1 New England Fishery Management Council Amendment 13 to The

New England Fishery Management Council Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP Public Hearing Summary Portland, ME September 25, 2003 A public hearing was held to receive comments on the draft Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and the accompanying Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). The meeting was chaired by Groundfish Oversight Committee Chair Mr. Frank Blount, assisted by Council staff Tom Nies. Council members Mr. George LaPointe, Mr. Lew Flagg, Mr. John Williamson, Mr. Bud Fernandes, Mr. Erik Anderson, and Mr. Jim Odlin were also present. There were about two hundred people in attendance, sixty who signed the attendance sheet. After introductions, Council staff provided an overview of the amendment documents (including the public hearing document and the measures matrix) and described the comment process and future actions. The public then asked questions to clarify the issues before providing comments. The questions asked, with staff responses, were: Ms. Maggie Raymond, Associated Fishermen of Maine (AFM), South Berwick ME: Here with me today are Mr. David Frulla, legal counsel to AFM and several others from AFM. During the comment period I will let you hear from members of AFM that you don't usually hear from. I have a number of questions about the document and the analysis. The document includes as the No Action alternative the Amendment 8 biomass targets. However that is not listed in the public hearing document. Is that indeed an optio n. Mr. Nies: That is the No Action alternative. Ms. Raymond If the Council chose those biomass targets, would there be different fishing mortality targets that result? Mr. Nies: Yes, for some stocks. Ms. Raymond: Table 48 on page 219 and Table 70 on page 228 show the Plan Developments Team's (PDT's) estimates of how close the 2001 come in terms of achieving the new biomass targets. My question is do you have similar projections available that show how close the current conservation plan comes to achieving those targets? Mr. Nies: The tables are not in the document, but we do have the information to create those. They are not in the document because the status quo alternative is not an option being considered by the Council. Ms. Raymond: Would it be possible to get them in the same form? Mr. Nies: Yes. Ms. Raymond: Did you actually describe to the public what the difference is between No Action and Status Quo? Mr. Nies: No, and that has caused some confusion at other meetings. No Action in this amendment is the fishing mortality rates that were in place in fishing year 2001, or the management measures in place in 2001. Status quo is the management measures in place now. Ms. Raymond: Question on text in the document, referring to No Action and status quo. Mr. Nies: There are still some errors in the document where we mix up the terms status quo and No Action. In general, the term status quo should be corrected to say No Action. Ms. Raymond: Back in April the Plan Development Team (PDT) came up with estimates of 2002 fishing mortality, based on limited commercial landings information. Have they been updated, and will they be made available Mr. Nies: N, those estimates have not been updated yet. The PDT did compare our estimate of landings to the actual landings when they became available, and found that most were within ten percent of our estimate. This issue has been raised by a number 1 of people. Paul Howard is pursuing that issue with NMFS, and has a conference call next week to discuss that. Until that call is held, I won't know if the revised estimates will be available. Ms. Raymond: Figures 177 and 178 on page 549 compare the annual difference in landings and revenues of different rebuilding strategies (phased, constant, and adaptive). All have lower fishing mortalities than the No Action alternative. Yet about 2014, the rebuilding strategies show a jump in landings, presumably because some stocks are rebuilt and the mortality is allowed to increase. This does not appear to happen for the No Action alternative, even though some stocks rebuild under No Action. Mr. Nies: Under the No Action alternative, fishing mortality is held constant through the rebuilding period. Mortality is not allowed to increase if the stock rebuilds. Ms. Raymond: Alternative 1 includes a modified version of the Georges Bank cod trip limit. It is not clear whether the lowered trip limit resulted in any offset of the DAS reduction? Mr. Nies: There is no offset, for three reasons. First, the Council did not choose that as a proposed measure – they merely adjusted the trip limit. Second, the analysis shows only a slight reduction in fishing mortality as a result of the lowered trip limit, which means and DAS reduction would be minor. Third, and significant change in the DAS would affect other stocks that need large reductions in fishing mortality and additional measures would have to be developed for those stocks. Mr. Peter Innis, Portland ME: I have a question on the chart showing yearly catch rates. You used the 2002 catch rates. The chart you showed for cod showed a mass of codfish, a huge rate, and an increase. In the future, where thee is no proof and you have to imagine your formulas, everything flatlines. I'd like to know the reason for that. How come where you have data it goes up at a substantial rate, but in your projections in the future it flatlines. How come we see the stock increasing now, but your projections show in the future the stock size levels out? Mr. Nies: The flatline in those charts, which starts in 2014 for mo st stocks, reflects the fact that fishing mortality would increase in 2014 up to the rate, the fishing mortality threshold, the rate that would produce maximum sustainable yield. In general terms, that means that you are taking out of the stock all the excess growth and the stock size stays the same. Everyone knows in reality the stock size will fluctuate around that level. When you run the projection model, it shows a relatively constant stock size. The projections show the stock increasing, and then leveling out in the future. Mr. Gary Libby, Port Clyde ME: On DAS allocations. Why not freeze unused DAS and unused permits? Freeze them during the rebuilding period? Form what I understand we have used about 41,000 DAS last year. Was that taken into consideration? Mr. Nies: I don't think there is an option that is identical to what you suggest, though Capacity Option 8 might be similar. Mr. Bud Brown, ME: Could I see the table that showed landings for fishing year 2004 and 2005, and compared them to earlier years? (Table shown). So the landings should increase beyond recent years? Mr. Nies: Yes, if the rebuilding strategies are perfectly implemented. Mr. Geoff Smith: Is it possible to have a net benefit chart, or revenue chart, prepared and compared to 2002? Mr. Nies: Without committing to do so, it is probably technically possible. Mr. Shaun Gehan, Trawler Survival Fund (TSF): I have a question on the phased rebuilding strategy approach. In Alternative 1, the DAS reductions are phased in over four years, but in fact the original phased strategy had mortality reductions phased in over a longer period of time for some stocks. Is the phased reduction strategy table in the document correct or not? Mr. Nies: The Committee directed the PDT to phase in the reduction over four years. 2 Mr. Gehan: So the table as shown in the document is not exactly correct? This should be clarified. Mr. Nies: Good point. Mr. Anderson: I have a question on re-estimating the 2002 fishing mortality rates. Will that affect the rebuilding fishing mortality rates? Mr. Nies: Probably not, unless the estimates change a lot. The PDT estimated 2002 fishing mortality rates based on ten months of landings data. The PDT performed a sensitivity analysis to see how much of a change in the rebuilding mortality resulted from a change in the 2002 mortality. For most stocks, a large change was necessary. But it might affect the difference from where we are too where we need to get to. It is possible to go back and re-estimated using the full year of landings data. Mr. David Frulla, TSF: If the high three rebuilding targets were adopted, with the fishing mortality targets differ? Is there analysis of different rebuilding mortalities for the high three targets? Mr. Nies: No, specific targets were not calculated. This is because the Council accepted the fishing mortality rates calculated by the Center when they adopted this option. They would probably be different for two stocks, CC/GOM yellowtail flounder and plaice. Mr. Frulla: What would be the tangible manifestation in terms of DAS allowed to be used? Mr. Nies: I don't know. It would take additional analysis. Mr. Bill Vale, representing Senator Susan Collins, ME: I have a process question. Would any of the four proposals be reflective of what the Secretary of Commerce might prepare if the Council does not act? What does that do to the clock? Mr. Blount: I imagine they would pick from the document that is already prepared, but I cannot answer for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). That would be a reasonable assumption. Mr. Peter Innis: I would like to add to what Bill just said. Under the circumstances, I understood that an option might be to bring the targets back where they should be.

Load more