Dr. Rachel Feeney On behalf of the Skate Plan Development T eam - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• Dr. Rachel Feeney

On behalf of the Skate Plan Development T eam

Council meeting June 23-25, 2020

• 3. SKATES (June 23-25, 2020)

#1

T

• day’s questions

Accept/revise/substitute Cte motions today.

2

Should work on Amendment 5 continue? Is there enough interest in pursuing skate limited access?

Images by unknown author licensed under CC BY-NC-ND.

Is the Council ready to finalize the problem statement, goals and objectives today and direct the Cte to proceed with developing alternatives? Task Cte with further work, consider in September.

Skate timeline

3

Year Amendment 5 Frameworks 2016 Approve scoping document FW3: 2016-17 specs, 57% of wing TAL to Season 1, created 85% wing trigger 2017 Scoping hearings, review scoping comments FW4: lower Season 3 bait limit (25,000 to 12,000 lb) & trigger (90 to 80%), made distinct incidental bait limit (8,000) FW5: 2018-2019 specs, allowed barndoor possession, NAFO regs. 2018 FW5: cont. FW6: lower uncertainty buffer 2019 Created 2 objectives, PDT tasking on qualification criteria & participation FW8: 2020-21 specs, increase Season 1 and 2 wing limits, increase Season 3 bait limit (12,000 to 25,000) 2020 Examine fishery data; develop/finalize problem statement, goals, objectives FW8: cont. (done!) ??? Develop alternatives, DEIS, public hearings, final action 2022-23 specs developed in 2021.

Doc 5,

• p. 7

Control dates: Bait: 7/30/2009 Wing: 3/31/2014

A5 scoping (early 2017)

From the scoping document:

“Limited access in the skate fisheries would prevent

unrestrained increases in fishing effort by new entrants to the fishery.”

Skate fishermen “are concerned that increasingly strict

regulations in other fisheries…might cause these fishermen to switch over to fishing for skates….[which]… could trigger reduced skate trip limits and have other negative economic impacts on current participants…”

4

Doc 5,

• p. 10-11

17 written comments and 34 oral comments: Mixed support for limited access; no discernable trend among bait and wing fishermen, by geography or other affiliation.

A5 objectives

Council approved in June 2019

• 1. Any management measure adopted in this limited access

action minimizes the impact on any other fisheries that has interactions with skates.

• 2. T
• identify the various fishery components that use the

skate resources and to preserve, to the extent possible, through limited access ongoing participation the fishery consistent with how past utilization has occurred.

5

Doc 5,

• p. 11

6

Skate fishery access, briefly

Doc 3,

• p. 4-7

When are Federal skate landings constrained by Limited Access permits in other fisheries? Wing

• r bait?

How much landings? What LA permits required? Wings Landing over incidental limit (500 lb) Must have groundfish, monkfish or scallop LA permit, declare into that fishery and use a DAS Landing under incidental limit (500 lb) Vessels with:

• Groundfish, monkfish, or scallop permit must

declare and use DAS or DOF (avoid DAS use)

• Other LA permit (e.g., herring) must declare

into that fishery. Bait Landing over wing possession limit (must have a bait LOA).

• Fishing outside bait exemption area, must have

groundfish, monkfish or scallop LA permit, declare into that fishery and use a DAS.

• Fishing inside exemption areas, if have

groundfish, monkfish or scallop LA permit, can DOF to not use a DAS.

7

Skate fishery access, briefly

Doc 3,

• p. 4-7

When can Federal skate landings occur without a Limited Access permit in another fishery? Wing & bait Landing under incidental limit (500 lb wing weight, 1,135 lb whole) If only Federal permit is for skates. can take undeclared trips. State water fishing Federal permit not needed. If have Federal VMS-required permit, landings are declared. Undeclared without. Bait Landing over wing possession limit (must have a bait LOA). If no LA permit, can only fish inside bait exemption area. These trips are undeclared.

8

Skate declarations and landings

FY 2012, 2015, 2017, 2018. Much more data in March 14 PDT memo

Declaration % of landings by disposition Wing Groundfish 41-49% Monkfish 36-45% Undeclared 6-15% Bait Groundfish 29-63% Undeclared 20-44% Skate data is challenging to work with:

• GARFO (declaration and program codes) and NEFSC (wing/bait disposition) must be
• merged. T
• ok PDT many months to develop method. Some duplicate, doubled or missing

data remain.

• State and Federal landings ≠ state-water and federal-water fishing.
• Potential source data errors, landings with no wing/bait disposition code, landings

inconsistent with regulations. Are these data entry errors? Industry confusion? Violations?

Doc 3,

• p. 8-12

March 26 Skate AP input

(consensus though no quorum, mostly wing fishery present)

The Skate AP has stated support for skate limited access over several meetings, quorum or no.

9

Doc 2,

• p. 3

Concerns they felt skate limited access program could help solve

• 1. High regulatory discard rates in the directed fishery from needing to leave

gear (i.e., gillnets) in the water (if a possession limit is reached)

• 2. Safety concerns from needing to take a lot of trips.
• 3. Needing to fish far from home this time of year.
• 4. Needing to land all the legal sized fish caught.
• 5. Unrestrained increases in fishing effort by new entrants to the fishery.
• 6. Catch rates could go up with increased prices.
• 7. Increasingly strict regulations in other fisheries might cause these fishermen to

switch over to fishing for skates which could trigger reduced skate trip limits and have other negative economic impacts on current participants.

Committee-developed problem statement (5/2/1)

There is considerable latent effort in both fisheries - a relatively small portion of vessels account for the majority of landings in most years, and the Council is concerned that activation of latent permits could lead to shortened seasons, as well as increased catch of non-target species if racing to fish increases. This could cause unrestrained increases in fishing effort by new entrants to the fishery. Therefore, further restricting access will help to ensure access to the quota for participants that have participated on a regular basis and therefore have some degree of dependency. Additional effort could also increase daily landings, making it difficult to close the fishery in a timely fashion, which could negatively impact the skate resource.

10

Doc 2,

• p. 5

March 26 joint AP/Cte mtg

Committee-developed third objective (5/2/1)

• 3. Consider the appropriate number of vessels in the directed

and incidental skate wing and skate bait fisheries and design appropriate management measures for permitted vessels to avoid more frequent and disruptive fishery closures due to additional effort from vessels that have not substantively participated in the fishery in recent history.

11

Doc 2,

• p. 5

Objectives 1 and 2 are on Slide 5.

March 26 joint AP/Cte mtg

Fishery data – landings relative to TALs

12

Doc 5,

• p. 34-36

In FY 2016 and 2017, when the incidental limits were triggered, the Wing and Bait TALs were 23% lower than FY 2014 and 2015. Landings were also lower, but not by as much.

Fishery data – active permits

13

Active Federal permits landing skate Doc 5,

• p. 25-32
• Active permits have been declining, total and % (30% to 16%).
• Most active permits landed wing, combo permits increasing recently.

Fishery data – entry & exit

14

Doc 5,

• p. 25-32

Number of Federal permits

• Annual vessel activity in the skate fishery varies.
• The number of new active permits has generally been <10 annually since FY 2012 (1-6%).
• Each year, there have been 77-278 “permanent” exiters (Table 14).

Fishery data – FY 2017 revenue dependence

(FY 2016 similar)

15

Doc 5,

• p. 37-39

Landings T

• tal

vessels Vessels with over 10% annual revenue dependence, all trips Bait only 20 4 vessels, averaging 45% dependence Non-bait only 321 50 vessels, averaging 32% dependence Bait & non-bait 85 34 vessels, averaging 31% dependence

• A small number of vessels are highly dependent.
• For most, skates adds to the mix of landings.

Fishery data – substantial potential effort

16

Skate Committee tasked PDT with identifying potential effort

 For skate permits active 2003-2018, total potential landings could be 15.4M lb. of wings and 13.6M

• lb. of bait, IF:

 Vessels that landed >25,000 lb a year at least once land their average landings,  Other vessels with ≥ one trip over the incidental limit land one trip at the current possession limit, and  Other vessels with no trips over the incidental limit landed their average landings.

 This is over the FY 2020-2021 TALs for wing (11.5M lb) and bait (13.2M).  Both wing and bait skate fisheries could be reduced to incidental limits, depending on the number

• f vessels and trips.

TAKE HOMES

 Skate effort has been declining, though vessels come and go annually.  The years in which incidental limits were triggered were not particularly unusual in terms of permit

activity or landings.

 A small number of vessels are highly dependent. For most, skates adds to the mix of landings.  Incidental limits could still be triggered if the potential effort is activated.

Pause for questions, comments.

Council tasking (Dec. 2019)

17

“Define a clear problem statement, goals, and objectives for this action.”

Goal = A desired result or outcome that would solve a problem. A goal is typically broad and long- term in scope. Objective = A specific, measurable action that would help achieve a goal.

Doc 4,

• p. 1

PDT input - a goal is necessary

18

BLUE = problem GREEN = goal PURPLE = objective Problem Statement: There is considerable latent effort in both fisheries - a relatively small portion of vessels account for the majority of landings in most years, and the Council is concerned that activation of latent permits could lead to shortened seasons, as well as increased catch of non-target species if racing to fish increases. This could cause unrestrained increases in fishing effort by new entrants to the fishery. Therefore, further restricting access will help to ensure access to the quota for participants that have participated on a regular basis and therefore have some degree of dependency. Additional effort could also increase daily landings, making it difficult to close the fishery in a timely fashion, which could negatively impact the skate resource. Objectives:

• 1. Any management measure adopted in this limited access action minimizes the impact on any other fisheries

that have interactions with skates.

• 2. “To identify the various fishery components that use the skate resources and to preserve, to the extent possible,

through limited access ongoing participation the fishery consistent with how past utilization has occurred.

• 3. “Consider the appropriate number of vessels in the directed and incidental skate wing and skate bait

fisheries and design appropriate management measures for permitted vessels to avoid more frequent and disruptive fishery closures due to additional effort from vessels that have not substantively participated in the fishery in recent history. Doc 4,

• p. 2

PDT input - re-sort to articulate goals?

19

Problem Statement (proposed reshuffling): There is considerable latent effort in both fisheries - a relatively small portion of vessels account for the majority

• f landings in most years, and the Council is concerned that activation of latent permits could lead to shortened

seasons, as well as increased catch of non-target species if racing to fish increases. This could cause unrestrained increases in fishing effort by new entrants to the fishery. Additional effort could also increase daily landings, making it difficult to close the fishery in a timely fashion, which could negatively impact the skate resource. Goals (proposed reshuffling):

• 1. To minimize impacts on any other fisheries that have interactions with skates. [O1]
• 2. To preserve, to the extent possible, ongoing participation the fishery consistent with how past utilization

has occurred. [O2]

• 3. To ensure access to the quota for participants that have participated on a regular basis and therefore

have some degree of dependency. [PS]

• 4. To avoid more frequent and disruptive fishery closures due to additional effort from vessels that have

not substantively participated in the fishery in recent history. [O3] Objectives (proposed reshuffling):

• 1. To consider alternatives that would create a limited access program [O1] that considers the appropriate

number of vessels in the directed and incidental skate wing and skate bait fisheries [O3]. Doc 4,

• p. 5

PDT input - clarifications?

20

What is meant by “latent effort” and “new entrants”?

How does activation of latent permits” cause “increases in fishing effort

by new entrants to the fishery”?

Because skates is open-access, a new skate permit is obtained each year. Is the

problem rather that vessels can obtain a skate permit and become active at any time?

Please clarify which is a problem (all?):

• 1. Latent effort by never-used skate permits
• 2. Latent effort by historical participants who did not fish in recent years
• 3. Effort switched from other fisheries, now focused on skates
• 4. Brand new vessels entering, and/or
• 5. Vessels that landed only incidental levels of skate.

Doc 4,

• p. 2-4

PDT input - clarifications?

21

What is meant by “non-target species”? The problem statement says: “activation

• f latent permits could lead to …increased catch of non-target species.” Is that:

 Non-skate catches on directed skate trips, or  Skate catches on trips targeting other species?

The biological/conservation purpose should be more explicit. Thus far, A5

has focused largely on social and economic factors. To ensure compliance with all the National Standards (e.g., NS5 that no measures can have economic allocation as sole purpose). Suggest:

 Draft goal: “T

• promote conservation by encouraging a rational, more easily-managed use of the

resource.”

 Draft objective: “T

• ensure the fishery remains within landing limits to minimize the risk of

exceeding the ABC or causing overfishing.”

Doc 4,

• p. 4

PDT input on AP concerns

22

AP concern Resolved via Skate FMP? Resolved via skate limited access? In Committee’s problem statement?

• 1. High discards
• Yes. Raise possession limits, gear

requirements.

• Potentially. Tier poss. limits or

have individual allocation Yes.

• 2. Safety, lots of

trips

• Yes. Raise possession limits

Ditto Not directly

• 3. Fishing far from

home

• No. Likely a groundfish reg. No

time/area restrictions other than the bait trawl exemption area. No. Not directly

• 4. Landing all legal

sized fish

• No. Likely a groundfish reg, but

cannot discard skates on a wing trip landing barndoor No Not directly

• 5. New entrants

increasing effort Yes.

• Yes. Tier possession limits or

have individual allocation Yes

• 6. Catch rates

increasing

• Yes. Lower possession limits

Potentially. Yes

• 7. Shifting to

skates

• Yes. Alter incidental limit trigger.
• Yes. Tier possession limits or

have individual allocation Yes

Doc 4,

• p. 7-9