Group 2—Conference Rm. Jonathan Grabowski Mark Anderson Michelle Bachman Peter Colosi

1. Integrating Seafloor Mapping & Benthic Ecology into Fisheries Management in the Gulf of MaineApril 15th Breakout Group Summary Group 2—Conference Rm. Jonathan Grabowski Mark Anderson Michelle Bachman Peter Colosi Matt Nixon Brian Todd Larry Ward Steven Fromm Chad Demarest

2. Summary of fisheries management needs for seafloor geophysical & habitat information Top Priorities: 1. Building better political will Involve the industry Utilize new opportunities e.g., offshore wind, LNG, oil exploration, etc.

3. Summary of fisheries management needs for seafloor geophysical & habitat information 2. Enhance coordination between govt agencies, council and stakeholders

4. Summary of fisheries management needs for seafloor geophysical & habitat information With a better articulation of what we need we could be more proactive in collecting the bottom habitat and other important data layers so that we aren’t just focusing on habitat impacts but also thinking about fish production, etc.

5. Summary of fisheries management needs for seafloor geophsyical & habitat information 3. Map of the entire Gulf of Maine Would the high quality habitat information serve the population dynamics/stock assessment groups? Can’t achieve level 4 EFH without knowledge of existing habitat

6. Summary of fisheries management needs for seafloor geophysical & habitat information 3. Map of the entire Gulf of Maine examples exist from nearshore & inshore fisheries, but we are a long ways from achieving this for offshore species

7. More realistic approach: • Identify hotspots to be groundtruthed and model remaining areas • Be careful about introducing bias

8. Final Thought • Spatial resolution of the fishing effort and oceanographic data serving to quantify natural disturbance far outstrips what we have for habitat maps; don’t have the resolution of seafloor maps that we now have for the other data inputs

9. Group 1 Discussion Notes taken by Tracy Hart (rotating facilitator):(~1/2 hour of the discussion) • High-resolution habitat maps can help achieve effort reductions. Less time/area fished equals less habitat disturbance. Ex. In Canada. Improved fishing industry knowledge of target habitats led to large effort reductions and less habitat damage with the same catch levels (controlled by Total Allowable Catch). • Use of closure areas is troubling b/c they target important fishing bottoms, but this is where you want people to fish. Not in sub-optimal habitat. • But what if fishing bottoms overlap with important spawning, juvenile areas? • And on Georges Bank, haddock came back in the closed area • Primary limitation is political will in the U.S. Need enhanced dialog. In Europe multibeamed the whole area, now AUV’ing to 1 cm resolution. In Canada multibeamed all but deepest areas. • Use political momentum of energy movement (LNG’s Cape Wind, etc.) • Map of naturally disturbed areas that won’t be good for fishing. Flow and resistance of bottom. • Need fish productivity information. • Need maps of physiographic factors, e.g. a tonal map colored blue to red. Tell fishermen don’t fish in blue areas—not prime habitat/potential for gear damage, etc. • The problem is covering the size of the area in the Gulf of Maine. Therefore need proxies. This is what Vladimir Kostylev’s model is searching for. • Do deep first, then get to shallow areas. With a complete multibeam map you won’t believe what you can do with it • Next best thing: Map hotspots. • Take fine scale studies and build a synoptic view of the whole area. • Multibeam data and stocks are managed on large scale • Broad scale=Vlad’s approach. Multibeam survey of whole area. Then AUV or sidescan MOSAIC. Then video/photos/grabs • There is a lot of information on the Gulf of Maine but not a lot of spatially explicit information • Takes money. Until there is polictical will and money, need proxies, i.e. Vlad approach. Tracy’s Notes From Presentation: • Need to build better political will. Used scallop industry to fund and participate in mapping of scallop areas in Canada. May not apply in U.S. Could use alternative energy opportunities? • More coordination between entities. Could be more strategic instead of opportunistic about site selection for development • Map of entire Gulf of Maine. In Canada, deep waters left would take 3 months to map. But probably never will bother. • Hard to integrate into stock assessment model if don’t even know about productivity, habitat. Examples exist from nearshore fisheries. • ID hotspots to be groundtruthed. Closed areas were chosen driven by the management not the biology. • Resolution of fishing effort is much greater than what we have for habitat maps—will limit how we go forward • Olex—poor man’s multibeam. Good way of getting higher resolution info about seabed than topo maps will give you. Olex cheaper and faster. Even with multibeam, layer in olex, then sidescan data, then groundtruth point samples. Gulf of maine coverage getting better and better. Way to get synoptic view of the gulf than is better than topographic. Data is from fishing vessels. • Steve Murawski at fine scale workshop. Stated that fishery dependent data may be more valuable than trawl survey data b/c of the volume of data.