This article is reprinted with permission of Commercial Fisheries News, the Northeast's fishing newspaper for over 30 years, ©2003 Compass Publications Inc. Commercial Fisheries News is published monthly; annual subscriptions are $21.95. To subscribe or request a sample issue: call (877) 263-4496; fax (207) 367-2490; e-mail (cfoster@fish-news.com); or click on the hot link.
by Janice M. Plante
GLOUCESTER, MA - No one wanted to boot any species off the priority list, but with 13 major management actions proposed for next year, the New England Fishery Management Council concluded that some things had to be put on hold.
At a Nov. 6-8 meeting here, council Executive Director Paul Howard walked the council through every proposed plan amendment and framework adjustment on the 2002 docket.
Few believed that the council could realistically complete all 13 actions, but as it turned out, the council's operating ability wasn't the biggest factor in the equation.
The bigger problem is that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) simply can't review and process all the actions - not while trying to simultaneously process all the regulations also proposed by the Mid-Atlantic council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
"Clearly there's too much between the three organizations for us to process everything that's proposed," said NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul.
Howard agreed that NMFS's Northeast Fisheries Science Center and regional office were up against a monumental workload since "they're doing the processing and support work" for every single Northeast regulatory measure.
"We really need to make sure our actions are supported by industry and require limited enforcement," said Howard.
Rhode Island council member David Borden agreed and said, "I think we're better served - and the industry is better served - if we pick a couple of priorities, do them right, and try to get them done."
Legal obligations
The council wholeheartedly supported Borden's approach in principle. The problem came when the council discovered it actually had very little choice in setting priorities.
Most council members wanted to place herring and whiting on the priority list and relegate skates and habitat to the secondary list (see page 10B for whiting story).
Yet according to Kurkul, the council needed to fulfill legal requirements for both skates and habitat that couldn't be put on the back burner.
Kurkul suggested, "Let's look first at the things we absolutely have to do either by regulation or court order. Next, let's pick ones with major resource issues.
"Beyond that," she said, "there's probably not much more we can support."
The council had no reservations about putting groundfish, monkfish, and scallops at the top of the priority list since all three constitute major fisheries that are in need of significant council action.
But skates?
"If there's a fishery right now that doesn't need management except for the law, this is it," said Maine council member Bill Brennan, chairman of the council's skate committee.
Brennan pushed to swap skates with herring so that herring could become a priority instead.
Herring
The fight to somehow get herring "above the line" into the priority list was fierce, and the effort failed only because the council believed it had no choice but to follow through on the legal commitments.
"I am very troubled by the low ranking that herring Amendment 1 is receiving," said Maine council member John Williamson. "The industry is speaking in a fairly united voice now that the capacity issue is starting to show."
Lew Flagg, another Maine council member, also lobbied for herring.
"We're in the second year of facing a premature shutdown of the Area 1A fishery," he said.
Prior to the start of the meeting, the council received a letter from Ralph Townsend on behalf of 14 herring vessels asking the council to immediately impose a moratorium on new entrants into the fishery.
The letter expressed the group's extreme concern about the early Area 1A shutdown and the potential for an Area 3 shutdown.
"It is clear that the current fleet capacity is more than adequate to harvest the available quota in the traditional summer and fall fishing areas," said Townsend.
"If the council does not move to establish a moratorium on new entry at this time, additional capacity is certain to enter the fishery in the next two years. New entrants will mean that Areas 1 and 3 will close earlier each year," he said.
Not possible
Brennan tried to find some way to have the council reprogram funds to develop a moratorium, but Gene Martin, an attorney with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of General Counsel, said the only way to implement a moratorium is through an amendment.
And if the council was to develop an amendment, herring would need to be elevated to the priority list, which was already full.
NMFS has an established history of strongly supporting limited entry, and Kurkul was clearly more torn about the herring decision than any other.
"Everything in me screams out that we should do the herring amendment," she said. "But realistically, I just don't see how it could be done with all those other things that have legal obligations."
Keep talking?
Connecticut council member Doug Hopkins was troubled by the inevitable outcome.
"Red crab, herring, whiting - all of these have capacity issues," he said.
"The consequences of not acting sooner are significant."
Hopkins requested that the staff develop a strawman herring proposal that the council could consider folding into the priority list for the coming year, but the council didn't come up with a clear response to the request.
Townsend asked the council if the industry should continue with its ongoing limited-entry discussions given that herring was being placed on the "secondary" list.
"Does it make sense for the industry to put effort into this?" he asked. "I just don't want to waste their time as a convenor."
Kurkul urged the group to continue its work, recognizing that it often takes two-to-three years to develop a full-fledged limited-entry program.
"There's a lot of value in continuing that discussion," she said.
New England council '02 workload priorities
PRIORITY LIST
- Groundfish, priority #1 - Finish Framework Adjustment 36 and Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP);
- Monkfish, priority #2 - Develop Amendment 2 to the monkfish FMP (the council is also currently working on a monkfish framework that counts as a 2001 action item);
- Skates, priority #3 - Develop a new skate FMP;
- Scallops, priority #4 - Complete Amendment 10 to the scallop FMP;
- Habitat, priority #5 - Develop an "omnibus amendment" that will modify several FMPs as required by court order; and
- Red crab, priority #6 - Complete the new red crab FMP.
SECONDARY LIST
- Whiting - Develop Amendment 14 to the groundfish plan to address whiting issues; and
- Atlantic herring - Develop Amendment 1 to the herring FMP primarily to address limited entry and effort in Area 1A and possibly Area 3.
New England Council Executive Director Paul Howard, left, confers with Chairman Tom Hill.
"Let's look first at the things we absolutely have to do either by regulation or court order. Next, let's pick ones with major resource issues. Beyond that, there's probably not much more we can support."
-Pat Kurkul
"I am very troubled by the low ranking that herring Amendment 1 is receiving."
-John Williamson
"We really need to make sure our actions are supported by industry and require limited enforcement."
-Paul Howard
"I think we're better served - and the industry is better served - if we pick a couple of priorities, do them right, and try to get them done."
-David Borden
|
