Seafloor Mapping and Fisheries Management in Seafloor Mapping and Fisheries Management in MassachusettsMassachusetts

Kathryn Ford, Ph.D., Fisheries Habitat Project LeadKathryn Ford, Ph.D., Fisheries Habitat Project Lead

Daniel W. Sampson, GIS/Data ManagerDaniel W. Sampson, GIS/Data Manager

Presentation objectives

• Part 1: Part 1: – Overview of USGS-CZM mapping cooperativeOverview of USGS-CZM mapping cooperative– Seabed ‘habitat’ classification pilotSeabed ‘habitat’ classification pilot– Next steps…holistic UKSeaMap approachNext steps…holistic UKSeaMap approach

• Part 2:Part 2:– How habitat information is used in fisheries How habitat information is used in fisheries

management, some examplesmanagement, some examples

CZM-USGS Seafloor Mapping Cooperative

• Established Partnership • Identified Goal

Produce high-resolution maps and geospatial data of seafloor geology and topography

• Prioritized Mapping Needs• Determined Effective Methods• Implemented Mapping• Publish Results and Advertise Availability

Standard seafloor mapping methods

Stolen from USGS

Seafloor Mapping Status

1

2

3

4

5 6

existing mapping data of Stellwagen Bank and Massachusetts Bay

Buzzard

s Bay

Viney

ard Sound

Completed Areas Nahant to Gloucester Boston Harbor Cape Ann to Salisbury Hull to Duxbury Northern Cape Cod Bay Eastern Cape Cod

Current Mapping Areas Buzzards Bay Vineyard Sound

Seabed classification pilot

Approx. area = 134 kmApprox. area = 134 km22

Depth = 4 – 48 mDepth = 4 – 48 m

A variety of bottom A variety of bottom types ranging from types ranging from soft mud to bedrocksoft mud to bedrock

What was our approach?

1. Create potential habitat polygons based on:1. Create potential habitat polygons based on:– Sediment typeSediment type– RugosityRugosity

2. Classify the polygons according to Greene et 2. Classify the polygons according to Greene et al. habitat classification schemaal. habitat classification schema– ScaleScale– PhysiographyPhysiography– IndurationInduration– GeomorphologyGeomorphology

Goal: “...a set of distinct seafloor conditions that may be “...a set of distinct seafloor conditions that may be found in the future to qualify as habitatfound in the future to qualify as habitat.”.”

Potential habitat polygons

4,828 polys total

Average size = 0.026 km2

Std. Dev. = 0.38 km2

Assign attributes to polys

• All per Greene et al.All per Greene et al.

• Upgridded both the sediment and Upgridded both the sediment and rugosity grids to 25mrugosity grids to 25m22

• Combined the data sets with a logical Combined the data sets with a logical statement in ArcGISstatement in ArcGIS

i

Ss(s/m)f_u1A

Soft bottom continental shelf zone composed of unconsolidated sand & mud; flat with very low rugosity & slope

Next steps

• Better examine biology-substrate correlationsBetter examine biology-substrate correlations• Further examine auto-classification Further examine auto-classification

techniquestechniques• Create an overall accuracy assessment or Create an overall accuracy assessment or

error budget:error budget:– Thematic accuracyThematic accuracy– Spatial accuracySpatial accuracy

• Combine with other datasets (water column) Combine with other datasets (water column) and follow a UK SeaMap/DFO type of “habitat and follow a UK SeaMap/DFO type of “habitat mapping” exercise.mapping” exercise.

How does habitat data get used in Fisheries Management (FM)?

Part 2:

DisclaimerA view from “below”: A geologic seafloor mapper in a state fisheries agency

FM in Mass:

Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission

(MFAC) Division of Marine Fisheries

Legislative – Executive – Judicial Branches

Dept. of Fish and Game

Executive Office of Energy & Env. Affairs

Resource Assessment

Sportfish Shellfish

Lobster

Statistics

Fisheries Habitat•Environmental review

•Policy•Habitat research

Licensing

Conservation Engineering

Fisheries Dependent Investigations

Northern Shrimp Policy & Management

Protected Species

DEP, DCR, CZM? etc

Division of Fish & Wildlife, Office of Boating Access, etc

Mass. Fish Habitat in the Federal System:

• Habitat Committee

• Bottom Mapping Fish Habitat Characterization Working Group

• ACFHP

• Reef Committee

• Habitat Committee

• Habitat PDT

Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries

Fisheries Habitat Project

ASMFC NEFMC

These groups make recommendations to the Council/Commission and address specific tasks assigned by the Council/Commission

Management Decisions

• Based on three legs:– Science– Politics– Fisheries Issues

• Use Conflict

• Industry Sustainability

• Non-fishing Impacts

How Strong is the Science Leg?

• The weakest?– Science is not often definitive– The dollar value of resource impacts due to

management decisions is hard to quantify (especially for habitat)

– The scientists aren’t as “squeaky*” as fishermen or politicians

As in “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” (English idiom).

Examples of Habitat Science Used in Fisheries Mgt.:

• Inshore closures to protect vulnerable habitat and life stages:

• Cod Conservation Zone

Year round mobile gear closures, north shore.

Examples of Habitat Science Used in FM:

• Sinking groundline regs for pot fisheries

(Humpback whale illustration courtesy of Scott Landry of Center for Coastal Studies & gear illustration by David Gabriel)

• Cape Cod Bay Critical Habitat Jan 1- May 15 gear restrictions

Examples of Habitat Science Used in FM:

• Shellfisheries– Red Tide

– Eelgrass

Western Gulf of Maine Modeling, courtesy of USGS

http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/operations/modeling/wgulf/modeling.html

ECOM-si, a variant of the Blumberg and Mellor 3D coastal ocean model

But FM in Mass. also covers…

• Non-fishing impacts

• Habitat restoration

• Basic research: lobster, eelgrass, horseshoe crabs, shellfish, cod, striped bass, anadromous spp….

These all use maps!Maps used to extent possible?

View of Horns Rev wind farm, Denmark; 8.7 miles offshore80 1.8 MW windmills

Habitat Research Priorities

• How do species use different seafloor types– Are all “hard” bottom areas the same?– Classification/landscape modeling– Basic life history information

• What are indicator and keystone species? What should we really be paying attention to?

• Linkages to the water column • Multiple maps for multiple questions

Obstacle: Communication• Fisheries Scientists:

Stock assessments– relative abundance – allowable catches [how many fish]

• Habitat Scientists: Spatial distribution – non-managed species – resolution [where are the fish]

• Managers: Different timelines, different pressures, not always knowing the “right” question to ask.

Obstacle: Technology

• Fisheries data in multiple databases

• Habitat data in multiple databases

• Software availability

• Education

• Information overload/dueling scientists (is Joint Fact Finding a solution?)

Thanks to: Tony Wilbur, Bruce CarlisleDavid Pierce, Vincent Malkoski, Michael

Hickey, Jeremy King, Bob Glenn

We’ve got a long way to go!

daniel.sampson@state.ma.usdaniel.sampson@state.ma.us

kathryn.ford@state.ma.uskathryn.ford@state.ma.us

Ask us about the Mass. Ocean Plan!Ask us about the Mass. Ocean Plan!