Comment from Hank Soule

January 20 2010 Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 Re: 0648-AW72| Comments on the Proposed Rule for NE Multispecies Amendment 16 Dear Ms. Kurkul, Enclosed please find the Sustainable Harvest Sector’s comments on the NMFS’ proposed Amendment 16 1. Exempting sector vessels from daily reporting requirements of the US/CA Area We support this exemption. Sector vessels are already required to report daily catch to sector managers. Daily reporting to NMFS as well is duplicative and not necessary. 2. Eastern US/CA Haddock SAP Amendment 16 proposes to allow use of 6” trawl cod ends in the Eastern US/CA area, and to exempt sector vessels from trawl gear restrictions (e.g. the Ruhle trawl). We support both proposals. Sector vessels’ bycatch is controlled via a hard TAC, and reduction of the cod end minimum size will help maximize harvest of the dramatically underutilized GB haddock stock. 3. GOM Haddock To maximize access to the GOM haddock stock, we request approval of the GOM Haddock Sink Gillnet Pilot Program. Gillnetters in particular are unable to take advantage of rebuilt haddock stocks using 6½” mesh. We also request use of a 6” cod end in a haddock separator or Ruhle trawl for sector vessels fishing in the GOM. As sectors fish under a hard TAC, there are no bycatch concerns with use of a smaller cod end in a trawl designed to release bycatch. 4. Exemption from GOM Rolling Closure Block 138 We, along with the NEFMC, support elimination of this requirement. The history of the rolling closures dates to 1996 beginning with harbor porpoise closures, then extending to closures that targeted ”areas of highest cod landings.” (Frameworks 25 and 27) and finally as a backstop measure when a percentage of the cod TAC was landed (Framework 33). While it has become a common belief that the rolling closures were designed to protect spawning aggregations of fish, there is scant if any language in the many Amendments or Framework adjustments implemented between 1996 and the present that identifies spawning areas and/or times that would justify the closures. Rather, the Council’s selection of closed blocks has primarily been based on catches (both total and CPUE) of GOM cod. 5. ACE Overages The NMFS proposes that if a Sector exceeds its ACE at the end of the FY, its members could be held jointly and severally liable for such an overage and may be subject to a permanent reduction in the Sector’s ACE, or other penalties. These administrative or enforcement actions could be taken even if the Sector is able to complete ACE transfers so that an ACE overage does not exist at the end of the FY. This proposal is not consistent with intent of Amendment 16 to allow sectors a period of time at the end of the fishing year to acquire ACE to cover any overage. No action should be taken until that period ends. 6. Sector Catch and Landings Monitoring Amendment 16 proposes up to 38% at-sea monitoring and 50% dockside monitoring for sector vessels. To maximize the value of information gathered and make best use of limited monitoring funds, trips that are carrying an observer should be excluded from the dockside monitoring requirement. 7. Exemptions from Monitoring As written, the NMFS would require sector catch and landings to be monitored as described above even when engaged in fisheries with very little or no groundfish bycatch. For example, a sector vessel fishing for monkfish (even with 10” gillnets) is subject to the dockside monitoring and at-sea monitoring requirements of A16. Since it is unlikely that vessels fishing exclusively with 10” or larger gillnets will encounter multispecies (especially if fishing in certain areas), it is wasteful of limited financial resources to monitor these trips. (These trips are still subject to all Sector requirements, including prohibition on discarding legal sized groundfish, and requirement to report and count any groundfish catch against ACE.) Therefore, we request that NMFS exempt the following fishing activity from the dockside and at sea monitoring requirements: a) Any sector trip west of 72º30’ b) Any sector trip using exclusively 10” or greater gillnets or trawl cod ends c) Any sector trip by vessels with a category F monkfish permit. 8. Observer Issues We support making the lead time for observer call-in requirements as short as possible. We note that the NMFS is proposing 48 hours notice for at-sea monitors, but only 6 hours for dockside monitors. Nonetheless, potential dockside monitors inform us they can deploy under the much shorter time frame. We would prefer to see a 24-hour notification requirement for at-se observers. We support NMFS’ establishment of the Northeast Fisheries At-sea Monitoring Program (NEFAMP) and the eligibility and training requirements of At-Sea Monitors (ASM). The duties required of an ASM are far simpler than those of a traditional fishery observer. Particularly in light of the fact that the industry is expected to pay for its ASMs in FY2012, it is critical that the program be as streamlined and competitive as possible to reduce financial burden on the industry. 9. Sector Annual Report We request the NMFS eliminate the requirement for a sector’s annual report to include the harvest of all federally managed species. It appears the intent is to measure sector vessels’ changes in effort in other fisheries. However, a 1-year snapshot of harvest levels provides no context or comparison to prior activity. The NMFS, with its databases spanning all fisheries, is far better suited to perform this type of analysis than are groundfish-only sector managers. We also request that the list of enforcement actions required in the annual report be limited to those resulting from a sector trip only. 10. Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP Reporting The proposed rule states, “the existing requirement for Sector managers to provide daily catch reports by participating Sector vessels would be maintained.” This language is confusing; there is no existing requirement applicable to sector managers. We believe the intent is and the language should be “the existing requirement for common pool and Sector vessels to provide daily catch reports would be maintained.” 11. Sector Discard Monitoring The NMFS is working with sectors to develop data reporting standards, including discard monitoring. At present, the NMFS is proposing to have sectors calculate discards based on a NMFS-supplied discard formula. Those calculations would then be supplied to the NMFS in the sector manager’s weekly report. Instead, we propose that the NMFS should perform the discard calculation. The NMFS is already in possession of the official dealer landing data and the official discard formula to be applied to each trip. There is no need for the sectors to re-calculate discards and send that data back to the NMFS, when the sectors’ calculations are superseded by those of the NMFS. Eliminating this calculation would remove a significant and costly software programming burden to industry, eliminate duplicate calculations, and allow sector managers to focus on monitoring their ACE in real time, rather than performing calculations on old data. Upon advice of the NMFS we have included this suggestion in our Amendment 16 comments. We will continue to work with the NMFS on this issue during the comment period. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Hank Soule Sustainable Harvest Sector