Sam Asci Council staff Scallop AP/Committee September 13 th & - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Doc.6a Sam Asci Council staff Scallop AP/Committee September 13 th & 14 th , 2018

Recap of input to date  Committee (March-18)  Ranked priority, and recommended continuing work  PDT Tasking Motion  Advisory Panel (March-18)  Several motions on this topic – no consensus  PDT (March-18 through August-18)  Continued development of discussion document with supporting info (see Doc.4b)  Reviewed several rounds of economic analysis addressing Committee tasking (see Doc.4c)  Correspondence: For and against 2

PDT progress re: Committee Tasking Committee Tasking (March-18):  Analyze the impacts of LAGC IFQ trip limit increases from 400 lbs to 1,200 lbs (in 200 lb increments). Extensive PDT discussion/input around suite of analysis  detailed in materials/meeting summaries (Doc.6a-e). T odays presentation will provide relevant take away points. 3

Main objectives for today Review relevant information about the 1. IFQ component. 2. Review results of PDT tasking. 3. Provide input on the direction of this work priority. 4

Discussion items for today Review analyses addressing 3) Economic impact analyses Committee tasking: a) Scenario analysis—potential Distribution of active LAGC 1) impacts of changing trip IFQ fleet by: limit on revenue and lease a) vessel size prices b) lease activity b) Aggregate impacts of c) crew size changing trip limit on LAGC 2) Trip cost and fuel price trends IFQ fishery in LAGC IFQ fleet 3) Vessel baseline restriction info 4) Potential impacts on scallop resource, EFH, PR, non-target species 5

LAGC IFQ permits active inactive/ total FY permits CPH permits  Universe of LAGC IFQ 2010 151 179 330 permits (2010-2017)— 2011 138 192 330 active, inactive/CPH, 2012 123 195 318 and total. 2013 118 198 316 2014 131 185 316 2015 128 185 313 2016 141 173 314 2017 137 178 315 trend line 6

Distribution of active vessels by size  Council goal, A11: preserve PDT investigated distribution of active fleet, landings, and quota ability for vessels to allocation by vessel size group participate in fishery at ( see Doc.4a, p.29 ) different levels—fleet of  Size groups: Less than 50 ft, 50 relatively small vessels. to 74 ft, 75 ft or greater Question: How has fleet diversity changed in terms of vessel size?

Distribution of active vessels by size Key points (see Doc.4b, p.29) : 80 74 70 70 69  Number of vessels (see figure), 70 64 62 62 61 landings, and allocation by 60 64 active LAGC IFQ vessels vessel size remained relatively 56 50 52 52 stable 40 < 50 ft 43 42 41 40  Smaller vessels (< 50 ft) 50 ft - 74 ft 30 ≥ 75 ft increasing over time 20 23 21 20 Overall, diverse participation 19 16 16 15 15 10 in IFQ fishery by vessel size 0 across time period. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 FY

Distribution of vessels by lease activity  Increasing trip limit would PDT investigated distribution of active fleet by amount leased likely increase lease prices. ( Doc.6c, p.8 ) Question: How reliant is the  ‘lease groups’ categorized fleet on leased quota/lease vessels by the proportion of market? total landings that were leased- in.

Reliance on leased quota/lease market Key points: Doc.6c, Table 6. Number of active vessels that were net leasers as a percent of total active vessels • LAGC fleet has become increasingly reliant on lease Ratio of net lease to landings 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Grand Total market. 5% 4% 15% 8% 8% 9% 11% 6% 8% <=25% • In most recent FY, roughly 40% 11% 12% 7% 16% 11% 7% 6% 9% 10% 25% to 50% of active vessels leased in 50% 11% 18% 16% 14% 11% 8% 9% 10% 12% or more of landings 50% to 75% 19% 15% 23% 22% 28% 34% 38% 29% 26% >75% NO LEASE-IN ACTIVE 48% 43% 34% 21% 20% 23% 18% 22% 29% Over half of active LAGC fleet 6% 7% 5% 19% 21% 20% 19% 24% 15% would be impacted by LEASE OUT ACTIVE increased lease prices. Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 10

Crew size 60% Key points:  Crew size varies (widely) at 600 lb trip limits 50%  Majority of LAGC IFQ vessels are currently percent of active LAGC IFQ vessels around 50’ in length, and carry 3-4 crew members. 40%  vessel length related to crew size (i.e. 2 or less smaller vessel ≈ smaller crew, larger vessel 3 30% ≈ larger crew). 4 5 PDT input: 6 or more 20%  small increase of trip limit (i.e. 800 lbs) likely won’t increase crew size, but a larger increase (i.e. to 1200 lbs) might. 10%  If vessel size increased, crew size would likely increase. 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 11

Trip costs $5.00 average observed fuel price (USD per gal) $4.50 $4.00 Key points: $3.50  Fuel price  driving factor in trip $3.00 cost (see Doc.4e) . $2.50  Increasing fuel prices were part of $2.00 Council’s rationale for raising LAGC $1.50 IFQ possession limit from 400 $1.00 pounds  600 pounds (2011). $0.50  Observed fuel prices appear to $0.00 Mar Sep Mar Sep Mar Sep Mar Sep Mar Sep Mar Sep Mar Sep Mar Sep Mar Sep Mar Sep Mar Sep Mar be increasing steadily since 2016. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20172018 Average monthly fuel price from observed LAGC IFQ trips, 2007- May 2018 (see Doc.6b, p.37) 12

Vessel baseline restriction regulations  restrictions apply to all limited access fisheries in NEFMC/MAFMC range, except for American Lobster, NEMS Handgear A, and LAGC IFQ .  Replacement vessel/upgrade may not exceed:  10% of baseline length  20% of baseline horsepower  baseline refers to length/horsepower of a vessel when it was first issued a limited access permit. 13

Vessel baseline restriction regs (cont’d)  LAGC IFQ permits not held to baseline restrictions, unless in a permit suite with other limited access permits that do.  Ex.: Vessel with an LAGC IFQ and NEMS A permit is held to vessel baseline restrictions associated with NEMS A permit.  Limited access permits cannot be ‘separated’. LA permit suites must be bought/sold/transferred as package.  Ex.: Vessel could not sell NEMS A permit and retain LAGC IFQ permit.  Limited access permits can be relinquished.  Ex: Vessel could relinquish NEMS A permit, retain LAGC IFQ permit, and no longer be held to vessel baseline restriction. 14

LAGC IFQ MRIs with restrictions  The number of LAGC IFQ permits limited by vessel LAGC IFQ without baseline restriction in other LAGC IFQ with baseline limiting fisheries (source: B. Galuardi, baseline limiting permit (i.e. LAGC GARFO) permit only or w/Lobster) Total  Includes active/inactive/CPH 168 134 302 permits. 56% 44% Over half of LAGC IFQ permits subject to baseline restrictions. 15

Unrestricted LAGC IFQ MRIs LAGC IFQ MRIs without baseline restrictions Of the 134 MRIs without (FY2017) baseline restrictions: 7; 5%  Roughly half were not 10; active in scallop 7% active (in CPH) fishery only active in other  Majority were active in fishery only both scallop and other 68; 51% active in scallop 49; 37% and other fishery fishery not active  Very few active MRIs did not scallop 16

Unrestricted active MRIs DAS from unrestricted MRIs active in 49 unrestricted MRIs active in scallop and other fishery (FY2017) both scallop fishery and other fishery(s) (2017):  73% of total DAS were in scallop fishery 773; 27% scallop DAS  2017 avg: other DAS  ~44 DAS in scallop fishery 2,137; 73%  ~16 DAS in other fishery(s) 17

Baseline restricted LAGC IFQ MRIs Of the 168 baseline limited LAGC IFQ MRIs with baseline restrictions MRI’s: (FY2017)  30% not active (in CPH) 4; 2%  Majority were active in active in scallop both scallop and other fishery only fishery, or just other fishery 50; 30% active in other 48; 29%  Only 2% were active in just fishery only scallop fishery active in scallop and other fishery not active Baseline restricted permits 66; 39% are being fished. 18

Baseline restricted active MRIs DAS comparison for baseline limited For the 66 baseline restricted MRIs active in scallop and other MRIs active in both scallop fishery(s) (FY2017) fishery and other fishery(s) (2017):  ~60% of total DAS fished in 2,315 ; other fishery(s) scallop DAS 39%  2017 avg: other DAS 3,550 ;  ~54 DAS in other fishery(s) 61%  ~35 DAS in scallop fishery 19

LAGC IFQ MRIs active in scallop fishery  Of 129 active MRIs in LAGC IFQ MRIs active in scallop FY2017, slightly less than fishery (2017) half were not subject to with vessel vessel baseline restrictions. baseline restriction 59; 46% without 70; 54% vessel baseline restriction 20

Other considerations of modifying trip limit See Doc.6d In addition to economic analysis/potential impacts  how could modifying the possession limit impact:  Scallop resource  Essential Fish Habitat  Protected resources  Non-target species 21