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 9
May 2008
Herring Amd. 4 to look at monitoring, ACLs
PROVIDENCE, RI – In the face of unprecedented interest in the status of the Atlantic herring resource, the New England Fishery Management Council has begun the scoping process for what will become Amendment 4 to the federal herring plan.
During its April 15-17 meeting here, the council approved the release of a scoping document and announced its intent to ask for public comment through June 30.
The three broad topics to be addressed involve:
Expansion of the current catch monitoring program for Atlantic herring;
Establishment of annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for herring as now required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and
Consideration of limited-access privilege programs (LAPPs) and/or a sector allocation process for herring fishermen.
The council has set aside time during four herring-related meetings this spring to hear testimony on the scoping document. Written comments may be submitted right up to the June 30 deadline.
After reviewing comments, the council’s herring committee will begin developing Amendment 4 alternatives for consideration by the full council later this fall.
Objectives
Back in November, the council agreed by a single-vote margin to make herring a workload priority over whiting during 2008. The council further agreed that the new herring amendment would address catch monitoring issues, ACLs and AMs, and consider LAPPs and a sector process.
As a result, the draft goal of Amendment 4 and initial objectives focused on those very issues.
But at its March 25 meeting, the council’s herring committee recommended adding another objective, which was “to address the health of the herring resource and the important role of herring as a forage fish and a predator fish throughout its range.”
The full council, however, was divided about whether to list forage as a separate objective, fearing the issue would dominate the public’s attention, as it did during the Amendment 1 process.
Herring plan coordinator Lori Steele, who also chairs the council’s herring plan development team (PDT), said the PDT discussed the forage objective.
“The PDT did express some concern about whether or not this would be a measurable objective,” she said.
“Stay focused”
Connecticut council member David Simpson voiced reservations about putting added emphasis on forage, saying he wanted to “maintain some focus” in the amendment and not “heighten” the already “emotional aspects” of the issue.
Simpson said the council had been diligent about addressing forage concerns in both Amendment 1, which established limited entry into the herring fishery and imposed a four-month summertime ban on midwater trawling in Area 1A, and through the annual specification process by reducing the allowable catch from Area 1A.
“I think our track record speaks for itself about the seriousness of the issue,” he said.
Massachusetts council member David Pierce agreed and said the council would continue to address forage issues during the setting of ACLs and AMs.
“It all relates to how much fish can be removed from the ocean, and that all links back to ACLs,” said Pierce. “Let’s key in on what we’re attempting to do, which is the ACLs, AMs, and catch monitoring. I just want a scoping document that’s easy to understand and that doesn’t draw attention away from the other issues. We don’t want to lose sight of what we’re doing like in Amendment 1 where forage dominated everything.”
Keep forage in
New Hampshire council member Mike Leary saw it differently.
“This is a scoping document,” he said. “I think it’s important to leave it in there and get the comments from the public.”
Maine council member Terry Stockwell agreed.
“I’d like to hear the public’s comments and then begin the culling process,” he said.
Seeking a middle ground, Connecticut council member Sally McGee suggested changing the forage language to state that the council would “consider the health of the herring resource and the important role of herring as a forage fish and predator fish throughout its range” in the “context” of the other objectives rather than as a separate objective.
The council agreed to this approach through an 11-to-5 vote.
Dec. 31, 2006
The only other scoping topic to generate significant council discussion was whether or not Dec. 31, 2006 should be identified as a possible ending date for any potential sector or LAPP allocations for Area 1A.
First off, the council is asking the public whether or not sectors and/or LAPPS should even be considered in Amendment 4.
“Right now the committee has left the door wide open to consider any form of LAPPs and limited-access programs,” said Steel. “Nothing has been taken off the table.”
For those who support this approach, the council then wants to know: Should any allocation to these programs consider herring landings history only before Dec. 31, 2006? That’s the last year before limited entry controlled the fishery and the last time midwater trawlers could fish all summer in Area 1A.
Mid-Atlantic council representative Jimmy Ruhle said, “You have to acknowledge there was a significant change as of that date. You now have a disenfranchised fleet that fished in that area up to that date.”
But Maine council member Jim Odlin wasn’t so sure.
“Why are we picking a date now instead of leaving it open?” he asked. “We might end up picking another date.”
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul thought it was a good idea to indicate the council’s early thinking.
“You want to alert the public that this is one of the dates under consideration,” she said.
A vote to remove the date failed, so Dec. 31, 2006 will be included in the scoping document along with the following questions:
What are the pros and cons of using an allocation time period that ends on Dec. 31, 2006?
Should other baseline periods be considered to determine LAPP and/or sector allocations? And
If so, which ones?
Weighing priorities
Throughout the discussion, Maine council member Dana Rice expressed grave reservations about the sheer number of issues the council was planning to develop in Amendment 4, especially since it was coming directly on the heels of Amendment 1.
“We just did a huge herring amendment and it took a huge amount of time,” he said. “It hasn’t been in place for a year and now we’re doing another one. I hope that herring Amendment 4 doesn’t take as long as Amendment 1. I think we want to be very careful to not frontload this amendment. This is a healthy fishery with a small number of boats.”
Rice said he was struggling to put the situation in perspective. The day prior to the herring discussion, the council had voted to postpone the implementation of groundfish sectors for a year, realizing it didn’t have the time – and NMFS didn’t have the ability – to get all the necessary work done in time for 2009.
“It troubles me deeply to think we can’t implement sectors for an industry that’s starving to death and yet we’re spending all this time on an industry that’s healthy,” he said.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
