NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL SHERATON HARBORSIDE, PORTSMOUTH, NH JANUARY 28-29, 2015 MOTIONS Tuesday, January 27, 2015 Meeting canceled due to snow storm; as a result the agenda was abbreviated. Wednesday, January 28, 2015 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN S REPORT Approval of SOPPs 1) Mr. Quinn moved and Mr. Kendall seconded: that the Council approves the draft Statement of Organization Practices and Procedures (SOPPs) dated January 27, 2015. The motion carried without objection. Collaborative Research 2. Dr. John Quinn moved and Mr. Terry Alexander seconded: that the Council approves as an additional research topic for the collaborative research project: improve the understanding of groundfish spawning Priorities The motion carried without objection. 3. Dr. John Quinn moved and Mr. Kendall seconded: that the Council ranks the approved priorities in the following order: 1. EBFM PDT s ecological guidance for the herring ABC control rule on managing forage fish within an ecosystem context 2. Continued work on EBFM development 3. Development of whiting limited entry (after completion of item 1). The motion carried without objection. Jonah Crab Discussion 4. Dr. Quinn moved and Mr. Terry Alexander seconded: 1
that the Council requests ASMFC allow NEFMC participation on the ASMFC lobster board and lobster technical team in order to provide NEFMC input to the development of the ASMFC Jonah crab FMP. 5. Ms. Tooley moved and Mr. Preble seconded: that NEFMC consider adding Jonah and Rock crab to the Red Crab FMP and add to priorities for 2016. 5a. Dr. Sissenwine made a friendly amendment which was accepted by its maker and seconder: that NEFMC make the management of Jonah and Rock crab a priority for 2016. Thursday, January 29, 2015 HERRING RSA Priorities 1. Mr. Grout moved on behalf of the committee: to amend the 2014-2015 priorities under any RSAs allocated in the upcoming Atlantic herring fishery specifications by: maintaining priorities of portside sampling and river herring bycatch avoidance including electronic monitoring as a priority adding the herring advisory panel members recommendation #1 research to improve the Atlantic herring stock assessment eliminating the research priority related to exploring net sensor technology These four priorities would be listed without ranking (equally important). 2. Mr. Grout moved on behalf of the committee: that the Council send a letter to the NEFSC asking for input on the Herring Advisory Panel suggested research priority to identify which ideas can help with the Atlantic herring stock assessment. The motion carried unanimously on a show of hands (15/0/0). Amendment 8 Scoping Document 3. Mr. Grout moved on behalf of the committee: That the Council approve the Amendment 8 scoping document (with some revisions to the discussion on p. 4 to address a broader ecosystem context, i.e., herring as predator, prey, competition). The motion carried unanimously on a show of hands (16/0/0). River herring Technical Expert Working Group discussion 4. Mr. Grout moved on behalf of the committee: that the Council maintain its current approach in providing conservation measures for river herring/shad 2
and not add river herring/shad as stocks in the Atlantic herring fishery or initiate a separate FMP for river herring/shad. These items should be removed from the list of management priorities for Atlantic herring at this time. 4a. Mr. John Bullard moved to amend and Mr. Kendall seconded: that the Council will revisit this decision no later than three years. The motion to amend carried on a show of hands (14/2/0). Main as amended: that the Council maintain its current approach in providing conservation measures for river herring/shad and not add river herring/shad as stocks in the Atlantic herring fishery or initiate a separate FMP for river herring/shad. These items should be removed from the list of management priorities for Atlantic herring at this time. The Council will revisit this decision no later than three years. The main motion as amended carried on a show of hands (13/3/0). OBSERVER POLICY COMMITTEE Omnibus IFM Amendment/herring coverage options 5. Mr. Stockwell moved on behalf of the Observer Policy Committee: to include in the omnibus amendment alternatives available for all FMPs for portside monitoring and electronic monitoring, and that the analysis in the document would support future framework adjustments, and to also include a portside sampling/electronic monitoring program in the options for herring and mackerel coverage. 5a. Mr. Terry Alexander moved to substitute and Mr. Grout seconded: that the following option be included in Section 2.2.2, herring Alternative 2, p. 48 of the Omnibus IFM Amendment: To require third-party at-sea monitoring on category A/B herring vessels, designed to meet the following objective: to document all fish not retained on board the vessel for any reason, including detailed accounting of full and partial slippage events. When the IFM amendment is implemented (year 1), the third party at-sea monitor coverage level for category A/B herring vessels under this option will be (sub-options) (a) 100%, (b) 75%, (c) 50% of all trips (on trips without a NEFOP observer) (sub-options) with/without waivers when the vessel is declared into the herring fishery. This option includes portside sampling and electronic monitoring (EM), to be phased-in through the framework adjustment process. The third party at-sea monitor coverage target specified in this amendment will be adjusted as portside sampling/em programs are implemented. Initially, the service provider standards under this option will be the same as those for the groundfish at-sea monitoring program, but these standards will be modified for portside sampling EM in the implementing action. The motion to substitute carried unanimously on a show of hands (16/0/0). The main motion as substituted carried unanimously (16/0/0). 3
6. Mr. Stockwell moved on behalf of the Herring Committee: to recommend to the Council to add an alternative that would allow the use of at-sea monitors to replace NEFOP observers in the industry-funded observer program for the herring fishery. The Chair ruled this motion unnecessary as it was addressed in the previous motion. 7. Mr. Stockwell moved on behalf of the Herring Committee: to add Alternative 2.2.2.5 for 100% coverage on fishing in the current year-round groundfish closed areas (staff to identify specific areas) to the IFM document. The motion carried by consensus. 8. Mr. Stockwell moved on behalf of the Herring Committee: to add an alternative that would allow a wing vessel to be exempt from observer coverage. These vessels would be prohibited from carrying fish. The motion carried by consensus. 9. Motion on behalf of the Observer Policy Committee: that the draft Omnibus IFM Amendment needs more development and additional analyses, and should be reviewed by the Observer Policy Committee and both Councils at a future meeting prior to going out for public comment. The motion carried unanimously on a show of hands (16/0/0). 10. Mr. Grout moved and Ms. Tooley seconded: to have the industry funded monitoring FMAT address the six bullets on pg. 3 of the January 22, 2015 Observer Policy Committee meeting summary in the IFM Amendment: expansion of the discussion of economic impacts address/groundtruth fixed and operating costs for herring/mackerel vessels expansion of the discussion of impacts on the Atlantic herring and mackerel fleets information and analysis to support the implementation of a portside sampling program and/or EM program to be implemented through a framework adjustment (relative government costs/industry costs, comparison to at-sea costs) costs differences between at-sea monitors versus observers expansion of impacts of herring and mackerel options on other fisheries (groundfish stocks) impacts of current observer coverage requirements for midwater trawl vessels in the groundfish closed areas 10a. Ms. Goethel moved to amend and Mr. Grout seconded: to add an additional bullet point as far as the omnibus FMP that protocols be developed for future FMPs to address when the cost of at-sea monitoring exceeds the net value of a vessel s catch on an annual basis. The motion to amend failed on a show of hands (1/15/0). The motion to amend was remanded back to the Observer Policy Committee for further discussion. The main motion: 4
to have the industry funded monitoring FMAT address the 6 bullets on pg. 3 of the Observer Policy Committee meeting summary in the IFM Amendment. expansion of the discussion of economic impacts address/groundtruth fixed and operating costs for herring/mackerel vessels expansion of the discussion of impacts on the Atlantic herring and mackerel fleets information and analysis to support the implementation of a portside sampling program and/or EM program to be implemented through a framework adjustment (relative government costs/industry costs, comparison to at-sea costs) costs differences between at-sea monitors versus observers expansion of impacts of herring and mackerel options on other fisheries (groundfish stocks) impacts of current observer coverage requirements for midwater trawl vessels in the groundfish closed areas The main motion carried unanimously (16/0/0). 11. Dr. Sissenwine moved and Mr. Kendall seconded: That NEFMC prepare a policy and design a multi-element system for monitoring commercial fisheries which addresses information needs for stock assessments, enforcement, quota monitoring, and other purposes (e.g., other scientific needs, gear testing, exempted fisheries, response to public concerns). The system should take account of the Northeast Fishery Observer Program, the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology, seafood dealer reporting, vessel reporting, and the vessel monitoring system (VMS). It should include an option for industry funded and managed system elements that deliver information to fulfill Council specified information needs in accordance with Council established processes for information quality assurance. The Observer Policy Committee should take the lead in fulfilling this motion. The motion carried unanimously on a show of hands (16/0/0). Recreational Groundfish 12. Mr. Blount moved and Dr. McKenzie seconded: The Council recommends to NMFS that the outreach component to recreational anglers regarding changes to the GOM cod and haddock management measures, currently underway by GARFO, continue and its impact on reducing non-compliance be considered when predicting recreational catches for FY 2015. The motion carried on a show of hands (15/0/1). 13. Mr. Blount moved and Dr. McKenzie seconded: for the purposes of reducing discard mortality on GOM cod and haddock, the Council recommends to NFMS prohibiting the use of more than two hooks per line while fishing for groundfish in the Gulf of Maine. Only inline circle hooks may be baited. When using a jig or artificial lure, only single point J- hooks may be used (e.g., no treble hooks). Teasers, feathers, fly etc. may be used but count toward the use of no more than two hooks per line. The motion carried on a show of hands (14/0/2). 14. Mr. Blount moved and Mr. Grout seconded: in light of no possession of cod and expected declines in effort (including consideration of rap motions 1 and 2 and RAP consensus statements 1, 2, and 3), the Council recommends to NMFS that proactive 5
AMs for GOM haddock in FY 2015 be a bag limit of at least 4 fish, a 17 inch minimum fish size, and closed seasons during wave 2 (March 1 to April 30) and wave 5 (September 1 to October 31). 15. Mr. Blount moved and Mr. Preble seconded: the Council recommends to NFMS exploration of conservation equivalent proactive AMs to separate party/charter from the private modes in FY 2015 (e.g., letter of authorization (LOA) for charter boats to have a reduced season in exchange for an increased bag limit). The motion failed on a show of hands (6/8/2). OTHER BUSINESS 16. Ms. Etrie moved and Ms. Goethel seconded: consistent with the vote at the November 17-20, 2014 Council meeting resulting in the letter to the Regional Administrator dated December 2, 2014 and in light of the RA s report yesterday (January 28, 2015) that no changes will be made to the interim action for GOM cod, the Council requests that a letter be sent to the Regional Administrator communicating the Council s concern that the sector solution as described in comments from industry was deemed unworkable, and urge the agency to reconsider the sector solution. The council supports the concepts and mechanisms provided in the Gloucester Fishing Community Preservation Fund and Sustainable Harvest Sector comments because they would have the same result as an ACL reduction, restore essential mobility between Broad Stock Areas, drastically reduce discards and provide opportunity to harvest the increased GOM haddock ACL for the failing inshore fleet. All of these are important to the Council. The motion failed on a show of hands (6/9/1). 6