Comment from Hank Soule

SUSTAINABLE HARVEST SECTOR PO Box 356, So. Berwick ME 03908 | 207-956-8497 | shsector@gmail.com January 20 2010 Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 Re: 0648–XS55 | Comments on 2010 Sector Operations Plans and Contracts Dear Ms. Kurkul, Enclosed please find the Sustainable Harvest Sector’s comments on the 2010 Sector Operations Plans and Contracts. 1. Under Sector Operations Plans and Contracts, the proposed rule states: “Sector vessels would be required to retain all legal-sized allocated groundfish.” We suggest clarifying this sentence as: “Sector vessels fishing with gear capable of catching groundfish would be required to retain all legal-sized allocated groundfish.” 2. The proposed rule requires sectors to switch from “aggregate” weekly to daily reporting when certain ACE thresholds are met (e.g. 80% of total allocation). We request that daily reports only be required for the ACE’s which have met the threshold. This will reduce the sectors’ reporting burden and the NMFS’s monitoring burden. 3. The proposed rule states that sectors must submit an annual catch report to NMFS and the Council (NEFMC) including “detailing the sector’s catch (landings and discards by the sector).” To reduce sector monitoring and reporting burden, we request this language be changed to: “detailing the sector’s catch (landings and discards by the sector) of those stocks for which the sector was issued an ACE.” A sector’s harvest of non-ACE stocks is not particularly relevant to evaluating the performance of a groundfish sector, especially absent any economic data and without any context beyond a single fishing year.. The NMFS is far better suited to analyzing catch, value, discard, and non-ACE harvest data. We request this reporting requirement be dropped. This will reduce the sectors’ reporting burden. 4. Sectors were told not to request several exemptions to the multispecies FMP, because those exemptions were being rolled up into ‘universal’ exemptions to be considered in Amendment 16. If one of those universal exemptions is not approved, we request a mechanism for individual sectors to subsequently request that exemption. 5. ACE Trading Antitrust Concerns An integral concept underlying catch shares and sectors is the liquidity of ACE. Liquidity ensures that sectors are able to trade ACE to balance harvests of individual stocks vs. quotas. Without it, sectors will remain mired in the paradigm of managing to the weakest stock in the multispecies complex which has developed under the DAS regime. We have heard that some sectors may forbid members from trading allocation to members of other sectors. NMFS should be vigilant to the formation of cartels which prohibit the free trade of ACE. Such restraint of trade would run counter to Amendment 16’s goals of providing opportunities to target healthy stocks, and mitigating (to the extent possible) the economic impacts of its measures. 2 The NMFS requested comments on several specific issues: 1. 120-Day Block Requirement Out of the Fishery for Day Gillnet Vessels We support elimination of this requirement. This regulation was originally implemented to ensure that effort reduction measures for gillnet vessels were equivalent to other gears. As sector vessels are subject to output controls on fishing mortality, this restriction is no longer necessary. Exemption from this restriction will ease the administrative burden on gillnet vessels and the NMFS. 2. Limitation on the Number of Gillnets for Day Gillnet Vessels We support an easing of this requirement. Similar to the 120 day block, the gillnet net limit was originally intended to maintain parity between fixed and mobile gear effort. It is not necessary in a quota-managed fishery. And as our sector gillnet vessels are allocated far less quota than they have harvested in recent years, the total amount of time gillnets spend in the water is likely to be far less than in years past. 3. 20-Day Spawning Block This restriction has long been ineffective. Peak spawning times differ by species within the multispecies complex, and some fall outside the spring time frame associated with this rule. A similar requirement was eliminated in the monkfishery – still under DAS management - because the monkfish PDT described the measure as “totally ineffective”. A 20-day spawning block over the course of a 90- day period serves as nothing more than an administrative burden, especially in a quota-managed fishery. 4. Length and Horsepower Restrictions on DAS Leasing We support elimination of this requirement. Groundfish DAS are still required by sector vessels to retain monkfish bycatch. By virtue of joining any sector, membership, the pool of eligible permits from which to lease DAS has shrunk from about 1,400 100 or less. Eliminating this restriction will have no impact on groundfish harvest levels while maximizing vessels’ ability to avoid monkfish discards. 5. 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. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Hank Soule Sustainable Harvest Sector