Deirdre Boelke, NEFMC

1

Council MeetingSeptember 26, 2017

Agenda1. Review Amendment 8 alternatives and clarify some

unresolved details (about 25 slides). 2. Review MSE Results – ABC control rule analyses

(about 20 slides).3. Review draft impacts and potentially select preferred

alternatives for ABC control rule alternatives (about 10 slides).

2

Next Steps for Amendment 8

3

Meeting ‐ Location Date Primary Agenda Topic(s)

Herring AP/Cmte ‐Wakefield, MA

Sept 13‐14* Review DEIS and select pref. alts for ABC CR alternatives

NEFMC –Gloucester, MA

Sept 26‐28* Review DEIS and select pref. altsfor ABC CR alternatives

Herring AP/Cmte ‐ November 2017 Review DEIS and select pref. alts for LD measures

NEFMC –Newport, RI

Dec 5‐7 Review DEIS, select pref. alts for LD measures, approve DEIS for public hearings

Public Hearings March 2018 (tent.) Input on A8 DEIS

NEFMC June 2018 (tent.) Final Action

* If Council not ready in September, these meetings push back until Nov/Dec.

Part IReview A8 Alternatives and

clarify unresolved issues

Documents #2, #4, #7

Few steps back - Definitions MSY - maximum catch that can be removed from a population over

an indefinite period. Fmsy – measurement of the rate of removal of fish from fishing

that if applied constantly would result in MSY. Bmsy – long-term average biomass that would be achieved if fishing

at a constant F equal to Fmsy. B0 – virgin stock biomass, long-term average biomass value

expected in the absence of fishing mortality. MSA – Prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis,

optimum yield (OY). ABCs should be set at a level with ≤ 50% probability that overfishing would occur.

ABC Control Rule – Defines how catch or fishing mortality (F) changes with stock size – it is used to set annual catches.

5

Fishery Management Reference Points

B0 or F=0; Unfished SSB

BMSY

MSYFMSY

Herring FMP:Overfishing: If biomass ≥ Bmsy, when F > Fmsy, and if biomass < Bmsy, F exceeds level with 50% probto rebuild stock.Overfished:when biomass < ½ Bmsy.

BMSY is uncertain and changes over time

Various options for how to set ABC when biomass changes

8

Figure 2 (page 15)

Example Biomass Based CR Shapes

9

Upper Biomass Parameter

Lower Biomass Parameter“fishery cutoff”

Max F parameter

Few steps back - MSE What do we want our control rule to achieve?

Management Strategy Evaluation – MSE – process using simulations to assess performance of different management options relative to specified objectives.

Council held two public workshops to: help define management objectives, help identify the “metrics” or ways to evaluate performance, help identify potential sources of uncertainty, and help identify important information needs.

MSEs can help identify: an “optimal” strategy, a “less bad” option, strategies that are “robust” to known uncertainties, strategies with undesirable performance can be eliminated from further consideration, and help illustrate tradeoffs.

10

We have come a long way

At workshop 2 there were over 5,000 CR shapes presented

11

We have come a long way At workshop 2

there were over 5,000 CR shapes presented

The Cmtedeveloped an alternative that could include over 70 shapes (Alt. 4).

PDT suggested how to reduce that to 6 shapes.

12

We have come a long way

At workshop 2 there were over 5,000 CR shapes presented

The Cmtedeveloped an alternative that could include over 70 shapes (Alt. 4).

Final range = 9

13

Figure 4 (page 39)

A8 Purpose and Need (ABC CR only)

Purpose – propose a long-term ABC control rule that may explicitly account for herrings role in ecosystem and to address the biological and ecological requirements of the Atlantic herring resource.

Need – address concerns raised by Amendment 4 lawsuit that NMFS did not sufficiently consider environmental impacts of alternative ABC CRs, and address SSC concerns raised during development of 2013-2015 specifications.

Section 1.2, page 29

14

Range of CR Alternatives (Doc. # 2) Section 2.1.1 -Ten ABC CR Alternatives (page 33) No Action – hybrid biomass based CR that sets a constant catch

for 3 years at the level expected to produce ≤ 50% probability of exceeding Fmsy in year 3.

Three pre-defined CR shapes: (Strawman A, Strawman B, and one Council identified parameters upfront – Alt. 3).

Alt. 4: CR alternatives that meet specific criteria:- 100% MSY, acceptable range >85%-100%- <10% variation in yield, acceptable range <10-25%- 0% probability overfished, acceptable range <0-25%- probability of no fishery (ABC=0) <0-10%PDT developed several steps to bring over 70 shapes to six final shapes.

15

Range of CR Alternatives (Table 3)

16

Upper Biomass Parameter

(where F begins to decline)

Lower Biomass Parameter          

(where F = 0, ABC=0)

Max FishingMortality 

(F/Fmsy)

Alt1. No Action N/A N/A N/A

Alt 1a. Strawman A 0.5 0.0 0.9

Alt 2. Strawman B 2.0 1.1 0.5

Alt 3. Parameters upfront 0.7 0.3 0.9

Alt 4a. MeetCriteria1 0.5 0.0 0.7

Alt 4b. MeetCriteria2 0.5 0.1 0.7

Alt 4c. MeetCriteria3 0.5 0.3 0.7

Alt 4d. MeetCriteria4 0.7 0.0 0.7

Alt 4e. MeetCriteria5 0.7 0.3 0.6

Alt 4f. MeetCriteria6 1.0 0.0 0.6

17

Upper Biomass Parameter

(where F begins to decline)

Lower Biomass Parameter          

(where F = 0, ABC=0)

Max FishingMortality 

(F/Fmsy)

Alt1. No Action N/A N/A N/A

Alt 1a. Strawman A 0.5 0.0 0.9

Alt 2. Strawman B 2.0 1.1 0.5

Alt 3. Parameters upfront 0.7 0.3 0.9

Alt 4a. MeetCriteria1 0.5 0.0 0.7

Alt 4b. MeetCriteria2 0.5 0.1 0.7

Alt 4c. MeetCriteria3 0.5 0.3 0.7

Alt 4d. MeetCriteria4 0.7 0.0 0.7

Alt 4e. MeetCriteria5 0.7 0.3 0.6

Alt 4f. MeetCriteria6 1.0 0.0 0.6

What is No Action? No Action / Interim / Status Quo / Default

ABC set at a value that has ≤ 50% probability of exceeding Fmsy in year 3. Used in last two spec cycles (2013-2018).

Challenges with No Action1. Does not function in all situations - only applicable when abundance

projected to decline over 3-year period,. If increasing, then third year would have >50% probability of exceeding Fmsy in year 1.

2. No long-term policy – does not have same parameters for MSE model.

Strawman ADeveloped to function as No Action has in recent years, but applicable in all cases and compatible with long-term MSE models.

PDT Rec: Clarify that No Action and Strawman A are two distinct alternatives.

18

Clarification #1

Sect. 2.1.2 ABC CR Timeframe (p.40)

Alt. 1 – ABC at the same level for three years Under No Action CR - ABC would be set equal to catch that produces ≤

50% probability of exceeding Fmsy in year 3. If any other selected (1a, 2, 3, or 4a-4f) – ABC for year 1 based on

terminal year of assessment and ABC for years 2 and 3 would be the same value UNLESS ABC in any of the years corresponds to an F with > 50% probability of exceeding Fmsy. If so, ABC in all three years would be the smallest OFL among the three years (ABC=OFL in one of the 3 years and ABC<OFL in the other 2 years).

Alt. 2 – ABC set for three years with annual application of CR ABC for year 1 based on terminal year of assessment and short term

projections. The projections would apply an ABC for each year, which would likely vary.

This would work the same for all of the ABC CR alternatives.19

2016-2018 Specifications

20

Rewind to 2015… Apply Fmsy = MSY (OFL).

Alt. 1 = No Action (≤50% prob. overfishing in year 3)

0.75 Fmsy (similar to 4a-4d) Annual – ABC varies 18K mt3year – no adjustment needed

0.9 Fmsy (Strawman A) Annual – ABC varies 25K mt3 year – adjust year 1 from 123K to 107K (OFL for year 3)

2016 2017 2018F 0.24 0.24 0.24OFL 138,000 113,000 107,000

2016 2017 2018F 0.19 0.23 0.24ABC 111,000 111,000 111,000

2016 2017 2018F 0.18 0.18 0.18ABC (annual) 106,000 90,000 88,000ABC (3year) 106,000 106,000 106,000

2016 2017 2018F 0.22 0.22 0.22ABC (annual) 123,000 103,000 98,000ABC (3year) 107,000 107,000 107,000

Fmsy (=OFL)

Alt.1 (No Action ABC CR)

CR with 0.75 Fmsy

CR with 0.9 Fmsy

Sect. 2.1.3 Future changes to ABC CR (p.41)

Cmte Motion #1 If Council agrees, future changes to ABC CR could be made by

Amendment or Framework, (not specs package). And modifications to the ABC CR would be added to the list of frameworkable items.

Examples of possible modifications include: modifications to CR parameters, modifications if assessment not available, if MSE model is producing ABCs that are not justified, or stock enters into a rebuilding program.

SSC could always set ABC based on something else if better information is available to allow a more explicit determination of scientific uncertainty.

21

Clarification #2

22

Section 2.2 LD Alternatives (p.43)

LD Alternatives cont.Spatial and Seasonal Sub-options Alternative 2 – 6nm alternative (Jun–Aug or Jun–Oct) Alts 4-7 – (year round or Jun – Sept) Alts 4-7 – (Areas 1B, 2 and 3 or Areas 1B and 3 only)

Non-closure alternatives Alternative 8 – revert boundary between 1B and 3 Alternative 9 – Remove seasonal closure of 1B (Jan-Apr)

23

Outstanding Issues3. Clarify intent of some LD alternatives – how should

alternatives be worded: “vessels fishing for herring”, “vessels with a herring permit”, “any vessel fishing with MWT gear”, etc.? (page 44)

Do these measures apply to vessels targeting mackerel?Vessels can convert to PS or SMBT (where permitted). What was envisioned for ability to switch gear type?

4. Exempt RSA compensation fishing in any new LD restricted area (page 47 example)

Council did not add sub-options to restrict RSA fishing.NMFS has worked on draft language with SBNMS to add to A8 to clarify the process for EFPs.

24

Clarification #3 and #4

PDT Rec: Clarify intent of LD closures and review text about RSA.

PDT Memo – Document #41. Clarify No Action and sub-option Strawman A (Section 2.1.1.1).

Review alternative text. Cmte approved without objection.

2. Clarify how future modifications to ABC CR should be considered (Sections 2.1.3). Consider Cmte motion #1.

3. Clarify intent of LD closure measures (Section 2.2).

4. Consider clarifying text added to LD closure alternatives related to RSA fishing (Section 2.2). Cmte approved without objection.

25

PDT and Cmte will continue work for December meeting

Affected Environment (Doc. #3)

A work in progress…

Finish updates to herring fishery data and descriptions.

Include background on Herring RSA program.

Finish expanded information on other managed resources,

industries and communities (mackerel, lobster, tuna, groundfish,

striped bass, recreational, ecotourism (whales and seabirds).

26

Part IIReview MSE Results

Document #5

Document #51.0 Overview of technical methods used in MSE models2.0 Format of MSE results3.0 MSE results: Metric by metric 4.0 MSE results: Summary5.0 MSE results: VEC by VEC6.0 MSE results: Additional uncertainty (future appendices)7.0 MSE results: Tradeoff analysis8.0 Short-term Analysis (Part III)9.0 Summary of findings (Part III)

28

A8 ABC Control Rule MSE Infographic

29

9 Possible control rules:

8 Operating models represent possible states of nature:

15 Performance measures of management success reflect objectives:

2 Timeframes for control rule implementation:

Herring Economic Predators

1          2          3          4A          4B        4C        4D        4E        4F

A              B               C               D              E               F               G               H 

1 Year 3 Year

8 Operating Models

Each operating model has 3 components:1. Growth: recent/old2. Assessment bias: biased/unbiased3. Productivity: high/low

Operating Model Growth Assessment Bias Productivity

A Old Biased Low

B Recent Biased Low

C Old Unbiased Low

D Recent Unbiased Low

E Old Biased High

F Recent Biased High

G Old Unbiased High

H Recent Unbiased High

30

8 Operating ModelsEach operating model has 3 components:

1. Growth: recent/old2. Assessment bias: biased/unbiased3. Productivity: high/low

31

Operating Model Growth Assessment Bias Productivity

A Old Biased Low

B Recent Biased Low

C Old Unbiased Low

D Recent Unbiased Low

E Old Biased High

F Recent Biased High

G Old Unbiased High

H Recent Unbiased High

Operating models that use “recent growth” are: B, D, F, and H

Assessment Error and Biasunbiased and biased operating models

Operating models that use “biased assessment” are: A, B, E, and F

Biased assessment results in biomass higher than reality

33

Metrics – Performance measures

Translating MSE Results

• Tremendous amount of output generated from MSE.• Council hired outside experts to help translate results.• Dr. Gavin Fay and student Amanda Hart from U. Mass Dartmouth worked with PDT over the summer.

• 2 new types of figures developed• Decision Support Tables (DSTs) – to display the numeric results for each metric for all nine control rule alternatives across all eight operating models and compare overall rank.

• Wed diagrams – to display tradeoffs for multiple metrics at once to help compare performance of control rules.

34

1. DSTs for all 15 individual performance metrics

Decision Support Tables: Assess Performance

2 Ways to take a closer look

35

2. Ranked summary by valued ecosystem component (VEC)

Biological

Economic

Category  Icons     Description

Herring Resource

Predator species (non‐protected)

Protected resources  & ecotourism

Herring, mackerel, & lobster fisheries

Predator fisheries

Valued Ecosystem Components 

Each row is an operating model

Value of performance metric provided below

Each column is a control rule

Each row contains summed rank across all operating models from decision tables for individual performance metrics

Summary row contains summed rank across all operating models

1   9   2   3   4   5  6  7  8

Read with care… 

36

Very similar performance

Worst ranking performance still falls within acceptable range

Poor performance = vertex toward the centerGood performance = vertex toward the edge

1. Undesirable performance. (Dark Blue)

2. Alternatives where tradeoffs would have to be made – both poor and good performance. (Green and Light Blue)

3. Generally good performance across metrics. (Orange, Grey, Yellow)

4. Metrics with consistent performance (#5 and #6) – Don’t inform decision.

37

Web Diagrams: Assess Tradeoffs

1. Show consistent performance across all control rules.

2. Have a consistent gradient or rank of performance from bad to good depending on control rule.

3. Have variable performance based on control rule.

Poor performance = vertex toward the centerGood performance = vertex toward the edge

Metrics May: 

38

Web Diagrams: Assess Tradeoffs

DST: Yield Relative to MSY

• Best performance: higher values are closer to Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

Assessment bias impacts relative performance• Unbiased

• Control rule 3 performs best• Control rule 2 performs worst

• Biased• Control rule 1 performs worst• Control rule 2 performs best

39

Biased

Biased

Unbiased

Unbiased

Old growth models: A, C, E, and GRecent growth: B, D, F and H 

40

DST: Proportion of Years Overfishing Occurs (F > FMSY )

• Lower values “better”• Unbiased models – all have 

<50% probability (2%‐35%).• Those values increase under 

biased models (20%‐75%).• Alt. 2 ranks first, 4e and 4f next.

Similar results for: • Prop. Years overfished, • B< Bmsy, • SSB relative to unfished, and• tern production.

Proportion of Years with Good Dogfish Biomass & Tuna Weight Status

41

42

DST: Net Revenue for Herring

• Higher values “better”• Some CR more robust 

(range relatively narrow)• Alt. 4E ranks the highest, 

several others close behind.

• Alt. 2 ranks last, about $3‐5 million dollars, except for biased, low production OMs (A and B). 

43

DST: InterannualVariation in Yield (IAV)• Lower values “better”• Alt. 4 options rank the 

highest, very similar to each other (25%‐30%).

• Alt. 1 and 3 are next, about 30‐40% for most.

• Alt. 2 ranks last, 50‐60% variation.  

Tradeoffs: Web diagrams for subset of Metrics

44

1. Show consistent performance across all control rules• Tuna Weight Status • Proportion of years with good dogfish biomass

2. Consistent gradient or rank of performance• Gradient 1 (rank order the same)

• Proportion of years B < BMSY• Probability of overfished B < 0.5 BMSY• SSB relative to unfished biomass• Proportion of years when overfishing occurs F > FMSY• Proportion of years when tern production > 1• Proportion of years when closure occurs

• Gradient 2 • Interannual variation in yield

3. Variable ranked performance across control rules• Proportion of years SSB 30‐75% of SSB zero• Surplus production• Yield relative to MSY• Yield• Net revenue for herring• Stationarity of net revenue

Unbiased Biased

High Productivity

Low Productivity

Assess Tradeoffs in Performance

45

1. Show good performance across all control rules

(tern, fishery closure)

2. Have a consistent gradient (rank) of performance(overfishing, IAV)

3. Have variable performance (tradeoffs) based on control rule(Yield/MSY)

46

Unbiased Biased

High Productivity

Low Productivity

Timeframe for Control Rule Implementation(Fig. 30, p.59)

Example:Control Rule 4A

Part IIIReview draft impacts and

potentially select preferred alternatives for ABC CRs

Documents #5, #7

Short-term Impacts – Sec. 8.0 (p.45) PDT has estimated annual SSB and ABC based on four different biomass levels observed over time. 

48

Table 23  p.46

0.16 Bmsy

2.0 Bmsy

0.5 Bmsy

1.24 Bmsy

49

Short‐term ABC – Table 24 (p.47)

Word of caution: Recent biomass is VERY high. ABCs not likely to remain at these levels. ABCs higher than MSY recently (77,000 mt), due to high biomass.  Fishing mortality last estimated at 0.17 in 2014, well below Fmsy (0.24), but that may not persist.    

Impacts on Herring Resource (Fig. 27 p.50)

No Action – Low (+) but more uncertain LT Alt. 1A (Straw A) – Low (+) in ST and LT, lower performance

overall compared to other shapes. Alt 2 (Straw B) – Positive in ST and LT, ranks highest for most,

but limit on benefits if reduced herring size at age. Alt. 3 – Similar to Alt. 1A, slightly better for some metrics. Alt. 4A – 4F – Positive overall and similar to each other.

Performance falls between Alts. 1A/3 and Alt.2. Alts. 4E and 4F perform a bit better for some metrics.

Other factors likely have even greater influence on herring biomass, lots of variability in system. Current conditions not likely to persist regardless of CR. OM help evaluate variability – but may not reflect full range.

50

Impacts on Non-target and EFH

No direct MSE metrics evaluated. Non-target bycatch

Generally Neutral to Low (+) since fishing levels similar or lower. Impacts depend on changes in fishing patterns that are uncertain.Negligible overall since bycatch caps used to manage and control total bycatch.

EFHHerring fishery does not have adverse impacts on EFH – so ABC CR alternatives not expected to have direct impacts positive or negative.

51

Impacts on predator species and predator fisheries

52

Figure 31 (p.65) Tuna metric – Alt. 2 ranks highest, 4E and 4F right behind, but

similar results for CRs Dogfish metric – No impact, median biomass never falls below

Bsmy for dogfish regardless of herring biomass. Some alternatives perform better for unfished biomass metrics. Predator fisheries – ST and LT impacts similar, more positive

for Alt. 2.

EBFM PDT: This system is complex and linkages are not as strong between prey and predators because many predators are generalists and food web is complex.

Impacts on protected species and ecotourism

53

Figure 32 (p.71) No data available to build MSE model for marine mammals. List of marine mammals and birds with highest proportion of

herring in diets included. Common Tern model – All CR score very high, over 90%

for all OM and CR alternatives. Alt. 2 ranks highest, 4F right behind.

Ecotourism – No Action has neutral impacts in ST, and more uncertain impacts for LT. Overall ST impacts similar and LT impacts also similar, more positive for Alt. 2.

Impacts on Herring Fishery (Fig.37, p.89)

No Action – Low (+) in ST, used since 2013 without adverse impact. More uncertain LT, may not always be a viable option.

Alt. 1A (Straw A) – Low (+) in ST and LT, lower performance overall, but highest ST revenue (like Alt. 3).

Alt 2 (Straw B) – Mostly low (-) in ST and LT, lower revenue under most models, includes fishery cutoff.

Alt. 3 – Low (+) in ST and LT, similar performance to Alt. 1A (highest ST revenue), includes fishery cutoff, but closure less likely than Alt. 2

Alt. 4A - 4F – Low (+) in ST and LT, similar performance to Alt. 1A, includes fishery cutoff, but closure less likely than Alt. 2

54

ABC Timeframe (Fig. 28-30, p.58)

Herring Resource – slightly low negative when ABC set for 3 years at the same value, but differences very small.

Herring Fishery – positive when ABC set for 3 years at the same value, Low + relative to annual. Constant ABC more stable than fluctuating, better business planning. Higher revenue, lower IAV of net revenue than under Alt. 2.

Other VECs Neutral

55

Alternative 1 (Strawman A)

ABC CR Preferred Alternatives?Herring AP and Cmte input

AP motion to select Alt. 1A (Strawman A) as preferred. AP motion to set ABC at the same value for 3 years,  as preferred.

Cmte did not identify a preferred alternative for CR. No motions were made. Cmte motion to set ABC at the same value for 3 years, as preferred.

56