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 7
March 2008
Scallop Amendment 15 to address catch, capacity
PORTSMOUTH, NH – Scallopers can expect to see some significant changes in their fishery a few years down the road through Amendment 15 to the federal scallop plan.
In April, the New England Fishery Management Council will hold four scoping meetings to gather industry input on issues that might be addressed in the amendment.
One that’s already a given is annual catch limits (ACLs). In fact, the primary purpose of Amendment 15 is to develop ACLs and accountability measures (AMs), which are provisions to keep the fleet from exceeding ACLs. Both are required under the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
But the council also is considering options to reduce excess capacity in the regular limited-access fishery through tools such as days-at-sea leasing, days-at-sea transfers, and individual fishing quotas (IFQs). This capacity reduction is being called “rationalization” of the fishery.
At its Feb. 12-14 meeting in Portsmouth, the council signed off on a list of issues for scoping and potential development in Amendment 15. In addition to ACLs, AMs, and capacity reduction, scoping topics include:
Revision of the overfishing definition;
Modifications to the general category IFQ program;
Measures to address scallop essential fish habitat (EFH) closures that don’t already match groundfish EFH closures;
Re-examination of how the total allowable catch (TAC) for the Northern Gulf of Maine Scallop Exemption Area is calculated for future TACs;
Alternatives to improve the research set-aside program; and
Changing the start of the scallop fishing year from March 1 to May 1.
The council further agreed – by a very slim margin – to accept sector proposals from limited-access general category IFQ fishermen assuming their ability to form sectors is approved in Amendment 11, which was still under review by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at press time.
Capacity reduction
Amendment 15 is scheduled to be implemented by March 1, 2011, which is the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s deadline for putting in place ACLs and AMs for stocks like scallops that are not subject to overfishing.
The ACL and AM requirements forced the initiation of Amendment 15, but early on in its discussions, the council agreed to address capacity reduction at the same time.
It was clear at the February meeting that many fishermen were eager for this to happen.
“Our highest priority is for the council to approve Amendment 15 as quickly as possible with measures that will enable vessel owners to reduce capacity immediately so that harvesting capacity more closely tracks resource productivity,” said Jeff Pike of Sher & Blackwell, representing the Scallop Capacity Reduction Coalition.
The coalition is made up of scallopers who together hold close to 100 full-time, limited-access permits. According to Pike, they formed the group exclusively to address this one issue.
Permit stacking
First and foremost, the coalition is asking the council to allow scallopers to transfer one limited-access permit to another similar vessel – in essence, stack the permits – so that “one vessel may have two permits assigned to it and fish all of the days-at-sea and trips assigned to both permits,” Pike explained.
While the group didn’t support creating “jumbo permits,” the ability to stack at least one permit would be “the most effective way” to achieve capacity reduction, said Pike. “We strongly prefer this approach as opposed to leasing because it allows the fishery to eliminate one platform.”
The coalition also asked the council to drop consideration of IFQs and/or individual transferable quotas (ITQs) in Amendment 15.
“Many of us support this approach but we are very concerned Amendment 15 will be delayed by including ITQs,” concluded Pike. “We think that once the kinks have been worked out of implementing an ITQ program that this option should be considered in some future action.”
In the end, the council did not drop IFQs/ITQs from consideration in the scoping document, saying it wanted to hear the full range of what industry members had to say at scoping meetings.
Habitat, Area I
Scallopers also urged the council to “fix” the existing EFH closures so that scallop EFH closures match the groundfish EFH closures as originally intended.
The two sets of closures were adopted through Amendment 10 to the scallop plan and Amendment 13 to the groundfish plan.
And while they do match up for the most part, a key slab of bottom in Closed Area I that was intended to be part of the scallop access area ended up being closed to scallop gear as a result of an EFH designation that conflicted between the groundfish and scallop plans. The same thing happened with the very northern tip of Closed Area II above the Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC).
Most important to industry is Closed Area I, where a significant concentration of large scallops exists in the slice that’s currently closed.
The council tried to address this situation several years ago through Framework Adjustment 16/39 to both the scallop and groundfish plans respectively, but the action was challenged in court by environmental groups, and a judge determined that the two sets of EFH closures couldn’t be aligned through a framework adjustment.
As a result, the fleet has been prohibited from fishing an important portion of the Closed Area I scallop access area during times when Closed Area I is part of the rotational access schedule.
Which way best?
When the court ruling was handed down, the council indicated it would address the problem in a subsequent – and some said “the next” – scallop action.
Then the council began addressing all of the EFH closures in its omnibus habitat amendment, which, when finished, will modify each of the council’s fishery management plans accordingly.
Connecticut council member Sally McGee urged the council to continue down this road.
“We need to stick to the plan – deal with habitat in a comprehensive way and not deal with one emergency after another,” she said.
However, industry members worry that the habitat amendment, which is now in Phase II of its development process, will be significantly delayed since Phase II is the controversial part because the council must decide which measures, including gear restrictions and closures, it wants to propose to protect EFH and HAPCs.
Even though council Executive Director Paul Howard said the omnibus amendment should be implemented a year prior to scallop Amendment 15, it was clear that industry members had no confidence in that intended outcome.
“It would be our strong preference that this all (be fixed) in the habitat amendment, but there’s no guarantee that will happen,” said attorney David Frulla on behalf of the Fisheries Survival Fund.
Noting that industry had been pleading for a correction for years now, Frulla said, “It’s always, ‘We’ll get to it, we’ll get to it.’”
Scallop committee Chairman David Simpson of Connecticut added, “It’s a very important issue to the industry and I think it’s one of our more important issues to deal with.
“What we’ve struggled with is: where is the best and most expedient way to get this done,” Simpson said.
Tough call
The council was torn right down the middle.
Howard expressed concern that the council was including too many items in Amendment 15 and should limit the list to roughly four issues to stay on track with the March 1, 2011 implementation date.
But Massachusetts council member Rodney Avila wasn’t so sure that dropping habitat was the way to address the workload problem.
“I agree we might be able to only do four things, but we might be doing the wrong four things,” he said.
John Williamson of The Ocean Conservancy encouraged the council to leave the habitat issue to the habitat committee and the omnibus amendment.
“That is where you should create your comprehensive approach to habitat,” he said. “The timeline for scallop Amendment 15 is very critical to get the ACL and AM issue settled, so the fewer things included in this amendment, the better, in order for you to meet your deadlines.”
Maine council member Jim Salisbury said holding the industry hostage to what should be a technical fix wasn’t right.
“There’s a significant amount of money locked up in those areas, and we’re not doing justice to the industry here to say, ‘We’ll do it a little later,’” said Salisbury.
He, too, expressed concern about the omnibus habitat amendment staying on schedule.
“The most difficult part is just beginning,” Salisbury said.
Let industry decide
Fisheries Survival Fund representative Ron Smolowitz encouraged the council to let industry decide what it wanted to include in Amendment 15, making it clear that council resources were limited.
“Leave this in the scoping document and ask the public what they see as priorities – this or IFQs,” he said. “Get the public’s input, bring the info back, and then decide. That’s what scoping is for.”
Smolowitz also highlighted the benefits of allowing scallopers to regain access to this important piece of bottom.
“The point of the scallop plan is rotational area management – to look at high catch-per-unit-effort and minimize bottom time,” he said.
The council voted 8-to-8 on a motion to remove the EFH issue from the scoping document. Council Chairman John Pappalardo opted not to cast a vote to break the tie, so the motion failed.
That means that revisiting the scallop EFH closures and making them consistent with EFH closures under the groundfish plan remained an item for potential consideration in the scoping document.
Sectors
The council also considered developing a mechanism to allow limited-access scallopers to create sectors, but after considerable discussion, it voted overwhelmingly to take the issue completely out of the scoping document.
In short, the council worried it was packing too much into Amendment 15 and that establishing a sector process could be put off for now.
Maine council member Jim Odlin said, “I think you can get to the same place with leasing or permit stacking. The capacity reduction issue should allow the scallop industry to mitigate any impacts.”
Massachusetts council member David Pierce expressed concern that working on the sector process would “pull us off the better track, which is ITQs.”
Sally McGee said she agreed the scallop fishery was an appropriate one for ITQs, but that didn’t mean the council had to drop sectors.
“We need to give the fishery options for how it’s going to operate under catch limits,” she said. “To eliminate sectors right out of the gate makes the options unacceptably narrow.”
McGee urged the council to view scallop sectors differently from groundfish sectors.
“It’s going to be much more straightforward to develop sectors for the scallop fishery than groundfish,” she said. “We should not be crossing this off the list of potential directions for this fishery to take.”
Paul Howard reminded the council that if it didn’t at least include the mechanism for establishing sectors in Amendment 15, it would have to wait for another full-scale amendment to do so because the process couldn’t be set up in a framework.
But several council members weren’t opposed to slowing down, especially given the potential suite of measures under capacity reduction.
“We’re trying to build a cart, find a horse, and drive a new buggy all at the same time. It’s too much,” said New Hampshire council member David Goethel.
The sector issue for limited-access scallopers was removed from the scoping document by a 15-to-1 vote.
GC IFQ sectors OK
On the other hand, when the council considered a motion to not accept sector applications from general category IFQ fishermen, the motion failed 7-8.
That means general category IFQ fishermen will be allowed to submit sector applications through Amendment 15, assuming Amendment 11, which set up the sector mechanism for this category of vessel, is approved.
Rhode Island council member Frank Blount didn’t think it was right to take away the sector option from general category ITQ fishermen when the council already gave them the authority to establish sectors.
“We’re dangling carrots,” he said.
McGee agreed.
“That’s what Amendment 11 says they can do,” she said. “My feeling is if we say no now during the time when the general category fleet is converting to an IFQ fishery, we’re taking away the tool that will allow us to keep that fleet intact.”
More info
The council intends to hold four scoping meetings on Amendment 15 in early April – one each in Portland, ME, New Bedford, MA, Cape May, NJ, and Newport News, VA. Exact dates and locations were not available at press time.
For more information on the scoping document, visit the council’s web site at <www.nefmc.org> or call scallop plan coordinator Deirdre Boelke at (978) 465-0492.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
