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 5
January 2006
NE council casts final votes on scallop FW 18
HYANNIS, MA – Limited-access scallopers will be working under a revised access-area schedule in 2006 and 2007 once Framework Adjustment 18 to the federal scallop plan is implemented this spring.
At its Nov. 15-17 meeting here, the New England Fishery Management Council voted to adopt a “contingency” rotation schedule that eliminates Closed Area I from the access-area loop in 2006.
The proposed schedule now looks like this:
• Fishing year 2006 – Five access-area trips allowed, with three in Closed Area II and two in the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area, along with 52 open-area days; and
• Fishing year 2007 – Seven access-area trips allowed, with one in Closed Area I, one in the Nantucket Lightship area, and five in the Elephant Trunk Area in the Mid-Atlantic, along with 51 open-area days.
The scallop plan development team (PDT) analyzed the new contingency schedule in response to last summer’s Oceana vs. Evans court decision, which forced the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to vacate scallop essential fish habitat (EFH) closures that were put in place through scallop and groundfish Frameworks 16/39.
In that joint framework, the council altered the original Amendment 10 scallop EFH closures so they matched the groundfish ones.
But the court ruled that NMFS had no authority to approve such a change through a framework, and the judge ordered NMFS to reinstate the old Amendment 10 areas.
Less bottom
As a result, the scallop fleet must now avoid more territory through two different sets of EFH closures – one for groundfish and one for scallops – that significantly reduce the amount of fishable scallop bottom in Closed Area 1.
“The PDT agreed that concentrating all the access effort in such a small area (in Closed Area I) would cause localized depletion,” wrote scallop plan coordinator Andy Applegate in a “decision document” prepared for the council.
After listening to the pros and cons, the council accepted the contingency schedule. This marked a change from what it adopted back in September when it supported a Closed Area I trip during 2006.
Crew size
The council made most of its decisions on Framework 18 at its September meeting in Providence, RI, so, in November, it tried to limit discussion to unresolved issues (see CFN October 2005 for coverage of September’s actions).
Despite agreeing on that approach, Massachusetts council member David Pierce questioned the council’s earlier vote regarding crew size limits on access-area trips.
In September, the council voted to completely eliminate the crew size limit on access-area trips but not on open-area trips. Pierce disagreed with the decision and, in November, moved instead to restrict crew size increases on access-area trips to one additional person. That would bump the limit up from the current seven men to eight men.
The full-time scallop fleet is divided on this issue, a fact their representatives readily acknowledge. NMFS, on the other hand, strongly supports lifting the crew limit entirely. However, others disagree.
“I really think going from seven to eight is reasonable, but going to unlimited crews is a real step backwards,” said gear specialist Bill DuPaul of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
DuPaul worried that bigger crews could shuck faster and, in the end, work on smaller scallops, which would be detrimental to the resource.
Massachusetts council member Tom Hill viewed it differently.
“Ultimately it’s a business decision,” he said.
The council voted 8-to-8 on Pierce’s motion to limit the crew size increase to one additional person.
Council Chairman Frank Blount broke the tie by voting no, meaning that Framework 18 will not contain any crew size limit for access-area trips.
Total pounds vs. trips
The council also debated whether to allocate scallopers a total per-vessel poundage amount for access-area trips or to keep the same system that’s currently in place, which specifies the number of allowed trips per area along with a specific trip limit. An example of that would be two trips to Closed Area II with an 18,000-pound trip limit.
NMFS strongly favored a per-vessel total poundage allowance, as did Connecticut council member Sally McGee.
“Any opportunity we have to ease the layers of regulations on the industry and end up at the same place, we should take,” McGee said. “They may want to do an 18,000-pound trip or a 30,000-pound trip.”
But gear specialist Ron Smolowitz of the Fisheries Survival Fund was strongly opposed.
“I think it’s premature at this point to go away from the (trip-by-trip) possession limits. There are some advantages but there are also lots of risks,” he said.
“I do not think this is a safer approach,” Smolowitz added. “Instead of two 18,000-pound trips, everyone is going to try to do one 36,000-pound trip. People are going to get tired. It has social consequences. People will be away from port longer. There’ll be a derby incentive. We have too many unknowns. It’s too dangerous. Let’s do this baby steps at a time.”
More opposition
Bill DuPaul agreed with Smolowitz.
“I really don’t think this is a good idea,” he said. “If in the same context you’re considering taking off crew limits on access trips, you’re presenting a real opportunity for people to target smaller scallops.”
DuPaul expressed particular concern about squandering the enormous potential of the Elephant Trunk Area, which will become available to the fleet in 2007.
“What they say about the Elephant Trunk Area is true,” he said. “I have never seen so many scallops of so many year classes in one area at the same time. The Elephant Trunk Area is going to have to be watched very closely and opened very carefully.”
As the council weighed the benefits of allowing increased flexibility for vessel owners against potential consequences, Connecticut council member David Simpson said, “I am persuaded by the arguments that this will lead to a race to fish. It will lead to the harvest of smaller scallops.”
The council voted 10-to-7 to stick with the current system of allocating numbers of trips and trip limits.
Turtle closure
After being presented with a five-month option, a 3-1/2-month option, and a two-month option, the council voted to adopt a two-month seasonal closure of the Elephant Trunk Area from Sept. 1-Oct. 31 on an annual basis to protect sea turtles.
Chris Zeman of Oceana urged the council to adopt the five-month option.
“This is a very rare opportunity,” he said. “We can actually maintain our landings, reduce our turtle interactions, and even improve our biomass by reducing the bycatch mortality of small scallops.
“This measure does not cause any displacement of effort,” Zeman said. “These trips can only take place in the Elephant Trunk Area. The scallops can be caught later on. It would eliminate a significant amount of effort in the Mid-Atlantic when the sea turtles are present in the area.”
Smolowitz presented a completely different argument in support of no closure at all.
“I don’t think there’s any factual or scientific information on the table that says we’ll reduce turtle interactions if we have a seasonal closure,” he said. “Anything that takes pressure off the Elephant Trunk Area in the summer will put it in another area. The turtle interactions occur where the fleet is. It might be very counterproductive to turtles if we shift effort.”
Smolowitz emphasized that the council already had the solution in hand.
“We have solved the problem and it’s with turtle chains,” he said. “When we first encountered the turtles, we knew the best solution was a gear solution.”
In the end, the council went with the two-month closure because it was “not as constraining on fishing” but still covered two peak months of turtle activity in the Mid-Atlantic.
Janice M. Plante
back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
