Deirdre Boelke, NEFMC Staff, Scallop PDT Chair Inshore Scallop - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Deirdre Boelke, NEFMC Staff, Scallop PDT Chair Inshore Scallop Workshop February 22-23, 2016 1

Outline of Presentation History of Scallop Fishery and Management Plan 1. Summary of scallop resource information 2. 2

1. History of Commercial Fishery  Commercial harvest began along the US/CA continental shelf in the late 1880s, but catch relatively low at first.  Discovery of scallops on GB in 1930s led to development of offshore scallop fleets – but more serious after WWII  Sporadic fishing in Mid-Atlantic (MA) since 1920s  Three components: GOM, GB, and Mid-Atlantic  Harvest reached historic high in 1977 (18,000 mt) and large increases in ex-vessel prices 3

1. History of Scallop Management US fishery began in mid-1900s with sporadic booms and busts FMP – 1982 Amendment 4 – 1994 GB closed Areas – 1994 FW 11 – 1999 GB access areas first open Amendment 10 - 2004 A 4 Scallop Area FMP Rotation GB 4 Source: SARC 2014 (NEFSC 2014) closures

1. Scallop FMP - 1982  About 80 vessels in 1970 and over 300 in 1977 (but 100 of those NE trawl with only 1% of catch)  Catches fell in 1979 and 1980 despite increases in effort  Council develops FMP: overall objective to maximize over time the social and economic benefits from harvesting scallops - Restore adult stock to reduce fluctuations in recruitment and abundance - Enhance yield per recruit - Evaluate research and enforcement costs - Minimize adverse environmental impacts  Alternatives considered: controlling catch through quotas, control fishing practices (meat count and min. shell size), controlling effort (limited entry and fishing time) 5

1. Amendment 4 - 1994  Limited entry, DAS limits, gear restrictions  Criteria - one trip with more than 400 pounds in either 1988 or 1989, extended for new vessels under construction  Permit category based on number of days used in 1990, or average of 1985-1990 days (FT:150, PT: 37-149, Occ: <37)  Could qualify for a single category increase in permit category, but permit restricted to smaller dredge and lower crew limit  Non-qualifiers: open access/general cat permit restricted to 400 lb. possession limit  Plan to reduce effort 35-70% over the first seven years, about 10% per year – Between 1994 and 2001 DAS reduced from 204 to 120  Handful of gear restrictions to reduce mortality 6

Late 1990s - Desperate times  A4 measures still not enough – fishery not recovering  1998 – emergency action to close Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach  GF closures since 1994 – scallop biomass increased by 15-20 times  Dedicated experimental survey in southern part of CA2  Framework 11 provides temporary access in 1999: 3 trips at 10,000 lb. each Source: NEFMC (1999): CMAST survey data 7

1. Amendment 10 - 2004  Large-scale rotational area management system to increase yield and reduce impact on the environment  Areas with small scallops are closed for several years and then reopen under controlled fishing mortality targets  Implemented EFH closed areas and several gear modifications to reduce impacts on habitat and bycatch  Modifications to observer and research set-aside programs 8

Positive results right away  Large increases in biomass and landings  Average meat weight increases  Landings stabilize  Area swept decreases 9 Source: SARC 2014 (NEFSC 2014)

1. Amendment 10 - 2004  Combination of effort Total scallop landings by reductions, closures, and Fish Year General Category vessels only area rotation increases LBS % overall biomass and yield 1994 95,268 0.64% 1995 123,967 0.78%  Price increases as markets 1996 204,635 1.24% stabilize 1997 310,049 2.46%  Starting in 2001 general 1998 164,435 1.47% category landings started to 1999 150,482 0.71% 2000 357,691 1.09% increase 2001 1,216,947 2.69% 2002 983,775 1.98% 2003 1,809,071 3.30% 2004 3,245,661 5.26% 2005 7,495,884 14.09% Source: Amendment 11 (NEFMC 2007) 10

1. Control date and Amendment 11  Control date put in place on November 1, 2004  Council begins work on Amendment 11 with one goal – control capacity in GC fishery Objectives: allocate portion of fishery to GC permits, limited entry, prevent GC from exceeding their allocation, and address incidental catch of scallops in other fisheries. Vision Statement: The overall intent of this action is to stabilize capacity and prevent overfishing from the general category fishery, and in doing so, the Council’s vision of this general category fleet from this point forward is to maintain the diverse nature and flexibility within this component of the scallop fleet. Specifically, the Council intends to consider measures that will control mortality from this component of the fleet, but preserve the ability for vessels to participate in the general category fishery at different levels. This Council recognizes the importance of this component of the fishery for small fishing communities, as a component of overall catch for some individual vessel owners, and the value this “ dayboat ” scallop product has in the scallop market . Overall, the Councils’ vision of the general category fishery after Amendment 11 is implemented is a fleet made up of relatively small vessels, with possession limits to maintain the historical character of this fleet and provide opportunities to various participants including vessels from smaller coastal communities. 11

1. Amendment 11 - 2008  Implemented a limited entry and ITQ program  Criteria: 1,000 pounds during and year (FY2000-2004), individual allocation based on best year indexed by # of years active in the fishery  Vessel and ownership caps  NGOM and Incidental limited entry programs  10% of projected catch allocation in FY2008 and 2009, and 5.5% of projected catch allocation starting in FY2010  Pre-A11 there were about 2,500 permits, post-A11 about 700 permits for 3 limited entry permit categories: A: 240 IFQ, B: 90 NGOM, C: 240 Incidental 12

1. Amendment 15 - 2011  Magnuson Act reauthorized in 2007 requiring annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) in all FMPs  Need to account for scientific and management uncertainty  New acronyms OFL – catch associated with Fmsy (F = 0.48) ABC = ACL (ABC – catch that accounts for scientific uncertainty ACL – catch over which accountability measures are triggered) (F = 0.38) ACT – catch that accounts for management uncertainty (F = 0.34)  LAGC Allocation is 5.5% of total ACL, not 5.5% of projected catch (A11). Since 2011 has been about 6% - 9% of projected catch 13

1. Other modifications to Gen Cat program  Amendment 15 (2011) Allow 15% rollover of IFQ Increase possession limit to 600 pounds Increase vessel cap restriction to 2.5% Allow splitting of LAGC allocation from permit Allow partial leasing and leasing during the year even if some fishing has occurred  Framework 24 (2013) Separate YT accountability measures for LAGC Include open area LAGC trips under observer set-aside 14

1. Management Process T oday  Fishery Specifications adjusted every 1-2 years (Fishery ACLs, DAS, access area allocations, NGOM hard TAC, etc).  Several scallop surveys conducted each summer, Plan Development Team reviews results in August every year.  Estimates of biomass updated and any areas with small scallops identified for potential closure.  PDT develops draft alternatives using fishing target principles developed in A15.  Several meetings back and forth with AP , Cmte and Council.  Final measures selected in November.  Target implementation in April. 15

2. Scallop Resource  Life History and Distribution  Bivalve mollusk from Cape Hatteras to St Lawrence in Newfoundland.  Primarily in depths of 30-100 meters.  Patchy distribution with higher concentrations typically on hard sand and gravel substrates.  Filter feeders that are mature at age 2, but much more productive after age 4.  Larvae are planktonic for 1-2 months then settle to bottom.  Scallop meat weights affected by depth and latitude. In general, meat weight decreases with depth, and MA scallops do not grow as large as GB. 16

Average shell height by depth Solid line – 40m Long dash – 60m Medium dash – 80m Short dash – 100m Average Meat weight by depth 17

2. Productivity  These differences cause differences in yield per recruit (YPR) curves  Shallow areas should be fished less to maximize yield per recruit  Yet these are generally fished first and harder  Could increase overall YPR if shallow areas fished lower 18

2. Stock status Stock is not overfished (B < 48,240mt) and overfishing (F > 0.48) is not occurring ½ Bsmy Fmsy Source: SARC 2014 (NEFSC 2014) 19

Questions? 20