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
NE council keeps Area 1A seasonal gear ban; herring criteria altered, sectors dropped
PORTLAND, ME – Without wavering in its support for a four-month ban on midwater trawling in Area 1A during the peak of summer, the New England Fishery Management Council made three significant changes to Amendment 1 to the federal herring plan before casting a final vote on the package at its Jan. 31-Feb. 2 meeting here.
The amendment, which will bring sweeping change to the Atlantic herring fleet, is expected to be implemented in early 2007.
The qualifying years for full-scale limited-access permits remains 1993-2003 (see CFN December 2005 for full coverage of Amendment 1 decisions).
But the council agreed to modify the qualifying years for vessels obtaining limited-access incidental catch permits to 1988-2003.
The change will allow 23 additional vessels – many of them mackerel boats – to qualify for limited-access incidental catch permits to possess up to 25 metric tons (mt) of herring per calendar day in any herring fishing area.
So, as it stands now, 100 boats in total are expected to qualify for full-scale or incidental catch limited-access permits under Amendment 1 as follows:
• Limited-access permit for Areas 1, 2, and 3 – 36 vessels;
• Limited-access permit for Areas 2 and 3 only – 3 vessels; and
• Limited-access incidental catch permit to retain 25 mt of herring in any area – 61 vessels.
Any boat will be allowed to obtain an open-access permit to possess up to 3 mt of herring.
The council also voted to eliminate the entire section of Amendment 1 outlining the process for establishing sectors in the herring fishery.
And, due to concerns from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the New England council voted to remove the mackerel set-aside provision from Amendment 1 for further development at a later date.
The mackerel set-aside provision was originally included to “set aside” a small percentage of the herring total allowable catch (TAC) for Areas 2 and 3 so mackerel boats could fish in those areas – and not discard herring – in the event the TACs for either area were filled early.
The sector allocation process and mackerel set-aside proposals will be further developed in a future amendment.
FW 43 vs. Amendment 1
The council took these actions on day one of its meeting. At the end of day three, it further voted to separate out the herring/haddock bycatch provisions from Amendment 1 in order to quickly submit them to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
The bycatch measures are contained in Framework Adjustment 43 to the groundfish plan.
According to herring plan coordinator Lori Steele, the council expects to submit Framework 43 by March 1, which will give NMFS time to review the measures and implement them this summer rather than in 2007 with the rest of Amendment 1.
The goal is to avoid a large gap between the June 6, 2006 expiration of the current herring/haddock emergency action and the implementation of Framework 43, which will put in place long-term bycatch measures.
Under Framework 43, midwater trawl and purse seine gear no longer will be defined as “exempted gear,” meaning “incapable” of catching groundfish.
Instead, herring will become an “exempted fishery” and herring vessels will be allowed to possess relatively small amounts of regulated groundfish without being in violation of the law.
Back in November, the council voted to address groundfish bycatch in two ways. It capped the catch of haddock at 0.2 percent of the combined Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine haddock TAC. And it limited the incidental catch of all other groundfish to 100 pounds.
The haddock cap will apply to all midwater trawl, pair trawl, and purse seine limited-access permit holders. Discarding of any haddock at sea will be prohibited and several other provisions will apply.
When 90 percent of the cap is reached, 90 percent of the haddock stock area will be closed to directed herring fishing.
Gear ban opposition
The council did not revisit its November decision to adopt a four-month ban on midwater trawling in Area 1A – the inshore Gulf of Maine – from June through September.
However, several audience members spoke against the ban.
“We are still and always will be opposed to the gear exclusion in this amendment,” said Jeff Kaelin, representing the vessel Providian. “We think it’s grossly unfair. This fishery is managed with a hard TAC. The Magnuson Act doesn’t give you the authority to manage on the precautionary principal. You have to manage by the best scientific information available.”
Geir Monsen, vice president of Seafreeze Ltd. in North Kingston, RI, added, “What you’re trying to do with this purse seine/fixed-gear-only area in Amendment 1 is absolutely wrong. There’s no scientific argument. You just keep repeating over and over again the same non-scientific information.”
According to Jim O’Malley of the East Coast Fisheries Federation, the council was making “allocative decisions” by adopting the gear ban and then “pretending” those decisions had “a basis in biology” by saying they addressed “localized depletion.” He urged the council to confront the allocation issues directly.
Mary Beth Tooley of the East Coast Pelagic Association called the council’s rationale for the ban “extremely flawed” and said her association “does not believe replacing one gear type with another provides any benefit.”
NMFS concerns
NMFS has been raising its own concerns about the gear ban. In an Oct. 25 letter to council Chairman Frank Blount, NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul expressed reservations that Amendment 1 attempted to justify the ban by acknowledging that supporters were concerned about “localized depletion” in Area 1A.
However, said Kurkul, “Right now, the document states that there is no scientific evidence for localized depletion or any biological basis for distinguishing between midwater trawlers and purse seiners.”
The document further states the four-month ban “could have significant negative economic implications for vessels that have historically fished with midwater trawl gear in the proposed area … (and) significant and positive economic implications for the purse seiners that would, in effect, be given sole access to the … area,” Kurkul noted.
She concluded, “The council will have to address this apparent imbalance in benefits and costs … and will need to provide sound rationale for this proposed measure.”
In February, Kurkul said those concerns remained valid and that NMFS will not be able to determine whether the purse seine/fixed-gear-only season is approvable until it sees the Amendment 1 final analysis and justification.
Supporters stand firm
Dozens of people in the room traveled to Portland specifically to support the seasonal gear ban. Several called for additional time to testify on the issue when herring committee Chairman David Pierce of Massachusetts attempted to close the public comment portion of the discussion.
Tuna fisherman Dave Linney of Cape Neddick, ME reflected the sentiment of most when he reminded the council of the extensive testimony provided by fishermen, whale watch operators, conservationists, and others in support of this four-month summertime “buffer zone” during public hearings on Amendment 1.
“I would urge you to stick with it,” he said.
Linney further encouraged the council to “push” NMFS to implement the seasonal gear restriction this summer rather than in 2007 when the rest of Amendment 1 will be implemented, saying that a seasonal restriction in 2006 wouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.
“The midwater fishery has been on notice that something is going to happen with this buffer. By 2007 it might be too late,” he said.
Geoff Smith, formerly with The Ocean Conservancy and now with The Nature Conservancy, also endorsed the Area 1A restriction.
“We strongly support the purse seine/fixed-gear-only area. Clearly something is going on in the inshore Gulf of Maine,” he said.
Unlike opponents who questioned the legality of it, Smith encouraged the council to take a precautionary approach for Area 1A.
“There’s a great deal of uncertainty out there and a precautionary approach is warranted,” he said. “It’s imperative for the council to look very closely at impacts not just on herring but on the entire ecosystem.”
Despite all this testimony, the council never re-debated the issue, so an Area 1A purse seine/fixed-gear-only season from June through September remains a provision of Amendment 1.
Sectors
After extensive debate at its November meeting, the New England council voted 11-6 to include a section in Amendment 1 outlining the process industry members would have to use to develop herring sectors. The council further decided that the sector qualifying years would be 1993-2003, the same years it had (at the time) adopted for limited-access permits.
Following that meeting, NMFS expressed serious reservations about using any qualifying years before 2001 to establish sectors. That’s because the herring fishery wasn’t subject to mandatory reporting before 2001, so landings information on an area-by-area basis – necessary to determine historical participation for area-specific sectors – isn’t available prior to 2001.
On Jan. 31 in Portland, previous industry supporters of sectors expressed strong opposition to the change, while those who had opposed sectors thought the change made things fairer.
Maine council member Jim Salisbury said, “This shows why we are not prepared to do a sector allocation scheme. It has huge policy implications that will have very different ramifications on different people. You can already see this from our last meeting. We are just getting ourselves into trouble with this.”
Develop policy first
Council member Dana Rice, also of Maine, agreed.
“It’s just too much at one time,” he said. “Already there’s a race for people to figure out how they fit into a sector.”
Salisbury and Rice encouraged the council to withdraw the sector section from Amendment 1 for future – and more thorough – development in a future action.
Rice said, “If it’s three years down the road and it’s right and better for industry, it’s better than locking ourselves in now to something that’s wrong.”
Massachusetts council member Tom Hill urged the council to direct its executive committee to develop a broad-reaching policy regarding sectors in general.
“I’m very concerned with doing them one at a time,” he said. “We’re not telling the public where we’re hoping to go and without that, we won’t get good public input.”
Blount agreed to have the executive committee take up the matter.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
