Agenda Item E.5.B
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Agenda Item E.5.b Supplemental Public Comment 2 Full Version Electronic Only April 2015 April 2, 2015 111 SW Columbia Street, Suite 200 Portland, Oregon 97201 Dorothy Lowman, Chair pewtrusts.org Pacific Fishery Management Council 1100 NE Ambassador Place, #101 Portland, OR 97220 RE: Agenda Item E.5 (Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat Amendment Scoping, Including RCA and Area Adjustments) Dear Chair Lowman and Council Members, We write to express our support for the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (Council) ongoing efforts to develop an amendment to its Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to holistically address and improve both habitat protections and economic opportunities in the fishery. Such an approach is another example of the Council’s demonstrated commitment to the implementation of Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM), not only through its Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) and related Ecosystem Initiatives, but also through more traditional actions taken under its four existing single-species FMPs. At the April Council meeting, we ask the Council to advance this Groundfish FMP amendment by delineating a broad scope for the action and providing guidance on the development of a wide range of alternatives. We place special emphasis on including alternatives expanding bottom trawl closures of unfished areas to the pristine deepwater beyond the 3,500 meter depth contour and on protection of deep sea corals (DSC) and other structure forming invertebrates. On the following pages we offer detailed recommendations in these and other areas, summarized as follows: • Include the following in the scope of issues to be addressed in the FMP amendment through the development of a range of alternatives: o New or modified designations of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Council- managed groundfish species o New or modified EFH Conservation Areas o New or modified habitat protections under authorities other than EFH o New or modified area-based management measures to address mortality or bycatch o New or modified gear regulations to address management needs including habitat protection (e.g., measures to address bottom contact by midwater trawl gear) o New designations of key prey species of Council-managed groundfish • Incorporate the remaining stakeholder proposals from Phase II of the five year EFH review into a menu of options available to the Council, organized by the type of management measures described (e.g., EFH designations, EFH closures, gear-related regulations, etc.) • Adopt a coastwide scope for the development of a range of alternatives • Develop alternatives for closing areas beyond the 3,500 meter depth contour to bottom trawling under authorities other than EFH, especially the broad authority in Section 303(b)(12) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) • Prioritize the protection of DSC and other structure-forming invertebrates, through the utilization of EFH or other legal authorities • Adopt a process and schedule for further development of the FMP amendment, including: o Review and adopt a range of alternatives at the September 2015 Council meeting, as currently planned on a provisional basis in the Council’s Preliminary Year at a Glance Summary o Schedule the adoption of Preliminary Preferred Alternatives (PPA) for the April 2016 Council meeting Introduction: The Council has become a leader on practicable, operational implementation of EBFM, which is demonstrated through the evolution of this management action. First, the Council initiated and completed a proactive, robust five year review of groundfish EFH, including solicitation and review of a set of stakeholder proposals for EFH revisions. Upon concluding that sufficient new information was available to warrant consideration of new EFH provisions, the Council initiated an FMP amendment. Second, the Council recognized that certain area-based management measures in the FMP originally created to address issues other than habitat nevertheless had significant ancillary habitat benefits, and thus any revision of those measures could have habitat implications. Most prominently, this applies to potential revisions the Council hopes to adopt for the depth-based Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA). In light of this the Council decided to consider combining these two complex yet critical management actions into a single amendment. This type of holistic approach is highly consistent with the tenets of EBFM, and the Council deserves credit for this decision. The Council also deserves credit for its willingness to look beyond legal requirements and seek proactive, precautionary, ecosystem-oriented habitat protections like its past efforts to freeze the footprint of bottom trawling. Now the Council’s deliberative, stakeholder-driven approach has again presented the opportunity to make significant strides in this direction. Therefore we urge the Council to cast a wide net as it sets the scope of this FMP amendment, developing alternatives for a wide array of potential new habitat and EFH protections including expansion of the trawl footprint closure beyond its current 3,500 meter depth limit, and also alternatives for modification of various area-based management measures that will improve both habitat protection and fishery profitability. The information on the following pages provides a more thorough analysis and justification of our requests. 2 Identify a wide scope of issues for development of alternatives, including habitat protections under authorities other than EFH and including adjustments to area-based management measures (e.g., RCA): The FMP amendment currently being scoped was initiated as a result of the Council’s recent five-year review of groundfish EFH. It was originally a more narrowly focused action to review and update EFH designations and protections for managed groundfish species. Subsequently, the Council decided to consider the inclusion of other issues in the amendment, including issues of an area-based nature with potential habitat ramifications or a nexus to habitat concerns. The primary example of an area-based management issue with a habitat nexus that has been added is consideration of adjustments to the depth-based RCA. This longstanding and highly successful management measure, a complex array of large coastwide seasonal and year-round closed areas, was created in 2002 to address incidental catch of overfished stocks.1 As these overfished stocks have begun to recover, the Council and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) have appropriately considered changes to portions of the boundary of the RCA to liberalize fishery access, such as a Council proposal in 2013 to re-open certain areas that have been closed to bottom trawling since 2004.2 The proposed re-openings were subsequently found to include areas that may have partially recovered from trawl impacts.3 NOAA Fisheries in turn concluded that RCA changes of this magnitude may have habitat-related impacts, and that additional analysis (including further progress of the Council’s ongoing review of groundfish EFH) was needed before the RCA changes could be approved.4 While the RCA closures were not established to serve as habitat protection (they were intended to address catch and bycatch of overfished stocks), they are nevertheless recognized for their “corollary mitigating effect on adverse impacts to EFH.”5 As such, it is important to consider, analyze, and address the EFH-related effects of any RCA boundary changes. The most efficient and comprehensive way to do so is through a combined FMP action with goals and objectives designed to achieve an overall improvement and increase in habitat protection, consistent with provisions of the MSA that call for the conservation and enhancement of EFH.6 In September 2014 the Council recognized the value of a combined FMP action and decided to consider “a package of actions related to area management modifications concurrently with the 1 “Rockfish Conservation Areas”, NOAA FISHERIES West Coast Region, accessed March 24, 2015, http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/management/groundfish_closures/rockfish_areas.html 2 See 78 Fed. Reg. 56641-56645, (September 13, 2013), (Rockfish Conservation Area Boundaries for Vessels Using Bottom Trawl Gear, Proposed Rule), p. 56643 3 See NOAA FISHERIES, “Trawl Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) Boundary Modifications, Final Environmental Assessment”, February 2014, at p. 23 4 See 79 Fed. Reg. 21639-21647, (April 17, 2014), (Rockfish Conservation Area Boundaries for Vessels Using Bottom Trawl Gear, Final Rule), pp. 21641, 21643 5 See Pacific Fishery Management Council, Final Amendment 19 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, November 2005, page 73 6 See 16 U.S.C. § 1853 (a)(7); see also 16 U.S.C. § 1855 (b)(1)(A) 3 essential fish habitat amendment (EFH) process.”7 These potentially include RCA revisions, changes to midwater trawl access to RCA and EFH Conservation Areas, modifications to area- based gear restrictions, and possible creation of a new RCA to conserve cowcod.8 We support this expanded scope for the amendment. The addition of potential adjustments to area-based management measures will certainly increase the complexity of the action and the associated analyses. However, it will ensure that managers can make fully informed and holistic decisions and that any FMP revisions designed to increase industry access and profitability also meet requirements to conserve and enhance EFH. We also support