsets of time (e.g., 5-10 years) to capture effects of climate change on recent species distributions. ❖ Substantial effort should not be spent pursuing EFH map designations south of Hatteras, with the possible exception being chub mackerel (which may be added as a Mid-Atlantic species). Text designations appear to be sufficient to address consultations in the south, without map designations being needed. ❖ Designations should be reviewed/validated by species experts to ensure text and map designations are credible and do not exclude any important habitat attributes. ❖ Improvements could be made to the map designations of EFH using modeling approaches and/or using environmental habitat data to map distributions, either on its own or in combination with fishery independent and dependent data. ➢ Modeling approaches (e.g. Generalized Additive Models, Maximum Entropy Models, etc.) could be used to fill in areas without data in the current broad scale EFH maps which presently only use fisheries independent survey data collected at discrete times of year. These model-based approaches would allow for integration of survey data with other environmental/habitat data and could be used to map areas not presently included in the state and federal trawl surveys. ➢ Mapping habitat niches in a simple way using specific information about habitat use (e.g. temperatures, salinity, oceanographic features, etc.) could provide an alternative, less complex approach for individual species and life stages, or assemblages with similar habitat use attributes. ➢ Habitat niche models, presence-only habitat suitability models (e.g. MaxEnt), and a variety of spatial interpolation tools could be used to map EFH and could eliminate the reliance on heavily gridded spring and fall trawl survey data. ➢ In the near-term, the best application of habitat modeling is for identifying HAPCs and habitat areas in need of protection. ➢ For efficiency, the same type of model should be used across species whenever possible, with species-specific parameters. ➢ Seasonal maps should be developed to provide more detailed information about species distributions, which could be used to support EFH consultations or fishery management. ➢ Modeling approaches should focus on adult and juvenile life stages because they are most often the subject of EFH consultations and habitat protection measures.

N e a r - t e r m H A P C Recommendations ( 1 . 5 - 2 y e a r s )

❖ HAPC designations are an underutilized management tool and should be further developed.

❖ HAPCs should be developed using each of the four HAPC criteria as a basis for designation (i.e., ecologically important, rare, sensitive, vulnerable), using a clearly described rationale and working with species experts. ❖ HAPC should be linked to areas important for productivity (e.g. spawning, egg deposition, settlement, nursery areas, refugia, aggregations and assemblages, concentrations of forage (as part of habitat) that are driving aggregations, vulnerability, fragility). ❖ New HAPC designations could be more flexible than the designations employed at present. These approaches will likely require a combination of text only, and text and map-based products and designations. Specifically: o HAPCs could be habitat-type based or place-based. o HAPCs do not need to be fixed in space. o HAPCs do not need to be fixed in time (e.g., seasonal). ❖ Patterns in Chesapeake Bay habitat use by species can be used by analogy to fill gaps in other less well studied estuaries that may have similar species and habitats. ❖ Metrics should be developed to track changes in HAPCs over time. L o n g - term Recommendations ( 2 y e a r s a n d b e y o n d )

❖ Risk-assessments should be developed to focus management on sensitive and vulnerable habitats. ❖ A Habitat Vulnerability Assessment similar to the Northeast Fish and Shellfish Climate Vulnerability Assessment1 should be developed. ❖ Research is needed to understand linkages between habitat and production, including connectivity between inshore habitat use, quantity, and quality and offshore populations. ❖ Habitat niche dimension modeling and habitat projection approaches are promising but require much additional work. These could be complementary approaches for describing EFH in the future. ❖ Telemetry data, and other new technologies, can be used to link fish species to habitats. ❖ Develop a toolkit for habitat models that is similar to the NOAA Fisheries Toolbox.2 A toolkit could provide a standard suite of habitat modeling programs. P r o c e s s Recommendations

❖ Broad, comprehensive reviews of EFH approaches should occur every 5 years. ❖ Interim tools should be developed to allow updates to EFH designations between reviews.

1https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ecosystems/climate/northeast-fish-and-shellfish-climate- vulnerability/index. 2 http://nft.nefsc.noaa.gov/.

MAFMC MEETING June 2017 GARFO HCD Updates.

Offshore G&G Activities

Last year’s briefing included an update on offshore G&G activities. At the time, there were eight applications posted on BOEM’s website.

http://www.boem.gov/Currently-submitted-Atlantic-OCS-Region-Permits/

As of May 11, 2017, the status of the applications is as follows:

Permit Under Review • TDI-Brooks International, Inc. - Permit Number E14-010 (NC, SC and FL) Denied Permits • TGS - Permit Number E14-001 (NJ/DE border to FL) • GX Technology Corporation - Permit Number E14-003 (NJ/DE border to FL) • WesternGeco LLC - Permit Number E14-004 (VA to GA/Florida border) • CGG Services (US) Inc. - Permit Number E14-005 (MD to GA/FL border) • Spectrum Geo Inc. - Permit Number E14-006 (NJ/DE border to FL) • PGS - Permit Number E14-007 (VA to NC) Issued Permits • NEOS GeoSolutions Inc. - Permit Number E15-002 (VA-SC - on shelf) Approved Permit | Application for Permit Expired Permits • ARKeX Limited - Permit Number E14-008 (VA-SC – on shelf) Approved Permit (Expired) | Application for Permit Withdrawn Permits • Spectrum Geo Inc. - Permit Number E14-009 • SeaBird Exploration Americas, Inc. - Permit Number E14-002 • GX Technology Corporation - Permit Number E15-001

However, on May 10, 2017, the Department of Interior announced that in accordance with Secretarial Order 3350, which implements President Trump’s America-First Offshore Energy Strategy, it will move forward to resume its evaluation of applications from six companies seeking permits to conduct geological and geophysical (G&G) activities in the Atlantic Ocean. This reverses BOEM’s denial of these the permit applications. Following the denial of the permit applications, the six companies filed appeals with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) have their applications reinstated. BOEM has requested that the IBLA remand the six Atlantic G&G Permit Application denials under appeal. The remand would not approve the permits, but would allow BOEM to resume its evaluation to determine whether they will individually be approved or denied.

As stated in the 2016 briefing, NMFS HCD SERO and GARFO issued combined comments on BOEM’s PDEIS for G&G survey work in the Mid and South Atlantic in 2012. At that time, it was determined that a programmatic EFH assessment provided by BOEM did not assess adequately the potential impacts of the G&G activities on EFH. We also disagreed that the impacts to EFH from the seafloor disturbance would be negligible. We determined that a programmatic consultation was inappropriate based upon the information available and issued an EFH conservation recommendation (cr) that BOEM consult with is on each individual application for G&G activities that would affect EFH adversely. BOEM concurred with the EFH cr in their 2014 response.

BOEM agreed to review each application and request from the applicant additional information deemed necessary to analyze impacts of the specific activity within specified locations or areas on marine protected species, archaeological resources, biological features, and EFH. During that review, BOEM would draft a site-specific environmental assessment (SEA) with the EFH Assessment as an appendix. On the basis of the SEA and the EFH Assessment, BOEM would then make the determination whether or not proposed specific activities would adversely affect EFH, which would warrant an EFH consultation. As a matter of process, permit applications for all proposed G&G activities in the Atlantic will be posted to BOEM's webpage:

We will continue to update MAFMC as more information becomes available.

Wind Energy

GARFO HCD has begun meeting with developers for the RI and MA wind projects MA: • Vineyard Wind submitted Site Assessment Plan (SAP) and expects to submit Construction and operation plan by the end of this year or early next year. • Bay State Wind is working on surveys for COP. They also plan to have COP submitted by early next year. • Both MA areas are proposing to use BOEM's "design envelope" RI: • Deepwater Wind is expected to provide us with survey plans for the COP which they also expect have out by early next year for the 15 turbine South Fork Project. This cable would come into Montauk. We have some issues with their route, as they are passing through sand waves and eelgrass.

NY: • On December 30, 2016, PNE Wind USA, Inc. submitted an unsolicited lease request for 40,920 acres offshore New York. The site is east and slightly north of the NY WEA. https://www.boem.gov/Unsolicited-Lease-Request-Offshore-New-York/ • HCD is working with the NEFSC to response to a request by the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA) to review a data gap analysis being prepared as part of the State’s New York Offshore Wind Master Plan. This plan is expected to be released by the end of 2017. • NYSERDA is proposing to conduct a G&G survey (sediment profile imaging and multi- beam echo sounder (MBES)) in the NY offshore wind study area (see image below). The study would take place for 14 days over 24-hour periods during a 21-day window this June.

• A task force meeting may be planned in the coming months.

NJ: • New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection hosted an interagency meeting with DONG Energy on their Ocean Wind Project offshore of NJ. DONG Energy acquired the Rights to 160,480 acres (64,944 hectares) of ocean area from RES America Development Inc. in 2016. BOEM recently send us a copy of DONG’s survey plan for this summer. We will get a copy of their SAP to review once BOEM has deemed it complete.

NC: • On March 16, 2017, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Acting Director Walter Cruickshank announced the completion of the nation’s seventh competitive lease sale for renewable wind energy in federal waters. A Wind Energy Area of 122,405 acres offshore Kitty Hawk, NC, received the high bid of $9,066,650 from Avangrid Renewables, LLC, the provisional winner. In past correspondence with BOEM, SERO did not foresee significant issues with this WEA. We are monitoring closely and will work with BOEM when requested as plans progress. • The two WEAs off Wilmington may be more problematic, but will not be auctioned for a least a year. The Wilmington WEAs are now being bundled with a SC WEA, and the SC WEA lags the NC WEA in the NEPA process (hence the delay relative to the Kitty Hawk WEA).

Other Activities Connecticut The ACOE is doing a "SMART" planning process for deepening the New Haven (Connecticut) FNP. It is just in the scoping phase right now for agency initial feedback. They are working on developing feasible alternatives for the deepening portion as well as beneficial in-water use alternatives for the dredge material (~500K cy expected). It is expected that there will be blasting involved for a portion of the FNP deepening.

New York A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was recently issued for New York State’s Coastal and Social Resiliency Initiatives for the Tottenville shoreline along the south shore of Staten Island, New York. The preferred alternative in the DEIS includes an offshore component known as the Living Breakwaters Project. This portion of the proposed project consists of ten breakwaters placed 500 – 2100 ft from the shoreline, grouped into three sections by design type, totaling 3900 linear foot (lf). The total proposed breakwater footprint is 12.7 acres, with potions of the structure extending above mlw. The project was developed as part of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sponsored Rebuild-by-Design competition that was held post-Hurricane Sandy. HCD has concerns about the proposal and is reviewing the EFH assessment provided to us in mid-April

New Jersey Last year, the ACOE proposed to establish a sand borrow area at the mouth of Great Bay and in the Little Egg Inlet. The borrow area is 2050-acre portion of the ebb shoal at the mouth of the inlet. It would be used as a source of sand the ACOE’s Long Beach Island beach nourishment project. So far, the ACOE has not finalized its plans for the inlet, so the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has proposed to dredge a portion of the proposed borrow area and place the sand on the beaches of Beach Haven and Holgate within the bounds of the federal project.

The inlet has been in the news in recent months as the US Coast Guard pulled the aides to navigation from the area due to the shallow water depths. The inlet is not designated as either a state or federal navigation channel, so it is not dredged for navigational purposes. However, GARFO port agents report that a number of charter boats and recreational boats do use the inlet, and have been pushing to have a channel dredged. The alignment of the area to be dredged by NJDEP does form a channel, but the alignment was designed to minimize the area impacted and to avoid cables, wreck and other hazards.

The borrow area within the HAPC for sandbar shark designated at Great Bay. This area has been identified as an important pupping any nursery area for sand bar shark. River herring and striped bass also use the inlet to access spawning and nursery grounds. We have recommended a seasonal restriction on the dredging from March 1 to September 30 to protect river herring and sandbar sharks. USFWS owns the land on both sides of the inlets and is concerned about the effects of dredging the shoals on the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.

Chesapeake Bay • We are continuing to work with ACOE and Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) on the proposed Man O'War Shoals shell dredging project and reviewing ACOE's draft EFH assessment. MDNR conducted a patent tong population survey on December 20, 2016 to provide more recent data on the oyster population density on Man- O-War shoal. All of the area proposed for shell dredging was surveyed. No oysters were found throughout the entire area, the result of the killing freshet of 2011 and the lack of subsequent spat set since then. The proposed action area has been revised and the areas on the west end of the shoal where oyster plantings have been conducted over the last 10 years have been removed.

• We are reviewing the draft EFH assessment for widening of Baltimore Harbor approach channels, including disposal at Wolf Trap in VA. Placement of dredged material at the Wolf Trap open water placement site during winter when blue crabs are dormant at the site has been a topic of many conversations with ACOE and comment letters for this and other dredging projects. We will be requesting more information from ACOE for the EFH assessment.

The Wolf sites lie within the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) Blue Crab Sanctuary Area, a refuge for overwintering female blue crabs that support a multi-million dollar, multi-jurisdictional fishery including Maryland, Virginia and the Potomac River. Currently, blue crab fisheries are considered “not recovered” and unable to sustain recreational and commercial harvest at the optimum levels. There is a concern that placement of material at the site, even when crabs are not overwintering may alter the habitat in a manner that will make it less suitable as blue crab overwintering habitat.

• ACOE is revisiting the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and needs to execute the Record of Decision to complete the feasibility phase. It has been twelve years since we provided comments on the proposed project at James and Barren Islands in Dorchester County, and local conditions have changed. The project involves the filling of open waters surrounding James Island and Barren Island with material dredged from the Upper Chesapeake Bay approach channels to the Port of Baltimore and the southern approach channels to the Chesapeake and Delaware (C&D) Canal.

The proposed island construction would cover of 2,072 acres of Chesapeake Bay bottom at James Island and up to 100 acres at Barren Island. A 55% wetland to 45% upland mix is proposed. The EFH assessment has been minimally updated by ACOE, but does not address that SAV has moved into areas at Barren Island that are proposed to be converted to wetlands. We will be requesting more information from ACOE.

• The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approved the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) for the Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS). The preferred alternative is to create a consistent six-lane roadway along I-64 from I-664 in Hampton to the I-564 interchange in Norfolk. A parallel bridge-tunnel would be constructed west of the existing I-64 Hampton River Bridge Tunnel width would match the expanded capacity on the approaches. We are coordinating with FHWA, VDOT and others on the review of the project and its impacts on EFH.

• As part of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project involves the construction of a new two-lane tunnel under Thimble Shoal Channel. When complete, the new tunnel will carry two lanes of traffic southbound and the existing tunnel will carry two lanes of traffic northbound. There are 353 acres of EFH within the project study area. Because this is a design-build project, the impacts to EFH have not been defined fully, but the project will involve the placement of fill, pile driving and dredging. Coordination with the ACOE and others is ongoing.

North Carolina • SERO has initiated the elevation process (under the 1992 MOA) with Corps regarding a proposed permit modification that would allow the Village of Bald Head Island to mine sand from Frying Pan Shoals. The SAFMC also has objected strongly to the proposed permit modification. An EFH Assessment was received in early May and HCD is now reviewing it to see if our concerns are addressed. SERO HCD is briefing the SAFMC the week of May 14th. .

• SERO continues to work with NCDOT on a solution for NC Highway 12 along the NC Outer Banks. Phase 1, replacement of the Bonner Bridge across Oregon Inlet, is proceeding, and the seagrass mitigation project has begun construction. Phase 2, replacing a 10-mile portion NC 12 on the barrier island with a bridge in Pamlico Sound (running from the Pea Island NWR to Rodanthe) is finishing the NEPA process. SERO has worked with the NOAA Beaufort Lab, which has an extensive seagrass mapping program, on an alignment that is least impactful to seagrass habitat. Mitigation for the seagrass impacts will likely be provided by adding to the Bonner Bridge seagrass mitigation

Miscellaneous:

• On March 20, 2017, the latest version of the U.S Army Corps’ Nationwide Permits (NWP) became effective. NWPS are reissued and modified every 5 years. There are two new NWP this round, one for the removal of low head dams and one for the construction of living shorelines. NWPs are used by the Corps from NY south to VA within GARFO’s region. Nationwide permits are supposed to allow the authorization of activities that will have no more than a minimal adverse effect, individually and cumulatively on the environment. We have developed regional conditions with each of the four ACOE districts to minimize impacts to our resources and eliminate the need for individual project review.

• NOAA Fisheries in the process of developing a National Mitigation Policy to enhance consistency within the agency in the practice of mitigation and to address the unique circumstances that can occur with respect to mitigation in estuarine and marine environments. The Policy addresses all authorities under which NOAA either recommends or requires mitigation of impacts to federal trust fish and wildlife resources and other resources identified in statute. It is intended to serve as an umbrella policy under which NOAA may issue step-down guidance for specific programs or regions in the future.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901 Phone: 302-674-2331 ǀ Toll Free: 877-446-2362 ǀ FAX: 302-674-5399 ǀ www.mafmc.org Michael Luisi, Chairman ǀ G. Warren Elliott, Vice Chairman Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director

MEMORANDUM

DATE: 25 May 2017

TO: Michael Luisi, MAFMC Chairman

FROM: John Boreman, Ph.D., Chair, MAFMC Scientific and Statistical Committee

SUBJECT: Report of the May 2017 SSC Meeting

The SSC met in Baltimore on the 17th and 18th of May 2017. The main objectives of the meeting were to develop new ABC recommendations for Butterfish, Illex squid, Longfin Squid, Atlantic Surfclam, and Ocean Quahog, and review its ABC previous recommendation for Atlantic Mackerel in Fishing Year 2018 in light of updated information. The SSC also briefly discussed other topics, which included progress by the OFL CV Working Group, the status of the upcoming National SSC Workshop and the NRCC Assessment Priorities Working Group, and a proposed re-design of the NEFSC Clam Survey (Attachment 1).

A total of 11 SSC members were in attendance on May 17th and 12 members attended on May 18th, which constituted a quorum for both days (Attachment 2). Also in attendance were an MAFMC member, MAFMC staff, staff from NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center and GARFO, and representatives from the fishing industry. For each ABC deliberation, the following order of business was used: (1) presentation by the lead NEFSC assessment scientist; (2) presentation by the lead MAFMC staff member; (3) comments by the SSC member who served as SARC chair (Mike Wilberg for Atlantic Surfclam and Ed Houde for Ocean Quahog); (4) comments by the lead SSC members for species biology and socioeconomics, respectively; (5) public comments; and (6) ABC deliberations by the SSC. All documents referenced in the report can be accessed via the SSC’s meeting website (http://www.mafmc.org/ssc- meetings/2017/may-17-18).

The SSC requests that future wording of the MAFMC’s generic Term of Reference #2, asking for the level of catch (in weight) and the probability of overfishing associated with the overfishing limit (OFL), be clarified. By definition, the OFL is catch and, when correctly calculated, the probability of overfishing when harvesting at OFL is equal to 0.5. Butterfish

The SSC was requested by the MAFMC to develop ABC recommendations for fishing years 2018-2020. Chuck Adams (NEFSC staff) reviewed the results of the updated assessment, followed by Jason Didden (MAFMC staff) who updated the SSC on fishery regulations and fishery performance, and presented MAFMC staff’s ABC recommendations. Based on the results of the stock assessment update, the Butterfish resource is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring in the assessment terminal year (2016). The current fishing mortality rate (F2016 = 0.05) is 94% below the overfishing reference point FMSY proxy of 0.81. The current spawning stock biomass (SSB) is 41% above the accepted biomass reference point SSBMSY proxy of 45,616 mt.

Responses by the SSC to the Terms of Reference (in italics) provided by the MAFMC are as follows:

For Butterfish, the SSC will provide a written report that identifies the following for fishing years 2018-2020:

1) The level of uncertainty that the SSC deems most appropriate for the information content of the most recent stock assessment, based on criteria listed in the Omnibus Amendment.

The SSC determined that the OFL for Butterfish should be considered “an OFL CV augmented by the SSC.” The assessment produced an estimate of the OFL, but the SSC considered the estimate of uncertainty in the OFL from the assessment unrealistic for use in ABC determination.

2) If possible, the level of catch (in weight) and the probability of overfishing associated with the overfishing limit (OFL) based on the maximum fishing mortality rate threshold or, if appropriate, an OFL proxy.

The FMSY proxy used in the assessment was based on 2/3M. The estimate of M in the 2014 assessment was M = 1.22, implying the OFL = FMSY = 0.81. Assuming that subsequent ABCs are fully harvested, the equivalent OFLs for the three years are:

Year OFL 2018 28,628 mt 2019 37,637 mt 2020 39,592 mt

3) The level of catch (in weight) and the probability of overfishing associated with the acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the stock, the number of fishing years for which the ABC specification applies and, if possible, interim metrics that can be examined to determine if multi- year specifications need reconsideration prior to their expiration.

2 The SSC was presented with an update from the benchmark assessment. Accordingly, the SSC maintained the approach of basing the ABC on an OFL with a CV = 100%. Based on the projections the equivalent ABCs are:

Year ABC 2018 17,801 mt 2019 27,108 mt 2020 32,063 mt

The expected probability of overfishing in these projections is very low (average P* = 0.08), and thus the projections are very conservative.

As an interim measure, the SSC will evaluate survey CPUEs (NEAMAP and NEFSC Fall survey) as indices of annual recruitment for possible action. Currently, the projections assume that future recruitments are a random sampling from the historic distribution of recruitments. The SSC notes there is a declining trend in recent recruitments that is not considered in this assumption.

The SSC chose not to accept the MAFMC staff recommendation of a constant ABC because the SSC believed the constant ABC strategy implied an evaluation of economic trade-offs, for which the SSC did not have clear guidance.

4) The most significant sources of scientific uncertainty associated with determination of OFL and ABC.

• The foundation for the OFL was ad hoc rather than being derived internally in the model. • The application of an assumed q-value to estimate M, while novel and well thought out, contributes to uncertainty. • The assessment was limited to a period of low stock productivity, well after a period of higher exploitation, which reduces the data contrast available to the model. • Conflicting trends among seasonal surveys were not incorporated in the model. • Model-based estimates of F are imprecise and particularly influenced by three years of low catch. • There are residual trends in the survey data that might be explained by environmental or biotic (predation) factors that were not incorporated in the model. • There appears to be a declining trend in annual recruitment, suggesting projections may be uncertain. • Additional uncertainty arises because the reference points are calculated from the previous assessment and are not internally consistent with the estimate of M from the update.

5) Review the performance of the Butterfish discard cap and its effectiveness in limiting discards in the Longfin Squid fishery.

3 The Butterfish discard cap appears to be working as intended. The SSC notes that the impact of the discards on the overall dynamics of the Butterfish stock is likely small, and a re-evaluation of the magnitude of the cap may be warranted.

6) Ecosystem considerations accounted for in the stock assessment, and any additional ecosystem considerations that the SSC took into account in selecting the ABC, including the basis for those additional considerations.

There were no specific ecosystem considerations in the population dynamics model. However, the OFL was based on a proxy that incorporated consideration of the role of Butterfish as a forage species. Additionally, the calculation of availability of the fish to the survey did incorporate considerations of temperature as a factor influencing fish distributions.

7) Prioritized research or monitoring recommendations that would reduce the scientific uncertainty in the ABC recommendation and/or improve the assessment level.

• Conduct simulation studies to evaluate the uncertainty in the ad hoc Fmsy proxy; • Develop reference points that are internal to the model; • Develop a parallel catchability estimate for Spring surveys so that both Spring and Fall surveys could be included in the model; • Evaluate approaches to include additional surveys, e.g., from States, in the assessment model; • Analyze additional estimation of consumptive demand of predators to identify critical periods of overlap of predators and prey; • Reconsider stock structure and degree of exchange with the South Atlantic stock component; and • Evaluate the potential role of variation in “available thermal habitat area” in the NEAMAP survey as an explanation of inter-annual variability in NEAMAP CPUE.

8) The materials considered in reaching its recommendations.

• Year-end Butterfish Catch and Mortality Cap Report for the 2016 Fishing Year • Butterfish 2017 Stock Assessment Update • Butterfish Projections 2018-2020 • Butterfish Indices • Fishery performance report • Staff memo • SAW/SARC 58 Butterfish Assessment Materials These documents can be accessed via the SSC meeting website (http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18). 9) A certification that the recommendations provided by the SSC represent the best scientific information available.

4 To the best of the SSC's knowledge, these recommendations are based on the best available scientific information.

Illex Squid

Lisa Hendrickson (NEFSC) gave an overview of the recent data update for Illex squid, followed by Jason Didden (MAFMC staff), who presented an overview of fishery regulations and fishery performance, and MAFMC staff’s ABC recommendations. The data update shows that landings from the southern stock component declined after 2011 and were below the 1987-2015 average (12,095 mt) during 2012-2016. Landings during 2016 totaled 6,684 mt. Data from the Northeast Commercial Fisheries Database indicated that fishing effort also declined after 2011. After reaching a peak in 2006, fall relative abundance declined and was below the 1967-2015 median (8.0 squid per tow) during 2011-2013 (4.7 squid per tow) then increased and was near the median during 2014-2016. Despite the fact that landings from the entire stock were low during most years since 1999, the mean body weights of squid caught in the NEFSC fall surveys has gradually declined.

Responses by the SSC to the Terms of Reference (in italics) provided by the MAFMC are as follows:

For Illex squid, the SSC will provide a written report that identifies the following for fishing years 2018-2020:

1) The level uncertainty that the SSC deems most appropriate for the information content of the most recent stock assessment, based on criteria listed in the Omnibus Amendment.

The latest assessment did not specify an OFL. This is unchanged from the previous SSC determination.

Because an OFL cannot be specified given the current state of knowledge it is not possible to specify the probability of overfishing.

The SSC recommends a 2018-2020 multi-year ABC specification of 24,000 mt (the same as has been set since 2012 by the SSC). This is based on the observation that landings of 24,000 - 26,000 mt do not appear to have caused harm to the Illex stock, based on indices and landings in years following when landings were in the range of 24,000 mt - 26,000

5 mt. Landings are highly variable within a wide range, but have been below the average since 2013. Indices are also variable, but have not been consistently below the average value.

There has been a long-term decline in average size. Causes for the decline in average size remain unknown, but could include changes in environmental variables, a possible change in the timing of the survey, and/or an increase in an unspecified size-selective source of mortality, such as fishing or natural mortality.

The method used by the SSC for setting the ABC assumes that the stock has been lightly exploited.

The SSC recommends that a benchmark assessment or a research track assessment examining the effects of environmental variables on survey trends in Illex be undertaken by 2020, which would be 14 years since the last benchmark assessment was conducted.

The SSC will consider the following data sources to evaluate whether to depart from the three-year ABC specification: 1. Total landings – in particular deviation from average; 2. Spatial distribution of landings – in particular evidence for broad-scale latitudinal shifts in catches; 3. Fishery dependent effort (landings per tow); 4. Biological characteristics of the catch; and 5. Spatial distribution of survey catches.

4) The most significant sources of scientific uncertainty associated with determination of OFL and ABC.

• Unavailable estimates of biological reference points (F & B), and no estimates of recent biomass and/or fishing mortality; • Surveys that cover only a portion of the entire range (leading to variable availability); • Poor precision of U.S. discard estimates (but of low magnitude); • Use of a bottom trawl survey gear for a semi-pelagic species may induce variation in the indices of abundance and obscure the true signal; • LPUE values that are sensitive to availability; • Highly variable natural mortality; and • An extremely short life-span (less than 1 year), and unknown, but likely high, impact of environmental factors on recruitment and growth.

5) Ecosystem considerations accounted for in the stock assessment, and any additional ecosystem considerations that the SSC took into account in selecting the ABC, including the basis for those additional considerations.

No additional ecosystem considerations were taken into account by the SSC in setting the ABCs.

6) Prioritized research or monitoring recommendations that would reduce the scientific uncertainty in the ABC recommendation and/or improve the assessment level.

High priority • Expand investigations into system productivity and oceanographic correlates with trends in Illex availability, recruitment, growth, and abundance. This could include development of a habitat-based availability index to standardize surveys. • Collect demographic information on growth, maturation, mortality, and reproduction by sex, season, and cohort to estimate and evaluate the level and changes in stock productivity. • Evaluate a length-based assessment with a sub-annual time step, undertaking cooperative research with the fishing industry. • Refine the between-vessel survey calibration estimate for Illex, and consider a size-based calibration. • Evaluate the potential to collect real time spatial and temporal data on catch and biological characteristics of the catch to support in season management.

Lower priority • Explore the reasons for the decline in average size of Illex caught in the survey since 1985. • Compare predator consumption estimates to total catch. • Investigate range and range dynamics at depths >185 m.

7) The materials considered in reaching its recommendations.

• Illex Data Update • Advisory Panel (AP) MSB Fishery Information Document • AP MSB Fishery Performance Report • MSB Staff ABC Recommendations

These documents can be accessed via the SSC meeting website (http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18).

8) A certification that the recommendations provided by the SSC represent the best scientific information available.

To the best of the SSC's knowledge, these recommendations are based on the best available scientific information.

7 Longfin Squid

Lisa Hendrickson (NEFSC) gave an overview of the recent assessment update for Longfin Squid, followed by Jason Didden (MAFMC staff), who presented an overview of fishery regulations and fishery performance, and MAFMC staff’s ABC recommendations. According to the update, in 2016 the Longfin Squid stock was not overfished because the average of catchability-adjusted, swept-area biomass estimates derived from the NEFSC spring and NEFSC plus NEAMAP fall surveys during 2015-2016 were much greater than the threshold BMSY proxy of 21,203 mt. The overfishing status could not be determined because there are no fishing mortality reference points for the stock.

Responses by the SSC to the Terms of Reference (in italics) provided by the MAFMC are as follows:

For Longfin Squid, the SSC will provide a written report that identifies the following for fishing years 2018-2020:

1) The level of uncertainty that the SSC deems most appropriate for the information content of the most recent stock assessment, based on criteria listed in the Omnibus Amendment.

The latest assessment did not specify an OFL. This is unchanged from the previous SSC determination.

Because an OFL cannot be specified given the current state of knowledge it is not possible to specify the probability of overfishing.

The SSC recommends an ABC for a three-year period (2018-2020) equal to the catch in the year of the highest exploitation ratio (1993). Thus, the recommended ABC is 23,400 mt, the same as has been set since 2012 by the SSC, which occurred during a period of apparent relatively light exploitation (1976-2009) according to the 2010 Longfin Squid assessment.

The SSC will consider the following data sources to evaluate whether to depart from the three-year ABC specification: 1. Total landings – in particular deviation from average;

8 2. Spatial distribution of landings – in particular evidence for broad-scale latitudinal shifts in catches; 3. Fishery dependent effort (landings per tow); 4. Biological characteristics of the catch; and 5. Spatial distribution of survey catches.

4) The most significant sources of scientific uncertainty associated with determination of OFL and ABC.

• Surveys cover unknown portion of entire range (variable availability) – the range may extend beyond survey coverage; • Using a bottom trawl survey gear for a semi-pelagic species may induce variation in the indices of abundance and obscure the true signal; • Highly variable survey trends; • Extremely short life-span (less than 1 year), and unknown, but likely high, impact of environmental factors on recruitment; • Because of its short life span, its high and variable rate of natural mortality, and the delay in collating survey and catch information, there is an inherent lag in information pertaining to the current state of the stock and the ability to estimate reference points; and • Inability to distinguish between inter-seasonal differences in productivity and inter- seasonal differences in catchability.

No additional ecosystem considerations were used in the 2017 assessment update, nor used in the SSC’s ABC determination.

6) Prioritized research or monitoring recommendations that would reduce the scientific uncertainty in the ABC recommendation and/or improve the assessment level.

1. Expand investigations into system productivity and oceanographic correlates with trends in Longfin Squid availability, recruitment, growth, and abundance. This could include: a. Development of a habitat-based availability index to standardize surveys. b. Exploration of alternative weightings of semi-annual surveys other than simple averaging. c. Understanding the spatial coverage and availability to the surveys. d. Evaluation of methods of incorporating ecological relationships, predation, and oceanic events that influence abundance and availability. e. Refining understanding of catchability in surveys (especially NEAMAP). 2. Continue to monitor the performance of the squid fisheries and related fisheries in relation to the full breadth of regulatory measures with a view towards improving the economics of the fisheries.

9 3. Evaluate approaches to real time management including expanding age and growth studies to better estimate average growth patterns and to discern seasonal productivity/catchability patterns. 4. Until real-time assessment is feasible, expand cohort analysis to understand dynamics of Longfin Squid to support stock assessments and the incorporation of seasonal indices. 5. Explore alternative approaches to assessment of this species to provide an OFL 6. Refine understanding of stock range and structure.

7) The materials considered in reaching its recommendations.

• Advisory Panel (AP) MSB Fishery Information Document • AP MSB Fishery Performance Report • MSB Staff ABC Recommendations • Longfin Squid Assessment Update

These documents can be accessed via the SSC meeting website (http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18).

8) A certification that the recommendations provided by the SSC represent the best scientific information available.

To the best of the SSC's knowledge, these recommendations are based on the best available scientific information.

Atlantic Mackerel

Jason Didden (MAFMC staff) and Kiersten Curti (NEFSC) gave an overview of the most recent data update for Atlantic Mackerel, followed by Jason Didden’s overview of fishery regulations and fishery performance, and MAFMC staff’s ABC recommendation. Estimated 2016 relative abundance was lower than the time series median and 2016 relative biomass was equivalent to the time series median. During the most recent time interval (2006-2015), mackerel size composition range was the smallest of the time series. Average length in the surveys exhibited substantial interannual variability, but generally increased over the beginning of the time series, reaching a peak in 1979, and then declined over the latter part of the time series. Since 2011, total catch has been less than the annual ABCs; however, the proportion of the ABC caught has increased as the ABC has decreased, with total catch representing approximately 52% and 71% of the ABC in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

As noted in the data update report from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the U.S. is currently beginning a benchmark assessment with the SARC review occurring on 28-30 November 2017. The scope of the assessment will be NAFO subareas 3-6 and the working group comprises both U.S. and Canadian scientists.

10 Based on the information presented, and in anticipation of a new benchmark assessment in the coming year, the SSC decided not to change its 2018 ABC recommendation for Atlantic Mackerel (19,898 mt).

Atlantic Surfclam

Dan Hennen (NEFSC) provided the SSC with a summary of the most recent benchmark assessment and a data update for Atlantic Surfclam, followed by Jessica Coakley’s (MAFMC staff) presentation of the regulatory history, fishery performance, and MAFMC staff presentation. Mike Wilberg (SSC member) chaired the SARC panel that reviewed the benchmark assessment for Atlantic Surfclam and gave a brief summary of the panel’s findings. The new reference points, approved by the SARC panel for use in management, are ratios rather than absolute values. This approach allows for conclusions about the status of the stock despite substantial uncertainty in the stock’s actual biomass. Conclusions of the assessment are that overfishing did not occur in 2015, and the probability of the stock being overfished is very low (<0.01).

The SSC acknowledges the substantial and cooperative effort that went into the preparation of the benchmark assessments for Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog.

Responses by the SSC to the Terms of Reference (in italics) provided by the MAFMC are as follows:

For Atlantic Surfclam, the SSC will provide a written report that identifies the following for fishing years 2018-2020:

1) The level of uncertainty that the SSC deems most appropriate for the information content of the most recent stock assessment, based on criteria listed in the Omnibus Amendment.

A reported OFL estimate was considered to be highly uncertain, and deemed in the assessment report to be unreliable. No absolute estimates of fishing mortality rate or current stock size were endorsed by the review panel or the assessment report. Therefore, the OFL could not be estimated.

Because an OFL cannot be specified reliably, the probability of overfishing associated with the OFL cannot be specified.

3) The level of catch (in weight) and the probability of overfishing associated with the acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the stock, the number of fishing years for which the ABC

11 specification applies and, if possible, interim metrics that can be examined to determine if multi- year specifications need reconsideration prior to their expiration.

The recommended ABC is 29,363 mt, based on a commercial quota of 26,218 mt and 12% incidental mortality. This has been sustained by the stock historically and shown to show no harm. This ABC is recommended for three years. Survey data, including survey indices and swept area estimates of biomass (when available), catch records, and spatial distribution of the fishery should be examined as interim metrics.

4) The most significant sources of scientific uncertainty associated with determination of OFL and ABC.

• Absolute estimates of spawning stock biomass (SSB), recruitment (R), and fishing mortality (F) are scale uncertain. • Uncertainty from combining absolute SSB, F, and R estimates, and projected trends for the northern and southern areas into a “whole stock.” • Ecosystem analyses suggest surfclam habitat is changing – decreasing in Delmarva and increasing in NJ and Long Island. The net effects on total habitat area and carrying capacity are unknown. • Model assumption of a 12% incidental mortality, which also may have changed. • Dredge efficiency is a major factor for setting the scale of the model. • Catchability was estimated differently for the old and new surveys. • The assumed dome-shaped selectivity patterns for the survey were based on gear selectivity experiments and are not identical to the way selectivity is defined in the model. • The distribution of size-at-age in the assessment has largest individuals at intermediate ages (probably because the CVs on size at age for the older ages are too small). This may cause a bias in estimates of F. • There were conflicts between prior distributions of parameters and some other data sets for both models, but especially for the Southern Area. This is a common problem in integrated stock assessments, but may be indicative of structural problems that could be explored (e.g., un-modelled heterogeneity in growth, recruitment, or mortality)

No additional ecosystem considerations were taken into account in selecting the ABC.

6) Prioritized research or monitoring recommendations that would reduce the scientific uncertainty in the ABC recommendation and/or improve the assessment level.

12 • Carefully consider any changes to the survey design (should maintain same vessel and gear). • Dredge efficiency is a major factor for setting the scale of the model – more work may be needed. • Re-examine whether the structural decisions in the assessment model are leading to conflicts in the data. • Consider methods to estimate natural mortality (M) from the assessments by using data from shells and recently dead individuals. • Continue to develop the institutional capacity and support for age-length integrated models. • Examine spatial scales of variability in survey and commercial catch data as they may be useful in improving the design of the survey or in developing regions for assessment or management. • Model-based estimators should be used to “fill gaps” in survey strata. • Consider the new observer discard data. • Consider whether a federal-state assessment would be more appropriate. • Include Nantucket Shoals in the surveyed area for Atlantic Surfclam. • Re-stratify the Northern Area to make the survey more efficient and effective. • Use "gap filling" (using data from adjacent years or areas) to calculate survey indices.

7) The materials considered in reaching its recommendations.

• Surfclam Summary Report (CRD 16-13), November 2016 • Surfclam Assessment Report (CRD 17-05) • Surfclam Assessment Update • Surfclam SARC 61 Panel Summary Report • Surfclam SARC 61 Bell Report • Surfclam SARC 61 Cryer Report • Surfclam SARC 61 Needle Report • 2017 Surfclam AP Fishery Information Document • Surfclam staff recommendations memo • Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Performance Report These documents can be accessed via the SSC meeting website (http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18).

8) A certification that the recommendations provided by the SSC represent the best scientific information available.

To the best of the SSC's knowledge, these recommendations are based on the best available scientific information.

13 Ocean Quahog

Dan Hennen (NEFSC) provided the SSC with a summary of the most recent benchmark assessment, followed by Jessica Coakley’s (MAFMC staff) presentation of the regulatory history, fishery performance, and MAFMC staff presentation. Ed Houde (SSC member) chaired the SARC panel that reviewed the benchmark assessment for Ocean Quahog and gave a brief summary of the panel’s findings. The new reference points, approved by the SARC panel for use in management, are ratios rather than absolute values. This approach allows for conclusions about the status of the surfclam stock despite substantial uncertainty in the actual biomass of the stock. Conclusions of the assessment are that overfishing did not occur in 2015, and the probability of the stock being overfished is very low (<0.01).

As already noted, but worth repeating, the SSC acknowledges the substantial and cooperative effort that went into the preparation of the benchmark assessments for Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog.

For Ocean Quahog, the SSC will provide a written report that identifies the following for fishing years 2018-2020:

1) The level of uncertainty that the SSC deems most appropriate for the information content of the most recent stock assessment, based on criteria listed in the Omnibus Amendment.

The reported OFL estimate, though associated with substantial uncertainty, was deemed credible, and could form the basis of developing management advice. The SSC deemed that Ocean Quahog should be considered a stock with an SSC-modified OFL probability distribution.

The levels in catch associated with the accepted OFL (F = 0.019) for the relevant fishing years are:

Year OFL 2018 61,600 mt 2019 63,600 mt 2020 63,100 mt

14 The SSC considered the Ocean Quahog to be a species with an atypical life history, and applied an SSC modified OFL distribution with a CV=100% for a stock with an SSB biomass > SSB target. The calculated ABC values, with associated probabilities of overfishing are:

Year ABC P(overfishing) 2018 44,695 mt 0.35 2019 46,146 mt 0.35 2020 45,783 mt 0.35

The SSC determined Ocean Quahog to have an atypical life history because of the atypical ratio of age at maturity to maximum life expectancy, together with fundamental questions over what explains productivity in this stock.

The SSC will evaluate the following interim metrics in considering whether to abandon or modify the proposed three-year ABC schedule: 1) The value of the relative abundance metric; and 2) The spatial and temporal distribution of catch and effort.

4) The most significant sources of scientific uncertainty associated with determination of OFL and ABC.

• Absolute estimates of spawning stock biomass (SSB), recruitment (R), and fishing mortality (F) are scale uncertain. Almost all the information on biomass scale was from the priors on survey catchability and at least one model-based depletion estimate of catchability (q) was unlikely given the prior applied in the model. • Recruitment is difficult to estimate in the Ocean Quahog assessment because age composition data is not fit in the model and growth is highly variable. • The assessment considers the stock at large spatial scales and there is a need to improve the understanding of demographic processes (including recruitment and settlement) at smaller spatial scales that are not now captured in the model.

No additional ecosystem considerations were taken into account in selecting the ABC. However, there was consideration by the assessment team and review panel of the potential effects of environmental effects on Ocean Quahog which, to date, are difficult to detect.

6) Prioritized research or monitoring recommendations that would reduce the scientific uncertainty in the ABC recommendation and/or improve the assessment level.

15 High Priority • Priority for outstanding research recommendations should be accorded to biological parameters and further understanding of survey dredge efficiency in relation to Ocean Quahog density and bottom type. o Survey performance, age and growth, spatial processes, and recruitment processes are areas that need attention. o Estimated relationships between size and number of eggs produced. o Additional age and growth studies to determine if extreme longevity (e.g., 400 years) is typical or unusual and to refine estimates of M (see page 47 of the assessment report). o Additional age and growth studies over proper geographic scales to investigate spatial and temporal recruitment patterns. o Better information about maturity at length. o The validated age data on five individuals show that variable growth was likely. Considerably more exploration of growth and growth variability is warranted (i.e., N>>5). Variable growth also could indicate differences in productivity between regions. This possibility needs to be explored in future assessments, as the ageing method develops. Lower priority • Better and more diagnostics for model performance, including implementation of Markov Chain - Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods for Ocean Quahog to be included in future reports. • Development of assessment methods for stocks such as Ocean Quahog that are believed to experience low F. • Development of a method to improve imputation of survey data. Survey data possibly can be modelled purely as an abundance index, standardized for the key factors of region, depth, speed, tow duration, dredge characteristics, etc., without the size-frequency data or a composite metric of area swept based on speed and duration. • Development of a length- and possibly age-structured assessment.

7) The materials considered in reaching its recommendations.

• Quahog Summary Report (CRD 16-13), March 2017 • Quahog Assessment Report • Quahog SARC 63 Panel Report • Quahog SARC 63 Hart Report • Quahog SARC 63 Bell Report • Quahog SARC 63 Cryer Report • 2017 Ocean Quahog AP Fishery Information Document • Quahog Staff Recommendations Memo • Hennen (2105). NAJFM Quahog MSE

16 • Pace et al. (2017). JSR Quahog Age Frequency • Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Performance Report • Quahog Summary of Work from SCeMFiS

These documents can be accessed via the SSC meeting website (http://www.mafmc.org/ssc-meetings/2017/may-17-18).

8) A certification that the recommendations provided by the SSC represent the best scientific information available.

To the best of the SSC's knowledge, these recommendations are based on the best available scientific information.

Other Topics

In addition to setting new ABCs for five stocks and reaffirming the ABC for Atlantic mackerel, the SSC also received updates on the status of the work being undertaken by OFL CV Working Group and the NRCC Assessment Working Group, and the latest plans for the upcoming National SSC Workshop. The OFL CV Working Group plans to conduct 1-2 webinars with the intent of having a report ready for SSC review this coming fall; the Working Group chair (Paul Rago) will work with MAFMC staff to develop terms of reference and a list of expected outcomes in preparation for the webinars.

The NRCC Assessment Working Group was established to developed a list of criteria that could be used to help the NRCC schedule upcoming benchmark assessments. Recently, the group was expanded to include representatives from the SSCs. The intent is to have a report to the NRCC at its upcoming meeting in June.

The steering committee for the upcoming National SSC Workshop, to be held next January in San Diego, has developed an agenda and list of potential guest speakers that was delivered to the Council Coordinating Committee (CCC) at its meeting that was being held concurrently with the SSC’s meeting. The overall theme of the workshop is “Management Strategy Evaluations (MSEs) as Tools to Provide Management Advice in the Face of Uncertainty and Environmental Change” with the following subthemes: (1) use of MSEs in evaluating and modifying harvest control rules; (2) estimating and accommodating uncertainty; and (3) harvest control rules in a changing environment. The proposed agenda will be distributed to the SSC when it is approved by the CCC.

At the end of the SSC’s meeting a small group of SSC members and MAFMC staff had a productive dialogue with NEFSC assessment staff about the proposed re-design of the NEFSC’s clam survey. c: SSC Members, Warren Elliott, Chris Moore, Rich Seagraves, Jason Didden, Jessica Coakley, Chuck Adams, Lisa Hendrickson, Kiersten Curti, Dan Hennen, Larry Jacobson, Jan Saunders

17 Attachment 1

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committee Meeting 17-18 May 2017

Final Agenda (Times Approximate)

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

9:00 Butterfish ABC Specifications (Adams/Didden)

10:30 Illex squid ABC Specifications (Hendrickson/Didden)

12:30 Lunch

1:30 Longfin Squid ABC Specifications (Hendrickson/Didden)

3:00 Atlantic Mackerel data and fishery update (Didden)

4:30 Potential other topic discussion – OFL uncertainty group, National SSC meeting discussion, NRCC working group discussion

5:30 Adjourn

Thursday, May 18, 2017

8:30 Atlantic Surfclam 61 SAW/SARC Assessment (Hennen)

9:30 Atlantic Surfclam ABC Specifications (Coakley)

12:30 Lunch

1:00 Ocean Quahog 63 SAW/SARC Assessment (Hennen)

2:00 Ocean Quahog ABC Specifications (Coakley)

3:30 NEFSC clam dredge survey redesign (Jacobson)

4:30 Adjourn

Attachment 2

MAFMC Scientific and Statistical Committee 17-18 May 2017 Meeting Attendance

Name Affiliation

SSC Members in Attendance: John Boreman (SSC Chairman) NC State University Tom Miller (SSC Vice-Chair) University of Maryland - CBL Mark Holliday NMFS (Retired) Wendy Gabriel NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Sarah Gaichas NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Ed Houde University of Maryland – CBL Brian Rothschild UMass Dartmouth (Retired) Rob Latour VIMS Dave Secor (18th only) University of Maryland - CBL Paul Rago NMFS (retired) Mike Frisk Stony Brook University Michael Wilberg University of Maryland - CBL

Others in attendance: Rich Seagraves MAFMC staff Brandon Muffley MAFMC staff Jessica Coakley (18th only) MAFMC staff Jason Didden (17th only) MAFMC staff Chuck Adams (17th only) NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Lisa Hendrickson (17th only) NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Dan Hennen (18th only) NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Larry Jacobson (18th only) NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Kiersten Curti (17th only, by phone) NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Peter Himchak Omega Protein (17th); LaMonica Fine Foods (18th) Doug Christel (17th only, by phone) NMFS GARFO Doug Potts (18th only, by phone) NMFS GARFO Jeff Kaelin (17th only) Lunds Fisheries Greg DiDomenico (17th only) Garden State Seafood Association Dave Wallace (18th only) Wallace and Associates Tom Alspach (18th only) Sea Watch International Tom Hoff (18th only) Wallace and Associates Howard King (18th only) MAFMC member

19 Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee Meeting Friday May 19, 2017 Meeting Summary

Committee members in attendance: Patricia Bennett, Peter deFur, Warren Elliott, Howard King, Roger Mann, Laurie Nolan, Adam Nowalsky, Rob O’Reilly, Ward Slacum, Sara Winslow Others in attendance: Julia Beaty (Council staff), Noah Chesin (Wildlife Conservation Society), Joseph Gordon (Pew Charitable Trusts), Pam Lyons Gromen (Wild Oceans), Jeff Kaelin (Lunds Fisheries), Meghan Lapp (Seafreeze, Ltd.), Purcie Bennet-Nickerson (Pew Charitable Trusts), Zack Greenberg (Pew Charitable Trusts), Kate Wilke (The Nature Conservancy) Meeting Summary The Council’s Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Committee met via webinar to discuss the proposed rule for the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment (82 Federal Register 1882, April 24, 2017). The proposed rule states the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is considering disapproval of inclusion of frigate mackerel and bullet mackerel in the amendment due to their large size and high trophic level, as well as their weak “link” to the Council’s existing fishery management plans. When the Council took final action on the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment in August 2016, they ultimately voted in favor of including frigate and bullet mackerel in the amendment; however, there was much debate over these two species. As one Committee member noted, a Council vote to exclude them from the amendment failed 7 in favor to 13 against. As stated in the amendment document,1 the Council’s rationale for including these two species is based on their importance as prey for large tunas and billfish in the Mid-Atlantic and the potential for negative impacts to those predators if commercial fishing effort for frigate and bullet mackerel were to increase in the future. Some Committee members argued that, based on this same rationale, the Council should respond to the proposed rule to state that frigate and bullet mackerel should be retained in the amendment. However, several other Committee members did not agree with this recommendation and reiterated concerns raised during development of the amendment. They stated that there is not strong justification for including frigate and bullet mackerel in the amendment, mostly because they largely do not meet the SSC’s definition of a forage species, but also because evidence in support of clear ecological relationships with Council-managed species is lacking. Due to this disagreement, the Committee recommended that the Council not submit a comment letter on the proposed rule for the Forage Amendment. One Committee member argued that the amendment document already outlines the Council’s rationale for including frigate and bullet mackerel and further comment is not needed.

1 Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/s/Forage_omnibus_final_March2017.pdf 1

Most Committee members agreed that frigate and bullet mackerel are an important part of the Mid-Atlantic marine ecosystem due to their role as prey for large tunas and billfish. Some Committee members said the Council may want to address these species through a separate management action in the future; however, the respective roles of the Council and NMFS are unclear. Further guidance is needed on how the Council could address these species, especially given that their greatest ecosystem importance is as prey for species managed by the NMFS Atlantic Highly Migratory Species office, not by the Council. Under the proposed rule, the Council may add other species to the Forage Amendment through framework actions. In light of NMFS’ potential disapproval of inclusion of frigate and bullet mackerel in the amendment, some Committee members were concerned about the potential for similar challenges if the Council recommends adding other species to the amendment in the future. The Committee agreed that clear guidance from NMFS on which species can and cannot be added to the Forage Amendment is lacking. For example, it is not clear how many of the nine criteria in the SSC’s definition must be met for a species to be considered “forage”. The Committee recommended further discussions with NMFS, perhaps in face-to-face meetings or a workshop, to gain clarification on their recommendations for future framework actions and specific criteria for adding other species to the Forage Amendment.

Updated 5/25/2017

2017 Planned Council Meeting Topics

June 6-8, 2017 – The Main, Norfolk, VA • Atlantic mackerel 2018 specifications - Review • Squids and butterfish 2018-2020 specifications - Adopt • Squid amendment – Final action • Butterfish, river herring, and shad caps – Review performance • River herring and shad – Progress update • Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog 2018-2020 specifications – Adopt • Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog Excessive Shares Amendment – Review scoping plan • Risk policy framework – Review background information • EAFM risk assessment – Review and approve risk analysis

August 8-10, 2017 – Courtyard Marriott, Philadelphia, PA • Summer flounder 2018 specifications – Review • Scup 2018-2019 specifications – Review 2018 specifications and recommend 2019 specifications • Bluefish 2018 specifications – Review • Black sea bass 2018 specifications – Review • Summer Flounder Amendment - Review and approve refined range of alternatives for commercial issues and FMP goals and objectives for inclusion in public hearing document • Black sea bass amendment – Initiate • Risk policy framework – Framework meeting 1 • Summer flounder, scup and black sea bass accountability measures framework – Framework meeting 1 • Black sea bass recreational Letter of Authorization Wave 1 fishery framework – Framework meeting 1 • Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Excessive Shares Amendment – Review scoping summary • EAFM risk assessment – Review and approve risk analysis • Southern windowpane flounder accountability measures (managed by NEFMC) – Discuss potential NEFMC actions and consider action by MAFMC

October 10-12, 2017 – Hyatt Long Island East End, Riverhead, NY • Swearing-in of new and reappointed Council members • Election of Officers • Spiny dogfish 2018 specifications – Review • Golden tilefish Individual Fishing Quota program review – Review • Bluefish Amendment – Initiate • EAFM risk assessment – Approve possible items for inclusion in 2018 Implementation Plan • Development of 2019-2023 strategic plan – Initiate

• Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP Goals and Objectives – Review • Risk policy framework – Framework meeting 2

December 11-14, 2017 – Westin Annapolis, Annapolis, MD • 2018 recreational management measures for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass – Adopt • 2018 Implementation Plan – Review and approve • Risk policy framework – Final action • Chub Mackerel Amendment – review scoping comments and recommendations from FMAT, AP, and Committee • Summer Flounder Amendment – Approve public hearing document for commercial issues and FMP goals and objectives

MAFMC 2018 COUNCIL MEETINGS

February 13-15, 2018 Hilton Garden Inn Raleigh/Crabtree Valley 3912 Arrow Drive Raleigh, NC 27612 919-703-2525 April 10-12, 2018 – NY Montauk Yacht Club 32 Star Island Road Montauk, NY 11954 631-668-3100 June 5-7, 2018 Doubletree by Hilton 237 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107-5686 215-893-1600 August 14-16, 2018 Hilton Virginia Beach Oceanfront 3001 Atlantic Ave. Virginia Beach, VA 23451 757-213-3000 October 2-4, 2018 Congress Hall 200 Congress Place Cape May, NJ 08204 609-884-8421 December 11-13, 2018 Westin Annapolis 100 Westgate Circle Annapolis, MD 21401 410-972-4300 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901 Phone: 302-674-2331 ǀ FAX: 302-674-5399 ǀ www.mafmc.org Michael P. Luisi, Chairman ǀ G. Warren Elliott, Vice Chairman Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director

MEMORANDUM

Date: May 25, 2017

To: Council

From: Chris Moore

Subject: Paid Parental Leave

Behind this memo is a proposed revision to the Council’s Statement of Practices and Procedures (SOPP) which would provide employees with six weeks of paid parental leave following the birth of an employee’s child or placement of a child with an employee for adoption or foster care.

The health, economic, and social benefits of paid parental leave are well documented. The first few months after a child is born or adopted are an exceptionally important time for families and a critical period in a child’s development. Providing employees with paid parental leave gives parents an opportunity to bond with children during this important time. Paid parental leave has been linked to lower infant mortality rates and better health for both infants and mothers1. Research shows that paid leave increases the likelihood that employees will return to work after childbirth, improves employee morale, and reduces costs to employers through improved employee retention2.

Among the 35 member countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States is the only country to offer no statutory entitlement to paid maternity leave on a national basis3. On average across OECD countries, mothers are entitled to almost 18 weeks of paid maternity leave, and fathers are entitled to just over eight weeks of paid father-specific leave. The International Labour Organization, a U.N. agency that sets labor standards for its 187 member states, stipulates that mothers should have access to at least 14 weeks of leave around childbirth4.

Although paid parental leave is not mandated in the U.S., an increasing number of agencies and private companies are choosing to provide it to all employees (not just new mothers) to improve employee morale and retention and to support working families.

1 http://www.health.state.mn.us/news/2015paidleave.pdf 2 https://www.dol.gov/wb/resources/paid_parental_leave_in_the_united_states.pdf 3 http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems.pdf 4 http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C183

Page 1 of 2 Council employees are currently entitled to no paid leave specifically for the purpose of caring for and bonding with a new child. Under the Council’s current SOPP5 (section 4.5), employees may use a combination of accrued annual and sick leave and unpaid leave to take up to 14 weeks off following the birth or adoption of a child. Under current policy, Council employees must work full time for at least two years and eight months to accrue enough annual and sick leave to take 14 weeks of parental leave without using any unpaid leave. Unpaid leave can represent a significant financial burden for families. In addition, exhausting all sick and annual leave limits an employee’s ability to attend doctor’s appointments and care for a sick child after returning to work.

Providing six weeks of paid parental leave would ensure that Council employees have a guaranteed amount of paid time off with a new child. This would have positive impacts on the health and well-being of Council employees and their children, while also serving as a valuable recruitment tool for the Council to attract and retain new employees.

5 http://www.mafmc.org/s/2016-02-11_MAFMC-SOPP-Final.pdf

Page 2 of 2 CURRENT VERSION 4.5.6 Maternity Leave Maternity leave may be charged against any accumulated leave credits. After all leave credits are exhausted the employee may continue on maternity leave without pay for a period not to exceed 14 weeks after parturition.

PROPOSED REVISED VERSION: 4.5.6 Parental Leave (1) The Council provides six weeks of paid parental leave to an eligible employee (as described below) following the birth of the employee’s child or the placement of a child with the employee in connection with the employee’s adoption of the child or the employee’s foster care for the child. The purpose of paid parental leave is to enable the employee to care for and bond with a newborn or a newly adopted or newly placed child. (2) To be eligible for paid parental leave, an employee must be a full-time employee and must have been employed by the Council for at least 12 months. (3) Paid parental leave is compensated at the employee’s regular pay. (4) After paid parental leave is exhausted, an employee may (within the limits described below) take additional leave charged against the employee’s accumulated sick or annual leave credits. The employee also may take leave without pay to extend parental leave. An employee need not exhaust accumulated annual and sick leave credits before taking unpaid parental leave. (5) An employee may use a combination of paid parental leave, annual leave, sick leave, and unpaid leave for a period not to exceed 14 weeks following the birth, adoption, or placement of a child with the employee. (The Council may grant a leave to begin prior to the child’s birth if the Council finds such a leave is medically necessary for the birth mother.) (6) An employee may take an approved parental leave at any time during the six-month period immediately following the birth, adoption, or placement of a child with the employee. (7) As stated in section 4.5.2(f), in meritorious cases, the Council may advance up to one year’s earnings of sick or annual leave. An employee may use advanced leave as described in paragraph (4) above. (8) A parental leave taken under this policy runs concurrently with leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), if any, as described in section 4.5.7. (9) Nothing in this policy supersedes or changes the provisions of any employee-benefit plan or fringe benefit. If the provisions for a plan or benefit are ambiguous, the Council may resolve an ambiguity by treating a parental leave similarly to another leave, such as an annual leave or sick leave. (10) Nothing in this policy can increase an employee’s credit for unused annual-leave days or unused sick days. A post-severance payment for unused leave is not provided regarding unused personal leave, family-and-medical leave, parental-absence leave, or other leave.

May 2017 Council Meeting Report May 10, 2017 Alexandria, VA

The following summary highlights actions taken and issues considered by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council during a joint meeting with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (Commission) Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Management Board (Board) on May 10, 2017 in Alexandria, VA. Additional details regarding Board actions are included in the Commission’s meeting summary, available at http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/2017SpringMeeting/2017SpringMeetingSummary.pdf. Briefing materials are available at http://www.mafmc.org/briefing/may-2017. Presentations and audio files are posted on the Commission’s website at http://www.asmfc.org/home/2017-spring-meeting. Scup Quota Period Framework The Council and Board discussed a draft framework and addendum to modify the dates of the commercial scup quota periods. After considering public comments and recommendations of the technical committee, both the Council and Board recommended moving the month of October from the summer quota period to the winter II quota period. All other management measures would remain unchanged. Commercial possession limits vary by quota period. Moving October from the summer quota period to the winter II quota period would have the effect of increasing the commercial scup possession limit during October. This is expected to help the commercial fishery more efficiently reach, but not exceed, the annual commercial quota. Commercial landings have been 20-47% below the annual commercial quota since 2011. Comprehensive Summer Flounder Amendment The Council and Board reviewed a draft range of alternatives for commercial fishery issues within the Comprehensive Summer Flounder Amendment, with the goal of prioritizing and providing feedback on the range of issues to be addressed. The Council and Board determined that moving forward, staff should prioritize analysis of the following issues: 1) permits and latent effort, 2) commercial allocation, and 3) landings flexibility. Other issues, including safe harbor policies, commercial data collection and monitoring, and commercial summer flounder discards, are currently or will be taken up through other actions and initiatives, including possible Commission-only actions, Council-only actions, Greater Atlantic Regional Office initiatives, and other projects. Staff will continue to work with the commercial working group, the Fishery Management Action Team, the Demersal Committee, and the Board to further refine and analyze the alternatives. The Council and Board will consider a refined range of alternatives for the prioritized issues at the August joint meeting. Black Sea Bass Wave 1 Fishery The Council and Commission reviewed a white paper prepared by Council staff that evaluated the Wave 1 (January – February) recreational black sea bass fishery, the potential re-opening of the Wave 1 fishery in 2018, and its potential implications for the recreational fishery that occurs the rest of the year. This white paper was developed following the joint meeting in February in which the Council and Commission voted to consider an experimental Wave 1 black sea bass fishery for federally permitted for-hire vessels operating under an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP). The Council and Commission decided against re-opening under an EFP for only federally permitted vessels; instead, the Council and Commission agreed to initiate a framework that would consider re-opening the Wave 1 fishery to any recreational vessel, provided that they obtain and adhere to any required conditions outlined under a Letter of Authorization issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Council and Commission will continue to discuss this framework action at meetings later this year.

Page 1 of 1

Joint Meeting of Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and ASMFC Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board May 10, 2017 Alexandria, VA Motions Relevant to Black Sea Bass Recreational Wave 1 Fishery

PROPOSED 2017 DELIVERABLES This section provides an overview of deliverables expected by the end of the implementation plan period. Since many of the proposed implementation activities cannot be measured with traditional metrics, the list of deliverables establishes a mechanism for measuring the Council's progress toward achieving the goals and objectives of the strategic plan. SUMMER FLOUNDER, SCUP, BLACK SEA BASS  2017 – 2019 black sea bass specifications (based on benchmark assessment results)  2018 specifications for summer flounder and scup (review)  2017 Recreational management measures for black sea bass  2018 recreational management measures for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass  Advisory Panel fishery performance reports  Comprehensive summer flounder amendment/framework (ongoing)  Black sea bass amendment (initiate)  Black Sea Bass framework – commercial AMs  Scup framework to modify quota periods MACKEREL, SQUID, BUTTERFISH  2018-2020 specifications for squids and butterfish (develop and approve)  Squid capacity amendment  2018 specifications for Atlantic mackerel (review)  Advisory Panel fishery performance reports  Butterfish cap review  Review and revise goals and objectives for MSB  Chub mackerel amendment (initiate)  Industry Funded Monitoring Amendment (ongoing - GARFO lead) RIVER HERRING AND SHAD  RH/S cap for Atlantic mackerel fishery for 2018 (review)  RH/S progress update BLUEFISH  2018 bluefish specifications (review)  Advisory Panel fishery performance report  Bluefish allocation amendment (initiate) GOLDEN AND BLUELINE TILEFISH  2018-2020 golden and blueline tilefish specifications (develop and approve)  Advisory Panel fishery performance reports  5 year IFQ review SURFCLAMS AND OCEAN QUAHOGS  2018-2020 surfclam and ocean quahog specifications (develop and approve)  Advisory Panel fishery performance reports  Excessive shares amendment (ongoing)  ITQ review project (contract)  Review and revise FMP goals and objectives

Page | 4 SPINY DOGFISH  2018 spiny dogfish specifications (review)  Advisory Panel fishery performance report ECOSYSTEM AND OCEAN PLANNING/HABITAT  EFH review paper (ongoing)  Add Deep Sea Coral protection areas to national MPA network GENERAL  EAFM guidance document (refine risk assessment approach for 2018)  2019-2023 Strategic Plan (initiate development) COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH  Implementation of Council Communication and Outreach Plan  Council action web pages  Fact sheets and outreach materials  Public comment policy/guidelines SCIENCE AND RESEARCH  Mid-Atlantic collaborative research program review  2016 – 2017 Mid-Atlantic collaborative research projects (ongoing)  Framework to modify Council’s risk policy  Omnibus amendment for data modernization (ongoing - GARFO lead)  2017 tilefish survey project POSSIBLE ADDITIONS  Permit application and renewal process  Monkfish amendment – catch shares  Squid buffer area action  River herring and shad stock in fishery issue  False albacore action  Surfclam and ocean quahog action to change harvest regulations

Page | 5

MEMORANDUM

Date: May 24, 2017

To: Council

From: Matthew Seeley and Jason Didden

Subject: Blueline Tilefish Recreational Regulations

In April 2017, the Council discussed the current blueline tilefish recreational management measures. The current regulations state that the blueline tilefish fishing year runs January 1- December 31, each year, with an open recreational season for blueline tilefish from May 1 to October 31. During this season, the recreational per-person bag limit would be 7 blueline tilefish for U.S. Coast Guard inspected for-hire vessels, 5 blueline tilefish for uninspected for-hire vessels, and 3 blueline tilefish for private vessels.

Public comment proposed a multiday bag limit for multiday trips and the Council expressed some interest in exploring this idea. Given the low ABC and pending proposed rule for blueline tilefish management, Council staff recommends this issue be further evaluated after the blueline tilefish Amendment has been implemented. If the Council deems this approach appropriate, staff will develop additional analyses on this subject for Council consideration in next year’s specifications development process.

Page 1 of 1

MEMORANDUM

Date: May 15, 2017

To: Council

From: Matthew Seeley, Staff

Subject: Highly Migratory Species May Advisory Panel Meeting

On May 9-11, 2017, Dewey Hemilright (Council Member) and Matthew Seeley (Council Staff) attended the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Advisory Panel (AP) Meeting in Silver Spring, Maryland. Per the attached letter, the council proposed that the HMS AP address concerns regarding compliance and permitting/reporting. The HMS AP discussed these concerns on day two of their meeting. This was one of many concerns presented to the HMS AP.

HMS staff utilized a dot prioritization exercise to assist in identifying the concerns most highly regarded by the AP. This exercise consisted of breaking up into two groups, commercial and recreational, followed by placing dots next to the posted concerns that each AP member would rate as their highest priority (see results attached). Dot color corresponded to stakeholder position (i.e. fishermen, academic, etc.). Each person was given five dots, one with a black mark in the center signifying the individual’s highest priority. Each of the five dots was required to be placed next to a different concern.

Upon completion of the prioritization exercise it was clear that the council raised issue of partitioning the Charter Headboat permit into two permits, sale/no sale, was one of the highest priority concerns for members of the HMS AP. Ultimately, the prioritization exercise offered a visual display to understand the spread of requests for regulatory changes and will be one factor NMFS HMS uses to prioritize future actions. Council staff will continue to track HMS developments.

Page 1 of 1

Requests for Regulatory Changes Atlantic Highly Migratory Species - Combined

Place Dots Here Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ)-specific Revise IBQ accountability (e.g., end of year/quarterly/other vs. trip-level) to increase flexibility Allow carryover of IBQ balance at the end of the year to increase flexibility

Revisit/remove GRA performance criteria

Provide flexibility for disaster sets

Reallocate quota shares/revise IBQ share tier allocations

Non-IBQ Revise/remove time/area closures to increase access to fishing grounds, especially access to Charleston Bump Remove June Northeast Closure as redundant with IBQ requirements

Revise/remove weak hook requirements in the Gulf of Mexico

Reduce observer requirements

Revisit the Draft A7 alternative to allow access to closed areas when an observer is onboard

Allow EM hard drives to be sent in periodically (vs each trip)

Support access to Windward Passage

Support rebranding of fishery

Revisit/remove demersal vs pelagic indicator species for closed area monitoring Reduce number of different places dealers have to report bluefin landings (IBQ vs SAFIS) Requests for Regulatory Changes Atlantic Highly Migratory Species - Combined

Place Dots Here Bluefin: Harpoon Category Modify large medium (73-<81”) BFT daily retention limit (2-4) inseason so that it is equivalent to General category limit (max 5) Change start date to May 1 (from June 1); do not manage via season open/close dates

Bluefin:Bluefin: Charter/HeadboatCharter/Headboat

CreateCreate two Charter/HeadboatCharter/Headboat (CHB)(CHB) permits - one that allows forfor sale ofof HMSHMS and one that doedoess not allow forfor salesale ofof HMSHMS - to addressaddress USCG commercial fishingfishing vessel safetysafety exam requirementsrequirements

Authorize use of harpoon gear on CHB-permitted vessels to increase utilization of CHB vessels (currently authorized only for General and Harpoon category- permitted vessels; NMFS proposed but did not finalize a similar request in 2008)

Purse Seine Reallocate quota of non-fishing participants to other categories (currently can lease to PS and PLL) Allow permanent sale of quota by Purse Seine participants (vs. limited to leasing)

Pelagic Longline Overall Revise or remove regulations impacting ability to catch swordfish quota

Increase equity in requirements for all commercial categories Requests for Regulatory Changes Atlantic Highly Migratory Species - Combined

Place Dots Here No Action

Status quo: no changes

General HMS

Allow use of bait nets

Allow filleting at sea of bigeye and albacore tunas

Revisit policy of requiring researchers to be on board as condition of Exempted Fishing Permits

Bluefin: General Category Modify subquota allocations; allow fishing of “January” subquota until met (vs. March 31); do not manage by seasons/subquotas To reduce post-release mortality: Prohibit use of treble hook lures or implement lure size limit

To reduce post-release mortality: Establish minimum line sizes

To reduce post-release mortality: Establish minimum size reel and rod combinations To reduce post-release mortality: Require single barbless hooks To reduce post-release mortality: Establish a maximum number of releases To reduce post-release mortality: Establish maximum fight times Requests for Regulatory Changes Atlantic Highly Migratory Species - Combined

Place Dots Here Shark

Allow recreational landing of sharks on Atlantic tunas General category- permitted vessels (currently must have an HMS Angling or CHB category permit)

Change commercial fishery closure trigger to 90%

Allow large shark carcasses to be cut in half, particularly in the commercial fishery, to allow for sharks to fit into hold fully

Remove species (e.g., bignose, night) from prohibited species list Allow sandbar shark quota to be fully used; Provide sandbar shark retention limit to entire fleet Allow shark retention under the Caribbean Small Boat Permit, especially Caribbean reef and sharpnose sharks

Swordfish Remove upgrading restrictions for Swordfish Handgear Limited Access permits Increase retention limit for Swordfish General Commercial Permit in the Florida Swordfish Management Area Increase swordfish retention under the Caribbean Small Boat Permit

Billfish Require circle hooks when fishing for billfish with natural natural/artificial baits all the times (not just in tournaments) Remove the circle hook/bait requirement for billfish tournaments Other—Write In: Combined

Ability to clean Atlantic sharpnose sharks at-sea

More refined approach (more science) on prohibited sharks

Non-permitted (in-state) - no workshop requirement

Expand temporal/spatial boundaries of A7 Gulf of Mexico closure (BFT)

Deepwater Shark Management

Education

70% trigger - greater protection for hammerheads

More prohibited species

Caribbean shark assessment and conservation

US – EU Small Mesh Fishery Bycatch Reduction Workshops

Purpose: To enhance our understanding of possible management solutions related to bycatch reduction in small mesh fisheries in both the EU and US

Background In 2016, Dr. Verena Ohms, Executive Director of the European Pelagic Advisory Council (AC), visited the MAFMC as part of a ‘twinning’ project to learn from the Council’s experience with developing and implementing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) and share lessons learned in the US and EU contexts. Following her visit to the US, Chris Moore visited the EU to provide an overview of the development and implementation of the Council’s EAFM Guidance Document. Subsequent discussions with Council and EU staff suggested that fishermen in the US and the EU would benefit from shared experience as it relates to bycatch reduction in small mesh fisheries.

Approach Two workshops would be held – one each in the US and EU. A “core group” of 8-10 fishermen affiliated with the MAFMC and the EU’s Pelagic AC would attend both workshops. Additional fishermen would be invited to attend workshops in each location. Workshops would occur over a day and a half, followed by 1-2 days of field trips designed to give participants first-hand knowledge of local fishery operations.

• U.S. Workshop: to be held in Gloucester, MA in May 2018 (tentatively scheduled for the first week of May). • European Workshop: to be held in Hirtshals, Denmark in June 2018.

Objectives The primary objective of these workshops is to share best management practices and knowledge that could help reduce bycatch in US and EU small mesh fisheries. The workshop in the US would include an additional focus on our EAFM approach, and the EU workshop would include a focus on discard reduction methodologies currently used by the EU fleet. Additional topics such as such as collaborative science initiatives, forage fish management, and monitoring technologies may also be discussed as they pertain to bycatch reduction.

Steering Committee A steering committee has been formed and has met for an initial planning call. Members: • Chris Moore • Jason Didden • Mary Sabo • Jeff Kaelin • Eric Reid • Mr. Gerard van Balsfoort • Dr. Verena Ohms • Dr. Jesper Raakjær • Esben Sverdrup-Jensen

2017 Council Coordination Committee Meeting Beauport Hotel • Gloucester, MA May 15-18, 2017

AGENDA

Monday, May 15, 2017 TIME DISCUSSION PRESENTER 1:00 Registration

4:00 Registration Closed

Tuesday, May 16, 2017 TIME DISCUSSION PRESENTER 8:30 – 8:45 Welcome/Introductions Dr. John Quinn (15 min.) Samuel Rauch

8:45 – 9:15 NMFS Updates and FY 2017 Priorities Samuel Rauch (30 min.) • Catch Share Program Review Policy Guidance

9:15 – 10:45 Council Round Robin Council Reps (90 min.) 10:45 – 11:00 Break (15 min.) 11:00 – 12:00 EM/ER Cost Allocation Kelly Denit (60 min.) 12:00 – 1:15 Lunch (75 min.) 1:15 – 1:45 Legislative Update Dave Whaley (30 min.)

1:45 – 2:45 Legislative Work Group Report Gregg Waugh (60 min.) • MSA Reauthorization

2:45 – 3:00 Break (15 min.) 3:00 – 4: 00 Legislative Work Group Report (cont.) (60 min.)

4:00 – 4:45 National Monuments and Sanctuaries Kitty Simonds (45 min.)

4:45 – 5:00 Review/Follow-up Dr. John Quinn (15 min.)

5:00 Adjourn for the day

Wednesday, May 17 TIME DISCUSSION PRESENTER 8:30 – 9:30 NOAA GC Overview of Recent Legal Actions Adam Issenberg (60 min.)

9:30 – 10:30 Conflict of Interest Policy Guidance Adam Issenberg (60 min.)

10:30 – 10:45 Break (15 min.) Council Reps 10:45 – 11:45 Science Update Dr. Cisco Werner (60 min.) • Best Scientific Information Available • Stock Assessment Improvement Plan

11:45 – 12:15 SCS-6 Update Chuck Tracy (30 min.)

12:15 – 1:30 Lunch (75 min.) 1:30 – 2:45 Recreational Fisheries Overview Russell Dunn (75 min.) • Round Table Summaries Dr. Cisco Werner • Alternative Management Concepts Andy Strelcheck • ACL Tracking Gregg Waugh • Catch Estimation

2:45 – 3:00 Break (15 min.) 3:00 – 4:00 Council Habitat Initiatives Dr. Chris Moore (60 min.) Michelle Bachmann

Jessica Coakley 4:00 – 5:00 Enforcement Overview James Landon (60 min.) Commander Jay Caputo

5:00 – 5:15 Review/Follow-up Dr. John Quinn (15 min.)

5:15 Adjourn for the day

Thursday, May 18 TIME DISCUSSION PRESENTER 8:30 – 9:30 National Standard 1 Guidelines Alan Risenhoover (60 min.) • Questions and Clarifications Emily Menashes

9:30 – 10:30 Management and Budget Update Brian Pawlak (60 min.)

10:30 – 10:45 Break (15 min.) 10:45 – 11:30 Fishery Independent Data Funding Outlook Brian Pawlak (45 min.)

11:30 – 12:00 International Negotiations and Appointments Kitty Simonds (30 min.)

12:00 – 1:15 Lunch (75 min.) 1:15 – 1:45 Follow-up on Previous CCC Discussions Dr. John Quinn (30 min.)

1:45 – 2:30 Regulatory Review Alan Risenhoover (45 min.) • E.O. 13777

2:30 – 2:45 Break (15 min.) 2:45 – 3:30 Council Work Group Discussion (45 min.) • Report of AO Meeting Michael Collins • Report of Senior Staff Meeting Chris Kellogg • Work Group Organization Tom Nies

3:30 – 4:30 Meeting wrap-up/next meeting planning Dr. John Quinn (60 min.)

4:30 Adjourn for the day

~··~... Nc\VEtl!Jl~nd l"'laht

The Honorable Ryan Zinke Secretary of Interior Department of the Interior 1849 C. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20230

The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross Jr. Secretary of Commerce :Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, DC 20230

Dear Secretary Zinke and Secretary Ross:

The Nation's eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) are charged under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) with managing, conserving, and utilizing fishery resources throughout the entire Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United States. The Council Coordination Committee (CCC) - which consists of the senior leaders of these Councils -held its annual meeting on May 16-18, 2017 in Gloucester, Massachusetts to discuss and consider actions on national, international and regional fishery resource management and policy issues.

The CCC discussed as part of its agenda the Presidential Executive Order 13792 of April 26, 2017 requiring the U.S. Department of the Interior to conduct a review of certain National monuments designated or expanded since 1996 under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Also considered was Executive Order 13795 of April 28, 2017 calling for certain Marine National Monuments to be reviewed ''Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy.'' On May 11, 2017, the Secretary of Interior published the Federal Register notice (22061) soliciting public comments on the review of certain monuments established since 1996.

The CCC notes that Section 2(b) of Executive Order 13792 specifically requires the Secretary of Interior to "consult and coordinate with, ... the heads ofany other executive departments or agencies concerned with the areas designated under the Act. " The Councils are among the federal entities statutorily charged with the stewardship of the Nation's living marine resources and the development of conservation and management measures. We request the opportunity to consult and coordinate with the Departments of Interior and Commerce in the development of recommendations that will be prepared for Presidential action to carry out the policies set forth in Executive Orders 13792 and 13795.

Designations of marine national monuments that prohibit fishing activities - especially those that did not receive adequate economic and social impact review and did not allow for a robust public review process - have disrupted the ability of the Councils to manage fisheries throughout their range as required by MSA and in an ecosystem-based manner. Marine monument designations -,!. •• ~ ••• ~"' ""·,.~ New ~nal.1.nd . . l"ith")' MU..ffltl'll f \ ~ Council MI D-ATLANTIC -c :· (~'1 \ CFMC --' - have the potential to be counterproductive to achieving domestic fishery management goals. The Councils will bring more than 40 years of experience and successful US fishery management under the MSA to these reviews.

Quinn, hair N~~i 7 Management Council

Bill Twe~-~hair Nort~ha1fi~Fishe Management Council I / 'f//J7 /I i ./IA - ~ H lj Pol ar , Cliair Pacifica Fishery Management Council / \ //"' ~ jJ/~ _D ~~ ;A.__~;... T!r Dr. Michelle Duval, Chair South Atl~'.shery Managemen ounfil h~~ ~ ~-/ d, Ed;in Ebisui, Jr., Chair ?/' ' Western Pacific Fishery Management Council

MEMORANDUM

Date: May 24, 2017

To: Chris Moore

From: Julia Beaty

Subject: Outcome of chub mackerel assessment request for proposals

In March 2017, the Council issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a stock assessment for chub mackerel (attached). In May 2017, a panel of Council staff, two NEFSC employees, and an SSC member met to review the response to the RFP and develop recommendations on how to proceed. The response to the RFP focused on data-limited methods (DLM) such as those used for other stocks such as black sea bass. The panel agreed that given the extreme data limitations for chub mackerel (i.e. less than 5 years of directed fishing effort in the Mid-Atlantic, limited biological sampling, and infrequent catches in fisheries-independent surveys), even a DLM approach would likely produce highly uncertain results, which could prove risky for setting management measures. The panel also agreed that the DLM approaches outlined in the response to the RFP would not be sufficient to address ecosystem considerations such as the role of chub mackerel as a forage species and the influence of environmental factors on chub mackerel abundance and availability. It may not be possible to sufficiently assess chub mackerel in this region, given the current data limitations. As such, we recommend that the Council not fund a chub mackerel assessment at this time and instead prioritize data collection to support future stock assessments. Such data collection should include collaboration with the NEFSC and the fishing industry to collect biological data (e.g. size, age, maturity) from commercial and survey catches, as well as collaboration with other partners to enhance diet sampling of the chub mackerel predators of greatest concern. We recommend continued discussion among the Council, the SSC, the NEFSC, industry partners, and other potential collaborators on data needs and the best ways to support data collection for future stock assessments. Without a chub mackerel stock assessment, annual catch limits developed through the chub mackerel amendment will likely need to be based on catch and landings history and policy decisions. By supporting data collection over the next few years, these measures could likely be modified in the near future based on a stock assessment.

Page 1 of 1

Request for Proposals Atlantic Chub Mackerel Stock Assessment

Proposal Submission Deadline: April 30, 2017 Term of Contract: Approximately 8 months

The Mid‐Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) seeks a highly-qualified contractor to facilitate development of a quantitative stock assessment for Atlantic chub mackerel (Scomber colias) to support development of management measures for chub mackerel fisheries.

Background The Council initiated an amendment to consider adding Atlantic chub mackerel to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squids, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This amendment will require specification of status determination criteria for chub mackerel. Status determination criteria include the level of biomass which corresponds to an overfished status and the fishing mortality rate that, if exceeded, would result in overfishing (Fmsy or suitable proxy). These criteria form the basis for overfishing limits (OFLs) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations from the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). OFLs and ABCs are in turn used to develop annual catch limits.

These measures are required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Council’s Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) Guidance Document1 outlined additional considerations for management of forage species. Atlantic chub mackerel are considered a forage species due to their schooling behavior, relatively small size, and role as prey for a variety of predators. The EAFM Guidance Document states that the Council may consider using more restrictive status determination criteria for forage species than is otherwise required.

Status determinations for stocks managed by the Council are typically based on the results of peer-reviewed stock assessments developed through the Stock Assessment Workshop/Stock Assessment Review Committee (SAW/SARC) process, facilitated by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). Some species lack an analytical stock assessment, necessitating the use of data-limited methods.

There are no previously accepted stock assessments for Atlantic chub mackerel in the U.S. EEZ and the NEFSC has limited capacity to perform a chub mackerel stock assessment in a timeframe that would align with the planned timeline for development of this amendment. A data-limited approach may be required, given the limited amount of fisheries-independent and fisheries-dependent data on chub mackerel and the current lack of an analytical stock assessment. Given the limitations on the NEFSC’s ability to take on a chub mackerel stock assessment at this time, the Council plans to work with an outside contractor to develop analyses to support the development of status determination criteria, OFLs, and ABCs for chub mackerel.

1 Available at: http://www.mafmc.org/eafm/

Scope of Work The contractor, supported by Council staff and partners with the National Marine Fisheries Service, will explore various methodologies to assess status of the Atlantic chub mackerel stock in U.S. waters and will develop analyses to support development of status determination criteria, OFLs, and ABCs for chub mackerel. Council staff will provide the contractor with relevant fisheries-independent and fisheries-dependent data. The contractor will present interim progress reports to Council staff and a subgroup of the SSC in mid to late 2017. The contractor will present a final report to the SSC in early 2018.

Contractor Qualifications Applicants should have demonstrated experience with fisheries stock assessments, including data-limited approaches. Experience working with fisheries management agencies is preferred.

How to Apply Applicants should submit a proposal to Dr. Chris Moore, Executive Director, by email ([email protected]) by 11:59 pm on Sunday, April 30, 2017. Proposals should include the following elements:

• Executive Summary: A summary of the proposed scope of work as well as brief summary of the applicant’s qualifications. • Proposed Scope of Work: A detailed plan for addressing the scope of work described above. This should include a summary of potential analysis approaches, a project schedule, a brief summary of how the project will be managed, and a list of all personnel who may work on the project. • Qualifications of Applicant: A summary of the qualifications of the applicant and other team members, if applicable. Curriculum vitae should be included for all individuals who will work on the project. • Proposed Budget: A detailed budget, including the basis for the charges (e.g. hourly rates, fixed fees). • References: Names, full addresses, and phone numbers for three clients for whom the applicant has provided similar services to those requested.

Proposal Evaluation Criteria Proposals will be evaluated based on methodology, prior experience, references, qualifications, and budget. The Council may request additional information as deemed necessary or negotiate modifications to an accepted proposal.

Requests for Further Information Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 800 North State Street, Suite 201 Dover, DE 19901 tel: 302-526-5255 email: [email protected]

Disclaimer

1. All costs associated with the preparation and presentation of the proposal will be borne by applicants. 2. Proposals and their accompanying documentation will not be returned.

3. Respondents must disclose any relevant conflicts of interest and/or pending civil/criminal legal actions. 4. The Council reserves the right to accept or reject any or all applications received, negotiate with all qualified applicants, cancel or modify this request for proposals in part or in its entirety, or change the application guidelines, when it is in its best interests.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

2017 Spring Meeting Summary

Vision: Sustainably Managing Atlantic Coastal Fisheries

2017 Spring Meeting Toni Kerns, ISFMP, or Alexandria, VA Tina Berger, Communications May 8‐11, 2017 For more information, please contact the identified individual at 703.842.0740

Meeting Summaries, Press Releases and Motions TABLE OF CONTENTS: ATLANTIC HERRING SECTION (MAY 8, 2017) ...... 3 Press Release ...... 3 Motions ...... 4 AMERICAN LOBSTER MANAGEMENT BOARD (MAY 8 & 9, 2017) ...... 6 Press Release ...... 6 Meeting Summary ...... 7 Motions ...... 7 LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE (MAY 9, 2017) ...... 9 Meeting Summary ...... 9 TAUTOG MANAGEMENT BOARD (MAY 9, 2017) ...... 11 Press Release ...... 11 Motions ...... 12 ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS MANAGEMENT BOARD (MAY 9, 2017) ...... 12 Press Release ...... 12 Motions ...... 13 ATLANTIC MENHADEN MANAGEMENT BOARD (MAY 9, 2017) ...... 13 Meeting Summary ...... 13 Motions ...... 14 ANNUAL AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE (MAY 9, 2017) ...... 14 Press Release ...... 14 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (MAY 10, 2017) ...... 16 Meeting Summary ...... 16

COASTAL SHARKS MANAGEMENT BOARD (MAY 10, 2017) ...... 17 Meeting Summary ...... 17 Motions ...... 17 ATLANTIC COASTAL COOPERATIVE STATISTICS PROGRAM COORDINATING COUNCIL (MAY 10, 2017) . 17 Meeting Summary ...... 17 Motions ...... 18 SUMMER FLOUNDER, SCUP AND BLACK SEA BASS MANAGEMENT BOARD & MID‐ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL (MAY 10, 2017) ...... 18 Press Releases ...... 18 Meeting Summary ...... 20 Motions ...... 21 INTERSTATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM POLICY BOARD (MAY 11, 2017) ...... 24 Meeting Summary ...... 24 Motions ...... 26 BUSINESS SESSION (MAY 11, 2017) ...... 28 Meeting Summary ...... 28 Motions ...... 28 SOUTH ATLANTIC STATE/FEDERAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT BOARD (MAY 11, 2017) ...... 29 Meeting Summary ...... 29 Motions ...... 30

New England Fishery Management Council Three Meeting Outlook – April 2017 through September 2017 (Last updated April 6, 2017 and subject to change pending new information)

April 18-20, 2017 June 20-22, 2017 September 26-28, 2017 Mystic, CT Portland, ME Gloucester, MA

Atlantic Herring • Amendment 8: receive peer review results of • Amendment 8: if necessary, approve range of Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE); potentially alternatives for acceptable biological catch (ABC) approve range of alternatives for ABC control rule and control rule and localized depletion/user conflict localized depletion/user conflict measures measures • ASMFC: review/approve Council comments on Addendum I to Amendment 3 of ASMFC’s herring plan • Portside data: receive NMFS analysis

Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment • Omnibus Amendment: final vote to submit preferred alternatives

Habitat • Deep-Sea Coral Amendment: review workshop results; • Deep-Sea Coral Amendment: final action • Clam Dredge Framework: select range identify preferred alternatives for public hearings of alternatives for further analysis • Clam Dredge Framework: update on work to consider surfclam fishery access to Council-developed Great South Channel and Georges Bank Shoal Habitat Areas

Groundfish • Framework 57: (1) receive framework • Monitoring Amendment 23: receive summary of update; (2) receive TMGC’s TAC scoping comments recommendations for US/Canada • Framework 57: initiate action to include 2018-2020 stocks; (3) receive SSC’s 2018-2019 fishery specifications and other management Georges Bank yellowtail flounder OFL measures; 2017 total allowable catches (TACs) for and ABC recommendations US/Canada stocks of Eastern Georges Bank (GB) cod, Eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder; Atlantic halibut accountability measures; recreational management measures

Sea Scallops • Limited Access General Category (LAGC) Individual • Update: receive committee report, including progress Fishing Quota Five-Year Review: receive report • Framework: receive update on 2017 work priorities • Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program: • Framework Adjustment: initiate action to develop approve 2018-2019 RSA priorities 2018-2019 specifications and other management • Framework: receive progress report measures • Control date: discuss and potentially request control date to address movement between LAGC NGOM and LACG Incidental permit categories

Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM) • Georges Bank eFEP: receive initial overview of • Georges Bank eFEP: receive update on developing a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) planning worked example of harvest control rules for ecosystem to solicit stakeholder input on operating models, management goals, objectives, performance metrics, tradeoffs, and optimal outcomes

Small-Mesh Multispecies (Whiting) • Annual Monitoring Report: receive • Amendment 22: approve range of limited access, • Amendment 22: choose preferred alternatives; report on 2016 fishing year, including permitting, and possession limit alternatives for Draft approve draft document for public hearing an assessment update and proposed Environmental Impact Statement specifications • 2018-2020 specs: initiate action

Monkfish • Monkfish actions: receive committee report

Skates • Northeast Skate Complex Amendment 5: receive • Framework 4: initiate action to allow summary of scoping comments barndoor skate landings; develop • Control dates: review and possibly revise existing dates fishing year 2018-2019 specifications

Research Steering • Cooperative Research: committee report on projects funded by Council grant to Northeast Consortium

Other • Fishery Dependent Data Visioning Project: Greater • Council Research Priorities: final action Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) and • Council Programmatic Review: update NEFSC presentation • Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology: • Stock Assessment Improvement Plan: National Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) update Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) report • Ecosystem Status Report: NEFSC presentation • Guidance on Best Scientific Information Available: • Cooperative Research Program Review: NEFSC report NMFS report • Discard Methodology Review: GARFO presentation • Marine Recreational Information Program: report 5/24/2017 News - NEFMC News Glossary Get Involved Contact Us Search Website Search 

Management Plans About Us Council Meetings Committees Calendar Library Subscribe

News

NEFMC Seeks Contractor for Atlantic Filter by Category Herring MSE Work Category Posted on May 15, 2017 All Announcement View More Filter 

Fishery Management Councils to Meet May 15-18 in Gloucester Posted on May 02, 2017 Press Release View More

NEFMC Announces Coral Amendment Public Hearing Schedule Posted on April 28, 2017 Press Release View More

Council Approves Atlantic Herring Alternatives for Analysis Posted on April 24, 2017 Press Release View More

NEFMC Presents 2017 Award for Excellence to Dr. Matt Cieri Posted on April 20, 2017 Press Release View More http://www.nefmc.org/news 1/18 5/24/2017 News - NEFMC

Deep-Sea Corals: Council Selects Preferred Alternatives for Gulf of Maine, Continental Slope and Canyons Posted on April 19, 2017 Press Release View More

Whiting Limited Access Options Advance; Council Approves Amendment 22 Alternatives for Further Analysis Posted on April 19, 2017 Press Release View More

Scallops: New England Council Initiates Framework 29 to Address Northern Gulf of Maine, 2018-2019 Specs, Flatsh AMs Posted on April 18, 2017 Press Release View More

Council Considers Adjusting Skate Bait Trigger, Possession Limit Posted on April 18, 2017 Press Release View More

Squid Public Hearings From Maine to Virginia in a Port Near You Posted on April 06, 2017 Announcement View More

NEFMC and NEFSC Announce 2017- 2018 Recommended Scallop RSA http://www.nefmc.org/news 2/18