Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean quahogs

August 2013 Meeting

Recall In June, two additional SC/OQ

issues that came up at SSC meeting, were presented to Committee and Council –Updating surfclam and ocean

quahog BRPs

–How the OY range in FMPs related to ABC and catch limits

Mechanism to Update BRPs

Quahog overfishing definition from SAW 48 (2009) has not been updated in FMP

5 years and not updated; not timely

Amendments are not the most efficient mechanism to update BRPs/stock status determination criteria in the FMP and keep them current

Mechanism to Update BRPs

Other FMPs have incorporated an improved approach (SFSCBSB and Dogfish FMPs since 2007)

Administrative mechanism added to the FMP that enables these stock status determination criteria to be used by Council for specs. without additional action by Council or NMFS

Reduces the burden on staff (Council and NMFS) resources

Mechanism to Update BRPs

Completed as Framework for SFSCBSB and Dogfish FMPs

Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP less flexible for Frameworks

Would need to be addressed through categorically excluded Amendment

Optimum Yield (OY) Range

OY range developed in FMP for both surfclams and quahogs in 1980s

Developed well before the Reauthorization

Limits Council flexibility to set recommendations outside of this range (higher or lower)

SSC is not limited as to how ABC can be set; Council cannot exceed ABC

OY Range NS1 Guidelines: "NMFS believes that

fisheries managers cannot consistently meet the requirements of the MSA to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, OY [optimum yield] unless they address scientific and management uncertainty."

Sets up potential conflict w/ OY range

OY Range SSC sets upper bound on what OY range

can be and that changes w/ time (not fixed value)

Also confusion that range is in landings but OY (yield) typically given as catch

Staff recommend the Council consider the utility of this range under new catch limit system and how it fits with the SSC recommendations for ABC

OY Range In the list of Framework action for

the FMP

Could be completed as a categorically excluded or environmental assessment Framework

Staff Recommendations

Cost Recovery Amendment, also includes updates to quahog overfishing definition and EFH Updates

Been in the works for 5 years

Approaching point at which NEPA recommends rescoping

Staff Recommendations

Cost Recovery FMAT has not met in about 3 years

FMAT members may have other work priorities now

Amendment numbers have been overtaken, no longer 15; now Cost Recovery Amendment 17

Staff Recommendations

1) Include alternatives for the BRPs and the OY Range in Cost Recovery Amendment (Amendment 17).

2) Request new FMAT be formed for Amendment 17.

3) Rescope Amendment 17 to reacquaint the public with the intent of the action/timelines.