Framework Adjustment 55 To the Northeast Multispecies FMP

381 Pages·2016·6.17 MB·English

by  Jonathon M. Peros

Framework Adjustment 55
To the Northeast Multispecies FMP

Prepared by the
New England Fishery Management Council
In consultation with the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
National Marine Fisheries Service

Initial Framework Meeting: June 18, 2015
Final Framework Meeting: January 27, 2016
Date Submitted: February 19, 2016
Date Resubmitted: April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016
Intentionally Blank
2
Framework Adjustment 55
Introduction and Background
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In New England, the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) is charged with developing
management plans that meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (M-S Act). The Northeast
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) specifies the management measures for thirteen
groundfish species (cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, pollock, plaice, witch flounder, white hake,
windowpane flounder, Atlantic halibut, winter flounder, redfish, Atlantic wolffish, and ocean pout) off the
New England and Mid-Atlantic coasts. The FMPs have been updated through a series of amendments and
framework adjustments. Amendment 16, which became effective on May 1, 2010, adopted a broad suite
of management measures in order to achieve the fishing mortality targets necessary to rebuild overfished
stocks and meet other requirements of the M-S Act. Amendment 18, which was submitted to NMFS on
October 30, 2015, would addresses fleet diversity and accumulation limits. Since 2010, ten framework
adjustments have updated the measures in the groundfish plan.

Amendment 16 made major changes to the FMP. The Amendment adopted a system of Annual Catch
Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measure (AMs) that are designed to ensure catches remain below
desired targets for each stock in the management complex. The National Standard Guidelines provide
advisory guidance (that does not have the effect or force of law) for the implementation of these
requirements (50 CFR 600.310(g)). AMs are management controls to prevent ACLs from being exceeded
and to correct or mitigate overages of the ACL if they occur. AMs should address and minimize both the
frequency and magnitude of overages and correct the problems that caused the overages in as short a time
as possible. AMs can be either in season AMs or AMs for when the ACL is exceeded.

NMFS acknowledged in the publication of the guidelines that there is no requirement that AMs and ACLs
be implemented as hard TACs or quotas, but conservation and management measures must be
implemented so that the ACL is not exceeded and AMs must apply if the ACL is exceeded (74 FR 3184).
While many measures in the management program are intended to control fishing mortality and might be
interpreted to be AMs since they are “management controls to prevent the ACL from being exceeded,”
the term AM is usually applied to specific, automatic measures that are implemented either as an ACL is
approached or after an ACL is exceeded.

Framework 55 (FW55) is intended to incorporate status changes for groundfish stocks, set specifications
for all groundfish stocks, update fishery program administration, and adjust management measures for
commercial and recreational fisheries that catch groundfish stocks. This framework incorporates the
results of new stock assessments into the setting of specifications, including catch limits for the
U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding and the distribution of ACLs to various components of the
fishery. FW 55 would also implement an additional sector for operation in FY2016, change the process
for approving new sectors, change the definition of the haddock separator trawl, and modify the sector at
sea monitoring (ASM) program, the distribution of U.S. TACs for Eastern/Western Georges Bank cod,
and the GOM cod protection measures.

The need for this action is to prevent overfishing, ensure rebuilding of overfished stocks, and help achieve
optimum yield in the fishery consistent with the status of stocks and the requirements of MSA of 2006.
Other needs for this action are to improve the enforcement of conservation gear, to provide additional
flexibility within the sector system and recreational fishery in the face of changing regulations and legal
circumstances. There are several purposes of FW55: to update changes to the status determination
criteria, to adopt specifications, to adopt U.S./ Canada Total Allowable Catches (TACs), to implement
new sectors, to modify the process of approving sectors, to change a net definition, to modify the at-sea
monitoring program, to facilitate the transfer of ACE between management areas, and to modify the
recreational component of the Gulf of Maine Cod protection measures.
3
Framework Adjustment 55
Introduction and Background

Proposed Action
Under the provision of the M-S Act, the Council submits proposed management actions to the Secretary
of Commerce for review. The Secretary of Commerce can approve, disapprove, or partially approve the
action proposed by the Council. In the following alternative descriptions, measures identified as Preferred
Alternatives constitute the Council’s preferred management action.

If the Preferred Alternatives identified in this document are adopted, this action would implement a range
of measures summarized in Section 4.0.

The Preferred Alternatives Include:

 Stock status changes and Annual Catch Limits

o Revised Status Determination for groundfish stocks. The preferred alternative would
revise status determination criteria consistent with the results of the peer reviewed
assessments.

o Revised Annual Catch Limit Specifications. The preferred alternative would adopt new
Overfishing limits (OFLs), Acceptable Biological Catches (ABCs), and Annual Catch
Limits for FY 2016 – FY 2018 for all groundfish stocks and FY2016 – FY2017 for GB
yellowtail flounder would be as specified. Additionally, U.S./Canada TACs- would be
specified for GB yellowtail flounder, Eastern GB cod and Eastern GB haddock. This
alternative would also distribute the ABCs to the various components of the fishery.
ACLs for state waters and other sub-components would be modified to reflect recent
catches, and a sub-ACL for southern New England yellowtail flounder would be
allocated to the Atlantic sea scallop fishery based on 90% of the scallop fishery’s
estimated catch.

 Fishery Program Administration

o Implementation of a new sector for FY 2016. The preferred alternative would approve the
formation of the Sustainable Harvest Sector II to commence on May 1, 2016, which
would be comprised of active groundfish vessels.

o Revised process for approving new northeast groundfish sectors. The preferred
alternative would modify the process for approving new groundfish sectors, such that
new sectors would not need to be approved through a Council action. The revised process
would provide for Council discussion and comment on new sector applications, and
NMFS would only approve a new sector upon the Council’s endorsement.

o Revised definition of the haddock separator trawl. The preferred alternative would revise
the current definition of the haddock separator trawl by requiring that the horizontal large
mesh separator panel must have mesh of a contrasting color to those sections of the net
that it separates. All other net specifications would remain unchanged.

 Commercial and Recreational Fishery Measures

o Modification and adjustments to groundfish monitoring program. The preferred
alternatives modify the program in several ways. When applied in concert, the preferred
4
Framework Adjustment 55
Introduction and Background
alternatives would result in a total observer coverage (NEFOP and ASM) rate of 14% in
FY 2016.
 Clarification of groundfish monitoring goals and objectives. The preferred
alternative would clarify that the primary goal of the groundfish sector ASM
program is to verify area fished, catch, and discards by species, by gear type.

 Clarification that ASM coverage levels be set only using realized stock level CVs.
The preferred alternative would clarify that the Council’s intent that ASM
coverage levels be set using only realized stock level CVs.

 Application of a multi-year approach to setting sector ASM coverage rates. The
preferred alternative would specify that ASM coverage levels should be set using
a three-year average of realized stock-level CVs.

 Remove ASM coverage requirements for sector trips fishing extra-large mesh
gear in Broad Stock Areas 2 & 4. The preferred alternative would remove ASM
coverage requirements for sector vessels fishing extra-large mesh gillnets of 10”
or greater while on a sector trip fishing exclusively in Broad Stock Areas 2 or 4.

 Adopt a fishery performance criteria predicting the target coverage level. The
preferred alternative would adopt a performance criteria for use in setting
groundfish sector ASM coverage levels on an annual basis.

o Distribution of U.S. TACs for Eastern/Western Georges Bank cod. The preferred
alternative would allow a sector or state-operated permit bank to convert its Eastern GB
cod ACE to Western GB cod ACE.

o Modify Gulf of Maine cod recreational possession limits. The preferred alternative would
allow the Regional Administrator (RA) to once again change the possession limit of
GOM cod for the recreational fishery.

Summary of Environmental Consequences

The environmental impacts of all of the alternatives under consideration are described in Section 7.0.
Biological impacts are described in Section 1.1; impacts on essential fish habitat are described in Section
7.2; impacts on endangered and other protected species are described in Section 7.3; the economic
impacts are described in Section 7.4; and the social impacts are described in Section 7.5. Cumulative
effects are described in Section 7.6. Summaries of the most significant impacts are provided in the
following paragraphs. As required by NEPA, the Preferred Alternatives are compared to the No Action
alternative and other alternatives. As No Action would result in little fishing effort, comparisons are also
made between the Preferred Alternatives and status quo to enable a more realistic analysis of potential
impacts, as appropriate.

Biological Impacts
The Preferred Alternatives are expected to result in negative impacts when compared to the No Action
alternative. This is not informative, however, since No Action would adopt default specifications for the
first three months of the FY for several stocks and the majority of groundfish fishing activity would be
curtailed in the absence of new specifications. This scenario does not appear realistic as it would neither
conform with the best available science nor provide the optimum yield (OY) for several stocks as required
by the M-S Act. When compared with recent fishing activity and mortality, the preferred alternatives for
5
Framework Adjustment 55
Introduction and Background
ACLs are expected to result in low positive impacts. The reduction in expected fishing effort is driven by
the constraining nature of the ACL specifications for key stocks such as GOM cod, GB cod, GB winter
flounder, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, and witch flounder. Changes to fishery program administration
would not be expected to have direct impacts, either positive or negative, on regulated groundfish and
other species. With respect to the combined impact of the preferred ASM alternatives, biological impacts
are expected to be low negative when compared to No Action because the uncertainty in discards may
increase for some stocks which has the potential to impact stock assessments in the future. Further,
observer bias could potentially increase with fewer observed trips. Allowing transfer of EGB cod to the
western fishery would not be expected to lead to large increases in effort in other portions of the stock
area, particularly with the proposed decline in GB cod quotas. The biological impacts of allowing the RA
to once again change the possession limit of GOM cod for the recreational fishery is likely to vary,
depending on whether or not the RA elects to increase the GOM cod bag limit from zero.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Impacts
The Preferred Alternatives are expected to result in low negative habitat impacts when compared to the
No Action alternative. This is not informative, however, since No Action would adopt default
specifications for the first three months of the FY for several stocks and the majority of groundfish fishing
activity would be curtailed in the absence of new specifications. When compared with recent fishing
activity, the preferred alternatives are expected to result in a slight decrease in negative impacts. The
reduction in expected fishing effort is driven by the constraining nature of the ACL specifications for key
stocks such as GOM cod, GB cod, GB winter flounder, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, and witch flounder.
Changes to fishery program administration do not directly impact fishing effort, and thus would not be
expected to have direct or indirect impacts, either positive or negative, on EFH. With respect to the
combined impact of the preferred ASM alternative, no direct impacts to EFH are expected, as overall
effort is constrained by declining sub-ACLs for several stocks, particularly GOM and GB cod. Allowing
transfer of EGB cod to the western fishery would not be expected to lead to large increases in effort in
other portions of the stock area, particularly with the proposed decline in GB cod quotas.

Impacts on Endangered and Other Protected Species
When compared to recent fishing activity, the preferred alternatives would likely lead to negligible to low
negative impacts on protected species. The ABCs and ACLs specified in the preferred alternative are not
expected to result in an increase in fishing effort or shifts in fishing effort to areas that have not been
considered by NMFS in its assessment of fishery effects to protected resources. The combination of
preferred monitoring options would likely to result in lower overall ASM coverage levels for the sector
fleet, and would likely have a low negative impact on protected species, potentially increasing uncertainty
in bycatch estimates for some protected resources. Allowing transfer of EGB cod to the western fishery
would be expected to have neutral impacts on protected species because it is not expected to lead to large
changes in effort in other portions of the stock area, particularly with the proposed decline in GB cod
quotas.

Economic Impacts
The Preferred Alternatives would likely result in an increase in groundfish fishing vessel revenues when
compared to No Action for ACLs. This is not informative, however, since No Action would adopt default
specifications for the first three months of the FY for several stocks and the majority of groundfish fishing
activity would be curtailed in the absence of new specifications. The preferred alternatives would be
expected to result in $68.8 million in gross groundfish revenues for FY2016. This represents
approximately a $7.5 million dollar reduction in predicted revenue from FY 2015, and a $12.5 million
dollar reduction in predicted groundfish revenue for FY2014. The economic impacts of the preferred
alternatives are not expected to be uniformly distributed across vessel size class and port. The
implementation of an additional sector and the modification of the sector approval process would likely
result in positive economic impacts for the fishery because it would provide greater flexibility for sectors.
6
Framework Adjustment 55
Introduction and Background
The combination of preferred ASM alternatives would likely result in up to 14% ASM coverage rate for
sector vessels, and a reduction in costs for sectors relative to the No Action (41% coverage). Allowing the
transfer of eastern Georges Bank cod to the western fishery is expected to add operational flexibility for
sectors and permit banks, and yield positive economic impacts. Allowing the RA to once again change the
possession limit of GOM cod for the recreational fishery is likely to vary, depending on whether or not
the RA elects to increase the GOM cod bag limit from zero.

Social Impacts
The social impacts of the Preferred Alternatives for annual catch limit specifications would be positive
relative to the No Action, but largely negative relative to the fishery compared to FY 2015. Changes to
fishery program administration in FW55 are expected to be positive because they would provide greater
flexibility for the groundfish fishery. The preferred ASM measures would result in lower coverage levels
for sectors relative to No Action, resulting in lower costs and positive impacts relative to the Size and
Demographics and Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values of the groundfish fishery. Modifications to the
distribution of U.S. TACs for Eastern/Western Georges Bank may have positive impacts on the Historical
Dependence on and Participation in the fishery by increasing the flexibility of fishing operations. Similar
to other VECs, the allowing the RA to once again change the possession limit of GOM cod for the
recreational fishery would add flexibility to process to setting recreational measures, but may not result in
an increase in bag limit of GOM cod from zero.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

There are a number of alternatives analyzed in the document that are not identified as preferred
alternatives. These include some of the No Action alternatives in sections 4.1 (Updates to Status Criteria,
Formal Rebuilding Programs and Annual Catch Limits), 4.2 (Fishery Program Administration), and 4.3
(Commercial and Recreational Fishery Measures), as well as alternatives for GOM cod spawning
protection areas and zero possession of GOM cod, which were not identified as preferred alternatives.
These alternatives are briefly described below.

 Stock Status Changes and Annual Catch Limits

o Revised status determination criteria for groundfish stocks. The No Action would not
update the status determination criteria (SDC) or the numerical estimates for the SDC.
Using the old criteria would not be consistent with recently completed assessments and
would not comply with M-S Act requirements to use best available science.

o Revised Annual Catch Limit Specifications. The No Action would not adopt new
specifications for the majority of groundfish stocks. Default specifications, set at 35% of
the prior year’s ACL, would remain in place through July 31st, 2016. In addition, FY
2016 quotas would not be specified for GB yellowtail flounder, EGB cod, EGB haddock,
which are managed through the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. A
SNE/MA yellowtail flounder sub-ACL would not be allocated to the scallop fishery.

 Fishery Program Administration

o Implementation of a new sector for FY 2016. The No Action alternative would not
approve the formation of the Sustainable Harvest Sector II. The number of approved
sector would remain at 24.

o Revised process for approving new northeast groundfish sectors. The process for creating
a new sector, as described in Amendment 16, would not change. Under current
7
Framework Adjustment 55
Introduction and Background
regulations, an appropriate NEPA document must be prepared by a potential new sector
and submitted to NMFS through the Council in an action that assesses the impacts of
forming the sector.

o Revised definition of the haddock separator trawl. The No Action would not change the
current definition of the haddock separator trawl at 50 CFR 648.85(a)(3)(iii)(A). Under
the current definition, there is no requirement that the separator panel have meshes of a
contrasting color.

 Commercial and Recreational Fishery Measures

o Modification and adjustments to groundfish monitoring program. The No Action would
maintain the groundfish monitoring program as defined in Amendment 16 and
Framework 48. There would be no changes to the goals, objectives, standards for
monitoring the fishery, or industry responsibility for funding a portion of the ASM
program. The No Action alternative would also maintain lower ASM coverage rates for
sector trips on a Monkfish DAS in the SNE Broad Stock Area using 10” ELM gillnet
gear. There would be no changes or clarification to the methods used by NMFS to set
ASM coverage rates for groundfish sectors on an annual basis.

o Distribution of U.S. TACs for Eastern/Western Georges Bank cod. The No Action would
continue the practice of only allowing Eastern GB cod ACE to be harvested in the
Eastern U.S./Canada area. After deducting the U.S./Canada TAC from the U.S. ABC, the
remaining portion of the GB cod ABC would be available to the western fishery.

o Modify Gulf of Maine cod recreational possession limits. The No Action would prohibit
possession of GOM cod for the recreational fishery.

Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action

In many cases, the No Action alternative would not address the goals of the M-S Act. Only the most
significant impacts are highlighted below.

Biological Impacts
Because the No Action alternatives would adopt default specifications for several stocks, and would not
modify the SDC based on best available science, it would lead to a drastic reduction in groundfish fishing
activity. With no changes to the ASM program, the biological impacts would continue to be positive with
respect to information for stock assessments and reducing the uncertainty in discard estimation. Because
of the drastic reduction in groundfish fishing activity, this option would be expected to result in reduced
fishing mortality rates and faster stock rebuilding than the Preferred Alternatives.

Essential Fish Habitat
Because the No Action alternatives would adopt default specifications for several stocks, and would not
modify the status determination criteria based on best available science, it would lead to a drastic
reduction in groundfish fishing activity over the course of the fishing year. With no changes to the ASM
program, the EFH impacts would continue to be positive with respect to potentially reducing fishing
effort. The alternatives to the proposed action would be expected to result in reduced habitat impacts
because they could result in lower fishing effort than the Preferred Alternatives.

Impacts on Endangered and Other Protected Species
8
Framework Adjustment 55
Introduction and Background
Because the No Action alternatives would adopt default specifications for several stocks, and would not
modify the status determination criteria based on best available science, it would lead to a drastic
reduction in groundfish fishing activity over the course of the fishing year. With no changes to the ASM
program, the protected species impacts would continue to be positive with respect to reducing uncertainty
in bycatch estimates. The alternatives to the proposed action, in general, would be expected to result in
reduced fishing effort and thus reduced fishing impacts on endangered and other protected species.

Economic Impacts
Because the No Action alternatives would adopt default specifications for several stocks, and would not
modify the status determination criteria based on best available science, it would lead to a drastic
reduction in groundfish fishing activity. With no changes to the ASM program, the economic impacts
would be negative with respect to increased costs combined with low ACLs. As a result, fishing vessel
revenues on groundfish fishing trips would decline dramatically when compared to the preferred
alternative or recent fishing years.

Social Impacts
Because the No Action alternatives would adopt default specifications for several stocks, and would not
modify the status determination criteria based on best available science, it would lead to a drastic
reduction in groundfish fishing activity and reduced groundfish fishing revenues. The No Action
alternative will likely have negative impacts on the Size and Demographic Characteristics of the fishery
and Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values.. Overall, this would likely lead to dramatic changes in the size and
demographics of the groundfish fishery, dissatisfaction with the fishing industry and management, and a
negative impact on fishermen’s attitudes and beliefs.
9
Framework Adjustment 55
Intentionally Blank
10
Framework Adjustment 55