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

NEFMC Habitat Committee

(Meeting as a Committee of the Whole)

June 22, 2017 Michelle Bachman Habitat Plan Development Team Chair

• 77. 78
• 77. Habitat.
• 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

i.

Public comments received after deadline

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

Canyons, slope, and seamounts

 Broad zones (7 options, including new

• ption)

 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

Coral zones

Broad coral zones

Option Target depth Minimum depth of boundary along shelf break Depth range

• f boundary

along shelf break Method used to draw boundary 1 300 250 250‐350 Simplify target contour, constraining line to be within 50 m depth on either side 2 400 350 350‐450 3 500 450 450‐550 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

Canyon, slope, and seamount zones

Note – canyon zones combined have 53% of coral records, 41% of high suitability habitat, and 66%

• f high slope

habitat

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

Option 6

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

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

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 zones

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

Public comments – inshore areas

 Going into hearings, Council’s preferred alternative was to designate zones in

both areas, with gear restriction is Option 2, MBTG closure. No preferred boundary at Mt. Desert Rock

 Generally broad agreement for inshore GOM zones, Mt. Desert Rock and Outer

Schoodic Ridge

 Fishermen and fishing organizations generally support an exemption for the lobster fishery,

• r the preferred alternative, which effectively does this

 Some comments supported allowing fixed gears for groundfish to be used in the future

(argument against Option 1, sub‐option B)

 Option 2 gear restriction supported by environmental organizations and the non‐fishing

public as well, except these commenters would prefer the larger Option 1 zone at Mt. Desert Rock.

Gulf of Maine

Public comments – offshore areas

 Going into hearings, Council’s preferred alternative was to apply Option 2,

MBTG closure, to any offshore GOM zones, but no zones were identified as preferred

 Fishermen and fishing organizations generally support No Action (no coral

zones) in Jordan Basin and Lindenkohl Knoll areas

 Concern about losing access to grounds for redfish, pollock, lobster; effects of gear

displacement

 Environmental organizations and the non‐fishing public generally supported

designating zones in these locations, with larger Option 1 boundaries, as closures to MBTG (Option 2)

 Emphasized habitat value of closures to managed species; maintenance of coral genetic

diversity

Gulf of Maine

Impacts on deep‐sea corals

 All zone expected to have positive impacts on corals via reduction in gear effects

 Inshore zones predominately fished with lobster traps; MBTG restriction will have a very

small impact on coral habitats because use of these gears is currently minimal to non‐ existent; potential indirect positive impacts of identifying areas and raising awareness

 Offshore zones fished with trawls, gillnets, and traps, so any gear restriction options

would have positive impacts, however, don’t know how effort might shift if only trawls, or

• nly trawls and gillnets, are restricted

 Less coral species richness in GOM vs. canyons, but there appears to be a greater

degree of overlap with managed fishery species in the GOM (areas are much shallower)

 Protecting GOM corals may help confer resilience at the species level; Outer

Schoodic Ridge and Jordan Basin Primnoa resedaeformis appear to be genetically distinct from conspecifics elsewhere in North Atlantic

Gulf of Maine

Impacts on human communities

Metrics

 Same VTR and VMS data as canyon/slope/seamount zones – used these data for

• ffshore zones

 Also considered data from Maine DMR and ASMFC Lobster Technical Committee to

evaluation lobster revenues in inshore zones

 VTR data represent < 10% of permit holders  Total revenue estimated at the lobster zone (A or B) and distance from shore (3‐12 nm or 12+

nm) resolution, using dealer data and harvester reports

 Revenue in coral zones expected to be a fraction of this  Coral zones referenced as being highly productive as compared to other locations  Another way to estimate total revenue is to assess number of vessels that fish in each zone, and the

number of trips taken by each vessel  Range of values presented in sections 7.7.3 and 7.8.3 of document

Gulf of Maine

Impacts on human communities

 Inshore zones appear to be important lobster fishing grounds; closure would cause

effort displacement and would have negative impacts on affected individuals as well as those fishing in surrounding areas who might be affected by effort displacement

 Affected ports in eastern ME: Stueben, Milbridge, Jonesport, Beals Island, Addison

 Offshore areas are important grounds for lobster, as well as deeper water groundfish

such as redfish, pollock, and white hake

 Impacts of closure expected to be negative on affected gears  VTR analysis suggests that the magnitude of impacts is low, however comments during

workshops and hearings suggested the revenues were underestimates

 Hard to estimate impacts of relatively small areas given spatially imprecise data  Affected ports include Portland, NH ports, Gloucester; Lindenkohl Knoll landings also

attributed to Boston and New Bedford

Gulf of Maine

Committee options

 Affirm preferred alternative from May 30, which includes as a package:

 Outer Schoodic Ridge, gear Option 2  Mt. Desert Rock, smaller Option 2 area, gear Option 2  No action in Jordan Basin or Lindenkohl locations

 Split this discussion, considering inshore and offshore separately, or

consider each of the four locations separately

 Recommend designations in the offshore GOM, perhaps in a subset of the

areas identified

Gulf of Maine

Additional management alternatives

 Special fishery programs

 Alternative 1/No Action  Alternative 2 – Coral zone fishery access programs (name was clarified)  Alternative 3 – Exploratory fishing programs  Alternative 4 – Require letter of acknowledgement for research activities

 Make changes to coral zones via framework

 Alternative 1/No Action  Alternative 2 – Add, revise, remove zones via framework  Alternative 3 – Change fishing restrictions via framework  Alternative 4 – Adopt or change special fishery programs via framework

Public comments

 Limited comments on special fishery programs or framework sections of

amendment

 Some concerns about removing coral zones or fishing restrictions via framework

Additional management alternatives

Impacts analysis

 Very qualitative  Access or exploratory programs could have negative impacts on corals, positive

impacts on fishing communities; these would be assessed more fully if programs are implemented

 Ability to designate new zones relatively quickly via framework could have

positive impacts on corals

Committee options

 Affirm preferred alternatives from April Council meeting, which include:

 Special fishery programs, Alternative 4

 Alternative 4 – Require letter of acknowledgement for research activities in coral zones

 Framework Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

 Alternative 2 – Add, revise, remove zones via framework  Alternative 3 – Change fishing restrictions via framework  Alternative 4 – Adopt or change special fishery programs via framework

 Refine these recommendations

Additional management alternatives

Habitat Committee Report

Offshore energy, marine monuments, and sanctuaries

Briefing and development of Council comments

NEFMC June 22, 2017 Michelle Bachman Habitat Plan Development Team chair

Oil and Gas Energy Programs

 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Dept. of Interior  Five year oil and gas leasing program a requirement under Outer

Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)

 Programmatic EIS  2017‐2022 program approved by Secretary Jewell on January 17, 2017 (ROD)  Excluded Mid‐ and South Atlantic, as well as other areas  New England was not under consideration

 Specific New England and Mid‐Atlantic canyons were withdrawn by

President Obama under OCSLA in December 2016

America‐First Offshore Energy Strategy

 Presidential Executive Order 13795 (April 28, 2017) – Implementing an

America‐First Offshore Energy Strategy

 Secretarial Order 3350 (May 1, 2017) – America‐First Offshore Energy

Strategy

 SAFMC and MAFMC expressed significant concerns about the negative

impacts of seismic surveys on marine species

 MAFMC commented that the risks of offshore oil development in general

are not consistent with their vision for healthy marine ecosystems

 Both Councils have policy statements on energy development

Possible NEFMC comments

 NEFMC manages fisheries that extend into the Mid‐Atlantic region. These

fisheries are economically and culturally significant.

 Concerned about the negative impacts of ocean noise on fisheries

resources and other species in the ecosystem such as large whales.

 Seismic testing and eventually drilling could harm living resources and

put marine habitats on which these species depend at risk.

• Natl. Monuments – DOI request for comments

 Presidential Executive Order 13792 (04/26/17) directs the Secretary of the

Interior to review certain National Monuments designated or expanded under the Antiquities Act

 In a separate but related process, certain Marine National Monuments will also

be reviewed. As directed by section 4 of Executive Order 13795 of 04/28/17, “Implementing an America‐First Offshore Energy Strategy”, the Department of Commerce will lead the review of the Marine National Monuments in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. To assist in that consultation, the Secretary will accept comments on the following Marine National Monuments:

 Marianas Trench, Northeast Canyons and Seamounts, Pacific Remote Islands,

Papahanaumokuakea, Rose Atoll

 Comments due July 10, 2017 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOI‐

2017‐0002‐0001

Comments from fisheries groups

 CCC: Councils want to be involved in the review of all marine

monuments

 Specific to Northeast Canyons and Seamounts MNM:

 ASMFC continues to support restriction of fishing through the

Magnuson/Council process. The Commission would support revision of the monument to be consistent with the Council’s preferred alternative.

Possible NEFMC comments

 Fisheries that are prosecuted within the monument should be

managed via the Council process, in accordance with MSA

 Support the CCC position  Attach analysis from our Deep‐Sea Coral Amendment

Candidate NMS in Hudson Canyon

 Proposal for a National Marine Sanctuary in Hudson Canyon was

advanced by the Wildlife Conservation Society’s New York Aquarium

 Sanctuary nomination has been approved by NOAA

 Two reviews: sufficiency of proposal, and whether the area meets national

significance and management criteria

 Five year window for NOAA administrator to begin designation process

 Steps: scoping, NEPA analysis, public hearings, select final alternative, write

final management plan

 Consultation throughout

Possible NEFMC comments

 Council manages some of the fisheries that operate in and around the

suggested Sanctuary boundaries; these fisheries are of economic and cultural significance

 Suggest that Sanctuary program should consult with the Council on

the following:

 Should the Hudson Canyon NMS move from candidate status into the

designation process?

 If the designation process begins, are the negative and positive impacts on

fisheries, fisheries resources, and communities being developed using the best available information?