MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION
On-Site Surveillance Visit - Report for the Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery
4th Surveillance Audit June 2016
Certificate Code F-ACO-0056 Prepared For: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Prepared By: Acoura Marine Authors: Ian Scott & Julian Addison
BH (21/10/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab 2
Assessment Data Sheet
Certified Fishery Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery Management Agency State of Louisiana through the Wildlife and Fisheries Commission and the Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Division of Marine Fisheries Species Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) Fishing Method Trap Certificate Code F-ACO-0056 Certification Date 9th March 2012 Certification Expiration Date 8th March 2017 Certification Body Acoura Marine Ltd 6 Redheughs Rigg Edinburgh EH12 9DQ, Scotland, UK Tel: +44(0)131 335 6601 MSC Fisheries Department Email: [email protected] Web: www.Acoura.com
Surveillance Stage: 4th Surveillance Audit Surveillance Date: 12-13th May 2016
Page 2 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab 3
1 Introduction ...... 5 2 General Information ...... 5 2.1 Certificate Holder details ...... 5 3 Background ...... 6 3.1 Changes in the management system ...... 6 3.2 Changes in relevant regulations ...... 6 3.3 Changes to personnel involved in science, management or industry ...... 6 3.4 Changes to scientific base of information including stock assessments ...... 6 3.5 Any developments or changes within the fishery which impact traceability or the ability to segregate between fish from the Unit of Certification (UoC) and fish from outside the UoC (non-certified fish) ...... 8 3.6 TAC and catch data ...... 8 3.7 Summary of Assessment Conditions ...... 9 4 Assessment Process ...... 9 4.1 Details of 4th Surveillance Audit Process ...... 9 4.2 Scope & History of the Assessment ...... 9 4.2.1 History ...... 9 4.2.2 Surveillance team details ...... 10 4.2.3 Date & Location of surveillance audit ...... 10 4.2.4 Stakeholder consultation & meetings ...... 10 4.2.5 What was inspected...... 10 4.2.6 Stakeholder Consultation ...... 10 4.3 Surveillance Standards ...... 11 4.3.1 MSC Standards, Requirements and Guidance used...... 11 4.3.2 Confirmation that destructive fishing practices or controversial unilateral exemptions have not been introduced ...... 11 5 Results ...... 12 5.1 Condition 1 ...... 12 5.2 Condition 2 ...... 14 5.3 Condition 3 ...... 17 5.4 Condition 4 ...... 20 5.5 Condition 5 ...... 23 5.6 Condition 6 ...... 28 5.7 Condition 7 (Draft for consideration if the fishery enters recertification) ...... 30 6 Summary ...... 31 7 Conclusion ...... 31 8 References ...... 33 9 Appendix 1 – Re-scoring Evaluation tables ...... 34 10 Appendix 2 – Stakeholder ...... 60 11 Appendix 3- Surveillance audit information ...... 60 12 Appendix 4 - Additional detail on conditions/ actions ...... 60 13 Appendix 5 - Revised Surveillance Program ...... 60
Page 3 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab 4
FIGURE 1: ESTIMATES OF EXPLOITABLE BIOMASS FROM THE CATCH-SURVEY MODEL FOR LOUISIANA BLUE CRAB RELATIVE TO MANAGEMENT BENCHMARKS ...... 7 FIGURE 2: ESTIMATES OF FISHING MORTALITY FROM THE CATCH-SURVEY MODEL FOR LOUISIANA BLUE CRAB RELATIVE TO MANAGEMENT BENCHMARKS ...... 7 FIGURE 3: PHASE DIAGRAM OF ESTIMATES OF EXPLOITABLE BIOMASS AND FISHING MORTALITY FOR LOUISIANA BLUE CRAB. THE YELLOW CIRCLE REPRESENTS THE LAST YEAR OF DATA PAIRS, AND THE YELLOW TRIANGLE REPRESENTS THE BIOMASS ESTIMATE FOR 2015...... 7 FIGURE 4: OBSERVED JUVENILE ABUNDANCE FROM THE FISHERY-INDEPENDENT STOCK SURVEY AND ESTIMATED VALUES FROM THE FIT OF THE CATCH-SURVEY MODEL FOR LOUISIANA BLUE CRAB ...... 8 FIGURE 5: COMMERCIAL HARVEST OF BLUE CRAB IN LOUISIANA ...... 9
TABLE 1: TAC AND CATCH DATA ...... 8 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT CONDITIONS ...... 9 TABLE 3: PRINCIPLE SCORES AT CERTIFICATION ...... 10 TABLE 4: CLIENT MEETING: MAY 12TH 2016. BATON ROUGE ...... 10 TABLE 5: REVISED PRINCIPLE LEVEL SCORES AND INDIVIDUAL PI SCORES ...... 32 TABLE 6: PI 1.1.1 REVISED SCORING ...... 35 TABLE 7: PI 1.1.3 REVISED SCORING ...... 38 TABLE 8: PI 1.2.1 REVISED SCORING TABLE ...... 41 TABLE 9: PI 1.2.2 REVISED SCORING ...... 44 TABLE 10: PI 2.1.1 REVISED SCORING ...... 48 TABLE 11: PI 2.2.1 RISK BASED ANALYSIS ...... 49 TABLE 12: PI 2.2.2 REVISED SCORING ...... 52 TABLE 13: PI 2.2.3 REVISED SCORING ...... 55 TABLE 14: PI 2.5.3 REVISED SCORING ...... 58
Page 4 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab 5
1 Introduction The purpose of the annual Surveillance Report is fourfold: 1. To establish and report on whether or not there have been any material changes to the circumstances and practices affecting the original complying assessment of the fishery; 2. To monitor the progress made in improving the score of those performance indicators that were scored as below “good practice” (a score of 80 or above) but above “minimum acceptable practice” (a score of 60 or above) – as captured in any “conditions” raised and described in the Public Report and in the corresponding Action Plan drawn up by the client; 3. To monitor any actions taken in response to any (non-binding) “recommendations” made in the Public Report; 4. To re-score any Performance Indicators (PIs) where practice or circumstances have materially changed during the intervening year, focusing on those PIs that form the basis of any “conditions” raised. Please note: The primary focus of this surveillance audit is assess changes made in the last year. For a complete picture, this report should be read in conjunction with the Public Certification Report for this fishery assessment and the subsequent annual surveillance audit reports. 2 General Information 2.1 Certificate Holder details Fishery name Louisiana Blue Crab Unit of assessment Louisiana Blue Crab Date certified 9th March 2012 Date of expiry 8th March 2017 Surveillance level & type Level 6: On-site site visit. Date of surveillance 12-13th May 2016 audit Surveillance stage 1st Surveillance 2nd Surveillance 3rd Surveillance 4th Surveillance Other (expedited etc) Surveillance team Lead assessor: Ian Scott Assessor: Julian Addison CAB name Acoura Marine CAB contact details Address 6 Redheughs Rigg Edinburgh, EH12 9DQ Phone/Fax 0131 335 6662 Email [email protected] Contact name Polly Burns Client contact details Address LDWF, 2021 Lakeshore Dr., Ste. 220, New Orleans, La. 70122 Phone/Fax 504-284-5275 Email [email protected] Contact name Damon Morris
Page 5 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab 6
3 Background 3.1 Changes in the management system There have been no changes in the management system since the previous annual audit. The FMP was last up-dated in November 2014 (http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/page/37762- fishery-management-plans-marine/finalbluecrabfmp11-7-14.pdf) 3.2 Changes in relevant regulations Although some changes are under discussion (closed season) no new regulations are in effect. The Escape Ring regulation becomes effective in 2017. 3.3 Changes to personnel involved in science, management or industry Following the election of new Governor, the LDWF Executive team changed. However, none of the changes affected the day-to-day management of the blue crab fishery. 3.4 Changes to scientific base of information including stock assessments During the surveillance visit, the Client provided the audit team with a draft copy (subsequently confirmed) of the most recent stock assessment for blue crab in Louisiana waters (LDWF, 2016). This stock assessment uses the same methodology as previous years (the Collie- Sissenwine catch-survey analysis (Collie and Sissenwine, 1983)), and includes stock survey and catch data for 2015. The assessment model is appropriate for data-moderate stocks such as Louisiana blue crab and has been used extensively in a wide range of crustacean stock assessments where a full age-structure is not available. The model requires a time series of annual abundance indices for juvenile and adult life stages, a time series of annual harvest estimates as individuals, an estimate of instantaneous natural mortality (M), and the relative selectivity of the juvenile and adult life stages to the survey gear. Indices of abundance are derived from the LDWF fishery-independent marine inshore trawl survey. Landings are taken from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) statistical records for the period 1968-1998, and the LDWF Trip Ticket Program for the period 1999-2015. The assessment model provides estimates of exploitable biomass and recruitment to the Louisiana blue crab stock for 1968- 2015. Annual fishing mortality is estimated, but is not available for the last year of the time- series. The output of the model allows an assessment of stock status in relation to pre-defined reference points. The existing Louisiana blue crab data does not allow reliable estimates of maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Precautionary limits to fishing were established in an earlier assessment (West et al., 2011). These require that exploitable biomass does not fall below the three lowest levels observed (1968-2009) where the stock demonstrated sustainability (i.e. no observed declines in recruitment over a wide-range of exploitable biomasses). This is equivalent to maintaining the stock above a limit spawning potential ratio (SPR; Goodyear, 1993). The equilibrium SPR corresponding with the exploitable biomass limit is estimated to be 19.7%, which is equivalent to specifying the limit spawning stock biomass (SSBlimit) as 17.1 million pounds i.e. the average of the three years with the lowest biomasses (1968-2009) in which the stock demonstrated sustainability. The equivalent fishing mortality rate limit (Flimit) is estimated as 0.96 years-1. The biomass target reference point SSBtarget is defined as SSBlimit×1.5, or 25.7 million pounds. This biomass is achieved when there is an equilibrium SPRtarget of 29.6% and Ftarget of 0.74 years-1. The latest stock assessment shows that for the last year when estimates of both F and SSB are available (2014), SSB was at, or just below, SSBtarget (Figure 1), and that F was 0.97 x Flimit (Figure 2). On that basis, it can be concluded that, in 2014, SSB was above the point at which recruitment would be impaired, and that SSB was at the target level. In comparison, the model showed that SSB was at SSBlimit, i.e. overfished, despite having been at or above SSBtarget for the previous 8 years, and notwithstanding that F was below Ftarget (Figures 1 and 2).
Page 6 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab 7
Figure 1: Estimates of exploitable biomass from the catch-survey model for Louisiana blue crab relative to management benchmarks
Figure 2: Estimates of fishing mortality from the catch-survey model for Louisiana blue crab relative to management benchmarks
In 2015, the SSB estimate is below SSBlimit (0.83 x SSBlimit). However, as the model does not provide an estimate of F for the current year, there is no point available for 2015 on the phase diagram (Figure 3). Notwithstanding this point, the conclusion from the SSB and F estimates in 2014 and the SSB estimate in 2015 is that there is overfishing and the stock is overfished. Figure 3: Phase diagram of estimates of exploitable biomass and fishing mortality for Louisiana blue crab. The yellow circle represents the last year of data pairs, and the yellow triangle represents the biomass estimate for 2015.
Although recruitment levels over the last few years are lower than observed previously in the time series, recruitment has not declined significantly since SSB dropped below TRP, and indeed showed a slight increase in 2015 (Figure 4).
Page 7 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab 8
Figure 4: Observed juvenile abundance from the fishery-independent stock survey and estimated values from the fit of the catch-survey model for Louisiana blue crab
Due to the change in stock status, we determined to re-score PI 1.1.1 (Table 6). As the most recent stock assessment estimated that SSB was lower than SSBTARGET in two of the last four years, we concluded that the stock was not at or fluctuating around its TRP and PI 1.1.1 SG80 SIb was not met. On reviewing the evidence in relation to PI 1.1.1 SIa and after consideration of: (i) the biology of the target species; (ii) the limited difference between the TRP and LRP; and (iii) the previous recovery of the fishery from similar levels, we concluded that it is likely that the fishery is above the point where recruitment would be impaired and met SG60a. The score of 60 for PI 1.1.1 led to a new condition (7) being placed on PI 1.1.1 (Section 5.7). As PI 1.1.1 failed to score 80, we had to score PI 1.1.3 (Table 7). The score for PI 1.1.3 is 80. 3.5 Any developments or changes within the fishery which impact traceability or the ability to segregate between fish from the Unit of Certification (UoC) and fish from outside the UoC (non-certified fish) No changes. 3.6 TAC and catch data Table 1: TAC and Catch Data TAC Year NOT Amount NOT APPLICABLE APPLICABLE UoA share of TAC Year NOT Amount NOT APPLICABLE APPLICABLE UoC share of Year NOT Amount NOT APPLICABLE TAC APPLICABLE Total green Year 2015 Amount 41.28 million pounds weight catch by Year 2014 Amount 43.30 million pounds UoC Fishery managers do not establish a TAC. Since 1997, commercial landings of blue crab in Louisiana have remained above 40 million pounds per year, with the exception of 2005, 2010, and 2013 (Figure 5). The highest reported landings of 53.5 and 54.7 million pounds were in 1988 and 2009, respectively (LDWF 2016).
Page 8 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab 9
Figure 5: Commercial Harvest of Blue Crab in Louisiana
Source LDWF 2016 a 3.7 Summary of Assessment Conditions Table 2: Summary of Assessment Conditions Condition Performance Status PI original PI revised number indicator (PI) score score 1 1.2.1 Closed 70 85 2 1.2.2 Closed 70 80 3 2.2.1 Closed 70 80 4 2.2.2 Closed 70 80 5 2.2.3 Closed 65 80 6 2.5.3 Closed 70 80 7 1.1.1 New - Open 90 60 4 Assessment Process 4.1 Details of 4th Surveillance Audit Process The initial assessment defined a number of conditions to certification. A number of the conditions were redefined after the second surveillance audit in 2014. Maintenance of the MSC certificate has been contingent on the fishery progress in meeting those conditions. It is usual for the 4th surveillance to include the site visit for the recertification process. However, as matters now stand, the client has decided not to seek recertification of the fishery. Unless the situation changes, the catch from the fishery will not be certified after March 8th 2017. 4.2 Scope & History of the Assessment 4.2.1 History The certified fishery is for Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) in the Gulf of Mexico State Waters of Louisiana, FAO statistical area 31, using baited traps. The fishery was certified according to the MSC standard on 9th March 2012 after an assessment that commenced in July 2010. The fishery was originally certified by Scientific Certification Systems (SCS), that also carried out the first annual surveillance audit.1 The client
1http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/western-central- atlantic/louisiana_blue_crab/assessment-downloads-1/20130411_SR_CRA200.pdf.
Page 9 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab 10
changed the Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) in February 2014.2 The subsequent two annual audits (20143 & 20154) were completed by Intertek Fisheries Certification (IFC). In September, 2015 Acoura Marine acquired the IFC fisheries certification portfolio. Subsequently, the client confirmed Acoura Marine as it’s contracted CAB for the blue crab fishery. Acoura Marine confirms that the fishery remains in scope. There is a single Unit of Certification (UoC). In the initial certification the scores for the UoC were as in Table 3. Table 3: Principle Scores at Certification Principle 1 – Target Species 85.0 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 80.3 Principle 3 – Management System 86.9 4.2.2 Surveillance team details This on-site surveillance visit was carried out by Ian Scott (P3) and Julian Addison (P1/P2). As in the two previous audits, the former was Team Leader. 4.2.3 Date & Location of surveillance audit This site visit was held in Baton Rouge, Louisiana from the 12th-13th May 2016. 4.2.4 Stakeholder consultation & meetings The audit was announced on the MSC web site on 5th April, 20165. Sixteen identified stakeholders were informed of the up-coming surveillance audit by email. The auditors did not receive any response from stakeholders. On the first day of the site visit, a full morning meeting was held with the client in Baton Rouge (Table 4). During this meeting, there was a thorough revision of the fishery, with emphasis on stock status and the progress being made to satisfy the conditions to the certification. Table 4: Client Meeting: May 12th 2016. Baton Rouge Ian Scott Acoura Lead Auditor / P3 Julian Addison Acoura P1/P2 Jeff Marx LDWF Harry Blanchet LDWF Damon Morris LDWF On return to their home office, the auditors prepared the draft report. Following agreement with the client, the final report was published on the MSC web site. 4.2.5 What was inspected The meeting agenda covered: a confidentiality statement by Acoura, Introduction, the MSC recertification process, stakeholder interest in the fishery, Stock Status update, conditions review, other information needs and onward process. 4.2.6 Stakeholder Consultation See Appendix 2. Identified stakeholders were informed of the surveillance audit and an announcement was posted on the MSC web site. We did not receive any stakeholder response.
2http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/western-central-atlantic/louisiana_blue_crab/assessment- downloads-1/20140527_ANMT_CAB_Change_CRA200.pdf. 3https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/western-central-atlantic/louisiana_blue_crab/assessment- downloads-1/20141016_SR_CRA200.pdf 4https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/western-central-atlantic/louisiana_blue_crab/assessment- downloads-1/82559_150803_la_b_crab_final_2015-1.pdf 5https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/western-central-atlantic/louisiana_blue_crab/assessment- downloads-1/20160405_SA_CRA200.pdf
Page 10 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab 11
4.3 Surveillance Standards 4.3.1 MSC Standards, Requirements and Guidance used This surveillance audit was carried out according to the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements FAM v1.3. 4.3.2 Confirmation that destructive fishing practices or controversial unilateral exemptions have not been introduced During the surveillance audit, there was no indication that destructive fishing practices or controversial unilateral exemptions were relevant to the fishery.
Page 11 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
5 Results 5.1 Condition 1
Performance PI Scoring issues / Scoring Guidepost Text Score Indicator & SG80 SIa. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest Score 1.2.1 strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit 70 reference points. Condition Revised Condition 1 (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit) By the fourth annual audit a robust and precautionary harvest strategy is in place that is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Milestones Revised Milestones (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit) At the third annual audit, the client will provide the CAB with evidence that the harvest strategy has been formally implemented by the Assistant Secretary for Fisheries, LDWF after validation by stakeholders. At the fourth annual audit, the client will provide the CAB with evidence that the defined harvest strategy has been responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Client action Revised Client Action Plan (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit) plan At the third annual surveillance audit, LDWF will provide the formal Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan. The FMP will have been reviewed at public meetings and approved by the Crab Task Force and the Assistant Secretary for Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. At the fourth annual audit, LDWF will present the Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan, in which the harvest strategy for the Blue Crab fishery will reflect target and limit reference points. Progress on Minor non-conformance. By the second surveillance audit provide evidence that the LWFC has incorporated in an official document all elements of the Condition revised client action plan, including methods used to address responsiveness to the state of the stock. [2013] Progress on The uncertainty remains as to whether the fishery meets the SG80 scoring issues and whether “an approved Fishery Management Plan is in place that Condition supports the recommendations of the stock assessment” i.e. whether or not there is a protocol for taking management action should reference levels [2014] be exceeded has been formally adopted. While we consider that the Resolution is a step in the right direction, our preference is for the process to be formalised in a FMP that has been discussed with and verified by stakeholders. This is important as it may be concluded from the most recent stock assessment that there are signs of overfishing and the potential for the stock as a whole to be overfished, although the situation may be variable by individual fishing areas. Given that our conclusion is that the client remains behind target in the second year, while progress has been made with the client actioning a wide variety of activities, the question is whether or not the harvest strategy is appropriate to achieving the management objectives expressed in the target
` Page 12 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
and limit reference points i.e. does the revised resolution satisfy the condition. At this stage we cannot conclude that the condition has been met. While the stock appears to be in good condition, and typically in the past there have been marked fluctuations in abundance, it may be the case that some actions may be needed and the harvest strategy should be adequate and able to respond in a timely manner. Taking this conclusion forward, this would imply that the client has remained behind target in two consecutive years and as specified in MSC CR v1.1 para. 27.22.9 “In the event that the CAB determines that progress against conditions is inadequate and/or a condition is not back ‘on target’ within 12 months of falling ‘behind target’, the requirements of 7.4 (suspension or withdrawal) shall be applied” i.e. Para 7.4.3 “A CAB shall suspend a fishery certificate if a certificate holder.7.4.3.2 Has not made adequate progress towards addressing conditions”. However, MSC CR v1.1 Para 27.22.10 states “In the event that the requirements of any condition are changed, the CAB shall provide written justification for this in the Surveillance Report”. While MSC CR v1.1. para 4.11 that covers the situation where there is a change in CAB states in para 4.11.4.10 b ii “All conditions and/or non-conformities raised by the current CAB shall remain applicable, unless they are closed or revised as a result of an on-site audit by the succeeding CAB, and the actions taken are justified and documented”. MSC CR v1.1 c. 27.11.3.2 requires that a “CAB not accept a client action plan unless it is satisfied that the conditions are both achievable by the client and realistic in the period specified”. In our opinion, while PI 1.2.1 was scored correctly and a condition was required, the initial time scale and the client commitment to the creation of an FMP in one year was neither realistic nor achievable. This has led to what may be considered a piecemeal approach, with actions undertaken to satisfy the MSC condition rather than respond to an orderly and effective process that seeks to ensure that the fishery is sustainable according to the MSC standard. We conclude that the original milestones set for the condition were not achievable in the period specified. On that basis we have redefined the condition. In the meantime we consider that the work undertaken to-date means the client is on-target. Progress on The Louisiana Blue Crab Fisheries Management Plan (LDWF 2014) was posted on the LDWF web site after approval by the Assistant Secretary for Condition Fisheries, LDW. [2015] The FMP (p. 11) includes the text of the Resolution quoted above (under 2014 progress) as adopted by LWFC. The text of the Resolution is also included in the FMP (p. 36) as an element of fisheries management policy. The FMP is a comprehensive and well-organized document that provides background information on the stock and fishery, and outlines management issues and approaches. Prior to its adoption, LDWF officials made a formal presentation of the FMP to the Crab Task Force and the LWFC. Subsequently, the FMP was posted on the LDWF web site for public comment. Neither activity led to substantive feedback or identification of areas for concern. Consistent with the existing process for responding to comments and peer reviews on stock assessments, any feedback or concerns would have been met by a formal public response prior to final adoption of the FMP by the Assistant Secretary. The Team concludes that the revised year 3 milestone for this condition has been met. Evidence has been provided that the harvest strategy has been formally implemented by the Assistant Secretary for Fisheries, LDWF after validation by stakeholders.
Progress on The Client confirmed that the Louisiana Blue Crab Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) had been implemented. It includes (page 36) the specific policy Condition that “Should the fishing mortality or exploitable biomass exceed the overfished or overfishing limits, or exceed the targets for three consecutive years, [2016] as defined in the most current Louisiana blue crab stock assessment, LDWF shall come before the Commission with an updated assessment and a series of management options for the Commission to review and act upon, intended to keep the fishery from becoming overfished, and that management
` Page 13 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
options for review and action shall include provisions for emergency closures, time based closures, and spatial closures.” The Client confirmed that the most recent stock assessment had been updated to include 2015 data and had concluded that overfishing was occurring and that the stock was overfished. Detailed discussions are currently ongoing between the Blue Crab Task Force (BCTF) and LDWF concerning mechanisms for reducing F with the objective of rebuilding the stock back to target levels. Restricting fishing effort through total seasonal closures of the fishery (with all traps removed from the water) in March,6 when crabs are of poor quality, and/or in October when price per pound is low, are options under consideration, along with: possible limitations on gear; the introduction of biodegradable panels to minimize ghost fishing; and the introduction of larger escape rings. A total seasonal closure of the fishery is the preferred management option, as this would allow time for the cleaning and repairing of traps, while LDWF would undertake a major program to collect lost and abandoned traps that are considered to be a major source of uncontrolled removals of both target and bycatch species. The audit team concluded therefore that the defined harvest strategy has been responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points, and that the 4th year milestone had been met. This led to a rescoring of PI 1.2.1 and a revised score of 85 (Table 8). Status of PI 1.2.1 was rescored at 85 and condition 1 is closed. condition [2016]
5.2 Condition 2
PI Scoring issue / Scoring Guidepost Text Score Performance 1.2.2 SG80 SIa Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy 70 Indicator & and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Score Condition Revised Condition 2 (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit) By the fourth annual audit, well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Milestones Revised Milestones (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit) At the third annual audit the client will present the CAB with evidence that the approved fishery management plan includes the definition of an explicit algorithm or a decision rule which links observed changes in indicators to changes in fishery management measures (note that in the 2014 report this was incorrectly written as stock indicators) and this follows an explicit consideration of the various options.
6 CTF will be recommending to the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission a state-wide closure for the last two weeks of February and the first two of March (personal communication Damon Morris June 9 2016.
` Page 14 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
At the fourth annual audit the client will present the CAB with evidence to show that explicit algorithm or decision rule which links observed changes in indicators to changes in fishery management measures (note that in the 2014 report this was incorrectly written as annual stock indicators) has been implemented and used in determining the harvest control rules and tools for the following year. Client action Revised Client Action Plan (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit) plan At the third annual audit LDWF will provide a formal Blue Crab FMP. The FMP includes management options that will be selected and implemented based upon target and limit reference points reached and identified in an updated stock assessment. Fisheries independent trawl blue crab CPUE may be used as an indicator during certain years (if the assessment is not updated). At the fourth annual audit LDWF will provide evidence that the harvest control rules are in place through the finalization of the Blue Crab FMP, with discussions and approvals of the CTF and LWC and implementation of harvest management control rules. Progress on Minor Non-Conformance. By the second annual surveillance audit provide evidence to the CAB that as per the client action plan the resolution has Condition been agreed, has defined the means of response and a rationale for the response being effective in achieving exploitation levels required under the [2013] HCRs. Progress on The client action plan for condition 2 was the same as for condition 1. Originally the client committed to the definition of an FMP but subsequently this Condition was changed to a Resolution. The initial Resolution did not adequately respond to the identified issue and this led to a new Resolution. [2014] SG80 SIa requires that “well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached’. MSC CR v1.1 defines harvest control rules as “A set of well-defined pre-agreed rules or actions used for determining a management action in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points”. In our view, the new regulation does not meet this requirement, as there is not a definitive mechanism to reduce the exploitation rate. Rather it meets SG60 SIa i.e. “Generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached”. In the post certification period, the client has made significant efforts to develop a fishery management strategy including harvest control rules, with the Resolution and reported strong progress in drafting a FMP. Technically we find that the client has not met the condition and remains behind target for two years on a row. In other circumstances, we would consider the requirement as specified in MSC CR v1.1 Para. 27.22.9 and Para 7.4.3 (see above) However, given MSC CR v1.1 Para 27.22.10 (see above) and Para 4.11 that covers the situation where there is a change in CAB (see above) in the context of MSC CR v1.1 c. Para 27.11.3.2 (see above), we consider that while PI 1.2.2 was scored correctly and a condition was required, the initial time scale and the client commitment to the creation of an FMP in one year was neither realistic nor achievable. On that basis we have redefined the condition. The work undertaken to-date means the client is on-target. Progress on The Team and client representatives discussed the applicability of an “explicit algorithm or decision rule” linking changes in stock indicators to changes Condition in management measures in this kind of fishery (as required in the revised Year 3 milestone). Since the suite of technical measures is considered [2015] adequate to maintain the reproductive capacity of the stock, and since TAC or effort control is not used in management, the client, after considering the
` Page 15 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
revised Year 3 milestone, believes that the development of explicit decision rules such as those used in fisheries managed by TAC is problematic and may not be useful. The Audit Team concurs that the suite of technical conservation measures in place (equivalent to decision rules) represents a substantial contribution to a precautionary approach to conservation of the resource. The client highlighted the commitment in the FMP to present proposals for new management measures to the Fisheries Commission should stock indicators go beyond identified reference levels (see above, Condition 1). Options for management measures to be considered should reference levels be transcended have been outlined in the FMP, such that industry and management authorities have been advised of the potential measures that could be taken if stock indicators reached critical levels. These include emergency closures, time based closures and spatial closures (p 36, FMP), increasing mesh size and increasing minimum legal size (p 46, FMP). The Audit Team also noted that LDWF has recently implemented new management measures to respond to identified conservation and management issues in the fishery. (i) A professionalization program requiring that new entrants undergo training has been put in place, which has had the effect of reducing total effort in the fishery. (ii) Escape rings have been increased in number (from 2 to 3) and size to improve protection of undersize crabs (measure to take effect in 2017). In summary, the Team notes that there has been explicit consideration of management options, as required by the revised Year 3 milestone for this Condition, but that the Client has not presented an explicit algorithm or decision rule linking stock indicators to management actions as required in the milestone. However, the Team concludes that the intent of the Year 3 milestone has been met (i.e. there is evidence that there is a capacity and a commitment to take specified management action should indicators show that the stock has declined below identified thresholds) as: a process to take management action should stock indicators reach specified levels has been formalized within the FMP; options for management action under this process have been identified in the FMP, and management authorities and the public are aware of them; the management system has shown the capacity to respond to conservation and management issues by implementing new management measures The Team considers this process for taking action in the face of decline in stock indicators equivalent to a decision rule as required by the Year 3 milestone. The combination of the strong suite of technical conservation measures in place in the fishery with this action plan represents a suite of harvest control rules which meet the requirements of the PI. The Team concludes that the Y3 milestone for this Condition has been met. The FMP action plan is equivalent to a decision rule linking observed changes in indicators to changes in fishery management measures. This follows an explicit consideration of the various options.
Progress on The Client confirmed that the FMP has been implemented. The FMP includes (page 36) the specific policy that “Should the fishing mortality or Condition exploitable biomass exceed the overfished or overfishing limits, or exceed the targets for three consecutive years, as defined in the most current [2016] Louisiana blue crab stock assessment, LDWF shall come before the Commission with an updated assessment and a series of management options for the Commission to review and act upon, intended to keep the fishery from becoming overfished, and that management options for review and action shall include provisions for emergency closures, time based closures, and spatial closures.” Such actions may also include “increasing mesh size and increasing minimum legal size” (p 46). The audit team confirmed that evidence exists of the capacity and commitment to take specified management action should indicators show that the stock has declined below defined thresholds, with a formal commitment to take management action should stock indicators reach specified levels. The FMP identifies the options for management action ensuring the awareness of the management authorities and the public. Previously, the management system has shown the capacity to respond to conservation and management issues by implementing new
` Page 16 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
management measures. The audit team confirmed therefore that the FMP action plan is equivalent to a decision rule linking observed changes in indicators to changes in fishery management measures. The Client confirmed that the most recent stock assessment had been updated to include 2015 data. The finding is that overfishing was occurring and that the stock was overfished. Detailed discussions are currently ongoing between the BCTF and LDWF on mechanisms to reduce fishing mortality in order to rebuild the stock back to target levels. Restricting fishing effort through a total seasonal closure of the fishery (with all traps removed from the water) in March (when crabs are of poor quality) and/or in October (when price per pound is low) are measures being considered, along with: possible limitations on gear; the introduction of biodegradable panels to minimize ghost fishing; and the introduction of larger escape rings. Total seasonal closures of the fishery are the preferred management option as these would allow the cleaning and repairing of traps, while LDWF could undertake a major program to remove lost and abandoned traps that are considered to be a major source of uncontrolled removals of both target and bycatch species. Previous experience following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrated that enforced reductions in fishing effort resulted in significant increases in stock biomass, and that mechanisms for reducing fishing effort are therefore appropriate and effective tools in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCR. On that basis, the audit team concluded that well defined HCRs are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as LRPs are approached. The 4th year milestone had been met. This led to a rescoring of PI 1.2.1 and a revised score of 80 (Table 9). Whilst there is a well-defined HCR and a re-building strategy is in place based on reducing the level of fishing effort, the audit team stresses that major management action which significantly reduces fishing effort is required to ensure that the stock recovers to target levels and remains at or above the target biomass level. Status of PI 1.2.2 was rescored at 80 and condition 2 is closed. condition [2016]
5.3 Condition 3
PI Scoring issues / Scoring Guidepost Text Score Performance SG80 SIa Main bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits. If not, go to Indicator & scoring issue b. Score 2.2.1 SG80 SIb If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there is a partial strategy of 70 demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Condition Revised Condition 3 (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit) By the fourth annual audit, there is evidence that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the by catch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted by catch species or species groups. Milestones Revised Milestones (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit)
` Page 17 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
At the third annual audit the client will present the CAB with evidence that identifies main species and the data needed to undertake a risk based analysis of PI 2.2.1. This will lead to the rescoring of PI2.2.1 and potentially the closing of the condition Client action Revised Client Action Plan (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit) plan LDWF’s Marine Fisheries Section is conducting on-going research monitoring trap by-catch; results from this project will be presented at the third annual audit, including the identification of main by-catch species as defined by MSC (5% of the total catch in the fishery, valuable or vulnerable). Analysis of the main species will be done through existing monitoring data. At the fourth annual surveillance audit, LDWF will provide evidence that the fishery does not pose a risk to main by-catch species. Data presented will come through the blue crab by-catch study, the terrapin abundance and distribution research, finfish stock assessments and fishery independent monitoring data. If the condition is closed by the third annual surveillance audit, LDWF will not consider this action item. Progress on Open – On target Condition [2013] Progress on Under the MSC approach, bait fish are considered as retained species (MSC CR v1 Para CB 3.5.5). In the certification, PIs 2.1.1 thru 2.1.3 considered Condition bait species however in the main text of the report they are covered under by-catch species. Possibly, the approach is confused as the CAB differentiated [2014] by-catch by retained and discards, while the MSC approach uses retained (PI 2.1) and by-catch (PI 2.2) and each achieved a score of at least 80; hence a condition was not raised. Thus there is no existing requirement for the client action plan to include any consideration of bait species. As part of this annual surveillance audit, we did review the stock status and information on the main bait species and we did not identify any cause for concern and no need to rescore P 2.1. The purpose of setting a condition is to raise the score of a specific PI to a minimum of 80 within a defined period of time. For PI 2.2.1 SG 80 considers “main” species (as defined above). It is at SG 100 that all by-catch species are taken into consideration. On that basis, we consider that the second sentence of the existing condition (“By the third annual surveillance provide evidence to the CB that all by- catch species, including terrapins, are highly likely to be within biologically based limits”) should be limited to main by-catch species. Further, we do not consider it realistic or achievable that there is sufficient time within a 3-year time frame to assess whether or not main by catch species including terrapins are highly likely to be within biologically based limits. In addition, the first sentence in the condition relates to information and should be covered under PI 2.2.3. On that basis, and bearing in mind the arguments used to justify a change in the approach to Conditions 1 and 2, we have redefined the condition. In the meantime we consider that the work undertaken to-date means the client is on-target. Progress on The Client provided updated results (to May 2015) of the on-going by-catch survey, which started in 2012 and is scheduled to complete in June 2015. Condition As in the 2014 report, hardhead catfish (“sea catfish”) was the most abundant species in the by-catch, with 976 individuals. Total weight of this species [2015] was estimated from length data collected on the survey and an existing length-weight relationship, at 659 lbs. The next most important species in estimated weight was Atlantic croaker at 45 lbs. (131 individuals). All other species were at much lower weights and numbers.
` Page 18 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Total survey catch of commercial-sized blue crabs was 5,531 lbs. Accordingly, hardhead catfish represented approximately 10% by weight of the total catch (5531+659+45 = 6235 lbs.), while Atlantic croaker represented 0.7%. On the basis of weight, hardhead catfish is the only “main” by-catch species. Although application of a simple catch weight ratio (hardhead catfish: blue crab) to total blue crab catch (ca. 40m lbs. / yr.) might not provide an accurate estimate of total hardhead catfish catch in the fishery, the total amount caught could potentially be of the order of 4 - 5 million lbs./yr. However, hardhead catfish is a very widely distributed, abundant species (GCRL 2015) and is highly productive (age at maturity less than 2 yr., life span 5-8 yr.) (GCRL 2015). Fecundity is low (20-65 eggs) but this species is a mouth brooder of eggs and young, which greatly increases survival of young compared to high-fecundity broadcast spawners. The species has no commercial value or culinary interest, so all individuals caught would be discarded, and discard survival is likely quite high (of the order of 90% J. Marx, pers. comm.). The updated by-catch survey results showed a total catch of 12 diamondback terrapin (DBT). As noted in the Year 2 audit report, due to vulnerability it would be precautionary to consider this species as a “main” by-catch species. To be classified as an MSC main species, a by catch species must comprise more than 5% of the catch by weight, be considered as valuable or be vulnerable. As the biological status of diamond back terrapin taken in the fishery is uncertain, using a precautionary approach in the context of the known status of the species in other US waters, we consider that it may be vulnerable. It may be the case that evidence becomes available to consider that the species is not vulnerable. It is confirmed that DBT must be considered a main species. While the client has spent considerable resources (about $500,000) to clarify the situation as yet the research has not led to any definitive conclusions. There is continued uncertainty on DBT’s status and the impact on it by the blue crab fishery. In addition, only limited information is available on hardhead catfish which is a main bycatch species. Review of MSC CR v1.3 Table AC2 indicates that if the impact of the fishery in assessment on the P2 species cannot be determined quantitatively the risk based framework should be used to generate an MSC score. This being the case, we propose to carry out the required risk based analysis at the fourth annual surveillance audit / site visit for the reassessment. This will follow MSC CR v1.3 Annex CC and involve stakeholders to inform the process. In preparation for the RBF, we recommend that the client compile information on the status of the hard head cat fish and diamondback terrapin population, the impact of the fishery on the population and the effectiveness of related management options. Progress on We reviewed the status of the bait species. As found by the 2014 audit, there is no concern for their sustainability and the potential impact of the blue Condition crab fishery on them. [2016] The main point for analysis in this fourth audit was confirmation of the main bycatch species and to review the previously allocated score and associated rationale. The client provided us with up-dated by catch data. A sample of 354 sets and 16,480 traps recorded a blue crab catch of 5,728 lbs. with a total by catch of 1,732 lbs. A total of 37 by catch species were identified. The most often caught was hardhead catfish (Ariopsis felis) with the total 637 lbs. (1,021 fish) representing 8.54 % of the total catch. While 98.6 % of the sea catfish was released alive, there is no information on post release mortality. Given that the species is of no commercial value and most of the catch is released live, it may be possible to argue that while it comprises more than 5 % of the catch, it is not a main by catch species. This issue should be revisited if the fishery enters the recertification process. On the basis of the foregoing and previous audits, it is pertinent to question whether or not DBT should be considered a main by catch species.
` Page 19 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Due to the lack of information at the time, the original scoring for PI 2.2.1 presented limited rationale for considering DBT as a main bycatch species. There was recognised limited cross over of the blue crab fishing area with the main habitat of the DBT. The main issue identified was the potential for ghost fishing in discarded or lost traps, with a claim that “tens to hundreds of thousands” of traps per year are potentially ghost fishing. There is now better information. DBT was ranked 13th in the number of individuals taken in the fishery, with 12 animals caught with a total weight of 18 lbs. to 24 lbs (0.24 % - 0.32 % of the total catch weight). 41.7 % was released alive. There is no information on post release mortality. In the clear-up operation in 2015 (see below) no DBT were found in the removed traps that were sampled for by catch. In the original rationale, no reference was made to the existence of a commercial fishery for DBT in Louisiana. It is legal to catch DBT all year except for 2 months from April 15. It is illegal to use any type of trap. There is a minimum carapace length of 6 inches. In its most recent publication, the Louisiana Wildlife Federation noted “LWF requests the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to monitor and report the commercial harvest of Diamondback terrapins in Louisiana and to assess the impact of increasing exports of the turtle on the sustainability of its wild population. LWF supports additional rules or restrictions on commercial harvest of Diamondback terrapins in Louisiana as necessary to maintain a sustainable wild population. There is a significantly increasing trend of Diamondback terrapin exports from 833 in 2003, to 4,401 in 2010, 3,734 in 2011, 4,003 in 2012, 2,596 in 2013, and 16,226 in 2014”. In addition, DBT is used for direct human consumption. While it may be argued that DBT is not a main species, it is selected to maintain the approach of the original assessment. In the event of the fishery going to recertification, this decision may be reviewed. Review of MSC CR v1.3 Table AC2 indicates that if the impact of the fishery in assessment on the P2 species cannot be determined quantitatively the risk based framework should be used to generate an MSC score. In difference to the original assessment that presented an unclear rational to score the fishery at 70 using the default assessment tree, we decided that the RBF must be used to score PI 2.2.1. Status of On the basis of the evidence available, PI 2.2.1 was rescored using RBF. The allocated SICA score was 2 which is equivalent to an MSC score of 80. condition [2016] Accordingly, it is concluded that the fishery now meets that part of the MSC standard contained in PI 2.2.1 and CONDITION 3 IS CLOSED.
5.4 Condition 4
PI Scoring issues / Scoring Guidepost Text Score Performance SIa. There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to maintain main by-catch species Indicator & at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does Score not hinder their recovery. 2.2.2 70 SIb. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. SIc. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. Condition Revised Condition 4 (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit)
` Page 20 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
By the fourth annual audit, there is evidence that there is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to maintain main by-catch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery; there is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved; and there is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. Milestones Revised Milestones (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit) At the third annual audit, the client will present the CAB with evidence that confirms the efficiency of the lost trap removal programme. At the third annual audit, the client will present the CAB with evidence that options for a partial strategy, if necessary, have been identified and discussed. At the fourth annual audit, the client will present the CAB with evidence that the partial strategy, if necessary, has been implemented. Client action Revised Client Action Plan (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit) plan The Louisiana derelict crab trap removal program was initiated in 2004; funds are generated through fees dedicated from sales of recreational and commercial crab trap gear license fees. Plans have been initiated to continue the program in 2015. At the third annual surveillance audit, LDWF will present updated information concerning progress with the derelict crab trap removal program. Diamondback terrapins are listed as a main by-catch species because of their inherent vulnerability. Results from the on-going LDWF blue crab by- catch survey along with the terrapin abundance and distribution research will indicate if the blue crab fishery is hindering terrapin “recovery”. Current regulations and options for future management will be presented at the third annual audit. At the fourth surveillance annual audit, LDWF will present information concerning management actions initiated for main by-catch species, if needed. Progress on Open - On target Condition [2013] Progress on To provide the basis for effective future surveillance audits, we consider that the condition and associated milestones need to be reworded. In the Condition meantime, we consider that the work undertaken to-date means the client is on-target. [2014] Progress on The client provided an update of the annual report on the derelict crab trap removal program, which has been under way since 2004. In February 2015, Condition 422 derelict traps were removed in the Sabine Lake area, bringing the total for the program to 24,645 traps removed (LDWF 2015dc). The 2015 [2015] removals were lower than in most previous years. No updated information on by-catch in the derelict traps was provided, however the Team noted that a publication on by-catch in derelict traps removed in the program in 2012-2013 had recently appeared (Anderson & Alford 2014). The trap removal program has concentrated on the inter-tidal zone, in part because this is the probable area of concentration of terrapin by-catch. The trap removal program will continue in future. A proposal to NOAA for a grant to apply new methods to derelict trap removal under the NOAA marine debris removal program has been accepted. A similar program in North Carolina was successful in removing several thousand crab traps. Total funding will be $276,000 with $135,000 from NOAA.
` Page 21 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
The one-year project in Barataria/Terrebonne/Pontchartrain areas will assess the use of side scan sonar to locate derelict traps, and consider the contracting of unemployed crab fishermen to remove traps. With respect to a potential partial strategy to manage terrapin by-catch, the new FMP includes a number of options including: use of terrapin excluder devices in certain areas; use of biodegradable panels or hardware; and designation of areas prohibited for use of crab traps in habitats important for by-catch species (pp. 45). Options for managing ghost fishing and derelict traps (p. 47) include: bio-degradable panels; requiring fishermen to tend traps within a specified period of time; the removal of inactive traps; warning or penalizing fishermen whose registration numbers are found on derelict traps, including fishermen in derelict trap clean-ups; and using side scan sonar to locate derelict traps (the latter two options will be explored under the NOAA grant). LDWF staff reported that the potential to use bio-degradable panels to reduce the impact of ghost fishing panels has been considered, but currently fishers consider the cost ($25-$30 per trap) to be too high. Trap theft (a significant issue over many years) may have contributed to some of the higher estimates of trap loss given in published reports. The Team notes that the MSC Certification Requirements (v 1.3 CB 3.3.1, 3.3.2) indicate that the “if necessary” wording in relation to a partial strategy is only relevant if the fishery has no impact on the component under consideration i.e. a partial strategy would be required to manage main by-catch species unless the fishery had no impact on these. As the fishery is thought to impact the diamondback terrapin, a partial strategy would be necessary for the fishery to meet SG80 SIa. MSC requirements for a “partial strategy” are outlined in the Guidance to Certification Requirements, v 1.3, section GCB 3.3, page GC 83. In addition to new measures, measures already in place which could reduce the impact of the fishery may be part of the partial strategy. The need for a partial strategy will be clarified following the RBA proposed for the 4th annual surveillance report / recertification site visit. The Team concludes that the revised Year 3 milestones for this Condition have been attained. The Client has presented evidence that confirms the efficiency of the lost trap removal programme (an update on trap removals, the accepted NOAA grant application for further work), and evidence that options for a partial strategy to manage by-catch of main species, if necessary, have been identified and discussed (in the FMP). Accordingly, progress is on track to meet this Condition in Year 4 as required. Progress on The RBA indicates that there is some potential for the blue crab fishery to impact DBT which has been considered as a main by catch species. Condition Accordingly, to meet PI 2.2.2 SG80 a partial strategy is required. In difference, there is no indication that the blue crab fishery may impact the hardhead [2016] catfish; thus a partial strategy for this species is not required The client presented us with the following summary of NOAA funded project. “LDWF was awarded a contract from the NOAA Marine Debris Removal Program in July 2015. The goal of the contract is to remove 20 metric tons of debris in the form of ghost traps. Two components of the program are: 1) holding two volunteer derelict crab trap removal events and 2) conducting side-scan sonar of selected areas and removing submerged derelict crab traps. Two large scale volunteer events for derelict trap removal were held. Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation (LPBF) was contracted to coordinate the volunteer clean up event in the Lake Pontchartrain basin and hold the art competition. The Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program (BTNEP) was contracted to coordinate the volunteer clean up event in the Barataria basin and hold volunteer events to retrofit crab traps with biodegradable panels. During both volunteer cleanup events, LDWF personnel collected bycatch data on 12% of the 1428 traps collected. There were no Diamondback Terrapins found in those traps. Cleanup continued during the closure period and the total number of derelict crab traps that were retrieved during both
` Page 22 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
closures was 2,580. Side scanning of selected grids in both Lake Catherine and the Pen were completed. Trap retrieval has begun with the weather not being very agreeable to this point. In the Pen, grids 6 and 7 were cleaned and a total of 42 traps were retrieved out of a total of 119 targets. In Lake Catherine, grid 65 was cleaned with a total of 9 traps retrieved out of a total of 45 targets. The decision to scan grids and come retrieve traps at a later date was incorrect. This is what is causing the high amount of false targets. There have been no Diamondback Terrapins found in the 51 traps collected from the side-scan project”. While not implemented as yet, if there is a closed season for blue crab fishing in 2017, with all “active” traps removed from the water, LDWF will have the opportunity to increase efforts to remove lost and discarded traps.
Status of On the basis of the evidence available, PI 2.2.2 was rescored to 80. Accordingly, it is concluded that the fishery now meets that part of the MSC condition [2016] standard contained in PI 2.2.2 and CONDITION 4 IS CLOSED.
5.5 Condition 5
PI Scoring issues / Scoring Guidepost Text Score Performance SG80 SIa. Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main Indicator & by-catch species affected by the fishery. Score 2.2.3 65 SG80 SIb. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. SG80 SIc. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main by-catch species. Condition Revised Condition 5 (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit) By the fourth annual audit, quantitative information are available on the amount of main by-catch species affected by the fishery; information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits; and information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main by-catch species Milestones Revised Milestones (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit) At the third annual audit, the client will present the CAB with quantitative information on the level of bycatch in the fishery, with identification of the main by-catch species. At the fourth annual audit, the client will present the CAB with updated quantitative information on the level of bycatch in the fishery, with identification of the main by-catch species. Client action Revised Client Action Plan (after 2nd Annual Surveillance Audit) plan At the third annual surveillance audit, LDWF will present information on by-catch in the blue crab commercial trap fishery, specifically weight conversions of main species measured during the by-catch research project. Derelict traps result from the loss or abandonment of traps through commercial and
` Page 23 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
recreational fishing activities. Results from the 2014 survey of derelict traps will be analysed and used to continue collecting information during derelict trap removals. At the fourth annual surveillance audit, LDWF will present all updated data on by-catch in the commercial blue crab trap fishery. Progress on Open - On target Condition [2013] Progress on Information on by-catch and species’ abundance and distribution has been substantially improved through survey programs that are expected to Condition continue through 2016. The data derived will support an assessment of the impact of the fishery and development of a partial strategy to ensure that [2014] impact does not prejudice biological status, if necessary. We recommend that LDWF estimate weight of target species and by-catch species catch such relative weights can be determined and compared to the MSC guideline of 5% of target species catch weight for “main” by-catch species. We recommend that an estimate of total by-catch of this species in the fishery be prepared (recognising that significant uncertainties and assumptions will underlie such an estimate) and that this be compared with information on abundance of the species in the wild (from the ongoing LDWF study of distribution and abundance) such as to assess the impact of the fishery on the population. We conclude that the impact of ghost fishing on by-catch species appears to be relatively limited although this needs to be further analysed. Annual and cumulative removals of lost traps over 10 years appear relatively small relative to estimates of total potential traps lost but represent a substantial effort to address the issue. The impact of ghost fishing should continue to be monitored on future surveillance audits. We recommend that further information be collected on catch in derelict gear, and that the available information be analysed to estimate the impact of derelict gear on target and by-catch species. As argued for Conditions 1 thru 4, we consider given the need to prepare a research programme, source funding, implement the research and collect and analyse data, the time allowed to meet the condition was not realistic. On that basis and to link with Conditions 3 & 4, we have revised the condition with a new milestone. Progress on The Client provided updated results (to May 2015) of the on-going by-catch survey, which started in 2012 and is scheduled to complete in June 2015. Condition As in the 2014 report, hardhead catfish (“sea catfish”) was the most abundant species in the by-catch, with 976 individuals. Total weight of this species [2015] was estimated from length data collected on the survey and an existing length-weight relationship, at 659 lbs. The next most important species in estimated weight was Atlantic croaker at 45 lbs. (131 individuals). All other species were at much lower weights and numbers. Total survey catch of commercial-sized blue crabs was 5,531 lbs. Accordingly, hardhead catfish represented approximately 10% by weight of the total catch (5531+659+45 = 6235 lbs.), while Atlantic croaker represented 0.7%. On the basis of weight, hardhead catfish is the only “main” by-catch species. Although application of a simple catch weight ratio (hardhead catfish: blue crab) to total blue crab catch (ca. 40m lbs. / yr.) might not provide an accurate estimate of total hardhead catfish catch in the fishery, the total amount caught could potentially be of the order of 4 - 5 million lbs./yr. However, hardhead catfish is a very widely distributed, abundant species (GCRL 2015) and is highly productive (age at maturity less than 2 yr., life span 5-8 yr.) (GCRL 2015). Fecundity is low (20-65 eggs) but this species is a mouth brooder of eggs and young, which greatly increases survival of young compared to
` Page 24 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
high-fecundity broadcast spawners. The species has no commercial value or culinary interest, so all individuals caught would be discarded, and discard survival is likely quite high (of the order of 90% J. Marx, pers. comm.). The updated by-catch survey results showed a total catch of 12 diamondback terrapin. As noted in the Year 2 audit report, due to vulnerability it would be precautionary to consider this species as a “main” by-catch species An updated version of the terrapin study funded by LWDF was provided to the audit team (LDWF 2015dt). This did not appear to contain substantial new information compared to the version reviewed on the Year 2 audit. Diamondback terrapins were found to be widely distributed in Louisiana coastal waters, but population assessments have not been carried out, and there has been no assessment, however preliminary, of the impact of the blue crab fishery on populations. Research on terrapin populations and the impacts of blue crab fisheries in other areas has suggested that by-catch in crab fisheries, along with a range of other threats (nest depredation, habitat degradation, road kills) could be linked to declines in terrapin abundance (see reviews by e.g. Roosenburg 2004, Hart & Crowder 2011). However, the species is difficult to survey, and there are many uncertainties about quantitative impacts of the various threats. Available work suggests that traps set in intertidal areas near shore have more impact than those in deeper areas (e.g. Hart & Crowder 2011, Gandy & Turner 2014), as terrapins are not usually found in deeper waters, and that derelict traps appear to be particularly problematical (perhaps in part because these are often concentrated in intertidal waters) (e.g. Anderson & Alford 2014). Mitigation measures identified in literature include prohibiting crab fishing within a specified distance from shore, prohibiting fishing in specified seasons, and use of by-catch reduction devices (Hart & Crowder 2011). These options were identified in the Louisiana Blue Crab FMP (LDWF 2014). Many studies confirm that sampling and surveying are particularly challenging for this species. Intensive small-scale surveys may be required to estimate population sizes, and extensive larger-scale surveys may be adequate to map distributions but not to estimate population sizes (e.g. Gandy & Turner 2014). Although new information on the derelict trap removal program was presented (see Condition 4), new information on by-catch in derelict traps and its potential impact on populations of by-catch species was not available. The Team concludes that the year 3 milestone has been met by client - quantitative information on the level of by-catch and the identification of the main by-catch species. Hardhead catfish is the only “main” by-catch species on the basis of weight. Diamondback terrapin is a “main” by-catch species on the basis of vulnerability. The recommendation put forward in the Year 2 audit to estimate total by-catch of diamondback terrapin in the fishery, and to compare this with abundance information from the LDWF survey, such as to estimate impact of the fishery, has not been followed-up by the client. Such an assessment would be needed to meet SIb of the SG 80 for PI 2.2.3 (information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits) and possibly SIc (Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main by-catch species). Progress on The client provided us with a detailed breakdown of by catch in the sampling. Condition % of total [2016] trap catch Species Total Pounds (lbs) % Alive Blue crab 12,878 5,728 76.78% Hard head Catfish 1,021 637 8.54% 98.6
` Page 25 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Atlantic Spadefish 163 Atlantic Croaker 139 Pinfish 80 Redear Sunfish 56 Gafftopsail Catfish 43 Southern Flounder 43 Sheepshead 28 Spotted Seatrout 18 Black Drum 17 Blue Catfish 16 Gulf Stone Crab 15 Diamondback Terrapin 12 18 0.24% 41.7 Stone Crab Spp. 8 Striped Mullet 8 Atlantic Stingray 7 Spotted Gar 7 Green Sunfish 5 Longnose Spider Crab 5 Southern Kingfish 5 Largemouth Bass 4 Moon Jellyfish 4 Red Drum 4 Channel Catfish 3 Sand Seatrout 3 Spot 3 Crevalle Jack 2 Gulf Menhaden 2 Sharptail Goby 2 Unidentified Mud Crab 2 Bay Whiff 1 Bluegill 1
` Page 26 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Bull Shark 1 Gulf Coast Spiny Softshell Turtle 1 Gulf Pipefish 1 Speckled Swimming Crab 1 Yellow Bullhead 1 Total 1,732 7,460 The client presented us with updated quantitative information on the level of bycatch in the fishery, with identification of the main by-catch species. Status of On the basis of the evidence available, PI 2.2.3 was rescored to 80. Accordingly, it is concluded that the fishery now meets that part of the MSC condition [2016] standard contained in PI 2.2.3 and CONDITION 5 IS CLOSED.
` Page 27 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
5.6 Condition 6
PI Scoring issues / Scoring Guidepost Text Score Performance SI d. Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some Indicator & of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Score 2.5.3 70 SI e. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Condition By the third surveillance audit, provide information on the impact of the fishery on ecosystem components like the terrapins taken as by catch in the Blue Crab fishery to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Milestones Not defined in the PCR. Client action LDWF will design a program to collect information on the discarded and retained species from the blue crab fishery; interaction between diamond plan back terrapins and the commercial blue crab fishery will be assessed. Management of main bycatch will be evaluated and addressed if population analysis or other information establishes that there may be a potential problem. Progress on Not recorded in the First Annual Surveillance Report. Condition [2013] Progress on We have some concern that Condition 6 duplicates Condition 5. However, as we conclude that progress is on track to meet the Condition within the Condition timeline specified, we will review this issue when the PI is rescored. [2014] Progress on The Team gave further consideration to whether this Condition duplicates Condition 5 (PI 2.2.3, information on by-catch species) with respect to DBT. Condition Condition 6 was established because of uncertainty about the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem, through its potential to reduce populations of [2015] DBT. However, despite a large literature of studies on the biology of DBT (reviews by, for example, Butler et al 2006, Hart & Lee 2007, and more recently Coleman 2013), we did not find any evidence that any reduction in DBT abundance from by-catch in the fishery would have significant ecosystem impacts with serious or irreversible harm to the ecosystem, DBT is ecologically unique in being the only turtle species living in brackish-water habitats, and it certainly is an important component of food webs in these habitats. However, if removal or reduction in abundance of this species was to have a significant ecosystem impact, we would expect there to be evidence to show that predation by the species (or some other ecological function it exerts) plays a structuring role, as a keystone predator for example. Although we have seen speculation that predation of DBT on Littorina molluscs could reduce the snails’ grazing on Spartina beds, and thus contribute to ecosystem health (Coleman 2011), we have seen no evidence to support such a role. There is evidence that removing Littorina from Spartina beds results in increased Spartina biomass, (Gustafson et al 2006), but we are not aware of evidence of a role of DBT in controlling Littorina
` Page 28 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
abundance. In one area (Kiawah Island, SC) the DBT diet was 76-79% Littorina, but in others a much wider range of prey, including snails, clams, mussels, crabs, insects, fish, annelid worms and vegetation has been reported (Butler et al 2006). Substantial declines in abundance of DBT have been reported in a number of areas, but we have not found evidence that these have been associated with ecosystem changes, in particular changes which could cause serious or irreversible harm. In the absence of evidence for a structuring role of DBT in ecosystems, or for serious or irreversible harm occurring in ecosystems as a result of documented DBT population declines, we conclude that it would be more appropriate to consider impact of DBT by-catch under by-catch and not ecosystem. There has been progress in providing information on by-catch of DBT in the fishery (see Condition 5); as in Year 2 we conclude that progress is on track to meet this Condition. Review of MSC CR v1.3 Table AC2 indicates that if the impact of the fishery in assessment on the ecosystem cannot be determined quantitatively the risk based framework should be used to generate an MSC score. This being the case, we propose to carry out a risk based analysis for PI 2.5.1 to estimate the impact on the ecosystem of removal of DBT by the fishery at the fourth annual surveillance audit / site visit for the reassessment. This will follow MSC CR v1.3 Annex CC and involve stakeholders to inform the process. In preparation for the RBF, we recommend that the client compile information on the status of the ecosystem and the impact of the fishery on the various elements. This will allow consideration of the score for 2.5.3. Progress on We reviewed our findings in 2015 in the context of our concern that the scoring of the fishery based on the lack of information on DBT constituted Condition double jeopardy as these issues were taken into account under Component 2.2. [2016] Given that research completed by the client over the past 4 years provides an estimate of total mortality in the fishery, we consider that the original experts were mistaken in finding that the fishery only met SIa (Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem) and SIb (Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and some have been investigated in detail) for PI 2.5.3 were met. It is unclear as to why the experts concluded that SIc SG80 (The main functions of the Components (i.e., target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known) was not met. The decision to not award the fishery SG80 SId was predicated on the lack of information on DBT. This issue has now been resolved. As with SIc SG80 it is unclear why the experts concluded that SG80 SIe (Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures) was not met. Notwithstanding the concerns expressed about the original scoring, with the by catch data available it appears clear that the client has complied with the condition (By the third surveillance audit, provide information on the impact of the fishery on ecosystem components like the terrapins taken as by catch in the Blue Crab fishery to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred). Status of On the basis of the evidence available, PI 2.5.3 was rescored to 80. Accordingly, it is concluded that the fishery now meets that part of the MSC condition [2016] standard contained in PI 2.5.3 and CONDITION 6 IS CLOSED.
` Page 29 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
5.7 Condition 7 (Draft for consideration if the fishery enters recertification) PI Scoring issue/ Scoring Guidepost Text Score
SIa. It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. PI & Score 1.1.1 60 SIb The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. Condition By the fourth annual audit of any re-certification, the client should demonstrate that the stock is highly likely to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired and is at or fluctuating around its target reference point.7
Milestones At the first annual audit of any re-certification, the client should provide evidence to the CAB that the re-building strategy for the blue crab stock has been implemented. Expected score 60.
At the second annual audit of any re-certification, the client should provide evidence to the CAB that the re-building strategy for the blue crab stock is working. Expected score 60. At the third annual audit of any re-certification, the client should provide evidence to the CAB that the re-building strategy for the blue crab stock is continuing to work. Expected score 70 (SG80a is met, but SG80b is not met) At the fourth annual audit of any re-certification, the client should provide evidence to the CAB that that the blue crab stock is highly likely to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired and is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. Expected score 80.
7 Under CRv2.0 7.11.1.3a this condition can be carried over into the next certification period due to exceptional circumstances as it is unreasonable to expect the fishery to meet SG80 before the end of the current certification period.
` Page 30 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
6 Summary 1. We found that the substantial progress made by the client enabled us to rescore the relevant PIs (1.2.1, 1.2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 2.5.3). Each of these PIs achieved a score of 80 or above, allowing us to close the existing conditions to certification. 2. However, the most recent stock status up-date (LDWF 2016) concluded that the stock moved below SSBLIMIT in 2015 although the previous year it was at SSBTARGET. In 2014, F was close to its LRP. The 2015 catch-survey model does not provide a current estimate of F. On that basis, we determined to re-score PI 1.1.1. As the most recent stock assessment estimated that SSB was lower than SSBtarget in two of the last four years, we concluded that the stock was not at or fluctuating around its TRP and PI 1.1.1 SG80 SIb was not met. In relation to PI 1.1.1 SIa, on reviewing the evidence and after consideration of: (i) the biology of the target species; (ii) the limited difference between the TRP and LRP; and (iii) the previous recovery of the fishery from similar levels, we concluded that it is likely that the fishery is above the point where recruitment would be impaired and met SG60a. The score of 60 for PI 1.1.1, led to a new condition (7) being on PI 1.1.1. It meant also that we had to score PI 1.1.3. The score for PI 1.1.3 is 80. 3. As this is the final surveillance audit for the current period of certification and the indications are that the fishery will not move to recertification, this condition will not impact the MSC status of the fishery. Should it be the case that the fishery does seek recertification, it is likely that the new condition would apply to allow the fishery, all things being equal, to be certified until Year 4, by which time it is expected that the stock would be fluctuating around the TRP. 4. Whilst there is a well-defined harvest control rule and a re-building strategy is in place based on reducing the level of fishing effort, the audit team stresses that major management action which significantly reduces fishing effort is required to ensure that the stock recovers to target levels and remains at or above the target biomass level. 5. To facilitate the management process, it is recommended that the client considers the definition of an additional biological reference point, with a trigger reference point between the current upper (target) and lower (limit) reference points. It is further recommended that the client considers options to widen the number of stock indicators beyond the current two which are based on exploitable biomass and fishing mortality. 6. Table 5 shows the revised Principle and PI scores.
7 Conclusion The Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery is certified according to the MSC standard for sustainable fisheries until 8th March, 2017. One condition to the certification is open.
Page 31 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Table 5: Revised Principle Level scores and individual PI Scores
Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 81.5 Principle 2 - Ecosystem 83.3 Principle 3 – Management System 86.9
Principle PI Performance Indicator (PI) No. Score One 1.1.1 Stock status 60 1.1.2 Reference points 90 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding 80 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 85 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 80 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 90 2.1.1 Outcome 90
2.1.2 Management 85 2.1.3 Information 80
2.2.1 Outcome 80
2.2.2 Management 80 2.2.3 Information 80
Two 2.3.1 Outcome 90 2.3.2 Management 80 2.3.3 Information 80 2.4.1 Outcome 95 2.4.2 Management 80 2.4.3 Information 90 2.5.1 Outcome 80 2.5.2 Management 80 2.5.3 Information 80 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 100
3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 95 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100
3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80
3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80 Three 3.2.2 Decision making processes 80 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 80 3.2.4 Research plan 80 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 80
` Page 32 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
8 References
Bourgeois M, J. Marx & K. Semon 2014 Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan LWDF Collie, J.S., and M.P. Sissenwine. 1983. Estimating population size from relative abundance data measured with error. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40: 1871-1879. Goodyear, C.P. 1993. Spawning stock biomass per recruit in fisheries management: foundation and current use. pp 67-81 in S.J. Smith, J.J. Hunt and D. Rivard [ed.] Risk evaluation and biological reference points for fisheries management. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 442 pp. LDWF. 2014. Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Office of Fisheries, 122 pp. LDWF 2016 Update Assessment of Blue Crab in Louisiana Waters 2016 Report. 30 pp. West, J., H. Blanchet, M. Bourgeois, and J.E. Powers. 2011. Assessment of Blue Crab Callinectes sapidus in Louisiana Waters. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
` Page 33 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
9 Appendix 1 – Re-scoring Evaluation tables PI 1.1.1 Original Scoring Table
` Page 34 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Table 6: PI 1.1.1 Revised Scoring
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing SI SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of is above the point stock is above the point certainty that the stock is above where recruitment where recruitment the point where recruitment
would be impaired. would be impaired. would be impaired. Guidepost
Met? Y N N MSC CR v1.3 Guidance (GCB2.2) notes that “for some short-lived stocks the actual point at which there is an appreciable risk that recruitment is impaired may be lower than (the default limit reference points which are generally consistent with being above the point at which there is an appreciable risk that recruitment is impaired)”.
The blue crab is a short-lived, highly productive species. Its SSBlimit was set to ensure that the stock does not fall below the three lowest levels observed (1968-2009) where the stock demonstrated sustainability (i.e. no observed declines in recruitment over a wide-range of exploitable biomasses). The 2015 stock assessment shows that, from 2012, the SSB estimate fluctuated between SSBtarget and SSBlimit. While the 2015 estimate was the lowest level recorded
in the 4-year series, the stock demonstrably recovered from SSB levels around
SSBlimit in the 1990s and 2000s and so SSBlimit can be considered to be precautionary and set above the point at which recruitment would be impaired. For this species, in preference to a LRP, the recruitment risk point is used to measure stock status. We note that there is no observed relationship between exploitable
Justification biomass and future recruitment. Although recruitment levels over the last few years are lower than observed at times in the historical time series, recruitment has not declined significantly since the SSB dropped below the TRP in 2012, and in fact showed a slight increase in 2015 (Figure 4 above). Current recruitment levels are also higher than observed recruitment in the mid-1970s, after which the stock made a strong recovery. In view of: the demonstrable recovery of the stock from similar previous stock levels; the small difference between the SSBtarget and SSBlimit reference points; and the short- lived nature of the target species, we conclude that it is likely that the stock is currently above the point where recruitment would be impaired and thus the SG60 is met. As the 2015 SSB estimate is lower than the SSBlimit, we take a precautionary approach and concluded that SIa SG80 is not met. The stock is at or There is a high degree of
b fluctuating around its certainty that the stock has been target reference point. fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, Guidepost over recent years.
Met? N N The latest stock assessment shows that for the last year when estimates of both F and SSB are available (2014), SSB was at or just below SSBtarget, while F was 0.97 x Flimit. On that basis, it can be concluded that in 2014 the stock was at SSBtarget. This compares the 2013 model result that gave SSB at SSBlimit. i.e. overfished. This was after a period when SSB had been at or above SSBtarget in the previous 8 years, and F was below Ftarget.
In 2015, the SSB estimate is below SSBlimit, but the catch-survey model did not provide a 2015 estimate for F. Based on SSB and F estimates in 2014 and the SSB
estimate in 2015, there is overfishing and the stock is overfished. Although there is Justification only a small difference between the TRP and LRP such that the stock has been observed to move between the two in a single year, it cannot be concluded that the stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point and the SG80 is not met. A condition is raised and PI 1.1.3 is scored. LDWF 2016. Update Assessment of Blue Crab in Louisiana Waters. 2016 Report. References 30pp. MSC CR v1.3 Guidance.
Stock Status relative to Reference Points
` Page 35 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative
point point to reference point TRP SSB 25.7 million pounds SSB/SSBtarget = 0.55 F 0.74 years-1 F/Ftarget = 1.26
LRP SSB 17.1 million pounds SSB/SSBlimit = 0.83 F 0.96 years-1 F/Flimit =0.97
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE 60
CONDITION NUMBER 7
` Page 36 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
PI 1.1.3 Original Scoring Table
` Page 37 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Table 7: PI 1.1.3 Revised Scoring
Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe SI SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted, depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to strategies, which have be rebuilding stocks a reasonable continuously and there is strong expectation of evidence that rebuilding will be
Guidepost success, are in place. complete within the specified timeframe.
Met? Y N Strategies for re-building depleted stocks are implicit within the FMP, the goal of which is to ensure long term conservation and sustainable use of the blue crab resource including preventing overfishing and ensuring that crabs are able to successfully reproduce and maintain their population, and achieve a level of fishing capacity that provides for a sustainable harvest. In addition, in 2014 the LWFC established a policy based on overfishing and overfished limits and targets: “Should the fishing mortality or exploitable biomass exceed the overfished or overfishing limits, or exceed the targets for three
consecutive years, as defined in the most current Louisiana blue crab stock assessment, LDWF shall come before the Commission with an updated assessment and a series of management options for the Commission to review and act upon, intended to keep the fishery from becoming overfished, and that management options for review and action shall include provisions for emergency closures, time
based closures, and spatial closures.” Justification In view of this policy, LDWF is currently investigating a range of management options for ensuring that F is reduced and the SSB is increased. LDWF actions can be considered as a rebuilding strategy for the stock. Previous experience following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrated that enforced reductions in F resulted in significant increases in SSB, and thus the re-building strategies have a reasonable expectation of success. SG60 SIa is met. At present there is no evidence that stocks have started to be rebuilt. SG100 is not met.
b A rebuilding timeframe A rebuilding timeframe The shortest practicable is specified for the is specified for the rebuilding timeframe is specified depleted stock that is depleted stock that is which does not exceed one
the shorter of 30 years the shorter of 20 years generation time for the depleted or 3 times its or 2 times its generation stock. generation time. For time. For cases where 2 cases where 3 generations is less than
Guidepost generations is less 5 years, the rebuilding than 5 years, the timeframe is up to 5 rebuilding timeframe is years. up to 5 years.
Met? Y Y N Blue crab is a short-lived species for which two generations is less than 5 years. To meet the SG80, it is required for the re-building time frame for the stock to be up to 5 years. Although there is no specified timeframe for the rebuilding program, previous experience shows that the stock has been rebuilt within two to three years having fallen below SSBtarget. SG80 SIb is met.
The rebuilding timeframe is likely to be more than one generation time. SG100 SIb is Justification not met.
c Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that determine whether the they are rebuilding
rebuilding strategies stocks, or it is highly are effective in likely based on rebuilding the stock simulation modeling or within a specified previous performance
Guidepost timeframe. that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe.
Met? Y Y
` Page 38 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
There is on-going monitoring of stock status. SG60 SIc is met. The reductions in F consequent to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita led to significant increases in SSB in subsequent years. This experience shows that when SSB has fallen below SSBtarget, the stock has been rebuilt within two to three years. On that basis it can be concluded that it is highly likely that a re-building strategy of reducing
Justification F will ensure that the stocks will be rebuilt within five years. SG80 SIc is met. LDWF. 2014. Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Office of Fisheries, 122 pp. References LDWF 2016. Update Assessment of Blue Crab in Louisiana Waters. 2016 Report. 30pp.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE 80
` Page 39 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
PI 1.2.1 Original Scoring Table
` Page 40 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Table 8: PI 1.2.1 Revised Scoring Table
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
SI SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state responsive to the state of the
stock management of the stock and the stock and is designed to achieve
objectives reflected in elements of the harvest stock management objectives the target and limit strategy work together reflected in the target and limit reference points. towards achieving reference points. management objectives Guidepost reflected in the target and limit reference points.
Met? Y Y Y The harvest strategy is embodied within the FMP which was formally implemented in 2014 with the goal of ensuring long-term conservation and sustainable use of the blue crab resource for the maximum environmental, social, and economic benefit to the State and her citizens and visitors. The FMP sets out all elements of the harvest strategy including: preventing overfishing and ensuring crabs may successfully reproduce and maintain their population, achieving a level of fishing capacity that provides for a sustainable harvest; minimizing fishery impacts on undersized blue crabs and other non-targeted species; continuing to collect fishery dependent and independent data to support blue crab stock assessments; and promoting research to better understand the impact of environmental factors on blue crab populations as Justification well as the impact of the blue crab fishery on the ecosystem. The FMP sets out: data collection protocols; the assessment methodology; the definition of TRP and LRP; and the HCRs if the TRP and LRP are exceeded. It can be concluded that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the TRP and LRP. SG60/80/100 SIa is met.
b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the harvest
likely to work based on may not have been fully strategy has been fully prior experience or tested but evidence evaluated and evidence exists plausible argument. exists that it is achieving to show that it is achieving its its objectives. objectives including being
Guidepost clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels.
Met? Y Y N The previous occurrences of low SSB with the stock returning to target levels, demonstrate that the harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. SG60 SIb is met.
As recent stock assessments show that the stock has been below the TRP for SSB in two of the last four years, in line with the FMP stock management objectives, the stock assessment has been updated on an annual basis, and there are on-going consultations between the BCTF and LDWF on mechanisms for reducing F to ensure that the stock returns to target levels. The options are currently being reviewed by
Justification LDWC. This response to recent declines in SSB demonstrate that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. SG80 SIb is met. The performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated through, for example, a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE). SG100 SIc s not met.
c Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is
working. Guidepost
Met? Y Monitoring of the abundance of adults and juveniles through an annual fishery-
independent trawl survey of the stock, recording of landings through the LDWF Trip Ticket Program, and assessment of the status of the stock in relation to pre-defined reference points, demonstrate that monitoring is in place to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. In addition, LDWF is tasked with administering and enforcing laws, rules, and regulations as adopted by LDWC and Legislature. SG60
SIc is met. Justification
` Page 41 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
d The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and
improved as necessary. Guidepost
Met? N
As the FMP was only formally implemented in 2014, it is not possible to conclude that the harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. SG100 SId
is not met. Justification
e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is not
place. taking place. taking place. Guidepost
Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant LDWF. 2014. Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Office of Fisheries, 122 pp. References LDWF 2016. Update Assessment of Blue Crab in Louisiana Waters. 2016 Report. 30pp.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE 85
` Page 42 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
PI 1.2.2 Original Scoring Table
` Page 43 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Table 9: PI 1.2.2 Revised Scoring
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
SI SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Generally understood Well defined harvest harvest rules are in control rules are in
place that are place that are
consistent with the consistent with the harvest strategy and harvest strategy and which act to reduce the ensure that the exploitation rate as limit exploitation rate is Guidepost reference points are reduced as limit approached. reference points are approached.
Met? Y Y The formally implemented FMP includes (page 36) the specific policy that “Should the fishing mortality or exploitable biomass exceed the overfished or overfishing limits, or exceed the targets for three consecutive years, as defined in the most current Louisiana blue crab stock assessment, LDWF shall come before the Commission with an updated assessment and a series of management options for the Commission to review and act upon, intended to keep the fishery from becoming overfished, and that management options for review and action shall include provisions for emergency closures, time based closures, and spatial closures.” Such actions may also include “increasing mesh size and increasing minimum legal size” (p 46, FMP). We consider that the FMP action plan is equivalent to a decision rule linking observed changes in indicators to changes in fishery management measures.
SG60 SIa is met.
The Client confirmed that the most recent stock assessment had been updated to include 2015 data and had concluded that overfishing was occurring and that the stock was overfished. Detailed discussions are currently ongoing between the BCTF and LDWF concerning mechanisms for reducing F and rebuild the stock back to
Justification target levels. Restricting F through total seasonal closures of the fishery (with all traps removed from the water) in March, when crabs are of poor quality and/or in October when price per pound is low, are measures being considered by LDWC, along with possible limitations on gear, the introduction of biodegradable panels to minimize ghost fishing, and the introduction of larger escape rings. Total seasonal closures of the fishery are the preferred management option as they would allow the cleaning and repairing of traps, while LDWF can undertake a major program of clearance of lost and abandoned traps, which are considered to be a major source of uncontrolled mortality of both target and bycatch species. We conclude that the well-defined HCRs in place are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as LRPs are approached. SG80 SIa is met
b The selection of the The design of the harvest harvest control rules control rules takes into account takes into account the a wide range of uncertainties.
main uncertainties. Guidepost
Met? Y N The HCR acknowledges that there are uncertainties underlying the stock assessment model and the estimate of exploitable biomass, and that consideration should be given to the range of natural fluctuations in SSB that might occur when fishing at
target F. The HCR is triggered when F or SSB exceeds the target reference points for three consecutive years. The HCR also recognizes that F may be reduced through a variety of mechanisms such as emergency closures, time based closures, spatial closures, increasing mesh size and increasing minimum legal size. The selection of the HCRs therefore takes into account the main uncertainties. SG80 SIb
is met. Justification As the stock assessment does not evaluate stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way, we cannot conclude that the design of the HCRs takes into account a wide range of uncertainties. SG100 SIb is not met.
` Page 44 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
c There is some Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the
evidence that tools indicates that the tools tools in use are effective in
used to implement in use are appropriate achieving the exploitation levels harvest control rules and effective in required under the harvest are appropriate and achieving the control rules. effective in controlling exploitation levels Guidepost exploitation. required under the harvest control rules.
Met? Y Y N The HCR stipulates that emergency closures, time based closures, spatial closures, increasing mesh size and increasing minimum legal size are all tools that should be used within the overall harvest strategy to ensure that F required under the HCR are
achieved. Such approaches are conventional in restricting F and ensuring that exploitation levels are reduced. The experience following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrates that enforced reductions in F resulted in significant increases in SSB, providing evidence that methods for reducing F are appropriate and effective tools in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCR. SG60 & SG80 SIc
is met. Justification As the FMP was recently implemented, there is no direct evidence that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCR. SG100 SIc is not met. LDWF. 2014. Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Office of Fisheries, 122 pp. References LDWF 2016. Update Assessment of Blue Crab in Louisiana Waters. 2016 Report. 30pp.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE 80
` Page 45 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
PI 2.2.1 Original Scoring Table
` Page 46 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
` Page 47 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Table 10: PI 2.1.1 Revised Scoring
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.1.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups SI SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Main bycatch species Main bycatch species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that bycatch species biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go to limits.
Guidepost scoring issue b below). scoring issue b below).
Met?
The RBF was used to score PI 2.1.1. Justification
b If main bycatch species If main bycatch species are outside biologically are outside biologically
based limits there are based limits there is a mitigation measures in partial strategy of place that are expected demonstrably effective to ensure that the mitigation measures in
Guidepost fishery does not hinder place such that the recovery and fishery does not hinder rebuilding. recovery and rebuilding.
Met?
The RBF was used to score PI 2.1.1. Justification
c If the status is poorly known there are
measures or practices
in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to Guidepost be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.
Met?
The RBF was used to score PI 2.1.1.
Justification
References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE SICA 2 = MSC 80
` Page 48 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Table 11: PI 2.2.1 Risk Based Analysis
Risk-causing activities from Spatial scale Temporal scale Intensity of Consequence Performance Indicator Relevant subcomponents MSC Score fishery under of activity of activity activities score assessment
PRINCIPLE TWO: Fishing Population size 2 80 Bycatch Species Outcome Gear loss Reproductive capacity Bait collection
Species: Other 3 6 3 Diamond back terrapin identified risk- causing
activities Age/size/sex structure (please specify) Geographic range
Rationale for selecting worst Recent research has indicated 37 by catch species in the blue crab trap fishery. One of these species (hard head catfish) is categorized as main due to it plausible case scenario forming about 8.5 % of the total catch in the sample. In the original assessment DBT was considered main due to its perceived vulnerability, especially to ghost fishing by lost gear. As hard head catfish is not a commercial species and a very high part of the catch is released live, it was concluded that it was not vulnerable. On that basis, and to maintain coherence with the original assessment, DBT was considered the most vulnerable. Note that trap fishing is prohibited in the commercial DBT fishery. DBT can be taken in both active traps and discarded traps. Survivability in the former was found to be 41.7 %. The survival potential depends on the period of time between the DBT entering the trap and the trap being lifted. By their nature, DBT entering discarded / lost gear have limited potential to survive. However, DBT are likely to only enter discarded traps that contain food, and only in those areas of the DBT habitat (marshy ground outside the main blue crab fishing area) where discarded traps may be found. The lack of escape rings prevents DBT from exiting the trap. The results of recent research indicate that about 0.28 % of the total catch weight consisted of DBT. If the total catch in traps targeting blue crabs was about 57 million pounds, there is a potential DBT catch of 136,800 lbs., or about 78,000 animals with direct mortality of about 45,000. Potentially, this exaggerates the vulnerability of DBT in the fishery, as the majority of the trap sets are not in areas forming the preferred habitat of DBT. No dead DBT were found in the recovered traps that were sampled for by catch. On that basis, we determined that DBT interactions with active gear was the worst possible case scenario, with the main sub component being population size. The potential for interactions of DBT with active fishing and ghost fishing will reduce with the introduction of escape rings and the continuing clear up of derelict gear.
` Page 49 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Rationale for Spatial scale of activity The preferred habitat of DBT is marshy areas while traps are usually set on soft or muddy ground up to 3 miles off shore. It would seem reasonable to assume that the overlap would be no more than 30 %, and may be much lower. This is a SICA score of 3. Rationale for Temporal scale of The blue crab fishery operates throughout the year. This is a SICA score of 6. activity Rationale for Intensity of activity Given the limited blue crab fishery in the DBT preferred habitat, it is concluded that a SICA score of 3 is appropriate i.e. moderate detection of activity at broader spatial scale, or obvious but local detection. Rationale for choosing most Given the lack of understanding of DBT is Louisiana waters, it is considered that population size would be relevant sub component affected by the catch vulnerable sub-component of the blue crab fishery. Rationale for Consequence score A review if the literature indicates that in the USA, DBT faces a large number of threats including direct human impacts, climate change, pollution, commercial fishing and by catch. As there is a limit in the overlap between the two elements, on that basis, it must be concluded that the blue crab fishery contributes to potential vulnerability and there is possible detectable change in size/growth rate but minimal impact on population size and none on dynamics.
` Page 50 of 60
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
PI 2.2.2 Original Scoring Table
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1 Page 51 of 60
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Table 12: PI 2.2.2 Revised Scoring There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations SI SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures There is a partial There is a strategy in place for in place, if strategy in place, if managing and minimizing bycatch. necessary, that are necessary, that is expected to maintain expected to maintain
the main bycatch the main bycatch species at levels species at levels which are highly which are highly likely likely to be within to be within
Guidepost biologically based biologically based limits, or to ensure limits, or to ensure the the fishery does not fishery does not hinder their recovery hinder their recovery and rebuilding. and rebuilding.
Met? Y Y N Two main by catch species have been identified: hard head catfish due to its contribution (8.5 %) to the total catch of the blue crab traps; and DBT due to its perceived vulnerability. The hard head element meets both SG60 and SG80 of SIa as neither measures or a partial strategy are considered necessary to ensure the fishery does not hinder their
recovery and rebuilding. Previous annual surveillance reports have indicated a number of measures that have been taken to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding of DBT. These relate to the active fishery and ghost fishing. The fishery meets SG60 SIa for DBT. Cumulatively, the measures that form a partial strategy include: reducing the
Justification number of fishers to exclude non-professional fishers and limit effort and the removal of derelict traps. In the 2015 trap removal program, 1,428 traps were collected bringing the total over the various years of the programme to about 26,000. Due to the limited overlap of the fishery with DBT, such a partial strategy is considered sufficient to meet SG80. As SG100 relates to all by catch species, the fishery does not meet SG100.
b The measures are There is some Testing supports high confidence considered likely to objective basis for that the strategy will work, based on
work, based on confidence that the information directly about the fishery plausible argument partial strategy will and/or species involved. (e.g. general work, based on some experience, theory or information directly
Guidepost comparison with about the fishery similar and/or species fisheries/species). involved.
Met? Y Y N Hard head catfish. Given the high proportion of hard headed catfish release live, it may be concluded that the lack of measures and a partial strategy is the correct
approach to this element of fishery management. DBT. The successful implementation of the professionalization program and the continued removal of derelict traps indicates that the partial strategy is working in reducing the potential impact of the fishery on the species. Other measures, as identified in the FMP, may be introduced if it was considered that the existing Justification measures are not achieving the success required. The fishery meets SG80 SIb. The lack of a strategy means the fishery does not meet SG100 SIb.
c There is some There is clear evidence that the evidence that the strategy is being implemented partial strategy is successfully. being implemented
successfully. Guidepost
Met? Y N
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1 Page 52 of 60
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
The number of licensed fishers and the number of removed traps indicate that the
partial strategy is working. The fishery meets SG80 SIc.
The lack of a strategy means the fishery does not meet SG100 SIc.
Justification
There is some evidence that the
d strategy is achieving its overall
objective. Guidepost
Met? N
The lack of a strategy means the fishery does not meet SG100 SId.
Justification
LDWF. 2014. Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Office of Fisheries, 122 pp. References Previous audit reports.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE 80
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1 Page 53 of 60
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
PI 2.2.3 Original Scoring Table
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1 Page 54 of 60
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Table 13: PI 2.2.3 Revised Scoring
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch SI SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable
a is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main information are catch of all bycatch species and bycatch species taken available on the amount the consequences for the status by the fishery. of main bycatch species of affected populations. Guidepost taken by the fishery.
Met? Y Y N
Previous research (see original certification report) provides the evidence needed to conclude that the fishery meets SG60 SIa. The quantitative data provided by the client (see condition 5) provides the basis for the fishery to meet SG80 SIa. The
information available is not sufficient to meet SG100 SIa. Justification Information is Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to
b adequate to broadly to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome understand outcome status with respect to status with respect to status with respect to biologically based biologically based limits with a biologically based limits. high degree of certainty. Guidepost limits
Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
SIb is not scored as the RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1.
Justification Information is Information is adequate Information is adequate to
c adequate to support to support a partial support a strategy to manage measures to manage strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate bycatch. main bycatch species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is Guidepost achieving its objective.
Met? Y Y N The information available provides the basis needed to establish the needs to support
a partial strategy for the management of DBT. A strategy would need to have better information on geographical dispersion of the effort compared to the DBT habitat. The fishery meets SG80 SIc for DBT. A partial strategy is not required for hard head catfish. The fishery meets SG80 SIc.
Justification There is not a strategy to cover all retained species. The fishery does not meet SG100 SIc.
d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of bycatch data is to be collected to detect conducted in sufficient detail to
any increase in risk to assess ongoing mortalities to all
main bycatch species bycatch species. (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation Guidepost of the fishery or the effectively of the strategy).
Met? Y N
The continuing sampling program and data on catch and effort is sufficient for the fishery to meet SG80 SId. The research program is not sufficiently comprehensive
to meet SG100 SId. Justification
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1 Page 55 of 60
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
References Client data
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE 80
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1 Page 56 of 60
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
PI 2.5.3 Original Scoring Table
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1 Page 57 of 60
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
Table 14: PI 2.5.3 Revised Scoring
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
SI SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is Information is adequate adequate to identify the to broadly understand
key elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem (e.g., ecosystem. trophic structure and function, community
Guidepost composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity).
Met? Y Y Reflecting the environmental importance to the USA of the Louisiana wetland and
lake system, as shown by web research (e.g. http://www.saveourlake.org/PDF- documents/Lake-Pontchartrain-Food-Web-8-7-09-JALformatted-web.pdf; https://www.fws.gov/lafayette/pdf/LA_ES_Strategic_Plan.pdf; http://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=new-report-assesses-the-impacts-of- emerging-threats-on--gulf-coast-s&_ID=35299 ) there is a large body of information
Justification on all aspects of the local ecosystem. Such research provides the information needed for the fishery to meet SG60 and SG80 at SIa.
b Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions between the
fishery on these key fishery on these key fishery and these ecosystem ecosystem elements ecosystem elements elements can be inferred from can be inferred from can be inferred from existing information, and have existing information, existing information and been investigated.
Guidepost and have not been some have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail.
Met? Y Y N
The availability of information from Louisiana and similar fisheries within the USA provides the information to allow the fishery to meet SG60 SIb. Information on such as the area of the fishery, habitat together with the detailed investigations on by catch and derelict gear lead to the finding that the fishery meets SG80 SIb. The analysis available is of insufficient rigor to allow the fishery to meet SG100 SIb. This finding
Justification should be confirmed in any recertification process.
c The main functions of The impacts of the fishery on
the Components (i.e., target, Bycatch, Retained and target, Bycatch, ETP species are identified and Retained and ETP the main functions of these species and Habitats) in Components in the ecosystem
Guidepost the ecosystem are are understood. known.
Met? Y N While not being fully understood (thus the fishery does not meet SG100 SIc) as shown by the results of the various research in Louisiana and other parts of the USA,
the main functions of the components in the ecosystem are known. This finding tion
should be confirmed in any recertification process. Justifica
d Sufficient information is Sufficient information is
available on the impacts available on the impacts of the
of the fishery on these fishery on the Components and Components to allow elements to allow the main some of the main consequences for the consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Guidepost ecosystem to be inferred.
Met? Y N The information available on the impact of the traps on habitat and the quantities of by catch indicate the potential impact of the fishery on the ecosystem to be inferred. As not all main consequences are known, while the fishery meets SG 80 SI d it does
not meet SG100 SId. This finding should be confirmed in any recertification process. Justification
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1 Page 58 of 60
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
e Sufficient data continue Information is sufficient to to be collected to detect support the development of
any increase in risk strategies to manage level (e.g., due to ecosystem impacts. changes in the outcome indicator scores or the
Guidepost operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).
Met? Y N
The information that continues to be collected on fishing effort, number of traps, discarded traps, by catch etc is sufficient for the fishery to meet SG80 SIe. A greater time series of information would be needed covering more parameters (regional and local impacts) to allow the development of appropriate strategies to manage ecosystem impacts and the fishery does not meet SG100 SIe.
Justification
References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE 80
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1 Page 59 of 60
Acoura Marine
Surveillance Report
Louisiana Blue Crab
10 Appendix 2 – Stakeholder Submissions No submissions were received. Stakeholders
Sixteen identified stakeholders were notified of this audit.
Announcement https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/western-central- atlantic/louisiana_blue_crab/assessment-downloads-1/20160405_SA_CRA200.pdf
11 Appendix 3- Surveillance audit information Not applicable
12 Appendix 4 - Additional detail on conditions/ actions None
13 Appendix 5 - Revised Surveillance Program Not applicable. At the time of the audit, the client had not confirmed reassessment would commence.
PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1 Page 60 of 60