Dr. Rachel Feeney (Skate PDT Chair) Lou Goodreau Jenny Couture - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Skate Committee meeting August 6, 2020

• Dr. Rachel Feeney (Skate PDT Chair)

Lou Goodreau Jenny Couture

Technical Support: helpdesk@nefmc.org or (978) 465-0492 x111 Document #1c

Webinar Instructions

Using Computer Audio:

(Once you have joined the webinar)

• In “Audio” settings box,

select the microphone and speaker

• ptions that

correspond with your computer.

2

Using Phone Audio:

(Once you have joined the webinar)

In “Audio” settings box,

select “Phone call.”

Then, using your phone,

call the number provided

• here. Enter the Access

Code/Audio PIN numbers when prompted.

3

Webinar Instructions

Talking:

(Once you have joined the webinar)

 If you would like to talk, click “Raise

hand” button.

 After being called on, make sure you

are unmuted (red = muted, green = unmuted).

 You can also let us know if you’d like to

speak by stating so in the “Questions” box, here. T ech Support:

 Type your question here.  We will type a response to you or

whole group if applicable.

4

Webinar Instructions

GTW on iPhone/iPad

 The “raise hand”

and mute/unmute functions work the same if you are using the GoT

• Webinar app
• n an iPhone or

iPad.

5

“Raise hand” will be GRAY when hand is down, shaded BLUE when hand is raised Microphone will be GRAY when muted, shaded BLUE when unmuted

Other protocol:

 Committee Chair will state when it is time to ask

questions or comment, generally after presentations or motions.

 We will handle questions/discussion by the convening

body first, followed by others (incl. public).

 People with “raised hands” will generally be called in the

• rder their hand was raised.

 If you have audio problems, you may type a question,

which staff or chair will read.

 All motions will be voted on by roll call.

6

Webinar Instructions

Any questions?

Technical Support:

• Type in question box
• helpdesk@nefmc.org
• (978) 465-0492 x111

Email motions : rfeeney@nefmc.org

Relevant documents 1a - Meeting agenda 1b - Meeting memo

7

Introductions

8

Skate Committee Rick Bellavance, RI Matthew McKenzie, CT (Chair) Libby Etrie, MA (Vice Chair) Laurie Nolan, MAFMC Allison Ferreira, NMFS/GARFO Scott Olszewski, RIDEM Melanie Griffin, MADMF John Pappalardo, MA Peter Kendall, NH Skate Staff Rachel Feeney (PDT Chair) Jenny Couture Lou Goodreau

This is the last Skate Committee meeting for Peter and Laurie. THANK YOU both for your service! Welcome Allison!

Image by unknown author, licensed under CC BY

Agenda

9:00 am Webinar logistics, introductions, approval of agenda 9:10 Skate updates and outlook 9:20 Amendment 5 12:00 pm Lunch 12:30 Amendment 5 cont. (if necessary) 1:45 Other business 2:00 Adjourn

9

Doc #1a We will take short breaks about every 90 min.

Any revisions?

Relevant documents 1d – timeline of skate work 1e – FY 2020 landings to date Purpose Review skate-related timelines, Discuss FY 2020 progress

10

Skate timeline: 2020-2021

11

Doc #1d

Questions? Discussion?

We are here

Skate timeline: near-term

12

Month Day Meetings and Milestones Aug. 6 Skate Committee mtg

• Amendment 5

18 PDT mtg

• Annual Monitoring Report – finalize draft
• Priorities – finalize recommendations
• Amendment 5 - discuss any tasking from Aug 6

Sept. 2 PDT posts docs for Skate AP & Committee 10 Skate AP mtg (morning), Committee mtg (afternoon)

• Annual Monitoring Report, A5, priorities

17 PDT posts docs for Council mtg 29-30 Council mtg Oct 1

FY 2020 Season 1 (May 1 – Aug 31) wing landings

13

FY 2020: Wing TAL increased from 23.1M lb in FY 2019 to 26.2M lb (whole weight). The wing possession limits increased from 2,600 to 3,000 lb (wing weight) in Season 1 and from 4,100 to 5,000 lb in Season 2. Barndoor skate wing possession limits increased from 650 to 750 lb in Season 1 and from 1,025 to 1,250 lb in Season 2.

Doc #1e 46% of Season 1 quota landed as of July 18

Figure from Weekly Quota – Landing Reports

29% of Season 1 quota landed as of July 18

14

FY 2020: Bait TAL increased from 11.7M in FY 2019 to 13.2M lb. The bait possession limit increased from 12,000 to 25,000 lb in Season 3 (25,000 year-round).

Doc #1e

Figure from Weekly Quota – Landing Reports

FY 2020 Season 1 (May 1 – Jul 31) bait landings

Questions? Discussion?

Relevant documents 2a - May 29 PDT memo 2b - Discussion document 2c - Your worksheet Purpose To develop a problem statement, goals, and objectives for Amendment 5.

15

Council tasking

16

December 2019:

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

June 2020:

• Motion to accept the Committee’s problem statement failed unanimously.
• Motion to cease work on Amendment 5 also failed.
• Council agreed by consensus “To remand this problem statement and goals and
• bjectives back to the Skate Committee.”

From May 29 PDT memo (and earlier input): 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.

Meeting Plan

17

• BRIEF Staff presentation
• Discussion Document - What’s new since June?
• Recap new PDT work brought to June Council meeting.
• Committee work
• Problem statement
• Roundtable of Committee input on current issues. Answer: which are most

important to resolve? Develop problem statement.

• Goals
• Roundtable of Committee input on what problem resolution would look like.

Answer: which resolutions are most important to see achieved? Develop goals.

• Objectives
• Roundtable of Committee input on approaches to achieve goals. Answer: which

approaches have the greatest potential to achieve the goals? Develop objectives.

Questions?

Discussion Document Updates

18

Since June Council meeting:

 Plan Development Team comments on the Skate FMP goal and objectives (Sect. 3.1).  From the March 11, 2020 PDT memo: previously identified ideas to define a problem

statement, goals, objectives and alternatives (Sect. 3.7).

 From the March 13, 2020 PDT memo:

 Definition of Federal and state landings (Sect. 5.6.1.2).  Information on trip declarations (Sect. 5.6.1.4).

 FY 2018 revenue for vessels landing skate (Sect. 5.6.1.5):

 Skate revenue dependence.  Skate revenue by gear type.  Revenue from other species.

Doc 2b New New

19

3.1. Skate FMP Goals and Objectives

Goal: Consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws, to develop a Fishery Management Plan to research and manage the Northeast Skate Complex at long-term sustainable levels. Objective 1: Collect information critical for substantially improving knowledge of skate fisheries by species and for monitoring: (a) the status of skate fisheries, resources, and related markets and (b) the effectiveness of skate management approaches. Objective 2: Implement measures to: protect the two currently overfished species of skates (barndoor and thorny) and increase their biomass to target levels, reduce fishing mortality on winter skate, and prevent overfishing of the other species in the Northeast skate complex – this may be accomplished through management measures in other FMPs (groundfish, monkfish, scallops), skate-specific management measures, or a combination of both as necessary. Objective 3: Develop a skate permit system, coordinate data collection with appropriate state agencies for vessels fishing for skates or catching skates as bycatch only in state waters, and work with the fishing industry to establish a catch reporting system consistent with industry capabilities, including the use of study fleets. Objective 4: Minimize the bycatch and discard mortality rates for skates caught in both directed and non-directed fisheries through the promotion and encouragement of experimentation, conservation engineering, and gear development. Objective 5: Promote and encourage research for critical biological, ecological, and fishery information based on the research needs identified in the Skate SAFE Report and scoping document, including the development and dissemination of a skate species identification guide. Objective 6: Minimize, to the extent possible, the impacts of skate management approaches on fisheries for other species on which New England and Mid-Atlantic fishermen depend (for example, groundfish, monkfish, scallops, and fluke), recognizing the interconnected nature of skate and other fisheries in the Northeast Region. Objective 7: To the extent possible, manage clearnose and rosette skates separately from the other five species in the skate complex, recognizing that these two species are distributed primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic regions.

Doc 2b

• p. 7

PDT note: highlighted phrases are outdated.

20

5.6.1.5 Revenue and Dependence on Skate

Doc 2b

• p. 43

Food Only Bait Only Food and Bait Total Otter Trawl $978,224 (17%) $1,246,291 (99%) $43,074 (37%) $2,267,589 (32%) Gillnet $4,657,582 (81%) $7,702 (1%) $72,464 (63%) $4,737,748 (66%) Other $143,994 (3%) $4,602 (0%) $205 (0%) $148,801 (2%) Table 26. Skate revenue by gear, FY 2018.

• FY 2018 revenue primarily from gillnets.
• 99% of bait revenue from trawls.

21

5.6.1.5 Revenue and Dependence on Skate

Doc 2b

• p. 43

Bait and Food Food Only Bait Only <10% skate 25% Loligo 21% Fluke 14% Groundfish 11% Scup 23% Groundfish 23% Loligo 14% Monkfish 76% Scallop >10% skate 24% Monkfish 13% Fluke 41% Monkfish 34% Fluke 16% Groundfish Summary of Table 27 – FY 2018 revenue by top species for vessels landing skate (Table 27 has all)

New PDT work brought to June Council meeting

22

Fishery Data

Landings relative to TALs. 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.

Active permits. Active permits have been declining, total and % (30% to

16%). Most active permits landed wing, combo permits increasing recently.

Entry and exit. Annual vessel activity in the skate fishery varies; the number

• f new active permits has generally been <10 annually since FY 2012 (1-6%);

each year, there have been 77-278 “permanent” exiters (Table 14).

FY 2017 revenue dependence. A small number of vessels are highly

• dependent. For most, skates adds to the mix of landings.

Questions?

New PDT work brought to June Council meeting

23

Input on problem statement and objectives

A goal(s) should be developed Adding a conservation focus would help comply with all National Standards. Clarifications of terms needed (e.g., latent effort, new entrant, non-target species) Gave PDT feedback on concerns the Advisory Panel thought limited access may

• solve. It may be an appropriate tool for partially addressing some, but not all

concerns.

Questions?

24 Image by unknown author licensed under CC BY-NC-ND.

Skate timeline

25

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.

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

From June Council meeting

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…”

26

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.

From June Council meeting

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.

27

From June Council meeting

28

Skate fishery access, briefly

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.

From June Council meeting

29

Skate fishery access, briefly

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.

From June Council meeting

30

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?

From June Council meeting

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.

31

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.

From June Council meeting

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.

32

March 26 joint AP/Cte mtg

From June Council meeting

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.

33

Objectives 1 and 2 are on Slide 5.

March 26 joint AP/Cte mtg

From June Council meeting

Fishery data – landings relative to TALs

34

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.

From June Council meeting

Fishery data – active permits

35

Active Federal permits landing skate

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

From June Council meeting

Fishery data – entry & exit

36

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).

From June Council meeting

Fishery data – FY 2017 revenue dependence

(FY 2016 similar)

37

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.

From June Council meeting

Fishery data – substantial potential effort

38

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.

From June Council meeting

PDT input - a goal is necessary

39

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.

From June Council meeting

PDT input - re-sort to articulate goals?

40

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].

From June Council meeting

PDT input - clarifications?

41

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.

From June Council meeting

PDT input - clarifications?

42

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.”

From June Council meeting

PDT input on AP concerns

43

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

From June Council meeting