G. Scott BoomerUSFWS

Harvest Management Working Group MeetingBuda, TX

29 November 2012

Scaup Adaptive Harvest Management 2008 - 2011

2

DMBMMark Koneff, Bob Blohm, Paul Padding, Jim Kelley, Dave

Sharp, Jim Dubovsky, Bob Trost, Bob Raftovich, Khristi Wilkins, Todd Sanders, and Ken Richkus

USGSFred JohnsonMike RungeAndy Royle

Flyway Technical SectionsJoe FullerSteve CordtsSpencer VaaDon Kraege

Acknowledgements

3

Brief HistoryAnnual Performance

Status and Parameter EstimatesPolicyHarvest Results

Revisiting Regulatory Alternatives?ProcessMethods

Outline

BP

OP

in M

illio

ns

34

56

78

9

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Har

vest

in M

illio

ns

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Bonus Bags Special SeasonsSL: 20 - 40Bag: 2 - 4

4

Points System Bonus BagsSpecial SeasonsSL: 40 - 50Bag: 4 - 10

SL : 30Bag: 3 - 4

SL: 50 - 60 95-96 Bag: 597-98 Bag: 699-04 Bag: 305-07 Bag: 2

Past Harvest Regulations (e.g., Mississippi Flyway)

2008 R (Hybrid)2009 M 60 & 22010 M 60 & 22011 M 60 & 22012 L: 60 & 4

1969 thru 1987 Bonus Season: not to exceed 16 consecutive days (Oct 1 - Jan 31), bag limit of 5; OR, Bonus Bag:2 bonus scaup in regular season

5

Scaup Assessment Results

1980 1990 2000 2010

45

67

Year

BP

OP

X 1

0^6

ObservedPosterior Mean

A

1980 1990 2000 2010

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Year

Tota

l Har

vest

X 1

0^6

ObservedPosterior Mean

C

1980 1990 2000 2010

0.02

0.06

0.10

Year

Har

vest

Rat

e

Harvest Rate

B

1980 1990 2000 2010

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

Year

Pop

ulat

ion

X 1

0^6

Population

0.03

0.05

0.07

0.09

Har

vest

Rat

e

Harvest Rate

D

6

Scaup Assessment Results: r

Year Mean 2.50% Median 97.50%

2008 0.101 0.023 0.089 0.240

2009 0.106 0.030 0.097 0.233

2010 0.122 0.040 0.113 0.256

2011 0.124 0.044 0.114 0.252

2012 0.125 0.046 0.116 0.250

7

Scaup Assessment Results: K

Year Mean 2.50% Median 97.50%

2008 8.338 5.786 7.982 12.220

2009 8.443 5.868 8.126 12.360

2010 8.172 5.784 7.812 12.110

2011 8.274 5.904 7.938 12.050

2012 8.402 5.948 8.050 12.210

8

Scaup Assessment Results: q

Year Mean 2.50% Median 97.50%

2008 0.537 0.464 0.536 0.620

2009 0.552 0.479 0.551 0.634

2010 0.556 0.484 0.555 0.634

2011 0.580 0.510 0.579 0.657

2012 0.591 0.519 0.590 0.671

9

Scaup Assessment Results: MSY

Year Mean 2.50% Median 97.50%

2008 0.364 0.100 0.350 0.702

2009 0.380 0.126 0.369 0.687

2010 0.423 0.164 0.414 0.737

2011 0.418 0.181 0.408 0.701

2012 0.420 0.188 0.415 0.685

10

Scaup Assessment Results:

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

23

45

6

Year

Sca

up P

opul

atio

n in

milli

ons

PredictedObserved

11

Scaup Harvest Policies: 2008 - 2012BPOP 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012≤ 3.2 R R R R R 3.4 R R R R R 3.6 R R M M M 3.8 RH M M M M 4.0 M M M M M 4.2 M M M M M 4.4 M M M M M 4.6 M M M M M 4.8 M M M M M 5.0 M M L M M 5.2 M M L L L≥ 5.4 L L L L L

12

Observed Scaup HarvestTo

tal S

caup

Har

vest

50000

100000

150000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Central

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Pacific

Atlantic

50000

100000

150000

Mississippi

13

Observed Scaup Harvest vs. PredictionsTo

tal S

caup

Har

vest

50000

100000

150000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Central

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Pacific

Atlantic

50000

100000

150000

Mississippi

Target (M)Predicted (M)

Target (R)

14

Annual updates of population parameter estimates track changes in scaup status, suggesting modest increases in harvest potential

Model predictions are consistent with observed population increases

Scaup harvest policies have become more liberal as scaup status has improved

Observed harvest levels were similar to Flyway specific harvest predictions (at least under the moderate alternatives), and on average, have remained under allowable harvest thresholds

Preliminary Conclusions

15

Given that the Flyways have not voiced concern over current packages (although the Pacific Flyway may be an exception…), how do we begin this conversation?

Are there triggers that we should consider for pursuing changes to scaup regulatory packages?

Important to recognize that regulatory alternatives ultimately have to be specified (i.e., they represent policy decisions - that may be informed with technical information).

Process for revisiting scaup regulations?

16

1) Update technical information in 2007 scoping documentUpdate all Flyway harvest models with recent

informationM: 3 years; R: 1 year; L: pending

Reset thresholds for regulatory change based on updated simulation

Re-calculate allowable harvestDefine appropriate allocation?Work with individual Flyways to specify alternatives

(e.g. 2008-2009 criteria…)

Potential Methods:

17

2) Reconsider how we account for partial controllability of harvest:Specify the regulatory package (R, M, L) as the

decision variable in the optimization (rather than harvest)We then have to specify a distribution of harvest expected

under each regulatory alternative (R, M, L) based on past experience

Consider closure rules?From a technical perspective, this may be a more

efficient and practical method to updating packages.3) Others?

Potential Methods:

18

Change in decision variable?Change in model set?Monitoring Needs?

BPOPBanding needs recommendations

What are the implications of SEIS preferred alternative?What is the relationships of scaup AHM to future

changes in mallard AHM decision frameworks?

When should we consider “double-looping” for scaup AHM?

Scaup AHM: Technical Issues

19

Thanks for your attention!

20

Harvest PolicyPopulation Thresholds

Package Harvest 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

R H < 0.25 3.8 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.4

M 0.25 ≤ H < 0.5 3.9 - 5.2 4.0 - 5.2 3.6 - 4.8 3.6 - 5.0 3.6 - 5.0

L H ≥ 0.5 5.4 5.4 5 5.2 5.2

BPOP 3.74 4.17 4.24 4.32 5.24

Reg RH M M M L

21

Scaup Assessment Results:

Year BPOP 2.50% Median 97.50%

2008 3.74 3.429 2.806 3.407 4.183

2009 4.17 3.631 2.960 3.605 4.427

2010 4.24 4.084 3.345 4.049 5.019

2011 4.32 4.110 3.343 4.082 5.028

2012 5.24 4.247 3.459 4.223 5.147