Gear Changes for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery s Trawl Catch Share Program Preliminary Draft EIS First preliminary draft released March, 2016 (Council meeting) Had not undergone NEPA Coordinator or GC Review This preliminary draft will be much different than the 2016 version Enhanced justification Expanded and more complete description of alternatives Updated and re-formatted Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) Reformatted and Expanded Chapter 4 (Impacts), including more in-depth quantitative and qualitative analysis for each issue U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 1
Preliminary Draft EIS CAUTION: The preliminary draft EIS and the planned analyses still must go through internal review Assumptions/interpretations/and planned analyses shown today may be revised after internal review and comments U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 2
Overview Progress to date Background leading up to the Proposed Action Purpose and Need Statement, and impetus for the Proposed Action Proposed Action - 8 Issues Comment on some of these issues, including use of gear EFP data in this EIS Describe the current structure of Chapter 4 Describe some planned analyses GMT jump in, provide ideas for other analyses and where you might want to help GMT Discussion and Public Comments about the draft EIS Update Trawl Gear Rule Package Open Discussion and Questions U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 3
Where are we now? Chapters of Draft EIS Ready for Internal Review Chapter 1 (Introduction, background, purpose and need, public participation, scoping results) Chapter 2 (Issues and alternatives, background for each alternative, list of regulations that would need changed, alternatives considered but rejected In Progress Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) Chapter 4 (Impacts on the Affected Environment) U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 4
Acknowledge Becky Renko (co-author; NOAA, SFD) Galeeb Kachra (NEPA Coordinator / Ocean Assoc.) Reviewed Chapters 1 and 2 (and appendix) Kevin Duffy and Karen Palmigiano (NOAA, SFD) Dayna Mathews (NOAA, OLE) Jim Seger (PFMC) Helpful guidance and reality checks from individuals from trawl and processing industry Gear, fishing practices, and processing operations U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 5
Timeline for this Draft EIS Chapters 3 and 4 for Internal Review July/August? Remaining Chapters for Internal Review September? U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 6
Background Proposed Action This EIS evaluates the effects of relaxing or eliminating trawl gear regulations in the trawl catch share program Prior to the catch share program in 2011, the trawl fishery was primarily managed using per-vessel trip and cumulative limits Human observer coverage was non-existent or less than 25% Annual discard rates for most trip-limit target species exceeded 15% (management-induced) As late as 2010, 16% of sablefish catch was discarded (440 mt / 2,600 mt) Discarding also due to market, small size, and prohibited species U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 7
Catch Share Program (2011) 100% monitoring Individual Fishing Quota Other incentives for remaining under the ACL (e.g., retain MSC certification) Result of Catch Share Program Reduced Discarding (i.e., 2015 Sablefish discard was 10 mt / 1,460 mt, or < 1%) Also, low attainment of target species U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 8
Purpose and Need of this Proposed Action Purpose The purpose of this action is to provide more flexibility in the configuration and use of gear for participants in the trawl rationalization program, while at the same ensuring that conservation objectives are met. Need The need for this action is to better use the individual accountability now in place for participants to more fully achieve the expected benefits of the program. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 9
Impetus for the Proposed Action TRREC Report: These regulations were important when vessels were managed based on cumulative trip limits and fleet-wide impacts were modeled. Under trawl rationalization, individuals are accountable for their total fishery impacts and those impacts are observed on every trip and on every vessel. Thus, such specific gear type prohibitions no longer appear to be needed (Agenda Item E.7.b, November 2011) NMFS Report: Before implementation of the trawl rationalization program in 2011, regulations governing the groundfish trawl fleet were built around monthly, bimonthly, and per vessel trip limits to address a variety of Council concerns, including : minimizing bycatch, maintaining a year-round fishing season, better accounting for total groundfish, and administrative challenges associated with managing licensed and unlicensed fisheries. The trawl rationalization program replaced the need for some, but not all, of the trip limit structure in the regulations, Some of the remaining trip limit framework regulations may be less efficient and effective under an individual framework (Agenda Item F.6.b, June 2013) U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 10
Proposed Action (8 Issues) Reduce or eliminate minimum mesh size for groundfish trawls (2 action alternatives) Update the procedure for measuring mesh size (knotted and knotless) Eliminate trawl codend regulations (allow multi-walled codends) Relax or eliminate SFFT gear restrictions (2 alternatives) Relax or remove chafing gear restrictions (2 alternatives) Allow vessels to carry and use multiple trawl gear types on a trip (2 alternatives) Allow trawl gear to be fished in multiple management areas on the same trip Allow a vessel to bring a haul on board before all catch from previous haul has been stowed U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 11
Comments on some Issues - Preliminary Minimum Mesh Size : Retain exception in regulations for midwater trawl Multiple Gears: Council recommendation for multiple fish tickets may be modified Stowing Catch: Electronic Monitoring Impacts U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 12
Use of Gear EFP Results in this EIS Plan to use EFP results in the analysis, however The EFP should provide haul-level data that identifies type of gear used Modified MWT vs Traditional BT (at minimum) More detail would be better (e.g., type of bottom trawl) Should be recorded at the time of the trip/haul (not months later) Otherwise, any analysis may be suspect Impacts to stock assessments? Other reasons EFP analysis included in this EIS may include preliminary data (won t hold up this EIS) U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 13
Preliminary Structure of Chapter 4 Analysis of like- or related issues may be grouped to reduce redundancy and to consider synergistic effects Section 4.3: Mesh size, codend regulations, chafing gear, and measuring mesh size Section 4.4: Selective Flatfish Trawl (SFFT) Section 4.5: Multiple gears on board, fishing in multiple management areas, haul back and release catch on deck before catch from previous haul is stowed U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 14
Example Section 4.3 Impacts of Mesh Size (A1-A3), Measuring Mesh Size (B1-B2), Codend Regulations (C1-C2) and Chafing Gear (E1-E3) Physical Environment Mesh Size (EFH, HAPC, California Ecosystem, etc.) Codend regulations Chafing Gear Measuring Mesh size Biological Environment Mesh Size (target species, non-target species, protected species) Codend regulations Chafing Gear Measuring Mesh Size Socioeconomic Environment Mesh Size (harvesters, first receivers, communities, monitoring & management, enforcement, tribes) Codend regulations Chafing Gear Measuring Mesh Size U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 15
Mesh Size Two Issues Some assume that mesh size will be reduced throughout codend, intermediate and codend, or entire net. Others assume reduced mesh size is needed for installation of selective devices and associated parts (grids/grates/escape panels/herding devices) Both will be analyzed U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 16
Mesh Size September 2015 Council Meeting Council member noted the intent of small mesh size needs to be clear in the analysis. The intent is not to catch smaller fish, but rather for flexibility building excluders and herding devices. Planned analyses and databases (some completed or initiated) Mesh sizes used 1960 s, 1970 s 1980 s 1990 s, and 2010 Expense, weight, impacts to flow of various mesh sizes Pikitch et al. Size and species selectivity, gilling, sorting times, DPH by mesh Lomeli et al Size and species selectivity, Selection Factor, by mesh Literature Review (efficiency, selectivity, drag, flow, selective devices) Wakefield and Lomeli selective devices (grates, salmon excluders, etc.) EFP what are mesh sizes used (do we get this information?); What is the species composition of catch? U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 17
Mesh Size Other Analyses (ideas or assistance?) Protected Species Salmon (also see NMFS reports March and April 2017) NMFS Bottom Trawl Survey Annual Catch (demonstrate annual variability); LF distribution, all years combined (do they record lengths?) Bottom depth distribution for hauls with salmon, all years combined WCGOP Salmon LF distribution, all years combined SFFT (2002 2016) non-sfft bottom trawl (2002-2004) shoreside whiting MWT (2002-2016) non-whiting MWT (2011-2016) Eulachon (also see NMFS Report 4, April 2017) NMFS Bottom Trawl Survey Annual catch (demonstrate annual variability) Depth distribution of catch (all years combined) WCGOP (2002-2016) Bottom depth distribution, for bottom trawl hauls with eulachon, across all years GIS - area when caught, by gear type (bottom trawl, whiting MWT, and non-whiting MWT), across years U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 18
Chafing Gear / Double Walled Codends How and why either or both might be used Unlikely entire codend or most of net will include chafing gear or double walled codends Describe chafing gear used in 1960 s through 2010 (ODFW surveys) Literature Review / experience Impacts to EFH Impacts to high-relief habitat (driven by footrope, not chafing gear) Selectivity (masking) Expense, weight, drag Other thoughts? U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 19
Remove Selective Flatfish Trawl Restrictions (Salmon and Eulachon) Comparison with and augment March and April salmon analysis (Ideas? Help?) BT Annual Effort (N. 4010; shoreward 100 fm; 1985-present) Towing hours, Number of tows, Groundfish Catch GIS Analysis (2002-2004, < 100 fm N 40 10) (a) Fishing area (hauls) for EFP participants (b) fishing area (hauls) for non-efp bottom trawl participants. GIS Analysis (2005-2010, < 100 fm; N 40 10 ) fishing area (hauls) for SFFT EDCP and Pikitch data GIS - (locations and magnitude of salmon catch within what is now RCA and shoreward of current RCAs EFP data GIS analysis and catch U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 20
Multiple Gears Analytical Plans Historical use (prevalence) of non-whiting midwater and bottom trawl gear on same trips (annually; logbook) Historical use (prevalence) of non-whiting midwater and bottom trawl gear by single vessel during the same year (annually; fish ticket) States how will this impact your sampling (i.e., strata, sampling rates) Other? U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 21
Plans Fishing in Multiple Management Areas Historical log books Prevalence of fishing on two sides of a management line during a single trip (block of years or annually; when permitted) 2011 2016 (fish ticket) Home port vs fishing area (prevalence of fishing on same side vs other side of management line from home port). Other? U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 22
Haul On Board before Stowing Catch Observer Database do we know when hang-up occurs? If so, some analysis of prevalence of hang ups and early haul back might be useful (i.e., demonstrate the importance for safety) U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 23
Socioeconomic Impacts (GMT!) Has been data limited need to improve Need data and experts familiar with socio-economic research Remove Selective Flatfish Trawl Restrictions How will this change the mixture of species delivered during a single trip, or single week? How will this impact harvesters and first receivers (income, markets, etc.)? Communities? Fishing Multiple Gears and Multiple Areas on the same Trip Same as above First receiver and fisherman relationship What happens if small fish are delivered, or species that are difficult to move, or poor quality vs large fish, mixture of species with high market value, and high quality fish? Other U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 24
General Considerations for Each Issue How will each issue affect: Change in distribution of fishing effort and deliveries Change in species composition of landings Other U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 25
Discussion U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 26
Trawl Gear Rule Package NMFS believes that several benefits come from continuing to allow fishing under the EFP, and delaying implementation of the trawl gear rulemaking until 2019. We do not currently have coverage for the groundfish trawl fishery under the Endangered Species Act for salmon and eulachon. Historical data shows that if gear restrictions were to be removed now, the potential impacts could cause jeopardy to eulachon and salmon. The current exempted fishing permit allows boats who applied to test the removal of two gear restrictions (selective flatfish trawl and minimum mesh size). NMFS expects to renew this permit for 2018. At this time, NMFS believes that the EFP will demonstrate that the impacts to salmon and eulachon, as a result of the removal of these gear restrictions, is likely minimal. Information gleaned from the exempted fishing permit will support the analysis needed to demonstrate this level of impact. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 27
Trawl Gear Rule Package Con t NMFS will provide a update to the Council regarding the change in timeline for the trawl gear rulemaking at the June 2017 Council meeting. The Endangered Species Act consultations that are currently in development for eulachon and salmon will be completed in 2017, with the salmon BiOp expected to be complete late in 2017. The existing exempted fishing permit, which expires in December 2017, could be renewed at that time with concurrence from the Pacific Fishery Management Council. Rulemaking will be informed by the completed salmon biological opinion and the exempted fishing permit. Proposed rule would be expected to be published in summer 2018. Final rule in late fall 2018. The trawl gear rule changes will have an implementation goal of January 1, 2019. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 28
1980 s U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 29