amendment 19 public hearing
4. Scallops - (December 1-3, 2015) #1c
New England Fishery Management Council 50 W ATER STREET
|
NEW BURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950
|
PHONE 978 465 0492
|
FAX 978 465 3116
E.F. “Terry” Stockwell III, Chairman | Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director
AMENDMENT 19 PUBLIC HEARING Radisson – Warwick, RI November 18, 2015 6:00PM MaryBeth Tooely, Chair of the Scallop Committee, started the public hearing at about 6:05PM. About one dozen members of the public attended the hearing and six individuals provided public comments. Council staff, Deirdre Boelke, gave a 15 minute presentation summarizing the timeline for this action, a description of the alternatives, as well as a summary of the expected impacts. Below is a summary of the public testimony received. The hearing lasted about 40 minutes.
Mr. Ronnie Enoksen, owner of LA vessels from New Bedford This action is long overdue. He has been involved in this process for a long time and he hates to see when we work on a framework we seem to add and add measures that bog the action down. We need to get this done in a timely fashion so we can plan what we are going to do the following year. I understand that this may be a little more on cruise control with possibly less comments along the way, but we need the ability to tweak the program to make it work more smoothly. It will be a learning curve for all of us. As for April 1, at first I was against it, but in the long run I think most of the boats and the dealers will be able to adjust to it once it is known that is the start of the season year in and year out. I am in favor of this amendment.
Ms. Harriett Didriksen, owner of LA vessel from New Bedford Ms. Didriksen asked several questions along with her comments. Question: I do not understand the document. If you change to April how is one month going to allow you to implement measures sooner than in years past that sometimes took into the summer. If you add things in the document how can a spec process streamline things. Answer: Ms. Tooley responded that if we switch to a specification setting process the things we currently do in a framework that are not fishery allocations would not be part of that action. It does not mean you cannot do them, but they would be done in separate actions. It has been done that way in herring in the 1
past and it allows the specifications to be done more streamlined and could be on a quicker pace. The more things we add to a framework it can really bog things down. A specs process would not prevent us from working on other measures, but they would be in different actions. She argued that there would still be lots of opportunity for public comment. Ms. Boelke added that if the Council only changed the start date to April 1 and did not adopt the specs process in Amendment 19 then there would still be risks of delated implementation if other measures are added to a framework; which slows the process down. If the measures are selected together (specifications process and April 1 start date), it is more likely that final fishery allocations would be in place at the start of the fishing year (April 1). Only changing the start of the fishing year along would not help with addressing potential delays as much as selecting both measures together. Question: I have reservations about what is going on because it is not clear to me what things you will be limited to do in a specs process and what things you will not. Answer: Ms. Tooley responded that the specs process is limited, but if issues come up you can develop a concurrent framework to address other issues that are outside the specs process. Another expected time savings is the time NMFS staff needs to work on default measures. The hope is that with a specs process that will not be needed, so staff resources could be spent other ways; for example, developing other measures in frameworks if needed. Ms. Boelke explained that on page 18 there is a list of the measures that can be in a specs process and that is it. The list is limited by design. Staff agreed that it is unrealistic to think that a spec package and framework could be completed every year and expectations should realistic. Comments made throughout: I like March 1; it gives vessels a choice to start or to wait. I do not want to see less public input, so I would not support that. It does not seem that you will be able to develop specifications at one Council meeting; you need input. In some instances the industry and government has developed other measures in a framework that are needed, and we would lose that ability with a specifications process. If we do them separately that seems like a lot more work for the same people that will have to work on these. Even if you have two actions going on it involves the same staff so it may just be pie in the sky that we will be able to do specifications and other measures that may be important if they are separated out as proposed in Amendment 19. Everyone wants to have final measures in place early, but the reality is we already know what the Council approved much earlier so the industry knows what the ultimate allocations are. Overall these ideas may look good but I think there are a lot of things in fine print that are not yet ironed out.
Mr. James Fletcher, United National Fisherman’s Association and fishermen from NC We are vehemently opposed to Alternative 2.3 changing the start date to April 1. It may not affect anyone up here that does not export scallops overseas, but if you do you need to worry about the HP count because they only accept scallops above a certain HP count. HP counts are good in March and if you move the start to April, vessels have to wait to use days until the end of the year (March) and that can be riskier. Second, pushing the start to April affects the fluke fishermen in NC. We ask that you leave the 2
start date where it is; it has worked and it has gotten us to where we are so leave it alone. Please leave it where it is, no one is complaining.
Mr. Peter Hughes, Atlantic Cape Fisheries in Cape May, NJ Page 11 of A19 highlights the timing issues we have been faced with. In a perfect world our start date would be March 1, but beginning with FW18 which goes back to 2006 and 2007, the date final measures were in place was June 15; FW19 was June 1; FW21 was June 28; FW22 was August 1; FW24 was May 20l FW25 was June 16, FW26 was May 1. Serious problem running this through a FW process. I am very appreciative of everyone from NMFS and NEFMC that came together to try to find a better way for us to fast track this. So I would like to support Council preferred Alternative 2.2. As for April 1; that start date does not seem like a big deal when compared to the dates I just ran through. April 1 would be a lot better than the dates in the summer when meat yields are on the decline. We might have a few days that carry over or some specs in place to start the year, but we cannot implemtne final meausres in June, July and August. That is conservations negative to the industry as aq whole because our meat yields decline rapidly in the middle of June. We are at the point we no longer get 180 DAS, every permit holder can carryover DAS. Right now we get 30+ DAS, so you can carryover 30% of your open area fishing to the next year and you are also allowed to carryover access area trips in first 60 days; we currently have that ability. I support changing the start date to April 1; I support the Council preferred Alternative 2.3.
Mr. James Gutowski, Kathy Anne and 30Fathom Fish Corporation in Barnegate Light NJ I would definitely like to support Alt 2.2, implement a specification process. I think it is a good idea to take this out of a FW process so we can get specifications implemented in a more timely fashion. Along with that I also support Alt 2.3 to move the start date to April 1. It is somewhat of a compromise from an industry perspective; I would much rather have my allocations on April 1 compared to an unspecific date. We have gone as far as August in the past and we do have a lot of flexibility built in the system already to let us carryover effort already so if people want to start fishing earlier in the calendar year they certainty have the ability to do that. So I am supportive of both Alternatives 2.2 and 2.3.
Mr. Tom Cooley, LA Captain I am a hired skipper; I do not own my own boat. I am in favor of Alternative 2.2l it would be good to get this done earlier in the year. As far as changing the date to April 1, I am against that. I traditionally fish a lot in the Mid-Atlantic in March; there are good catches and good meat weights. Every year is a little different, but traditionally there are good meat weights. If I fish two vessels and I want to fish during the good time of the year with good meat weights I want to be done by October. Now I would not be able to start until April, so now I may need to carry over more effort and wait until the end of the year. There is 3
also no guarantee the specs will be in place by April, so we would still have default days. I would rather start in March under default DAS compared to April. I do not agree with the statement in the record that there could be positive impacts if all allocations are known at the start of the fishing year. We already know what we are going to get based on the final Council meeting; we just do not have them yet. I work for one company that wants all fishing done by October, and the only way he knows that is if effort starts in March, so I oppose an April 1 start date.
4
New England Fishery Management Council 50 W ATER STREET
|
NEW BURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950
|
PHONE 978 465 0492
|
FAX 978 465 3116
E.F. “Terry” Stockwell III, Chairman | Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director
AMENDMENT 19 PUBLIC HEARING Radisson – Warwick, RI November 18, 2015 6:00PM MaryBeth Tooely, Chair of the Scallop Committee, started the public hearing at about 6:05PM. About one dozen members of the public attended the hearing and six individuals provided public comments. Council staff, Deirdre Boelke, gave a 15 minute presentation summarizing the timeline for this action, a description of the alternatives, as well as a summary of the expected impacts. Below is a summary of the public testimony received. The hearing lasted about 40 minutes.
Mr. Ronnie Enoksen, owner of LA vessels from New Bedford This action is long overdue. He has been involved in this process for a long time and he hates to see when we work on a framework we seem to add and add measures that bog the action down. We need to get this done in a timely fashion so we can plan what we are going to do the following year. I understand that this may be a little more on cruise control with possibly less comments along the way, but we need the ability to tweak the program to make it work more smoothly. It will be a learning curve for all of us. As for April 1, at first I was against it, but in the long run I think most of the boats and the dealers will be able to adjust to it once it is known that is the start of the season year in and year out. I am in favor of this amendment.
Ms. Harriett Didriksen, owner of LA vessel from New Bedford Ms. Didriksen asked several questions along with her comments. Question: I do not understand the document. If you change to April how is one month going to allow you to implement measures sooner than in years past that sometimes took into the summer. If you add things in the document how can a spec process streamline things. Answer: Ms. Tooley responded that if we switch to a specification setting process the things we currently do in a framework that are not fishery allocations would not be part of that action. It does not mean you cannot do them, but they would be done in separate actions. It has been done that way in herring in the 1
past and it allows the specifications to be done more streamlined and could be on a quicker pace. The more things we add to a framework it can really bog things down. A specs process would not prevent us from working on other measures, but they would be in different actions. She argued that there would still be lots of opportunity for public comment. Ms. Boelke added that if the Council only changed the start date to April 1 and did not adopt the specs process in Amendment 19 then there would still be risks of delated implementation if other measures are added to a framework; which slows the process down. If the measures are selected together (specifications process and April 1 start date), it is more likely that final fishery allocations would be in place at the start of the fishing year (April 1). Only changing the start of the fishing year along would not help with addressing potential delays as much as selecting both measures together. Question: I have reservations about what is going on because it is not clear to me what things you will be limited to do in a specs process and what things you will not. Answer: Ms. Tooley responded that the specs process is limited, but if issues come up you can develop a concurrent framework to address other issues that are outside the specs process. Another expected time savings is the time NMFS staff needs to work on default measures. The hope is that with a specs process that will not be needed, so staff resources could be spent other ways; for example, developing other measures in frameworks if needed. Ms. Boelke explained that on page 18 there is a list of the measures that can be in a specs process and that is it. The list is limited by design. Staff agreed that it is unrealistic to think that a spec package and framework could be completed every year and expectations should realistic. Comments made throughout: I like March 1; it gives vessels a choice to start or to wait. I do not want to see less public input, so I would not support that. It does not seem that you will be able to develop specifications at one Council meeting; you need input. In some instances the industry and government has developed other measures in a framework that are needed, and we would lose that ability with a specifications process. If we do them separately that seems like a lot more work for the same people that will have to work on these. Even if you have two actions going on it involves the same staff so it may just be pie in the sky that we will be able to do specifications and other measures that may be important if they are separated out as proposed in Amendment 19. Everyone wants to have final measures in place early, but the reality is we already know what the Council approved much earlier so the industry knows what the ultimate allocations are. Overall these ideas may look good but I think there are a lot of things in fine print that are not yet ironed out.
Mr. James Fletcher, United National Fisherman’s Association and fishermen from NC We are vehemently opposed to Alternative 2.3 changing the start date to April 1. It may not affect anyone up here that does not export scallops overseas, but if you do you need to worry about the HP count because they only accept scallops above a certain HP count. HP counts are good in March and if you move the start to April, vessels have to wait to use days until the end of the year (March) and that can be riskier. Second, pushing the start to April affects the fluke fishermen in NC. We ask that you leave the 2
start date where it is; it has worked and it has gotten us to where we are so leave it alone. Please leave it where it is, no one is complaining.
Mr. Peter Hughes, Atlantic Cape Fisheries in Cape May, NJ Page 11 of A19 highlights the timing issues we have been faced with. In a perfect world our start date would be March 1, but beginning with FW18 which goes back to 2006 and 2007, the date final measures were in place was June 15; FW19 was June 1; FW21 was June 28; FW22 was August 1; FW24 was May 20l FW25 was June 16, FW26 was May 1. Serious problem running this through a FW process. I am very appreciative of everyone from NMFS and NEFMC that came together to try to find a better way for us to fast track this. So I would like to support Council preferred Alternative 2.2. As for April 1; that start date does not seem like a big deal when compared to the dates I just ran through. April 1 would be a lot better than the dates in the summer when meat yields are on the decline. We might have a few days that carry over or some specs in place to start the year, but we cannot implemtne final meausres in June, July and August. That is conservations negative to the industry as aq whole because our meat yields decline rapidly in the middle of June. We are at the point we no longer get 180 DAS, every permit holder can carryover DAS. Right now we get 30+ DAS, so you can carryover 30% of your open area fishing to the next year and you are also allowed to carryover access area trips in first 60 days; we currently have that ability. I support changing the start date to April 1; I support the Council preferred Alternative 2.3.
Mr. James Gutowski, Kathy Anne and 30Fathom Fish Corporation in Barnegate Light NJ I would definitely like to support Alt 2.2, implement a specification process. I think it is a good idea to take this out of a FW process so we can get specifications implemented in a more timely fashion. Along with that I also support Alt 2.3 to move the start date to April 1. It is somewhat of a compromise from an industry perspective; I would much rather have my allocations on April 1 compared to an unspecific date. We have gone as far as August in the past and we do have a lot of flexibility built in the system already to let us carryover effort already so if people want to start fishing earlier in the calendar year they certainty have the ability to do that. So I am supportive of both Alternatives 2.2 and 2.3.
Mr. Tom Cooley, LA Captain I am a hired skipper; I do not own my own boat. I am in favor of Alternative 2.2l it would be good to get this done earlier in the year. As far as changing the date to April 1, I am against that. I traditionally fish a lot in the Mid-Atlantic in March; there are good catches and good meat weights. Every year is a little different, but traditionally there are good meat weights. If I fish two vessels and I want to fish during the good time of the year with good meat weights I want to be done by October. Now I would not be able to start until April, so now I may need to carry over more effort and wait until the end of the year. There is 3
also no guarantee the specs will be in place by April, so we would still have default days. I would rather start in March under default DAS compared to April. I do not agree with the statement in the record that there could be positive impacts if all allocations are known at the start of the fishing year. We already know what we are going to get based on the final Council meeting; we just do not have them yet. I work for one company that wants all fishing done by October, and the only way he knows that is if effort starts in March, so I oppose an April 1 start date.
4
