jason mcnamee chair, nefmc ssc · 6/21/2017 · june 21, 2017 #1. 2. overview • presentation...

Jason McNameeChair, NEFMC SSC

1

Council meetingJune 21, 2017

joleary

New Stamp

joleary

Typewritten Text

#1

2

Overview

• Presentation will cover SSC meeting held on May 25, 2017

• Will cover each agenda item

• Will then offer some public comments that were made during the meeting along with a question for the Council

• Will conclude with a summary of the SSC recommendations

3

SSC Review of Council’s Draft 5-year Research Priority/Data Needs

• SSC provided both specific and general comments on the document

• Specific comments by section:– Surveys:

• Most topics applicable across broader range of species; • Add investigation of trends in survey information across species; • Wolfish calibration will be difficult due to lack of catches during

calibration experiment, could supplement data;• Supports NMFS trawl survey gear efficiency and investigating the use of

a constant catchability assumption.

– Pop Dyn: topics are applicable across broader range of species.

4


• Specific comments by section cont.:– Assessments:

• Winter flatfish survey concluded many years ago, not clear why its on the list;

• Some research on list currently in progress, perhaps remove; • Support for investigating use of the Bigelow as separate survey

index (done for some stocks).

– Management: • Add investigation of F ramp procedures; • Make MSE more explicit in control rule items.

5


• Specific comments by section cont.:– Bycatch: Scallops removed as an area of focus, still active

area of research, recommend retaining this.

– Habitat: Research trade-offs between habitat and fisheries.

– Ecosystems:• Research optimum yield in an ecosystem context;• Topics on climate change should be a stronger area of

research focus; • Agreed w/ staff recommendation that marine spatial

planning should be better defined or removed.

6


• Specific comments by section cont.:– Socio-economics:

• Better characterize fisheries under the Councils purview so economic risk can be quantified when implementing various management measures;

• SSC suggests many of the previous research topics could have economic element added to them;

• Research on the sale and marketing of fisheries;• Worthwhile to conduct research on impacts after a

management decision is completed and implemented.

7


• General comments:– Not an easy agenda item;– ‘Bottom-up’ approach resulted in species

specific priorities, many have broader applicability;

– General synthesis would meet the grander scope of the Council’s needs;

– SSC feedback was limited by the lack of context for many of the items.

8


• General comments cont.:– Prioritizing the list would be beneficial;– Progress toward previous research priorities

should be considered to allow for new priorities; – Solution could be to develop “research

committee” (could broaden mission of existing Research Steering Committee);

• Committee could prioritize and synthesize the various lists provided by Council committees;

• Could include membership from the Council, PDTs, SSC, and NEFSC staff.

9

SSC Comments on NMFS SAIP and BSIA Documents

• Received 2 reports from Dr Patrick Lynch; NMFS stock assessment improvement plan (SAIP), and best scientific information available (BSIA)

• Stated the SAIP will guide the next 10 – 15 years of NMFS stock assessment work and describes the vision for the next gen stock assessment– Talks about 2 tracks for assessments; operational and research track

• BSIA objective is to establish a clear process for determining what BSIA is in specific situations

10


• SSC noted SAIP focused on data-rich techniques, suggested there needs to be more focus on data-poor assessments

• SSC recommends further development of approaches to incorporate stakeholder input

• Not much discussion on assessments w/ diagnostic problems, would be helpful to address moving forward

• Next gen assessments should include integrated system; system that offers different methods depending on the information that is available

11


• SSC questioned how BSIA document related to the NS2 guidelines– Response: technical guidance being developed allowing the BSIA

document to support NS2 guidelines

• SSC also noted that BSIA document characterized the current state, but was not forward looking as it does not leave room for ecosystem and socioeconomic metrics

12

SSC Review of NEFSC Ecosystems Status Report

• The SSC received a presentation on NMFS state of the ecosystem report

• Covers numerous metrics across a wide spectrum of ecosystem indicators, tailored to the NEFMC species

• SSC noted the report was very useful and valuable for ecosystem considerations during their deliberations– Will look for ways to roll in to deliberation process

• SSC comment; make the report a citable document

13

SSC Review of NEFSC Ecosystems Status Report

• Report assumed “unknown status” stocks not meeting objectives, not necessarily true

• SSC suggests some metrics be included in a multivariate way in order to visualize trends across multiple species/groups

• SSC noted there is no clear definition for healthy ecosystem, could be challenging to derive a reference level or targets

• SSC suggests integrating ecosystem impacts, or provide examples of how to integrate, in assessment process

• SSC requests further review and annual updated reports

14

SSC Recommendations on GroundfishItems

• 3 separate topics: first was review of research on recreational haddock discard mortality

• Research used tagging info to determine the level of discard mortality on haddock in situ

• Main findings are season and size category of fish are both significant factors in the mortality rate

15


• SSC recommendation was discard mortality information was appropriate to consider during the next benchmark assessment for haddock

• Estimates of recr dead discards (assuming 50% discard mortality) have been ~1/3 of total catch of haddock– revised mortality assumptions could have considerable influence,

particularly in context of recent strong recruitment signals

• SSC suggestion; consider temperature as a more proximal effect than season

16


• SSC caveat; was a single year study, recommend updating research – Warrants additional funding to repeat the experiment and test

whether rates and model effects consistent through time

• Final note from SSC was the discard mortality rate used for haddock is not based on a species specific experiment, but rather is based on informal discussions with stakeholders– SSC believes this research is a step forward in the understanding of

haddock and will benefit the assessment process

17


• 2nd topic was defining “significant change” in context of SSC deliberations on specification setting (e.g. Yellowtail Flounder)– SSC struggled with consistency w/ previous advice given ambiguity

of term “significant change”

• Point was to gather volunteers for a working group to address this issue– goal to convene the group and develop techniques to address the

issue– extend work by commenting on how “significant change” could be

used in context of Councils risk policy– ensure interacts positively with the TRAC recommendations

18


• 3rd item was update on Plan B working group discussions– Plan B assessments used for developing catch advice when

preferred analytical approach fails

• Working group researching ways to better prepare for Plan B approaches during the assessment process

• Group reviewed existing procedures for Plan B approaches, developing a white paper for review at the next NRCC meeting– SSC will review the work of this group as it is developed

19

SSC Comments on Atl Herring MSE

• SSC reviewed a summary of the herring MSE process to date

• Interest by SSC to engage and provide comments, but the agenda item was not conducive to accommodating numerous comments and recommendations

• SSC noted lack of economic risk in MSE related to associated inshore fisheries– comment suggesting ways to define economic loss that does not

depend on defining things like localized depletion, can focus at a higher level if evidence of changing or reduced fishing activity

• Request opportunity to provide input at a future meeting

20

Public Comments

• Public comments made at our meeting. Briefly describe and then I have a question for the Council. Comments were not endorsed or refuted by the SSC but serve as a transcript

• Council Research Recommendation discussion:– priorities had not changed in 15 years, more fundamental issues – Need to account for economics in Council deliberations, look at

impacts of accountability measures

• SAIP and BSIA discussion:– detailed set of comments offered by Captain Goethel, Council may

want to find a way to offer comments directly to NMFS– comment made regarding recognizing the fleet and vessels as a part

of the ecosystem

21

Public Comments

• Groundfish item discussion: – Revolved around management implications of haddock study,

deemed important to consider, and also added temperature data available from the local fleet to inform the modeling approach

– Comment was made on the importance of the tagging information collected by the research project with regard to stock boundaries and exchange rates

• Question, what are Council expectations of conveyance of public comment from SSC meetings?– Suggestion; only report on public comment when info is a part of

SSC deliberations, make it clear that other items that are not directly taken up will not be a part of the record

22

Summary

• Change in process recommended to improve future prioritization and recommendations for research priorities

• SSC recommends the Council facilitate a forum for detailed public comments to NMFS on SAIP and BSIA documents

• SSC to review ecosystem status report and provide further feedback, also recommends receiving annual review

• Haddock discard mortality research appropriate to consider during the next benchmark assessment

• Recommends convening “significant change” working group

• SSC should offer additional feedback on the herring MSE