Timing of
Accountability Measure-Based
Seasonal Closures
Draft Scoping Document
149th Caribbean Fishery Management Council Meeting
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands
April 22-23, 2014
Scoping Document (Draft)
The purposes of this Scoping Document are to:
1. Identify the issues
2. Solicit input from the public on ways to deal with
those issues
3. Provide means of addressing the identified issues
(there could be several ways).
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 2
149th Caribbean Fishery Management Council Meeting
April 22-23, 2014
Purpose for Action
To develop and establish a mechanism that would consider economic
and social effects when setting accountability measure (AM)-based
closures.
Goals:
• Remain within the corresponding annual catch limits (ACLs)
• Minimize socio-economic impacts
Need for Action
To establish a policy and create an environment that provides the
Council and NMFS with closure options other than the default end of
the year closure in the event of an ACL overage, thus lessening the
socio-economic impact of AMs to fishers.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 3
Inter-related biological, economic, and sociocultural goals of the proposed action.
Biological
Stay within the
ACL
Economic
Maximize Revenue
Social/Cultural
Avoid negative
socio-cultural and
market impacts
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 4
Objectives of the Proposed Action:
1) To evaluate potential mechanisms for choosing
AM-based closure dates
2) To establish a new process (if a new mechanism is
chosen) to follow when AMs are triggered
3) To add a new policy into the Council’s FMPs to
guide when AM closures are implemented
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 5
Possible Approaches for the establishment of AMBased Seasonal Closures
1) Default AM-Closure Date
• Take No Action
AM-based closures would continue to be implemented
beginning on December 31st of the appropriate year and
extending backwards in the year for the number of days
necessary to achieve the required reduction in landings.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 6
1) Default AM Closure Date
• Advantage:
 AM closures that start on this default date guarantee that the time
needed to account for ACL overages can be fully accomplished
during the year.
• Caveats:
 Identified by fishers as having negative social and economic effects.
 If several units exceed their ACL during the same year and AMs are
required, the resultant closures overlap for at least some period of
time, with negative effects.
 Closing the season from December 31st backwards results in the
fishery being closed during the culturally and economically important
Christmas season.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 7
Possible Approaches for the establishment of AMBased Seasonal Closures
2) “Customized” Process/Mechanism
• Change the default AM-closure date
- Conduct an analysis every year for each unit that has
exceeded its ACL, choose the best date to close the
season for the next year based on that specific
analysis.
- Could use the “Seasonal Choices Model” or some
other method chosen by the Council and approved by
its SSC.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 8
2) “Customized” Process/Mechanism
• Advantage:
 Provides annual flexibility when applying AMs
• Caveats: Closure would not be implemented in time for it to be effective by the
start of the next fishing year.
May not be practical because of time requirements:
 The revised landings data used to make closure determinations are
generally not available until late in the year preceding the closure year,
especially for the USVI because of fishing year considerations.
 Time for required regulatory processes:
1. Council meetings for decisions and approval each year
2. Drafting and publishing proposed and final rules implementing dates
3. Public comment periods
Possible Approaches for the establishment of AMBased Seasonal Closures
3) “Upfront” Timing Approach (Pre-determined
AM-based Closure Dates)
• Change the default AM-closure date
- A one-time pre-determination and establishment of
closure dates (e.g., start or end date) for all fishery
management units (FMUs) (or alternatively apply the
analysis to a selected group of FMUs)
- Implementation of chosen date(s) through rulemaking
- The start or end date would not have to be the same for
each FMU
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 10
3) “Upfront” Timing Approach (Pre-Determined AM-Based Closure Dates)
Selection of pre-determined closures dates for FMUs can be based on any
number of considerations, for example:
• Choosing a start date that occurs at or near the beginning of the year
• Choosing a date or dates (end or start) that occurs at or near the middle
of the year
• Choosing an end date that occurs near the end of the year, noting that a
date at the end of the year is the “no action” alternative
• Avoid periods when economic, cultural, and biological considerations
take precedence (e.g., Christmas, Lent, spawning season closures).
• Use components of the “Seasonal Choices Model” to explore potential
dates based on economic, social, and cultural factors
• Use any other method pre-selected by the Council
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 11
3) “Upfront” Timing Approach (Pre-Determined Dates)
• Advantages:
 Could select start or end dates that avoid having the season closed
during important periods such as holidays and spawning season
closures.
 The Council could also choose to exclude from the potential suite of
closure dates, periods of time, such as Christmas, Lent, etc., that have
been determined to be socio-economically advantageous for fishermen.
 Pre-selected dates could be revised as needed, but this would not be
an annual process.
• Caveats:
 Closure dates would be set in advance, but the length of the required
closure would not be known. Adequate time must be available to
achieve the required closure length.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 12
Regardless of the approach chosen:
• Determine how often the selected approach should be
revisited, (example: every year, 3 years, 5 years)...
Other considerations when developing the
approaches could include:
• May minimize overlap in closure dates among FMUs
• Consider yearly fishing patterns to look at ways to
minimize the impact of AM-based closures
• Are there any other factors to consider when selecting
one closure date vs. another?
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 13
Draft Timeline
Today
Council reviews
PHD/EA, selects
preferred alternative(s)
and approves for
Public Hearings.
Council reviews Draft
Scoping Document
Council to schedule
Scoping Meetings for
Summer 2014.
Amendment/EA
and Proposed
Rule Comment
Period
Public Hearings in PR
and USVI during
Spring 2015
2014
Council considers
scoping outcomes
Council passes
motion directing staff
to develop Public
Hearing Draft
(PHD)/Environmental
Assessment (EA).
2015
Council discusses
outcomes of Public
Hearings and considers
comments on
Amendment/DRAFT EA.
Council revises and
approves codified text.
Council approves
Amendment for Secretarial
Review.
NOAA publishes
Comprehensive
Amendment /
Final EA and
Final Rule.
Final Rule
Effective
Next Steps
1. Motion to Approve/Disapprove Draft Scoping Document
2. Motion to Schedule Scoping Meetings for Spring/Summer
2014
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 15