Sam Asci, NEFMC staff NEFMC Plymouth, MA September 25, 2018 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sam Asci, NEFMC staff NEFMC Plymouth, MA September 25, 2018

Doc.1b

Presentation Outline

Overview of progress to date Key findings from tasking analysis Recent input from Committee, AP,

PDT

Timeline considerations

No Council Action Required.

2

LAGC IFQ Trip Limits

Brought up during development of FW29 Approved as 2018 Council Priority Committee tasking reviewed at Sept meeting. A11: 400 lbs  A15: 600 lbs Key Issue: How might trip limit changes

impact the LAGC IFQ fishery?

3

Recent Activity

Committee Tasking (Mar 2018):

Analyze the impacts of LAGC IFQ trip limit

increases from 400 lbs to 1,200 lbs (in 200 lb increments). PDT (Mar-Aug 2018):

• 1. Economic analysis re: Committee tasking

(Doc.4a).

• 2. Developed discussion document, supporting

info (Doc.4b).

4

Supporting Info for Discussion

5

Management timeline,

structure

Fishery trends Fleet diversity  vessel size,

leasing, crew size

Potential impacts on

resource, EFH, PR, non-target species

Vessel baseline restrictions

See Doc.4b

LAGC IFQ permits: 2010 - 2017

Number of active

permits declined slightly over the 8 year time period.

Number of inactive

permits fluctuated

• ver time, almost no

change in absolute number between 2010  2017.

6

FY active permits inactive/ CPH total permits 2010 151 179 330 2011 138 192 330 2012 123 195 318 2013 118 198 316 2014 131 185 316 2015 128 185 313 2016 141 173 314 2017 137 178 315

trend line

LAGC IFQ by Region/State

7

Number of active vessels in the Mid-Atlantic declined from

2010 – 2015. (94  69), while the number of active vessels in the New England was fairly consistent.

Majority of landings in Massachusetts and New Jersey

Also landings in RI, CT, NY, MD,

VA, NC

Number of active vessels by homeport state (FY 2010 – FY 2015) STATE FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 MA 41 41 39 36 39 41 NC 23 16 10 10 9 9 NJ 43 44 38 39 43 41 NY 16 15 14 12 13 12 Oth.Mid.At 12 11 10 8 8 7 Oth.NE 17 13 14 13 19 18

64 62 62 61 69 70 74 70 64 56 40 41 43 42 52 52 23 20 21 16 19 16 15 15 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 active LAGC IFQ vessels FY

< 50 ft 50 ft - 74 ft ≥ 75 ft

Distribution of active vessels by size

Key points (see Doc.4b, p.50):

Number of vessels (see

figure), landings, and allocation by vessel size remained relatively stable

Smaller vessels (< 50 ft)

increasing over time Overall, diverse participation in IFQ fishery by vessel size across time period.

8

Trip costs

Key points:

Fuel price  driving factor

in trip cost (see Doc.4b, p.58).

Increasing fuel prices were

part of Council’s rationale for raising LAGC IFQ possession limit from 400 pounds  600 pounds (2011).

Observed fuel prices

appear to be increasing steadily since 2016.

9

$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 Mar Oct May Dec Jul Feb Sep Apr Nov Jun Jan Aug Mar Oct May Dec Jul Feb Sep Apr 20072008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Average monthly fuel price from observed LAGC IFQ trips, 2007-May 2018 (see Doc.4b, p.58)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

percent of active LAGC IFQ vessels 2 or less 3 4 5 6 or more

Crew size

Key points:

 Crew size varies (widely) at 600

lb trip limits

 Majority of LAGC IFQ vessels

are currently around 50’ in length, and carry 3-4 crew members.

 No crew limit for LAGC IFQ

PDT input:

 Increasing trip limit to 800 lbs is

not likely to increase crew size, but a larger increase (i.e. to 1200 lbs) might.

 If vessel size increased, crew size

would likely increase.

10

Vessel baseline restriction regulations

Baseline refers to length/horsepower of a vessel when

it was first issued a limited access permit.

Restrictions apply to all limited access fisheries in

NEFMC/MAFMC range, except for American Lobster, NEMS Handgear A, and LAGC IFQ.

11

with baseline limiting permit without baseline limiting permit (i.e. LAGC only or w/Lobster) Total

168 134 302 56% 44%

• There are 134 LAGC

IFQ permits that do not have a baseline restriction.

• 49 were active in

2017.

Simulation Analyses of Changing Trip Limit

12

Dr. Demet Haksever

(Council staff)

Relative economic impacts

• f changing trip limit 

lease prices/market, trip cost, revenue, owner/crew shares, etc.

Range of impacts assessed

in terms of reliance on lease market by active vessels

See Doc.4a

Key Points from Tasking Analysis

How might LAGC IFQ fishery change?

Fewer, longer trips. Less DAS overall. At 1,200 lb limit,

average trip length estimated to be 40+ hours.

13

Trip limit (Lb) Number of Trips Trip Length (hr) % Change Trip Length 400 75 19.0

• 23%

600 50 24.8 0% 800 38 30.6 23% 1000 30 36.4 47% 1200 25 42.2 70%

See Doc.4a, p.10, Table 8. Combined (AA and open area) trip length/number of trips at range of trip limits.

At higher trip limits…

Fewer DAS needed to harvest quota 

Reduce annual trip cost. Reduce maintenance/repair cost.

Lease prices expected to increase.

Impactful to majority of active fleet. Lease price is sensitive to ex-vessel price.

Examples in analyses were $9 and $12

Active vessels/crews that do not rely on leased

quota would benefit the most from a higher trip limit.

14

Recent Input

PDT(25-Jul-18, 29-Aug-18)

Magnitude of impacts—when considering the

range of trip limits analyzed, an increase of 200 lbs (i.e. to 800 lbs)  minimal change compared to 600 lbs (i.e. to 1,200 lbs)

Council may wish to consider observer

compensation rate at higher trip limits

LAGC IFQ compensation limited to one day Projected trip length at higher trip limits >24 hours

15

Recent Input

Advisory Panel (13-Sept-18)

Motion to initiate a new

FW to address LAGC IFQ trip limits to avoid delaying specs

Motion (withdrawn) address

baseline restrictions, crew size limit, trips per week (derby)

 Baseline restrictions & weekly

trip limit would require Amendment

Committee (14-Sept-18)

By Consensus:

Recommended continuing as 2019 priority

16

Possible Timing Considerations

LAGC IFQ trip limit priority not currently in

Council action.

FW30 in development  2019/2020 specifications,

standard default measures

GOAL: April 1st, 2019 implementation Potential for delay if trip limit priority included in

FW30

Trailing action timeline depends on vehicle (i.e.

FW vs. Amendment)

17

Questions?

18