Deirdre Boelke NEFMC Council Staff Four Points - Wakefield, MA September 18/19, 2018 1
Meeting Agenda 1. Review 2018 Atlantic herring benchmark assessment 2. Review public comments on Amendment 8 (A8) 3. Discuss final preferred alternatives for A8 4. Discuss 2019-2021 specifications – including potential independent NMFS action for FY2019 5. Initial discussion of 2019 herring work priorities 6. Other business 2
Meeting Materials 1. Tasking memo from Committee Chair 2. Staff presentation 3. 2018 assessment summary (SAW 65) 4. A8 decision document (and other documents online) 5. Summary of A8 public comments 6. PDT memo #1 – updated analyses 7. PDT memo #2 – upcoming herring actions and timelines 8. 2019-2021 specifications planning document 9. Draft herring work priorities for 2019 10. Correspondence 3
Outline of Presentation 1. Review Amendment 8 (A8) alternatives (10 slides) 2. Review public comments on A8 (10 slides) 3. Review decision document (15 slides) 4. Review PDT memo #1 (10 slides) Contents of Amendment 8 1.0 Introduction and Background 2.0 Description of Alternatives 3.0 Affected Environment 4.0 Impacts of Alternatives 8 Appendices 4
Amendment 8 goals 1. To account for the role of Atlantic herring within the ecosystem, including its role as forage; 2. To stabilize the fishery at a level designed to achieve optimum yield; 3. To address localized depletion (LD) in inshore waters (this goal added after initial scoping). Amendment 8 has two parts: Part 1 – Considering different methods to set overall • catch limits (ABC control rule) Part 2 – Considering measures to address potential • localized depletion and user conflicts 5
Part 1: Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rules • A formula for setting annual catch limits. • Ten alternatives considered for control rule. • Two alternatives for ABC timeframe (3 years same catch or 3 years ABC varies annually). • Council reviewed draft range of alternatives and analysis in September 2017. • Declined to identify preferred alternative; approved that portion of document for public hearings. 6
Range of ABC CR Alts. 7
Part II: Measures to address potential LD and user conflicts “Localized depletion is a reduction of population size, independent of the overall status of the stock, over a relatively small spatial area as a result of intensive fishing. Problem statement – “…..concerns with concentrated, intense commercial fishing of Atlantic herring in specific areas and at certain times that may cause detrimental socioeconomic impacts on other user groups (commercial, recreational, ecotourism) who depend upon adequate local availability of Atlantic herring to support business and recreational interests both at sea and on shore….” 8
LD and user conflict alternatives Alt 1. No Action (no MWT gear in Area 1A Jun-Sep) Alt 2. 6nm closure in Area 114 (Jun-Aug) or (Jun-Oct) Alts 4-7 have seasonal and Alt 3. Extend Area 1A prohibition of MWT gear year-round spatial sub-options Alt 4. 12 nm prohibition of MWT gear Year-round or Alt 5. 25 nm prohibition of MWT gear Jun-Sept Alt 6. 50 nm prohibition of MWT gear Areas 1B, 2 and 3 or Alt 7. Prohibit MWT gear in five 30-minute squares Areas 1B and 3 Alt 8. Revert boundary between Areas 1B/3 Alt 9. Remove seasonal closure of Area 1B Council approved range and analysis in December 2017 NO PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 9
LD and user conflict Alternatives 2-7 Alt.3 Alt.7 Alt.2 Alt.4 = 12nm Alt.5 = 25nm Alt.6 = 50nm 10
Alternative 8 Current Boundary – purple Pre-Amendment 1 – black GREEN is proposed boundaries. Alternative 9 Area 1B currently closed Jan-April. If open all year, effort may spread out and reduce user conflicts in late spring-fall. 11
One possible clarification needed Alternative 2 – waters within 6nm in thirty minute square 114 would be closed to all vessels fishing for herring, regardless of gear type or herring permit type. Need to clarify intent GF regulations allow use of a single pelagic gillnet to catch herring for bait (i.e. tuna vessel catching bait). If those vessels also have open access herring permits would this restriction apply to them? Potential clarification If adopted, Alternative 2 would not impact vessels that possess herring solely for its use as bait, this measure is limited to vessels fishing for herring with purse seine, MWT or bottom trawl. 12
13
Overview of commenters • Received during May-June, 2018. • 439 comments received (75 oral, 364 written). • 492 people gave input via individual/small group comments. • 5% submitted both oral & written comments. • 3% signed more than one letter. • 10% had also commented during public scoping in 2015. • 78% people commented on behalf of themselves or their business. • 71% from New England (30% CT, 27% MA). 14
Overview of commenters • 17,151 people signed two large form letters from eNGOs (also organized form letters during scoping). Demographics Personal Signers From From New comments U.S. England Pew Environment 15,630 1,754 99.6% 94% Group Ocean River 1,521 402 98% 8% Institute 15
Stakeholder type of commenters* Fishermen 98 (20%) Herring, lobster 34 Tuna, groundfish, recreational, etc. 64 Non-governmental organization 76 (15%) Environmental - national/regional 17 Environmental - local 32 Commercial fisheries 9 Other fishing interests 18 Scientist 49 (10%) Government 33 (7%) Other** 39 (8%) Unknown 197 (40%) T otal 492 (100%) * excluding the two large form letters ** fishery support services, ecotourism, other interested public 16
General support for No Action • Need flexibility given 2018 Atlantic herring assessment. • Current processes are sufficient to account for herring’s role in the ecosystem. • Atlantic herring recruitment and abundance are more influenced by environmental factors . • More conservative management would prevent achieving optimum yield in the fishery. • Localized depletion is poorly defined and scientifically unproved. • Herring migrates too much for localized depletion to occur. • There may be unintended consequences of additional restrictions; shifting effort to other gear types, areas and seasons may do nothing to resolve the concerns that prompted A8. 17
General support for taking action • Need precaution given 2018 Atlantic herring assessment. • Need to ensure enough supply of herring to benefit predators and all fisheries that depend on herring. • Concerned about river herring and shad depletion: • Federal fishery undermines inland restoration efforts; • Unfair that A. herring fishery catches RH/S as bycatch while directed RH/S fisheries are prohibited in most areas. • Localized depletion by, and/or user conflicts with, midwater trawl vessels is occurring. • Hope for more herring nearshore . • Some saw A8 as a matter of fairness, wanting smaller-scale (predator) fisheries to survive. 18
Support for control rule alternatives People supporting Comments (#) Alternative on behalf of (#) Group Self Oral Written Atlantic Herring ABC Control Rule No Action 3 14 4 12 Alternative 1 1 1 1 1 Alternative 2 73 85* 6 76* Alternative 3 0 1 1 0 Alternative 4A 0 0 0 0 Alternative 4B 0 0 0 0 Alternative 4C 0 0 0 0 Alternative 4D 0 0 0 0 Alternative 4E 19 3 2 7 Alternative 4F 19 3 2 7 Setting three-year ABCs No Action/Alternative 1 7 11 4 4 Alternative 2 5 45 1 6 FMP framework provisions 0 0 0 0 * Also supported by two large form letters 19
Support for localized depletion alternatives People supporting Comments (#) Alternative on behalf of (#) Group Self Oral Written No Action/Alternative 1 2 11 3 7 Alternative 2 0 1 0 1 Alternative 3 17 53 4 19 Alternative 4 31 2 1 14 Alternative 5 34 78 4 44 Alternative 6 82 277* 6 306* Alternative 7 20 5 2 12 Alternative 8 0 0 0 0 Alternative 9 3 7 2 7 • Most supporting Alt. 1 also supported Alt. 9. • Some supported Alt. 3 combined with one of Alts. 4-7. • Some supported Alt. 4, 5 or 6. • No support for seasonal sub-options – support year-round. • Spatial sub-options - support for including Area 2, or part. * Also supported by two large form letters 20
Modifying alternatives (8 comments) ABC Control Rule Timeframe • Rather than predetermine whether annual TACs are set on a constant or varying catch level, allow the Council to use either approach. Localized Depletion • Protect the Great South Channel from localized depletion (e.g., add area blocks in Alternative 7 to the east and south). • Revise Alternative 6 (50 nm buffer) by setting: • The southwestern boundary of the 50 nm buffer at the New England/Mid-Atlantic jurisdictional line, and • Eliminate the upper "sliver" adjacent to herring management Area IA. • Anticipating effort shifts, add scale restrictions for converting to purse seining. 21
Recommend
More recommend
