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

3. GROUNDFISH (Sept. 29- Oct. 1, 2015) #5f Rachel Feeney Council Staff NEFMC Mtg. September 30, 2015 1

Discussion Purpose • Consider public, GAP , and Cte input • Make preferred alternative final recommendations Outline • Timeline • Purpose/need/goals • Alternatives w/ initial preferences • Public comments 2

A18 timeline 2015 Public comment period ends Aug. 31 Groundfish Advisory Panel mtg Sept. 2 Groundfish Committee mtg Sept. 3 9/29 – 10/1 Council mtg – FINAL ACTION Oct. FEIS submitted to NMFS 2016 Jan. Public comment period May Possible implementation 3

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. A18 Goals 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. 4

PSC cap alternatives (Sect 4.1.2) GAP 1 st choice 1 No Action . No accumulation limit. Cte preferred Stock-specific PSC cap 2 At highest level held on 4/7/11 (control date) 3 All at 15.5% (recommended by Compass Lexecon) 4 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 5 All at 20%, except GB winter flounder (30%) Council preferred Collective cap for all PSC holdings 6 Average of 15.5% GAP 2 nd choice Cte motion - Add an option of a stock-specific PSC cap of 23%. 5

How would excess PSC be treated? (Sect. 4.1.2.2) Excess current holdings GAP preferred A Can hold permits, but not use excess PSC Council preferred B Must divest permits with excess PSC Cte - no preferred C Can hold permits, but must divest excess PSC Excess future holdings GAP preferred A Can hold permits, but not use excess Council preferred PSC Cte - no preferred B Can hold permits, but must divest excess PSC 6

Permit cap alternatives (Sect 4.1.3) 1 No Action. No accumulation limit. GAP 1 st choice 2 No individual, permit bank or entity GAP 2 nd choice can hold over 5% (about 70) of the Cte preferred limited access Northeast Council preferred Multispecies permits. 7

GARFO implementation questions (Clarification in DEIS recommended) 1. Under Alternative 6, which stock would have PSC withheld? Who would make the decision (NMFS, permit holder)? Cte Motion - The individual permit holder could choose the stocks that would have excess PSC withheld. 2. What is the timing for enforcing the cap (mid-year; beginning of the next year)? Cte Motion - Should someone exceed a cap mid-year, the cap would be in force at the start of the next fishing year.

HA sub-ACL alternatives (Sect 4.2.1) GAP preferred 1 No Action Cte preferred 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 Council preferred 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 9

Other HA alternatives March 1-20 HA Closure (4.2.2) 1 No Action GAP preferred 2 Remove March 1-20 HA closure Cte preferred Council preferred Standard Fish T ote (4.2.3) 1 No Action GAP preferred 2 Remove standard fish tote requirement Cte preferred Council preferred Sector VMS Exemption (4.2.4) 1 No Action GAP preferred 2 Exempt HA vessels in sectors from VMS use Cte preferred Council preferred 10

Data confidentiality alternatives (Sect 4.3) GAP preferred 1 No Action Cte preferred Council preferred 2 Make price data on leasing/moving ACE non-confidential 11

Inshore/offshore GOM boundary alternatives (Sect 4.4.1) 1 No Action. No Boundary GAP preferred Cte preferred 2 Establish inshore/offshore GOM Council preferred 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 sub-ACLs alternatives (Sect 4.4.2) GAP preferred 1 No Action. No new sub-ACLs. Cte preferred Council preferred 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 GAP recommends not on a given trip. implementing the Inshore GOM Unobserved trips - If vessel declares into Declaration Plan more than one BSA, the vessel cannot through regulations. fish in the inshore GOM area (similar to sector ops plans). 13

sub-ACL Alternative 2 cont. (Determining split) 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 14

GOM/GB Inshore Restricted Roller Gear Area alternatives (Sect 4.4.3) GAP preferred 1 No Action. 12” max for trawl roller Cte preferred gear for all trawls fishing under Council preferred groundfish FMP . Potential No Action. Include all trawls. 2 Align boundary with inshore/offshore GOM line. 15

Declaration time period alternatives (Sect 4.4.4) GAP preferred 1 No Action. Do not specify time Cte preferred periods. Council preferred 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

Redfish Exemption Area alternatives (Sect 4.5) 1 No Action. FY 2015-2016 exemption Cte preferred remains in place. Future approvals through sector ops plans process. 2 Establish Redfish Exemption Area within FMP . Council preferred Monitoring Option A - No action. Use standard observer rate. Option B - 100% monitoring. GAP - no preferred Cte Motion - Prefer Alternative 1. 17

Amendment 18 Public Comment Period ---------- July 7 – August 31, 2015 • • 13 oral comments 18 written comments • 18

Oral Comments Location Attendees* Speakers Portland, ME 8 5 Portsmouth, NH 2 0 New Bedford, MA 7 5 Mystic, CT 0 0 Gloucester, MA 6 3 webinar 1 0 T otal 24** 13 *Not including Council members or staff. **22 total attendees if duplicates removed. 19

Written Comments Letter types Individual letter 7 (39%) Form letter 1 (6%) – 40 signatures NGO 8 (44%) Federal agency 2 (11%) T otal 18 20

Stakeholder Type (All commenters)* 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 otal 61 (100%) 21 * excludes the two federal agency letters .

Home state (All commenters)* ME 23 (38%) NH 3 (5%) MA 32 (52%) RI 1 (2%) VA 1 (2%) Unknown 1 (2%) T otal 61 (100%) * excludes the two federal agency letters. 22

NGOs represented (All commenters) 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 23

Content – general concerns re A18 Individuals NGOs Council should take more time on A18 41 0 Too much time has been spent on a18 1 1 Fishery consolidation is not a concern 1 1 Fleet diversity and consolidation are not 43 5 meaningfully addressed in A18 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 otal 46 6 24

Content – accumulation limits Individuals NGOs Opposes accumulation limits 2 2 (sufficient protections in place; caps prevent achieving OY) Supports accumulation limits 46 5 (keep as many people/communities fishing as possible) Opposes preferred alternatives 45 5 (caps must be stock-specific; community impacts should be considered, not just market power) Supports preferred alternatives 1 5 (least disruptive; doesn’t penalize PSC acquired through A16) T otal 48 8 25

Content – HA measures Individuals NGOs Opposes creating HA sub-ACLs 0 1 Supports creating HA sub-ACLs 2 2 T otal 2 3 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.) 26