PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENT Amendment 2 to the Monkfish ...archive.nefmc.org/press/mf_a2_public_hearing_doc.pdf · PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENT Amendment 2 to the Monkfish Fishery Management

PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENT

Amendment 2 to the

Monkfish Fishery Management Plan

New England Fishery Management Council Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

DATE/TIME LOCATION

Tuesday, June 15 6:00 pm

Inn at East Wind 5720 Route 25A, Wading River, NY 11792 Phone: 631-929-3500 Fax: 631-929-4975

Wednesday, June 16 6:00 pm

Ramada Inn Toms River 2373 Route 9, Toms River, NJ 08755 Phone: 732-905-2626 Fax: 732-905-8735

Thursday, June 17 7:00 pm

Roanoke Island Festival Park 1 Festival Park, Manteo, NC 27954 Phone: 252-475-1500 Fax: 252-475-1507

Tuesday, June 22 6:00 pm

Holiday Inn Express 110 Middle Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719 Phone: 508-997-1281 Fax: 508-996-5727

Wednesday, June 23 6:00 pm

Holiday Inn, Peabody One Newbury Street, Rte 1 North, Peabody, MA 01960 Phone: 978-535-4600 Fax: 978-535-8238

Thursday, June 24 7:00 pm

DoubleTree Hotel 1230 Congress Street, Portland, ME 04102 Phone: 207-774-5611 Fax: 207-871-0510

Monkfish Amendment 2 i Public Hearing Document

Introduction - What is Amendment 2?..............................................1 What happens to my comments? What is the process?...............2 What are the goals and objectives?..................................................3 What is proposed in Amendment 2?.................................................4 Decision 1 Separation of DAS usage requirement on Category C

& D vessels......................................................................7 Decision 1a Application of separated DAS by management area

........................................................................................ 11 Decision 1b Fleet or individual DAS allocations.......................... 12 Decision 1c Transferable DAS implementation procedure ........ 14 Decision 1d Transferable DAS programs...................................... 15 Decision 2 Adjustment of the 50 lbs. (tail wt.) incidental catch

limit ................................................................................ 20 Decision 3 Incidental catch limit on General Category Scallop

Vessels and Surf clam/Ocean Quahog Dredge Vessels.......................................................................... 21

Decision 4 Incidental catch limit on Summer Flounder vessels west of 72°30’W............................................................ 21

Decision 5 Minimum mesh size on monkfish trawl vessels...... 23 Decision 6 Minimum fish size ........................................................ 24 Decision 7 Closed season (block of time out of the fishery).... 25 Decision 8 Offshore Southern Management Area fishery

program......................................................................... 26 Decision 9 Modification of permit qualification criteria for

vessels fishing south of 38°00’N............................... 30 Decision 10 Exemption for vessels fishing for monkfish in the

NAFO Regulated Area (outside the EEZ)................. 32 Decision 11 Alternatives to minimize the impact of the fishery

on Essential Fish Habitat ........................................... 33 Decision 12 Cooperative research programs incentives........... 40 Decision 13 Vessel upgrading baseline (dual baselines).......... 41 Decision 14 NFMA Trawl experimental fishery............................ 42 Decision 15 Change the fishing year start date ........................... 45 Decision 16 Pro-rating DAS (if fishing year start date changes)

........................................................................................ 46 Decision 17 Modify the framework adjustment procedure......... 49 What Amendment 2 doesn’t do? .................................................... 50 Monkfish Stock Status ..................................................................... 51

Monkfish Amendment 2 ii Public Hearing Document

Monkfish Amendment 2 1 Public Hearing Document

Introduction - What is Amendment 2? Amendment 2 is a set of proposed changes to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that was originally adopted by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils in 1999. The Councils are addressing a number of issues raised by the public during the amendment scoping process in 2001-2002, as well as court-ordered actions relating to Essential Fish Habitat, and the need to periodically update the environmental assessment of ongoing federal actions (such as a fishery management plan). The amendment contains a number of proposals, including some the Councils have identified as “preferred alternatives”, and the “no-action” alternatives that remain under consideration pending the outcome of public review and comment. This public hearing document contains a summary of the full Amendment 2 draft document that incorporates a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) and other analyses. The complete document is available on the New England Fishery Management Council website, (http://www.nefmc.org/monk/index.html), or from the New England Council office. Copies will be available for review at the public hearings. The range of alternatives is organized into a series of decisions that, in most cases are independent of each other (that is, they could be adopted regardless of what other proposals the Councils adopt), although in some cases the decisions are only relevant under particular alternatives. Members of the public are encouraged to review the complete DSEIS for more detailed information about the range of alternatives, their rationale, and expected impacts.

Figure 1 Monkfish management areas and statistical areas


Commenting: Members of the public may submit oral or written comments at any of public hearings, or directly to the NEFMC office. Comments must be submitted before the 5:00 pm on July 28, 2004.

By Mail: “Monkfish Amendment 2 Comment” New England Fishery Management Council 50 Water Street Newburyport, MA 01950 By Fax: (978) 465-3116 By Email: [email protected] Subject line: “Monkfish Amendment 2 Comment”

What happens to my comments? What is the process? Following public hearings and the end of the comment period on the DSEIS on July 28, 2004, the Monkfish Advisory Panel will meet, followed by the Monkfish Oversight Committee. These groups will review the comments and make recommendations to the Councils for final measures to be adopted in Amendment 2. The Councils will review the comments and recommendations, and make their decisions (at the September NEFMC meeting, and the October MAFMC meeting) on measures to be submitted to NMFS. The staff will complete a Final EIS and submit the documents to NMFS. Pending NMFS approval, the agency will publish a proposed rule, giving the public an additional opportunity to comment, and a final rule. The target implementation date for measures adopted in Amendment 2 is May 1, 2005.


What are the goals and objectives? Original FMP Goals: 1. To end and prevent overfishing; rebuilding and maintaining a healthy spawning stock. 2. To optimize yield and maximize economic benefits to the various fishing sectors. 3. To prevent increased fishing on immature fish. 4. To allow the traditiona l incidental catch of monkfish to occur.

These four goals were intended to ensure adequate spawning and the highest possible yields without radically altering the fisheries for other species, or causing extensive regulatory discards. In addition, they addressed the problem of the intensified fishing effort directed on small monkfish that occurred during the 1990’s. Amendment 2 Goals and Objectives: In addition to complying with the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, generally, and the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) amendments, specifically, the goals of this amendment are:

I. Prevent overfishing or rebuild overfished stocks as necessary. II. Address problems created by the implementation of the FMP.

Objectives: 1) Reconsider the limited entry program for the monkfish fishery south of 38° N 2) Address problems for deepwater fisheries resulting from the disapproval of the running clock in the original FMP 3) Address the problem of multispecies or sea scallop permit holders having to use a multispecies or sea scallop day at sea (DAS) when using a monkfish DAS 4) Establish appropriate exemptions for vessels fishing for monkfish outside of the EEZ (in the NAFO Regulated Area)

III. Promote improved data collection and research on monkfish IV. Comply with CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality) Guidelines to update Environmental Documents V. Address deficiencies in meeting Magnuson Act requirements

Objectives: 1) Meet Magnuson Act requirements for Essential Fish Habitat 2) Address known bycatch issues, specifically due to trip limits and minimum fish size

VI. Address protected resources/fishery interactions Objective: specifically address the turtle/gillnet interaction

VII. Reduce FMP complexity where possible.


What is proposed in Amendment 2? Summary Discussion The following is a summary of the proposed alternatives and discussion of the rationale for the alternatives. Following the text discussion below, is a complete listing of the alternatives organized as a sequence of decisions with reference to the associated sections in the DSEIS. Readers should be aware that the following is only a summary, and more in-depth coverage is contained in the DSEIS document. The alternatives include possible changes to the way monkfish days at sea (DAS) must be used by vessels with a limited access permit in monkfish and either multispecies or scallop fisheries. Permit category C and D vessels (those with limited access scallop or multispecies permits) are currently required to use either a scallop or multispecies DAS when on a monkfish DAS. The Councils are considering an alternative that would provide those vessels the option to use their DAS separately on a trip-by-trip basis. Within the separated, or “de-coupled” DAS alternative are a number of options on how to configure the DAS program (allocate individual or fleet DAS, allow DAS leasing or sale, and implement as an area-based or annual declaration of separated DAS program). While allowing vessels to separate their DAS usage could potentially increase overall fishing effort, with potential negative effects on target and non-target species, protected resources and habitat, other measures under consideration or already in effect would offset some of those effects. For example, the Councils propose a trawl gear configuration, including increased minimum mesh size and other net component standards that is expected to have a positive effect in reducing the bycatch of groundfish, small monkfish and other incidentally caught species. The trawl design is also intended to minimize the effect of the monkfish fishery on essential fish habitat for many regulated species, particularly areas of complex or “hard” bottom seafloor since the net is unsuitable for fishing in those areas, and optimized for fishing in soft bottom areas. Although the trawl design was developed cooperatively between industry and gear technicians, and incorporates many elements already in use by commercial fishermen, the complete configuration is still being scientifically tested to determine whether it is practicable and will achieve its purpose. The Councils are seeking specific comment on this gear design from trawl fishermen, and have proposed experimental fisheries within this amendment, including DAS incentives for research, to verify the net’s efficacy. This amendment also includes DAS incentives to conduct a wide range of research that would advance the management of the monkfish fishery (including minimizing the effect of the fishery on habitat and protected species, and addressing other bycatch issues). As for the impact of potentially increased effort on the rebuilding of the monkfish resource through the de-coupling of DAS, the program established in Framework 2 (2003) sets annual harvest targets and associated trip limits and DAS allocations based on the observed status of each stock relative to annual biomass rebuilding targets. Thus, if monkfish fishing effort were to increase (as a result of the separation of DAS usage


requirements) to a level that is inconsistent with the rebuilding program, measures are already in place that would reduce trip limits and/or allocated DAS. Separating the DAS usage requirement on scallop vessels and, particularly, multispecies vessels, would also mean that vessels currently using a scallop or multispecies DAS to target monkfish would now have the ir respective DAS “freed up” to target scallops or multispecies. The effect of the increased effort on scallop or multispecies stocks is unknown, but is potentially detrimental to the rebuilding programs of those other fisheries. The public is encouraged to consider and comment on the potential effect of separated DAS, not only on monkfish rebuilding, but also on other managed species, habitat and protected species. Among the other alternatives under consideration in this amendment are modifications to some of the incidental catch limits in other fisheries that would reduce the amount of monkfish being discarded (bycatch) while not significantly altering the overall level of mortality attributable to those other fisheries. Another bycatch reduction component of this amendment is the alternatives being considered for changing or eliminating the monkfish minimum fish size regulation. Observers on monkfish trips have noted that minimum fish size regulations are a primary reason given for monkfish discards. The Councils are proposing to restore the offshore monkfish fishery displaced by the original FMP regulations that set trip limits and DAS usage requirements such that some vessels could no longer profitably participate in that fishery. The Councils are considering establishing an offshore fishery program that requires annual enrollment and would allow participating vessels to fish at a higher trip limit than other monkfish vessels on a proportionally reduced number of DAS. A participating vessel would be required to use an electronic vessel monitoring system (VMS) during the October – April period when the offshore fishery is open. The Councils expect that this program would have a positive effect on those communities from where the offshore vessels operate, and would relieve some of the fishing pressure on inshore stock components, reducing bycatch and habitat effects in those areas. Since the offshore fisheries take place along the edge of the continental shelf and canyon areas where deep-sea corals exist, the Councils are proposing to close some areas where corals have been observed or are expected to occur in a manner that minimizes the economic impact on the fishery. While coral habitats are not part of the strict essential fish habitat (EFH) designation for any managed species, protecting coral habitats may have indirect benefits for species with EFH in adjacent areas. Furthermore, the Councils are taking precautionary steps to protect these vulnerable areas from potential fishing that could occur in those areas as the offshore monkfish fishery becomes established, and deepwater fishing technology advances enable vessels to extend their activity into the canyon areas. The Councils also propose modifying the limited access permit qualification criteria for vessels at the southern end of the range of the fishery that did not qualify under the original FMP. Depending on which of four alternatives is chosen, between 3 and 7


vessels could qualify for a permit. The impact of this action on the resource or the fishery is not likely to be significant, especially considering the small number of affected vessels, the area restrictions placed on those newly qualifying vessels, the limited season of the fishery in that area, and the measures in place to protect sea turtles from entanglement. Admitting these vessels into the limited access program could have a modestly positive effect on the communities where those vessels operate as a result of the potential additional revenue and diversification that would result. The Councils are considering a range of alternatives to meet the mandate to minimize, to the extent practicable, the effect of the fishery on EFH. The gear effects evaluation and adverse impacts determination (see Appendix II of the DSEIS) has concluded that trawl gear (but not gillnets) used in the monkfish fishery has an adverse impact on the EFH of some other species, however, gears used in the monkfish fishery and other fisheries have a low impact on monkfish EFH. In addition to the coral area closures and monkfish trawl configuration alternatives, the Councils are assessing the effect of other measures in this amendment, measures in the current FMP (the no action alternative), and actions taken in recent amendments to the Multispecies and Sea Scallop FMPs for how they minimize the effect of the monkfish fishery on EFH of other species. The Councils are also considering a several administrative measures in this amendment, including:

• an exemption from the management program for vessels fishing for monkfish outside the EEZ, in the NAFO Regulated Area, consistent with the existing multispecies FMP exemption

• a clarification of the vessel upgrading baseline for vessels with limited access permits in other federal fisheries, eliminating the dual baseline situation, and

• changing the start of the fishing year from May 1 to one of three alternative dates, and methods for prorating DAS allocations during any transition period, if a change is adopted.

These measures will not significantly affect the target or non-target species under management, nor will they have any significant effect on habitat Two main issues identified in the scoping process remain unresolved by this amendment, the restrictiveness of regulations to protect sea turtle interactions on gillnet vessels off the North Carolina/Virginia coast, and completion of the mandatory five-year review of the FMP regarding EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, such as EFH designation and consideration of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs). The Councils considered including in this amendment, alternative approaches to the sea turtle protection measures implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, but the needed analysis was not completed in time to be used to develop appropriate management measures for this document. The Councils may take action in the future under the framework adjustment process. With regard to the EFH issues, the NEFMC has initiated an omnibus amendment to all its FMPs to will address those and other habitat issues.


Decision 1 Separation of DAS usage requirement on Category C & D vessels NOTE: Permit Categories A and C qualified for a limited access permit with 50,000 lbs. tail weight (166,000 lbs. whole wt.) between February 28, 1991 and February 27, 1995. Categories B and D qualified with 7,500 lbs. tail wt., (24,900 lbs. whole wt.) during that period. Categories C and D vessels also hold limited access permits in Multispecies or Scallops, while A and D permits do not. DAS Alternative 1 (preferred) – Category C and D vessels may decouple MF DAS from Scallop or Multispecies DAS usage requirements, or DAS Alternative 2 (no action) – Category C and D vessels on a MF DAS must also use a Scallop or Multispecies DAS Alternative 1 contains the following elements:

1. Two ways the measure could apply – area-based (Southern Management Area only) or annual declaration (would apply in both areas), see Alternatives 1a and 1b below

2. Vessels would declare annually if they want to use separated DAS – vessels may elect to fish under Alternative 2 (no action) rules

3. Enrolled vessels may combine DAS usage on trip-by-trip basis 4. When on a monkfish-only DAS, Category C & D vessels would fish as Category

A & B 5. Applicable measures under monkfish-only, Multispecies-only, or combined DAS

summarized in Table 1. Alternative 1 has the following components that are taken up as separate decisions (Decisions 1a-1d), discussed in the following sections:

Decision 1a: Area-based (Southern Area only) or Annual declaration (both areas) Decision 1b: Monkfish-only DAS allocated as Fleet or Individual DAS Decision 1c: Implement transferable DAS at the same time as separated DAS

measures or make available for implementation by framework action at a future date. Method for transfer (lease or sale) is considered in Decision 1d.

Decision 1d: Transferable monkfish-only DAS by lease or sale, or no action (no transferability)

Alternative 2 is the no action alternative. Category C and D are required to use a Multispecies or Scallop DAS when on a Monkfish DAS. On such vessels fishing in the NFMA, the monkfish trip limit applicable to multispecies DAS are the same as those on a monkfish DAS (no monkfish trip limit). Category C and D vessels fishing in the SFMA on a multispecies DAS, but not a monkfish DAS, are subject to incidental catch limits. The catch limits applicable under Alternative 2 are summarized in Table 2.


Decision 1 Discussion As noted above, separating DAS usage requirements has both positive and negative effects. Allowing vessels to separate DAS usage requirements could have positive economic and social impacts because it would reduce the opportunity cost of fishing for monkfish since vessels will not have to use a multispecies or scallop DAS. Such vessels would have monkfish DAS in addition to their multispecies or scallop DAS, and as a result overall fishing opportunity (effort) could increase. If, on the other hand, overall monkfish effort increases to unsustainable levels, or to levels that compromise stock rebuilding, the trip limits and DAS allocations could be reduced under the rebuilding plan adopted in Framework 2. This would offset some of the potential economic benefits of separating DAS. The increase in overall effort due to “freed up” multispecies or scallop DAS, combined with the additional effort of the monkfish-only DAS could also have detrimental effects on habitat and protected species. Although mechanisms are in place to address interactions between monkfish gear and protected species (Marine Mammal Take Reduction Plans and rules adopted under the Endangered Species Act), entanglements could occur as a result of a potential increase in monkfish effort in those times/areas where protected species overlap the fishery. The effect of increased overall effort on habitat is offset by measures proposed in this amendment, as well as habitat protection measures adopted under other FMPs, particularly multispecies and sea scallops. The habitat protection alternatives under consideration in this amendment are discussed separately below. Separating DAS would allow for monkfish-specific gear requirements on directed trips, particularly the monkfish trawl configuration described below (under Decision 11, EFH Alternative 4). This gear will likely have a positive effect on monkfish yield-per-recruit, and will reduce both the bycatch (of small monkfish and of other managed species) and the impact of the monkfish trawl fishery on the EFH of other managed species. The benefits of separating DAS and requiring a specific trawl net configuration would not be realized for vessels fishing in the NFMA until such time as a monkfish trawl exempted fishery is established since those vessels would not be able to fish unless on a multispecies DAS (and be able to use multispecies trawls). Research to evaluate such an exemption (using the proposed monkfish trawl) is ongoing, and this amendment proposes additional experimental fisheries to determine if an exempted fishery can be established.


FMP Element NFMA SFMA

Target TA C

Calculated annually based on two factors: 1) three year running average fall survey biomass index compared to annual biomass rebuilding target 2) previous year landings If F is known, TAC is set to not exceed F threshold.

Same as NFMA

DAS

40 40, or lower if trip limit is calculated to be less than 550/450 lbs. tails/DAS on Cat. A, C & B,D, respectively. For FY2004, vessels will have 28 DAS to fish in the SFMA.

Liver landings Maximum of 25% of wt. of tails or 10% of wt. of whole MF

Same as NFMA

Minimum fish size 11” tail, 17” whole 14” tail, 21” whole Minimum mesh size on MF DAS

Trawl: 10” sq/12” dia. codend; Gillnet: 10”

Same as NFMA

Area Declaration

Must declare into NFMA for minimum of 30 days to fish under less restrictive measures (trip limits, minimum fish size); to be adjusted to 7 days by technical amendment

Exempted Fishery

Must fish on a Multispecies or Scallop DAS or in an Exempted Fishery (gillnet only)

Must fish on a Multispecies or Scallop DAS or in an Exempted Fishery

Trip limits and Incidental Catch limits see table below. Table 1 Summary of regulations applicable to vessels declared into de-coupled DAS programs under Alternative 1a (SFMA only) or 1b (either area). Table shows applicable rules on vessels trip declaration to fish on a monkfish, multispecies or combined DAS. Vessels that do not declare into a de-coupled DAS program, under either 1a or 1b, would fish under the current rules (no action alternative).


Permit Category

DAS Program

Area

Gear1 Trip/Incidental Catch Limit 2

(tail weight per DAS) A, B, C, or D

Monkfish

NFMA

All Gear

No trip limit

A or C

Monkfish

SFMA

All Gear

1,250 lb (FY2003, adjusted annually); 550 lb. In FY2004

B or D

Monkfish

SFMA

All Gear

1,000 lb (FY2003, adjusted annually); 450 lb. In FY2004

C or D

Multispecies

NFMA

All Gear

No trip limit

C or D

Multispecies

SFMA

Trawl

300 lb

C or D

Multispecies

SFMA

Non-trawl

50 lb

C or D

Scallop

NFMA & SFMA

Dredge or net exemption

300 lb

E (incidental)

Multispecies

NFMA

All Gear

400 lb, or 50% of total weight of fish on board, whichever is less

E (incidental)

Multispecies

SFMA

All Gear

50 lb

E (incidental)

Scallop

NFMA & SFMA

Dredge

300 lb

A, B, C, D, or E

No DAS

NFMA & SFMA

Large Mesh3

Up to 5% of total weight of fish on board per trip4

A, B, C, D, or E

No DAS

NFMA & SFMA

Small Mesh5 or Handgear

50 lb of tail weight per trip

C, D, or E vessels that are <30 feet with a multispecies limited access permit

No DAS

NFMA & SFMA

All Gear

50 lb of tail weight per trip

1Dredge gear is prohibited unless fishing under a Scallop DAS 2 Or the whole-weight equivalent (tail weight x 3.32) 3Greater than or equal to the min imum NE multispecies mesh size for the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank and Southern New England Regulated Mesh Areas, and minimum summer flounder mesh size for the Mid-Atlantic Regulated Mesh Area 4Can land whole monkfish or monkfish tails, but the weight of all monkfish on board is converted to tail weight. 5Less than the regulated mesh size as specified under footnote 3. Table 2 Summary of current monkfish trip limits and incidental catch limits


Decision 1a Application of separated DAS by management area Note: These alternatives only apply if DAS are separated under Decision 1. DAS Alternative 1a (area based, SFMA only) – A permit Category C and D vessel would declare annually (when renewing its permit) that it intends to retain the option to fish under monkfish only DAS in the SFMA only. The vessel may declare on a trip-by-trip basis to fish on a combined (multispecies or scallop) DAS or a monkfish only DAS, but may only fish on a monkfish DAS (combined or not) in the SFMA. If a vessel that has declared into the SFMA intends to fish in the NFMA (for example, under multispecies or scallop DAS), then it would fish under the applicable incidental catch limits. In other words, while a Category C or D vessel may fish in the NFMA with no monkfish trip limit while on a multispecies DAS, a vessel that has declared into the SFMA for separation of DAS would only be able to fish under the regulations applicable to Category E vessels in the NFMA, and could not obtain an NFMA exemption authorization letter. A vessel that has not declared into the SFMA would fish under the regulations that apply under Alternative 2 (the no action alternative in Decision 1); or DAS Alternative 1b (both areas, preferred) – A Category C or D vessel would declare annually its intent to retain the option to fish under a monkfish only DAS. This alternative differs from Alternative 1a in that vessels would not be restricted to fishing on a monkfish DAS (combined or not) in the SFMA. A vessel that declares into the program would have the ability to call-in a monkfish-only DAS or a combined DAS when starting the trip, and could fish in either area, subject to any area-specific rules and restrictions that apply. A vessel that has not declared into the de-coupled DAS program would fish under the regulations that apply under Alternative 2 (the no action alternative in Decision 1).


Decision 1b Fleet or individual DAS allocations Note: These alternatives only apply if DAS are separated under Decision 1. The New England Council has not identified a preferred alternative, while the Mid-Atlantic Council identified Option 1a, Fleet DAS, as preferred. DAS Alternative 1, Option 1a (Fleet DAS, MAFMC preferred) –DAS would be assigned uniformly to all vessels with limited access monkfish permits. This is essentially the current program, but applied to monkfish-only DAS (if separated under Decision 1). Initially, all vessels would be allocated 40 monkfish only DAS as a baseline, but the allocations could be adjusted as needed to achieve rebuilding goals (as it was in FY2005) through the procedure adopted in Framework 2.; or DAS Alternative 1, Option 1b (Individual DAS) – DAS would be allocated, based on past participation in the monkfish fishery, as individual shares of a total pool of DAS for the directed fishery according to the method described below.

Step1. Establish individual vessel baseline share of DAS (percentage of the total pool of available DAS) based on level of participation in the monkfish fishery. Qualifying days are based on cumulative effort (days absent or DAS) over the qualifying period when monkfish was 40, 50, or 60 percent or more of total weight of fish on board (where “weight” refers to live weight equivalent). The qualification period for determining baseline DAS shares is 1997-2001, including both pre- and post-FMP effort. Qualification options:

Qualification Option 1: days are counted when monkfish was 40 percent or more of the total weight of fish on board. Total number of days in the pool = approximately 25,000. Qualification Option 2: days are counted when monkfish was 50 percent or more of the total weight of fish on board. Total number of days in the pool = approximately 20,000. Qualification Option 3: days are counted when monkfish was 60 percent or more of the total weight of fish on board. Total number of days in the pool = approximately 17,000.

The purpose of establishing qualification criteria is for calculating individual vessel shares of the total pool of DAS. Each vessel’s share would be calculated by dividing that vessel’s number of days at or above qualification criterion by the total number of days in the pool. The shares equate to a percentage of a total pool of DAS available for the directed fishery, calculated in Step 2.


Step 2. The total DAS available depends on the target TAC in any given year after subtracting out the expected catch of monkfish not on a DAS, that is, fishing under incidental catch limits. The pool of available DAS is calculated by dividing the directed fishery component of the TAC by the average catch per DAS on directed monkfish trips. For the purpose of this analysis, the SFMA incidental catch is based on the total monkfish catch on vessels not on a monkfish DAS. In the NFMA, however, where there is no trip limit on a Category C or D vessel fishing on a multispecies DAS, the same criterion cannot be applied. In this case, the incidental catch portion of the TAC was calculated by adding the catch on all trips below the Category E trip limit, that is, the lesser of 50 percent of total weight of fish on board, or 400 lbs./DAS. Using the FY2003 TACs as an example, the pool of DAS would be calculated as follows:

2003 TAC

(1,000 lbs)

Incidental Catch

(1,000 lbs)

Directed Fishery TAC (1,000 lbs)

Average catch/DAS

(lbs.) DAS pool

NFMA 39,039 3,500 35,539 2,000 17,769 SFMA 22,511 6,500 16,011 1,400 11,436 Table 3 Calculation of Individual DAS pool using FY2003 TACs.

The total DAS pool to be allocated to individual DAS vessels would be 17,769+11,436=29,025.

Step 3. Allocation per vessel is then determined as the product of the baseline share and total allowable DAS. NMFS will inform vessel permit holders of their individual shares. NOTE: The DSEIS states that NMFS would inform permit holders of their specific individual shares prior to the public hearings, but the necessary analysis is not complete, and that information is not available at this time.

Step 4. Vessels would be provided an opportunity to appeal individual share allocations and would fish under the fleet allocation (40 DAS) during the first year pending resolution of appeals.


Decision 1c Transferable DAS implementation procedure Note: These alternatives only apply if DAS are separated under Decision 1. DAS Alternative 1, Option 2a – Transferable monkfish-only DAS (under one of the programs selected in Decision 1d below) would be allowed upon implementation of the Amendment 2 rules, scheduled for May 1, 2005; or DAS Alternative 1, Option 2b (preferred) – Include transferable DAS in the list of possible actions under the framework adjustment process. The method(s) for transferring DAS could be one of the programs described in Decision 1d below, or another method developed during the framework adjustment process. This option would require the Councils to conduct additional analysis and take public comment at the time they are considering adopting any such programs. Decision 1c Discussion The Councils are considering allowing the transfer of monkfish only DAS as a way to mitigate the cumulative impact of restrictions being considered in scallop and multispecies fisheries that will affect monkfish vessels, and to mitigate the impact of any future monkfish DAS restrictions should they become necessary. The Councils’ rationale for the preferred alternative (implement under the framework adjustment process rather than in this amendment) is that the proposals are complicated and not fully developed, that they are potentially highly controversial, and that there is some uncertainty (at the time the Councils identified preferred alternatives) about the transferable DAS program in Amendment 13 and how that would affect on the type of program applicable to the monkfish fleet.


Decision 1d Transferable DAS programs Note: These alternatives only apply if DAS are separated under Decision 1.The Councils could adopt either or both Option 2 (DAS leasing) and/or Option 3 (DAS sale), or take no action, under Option 1. The options are designed to duplicate the options considered by the NEFMC in Multispecies Amendment 13, and although Councils have not identified a preferred alternative, the NEFMC has adopted specific elements, as identified below, within both the DAS leasing (Option 2) and DAS sale (Option 3) programs in Amendment 13. Transferable DAS Option 1 (no action) – Vessels would not be allowed to transfer DAS to another vessel; or Transferable DAS Option 2, DAS Leasing – Vessels would be allowed to lease DAS to/from another vessel subject to the terms and conditions described below. The following lists a number of elements common to all of the leasing options, followed by three conservation equivalency options, three options for limitations on number of DAS leased, two permit history options and three program expiration options. The NEFMC has adopted DAS leasing in Amendment 13.

Common Elements Term of Lease: DAS would be leased for only one fishing year. Multiple vessel transactions: Vessels may lease DAS from more than one other vessel (conversely vessels may lease DAS to more than one vessel) subject to conservation equivalency provisions. Lease units: DAS may be leased on a unit basis where a unit is defined as being 1 DAS or 24 hour increment. Conservation tax: Leases would not be subject to a “conservation tax.” Renewal of Lease: Vessels may renew leased DAS on an annual (fishing year) basis. Required Use: Leased DAS must be used in the same fishing year they are acquired. Prohibition on Carry-Over: Leased DAS may not be used as part of any carry-over. Limit on Leasing by Category: DAS available for leasing shall be limited to only Category A DAS; DAS that may be immediately available for use.


(Note: this element is contained in the Multispecies Amendment 13 leasing proposal, but is not applicable in the monkfish fishery since DAS are not categorized.) Registration of Leases: Lease agreements must be registered with the NERO. Administrative process based on two possible approaches 1) internal administration by NERO or 2) external administration by approved “brokers” (for example, permit brokers could be sanctioned by NERO to document exchanges and provide data to NERO for monitoring and enforcement purposes) to be developed. Permit History: the lease agreement must clearly state which permit retains the history of the leased DAS. (see “Permit History Options” below) Confirmation of Permit History: Any permit in the permit history category cannot lease DAS to an active permit. Conservation Equivalency Options Within the two conservation equivalency options outlined below, the Councils are considering allowing, or not allowing sub-leasing of DAS.

Subleasing Option A: DAS cannot be subleased. or Subleasing Option B: DAS can be subleased. In Multispecies Amendment 13, the NEFMC recommended, and NMFS approved Option A (no subleasing).

Conservation Equivalency Option 1: Leasing within size categories. A lessor may not lease DAS to any vessel with a main engine horsepower rating that is more than 20% that of the lessee and may not lease DAS to any vessel that is more than 10% of the lessee’s vessel’s LOA, GRT, and NT. Note: In Multispecies Amendment 13, the NEFMC recommended, and NMFS approved this option, except that the GRT and NT restrictions are not included. or Conservation Equivalency Option 2: Calibrated DAS. Two methods are being considered for calibrating effective effort that would be applied to DAS being leased across vessel platforms, taking into account the potential differences in capacity output so that DAS leasing are capacity neutral. The methods rely on the application of calibration factors to DAS being leased across vessel horsepower classes. Note: for the purpose of the tables in the following two options, the terms “selling vessel” and “buying vessel” refer to lessor and lessee vessels, respectively. Conservation Equivalency Option 2A: DAS would be subject to the calibration factors outlined in the following Table 4. DAS leased to a


vessel in a higher or lower horsepower class would be reduced or increased by multiplying the DAS by the appropriate factor. or

Selling Vessel Horsepower Class

0-175 176-250 251-324 325-400 401-650 651+ 0-175 1.00 1.25 1.42 1.72 2.05 2.76

176-250 0.80 1.00 1.14 1.37 1.63 2.20 251-324 0.70 0.88 1.00 1.21 1.44 1.93 325-400 0.58 0.73 0.83 1.00 1.19 1.60 401-650 0.49 0.61 0.70 0.84 1.00 1.35

Buying Vessel Horsepower Class

651+ 0.36 0.45 0.52 0.62 0.74 1.00 Table 4 Option 2A for calibration of DAS leased between vessels

Conservation Equivalency Option 2B: DAS would be subject to the calibration factors outlined in the following Table 5. This option would set the calibration factor for DAS leased from a larger horsepower class vessel to a smaller horsepower class vessel at 1, that is, no increase in DAS as a result of the transfer.

Selling Vessel Horsepower Class

0-175 176-250 251-324 325-400 401-650 651+

0-175 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

176-250 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

251-324 0.70 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

325-400 0.58 0.73 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00

401-650 0.49 0.61 0.70 0.84 1.00 1.00

Buying Vessel Horsepower Class

651+ 0.36 0.45 0.52 0.62 0.74 1.00

Table 5 Option 2A for calibration of DAS leased between vessels

Limitations on the number of DAS leased Limitations Option 1: A vessel would be allowed to lease from other vessels not more than 50 percent of its Amendment 2 allocation (not including carry-over DAS); or Limitations Option 2: A vessel would be allowed to lease from other vessels not more than its Amendment 2 allocation (not including carry-over DAS), or 40 DAS. This is the option that is comparable to what the NEFMC adopted in Amendment 13; or Limitations Option 3: A vessel would not be allowed to lease from other vessels more days than 365 minus its Amendment 2 allocation (including any carry-over DAS). In other words, the total number of leased and allocated DAS could not exceed 365, including any carry-over.


Permit History Provisions The history of DAS use remains with the permit that “owns” the DAS, (that is, the lessee retains the DAS history of any DAS leased to another vessel). Any landings associated with leased DAS remain with the permit that lands the fish. If a vessel does not use all the DAS that are allocated to it and that it leases, the DAS will be considered used in one of the following two ways:

Permit History Option A: Leased DAS are considered used first. This is the option adopted by the NEFMC in Amendment 13; or Permit History Option B: Leased DAS are considered used last.

Expiration of a DAS Leasing Program Expiration Option 1: Any adopted DAS program will continue indefinitely unless changed by a future Council action; or Expiration Option 2A: Any adopted DAS program will automatically expire after a two-to-five year period unless extended by a future Council action. The length of the period will be determined after considering public comment on this amendment. If an expiration date is adopted, there is no guarantee that a DAS leasing program will be renewed. The NEFMC adopted this option in Amendment 13, with an expiration date of two years after implementation, or April 30, 2006; or Expiration Option 2B: Any adopted DAS program will automatically expire after one year unless extended by a future Council action. This option would put the expiration of the monkfish DAS leasing program on the same date as that adopted in Amendment 13, taking into account that Amendment 2 will be implemented one year after Amendment 13.

Transferable DAS Option 3, Sale of DAS – All transfers of DAS are limited to monkfish limited access vessels. The LOA or gross registered tonnage of the purchasing vessel may not be more than 10% greater and its horsepower may not be more than 20% greater than the baseline of the selling vessel. The selling vessel is required to retire from all state and federal commercial fisheries. Consistent with the DAS leasing program, a history permit cannot transfer its DAS to another vessel. The NEFMC has adopted DAS sale provisions in Amendment 13.

Transferable DAS Option 1 (smaller to larger vessel): Adopt the transfer provisions without a flat rate reduction in DAS transferred from smaller to larger vessels; The NEFMC adopted this option in Amendment 13. or


Transferable DAS Option 2 (smaller to larger vessel): Adopt the transfer provision with the condition that DAS transferred from smaller to larger vessels are subject to a substantial flat rate reduction based on the following formula: In a transaction between selling Vessel A (smaller) to buying Vessel B (larger), DAS available to Vessel B after transfer = 30% of Vessel A’s active DAS + 5% of Vessel A’s inactive DAS. Inactive/Active DAS Transfers Any limited access monkfish vessel with landings of monkfish or other species between May 1, 1994 and April 30, 1999 may transfer DAS subject to the one of the two options below. Transfer DAS reduction Option 1: Transferred active DAS will be reduced by 40% and inactive DAS will be reduced by 90%. This is similar to the option adopted by the NEFMC in Amendment 13, where “active DAS” correspond to “A and B” days, while inactive days correspond to “C” days; or Transfer DAS reduction Option 2: No reduction in the number of active or inactive DAS transferred. For the purpose of this alternative, “active DAS” will be defined by one of the following two options: “Active DAS” Option 1: “Active DAS” are the maximum days used (not to exceed current DAS allocations) as determined by the call-in system or days absent computed from the VTR on trips where monkfish were landed, from fishing years 1994 to 1999; or

“Active DAS” Option 2: “Active DAS” are days on which more than 10% of landings by weight (as reported in the VTR) was composed of monkfish (tail weights converted to whole weights) from fishing years 1994 to 1999. Reactivation of DAS (DAS use by permit buyer) All DAS acquired by a vessel may not be immediately available for use by the vessel, pending the adoption of one of the following two options: Reactivation Option 1 (phase-in): 20% of the DAS acquired could be reactivated each year. In other words, a vessel would be allowed to use only 20% of the DAS it bought in the first year, 40% the next year, 60% the next, and so forth; or Reactivation Option 2 (immediate use): DAS may be used in their entirety at any time following the transaction. This is the option adopted by the NEFMC in Amendment 13.


Decision 2 Adjustment of the 50 lbs. (tail wt.) incidental catch limit Incidental Catch Alternative 1 (no action) –50 lbs. (tail wt.) per trip on all vessels not on a DAS and fishing with small mesh* or handgear. The same limit applies on multispecies limited access vessels that are less than 30 feet (and, therefore, exempt from multispecies DAS) regardless of gear used. The incidental catch limit is up to 5 percent of the total weight of fish on board on vessels using large mesh (that is, fluke mesh in the Mid-Atlantic Regulated Mesh Area and multispecies mesh elsewhere) when not on a DAS. or Incidental Catch Alternative 2 (preferred) – 50 lbs. (tail wt.) per day, up to a maximum of 150 lbs., or Incidental Catch Alternative 3 - 50 lbs. (tail wt.) per day, up to a maximum of 500 lbs. * “Small mesh” is defined as mesh smaller than multispecies minimum mesh in the GB/GOM and SNE Regulated Mesh Areas, and fluke minimum mesh, specified in §648.94 (c) (3)(i), in the Mid-Atlantic Regulated Mesh Area. The Multispecies FMP shifted the Mid-Atlantic Regulated Mesh boundary to 74°00’W from 72°30’W, but the Councils are considering in this amendment restoring the 72°30’W line for the purpose of setting monkfish incidental catch limits (see Decision 4 below). Note: Vessels fishing under this incidental limit are, by definition, not fishing on a DAS. Therefore, the “day” for the purpose of compliance with the limits proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would be based on the logbook time of departure, or electronic VMS, if the vessel is so equipped. Decision 2 Discussion Alternatives 2 and 3 are intended to minimize discards of monkfish incidental catch, particularly as stocks rebuild and the probability of catch monkfish on small-mesh trips increases. Allowing vessels to land, rather than discard incidentally caught monkfish will also improve the monkfish catch statistics used in the stock assessments. The alternatives would not affect day trips, but would have an effect on multi-day trips, notably whiting trips, and in the case of Alternative 3, squid freeze r vessels that take trips up to 10 days. Available data does not indicate that monkfish discards have occurred on these vessels in the past, or that these vessels have been “bumping up” against the 50- lb. possession limit, but, as noted above, the likelihood of that situation occurring increases as the monkfish resource rebuilds.


Decision 3 Incidental catch limit on General Category Scallop Vessels and Surf clam/Ocean Quahog Dredge Vessels General Category Scallop/Clam Dredge Alternative 1 (no action) – Vessels fishing with a dredge under either a General Category Scallop permit or a Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog permit are prohibited from retaining monkfish, or General Category Scallop/Clam Dredge Alternative 2 (preferred) – This alternative would apply the incidental limit adopted in the previous decision, (50 lbs. tail wt. possession limit, or per day, up to a maximum of 150 lbs. or 500 lbs.) Decision 3 Discussion As with the previous decision, the preferred alternative is intended to minimize regulatory discarding of monkfish. No specific discarding issues have yet been identified on these vessels (under the no action alternative), but the situation could arise as monkfish stocks rebuild and the likelihood of incidental catch increases. Allowing these vessels to retain incidentally caught monkfish is not likely to have a measurable effect on the resource or fishery. Decision 4 Incidental catch limit on Summer Flounder vessels west of 72°30’W Incidental Catch Limit west of 72°30’W Alternative 1 (no action) – Vessels fishing with large mesh (as defined in the Summer Flounder FMP) in the Mid-Atlantic Regulated Mesh Area (as defined in the Multispecies FMP) have a monkfish incidental catch limit of five percent of total weight of fish on board (based on tail wt.). In the 2002 Groundfish Interim Rule and in Amendment 13, the Regulated Mesh Area boundary line was moved from 72°30’W to 74°00’W. As a result, vessels fishing between 72°30’W and 74°00’W have a monkfish incidental catch limit applicable to vessels fishing with small mesh in the Southern New England Regulated Mesh Area, or 50 lbs. (tail wt.) or Incidental Catch Limit west of 72°30’W Alternative 2 (preferred) – This alternative would restore the area specified in the original Monkfish FMP where vessels fishing with summer flounder mesh are considered to be using “large mesh” for the purpose of determining the applicable monkfish incidental catch limit. If adopted, vessels fishing with large mesh (as defined in the Summer Flounder FMP) west of 72°30’W (and around the eastern end of Long Island) would have a monkfish incidental catch limit of five percent of total weight of fish on board (based on tail wt.). Decision 4 Discussion As with the previous two decisions, the preferred alternative is intended to minimize regulatory discarding of monkfish. In addition, the preferred alternative restores the monkfish incidental catch limit to what it was in the original FMP. The New England Council shifted the Regulated Mesh Area boundary westward (to 74°00’W) in order to apply multispecies large mesh regulations to protect winter flounder and yellowtail


flounder stocks over a wider area. The preferred alternative does not affect the multispecies minimum mesh size requirements east of 74°00’W.

Figure 2 Incidental catch limit boundaries (Decision 4). The 72°30’W line is the original line and proposed in Alternative 2, while the 74°00’W line is the current (no action) boundary line.


Decision 5 Minimum mesh size on monkfish trawl vessels Minimum trawl mesh size Alternative 1 (no action, preferred) – 10-inch square, or 12-inch diamond codend on Category A and B, and on Category C and D Scallop vessels on a monkfish/scallop DAS. Multispecies regulated mesh applies on Category C and D vessels on a monkfish/multispecies DAS, or Minimum trawl mesh size Alternative 2 – 12-inch square codend and 12-inch diamond in the body and wings, on Category A and B, and on Category C and D Scallop vessels on a monkfish/scallop DAS. If DAS usage is not decoupled (under Decision 1), multispecies regulated mesh would apply on Category C and D vessels on a monkfish/multispecies DAS. If DAS usage is decoupled the Councils are considering two options for Category C and D multispecies vessels fishing on an optional combined (multispecies/monkfish) DAS (see below); or Minimum trawl mesh size Alternative 3 – 12-inch square codend and multispecies regulated mesh in the body and wings, on Category A and B, and on Category C and D Scallop vessels on a monkfish/scallop DAS. If DAS usage is not decoupled (under Decision 1) multispecies regulated mesh would apply on Category C and D vessels on a monkfish/multispecies DAS. If DAS usage is decoupled the Councils are considering two options for Category C and D multispecies vessels fishing on an optional combined (multispecies/monkfish) DAS (see below);

Mesh Alternatives 2 and 3, Option 1; If DAS are separated (under Decision 1), Alternative 2 or 3 mesh would apply on Category C and D vessels on a monkfish-only DAS but not on a combined monkfish/multispecies DAS, or Mesh Alternatives 2 and 3, Option 2; If DAS are separated (under Decision 1), Alternative 2 or 3 mesh would apply on Category C and D vessels on a combined monkfish/multispecies DAS.

Note: Under Alternatives 2 and 3, nominal mesh sizes of 12 inches would be based on the nearest metric equivalent of manufactured twin in the regulations. Decision 5 Discussion The purpose of increasing the minimum mesh size requirement on monkfish trawl vessels is primarily to minimize the bycatch of small monkfish and of other species. However, minimizing or eliminating the ability of a large-mesh monkfish net to catch other species, particularly regulated multispecies, reduces the incentive to fish in areas where they otherwise might have a component catch of other species, with commensurate benefits to the EFH of those other species. Increased mesh sizes also have the effect of shifting the exploitation pattern to larger fish, increasing the yield-per-recruit (average weight of fish in the catch). Gillnet vessels fishing with 10- inch minimum mesh do not appear to have the same bycatch problems as trawl vessels, and, furthermore, many gillnet vessels actually use meshes larger than the minimum size, according to anecdotal reports. While the Councils are considering increasing the trawl minimum mesh size to address both bycatch of small monkfish and of other species, the preferred alternative is no action.


Decision 6 Minimum fish size Minimum fish size Alternative 1 (no action) – NFMA: 11 inches (tail), 17 inches (whole); SFMA 14 inches (tail), 21 inches (whole); or Minimum fish size Alternative 2 (preferred) – Uniform fish size in both areas

Alternative 2 Option 1 - 11 inches (tail), 17 inches (whole), or Alternative 2 Option 2 - 10 inches (tail), 15 inches (whole),

Minimum fish size Alternative 3 – No minimum size, or Minimum fish size Alternative 4 – Considered only if DAS usage requirements are separated (Decision 1, Alternative 1) and applies on monkfish-only DAS. If the Councils select this alternative, they would select from one of the previous minimum size alternatives for vessels fishing on a combined DAS (multispecies/monkfish or scallop/monkfish). On monkfish-only DAS, minimum fish size would be 14 inches (tail), 21 inches (whole) in both areas. Decision 6 Discussion The Councils are considering reducing or eliminating the monkfish minimum size limit to reduce regulatory discards and improve monkfish commercial catch-at-age data. Minimum fish size regulations have been widely used in FMPs on the basis that they discourage the targeting of small fish, and increase yield per recruit (if successfully linked to gear requirements that have the appropriate size selectivity characteristics). On the other hand, a minimum size rule increases discards (because gear selectivity is not precise, or “knife-edged”), and results in incomplete commercial catch-at-age data because the landings do not include the portion of the catch that is discarded. The Monkfish PDT agreed that, in general, there are more negative aspects to having a monkfish minimum size rule than not. Furthermore, the PDT noted that a significant portion of monkfish is caught incidentally in fisheries using gear that is not as size-selective as that required of the directed fishery, which diminishes the benefits of a minimum fish size in the directed fishery. As long as small-mesh and even 6- inch mesh fisheries catch monkfish, then a minimum size regulation will cause avoidable discarding of sub-legal sized monkfish. The PDT recognized, however, that in the absence of minimum size limits, other measures are needed to prevent targeting of small monkfish. Gear strategies and/or other measures (targeted area closures) may be better approaches to delaying age at first capture (increasing yield per recruit) but their effectiveness depends on widespread support of fishermen and the willingness of fishermen to use gear solutions as intended. The Councils have indicated that their preference for a uniform minimum fish size is based primarily on improving enforcement, it will result in some reduction in discards, since the options within that alternative reduce the minimum size in one or both areas. Furthermore, the preference confirms the original basis for the minimum size rule, that is, to discourage targeting of small fish and increasing yield per recruit.


Decision 7 Closed season (block of time out of the fishery) The Councils have not identified a preferred alternative. Closed season Alternative 1 (no action) – Category A & B vessels: 20-day block out of the fishery April – June; Category C & D/Multispecies vessels: 20-day block March-May; Category C & D/Scallop vessels: no requirement. (Scallop vessels see Alternative 1 and 3 Options below, if DAS usage is separated under Decision 1.) or Closed season Alternative 2 – Eliminate the requirement to take a 20-day block out of the fishery on monkfish limited access vessels. This alternative would not change any requirement imposed by other fisheries, such as multispecies. Or Closed season Alternative 3 – Monkfish limited access vessels would be required to take 40 days out of the fishery during the applicable time (see Alternative 1), could be taken in 2 20-day blocks. (Scallop vessels see Options below, if DAS usage is separated under Decision 1.)

Alternative 1 and 3 Option 1, if DAS usage is separated under Decision 1: to include Category C & D/Scallop vessels under the time-out requirement of either Alternative 1 or 3, if adopted; or Alternative 1 and 3 Option 2, if DAS usage is separated under Decision 1: to not include Category C & D/Scallop vessels under the time-out requirement of either Alternative 1 or 3, if adopted.

Decision 7 Discussion The PDT reviewed the current regulations requiring vessels to take 20-day blocks out of the fishery during the spring and agreed that there is no apparent biological benefit from a 20-day-out requirement. Under the current 20-day block out of a 90 day period, a vessel still has 70 calendar days during which it could use most or all of its 40 monkfish DAS. Scallop/monkfish vessels are not subject to this requirement. As long as other fishing can occur, the benefits to spawning will not be realized, even if they cannot be measured or predicted. The PDT recommended that if the Councils want to retain a time-out requirement to protect a spring monkfish migration or spawning activity, the amount of required time out should be increased significantly, and it should be applied at the same time for all monkfish vessels. (Currently the start and end dates are different for monkfish-only and multispecies-monkfish vessels.)


Decision 8 Offshore Southern Management Area fishery program SFMA offshore fishery Alternative 1 (no action) – Vessels fishing in the offshore areas of the SFMA are subject to the same trip limits and DAS allocations as vessels fishing in inshore areas; or SFMA offshore fishery Alternative 2 (preferred) – Vessels could enroll annually to fish under the following program elements. Vessels would not have to be enrolled to fish in the area, but would be subject to the same regulations (trip limits, DAS and no VMS requirement) applicable to vessels fishing outside the program area. This program could be adopted whether or not the DAS usage requirement is separated in Decision 1.

Alternative 2 Program elements: Vessel Participation: vessel must declare intent to participate in the Offshore Monkfish Fishery Program, have on board letter of authorization, valid for entire fishing year. Vessels in the program may not fish for monkfish in the NFMA, where incidental catch limits would apply. Area: Two area options are under consideration. Vessels would be still subject to any gear-based closed-area restrictions that might apply under this or other FMPs. Such restrictions could include areas closed to protect EFH.

Offshore Area Option 1: offshore of the loligo squid exemption line (approximately 50 fathoms) and north of 38°00’, (Figure 3) or Offshore Area Option 2: north of 38°00 and offshore of the loligo squid exemption line to its intersection with the northern boundary of the Monkfish/Skate trawl exemption area, 40°10’N, then eastward along the trawl exemption boundary, (Figure 4)

Season: October 1 –April 30 Trip limits/DAS: Directed fishery: The Councils are considering two options for how trip limits and DAS allocations are calculated on participating vessels:

Offshore program DAS/trip limits Option 1: at the time of enrollment in the program, a vessel would select one of three choices, in addition to the standard trip limit/DAS applicable to all vessels. The choices are based on a ratio of 1:2, 1:3, or 1:4. Ratio is standard to program trip limit, so, for example, if the standard trip limit is 1,000 lbs./DAS, a 1:2 choice would allow the vessel to land up to 2,000 lbs./DAS on up to 1/2 the standard DAS allocation. or Offshore program DAS/trip limits Option 2: Under this option, all vessels enrolled in the offshore fishery program would have a trip limit of 1,600 lbs./DAS (tail weight), and a variable DAS allocation that would be calculated to equate to the same per-vessel amounts available under the ratio system described in Option 1. For example, if the standard trip limit is 1,000 lbs./DAS, with 40 DAS


allocated, vessels in the offshore program would have 25 DAS (1,000/1,600 x 40) at 1,600 lbs./DAS.

Incidental catch limits (not on DAS): the same incidental monkfish catch limit applies to the vessel as other similar vessels when not on a DAS (gear- , area- , and permit category-based limits). Gear: vessels would be required to use the same gear as Category A and B vessels (monkfish only permits) when fishing on a monkfish DAS, including the trawl configuration described in EFH Alternative 4 (Decision 11), if adopted. Vessel monitoring system (VMS): vessels would be required to have a VMS in operation during the entire season (Oct. 1 – Apr. 30).

Decision 8 Discussion This proposal addresses the problem created by implementation of the FMP without the “running clock”. The Councils’ original FMP proposal, disapproved by NMFS, would have allowed vessels to run their DAS clock upon returning to port to account for any trip limit overages. Without the running clock, offshore vessel owners have stated they can no longer profitably fish for monkfish under the restrictive trip limits while also consuming a multispecies DAS. The running clock would have allowed vessels to exceed the per-day trip limit and remain at the dock with the DAS clock running to account for the overage. While the proposed action would establish an enrollment program for vessels wanting to fish in a designated offshore area under a higher trip limit, with other restrictions, other vessels could fish for monkfish in the area under the regular rules applicable to the vessel’s permit category and gear. This would preserve maximum flexibility for the fleet, since some vessels may want to fish for monkfish both inside and outside the area, and not have to install a VMS. The Councils’ intent is to designate the area offshore of the 50-fathom curve as the program area, but they are seeking comment on alternative area designation in consideration of the impact of the offshore trawl exemption area on some portions of that area. The Councils are also seeking comment on the two trip limit options (fixed at 1,600 lbs. of tails per DAS with variable DAS allocations, or at a ratio to the regular trip limit/DAS allocations) in response to scoping comments requesting the choice.


Figure 3 Offshore Area Alternative 1 – based on Illex Exemption Area but terminating at 38°N.


Figure 4 Offshore Area Alternative 2 – Alternative 2 would follow the Illex Exemption Area boundary from 38°N to the northern boundary of the Southern New England Monkfish Trawl Exemption Area (at 40°10’N), and then due east to the intersection with the EEZ boundary.


Decision 9 Modification of permit qualification criteria for vessels fishing south of 38°00’N Note: landings criteria for qualification remain the same as in the original FMP, that is 50,000 lbs. (tail wt.) for a Category A or C permit, and 7,500 lbs. for a Category B or D permit during the qualification period in one of the following alternatives. Landings must have occurred south of 38°00’N. The New England Council did not identify a preferred alternative, while the Mid-Atlantic Council identified Alternative 3. Vessels that qualify for a permit under one of these alternatives would operate under the same regulations applicable to other limited access vessels, except that they would be limited to fishing for monkfish (on a monkfish DAS) south of 38° N, pending any change to the sea turtle protection closures that would provide fishing opportunity in that area. If the current sea turtle protection measures are not modified prior to the effectiveness of any revised permit qualification alternative under consideration in this section, then the northern boundary of the area accessible to vessels qualifying under this action would be set at 38°20’N when the Councils submit the final amendment document. Permit qualification Alternative 1 – vessel had monkfish landings of 7,500 lbs

(tail wt.) for a Category B or D permit, and 50,000 lbs. for a Category A or C permit over the four years prior to June 15, 1998; or

Permit qualification Alternative 2 – vessel had monkfish landings of 7,500 lbs

(tail wt.) for a Category B or D permit, and 50,000 lbs. for a Category A or C permit over the four years prior to June 15, 1997; or

Permit qualification Alternative 3 (preferred by MAFMC) – vessel had

monkfish landings of 7,500 lbs (tail wt.) for a Category B or D permit, and 50,000 lbs. for a Category A or C permit during the March 15-June 15 period over the four years prior to June 15, 1998; or

Permit qualification Alternative 4 – vessel had monkfish landings of 7,500 lbs

(tail wt.) for a Category B or D permit, and 50,000 lbs. for a Category A or C permit during the March 15-June 15 period over the four years prior to June 15, 1997; or

Permit qualification Alternative 5 (no action) – vessel had monkfish landings

of 7,500 lbs (tail wt.) for a Category B or D permit, and 50,000 lbs. for a Category A or C permit during the four years prior to February 27, 1995.

Decision 9 Discussion During the course of development of the Monkfish FMP, a fishery for monkfish developed south of the border separating Virginia and North Carolina. A small number


of North Carolina and Virginia vessels began participating in this fishery shortly after publication of the monkfish limited access permit control date (February 27, 1995). The monkfish season in this area runs from mid-March to June. These southern vessels did not possess other federal northeast fishery permits and, therefore, did not receive timely notices and other information about limited access proposals contained in the Monkfish FMP. In addition, the southern boundary of the fishery management unit initially proposed for monkfish was the border separating Virginia and North Carolina. Although this southern boundary was twice modified (the final boundary was extended southward to the North Carolina and South Carolina border) before public hearings, the Monkfish FMP public hearing document described the management unit, and hence the limited access proposal, as terminating at the Virginia and North Carolina border. The following Table 6 shows the estimated number of vessels that would qualify for a limited access permit under the four options being considered. These are preliminary results, and the actual number could change pending the outcome of appeals.

Option Permit Type A, C B, D 1

0

7

2

0

3 3

0

5

4

0

3 Table 6 Estimated number of vessels expected to qualify for a monkfish limited access permit under the various options.


Decision 10 Exemption for vessels fishing for monkfish in the NAFO Regulated Area (outside the EEZ) NAFO Area exemption Alternative 1 (preferred) – a vessel issued a High Seas Compliance Permit under 50 CFR, part 300, is exempt from monkfish permit, mesh size, effort-control (DAS) and possession limit restrictions of the Monkfish FMP, while transiting the EEZ with monkfish on board, or landing monkfish in U.S. ports that were caught while fishing in the NAFO Regulated Area, provided:

(a) The vessel operator has a letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator on board the vessel; (b) For the duration of the trip, the vessel fishes, except for transiting purposes, exclusively in the NAFO Regulatory Area and does not harvest fish in, or possess fish harvested in, or from, the EEZ; (c) When transiting the EEZ, all gear is properly stowed in accordance with one of the applicable methods specified in §648.23(b); and (d) The vessel operator complies with the High Seas Fishing Compliance permit and all NAFO conservation and enforcement measures while fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area. or

NAFO Area exemption Alternative 2 (no action) – Current regulations prohibit the possession of monkfish in the EEZ or landing monkfish unless the vessel is in compliance with the FMP rules such as permit, DAS program, trip limits and other measures, even if the monkfish were caught outside of the EEZ. Decision 10 Discussion The proposed action would enable vessels to fish in the NAFO Regulated Area without being subject to the FMP regulations designed to managed the domestic monkfish fishery. The proposed action parallels similar provision in the Multispecies FMP.


Decision 11 Alternatives to minimize the impact of the fishery on Essential Fish Habitat NOTE 1: In developing the range of EFH alternatives, the Councils separated Alternative 1 (no action) and Alternative 3 (benefits of other FMP actions on EFH) because at the time, they were uncertain about what measures would be adopted in both Multispecies Amendment 13 and Scallop Amendment 10. Since that time, NMFS has approved measures in both amendments that benefit EFH, therefore, the impacts attributed to Alternative 3 can be considered to be part of Alternative 1. NOTE 2: The Gear Effects Determination (in Appendix II of the DSEIS) concluded that monkfish EFH is not vulnerable to the effects of fishing, and, therefore, the Councils are not considering measures to minimize the effect of the fishery on monkfish EFH, but only on the EFH of other managed species. Furthermore, the Gear Effects Determination also only identified mobile gear (that is, not monkfish gillnets) as having adverse impacts on EFH. The Councils have identified Alternatives 4 and 5 as preferred and may adopt both. EFH Alternative 1 (no action) – This is the EFH baseline. It describes the measures that would be in effect if the Councils took no action on measures proposed in this amendment, or under other FMP amendments that would have an effect on EFH, such as Multispecies Amendment 13 and Scallop Amendment 10. (See Note 1 above). EFH Alternative 2 – In this alternative the Councils consider the impact of measures proposed in this amendment on EFH, other than those specifically designed to minimize fishery impacts on EFH (such as Alternatives 4 and 5). EFH Alternative 3 – In this alternative the Councils consider the impact of measures proposed, or being implemented in other FMP amendments on EFH, specifically Multispecies Amendment 13 and Scallop Amendment 10. Measures considered include those specifically intended to reduce fishing impact on EFH, as well as the effect of non-habitat measures. (See Note 1 above.) EFH Alternative 4 (preferred) – This alternative comprises three options for trawl gear configuration requirements, a no-action alternative, a specific monkfish trawl design that would be required if monkfish DAS are separated under Decision 1, and a roller gear restriction that would apply in the SFMA if the Councils do not decide to separate DAS or adopt the monkfish trawl option. The purpose of the trawl design is to increase efficiency of bottom trawls for catching monkfish on mud bottom, and reduce the likelihood that that will be used in hard bottom areas that provide EFH for groundfish species.


EFH Alternative 4 Option 1 (no action) – No specific trawl restrictions other than minimum mesh size and gear/area based restrictions that may apply as a result of other FMP regulations. EFH Alternative 4 Option 2 (preferred) – Some of, or all the following trawl net configuration standards may be required if monkfish DAS are separated under Decision 1. The Councils may adopt individual elements.

1. Max disc diameter on sweep (comment sought on three options)

Option A: 12-inches in the northern and southern management areas Option B: 6-inches in the southern management area only Option C: 16-inches in northern area only, configured so discs can roll (with only one wire or chain)

2.Maximum ratio of headrope length to footrope length of 1:1.1 to eliminate overhang

3. No ground cable, or maximum distance between doors and wings cannot be greater than ½ the length of the vessel

4. Upper and lower legs (cables that attach the net wings to the doors) must be of equal length

5. Minimum mesh size (comment sought on four options) Option A: (no action) 10” square or 12” diamond. (codend only), Multispecies mesh in the body of the net Option B: 10” square or 12” diamond. (entire net) Option C: 12” square (codend), 12” diamond (body and wings) Option D: 12” square (codend only), Multispecies mesh in the body

6. Two-seam net construction requirement EFH Alternative 4 Option 3 – Maximum roller gear diameter of six inches on vessels on a monkfish DAS in the SFMA. Councils will consider this option only if they decide to not separate monkfish DAS or do not adopt the Option 2 trawl configuration.

EFH Alternative 5 (preferred) – This alternative would implement area closures to protect deep-sea coral areas from the effects of monkfish fishing offshore. It contains two parts, Alternative 5AB and Alternative 5C. Alternative 5AB would close two specific canyons, while Alternative 5C would close up to 12 canyon areas, including the two specified in Alternative 5AB to vessels fishing on a monkfish DAS. In both options, the area closures are designed to be enforceable (straight-line borders) and to not close areas shallower than 200 meters. Also, under either alternative, the Councils seek comment on whether to close the areas to trawl gear only (Option 1) or to all gears on a monkfish DAS (Option 2).


EFH Alternative 5AB – Closure of Oceanographer and Lydonia Canyons to vessels on a monkfish DAS. EFH Alternative 5C – Closure of up to 12 canyons to vessels on a monkfish DAS.

EFH Alternatives 5AB and 5C Option 1 – Closure applies only to trawl vessels on a monkfish DAS. EFH Alternatives 5AB and 5C Option 2 – Closure applies to all gears on a monkfish DAS.

Decision 10 Discussion This Amendment and DSEIS include a no action EFH alternative (Alternative #1), an alternative (#2) that relies on the incidental habitat benefits of other management measures in the amendment, and one (#3) that would rely on the habitat and non-habitat related management measures adopted in Amendments 10 and 13 to the Scallop and Multispecies FMPs respectively. One of the habitat management alternatives (#4) focus on the direct adverse impacts of bottom trawls for 23 species with life stages with EFH that is potentially vulnerable to bottom trawls and dredges. There are also several alternatives that focus on the indirect impacts of the monkfish fishery on EFH for these same species and life stages (Alternatives 5AB and 5C). The indirect impacts to EFH are in reference to deepwater corals that occur in submarine canyon environments on the outer continental shelf. EFH Alternative 4 (monkfish trawl configuration) These trawl gear proposals were developed during a cooperative workshop held by the Monkfish PDT involving trawl industry members and gear technology experts. Initial discussion in the workshop focused on the relationship between monkfish behavior and the configuration of trawls. Observations of monkfish behavior in the vicinity of a trawl show that herding is not a factor, minimizing the need for the gear to create a dust cloud, but increasing the importance of the wings of the net, which are often extended on monkfish trawls. Further, monkfish do not attempt to escape upwards, as do roundfish, allowing for a lower headrope than is needed on a groundfish trawl. Participants agreed that the primary sediment type in areas where directed monkfish trawling occurs is mud, in both northern and southern areas, although during migration periods monkfish are caught in sandy and more complex bottom types. While in the southern area the bottom characteristics are more consistent over large areas, in the northern area, there is a greater diversity of bottom types, ranging from soft mud to large boulders, and even soft mud areas have cobble and boulders distributed unevenly across the surface. These bottom characteristics greatly influence the types of nets used in each area. In the northern area, vessels use nets that are optimized for fishing in mixed bottom types characteristic of the region. Since vessels can carry only one, or sometimes two rigged nets, they are using nets suitable for groundfish fishing, not necessarily optimized for trawling for monkfish. In the southern area, vessels generally use nets tha t are optimized for fishing in soft bottom, sand and mud.


Furthermore, since most vessels are required to use a multispecies DAS while fishing for monkfish, they currently fish in areas where they can target both groundfish and monkfish. But industry members suggested that a directed, monkfish-only trawl fishery could occur if vessels fished solely on muddy bottoms. If retention of groundfish were prohibited, vessels would have no incentive to fish on the more complex bottom types where those species would be caught in combination with monkfish. Through this discussion, participants agreed that the best strategy would be to develop a trawl net that is most efficient at catching monkfish (taking into account fish behavior and bottom types) while reducing the incentive and ability to fish in more complex bottom areas which are essential fish habitat for many groundfish species. Increased efficiency would reduce the time gear would be in contact with the bottom for a given target catch or trip limit. By removing the incentive and ability to fish in hard bottom, the strategy would effectively eliminate the impact of the monkfish trawl fishery on essential fish habitat for many groundfish species that depend on those areas during most life history stages. The Councils recognize that, while some fishermen may have worked with individual components of the proposed configuration, the complete net configuration has not been tested under commercial conditions. To that end, the Councils seek public comment on which individual components could be adopted under this amendment, and which need further testing before being required on directed monkfish trawls. EFH Alternative 5 The EFH Final Rule states that FMPs must minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse effects of fishing on EFH (600.815(a)(2)(ii)). “Adverse effect means any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct, or indirect, physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species, and their habitat, and other ecosystem components. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions” (600.810(a)). This definition is rather broad and all encompassing; therefore, it is important to consider the impacts of fishing on EFH and other ecosystem components. Impacts to deepwater corals could have an indirect adverse effect on EFH, therefore, the Councils are considering alternatives to minimize those impacts. Depicts the location of known hard and soft corals in this region (Source: Watling et al., 2003(WA) and Theroux and Wigley, 1998 (TW)). The proposed action would also protect the corals from potential fishing activity targeting other deepwater species, such as orange roughy, to the extent tha t vessels fishing on a monkfish DAS become involved in exploring and developing those alternative fisheries. Installing protective measures before any such fisheries become established reduces the cost of such protections when compared to the cost of closing an established or burgeoning fishery in which vessels have already made capital investments. In Europe, a


number of established deepwater fisheries have been displaced or shut down as coral protection closures were implemented in recent years. While such fisheries are not yet taking place in this region, it is likely that they will in the reasonably foreseeable future, as the combination of technological advances and restrictions in other fisheries make such alternative fisheries attractive to large trawl fisheries.


Figure 5 - Habitat Alternative 5 AB (shaded areas in Oceanographer and Lydonia Canyon)


Figure 6 – Habitat Alternative 5 C – Note that two maps are provided so the areas can be seen more clearly, but this alternative contains areas in all 12 deep-water canyons


Decision 12 Cooperative research programs incentives NOTE: The Councils are considering two alternatives to taking no action and both could be adopted (they are not exclusive). Within each alternative are four options for the number of DAS that could be used for cooperative research incentives: 50, 100, 200, or 500 DAS. Research could be for a broad range of purposes: to minimize bycatch; to minimize impacts on EFH or other habitat; to establish exempted fisheries; to improve knowledge about the biology or population dynamics of monkfish; to evaluate stock status (cooperative surveys); to promote gear efficiency; and any other purpose consistent with the goals and requirements of the FMP. Research Alternative 1 (preferred) –Days at sea set-aside program. A pool of DAS (see options below) would be set aside from the total monkfish DAS allocated to limited access vessels. The Councils would identify research priorities and NMFS would issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for monkfish research and/or surveys to be conducted using the set-aside DAS. Following NMFS review of the proposals, the agency will award DAS from the set-aside pool. DAS for the pool would be deducted from each vessel’s allocation, but vessels conducting research under this program would not have to use their own DAS, and/or Research Alternative 2 – Days at sea exemption program. Vessels interested in conducting cooperative research would submit a proposal to NMFS via the Experimental Fishery Permit process that would include, among other elements, a statement of the number of exempted DAS needed to complete the research. In contrast to Alternative 1, vessels would not have to submit proposals under the RFP and grants processes. This alternative will not deduct DAS from each vessel to create a pool (as in Alternative 1), but will distribute exempted DAS in addition the total number of DAS allocated to the fleet, up to the number of DAS chosen in one of the four options below. If the number of exempted DAS sought by vessels exceeds the quantity chosen by the Councils from one of the four options, an applicant would have to prepare an Environmental Assessment for the excess DAS exemptions requested; or Research Alternative 3 (no action) – Vessels interested in conducting cooperative research or surveys would either submit an application for an experimental fishery permit or respond to an RFP from NMFS. If a vessel submits an experimental fishery permit application it may have to also submit an Environmental Assessment to determine the impacts of the experiment on the environment. Under this no-action alternative, a vessel could land its catch if it obtained an EFP and completed an Environmental Assessment to conduct the survey and get an exemption from DAS. Additionally, a cooperative survey could be conducted every 3 years (as recommended by NMFS), but would be contingent on funding. Vessels involved in the cooperative survey would fish under a Letter of Acknowledgement to conduct scientific research and would be authorized to retain (for sale) any legal-sized monkfish harvested during survey


activities and not used for scientific purposes. NMFS would publish an RFP to solicit candidate vessels. Decision 12 Discussion The Councils recognize that scientific information in the areas of monkfish biology, fishery impacts on EFH, bycatch and others is inadequate to effectively manage the fishery. The Councils also recognize that cooperative research programs, where industry and scientific/technical partners jointly investigate particular problems or scientific questions, are the most cost-effective and successful programs, and receive the broadest acceptance. The alternatives proposed above would reduce the costs to vessels, by allowing them to retain monkfish caught during experimental cruises, while not expending the vessels’ DAS allocations. By including the exemption or set-aside alternatives in the FMP, the Councils will also streamline the experimental fishery process by obviating the need for individual researchers to apply for such exemptions and conduct the required impact analysis on a case-by-case basis. The basis for selecting Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative is that Council members felt it would be a more streamlined process for getting vessels involved in cooperative research projects. Decision 13 Vessel upgrading baseline (dual baselines) Vessel upgrading baseline Alternative 1 (no action) – Permit Category C and D vessels may have two upgrading baselines (length, tonnage, horsepower), one associated with the multispecies or scallop limited access permit, and one associated with the monkfish permit that was issued several years later. If the permit had not been transferred, or the vessel had not been upgraded prior to issuing the monkfish permit, the baseline characteristics would be the same for both the monkfish and multispecies or scallop permit. But if the vessel characteristics were different when the monkfish permit was issued (through upgrading or permit transfer), then there are now two baselines associated with individual permits. If a vessel owner now wanted to upgrade the vessel or transfer the permits to another vessel, the more restrictive baseline would govern the transaction, unless the owner relinquished the species permit with the more restrictive baseline; or Vessel upgrading baseline Alternative 2 (preferred) – The vessel’s baseline would be that which applied when the vessel received its original federal permit (in any FMP where upgrading restrictions were implemented). This proposal would set a single vessel permit baseline at the length, tonnage and horsepower specifications of the first limited access permit applied to the vessel, regardless of whether those specifications are larger or smaller than any subsequent baseline properties. Decision 13 Discussion This is an administrative action and would only affect those vessels that have a dual baseline as the result of having transferred a limited access permit in another federal fishery prior to issuance of the monkfish permit.


Decision 14 NFMA Trawl experimental fishery NFMA trawl experimental fishery Alternative 1 (no action) – Trawl vessels seeking to conduct an experimental fishery in the Gulf of Maine to determine if an exempted fishery (under the Multispecies FMP) can be established would be required to submit an experimental fishery permit application or respond to a Request For Proposals (RFP) issued by NMFS, if such an RFP is forthcoming. An Environmental Assessment may be required; or NFMA trawl experimental fishery Alternative 2 (preferred) – The Councils propose establishing a two-year monkfish trawl experimental fishery in the NFMA. Doing so in this amendment would streamline the process of determining where, when and under what gear restrictions trawl vessels could target monkfish while on a monkfish, but not a multispecies DAS. Participants in the experimental fishery would operate under a Letter of Authorization (LOA) from the Regional Administrator, and would not have to obtain an Experimental Fisheries Permit. This experimental fishery would not be subject to the RFP or grants administrative process. Monkfish Category C and D vessels participating in the experimental fishery would be exempt from up to one percent of the total allocation of Monkfish DAS to C and D vessels (approximately 300 DAS total). This exemption would be subtracted from the research DAS exemption or set-aside outlined in Decision 12. Vessels participating in the experimental fishery under the LOA would be required to fish under their multispecies DAS but would be allowed to land their multispecies catch (as long as the vessel complies with other multispecies regulations, such as mesh size) as well as the monkfish catch (under the monkfish DAS exemption). Those vessels could seek an exemption from the multispecies DAS usage requirement by submitting an EFP request that would have to be made available for public comment. Under this approach, the monkfish DAS exemption provided for and analyzed in this amendment would still apply. The experimental fishery will take place in the following three areas, during the months specified: Wilkinson Basin - October – April

North Lat. West Long. 42°00’ 70°00’ 42°00’ 69°00’ 43°00’ 69°00’ 43°00’ 70°00’


Franklin Basin – March – May, October – December North Lat. West Long. 41°40’ 68°50’ 42°00’ 68°50’ 42°00’ 68°20’ 42°05’ 68°20’ 42°20’ 67°50’ 42°10’ 67°50’ 41°40’ 68°30’

Central/Inshore Gulf of Maine – October – January

North Lat. West Long. 43°50’ 68°30’ 43°00’ 68°30’ 43°00’ 69°30’ 43°50’ 69°30’

NOTE: The Wilkinson Basin closure in April is totally covered by the rolling closures in Multispecies FMP, and, therefore, would not be feasible for that month. The March closure overlaps the southern portion of the Wilkinson Basin experimental fishery area. Other Multispecies FMP effort control and habitat closures overlap portions of the proposed experimental fishery areas as shown in the following chart which is updated from that shown in the Amendment 2 DSEIS. These areas would remain closed, as the experimental fishery would not supercede the Multispecies FMP closed areas. Decision 14 Discussion The primary purpose of the experimental fishery is to determine if, and under what circumstances (gear, area, season) a monkfish trawl exempted fishery can be established under the multispecies regulations. Vessels and technical collaborators would submit proposals to NMFS along with the request for Letters of Authorization that would include number of participating vessels, DAS to be used, gear, area and season. Vessels seeking to participate in the experimental fishery would need to seek funding from outside sources to cover the cost of data collection and analysis, and any vessel and crew costs not covered by monkfish and/or multispecies landings. The experimental fishery will also be used to evaluate the efficacy of the monkfish trawl in reducing bycatch (compared to the nets currently being used) and in minimizing impacts of the fishery on essential fish habitat of other species. Researchers will submit their results to NMFS for consideration in establishing a trawl exempted fishery, and NMFS will consult with the Councils prior to implementing any exemptions.


Figure 7 Proposed NFMA trawl experimental fishery areas, showing the overlap with Multispecies FMP effort control and habitat closures.


Decision 15 Change the fishing year start date NOTE 1: When the Councils were developing this amendment, the NEFMC was also considering alterna tives for Multispecies FMP Amendment 13, including the following range of alternative fishing years. The NEFMC has since adopted the no action alternative in Amendment 13, but the Councils are still considering the range for this amendment. NOTE 2: If the Councils adopt a different fishing year (Alternatives 2-4), then they will also need to adopt a DAS pro-rating procedure under Decision 16. Fishing year Alternative 1 (no action, preferred) – The fishing year runs from May 1 – April 30. or Fishing year Alternative 2 – January 1 – December 31 (calendar year); or Fishing year Alternative 3 – October 1 – September 30; or Fishing year Alternative 4 – July 1 – June 30. Decision 15 Discussion The Councils are considering these alternatives to keep the monkfish fishing year on the same schedule as the multispecies fishing year, since more than half of all monkfish limited access vessels also have multispecies limited access permits. There are, however, circumstances unique to the monkfish fishery that warrant consideration, so even though the NEFMC has decided to keep the current fishing year in the multispecies fishery, the Councils are still considering, as non-preferred alternatives, changing the year in the monkfish fishery. Based on the TAC and trip limit setting procedure established in Framework 2, a May 1 start date (no action alternative) results in the shortest possible gap between the availability of the NMFS bottom trawl survey indices (used to set the trip limits and TACs) and implementation of the management measures, while allowing sufficient time for the publication of a proposed rule. Traditionally, peak monkfish landings and prices occur from November through May, which aligns well with the management cycle of a calendar year. Changing the fishing year to a calendar year (Alternative 2) would align the fishing year data with stock assessment data that are based on a calendar year. As long as the fishery management program is based on the autumn trawl survey, however, such an alignment is not as important in monkfish as it would be in stocks where the management measures are based on stock assessment results. Basing the management measures on a calendar year would result in a 13-month gap between the autumn survey and the effectiveness date of the associated management measures, compared to six months under the no action


alternative. Since several other fisheries in the northeast region are already on a calendar year basis, changing the monkfish fishing year to a calendar year would add to the Councils’ and NMFS’ workload as these plans would be converging on the review and implementation process simultaneously, a problem that would be exacerbated if multispecies also changes to a calendar year (although this did not occur in Amendment 13). Alternative 3 (October 1 start date) would result in management measures taking effect just before the start of the peak monkfish fishing period, while Alternative 4 (July 1) would take effect at the low point in the annual landings/price cycle. The gap between the autumn survey and the start of the fishing year would be 11 months and 9 months, for Alternatives 3 and 4, respectively. Decision 16 Pro-rating DAS (if fishing year start date changes) NOTE: This decision is necessary only if the Councils adopt a different fishing year under Decision 15. The Councils have not identified a preferred alternative. DAS pro-rating Alternative 1 - New DAS allocations would become effective at the start of the next fishing year after implementation of the Amendment (that is, May 1, 2005, if Amendment 2 is implemented in November 2004). If the fishing year is changed under Amendment 2, the period between May 1, 2005 and the start of the new fishing year is defined as a transition period. The base number of monkfish DAS for the prorating will be the Amendment 2 DAS allocation plus any carryover from the 2004 fishing year. (The number of months will be rounded up to the next whole value: three months and one day will be treated as four months.) A vessel can carry over up to ten DAS into the new, revised fishing year. The following formula is shown schematically in Table 7 for the four fishing year alternatives (including no action).

Transition period DAS = (Number of months/12) X (Amendment 2 DAS)

For example, if the Councils select the calendar year (Jan. – Dec.) alternative, and a vessel has 40 DAS under Amendment 2, the vessel would have 9/12ths (for May through December) of 40 DAS, or 30 DAS, to use between May and December, 2005, and 40 DAS for the calendar year starting January 1, 2006; or DAS pro-rating Alternative 2 - The transition period would extend from the time the Amendment 2 DAS allocations take effect (that is, May 1, 2005, if Amendment 2 is implemented in November 2004) through the next full fishing year (12 months from the start of the revised fishing year start date). A vessel would be limited to its new allocation times the number of months in the transition period, divided by 12, plus the new allocation. So, for example, if Amendment 2 is implemented in November 2004, any new DAS allocations would become


effective May 1, 2005. If the new fishing year starts in October, the vessel would be allocated 5/12 of its DAS (for the May-October period) plus a full year’s DAS allocation, which it could use between May 1, 2005 and September 30, 2006 (plus any carryover from the 2004 fishing year). A vessel can carry over up to ten DAS into the new, revised fishing year. The following formula is shown schematically in Table 8 for the four fishing year alternatives (including no action).

Transition period DAS= [(Number of months from May 1 to new fishing year

start date/12) X (Amendment 2 allocation)] + Amendment 2 allocation

With Transition period running from May 1, 2005 through first full revised fishing

year Under this alternative, using the same example as in the previous one, the vessel would have 70 DAS to use between May, 2005 and December 31, 2006, and 40 DAS for the calendar year starting January1, 2007. Decision 16 Discussion This is an administrative action design to facilitate the transition to a different fishing year.


NOV. 2004

MAY 2005

JULY 2005

OCT. 2005

JAN. 2006

MAY 2006

Continue 2004 DAS

Alt. 1 (no action)

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Amendment 2 DAS

(8/12)*Am. 2 DAS

(5/12)*Am. 2 DAS

(2/12)*Am. 2 DAS

Amendment 2 DAS allocations effective

Table 7 DAS prorating Alternative 1 schematic diagram NOV.

2004 MAY 2005

JULY 2006

OCT. 2006

JAN. 2007

MAY 2007

Continue 2004 DAS

Alt. 1 (no action)

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Amendment 2 DAS

(8/12)*Am. 2 DAS+ Amendment 2 DAS



Amendment 2 DAS allocations effective

Table 8 DAS prorating Alternative 2 schematic diagram


Decision 17 Modify the framework adjustment procedure NOTE: The two alternatives under consideration, besides no action, could both be adopted. The Councils have not identified a preferred alternative. Modify framework adjustment procedure Alternative 1 (no action) – This alternative would not enable the Councils to take action to minimize the impact on protected species or adopt bycatch reduction devices through the framework adjustment procedure. Such actions would require a full plan amendment; or Modify framework adjustment procedure Alternative 2 (protected species) – The Councils could implement measures to minimize interactions with protected species under the framework adjustment process, including gear-specific time/area closures, and/or gear requirements; and/or Modify framework adjustment procedure Alternative 3 (bycatch reduction) – This alternative would enable the Councils to implement gear requirements to minimize bycatch under the framework adjustment process. Decision 17 Discussion The two proposed actions expand the Councils’ flexibility to address bycatch and protected species interactions issues through an abbreviated rulemaking procedure whenever an issue is identified and one or more solutions are proposed. Without this ability, the Councils would have to initiate a plan amendment, with a longer development schedule, to implement appropriate management actions.


What Amendment 2 doesn’t do? Amendment 2 does not modify the stock-rebuilding program adopted under Framework 2 in 2003, including the plan’s biological reference points and method for setting annual catch targets, trip limits and DAS adjustments. Framework 2 modified the original FMP rebuilding program by removing the “default measures” that would have eliminated the directed fishery (zero monkfish DAS allocations), and by adopting an annually adjusted management program designed to achieve the biomass rebuilding goal by 2009. The program compares the observed NMFS fall survey index (3-year average weight per tow) to a series of annual incrementally increasing targets. If the observed index is below the annual target, an adjustment in the management measures is required. Usually, the adjustment would be taken in the trip limit, keeping DAS allocations at the baseline of 40 DAS. However, if the analysis of appropriate trip limits shows that the limits are below the 450/550 lbs. of tails per DAS level, the additional reductions would be taken out of available DAS. The basis for this is that the Councils, after taking public comment on Framework 2, determined that trip limits below that level were effectively an incidental-catch fishery since those limits are not significantly above some of the limits allowed on vessels that are not on a monkfish DAS. Such is the case with the FY2004 limits, under which vessels fishing in the Southern Management Area are at the 450/550 lb. trip limit, and have 28 DAS available to fish in the area.


Monkfish Stock Status The status of the stocks with respect to fishing mortality reference points is unknown, since there are no current estimates of fishing mortality. In 2001 and again this year (2004), NMFS and the industry have cooperated in conducting a monkfish trawl survey. The data generated by these surveys will be analyzed in a Stock Assessment Workshop later this year, and may enable scientists to estimate current fishing mortality rates. Biomass reference points are based on the NMFS autumn bottom trawl survey indices (weight per tow), and status relative to those reference points is determined by comparison with a 3-year running average. Framework 2 established annual biomass targets for monitoring the progress of the rebuilding program and setting annual target TACs. The following table shows the status of the stocks with respect to the biomass targets (annual and overall) and threshold:

kg/tow 2000 2001 2002 2003 2003 3-yr. Ave.

2003 target

Bthreshold Btarget

NFMA 2.495 2.052 2.103 1.925 2.030 1.49 1.25 2.5 SFMA 0.477 0.708 1.253 0.828 0.930 1.02 0.93 1.85 Table 9 Monkfish biomass stock status through 2003. The stock status, through the fall 2003 NMFS bottom trawl survey, relative to the annual and overall biomass reference points are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, for the northern and southern stocks, respectively. Based on the current reference points and estimates of stock status, both stocks are no longer overfished. While the northern stock is ahead of the annual rebuilding targets, the southern stock is still lagging slightly behind the rebuilding schedule although the four-year trend is positive.


NFMA Biomass Rebuilding

0.820.99

1.161.33

1.491.66

1.832.00

2.162.33

2.50

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Kg.

/Tow

Annual B Target

Btarget

Bthreshold

Observed 3-yr. Ave.

Figure 8 NFMA monkfish stock status through 2003 relative to the index-based method for biomass rebuilding adopted in Framework 2.

SFMA Biomass Rebuilding

0.47

0.60

0.74

0.88

1.02

1.15

1.29

1.43

1.57

1.71

1.85

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

2.000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Kg

./T

ow Annual B Target

Btarget

Bthreshold

Observed 3-yr. Ave.

Figure 9– SFMA monkfish stock status through 2003 relative to the index-based method for biomass rebuilding adopted in Framework 2.