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 7
March 2006
Groundfish fleet rocked by FW 42 results
PORTLAND, ME – After two tumultuous days that wore everyone raw, the New England Fishery Management Council voted to forward Framework Adjustment 42 to the groundfish plan to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for approval.
The council selected the effort reduction alternative known as “B2,” which will reduce everyone’s allocated A-days by eight percent and count each vessel’s remaining A-days at the rate of 2-for-1 in huge swaths of the Gulf of Maine and Southern New England. Standard 1-for-1 counting will remain in place outside of those areas, as well as on B-days everywhere.
The council was faced with seven analyzed effort reduction alternatives when it began its groundfish deliberations on Feb. 1. All were designed to achieve deep cuts in fishing mortality on Gulf of Maine cod (32 percent), Gulf of Maine yellowtail (46 percent), Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail (55 percent) and winter flounder (nine percent), Georges Bank winter flounder (46 percent), and white hake (13 percent).
Numerous people urged the council to consider an eighth alternative developed by the Northeast Seafood Coalition, which had not been analyzed by the groundfish plan development team (PDT). Promoters of this plan, including the mayors of New Bedford and Gloucester, pleaded with the council to request an analysis and then consider the alternative in April.
Fearing that yet another delay would be problematic, the council adopted B2 with the understanding that a finalized Framework 42 document would be submitted to NMFS in mid-March.
However, minutes before the council ended its meeting on Feb. 2 and packed up to go home, it also voted – by a narrow margin – to charge the PDT with analyzing the industry alternative, as well as a variation of it, to determine whether the package meets Amendment 13 rebuilding objectives.
The council will review this analysis in April, though at that point, the B2 version of Framework 42 will most likely be in NMFS’s hands.
Here is how the scene unfolded over those two very long and difficult days in Portland at the Holiday Inn by the Bay.
Options quickly culled
Although the council had seven alternatives before it, the first five, which involved deep, across-the-board reductions in A-days, never came up for consideration. The debate quickly narrowed to:
• Alternative E, which proposed to count days-at-sea in 24-hour increments so that a boat fishing 26 hours, for example, would be charged 48 hours on the clock;
• Alternative B2, which called for 2-for-1 days-at-sea counting in large parts of the Gulf of Maine and Southern New England; and
• The industry proposal in terms of whether it should be analyzed for consideration in April.
According to council groundfish plan coordinator Tom Nies, Alternatives B2 and E were designed to avoid the unilateral, upfront A-day reductions called for in Alternatives 1-5, which ran as high as 40 percent. These two alternatives instead relied heavily on other measures, namely the 24-hour clock or 2-for-1 counting, to reduce fishing mortality.
The Amendment 13 “default” days-at-sea cut was used for B2 and E. This changed the split in allocated A-days and B-days from 60 percent/40 percent to 55/45, giving vessel owners eight percent fewer A-days, which are the only days many fishermen are able to utilize, and eight percent more B-days.
Industry plan
The Northeast Seafood Coalition plan contains an inshore Gulf of Maine cod “declaration” that requires anyone wanting to fish in blocks 124, 125, 132, 133, 139, or 140 to declare into the program at the start of the fishing year.
By doing so, each vessel would have to accept an annual landings cap for Gulf of Maine cod, to be calculated by multiplying a vessel’s baseline A-day allocation by 800 pounds. In short, these boats would be limited to their own hard total allowable catch (TAC) for Gulf of Maine cod.
The plan contains many details and addresses Southern New England and Georges Bank stocks of concern as well.
Alternative E first
Following a brief overview of Framework 42 by Nies, council chairman Frank Blount of Rhode Island opened up the floor for public comment.
Most of the comments fell into one of three categories: a call for the council to consider the coalition proposal; support for Alternative E; or opposition to Alternative E.
After a brief discussion about recreational measures, Maine council member Jim Odlin moved to select Alternative E as the primary effort control package for Framework 42. According to Odlin, this approach, though difficult to swallow, would best reduce fishing mortality on Gulf of Maine cod.
In response to many fishermen’s protests that E would pose serious safety problems, Odlin said, “All seven alternatives have some safety implications. Nothing in this alternative tells people they have to stay out for 24 hours. I’m sure this is safer than the 2-for-1 counting. I take this seriously. I’ve had people in the water. I know what it means.”
Massachusetts council member Rodney Avila, however, believed the safety concerns were worse in E than in other approaches.
“I can’t support this as long as that 24-hour clock is in there,” he said.
New Hampshire council member David Goethel said, “E treats different groups of boats differently. Boats equipped to be out at sea for 24 hours are already doing so. This hurts the others. A number of these boats don’t have fish holds. It’s going to send discards through the roof. To me, the differential counting is fairer because at least it counts their time as actual time.”
Industry plan
Despite his aversion for E, Massachusetts council member David Pierce tried to gain support for a motion to accept Alternative E with the understanding that the council would substitute it with the industry plan in April – if a PDT analysis showed the industry proposal would achieve the same mortality reductions as E.
Chairman Blount encouraged the council to table this motion and first pick its primary alternatives for Framework 42. After that, the council could consider whether to have the industry plan analyzed for April, he said.
Pierce’s motion was tabled. Goethel then moved to substitute E with B2, which, after significant debate, was adopted by a vote of 11-6. After more debate, Maine council member Jim Salisbury tried to have the council reconsider the B2 decision, but that motion failed 8-9.
Many speak out
People on both sides spoke to the safety and fairness implications between Alternatives E and B2.
Salisbury said, “I think the greatest contributor to the problems industry is having with safety is they’re being driven to desperation. The best thing we can do is find an option that cures the problem. I don’t like all of the things E does, but it’s the only option I see that gets us somewhere.”
Yvette Alexander, president of the Maine Fishermen’s Wives Association and a member of Maine’s Commercial Fishing Safety Council, supported Alternative E over B2.
“One loss of life is way too many. Nobody wants a loss of life,” she said. “But if you do 2-for-1 counting, that is a huge safety issue. It’s going to make people fish harder or push people to fish on the beach.”
Maine vessel owner Barbara Stevenson agreed.
“I am adamantly opposed to B2,” she said. “It will increase the fishery on Gulf of Maine cod and do exactly what you don’t want people to do – fire the crew and go out by themselves.
“We need to fix the problem,” she said. “This does not fix the problem. It makes it worse. The incentive is to increase the cod fishery.”
Weighing the differences between B2 and E, Pierce said, “There are too many negatives to Alternative E that oblige me to be opposed to it. It has grave implications for safety; I’m convinced of that. It also has grave implications for discarding.”
More biological points
Pierce further believed Alternative B2 would make it difficult for fishermen to work on healthy groundfish stocks.
“We’re foregoing a lot of additional revenue with B2,” he said. “I still favor the coalition/industry proposal that begs for analysis. They put a lot of work into it to reduce mortality on Gulf of Maine cod. It has a great deal of merit and I want to see the analysis.”
Northeast Seafood Coalition spokesman Vito Giacalone opposed Alternative E.
“I think there’s more to it than the safety issue,” he said. “I don’t think you’ll get any biological benefit out of a 24-hour clock. I can’t see why this council doesn’t think TAC management and daily reporting (as described in the coalition plan) is better than a stab at days-at-sea.”
Coalition Executive Director Jackie Odell called the council’s attention to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
“We feel this framework has significant NEPA issues and there should be an EIS rather than EA,” she said.
In order to submit the framework with a lower-level environmental assessment (EA) vs. a full-scale environmental impact statement (EIS), the council must accompany the EA with a “finding of no significant impact,” known as a FONSI.
Odell did not believe the council could justify a FONSI given the enormous economic, social, safety, and human impacts associated with Framework 42.
Vote on industry plan
With B2 still on the table, the council next made numerous other decisions regarding Framework 42. Then it agreed to revisit Pierce’s tabled motion to consider the coalition plan.
This time, Pierce said the plan would serve as a substitute in April for B2 (not E) if the PDT analysis determined it would “accomplish the required reductions in fishing mortality.”
The motion failed by an 8-9 margin, and B2 remained on the table. The council broke for the day shortly after 9 pm.
Thursday
The next morning, the council took action on several other Framework 42 measures and then turned to the original Feb. 2 agenda topics, which included habitat, research steering, and scallops.
Late in the afternoon, the council resumed groundfish to finish its decision-making.
At the end of it all – and after the council had voted to submit the final Framework 42 package to NMFS – Massachusetts council member John Pappalardo moved to have the PDT analyze the industry option, as well as a “modified TAC option” that would “apply the Georges Bank yellowtail management strategy to Gulf of Maine cod in place of the inshore Gulf of Maine cod cap program.”
Under the current yellowtail management strategy, Georges Bank fishermen are bound by a hard TAC and work under trip limits. Once a certain percentage of the TAC is reached, the trip limit is reduced. When the TAC is fully utilized, fishing for yellowtail stops.
The completed analysis, Pappalardo said, would be reviewed by the council in April.
MA staff will help
Pierce quickly “committed” his staff to working with the council staff to complete the necessary analysis.
NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul strongly opposed the move, especially given the preceding vote to submit Framework 42.
“This is sending exactly the wrong message to the industry,” she said.
The council’s attorney, Gene Martin, further cautioned that it might not be possible to implement parts of the industry proposal through a framework. Rather, he said, the proposal might require additional development and processing time through a full plan amendment.
The council overall was divided.
Rodney Avila, who supported the approach, said, “The goal is to see if we can meet the management objectives without killing industry.”
But some council members questioned whether reviewing an analysis in April was the right thing to do.
Sally McGee of Connecticut said, “I feel like we’re setting people up with a false assumption of what’s going to happen next.”
The motion to have the PDT analyze the industry option and a modified version of the Georges Bank yellowtail strategy for Gulf of Maine cod passed 8-6.
According to Nies, the council will finalize Framework 42 first, submit it to NMFS, and then begin analyzing the industry proposal, though some PDT members might be able to work on parts of the analysis sooner.
The council’s next meeting is scheduled for April 4-6 in Mystic, CT.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
