1

2

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?

3

Management regulatory

recommendations

Stock Assessment

Status ?

Existing Council process

Public scoping

Council decision

AcceptReject

Council amends FMP

Invite,Inform

&Ignore!

4

I3 stakeholder involvement

Managers and scientists select objectives

Develop optionsModel developmentand modification Stakeholders

Present

model results

Recommendations

5

Stakeholder-centered approach

Stakeholders propose objectives, options and performance

measures

Revise options and performance measuresModel development

and modification Stakeholders

Review

model results

Recommendations

6

Stakeholder centered FishSmart Process

Management regulatory

recommendations

Stock Assessment

Status ?

Council and FishSmart processes

Information

Public scoping

Council decision

AcceptReject

Council amends FMP

Anglers voluntarilyadopt recommendations

Stakeholder recommendations

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

Stakeholders

• Recreational anglers

• For-hire operators

• Commercial fishermen

• Environmental NGO representatives

• Managers and biologists

• Tackle shop owners

• Tournament organizers

13

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.”

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Weighing options

• Stakeholders used results from a numerical simulation model to “weigh” the performance of different options they suggested in achieving their 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

18

Model Schematic

“Natural” Deaths

Reproduction

Growth & Maturity

Fishing

Migration

19

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

20

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

21

Model Structure• Abundance

• Mortality

• Catch

N = Abundance F = Inst. Fishing mort. RateM = Natural mort. Z = Total mort.p = migration ratey = year s = seasona = age x = sexo = area f = fishery

oxsayZoxay

osaoxtaty eNpN ,,,

,,,,,,,

f

foxasyxaoxasy FMZ ,,,,,,,,,,

oxasyoxasyfoxasy NFC ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

22

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

23

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

24

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

RankingScale

4 =acceptable, I agree

3 = acceptable, I agree with minor reservations

2 = not acceptable,

I don’t agree unless major reservations addressed

1 = not acceptable

25

Consensus example

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

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Initial RankingOct 17

10 0 0 0

November 6

Ranking

2 0 5 3Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2008): This is too presumptuous. Can be part of a presentation to the Council “For all fisheries”

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

26

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

27

Recommended optionsSSB F Season closure

8M, 2

Fis

h, 2

8in

8M, 2

Fis

h8M

, 32i

nSt

atus

Quo

8M, 2

Fis

h, 2

8in

8M, 2

Fis

h8M

, 32i

nSt

atus

Quo

8M, 2

Fis

h, 2

8in

8M, 2

Fis

h8M

, 32i

nSt

atus

Quo

28

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

29

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

30

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

31

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

32

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

33

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

34

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

35

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

36

Acknowledgements

Funding

Facilitation

Support

37

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 – PI salaries– $60k.yr-1 – Programmer, Admin support– $24k,yr-1 – Overhead

38

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

39

Additional information on model structure

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20

Age (years)

Le

ng

th (

in)

Female

Male

Growth

41

Weight-at-length

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Length (in)

We

igh

t (lb

s)

42

Female Maturity-at-length

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

10 20 30 40 50 60

Length (cm)

Pro

po

rtio

n m

atu

re

Observed (NW FL)

Fitted

43

Stock-Recruitment

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Spawning Biomass (million lbs)

Ag

e-1

re

cru

its (

mill

ion

s)

44

Migration

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0 5 10 15 20

Age

Mig

ratio

n r

ate

Spring

Fall

45

Natural Mortality at Age

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0 5 10 15 20

Age

Na

tura

l mo

rta

lity

rate

(M

)

Male

Female

46

Fishing Mortality

• Fishery divided into three sectors– Commercial– General recreational

• Private boat• Charter

– Tournament

47

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

48

Estimating Effects of Tournaments

Estimated # fish kept

FL GA SC NCTotal

8,980 1,265 2,630 4,925 17,530

Estimated total weight ~245,000 lbs

49

Catch

ReleasedDead

Alive

ReleasedHarvested

LiveDie

15.5% 84.5%

26%74%

12.5% 87.5%

Catch and Release MortalitySelectivity

Retention

C-R mortality

50

Selectivity

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Length (in)

Se

lect

ivity

Commercial

Recreational

Tournament

51

Retention Probabilities

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Length (in)

Re

ten

tion

Commercial

Recreational

Tournament

52

020

6010

014

0

Fre

quen

cy (

Num

ber

of T

rips)

Number of Fish Avail

0 2 4 6 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29

2007

n = 180

MRFSS Intercept Data

0 2 4 6 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29

2007 Predicted Catch Distribution

020

6010

014

0

53

Starting Abundance

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

54

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

55Spawning stock biomass

Exp

loit

atio

n ra

te

Ove

rfi s

hed

t hre

shol

dOverfishing threshold

Predicted equilibrium relationship

Management control rules: thresholds and targets

SSBMSY1MSYSSB

SSB1

MSYSSB

SSB

1MSYF

F

1MSYF

F

FMSY

56

FishSmart process

• Develop new process that conserves stocks Develop new process that conserves stocks and: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

57

Fisheries Management

Can Be Contentious!