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
Council Meeting South Portland, ME June 11, 2019
1
Jonathon Peros & Sam Asci Council Staff
#1
Several motions for Council to consider today.
2
Reviewed by PDT—May 9th, 2019 Reviewed by AP/CTE—May 22-23rd, 2019
LAGC IFQ-only vessels
3
4
188 attendees at 10
57 individuals provided
24 written comments
5
Location Attendees Speakers Rockport, ME 45 8 Gloucester, MA 28 13 Chatham, MA 18 4 New Bedford, MA 24 11 Narragansett, RI 12 10 Riverhead, NY 4 1 Manahawkin, NJ 25 9 Cape May, NJ 6 4 Hampton, VA 18 4 webinar 8 1 Total 188 a 57 b
a Includes duplicates. b Duplicates removed.
Table 1. Public hearing attendance
6
Table 2. Primary stakeholder type of commenters
Primary stakeholder type Oral
Oral & written Written
Total
NGOM only
11 3 2 16
LA only
3 3
IFQ only
20 2 9 31
LA vessel and IFQ vessel
1 1
LA vessel with IFQ permit
1 1 2
LA vessel with IFQ permit plus IFQ vessel or CPH
7 7
Shoreside support services
2 1 3
Fishing organization
2 2 4 8
Government
1 1
Other interested public
1 1
Total commenters
47 10 16 73
7
Table 4. Home state of commenters
State
Number of commenters % of Total 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%
A21 scoping meeting locations.
NGOM fishermen
generally happy with current management measures
Strong interest in
developing RSA
LA stakeholders support
continued access in NGOM
See Table 5.
8 Table 5. Commenters and comments on management of the NGOM area T
Total Commented on NGOM area managementa 35
Boundary
Keep current boundary (No Action) 15 Move boundary 3
Gear
Require use of the same gear for all vessels/permits 10
Permits
Allow limited permit shifting (No Action) 2 Prohibit other permits shifting to NGOM permits 8
Allocation
Keep current LA-LAGC split (No Action) 10 Create a different split 1 Keep LA vessels in NGOM fishery 11
Time/ sub- areas
Keep current opening date, no trimesters (No Action) 10 Spreading timing out 4 Allow access to groundfish closed areas 4 Create sub-areas 1 Enable trimesters/sub-areas through future framework 10
Trip limit
Keep current trip limit (No Action) 2 Increase trip limit 3 Add DAS to current trip limit 1
Science
Create RSA in NGOM 13 Create electronic monitoring 5
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)
9
“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.”
10
“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”
11
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.
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
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.
13
~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
Strong support for RSA
program in NGOM Rationale: improved survey information will sustain long- term fishing opportunities.
Several comments in
support of EM program to better inform management
14
5 10 15
Create RSA in NGOM Create electronic monitoring
Comments in
support/opposition received from range
Total of 50 comments
from 48 people (Tables 8 & 9)
15
Support for higher limit
mostly from Massachusetts stakeholders (9)
Support for 600-pound
limit mostly from New Jersey (7) Massachusetts (5)
‘Unknown’ were
anonymous comments
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
Ability to fish farther
inshore a break
16
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 “Other” = NGOM only, shoreside support, other interested public. IFQ only LA only LA and IFQ combo 1 LA and IFQ combo 2 LA and IFQ combo 3 Orgs. Other.
Also some
support for increasing limit in AAs Rationale:
Lots of steaming
to fish AAs, higher limit would offset fuel costs
17
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 “Other” = NGOM only, shoreside support, other interested public.
5 10 15 20 Reduce limit Keep current limit (No Action) Increase limit Increase limit only in access areas Increase limit only in open areas Make the same limit in open and access areas Uncertain or neutral preference
IFQ only LA only LA and IFQ combo 1 LA and IFQ combo 2 LA and IFQ combo 3 Orgs. Other.
19 commenters
supporting current 600-pound limit Rationale: Longer trips cause:
Safety issues Product quality issues Increased insurance
costs
Inconsistent availability
No longer ‘dayboat’ vision (A11)
18
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 “Other” = NGOM only, shoreside support, other interested public.
IFQ only LA only LA and IFQ combo 1 LA and IFQ combo 2 LA and IFQ combo 3 Orgs.
Rationale (cont’d.):
Higher lease prices
Negative impact to
fishermen reliant on leasing
Benefit for [non-
fishing] quota holders
Concerns of effort
shifting to other fisheries (i.e. fluke/squid/BSB)— mostly Mid-Atlantic stakeholders
Concerns of continued
consolidation
19
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 “Other” = NGOM only, shoreside support, other interested public.
5 10 15 20 Reduce limit Keep current limit (No Action) Increase limit Increase limit only in access areas Increase limit only in open areas Make the same limit in open and access areas Uncertain or neutral preference
IFQ only LA only LA and IFQ combo 1 LA and IFQ combo 2 LA and IFQ combo 3 Orgs. Other.
Maintain current pace of
fishery at higher trip limit:
Consider
weekly(aggregate) possession limit
Create tiered limit,
require lay-over time in port
Create vessel capacity
restrictions.
Control lease prices
Adjust observer
compensation for longer trips (currently covered for 1 day)
Account for access area
fishing in pounds (not trips)
20
31 commenters on
ability of LA vessels with IFQ to transfer to LAGC IFQ-only
Vast majority in
support of one- way transfer Rationale:
Provide more
LAGC IFQ vessels
May keep lease
prices at bay
Ensure that quota
is fished (i.e. in case of breakdown, etc.)
21
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 “Other” = NGOM only, shoreside support, other interested public. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Commented on IFQ transfers Prohibit transfer from LA to LAGC (No Action) Allow transfer from LA to LAGC Prohibit transfer from LAGC to LA Uncertain or neutral preference on transfer
IFQ only LA only LA and IFQ combo 1 LA and IFQ combo 2 LA and IFQ combo 3 Orgs. Other.
22
23
Council may wish to initiate Framework 32 at this meeting Regulatory Requirements Other 2019 Work Priorities Specifications for FY2020 and FY2021 (default) Support annual Scallop RSA process Estimate flatfish bycatch (ongoing) Specify allocation review triggers NGOM Scallop Management & LAGC IFQ trip limits and one- way quota transfers Evaluate rotational management program Action to mitigate impacts on YT flounder
1.
Allocate to LA and LAGC, under range of biomass
2.
Minimize current derby style fishery, lengthen season
3.
Reliably monitor and report catch and bycatch
4.
Establish a NGOM RSA program
5.
GRA (10.5’) in NGOM and GOM dredge exemption
6.
Remove requirement for state licensed IFQ vessels to use IFQ when fishing NGOM during state season (New - state waters exemption issue)
24
25
Allows NGOM and IFQ vessels to fish in state waters after NGOM closes to LAGC fishing.
LAGC IFQ vessels are required to use quota in state waters fishery, they are only exempt from the NGOM area closure.
26
27
1.
Increase the IFQ trip limit in all areas (up to 1,200 lbs)
2.
Increase IFQ trip limit in only access areas
3.
Allow permanent and temporary transfer of IFQ from LA to LAGC IFQ (added at Jan. Council)
28
2019
January: Council Approved Scoping Document Feb – April: Scoping Period, 10 Scoping Meetings June: Review scoping comments; develop goals/objectives Summer & Fall: Develop range of alternatives & AE Fall/Winter: Approve Range of Alternatives
2020
January - March: Writing A21 and FW31/specs impacts April: Approve document for public hearings EIS process: target implementation no later than April 2021.
29
Access area trip or “bonus” scallops; ideally simple
“Specs” issue that would require additional work
30
PDT developed draft alternatives
Committee identified additional range of analyses
Scallop PDT draft alternatives
Reviewing gear modification options in July
Final Action (December)
31
32
33
34
Density 2017: 9.70 m2 2018: 5.50 m2
Yield in NLS-S High Density Area (Meats per pound) July 2018 50 – 60 Count October 2018 50 – 60 Count January 2019 50 – 60 Count May 2019 ~45 Count (mean) July 2019 ?
35
Meat quality appears good/excellent, but thin shells. Not recruited to 4” ring, but capture possible. Questionable fecundity. Likely environmental and/or density dependent
In the past, the meat quality of scallops in high
36
Evaluate 2019 survey results
Consider ways to utilize
PDT discussed areas of focus in January; CTE proceed
Continue to assemble information.
37
Areas of Focus Review Criteria Developed in Amendment 10 Maximizing yield? Where is scallop biomass relative to rotational areas? Performing as expected? Leaving areas closed long enough?
38
Initial Work Priorities NGOM Scallop Management & LAGC IFQ trip limits Evaluate rotational management program Action to mitigate impacts on YT flounder Modified Work Priorities NGOM Scallop Management & LAGC IFQ trip limits and one- way quota transfers (added Jan) Evaluate rotational management program Action to mitigate impacts on YT flounder IFQ accounting in state waters Utilize small scallops in NLS-S
Doc 3a – Committee’s RSA recommendations Doc 3b – Summary of 2019 RSA Awards See recent meeting summaries and Doc. 3a for
additional information on PDT, AP , and CTE discussions
RSA Goal for
T
RSA Research priorities (Committee Motion)
39
Scallop RSA program began in 1999 Evolved over time but overall 1.25 million pounds set-
aside each year to fund research projects (over $10mil)
About 10-15 projects are funded annually At least biennially the Council recommends the
research priorities that are used in the funding announcement
Process coordinated by NEFSC and NEFMC No federal funds – awards in pounds of scallop –
allocated through competitive grants process
40
41
~$120 million awarded over10 year period (Doc.3a)
(Average scallop price) x (set-aside lbs) = Total funding Total funding includes compensation fishing and research
Priority Number of Projects Funding Survey 64 (46%) $49,900,866 (41%) Bycatch 33 (23%) $34,794,258 (29%) Other 43 (31%) $36,002,200 (30%) Grand Total 140 $120,697,324
42
13 groups received funding through 140 successful proposals Pie chart shows percentage of total RSA awards by group
30% 25% 24% 6% 3% 3% 2% 2% 5%
Coonamessett Farm SMAST VIMS Arnie's Fisheries WHOI Maine DMR Northeastern University University of Deleware Other Groups
Coonamessett Farm Foundation
Announced on May 7, 2019 13 projects recommended for
funding, PIs from 6 organizations
Surveys (dredge, drop camera,
HabCam)
1.25+ mil. lb set-aside expected to
generate ~$14 million dollars - ~$2.8 to fund research, ~$11.4 in compensation fishing ($9.50)
3 projects funded for two years
43
44
*Survey values include dredge efficiency and deep learning/image annotation projects
45
Graphic Credit – NOAA Fisheries ALL RSA Surveys Combined
46
HIGH – In order of importance (Surveys highest priority)
1a & 1b: access areas and areas of interest 1c: Broadscale surveys of Mid-Atlantic and Georges Bank 2:
Variability in survey dredge efficiency
General Research T
3. Impact of offshore wind development on scallop resource 4. Turtle behavior in the Mid-Atlantic & Georges Bank 5. Bycatch: small scallops and non-target species 6. Scallop Meat Quality 7. Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) Research 8. Scallop Biology Research: age and growth, M, GOM
Document 3a, Full text on pages 1-2 T
wo “bins” of Priorities: Surveys and General
NEW:All priorities of equal importance Need “baseline” for impacts of offshore wind Gulf of Maine: Larger implications for GOM survey design
priority? How would the research be used?
General discussion: piecemeal vs. strategy
47
FULL
TEXT: Document 3a, pages 1 and 2
Surveys & General Research: Of Equal Importance
1a: access areas (MAAA, CAII, NLS) 1b: areas of interest (recruitment & GOM) 1c: Broadscale surveys of Mid-Atlantic and Georges Bank 2. Dredge efficiency (synthesis of existing work) 3. Impact of offshore wind development on scallop resource 4. Turtle behavior in response to climate change 5. Bycatch: small scallops and non-target species 6. Scallop Meat Quality 7. Scallop Biology Research: age and growth, M, GOM, predation 8. GOM survey optimization, data collection (SARC 65 Rec.)
48
49