Rachel Feeney Council Staff NEFMC Mtg. September 30, 2015 1 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Rachel Feeney Council Staff

1

NEFMC Mtg. September 30, 2015

• 3. GROUNDFISH (Sept. 29- Oct. 1, 2015)

#5f

• Timeline
• Purpose/need/goals
• Alternatives w/ initial preferences
• Public comments

2

Outline

• Consider public, GAP

, and Cte input

• Make preferred alternative final recommendations

Discussion Purpose

A18 timeline

3

2015

• Aug. 31

Public comment period ends

• Sept. 2

Groundfish Advisory Panel mtg

• Sept. 3

Groundfish Committee mtg 9/29 – 10/1 Council mtg – FINAL ACTION Oct. FEIS submitted to NMFS 2016 Jan. Public comment period May Possible implementation

A18 Purpose and Need

To address concerns related to the potential for decreased fleet diversity and increased consolidation in the fishery resulting from: – Catch shares and currently low catch limits. – Increases in catch limits as stocks rebuild in the future.

4

• 1. Promote a diverse groundfish fishery, including different gear

types, vessel sizes, ownership patterns, geographic locations, and levels of participation through sectors and permit banks;

• 2. Enhance sector management to effectively engage industry to

achieve management goals and improve data quality;

• 3. Promote resilience and stability of fishing businesses by

encouraging diversification, quota utilization and capital investment; and

• 4. To prevent any individual(s), corporation(s), or other entity(ies)

from acquiring or controlling excessive shares of the fishery access privileges.

A18 Goals

1 No Action. No accumulation limit. 2 3 4 5 Stock-specific PSC cap At highest level held on 4/7/11 (control date) All at 15.5% (recommended by Compass Lexecon) By stock type (GOM/CC/SNE=15%, GB=30%, unit=20%) 4A - Cap PSC for all stocks 4B - Cap PSC for GB cod, GOM cod, & pollock All at 20%, except GB winter flounder (30%) 6 Collective cap for all PSC holdings Average of 15.5%

5

Council preferred GAP 1st choice GAP 2nd choice Cte preferred

PSC cap alternatives (Sect 4.1.2)

Cte motion - Add an option of a stock-specific PSC cap of 23%.

Excess current holdings A Can hold permits, but not use excess PSC B Must divest permits with excess PSC C Can hold permits, but must divest excess PSC

How would excess PSC be treated?

(Sect. 4.1.2.2)

6

Excess future holdings A Can hold permits, but not use excess PSC B Can hold permits, but must divest excess PSC

Council preferred GAP preferred Council preferred GAP preferred Cte - no preferred Cte - no preferred

1 No Action. No accumulation limit. 2 No individual, permit bank or entity can hold over 5% (about 70) of the limited access Northeast Multispecies permits.

7

Permit cap alternatives

(Sect 4.1.3)

Council preferred GAP 1st choice Cte preferred GAP 2nd choice

• 1. Under Alternative 6, which stock would have PSC

withheld? Who would make the decision (NMFS, permit holder)?

• 2. What is the timing for enforcing the cap (mid-year;

beginning of the next year)?

GARFO implementation questions

(Clarification in DEIS recommended)

Cte Motion - Should someone exceed a cap mid-year, the cap would be in force at the start of the next fishing year. Cte Motion - The individual permit holder could choose the stocks that would have excess PSC withheld.

9

HA sub-ACL alternatives (Sect 4.2.1)

Council preferred Cte preferred GAP preferred

1 No Action 2 Create HA permit sub-ACL (no trimesters, 10% carryover, 1 BSA) Discard accounting Option A – Annually subtract off of sub-ACL Option B – No discard accounting In-season AM – Zero possession limit at... Option A – 100% catch of sub-ACL Option B – 90% catch of sub-ACL Reactive AM – Subtract overage in future if... Option A – HA sub-ACL is exceeded Option B – HA sub-ACL and total ACL are

Sector VMS Exemption (4.2.4) 1 No Action 2 Exempt HA vessels in sectors from VMS use Standard Fish T

• te (4.2.3)

1 No Action 2 Remove standard fish tote requirement March 1-20 HA Closure (4.2.2) 1 No Action 2 Remove March 1-20 HA closure

10

Other HA alternatives

Council preferred Cte preferred GAP preferred Council preferred Cte preferred GAP preferred Council preferred Cte preferred GAP preferred

1 No Action 2 Make price data on leasing/moving ACE non-confidential

11

Data confidentiality alternatives (Sect 4.3)

Council preferred Cte preferred GAP preferred

1 No Action. No Boundary 2 Establish inshore/offshore GOM boundary Options: A - at 70˚W B - at 70˚15’W C - along eastern border of GOM/GB Inshore Restricted Roller Gear Area and 12 nm boundary off Maine coast.

12

Inshore/offshore GOM boundary alternatives

(Sect 4.4.1)

Council preferred Cte preferred GAP preferred

1 No Action. No new sub-ACLs. 2 Create commercial GOM cod sub-ACLs. Commercial allocation & leasing unchanged. Catch monitoring: Observed trips - Vessels may declare into both inshore and offshore GOM areas

• n a given trip.

Unobserved trips - If vessel declares into more than one BSA, the vessel cannot fish in the inshore GOM area (similar to sector ops plans).

13

Inshore/offshore GOM sub-ACLs alternatives

(Sect 4.4.2)

Council preferred Cte preferred GAP preferred

GAP recommends not implementing the Inshore GOM Declaration Plan through regulations.

14

Options:

A No predetermined rule; set during each specifications process B Proportional to sub-area catch sub-Option A – Last 10 years sub-Option B – Last 20 years C Proportional to sub-area fish distribution sub-Option A – Last 10 years sub-Option B – Last 20 years

sub-ACL Alternative 2 cont. (Determining split)

1 No Action. 12” max for trawl roller gear for all trawls fishing under groundfish FMP . Potential No Action. Include all trawls. 2 Align boundary with inshore/offshore GOM line.

15

GOM/GB Inshore Restricted Roller Gear Area alternatives (Sect 4.4.3)

Council preferred Cte preferred GAP preferred

1 No Action. Do not specify time periods. 2 Annual. Each year, vessels declare which area they will fish in. 3 Seasonal. Each trimester, vessels declare which area they will fish in. 4 Trip. Each trip, vessels declare which area they will fish in.

16

Council preferred Cte preferred GAP preferred

Declaration time period alternatives

(Sect 4.4.4)

1 No Action. FY 2015-2016 exemption remains in place. Future approvals through sector ops plans process. 2 Establish Redfish Exemption Area within FMP . Monitoring Option A - No action. Use standard

• bserver rate.

Option B - 100% monitoring.

17

Redfish Exemption Area alternatives (Sect 4.5)

GAP - no preferred Cte preferred

Cte Motion - Prefer Alternative 1.

Council preferred

18

Amendment 18 Public Comment Period

• July 7 – August 31, 2015
• 13 oral comments
• 18 written comments

Oral Comments

19

Location Attendees* Speakers Portland, ME 8 5 Portsmouth, NH 2 New Bedford, MA 7 5 Mystic, CT Gloucester, MA 6 3 webinar 1 T

• tal

24** 13

*Not including Council members or staff. **22 total attendees if duplicates removed.

20

Letter types Individual letter 7 (39%) Form letter 1 (6%) – 40 signatures NGO 8 (44%) Federal agency 2 (11%) T

• tal 18

Written Comments

Stakeholder Type (All commenters)*

21

Commercial groundfish fisherman 47 (77%) Handgear 2 All other types 45 Non-governmental organization 9 (15%) Commercial fisheries 3 Environmental 3 Other fishery interests 3 Interested public 2 (3%) Recreational 2 (3%) Scientist 1 (2%) T

• tal

61 (100%)

* excludes the two federal agency letters.

Home state (All commenters)*

22

ME 23 (38%) NH 3 (5%) MA 32 (52%) RI 1 (2%) VA 1 (2%) Unknown 1 (2%) T

• tal

61 (100%)

* excludes the two federal agency letters.

NGOs represented (All commenters)

23

Commercial fishery

Associated Fisheries of Maine Northeast Coastal Communities Sector Northeast Hook Fisherman’s Association Northeast Seafood Coalition

Environmental

Environmental Defense Fund The Nature Conservancy

Other fishery interests

Health Care Without Harm Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance Penobscot East Resource Center

Content – general concerns re A18

24

Individuals NGOs Council should take more time on A18 41 Too much time has been spent on a18 1 1 Fishery consolidation is not a concern 1 1 Fleet diversity and consolidation are not meaningfully addressed in A18 43 5 A18 does not meet its own goals 41 4 Beware of unintended consequences 1 2 Fishery won’t be helped by A18 2 2 T

• tal

46 6

Content – accumulation limits

25

Individuals NGOs Opposes accumulation limits (sufficient protections in place; caps prevent achieving OY) 2 2 Supports accumulation limits (keep as many people/communities fishing as possible) 46 5 Opposes preferred alternatives (caps must be stock-specific; community impacts should be considered, not just market power) 45 5 Supports preferred alternatives (least disruptive; doesn’t penalize PSC acquired through A16) 1 5 T

• tal

48 8

Content – HA measures

26

Supports preferred alternatives (promotes fleet diversity; supports a future for handgear; increases flexibility for handgear fishermen) Opposes preferred alternatives (cited NOAA’s repeated comments on the inability to accurately monitor such small sub-ACLs.) Individuals NGOs Opposes creating HA sub-ACLs 1 Supports creating HA sub-ACLs 2 2 T

• tal

2 3

Content – data confidentiality

27

Individuals NGOs Supports preferred alternative (1) (data not needed for sector program administration) 2 1 Supports Alternative 2 (data would improve fishermen’s ability to participate in lease market) 1 Generally supports making ACE trading more transparent (would increase ACE use, benefiting individuals and communities) 1 3 T

• tal

3 4

Content – inshore/offshore GOM

28

Individuals NGOs Supports preferred alternative (1) (Council’s objective unclear; other alternatives wouldn’t help the inshore fishermen) 1 2 Opposes preferred alternative (1) (a line would improve data collection; disappointment that the alternatives miss the mark, not protecting inshore fish or fishermen) 2 4 Generally supports protecting inshore stocks and/or fishermen 2 4 T

• tal

5 6

Content – Redfish Exemption Area

29

Individuals NGOs Supports Alternative 1 (sector exemptions should remain within the current approval process) 1 Supports preferred alternative (2) 2 1 Generally supports the Redfish Exemption Area (gear, rules, and area are well studied and laudable.) 2 2 T

• tal

2 3