New England Fishery Management Council Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP Public Hearing Summary Hyannis, MA September 14, 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. This meeting was held in two parts, with commercial measures discussed in the afternoon and recreational fishing measures discussed in the evening. Council members Mr. Eric Smith, Dr. David Pierce, and Mr. John Pappalardo were present in the afternoon, and Mr. Smith was also present in the evening. Approximately sixty-five to seventy people attended the afternoon session for commercial regulations, and about twenty to twenty-five attended the evening session on recreational regulations. Seventy-two people signed the attendance sheet. Both sessions followed the same procedure. 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. Afternoon Session (Commercial Measures) Mr. Keith Burkman, Town Manager, Provincetown MA: I have a question on the process, in order to gauge the impacts and decide what we need to do. It would be helpful to understand the process by which this group makes a recommendation to the Secretary, and what type of review and editing may take place at that level. How much opportunity will state, local, and federal officials have to express their concerns. Usually it is cut and dried at local hearings - you comment directly to the decision maker. This process is more complicated. Mr. Blount: Congressional staffs have already been briefed by NMFS. There are five more public hearings, and the comment period ends in mid-October. The Groundfish Committee will meet in late October, and develop a recommendation for the full Council. The Committee may pick a recommended alternative. The full Council meets the first week of November, will consider the recommendations of the Committee, and decide on a proposed action at that time. The final document must be submitted to NMFS by mid-December. NMFS will review the document, and either accept or reject the Council's proposal. They could reject it outright, or they could reject parts of it. Once NMFS completes its review, it is given to the Secretary of Commerce to review, and the new regulations are put in place by May 1, 2004. Mr. Nies: NMFS does not believe this action is subject to judicial review under the Framework 33 lawsuit, but not all parties to that lawsuit agree. Mr. Ted Leguinza, fishermen, Chatham MA: In Alternative 1, is hook gear required to sign in and use the GB cod seasonal trip limit, or can a fishermen choose to abide by the other trip limit? Mr. Blount: A fishermen could choose to use either one. Mr. Ron Smolowitz: Fisheries Survival Fund: With respect to the hard TAC options, is there any discussion or analysis of how this will affect other fisheries? Mr. Nies: Similar comments have been made at other public hearings. The document is not clear, in some places saying that if the TAC is caught all groundfishing with gear that catches the species is subject to some type of additional restrictions, in other places implying it is all gear capable of catching groundfish. It was intended to be affect only groundfishing. Mr. Steve Scannel, fisherman, MA: Could I have more detail on the formula used for the US/CA resource sharing understanding? Mr. Nies: The details of the formula are in one of the appendices. The shares are based on a calculation that uses both survey distribution and historic catches in the agreement area. Over time, the historic catch becomes less important until eventually the survey distribution becomes the only factor considered. Dr. Pierce: Another aspect is what biomass targets will be used. It is not clear the Canadians will accept the NMFS proposed biomass targets. Mr. Paul Parker, Executive Director, Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Assn., Chatham, MA: With respect to the US/CA agreement, will it be a hard TAC? Mr. Nies: There are two options, one where it would be a hard TAC and another where it would not be. Mr. Parker: If it is not a hard TAC, and the U.S. allocation is exceeded, where do those fish come from? Mr. Blount: Just those areas on Georges Bank. Mr. Parker: Is there any downside if they overfish the eastern Georges Bank? I don't think many people even know this agreement exists. What about bycatch TACs? Can you only access haddock until you start overfishing cod? Dr. Pierce: Your concerns are valid. When the Committee talks about this agreement, we will have to have in front of us all the specific in order to avoid confusion. With respect to bycatch quotas, I expect NMFS will push for a strategy – that whatever bycatch occurs in other fisheries, that would be tallied up and come off the TAC for the next year, and we could wind up spiraling downward. Mr. Parker: Is this agreement tied to the Amendment 13 process? Mr. Shawn Fortier, fisherman, Provincetown, MA: Back in April of 2000, the Council made a statement concerning enforceability of regulations. Has there been any consideration of whether these measures are enforceable? We cannot expect an increase in enforcement resources. Mr. Nies: Volume I of the full amendment includes an evaluation of whether the measures are enforceable. This was prepared with the assistance of NMFS and the Coast Guard. Some measures may not be enforceable. Mr. William Henchy, counsel for the Provincetown Fishery Association and CCHFA: What process if being followed for the US/CA Resource Sharing Understanding? Is it a treaty? Who runs the meetings? Are they open to the public? Mr. Nies: the discussions have been held between NFMS and Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans. NMFS asked the Council to suggest industry participants, all of who have been Council members. I do not believe NMFS has publicly announced the meetings, but I am not sure if they are open to the public or not. It is not a treaty. The NERO Office of Sustainable Fisheries was involved, but I believe it is being run as a special project under the Regional Administrator. After a short break, public comment was received. In addition to oral statements, a written statement was provided for the record from Mr. Luis Ribas (attached). In addition, six commenters provided copies of prepared statements that they read into the record. Mr. Tom Luce, longliner, Chatham, MA: I want to address the worst case scenario under Alternative 2. Hook gear restrictions are down to 1,000 hooks per day. Once the cod TAC is reached, no one can fish for cod. I should get back my 3,600 hooks to fish for haddock or some other species. Other gear types have that ability. Mr. Robert O’Leary, Massachusetts State Senator for the Cape and Islands: I am struck by how complex this whole business is. It is difficult to understand all that is going on – I don't envy you your task of trying to protect both industry and the species. Having said that, it is important to look at the communities that are dependent on this industry. It is not just about fish species, it is about a way of life in communities across New England. One of the proposals but forward, a subset of the four main alternatives, is the principal of sector allocation. This proposal has been advocated by fishermen on the Cape. I speak in favor of that option. It seeks to give fishermen in the community a stake in managing the resource in a way that give them flexibility yet requires them to be accountable. In all of the complexity in this plan, flexibility will be lost. Sector allocation should be approved, at least on an experimental basis. If you set up a system that allows a community to help manage the stock, you will accomplish a great deal. Dr. Pierce: It would be helpful if those interested in sector allocation got more ins9ight into the specific proposals. Will those individuals who want to pursue that strategy have to do more than what is in the amendment? Staff: yes. They will have to develop a plan that identifies the participants, describes how they will monitor the fishery to remain within the allocation, and may have to prepare an environmental assessment. Dr. Sheryl Andrews, Acting Chair, Provincetown Board of Selectmen: I ma here with two other Provincetown selectmen. Provincetown has spent the last ten years working to revitalize our waterfront. From the outset of the reconstruction of our pier, we have been committed to maintaining a vital commercial fishing fleet. We now have a state of the art pie, and independent agency to run it, and a newly energized fishing organization to use it. We are here because the Council is considering alternatives that may devastate our small fleet. Give special attention to the concerns raised by our fishermen. Every year we have fewer and fewer fishermen left in Provincetown. They are becoming their own endangered species. Don’t' let that happen. Mr. Keith Burkman, Town Manager, Provincetown: At some point we will say "ditto" to whatever the Provincetown Fishermen's Association says, whether at this meeting or later. The need of Provincetown are unique. I was touched by Senator O'Leary's comment – the fabric of the community is what this is all about.