Correspondence/Amendment 5 Comments - New England Fishery ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 1.8 > 1.6 a!= 1-1 Ë 1.2 E1 E 0.8 E 0.6 2 0.4 0.2 0 rÞ"- ,Þù* .Ñ 9' \ù .ñr "ê" èo¡ *o**d M.C. Tynell et dl. / Fisheríes Research 108 (201 1) 1-8 :T$ ì,.:4 c:,-{ ,df . 0d 'lo \9' ,ao 'oò cl \o \0) à '.s Øo t &a ,Þo ¡le f"at o' ¿s( Þ" -^S' nd o' og. oâ^rf )' á' "i .
M.C.TyneII et al. / Fßheries Research 108 (2011) 1-8 s Table 2 Comparison ofMSY (maximum sustainable yield) based biological reference points (Busv: biomass at maximum sustainable yield, SSBusv: spawning stock biomass at maximum sustainable yield) produced by explicitly incorporåting predation (= ¡gvi..¿' numerator) and traditional (= ñshery; denominator) methods. Prey species, author Predators Revised Bs5y or SSBs5y/ Traditional Busv or SSBusv Atlantic herring, Overholtz et el. (2008) Atlantic herring, Tyrrell et al. (2008) Atlantic mackerel, Moustahfid et al, (2009a) Atlantic mackerel, Tyrrell et al, (2008) Longfin squid, Mouståhfid et al. (2fr)9b) 29 species inc. fish, mar mamm, seabirds .11 demersal fish species 13 demersal fish species 1 1 demersal fish species 15 demersal fish species ered its projected spawning biomass estimates. Similar results have also been observed for several species simulated for the southeast Australian fisheries ecosystem (Fulton et al., 2007). Yield projections for individual species can both increase and decrease when ecological interactions are taken into account, depending on the dynamics between the focal species and whether alternate prey are available. Under the assumption that gray seal, Halichoerus grypus, predation on Atlantic cod was additive to other predation mortality, Mohn and Bowen (1996) showed >50% reductions in yield for cod during a time of increased seal abundance. Similarly, in the Northeast US, yields of prey species such as herring will likely decline as their predator stocks recover from decades of overfi shing (Overholtz et al., 2008). For predators with limited foraging areas and little alternate prey, precautionary approaches to calculating fisheries yields are of critical importance. Everson and de la Mare (1996) incorporated the requirements of land based predators (seals, penguins, petrels and other birds) on Antarctic krill, Ëuphausia superba, around South Georgia Island. They suggested a 75% reduction in the precautionary catch limit to allow for acceptable impacts of the krill fishery for these predators with limited foraging ranges. 2.4. Biological reþrence points are difþrent wíth ecological considerations Biological reference points derived with multispecies models differ from their traditional single-species counterparts in that they generally result in more precautionary management advice (Hall, 1 999; ICES, 2008). ln addition to the studies described in some detail below, many other studies support the finding that BRPs change when predation is explicitly modeled (e.g., ICES, 1997; Collie and Delong, 1999; Hvingel and Kingsley, 2006). Table 2 summarizes a suite of studies that explicitly compared BRPs from traditional stock assessment model parameterization vs. a situation where consumption on the focal species was calculated and the resulting revised predation mortalities and biomasses were used for BRP estimation. An important example of changed BRPs from including predation comes from the Baltic Sea ecosystem, where Gislason (1999) reported complex relationships between reference limits for cod and herring and sprat, but with a straightforward overriding conclusion - BRPs of stocks that interact should not be considered in isolation. Similarly, under the adverse recruitment conditions of recent decades, Koster et al. (2009) found that incorporating cannibalism for Eastern Baltic cod lowered the estimated fishing mortality rate that was required to reach Bpa. Collie and Gislason (2001) concluded that fishing mortality reference points for prey such as sprat should be conditioned on changes in predator abundance andJurado-Molina and Livingston (2002) found that their three prey species were also sensitive to the harvest levels of their predators. For Barents Sea capelin Gjøsæter et al. (2002) advocated stochastic reference points should be developed to account for variable predation by cod and marine mammals. Accurate calculation of reference limits, especially for forage species, requires consid- 1.62 1.38 2.71 1.1 1 4.27 Revised MSY/ Traditional MSY 2.39 7.25 1.83 7.57 3.36 eration of the dynamic biomass levels of both predator and prey populations. Another example of changed BRPs is the northwest Atlantic herring fishery. Overholtz et al. (2008) used a delay difference model to calculate surplus production ofage 2+ herringwith predatory removals by demersal fishes, marine mammals, large pelagic fishes and seabirds. The B¡¡5y derived from the model with predation explicitly incorporated was higher than the fishery only Brursv by a factor of 1.6. Moustahfid et al. (2009b) incorporated predatory removals of longfin inshore squid, lolþo peøleii, using a surplus production model in a similar manner as Overholtz et al. (2008) and found that B¡aup (a proxy for B¡a5y, maximum usable production) increased by more than a factor of three when predation was explicitly accounted for. Similarly, MSY almost doubled and SSB¡y¡5y increased by almost three times when predation by 13 demersal fish species was explicitly incorporated into an age-structured assessment model for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus, Moustahñd et al., 2009a). In an MSVPA of 14 predator stocks and 2 age structured prey species (Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel) of the Northeast US Continental shelf ecosystem, Tyrrell et al. (2008) found that herring's MSY and Brvrsv increased in a multispecies vs. single species context, but not to as strongly as reported by Overholtz et al. (2008). For mackerel, the MSVPA biomass estimates also resulted in BRPs that were more conservative than the reference points produced by traditional single-species methods (Tyrrell et al., 2008). Different types of modeling approaches (e.g., age structured vs. non-age structured) and different suites of predators and input parameters have resulted in variable point estimates of BRPs (e.g., Overholtz et al., 2008 vs. Tyrrell et al., 2008). Despite variation in the absolute value of BRPs with and without predation incorporated, B¡a5y or SSBy5y increased by ,7O% for all situations where these types of comparisons were made (Table 2). For other reference points such as F.r"r¡ and Fe.1 (both based off of stock-recruitment relationships, with Fe.1 being the fishing mortality rate at 10% of the maximal yield per recruit rate, and F.rur6 being the fishing rate which will produce a longterm spawning biomass per recruit (S/R) equal to the inverse of the instantaneous rate of variation of R with the biomass, at the initial point (S = 0, R = 0)), a similar finding of more conservative reference points being calculated has been reported by other authors. For example, both Fo.l and F.r"r¡ were lower in a multispecies context for MSVPAs of the Barents Sea and the North Sea (ICES, 1 997). As the majority of the aforementioned studies show, inferences from a variety of models for various fisheries species indicate that BRPs for forage species are different and generally point to more conservative harvest rates when ecological considerations are accounted for. To broaden the applicability to EBFM, BRPS can also be calculated for a suite of species in addition to individual values for each species. Mueter and Megrey (2006) aggregated fisheries species into a surplus production model to calculate an ecosystem-level MSY (termed multi-species maximum surplus production) for the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea commercially exploited groundfish species. They found that in both ecosystems, this ecosystem-level MSY was smaller than the component sum of single species MSYs (Table 3) and furthermore, that incorporation
Page 1: Correspondence 5. HERRING (Septembe
Page 5: New England Fishery Management Coun
Page 9: February I ,20Il Mr. Paul Howard Ex
Page 13: Joan O'Leary From: Sent: To: Subjec
Page 17: Joan O'Leary From: Sent: To: Gc: Su
Page 21: August 3l,2AI1 Mr. Paul Howard New
Page 25: C(: /s,4 September 12,2011 Paul How
Page 28 and 29: f? ,{3Csf> r'J rV ,r ç < n*¿&.¿
Page 30 and 31: With all this in mind, we ask that
Page 32 and 33: Page l2 Retainine All Alternatives
Page 34 and 35: Herring Alliance Member List Alewiv
Page 37 and 38: Z ãt ri':t:il Role of egg predatio
Page 39 and 40: Ztl ãt ,W ffi :::.tr.a. P** þæru
Page 41 and 42: Z ã¡ :ffi 'T..ii{ r.l '.i t"'ì t
Page 43 and 44: IJI-SFJVII']R. Viewpoint article Fi
Page 45: Table 1 mortality estimates from di
Page 49 and 50: M.C.Tynell et al. / Fisheríes Rese
Page 51 and 52: s, '{i Aug 30, 201 1 Paul Howard, N
Page 53: Capt. Paul Howard, Executive Direct
Page 56 and 57: Appell Stephen Brooklyn NY Apt Barb
Page 58 and 59: Biederman Billie Biel Timothy Biela
Page 60 and 61: CASTRO PAULINE Bronx NY CHEESEM HER
Page 62 and 63: Connolly George Conroy Laurie Const
Page 64 and 65: Desrosiers Donna Plymouth NH Dessau
Page 66 and 67: FREITAS COLONEL North Dartr MA Fahe
Page 68 and 69: Fryer Raymond Hopkinton MA Frymoyer
Page 70 and 71: Green Patricia Huntington MA Green
Page 72 and 73: Henschel Leonard KewGardeNY Heptig
Page 74 and 75: James Robert Fern Park FL Jamsheed
Page 76 and 77: Kirby Suzanne Sag HarborNY Kirkley
Page 78 and 79: Lederman Robert Lee Brenda Lee Edwa
Page 80 and 81: Mallams Alan Hackettstor NJ Malok C
Page 82 and 83: Mckeon James New Fairfie CT Medeiro
Page 84 and 85: Murray Marian Cranston Rl Murray S.
Page 86 and 87: Payne Karen Payne Thomas Pearlman J
Page 88 and 89: Rawlins Elsie lthaca NY Rayhill Ash
Page 90 and 91: Ruby Kenneth Salem NH Ruck Claudia
Page 92 and 93: Shade Barbara Boxford MA Shaffer-Ko
Page 94 and 95: Steinberg Eva Steinberg Melanie Ste
Page 96 and 97:
ïrigg Troia Trong George L. Pennin
Page 98 and 99:
Watts Elizabeth Lynbrook NY Watts E
Page 100 and 101:
Zurofsky Bennet Maplewooc NJ ackerm
Page 103 and 104:
Sep 12,2011 Paul Howard 50 Water St
Page 105 and 106:
Sep 12,2011 Paul Howard 50 Water Sf
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Sep 13,2011 Paul Howard 50 Water S
Page 126 and 127:
Sep l3,20ll Paul Howard 50 Water St
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 149 and 150:
Sep 13,201 I Paul Howard 50 Water S
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Sep 13, 201 I Paul Howard 50 Water
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191:
show all

Correspondence/Amendment 5 Comments - New England Fishery ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?