Atlantic Menhaden Draft Amendment 3 September 2017 Public Hearing Agenda • Overview of ASMFC • Amendment Timeline • Management Issues and Alternatives • Public Comment ASMFC • Comprised of 15 Atlantic Coast states • Atl. Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Mgmt. Act (1993) • Regulatory authority in state waters • Quarterly Board meetings • Three commissioners, one state, one vote Vision Statement: Sustainably Managing Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Timeline May 2016 – Mar - July Aug Aug – Nov Feb 2017 2017 2017 Oct 2017 2017 PID X Write X Draft Amendment 3 Approve Draft Amendment 3 for X Public Comment Public Comment X Final Action X Final Action Draft Amendment 3 November 13-14, 2017 BWI Marriot 1743 West Nursery Road, Linthicum Heights, MD Mgmt. Issues in Draft Amd. 3 • Reference Points • Quota Allocation and Timeframes • Quota Transfers • Quota Rollovers • Incidental Catch & Small Scale Fishery Allowance • Episodic Events Set Aside Program • Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap Reference Points • Reference points measure health of stock and inform the TAC setting process (size of pie) • Menhaden serve an important ecological role – Prey for larger fish, birds, marine mammals • Board initiated Draft Amd. 3 to consider the application of ecosystem reference points (ERPs) to menhaden – Assess status of menhaden in regard to their interactions with predator species • 3 categories of reference points – Single-species reference points – Menhaden-specific ERPs – Ecosystem guidelines for forage fish • Varied advice on how to manage forage fish 1. Single Species Reference Points Stock currently managed by single-species reference points – Look at abundance of menhaden alone Pros – Calculated from the stock assessment model which accounts for natural mortality – Assumptions and parameters specific to menhaden Cons – Unclear if natural mortality alone adequately accounts for menhaden’s ecological services 2. Menhaden Specific ERPs Currently developing menhaden-specific ERPs which consider the abundance of menhaden and predator species – Evaluating a suite of multi-species models to analyze menhaden prey-predator relationships Pros – Consider menhaden’s ecological role as forage fish – Assumptions and parameters are specific to menhaden Cons – Menhaden specific ERPs are not currently available; it is expected that they will be peer-reviewed in 2019 and can be implemented in 2020 3. Ecosystem Guidelines for Forage Fish Guidelines for managing forage fish species in general, specifically looking at their ecological role – Generalized rules based on studies which look at multiple regions, ecosystems, and species Pros – Provide general rules regarding the management of forage fish in relation to predator abundance – Available for use today Cons – Guidelines are not specific to menhaden and, as a result, make generalizations which may not be applicable Reference Points Option A: Single Species Reference Points • Development of ERPs would not be pursued Option B: Continue to Develop Menhaden- Specific ERPs with Interim Use of Single Species Reference Points Reference Points Option C: Continue to Develop Menhaden-Specific ERPs with Interim Use of Hockey Stick Control Rule (Ecosystem Guideline for Forage Fish) Max fishing rate at 100% unfished biomass If biomass less than 40% unfished Where we biomass, are now fishing stops Reference Points Option D: Continue to Develop Menhaden-Specific ERPs with Interim Use of 75% Rule of Thumb • Ecosystem guideline for forage fish • Recommends a fishing mortality rate that achieves 75% unfished biomass Option E: Continue to Develop Menhaden-Specific ERPs with Interim Use of 75% Target, 40% Threshold • Ecosystem guideline for forage fish • Recommends a target fishing mortality rate that achieves 75% unfished biomass and threshold mortality rate that achieves 40% unfished biomass Reference Points Threshold = when action is triggered to reduce fishing Target= where we manage to Reference Points Reference Points Reference Points Reference Points Quota Allocation • Allocation: How do we divide the pie? • Currently divide TAC between states based on landings from 2009-2011 – Concern the allocation method may not strike a balance between gear types and regions – Concern historical catch could limit states with minimal quota from participating in growing fishery Quota Allocation & Timeframes Allocation Methods Allocation Timeframes A. Coastwide A. 2009-2011 B. Jurisdictional B. 2012-2016 C. Fixed Minimum C. 1985-2016 D. Regional Fleet D. 1985-1995 Capacity E. Weighted E. Disposition F. Allocation Based on TAC Level Allocation Timeframes • Option A: 2009-2011 – Current timeframe/ status quo • Option B: 2012-2016 – Most recent timeframe • Option C: 1985-2016 – Longest timeframe • Option D: 1985-1995 – Most historic timeframe • Option E: Weighted Allocation – 50% weighting between 2012-2016 and 1985-1995 Coastwide Allocation • No division of the TAC TAC Jurisdictional Allocation TAC divided among the states (Table 2) Fixed Minimum Allocation • TAC divided among the states; however, each jurisdiction gets a minimum % of quota (Tables 3a-c) – Sub-option 1: 0.5% minimum – Sub-option 2: 1% minimum – Sub-option 3: 2% minimum • Annually, a state can chose to forgo its quota entirely or retain 10,000 lbs for bycatch • Relinquished quota is re-distributed 1% Fixed Minimum (Table 3b) Regional Fleet Capacity Divide the TAC by gear types… • Large Fleet (purse seine, pair trawl) vs. Small Fleet (all others) …and then divide by regions • ME-CT vs. NY-DE vs. MD-FL Table 4 Regional Fleet Capacity Option for a soft cap for the small fleet • Sets a target quota for the small gears but doesn’t subject them to a closure • Small gears accounts for <6% of landings in the fishery • Advantages: provides flexibility, minimizes discards, minimizes economic impacts, relieves administrative burden, • Disadvantages: small-scale fleet could exceed target quota Sub-option 1: There are no soft caps Sub-option 2: Small-capacity fleet operates under a soft cap and there is a 25,000 pound trip limit per day Dispositional Allocation • TAC divided between the reduction and bait/other fisheries Reduction Bait/Other Sub-option 1 75% 25% Sub-option 2 70% 30% • The bait allocation can be further divided by jurisdiction, gear type, region, or through a fixed minimum approach (Tables 5b-i) Allocation Based on TAC Level – Sub-Option 1: If the TAC is greater than 212,500 mt, the difference is allocated such that the reduction fishery gets 50% and the other 50% is distributed to state bait fisheries (Table 6a) – Sub-Option 2: If the TAC is greater than 212,500 mt, the difference is allocated such that the reduction fishery gets 30% and the other 70% is distributed to state bait fisheries (Table 6b) Quota Transfers • Quota transfers are a useful way to move unused quota between states or regions – Quota overage, safe harbor landings • Challenges with quota transfers include: – Possibility for states to perpetually exceed quota and address through transfers – Administrative burden of program • Building off of Amendment 2, there may be ways to build-in accountability measures or streamline the process Quota Transfers Option A: Quota Transfers Permitted (Status quo) • Two or more states can transfer menhaden quota Option B: Quota Transfers w/ Accountability Measures • If state/region exceeds its quota by more than 5% in two consecutive years, it cannot receive a quota transfer in the third year Option C: Quota Reconciliation • If TAC is not exceeded, state/regional quota overages are automatically forgiven • If TAC is exceeded, any unused quota is pooled and equally distributed to states/regions with an overage. Any remaining overage is then deducted from the subsequent year Quota Rollovers • Quota rollovers approved in Amd. 2 if stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring – In 2012, stock did not meet this criteria so details of program were not specified • Board agreed to address quota rollovers in Amd. 3 Option A: No Quota Rollovers Option B: 10% Total Quota Rollover – Example: If quota is 1 million pounds, can roll over up to 100,000 pounds of unused quota Option C: 5% Total Quota Rollover – Example: If quota is 1 million pounds, can roll over up to 50,000 pounds of unused quota Option D: 50% Unused Quota Rollover – Example: If quota is 1 million pounds and 400,000 pounds are unused, up to 200,000 pounds can be rolled over Incidental Catch & Small Scale Fishery • Amd. 2 established a bycatch allowance of 6,000 lbs per vessel/trip for non-directed fisheries – 12,000 lbs for two individuals fishing from 1 vessel • Challenges with the current provision: – Landings under the bycatch provision do not count towards the TAC – No definition of ‘bycatch’ or ‘non-directed fisheries’ – Concern the bycatch allowance supports a small- scale fishery rather than incidental catch • Amd. 3 looks to address these challenges Incidental Catch Stationary Multi- Small Scale Gears Non-Directed Gears Species Gears (SMSG) Cast nets Pound nets Pound nets Bait nets Anchored gillnets Anchored/staked Traps/pots Drift gillnet gillnet Haul seines Fishing weir Fishing weirs Fyke nets Fyke nets Floating fish traps Hook-n-line Floating fish trap Fyke nets Bag nets Hoop nets Trammel nets Incidental Catch *In Below Options, Incidental Catch Not Included in TAC* Option A: Trip Limit for Non-Directed Gears – 6,000/12,000 lb per trip Option B: Trip Limit for Non-Directed & Small Scale Gears – 6,000/12,000 lb per trip Option C: Catch Cap and Trigger – Maintain 6,000/12,000 lb trip limit –