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 33 Number 3
November 2005
New England Council says no change for 2006 herring specs
PROVIDENCE, RI – In all likelihood, the 2006 specifications for Atlantic herring won’t be any different from 2005, and many industry members are unhappy about that prospect.
If the current specifications are used again next year, the total allowable catch (TAC) for Area 2 will be 30,000 metric tons (mt) and the TAC for Area 3, which covers Georges Bank, will be 50,000 mt.
That means both TACs –- for the second year in a row –- will be lower than what most fishermen think is appropriate given the healthy status of the stock offshore and in the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic area.
Most herring fishermen are not disputing the TAC for Area 1, which covers the Gulf of Maine. The TAC for Area 1A would remain at 60,000 mt – with landings from January through May capped at 6,000 mt – and the TAC for Area 1B would be 10,000 mt.
Back in 2004, the New England Fishery Management Council recommended herring specifications to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the 2005 fishing year. The council also asked NMFS to maintain those specifications through 2006, “unless stock and fishery conditions change substantially,” to allow the council to focus its effort on finalizing Amendment 1 to the herring plan.
But the situation became extremely complicated when NMFS implemented specifications for 2005 that were significantly different from what the New England council had recommended. According to NMFS, the council’s package didn’t meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, so the fisheries service adjusted several specifications.
Although the final rule announcing the 2005 specifications indicated that the same specifications most likely would be carried over into 2006, NMFS recently asked the council to take a formal vote on the matter to solidify its intent.
The council did so at its Sept. 13-15 meeting, where it voted – after difficult discussions about alternative, failed proposals – to ask NMFS to “apply the specifications that were implemented for 2005” to the next fishing year.
It short, the council agreed to maintain status quo – the NMFS numbers.
Original council specs
The East Coast Pelagic Association (ECPA) and the American Pelagic Association (APA) opposed the move and instead urged the council to resubmit the specification package it had originally developed back in 2004 for the 2005 fishing year.
Here are the differences between what the council initially supported for specifications and what NMFS implemented:
• Area 2 TAC – 50,000 mt with no reserve recommended, 30,000 mt with no reserve implemented;
• Area 3 TAC – 60,000 mt recommended, 50,000 mt implemented;
• Optimum yield (OY) – 180,000 metric tons (mt) recommended, 150,000 mt implemented;
• Domestic annual harvest (DAH) – 180,000 mt recommended, 150,000 mt implemented;
• Domestic annual processing (DAP) – 176,000 recommended, 146,000 mt implemented; and
• US at-sea processing – zero recommended, 20,000 mt implemented for Areas 2 and 3 only.
Industry opposition
The first change NMFS made to the council’s 2005 recommendation was to reduce OY, which then triggered downward adjustments to the Area 2 and 3 TACs.
NMFS said the council’s 180,000 mt OY specification was too high and needed to be set “at a level that can be fully harvested by the domestic fleet, thereby precluding the specification of a TALFF.”
TALFF is the total allowable level of foreign fishing, which the council recommended be set at zero. NMFS said an OY higher than 150,000 mt might result in the need to establish TALFF, contrary to everyone’s wishes.
But ECPA Executive Director Mary Beth Tooley told the council, “We believe the service’s justification for doing this was incorrect. We do not agree with the rationale.”
Prior to the September council meeting, ECPA sought advice from congressional staffers about the situation and concluded that an “artificial reduction in OY to avoid TALFF allocations is not an appropriate interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.”
No TALFF request
APA’s Peter Moore further stressed that TALFF wasn’t going to be a factor in 2006, implying that NMFS didn’t need to reduce OY to account for it.
“There will be no TALFF request,” he said. “So if the specter of TALFF is not there … let this be revisited. The last thing we want to see is the TAC reduced in any area for political expedience. We’re underfishing the stock, Area 1A not withstanding.”
Moore referenced a letter from the US State Department that was sent to New England council Executive Director Paul Howard.
In that letter, Ambassador David Balton, the deputy assistant secretary for oceans and fisheries, said, “We are not aware of pending action by any council or by NMFS that would identify a TALFF for any species in waters under US jurisdiction, including Atlantic herring. As a result, there is currently no allocation of TALFF to any foreign nation, nor has there been for several years.”
NMFS reasoning
Gene Martin of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of General Counsel, who advises both NMFS and the New England council on legal issues, said NMFS nonetheless needed to justify a zero TALFF.
“The number is a mathematical calculation,” he said. “You don’t have to allocate it, but there is a requirement to develop that number. It’s not a discretionary thing.”
When asked for her opinion, NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul said the outcome wouldn’t change if the council merely resubmitted its previous 2005 recommendations.
“We found the proposal you submitted was inconsistent with the Magnuson Act, so if you submit the same package again, we’d presumably reach the same conclusion,” she said.
Although many of the specifications NMFS implemented for 2005 were lower than those recommended by the council, NMFS said it had the authority to modify OY, DAH, DAP, and the area-by-area TACs if the fishery exceeded expectations in 2005 or 2006.
That approach didn’t seem probable to Tooley.
In a letter to the council, she said, “The industry is not comforted by the availability of in-season adjustments. We find it unlikely that an in-season adjustment could be achieved in a timely manner for the fishery given the regulatory requirements.”
US at-sea processing
While most of industry’s concerns were directed at the lower OY and Area 2 and 3 TACs, the other specification that drew some attention was the one for US at-sea processing, which NMFS set at 20,000 mt for 2005 even though the council recommended zero.
Back when it reviewed and published the 2005 specifications, NMFS said it supported the council’s recommendation to set joint venture processing, which involves a foreign vessel, at zero.
But to set US at-sea processing at zero “would favor one segment of the US processing sector over another without any justifiable reasons based on conservation objectives,” said NMFS.
Tooley called NMFS’s rational “ironic given the concerns of industry throughout the country of losing access to working waterfronts and infrastructures.” She said the New England council “made the right choice in 2004 to support shoreside processing and discourage development of offshore facilities in the region.”
Maggie Raymond of Associated Fisheries of Maine (AFM) said her association supported the specification.
“Based on the 2005 final rule, there have been plans made to bring a US at-sea processing vessel here – hopefully no later than February,” she said.
“Plans were made based on the rule that was published, which indicated that the specifications for 2005 would be maintained for 2006. We think it would be inappropriate to make a change at this time,” she said.
Advisers
Dave Ellenton, representing Cape Seafoods Inc. and Western Sea Fishing Company, raised an additional issue. As chairman of the council’s herring advisory panel, he believed the council should first hear from its advisers before acting.
“I’m concerned that the fishing industry advisers have not met to discuss the 2006 specifications,” he said.
Referring to carrying over the 2005 specifications to 2006, Ellenton said, “This suggests the fishery conditions will be the same in 2006. But there are a number of changes we can expect. Amendment 1 will come on line in early 2006.”
The council agreed to have its advisers discuss the issue at their Oct. 26 meeting. However, since the council already voted on the matter, the advisers’ comments will be forwarded directly to NMFS for further consideration.
In early September, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Herring Section, through a fax poll, also voted to maintain the 2005 herring specifications for 2006.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
