ODFW CRAB INDUSTRY MEETINGS - dfw.state.or.us€¦ · • Bi-monthly meetings with Whale Working...
Transcript of ODFW CRAB INDUSTRY MEETINGS - dfw.state.or.us€¦ · • Bi-monthly meetings with Whale Working...
ODFW CRAB INDUSTRY MEETINGS Reducing Risk of Whale Entanglements
in Oregon Dungeness Crab GearOctober 2019
Caren BrabyTroy BuellKelly Corbett
CaseID: 20150703MnNMFS MMHSRP Permit #: 18786
Need to design whale entanglementmanagement measures
• We’ve experienced 5 years in a row (2014-2019) of increased whale entanglements on West Coast
• Includes Oregon crab gear• Includes ESA-listed species• The “Blob” may be re-forming
• We want whales and fisheries to co-exist• It’s the right thing to do• ESA mandate• Public perception/marketing of product
CBD vs. CDFW Settlement (March 2019)
• Season closed April 15 – statewide
• Season closed April 1 – south of Tri-State• RAMP Risk Assessment
• Bi-monthly meetings with Whale Working Group
• District-wide closure if:• 1 ESA-entanglement in CA crab gear, or • 2 unidentified ESA-entanglements• 20 ESA-whale aggregation
• Season closed April 1 – south of Tri-State• Exception: Ropeless gear allowed
2019
2020(or until HCP drafted)
2021(or until ITP issued)
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=166146&inline
It is up to us to design a fishery that…
• We can live with economically• We can implement effectively on the water• We believe makes a difference for whales• We can adjust if we learn that we need to make
changes
Outlook on Whale Entanglements Along the
U.S. West Coast
NMFS West Coast Region Protected Resources Division
Dan Lawson
WCR Whale Entanglements
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 6
• Dramatic increase in reports since 2014
• Driven by humpback whales, but now including blue whales
• High demand for updates and evaluation of incoming data
• Quality of reporting and data improving
Entanglements Confirmed in Oregon Dungeness Crab Gear
0
1
2
3
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
num
ber o
f con
firm
ed e
ntan
glem
ent
repo
rts
NMFS Assessment Process• West Coast Region PRD
receive, respond, evaluate, record reports• Confirmed Entanglement:
Photo/video evidence NOAA observation Trusted/professional source Multiple/independent reports Detailed/specific information from expert interview
• Gear/Fishery Identity Confirmed by documentation or specific description of the gear such as identification
markings or tags, the type, size, or nature of materials involved, and/or report origins • Review/Evaluation
Preliminary Updated with new information Periodic in-season re-evaluation End of Year Comprehensive Summary
NOAA permit #18786
NOAA permit #18786
Where Are We At?
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 9
• Management under MMPAo Evaluate entanglements reports
with specific injury criteriao “serious injury” = injury with >50% chance of deatho SI/M rate for recent entanglements evaluated ~70%o Potential Biological Removal (PBR) for CA/OR/WA
humpback whales is 16.7 seriously injured or killed per year (entanglements alone essentially > PBR)
• Humpback DPSs and blue whales protected by the ESAo Take (all entanglements) is prohibited without authorization
NOAA permit #18786
Where Do We Go From Here? • ESA Section 10 Permits incidental
take of ESA-listed species during State/private actions
• Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Management plan
proposed by applicant to address issue
• NMFS has not previously issued one for ESA-listed marine mammals
10
Section 10 Permit and Conservation PlanFundamental Conservation Plan elements/permitting steps:(i) Measures to minimize impacts to the extent practicable
(funding?)(ii) Monitoring (funding?)(iii) NEPA - evaluate alternative actions the applicant
considered and why they are not being utilized (funding?)(iv) Compliance with ESA jeopardy standard(v) MMPA compliance – Negligible Impact Determination
• Current guidance: 10% PBR for individual fishery(vi) Stakeholder and public engagement (funding?)
11
Key Challenges and Needs Resources for States and NMFS to complete ITP Coordination across 3 states
• Gear Marking• Data Collection/Sharing• Applications/Proposals• Plan Measures/Approach?
Resolution of Big Questions• Stocks vs DPS• Unknowns• Effectiveness of Measures
Adaptive Approach Gear Development
12
NOAA permit #18786
NOAA permit #18786
Scientific Support Needed• Dynamics of whales, fishing,
environment - entanglements • Risk Assessment• Socio-Economics• Forensic Analysis• Photo ID/scarring • Population assessment
13CRC, 2018 NOAA permit #18786
14
Oregon’s ResponseTimeframe Actions
2010 - 2012 Collaborated with NOAA on co-occurrence modeling efforts and fixed gear guide
2015 - in progress Targeted fleet outreach on issue
2017 - 2018 Participated in PSMFC whale entanglement mitigation workshops
2017 - in progress Oregon Whale Entanglement Working Group (member) Best Fishing Practices Directive Oregon whale surveys and co-occurrence
modelling Industry survey
2018 - in progress Developing phased approach of potential management measures
Learn more from each event Reduce risk of entanglement
Gear marking Commercial crab gear buoy color and pattern registration
Recreational crab gear marking
Other commercial fixed-gear marking
Double-sided buoy tags (non-rulemaking)
Fishery information Electronic fish tickets with crab harvest areas
Preparing for risk reduction Late season limited entry control date (Aug 14, 2018)
Phase I – Adopted Sep 2019
15
16
Risk Assessment – Present Day
Co-occurrence Models(Saez et al. 2013, Samantha Macks 2018)
Limitations• Whale surveys only Jul-Nov for most species• Fishery data lag time• Co-occurrence ≠ risk (probably)
Whale density Fishery intensity Co-occurrence
17
Risk Assessment – Present Day
Confirmed entanglements• 50% unknown fishery origin• Time & place of observation, usually not occurrence
Opportunistic sighting data• Presence only• Absence could be no whales or no one looking
Expert knowledge• ODFW science advisory panel• April-November – most of the humpbacks that feed off
Oregon will be here at some point in this timeframe
18Source: NMFS
Dungeness Crab Gear Entanglements by Observation Month (2003-2017)
West Coast
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
num
ber o
f con
firm
ed e
ntan
glem
ent r
epor
ts Humpback Whale
Blue Whale
Gray Whale
Killer Whale
UnidentifiedWhale
19
Source: NMFS
Dungeness Crab Gear Entanglements by Observation Month (2003-2019)
Oregon
0
1
2
3
April May June July August September October
num
ber o
f con
firm
ed e
ntan
lgm
ent r
epor
ts Gray
Humpbacks
20
Risk Assessment – Future
OSU / ODFW aerial surveys
Real-time fishery data• Electronic logbooks• Vessel monitoring systems
Identify other risk factors• “Severity” based on gear
configuration and materials• Relation between co-occurrence and
risk
Year-round whale data
ODFW logbook data
Better co-occurrence
maps
Diane Kleine, IAN Image Library (ian.umces.edu/imagelibrary/)
21
Conservation Plan
Process (~5 years)• First draft by end of 2020• Negotiation and refinement
(NMFS / ODFW)• NEPA review• Biological Opinion• Public comment period• Final approval• Implementation• Adaptive management
Conservation measures implemented before and during the process are part of the plan
Resources• $100,000 committed by
ODCC• One ODFW staff position• Contractor
Filling in the knowledge gap on whale distribution in Oregon waters
Oregon Whale Entanglement Working Group identified the lack of knowledge
on whale distribution in Oregon to be a major limitation to reducing entanglements.
Established a collaboration between many groups:
Objectives: 1) Gain an understanding of whale distribution patterns
in Oregon waters2) Generate predictions of whale occurrence
at different times and areas3) Assess overlap between whales and fishing gear
to determine entanglement risk
• Survey for whales along4 set tracklinesonce each month for 2 years, onboard USCG helicopters.
• Collect replicate data in the same areas under different ocean conditions.
• Build predictive models for whole coast based on these data, and relate to distribution of fishing effort.
Methods:
Methods:
Collect data on where we do and do not see whales.Record species and number of animals
Results to date:
Project started in February 2019
Conducted 29 surveys
Observed 11 different species of marine mammal
Recorded 125 sightings of 410 individual animals
Most frequent observation is of a humpback whale
Primarily observed in water depths between 100 and 200 m, but were also recorded in depths out to 1000 m.
We have also recorded sightings of
Blue whale
Gray whale
Fin whale
Future plans:
• Continue USCG helicopter surveys until March 2021.• Begin analyzing data in April 2020.• Estimated project completion: December 2021.
Whale Alert Mobile App
Help us understand where whales Are
Why work with citizen scientists?
We need to ground truth our models
Helicopter Survey Observations
Figures from Hazen et al., 2017
Environmental Data
Whale Density Predictions
Why work with citizen scientists?
We need to ground truth our models
Helicopter Survey Observations
Figures from Hazen et al., 2017, www.oregonadventurecoast.com
Environmental Data
Whale Density Predictions
Citizen Scientist Observations
Who are we asking to participate?Commercial Fishermen
Recreational FishermenWhale Watching OperatorsColumbia River Bar Pilots
Tug and Shipping Operators Citizen Science Groups
Citizen science works best with lots of data
Photo by Alan Haig-BrownPhoto by Pat Kight/OSG
Photo courtesy of AWACC
www.oregonadventurecoast.com
https://www.tradewindscharters.com
Why should you contribute?• Fellow fishermen felt this research was important
• Oregon Whale Entanglement Working Group identified this information gap
• ODCC helped fund this research
• Data from a range of coastal ocean habitats are critical• Fishermen have unique access to both nearshore and
offshore areas
• This research will inform ODFW management• Helicopter surveys will go forward regardless • Your observations will help make the results more accurate• Better data will support more targeted management
options, with less impact on fisheries
Potential concerns• Data access & accuracy?
• Sightings will be publicly accessible• No identifying information on person submitting the sighting• Whale ID info in app & printed outreach materials
• Who is leading this research?• Leigh Torres, OSU Researcher• Collaborators: OSU, ODFW, USCG, OSG, ODCC
• What are their motivations?• Better information on year-round whale distribution.• Support management with less impact on fleet.
• How is it funded? • ODCC & NOAA Section 6
How does it work?
Download the Whale Alert app
Front Screen• Explore recent whale sightings
Front Screen• Explore recent whale sightings• Zoom in to your area of interest
Report a sighting• Initiate a new sighting
by clicking on the binoculars icon
• Follow prompts to complete the sighting
If you encounter an entangled whale or otherwise in distress:Call 1 877 SOS-WHALe
Identification Aids
For more information:
Project Webpage Short url: https://beav.es/Z6NFull url: https://mmi.oregonstate.edu/gemm-lab/where-are-whales-oregon-waters
Whale Alert West Coast Apphttp://westcoast.whalealert.org/
Project LeadsResearch: Leigh Torres, [email protected], 541-867-0895 Outreach: Amanda Gladics, [email protected], 503-325-8573
Download the Whale Alert app
44
Short term measures to reduce risk of whale entanglements
Oct 2019 – Industry meetings to solicit targeted input on phase II measures
Feb 2020 – Phase II final ODFW recommendations to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission for consideration
A. Target implementation – Apr/May 2020o Primary risk reduction measures
B. Target implementation – Dec 2020o Additional risk reduction measureso Additional measures to learn more
Future phases – timing and need TBD
45
Measures for Long Term Consideration Late season limited entry Near-real time vessel monitoring Depths closures Hotspot closures Tri-state coastwide pot limit Permit stacking Long-lining (2 pots) Buy-back Gear modifications:
a. Break-away devicesb. Ropeless gearc. Others?
46
A. Target implementation – Apr/May 2020
1. ODFW DRAFT recommendation
o Late season pot limit reduction and separate seasonal buoy tag
a. April 1 reduce all pot limits by 30% or,b. May 1 reduce all pot limits by 30% or,c. Either April 1 or May 1, reduce all pot limits by a
different % reduction or flat rate
o Permanent elimination of the two-week gear clean-up period after the season ends
Phase II – Short Term Measures
47
Alternatives for consideration:
2. Close the season April 1, May 1 or June 1, or
3. Season intermission - close the season as of April 1, then re-open with a late season buoy tag on May 1
Phase II – Short Term Measures
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
estim
ated
pot
s
2014-152015-162016-172017-182018-19
480
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
ex-v
esse
l val
ue2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
Estimated pots
Ex-vessel value
Crab Season Season Start Date(s)
2014-15 Dec. 1 coastwide
2015-16 Jan. 4 north of OR/CA border
2016-17Dec.18 south of Cape Blanco Jan.1 north of Cape Blanco
2017-18Jan 15 Cape Blanco to OR/WA Feb 7 Cape Blanco to OR/CA
2018-19Jan. 4 north of Cape AragoFeb 1 from Cape Arago to OR/CA
Max pots permitted – 149,200 Ave. annual pots used – 115,423
Estimated Pots and Ex-vessel
Value by month
49
“Late season” Pot Limit ReductionCurrent pot
limit30%
reductionFlat 200 pot
reduction200 140 200300 210 200500 350 200
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
estim
ated
num
ber o
f pot
s
Past 3 season estimate
30% reduction
Flat 200 pot reduction
50
Pots by Tier Limit and MonthPast 3 season average (2016-17 through 2018-19)
2019Total
PermitsLanding Into
OR200 92 53300 176 132500 156 134Total 424 319
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
estim
ated
num
ber o
f pot
s
200 pot limit
300 pot limit
500 pot limit
1. Which primary whale entanglement risk reduction measure do you support? Why?
A. “Late Season” pot limit reductionB. Early ClosureC. Season intermission
2. What month do you support implementing risk reduction measures? Why?
A. April 1B. May 1C. June 1 (early closure only)
3. What % reduction of pots do you support? Why?A. 30%B. Flat 200 pot limit C. Other? 51
Discussion Questions
52
B. Target implementation – Dec 2020
1. ODFW DRAFT recommendation
o Initiate “late season” derelict gear removal program, incentivized by allowing ownership of retrieved pots (will require legislative changes)
o Eliminate replacement tags
o Require line marking
Phase II – Short Term Measures
53
Initiate “late season” or “intermission” derelict gear removal program
1. Do you support?
2. Why or why not?
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
estim
ated
num
ber o
f pot
s
Average pots lost (annual average =5,788)
Average in-season derelict gear retrieved(average annual = 1,256)
Post-season derelict gear (annual average= 755)
54
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May
repl
acem
ent t
ags i
ssue
d 2017 (total=3,777)
2018 (total = 3,582)
2019 (total=2,916)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Jan Feb Mar Apr May
vess
els
2017 (total=110)
2018 (total=98)
2019 (total=86)
Eliminate Replacement
tags
1. Do you support?
2. Why or why not?
55
Line Marking Examples
WA Line Marking Proposal“WA crab fishery”
* Subject to change
Illustration: WDFW
1. Marks per line?
2. Minimum size of marks?
3. Color of marks?
4. Location of marks?
5. Other considerations?
OR Line Marking Proposal“OR crab fishery”
1. Marks per line?
2. Minimum size of marks?
3. Color of marks?
4. Location of marks?
5. Other considerations?
56
o Define maximum line length and number of trailer buoys allowed for use in surface gear (new CA reg)
o Require lines to be taut (new WA reg under consideration)
o Others?
Require Best Practices
Max 36’
Max 24’
Illustration: CDFW
1. Do you support?
2. Why or why not?