Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish Amendment 14 DEIS - Mid-Atlantic

400 Pages·2011·10.6 MB·English

AMENDMENT 14 TO THE
ATLANTIC MACKEREL, SQUID, AND BUTTERFISH (MSB)
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN (FMP)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement & Public Hearing Document

-------------------September, 30 2011 --------------------

Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council
in cooperation with
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

This Amendment deals with incidental catch and general management of blueback herring,
alewife, American shad, and hickory shad. In this document, "river herrings" include blueback
herring and alewife. "Shads” include American shad and hickory shad. This document refers to
these four species together as "RH/S."

More specifically, the actions considered in this Amendment address three potential management
problems (A, B, and C below) related to RH/S. Considering, and if appropriate, implementing
solutions to these potential problems are the purposes of this Amendment. The potential
problems, related purposes, and related analytical goals for Amendment 14 are summarized
below, followed by an estimated timeline and summary of the alternatives considered via this
document.

Potential Management Problems and Related Amendment Purposes:

Problem A: Relatively low levels of catch monitoring have resulted in relatively high
uncertainty about incidental catch of river herrings and shads in Mid-Atlantic and New England
fisheries.

Purpose A: "Implement Effective RH/S Catch Monitoring" – develop monitoring
programs for the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) fisheries that are sensitive and
robust to the spatial and temporal variability of RH/S distributions.

Analytical Goals: A1. "RH/S Catch" - Establish the best available information on
the catch of RH/S in the MSB fisheries.

A2. "Effectiveness" - Evaluate how effective various alternatives
would be in terms of improving the precision of RH/S catch
estimates.

A3. "Practicability" - Evaluate the socioeconomic impact on the
fisheries of various alternatives and the ability of management to
implement them.

2
Problem B: Catch of RH/S in the MSB fisheries may be negatively impacting RH/S populations.

Purpose B: "Reduce RH/S Bycatch and/or Catch" - Consider alternatives to reduce
bycatch (discards) and/or total catch of RH/S in the MSB fisheries. The Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires Councils to minimize bycatch
(discards) to the extent practicable (Section 301 – National Standard 9) and provides
discretionary authority to “include management measures in the plan to conserve…non-
target species…considering the variety of ecological factors affecting fishery populations”
(Section 303(b)(12). As will be discussed in this document, because there are no coast-
wide RH/S assessments, at this time it is not possible to quantitatively evaluate the impact
on RH/S stocks of any catch reductions that may occur.

Analytical Goals: B1. "RH/S Bycatch" - Evaluate if bycatch (discards) of river
herrings and shads in the MSB fisheries has been minimized to the
extent practicable (National Standard 9).

B2. "Effectiveness" - Evaluate how effective various alternatives
would be in reducing the bycatch and/or or catch of RH/S.

B3. "Practicability" - Evaluate the socioeconomic impact on the
fisheries of various alternatives and the ability of management
to implement them.

Problem C: The overall existing federal/state/regional management framework may be
insufficient to adequately conserve RH/S stocks.

Purpose C: "Consider RH/S NS1 Stock Issues" - Consider whether RH/S should be
included as stocks in the fishery in the MSB FMP. National Standard 1 (NS1) suggests that
non-target species may be considered to be added as stocks in the fishery to existing FMPs.
This essentially would bring RH/S into the plan as equals to the existing species in terms of
Council management responsibilities.

Analytical Goals: C1. "Effectiveness" - Evaluate how effective various alternatives
would be in terms of improving RH/S management.

C2. "Practicability" - Evaluate the socioeconomic impact on the
fisheries of various alternatives and the ability of management to
implement them.

3
Throughout this document, each purpose will be referenced by the bolded phrases in quotes
above. Each purpose is addressed by one or more related set of alternatives, summarized below
and fully described and analyzed in this document:

Alternatives Related to Purpose A: Implement Effective RH/S Monitoring

• Alternative Set 1: Vessel Reporting Measures
• Alternative Set 2: Dealer Reporting Measures
• Alternative Set 3: At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures
• Alternative Set 4: Port-side, 3rd Party, and Other Sampling/Monitoring Measure
• Alternative Set 5: At-Sea Observer Coverage Requirements

Alternatives Related to Purpose B: Reduce RH/S Bycatch and/or Catch

• Alternative Set 6 : Mortality Caps
• Alternative Set 7 : Restrictions in areas of high RH/S catch
• Alternative Set 8: Mesh Requirements

Alternatives Related to Purpose C: Considering RH/S NS1 Issues

• Alternative Set 9: Add RH/S Stocks as "Stocks in the Fishery" within the MSB
FMP.

Approximate Timeline

Overall Goal: Final Rule Effective by January 1, 2013.

Oct 2011 – Council approves DEIS for Submission to NMFS, selects preferred alternatives
Nov 2011 – Document perfection, FR the DEIS
Dec 2011 – Public hearings for Am 14 with DEIS
Feb 2012 – Council receives comments, makes edits as appropriate, chooses alternatives,
approves FEIS for submission if it is ready.
Mar 2012 – Document perfection
Apr 2012 – Council approves FEIS for Submission if not done in Feb.
May 2012 – Document Perfection w/ NMFS
July 2012 – Proposed Rule
Sept 2012 – Comment Period Closes
Nov 2012 – Final Rule

4
Wording Conventions

All acronyms used in this document should be listed in Section 2.0, List of Acronyms. Several
critical wording conventions are noted below.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is the primary law governing
marine fisheries management in United States federal waters. The Act was first enacted in 1976
and amended in 1996 and in 2007. In this document, the abbreviation "MSA" refers to the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as currently amended.

Hereafter "mackerel" refers to "Atlantic mackerel," "Am14" refers to "Amendment 14 to the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan" and "the Council" refers to
"the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council." "Bycatch" refers to discards while "Incidental
catch" is the catch of one species while directing upon another species. Incidental catch may be
retained or discarded.

Longfin squid have previously been referenced as Loligo pealeii or just Loligo. There has been a
scientific name change from Loligo pealeii to Doryteuthis (Amerigo) pealeii. To avoid
confusion, this document will utilize the common name “longfin squid” wherever possible.
Some historical documents will still refer to “Loligo.”

5
1.1 SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS

1.1.1 Alternative Set 1: Vessel Reporting Measures

1a. No Action

1bM. Institute weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for mackerel permits so as to facilitate
quota monitoring (directed and/or incidental catch) and cross checking with other data
sources. FMAT SUGGESTS REPLACE – see simple 1b below to add consistency to MSB
fisheries…

1bL. Institute weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for Longfin squid permits so as to
facilitate quota monitoring (directed and/or incidental catch) and cross checking with other
data sources. FMAT SUGGESTS REPLACE – see simple 1b below to add consistency to
MSB fisheries…

1b. Institute weekly vessel trip reporting (VTR) for MSB permits so as to facilitate quota
monitoring (directed and/or incidental catch) and cross checking with other data sources.
FMAT PREFERRED

1c1. Require 48 hour pre-trip notification to retain more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel
so as to facilitate observer placement. FMAT SUGGESTS REMOVING TO
CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED AS 48 hours is not yet feasible for observer program

1c. Require 72 hour pre-trip notification to retain more than 20,000 pounds of mackerel so
as to facilitate observer placement.
FMAT SUGGESTS PREFERRED IF CATCH CAP IS PREFERRED

1dM. Require VMS for limited access mackerel vessels (see 1e and 1f below).

1dL. Require VMS for Longfin squid/butterfish moratorium vessels (see 1e and 1f below).

1eM. Require daily VMS reporting of catch by limited access mackerel vessels so as to
facilitate quota monitoring (directed and/or incidental catch) and cross checking with other
data sources.

1eL. Require daily VMS reporting of catch by Longfin squid moratorium permits so as to
facilitate quota monitoring (directed and/or incidental catch) and cross checking with other
data sources.

1fM. Require 6 hour pre-landing notification via VMS to land more than 20,000 pounds of
mackerel so as to facilitate quota monitoring.

1fL. Require 6 hour pre-landing notification via VMS to land more than 2,500 pounds of
Longfin squid so as to facilitate quota monitoring.
6
Statement of Problem/Need for Action:

The current suite of reporting and monitoring requirements may be insufficient to precisely
enough estimate RH/S incidental catch in the mackerel and Longfin squid fisheries based on the
Council’s management goals.

Background:

The measures in this alternative set would (alone and/or in combination with other alternatives)
increase reporting and/or monitoring with the overall goal of improving the precision of RH/S
incidental catch estimates. While some of the focus may appear to be on mackerel and/or
Longfin squid general reporting compared to just RH/S in those fisheries, given extrapolations
are often made based on total landings, accurate monitoring of the target species can be as
important as determining the encounter rates of RH/S. Pre-landing notifications would primarily
be useful if linked to dockside sampling.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis

Summary of Economic Impact Analysis

(Summary Impacts Will be Added After the Council Meeting Once the Final Set of
Measures is Established and Any Preferred Alternatives are Selected – See Section 7 for
Impact Analysis)

7
1.1.2 Alternative Set 2 - Dealer Reporting Measures

2a. No Action

2bM. Require federally permitted dealers to obtain vessel representative confirmation of
SAFIS transaction records for mackerel landings over 20,000 so as to minimize data entry
errors at first point of sale. FMAT SUGGESTS REPLACE – see simple 2b below…

2bL. Require federally permitted dealers to obtain vessel representative confirmation of
SAFIS transaction records for Longfin squid landings over 2,500 pounds so as to minimize
data entry errors at first point of sale. FMAT SUGGESTS REPLACE – see simple 2b
below…

2b. Require federally permitted MSB dealers to obtain vessel representative confirmation
of SAFIS transaction records for mackerel landings over 20,000 lb, Illex landings over
10,000 lb, and longfin squid landings over 2,500 lb so as to minimize data entry errors at
first point of sale. STAFF: The only existing method to do this would be to require use of
“Fish-On Line” which currently allows vessels to check their landing records if they choose
to do so. It should be relatively easy to add a box on-line that needs to be viewed and
checked by a vessel representative for each transaction.

2c1. Require that federally permitted SMB dealers sort and weigh all species related to
mackerel transactions over 20,000 pounds so as to facilitate quota monitoring (directed
and/or incidental catch) and cross checking with other data sources. FMAT SUGGESTS
REMOVING TO CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED DUE TO FEASIBILITY
ISSUES…NOT ALL DEALERS CAN SORT ALL FISH…

2c2. Require that federally permitted SMB dealers weigh all catches related to mackerel
transactions over 20,000 pounds so as to facilitate quota monitoring (directed and/or
incidental catch) and cross checking with other data sources. If dealers do not sort by
species, they would need to document in the dealer application how they estimated the
relative composition of a mixed catch.

2c3. Require that federally permitted SMB dealers weigh all catches related to mackerel
transactions over 20,000 pounds so as to facilitate quota monitoring (directed and/or
incidental catch) and cross checking with other data sources. If dealers do not sort by
species, they would need to document with each transaction how they estimated the relative
composition of a mixed catch.
8
2d1. Require that federally permitted SMB dealers sort and weigh all species related to
Longfin squid transactions over 2,500 pounds so as to facilitate quota monitoring (directed
and/or incidental catch) and cross checking with other data sources. FMAT SUGGESTS
REMOVING TO CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED DUE TO FEASIBILITY
ISSUES…NOT ALL DEALERS CAN SORT ALL FISH…

2d2. Require that federally permitted SMB dealers weigh all species related to Longfin
squid transactions over 2,500 pounds so as to facilitate quota monitoring (directed and/or
incidental catch) and cross checking with other data sources. If dealers do not sort by
species, they would need to document in the dealer application how they estimated the
relative composition of a mixed catch.

2d3. Require that federally permitted SMB dealers weigh all species related to Longfin
squid transactions over 2,500 pounds so as to facilitate quota monitoring (directed and/or
incidental catch) and cross checking with other data sources. If dealers do not sort by
species, they would need to document with each transaction how they estimated the relative
composition of a mixed catch.

2e. If 2c1, 2c2, 2d1, and/or 2D2 were chosen, allow dealers to use volume to weight
conversions if they cannot weigh their catch – they would need to identify their conversion
methods in their dealer application and explain why they cannot weigh all landings.
STAFF SUGGESTED ADDING – NO OBJECTION BY FMAT

Statement of Problem/Need for Action:

The current suite of reporting and monitoring requirements may be insufficient to precisely
estimate RH/S incidental catch. Also, practices on how landing weights are determined are not
standardized.

Background:

The measures in this alternative set would (alone and/or in combination with other alternatives)
increase reporting and/or monitoring with the overall goal of improving the precision of RH/S
incidental catch estimates. While some of the focus may appear to be on mackerel and/or
Longfin squid general reporting compared to just RH/S in those fisheries, given extrapolations
are often made based on total landings, accurate monitoring of the target species can be as
important as determining the encounter rates of RH/S.

Summary of Biological Impact Analysis
Summary of Economic Impact Analysis

(Summary Impacts Will be Added After the Council Meeting Once the Final Set of
Measures is Established and Any Preferred Alternatives are Selected)
9
1.1.3 Alternative Set 3: At-Sea Observation Optimization Measures

All of these would apply to mackerel limited access and/or longfin squid moratorium
permits.

3a. No Action

3b. Require Reasonable Assistance (safe station, bycatch collection, basket sample
collection assistance) so as to improve observer data. FMAT PREFERRED

3c. Require vessel operators to provide observers notice when pumping/haul-back occurs
so as to improve observer data. FMAT PREFERRED

3d. Require observer program and/or vessels (as appropriate) to place observers on both
vessels for pair trawl operations so as to improve observer data. STAFF: FMAT NEEDED
MORE INFO…FOLLOWUP REVEALED OBSERVER PROGRAM IS ALREADY
DOING THIS WHEN BOTH VESSELS MAY TAKE ON FISH. NO POINT IN
PUTTING OBSERVER ON “WING” VESSEL STAFF SUGGESTS MORE TO
CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED

3e. Require slippage reports from captains on observed trips so as to better understand
slippage events and/or facilitate enforcement of trip termination alternatives (see 3f-3i).

3f. Require trip termination following an "un-sampled" slipped haul during an observed
trip. Approximately ¼ of haul would need to be pumped across deck to facilitate sampling
to avoid a slipped haul being designated as "un-sampled." Goal is to minimize slippage
events and/or get some information on slipped hauls. FMAT SUGGESTS REMOVING
TO CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED AS UNFEASIBLE/UNENFORCABLE

3g. Require trip termination following 2 "un-sampled" slipped hauls during an observed
trip. Approximately ¼ of haul would need to be pumped across deck to facilitate sampling
to avoid a slipped haul being designated as "un-sampled." Goal is to minimize slippage
events and/or get some information on slipped hauls. FMAT SUGGESTS REMOVING
TO CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED AS UNFEASIBLE/UNENFORCABLE

3h. Require trip termination following 1 slipped haul on an observed trip so as to minimize
slippage events. Goal is to minimize slippage events.

3i. Require trip termination following 2 slipped hauls on an observed trip so as to minimize
slippage events. Goal is to minimize slippage events.

3j. Require cod-ends to be re-secured and brought aboard for sampling after pumping on
every 4th haul on observed trips that typically do not bring nets aboard so as to get better
information on contents of net after pumping (operational discards). (REALLY NEED AP
INPUT)

10