1

Stakeholders can be responsible

Council recommendation • 10M Lbs quota • 3 fish bag limit • >24 in max size Stakeholder choice • 8M Lbs quota • 2 fish bag limit • >28 in max size

How and why did recreational anglers, CCA, and NGOs become more conservative than managers?

2

Existing Council process

Status ?

Stock Assessment Management regulatory recommendations Public scoping

Invite, Inform & Ignore!

Reject Council decision Accept Council amends FMP 3

I

3

stakeholder involvement

Managers and scientists select objectives Recommendations

Model development and modification Stakeholders Develop options Present model results 4

Stakeholder-centered approach

Stakeholders propose objectives, options and performance measures Recommendations

Model development and modification Stakeholders Revise options and performance measures Review model results 5

Council and FishSmart processes

Stock Assessment Status ?

Information

Stakeholder centered FishSmart Process Management regulatory recommendations Stakeholder recommendations Public scoping Anglers voluntarily adopt recommendations Reject Council decision Accept Council amends FMP 6

Project challenge

• How do we include the full range of stakeholders in a process that conserves the resource and – Benefits from stakeholder knowledge – Is scientifically-based – Reflects stakeholder preference – Results in increased acceptance and compliance with management, and improved stakeholder-management interactions 7

The players and their roles

• Informed stakeholders – Provide a vision for the future of the resource, identify and evaluate options for achieving that vision • Scientists – Provide quantitative and qualitative tools that permit stakeholders to evaluate the efficacy of alternative options • Facilitators – Manage the process to ensure full, open participation and representation of all stakeholder views • Managers – Receive results of process and provide guidance on legal and practical constraints 8

Case Study: King mackerel (

Scomberomorus cavalla)

• Recreationally and commercially important • Management changes were likely to be made • Stakeholders and managers were welcoming of our involvement 9

Biology

• Mobile coastal pelagic piscivore • Highly variable growth • Sexually dimorphic • Maximum age 26; 2-10 Typical • Warm Water > 20ºC • Supports extensive commercial (~40%) and recreational fisheries (~60%)

Original artwork by Kevin R. Brant, copied with permission from “Sport Fish of the Atlantic” by Vic Dunaway

10

Workshop process

• Four stakeholder-centered workshops to develop model, explore alternatives, and develop recommendations • Focused on developing recommendations that the angling community could implement voluntarily or could be implemented by management 11

Stakeholders

• Recreational anglers • For-hire operators • Commercial fishermen • Environmental NGO representatives • Managers and biologists • Tackle shop owners • Tournament organizers 12

Stakeholder vision statement

“A sustainable Atlantic king mackerel fishery should be managed to prevent overfishing from occurring, prevent the species from being overfished, to ensure optimum yield is not exceeded, while maintaining the genetic diversity of fish and providing acceptable levels of access and allocation for all sectors while conserving biological and ecological functions.” 13

Stakeholders’ goals

• Achieve the vision (population, fishery, ecosystem) • While simultaneously – Maximizing access – Reducing/simplifying regulations – Improving stakeholder interactions with management and each other – Improving stakeholder education 14

Options

• •

Management

– Size limits – Bag/creel limits – Season limits – Constant quota control rule – Area closures

Voluntary

– Increased catch and release fishing – Reduction of catch and release mortality 15

Performance measures

• Spawning stock biomass (biomass of mature females) • Proportion of the population older than 15 years • Average age of spawners • Harvest (numbers) • Yield (lbs) • Harvest in preferred size categories • Average size in harvest • Proportion of year fishery is closed • Number of dead fish due to release mortality 16

Weighing options

•

Stakeholders used

results from a numerical simulation model to “weigh” the performance of different options

they their

suggested in achieving desired goals subject to the constraint of minimizing season closures and staying within Federally-mandated thresholds •

All phases of the model development and evaluation were discussed and agreed upon by consensus of stakeholders

17

Fishing

Model Schematic

Reproduction Migration Growth & Maturity “Natural” Deaths 18

Model Structure

• Model tracks – Males and females separately – Ages 1-19+ – Fork lengths ~12-63 in (30-160 cm) – Two areas, mixing zone and Atlantic non mixing zone (with migration between them) – Seasonal time step (Jan.-March, April-June, July-Sept., Oct.-Dec.) – 3 fisheries 19

Model Processes

• Growth & Maturity – von Bertalanffy - Separate patterns for males and females – Model only includes female maturity • Stock-Recruitment – Beverton-Holt - Depends on the biomass of mature females in both areas • Mortality (size-based) – Natural – Fishing • Migration 20

• Abundance • Mortality

Model Structure

N y



t

,

a



t

,

x

,

o

 

o p a

,

s N y

,

a

,

x

,

o e



Z y

,

sa

,

x

,

o Z y

,

s

,

a

,

x

,

o



M a

,

x

 

f F y

,

s

,

a

,

x

,

o

,

f

• Catch

C y

,

s

,

a

,

x

,

o

,

f



F y

,

s

,

a

,

x

,

o N y

,

s

,

a

,

x

,

o

N = Abundance M = Natural mort.

p = migration rate y = year a = age o = area F = Inst. Fishing mort. Rate Z = Total mort.

s = season x = sex f = fishery 21

Parameter uncertainty

• Simulations drew from parameter distributions that reflected either – Scientific uncertainty – System uncertainty • Recreational F – used 3 scenarios: either increasing, constant and decreasing scenarios with white noise variability (lognormal CV 10%) • Ran multiple simulations to yield distributions of outcomes 22

Sample results for stakeholders • Stakeholders were provided with histograms summarizing distribution of results of 300 runs of the model options for each performance measure • Stakeholders could evaluate mean response and extremes so they could avoid undesirable conditions 23

Building consensus

• Consensus developed by iterative voting on a 4-pt scale, following discussion and revision of any proposed stakeholder motion • Consensus history reported live on-screen during discussion • Consensus reached when 75% of votes are 3 or 4

Acceptability Ranking Scale 4 =acceptable,

I agree

3 = acceptable,

agree with

reservations

I

minor I 2 = not acceptable,

don’t agree unless

major reservations

addressed

1 = not acceptable

24

Consensus example

Unanimous consensus was reached on most motions relatively quickly, but not always

A.7. The FishSmart stakeholder process should be a part of the Council decision making process for all fisheries.

3= minor reservations 2=major reservations 1= not acceptable Initial Ranking Oct 17 November 6 Ranking 4=acceptable

10 2 0 0 0 5 0 3 Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2008):

 This is too presumptuous. Can be part of a presentation to the Council  “For all fisheries” 25

Criteria for recommending options

• Option had to have a > 50% chance of ensuring the stock was not overfished, nor experiencing overfishing over the next 15 years • Option must limit season closures • Option must meet or exceed the 75% consensus threshold 26

Recommended options

Season closure SSB F 27

Status of FishSmart recommendations

• Recommendations were presented to the SAFMC Statistical and Scientific Committee and to the full Council in December 2008 • Council voted to add FishSmart recommendations to the SSC’s list for public scoping • Decision expected Summer 2009 28

Benefits: Magnusson-Stevens

• The FishSmart process was an explicit decision analysis that included both scientific and management uncertainty • Separate recommendations could have been generated based on – Scientific uncertainty (ABCs) • E.g., recruitment dynamics – Management uncertainty (ACLs) • E.g., Change in angler behavior in response to regulations 29

Benefits: General

• Process led to better decisions – More buy-in from stakeholders – Structured stakeholder involvement & education • Less conflict among stakeholders • New partnerships among stakeholders • Increased stakeholder satisfaction • New collaborations with research and management 30

Lessons learned: Communication

• Demands clear, open communication to develop trust and respect with and among stakeholders – Commitment to “explanations without jargon” – Research team external to the management process beneficial • Professional, neutral and experienced facilitation team is essential 31

Lessons learned: Management involvement

• A management request to use the process helps ensure stakeholder participation • Managers are involved as a stakeholder who can supply logistic and legal constraints • Management must listen to the outcome – If managers choose not to implement workgroup recommendations, they must provide clear reasons to avoid alienating stakeholders • FishSmart is a long term approach; it cannot solve short-term problems 32

Lessons learned: Stakeholder identification

• Relevant stakeholder groups represented • Determining workgroup members is critical – Representatives must have clout within their own group –

Effective representation ensures:

• Knowledgeable of key concerns • Disseminate results & buy-in • Minimize size & cost – Stakeholder interest groups must be balanced – Members must be able to work within the process • Commit to attending all meetings 33

Lessons learned: Stakeholder involvement

• Commitment to involving stakeholders at all stages – Stakeholders must understand model to believe in it – Implications of the results must be openly discussed and evaluated • When this happens stakeholders become passionate advocates for the process 34

Potential for other applications

• Other fisheries case studies under consideration – Pacific rockfish – Snook – Blue crab • Establishing ecosystem targets and thresholds • Conflicts between ecosystem services and fisheries 35

Acknowledgements

Funding Facilitation Support 36

Time line and costs

• We completed the king mackerel process in 4 meetings in 8 months. – 4 meetings per year is appropriate – More contentious issues will require more meetings and hence more time • King mackerel meetings cost ~ $40k per meeting – $20k hotel, food, meeting expenses – $12k facilitation team – $10k overhead • ~$100k.yr

-1 project costs in addition to meetings – $20k.yr

-1 – $60k.yr

-1 – $24k,yr -1 – PI salaries – Programmer, Admin support – Overhead 37

Other

• Facilitation team is critical – The facilitation team must be independent of management – Must be involved in all meetings • Research team must be viewed as independent – Cannot be seen to have an agenda – Must respond to all practical requests from stakeholders • Workgroup < 30 stakeholders – Larger workgroups do not develop cohesion 38

Additional information on model structure

39

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 Female Male

Growth

5 10 Age (years) 15 20 40

Weight-at-length

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 Length (in) 50 60 70 41

Female Maturity-at-length

1.2

1 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 10 Observed (NW FL) Fitted 20 30 Length (cm) 40 50 60 42

Stock-Recruitment

8 7 4 3 6 5 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 Spawning Biomass (million lbs) 50 60 43

Migration

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

0 Spring Fall 5 10 Age 15 44 20

0.300

0.250

0.200

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000

0

Natural Mortality at Age

5 10 Age 15 Male Female 45 20

Fishing Mortality

• Fishery divided into three sectors – Commercial – General recreational • Private boat • Charter – Tournament 46

Quotas

• Fishing stops for the year when the quota is reached – Allocation 62.9% recreational – Extreme because methods are not in place to manage recreational fishery by quota within a year 47

Estimating Effects of Tournaments

Estimated # fish kept FL 8,980 GA 1,265 SC 2,630 Estimated total weight ~245,000 lbs NC Total 4,925 17,530 48

Catch and Release Mortality

Selectivity

Catch 15.5% Released Dead 74% 84.5% Alive

Retention

Harvested 26% Released

C-R mortality

12.5% 87.5% Die Live 49

Selectivity

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

10 Commercial Recreational Tournament 20 30 40 Length (in) 50 60 50 70

Retention Probabilities

1 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 10 Commercial Recreational Tournament 20 30 40 Length (in) 50 60 51 70

Predicted Catch Distribution 2007 0 2 4 6 8 11 14 17 20 23 MRFSS Intercept Data 2007 n = 180 26 29 0 2 4 6 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 Number of Fish Avail 52

Starting Abundance

• Used estimated abundance from “Base” assessment model for Atlantic migratory group 53

Starting Fishing Mortality

• Commercial and recreational fishing mortality rates were chosen so catches in the first year of the model were similar to estimated catches in 2006 • Estimates for the tournament fishery were developed by scaling up the number of tournaments by an average number of fish caught per tournament 54

Management control rules: thresholds and targets

F F MSY

 1 F MSY Overfishing threshold

F F MSY

 1 Predicted equilibrium relationship

SSB SSB MSY

 1 SSB MSY

SSB SSB MSY

 1 Spawning stock biomass 55

FishSmart process

• Develop new process that conserves stocks and: – Includes stakeholder views and knowledge – Allows stakeholders to “Fish Smarter!” • make informed decisions about their own actions (improve conservation ethic) • recommend preferred management practices – Allows opportunities for relationships between stakeholder groups to improve – Fits within current management structure – Improves effectiveness of stakeholder input into the management process 56

Fisheries Management Can Be Contentious!

57