Jonathon Peros & Sam Asci Council Staff Council Meeting South - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jonathon Peros & Sam Asci Council Staff Council Meeting South Portland, ME June 11, 2019 1 #1 4. SCALLOP (June 11 - 13, 2019) M

Scallop Report Outline: 1. Review Amendment 21 Scoping Comments (Doc.2a) 2. 2019 Work Priorities / Framework 32 3. Scallop RSA Research Priority Recommendations  Several motions for Council to consider today. 2

Summary of Scoping Comments (Doc.2a)  Report of oral/written comments received between late February-April 15 th , 2019  Reviewed by PDT—May 9 th , 2019  Reviewed by AP/CTE—May 22-23 rd , 2019  Slides ordered by topics addressed in A21: 1. NGOM Management measures 2. LAGC IFQ possession limit 3. Ability of LA with IFQ to transfer quota to LAGC IFQ-only vessels 3

Counting comments  All comments received during the scoping period are summarized (i.e. written comments, oral comments from scoping meetings)  If a person spoke multiple times at a given hearing, that was considered to be one comment  NOTE : This is not a substitute for the comments received through Amendment 21 scoping – interested parties should consult the full text of scoping meeting summaries/written comments: https://www.nefmc.org/library/amendment-21 4

Description of Commenters Table 1. Public hearing attendance Oral comments: Location Attendees Speakers Rockport, ME 45 8  188 attendees at 10 Gloucester, MA 28 13 scoping meetings Chatham, MA 18 4 (including duplicates) New Bedford, MA 24 11  57 individuals provided Narragansett, RI 12 10 comments. Riverhead, NY 4 1 Written comments: Manahawkin, NJ 25 9  24 written comments Cape May, NJ 6 4 received, signed by 26 Hampton, VA 18 4 webinar 8 1 people 188 a 57 b Total a Includes duplicates. b Duplicates removed. 5

Description of Commenters Table 2. Primary stakeholder type of commenters Oral Oral & Written Grand total: Primary stakeholder type Total only written only NGOM only 11 3 2 16  81 comments LA only 3 0 0 3 IFQ only 20 2 9 31 received LA vessel and IFQ vessel 0 1 0 1  73 individuals LA vessel with IFQ permit 1 1 0 2 on same vessel commented LA vessel with IFQ permit 7 0 0 7  Stakeholders plus IFQ vessel or CPH Shoreside support represent entirety 2 1 0 3 services Fishing organization 2 2 4 8 of scallop fishery Government 0 0 1 1 Other interested public 1 0 0 1 Total commenters 47 10 16 73 6

Description of Commenters Table 4. Home state of commenters A21 scoping meeting locations. Number of % of Total State commenters Commenters ME 20 27% MA 24 33% RI 3 4% NY 2 3% NJ 15 21% DC 3 4% VA 3 4% Unk. 3 4% Total 73 100% 7

Table 5. Commenters and comments on management of the NGOM area T opic Total Commented on NGOM area management a 35 Boundary Keep current boundary (No Action) 15 NGOM Comments Move boundary 3 Gear Require use of the same gear for all 10 vessels/permits Allow limited permit shifting (No 2  NGOM fishermen Permits Action) Prohibit other permits shifting to 8 NGOM permits generally happy with Keep current LA-LAGC split (No 10 Action) current management Allocation Create a different split 1 measures Keep LA vessels in NGOM fishery 11  Strong interest in Keep current opening date, no 10 trimesters (No Action) developing RSA Spreading timing out 4 Time/ sub-  LA stakeholders support Allow access to groundfish closed 4 areas areas continued access in Create sub-areas 1 NGOM Enable trimesters/sub-areas through 10 future framework Keep current trip limit (No Action) 2  See Table 5. Trip limit Increase trip limit 3 Add DAS to current trip limit 1 Science Create RSA in NGOM 13 Create electronic monitoring 5 8

NGOM Border  Maintaining current NGOM boundary supported by majority (n=15 of 18)  Some felt changing the boundary should be considered in A21 (n=3 of 18) “if we are going to move the line whenever there is a change in biomass distribution, we will be consistently drawing new lines in the ocean.” 9

Comments on Gear Req.  10 in support of Rationale : unique area consistent gear req. with unique bottom, for all vessels fishing suited for smaller in NGOM (10.5’ dredge. Equitable dredge) access. “I support consistent gear restrictions because I believe it is fair and would provide equal access to all vessels that fish in the Northern Gulf of Maine” 10

Permit Movement  LAGC B (NGOM) or LAGC C (Incidental) permit holders can change permit category annually. LAGC A (IFQ) can permanently change to B/C.  Concerns raised around increased participation in NGOM fishery (i.e. Incidental  NGOM permits)  Most supported prohibiting permit movement (n=8 of 10)  Others suggested limited movement, only if new entrants can be handled sustainably (n=2 of 10)  The NEFMC considered a control date for this issue in June 2017, but did not pass the motion. 11

Allocation & Access  NGOM fisherman support current TAC split and administration (n=10)  LA fishermen support access to NGOM in future (n=11) “LA fishermen do not want to be on the outside looking in if there were to be an increase in biomass in the NGOM in the future or if resource shifts north. We have federal scallop permits that have fished in the Gulf of Maine in the past and we do not want to lose our right to fish there in the future.” 12

Other Management Controls Fewer comments on:  Trimester or sub-area management  changing opening date  Interest in identifying issues that can be changed in a FW action Rationale: not enough science or large enough TAC to be effective at present. Potential gear conflicts if effort spread out. Support spring scallop fishing.  ~equal interest in maintaining NGOM trip limit vs increasing  Another idea—transition NGOM permit to DAS management w/ 200 lb trip limit, fish days anywhere in resource and remove NGOM boundary 13

Science and Create electronic Monitoring monitoring  Strong support for RSA program in NGOM Rationale : improved survey information will sustain long- Create RSA in NGOM term fishing opportunities.  Several comments in support of EM program to better inform management 0 5 10 15 14

LAGC IFQ trip limit comments  Support for higher limit  Comments in mostly from support/opposition Massachusetts received from range stakeholders (9) of stakeholders.  Support for 600-pound  Total of 50 comments limit mostly from New from 48 people Jersey (7) Massachusetts (Tables 8 & 9) (5)  ‘Unknown’ were anonymous comments 15

Comments supporting increase  18 commenters for increased LAGC IFQ limit Rationale:  Reduce number of trips  lower operating costs (i.e. burn less fuel)  Safety  Better monitoring and enforcement coverage IFQ only LA only LA and IFQ combo 1  Ability to fish farther LA and IFQ combo 2 LA and IFQ combo 3 Orgs. off shore—give Other. inshore a break 1 = LA vessel and IFQ vessel 2 = LA vessel with IFQ permit on same vessel 3 = LA vessel with IFQ permit plus IFQ vessel or CPH 16 “Other” = NGOM only, shoreside support, other interested public.

Comments supporting increase Uncertain or neutral preference  Also some on limit Make the same limit in open and support for access areas increasing limit in Increase limit only in open areas AAs Increase limit only in access areas Rationale : Increase limit  Lots of steaming Keep current limit (No Action) to fish AAs, higher Reduce limit limit would offset 0 5 10 15 20 fuel costs IFQ only LA only LA and IFQ combo 1 LA and IFQ combo 2 LA and IFQ combo 3 Orgs. Other. 1 = LA vessel and IFQ vessel 2 = LA vessel with IFQ permit on same vessel 3 = LA vessel with IFQ permit plus IFQ vessel or CPH 17 “Other” = NGOM only, shoreside support, other interested public.

Comments supporting current trip limit  19 commenters supporting current 600-pound limit Rationale : Longer trips cause:  Safety issues  Product quality issues  Increased insurance costs  Inconsistent availability IFQ only LA only of ‘dayboat’ product LA and IFQ combo 1 LA and IFQ combo 2 LA and IFQ combo 3 Orgs. No longer ‘dayboat’ 1 = LA vessel and IFQ vessel vision (A11) 2 = LA vessel with IFQ permit on same vessel 3 = LA vessel with IFQ permit plus IFQ vessel or CPH 18 “Other” = NGOM only, shoreside support, other interested public.

Comments supporting current trip limit Uncertain or neutral preference Rationale (cont’d.): on limit  Higher lease prices Make the same limit in open and access areas  Negative impact to fishermen reliant on Increase limit only in open areas leasing Increase limit only in access areas  Benefit for [non- fishing] quota holders Increase limit  Concerns of effort shifting to other Keep current limit (No Action) fisheries (i.e. Reduce limit fluke/squid/BSB)— mostly Mid-Atlantic 0 5 10 15 20 stakeholders IFQ only LA only LA and IFQ combo 1 LA and IFQ combo 2 LA and IFQ combo 3 Orgs.  Concerns of continued Other. consolidation 1 = LA vessel and IFQ vessel 2 = LA vessel with IFQ permit on same vessel 3 = LA vessel with IFQ permit plus IFQ vessel or CPH 19 “Other” = NGOM only, shoreside support, other interested public.