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 11
July 2008
Groundfish delay: Are there consequences?
PORTLAND, ME – A potential four-month delay in Amendment 16 to the groundfish plan was welcomed by industry members, especially those convinced that 2007 stock status updates will show the fleet shouldered a marked reduction in fishing mortality and result in slightly less severe stock rebuilding measures.
But the New England Fishery Management Council’s June 4 decision to alter the amendment’s timeline also left many asking, “What are the consequences?”
Amendment 16 is the stock rebuilding “midterm adjustment” required under Amendment 13 and must be implemented by May 1, 2009.
Groundfish plan coordinator Tom Nies reminded the council that Amendment 13 contains a default provision. If the council and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) fail to take action by that date, an 18% reduction in allocated A-days-at-sea will be automatically implemented.
Currently, limited-access vessels are allocated 55% A-days and 45% B-days. Under the default, the numbers would flip to 45% A-days and 55% B-days.
Furthermore, without additional action, the Eastern US/Canada Haddock Special Access Program, which gives industry an opportunity to use B-days, will expire, said Nies.
What seemed to worry fishermen and many council members more than the default was the possibility that NMFS would take independent action to put additional measures in place by May 1, 2009 – a deadline the council is now certain to miss.
When asked about that likelihood, George Darcy, assistant regional administrator for sustainable fisheries at the NMFS Northeast Regional Office in Gloucester, said NMFS officials themselves were just beginning to digest the new stock status information (see story page 1A).
“I don’t know what action the agency is going to take,” he said. “We’re going to consider our options just as the council is.”
“Do what’s right”
The council had been scheduled to sign off on Amendment 16 public hearing alternatives at this June meeting in Portland but then heard the astounding news that flatfish stocks – not white hake as expected – were in the poorest condition and would largely dictate the course of the amendment.
This revelation caused many council members to question the wisdom of conducting public hearings with proposals that might not be well matched to current stock conditions.
“Until we have a final GARM, it’s going to be impossible for us to come forward with alternatives,” said Maine council member Jim Odlin. “We have to do what we think is right with the right information.”
For the past year-and-a-half, the groundfish committee has struggled to develop Amendment 16 alternatives without knowing the revised status of groundfish stocks.
The committee and full council knew from the start that scientists involved in the Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM) wouldn’t have a final report completed until late August, but they continued to work on potential alternatives nonetheless in an effort to stay in compliance with the law.
Despite the chance that NMFS might take independent action, council Chairman John Pappalardo said a four-month delay would allow the council to obtain the latest stock status information and develop more appropriate effort reduction alternatives.
“The alternatives we have now were not built on the right information,” he said.
January hearings
The council overwhelmingly supported revising the timeline. Under the new schedule, the council will review the GARM report in early September and the groundfish committee will begin working on new alternatives. The council will approve a draft environmental impact statement in November and hold public hearings in January 2009.
The council will approve final measures for Amendment 16 in February and submit a revised document to NMFS in March or April.
NMFS will review the document and then implement approved measures sometime between September and December of 2009 if all stays on track under the new timeline.
Massachusetts council member David Pierce strongly supported this approach and expressed serious reservations about the now on-hold alternatives initially developed by the groundfish committee. The most extreme alternative called for a 70% cut in days-at-sea, while others, which also contained days-at-sea reductions, called for either differential counting at the rate of 2-to-1 and 3-to-1 in selected blocks or year-round closures of numerous blocks, plus more.
“The options we have before us now pretty much spell the end of the groundfish industry in New England,” said Pierce. “I would much rather move forward in a more reasonable way.”
Groundfish committee chairman Rip Cunningham agreed that the committee needed to reconsider its proposals.
“A number of the effort control alternatives were crafted thinking that white hake was driving the issue. I think those measures need to be re-looked at before we put them in the document,” he said.
Effort still capped
New Hampshire council member Mike Leary said he thought Framework 42, which was implemented in 2006, greatly reduced effort between 2006 and 2007, and the reduced fishing mortality would be reflected in the GARM’s updated data in August.
Leary also stressed that effort wouldn’t increase just because the council delayed its submission of Amendment 16 by four months. Existing rules, which are already extremely restrictive, would remain in place.
“People aren’t going to race out to go fishing,” Leary said. “We still have two-for-one counting and we have $4.50 fuel.”
Darcy, who said NMFS was “disappointed” the situation was as it was, did not press the council to act immediately.
“I encourage you to keep moving forward as much as possible, but I agree it’s probably not sensible to vote out the document today,” he said.
Darcy’s words didn’t comfort Rhode Island council member Mark Gibson, who expressed concern that any delay by the council would open the door for NMFS to take its own steps.
“I understand the need to do this, but I think we’re going to be inviting an action by the service,” he said.
Frank Blount, also of Rhode Island, didn’t expect to see major differences in any revised draft alternatives since the basic tools used by the council to reduce effort, which largely hinge on days-at-sea reductions, area closures, trip limits, and differential counting, probably will remain the same.
“I don’t think the basic options are going to change all that much,” he said. “When it goes to the end, it’ll be just plugging in the numbers.”
Catch monitoring
In light of the extra time gained by the council to work on Amendment 16, Connecticut council member Sally McGee moved to direct the groundfish committee to include catch monitoring options in the public hearing document.
McGee said focused deliberations about catch monitoring had been “almost entirely lacking,” but better mechanisms to monitor catch were essential if the council wanted to move away from days-at-sea.
She urged the committee to consider the programs and options contained in two reports produced by Howard McElderry of Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. and Bruce Turris of Pacific Fisheries Management Inc., both of British Columbia, Canada.
McElderry and Turris were commissioned by the Gulf of Maine Research Institute to evaluate the adequacy of the current monitoring and reporting system and identify changes that would be required “to provide an adequate level of accountability for catch and discards of all regulated groundfish species at the sector level.”
Turris presented an overview of the first report to council members in April, and McElderry presented the second report in June.
“I think the groundfish committee could use those reports as a starting point for discussion,” said McGee.
Darcy supported the motion, which passed in a 14-2 vote, and said, “I strongly agree that monitoring is going to be critically important to any of the programs you want to put in place for groundfish.”
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
