Andrew Applegate NEFMC Staff Whiting PDT Chair NEFMC November - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Andrew Applegate NEFMC Staff Whiting PDT Chair NEFMC November 2018

Amendment 22 Webinar Presentation  Chronology  Explain the error that occurred  Corrected qualification estimates  Fishing activity and number of histories  Comparison of limited access alternatives using correct estimates  Recent trends and management issues  Limited access choices 12

Amendment 22 Development and approval of alternatives  Initial history analysis: Oct-Dec 2016  Alternatives developed – Jan to April 2017  Results presented March 2017  Council approved range of alternatives – April 2017  Error in analysis (duplicate histories) April 2017, corrected  Analysis of impacts with corrected qualification estimates presented to joint committee and advisory panel – August 29, 2017 13

Amendment 22 Development and approval of alternatives  Initial history analysis developed Oct-Dec 2016  Alternatives developed – Jan to April 2017  Results presented March 2017  Council approved range of alternatives – April 2017  Error in analysis (duplicate histories) April 2017, corrected  Analysis of impacts with corrected qualification estimates presented to joint committee and advisory panel – August 29, 2017 14

Amendment 22 Preferred Alternative Recommendations August 29, 2017 Advisors Committee Action 1 Alternative 1 (3-2) No preferred alternative Action 2 No recommendation In-season trigger to adjust possession limits (not approved) Action 3 Alternatives 1 & 4 Same for limited access Alternative 3 (squid and herring) for incidental 15

Amendment 22 Development and approval of alternatives  Council chose No Action as preferred alternative – Sep 2017  Amendment 22 revised and restructured  Revised final draft presented to Whiting Committee and Advisors – Oct 30, 2017  Council approved final draft Amendment 22 for submission – Dec 2017 16

Amendment 22 Public hearings  DEIS analyses and summary data had the correct qualification information  Summary numbers under description of alternatives had results from initial analysis 17

Advisors and Committee recommendations Aug 29, 2018  Comment period  Five public hearings - July 19-26, 2018  Deadline for written comments – Aug 6, 2018  Advisors  Alternative 4 with status quo possession limits for Category I and II  2000 lbs. whiting and 400 lbs. red hake incidental limit  Committee  No Action, due to uncertainty about the estimated number of qualifiers 19

Amendment 22 Supplemental comment period  Re-open comment period for 30 days due to error in public hearing document.  Supplemental hearing – Nov 14  Advisory Panel and Committee – Dec 3  Council approves final action – Dec 4 20

Amendment 22 Qualification data sources 21

344 permit histories in 1996-2016 with one or more trips > 2000 lbs. whiting or 400 lbs. red hake 24

Amendment 22 Initial and corrected estimates 25

Amendment 22 Initial and corrected estimates 26

Amendment 22 Initial and corrected estimates 27

Amendment 22 Purpose and need  Purpose:  “To implement measures through limited access that would prevent unrestrained increases in fishing effort by new entrants to the fishery.” 28

Amendment 22 Purpose and need  Need:  “To reduce the potential for a rapid escalation of the small-mesh multispecies fishery, possibly causing overfishing and having a negative effect on red hake and whiting markets, both outcomes having negative effects on fishery participants. The amendment will help ensure that catches of the small-mesh multispecies and other non-target species will be at or below specifications, reducing the potential for causing accountability measures to be triggered and resulting closure of the directed fishery” 29

2018-2020 Specifications  OFL/ABC specifications 30 12/07/2017

2018 Assessment update Northern Management Area Red Hake Silver Hake 31

2018 Assessment update Southern Management Area Red Hake Silver Hake 32

SOUTHERN Recruitment SILVER HAKE 33

Whiting effort and landings by area 34

Management Considerations  Southern red hake is overfished – initiating action to rebuild  Measures to rebuild southern red hake and cap bycatch will be more restrictive without limited access  Measures to rebuild southern red hake could affect other small-mesh fisheries that have red hake bycatch.  Southern whiting biomass and CPUE is falling 35

Management Considerations  Haddock bycatch is high (10-20%) – no sub-ACL  Yellowtail flounder – sub-ACL triggers selective gear requirements  Squid limited access re-qualification  Reductions in longfin squid possession limit  Tier 2 permit – 5,000 lbs.  Incidental permit – 250 lbs. when Trimester II closes 36

Amendment 22 Limited Access Choices  Limited access with whiting and red hake possession limits for Category I, Category II, and Incidental permits  Limited access with existing possession limits for vessels fishing in raised footrope trawl exemption areas  Limited access with no changes in possession limits for any of the above permits  No Action – open access (Preferred Alternative) 37

Amendment 22 Three Actions  Action 1: Limited Access  No Action (preferred) plus 5 alternatives  Action 2: Possession Limits by Permit Type  Category I, Category II, Incidental  Action 3: Permit Allowances  Category I and II limited access permit  Incidental permit 38

Limited Access Qualification Criteria * November 28, 2012 control date Qualification Criteria Qualifying (Pounds of small-mesh multispecies & number of qualifiers) period Alternative Category I Category II 2008-2012* 500,000 lbs. 100,000 lbs. 1 5 years 40 vessels 74 vessels 2008-2012* 1,000,000 lbs. 20,000 lbs. 2 5 years 20 vessels 203 vessels 2008-2016 500,000 lbs. 100,000 lbs. 3 9 years 51 vessels 90 vessels 2000-2016 500,000 lbs. 100,000 lbs. 4 17 years 55 vessels 124 vessels 1996-2012* 1,000,000 lbs. 200,000 lbs. 5 17 years 84 vessels 159 vessels 39

Action 1: Limited Access Fleet History Analysis * November 28, 2012 control date Vessels with trips > 2000 lbs. Alternative Category Vessels in 2014-2016 Cat I 40 33 83% 1 Cat II 74 38 51% (Section 4.1.2) 2008-2012* Non-qualifiers 971 42 4% 500k/100k No History 1581 15 1% Cat I 20 19 95% 2 Cat II 203 69 34% (Section 4.1.3) 2008-2012* Non-qualifiers 908 25 3% 1M/20k No History 1581 15 1% 40

Action 1: Limited Access Vessels with trips > 2000 lbs. Alternative Category Vessels in 2014-2016 Fleet History Analysis Cat I 51 44 86% 3 * November 28, 2012 control date Cat II 90 46 51% (Section 4.1.4) 2008-2016 Non-qualifiers 1099 38 3% 500k/100k Cat I 55 42 76% 4 Cat II 124 38 31% (Section 4.1.5) 2000-2016 Non-qualifiers 2035 48 2% 500k/100k Cat I 84 43 51% 5 Cat II 159 30 19% (Section 4.1.6) 1996-2012* Non-qualifiers 2345 45 2% 1M/200k No history 91 10 11% 41

Analysis of Impacts  Biological impacts  Ability to harvest optimum yield Annual Catch or landings and number of small-mesh multispecies trips per qualifying vessel   Discards: Red hake, yellowtail flounder, haddock Mesh and selective gear   Economic impacts  Vessel reliance on small-mesh multispecies fishery Qualifiers and non-qualifiers  Alternatives for non-qualifiers that target small-mesh multispecies   Community effects  Proportion of revenue from small-mesh multispecies  Social impacts  Concentration of fishing effort  Participation  Employment 42

NEFMC November 2018