NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL. Public Hearing Summary Amendment 1 to the Herring Fishery Management Plan

Transcription

1 NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Public Hearing Summary Amendment 1 to the Herring Fishery Management Plan MA DMF Annisquam River Station Gloucester, Massachusetts October 19, 2005, 6:00 p.m. Hearing Officer: David Pierce Other Council Members in Attendance: None Council Staff: Lori Steele ASMFC Staff: Ruth Christiansen Attendance: approximately 60 Dr. Pierce introduced Council members and staff in attendance and provided some opening comments about the Amendment 1 development process, the relationship between the NEFMC and ASMFC herring amendments, and the timing for Council and ASMFC selection of final management measures. Lori Steele briefed the audience on the NEFMC public hearing document, and Ruth Christiansen briefed the audience on the ASMFC amendment. After an opportunity to ask questions for clarification, public comments were taken on both the NEFMC and ASMFC amendments. Questions for Clarification Chuck Casella asked for clarification regarding coordination of the Council and ASMFC management plans for herring. David Ellenton from Cape Seafoods and Western Sea Fishing Company asked for clarification regarding the estimates of fuel costs provided in the DSEIS. Public Comments Ed Mckenna, York Harbor ME I do a lot of giant bluefin tuna fishing and recognize that there is a problem with the herring population I support any proposed change to herring management, whether it is Alternative 7, 6, 5, whatever. Any change would be good. There is a herring problem off the seacoast of southern Maine. Kate Sardi, Whale Center of New England, Gloucester MA The Whale Center of New England is a research and conservation group focusing on large baleen whales. We are in support of Alternative 7. Part of our study area is Jeffrey s Ledge, which is a key habitat for large baleen whales as well as herring, and it is part of management Area 1A. It is also an area with significant herring fishing effort. There has been recent controversy among the user groups we are involved whether the herring fishery has been displacing pelagic predators like large whales, bluefin tuna, and other pelagic species. We Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 1

2 wanted to have some scientific basis for any sort of recommendations. So we looked through our sightings data from the 1970s. We looked at data from other organizations in the area, and we analyzed data and found a significant decrease in whales sighted on Jeffreys Ledge since the late 1990s, which is when the herring trawling really started in that area. We also found that in periods after spawning closures, sightings of whales in that area have increased in most years of our studies. We have seen direct observations of feeding whales that have shifted their distribution after we have seen midwater and pair trawlers in that area. It seems to us that there is a scientific basis for concluding that the herring fishery is displacing large whales. Alternative 7 will limit that displacement during the summer months, which are of primary importance to feeding whales because they only feed for part of the year. We would like to see an extension of the time of that closure in Area 1A because also see large whales feeding in the Jeffreys Ledge area throughout October. Extending the timing o that closure would be important to the animals. Although we are in favor of Alternative 7, we do have some hesitation coming out in full support for it for the reason that closing Area 1A in the summer is a way to solve the user conflict that is out there between the herring fishery, whale watchers, tuna fishermen, groundfish fishermen, and everybody else that uses the area. But unfortunately, our focus is the whales and what is important for them. And if we shift that problem just further offshore, if we shift the herring fishery further offshore, it could be equally detrimental to the whales. We don t know how much of a conflict is out there, so we would like to see some more ecosystem management rather than just trying to solve the user conflict in the nearshore waters. Some of the problems that could be faced by these pelagic predators are things like increased foraging costs, having to travel farther to find food, or reduced food in general, as whales rely on the herring quite a bit. One of the independent measures suggested on p. 37 of the public hearing document is to remove the boundaries between 1A and 1B and manage that area together. If that did happen, and all of this area is closed June September or October, that would increase the area that was protected for the endangered large whales. And we would be in support of that. We also want to encourage research in Areas 2 and 3 to determine how significant that conflict may be out there, in areas that perhaps don t have as much of the user conflict but might be just as much of a conflict for large whales. (Ms. Sardi stated that the sightings data are not in published form yet, but the information will be presented at the Conference for Marine Mammals in San Diego. There is an abstract available that details the findings, which will be included in their comment letter.) Sarah Gallow, Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen s Association (CCCHFA) I am speaking on behalf of the 3,000 members of the CCCHFA as well as the organizations that form the CHOIR coalition, including commercial and recreational fishermen, ecotourism businesses, and other ocean users throughout New England. I want to express our strong support for Alternative 7. I highlight three aspects of Alternative 7 that provide the herring fishery with the potential for responsible, progressive management. First is the buffer zone that is established from June September, addressing the problem of localized depletion of herring resources, and allowing more forage to be available for recovering groundfish stocks and other important commercial stocks. Bycatch caps outlined in Measure 3 must be implemented to control the mortality of haddock in the herring fishery. Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 2

3 Haddock is extremely profitable resource for all of our hook fishermen, and they have sacrificed for years to rebuild that stock. Midwater trawl vessels should not be exempt from strict bycatch limits. Alternative 7 addresses gear conflicts that arise when overly-efficient midwater trawl vessels are permitted access to the traditional fishing grounds of the small dayboat fleet. David Cadbury, Friends of ME Seabird Islands, Rockport ME I would like to speak about seabirds as a valued ecosystem resource, which does not get mentioned in these hearings regularly. There are a number of seabirds which are deemed to be threatened or endangered. There are nesting islands all over the coast of Maine, all of which occupy part of Area 1A. Seabird species breeding on islands along the coast of ME require herring as a forage food source. Herring is the preferred food source for chicks in these nesting colonies. The nesting season runs from May September, which roughly corresponds to the closure proposed in Alternative 7. To reduce pressure on the herring stocks, we would be in favor of Alternative 7. Last year on Machias Seal Island and in 2004, the largest Arctic tern colony in the GOM were not able to raise a single chick to maturity because of the lack of forage fish available to feed the chicks. That may or may not correspond with fishing in the GOM, but it certainly causes concern among managers of seabird resources and indicated that reducing pressure on those forage fish stocks would be extremely important to seabirds. I have some preliminary information that I can leave with you about seabird resources in Maine and can submit a written statement later. Michael Blanchard, F/V Jean Maria (?) I am a commercial fisherman for groundfish and bluefin tuna. I in favor of adopting Alternative 7. It is by far the best alternative for both of my forage fish, groundfish and tuna. With the uncertainty of the inshore stock in particular, it is best for us to err on the side of conservation. It s something we have always done before, usually not to my liking because it usually works against me. I can t imagine what some of the people in this room are going through for as many years as they suffered in one fishery bluefin tuna with conservation and management, and now for the last three years, it seems every bluefin in the world is some place else. Canada has enjoyed a couple of booming seasons. There has been a prolific fishery for winter bluefin in North Carolina. I don t think that in either of those places, there is midwater pair trawling. We are trying to restore groundfish stocks to what they once were. There has been a lot of hurt to commercial fishermen losses of DAS, changes in mesh sizes, days that they can fish, areas that they can fish in, closed areas. Yet a midwater trawler can go into these closed areas because they say that they don t tend bottom. I have never seen as many shiny trawl doors as some of the ones on the midwater boats. I haven t done a lot of dragging, but I am pretty sure the only way they can do that is by bouncing off the bottom. I have seen lobsters in dewatering boxes, who knows how many of the precious dogfish they are eating. (Mr. Blanchard asked a clarifying question about the ASMFC spawning closures.) As of September 3, I believe, the current 60,000 mt Area 1A quota was at 28,000 mt, which leaves 32,000 to be caught in 1A. The word on the docks is that they had a great mid- to late September and are having a great October. If the fish are getting ready to spawn, we will be catching better than 50% of the herring quota before they spawn. It seems crazy. The fish have Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 3

4 to have an opportunity to spawn. Maybe something needs to be done in addition to the spawning closure itself. Bycatch allowing 1,000 pounds of haddock per trip to be caught is a door that is opening. Who is going to count the haddock and weigh them when they are small, snapper haddock? To make it even better, the 1,000 that can be caught has to be used for lobster bait. I never thought that I would see the day that we would be using haddock for lobster bait. There is a lot of emotion that goes into this. I am fully in favor of Alternative 7. I would like to see it treated as the preferred alternative by the Council. They know in their hearts that it s the right thing to do. Sometimes it is not easy to eat a little crow. I realize that the best available science is what you have to go with. There comes a time and place where you cannot ignore the anecdotal stories of thousands of people. I wish that the same amount of people who actually complain about this could all come to the meeting to voice their opinion. Alternative 7 would be a step in the right direction. I think that you will see stock increases fairly quickly if the fish are left alone for a little while. Sam Novello I have been a fishing captain for 35 years basically in the 1A area. I believe that there is no herring left compared to what there used to be years ago. I fish the raised footrope trawl in Ipswich Bay for whiting, and we do catch herring. Starting September 21, I was notified that I could only bring in 2,000 pounds of herring. The next day, I go out and I see pair trawlers there. They will catch a lot more herring than me. So I talked to the agents and they said that they are not in spawning condition yet and you can still catch them. But I can only bring in 2,000 pounds. So, then I start to cut herring open, and they have spawn in them. And the pair trawlers are still there. There is something wrong. I would like to see herring for tomorrow, not just for today. I don t know how these captains can go out there and catch this herring just for today. Tomorrow it is gone. You need the spawning stocks. Yes, I am opposed to the spawning closure tolerance. I think that it should be closed and stay closed until the end of October, until the spawning season stops. These guys can come in September and October and start fishing again. Save the roe. If there is to be any fish left to catch, we have to stop it some place. Don Nelson, F/V Carol and Elaine, Newburyport MA I have been primarily in the tuna fishery in excess of 25 years. My evidence in my position in anecdotal, not scientific. I am clearly in favor of Alternative 7. I also agree with the last couple of speakers talking about the spawning stock. If you want to protect a fishery, you should protect the spawning stock. You are cutting hairs when you say pre-spawn and then spawned because it is a short amount of time when they start spawning. As I recall, historically, they used to close the entire Ipswich Bay area to herring fishing about October 1 quite a few years ago. We used to have to scramble for bait because we couldn t get herring after that date. Back then, they thought it was reasonable to protect the spawning stocks. Now, we don t seem to think that it s reasonable anymore. I take issue with what is the best scientific data available. I am not against scientific data, it is a great starting point. But mathematical models is what you are basing your information on, and these models for complex biological systems are questionable. It is a step in the right direction, Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 4

5 but they are not foolproof. We back up scientific models with observations anecdotal data from fishermen is probably very good information to back up your models with. When the models don t work, modify them. All too often, the fishermen are the last people you go to for information. It s time we develop a greater level of cooperation, especially with something as important as herring. Herring are the main food fish for everything in this area, from groundfish to the precious dogfish, which apparently the midwater boats are taking too. My son found some citation that the total discard from the herring midwater trawl boats was 53 tons (?) of dogfish. This is not a very clean fishery. Who knows what else they are doing when there are not observers on the boats. Enhanced coverage by observers would not hurt either. I have seen what has happened to tuna fishing over the years. We used to be able to go out in the early part of June to the fingers up off Maine. You put a net and you couldn t leave it down more than ten minutes or it would be plugged with herring. Now, there is no herring. The minute the herring hit there, the midwater trawl boats are there day and night wiping out the herring. Now we have no tuna. After years, my son for 16 years now, I think that we are out of business, and I am not happy about it, and it all comes back to herring. It s time to take some action. You are moving in the right direction, but you are not moving fast enough. It takes a lot more restrictions to get these big boats offshore where they are very well-equipped to fish. I fished this fall in September. I had one of the big offshore boats 150 yards on one side of me. Then came two more on the other side. After that, it was very hard to get bait out there, almost impossible. The tuna fish are not going to come in with that. You are not going to have groundfish, and there won t be anything for the precious dogfish left to eat. Priscilla Brooks, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) We view this amendment as an opportunity for the Council to advance a plan that provides significant benefits to the overall health of the GOM ecosystem. CLF supports Alternative 7. Alternative 7, in our view, offers the greatest benefits to the widest range of stakeholders. Specifically, Alternative 7 will create a buffer zone in the inshore GOM by restricting midwater trawl gear from June September. It will protect schools of herring from being dispersed or completely caught by trawls and preserves feeding grounds that are important to groundfish, whales, tuna, and other marine species. Purse seining will continue in this area during this period, and the combination of landings from purse seining and offshore trawling landings will ensure an adequate supply of herring for all markets, including for bait during that period. By limiting vessels in the GOM to those that were actively fishing before September 1999, Alternative 7 will make significant progress towards addressing the capacity issue that is bearing down on this fishery, especially in the nearshore area. VMS Requirements CLF supports VMS Measure 2, the preferred alternative to require VMS on all vessels that qualify for a limited access permit. This is consistent with CLF s position on VMS in other fisheries, emphasizing the need for the Council and NMFS to gather more realtime data to improve fisheries management. CLF supports Bycatch Measure 3, which would establish a 1% bycatch cap for GOM and GB haddock that can be caught as bycatch in the herring fishery. An important aspect of this measure is the requirement for full retention of bycatch, and when the bycatch limit is caught, herring vessels may not fish in that area for the remainder of the year. An appropriately designed bycatch cap will create incentives to reduce bycatch and will promote more selective herring fishing. It is CLF s view that caps should also be established for additional species in future Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 5

6 management plans. While interactions with juvenile haddock have apparently increased with the recent large year class of haddock, depleted stocks of cod and other species need to be protected too. CLF supports Monitoring Option 1, which would use observer data to establish bycatch ratios and extrapolate haddock bycatch across the fishery. Extrapolation is an absolutely essential, scientifically-valid method for getting a realistic estimate of bycatch in the fishery. The Council also should require culling of bycatch by processors and advanced notice of landing by vessels. These measures will aide in accurate bycatch estimates. Observer Coverage observers are the most effective method to collect information about catch and bycatch. Reporting Measure 3 would require NMFS to develop a comprehensive observer program for herring fishery. Related to this are two court decisions that require the development of a standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM). This same requirement applies to the herring fishery, and the Council should implement this measure as part of its SBRM for the herring fishery. CLF supports Definition Measure 2 to prohibit the use of roller and chafing gear and ensure that midwater gear is not fished on the sea floor. On the issue related to the use of best available science, there is significant testimony and other evidence in the record based on observations throughout the GOM that localized depletion of the herring resource and bycatch in the trawl fishery are occurring. Even in the absence of peerreviewed literature as suggested by some, the precautionary principle would argue that in the face of uncertainty, if there is a threat of significant ecological harm, a precautionary approach should be taken. Here, based on substantial evidence that there is localized depletion, that bycatch is occurring, and that there is overcapacity in the fishery, Alternative 7 is clearly the best choice. Mark Godfried I have been a fisherman, processor, and observer of the ocean for the last 48 years. I support Alternative 7. I think that it is a good start. Spawning closures much evidence suggests that a considerable part of the spawn has already occurred. We need to re-address the way we determine this number and whether it is viable or not. There probably should just be a complete closure of the GOM spawning areas from sometime in September to sometime in the middle of November. Once the fish spawn out, the spawn lies on bottom. It needs time to develop and will sometimes be 3-6 inches thick. If a dragger or midwater gear fished on bottom, it disturbs that spawn and it is no loner viable. It is dead, and we have lost the resource. Bycatch Issue I am firmly against allowing any of the herring fishery into the closed groundfish areas and giving them a haddock bycatch allowance or any bycatch of groundfish. By the same token, I think that closed groundfish areas should be closed to any vessel capable of interacting with groundfish, including recreational fishermen, charter boats, or anybody else. Let s protect the groundfish from all of the user groups, if they have to be protected. When the herring vessels are operating in the open seas where there are no groundfish closed areas, they should be given reasonable access to bycatch. They should not be restricted to a ridiculous 1,000 pounds if they have the ability to catch 800,000 pounds of fish. Reasonable access may amount to 3,4,5% of the total biomass. You cannot expect to fish on a prey species Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 6

7 and not catch any predators that are in there with them. Micro-management of one species is the wrong way to go about it, and the new concept of ecosystem management might address this issue. Even though I am a tuna processor, they should be given access to tuna bycatch. There used to be a bycatch provision for tuna fish for the herring fishery. It was taken away and given to the set net fishery which hasn t registered a fish in years, but they have a set-aside of 3.4 mt that should be given to the herring fishery. They should be allowed to sell it when they catch it on the open sea. We already waste too much of our resource with some of thee ridiculous management techniques that require us to throw everything over the side that doesn t meet certain specifications. Vito Giacalone, Northeast Seafood Coalition The Collation continues to maintain that it is not going to get involved in gear bashing and going against other fishermen. But I would be remiss not to say that the bulk of the membership continues to have grave concerns about the amount of herring removals in 1A. Also, there are elements of Alternative 7, zero tolerance on spawning fish, strict bycatch limits, access to groundfish closed areas are serious concerns of the membership. There are some inconsistent parts in Alternative 7, such as utilizing control dates in this way eliminates people from the fishery. This is a hard-tac managed fishery, and more biological methods could be used like the spawning restrictions, removals from inshore areas, and limiting types of gear deployed in areas. They may be more effective ways to manage the fishery, versus restricting it with very old control dates. The Coalition has not taken an official position to support any of the alternatives as written, but Alternative 7 has measures in it that are consistent, except for the limited access provisions. To manage a hard TAC fishery with a control date may not be the only way to go. Dave Ellenton, General Manager, Cape Seafoods, Gloucester MA I am also the Vice President of Western Sea Fishing Company, the operating company of the vessels Challenger, Endeavour, and Voyager. I will be submitting written comments prior to the 24 th of October. A lot of work has been done to get to where we are today. Because of the amount of time it has taken, the amendment does not address the present-day situation in the industry. Our industry here in Gloucester is that of both herring and mackerel catching and processing, and fresh distribution of bait primarily to the lobster industry, but also to tuna and hook and line fishermen. It is interesting to me that the Original FMP was a document of 375 pages, and the Volume 1 of Amendment 1 is 749 pages. There is also a Volume 2 that is an additional 550 pages. I understand that there is a lot of work gone into putting these documents together, but to some degree, they are missing the mark. The plan that we are living with today was submitted in March 1999 and implemented in the year At that time, there was concern over landings from the GOM spawning component at levels of 84,000 tons in 1996 and 70,000 plus tons in With the implementation of the current FMP, the TAC for the Gulf of Maine was set at 60,000 tons, and thereby reduced the amount of fish that was taken from that area immediately. That TAC still holds today, Nowhere in this document is it ever suggested that the 60,000 mt TAC be reduced. We have herring specifications that have been set now for 2005, 2006, and 2007, which also include 60,000 mt as the TAC for the Gulf of Maine. Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 7

8 The goals that are set in the plan we have today included achievement on a continuing basis of the optimum yield and orderly development of the offshore and inshore fisheries. Another goal was to provide controlled opportunities for fishermen and vessels in other Mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries. The herring and mackerel fisheries were touted as fisheries that were underdeveloped, under-fished, and opportunities for folks who were displaced by regulations from other fisheries. That plan was implemented in the year Many changes have taken place in this dynamic fishery over the last six years, and yet we are faced with a preferred alterative based on a control date of September 16, 1999 and qualification criteria going back 17 years. There are two alternatives that use the 1999 control date for access to all areas. One has criteria of 250 mt of catch prior to that date in any one year. The other has a criteria of 500 mt prior to that date. My understanding of control dates is that they put people on notice that if they come into the fishery after the date, they may or may not be treated differently to vessels already in the fishery. A six-year old control date with tonnage levels of 250 and 500 metric tons also treat vessels differently that were in the fishery prior to the control date. There was no indication in the 1999 Federal Register notice that some vessels in the fishery prior to the control date will be kicked out arbitrarily. The process has taken far too long and does not take into account the current situation. To eliminate any current participant from Areas 2 and 3 is simply wrong. We are not landing the TACs in those areas, even though those TACs have been artificially reduced at a time when we are bring encouraged to develop fishing in Areas 2 and 3. NMFS is encouraging additional processing capacity offshore and onshore. It is only fair that all current participants be allowed to continue in the fishery. I am going to make reference to some pages and sections in the Amendment 1 Public Hearing Document. I am concerned about p. 6 and p. 1 it is suggested that the management alternatives are not intended to be mixed and matched or modified significantly following public hearings. I expect that the Council could actually introduce new management measures and that alternatives could be mixed and matched or even modified significantly to take into account the situation today. I m sure that the preferred alternative will go forward and will be sent to NMFS. After all, Council members are faced with 1,200 pages of documents. Some of them are not involved in the fishery. I have spoken to some who have not even read Volume I, let alone Volume II. So I am sure that the Council, who appears to be on a fast track to get this amendment into NMFS, will probably vote wholeheartedly the various preferred alternatives. After that, of course, NMFS will either accept or reject the plan in part or whole, and I am sure then we will start to see lawyers enter the field, and a lot of money will be spent to try to justify people s positions and influence results. p. 7, Section 2.2, limited access permit provisions. The provisions that apply to all other limited access fisheries are proposed to apply here. These have not been discussed at all by the Committee or by the advisors. It was a last-minute move to put these in the document, and this may or may not be the recommendation of the advisors. We certainly have not had an opportunity to address those provisions. p.7 I do not support any of the limited access programs as written. The package experiment, which the Council has decided to try on the herring fishery, has failed I my opinion. There are some parts of the alternatives that could be mixed, but even then, I would Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 8

9 advocate some changes and modifications that may require further analysis so that this amendment is all-inclusive of current participants in the fishery. p. 29. The MSY measure 220,000 proxy. I understand that it is a done deal. Specifications have been recommended for the next three years, and MSY forms part of that specification process. p. 31, The research set-asides should come out of the 5% set-aside for incidental catch. We are faced with TAC that gives NMFS Regional Administrator the ability to close an area when it is projected that 95% of the TAC has been or will be caught. With a 60,000 ton TAC for Area 1A, which is an area that does close late in the year that would be 3,000 tons of fish that is left for incidental catch in other fisheries under a 2,000 pound trip limit. That is 3,000 trips. There must be room within that 5% to utilize some of that fish for a research set-aside. p.33, The set-aside for the mackerel fishery could be substantial. This needs further discussion with the MA Council s Mackerel Committee and AP to ensure that when vessels are fishing for mackerel in the winter months, they have the ability to fish south of Cape Cod in what is now Area 2 with what is now a very reduced TAC, TAC that has the potential of also being caught. p. 34, timing of specification process. A three-year process is fine as long as there is some annual discussion with regard to what is happening in the fishery, any current or more recent assessment, and with regard to the best available science. p. 36, the preferred alternative for Area Measure 2, redefining Area 3 based on the TRAC recommendations. We support that change. It actually enlarges Area 3, it reduces Area 2, and it reduces Area 1B. If the Council goes forward with this preferred measure, there needs to be a re-look at the TACs allocated to those areas. There are changes in three of the four fishing areas by re-defining Area 3, and it does warrant reconsideration of TACs since will may living with these TACs for three years at a time. On 3.6.3, eliminating the Area 1A/1B boundary line we do not support that. We support keeping the 1A and 1B boundary lines in place. p. 39, 3.9 Vessel Upgrade restrictions. We support the concept, which is implemented in most limited access fisheries. p.43, bycatch measures. What we have is certainly working. We have a 1,000 pound per trip bycatch cap, which has not been reached by any vessel in the fishery this year I am pleased to say. On GB, there is not the interaction with haddock that we saw a year ago. What minimal amount of haddock that is coming on board, that is being reported by observers, that is being reported by shoreside inspectors is well below that 1,000 pounds per trip allowance, and it does appear to be working. Preferred alternative Bycatch Measure 3 could be lived with also, with some modifications. The haddock have to go into lobster bait, and that is the only place we can put it. Occasionally, we will put it back on the boat if it is 20 or 30 tons, it will go back on the boat and back in the ocean. But most of the time it will end up in a tote of bait, but it is of minimal quantity. The prohibition on discarding haddock at sea I am not sure whether groundfish boats discard their haddock at sea or not, but what applies to them should apply to us. Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 9

10 p. 50, 3.12 definition of midwater trawl gear. Preferred Definition Measure 2 is fine with us. This definition states that midwater trawl gear means trawl gear that is designed to fish for, is capable of fishing for, or is being used to fish for pelagic species, no portion of which is designed to be or is operated in contact with the bottom at any time. The gear may not include discs, bobbins, or rollers on its footrope or chafing gear as part of the net. This is something that we can certainly support. p. 53, 3.13 sector allocation process. I have no idea how to respond to that at the moment. Is it intended that a sector allocation process be put into place with this amendment using some or all of the various subsections in the document? The Council and Committee have not done much of anything on this one. p. 63 status of the herring resource. It is important to note that one of the bullets says that available trawl survey data do not indicate that a significant drop in herring biomass is occurring. In terms of the Atlantic herring stock complex as a whole, available data suggest that biomass is stable and increasing over time. Available survey data suggest that the inshore component of the resource has remained relatively stable in recent years. Assessment of the Atlantic herring resource remains complex-wide. They don t make assessments of what is in the different areas. They are arbitrary allocations of TACs to the various areas. Data are not available at this time to generate a biomass estimate, apply a target fishing mortality rate, and estimate an appropriate level of yield specifically from the inshore component of the resource. Herring PDT biologists are working on developing a separate stock assessment for the inshore component of the resource. We haven t gotten there yet. I would suggest that this would be something that would be useful before an amendment like this is put into place. P. 68 and onward 6.0 Impacts on herring. The biological impacts not significant for any of the alternatives. This is not changing the amount of resource. Impacts of measures cannot be predicted with accuracy, nor can the impacts of the management alternatives relative to the resource be compared. The reasons for this are uncertainty about the mixing ratios and a lack of biological information specific to the inshore component. It says that a substantial shift of fishing effort in Area 1A to later in the fishing year could cause concern for the inshore component of the resource. The effects of Alternative 7 as I see it will be that effort will be shifted to later in the year. The purse seine-only area is only until the end of September. Later in the year to me is October, November, December when there is a lot of fishing in Area 1A. The document also says that the chance of not utilizing the Area 1A TAC is higher under Alternative 7. The chance of not utilizing the 1A TAC is higher under the preferred alternative. The result is higher cost of bait, higher cost of fish for processors, higher cost of fish for the canneries. p. 71, second paragraph It says across all alternatives, the bottom trawl, midwater trawl, and purse seine vessels that will not qualify do not rely heavily on herring and are not likely to be significantly impacted. Maybe that was written prior to 2004 and 2005? I believe that there are some midwater trawlers who rely heavily on herring and mackerel and who well could be significantly impacted. Impacts on Fishery Related Businesses and Communities I don t understand how those tables in the public hearing document are applicable. The chart on p. 74, which I may have mis-read, but I thought that under Alternative 7, it was saying that landings from excluded Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 10

11 vessels as a percent of Area 1A are 56% and 67%. This means a huge reduction in the capacity that was in that area and supports the fact that there will be reduced landings from that Area 1A. I made a note asking if a calculation had been made of the costs to businesses and vessels of converting to combination vessels midwater trawls and purse seines. I can t find it anywhere in that document. There needs to be some inclusion in the document of what the monetary impact of that is on businesses in the fishery. Alternative 7 if it does go forward, I hesitate to wonder what the effect will be on bait prices, lobster prices to dealers and consumers, the cost of what our herring will be in the world market, the export market. Supply and demand does funny things. p impacts on fisheries, second paragraph. It states that most of the management alternatives under consideration are not likely to substantially alter the supply of herring for lobster bait and/or result in any significant impacts on the lobster fishery. This is because none of the measures in this amendment change the total removals from the fishery. I presume what that means is that the TACs are going to be the same, so it is assuming that the TACs will be caught, particularly in Area 1A. But that is not actually what is going to happen. If Alternative 7 goes through, there will be a reduction in supply of herring for lobster bait from that area, and it will have a significant impact on the lobster fishery. P. 74, last paragraph again, it indicates that there is going to be a cost to re-rig to purse seining if there is a financial incentive to do so, but it also says lobster fishermen would likely seek alternative bait if the supply of herring is inconsistent or if herring is not available for bait at some time. I am staggered. They might look for different baits maybe we will have more hairy lobsters arriving on the Japanese market. Page 79 on the chart of effects It clearly states that Alternative 7, the Preferred Alternative, has the most negative effect on fishing businesses and communities. It is the alternative that has the most negative effect, and we cannot support it. Niaz Dorry, Clean Catch Clean Catch is an international environmental organization. I am here to support Alternative 7, and I am really encouraged by the amount of activity and collaboration and cooperation that I have seen amongst different sectors of the fishing community up and down the New England coast, and that alone is enough for me. Unfortunately, I think it doesn t go far enough although I do support the concept and think that it is a good start. As you may recall, I started to get involved with the herring fishery in Up until 2000, I commented on the development of the FMP. When Dave Ellenton suggests that there might be lawyers to get involved, I would argue that some of the measures you are talking about now were discussed many years ago. If there is anybody who has standing, it would be those of who forwarded some of these recommendations much earlier than today that we now see in the public hearing document. You should not let lawsuit threats by me or anybody else stop you from taking the right steps. Look at the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, who rejected the appeal of one herring vessel that was kept out of the herring and mackerel fisheries through legislation, and agreed with the appellate court that NMFS had the right to refuse the vessel entry. The language in that decision, just the fact that the Supreme Court rejected to hear their case, gives you a pretty wide berth to take action. The decision of the appellate court could be very useful in your deliberations if you are concerned about lawsuits. Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 11

12 In terms of specific recommendations, I am going to address the issues of bycatch and limited access, and I will submit more extensive comments in writing. Thank you for this opportunity. One thing that hasn t changed since nearly ten years ago is the concerns I have heard here in this room. People are still concerned about the impact of the herring fishery on the region s ecosystem and commercial fisheries. That concern is still resonating, and this is a major concern to me. Bycatch reduction issues I was glad to see Sam Novello here because it was his idea that led to a comment I made many years ago to encourage the use of try nets. It was him and couple of whiting fishermen had talked about the use of try nets to make sure that you know what you are catching before you actually pull up your net, to reduce and minimize bycatch and unintended catch. I believe closed areas for groundfish should remain closed to any gear capable of catching groundfish. I very hesitantly support the idea of a 1,000 pound bycatch limit. I am hesitant because I think that it is a backwards move, and I think that zero tolerance is where you should go. But I also heard one of the fisherman here give us a reality check that you can t expect a net to go down and only catch one thing, unless you have really done your work of eliminating all of the glitches out of that fishery, which I don t think we have so far. It is an ecosystem out there, so I am hesitantly supporting that. Prohibition on bottom trawling by midwater trawl vessels prohibition on the use cookie chain or other materials on the wire footrope, maximum size and strength of the footrope, the weight on the net these are all actions you can take to help reduce bycatch. Even reducing horsepower will affect the bycatch of certain species. If you read the literature about midwater trawling, their horsepower allows them to keep up with some of the larger pelagic species. In some parts of Europe, they are limited to 800 HP because of that. Prohibiting pair trawling I am highlighting language that you have used before to show my support for these measures. Extrapolating data is a great idea, and you already do that in other fisheries. In terms of limited access, in general I think that the limited access proposal doesn t go far enough, and we will submit more comments. I don t believe that allocation or limited access should be based on investment in technology, or efficiency, or catch history, or debt history, or political or financial wherewithal. I was glad to see MSY finally reduced. When we started the conversation around the Herring FMP, we were talking about 500,000 mt. When we suggested that it should be reduced to account foe the ecosystem interactions with herring, many people on the Council and elsewhere balked at it. I was glad to see that there was more research and more information gathering done to finally come to a reasonable number, although I still believe that more work should be done to rally get that number to reflect a true ecosystem analysis. You are using best available science, and I know that is up for discussion, but I think that this is the best that we can do at this time. Mike Flaherty, recreational fisherman, Wareham, MA Thanks to Council staff for all the work on this document. Lori has been a very objective facilitator, and I appreciate that. I want to echo Niaz Dorry s comments. This issue is bringing so many folks together that have normally not really worked well together. This says a lot because you are dealing with fundamental building block of so many other fish and fisheries, and it impacts so many of us. I am about 400 or 500 pages into this document. I notice that it tends to bend over backwards and describes the impacts to herring fishermen and processors. Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 12

13 But with regard to recreational fishermen, it describes the impacts more or less of bait for people to buy at the store. What about the impacts and benefits of leaving more fish in the water for us? This was brought up during the specification process, and it was supposed to be addressed in Amendment 1. I haven t seen it in the document. As a recreational fisherman, our premier fish is the striped bass. The focus in the document when it describes the impacts to other fisheries, the only other fisheries it is concerned with are lobster, mackerel, and groundfish. I wish I saw more ASMFC input on that. Recreational fishermen do rely heavily on herring, especially during the spring time. The appendix the Role of Atlantic Sea Herring - does not do justice to what sea herring do for striped bass. It lists it as kind of trivial in the scheme of things. But if you read some of the work by Kristen Ferry of this office (MA DMF), you will see that it does play a large role, especially in the spring for striped bass. It is not clear to me that it is OK to mix and match alternatives? There is an awful lot of work here, and now we may be forced with different alternatives that we can t even comment on? For the record, I definitely don t want mixing and matching at this point. Midwater trawl definition the only difference between the preferred alternative and Alternative 4, the ECPA alternative, is that Alternative 4 would allow discs and chafing gear? Discs and chafing gear is on the bottom? So are haddock and groundfish. Therefore, I do not support any sort of bottom contact at all with supposedly midwater gear. I support wholeheartedly Alternative 7. What we are seeing here in New England with herring and nearshore depletion, we are trying to avoid what happened in the Mid-Atlantic with menhaden. Everybody says that herring are in great shape, but there is science out there that is not sure if the nearshore component is depleted. Ask anyone who fishes for the fish that rely on herring and they will tell you that they are not there, and the fish are skinny. The recent report on tuna confirms that. I am weary, though, with all of this talk about nearshore depletion of 1A and moving effort off to Area 3, for example, because I believe that is where we have been told that a lot of interaction is occurring between sea herring, river herring, and the pair trawlers. You just move the problem around, and I am not convinced that the Council has really done a good job of putting more focus on that. Midwater trawlers take so much fish at a time, they can literally wipe out a whole school of river herring for a run. This really needs to be looked at, considering the poor shape our runs are in all of a sudden. Paul Cohan, Gulf of Maine Fisherman s Alliance I have seen a lot of changes in the last years. I believe that what we are looking at here is perhaps too good a mousetrap. Even if NMFS data on the health of the resource and the TAC are correct, we may be looking at a technology that has regional disruptive effects on the behavior of the stocks, which may, in the long-term, affect productivity and the ultimate health of the stocks. Something might look good on paper right now, but in a broader picture, it may be counter-productive. Right now, we should be seeing codfish full of herring spawn, and yet we are not. We used to refer to it as Gerber baby food for codfish. That is just not happening. We are not catching fish will bellies full of spawn. And it may indeed be due to the disruption of traditional behaviors of these fish that weren t experienced with a rather passive method of harvest seining versus the aggressive methods of midwater trawls, whether they are single vessels or Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 13

14 paired up. You are probably looking at too good a mousetrap. Historically, globally, you do see areas where this technology has over-impacted localized stocks. Given the scenario where we are trying to rebuild groundfish stocks heavily dependent on this species for forage, it would seem advisable to over-protect this stock in view of the ultimate goal of rebuilding GOM haddock and GOM cod and pollock and white hake. It would also seem prudent to trim down the dogfish stock, but that is a different story for a different day. If you want to rebuild groundfish, you have to put a feast in front of them. To put heavy pressure on forage stocks at the same time may not be the ecosystem management that hopefully, we would be looking for to go into the future of fisheries management. I always try to strive for industry unity. We are all fishermen, and I don t want to rain on any body else s parade, but one must look at the reality of the situation. When it gets to the point where all of this anecdotal information about localized depletion is adding up, you have to look at the circumstantial evidence that is there. In the past years, since midwater trawl boats have been increasing their presence in inshore areas, we have seen a dramatic change in the distribution and availability of herring. It s kind of 180 degrees away from NMFS would have you believe about the robust nature of the stock. There is something that is happening here. Maybe there are a gang of herring out there and NMFS is correct, but maybe those herring are not doing what they are supposed to be doing because of the aggressive nature of the midwater trawl industry. We are seeing these things on the water, otherwise you wouldn t have all of these people out here tonight to talk about bait. When it comes down to bait supply, the Mass. Lobstermen s Association should take a look at it. Short-term availability of bait is one thing, but long-term sustainable availability of herring is a completely different question. It is a big issue, and there is a lot more here than meets the eye. You wouldn t see all of these people here for just a handful of sardines. Zack Klyver, Bar Harbor Whale Watch I would like to talk about observer program and bycatch. We have already expressed full support behind Alternative 7. We respect fishermen immensely; we respect the lobbyists that represent them, and we respect the City of Gloucester with its fishing heritage. We want a healthy herring fishery; we depend on fish being there also. So many user groups do depend on the fish being there. The economics of whale watching is really significant to New England. A tremendous amount of coastal towns depend on whale watching for business. Millions of people come to New England for whale watching, and it s about the ripple effect throughout the entire economy of New England. People who go whale watching also go to spend their money at hotels, gas stations, and restaurants. All of that has a significant effect on New England s economy. We feel a direct economic impact from midwater and pair trawling and the way the herring fishery has been conducted. It has had a direct impact on the quality of our product. In the last five years, we have seen less whales, less feeding at the surface, and we have seen less site tenacity where the whales stay in one area day after day. There is a real difference between one or two whales and ten or twenty whales being offshore. Most of our concern comes from what we see offshore, direct observations. The behavior of midwater trawl and pair trawl boats in the presence of whales we feel that they follow the whales because the whales are feeding on the fish. They set their nets near them. And we feel that this does have a significant impact on the whales and their feeding behavior, as they are Herring Amendment 1 Public Hearing 14