Lack of Flexibility under FMP Guidelines

1. Lack of Flexibility under FMP Guidelines Presented March 2010 Marine Fisheries Commission Kitty Hawk

2. Atmosphere of Early 1990s • Hectic and unorganized fisheries management • High fishing effort and fear that net bans elsewhere would further increase it • Multiple rule cycles per year

3. General Assembly Response • Enacted moratorium on the sale of commercial fishing licenses (vessel ) • Formed Moratorium Steering Committee to conduct two-year study to assess fisheries management in North Carolina

4. MSC Recommendations • Revise MFC structure • Revamp the licensing system • Manage fisheries through FMPs • Implement FMPs through rule changes The MSC considered the use of FMPs to be the central concept in improving fisheries management

5. FMP Benefits • Provides basic direction for the division and commission • Provides long-range certainty for the regulated fishing community • Builds accountability into North Carolina’s coastal fisheries management system

6. Statutory Review Requirements(G.S. 113-182.1) • Appoint FMP advisory committee • Consult with regional ACs regarding: • FMP development • Temporary management measures • Measures to implement the FMP • Submit FMPs to Seafood and Aquaculture Commission for review

7. FMP Guideline Development • G.S. 143B-289.52 requires MFC to set guidelines only for content of FMPs • MFC and DMF developed guidelines for entire FMP process including requirements for their own actions • MFC and DMF chose self-imposed restrictions to ensure a deliberative process for all FMP actions

8. Lack of Flexibility in Guidelines • Purpose of an FMP is to provide direction for management of a particular fishery • Action taken to implement an FMP must be consistent with provisions of the FMP. • Amendment is required to change recommendations or management strategies in an FMP

9. Lack of Flexibility in Guidelines Unscheduled amendments of an FMP requires: • Written explanation to the MFC • Review by the regional committees • Two-thirds majority vote for adoption

10. Rulemaking Factors • Temporary rulemaking expedited implementation of management measures in early years but is no longer a viable option • An annual rulemaking cycle under the current schedule can consume much time before management measures can be implemented

11. Rulemaking Factors • Multiple rulemaking cycles are burdensome to the staff and confusing to the public • Proclamation authority relieves these problems but invites violation of the guidelines

12. NEED FOR RESTRICTIONS Long-term viability of fisheries Long-range certainty for regulated fishing community Predictable process for management measures Ensures purposeful, deliberate action that has been well examined and fully debated NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY Unusual environmental conditions; major storms Federal actions not covered by the IJ FMP Other unforeseen circumstances and “conservation neutral” actions Streamlines process for time sensitive issues FMP Conundrum

13. Solution Options Follow current statutes and guidelines +Predictable and deliberative process for establishing management measures + Less volatility in management actions • Time consuming process especially if rule changes are involved or if travel is limited due to budget cuts • Difficult to respond to time sensitive situations

14. Solution Options Predetermine adaptive management parameters for management strategies + Follows procedures established for similar actions in existing FMPs + Provides flexibility for anticipated events + Would not require FMP amendment - May not cover all possible circumstances - Possible management actions may not be apparent to those not familiar with the FMP

15. Solution Options Establish separate, expedited process for changing FMPs based on two general criteria + Meets the guideline for amendment of FMPs + Reduces the time required for an amendment + Generalizes criteria to broaden the application and reduce unforeseen events - May require a statutory change on committee involvement - May concentrate requests for changes in expedited categories

16. FMP Document Management Original FMP Revision Amendment Supplement DMF proposed, fast track means of changing FMP management measures meeting specific criteria

17. Supplement Criteria The supplement process may be used to change management measures in an FMP when:   (1) A situation creates an acute and critical negative impact on the long term viability of the state’s marine and estuarine species, fisheries or habitats; OR

18. Supplement Criteria (2) Necessary changes in management measures have no discernable impact on the long term viability of the state’s marine and estuarine species, fisheries or habitats.

19. Fast Track Changes - Guidelines • Allow MFC chairman and DMF director to initiate consideration of a supplement • Allow the MFC to review/approve supplements at scheduled and called meetings • Hold a 30-day comment period to replace committee review

20. Fast Track Changes - Statutes Request the statutory provisions for MFC committee and Seafood and Aquaculture review be dropped for supplements.

21. Practice What We Preach The public and the legislature are often asked to follow the FMP process. Yet, in several instances, DMF and the MFC have failed to strictly follow the process that we have, largely, designed. To maintain our credibility, the FMP guidelines must be amended to address the needed flexibility, or the specified amendment process must be followed.