Stakeholders can be responsible

2. 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 Stakeholders can be responsible How and why did recreational anglers, CCA, and NGOs become more conservative than managers?

3. Existing Council process Status ? Stock Assessment Invite, Inform & Ignore! Management regulatory recommendations Public scoping Council decision Council amends FMP Accept Reject

4. I3 stakeholder involvement Managers and scientists select objectives Recommendations Stakeholders Develop options Model development and modification Present model results

5. Stakeholder-centered approach Stakeholders propose objectives, options and performance measures Recommendations Revise options and performance measures Stakeholders Model development and modification Review model results

6. Council and FishSmart processes Status ? Stakeholder centered FishSmart Process Stock Assessment Information Management regulatory recommendations Stakeholder recommendations Anglers voluntarily adopt recommendations Public scoping Council decision Council amends FMP Accept Reject

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

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 Reproduction Migration Fishing “Natural” Deaths Growth & Maturity

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. Rate M = Natural mort. Z = Total mort. p = migration rate y = year s = season a = age x = sex o = area f = fishery

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. 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 Sample results for stakeholders

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

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

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. 8M, 32in 8M, 32in 8M, 32in 8M, 2 Fish 8M, 2 Fish 8M, 2 Fish Status Quo Status Quo Status Quo 8M, 2 Fish, 28in 8M, 2 Fish, 28in 8M, 2 Fish, 28in Recommended options Season closure F SSB

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. Growth

41. Weight-at-length

42. Female Maturity-at-length

43. Stock-Recruitment

44. Migration

45. Natural Mortality at Age

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 NC Total 8,980 1,265 2,630 4,925 17,530 Estimated total weight ~245,000 lbs

49. Catch and Release Mortality Selectivity Catch 15.5% 84.5% Retention Alive Released Dead 74% 26% C-R mortality Harvested Released 12.5% 87.5% Die Live

50. Selectivity