COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 36 Number 2
October 2008
NE council requests groundfish interim action
PROVIDENCE, RI – The New England Fishery Management Council has asked the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to take interim action to implement additional groundfish measures for 2009.
The council took this step during its Sept. 3-4 meeting here because Amendment 16 – its next major overhaul of the groundfish plan – won’t be ready to come online by May 1, the start of the 2009 fishing year.
Although the council first debated a proposal developed by its groundfish committee, it ended up supporting a package put forward by the Northeast Seafood Coalition (NSC).
The coalition’s interim action package contained the 18% “default” reduction in A-days already required under Amendment 13, plus new trip limits for witch flounder and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder and a requirement to “pay back” any total allowable catch (TAC) overages.
The industry-supported proposal also included several “mitigation” measures, one being an 18" minimum size on haddock.
Amendment 16 in its current form contains several effort reduction alternatives based on large days-at-sea reductions ranging from 30% to 70%.
Fearing that one of those alternatives might end up being the basis for interim action in 2009, the coalition went on the offense with a different alternative.
“Deep days-at-sea cuts are really not a way for the industry to survive this,” said NSC’s Vito Giacalone of Gloucester.
“We will do anything to avoid deeper than an 18% cut. We’re looking for a bridge to get through 2009 with what is an obsolete system,” he said.
Forcing its hand
The council and industry both recognized that interim action by NMFS would be inevitable since the agency has determined that overfishing is still occurring on several stocks (see story page 8A for stock updates).
Federal law contained in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires councils and NMFS to take corrective action when overfishing is occurring.
So with the writing on the wall, the council took a proactive stand and “requested” interim action. The question then became: What should it ask for?
“This is our shot at crafting a package for NMFS to consider for the interim rule to fill in the gap,” said council Chairman John Pappalardo of Massachusetts. “We have an opportunity here to offer up some recommendations.”
Yet Pappalardo, like many on the council, was deeply disturbed that the situation had come to such a head.
“I, myself, am very frustrated with where we are – that something needs to be done by May 1 and the options we have before us are draconian,” he said.
Pappalardo was emphatic in stating he did not think the council had “failed” in its charge to develop Amendment 16, especially since it had not received final stock assessment updates until late August.
“I think we’ve known all along this was going to be a difficult task,” he said.
First proposal
The council’s groundfish committee first addressed the issue of interim action during its Aug. 26 meeting and then presented the council with a proposed request, which included:
Adjustments to days-at-sea in response to the latest Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM) stock status information;
Extension of any days-at-sea-related interim action through the entire 2009 fishing year to avoid disruptions in fishing operations;
Zero retention of ocean pout, northern windowpane and southern windowpane flounder, halibut, Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter and yellowtail flounder, Gulf of Maine winter flounder, and Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine yellowtail flounder in response to the GARM results; and
Mitigating measures such as an 18" minimum size on haddock, extension of the US/Canada Haddock Special Access Program (SAP), expansion of the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP, and removal of the tax on days-at-sea transfers.
Lack of support
Once the full council met in Providence, however, the possibility of zero retention on troubled stocks generated enormous apprehension.
“I want to rebuild stocks,” said New Hampshire council member David Goethel. “We’re never going to rebuild stocks if we hurl them over the side dead.”
Giacalone also asked the council to reconsider its course on zero possession.
The council then made several motions and began eliminating much of what was in the groundfish committee’s initial interim action proposal, which led Maine council member Jim Odlin to ask if the decision could be put off until October.
“We’re trying to do this under duress,” he said. “I feel very uncomfortable trying to send a directive to NMFS like this.”
NMFS position
NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul didn’t think a delay would be possible.
“It’s a lot of work to do an interim action, and to make the May 1 date, we could not wait until the October council meeting,” she said. “This is definitely the council’s best opportunity to provide comment. To the extent the council has recommendations, we would be interested in hearing those.”
Kurkul warned that if the agency did proceed, which turned out to be the case at press time, NMFS staffers would have limited time to help the council with Amendment 16, further delaying the amendment.
Kurkul said she recognized the council felt pressed for time – both with the interim action request and with Amendment 16.
But, she added, “We don’t have any more time than the council has,” so any interim action put out by NMFS would need to be “limited in scope.”
Kurkul also issued the agency’s standard words of caution to councils requesting emergency or interim action: Councils are allowed to submit recommendations for these types of regulatory actions, but NMFS has control over the final rule.
NMFS would put out a proposed rule if it proceeded with interim action, “So there would be some opportunity for public comment,” she said.
But given the tight timing to meet the May 1 deadline, “It would be difficult to deviate much from the proposed rule,” concluded Kurkul.
Shift in direction
In the middle of struggling with all these issues, Pappalardo abruptly called for the council to take a half-hour break.
During this time, many huddled together to strategize and discuss alternatives, including the plan put forward by the Northeast Seafood Coalition.
Once back at the table, Goethel made a motion and put forward the coalition’s package.
“We can’t force the regional administrator to do anything. We’re just suggesting guidance,” said Goethel. “What I’m trying to do is provide the service with a template for an interim action rule. This is a strategy to create a bridge to fill a hole” for 2009 until Amendment 16 can be implemented, which might not be until 2010.
Massachusetts council member David Pierce supported the proposal.
“It is far better than the alternative, which could be (large) cuts in days-at-sea across the board. If we do that, all the work we have done to transition to sector management will be lost. We will have gutted sectors if the industry can’t survive 2009,” said Pierce.
Kurkul expressed reservations about the motion.
“I do very much understand that everyone is trying to get through the near term to get to sector management,” she said. “But the real issue here is fishing mortality, and we need some very significant reductions in fishing mortality. The longer we put it off, the more difficult it will be.”
Maggie Raymond of Associated Fisheries of Maine supported the coalition package.
However, she also expressed concern that NMFS might take action beyond the provisions listed in the coalition’s proposal.
If that turned out to be the case, Raymond said, “We hope the agency would not increase the days-at-sea reduction percentage. We can’t have any more of our days-at-sea go into the B category.”
Not enough
John Williamson of The Ocean Conservancy made it clear his group would not endorse the coalition package.
“We would very much like to support an industry-led measure … but there are some obvious major flaws here,” he said.
Rhode Island council member Frank Blount also had reservations.
“We’re looking at a 40%-70% reduction on most things (based on the GARM results). This is an 18% cutback. It’s horrific, but it’s not going to get us there,” he said. “The service is not going to put something in place that’s not going to get us there.”
Blount also was troubled because the interim action request impacted fishermen who possibly didn’t need to be impacted, such as those targeting haddock.
“I feel that we just did a disservice,” he said following the final vote.
The council, in fact, took several votes dealing with the interim action – first to eliminate provisions from the committee’s proposal, then to substitute that proposal with the one developed by the Northeast Seafood Coalition, and then to include a few other mitigating provisions in the coalition package. The votes mostly passed by large majorities with a few dissenting members.
The final vote to forward the significantly amended request for interim action passed 15-to-1. Kurkul cast the “no” vote, as she is required to do in order to preserve the discretion of the secretary of commerce, who legally has final approval of all federal fishery management actions.
The sobering discussion, coupled with the GARM results, led Massachusetts council member and safety-at-sea advocate Rodney Avila to conclude with a poignant remark.
“There’s a time you have to decide to get into the life raft,” he said. “Nothing I see here is going to save this industry. The industry needs to know that half of us are not going to be here next year.”
What disturbed Avila most was that fishermen seemed to have no control over the situation.
“We are not the problem,” he said. “It’s either natural mortality or ocean conditions or predators. Everyone wants to cuddle that seal, but that lousy seal is killing us.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
