3. SKATES (June 23-25, 2020) #1 Dr. Rachel Feeney On behalf of the Skate Plan Development T eam Council meeting June 23-25, 2020
T oday’s questions Should work on Amendment 5 continue? Is there enough interest in pursuing skate limited access? 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, Accept/revise/substitute consider in September. Cte motions today. Images by unknown author licensed under CC BY-NC-ND. 2
Doc 5, Skate timeline p. 7 Year Amendment 5 Frameworks Approve scoping document FW3: 2016-17 specs, 57% of wing TAL to Season 1, 2016 created 85% wing trigger Scoping hearings, review FW4: lower Season 3 bait limit (25,000 to 12,000 Control dates: Bait: 7/30/2009 scoping comments lb) & trigger (90 to 80%), made distinct incidental Wing: 3/31/2014 bait limit (8,000) 2017 FW5: 2018-2019 specs, allowed barndoor possession, NAFO regs. FW5: cont. 2018 FW6: lower uncertainty buffer Created 2 objectives, PDT FW8: 2020-21 specs, increase Season 1 and 2 wing 2019 tasking on qualification limits, increase Season 3 bait limit (12,000 to criteria & participation 25,000) Examine fishery data; FW8: cont. (done!) 2020 develop/finalize problem statement, goals, objectives Develop alternatives, DEIS, 2022-23 specs developed in 2021. ??? public hearings, final action 3
A5 scoping (early 2017) Doc 5, p. 10-11 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…” 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. 4
A5 objectives Doc 5, p. 11 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 o 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 3, Skate fishery access, briefly p. 4-7 When are Federal skate landings constrained by Limited Access permits in other fisheries? Wing How much landings? What LA permits required? or bait? Landing over incidental limit Must have groundfish, monkfish or scallop LA (500 lb) permit, declare into that fishery and use a DAS Landing under incidental Vessels with: Wings limit (500 lb) • 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. Landing over wing • Fishing outside bait exemption area, must have possession limit (must have groundfish, monkfish or scallop LA permit, a bait LOA). declare into that fishery and use a DAS. Bait • Fishing inside exemption areas, if have groundfish, monkfish or scallop LA permit, can DOF to not use a DAS. 6
Skate fishery access, briefly Doc 3, p. 4-7 When can Federal skate landings occur without a Limited Access permit in another fishery? Landing under incidental If only Federal permit is for skates. can limit (500 lb wing weight, take undeclared trips. Wing 1,135 lb whole) & Federal permit not needed. If have bait State water fishing Federal VMS-required permit, landings are declared. Undeclared without. Landing over wing If no LA permit, can only fish inside bait Bait possession limit (must exemption area. These trips are have a bait LOA). undeclared. 7
Skate declarations and landings Doc 3, p. 8-12 FY 2012, 2015, 2017, 2018. Much more data in March 14 PDT memo Declaration % of landings by disposition Groundfish 41-49% Wing Monkfish 36-45% Undeclared 6-15% Groundfish 29-63% Bait Undeclared 20-44% Skate data is challenging to work with: • GARFO (declaration and program codes) and NEFSC (wing/bait disposition) must be merged. T ook 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? 8
March 26 Skate AP input Doc 2, p. 3 (consensus though no quorum, mostly wing fishery present) 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. The Skate AP has stated support for skate limited access over several meetings, quorum or no. 9
Doc 2, March 26 joint AP/Cte mtg p. 5 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
March 26 joint AP/Cte mtg Doc 2, p. 5 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. Objectives 1 and 2 are on Slide 5. 11
Doc 5, Fishery data – landings relative to TALs 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. 12
Doc 5, Fishery data – active permits p. 25-32 Active Federal permits landing skate • Active permits have been declining, total and % (30% to 16%). • Most active permits landed wing, combo permits increasing recently. 13
Fishery data – entry & exit 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). 14
Doc 5, Fishery data – FY 2017 revenue dependence p. 37-39 (FY 2016 similar) T otal Vessels with over 10% annual revenue Landings vessels 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. 15
Fishery data – substantial potential effort 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 of 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. 16
Doc 4, Council tasking (Dec. 2019) p. 1 “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. 17
Recommend
More recommend
