77. Habitat. 77. 78 Michelle Bachman Habitat Plan Development Team - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

77. Habitat. 77. 78 Michelle Bachman Habitat Plan Development Team Chair NEFMC Habitat Committee (Meeting as a Committee of the Whole) June 22, 2017 7. Habitat - June 20 - 22, 2017 #1

Purpose of today’s Committee meeting  Recommend final preferred alternatives to the Council for the Deep ‐ Sea Coral Amendment  Committee session will be followed by final Council action on these recommendations  This presentation reviews the alternatives, including:  Summarize range  Committee and Council preferences  Public comments  Impacts analysis  Options for Committee action

Coral Amendment documents a) Draft Deep ‐ Sea Coral Amendment b) Public comments received through June 5, 2017 Public comments received after deadline i. c) Public comments summary (covers hearings and written comments) d) Coral Amendment decision worksheet e) Memo from Habitat PDT to Habitat Committee: Analysis of new coral amendment alternative and other information pertinent to final action

Public comment period and hearings  Council recommended preferred alternatives April 18  FR notice of comment period and public hearings published May 10  Hearings week of May 22 in Montauk, Narragansett, New Bedford, Gloucester, Portsmouth, Ellsworth, and via webinar  Approximately 10 ‐ 15 attendees at each hearing; around 75 people in Ellsworth; not everyone provided testimony  Committee met May 30 to discuss comments to date and recommend preliminary preferred alternatives to the Council  Written comment period concluded on June 5  A few comments received just after June 5 deadline; GARFO letter June 14

Coral zones Canyons, slope, and  Broad zones (7 options, including new seamounts option)  Canyons (20 total, 5 in Northeast Canyons and Seamounts MNM)  Seamounts (4) Fishing restrictions  Option 1 – all bottom tending gears prohibited  Sub ‐ option A – exempt red crab fishery from restrictions  Sub ‐ option B – exempt other trap fisheries from restrictions  Option 2 – only mobile bottom ‐ tending gears prohibited

Broad coral zones Minimum depth of Depth range boundary of boundary Target along shelf along shelf Option depth break break Method used to draw boundary 1 300 250 250 ‐ 350 2 400 350 350 ‐ 450 Simplify target contour, constraining line to be 3 500 450 450 ‐ 550 within 50 m depth on either side 4 600 550 550 ‐ 650 5 900 850 850 ‐ 950 6 (Preferred) 600 600 600 ‐ 750 Simplify target contour, constraining line to be no shallower than target contour 7 (New option) 300 ‐ 550 300 300 ‐ 550 See PDT memo – data driven based on coral and MBTG fishing information

Recommendations to date  Council preferred alternative from April 18 is Broad Zone Option 6, Gear Restriction Option 1, Sub ‐ Option A  Habitat Committee generally affirmed this preference, but did not make a motion on May 30  Habitat Committee requested analysis of Option 7. Boundary criteria:  Evidence of coral habitat, no evidence of MBTG fishing = up to 300 m  Evidence of MBTG fishing and evidence of coral habitat = 500 m  No evidence of MBTG fishing or coral habitat = 500 m  Evidence of MBTG fishing but not coral habitat = 550 m  Discrete zones not preferred Canyon, slope, and seamount zones

Public comments  Fishermen and fishing organizations generally support Option 6. Concerned about effort displacement and possible gear conflicts of shallower zones.  Environmental organizations and non ‐ fishing public do not support Option 6. Support Option 7, a zone closed to MBTG that would freeze the footprint of those gears, driven by footprint of coral data and MBTG fishing effort data. Staff from The Pew Charitable Trusts presented this approach at each hearing.  Few comments on discrete canyon and seamount zones, except that ideally additional parts of the canyons should be protected. Canyon, slope, and seamount zones

Impacts on deep ‐ sea corals Metrics  Habitat model – areas highly and very highly likely to be suitable habitat for soft corals  Coral records from recent ROV and towed camera surveys and historical database  Overlap with areas of high slope (> 30°) Conclusions  All zones have will positive impacts on corals  Larger, shallower zones with more comprehensive fishing restrictions have a greater magnitude of positive impacts  Even deepest Option 5 (900 m) protects 60% of soft coral habitat and 63% high slope  However, coral community composition varies with depth and shallower depths are more important to Council ‐ managed species  Impacts of new option (Option 7) fall between Option 1 (300 m) and Option 2 (400 m) Canyon, slope, and seamount zones

Summary of coral broad zone metrics Note – canyon zones combined have 53% of coral records, 41% of high suitability habitat, and 66% of high slope habitat Canyon, slope, and seamount zones

Impacts on human communities Metrics  Spatial overlap between zones and fishing activity based on VTR, VMS  Total revenue by gear or species, 2010 ‐ 2015 VTR data  Percent revenue at owner level, 2010 ‐ 2015 VTR data  Percent effort at owner level, 2005 ‐ 2012 VMS data  Assigned revenues to port communities  Broad zone options 6 and 7 broken down into mobile vs. all bottom ‐ tending gears  Also considered Area 3 Lobster permit holder survey and workshop outcomes Notes  Pelagic/midwater gears are not considered for restrictions, and were not assessed  Overlaps with recreational bottom ‐ tending gears appear to be very limited; not evaluated in detail Canyon, slope, and seamount zones

Impacts on human communities – broad zones  Revenue estimates are uncertain; multiple approaches considered  VTR data attribute 12 million annual revenue to Option 1, 300 m, 8 million to Option 5, 900 m (other options intermediate).  VTR data spatially imprecise; expected to be an upper bound  VMS data suggest a much steeper decline in effort with increasing depth  Key species include lobster, Jonah and red crab, silver hake, longfin squid, sea scallop; butterfish, summer flounder, haddock and monkfish also in top ten  Scallop fishery does not likely overlap with corals zones based on depth, but accounts for 2 ‐ 3 million of Option 1 zone revenue  Based on VTR data, revenues from ~200 permits overlap the broad zones  Percent revenue and effort by owner generally very low, but outliers present

Revenue by gear, 2010 ‐ 2015 VTR data Option 6 Option 7

Revenue by species, 2010 ‐ 2015 VTR data Option 6 Option 7

Percent of vessel owner revenue, 2013 ‐ 2015 VTR data, all bottom ‐ tending gears Option 7 Option 6

Percent of vessel owner revenue, 2013 ‐ 2015 VTR data, mobile bottom ‐ tending gears only Option 7 Option 6

Committee options  Affirm previous preferred alternative, broad zone Option 6, fishing restriction Option 1, Sub ‐ Option A  Make a different recommendation  The previous preferred alternative could be combined with a shallower zone with fishing restriction Option 2  If Option 7 is recommended, it could be adjusted following final action by deepening the boundary in some or all of the locations highlighted in the PDT memo  Note Option 7 was not available as an option when the Council met in April to select preferred alternatives Canyon, slope, and seamount zones

Coral zones Gulf of Maine  Mt. Desert Rock (Option 1 (larger), Option 2 (smaller subset))  Outer Schoodic Ridge (single boundary option)  Jordan Basin (2 sets of boundary options; Option 1 has 4 sub ‐ areas, Option 2 is a subset of Option 1 and has 8 sub ‐ areas)  Lindenkohl Knoll (2 sets of boundary options; Option 1 is a single area, Option 2 is a subset of Option 1 and has 3 sub ‐ areas) Fishing restrictions  Option 1 – all bottom tending gears prohibited  Sub ‐ option B – exempt other trap fisheries from restrictions  Option 2 – only mobile bottom ‐ tending gears prohibited

Coral zone development  Focused on locations where corals were documented during recent ROV and towed camera surveys  Some areas have dense coral habitats, other areas more sparse; coral sampling rate is also variable  Larger Option 1 zones are more likely to fully encompass coral habitats  When multibeam data were available, Option 2 zones at Mt. Desert Rock, 114 Bump, and Central Jordan Basin focus on steep areas where corals are likely to occur  When multibeam data were not available, Option 2 zones at 96 Bump, 118 Bump, and Lindenkohl Knoll drawn as squares or rectangles around dive sites, 1 ‐ 2 nm on a side Gulf of Maine

Recommendations to date  Inshore GOM – Mt. Desert Rock, Outer Schoodic Ridge  Council preferred alternative from April 18 is to designate zones with gear Option 2 (MBTG closure)  Habitat Committee recommended the smaller Option 1 Mt. Desert Rock boundary on May 30; affirmed Option 2 gear restriction  Offshore GOM – Jordan Basin, Lindenkohl Knoll  Council preferred approach from April 18 was gear restriction Option 2; no preferred areas identified  Habitat Committee recommended no action in either area on May 30 (i.e. no coral zone designation or gear restrictions) Gulf of Maine