Doc.1b Sam Asci, NEFMC staff NEFMC Plymouth, MA September 25, 2018
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 See Doc.4b Management timeline, structure Fishery trends Fleet diversity vessel size, leasing, crew size Potential impacts on resource, EFH, PR, non-target species Vessel baseline restrictions 5
LAGC IFQ permits: 2010 - 2017 Number of active active inactive/ total permits declined FY permits CPH permits slightly over the 8 2010 151 179 330 year time period. 2011 138 192 330 2012 123 195 318 Number of inactive 2013 118 198 316 permits fluctuated 2014 131 185 316 over time, almost no 2015 128 185 313 change in absolute 2016 141 173 314 number between 2017 137 178 315 2010 2017. trend line 6
LAGC IFQ by Region/State 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 7
Distribution of active vessels by size 80 Key points (see Doc.4b, p.50) : 74 70 70 69 70 Number of vessels (see 64 62 62 61 figure), landings, and 60 64 active LAGC IFQ vessels allocation by vessel size 56 50 52 52 remained relatively stable 40 43 42 41 40 Smaller vessels (< 50 ft) 30 increasing over time 20 23 Overall, diverse 21 20 19 16 16 15 15 10 participation in IFQ fishery by vessel size 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 across time period. FY ≥ 75 ft < 50 ft 50 ft - 74 ft 8
Trip costs $5.00 Key points: $4.50 $4.00 Fuel price driving factor $3.50 in trip cost (see Doc.4b, p.58) . $3.00 Increasing fuel prices were $2.50 part of Council’s rationale $2.00 for raising LAGC IFQ $1.50 possession limit from 400 $1.00 pounds 600 pounds (2011). $0.50 $0.00 Observed fuel prices Mar Oct May Dec Jul Feb Sep Apr Nov Jun Jan Aug Mar Oct May Dec Jul Feb Sep Apr appear to be increasing 20072008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 steadily since 2016. Average monthly fuel price from observed LAGC IFQ trips, 2007-May 2018 (see Doc.4b, p.58) 9
Crew size 60% Key points: Crew size varies (widely) at 600 50% lb trip limits percent of active LAGC IFQ vessels Majority of LAGC IFQ vessels 40% are currently around 50’ in length, and carry 3-4 crew 30% members. No crew limit for LAGC IFQ PDT input: 20% Increasing trip limit to 800 lbs is not likely to increase crew size, 10% but a larger increase (i.e. to 1200 lbs) might. 0% If vessel size increased, crew size 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2 or less 3 4 5 6 or more 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 . There are 134 LAGC without baseline • limiting permit (i.e. IFQ permits that do with baseline LAGC only or not have a baseline limiting permit w/Lobster) Total 168 134 302 restriction. 49 were active in 56% 44% • 2017. 11
Simulation Analyses of Changing Trip Limit See Doc.4a Dr. Demet Haksever (Council staff) Relative economic impacts of 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 12
Key Points from Tasking Analysis How might LAGC See Doc.4a, p.10, Table 8. Combined (AA and open IFQ fishery area) trip length/number of trips at range of trip limits. change? Trip Trip % Change Fewer, longer trips. limit Number of Length Trip Less DAS overall. (Lb) Trips (hr) Length At 1,200 lb limit, 400 75 19.0 -23% 600 50 24.8 0% average trip length 800 38 30.6 23% estimated to be 40+ 1000 30 36.4 47% hours. 1200 25 42.2 70% 13
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) Committee (14-Sept-18) Motion to initiate a new By Consensus : FW to address LAGC IFQ Recommended trip limits to avoid delaying continuing as 2019 specs priority Motion (withdrawn) address baseline restrictions, crew size limit, trips per week (derby) Baseline restrictions & weekly trip limit would require Amendment 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 1 st , 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
Recommend
More recommend
