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 35 Number 3
November 2008
Herring Amd. 4: Pressure for catch monitoring
MYSTIC, CT – It’s no secret that thousands of people are following the development of Amendment 4 to the federal herring plan.
Lobstermen are watchdogging it to see how management changes might affect the flow of bait, and environmentalists – along with their countless supporters – are scrutinizing every step of the amendment’s development to ensure that the resource is protected as a forage base for other commercially and noncommercially important fish and marine mammals.
Directed herring fishermen – the people who catch the bait and utilize a species that is not overfished – continue to fight for the ability to pursue a healthy fishery, while bluefin tuna fishermen lobby to limit catches and prevent midwater trawlers from activities they say “break up” schools of herring that draw bluefin to inshore feeding grounds.
This seemingly insurmountable divergence of opinions was clear from the number of comments the New England Fishery Management Council received about Amendment 4, which was launched to establish federally mandated annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for the fishery and develop a comprehensive catch monitoring program for herring.
During the council’s Oct. 7-9 meeting here, Lori Steele, the council’s herring plan coordinator, summed up the extraordinary number of written comments submitted to the council in addition to oral testimony collected from those who attended hearings during the April-June scoping period. She said the council received:
Roughly 150 letters from “river herring advocates;”
634 “batch post cards” from CHOIR members calling for 100% catch monitoring, certification of herring landings, and inshore buffer zones to keep midwater trawlers offshore;
6,518 e-mails, all “very similar or the same in nature,” calling for buffer zones and 100% observer coverage;
475 e-mails, all “very similar or the same in nature,” calling for full retention of the catch, “predator set-asides,” and an independent weighmaster program; and
An additional 1,879 e-mails that went directly to council Executive Director Paul Howard instead of through established comment channels, calling for buffer zones and 100% observer coverage.
River herring
The council, very much aware the intense scrutiny it was under, made several decisions on Oct. 8 about Amendment 4 in front of a packed audience representing clearly divided points of view.
First, the council voted to eliminate quota allocation alternatives from Amendment 4, which was its most difficult and controversial decision.
It also cast two motions related to river herring. After significant discussion and considerable input from the audience, the council voted to:
Request that the herring plan development team “craft alternatives for time/area closures to protect the Southern New England and Mid-Atlantic runs of river herring;” and
“Collaborate as much as possible with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Mid-Atlantic council regarding the management of the river herring resource.”
At-sea monitoring
The council then passed a motion to request that the herring PDT develop a range of alternatives for an at-sea monitoring program, including both onboard observers and electronic monitoring, with “a CV of 20% that focuses upon Atlantic herring, river herring, and haddock.”
CV stands for “coefficient of variation,” a statistical tool being used to look at possible distribution of observer coverage. To be clear, a 20% CV does not mean that 20% of the herring trips will be observed.
The council spent a significant amount of time debating whether it should ask for a 20% CV or a 30% CV or a range between the two. Scientific details aside, it’s safe to say that a 20% CV would require more observer coverage while a 30% CV would require less.
Trade-off
Several council members expressed grave reservations that even a 30% CV was simply too high – an impossible-to-achieve standard – due to limited resources and the limited numbers of observers available to go aboard herring boats at any cost.
However, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northeast Regional Office representative George Darcy explained that the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) amendment already endorsed by the council essentially called for a 30% CV. And since the SBRM applies across the board to all species, any increase in monitoring for one species – for example, requiring a 20% CV for herring – would come at the expense of another.
“Without any new resources, this potentially could take away coverage from other fisheries,” said Darcy. “You just need to be aware that this may impact other species as well.”
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration attorney Gene Martin asked why the council was leaning toward the higher standard of 20% when the arduously developed, lawsuit-driven SMBR only called for 30%.
“Is this because you don’t have faith in the SBRM,” he asked? “You’re asking for a different methodology than the SBRM calls for, and that’s fine, but there should be some justification for that.”
20% CV wins out
Massachusetts council member David Pierce fought harder than anyone on the council to gain adoption of a 20% CV.
“We have a lot of individuals who want 100% observer coverage,” he said. “In light of the controversy, we have to have as high a level of observer coverage as we can possibly get. Twenty percent is still a large percentage of coverage.”
New Hampshire council member David Goethel, however, expressed serious concerns about a 20% CV. He considered a 30% CV by itself to be a tall order.
“These CVs would lead to a very high level of coverage,” he said. “You would need to observe a large number of trips to get these CVs. You have to decide what it is you can do, and what it is you can’t do.”
Lara Slifka of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association urged the council to go with the 20% CV.
She further asked the council not to use old data when considering observer coverage.
“Going back and using the data we already have in the system is not going to give you the right level of observer coverage for the future,” she said.
A motion to strike the 30% CV from the document so a 20% CV would be required for catch monitoring passed in a 9-8 vote.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
