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 12
August 2008
Quotas are here; they’re now called ACLs
PORTLAND, ME – The days of fishing without quotas are just about over. Within the next few years, all commercial fisheries in the US – with two unique exceptions – will be capped by quotas under a new name: annual catch limits (ACLs).
Furthermore, all fishery management plans (FMPs) will have to include “accountability measures” (AMs) to ensure that the new annual catch limits aren’t exceeded.
That means practically every federal management plan in the country, including the Northeast’s groundfish, monkfish, herring, mackerel, and scallop plans, must be modified to include ACLs and AMs by one of two deadlines: 2010 for fisheries already subject to overfishing; and 2011 for all other fisheries.
The two exceptions are for stocks with annual life cycles – like many of the squids – and those managed under international agreements.
Fishermen who have been following this new development argue that ACLs, quotas, and hard total allowable catch (TAC) limits are one in the same.
During the recent scoping process for Amendment 4 to the Atlantic herring plan, Mary Beth Tooley of the Small Pelagic Group said the New England Fishery Management Council already had satisfied the ACL and AM mandates for herring and simply needed to “change the terminology in the plan.”
“The current specification and hard TAC-setting process is adequate to meet the new requirements for catch limits and accountability,” she said.
Scallopers, while generally supportive of sub-ACLs for most segments of the fishery, are making a similar case for AMs.
The Fisheries Survival Fund, in scoping comments for scallop Amendment 15, stated, “The flexibility and precaution that is already built into scallop management, such as a target fishing mortality rate that is lower than it needs to be, should be considered its own form of ‘accountability measure.’”
However, for FMPs that aren’t primarily controlled by hard TACs or quotas, such as groundfish, ACLs and AMs have the potential to bring significant added restrictions to the fishery.
Can’t overfish
The ACL requirement is part of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act, which was implemented on Jan. 12, 2007, revising the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
Among many other things, the MSA revision modified National Standard 1, which states “conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from each fishery for the US fishing industry.”
The MSA revision further stipulated that FMPs shall “establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits … at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery.”
“That’s the key phrase right there – ‘at a level such that overfishing does not occur,’” said Mark Millikin, a senior fishery management specialist with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Millikin traveled to Portland to attend the New England council’s June 3-5 meeting to explain NMFS’s proposed “guidance” on ACLs and AMs. Congress required that NMFS develop guidance to “facilitate compliance” with the revised MSA and “prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and achieve OY.”
On June 9, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register containing this suggested guidance, and the agency has given stakeholders ample time to digest the details and provide comments. The comment deadline is Sept. 8 (see details below).
Proposed formula
According to Millikin, NMFS tried to develop guidelines to ensure that the new mandates for ACLs and AMs were met while still accounting for differences among fisheries around the country.
“This was one of the toughest objectives – to develop strong yet flexible guidelines,” he said.
A case in point: Councils must set catch limits at a level with a “low risk” of overfishing.
“We want an acceptably low risk that overfishing will not occur, but that level of low risk is not described,” said Millikin. “At least for the time being, we’re leaving that issue open for council flexibility.”
While the details are complicated, NMFS in essence is suggesting that councils take a formulaic approach when establishing catch limits as follows:
Set an “overfishing limit” (OFL) that corresponds to maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and also accounts for “scientific uncertainty;”
Set an ACL, which “may not exceed the acceptable biological catch” (ABC); and
Set an annual catch target (ACT), which should be less than the ACL to “account for management uncertainty in controlling the actual catch.”
So, in the lingo of acronyms, the formula would look like this: ACT, which is lower than ACL, which is lower than ABC, which is lower than OFL.
“This is an opening round proposal for these reference points,” said Millikin.
Science advice
The revised Magnuson-Stevens Act does not require councils to set ACTs. It only requires that they set ACLs and AMs.
Millikin admitted the formula would be simpler without ACTs.
However, he said, “Once your ACL is exceeded, your accountability measures will be invoked, so if you don’t have ACTs, we think your AMs will be triggered more often.”
Furthermore, ACTs might be more important for fisheries that currently aren’t capped by catch vs. those that already are quota-based.
“In some cases you could have your ACT close to your ACL like in an IFQ or ITQ fishery,” he said.
The revised Magnuson-Stevens Act stipulates that ACLs cannot exceed fishing level recommendations established by a council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). NMFS so far is interpreting this to mean that the ACL cannot exceed the ABC level recommended by an SSC.
Accountability
Once the annual catch limits – ACLs – are set, councils need to establish accountability measures, or AMs, to prevent ACL overages.
According to Millikin, AMs come in two forms: inseason measures to prevent fishermen from reaching the ACL; and ones that address overages after they’ve occurred.
NMFS prefers inseason adjustments.
“That’s our first goal – to prevent overfishing rather than try to address it the next year,” he said.
And to prevent “chronic overfishing,” NMFS is proposing “performance standards” that entail a re-evaluation of a plan’s ACLs and AMs if an ACL is exceeded in more than one out of four years.
“That’s kind of our initial guidepost for most stocks and species,” Millikin said.
How to comment
For more information about the proposed guidance, call Millikin at (301) 713-2341.
To submit comments online by the Sept. 8 deadline, use the federal e-Rulemaking portal at <www.regulations.gov>. Or fax comments to Millikin’s attention at (301) 713-1193.
To mail comments, send them to: Mark Millikin, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13357, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Write “comments on annual catch limits proposed rule” on the outside of the envelope.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
